Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/May 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] May 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 by User:Karanacs 20:55, 31 May 2008 [1].

[edit] Peter Wall

Self nomination. I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it's about as well-sourced and comprehensive as it can be, especially given that it concerns a man who, though repeatedly described as "flamboyant," also clearly keeps his private life to himself. (He refuses to give out his date of birth, for instance, and there's no information that I can find about his family life.) It's short but, I hope, comprehensive as well as well-formed and well-written. It also a bit of a stylistic test case for me, as I have a theory that more of our shorter articles could be much improved if they had sections providing some kind of context (I've argued this at various FAC and GAN discussions); here, that section is one on "Vancouver real estate." I should note that I have various possible minor conflicts of interest: I live in the Vancouver downtown, a block away from One Wall Centre, in a building that I discover in the course of my research for this article was Wall's first downtown project; I have met Wall's daughter twice, thanks also to a peripheral involvement in the Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies. However, I have done my utmost to ensure that the article is NPOV, adopts the appropriate tone, and respects BLP polices. I look forward to reviewers' feedback on possible improvement. jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. I should add that I am the main contributor, indeed practically the only one if you discount one editor who repeatedly tried to get the article speedy deleted yesterday, though I thank User:Clayoquot for some copy-editing and for adding the image, and User:Elcobbola for removing some tags. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • UPDATE. I would like to withdraw this nomination. In my opinion, the article has now become unstable, and as such fails criterion 1e. This is a matter of disappointment to me, but of course (like everything else on Wikipedia) it is far from the end of the world. I would like to thank the many people who have commented here, both those who objected to and those who supported the candidacy. I hope that the discussion has been useful in some way. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Needs an infobox and could use an image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    Hi. I considered adding an infobox, but considering how little public information there is about his private life (date of birth, marriage, etc.), I figured it wasn't worth it. The article has an image, of course, but I presume you mean one of him? Even putting aside copyright concerns, I've come across exactly one picture of him anywhere: a very poor quality black and white image from a photocopied version of a UBC student-run magazine. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    Ah. I've found an image here. I doubt we'd be able to use it, though it'd be nice as it includes also his brother (now president of the corporation he founded) and he realtor with whom he frequently works, Bob Rennie. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    Have you tried contacting him/his office and asking for a free-licensed image? Wikipedia:Example requests for permission might be useful. --Carnildo (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    No, and I'm a little wary to. I'm not at all sure what he'd make of the article. I think it is balanced, NPOV, impeccably sourced, and ideally reflects this colourful character in as colourful a way as an encyclopedia allows. I fear he might want it to be rather more promotional. Pace those who think it is promotional at present, I think he'd have other views. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    Oppose I am among those who consider a WP:WPBIO failing WP:WIAFA 2b (appropriately structured) if it lacks an infobox. There are numerous infoboxes available for biographies. At least {{Infobox person}} should be used, IMO. I can not recall a bio WP:FAC where an article was let by without an infobox. Feel free to point out examples to the contrary at Category:FA-Class biography articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    An infobox is absolutely not required under WP:WIAFA; see Sandy's comment to this effect here: Talk:Ima Hogg#Infobox. Examples of FA biography articles without infoboxes include Ima Hogg, Emily Dickinson, Robert Peake the Elder, Anna Laetitia Barbauld, and Ike Altgens. Maralia (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    Uff, if we're going to do comparisons, I should say that Peter Wall stands up particularly well (in just about every area) when compared to Ike Altgens. Admittedly, that article should probably be brought to WP:FAR (which I won't do; it'd be a bit pointy, but even so... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Off the top of my head John Knox and Joseph Priestley. You should oppose on the criteria, not on personal taste. My own personal taste is against infoboxes. qp10qp (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
There's also the recently passed Bob Marshall (wilderness activist). During the FAC, TonyTheTiger similarly opposed on the grounds that it didn't have an infobox, but four separate users, one of which was Sandy, pointed out that the oppose isn't actionable because infoboxes are not required. María (habla conmigo) 14:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well I learned something today about infoboxes. I personally like them. I think they improve articles, but I won't object. As far as being actionable any bio article could take the action of adding {{Infobox person}}. If the choice is not to and consensus is it is better without such a box so be it. I don't think any bio is better without one, but I will leave it to the experts here. Can you explain why this is better without {{Infobox person}} or some other infobox.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    Without an image and given how little personal information is available, the infobox looks visually unbalanced, if not downright silly. --Carnildo (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    Oppose given that response, I will oppose for insufficient completeness to fill out an infobox. When was he born; what is his marital status; does he have any kids? For a living person the article is very sketchy. In fact, I think any living person should have an infobox. Are there any WP:BLP that are WP:FA without an infobox? --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note the final reason for the appose - "insufficient completeness to fill out an infobox" is invalid, and way outside the FA criteria. Ceoil (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I hate to repeat this, but I will: that information is not in the public domain. Moreover, Wall has clearly been careful to keep that information out of the public domain. If we were to put it in (as I say, I happen to have met one of is children, so they do exist), I think there would be immediate BLP issues. As such, yours is not an actionable oppose. As I say below, this is not to say you shouldn't oppose. It may turn out as a result of this FAC that we decide that any biography without DOB, marital status, and the other details you are mentioning, can never be featured. That's a reasonable position, if not one that I hold. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    As above, I withdrew my opposition when given a reason. So far you have given me half of a reason. You have shown that the info is not PD. Now, you must demonstrate that it would not be unprecedented to declare a BLP as Category:FA-Class biography articles without an infobox. If every living person has an infobox, I retain my oppose for the reason that I think a BLP should have one at the FA level. Otherwise, you must explain to me why this article is so extraodinary that I should allow it to be the only BLP without an infobox. Now that I think about it are there any BLP FAs without images?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    Tony, can you please point out where in the criteria it says that an infobox is required for a biography of a living person? This is, again, your personal preference, as has been pointed out above. Your oppose is inactionable. — Dulcem (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    (ec) Hi. I'm actually not asking you to withdraw your oppose. I'm merely pointing out that it's an oppose I can't act on. It may be that we want to say that any BLP that wants to make it to FA must have the details you're asking for. But if so, this article can never become FA. That would not be the end of the world, of course. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    I was hoping you would say as before X, Y and Z BLPs are FAs without infoboxes. Much like we don't approve fair use images for BLPs in general, I think there is always a chance that the infobox information could become available for BLP of a notable person. It is possible that something happens that brings his infobox information into the PD. There is certainly nothing specific that says a BLP must have an infobox and image to be FA. I have great difficulty saying an article passes WP:WIAFA 1b if it does not have the information to create an infobox. Again, I will repeat. I was hoping you would tell me that there have been several FA BLPs without infoboxes. That would make this easier. I just can not support a BLP without an infobox and without an image. I don't spend a lot of time with long articles. I read the lead and the infobox quite often. I don't think I could agree something is among WPs finest work without a good lead and good infobox. I would consider changing if you can show me that this is not the first BLP not to have either. I would also consider changing with a deficient infobox rather than none at all.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It sounds to me that you want a substantive objection, so I will raise some points:
    • The entire first paragraph is one big WP:PEACOCK example. No one reading only the first paragraph could tell you why the guy is notable. I would probably break up that 2nd sentence.
  • The current version of the first para tells us why he is notable. Ceoil (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The second paragraph ends without punctuation.
  • This was fixed earlier. Ceoil (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The first sentence in Biography is not properly conjoined.
  • This was fixed earlier. Ceoil (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • TFixed. Ceoil (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • When you switch from C$ to $ in the same sentence the referent of the latter becomes ambigous since it could be a foreign exchange transaction although by proximity you would assume he sold the house.
    • I am not Canadian, but I think you have to use C$ throughout or else it is implied to be another currency such as US$, I believe, but I am not sure.
    • In both 1998 and 1999 should be set off with commas and although is an odd conjunction choice here because I don't see the contrast in the sentence. I might break the sentence up.
  • This was fixed earlier. Ceoil (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I link about 50% more stuff than most top editors here so take this with a grain of salt but I think it is underlinked. Few people really know what a Bentley Turbo R is apart from context. I believe it is standard to link all fields of study such as chemistry. I would link any specifically mentioned periodical such as Vancouver Sun. Is South Vancouver a distinct municipality?
  • No longer an issue. Ceoil (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • In the first sentence of Vancouver real estate although is a conjunction being incorrectly used as a pronoun (as I understand it).
    • You use the word as more than any writer I recall and use it in many of its half dozen or so forms (adj., con, etc.). It gets very confusing at times to see it used in so many ways with such frequency. I think you overuse the word.
    • I'm going to stop here. I'm sorry. I am not a big fan of this article and would oppose simply for the reasons already given, but here are some more.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. The editor who was yesterday keen on a speedy delete is today still bothered about the article's tone, suggesting indeed that it needs to be rewritten. I have invited him to comment here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • Who describes Wall as the city's "ultimate business maverick".? Right now, it sounds like weasel wording.
      Hmm, that's sourced to an article (by journalist Ashley Ford) in The Province. I'm not entirely sure why it should be weasel wording; perhaps you can explain? I should note that this is clearly a fairly colourful character, and so I have tried to be extra-vigilant about making sure I was quoting above all when describing his character. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The article can use some more wikifying, such as Ukraine, Second World War, University of British Columbia in the lead.
      I admit I'm fairly light on wikilinks on the whole; I've added the first and third of these, however. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • When did he enroll at UBC?
      The source doesn't say; again, he's pretty much quiet about such details in most interviews. Generally, he prefers to talk about property and money. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Some material in the biography section may fit better in the philanthropy section.
      Ah, the UBC donation? I thought about that, and indeed reference back from the Philanthropy to what is indeed his largest single gift. However, I rather liked the flow in linking a) his not completing his original degree, b) the donation, and c) the honorary degree; it all rather seemed to fit together. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure about using the {{main}} template in the One Wall Centre section. Instead, I would probably just wikify One Wall Centre in the first line of the section. Though, this might be a matter of preferences.
      I'm easy about that, but figure that this is more or less summary style. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Overall, good work on this article in such a short time. --Aude (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - my view is that not all articles can be featured articles, which I realise may be controversial. The thing I am concerned about here is that Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies, Peter Wall, One Wall Centre, and Wall Financial Corporation (currently a redirect) are really only linking among themselves. I know it is not in the featured article criterion, but I feel that the best examples of our work should be mature enough to have a comprehensive set of incoming links as well as outgoing links. If you find yourself struggling to find places in which to add incoming links, then that indicates that this topic area may be a bit of a cul-de-sac, an endpoint rather than a nexus, if you know what I mean. In other words, how will people arrive at this article and from where? When the "what links here" lists are a bit more populated would be a better time to come back here. An example of what I mean is here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this. And indeed, as per some recent discussions elsewhere, I have some sympathy with your point of view. But at least at present, the FA criteria do not (any longer) include article length, or even notability. Moreover, as I suggest above, I thought that this could be something of a test case for how to deal with such shorter articles, i.e. by providing a relatively substantial (without being overwhelming) section to contextualize the subject. This is what I have suggested in other FAC discussions (here, for instance). I thought I might as well try it out myself. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Might I suggest historical biographical stubs as another area to test the waters on? Joseph Spence (author), George Fownes are good examples of biographical stubs where it is not yet clear what the final articles will end up looking like, though it already seems clear there is not much information to work with. Stephen Duck is another one. John Allan Broun is another historical figure. Unlike modern figures, it is unlikely that new material will emerge, so once all the material is found, it should be pretty clear how extensive the article can be. Some figures, though, will never be more than footnotes. William the Englishman for example, and Hermodorus of Salamis, Giuliano Argentario, and William of Ireland. Some of the people whose names have down to us from antiquity are only mentioned in one or two sources. Literally. Rhoecus for example. Compare Ptolemy (mythological) with the other Ptolemys. What can be done with articles that are technically comprehensive, but can't really be longer than a few paragraphs? It is possible sometimes, if you know where to look and what to write. See John Chamberlain (letter writer), John de Critz, and Paul van Somer I. As you said, getting the context in there is vital to giving articles some meat, but I still think some articles are essentially serving as centralised footnotes serving many different articles. Carcharoth (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Heh, one test at a time! And this article has already caused me a fair amount of grief. But I am of the opinion that a range of such relatively short articles could be much improved with some attempt to provide context. I don't think that necessarily means they're footnotes. At least not in this case: but you can't understand this guy (Peter Wall) without setting him within the context of the Vancouver property boom of the past twenty-five years. That may not in fact be a criterion for FA. But I think it's a move that would improve many of our articles. (Again, I could refer to discussions in which I've made this very suggestion.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Not to go too far off topic, but my main problem with featuring stuff like Getting It: The psychology of est, is that it seems to be a reversal of the correct order in which effort should be expended. If that article can be brought to that standard, why not focus the efforts on the more educational article, which would be Erhard Seminars Training? For instance, J. R. R. Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings are featured (though there are problems and they could be improved), plus The Lord of the Rings (1978 film). But when you look around for other Tolkien-related articles, it should be clear where the effort should be focused. ie. the books and the broad articles like Middle-earth (defeatured). Actually, I see The Hobbit is at FAC. Must go and look in on that. Sorry for dashing off and sorry for rambling on here! (Someone might move all this to the talk page). Carcharoth (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I have a similar sentiment which I've had since I started editing here. I also posted a message about my feelings for this nearly three months ago, which I still feel. In the end, though, people will usually only edit whatever interests them, and that's more than you can ask for. Gary King (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand this point, but in this case I'm not sure it's accurate. Vancouver is already an FA, for instance, and in general the articles on the city are in pretty good nick. (More generally, though again I understand, it is of course easy for people to be daunted by the big articles; heck, I should really be writing Latin American literature and Latin American culture, or even Latin America, articles to which I did contribute some time ago before reigning in my scope somewhat.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)
  • I don't know if it's actually possible, but this article feels somewhat under-wikified to me. This somewhat echoes the comments above stating that this article is really only linking to the articles mentioning above, thus completing a circle of sorts. Perhaps at least some of the names mentioned in some of the paragraphs could be linked?
    And thanks for this comment. I do wonder about wikifying for the sake of it. I kind of like the relatively low-key approach here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I looked at the references, and they are using {{citation}}?! Madness! I would either suggest using {{cite web}}, or adding a period to the end of each citation and formatting the accessdates correctly so that they conform to the preferences of each user.

Gary King (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm a big fan of the "citation" templates (though I know that SandyG vehemently disagrees ;) ). There's a period on the end of each citation in the "References" section; I don't believe that's necessary in the notes. And I believe the accessdates are also formatted correctly. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not sure if a period at the end is truly required, so I'm not too bothered about it. The dates, however, are really, really incorrectly formatted; please wikilink them so they conform to individual user preferences. I'm curious as to why you prefer {{citation}} over {{cite web}}? When you look deeper into both templates, you will see that the code for the former is worse than the latter, probably because it was created earlier. There are certain fields that, if used together, would also make the template look strange, and it is missing some simple field checking for certain parameters. It is practically FUBAR — I wish I could use {{cite book}} together with {{harvnb}} and not this. Gary King (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    Ah, there was a point at which my talk page was footnote central. See here. What I got out of that discussion was that "citation" may be broken, but "cite X" is more broken. I do, however, recognize that not everyone agrees. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    Okay, but I still would at least like to see the accessdates formatted properly before supporting this article. Gary King (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    I'm onto it.  :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    Done. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    Hmm. There seems to be a difference of opinion re. accessdates. Do our MoS experts have a view? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    Ah, undone. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    Support for this article. I feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that a brand new article will most likely hit FA status in a short period of time. Gary King (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Why is an obviously promotional article being considered for featured article? This is like the second time in a week this has happened. What's going on with wikipedia? Is there that much of a shortage of appropriate articles? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. It would help if you pointed out in what ways you feel the article is "obviously promotional." If you can point to specific instances that could be improved, that would be much appreciated. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You first. Tell me why this guy is special to you. Prove that my good faith is warranted. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Heh. He's not "special." He is a notable figure in the town in which I live, who has received both national and international press coverage. He has very literally, and quite dramatically, shaped the urban environment here, in a city whose recent history is particularly dynamic and (I think) particularly interesting. As for potential conflicts of interest, please see my first comment, above. But I don't see anything promotional in the article. I'm happy, however, to be pointed to any areas that you find problematic. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You have answered the question of why he's special to you. No one writes an article without having some personal interest in the subject (and I don't necessarily mean financial interest, just intellectual interest). But I'm sure this article will help boost the subject's financial interests. Which is precisely why it shouldn't be a featured article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I honestly see no way in which this article would boost Wall's financial interests. But please clarify: are you suggesting that any article on him would do so, or is there a specific failing in this article? The latter I can do something about; the former would require rather more wholesale changes to Wikipedia. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
That is really convoluted logic, no offense. I mean, first of all, it's pretty blatant that the admin that wrote this article will not profit from it. Should we remove anything from Wikipedia that might result in a purchase of something related to the topic after reading it? Should anything that earns a profit not be allowed on Wikipedia? Should an article on a businessperson or company only be allowed as a feature if it somehow harms the subject's reputation? --SmashvilleBONK! 19:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear. I'm going to go off on a tangent again. There are several articles that it could be argued are promotional, though shoe polish (!) is not one of them (had to mention that one). The one that springs to mind is Wii, which was promoted a mere three months after the product had launched, and appeared on the main page a month later. It might be a great article, but surely a sense of decorum might have suggested that featuring it on the Main Page while it was still actively competing for sales in a worldwide market could have waited a bit longer. Super Nintendo Entertainment System made the mistake of launching in 1990-1993, instead of waiting for Wikipedia to come along... :-) On the other hand, I've just seen that Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector is threatening (sorry, it wins by a country mile) the title of most obscure featured article, which I had thought was aldol reaction. Ah, no, wait. I've rediscovered the time when I thought Wikipedia had turned into a pharmacy: Baby Gender Mentor. This is what the blurb looked like when I first saw it on the front page. Right. I should now read Peter Hall and see if I can make some constructive, on-topic comments (sorry!). Carcharoth (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Peter Hall is thataway... but Peter Wall is just over here... ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
My other question is - what product or service is this article supposedly advertising? Vancouver? A 100 million dollar building? Is Peter Wall a lady of the night? --SmashvilleBONK! 19:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Otherwise sources look okay. Links all worked with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Maralia

  • "Loaned C$6,000 by his mother to build a house, he sold it for $13,000 before she could even move in" - She loaned him money to build her a house?
    (NB I changed this to "given" in line with a doublecheck of the sources.) I don't know what this is about, either, but essentially the same story is told in two profile pieces. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Over the seven years at the turn of the 1990s," - what seven years would be at the turn of the 1990s?
    This is a 1994 source that states "over the past seven years." It's a book, what's more, so I suspect the article was written in 1993. It is a bit clumsy, I realize. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "the urban economy grew fast" - quickly
    This one I don't understand; both are adverbs, and I try to go for the principle that fewer syllables are better. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "the 1990s saw an influx of immigrants and capital from Hong Kong in the lead-up to the colony's handover from the British to the Chinese neared." - looks like this sentence suffers from a botched rewrite
    This got fixed a couple of edits ago. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "As the New York Times notes" - picky, but The New York Times
    changed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not a big deal, but the article may be left off in such cases, according to the CMS. qp10qp (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Tiananmen Square killings" - good spot for an interwiki link
    Ah, yes, I meant to do that... Done. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Moreover, given the city's geography (with mountains to the North and the ocean to the West" - no reason to capitalize north and west here; you're talking about a direction, not a place
    Changed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "as the Globe and Mail comments" - The Globe and Mail
    Done. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "that "the tower's windows were not transparent, and that the building threatened to be a 'dark, forbidding obelisk' on the highest ground in the downtown core."" - logical punctuation for this quote would be outside the quotation marks
    Actually, no, but I've long since given up even pretending that there's anything logical about logical punctuation; I've changed it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "offered the city $2 million to $3 million" - $2–$3 million, per WP:$
    Done. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Wall has stated that his interest in this project came from the fact that it was a way to help the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra" - I know you can come up with a better way to phrase this :)
    Will give it a go.  ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    And now fixed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies if any of these items has already been addressed before this post - I drafted my notes a couple hours ago, but got called away from the computer in the interim. Maralia (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in with a few comments: (1) Interwiki? Don't you mean a wikilink? So Tiananmen Square massacre (or rephrase if needed); (2) MoS says "Ranges are preferably formatted with one rather than two currency signifiers " - so it would be $2–3 million (though I always wince at the literal interpretation of that as from $2 (ie. TWO dollars) to $3 million. Carcharoth (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Double fixed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments from Carcharoth - a few brief comments.
    • The lead needs to give some indication of how old he is. Is he in his twenties, thirties, forties, or what? At least give the first verifiable date you can find for him that has any relation to his age (here, 1958, the university one). Or treat it like those historical painters that you are told were floruit (active) from a certain year.
      Hmm. It does say he was a child shortly after WWII. I did originally have a parenthetical remark about the fact that he refuses to divulge his age; that fact is in a couple of sources. It does seem perhaps a touchy issue with him? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
      Yes. Probably best to leave it at that. I just wanted some year in the lead. Not everyone knows the dates of the Second World War, especially if it's not linked. Carcharoth (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
      Fixed for those benighted souls who don't know. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I would link property developer, so people can read about the label he is rejecting.
      Done. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
      Ah, but you've used property developer. He sounds more like an real estate investor to me, with later building development (as opposed to land development). Though he (or his company) has probably dabbled in all three. Carcharoth (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
      Everyone (except him) calls him a developer; that's what he's known for, though is company (especially before 1989) was much more heavily invested in managing rentals. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I would link Stalinist repression to something. Great Purge would be too specific. Maybe if more details or a date were known, then something from Category:Political repression in the Soviet Union would fit?
      Yes, I cast around for a suitable wikilink, too, and likewise rejected Great Purge. Though this fact is mentioned twice in the sources, no details are provided. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
      Ultimately, lack of such information will be a problem. Sometimes you have to wait for the official biography or later work by historians. Carcharoth (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
      Here I disagree. And so would Wall. He'd no doubt say that what's important about him is the impact he's had on the Vancouver property market and skyline. One day a biographer may link all this up in some psychoanalytic way with the guy's childhood trauma. But in the meantime, I don't feel like I'm missing all that miuch. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The rest of the article is OK. Except the Philanthropy section feel like an afterthought.
      Mostly for BLP concerns, I wanted to finish on an up. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
      Yeah, but I hate it when an article dribbles out of steam. So many features articles don't actually finish. They hang in mid-air. <sigh>. Admittedly, as a BLP, the story is not yet finished. Something about honours and future plans (if possible to source) would end it better. Carcharoth (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Overall, though, the article still feels lightweight. It feels like stuff is being stretched, and it is more about the Vancouver real estate boom than Peter Wall. It would feel more right, I think, if a section on Peter Wall appeared in something like United States housing bubble (but written to focus on the Canadian and Vancouver housing market). I guess what I am saying is that in 20 or 30 years, it is not clear what Peter Wall's legacy will be. We shouldn't be trying to guess that, but I think it would be better to put him in context in an economic article, rather than put the real estate stuff in context in this article, if you see what I mean?
      I see what you're saying but I'm not persuaded about that. He is indeed integral to the Vancouver bubble (oops! If it is a bubble, of course...) But he's made a mark in (literally) more concrete ways than most on a major North American urban metropolis. He's also a suitably colourful character, even if he is at the same time rather enigmatic. As I've continued with some further expansion today, I really do think (though I say so myself) that it's a fairly well-rounded little article. In fact, almost all the better in that it doesn't go on about his pets or favourite food or whatever. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
      Sure, but step back and read the whole article and see how much is about him and how much about the real estate history? The Peter Wall#Vancouver real estate section is the meat of the article, and, to be frank, that and the One Wall Centre section are the best bits of the article. The other bits are stretched and thin and collections of disparate facts trying to flesh out a biography (sorry to be so harsh). Carcharoth (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
      A little harsh, but I generally agree with you. What's more, I doubt that the article would be improved if we had more trivia about his home life or whatever. The point is how he helped make the Vancouver real estate boom, and how the boom in turn made him. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
      Perhaps it might help if you could point to where you think the article is stretched. I've tried to ensure that there's very little fluff, in fact. (There's plenty more material that I could put in, just for the sake of it, but it wouldn't actually add very much; that's a disease that can infect such WP articles, too.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
      By stretched (restoring your comment after an edit conflict, sorry), I mean the lack of basic biographical information others have pointed out. This can still be a very good article, but to be featured it will have to wait until official biographies allow the corners to be fleshed out, IMO. At the moment, there are fragments of a biography hanging on a skeleton based on his real estate investing and building career. Carcharoth (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
      I've been thinking about this. I think that you raise a number of imporant points, including whether or not it would be possible at all to write a featured article about this figure (or someone like him). Perhaps even more importantly, you (and others, such as Maria) have been raising the issue of what we expect of such an article. If we're thinking about equivalents with biographies, this article aims to be much more like a biography that might have the title, say, Peter Wall: A Life in Business than, say, The Unknown Peter Wall or The Immigrant's Dilemma: Peter Wall and the Traumatic Effects of Stalin's Purges. I like more psychoanalytic or muck-raking biographies as much as the next person; but their not the only ones. Interestingly, the quoted comments from Jean Franco here are germane, I think. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, that's the comments done. Sorry for the off-topic stuff, and now I will go and read Peter Hall (lots of them, but all uniformly boring - well, compared to this guy)!! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    Heh, many thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • A few more things I spotted. Linking within quotes can be very controversial, but there is a lot of local stuff that could do with explaining (you are local, right?) - such as "Condo king" (not everyone will know this refers to condominium), "Bentley Turbo-R sedan", "uncoupled from its Interior" (is that the Canadian Interior or the downtown interior of Vancouver?), "more of a Pacific Rim city"; you should link Hong Kong (if you link Vancouver, you should link Hong Kong); "the downtown peninsula" - what does this refer to? The next sentence explains this, but you should do this the other way round - explain the geography first. Oh, and "Moreover, given the city's geography (with mountains to the north and the ocean to the west, and the downtown itself on a peninsular)" - change 'peninsular' to 'peninsula'. You call One Wall Centre a "tower". Why not call it (and link to) skyscraper? Should really link Death Star and Darth Vader. "Lotus Land" - is this a region of Vancouver or a nickname for a wider area, like B.C.? The redirect takes us to the Vancouver article, but the term is not explained there. "Sub-Zero fridge and a Wolf range with red knobs" - Sub-Zero and Wolf - which companies are these - I can guess what the intent is here, but the right links would help people get to a picture of the things and that might trigger the right associations. "rah-rah" (yes, I do overlink...), "To live in B.C., you're lucky. To live in the Lower Mainland, you're very lucky. To live in Vancouver" - need to explain the geography here, and start by linking - British Columbia, OK, Vancouver, OK, but what is Lower Mainland? Presumably somewhere in between the sizes of the other two regions with all three being successively within each other (if you see what I mean). Carcharoth (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
      (ec) Yes, I very consciously decided not to wikilink within the quotations; I'd be interested to hear from the MoS mavens. I am also, it becomes clear, but lighter on the wikilinks than you (though I see that Tony1 is lighter still!). Condominium's linked later on. Fixed peninsula, thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
      I updated my Lotus Land comment, though the Bentley Turbo-R link is staying red. My view is that if you don't link, you should explain in a footnote. The sequence BC -> Lower Mainland -> Vancouver is not understandable by non-locals unless you link or explain. Carcharoth (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Oh, look, some of those links told me what I needed to know! :-) I like Lower Mainland. Now, let's see if the debate over linking from within quotes ever got settled... I also found Sub-Zero Refrigerator, which mentions Wolf Range Corporation (no article yet). Carcharoth (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
        Ah. I was baffled by Sub-Zero and the Wolf thing. I'm clearly not in Wall's target demographic, even if I do in fact live in one of his buildings! (And no Sub-Zero fridge here, by the way. :( ) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
        Maybe it is the red knob thing? (and no, that wasn't meant to be funny, though it probably is). :-) Still looking for the linking within quotes guideline. Carcharoth (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been wondering why jbmurray would want to write this article, particularly as it might lead to funding being withdrawn from the Spanish department and his being seconded to Tierra del Fuego, or somewhere, to do field research. But I think I've sussed it out. He's sitting in a really cramped little apartment built in downtown Vancouver by Wall, for which he's paying boom-town prices, and that thing in the corner with the red knob is at last starting to get to him. qp10qp (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The article seems incomplete to be a featured article, lacking adequate illustrations, an infobox, etc. (Thus, failing comprehensiveness.) If this information is not known about this developer, then perhaps it is not possible to write a featured-quality article about him. Even some general information would be helpful. (If this type of information, very basic information, is not available in published secondary sources, then I have some concerns for the notability of this topic. However, I'd leave that to a AfD review, not a FA review.) My recommendation is to take this to the GA process and refine it from there, before resubmitting it for FA. I'd also recommending waiting because the attempt, which you point out, to speedy delete the article implies that there is controversy. JRP (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Carcharoth has found a great skyline photograph. Adding an infobox is a matter of preferance, and has little to do with comprehensive. GA and FA are not linked, there is little reason and no requirment to submit this to GA. Ceoil (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, in this article's short but action-packed life, it's already been to AFD, and handsomely sailed through. I reply above about an infobox. But what do you mean by "general information"? The article deliberately sets out to provide the general context about the Vancouver real estate boom (see discussion above, again). What other general information would you require to understand this person and his contributions? NB I did submit to GA, but withdrew because I figured in fact it was ready for FA now. I don't see that a GA review would help much at this point. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    The featured article criteria do not require infoboxes or illustrations. Comprehensiveness means only that major facts and details are not neglected. If such a fact or detail has indeed been neglected, please articulate so it may be addressed. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    By my read through, it is not comprehensive. It does not include enough fundamental information about the person that we could possibly consider it featured. How old is he? When is he born? You have a smattering of facts in there, but no biography detailed enough to be a featured article. If there are no secondary sources availabel that have that information, then perhaps this individual is not notable enough to have a featured article about him. The fact that you don't have enough information to populate an infobox is an example of this problem, though I respect that you don't necessarily need an infobox if one weren't appropriate.
    Again, he doesn't give out his age. But I'm not sure how important it is. You have a rough idea of how old he is: arrived in Canada as a child in 1948, gets going in real estate in 1958, still more or less at it today. How would things change if you knew he was (say) 72? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
In terms of the material available, it's comprehensive. Try searching for anything extra, and you'll see.qp10qp (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Second, I can't say that this article is stable. It was just created a handful of days ago and was nominated for deletion. At the very minimum, you need a cooling off period. I have strong reservations about any FAC for an article this new, no matter the caliber of the author.
    I think it's going through AFD has helped with its stability and reaffirmed the subject's notability. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    Third, it is not well-written. The paragraphs are choppy, the prose needs work. I would try and consolidate the brief paragraphs and work to pad out the sections. Perhaps a peer review or a copyeditor would be best able to help with this.
    More specifics would be grand, so I could attend to them. It's had a pretty thorough series of copy-edits, in fact, not least from Tony1. No doubt it could do with more. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I've given it a thorough copyedit today and combined some of the paragraphs. qp10qp (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Fourth, the lead seems to be a bit choppy as well. It actually reads a bit like an advertisement, especially the first paragraph. I'm sure that for someone called the "ultimate business maverick", there are similar quotations of a less generous character which might round out the article, to make it more neutral. (And who said that, anyway?)
    Ah, maybe here's a problem... you think "maverick" is generous? (The source is right there, by the way.) I think it's clearly double-edged. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, there are criticisms of Wall in the article. In particular, he is accused of driving up prices: that's a pretty serious charge. We also have those Gerald Ratner type quotes from Rennie that speak of appalling cynicism. qp10qp (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Fifth, the criteria does call for the article to be illustrated as appropriate. This article clearly is not. It has a single image which is only related to one section of the article. To have a modern biography without an image of the person discussed does not seem to be a good practice. It's fine for non-featured articles, certainly, and perhaps even Good Articles (though they want images also), but not Featured Articles.
    I'd be interested in seeing the regulation about this. I've pointed above to a non-free image should it be seemed essential. Here I defer to my Russian friend, however. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    WP:NFCC#1 effectively precludes fair use images of living persons. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    I stand by my objection. I'm not sure this article would pass a good article review, let alone a FAC. I recommend the submitter move the process there. JRP (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments: Seeing as how this article was only created yesterday, I wouldn't have recommended rushing into an FAC nom so quickly. I recognize that you are highly respected editor, jbmurray, but I think this was a rash move. Although the short length doesn't concern me, the lack of context and comprehensibility does. Some examples:
  • The lead states that his family immigrated to Canada after WWII (btw, no wikilink?), but in the body of the article it only gives a year, 1948. Did they move as a direct response to the war, or its effects? That's what the lead is (perhaps incorrectly) implying.
  • In fact, no concrete dates are mentioned in the intro, which makes the timeline difficult to follow from the beginning. Wall started in real estate around the time he was still a student. When? His company, Wall Financial Corporation, built One Wall Centre... When?
  • Described as the city's "ultimate business maverick", he rejects the label "developer", saying "I just make some money investing in business ideas and projects". Although interesting, this quote doesn't appear anywhere but the lead. Remember to keep WP:LEAD in mind.
    Regarding the above three points, I was indeed trying to follow WP:LEAD in providing an overview, to be followed (in the main article) by specifics, or what specifics we have; but that quotations don't get repeated. The way I've done it may be my particular take on WP:LEAD, but I think it's comprehensible. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It seems superfluous to name an entire section "Biography" when, technically, shouldn't the entire article be a biography? So little information is seemingly available on his personal life, but his family and schooling would be more fitting in a "Personal life" section.
    Hmm. I think the differentiation makes sense. We don't have much on his personal life, but a lot on his public life, and the face that he gives the public. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Peter Wall's good fortune, although due also to his hard work and business intelligence, should be understood in the context of Vancouver's remarkable real estate boom of the 1990s and 2000s. Although sourced, this seems borderline flattery and non-WP:NPOV.
    I've wrestled with this a bit on the talk page. It is the most problematic sentence in the article, I think; at the same time, it seems to me necessary. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I've rewritten it to address this. Now reads: "Peter Wall owes his success not only to hard work and an ability to anticipate the market but to the favourable economic and social conditions of Vancouver's 1990s and 2000s real-estate boom". I don't think it is overpraising a businessman to say that he earned his success through hard work and the ability to read the market: that's the definition of a successful businessman. But the sentence implies that without the favourable conditions it would have been a different story. qp10qp (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Critical reception/legacy/honors? Shouldn't a separate section be dedicated to how he's viewed, what impact he has made?
    I see that as threaded through the article. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what I've gathered from only a cursory read. I still know nothing about this man; the lack of comprehensibility (a key FA criteria) troubles me. Although many edits have been done to the article in less than twenty-four hours, I think a PR would have been much more suitable first step. María (habla conmigo) 20:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm troubled by what you say if you think that it's incomprehensible. But I'm not entirely sure what I can do about that. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
That was one of the complaints about last week's article, that in addition to being promotional it was "rushed" into featured article status - which again raises the question that no one has answered yet: Why are articles that a number of users (not just me) that are seen as promotional being pushed into FA status? Is there really such a shortage of articles about non-promotional topics? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
As for my (perceived) "rush," I've discussed that. But there are two different issues: whether an article is rushed to FAC or whether it's rushed through FAC. There's plenty of time for discussion here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I suspect secretly lots of people want to create an article in a single edit and see it go through FAC with no changes... :-) An impossible dream, I suspect, and probably not good in any case. Carcharoth (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I freely confess to being rather tickled about taking an article to FAC on during its first full day of life. On the other hand, I do think it's ready; this isn't some kind of joke nomination. I had put it in for GA Review, as I say, but withdrew it because I felt it was clearly already beyond that standard. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Meaning no disrespect, but this is exactly the type of hubris which will preclude you from taking any meaningful feedback from this process. I wish you the best on this and your future endeavors, but in many areas of this nomination you haven't so much responded to the criticism but rather stated why it didn't apply to you or was otherwise incorrect. If you step back and have a couple days to let the article rest in your mind, I'm positive that you will be able to improve it. I think it really does have promise. JRP (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you feel it's hubris; I feel it's quite the opposite. I.e. that I welcome the intense scrutiny that you get in the FAC process (but not GAN). I've tried to take all actionable issues into account, and to ask for more information about non-actionable issues. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
And again I ask, what product or service do you perceive this article to be advertising? --SmashvilleBONK! 23:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support—It's well-written and easily complies with WP's notability policy. Although his doctorate from UBC was honorary and not "earnt", and I disapprove of such things, it is nonetheless recognition of someone who doesn't fit the robber-baron mould. I have no sense that the article is a promotion. Perhaps if Wall had written it himself there'd be an issue under our rules, but he didn't. The article was written by a resident of Vancouver about a well-known identity of that city who has been active for many decades and has played a role in the modern development of the city—in both its physical infrastructure and culture. I like the contrast between the man's need for privacy and his public doings. Beats the celebrity-seeking that infects so much philanthrophy elsewhere. Pity there's no pic of him, but that's not a criterion. A few aspects of the tone and referencing might need a little tweaking. My only other suggestion is the addition of a few sentences positioning him among Canadian (a) real-estate tycoons, and (b) philanthropists. Perhaps he's the biggest player in both regards on the west coast. Is there are tradition of ph. in Canada, particularly by developers to cultural institutions? TONY (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    I hope to add something about the impact of his donation to UBC, which has been written up in terms of a transformation in the ways in which Canadian universities thought about funding: rather than relying solely on the state, they now increasingly look for big ticket private donors; Wall's donation helped usher in that change. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    • PS Objections above about length (rather than summary style), image use, and when the article was written are irrelevant to this process. TONY (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - why not just drop the charade and give his business a link on the front page? This is about as genero-cruft as genero-cruft gets. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    Help me here: What is genero-cruft?! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
It's the politically correct term for mongrels, which now have their own class at dog shows. 20:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. In response to a number of different concerns above, perhaps especially but not solely Maria's, I just did a major revision of the lead. The new lead attempts to show much more clearly what is important about this figure, tries to reflect the emphases and concerns of the article, and to concentrate on Wall's public persona rather than get distracted by his private life. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: OK, I admit that nominating a day-old article is amusing. But bringing an article here to obtain essentially a peer review is really wasting resources that could be spent on other nominations. If I have to vote, I must oppose due to violation of 1b. The article is supposed to be about the man, but I learn practically nil about him. The "Biography" section, if one could call it that, is missing basic information: his birth date, his childhood, his family's moves in Europe, details on how he made his fortune after dropping out university, marriage status, etc.. The rest of the article is essentially about Vancouver's real estate development and his company's participation in various projects. If the information on the man is unavailable, then the article cannot be a FA. Perhaps this one could reach GA, but I am not even sure of that. There is nothing wrong with the article remaining GA or B-level until more information is released. Not all articles can or should become a FA. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"If the information on the man is unavailable, then the article cannot be a FA." Well, I can pretty much categorically tell you that the information you are looking for is not available. I understand the view that as a result, the article cannot become FA. I'm suggesting that there's a way of going about things that means that you can write an FA about such a subject. I respect the fact that others may disagree. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Moreover, I do worry somewhat about BLP issues here. To take an example: I know that he has a daughter, and other children too. I have met her (see nomination text, above). But there is no mention of Wall's children in the public record. Nowhere at all. And I have specifically looked (helped indeed by the fact that I know the daughter's name). There's no coincidence here: this is clearly a man who wants to keep his private life private. Does that mean that we can't write a decent article about him? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
A short biographical article can be decent and should exist on Wiki; it's just not featured. If the information is unavailable, then the title and focus of the article could be tweaked to "Peter Wall's construction projects" or even more accurately "Wall Financial Corporation's construction projects". But even then a lot would need to be done to satisfy 1b. I assume Wall (the company) participated in construction projects outside of Vancouver? However, with the narrower topic, I think you might start to run into notability problems. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
See below on some thoughts about this. Incidentally, as far as I'm aware (and I'm 99% sure), Wall Financial hasn't done anything outside of Vancouver. Its success has depended upon the local market, as the article tries to show. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
"...as far as I'm aware (and I'm 99% sure), Wall Financial hasn't done anything outside of Vancouver..." - you know better than to try and interpret from primary sources like that. :-) It's not what you are aware of, but what the secondary sources say - we hope they will have done more research and reliable research at that. If you can find a source commenting on the restricted geographical scope of the company, then fine. Is it consistently described as a Vancouver or Canadian company? Is it only listed on the Toronto stock exchange? You can emphasise those points, maybe. I still think this article will find its niche purely as a daughter article to a broader one on the history of Vancouver and its real estate industry and the recent boom. Do try writing an article about just the history of all this, and try and get the balance right between Wall and the other figures and companies that were key to that part of the history of Vancouver. That will put things in a different context, I think. Carcharoth (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
General Issues

It does seem as though there are two general issues at stake here. I don't want to downplay them, but obviously they are things I can't do anything about and as such unactionable. As follows:

  • The notion that any article about Peter Wall, about a business, or about a commercial subject, should not be featured. This of course came up with Elderly Instruments recent time on the mainpage. I disagree with this argument, but clearly what's at issue is not improving this specific article.
  • The notion that we can't write a featured article about someone if we don't know much about their personal life (here, specifically, DOB, marriage, children, etc.). For Peter Wall, that information is simply not in the public domain. Again, I happen to disagree with this argument: it confuses our articles with biographies, and with a very particular type of biography that focusses on the personal, rather than, as here, on the personality, the public role, or the historic impact. But again, there's nothing I can do to improve this article to satisfy those who hold this position.

I hope that that clarifies things. I'm not trying to suggest that people shouldn't make these points. And perhaps the article shouldn't become featured because of them. But they are not actionable. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I think people are being rather hard on this article, and I'm leaning to support. (Think of Wall as a peripheral pop figure, like, say, Joey Santiago, a second-string musician whose article is featured but for whom the sources are fragmentary, scattered, and largely journalistic: Wall is not Le Corbusier.) The sections on "One Wall Centre" and "Other construction projects" are certainly of featured quality, in my opinion, though it's a shame if there's not enough source material to make them longer. The background section does not always for me tie in enough with Peter Wall to make it seem less than carbuncular. There is a lack of pictures which jbmurray should consider rectifying by taking some photos in Vancouver himself, but this is not required by the criteria. In my opinion, some of the writing is slightly loose and the tone awry in places, but I will try to address my concerns on that myself with a copyedit sometime. qp10qp (talk) 12:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. I've spent some time going through the article with a fine toothcomb and I have no doubt that it meets the criteria. There is copious referencing, though it is mainly to local newspapers, and the assembling of the information is quite a feat by jbmurray: I cannot find any holes in the sourcing. Everything in the article is nailed down with citations. I have now met my own objection above by sharpening the distinction between the "voice" of the sources and the "voice" of the article, which I believe is thoroughly neutral. Anyone who believes that this article favours Wall should ask themselves if they finish it liking him. I didn't, because the article reports accusations that he drives up prices, deceives and exploits people by pushing them into small units of accommodation to make bigger profits, puts up nasty skyscrapers in arrant disregard of the planning laws and the terms of his contract, and, into the bargain, boasts oafishly about his money. The only good thing reported about him is that he gives to the university, etc. Lets hope his motives are pure and that he is not just trying to salve his conscience. qp10qp (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh... Joey Santiago! The comparisons don't work very well, but Wall's more of a Bryan Adams. He's one of the major property developers in North America (again, in a particularly vibrant and interesting market, that has undergone rapid transformation); he's just not Donald Trump. And of course he's not Le Courbusier, but then very few are. --17:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't really comparing their characters, just the articles. The resources on Santiago are relatively sparse and journalistic, and you have to put him in the general Pixies context, the same way Wall is set against the Vancouver boom context. 20:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Vibrant and interesting market? I thought a bubble burst somewhere south of the 50th parallel? Having said that, the UK housing market is not great either. Carcharoth (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Heh. I was referring mainly to the 1980s and 1990s, on which I focus in the article itself. As to the Vancouver market at present... for what it's worth, as I mention in the article, there's much debate and disagreement as to whether it's over-priced and as to whether it's a bubble that's about to burst. As traditionally, it's been more closely linked to Asia (see article, again!) than to North America, there's a sense that it's somewhat insulated from what's going on south of the border; also there's a sense that it'll hold up at least until the Olympics of 2010, and possibly beyond. But who knows? Anyhow, the point is that the market over the past 25 years, and the social changes that it has reflected, have been particularly interesting. And, again, Peter Wall's been a major player, as the article tries to make clear. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that if one compares him to the large number of media-oriented FA biographies, then this one is equal to them in the multi-millionaire real estate developer category. However, I also believe that we are passing too many FAs that use, as you say, fragmentary, scattered, and journalistic sources. I always thought the pop media stuff could be considered exceptions due to popular demand, but that other categories would remain more rigorous. I guess this is a losing battle though. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I think there are different types of FAs, and you and me seem to do the ones that take half a lifetime. It must be galling for you, having spent two months painstakingly working through the copious, dense, and difficult sources on Thomas Cranmer, to see an article knocked up quickly from undemanding source material vying for FA status. But the criteria allow it. Comprehensiveness is a factor of how much material is available; an article can't be expected to fill in gaps in the sources. This article is thus, in certain respects, unsatisfactory: but to look at it another way, does it give the encyclopedia reader a good coverage of what is known about this chap? I suspect that it does. qp10qp (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course, some articles take longer than others, and some topics are more overwhelming than others. I suspect a few people are a bit taken aback at the notion that an FA article could be written in a day or two; but for some topics (and this is one), I don't see any reason why not. It helped that I had most of the off-line sources to hand (I like reading up on the places where I live); and given that this is a person featured mostly in the press, the articles about him are relatively short and relatively easily accessible through online databases. (Though I found a whole bunch of quirks in those databases, by the way: it wasn't as easy as it should have been!) But I do sometimes think we have a bit of a cult not only of process (with the notion that articles need to go through GA and PR etc. before getting to FA), but also of difficulty here. We have 2 million plus articles on the English Wikipedia. Most of them don't need to be more than a few paragraphs long. But they can be good (and even featured) articles that are a few paragraphs long, surely. In fact this is almost 2,000 words, and is already, without a shadow of a doubt, the best resource anywhere on this important figure who played a significant role in the material and social transformation of this major North American city. I think it's an article Wikipedia can be proud of. Comparing it to (say) Thomas Cranmer is to compares apples and oranges. But I think it stands up, and is much more serious and substantial than many of our articles--and I'm not merely pointing to the Pokemon ones ;). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see a discussion from nominator and reviewers regarding how we evaluate 1e on a day-old article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

<grinning> Well, it is certainly not in an edit war, so I think it passes that criterion. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
That's true enough, but I fear that there hasn't been enough time for the article to stabilize given that any opposition that might arize from the article won't be expected to have found it yet. Certainly, this process helps that along, but even a week is too short a time, IMHO. This is why I recommended that the article go through a GA process first. The additional eyeballs there, combined with his the temporal padding that it provides, will give a much better indication as to this candidate's stability. JRP (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a fair question. I can't see this leading to edit wars. You never know, however, as with any other article. What's more, even those who have had issues with the article have never tried to edit it: they've had issues (it seems) more with its very existence than with anything it says. So the guy who tried to speedy it three times, dropped tags on it, and then took it to both AFD and ANI (this article has had a short but exciting life) never one changed a single word of the prose, and indeed never once pointed to a single word that he wanted changed. So the prose, in fact, has been remarkably stable given the brouhaha that has surrounded the article. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment How are we supposed to judge 1e, and even 1b and 4 when the article is a day old ? The article has yet to find its marks, I think that the interactions with the rest of the encyclopedia and the community are important, and we cannot evaluate this in such a short time. This is certainly FA material (it may appear as a made up), but I think that it's way too soon for a FA candidacy. I think that any article should be allowed to get a FA status, but that an article should have existed for at least three months before a FAC. Nevertheless, I'll still try to give a decent review.

I'm going to comment on these issues separately, as various people have made these points. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The terms 'flamboyance', 'colourful character' and 'crowning' are close to WP:PEACOCK and not cited (I realize that this is in the lead, but it's still potentially controversial). They don't add substantial encyclopedic content and can be replaced by facts without damages. They are also relatively imprecise and potentially misleading. Is the term "flamboyance" a reference to the Gothic architecture style (see Flamboyant) ? For instance if following the construction of the hotel, he has been recognized by his peers and gained media attention, this can be added, it's facts, and avoid the problematic "crowning".
"Crowning" and "flamboyance" are reffed lower down, and "colourful character" is reffed in the lead. More framing ("described as"/ "according to", etc.) may be needed to meet your objection, but it is in my opinion an over-Puritanical and mistaken interpretation of the neutrality policy that would exclude language of this sort even when it appears in the sources. qp10qp (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
In addition to the point that they are cited, I really don't see them as "peacock terms." I see both "flamboyance" (a term repeatedly invoked to describe Wall) and "colourful" (as well as "maverick," which I've already discussed) as rather double-edged. They're certainly not straight-forwardly promotional, in the way that WP:PEACOCK is designed to prevent. "Colourful" can equally be a euphemism for "a bit of a bad boy." "Flamboyant" also has disparagaing connotations: of excess, of devil-may-care. Of course, these terms also have positive connotations. But I've used them (as have others) because they capture, I think, both sides of a controversial character. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
These terms are indeed cited, buy as you said, lower down. I personally don't have a problem with it, but this may attract criticism in the future. Cenarium (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe a section specifically analyzing his style is workable: what makes him so successful, apart from his 'flamboyance'. Some critical reviews of his work certainly exist. On the other hand, do you think that the philanthropy section is justified enough, maybe this should be included in a wider section like 'public relations', it seems to be enough material to justify a section like this one.
    I'm not sure what you mean by his "style." I did originally have section on "Character," which I merged with "Biography." But do you mean his style of doing business? That's a possibility. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Forget the section about his style, but the philanthropy section is a bit narrow, and maybe would be more appropriate as a subsection of another one ('public relations' if you think that it's worthwhile) or in text. Cenarium (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Refs 25 and 39 don't work (I'm not familiar with this kind of refs)
    A reference went walkabout. These should work now. I've added a free version of that reference, too. (I recognize that most of the references are to subscription-only databases; the problem is that the Vancouver Sun, at least, keeps its online archives only for a very short period--a month, I think.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The sources seems to be reliable and diversified enough, I don't think it's a problem. I corrected the 25th ref, but the Ford2002 links in the 19th ref are not working. Cenarium (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks for pointing this out. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • C$ and CAD$ are both used. The second is used in a citation, if it was in the initial citation, then it predominates over consistency. But is the reader going to understand the meaning easily ? Maybe a link to C$ and CAD$ are appropriate.
    I've thought about this. Originally, I had CAD$ with every mention of money; Tony1, who knows the MoS much better than I do, changed to C$ at first reference, and deleted the rest--the ones remaining were a holdover (and not actually from a direct quotation). So I've removed them, and wikilinked C$ at first reference, as you suggest. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
CAD redirects to Computer-aided design, C$ redirects to the intended target so I changed it. So I assume that all the $ are Canadian. Cenarium (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing this. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Is the Rolls Royce anecdote notable enough, from an encyclopedic point of view ? Has this been the subject of more in depth coverage ?
    I think that anecdote's doing several things. First, it's helping to establish his character. (In lieu of personal life, what we have is character, I think.) Second, it's an interesting little story; I'm one of those who doesn't think that "encyclopedic" and "dull" have to be synonyms, and feel I'm backed up by the FA criterion 1a. Third, it gives a sense of the guy's private generosity. FWIW, again, and in contrast to others, I'm more worried that this article could be construed to be over-critical, rather than over-promotional.
I'm not convinced, if there is an article in the Vancouver Sun, it should be notable. But I think that the interest of this anecdote is not sufficiently highlighted. Also, Rolls Royce should be disambiguated. Cenarium (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Uff, you're right about the disambiguation... but what do you think we should disambiguate to? I'm going for Rolls-Royce (car), but it's not completely obvious. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
No idea about this, I see that you mention 'convertible', but there are a lot of different models. If the sources allow to disambiguate further, it would be good. Cenarium (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The section 'Vancouver real estate' and at a lesser extend 'One Wall Centre' are problematic w.r.t. criteria 4. They should be reworked from a biographical perspective, this is actionable. Or the structure should be modified.
    As I've argued at various points, I don't think that we should confuse an encyclopedia article about a person with a biography. I recognize that this could be controversial, and that it goes against the grain of most such Wikipedia articles. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
But the main subject of the article is Peter Wall, in this particular section, we expect information on, for example: how has he benefited from the Vancouver real estate boom ? why is the Hong Kong immigration relevant to his success ? has he significantly influenced this Vancouver real estate boom ? etc. The paragraph seems to be an analysis of the Vancouver real estate boom, but the relation with Peter Wall is not made explicit. Cenarium (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. I thought this was explicit enough; I'll revisit. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The section 'Other construction projects' has too many quotations and not enough analysis. In fact, this can go for most of the article.
    I see this point, and agree with it to some extent. I do tend to resort to quotations a lot. However, especially in the case of a BLP, I think this enables us to give a better sense of the person (see above re. words such as "flamboyance"), and to adhere all the more closely to WP:V. Moreover, this is all the more the case in an instance such as this, where most of the original sources are not immediately available to the reader (in this case because I'm using subscription-only databases). However, I will revisit to see if I can quote a little less. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Cenarium (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I took the time to analyse the evolution of the article till this point, but I think that now I made my mind. I oppose per:
  • 1e. The article has undergone an edit war over the speedy tags and cleanup tags, and a post to ANI followed, controversy etc, this is not reassuring, however the content was not modified there. But the fact that it's so young made it difficult to judge this criteria, what happened recently conforts my opinion. It is now relatively unstable.
  • 1b. See my previous comment and others like Carcharoth's.
  • 2b. I am not satisfied with the organization of the sections as I expressed in my preceding comment, I think that this should be discussed, and the changes by Carcharoth considered.
  • 3. There is no photo of this person, which is capital and feasible for a blp. It would also be nice to have a third photo for balance.
  • 4. The section 'Vancouver real estate' is not focused on the main topic, and I am uncertain of the relevance of some other details.
The other criteria are reasonably respected, I don't have major objections regarding them. Note that I personally think that any kind of article should be allowed to be featured, and that this is my first participation in a FAC.
Cenarium (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Regarding Cenarium's mention of three months, I'd like to point out (and ask someone else to fill in the details, since I'm traveling, and can't remember which article it was) that Yomangani once brought an article to FA status very quickly, but if my memory serves, it had previously gone through DYK, meaning it had mainpage exposure before coming to FAC. I could be wrong; this is from memory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Responses to this comment have been moved to WT:FAC. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Some more general comments

This article is becoming a bit of a hot potato, and attracting a lot of comment here. That's fine, and I'm grateful for the thought and attention that is being paid to this FAC. I thought I'd just resume a couple more general issues, which I do not see as actionable, but which are important and could well be reasons for the article's failing. I disagree with these argument, but I understand them, and think them eminently reasonable. This article is something of a test case, and if it helps us rethink policy, then that's fine by me. OK...

  • Several have said that this is "too soon." I can see that the fact that it came to FAC within 24 hours of creation can seem, well, cheeky or "hubristic." I think the article should stand on its merits, however. At present there's no rule about how long an article has to have existed before coming to FAC. But it would be eminently reasonable to propose such a rule: whether it's a month, as Cenarium suggests, or a week, ten days, whatever.
  • Several have also pointed out that it has not been through GA or Peer Review. Again, I think that the article should stand on its merits. But it does seem eminently reasonable to argue that an article has to go through such review processes before coming to FAC.
  • I'd also point out that there are very few comparable articles. There are no FA articles of living businesspeople, as far as I can see; the only equivalent GA articles are Mona Best, Heather Higgins, and Steve Fossett (the latter recently deceased, of course). I think this article stands very favourable comparison with those.
  • Some do, however, continue to have problems with featuring an article on this topic, especially when there biographical details that are not in the public domain. Again, this article proposes a way of dealing with that: in brief, by not treating an encyclopedia article as a biography, or not a biography in the normal Wikipedia sense, concerned above all with the personal. But I could see why people might reasonably suggest that all Wikipedia articles about people need to follow a certain format, and that if the necessary information is unavailable, that it should fail.

Again, I disagree with the above points; but I think the debate about them is worthwhile, in a search for consensus. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up discussion has been moved to WT:FAC. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Leaning towards support, after work. My impression is that a dulling of superalitives will carry this accross. One thing so far: Wall is a property developer in Vancouver, who has been a significant and sometimes controversial player in the city's real estate boom of the 1990s and 2000s. He has been credited with being "a leading contributor to Vancouver's 'City of Glass' reputation" as, over the course of no more than a couple of decades, the economic and social profile of Canada's major West Coast city was transformed, and with it, its urban skyline.[1]. The connection between Wall and the transformation of "the economic and social profile" is not established here. Ceoil (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been through it today, cutting down the superlatives. I believe the article does establish the link later on between Wall and the boom. The article explains that the combination of a shortage of land in the downtown area, which is pressed into a peninsula, and a large influx of wealthy immigrants from the Pacific Rim, particularly Hong Kong, gave Wall the opportunity to build high-rise space-saving accommodation and make his fortune. The article says that he was the leading developer in the transformation of the downtown area, not just through residential developments but in the tall tower thingie that dominates the skyline and in the extension to the theatre. qp10qp (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't got that from reading the article, though I did ask about what "downtown peninsula" meant, above. Possibly, for those who live in larger, more spread-out cities (for me, London), it is difficult to appreciate the geography and the scales here. Is Vancouver small enough that a single person and his company can regenerate the downtown area in a generation? I still want to know more about the other aspects to all this. Who were the other players (they are only mentioned peripherally in the article, if at all)? While not drifting too far from the central story is proper for an article about him, the encyclopedia as a whole suffers from WP:UNDUE if the other stuff is not covered at the same time elsewhere. There really need to be links and articles at the end of them for the Vancouver property/real estate market, and until there are, this article will appear to be unbalanced and to unbalance its topic area. I know it is not a FAC criteria, but I think the issue can be boiled down to lack of incoming and outgoing links to and from this article for the topic area (real estate and Vancouver). The only other estate boom I can think of at the moment is Sandbanks. I remember reading somewhere that at least part (maybe a large part) of the rise in prices there has been due to a single businessman promoting the area. Should we have an article on that person? Found it: here he is named as Richard Carr, but that is just a disambiguation page and none of those Carrs are this one. My point is that I would expect to see Carr and others like him mentioned in articles like Sandbanks, but not necessarily to have their own articles. I admit those writing the Peter Wall article have more sources to write from, but only just enough to get him an article. I suspect that a future article on Vancouver's real estate market and developments might better accommodate the meaty parts of this article, leaving not a lot of independent content in this article. Carcharoth (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth (and I promise that later today I'll turn to the article itself, rather than responding here at such length; however, it's been in some fine hands recently)... Vancouver's geography is probably best compared to San Francisco, whose downtown is likewise on a peninsula, and which for some similar reasons is likewise an extraordinarily hot real estate market. (For what it's worth, there are many other similarities between the two citie: they're both West Coast, Pacific Rim ports with a strong Asian influence, though in Vancouver that's more recent, and with reputations for being laid-back, hippies, drugs...) It would be nice to have other, surrounding articles: I've been thinking of writing up Bob Rennie, who's often Wall's "partner in crime" (and I mean that in the nicest possible sense, heh). But I'm not sure I can be faulted for WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESN'TEXIST. ;) Meanwhile, it is interesting that unlike the London or Berlin building booms (oh, and boom is definitely a cross-cultural word: see Latin American Boom for its use in other languages, even!), here the process has not featured "star architects." Vancouver's only star architect is Arthur Erickson (whom, interestingly, Wall has supported but not employed), who belongs to a previous era, of concrete modernism rather than glass postmodernism. The Weder article (which is something of an attack piece) comments that Wall sees architects as in effect no more than minions. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Evaluating this article on the featured article criteria, I support it:

  • 1(a) well-written - This article definitely meets our prose standards. I just have a couple of nit picks:
  • He has been described as "a leading contributor to Vancouver's 'City of Glass' reputation", as, over the course a couple of decades the economic and social profile of Canada's major West Coast city was transformed, and with it, its urban skyline - a little convoluted and hard to follow
I ventured to rewrite this. qp10qp (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In the process, Wall benefitted from and propelled a property boom that continues to this day - Might be best to specify date so that the article doesn't become inaccurate in the future.
  • Peter Wall's good fortune, although due also to his hard work and business intelligence,[19] should be understood in the context of Vancouver's remarkable real estate boom of the 1990s and 2000s. - I'm sensing the teacher here! This is a bit pedantic, I think.
I changed it. qp10qp (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 1(b) comprehensive - I do not know anything about Peter Wall, but from what I can tell from the above discussion, this article is as comprehensive as it is going to get at the present moment.
  • 1(c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge - The article is generally sourced to what appear to be reliable journalistic sources. For this kind of article, I'm not sure much else could be found and these are probably the best sources available.
  • 1(d) neutral - All praise and criticism of note is sourced. I do not believe that the article presents an unbalanced view of the person. His problems with the skyscraper were outlined but not dwelt upon to any great extent and fulsome praise was not lavished upon him.
  • 1(e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process - Any major changes in the article have been as a result of the FAC (and have hopefully been improvements!).
  • 2(a) a lead—a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the greater detail in the subsequent sections - The lead accurately summarizes the article.
  • 2(b) appropriate structure—a system of hierarchical headings in a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help) - The separation of the "Biography" from the "Corporation" from the economic context from the various building and philanthropy projects makes sense to me.
  • 2(c) consistent citations - Yes, although I think it would be best to include all of the references in the "References" list OR dispense with the list and only cite them in the "Notes". This is a personal preference, however.
  • 3. Images. It has images and other media where they are appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly - Yes. Obviously it would be nice to have a picture of Peter Wall himself. Durova has good ideas about how to approach the business community, if you are interested.
  • 4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style) - Yes.

I see no reason why, according to the featured article criteria, this article should not be featured. Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, your comments, and also your copy-editing of the article itself. I'll work on the issues you raise. I did have to laugh at the "sensing the teacher" comment. You're quite right. ;) I'll try to do something about that, though I do of course want to justify that section (see comments above, passim.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I Love jbmurray. You love Jbmurray. We all love Jbmurray. But am I the only one who feels quite painfully poked by a Wikipedia:Coatrack here? The article is much more about the city and about Wall's companies and his dark Tower than it is about him. The content about Wall is thinnishly thin thin. Yes. He's secretive. I do not care. If the info does not exist, the article does not exist. Persuade me not to Oppose. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Ling.Nut, we all may wish that the FAC criteria were different than they are. I, for one, do not believe that biographies of living people should be able to be featured for reasons that I will not go into here. Nor do I believe that incomplete articles such as this one should be able to be featured. I believe GA is the better place for this article. However, the featured criteria do not include such restrictions. In reviewing the article, I looked carefully at the criteria and did my best to assess the article according to them, not my personal views of what kinds of articles should be able to be featured. Unfortunately, it seems that most of the reviewers have not done so - they have started imposing restrictions that are not present in the FA criteria. They have let their problems with the criteria get in the way of their reviewing. Many of the issues raised have less to do with the article itself and more to do with criteria. "Comprehensive", according to the criteria, does not actually mean "covering all aspects of the subject", for example, it means "covering all aspects of the subject available in reliable sources". Awadewit (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the love! Heh. But this is not a coatrack, at least in the sense meant by WP:COATRACK. You're welcome to revise that policy, of course, but the point of it is to prevent bias, to prevent articles from pushing a particular point of view (that is the "coat"). By contrast, I've explained in the nomination what I'm trying to do here. But let me also copy over one of my recent comments from WT:FAC: in my view, this was "a test case for how (or whether) to write a short article. And also, to some extent, it was a test on how to write a biography. I guess I had particularly in mind issues that I raised at the Preity Zinta FAC, where I described the article as "awfully uninspiring," at the Getting It FAC, which I felt was thin without contextualization, and to some extent also at the Skin & Bone GAR, where I also called for setting the subject within some kind of context. I was trying to "walk the walk" having talked a fairly critical talk regarding those articles."
This is not a coatrack in the sense of WP:COATRACK. I'm not trying to push any particular bias about Peter Wall. But nor is it a coatrack in the way in which you're implicitly redefining the term. In other words, nor is it an illicit attempt to write about the Vancouver property market in the guise of writing about one of its main players. No. My point, rather, is as I say (perhaps over pedagogically, as Awadewit points out) that to understand Peter Wall, and his notability and significance, you have to understand the Vancouver property market and (more importantly still) the social changes that the city has undergone, of which he is both product and producer.
Again, I recognize that this is a rather novel way to write an article about a person. In so far as it's a biography, as I've said, it could be titled (say) Peter Wall: A Life in Business. Or you could call it a social biography, rather than a personal one. But I think that that is the way in which such topics should be addressed. Frankly, I don't care how many children this guy has, or when he was born; I think that's supremely unimportant. What's important is the way in which he has helped to change a major North American city, and at the same time become product or symptom of his times.
Similar articles can and should be written about many other people (and books and films, etc.) Paris Hilton, to take an almost random example. What's interesting and important about here is the way in which she has ridden the wave of a particular intensification of celebrity culture. Her life, in itself, is not particularly distinguished or notable, and in many respects no different from a hundred other pampered rich young things. She gains significance only because she has become more than she is: thanks to the internet sex tape, thanks to magazines such as Hello! or what have you. But then she has also, in turn, contributed to this frenzy around celebrities; she has helped sell gossip magazines. She also is product and producer. Any article about her needs (I think and argue) to approach her in this way. That is not a "coatrack." It is the best way (again, I'm arguing) to understand who and what she is. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I have some sympathy with both points of view. I know it sounds like WP:FORK, but I would love to be able to read about Peter Wall in two articles: (1) Peter Wall; and (2) Vancouver property market (or whatever title is suitable or already exists). What is said in each article would be different, with some repetition, but I think if we had the other approach to compare this one with, the discussion would be easier. Carcharoth (talk) 05:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Drawn here by the volume of commentary, I have no intention of supporting or opposing, but just have some comments.
    • There is plenty of quotation. (To the extent that it does make me question its validity as an encyclopedic entry.) Can't "it owned and managed 980 rental residential units and 865 hotel rooms" and "a bitter legal battle between the developer and the city" and "rah-rah observation" be turned into unquoted material?
      As I've said various times, I recognize there's a lot of quotation. I think in part that's justified, but I will definitely go back and see if its extent can be reduced. The information about the number of residential units etc. is surely a good place for paraphrase, yes. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I have gone through the article substantially reducing the amount of quotation, while (I hope) retaining the gist. qp10qp (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Is "player" an encyclopedic term for a businessman? I say no. That single word probably stirs the sense of promotionalism in those susceptible. "Participant"?
      I don't think there's anything "unencyclopedic" about player. More importantly, as with certain other words, mainly in the lead, I really don't see it as "promotional." Again, I see it as potentially double-edged. To say someone is "a player" can be taken in various different ways: it suggests that they're important, but it also suggests that they are treating the business as a game, that they are looking to win, whatever. Take Altman's The Player: I don't think that's meant to be particularly promotional about the Hollywood film industry; the use of the term implies a certain distance from it's subject. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with this criticism and have changed it to "played a significant and controversial part in the city's real-estate boom". qp10qp (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, if it mattered, I would philosophically oppose this article for featured status, because it just doesn't, in my opinion, accomplish anything significant enough to "possibly be on the main page". I understand that the Wikipedia Featured Article system doesn't work this way; there is no way for me to say, fine, it passes a checklist, but it's not among Wikipedia's best work. I hope you don't take that as a criticism: it's on a subject that simply can't be a vehicle for Wikipedia's best work, given what can be reliably described about the subject. Like a variety of other current Featured Articles. Thanks, –Outriggr § 03:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I have no problem with criticism. Again, however, this particular criticism, though eminently reasonable, is not one I can take action on. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, Outriggr, the fact that this material has never been collated before makes this article very much an example of what Wikipedia can do better than any other medium. (A quality newspaper profile might almost equal it, but the neutrality and sourcing principles would probably be less evident, particularly if the subject co-operated.) qp10qp (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this vote of confidence, Qp. I feel I can say this less immodestly now the article has benefitted the efforts of so many of Wikpedia's very best editors: Tony1, Awadewit, Laser brain, Ceoil, BuddingJournalist... I'm truly humbled by the quality of the people who have now made this a truly collaborative project. But this is by far the best source of information anywhere on Peter Wall. Moreover, it's not simply an accumulation of facts; it attempts to explain him and his social role. It tells us about him, and also about the social phenomena to which he has significantly contributed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I have to go, but have a proposal: Copy the article to userspace, take out the coats on the rack, and see if it meets the wordcount reqs of WP:DYK. Sorry to be so very blunt. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ling Nut, the craftsmanship in this article is indeed among Wikipedia's best work. Everything is meticulously referenced, skillfully using templates throughout: believe me, I've combed through every sentence and reference. Wall has been researched exhaustively. Nowhere else has so much diverse reporting on Wall been gathered together into one place. This is also among Wikipedia's best work because it is a first for Wikipedia: Wikipedia is now the number one single-stop resource for Peter Wall. Articles like this give Wikipedia the edge. The criteria don't allow for deprecating a subject because it seems, in itself, minor. qp10qp (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Another suggestion. Given that the content is largely about the company and the Vancouver property market and very little about the person, then perhaps the title of the article should be changed to "Wall Financial Corporation". Some restructuring would be needed (i.e., instead of a "Biography" section, there could be a "Founder and early history" section). I have a feeling a lot of readers would be disturbed if they were looking for an article on, say, Scott McNealy and they received the content of Sun Microsystems. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I'm definitely not seeing a Featured class article here. To be honest, my first impression was that this article was nominated as a violation of WP:POINT, because of the promotional nature of the first sentence. Was it some sort of Canadian April Fool's Joke? Getting serious though: The article is not comprehensive, and violates multiple policies and guidelines, ranging from WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE to WP:LEAD. It is missing several of the standard elements of biographies such as an infobox, picture, birthdate, "living persons" category, etc. Many of the statements in the article use elaborate adjectives or terms about the man as though stating facts, when what we should be doing instead is putting things into the proper context, such as, "According to (source), which says (term)." Especially since some of the sources are of questionable reliability. Example: Vancouver: The Unknown City, published by arsenal pulp press, and has only a brief section about Wall and his building. I am not certain that this satisfies WP:RS for the information we are sourcing to it, about Wall "having a trick up his sleeve". Are there even any really solid non-local sources which talk about Wall in more than a cursory way? The top section also violates WP:LEAD, as it has statements which are not covered anywhere else in the article. I also have concerns about the stability of the article. Writing a so-so article and then immediately nominating it for FA is disruptive, especially when an article has as many problems as this one does. FAC should not be used as a replacement for the normal peer review process.

--Elonka 06:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Your oppose boils down to your not thinking this guy is worth it, I suspect. Your point about "according to", etc., is bang on, though, and I have carefully gone through the article adjusting the wordings in question so that they are plainly attributed to various publications and newspapers (please have another look). The sources are all reliable (books, newspapers), but they are flimsy compared to what one has for a subject on which scholars have written. However, this does not breach policy: policy requires each article to use the best sources available, which this does, such as they are. qp10qp (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
"Disruptive"? So much for WP:AGF about one of our best editors. Nice one, Elonka. Ceoil (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments - shaping up nicely. I listed some minor issues below.
    • I'm afraid real estate "boom" might be too colloquial for global or ESL readers.
I suspect it's a global term, because of the various boom phenomena. qp10qp (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree, but since no one else has commented on it, it must not be that important. --Laser brain (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "... over the course of a couple of decades" Why not "two decades"?
Redrafted. qp10qp (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure of the nuances of these terms, but check "Wall migrated from Eastern Europe to Canada ..." and "In 1948, he immigrated to Canada ..."
Changed to "emigrated" and "moved". qp10qp (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "Given C$6,000 by his mother to build a house, he sold it for $13,000 before she could even move in and, he has stated, 'discovered right then how easy it was to make money in the real-estate business'." This is kind of clunky - suggest a rewrite. I took a couple stabs at it but I'm afraid of changing the meaning.
Rewritten. qp10qp (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "He is also known for his generosity, sometimes on impulse: in 2002 he gave ..." Shouldn't the sentence after the colon be capitalized?
Changed. qp10qp (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Not sure, but I think you want to capitalize "skyscraper.com".
    • There are a couple statements that I don't consider durable, like "Today, he is seen as a colourful character ..." and "Though there have been criticisms of the Vancouver real estate boom ..." If no one remembers to come around and edit it when the boom is over, it won't be logical. --Laser brain
Wordings changed. qp10qp (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(talk) 06:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC) (undent) (ec) If the article doesn't seem to jibe with a strict interpretation o WP:COATRACK, that would be because you are at this very moment setting a precedent for a new phenomenon on Wikipedia. This phenomenon, however, is as ancient as the hills within the halls and classrooms of high schools around the world: it's called "padding an essay". Wall has coffee with some other rich guy? Who cares? That same guy makes snarky comments about Wall? Who cares? Various organizations that Wall has given tons of money to give him honorary degrees, and string together fluffy phrases of praise about what a swell guy he is? Who cares? And on and on. Info about the city, the environment, his dog.... so what? From the perspective of an encyclopedia, it is all padding, pure and simple. Though I am not aware of guidelines about padding, this FA will set a precedent which will require such guidelines be created... Ling.Nut (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"Who cares?" can be said about many FAs. I don't think "padding" is the word: that implies there is some surplus matter lying around. The editor has, to use a phrase attributed to Nennius, "made a heap of all he could find". The deal with the article is this: here is everything that can be found about Peter Wall. How many encyclopedia articles can you say that about? The reader who wants to know about Peter Wall will not be served better elsewhere. Honest. You may not like the article, but it meets the criteria, in my opinion. (Not a single reviewer to this page has found out anything extra about Peter Wall; I've tried hard—I can't.) qp10qp (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm not comfortable with it being promoted at this point of time, given the amount of controversy surrounding the article and the nomination, I don't think it's stable enough. Sceptre (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It is stable; its a non contentious article about a non controversial man. There is discussion about how the article should be structured, but that is being worked through. Please judge the article on its merits and not on the the heat that objections such are drawing to this FAC. Ceoil (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there isn't a big rush of comments at Talk:Peter Wall#Structure change, but I'm happy to wait. Carcharoth (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Why the rush to bring the article to FAC? Why did it not have a peer review, which would have have enabled a much more polished version to be presented? It's an impressive piece of work given how quickly it was developed, but to me it is simply not a finished product. In particular:
    • A reader like me, who has never heard of Peter Wall, needs to know why a biographical article has so much information missing that one would normally expect to find (date of birth, family background etc). Until I read other FAC comments I was in the dark about this. An explanation of some sort in the lead is essential.
    • Structure needs further thought. There shouldn't be a "Biography" section in a biographical article. Some of the content of this section would be better in an amended lead, other parts could fit in elsewhere.
But there is no rule that an article on a certain figure is a biography. It is about the figure, their work, their effect. So an article (for example Mary Shelley, which I am working on) may have sections which are not biography. For people who are famous for their lives, rather than their work, this may be different; for people who are more famous for their work than their lives, the biography won't be the main section. qp10qp (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Just on this, as it was also mentioned by Maria... The biography template itself (with which I have many problems, but there we are) has a "Biography" section. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The linking seems haphazard. There are many terms which I would have expected to see linked, including: Toronto; Yugoslavia; Hungary; Austria; Stalinist; The Vancouver Sun; The New York Times; The Globe and Mail; Hong Kong; Darth Vader. There are probably others, but those listed stand out.
    • The sentence reading: "Peter Wall owes his success not only to..." etc, although referenced at its end, still reads like an opinion coming from this article. There are other instances of this, particularly in the lead.
    • The "Laid-back Lotus Land" reference needs explaining - it doesn't signify much as it stands
    • There are typos (peninula) and punctuation issues. The article needs a thorough copyedit.
Eeek! I just added that typo, ironically while copyediting the article. Fixed. qp10qp (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The Lotus Land phrase (if not the precise use in this article) is somewhat explained through what I wrote here. Carcharoth (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I also share some of the concerns raised above. Brianboulton (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments
    • Good job here, especially for an article only three days old. That, I can see, is a major concern, and while I'm a little concerned about that as well, the criterion doesn't say an article has to be mature. Since there are likely to be stability issues, I'm a little hesitant at the moment to support.
    • Maybe I'm missing something, but the first sentence seems PEACOCKy.
The word "controversial" adds a note of caution. The lead has to establish the significance of the subject, and here it is stated that Wall was a significant contributor to the development of Vancouver, a statement which I think the article goes on to justify. qp10qp (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • His career has earned him criticism and praise in equal measure seems POVish.
Changed to "His career has earned him both criticism and praise", if that helps. qp10qp (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The prose is good, but at times it felt like a chore to read the article. Maybe some copyediting or some new, interesting info would suffice.
    • The quote, "$300,000 or $320,000 but – what's it matter? – they're only worth a hundred [$100,000], anyway". is formated oddly. Wouldn't it be better, ""$300,000 or $320,000 but – what's it matter? They're only worth a hundred [$100,000], anyway".?
Sorted. qp10qp (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I know without it the article would be too short, but the Vancouver real estate section goes way off topic.
    • Needs non-breaking spaces.
    • Should "skyscraper.com" be capitalized in the One Wall Centre section?

Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose - It does not seem like a biography but more like a real estate article without any special insights about real estate or the long term effects of all this on Vancouver. As someone said above, a few years from now will anyone care about this man? The biographical details are more Elvis Presley-like - that he gave away cars and large amounts of money idiosyncratically - than anything unique or particularly worthy. Part of me thinks this article is a joke or a put-on. But, as someone said above, it is a chore to read all of it. (O.K. many a FA is.) But Peter Wall, even knowing everything there is to know about him, has not been made a particularly interesting figure to me. –Mattisse (Talk) 20:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - After reading through some of the comments above I thought I'd sample this myself. I have to say that I think it is well written, researched and interesting and I do not think that the concerns raised above about whether this guy is interesting enough to feature etc etc. are valid reasons to oppose. I cannot yet support however for the reasons below
  • Someone said it above, but if (as in this case) there is very little information avaliable on the subject's personal life for a good reason, then the article should discuss this reticence fairly prominently to deflect accusations of lack of comprehensiveness. In fact it is one of the more interesting parts of the article.
  • I really dislike "(his father fell victim to Stalinist repression)" - I'm sure its true and I guess no details are known, but to my mind a more encyclopedic way of putting this is "his father is reported to have died in the Soviet political repressions of the 1940s" with perhaps a piped link to something like Soviet political repressions (or something more specific).
As several people have objected to this, I have cut it and placed it on the Talk page, pending redrafting. qp10qp (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Images. If this guy has changed the skyline of Vancouver then why do we only have one picture of one thing he built? Go and take some more pictures of more buildings he is noted for, to better illustrate his effect on the city.
Aside from all this however the article is good:well-written, well-sourced, NPOV and interesting.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
While is Peter Wall not even mentioned in the Vancouver article? I think this whole nomination plus responses are political to prove a WP:POINT about FA criteria. This nomination seems designed to bring FA to its knees, which maybe would be a good thing, the way FAC discussions have been for a while. I think User:Carcharoth's point that only a few other incestous Wall articles even link to this article is a very important. The fact that so many editors are willing to put such energy into this rather than into articles that others link to speaks to the future of Wikipedia. All of this feels like a hoax. –Mattisse (Talk) 22:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: I think a lot of prejudice has gone into the evaluation of this article. No infobox? Who cares. A day old? Who cares. A commercial topic? Who cares. We are an encylopedia, of course we cover notable businessmen, businesses, brands, companies, editions, advertising campaings etc, with NPOV. On its own merits I support this article being FA. Ceoil (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Advertising campaigns? Oh. We do! Category:Advertising campaigns. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
      • That would be a bit abusive to reduce the criticism to this. Some editors have also expressed concerns arround 1b, 1e, 2b, 3 and 4. Furthermore, some people actually "care". Cenarium (talk) 02:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Um, abusive? And I see the word "disruptive" above as well. So you care about info boxes and <sigh> a day old. Or are you implying I don't care about FA standards. Please. Ceoil (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
          • The infobox doesn't concern me too much, anyway we don't have a photo and an infobox without photo is not great at all. I care about the fact that it's a day old indeed, and I am not the only one (inability to judge the stability for instance, confirmed by the recent events). I don't imply anything, if your comment was intended to be humorous, then I have no problem with it. Cenarium (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Was meant to be humorous; maybe was a little too dry for the internets...Ceoil (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Second set of comments by Carcharoth - if needed, someone please tell me to go back and look at my first set of comments and marked them resolved or not. This second read through followed the copyediting for tone and style done by qp10qp.
    • Disparity of sources - Could someone check Arsenal Pulp Press? From what I can gather, they are a small, independent Canadian publishing company, and include a short list of books on art and culture, which is I think where the two books used here come from. I'm also not entirely convinced about "Artists in their Gardens" (Easton, Valerie; Laskin, David & Mandell, Allan (2001), Artists in their Gardens, Seattle: Sasquatch, ISBN 978-1570612442) - what sort of book is that? From what I can see, it is being used purely to buttress the philanthropic bit about Arthur Erickson.
As I said above, the article collects what is known on Wall. So the fact that these books refer to him has been used in the article. You have to use the best sources available, and in this case, the best sources available are neither substantial nor scholarly. The policies allow an editor to deduce from the giving of gifts to universities and for the preservation of gardens that someone is a philanthropist. This is a synthesis, but it does not advance a position that exceeds the evidence. qp10qp (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Article ending - I still think the philanthropic section feels too much like an afterthought, designed to soften the impact of ending the article the following way:

      "Many commentators argue that Vancouver's real-estate boom, which has been accused of increasing the divide between its rich and poor,[40] is a bubble about to burst.[41] As of May 2008, Wall himself remained buoyant. "I'm trying to keep the price down, " he remarked, " so that everybody can make a deal that's equitable, and then we can all make money. To live in B.C., you're lucky. To live in the Lower Mainland, you're very lucky. To live in Vancouver and own real estate, you have won the lottery".[42]"

      This might seem like a strange way to end an article, but I think for articles like this (where the story is not yet finished), it is better to finish like that and make clear to the reader that this is not a finished story, nor a finished article (whether that should impact FA criteria is a separate argument). At the moment, the article finishes with a hodge-podge of three examples dredged from disparate sources to illustrate his philanthropy, and no concrete source saying that Wall is a philanthropist. It is effectively a prose form of a (brief) list of Wall's philanthropy.
I think you might be right that the philanthropy section is placed there to balance the previous criticism. It could be done the other way round, with the philanthropy first and the criticism second, but the principle of balance is the same either way. We want balance, don't we? qp10qp (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The $1 million dollar bit in the 'Philanthropy' section is now less informative than the $15 million bit in the earlier ('Biography') section, and both are less informative than the endowment description at Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies.
That's true. This is partly my fault, because I wanted to take out the "even" clause on grounds of tone, and the result is a bit flat and ill-worked. Perhaps jb can find a way to rephrase this better. qp10qp (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The lead highlights the university donation without providing detail. If the University donation is one of his main points, then Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies should probably be mentioned and linked in the lead. It may even be worth having a section just on the relationship between Wall and the university, bringing together the stuff from the 'Biography' section (which looks worse and worse the more I look at it - a hodge podge of stuff that should be reorganised throughout the article) and the later stuff. I may try and action this point myself.
    • Early biographical material - I agree with the concern expressed about the phrase "his father fell victim to Stalinist repression". Putting it in parantheses doesn't really help either. Either explain more fully in the text, or expand in a footnote and explain the paucity of information.
I've cut this and placed it on the talk page, since several people have queried it. qp10qp (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Other questions that the article leaves unanswered (I know others have raised some of these before, but some are new):
      • Wall's birth year- many of the other dates are less helpful without this detail. Even a range of dates for his birth would help resolve this - eg. late 1930s or early 1940s.
You can't add or estimate information without a source. qp10qp (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
See comment below starting "if it is not possible". Carcharoth (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
      • It is still unclear when Wall left the university and when he sold his first house.
You can't add or estimate information without a source. qp10qp (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
See comment below starting "if it is not possible". Carcharoth (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
      • What happened between 1958 (enrolling) and 1969 (company founded)?
You can't add or estimate information without a source. qp10qp (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
See comment below starting "if it is not possible". Carcharoth (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • If it is not possible to answer these, something needs to be said somewhere (maybe in a comment on the sources used?) to say that full details of Wall's life are not currently on public record, and that what is in this article has been collated from disparate sources, thus at least being upfront with the reader. Though looking more closely, I think most of the early biographical stuff comes from a single source (Ford, 2002), a local newspaper article which seems to have reported a smattering of biographical points without any dates, probably based on an interview with Wall. In other words, much of the early biographical stuff seems to be based on interviews from 2001 and 2002 with local newspapers, which could be a concern. I think the nature of these two sources (Ford x2 and Weder) need to be brought further forward into focus in the article itself.
      • BTW, my attempt to address this is presented here. Comments would be welcomed. Carcharoth (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Business career - It should be possible to say more about the Wall Financial Corporation. As this is a major part of Wall's career (indeed, it is his career), there is no problem with expanding this section - it is entirely relevant to this article.
    • The dates of the various quotes and sources needs to be brought into focus in the article text (examples: 1, 2).
    • "As Vancouver's economy continued to develop independently of its interior" - this still makes no sense to me. If it means independently of the British Columbia forest industry, that should be made clearer. Not everyone knows that a city's (or in this case a port's) "interior" can mean its hinterland (or backcountry), and some might argue that interior should refer to Canada or British Columbia, not Vancouver.
This may be the fault of wordings I chose as ways of folding some of all that Delany quoting into straight text—in particular this: As the city continued "uncoupled from its Interior", it also became "more of a Pacific Rim city". But I feel there is enough information in the following to make what is being said clear: In the next decade, however, Vancouver became less dependent on the economic fortunes of the rest of the province, and real-estate values held firm in the city even in 1991 when forest industries made record losses. It makes sense to me; but that isn't to say that a better way of putting it can't be found. qp10qp (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I just wanted a straight answer as to what the source meant by "Interior". :-) I'm only guessing that it means the forest industry. I suspect it does, and that a link to hinterland or backcountry would help, but sometimes even linking like that can be seen as interpreting the sources. You are happy to link to philanthropist. Would you be happy to do a link or explication for "interior"? Seems like a similar process where the editor makes decisions to guide the reader. Or maybe just drop "interior" altogether? I still think many readers will stumble when they reach that point. Not all countries have an interior in the sense that, say, Canada and Australia do. Carcharoth (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "apartments in Hong Kong for well over $1 million" - needs to be made clear whether this is Canadian dollars or Hong Kong dollars.
    • "a dense downtown core that the city was interested in further developing" - I don't see where this is coming from. Which source is saying this?
  • I'll go back and look over my earlier comments now. Carcharoth (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Structural change - I hope from this it is clear what kind of structural change I am attempting - mainly to split up and redistribute the disparate elements that had been collected under "biography". I'm aware that this is moving away from Jbmurray's aim that this not be a strict biographical article, but I thought that at least an attempt to show the alternative should be made. Carcharoth (talk) 03:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, the reaction to my edits wasn't quite what I thought it would be. I apologise if I've upset anyone or destabilised the article. I had hoped there would be a response at Talk:Peter Wall#Some recent edits for review (31/05/2008), but would invite anyone else to review my edits there if this FAC is closed. Apologies again. Carcharoth (talk) 08:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
      • One more update: my changes were blanket reverted by Ceoil (who, to be fair, did then discuss things with me, as did Jbmurray briefly before he logged off for the day). In response to the concerns and the revert, I wrote a major expansion, with multiple subsections, of Talk:Peter Wall#Some recent edits for review (31/05/2008). I hope this both explains why I re-added some of the more minor changes, and addresses any concerns about my changes, while also paving the way for a proper discussion of the proposed changes. I hope that with adequate discussion at the talk page, this article will remain stable, and any eventual changes will have consensus, thus not unduly affecting this FAC. I have apologised at the talk page for making major changes during the FAC without discussion (a breach of etiquette, I believe), and I will leave a note for Jbmurray to apologise personally. I would also like to apologise here as well, though a discussion at some point about whether blanket reverts are a suitable way to handle this sort of situation might be useful. Carcharoth (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Carcharoth, thanks for this, an I want to apologise to you for the hasty revert. I found the lead gererally to be weaker than qp10qp's version, that was my first revert, and I suppose I was a bit alarmed when I saw the withdrawl notice above - that was the reason for my 2nd revert. You left a note on my page suggesting we dicuss the changes on the article talk; sounds good to me. Ceoil (talk) 14:42, 31 May 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 03:35, 30 May 2008 [2].

[edit] The Hobbit

Self-nominator. I'm nominating this article for featured article because the Hobbit is a very comprehensive, well-written and well cited article, on a very notable subject. It's been peer-reviewed, edited by the league of copy editors and judged A-Class by the 3 most relevant Wikiprojects, and it's ready for FA! Davémon (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: I haven't read the article all the way through yet, so I cannot comment on the status of the prose. There are, however, three major issues I can see from just a quick glance that would hold me back from supporting:
    • The lead does not adhere to WP:LEAD in that it isn't a summary of the entire article; there is no info about the book's revisions, style, themes, and very little info about its adaptations; these facts are hugely important to understanding the subject matter and require mentioning in the lead. As of right now it's far too short.
    • The "Adaptations" section is clunky. It looks like the bullet points were removed in order to convert it into prose, but more needs to be done. It's overly detailed in parts (is the Manitoba Theatre for Young People's adaptation truly that notable?) and lacks important critical/reception information on most of the productions. Structurally, it's mostly short, stubby paragraphs. Weed out the more crufty adaptations and concentrate on the biggies.
    • I see more than a few references that are not formatted correct: refs 37, 50 53, 55... María (habla conmigo) 18:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose While this article is a good start, substantial work remains for it to reach FA level, in my opinion. Here are some suggestions for improvement:
    • The lead needs to summarize the entire article. For example, currently it does not really mention the content of the "Style" and "Themes" sections.
    • This article appears to be sourced mostly to popular books published about The Hobbit. I did a quick check of the MLA database for "hobbit" and found over 100 citations for that book alone. None of the scholarly research done on this novel appears to have been used for this article. This means that it does not "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge". This material would allow the writers to add a "Genre" section, for example, and add depth to the "Style" and "Themes" section, at the very least.
    • The article is missing a "Genre" section. This is one of the first fantasy novels. This needs to be discussed! Ideally, such a section would also discuss the novel as a work of children's literature. Much has been written on this topic by scholar of children's literature.
    • The "Characters" section does not add much to the article. I would try to integrate its key points into the "Synopsis".
    • The "Synopsis" is a bit confusing for someone who doesn't already know the story. Its details are introduced without explanation. For example, it is not clear that elves live in Rivendell.
    • Much of the article is written in chunks which do not smoothly transition into the next chunk. This is particularly true in the "Themes" section and the "Adaptations" section.
    • The "Reception" section needs to be expanded. Much more could be said about how the book has been received over the last 60 years.
    • The "Adaptations" section is a prose list. I would suggest creating a separate entire article on "Adaptations of The Hobbit" which could then be summarized here. This section takes up far too much space in an article which is supposed to be about the book itself!
As I said, this is a good start, but I believe much more research needs to be done to create a comprehensive article on this important novel. Awadewit (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose
    • I saw that it had a peer review, but I'm curious as to why it is not under WP:Novels. Those folks could give another peer review. It has a "U" rating from WP:Books?? It's tricky what you're writing - a very influential book both to culture and literature. Were I you, I would approach the article as if the reader would be unable to live another day without consuming the book cover to cover. Right now, the article is very meek and needs to be expanded.
    • The lead should jump out and declare without question the novel's importance both to culture and literature, like a blast of trumpets. It should parallel the structure of the article itself by summarizing each section.
    • Expand the characters section - one or more paragraphs per character. Use Tolkein experts for your sources. I would switch the characters and plot summary sections, but if you wanted to include a brief introduction to readers to expect fantasy fiction to be placed above the plot summary, that would be ok.
    • Expand the Style section considerably. Include what Tolkein scholars have written about the style of this book. Provide examples of Tolkein's use of sense of humour, onomatopoeic singing, other elements of style, and how the narration "contributes significantly to the success of the novel".
    • The article presents as if it is written for Tolkein fans, but there are tweaks that need to be included for people unfamiliar with the novel. What you're doing in an FA is showing readers how awesome this book is without it sounding POV. A lot of this can be accomplished by saying Important Tolkein Scholar So-and-So says "blah blah" about the Jungian anaylys of the novel, for example. Use quotes from what has been written about it. What did C.S. Lewis write about it?
    • Expand the themes section to describe them in more detail, using the aforementioned opinions from Tolkein scholars. If there are morals in the novel, what do teachers say about it?
    • The section on Dramatizations reads like a list, as if it were as list and all that was done to it was remove the bullets. If you can put it into clear flowing prose, do that. If not, separate it into a different article on Adaptations of The Hobbit or some such.
    • There is very little about how it ties into the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.
Essentially, I think you have a lot of research and writing to do. I'm not a fan of fantasy fiction, but I know how influential this book was. Right now the article lacks enthusiasm, and I think it can be better. I know it can. If you love the book it won't be difficult to do it, though it may take time. Don't get discouraged, but keep at the goal of making this the best article on the novel possible. --Moni3 (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
...but do not overreact neither. I don't think you should aim at showing "how awesome this book is". Cheers, Face 19:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not overreacting. There are ways and there are ways. I'm not suggesting one edit the article to say "This book is so cool it totally rox!" But enthusiasm for the subject is evident in how well the article is researched and written. --Moni3 (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
<ahem> Tolkien, not Tolkein. :-) (I must help out with this article - I was looking for something to spend time on this weekend!) Carcharoth (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Good article, it's approaching FA status. I have three remarks about the Revisions section:
    • Tolkien altered Bilbo's encounter with the One Ring and Gollum in the second(?) revision. The section mentions this, but the explaination about what was changed is a bit vague (something about how the original was a lie, and how the revision was the truth or something).
    • "In order to make a better tonal fit with its sequel, Tolkien began a new version in 1966, removing the narrative asides. The revision was abandoned at chapter three after Tolkien received criticism that it just wasn't The Hobbit.[26]" What exactly does this mean?
    • The last paragraph mentions the book The History of The Hobbit. This is not exactly a revision, isn't it? Perhaps we should remove that part and mention it briefly at the See also section?
Keep up the good work Davemon! Expect to be rewarded if you are able to get this featured! Cheers, Face 19:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.
  • The book refs, it would be nice to settle on a format that's consistent for them. Some give author (year) title publisher ISBN, some give author title publisher (year) ISBN, some dont' give ISBN, some do. Please format them consistently.
  • Consistentency on either using p as an abbreviation for pages or not in the references would be a good thing.
  • A lot of the following errors would be fixed if you stuck with using the cite family of templates for such things as {{cite web}} {{cite book}} {{cite journal}} {{cite news}} which makes keeping refs consistent much easier.
  • Journals need to be italicised, so Journal of English Studies and Mythlore should be italicised.
  • Current ref 2 "Mythopoeic Fantasy Award..." is lacking a publisher
  • Current ref 13 "The Hobbit sells for 6000 pounds" is formatted inconsistenly with the rest of the article. Also the link shouldn't be just a bare link, it needs to be formatted more than a number.
  • Same for current ref 14 "Walne, Toby "How to make a killing " and current ref 15 "The Hobbit breaks breaks at ..."
  • Current ref 20, J. R. R. Tolkein "the Fellowship of the Ring" can you put it in last name first order to match the rest of the refs?
  • Current ref 21 "Rateliff, John D. "the history of the hobbit" is lacking a publisher and other bibliographic information
  • Current ref 31 "Carpetenr Humprhrey "Tolkein A biography" is lacing a page number
  • Current ref 32 "The Hobbit Major Themese Cliff notes needs to have the link formatted correctly.
  • Current ref 37 needs publisehr and last access date.
  • Current ref 38 Anderson, Douglas, ed. The Annotated Hobbit is lacking a page number
  • Current ref 39 Tolkien Society FAQ is lacking a publisher and last access date.
  • Current ref 41 Anderson, The Annotated Hobbit is lacking page number. Same for currnt ref 47 which is the same name.
  • Current ref 46 Nicol Williamson on IMDB needs publisher and last access date.
  • Current refs 51, 52 and 53 are lacking publisher and last access date.
  • Current ref 50 is just a bald link. Needs all bibliographic information, including a title.
  • Current ref 51 "Photos of a performance during book-week in a school what makes this a reliable source for the fact that a play was written?
  • Current ref 55 "The Hobbit Media Coverage at Production is a dead link, also should be correctly formatted
  • Current ref 57 is lacking publisher, last access date, etc. "Del Toro to take charge of the Hobbit."
  • with current ref http://www.asfa-art.org/chesley/2002/paperback/giancola.html are we linking to a copyright violation? Also it's lacking publisher
  • Current ref 63 "Hobbits set for opera stage ... is lacking publisher and last access date at the very least.
  • Current ref 64 Dean Burry the hobbit in Sarasota is lacking all bibliographic information
  • Current ref 67 "What is MERP?" is lacking publisher and last access date. Also what makes this a reliable source?
  • Current ref 72 Crash Magazine needs to be formatted consistently with the other magazine articles. Link needs a title.
In short, the references are a mess and need some serious clean up to make them consistent with each other. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • MOS
    • A longer and more comprehensive lead would be nice, but not required.
    • Inconsistent date linking. Sometimes you link years, sometimes not. I'd recommend not unless they're part of a full date. Also, I'm fairly sure that decades should be linked.
    • There should be a non-breaking space between a number and the units it's being measured in (if applicable)
    • Inconsistent date formatting - I see a 21 September 1937 in there, but also a September 21, 1937.
    • Both English and British spelling are present in the article - please stick to one.
      • Both American and British? Note that -ize endings are acceptable in UK English, and some claim that Tolkien preferred them (no, I don't have a ref for that!). 4u1e (talk) 09:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Footnotes go after punctuation.
  • Grammar and prose
    • Redundancy - "His journey takes him from light-hearted, rural surroundings and into darker, deeper territory" - is "and" really necessary? There's probably other examples as well, look out for these; these are the hardest things to detect around.
    • Sometimes Dragon is capitalized, sometimes dragon is not. Consistency! Same goes for Elves/elves - High Elves and Deep Elves is fine, but Elves by itself should either be capitalized or not, corresponding to the dragon case.
    • "The group travel into the wild" - should that be "travels"? I'm not all that great at grammar, so I never trust my own judgement.
    • "The goblins and Wargs give chase and the company are saved by eagles before resting in the house of Beorn, the skin-changer." - awkward sentence, possible rephrasing?
    • "In May and June 2007, HarperCollins and Houghton Mifflin published The History of The Hobbit in the United Kingdom. The work examines, in two volumes, previously unpublished original drafts of The Hobbit with extensive commentary by John Rateliff." - isn't it The "History of The Hobbit" on the book cover, and thus, when italicized, be "The History of The Hobbit" (the double italics cancel out - I've seen this done many times)?
  • Other
    • As mentioned above, a genre section would be needed.
    • A paragraph in the "Style" section contrasting the narrative style of this novel of this novel and that of Lord of the Rings would be nice - if sources exist, which I'm fairly sure they do.

All in all, this does need a lot more work for FA - unless you're willing to handle an incredible amount of tedious work and copyediting during this nomination, I'd suggest withdrawing. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment / question
    • Firstly a big thanks to everyone for their time and critiques so far. There are evidentially many points that need to be addressed properly to get the article up to FA standard.
    • Secondarily. There have been several requests for information regarding scholarly sources (there are some in the article, including Mythlore, the Journal of English Studies). The secondary literature on "the Hobbit" is much smaller than that of Lord of the Rings and concepts such as "hobbit"s and Tolkiens influence on Genre (childrens or fantasy) generally refer to the greater work, rather than The Hobbit itself. No comparison of narrative structure between Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit nor scholarly references appear in the FA verion of Lord of The Rings. So my question is - are these actually requirements for an FA version of The Hobbit, or just things people would like to see? Davémon (talk) 10:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I know Awadewit is going to do this, so I apologize if I am stealing her thunder. The MLA International Bibliography and MLA Directory of Periodicals show 182 results of scholarly journal articles involving issues in The Hobbit. They are overall Tolkein writings ("Clashing Mythologies: The Elves of Shakespeare and Tolkien", for example) or specific to some kind of aspect of the stories ("'In the Hilt Is Fame': Resonances of Medieval Swords and Sword-Lore in J. R. R. Tolkien's The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings", for example). But they're there. Are they required or just things people would like to see? That's difficult to answer. But suffice to say that I think the article is incomplete, and these articles could assist in your expansion. They can be found in an academic library, but you can try your local public library to try to assist you with it, too. --Moni3 (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Small point: The Lord of the Rings needs to be taken to featured article review (FAR) for just these reasons - it is lacking a discussion of fantasy, it uses few scholarly sources, etc.. It is not a good model for a literature FA. Using scholarly sources is required, IMO, to fulfill 1c - the article should "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge". Awadewit (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you both for clarifying the points and addressing my questions. The precedent set by the FA LoTR article was one of the reasons I expected that The Hobbit was ready. In light of the literary scope being applied, I agree the LoTR article deserves a review, but haven't the time to put into that project. There is much of value to be found in scholarly literature, yet unfortunately little regarding genre (which has been requested twice) nor specific individual examinations of The Hobbits themes outside a cursory examination in relation to studies of Tolkiens larger works. Nontheless, there is material which would improve the article. --Davémon (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Most of the above, as well as straightforward, but important items like inconsistent British versus American usage and the Lead should be more focused.
    Jim Dunning | talk 18:38, 28 May 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 03:35, 30 May 2008 [3].

[edit] Alan Kulwicki

Self-nomination. I'm nominating the first NASCAR-related article for Featured Status. It has been peer reviewed by several dozen people. The article recently had its referencing signficantly improved to rely on much more reliable and well-known sources. Royalbroil 02:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments. At a quick glance (not having looked at prose at all), I notice some potential problems. The lede should be at least two full paragraphs, and given the length perhaps it should be three. The last three paragraphs of prose are stubby sections. Can any be expanded or merged with others? The paragraphs in 1992 NASCAR Winston Cup championship section are all very long; could any be logically split up? Better non-breaking spacing is needed; it should be Top 10, not Top 10 (see edit window). Every time a number is followed by a word, it should be a non-breaking space. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Non-breakable spaces added. I spent a very large amount of time trying to expand the article and there isn't any more content for any of those 3 sections. He received only so many awards and honors, and a single movie and a planned book. I don't see any good places to put the "lasting impact" section but I'm open to suggestions. The lead has been expanded to three paragraphs. Royalbroil 03:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't the Career honors and awards section be merged with the lasting impact section? Also, in the memorial section, I'd like a source at the end of the third paragraph. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The merge sounds good. I do see a relation between the sections, but I've having trouble with coming up with a concise name. Any suggestions? Royalbroil 13:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I expected to not be challenged for a source for that third paragraph, or to be able to easily find a RS. I can't find one. Apparently the county and city don't advertise the trophy room at all. I took the pictures of the trophies in that room. Please AGF that I didn't deliberately try to break the OR policy. I think that's the only sentences in the entire article without a citation to some type of reference. Do you want the text removed? It has very little controversy. Royalbroil 13:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot about this FAC. The merged section title could be lasting impact, or something fancier like legacy. Also, about that statement, I think it should be removed if no source can be found. If this was for a GA review, I wouldn't mind so much, but for FA status, I would rather be safe than sorry; if a source can be found later, than it can always be re-added. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I found an article from Hooters while looking for a source about the Brooks Pavilion. It describes their founder's donation for the park plus a Kulwicki museum! Royalbroil 04:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! I felt like a real bad guy mentioning that, but that link works. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Other sources look good. Links checked out fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Removed the additional reading link. Is it permissible to use the content from the Orlando Sentinel article and others without linking to this aol website? The frontstretch article was written by Matt McLaughlin bio, who has written the book "Eights and Aces" (google books). More comments to follow. Royalbroil 04:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
If you can physically access the various articles and have read them yourself (not just on the aol page), yes, it is perfectly all right to source things to newspaper articles or magazine articles that are not on the web. You need to give full bibliographical information for them, so for a newspaper that would be author, title, newspaper, date of publication. Same for the magazines, author, title, magazine, and date of publication. The reason I said if you have actually read the articles, is because part of the whole RS and V policies for WP is that the editors don't put in information from sources they haven't actually seen themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The Milwaukee ASA results at ultimateracinghistory.com were taken from Steve Zautke [4]. Zautke's business card [5] says that's he is associated with the Wisconsin Auto Racing Historical Society and that he's a writer. He's a press agent for the Milwaukee Mile [6]. USAC results are extremely hard to find as the series fell out of favor in the early 1980s. The reference only cites the year that Kulwicki started racing in USAC and ASA, which should be non-controversial, so no reference should be needed. Royalbroil 05:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
All information from InsiderRacingNews, FrontStretch, RacingReference, and RacingWisconsin websites have been edited to a less specific version found on a different reliable source or have been removed altogether. It's painfully slow work. I'm still working on addressing the http://members.aol.com/nclubnews pages. Royalbroil 02:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - There are too many links in the citations which repeat each other. For example, NASCAR is linked at least a dozen times in the citations. Same goes for Wisconsin International Raceway, and SPEED Channel. You only need to make a link on the first occurrence of each publisher name. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Removed the overlinking from the citations. Royalbroil 12:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Issues resolved. - Giants2008 (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments - perhaps more later.
    • The "no free image" placeholder is really unsightly.. please just remove it if you don't have an image.
    • Why is there just a line where the infobox reads "Achievements"? He achieved nothing?
    • The lead seems disjointed.. many small sentences and not much flow. It is chronological but that's about all that can be said. It's definitely not compelling.
    • "He worked for two years as an engineer after graduation, and his knowledge of engineering helped him better understand the physics of a racecar, which is often believed to have contributed to his success." This is oddly-worded, reading like "racecar" is what is believed to have contributed to his success.
    • "He first raced on local racetracks as a hobby while in college before becoming a full-time professional racer in 1980." Is "racer" the correct term?
    • "Kulwicki was a devout Roman Catholic his entire life; he showed his faith by racing with a Saint Christopher devotional medal in his racecar." Your source doesn't really back up this sentence. It just says he was Catholic, not that he was "devout", and it says that he had the medal in his car but not that he "showed his faith".
    • "Father Dale Grubba, the priest who had presided over Kulwicki's funeral, is writing an unnamed biography for his friend Kulwicki. The book was used to help write a feature film." Recentism. Is it still being written? How was the book used if it's not written? --Laser brain (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the "no free image" is ugly and unprofessional, so I removed it. A WikiProject NASCAR contributor added the "Achievements" field yesterday to the infobox. I propagated the field for Kulwicki. I worked on the lead paragraphs. Good point on the engineering sentence - I changed it to two sentences and reworded it. "Racer" is a common term for a person who races. Many almost-reliable sources that had referenced this sentence said those words. I toned it back to read close to what this reference says. Father Grubba is still working on the book. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reference article used in the section is true.[7] It says that "Grubba...shared a soon-to-be-published Kulwicki biography with Orgas to help him flesh out the story". I emailed and telephoned Father Grubba in (around) January 2008 and asked if he would be willing to license a picture of his friend Kulwicki for Wikipedia. He said that the book is scheduled to be release in the second half of this year and that he would watch for a picture. He was just starting to work on the pictures at that time. I hope that I have addressed all of your issues. Royalbroil 00:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I still don't get the different between the Achievements and the Awards in the infobox. What you listed under Achievements could be Awards too, right? Also, on the Father Grubba thing, to remedy the recentism you really need a qualifier like, "As of such-and-such date, Father Dale Grubba..." --Laser brain (talk) 05:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I updated the awards vs. achievements fields in the infobox from this discussion. I added the effective date of the last mention of the upcoming book from a reliable source. The book's name is now listed on Grubba's website. Royalbroil 12:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Further comment: I didn't get to dig into the Racing Career heading until just now. I approached it cautiously because the last racing FAC I read had racing jargon. This one has it too (ex. "... Harry Gant won the race on fuel mileage.") and that's not good for a general audience. Can you get a non-racing editor to read through for jargon? --Laser brain (talk) 05:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I had about five non-racing people (some on-wiki and some off-wiki) review the article, including a review by a non-racing fan League of Copyrighters editor. Please dig into it, I have been expecting comments in this area. Royalbroil 20:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm saying I did dig into it and found "won the race on fuel mileage". I don't know what that means. --Laser brain (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I thought that you meant that there were many glaring issues not just one. That sentence had been recently added. I reviewed the source and did some research into the race. He actually finished third beyind Gant and another driver won. I am convinced that the sentence doesn't belong, so I deleted it. Royalbroil 02:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Quick comments I havn't read the whole thing yet, but at first glance, shouldn't his nicknames be in bold? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Why bold them? They are not his common name or stage name. They are nicknames. "The Great One" is not bolded for Wayne Gretzky and "The Professor" is not bolded for Alain Prost. Royalbroil 20:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments. Looks OK.
  • Why is "American" linked?
  • Why H for haemophilia?
  • "His father's work involved travel; he was unable to help Kulwicki at most kart races."—Bit stubby; is there a causal relationship between these two clauses?
  • Milwaukee Mile ref. site: produced by web180.com? Should your ref say that? TONY (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Why shouldn't his country be wikilinked? The capital "H" was removed and the term was changed to the U.S. spelling. Thanks for pointing out the need for the causal relationship - I reworded to show the relationship. I searched the editable text and printed text, and found no mention of web180.com. Which reference are you referring to? Royalbroil 05:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I see what you mean about web180. What's the difference if the Milwaukee Mile hires a professional company to develop (computer programing) and produce their web pages? Many large companies hire specialized consultants to do that work. It's still the Milwaukee Mile's official website and the racetrack controls the content. Royalbroil 03:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I struck my oppose above. If Tony says it looks OK, then it's good enough for me. However, I'm not fully comfortable supporting yet, since I haven't looked at all of it yet. I'll continue my series of nit-picks right now.

  • 1986: Hyphen for one man?
  • 1990s: Hyphen for two car?
  • "Kulwicki was approached by Hooters for a one-race sponsorship deal for Atlanta Motor Speedway at the fourth race." Flip the Speedway and race parts.
  • "Kulwicki had qualified on the pole position for the upcoming racing with the fastest qualifying lap." This sentence needs major revamping.

Real life is calling, so that's all for now. I'll be back soon. Giants2008 (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed all of these issues. They all make sense. I removed the "with the fastest qualifying lap" phrase. I thought it was good to reinforce the concept with the reader, but not if it's confusing. I look forward to your other improvements. Royalbroil 03:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'm finally back. What I want for the last issue above is "upcoming race". Racing is not grammatically correct.
  • 1992 NASCAR Winston Cup championship: "season championship during the season" is redundant. Find a different term for one season.
  • Hyphen for 278 point? Another occurance later.
  • "was probably his undoing". Change the tense to "would probably be his undoing".
  • "second last race". I believe you mean "second-to-last race".
  • "During his first pit stop" Make clear that this is Kulwicki.
  • To avoid a redundancy, change to "he would be guaranteed to lead the most laps and gain five bonus points." The five bonus points are also mentioned two sentences later.
  • "gas and go" is racing jargon. It should be simple enough to state that they only wanted to fill the gas tank.
  • "as the team's fuel man hurried to add the fuel" Redundant again. Try gasoline. A couple more fuels shortly afterward, by the way.
  • Typo: econd.
  • Death: It's not common to state the day of the week when using a date.
I was close to unstriking my oppose, but decided to give the article a chance. The errors I'm seeing here concern me, but I'm sure you can handle them. I also suggest that you find someone to look at the article, and perhaps provide a copy-edit. Best of luck. Giants2008 (talk) 01:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I have addressed all of your comments. I know it is uncommon to state the day of the week along with the date, but the day of the week is importance in racing since most races happen on Sunday. It's there for the racing fans, not the non-fans. The article has had a large number of peer reviews, probably around 15, including a review by someone in the league of copyeditors. Some of these problems have come from the major changes resulting from User:Ealdgyth's review of the references. I'll try to get a few more people to copyedit/review the article after I finish up the few "unreliable" sources left. Royalbroil 03:52, 28 May 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 02:21, 30 May 2008 [8].

[edit] Metroid Prime 3: Corruption

I'm nominating this article for featured article because my other FAC has stalled and has not received any new criticism in a few days, and it also has several Support votes and no Opposes. Gary King (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You have at least four nominations running, and they are all taking large amounts of FAC reviewer resources: please choose two to withdraw. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
<moved to to talk> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - As long as this is still here, I support its candidacy. It is stable, comprehensive, has a very full development section, reliable sources, clear images and is well written. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per Judgesurreal777. I have helped with copyediting, mainly in the plot section, but I'm impressed with both how quickly and how thoroughly this article came together. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. For my previous Metroid experience, I did some things to help this article (VG assessment, first GA nomination, wrote most of the development, and some overall fixing), and it seems good enough to reach FA level. (and maybe if this passes I'll try to turn Metroid Fusion into a GA...) igordebraga ≠ 19:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose, as the article has basic problems with prose (ex. "The game opens with a meeting between Samus, three other bounty hunters, and the Admiral of the Galactic Federation fleet." a few sentences in), in-universe language right in the lead, and game guide language in the Gameplay section. Does not meet 1a and requires a thorough copyedit by an uninvolved editor before closer examination is possible. Heavy reliance on IGN and other web sources cause balance concerns. --Laser brain (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
No it doesn't; using web sources or book sources does not matter as long as they are reliable, and without an assertion that they are unreliable, there is no reason to think using them is a bad thing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not speaking to reliability, I'm speaking to balance. Web sources are largely written by web editors that have a close interest and a strong POV about the topics. You need print sources that have an established editorial process to balance that out. I hope this is more clear. --Laser brain (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
If anyone wants it, I have access to a ProQuest archives account and can email someone possible print sources to use. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Laser brain—just to be clear, under which criterion do you oppose due to a large reliance on web-based sources? Pagrashtak 18:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
1d, neutrality. Print sources tend to be more objective because they have an established editorial process. --Laser brain (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Considering that MP3 is a pretty new game, and it wasn't the target of nearly the same amount of hype as Halo 3 and Super Smash Bros. Brawl, I doubt it'll be nearly as easy to find non-web sources that fit all the WP:V/WP:RS criteria normally required for Featured Articles. I personally don't see a problem with the majority of its sources being web-based, though I will support balancing out those sources if necessary - if we are relying too heavily on sites like IGN, that can be a problem. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually it was quite easy to find non-web sources. Within 30 seconds on Academic Search Premier and InfoTrac OneFile, I found articles from Electronic Gaming Monthly (other than the review you cite), New York Times, Rolling Stone, Daily Variety and others. These all have established editorial processes and should be preferred sources for attaining balance in the article. These results show that the article was "web researched" which is quite prevalent in pop culture articles but is not sufficient. Some leg work through a library is needed. --Laser brain (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
That's all well and good, but I would like to see some proof that video game editors are in some way biased in a way the New York Times is not. We have tons of featured articles without "print sources", and unless you can explain your theory in a compelling way, it sounds like a waste of time. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand your position, trust me. I just disagree. Print sources generally have an established editorial process; web sources generally do not. I am well-accustomed to seeing web sites, especially gaming web sites, flooding writers' job boards with offers to pay per review written and posted to the sites. I'm sorry but a professional journalist employed at a newspaper or magazine is more objective. --Laser brain (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
To say that the New York Times is a "objective" newspaper is laughable and an insult to those who value objectivity. At least list a newspaper that is not openly a liberal propaganda organ. I guess we will agree to disagree, though I assume Sandy will side with you. I still think you should have to establish proof because if you can't, its just a well articulated opinion, not a fact.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
This is all opinion, correct. I tend to base my opinions on WP:WIAFA. --Laser brain (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm surprised you used that argument, the one involving "objectivity", when right in the criteria it says that all significant arguments must be included; that way it makes much more sense to say that the print sources should be included for that reason; I recommend using that argument instead. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Might I just point out that it's both difficult and pointless to try to find a source that is truly objective on a subjective matter. Reviews and reception are, by definition, subjective, so the main defining criterion then should be whether the sites we're quoting from are reliable and representative. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the views on the sources themselves, their use should also be considered. If they are merely verifing simple statements involved in "gameplay" and "development", then I don't see how there could be an opportunity for bias, as that's merely a description of how the game works/was developed. The only problem I could see would be if "reception" was referenced predominantly by IGN, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Saying that, I don't know where KieferSkunk's coming from—by number of magazines, there would be nearly the same number of published material for the game as there would be for any other game. It should be easy to find some, although I'm not commenting on the rationale for including them as opposed to web sources. Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

We can probably just ignore that comment of mine - I think I was more aiming for the idea that I disagree that web sources are any less acceptable than print sources in this field. I was mainly pointing out that MP3 is much newer than, say, FF7 or Pac-Man, so there would likely be less printed material about it to note things like cultural impact, historical influence, etc. But it's not terribly important - what's more important is that the information we DO have in the article be balanced. I don't see a problem with what's there now, except for minor wording issues - the article presents a balanced stance on reception, showing both people who liked the game and people who saw flaws in it. The sources back that up. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment If everyone doesn't mind, can we switch the conversation to what work needs to be done to get this ready? I'm willing to drop the sourcing issue (for now) but there is still the issue of the prose. What progress has been made toward finding a non-video game copyeditor? --Laser brain (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Gameplay should be better now. Gary King (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Just read the Gameplay...seems quite unpolished. E.g. "The Wii Remote functionality allows players to lock on enemies and targets, and then move around them while simultaneously firing anywhere on the screen" --> Treasure trove of redundancies. BuddingJournalist 02:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Some source checking
    • "It was released on August 27, 2007 in North America[1] and on October 26, 2007 in Europe." Both sources were published before the release dates, and were giving expected release dates. Note the disclaimer on one: "Please note that game titles and launch dates are subject to change". References published after the release dates confirming them would be considered more reliable.
    • Page number for "Metroid Prime 3: Corruption Instruction Booklet"?
    • "Nintendo announced that Corruption would not include a multiplayer mode." Source is an interview with the President and CEO of Retro Studios, not some representative of Nintendo. BuddingJournalist 02:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I've addressed the above issues. Gary King (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Not the first one. Your new source for the NA release date does not say that August 27 was the North American release date. The second citation has not changed. BuddingJournalist 00:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—1a, requirement for professional formatting, referencing.

  • Gary, much as we've worked together productively at FLC, I think your stated reasons for nominating this article are unacceptable.
  • Where's this "Europe" thing? Please don't use strange, unexplained terms. Ah, there's a bright-blue link to it: thanks, I'll look it up immediately. Same for "North America"—please write for non-experts.
  • "hired to assist the Galactic Federation during their ongoing conflict"—"its", please, not "their". In the subsequent sentence, "their" refers to something else, which is confusing until you go back to disambiguate. Just remove it from the next sentence.
  • Why choose "utilising", one of the ugliest words in the language, over "using"?
  • Another "their defeat"—strike first word.
  • Indoctrinating—another dictionary word that should not be linked. Please audit the whole text.
  • "Additionally"—oh no; what does it add? Isn't every sentence additional to the text?
  • known as Aurora Units, but called "Phazon" (with quotes). Suggest not.
  • "Ridley, a recurring villain"—awkward, isn't it? Recast.
  • Ref 35: how about telling us that it's an audio "review", not written. Requires extra download. I gave up after the first 15 seconds of rubbishy banter between two guys. When does it get to a statement supporting the claim in our text? Not happy with this method of verification.

Plus lots more that I haven't picked out. BTW, "9 of 10" in the table: should that be "9 out of 10"? Unsure. Some publications are italic, some roman. Perhaps there's a good reason. TONY (talk) 10:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Tony, if I ever return to Wikipedia full-time, it will be because of your wit. Best oppose ever (no offense to the nominator). — Deckiller 01:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Hi, it's me again, I am still clueless about most video games, so here goes:

  • I think this might benefit from a background section (or something) that would detail a little bit what this game is being based off of. For example, there are sentences like "Corruption introduces several new gameplay features", which assume I have an idea what the previous gameplay features were (and I don't). Some of this is in the Setting section under synopsis, but there are still big gaps for people like me.
  • "The vouchers can be sent to friends" - I don't know anything about WiiConnect24, but can this explain, perhaps how you choose the "friends" - do you need an email address, username, etc to know who this goes to or does it just hang out in cyberspace until someone grabs it?
  • Can the comparisons get more detailed here ". It was also slated to have much larger environments than in Echoes and targeted to run at 60 frames per second in the finalized version" - how many frames/second did the last one run and how much larger is the environment
  • I'm a little confused on the timeline here: "The title Corruption and some of the first gameplay footage were first revealed at Nintendo's Media Release at E3 2006. Corruption was slated for the Wii launch in November 2006,[19] but a few months later the game was delayed to 2007" - when was E3 2006? Was the Wii launching in 2006 and Corruption was supposed to launch at the same time? "a few months later " than what?
  • Although the lead states it, in the body of the article it is not made clear that the game is published by Nintendo, although that is implied.
  • Need a citation at the end of each sentence with a quotation, even if the next citation covers that quote (per MOS). See development section and reception for a few issues with this.
  • Is Dragon Ball Z a video game, movie, or cartoon?
  • "this project was only accomplished due to the delay." - does this mean the project of tuning the controller or the project of making the game?
  • "Nintendo of America replied" - a company can't really reply
  • The prose is not horrible, but it is awkward. The prose could easily be tightened by removing some repetition and rewording to be more focused on the meaning. I'd recommend a copyedit.

Karanacs (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Karanacs. I'm not going to try to touch on all of your points, but I think your points above that have to do with not knowing the details of "WiiConnect24", "E3 2006", "new gameplay features", "Dragonball Z", etc., fall outside the scope of Featured Article requirements. It is not up to the Corruption article to describe what Dragonball Z is, or to explain how WiiConnect24 works, or necessarily to give the exact date of E3 2006. The article has (or should have) wikilinks to the other articles, which the reader can follow to answer those questions if he/she is interested in them. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
It's definitely not your job to describe in detail. However, brief descriptions are sometimes necessary so that the article is not too jargony. For example, just adding "the movie" or "the videogame" as a descriptor in front of Dragonball Z would be enough to clarify what it is. To be an FA, an article should be accessible to someone unfamiliar with the topic, and this article assumes that the reader is very familiar with video games (or at least video games for the Wii). The jargon needs to be better explained. Karanacs (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a good example of why I've been requesting a non-gamer copy-edit from the start. Unfortunately, this seems to be a sticking point for more than one video game FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 20:19, 27 May 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 02:21, 30 May 2008 [9].

[edit] Facebook

previous FAC


I'm nominating this because I think it has reached or is near FA status. Gary King (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Guyinblack25 (talk · contribs)
  • Comments: I haven't done a full reading of the article, but after a quick glance a few issues stood out to me.
    1. In the "Features" section some of it reads like proseline. Specifically in the later half of it, each paragraph is segmented by a specific date.
      Fair enough; any suggestions as to how to improve it, though? Merging them might not work because each paragraph discusses a separate feature, and I would consider the dates to be fairly important for each feature. Gary King (talk) 06:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    2. There were a lot of instances—mostly in the "Controversy" section—of "so and so cited that", "this organization stated that the", "they noted that it", etc. The "that" is not really necessary.
      Very good point. Addressed. Gary King (talk) 06:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
      A bit late for this, but I must say, the "that"s are quite necessary for proper English in the examples that Guyinblack25 cite above. I was wondering while reading through the article why "that"s were missing. BuddingJournalist 01:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    3. The lead mentions about the sites popularity, but there is no section in the article for it. I'd expect to read some kind of reception infor about a site as well known as Facebook.
      I'll see what I can do. Gary King (talk) 06:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
If I have time, I'll try to give the article a thorough reading, but I hope these comments will help improve the article. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC))
  • Further comments: Quite an informative read. I've never used Facebook before, but have heard about it from friends and in the new. It looks like some of my initial concerns have been addressed and the article is shaping up nicely. After giving it a more thorough read, here are some concerns I'd like to see addressed before supporting.
    1. The lead does not seem to fully summarize the article. It mainly just feels a bit unbalanced.
      • There is no mention of the web site's features, even though there is a sizable section dedicated to them.
      • Maybe include a small mention of the content from the "Funding" section.
      • The mention of the controversies seems small compared to the size of the section.
      • Likewise, the reception information seems much too big compared to the size of the section. (May not be an issue if you're still expanding the section.
    2. In the "Website" section.
      • It might be good to mention that the image is the default homepage.
      • The info about the "2006 study conducted by Student Monitor" the "Website" section seems better suited for the "Reception" section.
      • "...exclusive partner for serving banner advertising. This means that Facebook only serves advertisements..." Personally, I think "This meant that..." is not exactly encyclopedic phrasing, could you reword it? Maybe "...serving banner advertising, and as such Facebook only serves..."
    3. Regarding the "Features" section.
      • "Tags" didn't really seem to click when I read and reread it. Though the wikilink provided enough explanation, so this may not be an issue.
      • The last paragraph looks like it would be better suited at the beginning of the section rather than the end. Something to give readers more overview information to start with.
      • In the "Platform" section, this sentence sounds a bit off. "...which involves Facebook applications "spamming" users to request that the application be installed." Is the application doing the spamming the same one being requested to be installed, or are the spamming application and the application being advertised different? Or are there cases of both?
    4. In the "Controversy" section
      • Regarding the "use of the university's credentials for non-university business" that was later "rectified", can you elaborate a bit more on what was done?
      • "...allowed users to 'deactivate' their accounts. This meant that their profile was no longer..." Same as above though I don't think "as such" is appropriate here.
    5. The "Reception section looks like it mainly repeats the content in the lead, and only adds a little bit extra. Is it possible to find more information? (May not be an issue if you are still expanding it)
    6. What do the NYT and Mashable external links offer that the article doesn't already? I only briefly skimmed them and they look to offer the same info.
Hope this helps some. I've added the article and this FAC to my watchlist, so I'll check back in later. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC))
I've addressed all of your concerns. Please re-check the article to ensure that your issues have been addressed correctly. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
After another read through, there are a few minor issues I noticed
  • In the lead, I think "The free-access website allows users to join networks such as a school, place of employment, or geographic region..." does not accurately convey the intended idea. Perhaps, "...users to join networks organized by school, place of employment, or geographic region..."
    I actually reworded it so that it reflects the exact same wording that appears on Facebook. Gary King (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • There are a some acronyms (MIT and NME) that should have their full name listed instead of the letters.
    Expanded a few acronyms including MIT, NYU, etc. but I would have to argue about NME because that's what it's known as (check NME and you will see that the article's title is NME for that reason.) Gary King (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The image in the "Website" section should probably say it's the default homepage. I didn't know that until I clicked on the website's link.
    Reworded. Let me know what you think. Gary King (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Is it possible to find more reception content?
    I'll see what I can find but a lot of Facebook news is usually not about how popular it is, but I'll see what I can dig up. Gary King (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
That's about all I think of. The article has shaped up nicely. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC))
  • Support: All my concerns have been addressed. The article is well-written and comprehensive, and the sources seem to be in order. Looks to be of FA quality to me. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC))
  • You guys did some serious work here. A month ago, the article wasn't so nicely fleshed out. When I saw this nomination, I was seriously confused. I have to say "kudos to you" (the references are flawless). I'll probably come back some time later to point out more specific issues, but for now:
      1. The Stefanie Rengel image claims fair-use, but it has considerably higher resolution that necessary.
        Shrunk Gary King (talk) 06:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
      2. The image caption: "On Facebook, a login screen is shown for users who are not logged in," just seems awkward. "The Facebook homepage shows a login screen for current users at the left and an "advertisement" on the right which includes multiple reasons to join Facebook." My example isn't perfect, but something describing the page instead of simply "login screen" needs to be added. In my opinion, that caption is kind of boring, and 'log' is repetitive.
        Done Gary King (talk) 06:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thats all I have for now. Good job! --haha169 (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. What really lacks in website-related articles, is good and detailed information and analysis of traffic. I know this kind of info is hard to find, but it consists a major issue concerning websites. Anyways, you did write about traffic in the lead, but there is no mention of it in the body, which is a violation of WP:LEAD. Eklipse (talk) 07:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I created a new section called 'Reception' containing this information. Gary King (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Gary King, I fixed the incorrect threading; you might consider responding below the reviewer comments to avoid the messed up threading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
It was 2:30 am for me so I was a bit tired, and just responded with the regular indents. I know how to do the proper indents, though, so I'll continue doing that. Cheers. Gary King (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Why the subsection "Funding" is in the history??--Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 11:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Because it plays a big part of the History of the company. It was originally part of the rest of the History section but was then moved out because it had its own theme. Gary King (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not a big fan of the criticism section. I think it should be broken down by topic, which would be more informative and neutral. For example, a topic "privacy" covering privacy features (touching on beacon), privacy criticism, etc would be a much better treatment of the topic than only covering criticism of privacy in the criticism section. The section on the connectU lawsuit could be moved into the history section, etc. 140.247.241.177 (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Also the screenshot of the memorial group fails NFCC8, because we can understand the concept perfectly well w/o seeing a picture of it. 140.247.241.177 (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments.

"post messages to these friends" would work better...

  • "Pokes for sending virtual "pokes"" - um...but what's a poke?
    • I don't see this resolved. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 04:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
      • It's resolved in the body. The lead is just to introduce it. Gary King (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Privacy has also been an issue of the website, and it has been compromised several times by separate parties." - you mention privacy a sentence or two up
  • "Initially, the News Feed caused dissatisfaction among Facebook users: some complained that the News Feed..." - use more variety...change second News Feed to "it", perhaps...
  • "Facebook has been involved in a number of controversies" - duh moment....is this really necessary to say?
  • "so they were "restricting access to it"." - you could end the sentence without this, you've already said it's restricted
  • Why was it banned in Burma and Bhutan? You've only mentioned Syrian and Iran.
    • They're still mentioned in the lead. Please don't remove their mention; add information. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 04:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The information was unreferenced and I don't know if they were true or not. Gary King (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It feels like there should be more reception information...surely there's more out there?
  • Is an NME award that big a deal, considering it's a music magazine?
  • External link could have a slightly better description

dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 03:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

All done. Please recheck. Gary King (talk) 04:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments I looked at the sourcing of this article during its last peer review, and nothing serious looks to have changed since then. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sweet :) Gary King (talk) 04:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Prose, especially some misleading and poorly worded parts. Examples:
    • "Pokes for sending virtual "pokes"" Having this in the lead with no explication of what "pokes" are will be confusing to non-Facebook members. I'd suggest removing it from the lead (where retail space is limited and explications should be avoided) and just leaving the description of it in the body.
    • "The website has more than 69 million active users worldwide." As of? What does "active" mean?
    • "Facebook has met with some controversy related to its founders' political views" Really? Nothing below on the founders' political beliefs. Link goes to a short, fuzzy section at Criticism of Facebook, which describes the political views of Peter Thiel, who is an investor, not a founder of Facebook. Additionally, the section and sources provided give little evidence as to a "controversy" regarding a connection between Thiel's political views and Facebook.
    • the website - This redundant phrase is used throughout the article and only serves to clutter sentences.
    • "while attending Harvard University." What year was Zuckerberg?
    • "Facebook later expanded" Dates? Later is quite ambiguous. Some form of "expand" is used three times in two sentences.
    • "and all Ivy League schools within two months." Within two months from April? Awkward placement, which makes for an awkward sentence.
    • Andrew McCollum - Who is he? A fellow student? Friend? What was his role?
    • "Zuckerberg launched the high school iteration" Iteration?
    • "Within 15 days, a Facebook account was the only requirement to join high school networks." Confusing. What was the process for getting a Facebook account then, if it's the only requirement?
    • "It was discovered that..." Why the passive here? Leads me to wonder, "by whom?".
    • "Microsoft announced on October 24, 2007 it had bought a 1.6% share of Facebook for $246 million" Why are there four references for this simple fact? Affects readability. A "that" would ease readers.
    • "Facebook reportedly declined an offer of $750 million, and it was rumored the asking price rose as high as $2 billion." Offer from whom?
    • "based on their projected revenues of $1 billion by 2015, comparable to Viacom's MTV brand and based on shared target demographic audience." Dual "based on" construct is awkward, and it is unclear what the latter one is modifying.
    • In the second paragraph of funding, the timeframes are unclear. "With the sale of social networking website MySpace to News Corp," Date? "Other companies, including Google," Date? "Zuckerberg said," Context?
    • "Users can also connect to friends" Is this the correct preposition here?
    • "which only contains advertisements that have been pre-approved by Microsoft and have an existing agreement established between Microsoft and the advertiser." Is this truly necessary? Makes for an awkward sentence.
    • "When compared with other web companies, Facebook collects as much data from its visitors as Google and Microsoft" This statement is based on an specific analysis with a specific methodology, which should be stated.
    • "and Status, which allows users to inform their friends of their whereabouts and actions" As far as I can recall, Status was never part of the original website, but I may be wrong. In any case, as far as I can see, the sources given for these features do not back up the claim that these were part of the original website.
    • "It then began allowing" Then meaning when? "began allowing" or just "allowed"? "This newly added feature also included the common blog feature of allowing" Why "newly"? Give specific dates instead of terms that will become dated. Tiresome repetition of "feature" throughout this sentence and paragraph.
    • I'm stopping here, about half-way through the article. Much to be done. BuddingJournalist 14:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I have copyedited the article. Please take another look at it. Gary King (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Although I haven't yet reread the article, I'm striking out for now in case the article has been much improved. BuddingJournalist 17:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Still an oppose Prose is still awkward in many places. Structure of sections is often odd. Examples:
  • "A cash flow statement was leaked, showing that during the 2005 fiscal year, Facebook had a net loss of $3.63 million." Awkward passive. Leads to readers asking: "Was leaked by whom?"
  • Funding section is all over the place, chronologically.
  • Why does the Features section begin with a short and incomplete comparison between it and MySpace?
  • "Facebook has a number of features for users to interact with." "Over time, Facebook has added several new features to its website." Throw-away generic sentences. Note the presence yet again of the redundant "website".
  • "a News Feed was announced, which appears " Conflict between past (passive again, too) and present.
  • "while others were concerned [that would ease readers here] it made it too easy for other people to track down individual activities (such as changes in relationship status, events, and conversations with other users" Reader has to keep track of the relationships between the various "others".
  • "Marketplace has been compared to Craigslist by CNET, which points out..." Try reading this sentence out loud.
  • "Gifts, allowing users..." Isn't Gifts already explained earlier?
  • "when its growth had fallen " Why is the perfect used here? Why not the straightforward and stronger "its growth fell"? In fact, the prose uses perfect tense in odd spots throughout. "Application spam has been considered..." Unattributed passive. Source given for this sentence does not contain any of its claims. I hope this is just a random mistake.
  • "they asked him to build for them." Context? When? Where they fellow Harvard students at the time? First source does not match the title/author/publisher given. Again, I hope this is just a random mistake. I'm a bit concerned though...the two sources I randomly checked had errors.
  • "The Syrian government cited the ban was on the premise that..." BuddingJournalist 01:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Source checking Changing to strong oppose. I was concerned about the sources from my findings above, so I decided to do a more thorough check:
  • "More than 70 million people worldwide visited the website in April 2008." Does not match source.
  • "The company dropped The from its name after purchasing the domain name facebook.com in 2005" What is the source for this? The given "source" is just the homepage of "facebook.com" before it became the current Facebook.
  • "Press Room. Facebook (January 1, 2007)." Title and publication date are incorrect.
  • "This expansion continued from April to June when it opened to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Boston University, Boston College, Northeastern University, and all Ivy League schools" Does not match given source.
  • "At the end of the school year, Zuckerberg and Moskovitz moved to Palo Alto, California." Does not match source. Source says that Facebook moved its base of operations.
  • "Zuckerberg called it "the next logical step"" Source does not put this in quotation marks. A big no-no! You cannot attribute this to him in quotation marks when he did not say this. Source also says the high school version launched in September 2005. No exact date given.
  • "Initially, high school networks required an invitation to join, but this was changed fifteen days later to allow anyone to join." Given source says nothing about this.
  • "By the end of the year, more than 2,000 colleges and over 25,000 high schools throughout seven countries including the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom had networks on Facebook" I could not find these statistics in either of the given sources.
  • "Facebook had expanded membership eligibility to employees of 10 preselected companies by April 26, 2006, including Amazon.com, Apple Inc., and Microsoft." Nothing this specific in the given source. Only states that: "Currently, to join Facebook, you have to be associated with...[a] recognized company such as Microsoft or Apple".
This is all from the lead and the first two paragraphs of the History section; this means that a majority of the references in this part of the text had issues. This is quite disconcerting, to say the least. BuddingJournalist 01:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Is work progressing on this article? I see that the nominator has been active the past four days on Wikipedia, but has done nothing to address these issues. If nothing is going to be done, I will consider asking the other editors who have commented/supported here to revisit the article in light of the sourcing issues I highlighted above. BuddingJournalist 16:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll get to these later today. Gary King (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, per my GA review. I'd like to say that I strongly disagree with the removal of all the "that"s. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Image:Facebook.png does not have all of the "necessary components" required per WP:RAT (e.g. portion used, replaceability, etc.) Otherwise, images appear appropriately tagged and/or supported by NFCC (I agree with the removal of the "memorial" image). An image of an actual profile may be preferable to the "homepage" image, but is a matter on which reasonable people could disagree. Not caring either way, I offer it only as thought. (I realize there could be privacy issues; I write with the assumption that a "John Doe" profile could be created or doctored). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Rationale updated for that image. Gary King (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note, I'm sorry to see that Buddingjournalist had to bow out; please try to find someone to have another pass at the prose. I'm not a prose guru, so when I can spot issues, work is needed :-) Passive voice without attribution: Concerns have also been raised regarding the difficulty of deleting user accounts. More passive voice: Within a few months of launching the Facebook Platform, issues arose ... Many instances of consecutive paragraphs with similar phrasing, that lull the reader to sleep: Several concerns have emerged ... and Concerns have also been raised ... Due to its popularity ... and Due to the open nature ... Facebook launched starting two paragraphs, one after the other, and there's a third. Grammatical errors: with another hundred created everyday. Redundancies: Over time, Facebook has added ... These are just examples I found indicating the prose needs another run through by independent party. Perhaps Buddingjournalist can be enticed back ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm here! I've just been busy, so I struck out my oppose tentatively in case the article had been improved and my oppose from before the changes was no longer valid. I was planning on re-reading the article though. 00:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


Not happy—1a and trivial links all over the place, which fail to meet the requirement of "professional" formatting: "privately", "undergraduate", etc. Why dilute the important ones? Here are pot-shot examples throughout; needs unfamiliar eyes to sift through all of the text.

  • "high school version"—hyphen easier to read, even in AmEng.
  • "$12.8 million in venture capital from Accel Partners, and then $25 million more from Greylock Partners"—Why both "then" and "more"?
  • Scrub-up required: "Microsoft is Facebook's exclusive partner for serving banner advertising,[31] and as such Facebook only serves advertisements that exist in Microsoft's advertisement inventory"—"Only" as late as possible, please (you tell us where ...). Comma probably better, after "such". Is "serving" the right word? (I may be wrong on that.) "Exist" is ugly and over-elaborate; what's a plain replacement for it? TONY (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


Oppose I've tried several times to review this article and each time I just can't seem to do it. I think that might be a reflection of its writing, which seems to be lacking, particularly in the lead. The lead should be strong and engaging right from the first sentence, and state why the site is notable, and secondarily, why it should deserve a featured article. I find the article right now a gathered list of facts, that though they may be accurate, don't flow together to give an entire picture of the site or the organizers.

  • For instance, the first paragraph in Funding: the first two sentences report how much money was given to Facebook (I had to click on angel round to see what it was, and that should be clarified in the article), but the third sentence reports how much the company lost in a leaked statement. Is the purpose of that sentence to explore commercial leaks? Is it to point out the company lost money? If so, why is it not followed up in the rest of the paragraph? Why did it lose so much money?
  • I think the article would benefit greatly by including topic sentences in sections and paragraphs. Funding for Facebook has shown to be (adjective) since (time) because of (reason)., or something similar. Then go into detail supporting it.
  • A quote from a news story or magazine about the characteristics of the website would be a great opening to the Website section, instead of jumping into its features.
  • A sentence proclaiming how the Facebook platform is significant and unique (with a quote, too) before describing the platform would be excellent. These kinds of additions help to make the article more cohesive. Although you're not telling a story because it's an article about a contemporary thing, you kind of are telling a story. It's what makes a featured article so neat to read is when you realize something you considered to be really banal (or in this case, something you use every day) just engaged you for an hour and made you think about it in ways you hadn't previously. I think it won't take much to fix the article to make it better, and I look forward to reading it. Good luck. --Moni3 (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - issues with references and prose as per BuddingJournalist and Tony. I have noticed some things in particular:

  • The lead doesn't fully summarize the article as per WP:LEAD.
  • "Due to its popularity, Facebook has met with some controversy." - It might be the lead, but this is ambiguous and simply tagged onto the end of the lead. Not descriptive and doesn't flow with rest of the lead.
  • "Facebook launched a high school version on September 2, 2005; Zuckerberg called it "the next logical step"" - A "high school version"? I suppose you mean a version which added high schools, or a version intended for high school students.
  • "Facebook had expanded membership eligibility to employees of 10 preselected companies by April 26, 2006, including Amazon.com, Apple Inc., and Microsoft.[12]" - Signs of redundancy. Try instead (notice company names moved before the date): "Facebook expanded membership eligibility to employees of 10 preselected companies including Amazon.com, Apple, Inc and Microsoft by April 26, 2006."
  • "Facebook finally became open to everyone " - Is it me, or does this sound very informal?
  • Funding section is awkard to read. "Blah blah invested ... into Facebook" is repeated in various forms. Why not alternate between Facebook and 'the company' (or simply don't say either, since the reader already knows that all these investments were in Facebook)
  • Reception section seems very short, especially for such a well-known and popular website.
  • Please get an editor new to the text to copyedit it.
  • See Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Members for lists of copyeditors who can help you.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:15, 29 May 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 by User:Elcobbola 16:46, 29 May 2008 [10].

[edit] Lewis Hamilton

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that this article is written to a high standard of english and is lengthy and yet still to the point and concise as described inWikipedia:Featured_article_criteria.

Discuss PheonixRMB (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Concensus Withdrawl FAC No Need to continue. Perhaps I just got the wrong end of the stick. Thanks for your help of everyone above and with this level of scrutinty and oversight I think Wikipedia is in safe hands. I will endeavor to use this information you have passed on and understand everyones' feelings about drive-by-nominations, to which I am guilty as charged. Thank you to Mr Davies for alternative suggestions.-- MESSAGE ENDS --. PheonixRMB (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


  • Oppose because his career is still active i don't think it can be fully comprehensive --Hadseys 22:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment There isnt any guidlines suggesting you should be retired, could you elaborate further? For instance I nominated him based on how good the article is, his acheivements so far and the notability of some of the comments from other drivers (ie Michael Schumacher). Other than that you do have fair comment PheonixRMB (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It's just that one of my FAC's got rejected because the person was still in office --Hadseys 10:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't care that he is an active driver. I do care, though, that the article seems rushed here. I'll list some problems below.

  • Numerous one and two-sentence paragraphs. Surely most of these can be combined or expanded.
  • One of the aforementioned single-sentence paragraphs is opening the lead, leading me to believe that the lead should be expanded. I don't see anything from Personal and early life in the lead, a violation of criterion 2a, which states that the lead should summarize the topic.
  • Inconsistent reference formatting, a violation of 2c. Retrival dates are given in a few different ways, and a couple refs are bare links with no publisher information. I also see a couple other formatting errors.
  • Current reference 41 has an unreliable source tag. Things like this should always be taken care of before coming here. I also see other questionable sources, which I'm sure Ealdgyth will comment on further.
  • A massive number of books listed here. Why are none of them used as sources? It's certainly not a requirement, but they may contain additional information that could be useful.
  • Taking a quick look at the prose: "After winning the British Formula Renault, European Formula Three and GP2 championship" Aren't three titles plural, meaning "championships"? Very long sentence following this; I would make the semi-colon a period to break it up.
  • Personal and early life: Three straight paragraphs start with Hamilton. The last two start with dates. Can some variation please be added? Remember that the prose has to be "engaging, even brilliant" per criterion 1a.

I don't think this should be here yet, as I'm finding a lot of major issues early on. It needs a lot of work to become featured in this candidacy. Giants2008 (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay. Several sites are showing deadlinking with the link checking tool, please double check them. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Thank you for the feedback so far. I think I know which way this is going to go but I welcome anymore Feedback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PheonixRMB (talk • contribs) 11:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose
  • Not a bad article by a long way, but still plenty of work to do for FA status
    • Problems with ref 41 already raised above. But surely massively out of date too? Has the book not been published? Also if you look its a random out of place fact in the middle of an F1 season summary.
    • "Other Formula One drivers, including world champions Michael Schumacher, Kimi Räikkönen and Fernando Alonso, also live in Switzerland.[11]" My thought while reading it was 'so??'
    • Noticed one "couldn't" - change to 'could not' and check for other such abbreviations
    • Intro says he is "British Mixed-Race" - later link to "Blacks" - which is inconsistent and the latter is a disambig.
    • Overall writing could be tighter. e.g:
      • "He has stated that he wants to stay in the McLaren team for the rest of his F1 career" could be "He has stated that he wants to stay at McLaren for the rest of his F1 career"
      • "His Mercedes-Benz was also impounded." a 6 word sentence which could be incorporated into prev.
      • "In January 2008, Hamilton signed a new 5-year multi-million pound contract" - Is a one sentence paragraph. Not ideal. Saying its 5 year and until 2012 is redundant, just say in jan 2008 he extended his contract to 2012. Also "multi-million" is vague, do we not know the exact figure? Even a reliable source estimation, e.g. from one of the UK broadsheets would be useful.
    • Unnecessary links maybe. pitlane? pitstop?
    • " did not start well for Hamilton" or "after getting off to a bad start " - just describe the event (i.e. had a huge crash in practice/lost 5 places by the first corner etc.), leave the reader to decide what's good/bad.
    • Overlinking. Just link 1st instance - Nürburgring (2) Ferrari (3) Alonso (5) Kimi (5) Schumacher (3) FIA (3) Williams (3) Silverstone (3) Rosberg (2). These just a few I spotted, check for more. Mark83 (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that the nominator had not made any edits to the article prior to placing it here, according to the edit counter. Phoenix made one edit to remove a second infobox, but I don't see any of the issues raised here being addressed. Hamilton's talk page has no messages notifying regular contributors of the impending FAC, and there are no messages on any relevant project pages. I'm starting to question whether this is a drive-by nomination. Giants2008 (talk) 03:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Unless any of the principal editors or the nominator object, this article seems appropriate for withdrawal as a premature nomination. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:09, 29 May 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 00:14, 28 May 2008 [11].

[edit] Magic Johnson

This article was the Collaboration of the Month for WP:NBA, and after a lot of edits, I think it is ready to be a FA. Fire away. Noble Story (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Articlestats:

Chensiyuan 366
Downwards 84
Noble Story 81
Zagalejo 44
Onomatopoeia 44

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • You list a number of english language printed biographies of MJ, but the main printed references used are in German? Certainly it's not an oppose, but wouldn't it make more sense to source things to the large numbers of English language works also?
Other sources look good. Links checked out fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The original editor who put in those references is no longer here, so I don't know why he did that. I'll work on replacing those refs; there aren't too many of them. Noble Story (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe he's German and he's still around WP, just not very frequently. Chensiyuan (talk) 03:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I am the original editor of those "German" edits and still alive. When I kicked this article to GA level, those two German basketball books were my first sources of info. If you can substitute these bits, ok, if you keep them in, also ok. —Onomatopoeia (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support -- one of the collaborators, but focused more on minor edits. Chensiyuan (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support comparable to Yao Ming and Tim Duncan, both FAs in WP:NBA range. I did not work much for FAC, but I did a chunk of work for getting this article to GA. —Onomatopoeia (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support -- agree with the above sentiments; comparable quality to that of the Tim Duncan and Yao Ming featured articles. Good referencing. Boomtish (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
done, I fixed the problem. —Chris! ct 18:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Great job to everyone who work very hard improving the article. —Chris! ct 17:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Surely those of you who have posted "support" thus far realize that this is not a vote, and have carefully compared this article to the featured article criteria before commenting? --Laser brain (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Those who have posted thus far are relatively experienced editors. I believe they have watched the progress of this article over the last year or so. Almost all of them have worked on FAs before so they would be aware of the criteria. Chensiyuan (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I know this is not a vote - sorry if my comment above sounds like a vote. —Chris! ct 02:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Just adding a reminder of the instructions at WP:FAC: If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
            • I do believe all had indicated beforehand, and since Downwards is not in the mix, this notice is otiose. Chensiyuan (talk) 01:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments - A very good article, but still some small issues.

  • This is really nit-picky, but should the MVP awards be reversed? Many would consider a regular season MVP to be of greater importance. I see the same thing later with All-Rookie and NBA All-Star starter. It just seems strange to me that the seemingly more important honor comes second. Is this a standard?
    • You have a point, but the NBA Wikiproject members are still in the midst of deciding how to standardise the look of the infoboxes. There is no fixed standard yet, it's a work in progress.
      • I meant the text, not the infobox. While I'm here, "both an All-Rookie and NBA All-Star starter" is somewhat misleading, because he didn't start a game as an All-Rookie selection. I'd suggest rewording this. Giants2008 (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • NBA 50 Greatest Players. Should NBA be plural?
  • "remains the NBA's all-time leader in that statistical category." Is statistical really needed? It almost seems redundant.
    • Never mind. I saw another FAC that uses this phrase, so I guess it is an accepted form, although I wouldn't describe it like that myself. Giants2008 (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "which he made public in 1991, and which caused him to retire temporarily." Two uses of "which" here. Try this: "causing him to retire temporarily."
    • Plausible enough.
  • Michigan State University: Change TV to television.
  • "Johnson again led Michigan State to the 1979 NCAA Tournament" reads like they played in it twice. Moving a couple words should fix this.
    • Del'd "1979" but the piped link remains.
  • Link Most Outstanding Player.
    • Didn't realise there was an article for this, thanks for pointing out.
  • Rookie season in the NBA: Another nit-pick, but was Gail Goodrich really a star? He was a very good player, but star may be pushing it. Just describing his position would be safer.
    • 5-time All-Star and Hall of Famer, not too shabby!
  • "to win against the San Diego Clippers" "To defeat" is cleaner.
    • Yes, I suppose.
  • team mates is a term I've seen used in different forms. Should this have a dash or be combined into one word?
    • The online dictioaries I've checked have it as one word. So, I think we should keep it that way. Noble Story (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "and with Paul Westhead replacing coach McKinney as a coach after a serious bicycle crash,".
    • Del'd. Have to run, would return later or maybe some other editor can address the remaining points. Chensiyuan (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "suffered in Game 5" could be "during Game 5". Giants2008 (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I think Chensiyuan and I have covered everything. Noble Story (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I left a note after my first comment, so make sure to check that. Here are more criticisms.
  • Johnson returned before the start of 1981 playoffs" The 1981 playoffs.
  • "In Game 1 of that series, Johnson made a halfcourt buzzer-beater to force the game into overtime, but the Rockets won the game and closed out the series 2–1, with the road team winning each game by six points or less." This statement needs serious work. There are four games in this sentence, and the middle should be "eventually closed out" or similar. This is also a borderline run-on sentence, with a lot of different thoughts jammed in.
  • Ups and downs: Link Jerry Buss
  • "even by the Lakers fans." Either remove the or add an apostrophe to Lakers.
  • Rivalry with Larry Bird and the Celtics: Try this for the first two sentences: "Boston Celtics forward Larry Bird, Johnson's rival from the 1979 NCAA championship game. After winning the 1980 NBA Rookie of the Year Award, Bird led the Celtics to the 1981 NBA title."
  • "Johnson had another all-round season" seems like it's missing a descriptive word, like fine, strong or solid.
  • Kevin McHale missed his shot" is a factual error; he missed a pair of free throws.
  • "another two gaffes" could be "two more gaffes" but this is personal preference.
  • Game 7: "and the series was over" is an odd transition. I like ", effectively ending the series."
  • 1984-85: Comma after regular season, before a citation that currently isn't after punctuation.
  • "as they were defeated 148–114 on Memorial Day in Game 1" Don't like the order of this. Swap some of it around. Giants2008 (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Done (except for Buss link, which was already linked in the rookie section). Noble Story (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Can we make the Twin Towers link go to the sports section of the article? I must say, it's a bit strange now to see this old nickname. It reminds me of 9/11.
  • Repeat and falling short: "After splitting the first six games 3–3" Redundant. What other way would they be split evenly? Also mention Game 7 in the next sentence.
  • Is Magic's first All-Star MVP award worthy of mention?
  • HIV announcement and Olympics: Link AIDS.
  • Comma after Karl Malone.
  • Post-Olympics and later life: "Johnson purchased a share of his Lakers" Technically, they weren't his Lakers until he bought them. I get what this means, but I think it can be worded better.
  • Personal life, last sentence of first paragraph: A lot of ands here.
  • Grammar error: "and he has served as a United Nations Messengers of Peace." Giants2008 (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Some comments I'll add them as they come to mind:
Resolved comments hidden. Zagalejo^^^ 17:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Since then, he has been a crusader for HIV/AIDS prevention and safe sex, as well as a philanthropist for social causes.
Is "crusader" the best word to use? And what specific "social causes" are we referring to?
I've changed to "advocate" and just "philanthropist". Noble Story (talk) 05:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Advocate is good. But is there really a difference between being an advocate for certain causes and being a philanthropist? What sort of things do you specifically have in mind when you call Johnson a philanthropist, and how are they different from his safe sex/AIDS awareness activities? Zagalejo^^^ 05:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
In other words, advocacy and philanthropy are not mutually exclusive.Zagalejo^^^ 07:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • A general point: we use the term "Showtime" throughout the article, but we don't really explain what it means until the legacy section. We should probably discuss the topic earlier. Zagalejo^^^ 00:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It used to be. Lost in a heap of edits. Thinking of how to avoid repetition. Chensiyuan (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm finding this edit to be challenging. Any takers? Chensiyuan (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Johnson was still voted into the 1992 NBA All-Star Game, although his former teammates Byron Scott and A.C. Green said that Johnson should not play...
Does anyone have exact quotes of what Scott and Green said? This is for my curiosity more than anything else. Were they respectful toward Johnson, or real snarky?
The source used (Sports Illustrated article) don't have any quotes, so sorry. Noble Story (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's likely their exact quotes are available somewhere. Might be good to dig them up. Zagalejo^^^ 02:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This article has some interesting quotes.--Crzycheetah 09:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • How did other players react to Johnson's 1996 comeback? I'm sure there's lot to say about that. That would be more interesting to readers than simple statistics.
  • Just one sentence about The Magic Hour? A brief description of the show wouldn't hurt.
  • Johnson's admission and subsequent campaigns publicized a risk of infection that included everyone.
"publicized a risk of infection" is awkward. Isn't there a more straightforward way of saying this?
  • However, his appearances were not without controversy, as some felt his message of safer sex was risky..
Elaborate? What did they want -- abstinence-only education, I presume?
Well, now that part has been deleted. But I think this could be worth mentioning, if we can figure out exactly what they were opposed to. The article is a bit skimpy on the HIV-awareness stuff. Zagalejo^^^ 17:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I should note that these comments are not meant to be comprehensive. I still haven't even read the entire article yet, and I haven't read any specific section more than twice. The way things are going, I think I'll cast my vote for oppose, but I'll continue to provide commentary until the FAC is over. Zagalejo^^^ 17:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak support has improved considerably since its GA days but it lacks a "wow" factor somewhat. Well done nonetheless. Manderiko (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Mind...expanding on that a bit? Any particular concerns would be welcome. Noble Story (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It's comprehensive and well-referenced, yes, but see criterion 1a of "brilliant" and "engaging" prose. Even now, it's a very stats/awards-based sort of article, as the GA editor had remarked some time back. He is "Magic" Johnson after all, but this article does not fully convey that feeling. Manderiko (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Okaaay, thank you for your comments. But still, any specific instances to point to? Noble Story (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I think his comments mean that seeking specific instances would be chimerical. Chensiyuan (talk) 04:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I do think there are a lot of ultra-specific statistics that may not mean much to the average reader. Like, "He also joined Wilt Chamberlain and Oscar Robertson as the only NBA players to score at least 700 points, 700 rebounds and 700 assists in the same season." (That example is also syntactically screwy - you don't score rebounds or assists.) Zagalejo^^^ 17:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
That he recorded 700x3 per se is not immediately impressive, but the fact that only two other players have done it is impressive even from an ordinary reader's perspective. Of course, the NBA does take stock of all manner of weird records, but 8 rebounds/8 assists per game is quite something. Chensiyuan (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose, a casual look reveals many problems indicating a lot of work is left to do before this is at FA quality. I wish you had heeded Chensiyuan's talk page comment "Perhaps a fresh pair of eyes can give a 3p opinion before we go for it. A bunch of us have been too involved and may have missed something." before listing. Suggest withdrawing to peer review to deliniate issues and get a strong copyeditor to go through the text. Some issues this fails on:
    • 1a (prose): The prose is quite rough in many places and problems are easily spotted (ex. "After his retirement, Johnson engaged himself in many activities, including, among other things..." This was the second sentence I read at random; "including" and "among other things" are redundant. "Johnson is also well-known for having HIV, which he made public in 1991, causing him to retire temporarily." He made HIV public?)
    • 1b (comprehensiveness): Where is all the information about his treatment for HIV and about how he's not, you know, dead? I remember reading tons of stuff in the media about his high-priced treatments, speculation that he was cured, etc.
    • 2b (structure): Two different "Rivalry with Larry Bird" headings? --Laser brain (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Sorry, but this seems a bit stir-fried. There is one paragraph about HIV activism and one sentence about the Magic Johnson Foundation (no, there's no separate article for it, and 14,800 references to the phrase on Google, which means there's a comprehensiveness problem here...). Then there's a section entitled Legacy dealing with that he was a point guard in some kind of formation, had a rivalry with Larry Bird, and received honors as one of 50 great players, only the last of which is vaguely resembling a legacy and not nearly the kind of legacy as having a foundation named after you that goes on trying to cure disease. I'm not covering the whole article here but there's already enough there to send you back to the drawing board for a while, plus all the other stuff above. Wnt (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment—I ask the Director to disregard the raft of drive-by "voting" at the top. This is directly opposed to the purpose and process of FAC. Oppose—Not written to the required professional standard. The reasons given at the top for the nomination were feeble, and this is born out by the quality of the article. Here are just a few random examples.

  • "Throughout his career, his friendship and rivalry with Boston Celtics star Larry Bird were well documented, with the Lakers and Celtics winning eight NBA championships between them in the 1980s." The causality is quite unclear—just why eight wins underpinned their friendship and rivalry is beyond me. Hyphenate "well documented". Another "noun plus -ing" glitch: "with the Lakers and Celtics winning eight NBA championships". Please see exercises in fixing this here.
  • "27–1 win-loss record"—surely "win-loss" should also have an en dash.
  • "Although Johnson was recruited by top-ranked colleges such as Indiana and UCLA, Johnson decided to play close to home."—Including means you're not giving us the full list. Which others? And "recruiting" just doesn't make sense: do you mean that they attempted to recruit him?
    • To be fair, "recruit" can mean "seek to enroll" [13]. Though maybe that particular usage is unique to the United States. Zagalejo^^^ 17:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "During his sophomore season"—getting lost; can you insert a year every now and again, and then "afterwards" might be replaced by something a little more formal.
  • "he learned to share the ball better"—isn't there better wording for this? You know, sports commentary on television is such a sophisticated art nowadays that we can't get away with inferior prose in a place like this.
  • "1982-83 NBA season"—Move that linked article so it has an en dash, or pipe it here with an en dash. Same for the others. Oh, those articles do have en dashes in their titles: what's going on?
  • "Johnson teamed up with his treating physician"—what else would she do but treat him. Remove "treating".

Plus much more. Needs a new collaborator to straighten it out; should be promoted, but not until cleaned up. TONY (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Note I have completed a major rewrite, which, I hope, has been able to address the concerns posted above. Perhaps it won't be enough to save this particular FAC, but I hope it's a step in the right direction. Noble Story (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Have you asked Opposers to re-evaluate? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm still opposing. It doesn't seem like all of my comments have been addressed. Zagalejo^^^ 05:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Did I any miss any? Which ones did I not get? Noble Story (talk) 07:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I've crossed off the issues that have been resolved. Zagalejo^^^ 07:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for pointing that out. I'll get to those shortly. Noble Story (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've fixed all the things you pointed out, except for the quotes from Scott and Green. There are no quotes anywhere, and I think it's ok without them. By the way, do you think you could use {{hide}} to collapse the fixed comments, and leave the ones not addressed outside? That might make the navigation a little easer. Noble Story (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Noble Story, no one has addressed my comprehensiveness concern above, although the prose and organization are improved. --Laser brain (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
If there are no exact quotes anywhere, then it's probably not worth mentioning their comments at all. But I suspect there is something available from old newspapers.
I've used the hide function for some of my remarks. But remember that that wasn't meant to be a comprehensive list. Zagalejo^^^ 18:02, 27 May 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 00:14, 28 May 2008 [14].

[edit] Abbey Mills Mosque

Self-nominator. The article has been taken from a POV-problematic one that resulted in a OTRS complaint to a good article. It has had a peer review which resulted in some excellent suggestions, and has been checked for source accuracy, Manual of Style compliance, and the picture is a free-use one from Commons. I believe the article's prose is well written (although I am obviously biased) and provides a relatively complete, comprehensive, consistent, and current picture of the Mosque and the issues surrounding it, and thus I am nominating it as a featured article. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Support - reads well, within reasonable scope, some minor changes and it should be even better. Rudget (Help?) 14:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment A good article, but I have a few concerns:
    • Opening photo I was slightly disappointed after reading the photo caption and learning this was, in fact, not the mosque itself. At first glance one would assume this was a picture of the article's subject. I would suggest moving this photo out of the lead, to prevent any accidental misleading of the reader. If there are any other relevant photos, such as people involved with the project or whatever, I would place something like that in the lead.
      • I live in the US and cannot take a picture myself. I contacted the photographer of the pumping station photo, asking for a photo, but unfortunately he has not been able to take one yet. I could not find any other free-use photos, or fair-use for that matter, that would be appropriate as of yet. I thought the caption was sufficient to prevent any misleading of the reader. -- Avi (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
        • You are correct in that it is not explicitly misleading, but IMO it is inherently misleading. You may wait for advice from other reviewers, but I still think the photo should not be in the lead section. In fact, I'm not even sure the photo should be in the article at all, but I suppose something is better than nothing. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Environment This section could use some more info. After reading the source I was informed the site is contanimated with mercury, lead, arsenic, asbestos, and other dangerous substances. It would also be nice to know why the place is contaminated. Reading the article only tells me that the site is "contaminated" and I'm left wondering "with what and why?"
      • I've enlarged that section with the pertiment information; thanks for the advice. -- Avi (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Terrorism "The Tablighi Jamaat itself clearly states" are they speaking as a whole? Did they state this on a website, in a press release, or what?
      • Changed to "website". -- Avi (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Third-person pronouns This article contains a few too many "Tablighi Jamaat"s which could be replaced with "it" or "they". This is especially problematic in the Terrorism and Public relations sections.
      • Replaced some TJ's with pronouns where comprehension would not be affected; thanks -- Avi (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I just gave it a quick read, but otherwise looks good. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, advice, and the time! -- Avi (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • British vs American One more tiny little thing that bothers me is the american vs british spellings. Since this article covers a british topic, I would assume one should stick to british spellings. I have changed a few things over to british but if you could check to be sure everything is correct that would be great (I have no preference as to which one you use, as long as it's consistent).
      • I'm American, so I used American spelling. I'd be happy to let someone Britishize it, as it really should have British spelling, but I'm not the person to do that :( -- Avi (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
        • No problem, I think I pretty much fixed it. If not, I'm sure someone else will. =) --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • See also I realize that See also sections are not required, but if there is anything that isn't already wikilinked in the article itself, that might be relevant to the topic, should be added, such as other failed mosque plans, other large mosques or somethng. Also I think there should be a wikilink to "muslim" somewhere in the article.
      • Re: Muslim wikilink, see second sentence -- Avi (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
        • lol, Sorry I'm blind. I added a see also section with a list of mosques wikilink. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

So far so good. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


  • Support I took the liberty of moving the image to a less conspicuous location. If you object then I will not push the issue any further, but this is where I think it belongs. I noticed you are practically the sole contributor to this article, good work! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the advice, edits, and support. Interestingly, that's about where I had the image a few weeks ago, but I was under the impression that FA's really should have an image in the upper right. De gustibus non est disputandum :-) Thanks for all of your help!! -- Avi (talk) 02:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • I have concerns about the number of statements sourced to the mosque itself.
    • This started as an OTRS complaint from the Mosque's PR firm. Therefore in the interests of NPOV, I have tried to balance every criticism with the mosque's official's responses, thereby having all sides portrayed. The best source for Tablighi Jamaat opinions on the mosque is the mosque website. -- Avi (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, I'm a bit confused about the formatting of the references. Why is there a U. S. in current ref 19 "Sachs, Susan A Muslim Missionary Group..."? Why is there a News in current ref 27 "Barney, Katherine "We don't need this Olympics ..."? other cites have similar bits in them...
    • Because it was in the US section of the Paper, and the News section of the website. -- Avi (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Otherwise sources look okay. Still on the road, so didn't check links. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into this! -- Avi (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll leave these out for other reviewers to see. They weren't strictly concerns, mainly queries. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I've finally got around to this, weeks after Avi gave me a heads-up. My original concern was that the lead be slightly revised to reflect the Daily Telegraph article used as the prime reference for the "terrorism" connection. The lead article says that TJ is an "influence" on terrorists, not that it has links; it does use "linked" later on in the article, but with reference to two specific individuals, and then it goes on to spell out the details. I'd say, given the DT is not exactly centrist in the first place, we should be at least as careful as they are.
The second point is the quoting of the FBI chappie from the NYT. I don't see it as strictly useful. There's a reason: As pointed out, among other places, in Sikand, Yoginder S. (1998). "The origins and growth of the Tablighi Jamaat in Britain". Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 9 (2): 171. doi:10.1080/09596419808721147. ISSN 0959-6410. , the Tablighi Jamat, being a very loose structure, is very different from one country to another, and so a comment about North America doesn't extend to Britain, with a very different context.
Obviously, we don't want to avoid any mention of the suspicions, but we should be careful of undue weight to this particular set of objections. It appears that these searches give a total of ten articles. Most of the objections that I have been able to find imply that the problem is not the organisation but some of the individuals attracted to it, and the objections to the mosque are framed in that light.
Minor quibbles, therefore, easily fixed. Otherwise, OK. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, the "Terrorism" section is poorly done since it doesn't really relate it to the Mosque controversies... also, some of the passive voice is a little worrisome. It should be mentioning the group in light of the controversy not "The group has also been referred to as"... gren グレン 04:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I started a copy-edit of the article, (which it needs badly), but I rolled it back. I have issues with the article which mainly stem from the fact that it's not about a mosque, but a failed application to build one. This has resulted in the tenses and moods going all over the place. More worrying is the neutrality of the article; I got a strong impression of an attempt, (which may be sub-conscious), to influence any future applications. Many things remain unclear; was an application for planning permission submitted, was it rejected if so why, has a revised application been submitted? Here are some related concerns:
    • In the lead The mosque will be built by.., but later on we read the building's future remains uncertain - And the building doesn't exist yet.
    • increasing the mosque's recycling - Is the mosque going to be recycled?
    • Reports as to the size of the mosque have varied considerably. - The mosque does not exist, 'proposed size?
    • land upon which the Abbey Mills Mosque is supposed to be built is considered .. - this should be proposed to be built.
    • as such wrt decommissioning is redundant.
    • Report revealed that the original pre-remediation works had discovered soil and groundwater impact by mercury, lead, arsenic, oil, fuels, and asbestos fibres - What does impact mean in this context, contamination?
    • The neutrality of the Terrorism section is a big worry. The Tablighi Jamaat website clearly states that it refrains from political or controversial activities and stands for democracy and freedom. - and - The group describes itself as a non-political group and categorically rejects any links to terrorism or terrorists. This article is far from FA quality. GrahamColmTalk 18:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, why is "clearly" a neutrality rather than stylistic problem.? --Relata refero (disp.) 15:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—oh, this is messy. Bad writing and POVish in its whole rationale. I didn't look closely at more than the lead, but it fails just on that.

  • To start with, it's way overlinked. Why "controversy", for example? Please audit. TONY (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Public response to the mosque and associated controversies has included on-line petitions,[7] various public talks, debates, speeches, and websites, and even apparent threats against people opposing the mosque." This is not a good sentence. "Public response to controversies"? I'd have thought controversies were a response. Threats are public response (rather than resulting from it?)—how public are they? The list items don't all belong together. Remove "various", for lord's sake.
  • The building's future has neither a current plan permission ...? TONY (talk) 10:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "a permission" is unidiomatic; so is "plan permission".
I don't see any POV complaints in that list...? --Relata refero (disp.) 15:21, 23 May 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 00:14, 28 May 2008 [15].

[edit] 1987 Atlantic hurricane season

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it is ready, after 2 1/3 years of work. The article is comprehensive, although some of the sections are stubby due to lack of information and has been through copyedits over time. I finally feel that its ready for Featured Article status. Mitch32contribs 00:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment The lead needs to be rewritten. As it is currently, it reads more like a chronological list of storms rather than an informational lead. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I have rewritten the lead and i believe that it is less confusing, and better written. Seddon69 (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - It would be good to add a timeline table at the top of the storms section, as done in this article. Hello32020 (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Ill get to work on that straight away. Seddon69 (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I managed to get the timeline to work after a long time of playing around with it. Seddon69 (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Good job on the table. The article is comprehensive, supported by good citations, and great images, so support. Hello32020 (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Nominators, please ask declarers to follow WP:FAC instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Support- An informative article, wow, it surprised me with all the information. Images for every tropical storm, depression, and hurricane out there. Definitely ready. Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 20:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments Sources look good. I didn't check external links as I'm still traveling. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Starting to look better. I still recommend getting it copyedited, as the prose is still weak in places. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak support It's not perfect, but it seems good enough to me. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose.
  • The 1987 Atlantic hurricane season was considered an average hurricane season that was limited by an ongoing El Niño - I don't like the first sentence. was considered by whom? It doesn't have a source, which could be a problem. Was it really average, and if so, in what terms? I think there could be a better, different opening sentence.
  • Regarding the depressions, several of the sections are very short. Should it not be like that done in the currently featured 1983 Atlantic hurricane season?
  • The overall section on TD1 is poorly-written and has several errors. I'm a little concerned at the source for It made landfall in Florida on May 31 in the TD1 section. It does not explicitly say the depression made landfall that day, as the article was presumably published before it did so. on Monday - day of the week is not important. The statement producing thundershowers across the state on May 28 is not supported by the reference. Again, The tropical depression degenerated into a wave on June 1, the official start of the hurricane season - the ref does not say it degenerated to a wave, as it just says it weakened.
  • At 6 AM August 31 EST (in the TD 6 section). WPTC policy is to use UTC, not EST.
  • End of first paragraph of Bret needs a ref.
  • Check your Wikilinks, as several are redirects.
  • Consistency is needed for referring to millibars, as sometimes you spell it out, and other times you don't.
  • Dates need to be fixed. You currently use 1st, 2nd, 3rd, though, per WP:MOSDATE, Ordinal numbers are spelled out using the same rules as for cardinal numbers
  • Overall grammar is OK, but not good enough to pass 1a; that, combined with the sourcing problem, forces me to oppose. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Everything you listed has been fixed and/or changed.Mitch32contribs 19:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Still some issues I'd like to be addressed. I still don't think this is worthy of being featured.
  • Sourcing is still pretty weak. I should be able to find the ref for statements at the end of a section. However, I cannot. In the TS 2 section, there is not a ref supporting the statement - "the first tropical storm warning ever issued for a tropical system". A ref placed prior to the statement says the first TS warning for the US, which is different from what's in the article. Also in the section, the statement Up to 21 inches (0.53 m) is factually incorrect, since over 21 inches were reported, per here. In the Arlene section, Small cells (small thunderstorms) is incorrect, since the source provided says nothing about the cells being small thunderstorms.
  • Prose is still weak. on the August 10, now-depression,
  • The storm was moving at 17 mph (27 km/h) to the east on August 21 - it is really confusing whether you are talking about Bret or the high pressure system; if the latter, please change, since high pressure systems are rarely considered "storms".
  • Bret never affected land during its existence - you sure about that? Sorry to be picky, but the preliminary report didn't say anything about that. Could it have affected the Cape Verde islands?
  • At 600 UTC - is that 0600 UTC, or a typo (like 1600 UTC)? When writing out UTC, be sure to use a 4 digit number.
  • 950 miles (1,529 km), 125 miles per hour (201 km/h), 95 miles per hour (153 km/h) - watch your rounding
  • peaking at 10.27 inches in... - metric unit needed
  • A tropical storm formed east of the Windward Islands on September 20... Emily strengthened into a tropical storm on September 20." Notice anything?

♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Anything else? All of the above have been solved.Mitch32contribs 19:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider all of the issues as having been solved. These are merely updates for my previous concerns that still haven't been dealt with. Overall I still don't think it's near FA worthy.
  • The first sentence is still awkward for opening the entire article, specifically was depicted as an average hurricane season. What really is an average season, and why is the first sentence not backed up?
  • Are there any better sources for the tropical depressions? I'm a little concerned the entire section for TD1 was written from short sections of a newspaper article, specifically in regards to its formation and dissipation. Again, the date of the week is not important, as nowhere else in the article is a date of the week mentioned. I'd also like some consistency/confirmation; the TD1 section says it stalled off the coast, then the season summary says TD1 struck Florida.
  • You removed the fact in the TS2 section that it resulted in the first TC watch/warning, but that fact still remains in the lede. I'm sure it's true, but you need a ref to support what you are writing. Also in the TS 2 section, your change from "up to 21 inches" to "more than 21 inches" is a poor change, since "more than 21 inches" could mean 48 inches, 1000 inches, etc. Why not just simply say what the peak total was?
  • Changing the ordinal numbers to spelling them out is a bit unusual, in that you only retained them in the section on TD 14. I'd like consistency, ideally using the date format used elsewhere in the article.
  • Writing is still all-around poor, and doesn't pass the "brilliantly written" criterion. Examples include was seemingly appeared unchanged,
  • Referencing is still weak. I do not understand how you are referencing the article. I assume that the ref for a statement is to occur at the end of a block of text. For example, in the Bret section, I expect the ref on the ridge information to be after that sentence. However, it is before it, for some odd reason that needs to be fixed.
  • Unit consistency is still needed. 50 miles per hour, several usages of mbar vs. millibar, some instances of in vs. inch. In the Emily section, you use or 31 m/s, though nowhere else in the article do you use that unit.
♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—1a. Please get someone else to run through it with a toothcomb. Here are random samples of yuckiness. A professional, "even brilliant" standard is required.

  • En dash, not hyphen, in the infobox.
  • Clumsy sentence—"with" as an awkward connector, and the hated noun plus -ing: "An average season, as defined by NOAA, has 6 to 14 named storms, with 4 to 8 of those reaching hurricane strength, and with 3 hurricanes becoming major hurricanes." Try this: "An average season, as defined by NOAA, consists of 6–14 named storms, of which 4–8 reach hurricane strength, and three become major hurricanes." "3" preceded spelt-out single-digits in the rest of the text. Try exercises here.
  • "during their durations"—ouch. TONY (talk) 16:20, 22 May 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 by User:Raul654 01:37, 27 May 2008 [16].

[edit] Hillary Rodham Clinton

previous FAC

Support I feel that this article has improved so much since last year that it should be featured. It already has "good article" status, but I think it's a great article. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Article stats:

Wasted Time R 1527
LukeTH 656
Tvoz 227
K157 137
Restart: old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I think all of the MoS, sourcing, citing, etc. issues raised in the nom before restart have been addressed. I believe the article shape is appropriate and the article will be stable unless and until she is elected president (unlikely to happen as it stands now), at which point we would deal with it accordingly. In general I believe the article merits FA status. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: The image issues originally posed were addressed. I'm not sure about Image:Hillary Clinton first lady portraitHRC.jpg, as a work merely commissioned by the federal government might not necessarily be properly considered a "work of an employee of the Executive Office of the President of the United States", as it's tagged (the source website disclaimer asserts the artist retains copyright). I, however, don't have sufficient information (i.e. I don't know of the statute defining "employee of the EO") to make a firm assertion one way or another. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
EXCELLENT POINT! This is NOT a work of an employee of the Executive Office. This picture needs to be replaced in the article and the copyrighted image removed from Wikipedia. — BQZip01 — talk 18:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Just about every First Lady article I've seen includes their official White House portrait. Why is this one considered different? Or do they all have to go? Wasted Time R (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I all depends how those are used, how they were acquired, etc. Those who were before the advent of film have little other way to illustrate their image and most of those copyrights ended a long time ago. Others may have been works of a government employee and, therefore, are public domain. Others still may simply have not elected to maintain their copyright on the images. I don't know specifics about the others, but this one needs to go IAW Wikipedia policy. — BQZip01 — talk 19:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I found a long discussion of this issue from a couple of years ago at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/US government portraits. Resolution was unclear, but none of the portraits they were talking about have been deleted, as far as I can tell. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
If this discussion is going to continue (which is certainly fine), let's take it to the talk page so the FAC is kept to comments germane to this article. Analysis of other images is getting too tangential. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Concur. Image has been deleted from commons. — BQZip01 — talk 03:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually BQZip01, you are wrong. Hillary did serve as an executive official in the whitehouse. It's called executive privilege (the idea that the president can say some things in private with other political officials they hire due to security reasons) ... in the "Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. v. Hillary Clinton" case of 1993 they questioned whether this applied to Hillary Clinton. This case was made to see if the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) applied to the health-care-reform panel chaired by then First Lady Hillary Clinton. And that question depended on whether Hillary was an executive official or not. The court decided that the first lady is in officer or employee of the government and that FACA didn't apply to her. So, you can't object that she's called an executive officer because the law interpreted (and upheld) that she is. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I never said she was or wasn't an executive official. What I stated was that the creator of this painting was not an executive official and he is the one who actively maintains a copyright on this image. It is not a public domain image. — BQZip01 — talk 21:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
lol - my bad! I misread that comment you wrote. I thought you said "She is NOT" instead of "This is NOT". QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per previous. I also strongly object to this nomination being restarted. There were many oppose !votes on the last one that will likely not be included again. — BQZip01 — talk 18:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Images in this article do not meet sizing requirements IAW WP:MoS. Please fix. — BQZip01 — talk 18:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
fixed Granted, the removal of the image sizing for the gallup polls makes them virtually unreadable and may actually be exempt from the MOS per my interpretation of WP:MOS#Image size. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the MoS "other cases where a specific image width is appropriate include (but are not limited to) images with extreme aspect ratios, detailed maps, diagrams or charts" exemption is why I was using the fixed px size for all the charts. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
No icons per WP:FAC instructions, please. There was a time when I bothered pointing out MOS size issues, but FAC (unfortunately) has been apathetic and dismissive in the past. Indeed, images with particular detail, dimensions, etc. which would be impaired at 300 pixels or less are exempt. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Concur completely with pixel sizing as stated by WTR, but please use the UPRIGHT switch for portraits where applicable. — BQZip01 — talk 19:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, re-fixed so the Gallup polls are back to the original px size. The upright switch is being used in all instances where the image would benefit from the switch. The only MOS issues I found were the lead image being smaller than 300px and the soon to be deleted portrait had a px size and was not using upright. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Fine by me! — BQZip01 — talk 19:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a new FAC; per previous isn't actionable. Please state actionable objections per WP:WIAFA based on the current article, so nominators can address them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
see hsitory for this comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BQZip01 (talk • contribs) 18:12, May 1, 2008
Restored deletion made per WP:POINT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. Uh, this is not a new FAC since you actually deleted the old one, but kept the same name (another problem I have with this "restart" nomination you and Raul seem to do whenever a discussion gets long...why not close the previous nomination as failed and then start a new one so all the discussion remains?!). I have no problem starting over, but if this is a new FAC, then where is the old one? Why is this not attempt #3?
  2. My objections were perfectly actionable, but you deleted them. Quite frankly, I am quite disturbed by this aggressiveness and deleting of others' comments. I'm not saying it should have passed. I'm not saying it shouldn't have passed. But you shouldn't delete anyone else's comments period. Again, I have no problem starting over, but the previous discussion should not have been removed as it gives an improper view of the discussion.
  3. Not to harp on it too much, but please restore the old discussion and make it accessible to all. I have no objection to someone else making the nomination (including you or Raul), but this was not the same article that was nominated by QuirkyandSuch. You restarted this and deleted the old stuff. Please restore. — BQZip01 — talk 03:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    The old FAC is clearly linked and bolded at the top of this page. This is a new FAC; current opposes should be actionable and based on the current article. If you want to discuss the method that Raul has always used to restart FACs, please take it to the talk page so this FAC isn't disrupted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    Just because Raul has always done it this way doesn't make it right. For those interested further discussion is contained here: Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Restarts. — BQZip01 — talk 05:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. My comment "Article is not stable by any means. It is currently semi-protected. With over 500 edits in the past 40 days, many not related to this FAC, I feel this is a perfect example of an unstable article." was never addressed by anyone. I even proposed a solution for it with no feedback. — BQZip01 — talk 17:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    Response here not addressed: "Precrime deparment? This article has been discussed at GAR a couple of times, and the meaning of "stability" has been subjected to much debate partly as a consequence. Those opposing this article because they believe it will become unstable once the presedential elections take place this fall are effectively creating a FAC precrime department. The question is whether the article is stable now. If it gets promoted and becomes unstable at a later date, take it to FAR. Unless you want precrime to become a valid objection as part of the FAC process, you need to provide arguments and evidence that the article is inherently unstable now.I've reviewed this article and its edit history in depth several times, and have not found any such evidence. Geometry guy 21:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    To the contrary. I don't think it is stable now (see my comments above). I also do not believe it will be stable for the foreseeable future. — BQZip01 — talk 03:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    Please sign your posts, even when copying from a previous post. The above was added at 19:09 (UTC). Please see my comment below, posted over an hour earlier. Geometry guy 19:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Once again, the article is fit to be featured and fulfills all of the requisite criteria. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - In my view the article merits FA status at this time. The FAC process has helped us clean up some inconsistencies in references and other such details. The article is widely watchlisted and closely monitored, and I believe it is within FA guidelines for stability, length, references, comprehensiveness, neutrality, accuracy, and quality of expression. It is easy to navigate, is set up logically, and utilizes sub-articles as needed; the images illustrate different stages of her life effectively. I believe we will be able to maintain its integrity and quality no matter what turn her career takes, as has to happen for all FAs about active subjects. Tvoz →talk 00:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Article is inherently unstable as subject is currently running for president of the United States. Let us at least wait to see if she becomes the nominee. If she were to actually win and become the first female president of the United States, her page would change drastically. Awadewit (talk) 02:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • And if World War III were to start tomorrow, that article would change dramatically as well. It is irresponsible of us to shoot down viable featured articles based on what might happen. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, fails 1e (stability). As we get closer to the elections the article will change significantly and chances are we'll be back in FAR in three months time. -- Naerii 03:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What will change? Her life story, her biography will not change. The presidential campaign section may need to be updated but we have a whole legion of editors watching and maintaining this page, so I'm not worried about it. I say, promote it now and if it becomes of a significantly lesser quality in the future (for whatever reason, election or not), then we can come back and de-feature it. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment on stability. I had a look again to see if the article currently has stability issues. There's an amusing incident of a vandal correcting a typo in their own incoherent string of profanities, but apart from that just good old fashioned incremental improvement. Here is one diff which shows the many improvements made since 21 April (the day before it was nominated) and here is another diff showing the changes over the previous month or so, when the article was developing due to ongoing primaries. I see no evidence of instability here.
I'm not sure why the crystal ball-gazers continue to believe that "it may become unstable at some point in the future" is an actionable objection. I sincerely hope Awadewit is wrong when she suggests that the "page would change drastically". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news source or fan site. Most of the material that would go into an encyclopedic article on a newly elected president is already there: her background, history, politics etc. The lead would need to change a bit, and the campaign section would evolve and shrink to maintain its focus, and there would be a new section on her presidency, which would evolve with reliably sourced coverage of that presidency. It won't necessarily be easy to maintain a high quality article in the face of such ongoing events, but all the evidence I have seen, both in the recent edit history, and in all my interactions with the article, is that the main editors of this article are well up to the job. Geometry guy 17:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I am wrong. Look at any FA article covering a past US president. The articles are dominated by their presidencies. Moreover, if Clinton became the first female president of the US, I imagine that would take up a fair amount of the article. Awadewit (talk) 05:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I did: the most recent is Ronald Reagon, which does indeed have a substantial section on his presidency, but also a great deal of other biographical information. Reagan was elected in 1980, 28 years ago. So, yes, I agree that if Hillary Clinton is elected, her article will be very different in 28 years time. In fact even if she isn't it probably will be: the article on any sufficiently notable living person is likely to change significantly over such a time period. I'm even willing to concede that if she gets elected, then in 5 years time the article will have a substantial section on her presidency/first term. I fail to see what this has to do with the article's current stability.
I obviously don't have a very good imagination, because I can't think of many ways of stringing out the words "first", "female" and "president", until there are reliable secondary sources analysing the effect on American culture/politics etc. of such a presidency. That will take time.
When I say I hope that you are wrong, I mean precisely this tendency for Wikipedia biographies to overemphasise the recent news and current sensation ("U.S. elects first female president!!!!!") , in place of a more objective and encyclopedic treatment of the life as a whole. This tendency should be resisted, and the team at HRC are doing rather well in my view, e.g. pruning out minor campaign scandals which will have no long term significance. Geometry guy 13:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that editors won't wait for reliable, secondary sources. However concientious, they have not done that now, I might add. There is an abundance of news stories and less that stellar scholarly works used as sources. That is apparently the standard for biographies of living people, however, and the editors are not to be faulted for following that standard. If Clinton became the "first female president", analysis would begin the day she was elected and those news stories would inevitably be used, hopefully replaced by better news stories as the analysis became more sophisticated. However, this demonstrates just how unstable the article would become. I share your concern that biographies overemphasize the recent news. It is a hard tendency to avoid, however, and considering the article relies on news reports rather than more analytical sources now does not lead me to believe that tendency would change or even could change: Should the article wait to mention her presidency until scholarly works are written? (Actually, a difficult question, in my opinion.) All I am asking is that we wait to see if she becomes the nominee. The fact that there is a tag in the middle of the article stating "This section contains information about one or more candidates in an upcoming or ongoing election. Content may change as the election approaches" should alert us to a problem. Awadewit (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Awadewit, apart from the debate about stability, I'm interested in your comments about quality of sources. Yes, material related to the 2008 campaign relies upon news stories, because at this point there's nothing else. But as I see it, much of the material regarding the rest of her life relies upon a variety of well-known published biographies, and most of the material in the "Cultural and political image" section relies upon scholarly sources. Excepting the 2008 campaign, what parts of the article do you feel need to use better sources? Wasted Time R (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Wasted Time R's response is much more important, so I will be brief. Yes, of course news sources will be used before more scholarly sources become available, but they will be confined to a relatively small proportion of the article as they are now in the campaign section. This won't "take up a fair amount of the article", and it will improve as the sources improve: that is not instability. Geometry guy 21:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems to me that the Hillary Rodham Clinton series box should include United States Senate election in New York, 2000, Hillary Rodham Clinton awards and honors, List of books about Hillary Rodham Clinton and Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    I don't even think that series box should be here. It's meant for cases in which there are a series of subarticles that together comprise a sequential biographical narrative, such as Jan Smuts or Isaac Newton. That's not the case here, and I think the existing Template:Hillary Rodham Clinton template at the end suffices to list all the articles related to HRC. But the editor who added the series box here strongly disagreed, and at the time I didn't feel like battling it further. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I would support without that series box. You are right. It does not belong. She has her own dedicated template at the bottom of the article. Who is fighting to keep it in the article?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The advocate for them is User:Justmeherenow. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
        • He continues to not respond (see User_talk:Justmeherenow#Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_Series_box).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Here I am. (And, yes, I made the original Series box.) In the end, all this seems to come down to editors deciding whether there should be a single set of organizing principles for all articles series thoughout Wikipedia and if so what this set of organizing principles should be. Should article series be contrained by an overriding sequentiality, and if any piece should be missing, then a potential series should wait? Despite my having made the box, I'm pretty much Switzerland with regard to this last complaint, actually. The reason I made the series box is the boringly striaghtforward "pro" series argument that Rodham Clinton is a worthy subject and simply that an organized series would facilitate folks' Wiki-research of it; however, Wasted Time R's "con" argument seems to be that this series' components at present might not be thought to "mesh" seemlessly enough to warrant this treatment. Yet, as far as there being a Wikipedia principle of any stringent exclusions of articles from series for reason of nonsequential-ordering, a perusal of various series shows this isn't the case. (Eg the Muhammad series includes nonsequentially-ordered articles about Muhammad's treatment of women and about his Muhammad's military leadership, etc.; the French Revolution series includes nonsequentially-ordered articles about historiography, an events timeline, a glossary of terms, etc.; and other candidates' series inclue such non-sequential articles as the ones about McCain's image or Obama's political positions.) So the only question that remains is if articles to be included in a Rodham Clinton series have enough commonality to conjoin them and if doing so would improve Wikipedia. In either case, whatever organizing principles for series that Widipedia has or should have---whether these should become formalized or left makeshift---they ought to include room for a certain breadth of editorial discretion, for controversial subjects to recieve some semblance of balance or for subjects-generally to allow for the inclusion of subarticles of varying levels of tangentiality depending on whatever the case at hand. — Justmeherenow (   ) 16:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Thanks for resolving as per below.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Well, it got unresolved by Justmeherenow. I disagreed on the article talk page, but Justmeherenow went ahead anyway. I tried ... Wasted Time R (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Are the crystal ball votes going to be considered valid or not? QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Don't worry too much about process: it will work out. I've argued that those comments are not reasonable or actionable. Please see if my comments are challenged. Geometry guy 21:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I concur that the those who object because of something that may or may not happen in the future are wrong, BUT, my !vote concerns the current state of the article. That said, until this nomination business is settled, it likely will not calm down and stability will not be maintained until such a time. — BQZip01 — talk 21:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
        Indeed your !vote does, but the only argument you have given is semi-protection, 500 edits in 40 days and a "feeling", which isn't particularly convincing. Geometry guy 13:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments The prose is uneven. Some passages flow nicely, while others feature awkward, unclear phrasing. Some examples:
    • "That election marked the first time an American First Lady" Why the "American" qualifier here? Statement also needs a source, either here or later in the body where it is repeated.
      The "American" is there because it's happened in other countries (and we were accused of America-centrism without it); indeed Cristina Fernández de Kirchner of Argentina has recently done what Hillary's trying to do now. I've added a cite for first FL US to run for office in the body of the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "which is also located in Cook County." What's the purpose of this awkward addendum? The sentence is already tortured by numerous commas.
      No good reason for it. I've chopped it, and also broken up the run-on sentence. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "was involved in many activities at church", "earned many merit badges as" "Many" is one of those generic adjectives that just begs for more specificity. What does "many" mean in these instances anyway? I'd suggest recasting ("was active in church and extracurriculars at her public school...").
    • "while her father, otherwise an authoritarian traditionalist, held the modern notion for the time that his daughter's skills and opportunities should not be limited by being a female." Wordy. "held the modern notion for the time" -> "held the then-progressive notion" (progressive works better than modern there IMO). "not be limited by being a female." -> "not be limited by sex." Opportunities is fine, but how exactly can skills be limited by society? "Authoritarian" is a somewhat loaded adjective. Are we sure we want to use that here? If that's how he is described in sources, I'd suggest using quotation marks.
    • "who got her to read" This can be better phrased. Sentence is also far too long (try reading it out loud).
    • "with the minister she saw" Comma necessary for "disambiguation"
    • "organization.[19][20] and with them supported " Small typo; I tried correcting this myself, but my eyes buggered out trying to decipher the text from the citation templates in the wikicode. Why "and with them"? What does that mean? Led the group in supporting them?
    • "She proclaimed herself " Context? In a speech? In writing?
    • "then-popular radical actions against the political system" Quite generic phrasing here. What does this exactly mean? Most problematic is the nebulous definition of "radical" and its inherit conflict with "popular".
      I've made changes to deal with the rest of the above items, good points all. Of the parts I've haven't changed: "many" regarding Brownie/Girl Scout awards is due to descriptions that her sash was overflowing with them; "authoritarian" is the kindest way to describe HR's father, as both Morris and Bernstein consider him to have been psychologically abusive to the family in exercising his dominance; and "radical" is necessary to differentiate HR's "work within the system" approach at the time, out of favor with many of her fellow students. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Another copy-edit would probably be helpful. BuddingJournalist 21:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    One sin of the article has been, as you spotted, long convoluted sentences; I've broken a bunch down in subsequent sections. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    Budding, thanks very much for your comments, the more the better! It's good to have fresh eyes on the article. I'll respond in more detail this evening. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, I supported the first time it was FAC and I will support it now even more because of the major overhaul that has been done. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, the following need a disambig: David Brooks, Henry Holt, merit badge, Micheal Barone. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.247.148 (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    All fixed, thanks for spotting. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Unstable and fails criteria 1e. As the elections approach there will be significant changes. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 04:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose only on stability grounds, until she is off the front page every day. There's still a reasonable chance she'll make the nomination and be elected president, in which case the article would need to undergo a major change. — brighterorange (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Oppose (See below.) I have no problems with the article's so-called instability. In general I think this is an impressive piece of work, and I am close to supporting. There are a few issues with the prose, but I hope to go through some of them myself and bring any issues back here. In the meantime...
    • In the infobox she is listed as "junior senator." Clicking that link takes us only to United States Senate, which doesn't help much. There's a link, however, from that page to Junior senator, which takes us to what is virtually a stub, Senate seniority. However, that stub suggests that the title is mainly a media concotion. Moreover, back in the infobox, it's stated that Moynihan was the previous incumbent of the position: but surely he was the previous senator, not the previous "junior senator"? In short, this is all a rather long-winded way of saying that her title should be "Senator," rather than "Junior senator" --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
      I'm fine with junking "junior", but there are editors out there who obsess over this and will change it back. On an article like this, you learn to pick your fights. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      But, um, they're wrong then, aren't they? If the threat of changes from other editors, who do not appear at FAC, is preventing comment here, then I retract what I said earlier about the article's stability. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      No, they're not wrong, and my previous response on this wasn't on-target. "Junior senator" is widely used in the media; see all these references in New York Times articles for example. More importantly, all of our articles on current U.S. Senators have "Junior Senator" or "Senior Senator" in this place in their infoboxes. If we're going to change one, we need to change a hundred. That should be a project-wide decision at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress, not something made in isolation here. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      OK, I see that that's the convention on all articles about Senators. I do think it's misleading (and the wikilink doesn't help), but so it goes. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "As a child, Hillary Rodham was a teacher's favorite." What does this mean? That she was a teacher's pet? Or that she was a successful (star?) student? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
      Both, as reported by both Morris and Bernstein: an A student and teacher's pet. I avoided the latter because it has a pejorative ring. But am open to suggestion. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      At the moment it's merely ambiguous. If it's important to keep both senses, I'd say it should be clarified. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "she was redistricted" Ugh. Is there a better way of putting this? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
      Has the advantage of clarity and succinctness. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      Actually, it's not even clear to me. What does it mean? Can people be "redistricted"?! Perhaps they can in the US, but I have no idea. Presumably it means something like the school districts changed, right? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "So she could better understand her changing political views." A rather strange formulation. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
      That was the reason, the prof thought it would help her sort out what she believed in and where she wanted to be politically. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      All sounds very patronising, but so be it, I suppose. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • What is "sliming salmon"? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
      Scraping out their innards with a spoon. This used to be wikilinked but the "sea of blue links" objectors took it out. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      Those objectors are obviously better acquainted with the vocabulary of fish processing than I am. I'd link it again. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      "Sliming salmon" wasn't linked. I delinked common words like salmon and cannery, but neither the text nor the salmon article explained "sliming salmon". Before I delinked common English words, the text was: That summer, she worked her way across Alaska, washing dishes in Mount McKinley National Park and sliming salmon in a fish processing cannery in Valdez. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      Oops, my mistake, sorry Sandy. I now remember that I looked for an article to describe sliming at the time, and couldn't find one. Guess I'll have to write one, yuck ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      I've linked 'sliming' to fish processing, which lists 'eviscerating' as one of the activities done. Best I can do for now. Still yuck. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "it stated that "child citizens" were "powerless individuals" and argued that children should not be considered equally incompetent from birth to attaining legal age, but that rather courts should presume competence except when there is evidence otherwise, on a case-by-case basis." I don't understand the connection between the two parts of this sentence. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
      The argument was, children were considered powerless from birth through age 18. A better approach would be to judge competence on a individual basis, with e.g. a responsible 16 year old perhaps warranting it while obviously a 4 year old wouldn't. But am open to reworking for clarity. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      Still makes little sense, even if you're equating "powerlessness" with (legal) incompetence, as it seems you are doing here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • At present, only books are in the "References" section. I think it might be easier were at least some of the other references moved to this section, too. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
      Maybe "References" should be called "Bibliography"? I don't see the point in putting newspaper/magazine/website references there, since they all collapse to one cite already, with many "letter" references to them. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      I'll address this in a moment. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      • And here's one resultant confusion: in fact, Gerth and Van Natta have two publications in 2007, one a book, the other an article. So all the references to "Gerth and Van Natta 2007" are in fact ambiguous. However, this is not clear immediately, as the article is hidden away in the inline citations rather than among the References. I'm presuming that in each case "Gerth and Van Natta 2007" refers to the book. But that's only an assumption, and potentially mistaken. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
        All references to "Gerth and Van Natta 2007" refer to the book, since they have page numbers that wouldn't make sense referring to a NYT article. But the article covers territory that is also in the book; I can get rid of the article use and replace it with book refs. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
        Even if one can figure it out eventually, the referencing is still wrong. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I've now done some copy-editing of the first two sections (to 1992), and will try to return to this later. I do also wonder whether parts of the article are over-referenced, though I recognize that this is in part my own pet peeve, when individual statements are supported by multiple citations. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    I'm okay with almost all of your wording changes, and I appreciate the effort you're putting into the copyedit. But, I've got a strong issue with some of your edits that are marked as "consolidating references". In some cases, you're pulling footnotes that mark specific parts of a sentence out to the end. This makes it harder to the reader to understand what is being used as a cite for what. Remember that this is a controversial and contentious biographical subject. All these cites are in here for a reason; during the three years that I've been working on the article, almost every single statement or claim in it has been challenged at one time or another. So the close citing has a rationale. In other cases, in order to reduce the number of footnotes in the main text, you're folding multiple citations under one footnote. This doesn't seem like a great idea to me, and in some cases you're cloning newspaper article citations in order to make this work. That seems like a really bad idea; it's double maintenance if the cite has to change (and it frequently does, as recent FAC editing should indicate). The whole WP citing system is set up to consolidate multiple uses of a news source to one citation instance in the notes; that's the reason for the <ref name="foo"/> syntax and for the lower-cased-letter backlinks from the citation to the main text. What is your rationale for doing it against this system? Please discuss here before propagating more of these changes into the article. Thx ... Wasted Time R (talk) 04:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Again, I may have to reconsider my first appraisal that stability was not an issue here. It may be, if contentiousness is militating against readibility. Because this is the main problem: the multiple footnotes, especially mid-sentence, break up the text and impede legibility. Perhaps this means that a contentious subject really can't become an FA? Ideally, not. But usually it is easy enough to figure out which reference refers to which fact; where it isn't, that can easily be clarified, and less obtrusively, in the footnote itself. To take an obviously example, previously there was a note immediately after the very first word ("Hillary") of the first sentence of the first section after the lead. What a disruption! I consolidated that note with the one that was at the end of that sentence, with no loss of precision, and plenty (I'd argue) gain in readability. The second sentence was likewise interrupted by a footnote, which I consolidated with the following one, which referred in any case to the very same text, two pages later. Perhaps there are times when my changes have been more arguable, and I'd be happy to reconsider if you provide examples. But on the whole, I'd rather say I hadn't been zealous enough, rather than that I've been too zealous. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Can you point me to the WP rule or guideline that says that FA articles can't have footnotes in mid-sentence? I have never seen any such thing. As to your "obvious example", I agree it's perfect. The origins of the name "Hillary" are controversial. You may think the matter is silly, but it's there; much editing has gone on in this article over it, which I guess you are unaware of. A footnote after just "Hillary" tells the reader that something about this name requires further explication, and increases the chance that the reader will find it. A footnote after the full "Hillary Diane Rodham was born at Edgewater Hospital in Chicago, Illinois" sentence tells the reader that a source for her being born in Edgewater Hospital is supplied; not very interesting, and very unlikely that the reader will be motivated to check the note. That footnote placement gives no indication that something needs explication about the name "Hillary". I believe strongly that we need to associate footnoting with the precise text involved in cases like this. This position is based on three years' experience with this article and knowing what works and what doesn't. If this loses your support for FAC, I understand and respect your position. But I would much rather the article fails FAC than it becomes unglued on its sourcing. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Obviously, there's no rule that says that FA articles can't have mid-sentence footnotes. But the first criterion for FA is that "the prose is engaging, even brilliant." I submit that sticking a footnote after the very first word in the first sentence of the article body makes for problems of readability, let along engagement. Again, it may be that in an article of this sort, which deals with such a contentious subject (as you say), the need to be cover one's ass so minutely therefore militates against engaging prose. If that is so, then we should accept that these articles will not reach FA standards. I'm suggesting a middle way, in this case for instance by consolidating the information from that footnote with the note that's at the end of the sentence, a mere ten words later. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    I am trying to engage the reader, by cluing them in as to exactly which material needs further explication. The "ten words later" makes all the difference in this case (there's editors who want the name controversy to be in the main text, not even a footnote at all; there is a balance here that I do not want to upset). I don't consider this "middle way" middle at all; my goal is to satisfy WP:V and WP:BLP and WP:NPOV much more than it is to satisfy WP:WIAFA. If everyone agrees with you that mid-sentencing footnoting flunks the FAC prose requirement, so be it. I'm going to revert this footnoting change, as I don't think it's acceptable. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • And however much I recognize that the current text is the more or less battered and bruised survivor of much edit warring, I still think that at times it is over-referenced, though I don't have easy access to the sources to check this out. Look for instance what is currently footnote 26, in which two references are cited (yes, I consolidated them) to back up the claim (and don't tell me it's all that contentious) that "In 1969, she graduated with a Bachelor of Arts, with departmental honors in political science." Now, in this case both references are online, so I can follow them up. Actually, they're both kind of crappy references for the purpose, as it happens. (What, incidentally, are "departmental honors"? The phrase certainly isn't justified by either source.) One would have thought that one of the biographies has, on just one page, the vital information needed that she graduated in 1969 with a BA Honors in Political Science in 1969. Piecing things together like this is both a bit sloppy and overkill. NB I know that this is a Wikipedia weakness on the whole. It'd be nice to try to avoid it in Featured articles. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Piecing together things like this is necessary in places. I've never found a definitive source for what kind of honors she got, nor one biography that has this all in one page (and I've read/looked at nearly a dozen). But regardless of this piece of text, I find cloning of news articles in references (25 ^ Dedman, Bill. "Reading Hillary Rodham's hidden thesis", MSNBC.com, March 2, 2007. Retrieved on March 2, 2007. 26 ^ Hillary Rodham Clinton. The New York Times. Retrieved on April 13, 2008.; Dedman, Bill. "Reading Hillary Rodham's hidden thesis", MSNBC.com, March 2, 2007. Retrieved on March 2, 2007.) absolutely ill-advised. This is a maintenance nightmare. I would much rather have two footnotes here, and I believe that two footnotes rather than citation cloning is the standard practice across WP. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    On this particular point, I am surprised. A quick google gives me this page, which is not a particularly good source, but which does provide in one place all the information that these two rather tangential sources are being used to provide: that she graduated with a BA Honors in Political Science from Wellesley in 1969. (Here's a rather better source, FWIW.) I still don't know what "departmental honors" are (and the phrase is not used in those sources). Again, I really do think that similar issues affect other places where there are multiple sources. And again, I know that this problem is, as you say, endemic to WP. Featured articles should try to do better, however. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Furthermore, since footnotes take up less space than citations, your strategy of duplicating citations to save on footnotes will drive up the HTML size generated for the article, which we have been at great pains to reduce during this FAC process. With all due respect, I don't see why your "pet peeve" should outweigh longstanding existing practice here, and I really think that such a wholesale change to the footnoting approach of the article should be discussed here or in Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton first, before being unilaterally implemented. Indeed I believe that WP:CITE generally discourages citation style/format/approach churn unless there's a clear consensus in favor of a switchover. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    I said "in part" a pet peeve. In the meantime, if the problem is the HTML size, then it would be adviseable to change the article outright to a Harvard or MLA system. But I'm not, of course, suggesting anything like such a wholesale change or switchover (though I do in fact think it would be a good idea). If I were, I would of course raise the issue first, as you suggest. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    The <ref name="foo"/> approach does a good job of reducing HTML size; it is used often in WP articles. I don't see what you have against it. And I think undoing uses of this approach is a wholesale change, one that no one has ever advocated here other than you. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Which is why, as I say, I'm not suggesting it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    But you are undoing <ref name="foo"/>-type uses, with this edit and this edit and this edit for example. This citing style has been used by all editors to this article, and I strongly object to this type of changes. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    OK, one final comment, on one of these three edits. The original sentence in question was this: "That summer, she interned on child custody cases[40] at the Oakland, California, law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein,[41][42] which was well-known for its support of constitutional rights, civil liberties, and radical causes;[42] two of its four partners were current or former communist party members.[42][43][44]" One sentence with seven footnotes. This is surely overkill. What's more, and contra your suggestions earlier, it's really not clear what information each of them can be providing. Presumably, footnote [40] has the detail that she was working on child custody cases. Then are both footnotes [41] and [42] needed to provide the name of hte law firm? Or does one give its location, the other the name? All of them are off-line sources, so I can't check them. I find it hard to believe that the three of them can't be replaced by one source that includes the two (three?) pieces of information that she worked on child custody cases for firm X in place Y. Then we have three footnotes at the end of the sentence, one of which ironically does bring together more than one source, in a manner that I have in fact been proposing.
    I may perhaps here have been over-zealous in simplifying the sentence as follows: "That summer, she interned on child custody cases at the Oakland, California, law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein,[40] which was well-known for its support of constitutional rights, civil liberties, and radical causes; two of its four partners were current or former communist party members.[41]" I would submit, however, that this is far more readable prose, and that all the necessary information and sourcing can in fact be provided by two footnotes. At least, not seven! But it's true that to make sure of that, and really to reduce the over-referencing, I'd have to go through the sources myself, which I'm not in a position to do. In the meantime, however, I have not eliminated a single reference, enabling someone else to go through and sort out the problem, while ensuring that the sentence is not obstructed by a barrage of numbers in square brackets. Again, we may differ on this. I am speaking only as a reader. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    I agree that citing was overdone on this passage; my bad, due to accreting new material (the New York Sun articles) into existing material (various book refs) without fully revisiting it and rewriting the material in question. I've done that now, and there's a lot less citing. And I've avoided cloning the New York Sun article. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • You reverted two of my suggested changes:
    • Here on the basis that "African American" is "an anachronism." I don't think that washes. Should we be saying "negro," then, which likely as not was the language at the time? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Both "Negro" (capitalized) and "black" were in use at the time, but the source says "black", so I suggest we stick with that. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Can we at least avoid the repetion of "black" in that sentence? (I still think the argument about anachronism doesn't wash.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I couldn't find a way to do it that didn't make it more awkward. The NYT cite uses the same repetition; I say let it be. Readers will get through it without difficulty. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Here on the basis that is is "clunky and superfluous" to indicate that the article has shifted from a discussion of Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Rodham. I'm not sure it's either. In fact, there's quite a bit of to and fro between calling her Rodham and calling her Clinton in the sections dealing with her life to 1992. At times, this even threatens to become confusing, or at least makes the reader work to distinguish her from her husband. Anything that makes the reader work is problematic, I think, especially in what is already a relatively demanding article. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The article refers to her as "Rodham" consistently until she started using "Clinton" during Bill's 1982 regain-the-governorship campaign (the beginning of the "Later Arkansas years" section), then it refers to her as "Clinton" consistently. This is the standard practice that biographies of her take. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
        • There is to and fro if you take the footnotes into account. I can see the logic, but again I suggest that any help that you can give the reader is worth providing. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
          • The footnotes are also consistent, and go by the date of the source, so a Living History cite to a 1969 event shows as "Clinton 2003" since she was Clinton when she write the memoir. Again, look at the published biographies by Bernstein, Gerth/Van Natta, Troy, etc.; they do it like this too and their readers have managed. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Yes, I figured that out. Look, all I can do is provide you my response as a reader. A reader with very little brain, perhaps, but I'm not the only one out there. This is an article that's read, usually at speed, by many hundreds of thousands of people. Some of them have ideological axes to grind, sure, and it's important that the references are there, and are solid. Of course, the majority who are looking to grind their axes won't be happy any which way. So I'd argue that a WP article should at least spare a thought for the more or less casual reader, too, and make his or her life a little bit easier. And that's why the number one criterion for FA status is prose that "is engaging, even brilliant." If the axe-grinders prevent it from being so, then there is, moreover, something inherently unstable about the article, and I'm going to have to oppose its nomination. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
                • I've been agonizing this as I've been keeping the article on my watchlist, and seeing how Wasted Time R has been dealing with challenges to the content. I'm withdrawing my oppose. Apologies for the shilly-shallying. I hope to do some more copy-editing in the next few days, but do think that the article is a real accomplishment, especially given the pressures upon it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
              • OK, I respect your position on your interpretation of the criterion. FYI, I'm going to go through your reference consolidations on a case-by-case basis. Ones that are innocuous I'll leave in, but any that involve citation cloning or important loss of context for the footnote I'm going to undo. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
                • Jbmurray, although I'm glad you're trying to help I feel somewhat that your suggestions are based more on subjective preference. No article is 100% tilted towards anyones preference in style, it's all about finding a good common ground for everyone. And I feel that you're asking for the article to be dumbed down too much. Terms such as "fish sliming" aren't obsolete or unused, and it would be unfair to pick out things in an article you personally don't know about. And saying she's a "teacher favorite" suggests very strongly the meaning, and you'd have to be very unsure of yourself to qustion it. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 05:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • I don't know about "subjective preference," but there was nothing disingenuous in my saying 1) I had no idea of what "sliming salmon" entailed and 2) I felt that "teacher's favourite" was ambiguous. Call me dumb. As I've said: I'm simply reporting my response as a reader, who may or may not be typical. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment "She has subsequently opposed the administration on its conduct of the Iraq War, and has opposed it on most domestic issues." -> twice "has opposed" in one sentence 131.111.247.148 (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Article meets FA requirement as much as Barack Obama wiki page. The instability in the article due to edit wars has been addressed in the GAR. --Kalyan (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Just because the topic of the article is of major interest right now, does not necessarily mean that it is unstable and should not be a FA. The article is well written and extremely well referenced. --Splette :) How's my driving? 22:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Object based on Stability as mentioned above. HRC's article is likely going to be edited repeatedly as the campaign continues, and that does not meant the extensive new edits will be of high quality on par expected at FAR. Recommend waiting until after November election. Guroadrunner (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Unbolding and striking based on new oppose entered below: please do not enter three bolded opposes on one FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Guroadrunner, WP:NOTCRYSTAL. This article has not shown to be unstable, and we can't assume it will be in the future. All these comments about being unstable are based on assumptions into the future and are against wikipedia policy. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 01:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- The stability issues above are a concern, but the article also could be improved with respect to overall flow. There also seems to be some inconsistency with regard to paragraph sizing - some paragraphs are way too large and should be broken apart, and there are some that are way too short to be a stand-alone paragraph. There is a one-sentence paragraph at the end of "Early Arkansas years" that should either be merged somewhere, or perhaps elaborated on. "1992 Bill Clinton presidential campaign" could also be expanded. Subsections "Health care and other policy initiatives" and "Whitewater and other investigations" both could also delve into a bit more detail. First of all in the Health care and other policy initiatives, this is again an instance where the first paragraph could be expanded, and then broken apart. There should certainly be more detail about the actual Health care plan itself, and some more detail about the chronology of events surrounding that issue and debate. The subsection Whitewater and other investigations, also leaves me wanting to know more about the various investigations. The second paragraph is quite large, it should be split apart, but also expanded. Certainly some more background and history behind "Filegate" would be helpful, the 2 sentences doesn't really cut it. The "Lewinsky scandal" subsection could also use a bit more, perhaps some examples of public appearances Hillary made during the scandal, in what capacity, etc. The "Political positions" subsection seems a bit choppy, compare to the article Barack Obama, which uses a paragraph format. That would be preferable. "Writings and recordings" - could include info on how the works were received (not just how they sold), positively/negatively in book reviews. Cirt (talk) 10:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks for your comments, and I'll try to explain the rationale on some of these points. Paragraphs are as long or as short as they need to be to cover the topic at hand, and there's a school of thought that says varying paragraph lengths make text easier to read (less monotonous in visual appearance), not harder. The end of "Early Arkansas years" has a two-sentence paragraph: one is Chelsea being born, which is a momentous development in HRC's life and deserves a text break, and the other is Bill being defeated for re-election, which closes the section and signals one of HRC's turning points (it was after this that she adopted "Clinton" as her last name, for instance). You're absolutely right that lots of material could be further expanded on, but there are already overall length constraints on this article, and generally other articles is where the expansion is done. So 1993 Clinton health care plan goes into much more detail about HRC's role in the areas you mention. So Whitewater controversy, White House travel office controversy, and White House FBI files controversy each cover HRC's role in those controversies in greatly added detail. You are right that the last of these (Filegate) gets the least amount of coverage here; that's because it was the one where per the Independent Counsel, the charges against HRC had the least merit. Lewinsky scandal is a tough one, since our article on it doesn't cover HRC's role much; I'll see if I can add something. Regarding "Political positions", there is a whole Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton article on it. For length and fairness reasons, a decision was made not to try to summarize that content here — we'd end up with superficial, boiled-down versions of her positions that would mask complexity, nuance and contradiction. And many of her most important positions (e.g. Iraq War, supreme court justices) are already covered via the "United States Senator" section's bio material. Regarding the books, again, the articles It Takes a Village and Living History cover reviews, ghostwriting controversies, and more. I guess the bottom line on all this is that Wikipedia doesn't have one Hillary article, it has many. Sometimes I think that if we pulled all the HRC material on WP out of where it is and into one place, we'd have a book-length treatment! Wasted Time R (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Cirt - I think the variations for paragraphs makes more sense esp from a neurology students perspective, variations in text help to give each section more to differentiate between them which helps users find information they had remembered being in the article. If they have both section titles and physical differences such as text length it's easier to mentally categorize them, which helps to find information. And there is no policy that says we need sections to be alike in size, that would be really counter productive because it would mean we have to either delete relevant information to match smaller sections or add useless information to smaller sections! Your "reasons" seem very odd, as if you're trying with all your might to find something wrong with a good article. I think the fact that you would compare the Hillary Clinton article to the Barack Obama so quickly shows a conflict of interest in you being here. Just because I voted for Dennis Kucinich doesn't mean that I'm going to nominate his article instead of the Hillary one ... I nominated this one because I felt that it was a really good article and should be featured despite my personal preference. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 13:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    Quirky, I think the middle part of your comment is not appropriate. I don't think that Cirt's comments are odd, or that he/she has a conflict of interest; people compare similar-topic articles all the time. I believe that each article is different, and that how things are best done for political figure A's article doesn't necessarily mean that's the best approach for political figure B's article, but that doesn't mean that such comparisons are off-limits. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Response and Comment for FAC administrator -- Regarding a claim of conflict of interest from QuirkyAndSuch about anyone comparing the Obama article to the HRC article. I believe QAS has a very open conflict of interest that is pro-Clinton and should be weighed as such for this. Noting the contributions history of this user shows he wanted multiple deletions of many Obama-related articles. Obama is Clinton's rival in the Democratic primary. Also, a cursory look at QuirkyAndSuch's MySpace at http://www.myspace.com/elmerbront on 11 May at 8:50 MST shows Clinton is his very open preference, marked with pro-HRC images and video. Clinton also is slotted as #1 in his top 4. The MySpace has the same real-life name, real-life location and same photo and age shown at this user's Wikipedia page. Statements from the FAC nominator that he simply thinks this is a good and well-written article omits his inherent interest and support of this political, and does not consider the public Internet exposure this candidate will receive from being a Featured Article on Wikipedia during one of the most important times in this candidate's fight for political nomination in the U.S. In short, FAC nom has conflict of interest. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Note: This is in response to:

"Just because I voted for Dennis Kucinich doesn't mean that I'm going to nominate his article instead of the Hillary one ... I nominated this one because I felt that it was a really good article and should be featured despite my personal preference." (italics mine)

-- Guroadrunner (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Tentative Support I disregard all stability arguments and see no outstanding valid objections. My support is tentative due to the fact that it seems someone is ignoring my series box objectiona above. The article is perfectly fine otherwise.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    I've gone ahead and removed the "series box" from this article and the others it appeared in. The existing HRC template remains at the bottom of all the articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment for FAC Administrator -- Nom has very public conflict of interest weighted in favor of the article's subject, and nomination should be weighed as such on this merit. User contributions include multiple deletion nominations of Barack Obama-related articles. Obama is Clinton's political rival in the Democratic primary. Furthermore, a cursory look at QuirkyAndSuch's MySpace at http://www.myspace.com/elmerbront on 11 May at 08:50 MST shows Clinton is his very open preference, marked with pro-HRC images and video. Clinton also is slotted as #1 in his top 4. The MySpace has the same real-life name, real-life location and same photo and age shown at this user's Wikipedia page. Statements from the FAC nominator that he simply thinks this is a good and well-written article omits his inherent interest and support of this politician, and does not consider the public Internet exposure this candidate will receive from being a Featured Article on Wikipedia during one of the most important times in this candidate's fight for political nomination in the U.S. In short, FAC nom has conflict of interest. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for commenting. We don't evaluate editors here: we evaluate articles per WP:WIAFA. Editor motives can be discussed on talk pages. Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for letting me know, although I have some qualms about that in fear that a political machine (or corporation) could rally and push through a substantive victory in free advertising by manipulating Wikipedia's feature article space. I'm not accusing Quriky of that, but I will keep in mind that editor backgrounds or affiliaitions, both on Wikipedia and off Wikipedia, will not be considered by any manner for any FA nom. I suppose the basis is sort of like WP:OTHERSUTFFEXISTS, only for editors? Correct me if wrong. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't believe I said "not be considered in any manner". If you want to pursue AGF and editor affiliations (such as WikiProject and other "fan support"), pls consider using the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh. Well this is good that safeguards are in place. I will make a statement on the FAC talk page. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Object, 1(e) concerns. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - My objections still stand. The "Political positions" section could be better in paragraph format. As that was the only thing that I had used to compare with the article Barack Obama, a Featured Article, that was not a content but a style comparison. I object to the insinuations made about me above by QuirkyAndSuch (talk · contribs) Diff, and I request that they either be stricken by him, or removed from this discussion and moved to the talk page. They have nothing to do with a FAC discussion about the article, but are rather focused on a single contributor, and are thus highly inappropriate. Cirt (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    As my comments above indicated, I also didn't like at all what Quirky said. Regarding "Political positions", do you object to the content, the presentation, or both? Wasted Time R (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    Both, as stated above. True, the article cannot go into the same depth as independent articles on each of the various topics covered, but as I noted above there should be a bit more, to give more context. Cirt (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    There are 39 different issue areas currently covered by Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton. How many of these deserve mention in the "Political positions" summary section, and which should it be? Should areas where she has had a variety of stances be avoided in the interests of simplicity (e.g. interventionism)? If the position is already covered in other sections of the main article, such as "United States Senator", (e.g. taxes, immigration, Iraq, homeland security, and some others), should it still be repeated in the "Political positions" summary? I'm not trying to be difficult, but in my experience with working on a bunch of candidates' articles, trying to summarize political positions in this way leads to both repetition and oversimplification, the worst of both worlds. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not concerned about stability in isolation, but with respect to length. This article must stay under 60KB and 10000 words regardless of her future to stay at WP:FA if it passes now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose With respect to the various opposition due to stability concerns, we have to try to at least clear a path for a contentious topic to become an FA. If there are enough active editors to watch the page for BLP violations and sourcing, I think it's possible to maintain FA quality. As such, I don't think "possible instability" is a legitimate reason for opposing. However, there are some solid and current reasons that this is not ready for FA. Some more specific comments:
    • I have major concerns about a point jbmurray brought up, even though he struck his opposition. The article is borderline unreadable because the footnoting has been managed with an eye toward fending off edit warriors and not toward readability. You say the Wellesley Young Republicans aren't Rockefeller Republican-oriented, eh? Well here's a mid-sentence citation in your eye. The general readership won't thank you.
      Well, I respect your viewpoint, but there isn't much I can say on this beyond what I said to jbmurray. The article's first duty is to conform to WP:BLP and WP:V and to protect itself against edits-with-agendas. If the close citing that results prevents it from being FA in your judgement, I won't try to convince you otherwise. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The prose is quite measured and not all that engaging. Wordiness is easily spotted (ex. "In terms of public perception of her views, in a Gallup poll conducted during May 2005, 54 percent of respondents considered Senator Clinton a liberal, 30 percent considered her a moderate, and 9 percent considered her a conservative.") but overall I did not spot any flatly wrong sentences. I would say the prose is "correct" but not "brilliant". My main concern is the first one. --Laser brain (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
      I fixed that specific case. For what it's worth, I agree, the prose rarely achieves brilliance. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • New Oppose . see below.
    • I, too, thought the Rockefeller Republicans citation cut the sentence askew. However, it did get me to read what a Rockefeller Republican was (never heard of it, antiquated term). Recommend changing sentence structure around so the main point goes first, then background information second. This means it's muddled. Recommend changing to something akin to: During her freshman year, she served as president of the Wellesley Young Republicans organization[1][2], a politically moderate club in the Rockefeller Republican spirit[3]. With them, she supported the elections of John Lindsay and Edward Brooke.[4]
      I've reworded this somewhat along the lines you suggest. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Not every mid-sentence citation is unappealing, but some other citations that make the text clunky are
  • Hillary[5] Diane Rodham was born at Edgewater Hospital in Chicago, Illinois.[6] ---- Nice story embedded in the cite ref coding, but it's quite factual this person's name is Hillary. Information in cite ref could be outmoded into the article, or scrapped.
    This one has been discussed many times by now. A lot of people think this is a telling story of Hillary's tendency to mendacity, so it can't be scrapped altogether. But putting it in the main text would slow the beginning narrative to a halt and give it excess weight. So a footnote is appropriate, but if the footnote is at the end of the sentence, readers will think it's documenting her birthplace, not her name origin, and not look at it. Thus the footnote needs to be where it is. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • During her post-graduate study, Rodham served as staff attorney for Edelman's newly founded Children's Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts,[7] and as a consultant to the Carnegie Council on Children.[8]
    I don't see footnotes after clauses of sentences like this as disruptive; the comma represents a natural pause and partial break, that the footnote rests within. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • She was named Arkansas Woman of the Year in 1983[9] and Arkansas Mother of the Year in 1984.[10] -- clunky, but not as jarring
    I couldn't put a comma in here, but again it's clearly two separate parts of a sentence. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    Could both refs go at the back of the sentence then? Guroadrunner (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    In this case, it's really clear what cite would go with what claim, so yes I've moved it. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Clinton was the first female member on Wal-Mart's board, added following pressure on chairman Sam Walton to name a woman to the board.[11] Once there, she pushed successfully for Wal-Mart to adopt more environmentally-friendly practices,[11][12] but was largely unsuccessful in a campaign for more women to be added to the company's management,[11][12] and was silent about the company's famously anti-labor union practices.[12][13] --- balanced coverage, but why so many refs in the middle of these sentences? Could this be broken up more?
    Clinton's time on the Wal-mart board is very contentious, but I agree this citing was overdoing it; I've simplified it considerably. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Most polls placed Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina as Clinton's closest competitors in the early caucus and primary election states.[14] Clinton set records for early fundraising,[15] which Obama then topped in the following months[16] before Clinton later regained the money lead,[17] but Clinton generally maintained her lead in the polls.[18] --- wow that's a lot of refs all over the place. Can we get a single-reference fundraising chart to supplant all these multiple refs of who raised the most in each fiscal quarter?
    I've replaced the middle three cites with one. Someday books will be published on the campaign, and a lot of this news story citing can be replaced with smaller, more economical, more stable book cites. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Also--
  • "She is regarded as the most openly empowered presidential wife in American history, save for Eleanor Roosevelt." / Save for Eleanor Roosevelt? Does this conjecture mean that Roosevelt was more openly empowered? Says who? Too firm in stating. Also, re: it's source: is Verve magazine fit with WP:RS regarding politics? How so?
    This means both ER and HRC were openly empowered, and it's hard to compare or rank the two. I've added another cite to this, from the Gil Troy book (a historian who specializes in First Ladies). Wasted Time R (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    Cool. Can the Verve Magazine reference be killed, as it still is used as a reference and the onus is to give proof it passes WP:RS. Guroadrunner (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, I believe this is a legit WP:RS. Chidanand Rajghatta is a respected foreign affairs writer — I found lots of articles of his in The Times of India, where I think he's also editor of the foreign affairs section or something like that. Verve seems to be an Indian equivalent of an upscale women's magazine in the U.S., and other political articles I checked in it seemed reasonably serious. There's a long tradition of foreign reporting on U.S. politics being sometimes more insightful than native reporting ... anyway, I rewrote the citation to give the author wlink and whatnot, but I think this deserves to stay. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Lazio blundered during a September debate by seeming to invade Clinton's personal space trying to get her to sign a fundraising agreement." -- huh? I mean, did he get really physically close to her? Did he inappropriately touch her? A bit vague.
    I've linked personal space to try to make this clearer. Means he got to close to her, in an antagonistic fashion. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • At the end of October, Clinton suffered what writers for The Washington Post, ABC News, The Politico, and other outlets characterized as a rare poor debate performance against Obama, Edwards, and her other opponents. --- Needs a comma after "other outlets"
    Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In terms of public perception of her views, in a Gallup poll conducted during May 2005, 54 percent of respondents considered Senator Clinton a liberal, 30 percent considered her a moderate, and 9 percent considered her a conservative.[287] --- 2005, eh? In an article section about 2008? there surely are more recent polls that cover the independent voter's perception.
    This article covers her whole history, not just now, so I consider 2005 to be okay. And these numbers haven't changed much, at least not during her Senate era. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Ratings of Clinton's votes from a number of other interest groups are tracked by Project Vote Smart.[300]" --- Okay, that's nice to see. But that's what Project Vote Smart does. How is it's mention related to Clinton? To me, this infomration looks superfluous. Nominator, why is it not?
    This had already been deleted, sometime after you saw it. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Overall, it seems that it's pretty good, but the article in question is not yet ready. On this basis I oppose. I also still put forth my opposition based on political timeliness that the FA should not be granted until after the election. To me, this seems to be a timed FAC (further comments on talk page) and until Clinton is no longer a political factor in this race, Wikipedia should not give site-wide highlight in such a large way to a political candidate, which could act as a swaying influence on the race. This goes the same for McCain or attempting to make Obama the front-page featured article again. WP is not a soapbox for a candidate's supporters during an election.

-- Guroadrunner (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're a politics junkie, you know that Clinton already is no longer a factor. But everyone has a different view on this overall issue of campaigns and FAC, and I respect yours. I also thank you for the detailed comments you've given. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for working with me on this. I know I've ruffled feathers here earlier. However, Clinton is still a candidate with a mathematical and/or realistic shot of winning, meaning she still is a factor. The popular media has simply been calling her down, but watch what happens after West Virginia's primary, for example. My opposition on the content is allayed, but my opposition on timeliness still stands. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
She isn't a factor, if you do the math you'll see she'd have to win over 70% of all primaries and much over 50% of superdelegates. These possibilities aren't even in the realm of margin of error. Every single poll done for each state would have to be incorrect by a huge margin of error, a miscalculation larger than any in any of these polls histories. I think we can stop pretending she is a factor in this race, and look at article quality. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 09:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Florida and Michigan reversing puts Clinton in to a hard-charging position. Conversing about this is derailing the FA's intent. Until you can prove she is no longer an official candidate for the Democratic primary, then my oppose stands on that ground. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per stable criteria; I don't think article should be nominated for at least a month after the presidential election. That gives you more time to work on the non-stability issues raised here! :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. This extended FAC process has made the article much better. I believe the 1(e) concerns are misplaced. The featured article criterion for stability says: "'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." While the article is the subject of frequent vandalism, its substance has been sufficiently refined that the only changes should be the addition of material describing new events as they happen. If this violates 1(e), then so does the biography of every living person. Coemgenus 14:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article, I believe does not meet the standards of being a featured article. There are plenty of problem with the article, not the least of which is the lack of stability. ~ UBeR (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support The article appears to meet all the criteria for a FA. Stability is a bit shakey, but it appears to have been sustained well so far, and I think that this stability will only increase in the coming months. Further, the Barack Obama article sets a precedent, showing that articles such as the this one can maintain some level of stability while retaining quality. Ixistant (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, fails 1e (stability), for the reason that the subject of the article is currently engaged in a life-changing political contest. Let's wait until after the end of the present contest. Per User:Guroadrunner, above, I have reason to believe that the proposal has been made for poilitical reasons, not for reasons of the good of wikipedia. I do not believe those who seek to game the system should be rewarded. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • comment I'd support these opposes if I was offered a a single case of evidence that this article is not stable. WP:NOTCRYSTAL sums up why we can't assume it will be. And I should note, another primary has concluded, and this article is just as stable. I noticed that all the stability arguments never give evidence of any instability that has shown. I've seen featured articles that are actually less stable than this one. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 06:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • It is simple. There are two possible outcomes to the nomination: Hillary recovers and wins the nomination, or Hillary concedes. If it is the former, then there needs to be a substantial write-up on how her nomination recovered, with proper summary style allusions back to her presidential campaign article. In case the nomination fails, there needs to be some writing on why and how it failed. Those sections are not present right now, and they need to be to satisfy 1(b) concerns. Since the content of the article will change substantially in the foreseeable future, the article fails the 1(e) criterion as of now. The other concern is answered by WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Let's be honest here, you're talking about this article having stability and breadth of coverage issues because it is missing a paragraph at most and a paragraph that can't be written because of WP:CRYSTAL concerns. The presidential campaign section is a summary of the main article Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 and that article should and will give the depth of coverage that is deserving of Clinton's possible nomination/defeat and the reasons behind the nomination/defeat. Given the logic being applied to the stability and breadth opposes, no biography of a living person can be a Featured Article since they are constantly making their history and the articles are constantly in need of updating of some sort.-Bobblehead (rants) 16:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: At the top of this page (Wikipedia:FAC) it says: "For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be achieved that it meets the FA criteria". The link on consensus doesn't define it in the review process, but my common-sense assumption is that all, or a very significant majority, of FAC reviewers must support a nomination before a consensus can be declared. On the basis of the discussions on this page, that situation will never be achieved on Hillary Rodham Clinton. Supports and opposes have been more or less balanced since the nomination began; each new support gets a balancing oppose, and vice versa. So, with two strong forces diametrically opposing each other, the nomination is about as far from achieving consensus as it is possible to be, yet it remains open. Is there a justification for this? Brianboulton (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Using that standard almost no political figure will ever be promoted. Many objectors don't object within the WP:WIAFA parameters so you can not count support/oppose. Stability by some definitions is related to edit wars and not lifechanging events or important living people could never get promoted. It might be the case that all stability oppositions get thrown out in a sense.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Throwing out all stability objections because you don't like them? It is one of the criteria. If you don't like it, then try and get it changed. But as long as it is one of the criteria, it is a valid opposition. — BQZip01 — talk 01:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Tony, there is a fair objection to not allowing supporters of a candidate to push for that candidate's FAC during an election. Wikipedia's featured article placement is a major coup when it comes to eyeballs from a marketer's perspective. When a politician is not a candidate, this is a different situation in my view. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 06:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    • If you can't count support/oppose, how else is consensus going to be judged, in a way that is transparent? Brianboulton (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure what you are asking exactly. If it is a mere tally vote, then right now the standings are 8 support/12 oppose, plus nominator's automatic support. If it isn't a tally vote, then arguments from opposers and rebuttals from supporters have reason to be weighted. Guroadrunner (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
        • As an active Barack Obama supporter, I support this nom. My point is that controversial persons probably never pass based on vote count. Also, often times people don't remove objections after issues are resolved. This has happened to me a few times. I support, but don't necessarily see this passing right now. I am just saysing it is not an open and shut case.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The writing is almost there, and this probably should be promoted if it's polished up. Here are bits at random that I caught. The whole text should be sifted through by someone new; surely it won't be hard to find a word-nerd for this? Not a long job.

  • "as well as sitting on the board of Wal-Mart and several other corporate boards."—Something wrong with that? Board of boards?
    I've changed this. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Angle: "In the 2008 presidential nomination race, Clinton succeeded in winning more primaries and delegates than any other woman in U.S. history." This begs the question of what other women have undergone the process, and is probably an insignificant base against which to compare her achievement in this respect. Strange. Why not "the first woman to ..."?
    There have been others, such as Shirley Chisholm in 1972, who won 152 delegates and, by some definitions, a primary or two. What we really want to say is, "she's the first woman ever to have a real chance of winning the presidency (even if she didn't win)", but all attempts at that were rejected by other editors who thought we were challenging Obama's supremacy. So this is what we have. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
OK. TONY (talk) 09:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "in order to live with her"—my pet hate. Spot the two redundant words. There are other examples to be weeded out, too.
    The full clause is "Clinton canceled his original summer plans in order to live with her in California". I'm trying, but I don't see the two redundant words. The "in order" can't be removed without reversing the meaning. I've added a comma after "summer plans", in case that helps to parse it.Wasted Time R (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
You're quite right. TONY (talk) 09:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Her first scholarly article, "Children Under the Law" ... Doesn't Naming conventions prescribe sentence case for such titles?
    I've just checked WP:MOSCAPS, but I don't see anything like this. Is it somewhere else? Wasted Time R (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Marriage and family, law career and First Lady of Arkansas"—Can't you find a neater title?
    No, because all four things were going on at the same time, and all were very important. And because Wikipedia doesn't have an indexing mechanism, the Table of Contents often serves as a mini-index, which can justify longish section headings at times. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • MOS breach—logical punctuation required: As she later wrote, "I chose to follow my heart instead of my head." TONY (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I've changed this. Thanks for your comments and your "How to satisfy Criterion 1a" essay, it's very good even if this article doesn't make you believe I've read it ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Support: I like it. --Kill Nu metal (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Support: The article is no more unstable than I am.  :-) see this diff.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly helping your cause there... ;-) — BQZip01 — talk 16:47, 25 May 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 15:26, 26 May 2008 [17].

[edit] Louvre

Self-nom

I'm nominating this article for featured article because... it has gone endured much work from a number of editors, including myself. The article is now a comprehensive overlook of the museum's history and collection. I look forward to reading your comments! Lazulilasher (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Otherwise, sources look good. Links worked according to the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Reply to Ealdgyth: Thanks for checking the refs. Comment #1 now has publisher added (Bloomberg): [18], Comment #2 was removed as was the sentence as I didn't feel it necessary to the article, and Comment #3 was resourced to a book: [19] Lazulilasher (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The map under the Location and access section overlaps the text of the Notable works section in my browser (Firefox 2.0.0.14/Windows XP). BuddingJournalist 20:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Same issue, Firefox on Mac OS Leopard. Otherwise I think it's good, flow and style work for clarity and MOS. Good work TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 20:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Reply to BuddingJournalist and TravellingCari: Darn...same issue on my computer, also...I thought it was only me and my Commodore 64 (joke). Anyway, I am working on it now and will post when fixed. I made the map, so I am loathe to remove...but, well...it might have to go... Lazulilasher (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I think Template:Clear might work on the map problem. I am still looking the latest version of the article over, but note that images should all be set to thumb so reader preferences on size take over (with the exception of infoboxes, maps, and panoramas - can also use thumb and "upright" for vertical images to make them not as wide). See WP:MOS#Images. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply to Ruhrfisch That {{clear}} template worked. Also, alternated right/left alignment. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Map seems to be fixed on my browser! BuddingJournalist 21:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Same here, was just about to say that here. Struck that portion of my comment. I'm going to have a more detailed read-through later but it's all looking very good. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 21:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I would also note that I would never have figured that out about the {{clear}} template. So thanks for that. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments. I am only familiar with the Louvre during the sixteenth and early seventeenth century, so my comments concentrate on that period. It seems to me far too skimpily passed over.
  • I feel that the unique work of Lescot and Goujon needs to be given its due. French Renaissance architecture of this period is a remarkable and special thing, mixing elements of classicism and mannerism in a new way. Acording to Anthony Blunt, "it is possible to talk of Lescot's style as a form of French classicism, having its own principles and its own harmony". And according to Ivan Cloulas, Goujon created "an art of immense sophistication and refinement"; he says of Goujon's sculptural friezes and ornamentation: "The most perfect conception in all of French architecture, celebrated from the moment of its completion, this façade made ingenious use of compositions reminiscent of those devised by Michelangelo for the Sistine ceiling".
  • No mention is made of the keep which Francis I removed.
  • No mention is made of Lescot's ceiling for Henry II's chamber, carved by Scibec de Carpi, which still survives. In Blunt's opinion, it "marks an epoch in French interior decoration".
  • There should, I think, be a mention of the interior decoration of Lescot's new wing, which was highly original, particularly the four caryatids of Goujon, which were monumental and unprecedented in France.
  • Catherine de' Medici should, I believe, be credited with the decision to join the Louvre to the Tuileries with a long gallery (as early as 1576), though Lescot probably came up with the "grand design" even earlier. Henry IV was merely the final carrier out. The ground floor of the first part of this section, the Petite Galerie, was completed in Catherine's lifetime.
  • The article says that Henry IV built the Grande Galerie in 1594, but I find this hard to believe. After all, he entered Paris for the first time in his reign in March of that year. It would be more accurate to say that Henry began work on the linking gallery in that year. David Buisseret suggests that the work was completed between 1596 and 1606 (Tobie Matthew reported in 1605 that the gallery was "within forty paces of completion"; and it is recorded that you could pass from the Louvre to the Tuileries through the gallery by 1606). Henry IV can be credited with the idea of building the northern link between the two palaces, though he didn't carry this out himself. qp10qp (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply to Qp10qp: Thanks for your comments. Well, I was concerned about the length of the article and had some reservations about going to deeply into the history as an article, Palais du Louvre, exists and might be more appropriate for more depth (length of history section was also mentioned in the article's Peer Review). However, I do agree that Catherine de Medici should be mentioned as well as a deeper description of Lescot. I'll leave a message on your talk page after edits are completed. Lazulilasher (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Reply to Qp10qp: Ok, I addressed your comments...I agree, the 16th century does require more weight. Please let me know what you think of the edits (also, note that the diffs aren't the final version--I did go through and copy edit, so if the diffs seem a bit disjointed, please refer to the article):
        • Lescot & Goujon: I fleshed out the section about these two, including mentioning the Salle des Caryatides. Please see here.
        • Scibec de Carpi/Lescot's ceiling: See this diff. I didn't mention that the ceiling has been moved, but I did note the departure from the traditional French style at that time.
        • 'The keep: Noted removal of medieval keep under Francois I here.
        • Catherine de'Medici and the idea to link the two palaces: Noted here.
        • The Grande Galerie: A bit more detail was added and more specific wording was used. My source said that the link was finished by 1610, which gives the possibility that it was done earlier.
        • Ok, I hope this makes the section a bit more clear. As always, much appreciation for the comments and read-through. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose at the moment, and I suspect for all this round, as I think the article needs a lot of work. The section on the building is actually longer than the supposed "main article", Palais du Louvre (though that is better in parts), but neither do such an important and complex building anything like justice. The material on the collections has far too much emphasis on when and how things got there, as opposed to what actually is there. One of the 8 departments, Near Eastern Antiquities, is missing completely. (now added) There are generally far too many factoids assembled in a rather random fashion:

    On 2 December 1851, Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte, who had been elected President of the Republic, staged a coup d'état by dissolving the National Assembly and ushering in the Second French Empire. Between 1852 and 1870, the French economy grew and the museum added 20,000 new pieces to its collections and the link to the Tuileries was completed via the Pavillon de Flore.

    The section on "sculpture" reads, in its entirety:

    The sculpture curatorial department contains "modern" sculpture.[33] The Louvre has been a repository of sculpted material since its time as a palace; however, the first display of medieval, Renaissance, and modern works did not occur until 1824. Initially, the collection was relatively small, with about 100 works and, because of government focus on Versaille, it remained so until 1847 when Léon Laborde was given control of the department. By 1855 there were 388 pieces on display. Initially, the collection was organized under the department of antiquities but was given autonomy in 1871, and in 1986 all works from after 1850 were relocated to the new Musée d'Orsay. As part of the Grand Louvre project, the sculpture department was separated into two exhibition spaces. The French collection is on display in the Richelieu wing, while foreign works are located throughout the Denon wing.[33]

    Yes, but what have they actually got? What does "modern" mean here? And so on. Do we really need to know that in "1847 ... Léon Laborde was given control of the department"? The whole thing reads much too much like the "History of the Collection" bits museums love to start their guides with, which no one ever reads, moving on to the actual current contents. Some basic things the article doesn't tell you: 1) The Louvre has by a mile the most important collection of French old master paintings and sculpture in the world; 2) It has hardly any English paintings, and not many Spanish ones (a "modest" collection, as my guide says); 3) the "decorative arts" collection includes arguably the most important collection of Early Medieval objects in the world. Johnbod (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply to Johnbod: Hey there. Thanks for the comments. Well, concerning the departments, my thought-process was that the significant works should be listed together, at the end, as they ended up being rather "list-y" and I thought it more appropriate to have detail about the pieces contained in their respective articles. Perhaps that wasn't the best course of action, but it seemed to be the clearest as there exists also a category of the Louvre's collections. I figured that the department's should contain information about the history of acquisition, history of the department, etc. Regarding the significance of the museum, I avoided out-right writingthat because I wanted that to come through via the text and demonstration of the notable works at the end. Perhaps that didn't happen.
  • The word "modern" means after 1850, as the other works were placed in the D'Orsay, I guess that could be made explicitly clear--although my intention was for "modern" to be implicitly defined by after 1850 as the earlier works were moved to the D'Orsay. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Correction Oops, I'd meant to say the later works were moved to the D'Orsay and the ancient were in the Greek/Etruscan/Roman department. Anyway, I'm adding Near Eastern, as that should definitely be there.... Lazulilasher (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • So "modern" here means after classical antiquity, but before 1850? Should be explained anyway. Johnbod (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • And the Palais du Louvre article will, one-day, hopefully be much better...I just thought it the Louvre article more pertinent as a starting point... Lazulilasher (talk) 00:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't necessarily object to the list in itself, but the departmental sections should be more relevant summaries. Also, the whole later part of the article, devoted to the collections, is referenced only to the Louvre website, not even one of the Guides like Mignot. Johnbod (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • (undent) hi johnbod, thanks for taking the time and replying. I was busy real-world yesterday, so I was away from en-wiki. during that time I've come to agree that the latter sections need some buffing, as well. So, I'm going to the library to fill in the blanks. I think I'll be ble to get this done by the deadline, so I'll notify you when complete. thanks for the comment (lazulilasher via mobile device that does not have tilda key)
  • I like the way it is moving. You mention Pitti Palace below. British Museum, which absurdly failed a 2007 GA nom because not enough external sourcing was used, is worth a look, as more directly comparable in terms of the collections, as is Metropolitan Museum of Art - less good in my view, but far more comprehensive than this. There is also nothing here on controversies - there must be some. Repatriation of cultural property must be an issue? See National_Gallery,_London#Controversies, Getty_Center#The_controversies_with_Italy_and_Greece. Also a brief bit on organisation - who appoints the Director? Is it the Ministry directly? Johnbod (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Hey! Thanks for the note of encouragement. I think it can get there. Actually, I really like the British Museum article--I thought it was GA--and initially Finetooth and I did draw a bit of the organization from it. I've been thinking about controversy, also. The French wiki has it, so you're right...I'll probably add something to that extent. Btw, I think it's funny that you mention Mignon's book....coincidentally, I'm holding it in my hands at this moment. Ok, back to work, now... Lazulilasher (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Just a note, an article stands on it's own for the purpose of a FA nomination. You noted that the sub article on the building wasn't larger than the material here, but that doesn't affect this FAC. The quality of the section in this article on the building does, but per WP:SS the material in this article should be relatively short since this article has to cover a lot of material. - Taxman Talk 17:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose article has various problems from simple to fix to rather fundamental
    • "Third Republic to present" and "Modern developments" overlap more fundamentally than just "to present" covering modern developments. The section on the "Axe historique" which is poorly captioned for the image and not well explained seems to end with the mention of the Paris Commune at the very beginning of the third Republic--not very modern. I also tend to think the new offshoot museums should be in a different section.
    • While discussion of the building is well fleshed out the discussion of the art is not. Also, it primarily uses the Louvre website which should generally be avoided at least as being the only source for a paragraph.
    • Little mention of the wings?
    • "Notable works" completely unsourced. This might be a valuable section to use the Louvre website as a reference.
    • --gren グレン 21:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Reply to Grenavitar: Ok, thanks for the comments. Much was noted above, so I am in the process of addressing it (most particularly the emphasis on museum holdings) and I think I can get it too a much higher level before this closes. On another note, regarding the sourcing of the notable works, I was thinking that this should perhaps be broken off as a list, as it is rather unwieldly. As for sourcing, does it need to be sourced as it is mainly a list of well-known pieces? I'll notify you when edits are completed on the other issues. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Another reply: We've been using Palazzo Pitti (FA) as our model article, and that article has the notable works in a separate list. We've discussed doing the same, but my feeling was that the article was not long enough to justify the move. However, I just moved the list into a separate article, as the additions to the department section are making the current article too long. I think it is much cleaner. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The department sections have been redressed and the issues above have been addressed, hopefully the article looks good now. As always, I await feedback :) Lazulilasher (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—Weird writing. By that I mean opaque, unexplained, difficult to read prose. And I've only got to the end of the second para. Looking through quickly, it seems to fail 1a. But it has promise, and with a good copy-editor or two (not people who are close to the text already), might just be brought up to standard in time.

  • Opening—just a thought: I wonder whether most readers can engage better with hectares (acres) than massive values of sq m and ft? Do we need "the structure's"?
  • "The museum is on the Right Bank, in the neighborhood referred to as the 1st arrondissement and lies between the Seine River and the Rue de Rivoli."—Where would the comma be better placed?
  • The structure was begun—surely it's the construction of the building that began. And I'm confused about whether that first construction was of a fortress or of the building we see now. I suppose I'll work it out if I read on and think carefully. Do I need to hit the link to "Capetian dynasty" or "Philip II" to work it out? "and has been used as a residence." is odd after all of those opaque chronological clues. Then we immediatly have "used as" again.
  • Were the "modern museum standards" those that were set during the Grand Louvre project, or just modern standards that were applied then?
  • "The museum is divided among eight curatorial departments, contains some of the world's most celebrated artworks and displays almost every genre of Western Art. In addition, the collection displays pieces of Egyptian, Oriental, and Islamic origin." I find the two ideas in the first sentence not to fit well with each other (the first one kind of begs the question, don't you think?). And since the second item leads smoothly into the non-Western statement, perhaps they should be joined instead.
  • The singling out of just five or six works here is going to appear POV. I'd stay away from that in the lead. TONY (talk) 13:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply to Tony1: Hi Tony, thanks for reading the article and encouraging. Do you, perhaps, have any good referrals to a recommended editor to help prune the prose? I'll address the other points as soon as I get a decent internet connect. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:05, 26 May 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 15:26, 26 May 2008 [20].

[edit] Mirth & Girth

Self-nominator. The subject is pretty controversial, even after 20 years. GA process was unusually long and contentious. Thanks in advance! :-) —Rob (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Query resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Current ref 31 "Lehmann, Daniel J. and Golb, Art "City settles suit over Washington painting" is lacking a publisher.
Otherwise sources look okay. Still on the road, so didn't check links. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Thought I nailed all of 'em. Fixed. —Rob (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments by Moni3

I like this article, and I did when I read it at GA. Just a few of points to address before I can support it:

  • Give it a thorough copy edit (if you can't because you've been working on it too long, I will go through it, though I am not as thorough as some). I noticed small things, like Weekly World News and New Art Examiner weren't italicized, and insinuated that Washington was himself gay, quotation punctuation. Stuff like that.
    • I'll need help with this. I can write prose fairly well, sometimes I just take the long way around. —Rob (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Please break Background (Harold Washington's death / School of the Art Institute of Chicago, for ex.) and Responses into subsections.
    • Took a first shot at this, sectioning together paragraphs by group. —Rob (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the lead needs to be expanded to reflect all the material in the article.
    • I added a paragraph from the various sides of the conflict. I get the feeling that any more will result in a can of worms about what to include and what not to include. —Rob (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Try some quote boxes since it's not easy to find images for this article.
    • I put in some quote boxes. A few of them seem to be particularly over-the-top, but I do feel there is some weight necessary on the the raw nerve this touched in the black community. —Rob (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Join some of the short 2-sentence paragraphs, otherwise it reads like a timeline.
    • I think a recent reordering helped solved this issue. —Rob (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The phrase better part of four years to wind through the legal system is a little POV.
    • I actually removed this phrase, because it was unclear and the dates are given later on anyways.
  • Is there no critique on the artwork beside the political controversy? (Because it kinda sucks.)
    • Sadly, I don't think so. The piece didn't get to be judged by the judges at the exhibition, because it was taken down first. Anything and everything thereafter was mostly about the controversy. I did add the students' characteriziations of the painting; that's sort of a critique! —Rob (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me know if you need assistance. --Moni3 (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment As a law- rather than art-minded reader, I find it strange that an entire appellate case is nested within this article. Posner and Easterbrook are probably among the most important American jurists, and one would think that this case should have an article of its own, discussing the issues raised in the case in a legal context that expands beyond this painting. I would recommend that this be turned into a WP:SS section so that the legal case can be expanded further, and from a perspective that is not specific to this painting. Mangostar (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It's not a bad idea, and I think I'll take up making that subsection more summary style. The only argument against creating a Nelson v. Streeter article is that Posner described the case as straightforward, and that he mentioned that he was troubled that it took so long to rule on the case. If, however, you're making the argument that any of Posner's opinions are notable, then the point is moot. —Rob (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I have tried to distill the basic arguments of the opinion into two paragraphs, not quoting Posner at all. This should satisfy WP:SS. —Rob (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion Is divinization an applicable synonym for deification here? I had to look up deification. indopug (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a derivative of a Nelson quote, but he also referred to Washington being made an icon. So how about "iconization"? I'd use "idolization" if I didn't think it was too strong. I'll take any other suggestions as to the appropriate opposite of "iconoclasm". —Rob (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with this suggestion. "Deification" is a fine word, it has 319k hits with google. Divinization is one I hadn't heard of, and it has 99k hits. I don't see any reason to change it. "Iconization" maybe, but it seems pretty obscure. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 01:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I started reading for prose issues but quickly ran into several troubling issues regarding sourcing, POV, and wording. I found these within two minutes of reviewing the article, so there may be more. They need to be resolved before I can continue reviewing.
    • I was intrigued by the statement in the lead that "angry African-American aldermen" confiscated the painting so I skipped down to the Confiscation heading to find out if your source covered all the involved aldermen being African-American. The first source I ran into was to the Becker essay. The second is the text of the court opinion. I don't know which one is supposed to be the source for the "angry African-American aldermen" statement but I don't see where either source states even that Henry and Jones are African-American. Also, I'd hardly call the "National Coalition Against Censorship" a neutral organization, so you need to source this court opinion to a different, preferably official site. Since they didn't post a scanned document, we can't count on its authenticity.
      • Yes, I remember having to do research to figure out which Aldermen Henry and Jones the federal lawsuit talked about. Might take some digging. —Rob (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Surprisingly, Hanania_19880514 also uses the phrase "angry African-American aldermen". Completely unintentional. This ref would satisfy the citation requirement for that phrase; I was afraid I'd have to cite individual aldermanic profiles from 1988. Finding free case law? That might be harder. —Rob (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Somebody likes me. Is Project Posner (from site: "The purpose of this site is to make freely and easily available to the public Richard Posner's largest and greatest body of work — his judicial opinions.") sufficiently neutral? —Rob (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Now to Becker. First, it's unavailable for viewing through Google books so the link you provide doesn't work. Second, it's a collection of essays which means it is inherently POV. You can use the essay to explicitly discuss Becker's opinions, but not to source facts of the incident.
      • I tried the link again and it worked. Pointless, though, because there's a better source for the 2 times this source is used regarding damage to the painting (a newspaper) and the need for the other source is starting to look unnecessary (controversial material in the student competition). —Rob (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I removed all Becker references. Hanania_19880514 provides this info. (I'm also fading my original comments so it's easier to read. If this is a Bad Idea, feel free to undo.) —Rob (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • One other point - your narrative of the confiscation is very, very close to the text of the court opinion. While technically not plagiarism because the court opinion is not copyrighted, you need to rewrite in your own words. --Laser brain (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Agree... some things need a second go in terms of summary style. —Rob (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I took my best shot at it. Used the thesaurus, reordered some phrases. Part of the problem is the source and this article both write that section as if it was a timeline, which to me makes the most sense. If this isn't the right approach, let me know. —Rob (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Is this the same David K. Nelson? [21] Wnt (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe. The illustrations sure seem to run in the same theme. —Rob (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Comment Well written, but needs a bit more. all objections addressed. —This is part of a comment by GRuban (of 16:19, 22 May 2008), which was interrupted by the following:
    • Describe the painting in the lead, at least one sentence, otherwise we're missing something between "it was painted in response to HWs death" and "angry aldermen arrived", we need to at least imply what made them angry.
      • This is done. —Rob (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Wnt's link needs research; if Nelson is putting other paintings on the Web, we absolutely need to link to his page. "What ever happened to Nelson?" is crying out for answer.
      • I'm 99.9% sure it's the same David K. Nelson, based on sources, website registration, and image content (nonstandard advertising drawings, to say the least!). I don't have something that says "David K. Nelson's website is X". But I think we can add that to External Links. —Rob (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "Commentaries and reports of the painting identify the object Washington is holding as a pencil." - way too long; write "Washington is holding a pencil", and you don't need to cite it, it's obvious and undisputed.
      • Leftover sentence from an early dispute; rewrote (maybe not shortened, per se, but it's more direct and to the point now.) —Rob (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I think the "Dread Scott" connection is weak, unless you can find a source connecting the two incidents more than a single sentence at the end of an article.
      • Also thought about it. I ended up removing the "Aftermath" section and merging the paragraph regarding Nelson into the Settlement section. There are hints of a policy change in the SAIC after Dread Scott, but the connection is weak - the Dread Scott incident is perceived to have made a bigger impact on the SAIC than Mirth & Girth, from the few things I have read about Dread Scott. That's my next project, though. —Rob (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • For more details on antisemitism in the African-American community, see Antisemitism in the United States#African-american attitudes. - aiee! This is too much; it's in the position of a "for more on the subject of this section" link, and it's only tangential. Nelson isn't Jewish, and the only claim that he was is cited to an unnamed Black alderman in a single sentence of an article. Unless you can find more like that, we may as well link to Anti-Masonism in the United States and find a claim somewhere that Nelson was a Mason... :-).
      • I agree, but I was torn on this for a while. There's obviously an undercurrent of antisemitism in segments of the black community (related mostly to Farrakhan or other black nationalist movements), and I didn't know how I should deal with that in the article. In the end, I think examples of antisemitism should be an article, but not this particular article. —Rob (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Do any of the aldermen have individual articles? Do they deserve any that need stubbing out at least?
      • No. They should, but I can't so much as even find a list of former City Council aldermen online. I wouldn't mind stubbing out articles, but I only have newspaper information from 1985 at the earliest accessible to me (read: long process). —Rob (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Does Illinois Alliance of Black Student Organizations have or need an article? How about Marshall Field? John Sefick? Clearly Chicago's crippling Blizzard of 1977 must have an article somewhere...
      • Hmm. IABSO doesn't seem to exist anymore - no news articles written about them after 1988 (3 total, one refers to 1987 in 2007). Marshall Field would be redlinked; I don't know if it's MF IV or MF V (or even MF VI), and neither have an article. John Sefick isn't notable per newspaper searches - he would be known primarily for the Bilandic statue and the precedent the lawsuit established. And surprisingly, the Blizzard of 19779 does not have an existing article. :-D That needs to be stubbed out... —Rob (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I fixed some spelling errors.

--GRuban (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've addressed all your points, except the Blizzard of 1979 one... it'll be a redlink 'til tonight, at least. I was getting worried, wondering where all the FAC reviewers had gone! —Rob (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The prose is ... OK. The first "due to" should be "from". I wish the referencing wasn't quite as skewed towards a few local newspapers. I'm not opposing. TONY (talk) 14:17, 24 May 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 15:26, 26 May 2008 [22].

[edit] Rush Street (Chicago)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because the article has improved since becoming a GA and it is an interesting subject for many projects.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Only question is about emporis.com, and it's reliablity. Otherwise sources look good. Being still on the road, I didn't check sources links. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply I swapped it out for the Chicago Tribune.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments
  • Image in the infobox looks weird as a thumbnail. Also, is there a more recent (like, this century) photo?
    • Do you have a preference of the images in the article for the main image. The best image in my opinion are the Trump images, but it would be inappropriate to choose any of them because in truth it will be associated with Rush Street like The Plaza Hotel is associated with Fifth Avenue or the Park Hyatt is associated with the Magnificent Mile. I the the best image might be Dr. Rush, but it is also old. The Gibson photo lighting is not so hot.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • WRT, thumbnail, is your problem with the caption, borders or both?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
      • It's the thumbnail itself; they aren't used in infoboxes generally (instead, the infobox has a caption field, or it should). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 05:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The lead doesn't summarise very well...there's barely any mention of commerce and of the bridge....
  • "as home to many great caberets, bars, clubs and restaurants." - NPOV?
  • In refs, publisher is wlinked sometimes (eg. ref 21) but sometimes left un-linked (eg. ref 12)...be consistent. Other than that, refs look fine. Images are all OK too. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 04:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • This is standard with a mix of print edition books and internet references. You do not wikilink print edition books.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I have just linkeed the publisher in the separate references section. The will remain omitted in the footnotes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Support. All my concerns seem addressed. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • The pictures are pushing the text around - the layout doesn't look right.
    • I scoured the Library of Congress and the National Archives today to look for a new main image and found a half a dozen new images to add to the article. You are probably going too be further displeased.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I think you missed my point. I am talking about the other images - they are pushing the text around and ruining the format, because there's too many of them. For example, WP:MOS says: "Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes. Instead, either right-align the image, remove it, or move it to another relevant location." - but you have images obscuring section headings. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 04:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with dihydrogen monoxide - The image in the infobox should not be a thumbnail.— Wackymacs (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The {{infobox road}} template isn't designed to take a photo, just a route marker/shield and a map. Until I created a SVG version of the wooden signage used by Keweenaw County, Brockway Mountain Drive had no graphic image above the roadway name in the infobox. All photos of the roadway are in the article, like most/all of the WP:USRD articles. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Way, way, way too many images crowding the text. Reconsider whether some of them are necessary. Does Dr. Rush, who has his own article, really need an image in here? Also, does the picture of the mayor on the sidewalk truly add any information about the street, other than the mayor sometimes enjoyed walking down this street? Also, many of the images are pictures of/inside the buildings along the street, not actually of the street. Very few of the images give an idea of what it would look like if you were to take a drive down Rush Street. Consider moving some of the images to a Commons gallery to reduce clutter. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Oppose While the images have been rearranged to be more tolerable and less cluttered, there are still too many, and more have been added with even less relevance. (A pizza?) There are still no photos that give a clear ground view of what Rush Street would look like to someone actually using the street, and there are no photos clearly showing how Rush Street is typically signed. So, with these deficiencies, I must oppose. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
      • If the weather is decent on Wednesday, I will take some photos. In terms of signage right now the best we have is Image:20070729 Rush Street Sign.jpg. If I don't get anything better on Wed, I will use that. I will replace the pizza picture with the pizzeria.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Neutral (upgrade from oppose). The images have at least been put into boxes that make the article less cluttered, which is better, but I would still prefer that only the 9-10 most expressive images be included in the article itself and the remainder be displayed in a linked Commons gallery (use the commons= param of infobox road to produce a box at the bottom of it, or use {{commons}} for an independent box). However, the present setup is at least tolerable. You do have a map now, though, and I'd prefer seeing the infobox's map= parameter put to good use displaying the map in its rightful place in the article. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
          • A map? Where?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
            • O.K. I see. How is that?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
            • I have thought about your neutral. It sounds like the following. You would like me to go from 30 images that help the reader to 10 images that help the reader. Previous to the boxing cluttered images was the complaint, but that is not the issue now. Also squeezing is not an issue. Thus, it sounds like you are requesting that I remove 20 images that cause no problems and help the reader as a matter of personal preference. Please reconsider WP:WIAFA. Keep in mind that {{multiple image}} is a new template so it will seem different from what you have seen before. I think in the future more images will be common in articles. You should analyze whether there are any remaining problems with the images given the new boxed format.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
              • I've heard it said somewhere that "we are not Encarta", perhaps implying that too many images may outweigh the text and make things seem too "breezy" and not "encyclopedic" (whatever those things mean). I think the MoS speaks to the number of images that make good sense, but as you say, that was written before these new templates... I won't oppose, I plan to eventually support whether this is changed or not but I absolutely see where others are coming from. And I'm the guy who tends to chafe against removing images. :) ++Lar: t/c 17:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
                • I am unclear what eventually support means. Are there things I can do other than remove images that I feel help the reader to get you to support. Clearly, this could be failed any day that I continue not to make progress on building consensus to promote. Galleries in the text are not good, but this is sort of a sidebar technique that I think is stil encyclopedic. If it does not pass here. I hope to be able to try again with Good articleTrump International Hotel & Tower (Chicago). The ratio on that one is a little better.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • The thing about having so many images is that they compete with the prose for the reader's attention. When you have a lesser number of images, the reader can easily look at the image and read the relevant paragraph. With such a large number of images, is the reader supposed to look at them first, then read the prose, or the other way around? Which images illustrate which paragraphs? Is the reader still supposed to consider the images to support the text, or is the text supporting the images? Splitting the reader's attention between text and images detracts from the helpfulness of otherwise illustrative images, as they don't know what to look at in what order—there's too much eye candy! And the worst thing you can do is make readers look at the text, look at the images, look at the text, look at the images—they're liable to lose their train of thought and their place in the article. There's absolutely nothing wrong with picking the most expressive images and putting the rest in a Commons gallery—look at how Kansas Turnpike does it, and follow that example. There, the reader can see the most important images and if he wants more, he can just click over to the Commons gallery and there's more images to give him a more in-depth understanding of the topic. Which is the way it should be, and why we have {{cleanup-gallery}} and other things discouraging masses of images in articles. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
                    • You present a cogent argument, which has no doubt been used several times to explain why galleries are undesirable. The reader has to page down to the images and page back up to the text. However, when all the images are in the relevant section and likely on the screen at the same time as the text the dynamics are different. Whereas a standard gallery at the end of the article causes undue distraction as the reader attemtps to back and forth from the text to the gallery. These images are on the side in sections. I did not split the images for the first two sections into two separate side galleries, but the other two main sections have their own images. It is much more likely that each image is additive when it is in the same section as the text or on the screen at the same time. With the wide array in screen resolutions, it is impossible to make sure all of these images are on the screen at the same time as the text, but they are nearby and not the same sort of distraction as a gallery.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I concur in opposition. There are too many photos, some with a tenuous connection to the subject matter, that do not further the understanding of the subject matter. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
That's just my first pass. I'd pare down the selection by half and ditch those templates. The thumbnails are too small as a result, break user thumbnail preferences and just make the layout cluttered, detracting from the prose instead of adding to it. I know it takes too long and the USRD Maps Task Force is inactive (and it doesn't do street maps normally), but you should use a map of Chicago with the location of Rush Street highlighted in the infobox. If you can get me a close-up photo of a Chicago Street sign, I'll offer to make a sign for the infobox as well. I don't know if a topographic map is an option, but I'd look into that to see if you could crop one and highlight the street. I've seen them used for some of the minor NY state routes and for them, they've worked well. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Those templates are the future of WP. They enable us to slide dozenas of images in without worrying about whether staggered images are squeezing. As far as the images go, if I can get anything on Wed, I will and then we can swap out pare down, etc. The forecast is not looking so hot though. I will try to get a better image of the care dealer, The Clare, some signage , and see if I can get some sort of view of the what it looks like. The nightlife view will have to wait until the summer though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Image:20070913 Rush Street Swing Bridge beyond Wrigley Building.JPG and Image:Wacker Drive aerials.jpg serve to show that the Rush Street Bridge era has passed. They are important to the article although their quality may be bad.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral: I'm upgrading to neutral. The article still looks like a photo album compared to other articles. The photos recently swapped out provide a better illustration of the roadway, but there are still so many. Many of the photos would better serve the article and the content to be removed from the article and place into a gallery accessible by a link. {{infobox road}} will accommodate a commons category at the bottom of the infobox, as was done with M-35 (Michigan highway), another FAC currently posted. Yes, this object is a bit stylistic, but it is actionable and it does relate to the content of the article. Some photos illustrating a subject is a good thing, but too many just detracts. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose way too many images, some of which aren't applicable. Especially the one in the infobox, which shouldn't be there as that's not what {{Infobox road}} is designed for. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment many pictures have been swapped out and new images have been added that directly relate to the text. Almost every image relates directly to a point of interest in the text. Galleries have alway been discouraged and were at one point against policy. The point of images is to illustrate the text. Previously limtations have been how many images could be added without squeezing the text. Now new templates facilitate many more images.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        • My oppose still stands; there are still too many images. It looks too cluttered. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
          • What screen resolution are you viewing at?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
            • 1280 by 960... --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
              • Since well over half the readers view at either 1280 or 1024 wide, I have looked at the article at both widths and did not really agree. However, I guess I need clarification because there are no real content complaints, this is such an odd position. Is your complaint that 1.)You have never seen any FAs with this many images, 2.)You never seen FAs using {{multiple image}}, 3.)You feel that there are places in the text where there is squeezing, 4.) You see particular images that are not helpful to the reader.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
                • And sometimes I look stuff up on my iPhone. Safari for iPhone/iPod touch renders the reflist as one column and only uses a resolution of 320x480 at 160 ppi. Wikipedia should be formatted as best as possible for all screen resolutions, which is a tricky task. Some people are still at 640x480 resolution. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • If you are objecting because the formatting is not palatable for an iPod that is ridiculous. I just added some text in places where the images might haave overwhelmed the text. You did not reply to my prior query. People with 640x480 are less than a fraction of a percent of current viewers although handheld devices may get there someday. Do you see images that are not a service to the reader? Is there squeezing at the most common resolutions (1280 or 1024)? If so point to where. If you are objecting for one of the first two reasons in my prior post please say so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
                    • I'm only commenting that there is a wide range of resolutions in use. Please direct me to a survey of the resolutions in use by readers of Wikipedia. I don't believe there is such a survey. My laptop screen is 1440x900, but I don't have Safari set to use the full screen. In fact my web browser only uses around two-thirds of the screen width. That means I'm likely using a non-standard size window. Others likely do the same, but without any data on user preferences, we have to attempt to format our articles to the widest possible range of sizes. About the only metric that could be used reliably is the printed page, but would we standardize on the US Letter or the European A4? Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply Although the template has not been properly parameterized to accomodate images it is standard policy for artilces to have a main image prominently positioned toward the upper right of the article. MOS states: "The following general guidelines should be followed in the absence of a compelling reason to do otherwise. Start an article with a right-aligned lead image." You have given no compelling reason other than that is not the way we have our template parameterized. WikiProject Streets does not have its own infobox so I used WikiProject Road's infobox. There is no crime in this. Objections should be related to WP:WIAFA and should be actionable. An objection based on a stylistic preference against MOS is not really a valid one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Addendum WikiProject Streets' official directive is to use {{Infobox road}}. If you don't consider the image in the infobox applicable to the article, you have not read the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
      • What's been done in the past is making a street sign for the road and then using that. However, you're missing the point - there's too many darn images in the article, infobox or not. That is definitely actionable. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • query Does anyone recognized where this flickr photo was taken?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Issues resolved, ЭLСОВВОLД talk 12:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • I think a map would be very helpful. The verbal description of where the street goes is tortuous without a map to orient one. The street is short enough that a map won't have to be tiny scale. There are open source ways to create maps... consider Image:Ada Covered Bridge TIGER map.gif for example which is a capture of some TIGER screens, pasted together, or Image:Croton Dam photo locator map cropped.svg (also made from TIGER data but converted to the preferred svg format using inkscape).
    • Thanks for the map help.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Cool. (the image in question is Image:Rush Street via tiger.census.gov.gif) I fixed up the licensing and categories (over on Commons)... if it's wrong, please correct me, but the bots we have on Commons are quite efficient at tagging stuff where no dropdown was selected and no templates added. :) ++Lar: t/c 15:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the tail end of the article kind of peters out... I don't know that there is a good "conclusion" to an article about a street but I don't quite think that the bridge section should be the last section. It seems to end abruptly. I'm not sure exactly what to suggest there, though.
    • In all honesty, I thought the Bridge was my big finish. I could swap the Bridge and the Commerce section, but the commerce is something that I think peters out. Since that makes more sense chronologically, I will try that.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
      • What do other road articles that have made FA do? That's something to consider. Chronological is always a good way to organise things, to be sure. But the commerce section now seems a bit rambly too, so maybe switch them and THEN come up with a finish ?? Personally, my perception of Rush Street is colored by the many bars and clubs on or near it (PJ Clarks, Koko Taylors, etc) that I've enjoyed people watching in. But that's not much to hang an article on. :) ++Lar: t/c 16:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Category:A-Class U.S. city street articles is empty, and I was the author of the only article in Category:FA-Class U.S. city street articles. Featured articlePrairie Avenue is a different animal. It certainly does not have a big finish. Most of my FAs don't have big finishes. This is an encyclopedia, not a blockbuster movie script. Of course, I am receptive to gramatical suggestions, but lack of a big finish is not really such an actionable complaint.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Sigh. I think maybe you're taking this personally, and I apologise for that. I went off and looked at a few other articles that are FA. Many of them are completely in chrono and they end with "and now X is used for Y" or something else. Not a big finish (I'm using the term because you used it first...). Others end with an analysis of significance. So no, a big finish isn't needed. I'm not a FA regular. I'm just a dilettante at this, here because you asked me to stop by. I'd just go with chronological ordering. If you can find something about the cultural significance today, Maybe add it. or maybe just not worry about it at all. I dunno. But an article does need SOMETHING to let the reader know they reached the end. It shouldn't stop like there was more to say but the authors haven't gotten to it yet. ++Lar: t/c 18:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
            • I don't perceive your complaints as personal discredits towards me. I am just not sure what to do. I just added some more stuff. I don't think any of it belongs at the end, but it makes the article longer and improves the text/photo ratio.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I love pictures but I do see what some are saying that maybe there are too many. That's just a comment, not an actionable item.
    • Do you see images that do not help the reader?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
      • There is no single picture you can point to and say "this helps the reader in no possible way", I can find a reason to include each and every one if I try. And yet, there are, taken as a gestalt, too many, in my view. That's an aesthetic judgement on my part. Hence I'm not claiming I'd oppose over it. Does that help at all? ++Lar: t/c 16:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I just commented above to another neutral respondent. Basically I was troubled by a request to go from 30 images that help the reader to 10 images that help the reader. Previous to the boxing cluttered images was the complaint, but that is not the issue now. Also squeezing is not an issue. Thus, it sounds like you are requesting that I remove 20 images that cause no problems and help the reader as a matter of personal preference. Please reconsider WP:WIAFA. Keep in mind that {{multiple image}} is a new template so it will seem different from what you have seen before. I think in the future more images will be common in articles. You should analyze whether there are any remaining problems with the images given the new boxed format.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I just think there are too many images. It's not the norm here to have that many pictures. Maybe it will be eventually, and this article, when it passes FA, will help push the MoS and general policy in that direction. Or maybe not, I have no idea. I'm not opposing over anything after all, just sharing my aesthetic perception. Again, I am not a regular here. Do what you like with my views, I make no claim they are worth anything, but to me, personally, it seems too busy, and I love images. Sometimes the way to make something better is to edit it, that is, make it smaller. ++Lar: t/c 18:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
            • I would like to go out and add another photo such as one of the five star hotels. I am sort of handcuffed by the perception of photos now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • An interesting article (and thanks for the improvements to my favourite article that resulted from work on this one). Good luck with it! ++Lar: t/c 11:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose—Problems in the writing. Needs a fresh person on the copy-editing. Weed out inappropriate statements and expressions. Vagueness and repetition. Throughout, not just these random examples, please.
  • "richest neighborhoods"—culturally? or do you mean "wealthiest"? (and I see "rich" again in the lead). "and has businesses that correspond to the tastes of its residents." Is that POV, second-guessing the tastes of residents in an article lead? Inappropriate, since unverifiable at the least. Who knows where the residents go to dine?
    • Rich people demand expensive things like world-class spas, five-star hotels, top-rated restaurants, and expensive cars. I have changed taste to demand. Demand for expensive things can only be from people who can afford them. I never said that the same rich people who live in the neighborhood actually buy from these establishments. It may be that other wealthy people come to buy from the neighborhood famous for having wealthy residents. However, saying that the businesses correspond to the wealth of the residents is not POV.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "The street, which was named after Declaration of Independence signator Benjamin Rush,[1] is currently known for its nightlife, especially at the northern end, which features entertainment that attracts people from near and far." Winding snake of a sentence. The last four words are inappropriate in an encyclopedic register.
  • "The various Rush Street Bridges have a rich history both in terms of facilitating vehicular land traffic and in terms of being a commercial port location." I hate "various". "in terms of" twice, both constructions clumsy.
  • "However,"—it doesn't contradict the preceding text. TONY (talk) 09:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Please reread. It contradicts the preceding text as it was and as it is after the rewrite as follows:
  • Comment Is there any way you can choose just a couple images and stick with them? The layout on my screen, even with {{multiple image}}, isn't good, and the prose is squeezed. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The page is formatted for viewers with 1280 or 1024 width screen resolutions (which are over half of general internet users) and wider. The images are less than 400px wide in total. What resolution are you viewing with that you see squeezing with less than 400px. Of course, if you don't use your whole screen it might squeeze. Do you use your whole screen?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: general areas of concern are noted below. (Note on my absence this weekend: I believe issues substantial enough to not be remediable before I return. I've opposed, however, so, out of fairness and to reassure TonyTheTiger, I will make time to check back in and follow up.)
    • Prose: WP:WEASEL including "some of the finest restaurants and bars", "some of the most elite Chicago socialites", "some still refer"; WP:PEACOCK including "quality dining experiences", "important residences", "important Chicago neighborhoods" (important to whom?); grammar (e.g. "on October 8, 1871 when") and number agreement ("herd of cattle ... were"; herd is a collective noun and, in this context, singular in AmEng). Generally awkward prose such as "At the Wabash crossing...a park exists"and aforementioned examples by Tony. As I'm pressed for time, I haven't listed all prose issues; the prose is such, however, that a third party copy edit seems quite warranted.
    • WP:SS/criterion 1A: "Geography" section: why is description of all of the cross streets necessary? As a reader, my eyes glaze over. "Commerce and education": why are all of the addresses needed? It comes across a bit too much like a Chicago guide book and, again, as a reader, it's information overload that impairs the flow and readability of the article.
      • First of all, since I am the author of the only FA in WP:USST, I will refer to three successful May WP:FAs from WP:USRD: M-35 (Michigan highway), Interstate 15 in Arizona, Chickasaw Turnpike. You can not possibly complain about detailed descriptions in this article and not object to the descriptions of these routes, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Second of all what does WP:SS have to do with an article this short. Although a good article could and should be written about the Rush Street Bridge, you do not seem to be making an SS point about that here. In addition, what is here would be a good summary of a proper and full article about the Bridge.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Prose utilized in other articles is not germane to this FAC. As articulated above, this article contains superfluous information/detail which negatively impacts flow and other aspects of readability. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 12:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Images: Image:Wacker Drive aerials.jpg: source site confirms it was created/published in 1926. Why, then, is the license claiming publication before 1923? The restrictions page says the library is "unaware of any copyright" (being unaware does not mean it doesn't exist) and explicitly says use of the image should be done under fair use. Where is the basis for the PD claim? Concern has be raised about number the images. The current formating is superior to the article's initial state, but I still believe it goes too far. If policies/guidelines are needed to be actionable, I think reasonable arguments could be made on WP:WIAFA: "professional standards of writing and presentation" and the spirit of WP:SS. The number of images is simply superflous; the rationale of providing "pictorial detail" isn't untrue (and is great marketing!), but is simply unnecessary and, even counterproductive to an encyclopedia article tasked with a reasonable summary of the topic. Why are so many images necessary or even helpful in understanding the topic? Images should supplement an article, not dominate it. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:09, 23 May 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 16:33, 24 May 2008.

[edit] Some Enchanted Evening (The Simpsons)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel I have done everything there is to do about this subject. The article is a GA and has had a peer review. It is an episode that is important in the history of The Simpsons. Maitch (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • A couple of statements that read like opinion to me are unsourced.
    • Production section, sixth paragraph, last sentence, last phrase in the sentence "...so this was ignored by the producers." is unsourced
    • Same section, seventh paragraph, last sentence "It was intended for this to be the first couch gag..." is unsourced.
    • Cultural references sectioin, second paragraph, "The episode title is taken from the title of a ..." is unsourced.
  • Current ref 10, "End credits." Do you mean the end credits of the show? Can we format this a bit better?
Links checked out fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Response:
1) Now sourced
2) Removed
3) Removed
4) Yes, I mean the end credits of the show. Do you have a suggestion for formatting? --Maitch (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
What are the parameters for cite episode? Does it have a section parameter? If not, try using "(Episode title): End Credits" as the title of the ref? Think that'll work okay? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments (ec)
    • "Also, in the scene the cellar looks very much like the cellar of Norman Bates in the movie Psycho." — needs a citation, otherwise it's original research.
    • "According to Al Jean people thought this episode to be..." — Who exactly are these "people"?
    • "The episode title is taken from the title of a song from Rodgers and Hammerstein's "South Pacific" and is also the name of a 1978 Blue Öyster Cult album." — Does the album have anything to do with this, or is South Pacific (note the italics, and not quotes) what is truly important? A citation would probably clear it up.
    • The article needs a copyedit. I see a few things throughout, but the worst one is probably "The tension in the room had it almost cleared."—I can't tell what that's supposed to mean. Pagrashtak 21:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments
  • It would be nice to see an expansion to the lead, like the one on The Principal and The Pauper. Although either everything must be referenced in the lead or nothing, it would be nice to see some references there, to make it more professional.
  • The publisher of Reference #3 (the BBC) needs wikilinking to British Broadcasting Corporation.
  • Ref #2 needs to include an OCLC alongsid the ISBN, see Special:Booksources to find this.
  • The link text on reference nine doesn't match the title of the webpage.
  • It would be nice to see the production section split up in to different sections and sub-sections, as currently, its very cluttered and difficult to read
  • The plot needs shortening and needs a rewrite, as its tone isn't very encyclopedic at the minute.
  • You need to link to Portal:The Simpsons below the Wikiquote link.
  • The Marvin Monroe link needs fixing to its correct destination
  • Is it possible to expand the reception and cultural references? The former is very brief.

So, oppose for now, as it still needs a lot of work. Qst (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose, concur with Qst. The prose is just so-so (ex. "Although it aired as the season finale, it was the first episode of the series to be produced, but was aired last due to significant animation problems." Practically had labor pains pushing that out, yet it is really the only substantive sentence in the whole lead) and it doesn't seem to approach comprehensiveness. Recommend withdrawing and working with experienced FA writers and a copyeditor. --Laser brain (talk) 15:40, 20 May 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 16:33, 24 May 2008.

[edit] Civil Air Patrol

previous FAC
FFA, has been on main page

Self-nomination. This was a previous featured article, yet it was removed in a Featured Article Review. I have been working very hard on the article to bring it back to the quality of a featured article. —  scetoaux (T|C) 01:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Current ref 29 "Memorandum of understanding among headquarters..." is lacking a publisher
  • What makes http://www.gippsaero.com/article.asp-articleID=452.htm a reliable source for the fact that the CAP operates the world's largest fleet of single-engine aircraft?
  • I'm a bit concerned that large chunks of the article are sourced to CAP or Air Force sources.
Other sources look good. Links checked out fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand your first two concerns, and will adress them when I am on a proper interface (it would be extremely difficult to make changes while on an iPod Touch). However, to perhaps explain the high volume of internal references: much of the content in the article deals with regulatory information, the only true source of which are the regulations themselves. That accounts for about half of the internal links. The others hold information that was difficult or impossible to find in reliable third-party references, but are of the nature that the first party references are not skewed by self-promotion interests. Everything that wasn't verifiable has been removed. I did feel, however, that much of this information adds to the article significantly, and per IAR I believe that justifies use of first party references in the quantity presented in the article. —  scetoaux (T|C) 04:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Looking at this at a glance, I have noticed some layout/organization issues and short paragraphs. I also see plenty of lists which should be converted to prose. None of the sections seem to be 'even', for example the History section is one paragraph, whereas the others are much much longer. 'Ground Vehicles' sub-section is two sentences long, but the other sub-sections under 'Equipment' are a couple paragraphs each. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 12:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose as per Tony (below). It looks better now, but a thorough copyedit is needed instead of partial one. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for now - Very promising but the copy fails 1(a). It needs a vigorous prune by an uninvolved editor: you've gotten a little too close to the text and it pulling into shape by someone with critical distance. Here are some examples taken from the lead:

  • Civil Air Patrol's membership consists of cadets ranging from 12 to 21 years of age, and senior members 18 years of age and up. "The Civil Air Patrol has cadet members, aged 12 to 21, and senior members, from 18 years of age"?
  • The Civil Air Patrol is organized along a military styled hierarchy. Does this mean the CAP "has a military-type hierarchy"?
  • National Headquarters has command over the entire organization, while further subdivisions allow for more localized execution of command. Convoluted?
  • Below National Headquarters, there are eight geographic regions that encompass a total of 52 wings (one for each state, in addition to the Washington, D.C. area and the territory of Puerto Rico). "It is organized as 52 wings – one for each state, and one for Washington DC, and Puerto Rico – grouped into eight regions"?
  • Under the command of each of the wings, squadrons provide the most localized and basic functional unit of CAP. "Each wing is made up of squadrons, the basic operational unit"?
--ROGER DAVIES talk 16:37, May 18, 2008 (UTC)
Well, having that vigorous prune is not something I can do myself, since as you said it has to be done by an uninvolved editor. So this FAC is going to fail, in essence, because there's no way for me to get an uninvolved editor to put this amount of work in without canvassing, and evidently nobody that contributes to FAC is willing to help with the articles that they oppose. —  scetoaux (T|C) 19:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Not really true; there are plenty of copy-editors roaming around Wikipedia. All you have to do is go to their Talk page and ask kindly for some help. There are copy-editors listed on the following pages: Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Members and Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 19:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
That's not correct, I frequently copy-edit articles I oppose. However, it's very time-consuming (a recent one was two complete days work). My hands are full at the moment (I'm doing major copy-edits on two recent failed-FACs, time-estimate at least 30 hours each) and have numerous other commitments, not least of which is trying to pitch in regularly at FAC and to provide an in-depth review of every Milhist A-Class candidate article. I have a real life too. Therefore, I prioritize.
The advice about an uninvolved editor was intended to spare pain rather than place an insurmountable barrier in your path to FA. It's much easier and quicker for someone new to the article to see its shortcomings. You can try to copyedit it yourself but in practice this turns out to be a copy-edit by proxy - ie you change the example bits, reviewers find more, and so it goes on - and it's not only disheartening for you but very time-consuming for us.
The easiest way to get your article copy-edit is to look at the edit history of related featured articles and leave a note on the user pages of editors who have copy-edited them. In my experience, most editors contacted this way are glad to help.
--ROGER DAVIES talk 06:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand. Just a simple frustration is all. —  scetoaux (T|C) 00:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I appreciate your efforts in getting this copyedited - and it is much improved - but it will need considerable work for me to support.--ROGER DAVIES talk 05:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I concur with Roger Davies that the text is quite rough. At the minimum, a rigorous copyedit is required from an uninvolved editor to smooth out such turns of phrase as "CAP also performs non-auxiliary missions for various governmental and private agencies, such as local law enforcement and the American Red Cross." and "Many of these uniforms are based upon the Air Force Battle Dress Uniform (BDU) and Service Dress Uniform, while other uniforms exist solely for the Civil Air Patrol." Both examples are just from the lead. Additionally, the penchant for bold paragraph introductions has got to go. If the prose smoothly and logically describes the CAP, those introductions should not be necessary. --Laser brain (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    I acknowledge your concerns. I'm trying to get a copyeditor now. —  scetoaux (T|C) 19:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    OK, right now the copyediting is being done by User:Happy-melon. He's basically going through the article and making the necessary changes. He's also helped with some citation concerns, which is so far going as a sort of back-forth process: he flags the article with for me to come in and fix. —  scetoaux (T|C) 21:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Great! Good luck! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
As requested by Ealdgyth, I've been over the article and given it a rough copyedit. It's certainly far from perfect, but I hope it's an improvement.
Some comments I would make:
  • The "History" section, although correctly in summary style, is a little short and in particular cuts of abruptly in 1945. It would be nice to see perhaps one or two more paragraphs, covering more recent activity.
  • The first "Cadet program" heading, with a "see also" link to further down the page, is awkward. Either the entire Cadet Program should be spun out into a separate article (which I think there is enough material to be a serious possibility), in which case an appropriate summary here is needed, or there needs to be some clever re-organisation to avoid this two-line 'teaser' for the over-long section below.
  • The "Ground vehicles" section is laughably short. Either it should be expanded, or the "Equipment" section should not be subdivided
  • The "Organisation" section is over-long and contains some very tangential information. It should be shortened; and the inclusion of things like the National Commander succession crisis re-evaluated.
  • A general check-through for little things (like consistency in the capitalisation of "Senior Member", and the use of "The Civil Air Patrol" is necessary. Acronyms are also often over-used: the acronym or abbreviation should only be stated after the first instance of a term if the acronym is subsequently used alone in the text.
In general, this looks like a promising article, but I wouldn't call its organisation or presentation "brilliant" at the current time. Happy‑melon 22:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Um ... why is this nomination still here if you've "given it a rough copyedit. It's certainly far from perfect, but I hope it's an improvement"? That's pre-nomination stuff. Very pre. Please withdraw it, work on it, and resubmit. I see little glitches all over the place. TONY (talk) 10:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Because I'm not the nominator :P Happy‑melon 11:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "Please withdraw it" - Am I getting in your way? —  scetoaux (T|C) 19:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—1a.

  • Paragraphing and in some places the sectioning is a little choppy. Grade/insignia box jammed up against main text on my browser.
  • After a reasonable opening, the prose has problems. I picked up numerous bad patches, such as:
  • "Progression in the training program is required for promotion of those senior members who were not promoted based on a prior military rank, or those with certain professional appointments (such as legal or medical)."—eeuuuw. "the" is missing; ungainly repetition. Winding.
  • "skills they have from their private lives"—um ... "skills they have acquired in their private lives"?
  • "Civil Air Patrol's cadet program is a traditional military-style cadet program."—Audit the whole thing for such repetitions. Tedious to read.

Please don't just correct these points; the whole text needs the attention of someone new to it. TONY (talk) 14:28, 24 May 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 17:48, 22 May 2008.

[edit] Mount Garibaldi

I'm nominating this article for featured article status because I feel it is rather excellent and comprehensive. It is well-referenced and gives all that a featured article needs. An example of excellent work by Black Tusk. Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 19:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree per Meldshal42. Garibaldi is also one of the most notable mountains in southern British Columbia, as well as one of Canada's best known volcanoes. Black Tusk 22:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments A large number of the refs are lacking a publisher listed. Also, dividing the refs into two columns would look a bit better. I just don't have time to check sources that are lacking listed publishers. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Query - I'm sorry, but it appears one of the main editors of this article passed it for GA status without going through Wikipedia:Good article nominations? Is that correct? --Laser brain (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    Comment: It was me who passed it for GA status. Sorry, I didn't know you were supposed go through Wikipedia:Good article nominations. But what's this got to do with being FA? The article is already mostly featured article status. Black Tusk 12:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    You can't do that :-) I did it once myself, before I knew, so you've got company. I've removed the GA listing; you have to go through the process, and an independent editor needs to pass it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose, as due diligence has not been done to make sure this article conforms to FA criteria before posting here as required by the instructions. Please see Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. At the basic level:
    • Sources are not properly cited; as Ealdgyth points out, many of them lack the required publisher and other information. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources.
    • Questionable sources. What makes Canadian Mountain Encyclopedia a reliable source? It appears to be made up of user-submitted information with no visible fact-checking or editorial process. I could not find any print sources that refer to Canadian Mountain Encyclopedia as a reliable source of information. --Laser brain (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    Comment: You should ask User:Skookum1 about the Canadian Mountain Encyclopedia. If the Encyclopedia is not a reliable source I'm pretty sure there's other reliable sources. Please see the first few sources in the article and tell me if that's appropiate or not (i.e. properly cited). Black Tusk 15:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    Looking better on the citation formatting. You might consider using the {{cite web}} template to get the required elements and formatting. As for the source, if you have proof that it is reliable, please post it here. I will not be going around tracking down that information. Most of this work needs to be done before posting an FAC; I suggest withdrawing this nomination until you can get everything sorted out. --Laser brain (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    That's what I used with the first few sources. I mentioned User:Skookum1 because he was a volunteer for the Canadian Mountain Encyclopedia and so he probably knows more about the website. I always found Bivouac accurate for information. Black Tusk 16:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    Comment Bivouac/CME is reliable for summit data, latlong, range information, prominence hierarchies/zones and pass elevations, though some of these materials are indeed available only to subscribers (which were not when I was a volunteer). First ascents and publications are also reliable, although with historical/explanatory content/text - in the article bodies, I don't mean the trip reports and photo essays, which as members-only can't be cited anyway - but the geographic data did have its parameters. Various digital map sources were used, USGS for the US portions of data, TRIM/BC Basemap as the standard in BC, and I cant' remember which digital atlas for the Yukon and elsewhere (I didn't work so much with those areas). Bivouac's own citations, if they're there, are hidden within the site. Close to all official names of summits in BC are recorded - I know because I "mined" BC Basemap, though it's not as comprehensive as it turns out as BCGNIS. So it depends on what is being cited; if it's a cite in reference to elevation, latlong, prominence differentials/rankings within its area, and likely also the geology if any, plus the climbing history; yes, it's all valid and drawn from known sources. It would help if the site's owner would place citation notices somewhere in the public area of the site; if my word can't be taken for granted, well, all I can say is I gave thousands of hours over three years, created or checked tens of thousands of mountain entries, hundreds of passes and lakes and various other features. I know what sources were used; I know as a Wiki member I'm not citable, though, and I doubt I'm listed in any credits within bivouac/ perhaps so but I'm no longer a member.Skookum1 (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    Support: Thanks Skookum1. I finished the citation formatting using the {{cite web}} template. Black Tusk 01:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    With all due respect, I need to see a reliable source like a print journal referring to Bivouac as a reliable source. --Laser brain (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    A major problem with this is Bivouac is the only major site that has mountain information, such as heights, coordinates, range, etc. and I know it's popular (e.g. see some of the Canadian mountain articles). I haven't seen any other site with such infomation. Black Tusk 23:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    There's also peaklist.org and peakbagger,com, both prominence-oriented sites; peakbagger is pretty thorough but doesn't contain minor summits, or any non-topographic data/info. And for Canadian summits their sources ar less consistent than Bivouac. I'm on self-imposed not-speaking-to terms with the owner of Bivoauc (Robin Tivy) but if someone write him and asked for a precis of hits site's sources to b e placed on a public page, so it can be cited, I'm sure he'd comply gladly (when he gets around to it). Bivouac was intended to be4 encylopedia but systems-load issues trumped that and various sacrifices were made, long story; it's the lcosst thing to a compehrensive mountain encylopedia onlien right now; until Wiki ge3ts done that is; Bivouac's biggest problem was the lack of conensual input/editing as is doen here; alienation of volunteers, ditching of valid data because of sysstem-load problems, spurious on-the-fly decisions by the site owner as to naming unnamed summits, how to organize zones, whether or not mountain range designations were relevant and more; it's a pity that such a huge collective effort is the province of one man's human foibles and vanities, but .....it's what it is..;.Skookum1 (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I know peakbagger.com and looked to see if Garibaldi is mentioned but it isn't. I never herd of peaklist.org. I asked Roblin Tivy earlier today about the Garibaldi area and if he has any sources, but has not replied yet. Black Tusk 02:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Not that it necessarily matters for FA status, I'd like to see a close-up area map so the many perihperal locations/summits around Garibaldi can be demonstrated better; partly because this is a popular hiking/viewing area, and the vicinity's role in the foundation of hte provincial park system is also worth mentioning; I can see other areas this article could grow content-wise, but in terms of FA parameters I imagine it doesn't matter; it's the thoroughness and design/format of what's there now that counts. Anyway a map detailing Brohm Ridge, Diamond Head, Atwell, the Elfin Lakes, the Table, the Barrier and maybe the old Garibaldi townsite would probably be a good thing in the long run.Skookum1 (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    Comment: I uploaded a topographic map of the Garibaldi area as Image:Maps - Mamaquam Lake & Garibaldi Neve Topo.jpg which shows The Table, Atwell Peak, Dalton Dome, Opal Cone, The Sharkfin, etc. But I didn't include the map because I don't think there's enough room for it right now, unless it could go where the see also and references are (I was going to save it for the "Glaciers and icefields" section if it became larger). Black Tusk 02:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    Support: Added map mentioned above and new section with references. Black Tusk 16:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • What makes the following sources reliable?
  • Current ref 1 (Mount Garibaldi Bivouac.com The Cnaadian Mountain Encyclopedia) gives a last access date of 11 November 2008, which date hasn't arrived yet.
  • Current ref 7 "An Assessment of Natural Hazards..." is actually a book, and should use the cite book template or something similar.
  • Same for current ref 11 "Excerpt from Chapter 1..."
  • Current ref 13 "Squamish Nationa Language Department..." has a last access date like a website, but no link, is it missing?
  • Current ref 12 "KWA KWAYEXWELH..." has the title in all caps (which is a no-no) as well as the link goes to the wrong page, I believe. Currently it's going to http://www.harbourpublishing.com/excerpt/AroundtheSound/103 which is the link for the previous ref.
  • http://www.bctravel.com/squamish/index.html Current ref 16 "Welcome to Squamish..." is to a travel website. Surely there are better sources for the information "British Explorer Captain George Vancouver reached Howe Sound in June 1792 and became the first European to see the mountain. During this time George Vancouver met and traded with the local natives in the area."?
  • Current ref 19 "Wild Snow: A Historical Guide..." is a book, not a website. Please format the references as such.
  • Current ref 36 "Living with Volcanic Risk.." is lacking a publisher.
  • Current ref 39 "Preliminary petrography and chemistry of the..." is a journal article, or a conference paper. Would be better formatted using cite journal. Also it's lacking a publisher as it stands.
  • http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/DL/ARISReports/27299.pdf Current ref 52 is lacking the author information.
Other sources look good. Links checked out fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: The infomation on the websites you listed above is correct; you can find more reliable references elsewhere on the net and they mention the same thing, same goes for Bivouac. I also know because I know lots about the subject, so I wouldn't source false infomation.
  • The infomation about Silverthrone on http://www.skimountaineer.com/ is true because scientific study has been very limited due to its extremely remote location. The infomation on that website is similar to http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=1200-16- but it's worded better; if the volcanic complex is dissected most of the evidence would most likely be removed as mentioned in the article. You could also find out using maps, which I already have.
  • I removed "KWA KWAYEXWELH..." because I couldn't find the source (and the title was in all caps).
  • The infomation on http://www.garibaldipark.com/ is very similar to some of the infomation in one of the books I cited. I don't understand your quote about George Vancouver and the natives; explain. Natives arrived in North America before Europeans did if that explains your question.
The quote about George Vancouver is sourced to the site http://www.bctravel.com/squamish/index.html (or was this morning) which is a travel tourism site. What i'm querying is that using a tourism site to source a historical statement is odd, to say the least. Wouldn't it be better to source a bit of historical context to say a history book/website? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
As for the other sites, you haven't explained what makes these particular sites reliable sources. The information may be correct, but that doesn't mean the site itself is considered a reliable source by WP:RS. Student essays, even from a competition, are not a reliable source. And that's what ThinkQuest is, a student comepetition. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment- The articles on Bivouac are for the most part reliable, I haven't came across a single article while reviewing the references on this page. I really don't see what the problem is. If you say the Canadian Mountain Encyclopedia isn't reliable because anyone can edit it, that's like saying that Wikipedia heself isn't a reliable source. Now that's starting to sound like my librarian! Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 00:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment No, Bivouac.com is NOT editable by anyone; only key volunteers have edit access and changes to summit/location ata are stringently watched over; there are few vanadal in a members-only site obviously. the CME/Bivouac is the closest thing there is to any authoritative, comprehensive source taking in all of what it takes in. I'll look over the entry/non-member visible pages later and see if maybe there is an existng citation page; climbing history is usually from Fairley by the way or from "The Mountaineers' in Seattle, if you know how Fairley is. As for the rest of things like range classifications and definitions of various geographic entities, I used S. Holland's Landforms of British Columbia, which I also use for Wikipedia. Most Wikipedia mountain articles in BC that were not already there were added by yorus truly; or mountain range articles I should say; not just cribbing for bivouac but also adding other materials when possible. Holland is online but won't have specifics on individual summits, fthough for the Garibaldi area there may be something on that particular local area.Skookum1 (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I should add t hat the CME is much more encyclopedic in authority than the highly-touted and much-0self-promoted Canadian Encyclopedia, which for all its citations and academic pretensions is full of major errors, particulary geographic ones.....Skookum1 (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Just because Bivouac dosen't have/show references dosen't mean it's not reliable. It is accurate to have sources, but if you look around you will find some conflicting infomation with sources as well. To me a reliable source is something that's true and a non-reliable source is something that's not true. Black Tusk 02:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I agree with Ealdgyth that for a good/featured article, we should stick to a strict interpretation of what a reliable source is---that is, stick to the Wikipedia definition, not personal opinion about the word "reliable". As Ealdgyth has pointed out, the key is having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. While bivouac.com is, in my experience, a high-quality site, its processes are not transparent, its information is not cited, and I don't know of independent, reliable sources that verify its reputation. (It would be a good idea in general to find such info, if it's out there, since it would be nice to be able to use bivouac.com without worry.) I often use bivouac as an external link, and sometimes as a reference, but if I wanted to shape up an article to GA/FA status, I would want to replace those cites with more solid ones.

It seems that most of the bivouac cites (I didn't look at all of them) were just about peak names and heights. Surely there are print sources for that info? I know that's less convenient than citing bivouac, but it is more in accordance with WP policy. The sticking point might be if there is info from bivouac that is really hard to find in print. -- Spireguy (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the way to go about this, though it's a lot of work ultimately, is to supplant all Bivouac latlong/elevation refs with BC Basemap for inside-BC and USGS for those in the US, which were as I noted what we used as teh standards; I could look in my old email files to find what soruces were used for parts of Canada outside BC; for boundary peaks such as those on the BC/AB border the Basemap (STRIM) elevatinos/locations were used; often there's discrepancies.Skookum1 (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but Bivouac is the only site I have seen elevations and infomation for certain mountains; try finding elevations for The Tent, Diamond Head, Brohm Ridge, The Sharkfin or The Gargoyles. The only summits I could find without using Bivouac is the main summit of Mount Garibaldi, Atwell Peak, Columnar Peak, Dalton Dome, and Glacier Pikes here, which is a reliable site (it includes references). And I couldn't find anything about the prominence. Black Tusk 16:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
You misunderstand about Basemap; all the locations you've just mentioned are searchable there, which is how they were verified/checked for Bivouac. There's a way to parse basemap's site so that it will open at a particular location but I've never figured it out, bivouac's site-owner cracked it; he managed the same with Topozone, which we used for USGS but is no longer a freesite (now part of trails.com). Even without site-specific basemap links, Basemap is still ultimately the datasource for Diamond Head, the Gargoyles, Brohm Ridge et al - only ungazetted summits are not citable this way. Prominence calculations are the diffrential between the summit and its key pass; sometimes those passes are gazetted but many are not.Skookum1 (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't misunderstand about Basemap, I just don't know what it is. And I'm no expert on mapping. Maybe if you could give me the link to Basemap I could give it a try. Black Tusk 17:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I thought I'd provided the link during oru various discussions elsewhere; here it is and also a more complicated version drawn from teh same database. Both of these have been subsumed into some larger database, as explaiend at http://maps.gov.bc.ca .Skookum1 (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
How do you find the peaks? Can you search with coordinates? I think the link to the more complicated version is broken BTW. Black Tusk 19:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe so; look for Land and Data Resources Warehouse catalogue on http://maps.gov.bc.ca. Use "Find location" and search by placename or latlong or whatever you want.Skookum1 (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment-I think this is a waste of our time. The information there is reliable. I don't see why Black Tusk needs to look it all up over again. Like I said, a waste of time. Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 19:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a waste of time if a more authoritative reliable source is determined; since bivouac's sources are known (by me, who did them) it seems proper top say "well, just use the original cite that bivouac used).Skookum1 (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: It would be more useful and faster if more users would help the article other than commenting about the references and other issues. Commenting won't get you nowhere. The more help the more likely this article will become featured; one user is not enough. Ealdgyth most likely knows something if the publishers are wrong etc. Black Tusk 19:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, then, found something about the Diamond head area here. Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 20:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment-Seems like a quality site. I think it will work. Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 20:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Support: I replaced some of the Bivouac links with the website here which appears to be more reliable. While I was changing the references, I noticed Bivouac's info and the BC Geographic Names website are similar. This suggests that Bivouac's infomation is possibly reliable, therefore they're both accurate. Black Tusk 01:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: This is a well developed article, especially the Geology sections. I don't know the area, but I have a few concerns about the article's comprehensiveness.

  1. Indigenous people: At present there are two short, somewhat repetitive paragraphs on the indigenous people, mainly discussing what they call the mountain. There isn't anything on how they use the area, and little on why it's important to them. Concerns have been raised about this on the talk page, but I don't see that they've been addressed.
  2. Flora and fauna: What animals and plants might one find in the area, and especially on the mountain? Is this typical of the region, or distinctive in any way? How high is the treeline?
  3. Volcanic hazards: The article outlines many potential hazards of volcanic activity here. In light of this, some statement about how these risks are managed might be appropriate. Is there any monitoring for seismic activity?

I'm also dubious about the copyright status of the recently added topographic map. The flickr license checks out, but do we have any evidence that the uploader there has any right to license it? It looks like a government product; at the bottom, there's a reference to the Surveys and Mapping Branch of something. I agree a map of the area and nearby peaks would be nice, but I'm not sure about this one. (The map of the volcanic belt is wonderful, by the way.) -- Avenue (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi Avenue. I was going to add some infomation about the flora and fauna in the area, but I haven't had time. I was plaining on expanding the "Glaciers and Icefields" section, which is too short. I'm not sure if there's any monitoring for seismic activity; perhaps that's how they know about the seismic activity in the area since the earthquakes seem to be small. User:OldManRivers has mentioned he is going to add more infomation about the Skwxwu7mesh since it's obviously lacking. Black Tusk 22:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: New section added about volcano monitoring with a good start. Black Tusk 20:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that addresses that point. I've reworded the new text as it seemed to be nearly a verbatim copy of the source. -- Avenue (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Black Tusk, it would be helpful to my pea brain if you would stop prefacing your comments with Support, as that has specific meaning on a FAC (see WP:FAC instructions). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but that's how the English language works. Support means to give active help and encouragement. It's not my fault Wikipedia has such awkward rules that demonstrate the English language incorrectly. Therefore I will never comment on this page again. If you have a problem deal with it. Black Tusk 22:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, he's right. What kind of standards is this? If he wants to put support, he can put support. Its not something you should be arguing over. ~Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 19:23, 22 May 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 17:48, 22 May 2008.

[edit] Assata Shakur

Self-nomination. I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is a comprehensive and well-referenced biography of a somewhat controversial figure. It has been a good article for almost a year and underwent a peer review last October. It has been extremely stable since then. Savidan 01:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments I haven't given it a thorough readthrough yet, but some issues I see:

  • Please consistently use F.B.I. or FBI.
  • Please review the quotations to ensure that ending punctuation is placed outside the quote marks unless you are quoting a complete sentence (example: undertaken by a "kangaroo court.")
  • Please change the all-caps article titles to sentence case to improve readability (example: SYMPOSIUM CRITICAL LEGAL HISTORIES)
  • Examples of refs that need accessdates:
  • Williams, Houston. May 2, 2005. "U.S. Government Declares $1 Million Bounty For Assata Shakur, Tupac's Godmother." All Hip Hop News.
  • Daly, Michael. 2006, December 13. "The Msgr. & the Militant." New York Daily News.
  • Examples of refs that need publishers:
  • Ryan, Andrew J. "Tupac Shakur: Keeping it Real vs. Keeping it Right
  • Riley, Lisa. 2008, March 26. "Assata Shakur." The Gazette.
  • Is there a reason that so many NYT citations have no author name or article title? It would be difficult to look these up. Examples:
  • New York Times. March 31, 1977. Section 2, Page 6, Column 3.
  • New York Times. March 31, 1978. Section 2, Page 17, Column 3.

Maralia (talk) 03:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough comments. The New York Times sources include all the information that lexis-nexis provided me, which unfortunately did not include a title or author. They are traceable using that database. Also, does your comment about punctuation and quotation marks apply to bibliographic titles in footnotes? Otherwise, I think your comments have been addressed. Savidan 05:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Upon further investigation, I've found that I can find more complete citations with Proquest Historical. I'll fill those in asap. Savidan 05:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you also use the cite xx templates for all references. There are also some irregularities with the last name, first name convention on some of the news refs. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed the last name/first name thing. I don't like those templates, though. I think they create too big a barrier to new contributors, both directly and by making the raw text of the article incomprehensible. I think we need to have a very good reason before straying too far from WYSIWYG and this template does not meet that threshold. Savidan 17:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 16:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, much improved and no remaining issues from me. Oppose The prose is long-winded and hard to follow in several places; I suggest getting someone to go through and chop up many of the longer sentences. There are some basic MoS and fair use issues. Some specific examples of fixes needed:
Issues resolved. --Laser brain (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. To me, the article came across as very pro-Shakur. There is very little information in the article about the prosecution's case in the NJ Turnpike trial. Did any witnesses try to rebut her medical evidence? Did the prosecution present any evidence beyond the trooper's testimony? Also, why are her other trials not covered? I believe the article should at least briefly outline the charges in each case, especially the one that resulted in the hung jury.
I consider this objection to be unactionable as currently stated. The information about the trial is exhaustive in terms of published sources; for this objection to become actionable, it must be demonstrated that the article has omitted some published information. The same with the other trials; they are covered, there's just is not as much published information about them as there is about her main trial. Please be more specific about the information that you would like added; please do not request information just based on what you'd personally like to know, but rather what has been published. Savidan 16:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I am no expert on this person (I never heard of her before reading this article), and I have no idea what is available and what is not, therefore I cannot provide you with a list of particular sources to use. However, I find it difficult to believe that in a trial apparently covered pretty broadly there would be no other information about the prosecution's case, especially considering that many of the people in the area likely sympathized more with the prosecution than the defense (at least that is the impression I got from this article). Karanacs (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The key element of the prosecutions case—Trooper Harper's testimony—is covered in the article. There weren't any witnesses other than the four mentioned in that section; all the crime lab evidence (fingerprints and gunpowder residue) is also mentioned. I don't know what other evidence you think the prosecution would want to admit for a case like this. I seriously doubt there was some video footage that they showed that somehow was never mentioned in any of the articles I've read about this... Savidan 20:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article is strongly biased in favor of Shakur. Some examples:
    • Most of the "turnpike trial" section is dedicated to her defense that she couldn't have fired the shot. Well, that's irrelevant, she wasn't convicted of firinig the shot, she was convicted of being an accomplice. That fact gets one sentence, the irrelevant details about gunpowder and her wounds get three quarters of the section. And even the important sentence starts "Although the prosecution could not prove that Shakur fired the shots that killed either Trooper Foerster or Zayd Shakur" - clearly biased phrasing.
      • I agree with you that this defense does not remedy the accomplish charge; however, that's just both of our opinions, it's not a neutral fact. Nor does it make the information "irrelevant". These sectinos present the citable information about what evidence was presented at her trial. Whether it seems relevant to you (or me or anyone else) is not the issue. The important thing is that the article describe what transpired at her trial to the extent that it can be cited. As for the last part: this is not a biased phrasing, this is merely a statement of cited information. The fact that someone was charged as an accomplice because it couldnt be proved that they did the nominal crime is notable. Savidan 15:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Don't remove it, just shorten it so it doesn't get so much relative weight. Severely shorten it. Focusing on irrelevancies is an attorney's tactic, we shouldn't. Giving the same page space to prosecution's and defense's case seems a good first approximation; if you consider that the prosecution carried their case, you may even want to give the prosecution's case more space. --GRuban (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "Judge Appleby eventually cut off funds, effectively preventing any further expert defense testimony." Biased language, implying that it was the nasty mean judge, who didn't let the truth come out that it wasn't actually Shakur who fired the shot, when that wasn't the point.
      • The sentence does not say that he was a nasty judge. It says that he cut off funds, which he did. That he cut of funds is a fact; that he was a nasty judge or that he didnt want the truth to come out are two possible opinions which could be associated with this fact (although not the interpretation I subscribe to), but they are not stated in the article. Savidan 15:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The rather important claim that a trooper admitted to lying is cited to an editorial column by a prominent Shakur supporter, whose profession is professor of theology; in fact that editorial column is used as a source six times.
    • The escape is glossed over. "No one, including the guards, was injured during the prison break." Biased, clearly implies it was carried out by the forces of goodness, if even the guards didn't get hurt. If something didn't happen, don't write about it. Instead, how about looking how the best known newspaper in the country writes about it? "Killer Says He Helped In Chesimard's Escape" " 2 Ex-Fugitives Convicted of Roles In Fatal Armored-Truck Robbery" And the accomplices weren't just "charged with assisting in her escape;" or "held on charges related to the escape", thurey were tried and convicted, a rather important difference.
      • I can tell this is going to be a recurring problem with you. That no one was injured in a fact; that those who carried out her escape were the "forces of goodness" is just not in the article at all. You seem to be making your comments based on your own emotional reponses to the facts in the article rather than the way that facts are cited or stated. This is one of several citable details mentioned. I will add the conviction info, though. Savidan 15:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
        • No, actually, I am responding to the way the facts are stated. The most neutral way to say that something didn't happen is not to say it. Consider if the article bore the following "facts"? "Despite the overwhelming anger felt by the policemen, who were friends of the murdered victim, Shakur was not beaten, was not starved, was not waterboarded"? "The sentence was not successfully appealed to any court of appeals." "The governor did not pardon Shakur or commute Shakur's sentence." These would all be facts, but no less biased in the way they were stated. --GRuban (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "Shakur maintains her innocence to this day" - innocence of what? Again, remember, she was convicted of being an accomplice, which she doesn't deny. She seems to be insisting she didn't pull the trigger, but that's not what she was convicted of.
      • Actually, I suppose you're right that this can be removed. Savidan 15:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Instead, how about this, where she continues to advocate "armed struggle"? Fugitive in Cuba Still Wounds Trenton; Chesimard Unrepentant at Trooper's '73 Killing; Whitman Is Irate" Again NYTimes. It's clear bias to say that she says she's innocent of killing people and leave out the part where she asks other people to kill people. Or is "armed struggle" somehow not include killing?
      • It's not clear what you're proposing to add here. Could you be more explicit? Savidan 15:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
        • It is important to say somewhere that she claims to be innocent; but it would be preferable to be specific about the way in which she claims it. I also propose that it is important that she advocates armed struggle, since, while that doesn't mean she did or did not kill anyone, it does seem to say she endorses killing in general in certain cases. The specific NYTimes article there seems to refer to some other (Newsday?) article, that would be a preferable source, if you have access to it.
    • "Sheriff Joseph DeMarino lied to the press about the exact date of her transfer to Clinton State Correctional Institute " - again, biased language. Is it really that important where she was held at each state of her trial and imprisonment? It seems just an excuse to get the comment that police lie in the article one more time.
      • This has been discussed extensively on the talk page. "lied" is the word used in the article cited and by the sheriff himself. It is important where she was held, as apparently it was headline worthy at the time, as was the sheriff feeling the need to misinform the press about it. Savidan 15:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Where is Christine Whitman's widely publicized statement, in which she attacks Shakur?
    • Where is information about the slain police officer?
      • Please be more specific about which information you would like to see about him. This is not his bio (although its likely he'd be deemed notable if an article were started about him). Savidan 15:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Quite right. The proposal is more in the interest of balance, if we can reduce the emotional content that seems to make the reader sympathize with Shakur, we can live without much on the officer.
    • "All of the jury members were white" - cited to a NYTimes article, but no link provided. All NYTimes archives are on the web now, provide a link.

--GRuban (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

      • Not all historical nyt articles are available online, and often not for free. I'll see if i can a free link though. Savidan 15:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
In general, I consider most of these objections a little unreasonable. Some of them don't even maintain the pretense of commenting on the article as a compilation of neutrally presented and verifiable facts, but rather concern themself with arguing directly about a given point of view related to Shakur. For example, your first comment, rather than saying that the information in the article is inaccurate, says that its irrelevant because it doesn't prove that Shakur was innocent. It should go without saying that this is not the standard for relevance. The goal of this section is to neutrally and factually present verifiable information about her trial. To say that the cited facts about the trial are "irrelevant" because they don't accomplish some external argumentative purpose misses the purpose completely. However, you have raised some legitimate issues, which I will respond to/remedy specifically. Savidan 14:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
As the other user says above, this article is the first time I have ever heard of this case. If you assume anyone who criticizes this article must have a personal point of view against Shakur, you won't get far. --GRuban (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't assume that you have a personal view against Shakur, only that some of your comments reflect a set of assumptions about the opinions readers should form from the facts presented in the article, rather than focusing solely on the accuracy and neutrality of the information itself. I think that ultimately I will be able to remedy many of these to your satisfaction, though. Savidan 19:25, 22 May 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 14:51, 22 May 2008.

[edit] Soundgarden

After much work, I believe this article now passes all FA criteria. Self-nom --Freedom (song) (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment The citations should be properly formatted, the red cite errors need to be taken care of, linking to copyright violations is frowned upon, and at least one of the citations you use gives a 404 error. BuddingJournalist 16:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm staying out of this vote, but I should point out that Wikipedia editors can't evaluate whether a third party Web site has obtained permission for its music (or whatever it is that bothers you). If a featured article candidate page is stable, i.e. the same link has been present a long time on the Wikipedia site about the band, not a new one every hour, then I'm inclined to believe that the target of that link is innocent of copyright violation until proven guilty. Wnt (talk) 01:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm talking about linking to sites such as this one and this one, which state explicitly that they are reprinting articles without permission in violation of copyright. BuddingJournalist 01:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
To the authors, you can use {{cite news}} without a URL to cite that article. I've done this on Diorama (album) (a recent example); see the <!-- commented out URLs --> in the edit window. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose
  • All references need to be in {{cite web}} form.
No, they don't. They just need consistent formatting. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I count 4 or 5 references that are broken.
Fixed all the references that where broken now. You can check out if you want to. --Freedom (song) (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • A couple links are down.
Also fixed the links i think.--Freedom (song) (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • There's a lot of unsourced information in the article.
  • Prose could use some brushing up.
  • The band actually received death threats about it on a UK tour in the early 1990s. Words like "actually" don't sound encyclopediac, and sounds slightly POVish.
  • Quite a few short, stubby sentences, making the prose start-and-stop in places.
  • I could find more examples, but those are my biggest concerns. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Note: {{cite web}} is not a requirement. References only need to be properly and consistently formatted; relevant information such as author, date of publication, publisher, title, etc. should be given. BuddingJournalist 16:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
First, {{cite web}} is generally an FAC requirement. Second, even if it wasn't, you tell me that the references need to be properly formated; so why aren't some of them? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
"so why aren't some of them?" I think you're mistaking me for the nominator. I never said that references were properly formatted in the article, and in my very first comment above, I point out that they aren't properly formatted. I'm just pointing out that {{cite web}} has never been an FAC requirement, nor should it be. The use of citation templates is up to the individual editor, as per guidelines; people can format citations perfectly fine without them. Ask Sandy, Raul, or any other FAC regular. BuddingJournalist 21:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I did not mistake you for the nominator. I said it is generally a requirement. {{cite web}} is far easier to use and manage than manually formated references, so I do not understand why it isn't used. I may have been mistaken, but regardless, properly formated references are a requirement. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The use of cite templates is not a requirement for any article (see WP:CITE) or part of WP:WIAFA (see 2c); consistently formatted citations are required, by whatever means used. See Tourette syndrome (manually formatted citations, mine). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
much of the sources on the Pink Floyd page isn't {{cite web}} --Freedom (song) (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I note that two other editors have contributed significantly to this article, at nearly 3 times your edits apiece. Quantity isn't necessarily quality, of course, but I see that they've both been working on it for years, and you'd be wise to follow the FAC instructions for posting on the article talk page or otherwise contacting principle contributors before bringing the article to FAC. Maralia (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

see [25] this is the Soundgarden page before i came. This is the Soundgarden page when i startet to work on it [26]. I've done all the work on the page, i'm not saying the other users didn't edit but i made it to what it is now. --Freedom (song) (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Freedom (song), please give credit where its due. The majority of what you added comes from the Soundgarden album articles, which I wrote.-5- (talk) 05:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Dud i know you have written most of the article i just ment that i made it to how it is now. You have as much credit as me when it comes to this article. No you should have more credit okay. I didn't mean i wrote the article to make that clear. --Freedom (song) (talk) 08:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments
  • The use of "later" in the first para of the lead is awkward and not really adding anything
  • There's really no free image?
  • "first grunge band to sign to a major label, but the band" - overuse of band...try some variety/rewordings
  • Ref 2 publisher shouldn't have italics
  • "Soundgarden was formed in 1984 by Chris Cornell (drums & vocals) and Hiro Yamamoto (bass), who were later joined by Kim Thayil (guitar)" - "who" should be "they", and comma should be semicolon (or else reword some other way...)
  • "Despite being good friends with Thayil, Pavitt was not impressed by Soundgarden, but agreed since Poneman offered to contribute $20,000 in funding for Sub Pop." - needs ref
  • Audio samples often need a wlink to the song's article (noticed this on "Flower")
  • "After the release of the album Soundgarden supported the album" - this prose needs work (repetition)
  • "Although the album was overshadowed by the sudden popularity of Nirvana's Nevermind, at the same time, the focus of attention brought by Nevermind to the Seattle scene brought Soundgarden wider attention, allowing the singles "Outshined" and "Rusty Cage" to find an audience at alternative radio and MTV." - very clunky sentence, try rewording
  • "Afterward, the band then returned for" - redundant word there
  • "Despite strong reviews, the album did not match its predecessor's sales." - needs ref
  • Don't refer to them by first names (eg. "Chris Cornell said"), just use surnames after the first time they're named

Needs a good copyedit from someone who hasn't seen it before. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Support: I love it great fantastic yeah. Not as good as the Led Zeppelin article but still good. --Wellwater Conspiracy (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Support: Great article --Well Hater (talk) 09:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Support: I like it good job -5- and Freedom (song). --Kill Nu metal (talk) 11:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting [27], [28], also notice who all voted on the side of Nu metal. indopug (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I smell a sock farm, if small. Rudget (Help?) 15:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
As the expression goes: "I smell a rat." I agree with Rudget (who has a habit of beating me to these things ;).) I think an SSP or Checkuser might be in order here. Qst (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It'll have to wait until the FAC is closed per RFCU policy. Rudget (Help?) 15:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I've archived this FAC; it will be tagged closed as soon as GimmeBot runs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 22 May 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 02:16, 21 May 2008.

[edit] Hurricane Naomi (1968)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because...as the creator/main editor associated with the article, I believe that this article now, as a result of a peer review, adheres to the criteria for FAs. So, as a result, I self-nominate this article for FA status. Any compliments, comments, or criticism is welcome and very much encouraged. Thanks! Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments.

  • The "Storm path" image caption could be a bit better...you could describe the path a bit, to make the image more meaningful.
  • "A short-lived hurricane which rapidly organized to a Category 1 hurricane" - can alternative words ("storm", perhaps?) be used instead of the repetition of hurricane?
  • Should em dashes (—) be used in the 2nd para of the lead?
  • In the refs, I don't think Associated Press should be listed as an author. Also, the newspaper publishers should be in italics.

dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Impressive work digging up all those old sources, and a good start, but the prose is quite rough. The lead was downright painful - long, unwieldy sentences, awkward constructions, some basic grammar errors. MoS breaches found. I see you had a peer review but you really need to get some more eyes on this before it's ready to post here. I would tap any number of authors that have written excellent hurricane FAs, as this looks to have been mainly a one-editor show. Examples:
    • "A short-lived hurricane which rapidly organized to a Category 1 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale before landfall, Naomi crossed Mexico while active, dumping heavy rains through Mexico and Texas in connection with a frontal system over the Gulf Coast, with heaviest rains falling in Corpus Christi, Texas." Toooo loooooong.
    • "Although a worker was injured in Texas when the rains from Naomi's remains caused the roof of the plant they were working in to collapse..." Wording, grammar.
    • MoS examples: Hyphen in a citation that should be an en dash; need non-breaking spaces between numbers and the non-number item they go with (ex 3:00 GMT) -Laser brain (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • What makes the following sources reliable?
  • Current ref 2 "William J. Denney Eastern Pacific Hurricane Season of 1968" is lacking a publisher
Being on the road, I didnt check external links. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Question Why does the see also section have a link to Olga? It's a different basin, for pete's sake! ;) Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
OK thanks all who've commented. I heard this out, and I'll answer. First, I tweaked out the Olga link. At first, I gave it as an example of what could have happened in Mexico, but to that degree, I'd have to add every cyclone to cause effects via dam breaks or openings. Also, the reason I used the Storm Advisory source was to give an image of where, location-wise, the cyclone dissipated. Best track would be good, but plotting the towns would take slight guesswork. And to address Dihydrogen, if you noticed, pretty much all WPTC articles (even FAs) have the same storm path idea, so the need to change it isn't of great importance, especially considering that the storm history discusses the path in more effect. Finally, I will change the AP writers, but only if there is something better to substitute them with, such as the newspaper who published the article (in my career of using that site for sources, rarely are individuals credited with the writing). Everything else I can work on to my best degree. More comments are appreciated! Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I rewrote the first paragraph of the lede, but I couldn't make sense of the second paragraph. Also, the article starts with the boilerplate "Naomi was the nth tropical cyclone, mth tropical storm, and lth hurricane of the k hurricane season" that is too common in hurricane lead sections. Please write why the storm was important first, then start with the statistics. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I saw that you added a sentence to the lede, but it was too general. While Wikipedia isn't governed by journalistic practices, the Five Ws are a good idea to keep in mind while editing an introduction. I rewrote the entire lede, removing most of the ESSA-6 stuff (it was irrelevant for a lede) and trying to copyedit it at the same time. That said, the article itself is not bad, but it has paragraphs that are too long and disorganized at times. So, weak object. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:43, 11 May 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 02:16, 21 May 2008.

[edit] The Orange Box

previous FAC (16:55, 6 April 2008)


Nomination - After the previous unsuccessful nomination, Sabre and I have gone through the previous comments raised and held a peer review, where a lot of good feedback came out. As a result, we've heavily updated the article with this feedback and feel it's ready for another go. I'll be on-hand to address any concerns that may crop up as a result. Many thanks, Gazimoff WriteRead 08:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Support for now. My comments from last time seem to have been addressed. I will try to take another look at some stage. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I've tried to tweak a few things here and there to prepare the article for FA. I believe this articles meets all the standards. ~ UBeR (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just a note to say I'm also on-station to solve any issues raised. Hopefully there won't be as many this time around though. -- Sabre (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Issues resolved, ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment "being the surprise favorite of the package." The or a surprise favorite? Overview would be better named as Games in my opinion. BuddingJournalist 21:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • How about "Overview of games"? Or is that too much? I don't see much of a difference between "a surprise favorite" compared to "the surprise favorite." Each indicate that it's the favorite among the rest. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • This came up in the previous FAC and in the peer review. Essentially, from reading the source material, Portal was the surprise favourite of the package. it had virtually no hype or preview, yet received numerous accolades both from videogame journalists and the wider media. They excpected the package to be successful, but didn't expect Portal to be the best bit of the pack. The sources reflect this use of this term as well. Additionally, we have used Overview rather than Games, in order to be consistent with similar videogame article styles with a standard structure and form. Plus, the Overview forms an overview of the package as a whole, Reception covers the package as a whole, so it keeps the overall flow of the article as one unified package.Gazimoff WriteRead 21:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Ah OK. The thing about "the" vs "a" is that "the" can be construed to be "modifying" "favorite" more than "surprise"; the sentence then implies that Portal was the critical favorite for the package overall, not just a surprise favorite (which would imply one of the top favorites rather than the favorite game of reviewers). Of course, if this is indeed the case, then this point is moot. BuddingJournalist 22:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Isn't that interesting. I modified it to "a surprise favorite" before coming here and reading the commentary, so since it struck both of us independently as an issue, and since I value my opinion very much (!), I would have to say that your criticism was justified. My reasoning was that while everyone loved Portal, TF2 and of course HL2 received higher scores on average and so labeling Portal as the favourite seemed argumentative rather than factual. Anyways, fixed. Was that all that was standing in your way of supporting? clicketyclickyaketyyak 00:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

QuestionAre so many "Main article: " tags needed rather than just linking the first mention of the game? It makes the article much more spaced out and listy. The article is full of short sections anyway. indopug (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a good question. The Orange Box is fairly unique in that it is five games in one package. Two of those games (Half-Life 2 and the Episode 1 expansion) had been released previously in seperate packages. Episode 2, Portal and Team Fortress 2 were only released as part of the Orange Box package initially. It's why there are five 'Main Article:' links, one for each component of the Orange Box, as each has a spin-off article of it's own. Hope this helps Gazimoff WriteRead 18:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I see no problems with it, presentation seems fine to me in that regard. I'm personally more of a fan of using the {{main}} template, linking the first mention of the article seems to me a bit sloppy in this regard. Using the template provides a clear "go here for more information" rather than just standard links, which to me is necessary as this article is meant to bring all those articles together. I suppose it just comes down to a matter of opinion of editors. -- Sabre (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Note that there are only 5 {{main}} templates--one for each of the games featured in The Orange Box. This is not a problem. It is also in accordance with various page layout and style guidelines. ~ UBeR (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand their purpose and the nature of this boxset, but I thought it looks worse with templates. They further break up an already highly sectioned article, giving it a rather listy look. Then again, your reasoning for including the templates is sound so no issues. indopug (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Certainly understandable that the presentation looks weird with it, but I think readers come to expect that when one links in an article through {{main}} or {{seealso}}, they know that this is not just Wikilinking to help understand a term , but that genuinely there is more information behind that link that specifically relates to the article at hand. I will point that these work fine for Crazy Taxi (series) that splits off to 5 different game articles.Scratch that, I thought I had them in there when I worked it through FA, but can't tell when they were removed. I think this is just a matter of the editor opinion here, as long as its clear where further information is to be found. --MASEM 21:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Not to cause a fuss, but I do agree with Indopug, though it doesn't bother me overly much. It seems likely to me that the reason they were taken out of Crazy Taxi was because, like Orange Box, it contains some very short summaries of the games included. If all the Orange Box descriptions were a little longer, then it might look better, but because they are all so short — one is only three sentences long and two are only four lines long — it does look choppy. Again, it isn't a real issue to me and since it's already been resolved, I'll shut up now. clicketyclickyaketyyak 00:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm sorry that no one has taken a hard look at this, but substantive work has not been done to bring this up to FA standard before being posted here and it shows. GA passage by another video game editor and a blank peer review. The prose is very rough and, at the very least, needs thorough treatment by an uninvolved general-audience editor before closer examination is possible. Grammar, prose, and in-universe problems are easily spotted in the lead and elsewhere:
    • "The first-person shooters Half-Life 2 and its first expansion, Episode One, have both been previously released as separate products in November 2004 and June 2006, respectively." Grammar, wordiness.
    • "The Orange Box has received critical acclaim, with Portal being a surprise favorite of the package." The "with ... <gerund>" construction is not of a professional standard.
      • I'm not sure what you mean here. If possible, could you explain what you mean? Many thanks, Gazimoff WriteRead 23:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        • The particular grammatical construction you used in that sentence ("... with Portal being...") is not good. An experienced copyeditor can help you identify and revise these throughout the article. --Laser brain (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "Through the Steam platform for the Windows version, the games can collect and report in-depth player data such as where the player died..." The player dies? Not the character? Dangerous game. --Laser brain (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your comments - I'll try to work through them soon. There have been three editors who have been working hard on resolving issues found with this article, but there may be a problem relating to being too close to the prose. For your reference, the peer review (covered by four editors) can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Peer_review/The_Orange_Box. Hope this helps, Gazimoff WriteRead 23:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        • My bad for missing the WikiProject peer view. I clicked the link to the general peer review. I certainly don't mean to impugn the hard work that has been done already - but as you pointed out, "outside" review and copyediting is needed. --Laser brain (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I have made an attempt at addressing the issues you raised. Please indicate if I have done so adequately. I do not think that it is possible to get an outside review at this moment, other than the one you are providing right now. I'll attempt to go through the article like you said, but I just finished a term paper on Kant and words have lost all meaning for me. clicketyclickyaketyyak 00:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC) EDIT: Just finished one full sweep through the article, hopefully cleaning up issues before you could raise them. Also hopefully not making things worse! clicketyclickyaketyyak 04:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I am not much of a video game player, and I found some things that confused me. More context might be necessary in some cases. Also, there were prose issues (listed below are examples only, many of these problems persist in the article) and I have questions on whether some of the sources meet WP:RS.

  • Prose issues:
    • "A separate product entitled The Black Box was planned, which would have included only the new games, but it was cancelled." - passive tense, use of "entitled" vs "titled", which ones were the "new games"?
    • Redundant text: "Half-Life 2: Episode One continues from the events of Half-Life 2" is followed by "Episode One builds on the original" - these say basically the same thing.
    • Long, unwieldly sentence: "The game consists primarily of a series of puzzles that are solved by teleporting the player's character and simple objects using the Aperture Science Handheld Portal Device—the "portal gun".
    • Please make sure all the text is appropriately encyclopedic. Examples of non-encyclopedic phrasing are "Valve planned on releasing "
  • "Although Half-Life 2 has the largest proportion of Achievements, there are 99 spread across all five games, exceeding the 50-achievement limit that Microsoft maintains to feature the most Achievements of any Xbox 360 product"
    • I think an Achievement should be defined briefly here. I have no idea what that means.
    • What did they have to do to exceed the 50-achievement limit that MS maintains? (this makes it sound like that's a hard limit)
    • Does Half-Life 2 have the highest proportion of achievements ever, or the highest proportion among these 5 games? And I think the "Although" is likely misplaced
    • Any information on why Half-Life 2 does not contain in-game commentary?
  • The article assumes I know what Half-Life was like; a description like " While remaining similar in style to the original" means nothing to me since I don't know what the original style was.
  • Basically, the whole Half-Life 2 summary section assumed I understood a lot about the game, and I don't so I'm a little lost.
  • I have no idea what this is supposed to mean "non-player characters such as Alyx Vance, whose new abilities complement Freeman's abilities and allow her to comprehend and respond to the player's actions by lending help"
  • The Episode One summary does not appear to be organized well. It talks about continuing from Half Life (twice), then mentions Alyx Vance, then says where it is set, then talks about Alyx Vance again.
  • The Episode 2 summary seems very short compared to the others.
  • Why is the Track listing in a cap? That is not something I am used to seeing in a featured article, and it seems a bit unprofessional to me.
  • It seems a bit odd to me that the Development section immediately focuses on a different game, and not on the Orange Box. There is also no information about why it was decided to release these games as a set-is that info available?
  • This is a little confusing "The Black Box was later canceled for retail and is now only available through Steam exclusively to owners of certain ATI graphics cards, who received a voucher for a free copy of The Black Box"
  • I don't understand why they felt the need to compensate for the cancellation of The Black Box, since they never actually sold any of those (at least the article doesn't say they did). This may need to be explained a bit better.
  • You should have a citation immediately after every quote (at least at the end of the sentence) even if the citation at the end of the paragraph covers this.
  • Is the info about the forums really that important? I'd probably distill this down to "A patch was released in North America on March 19, 2008 and a European patch followed soon after."
  • Thanks for these comments, I'll incorporate them into a copyedit I've been planning, which I hope to get wrapped up in the next couple of days. They're really appreciated and demonstrate just how valuable a third-party peer review and copyedit is. I'll work through these and reply to your talk page directly. Many thanks, Gazimoff WriteRead 17:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I checked the talk page for WP:VG/S, and it basically said that this site can meet WP:RS depending on who the blogger is. Can you demonstrate that the author of each of these postings linked to is an expert? Karanacs (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Please see below for link to discussion on WP:VG. Many thanks, Gazimoff WriteRead 21:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:VG/S doesn't explain how those sites meet WP:RS (which supersedes it). To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Can you provide some info about that, please? Karanacs (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • joystiq appears to be a site for bloggers. Blogs are not generally considered reliable sources.
  • Joystiq is considered a reliable source as per WP:VG/S. Blog content is from respected industry experts and goes through an editorial process. Gazimoff WriteRead 17:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I checked the talk page for WP:VG/S, and it basically said that this site can meet WP:RS depending on who the blogger is. Can you demonstrate that the author of each of these postings linked to is an expert? Karanacs (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd like to refer you to this thread where Joystiq and Kotaku are discussed in great detail. Should anything further be required, I'll beed to bring it up with the project to request further information, as this may have an impact on a large number of other VG articles. Many thanks, Gazimoff WriteRead 21:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • There seems to be some aggreement that these can be used for facts (although a few people mentioned and I agree that you should find the original articles that are summarized and source those instead if possible), but perhaps not for opinion. At least one of the references here is to cite an opinion of the game. If that author is considered an expert (published elsewhere? cited elsewhere?) then it will probably be okay, but otherwise I'd recommend taking that off. Karanacs (talk) 01:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 15:36, 20 May 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 00:04, 21 May 2008.

[edit] Subcutaneous emphysema

Self-nominator: I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that it meets the specified criteria for a FA. It's been expanded to be a reliable article with few facts missing. The only worrying aspect, for me, is perhaps it is too short, but i'll leave all that to you guys as this is my first nomination. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 18:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I Oppose for now. The quality of the prose is not to FA standard and there's much redundancy. I've made some suggestions. [34]. The use of medical terminology might be excessive and a barrier to some readers. The use of the the word common worries me a little as this condition is not common. (There might be a WP:NPOV problem here). I suggest a copy-edit and a fresh pair of eyes. GrahamColmTalk 18:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Current ref 5 "Oxford Concise Medical Dictionary" ... is lacking a page number
Other than that picky item, sources look good. Links checked out fine with the tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry - my fault. Page number 224. Ged3000 (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
No worries at all. It's easy to miss things. All done! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments The text is too difficult for the general reader, much of it reading like a medical textbook. You need to examine every use of jargon and try to either avoid it or explain it and minimise its reuse. Also, be careful with using "or" when giving a lay alternative to jargon. It can easily be interpreted as an alternative option rather than an alternative wording. I'm concerned about the choice of sources, which don't seem the most obvious choice of papers and books should one have access to a library or bookstore. Relying on Google Books restricts choice. Quick reference and study aids aren't the best medical books you could use. A specialist textbook could have a chapter on this subject that a library would allow you to photocopy and could form a solid foundation for the article. For example, ref 8 (nursing handbook) deals with SE after chest surgery but is cited for SE symptoms in general. The treatment outlined in ref 7 (diving handbook)--breathing oxygen--may not be appropriate for other causes of SE. Quite a number of the papers are case notes which, although they often give some background on the condition, aren't a first choice for a quality source. A review paper would be better. There's some confusion in the article over whether SE is easy to detect by hand or commonly detected by x-ray. I'm no medic so have no idea what the correct thing should be, but you don't do an x-ray if you have already figured it out easily by touch. The word "commonly" appears a lot. The statement "Subcutaneous emphysema is a common result of surgery" seems most unlikely. Help to reader know if this is rare (which I suspect it is) and if so, try to avoid saying "common". Given the limitations of the sources, I suspect the article is neither comprehensive or fully accurate. A peer-review by a medic with experience and better books would help. Colin°Talk 22:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi Colin, thanks for your thorough review. We've been working on simplifying the article for laypersons usage (in regards to jargon) over the past few days although it clearly needs some more work from what you've said. I'm not quite sure what your concern is over references, is it all of them or just those linked to Google Books or other odd textbooks like the nursing book? If the former is your concern, i'm confused as the majority are peer-reviewed articles which are, as a whole, very reliable. I'll have to disagree with your statement "you don't do an x-ray if you have already figured it out easily by touch." and say, for example, if you feel a lump, you do not know it is cancerous (and even though you may suspect cancer, you still need the confirmation). SE is fairly common after surgery, it's just a lot of the time it isn't noticed. This shouldn't be all that surprising as surgery is essentially trauma to the body and it leaves very open wounds for air to get trapped in. Despite this, i'll get to work on correcting the ambiguity of the article and removing confusion. Thanks again for your comments. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 22:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks much Colin, these comments are very sound. I think the question of whether it's easy or hard to diagnose has to do with how severe a case it is (for example, here's an easy case to diagnose :P). You're right, I did have trouble finding reviews. Where I used case reports, I only used information from the parts of the article that were reviewing other data, nothing that the authors were reporting from their own findings. I too will work on making it more lay accessible and addressing your other concerns, thanks again for the input. delldot talk 22:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I may not have much time on WP for the next few days. Your sources aren't so bad that you fail WP:V but aren't the top choice per WP:MEDRS. Plus, I think you may be stretching specific sources into more general use. I understand what you are saying about the use of case notes' background material and that's fine as far as it goes. The question is whether relying on such sources "exemplifies our very best work" and I'm afraid it is only second best IMO. You could try posting a request at WP:MED to see if one of the wikidocs would collaborate. Colin°Talk 23:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Very reasonable Colin, I can't disagree with any of that. I'll look for more sources and let you know when I think I've addressed your concerns (it may be a bit for me too). delldot talk 02:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The image's initial uploader (to pt.wikipedia) appears to be active on commons and on the Portuguese wikipedia. They also appear to speak English, or at least upload images with english descriptions. Someone may want to contact the user directly at Commons:User talk:Robertolyra, or contact someone here at Wikipedia:Portuguese-speaking Wikipedians' notice board, or from Category:User pt. I've added information tags and updated the categories on that image, but otherwise that is the only image problem I saw. -Optigan13 (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Fvasconcellos (talk · contribs) will probably review this article, and speaks Portuguese. If you can't reach him, there's also Acer (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks like he speaks English, I've contacted him on his talk pages here and on pt. delldot talk 16:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I just took a look at the article, and I usually just focus on a section or two at first to play around with edits to get a feel of the writing. I made a few edits to one sentence, and I realized that this article needs a thorough copyediting. There's a lot of duplication. The editor may want to read User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a: redundancy exercises. I'll do more editing, but if I'm doing a lot of copyediting, not my forte, I wouldn't think that this article is ready for FA status. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, first off may I thank you all for the comments you've provided and the effort some have you have put into editing the article. Secondly, I want to withdraw this nomination if possible after talking to Delldot and coming to the conclusion it's the most reasonable thing to do (since it's very unlikely for this to pass). Thanks again for your hard work. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 20:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks much to everyone who took the time to help review this, the efforts will definitely help improve the article. delldot talk 20:20, 20 May 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 23:57, 20 May 2008.

[edit] Chocolate

previous FAC


Well, this nomination is pretty different than what I'm used to nominating. The article was nominated back in August 2007, but failed. Since then it became a good article, but was delisted because it wasn't referenced enough. I added references, deleted unsourced statements, added a popular culture section, and fixed the "further reading" section. I think the article is pretty good, and can very well become a featured article. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 01:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose, this should be delisted immediately. Limetolime, you simply cannot make a few edits to an article and then bring it here. Your efforts are appreciated but misguided. An article like this needs to spend time under collaboration and scrutiny by its regular editors. You added an uncited pop culture section?? It is far, far, away from FA status. --Laser brain (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose You have certainly improved this article in the 3 days you've been working on it, but it's not close to ready for FA. It's strewn with typos, punctuation errors, baffling statements ("Many chocolate manufacturers have created products from chocolate bars to fudge to become the world's largest manufacturer."), weak prose ("Chocolate is regularly eaten for pleasure."), and a mishmash of American English and British English. It is underreferenced (the entire Tempering section, for example, has no citations), the existing citations are in need of formatting work, and several links are broken. Half of the See also items are already linked in the navigational footer. I notice that you haven't requested input on the article's talk page, or approached WP:FOOD which lists it as a top importance article; peer or project review would be a much more appropriate next step, considering the current state of the article. Maralia (talk) 04:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree with all of the above. Definitely a good start, but needs quite a bit of polishing up of the prose, references, and general formatting. Drewcifer (talk) 06:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: The second image had contained blatant vandalism for two months (!), which I've corrected. Several captions have WP:MOS#Captions (not to mention basic grammar) issues. The featured article criterion requires images appropriate to the subject; what does a chocolate Reichstag have to do with anything? The preceding issues seem to indicate that criterion three was not considered prior to nomination; were the other criteria engaged? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Definitely suggest withdrawing and going through some serious editing and Peer Review first. Large sections unreferenced, some sources don't appear to be reliable, and I didn't even look at the prose. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:58, 20 May 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 01:51, 19 May 2008.

[edit] Georgi Kinkladze

Self-nom. This article about a Georgian footballer has been developing over the past few months, going through a GA nomination and two peer reviews. When it went through GA it lacked the comprehensiveness required for FAC, but thanks to the efforts of User:Jhony his later career in Russia is now well covered and a free image has been obtained. I believe it is now ready for FAC. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Some minor comments
  • Derby section: "missing Derby's five starting matches of the 2002–03 season." I think "missing Derby's first five matches of the ..." would sound better
  • Rubin Kazan section: I might be wrong but shouldn't recurrance be recurrence?
    • Yes to both of the above, now fixed.
  • Are there any more images you could use?
    • Not free use images, apart from this barely usable one. As there's not really an iconic photograph of Kinkladze I don't think a fair use one would meet the non-free content criteria.
  • And is there anything else on his personal life, or life outside football? Peanut4 (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • There is surprisingly little in the public domain, even in the 200 page biography I have a copy of. I thought about a "personal life" section, but as it would have resulted in a stubby section I decided to put the appropriate information (homesickness, marriage, car crash) as it occurs chronologically. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Just for the record, some important things about him are not in the press, at least in Russian and English languages. I was unable even to find a statement about his retirement from football and I had to use another footballer's words instead to prove that. Jhony (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Issues resolved Giants2008 (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - I found a lot more problems in the middle of the article, leading to my decision. Before I start, one cleanup note from the previous round. While making changes in response to my comments, you de-linked Reading F.C.. This should be linked again.

  • Ajax: Should Maradona be linked in the quote? Non-football fans might not understand the quote fully without it.
  • I'd also like to see loan linked.
  • Derby County: "until a groin injury sustained in the return match with Middlesbrough kept him out for two months." This is confusing. Is Kindladze being described, or Eranio?
  • The Guardian needs italics.
  • Leeds should be changed to Leeds United and linked, since I don't see it mentioned before.
  • "since his injuries and inability to prove himself led to the lack of serious offers." Change to "a lack of serious offers".
  • "A similar pattern of starts and substitute appearances to the previous season followed at the start of the 2001–02 season." Followed what? I think this could be rewritten and improved.
  • "Jim Smith resigned from his managerial position at Derby in the same month" What same month? I think you're continuing from his child's birth in the previous paragraph. If he resigned in October 2001, say so.
  • Does Manchester City need to be linked again?
  • "and John Gregory was appointed as a manager." Drop "a".
  • "he has no future at the club. Had.
  • Comma after However?
  • "As the club continued attempts to terminate Kinkladze's contract" I think "its attempts" is cleaner.
  • "and came as a substitute" Came in.
  • "as he took part in build-up of both goals." This may be my lack of experience with football recaps, but should it be "the build-up"?
  • "from the team for the match against Russia" How about "their match"?
  • "as early as in the next qualifying match against Ireland." Too wordy. Try "for the next qualifying match against Ireland."
  • While I'm here, what tournament is this talking about? Is this European championships qualifying? If so, mention it.
  • "By January, because of financial crisis at Derby" The financial crisis.
  • "He intended to quit but," Move comma before but.

Let me know when these are done, and I'll look at more of it. Until then, take care of these and see if you can get some copy-editing help. Giants2008 (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

All valid points. A case of having read the text too many times to recognise mistakes, I think. Most of them I've fixed as suggested, apart from a couple of cases where I've rewritten the whole sentence. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Picking up from where I left off...
  • "Failing to agree terms with Derby" First part of this needs cleanup.
  • "Without a club during pre-season" seems like it should be "the pre-season".
  • Remove the second Leeds United link, because it's now linked earlier.
  • "but none resulted in the offer of a contract" I think the following is better: "but none resulted in a contract offer."
  • Russia is linked a second time in close proximity to the first.
  • "Kinkladze went for a one-week trial at Panathinaikos by invitation of club's owner Giannis Vardinogiannis, but after completing the trial Greeks decided not to sign him." Numerous grammar issues here.
  • Perhaps say that Shinnik Yaroslavl is a Russian club. I had to click on the link to discover this.
  • Anorthosis: "Temuri Ketsbaia gave an old friend a second chance" His old friend. The sentence this is in also seems like a run-on.
  • "recalled in Georgia's squad" Should this be "to"?
  • Link the Lithuanian national side here. Giants2008 (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
All done with the exception of "pre-season", which I'm pretty sure is accepted usage, see for example this recent Guardian article (5th para). Oldelpaso (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I haven't really been able to evaluate the non-English language sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
While I realise it is no guarantee, the site is widely used by Wikiproject Football members. One of the longest running football sites on the web, it is the flagship site of the stock market listed Total Sports Online AS. The majority of its news content is a "staff and agencies" affair. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
RSSSF is also used as a source in the article. I know Ealdgyth has questioned this site in the past, and I'm not sure if she has made a decision on it. I don't really have a problem with these sport statistics sites, but I'm throwing it out there for anyone interested. Giants2008 (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
RSSSF is a rather singular site. It started out as an offshoot of a newsgroup, but has since become a respected source to the extent that the Danish Football Association has named it their official keeper of records and statistics. Time and time again WP:FOOTBALL members have found it to be more consistently accurate than commercial sites such as the Racing Post owned Soccerbase. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll vouch for WP:FOOTY members' approval of RSSSF. Not so sure about 4thegame.com --Dweller (talk) 12:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I personally think that at a minimum the article should have one more image (as per point 3 WP:FA?). It would be a shame for the article to be held back on this reason alone. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I have added an image of tangential relevance, one of Derby County's home ground Pride Park Stadium. In terms of pictures of Kinkladze himself, the article already possesses a free use image. Free use images of Kinkladze are extremely scarce, and as there is no single definitive image of Kinkladze I do not believe it would be possible for a fair-use pic to fulfil the criteria at WP:NFC when a free-use pic exists and is already included. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I found a beautiful picture of Tblisi on the wikicommons and I've put that in the article too. I guess with the context i've given it's relevant enough. I feel quite strongly about the media in articles because large sections of text can be off-putting, which would be a shame given the quality of the article. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 22:16, 16 May 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 01:51, 19 May 2008.

[edit] Walter O'Malley

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been greatly expanded and improved since becoming a GA. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Current ref 2 "Walter O'Malley" is lacking a publisher. Also, it will not load at all for Safari at all, so I have no way of judging its reliability. Possibly it's because I'm at a hotel and some weird firewall is blocking me, but nothing else has been blocked so far tonight. From the looks of the url, it's also duplicated at ref 13 "Biography: the Early Years" O'Malley Seidler Partners. Is this his own firm? If so it's more a primary source, not a
This is a website with a biography commissioned by Walter's daughter Theresa O'Malley Seidler based on primary sources. Their biographer, Brent Shyer, checked the article here at Wikipedia, and found a misspelling, and filled in some missing dates, that were added or fixed. The website is down, I contacted Brent Shyer, the official biographer and he will see what the problem is. What do we do when a website goes down and never returns? Do we switch to the cached version in Google? Since the quoted text was saved in the quote=parameter, the citation should be able to stand on its own, even is the site never returns. What do you think? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you know if Shyer used a WP user name?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
He sent me a snail mail on official stationery and gave me a number to call, then I gave him my email and he wrote me with the changes. For instance I had the year for the marriage, and he gave me the exact date. The typo was "Theresa" instead of "Therese". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The publisher is listed in the citation but it is not displaying, let me see if I misspelled it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I merged the two links to the official biography, and got the publisher to display. What do you want to do about the website being down? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I recommend a trip to the Internet Archive. I did a quick check, and discovered that both pages can be found there. Giants2008 (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I think TonyTiger is right, wait a day for them to get it back up now that they are notified, and if not we can link to one of the cashed version. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • While Encyclopaedia Britannica is reliable, it's very odd to see a generalist encyclopedia cite another generalist encyclopedia. Encyclopedia's are definitely tertiary sources, and it would be better to cite a secondary source instead. Not an oppose, more an general "it's better to source this way" concern.
It is removed. I believe it was just used for the lede to show notability when the article was a stub. I don't think anyone would challenge notability at this point, but the link is still in external links. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Otherwise sourcing looks good. I didn't check links, it's too hard on the road. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Does anyone have a preference for "Therese O'Malley Seidler (1933– ) and Peter O'Malley (1937– )." or "Therese O'Malley Seidler (born in 1933) and Peter O'Malley (born in 1937)." I have been switching to the second style, but I am not married to either. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What is the preference for the official website? show the url, or format it to just say "official website"? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I was just wondering if there was a rule, what if they get huge in the urls? Its just a question for the future. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The way this infobox is set up you have no choice but to put the URL as I understand it. In cases where single brackets are used in the input parameter I would put the URL if the infobox puts the words "Website" in a caption. If not I would use the external pipe of the URL under the words "Official website".--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The website is back up, the nudge worked. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Issues resolved Giants2008 (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "which Campanella forwarded to the Dodgers and the Dodgers refused to pay." Try this: Dodgers, who refused to pay."
  • Does automobile need to be linked here? It's a fairly common word.
  • Comma after winter baseball meetings.
  • "to attempt to lure the franchise" Double "to" here. "In an attempt", perhaps?
  • The Dodgers did not lose two pennant playoff games. They were both best-of-three series. St. Louis swept Brooklyn in their 1946 playoff, which is my primary concern here. The 1951 series did go the full three games, and had a famous ending. Also, Philadelphia defeated Brooklyn on the final day of the 1950 regular season, when a Dodger win would have forced another playoff.
  • You have multiple instances of reference numbers out of order - [18][19][9], [18][9] and [37][5].
  • Cite Horace Stoneham's desire to move the Giants to Minnesota. I've never heard of this before.

Comments by Moni3

It looks like you have put a lot of time into this article and it is well-researched. It's very impressive. Let me say that I read this as someone who knows little about baseball, but a well-written article about baseball should be interesting to someone who has never seen a game in his or her life. I found parts of the article difficult to follow, and found what I was afraid of: so much assumption of understood knowledge about baseball that the ignorant like me can't understand what is significant and what isn't. I think what you need to address is a mixture of copy editing problems and overall cohesion of the article to make it flow much better.

  • Walter's Irish father? Because it denotes an Irish father, was there more than one of a different ancestry perhaps?
  • In the lead, you have a First - then sentence segue. I think you can get rid of the First. It prepares the reader for a list.
  • It seems really linked to me. Partner needs a disambiguation. So does memo, but those and multiple other links could be deleted.
  • The article would flow much more nicely if you used topic sentences at the beginning of paragraphs, and at the beginning of each section as well, clueing the reading in a sentence, for example, that sums up O'Malley's career with the Dodgers. (It was embattled, it was considered pioneering, or lackluster, it was marked by rivalry with Branch Rickey: The years of blah blah to blah blah, were XXX for O'Malley as he acted as title for the Dodgers. Then on to explanation.)
  • The third paragraph in Dodgers is confusing, rather jumbled and without cohesion. For example, The signing of Robinson brought the team international notoriety means that the Dodgers got a lot of bad press, but an explanation of this is not offered in the paragraph. Signing Sandy Koufax and Roy Campanella's medical bills seem thrown together in the paragraph.
  • Likewise, in the next paragraph you make a statement about all Dodger fans were frustrated by losing to the Yankees in the World Series. This is a sweeping claim that I don't have faith in Time magazine to make. I would change "all" to "many".
  • Explain white flight for those not lucky enough to have experience with it.
  • "Shabby" is too informal. Use "degraded" or "decline" or "deteriorate".
  • Can you give examples of how New York Dodger fans felt betrayed after the team was moved to LA?
  • What does this mean? there was media gamesmanship.
  • "Broke the hearts of" - should have a quote, or should be made to seem less POV.
  • I'll admit I'm not a huge baseball fan, but the article should make the game politics clear and engaging to the culturally bereft like me. The first paragraph in Move to Los Angeles only confuses me and makes me want to skip to something I understand.
  • Which meeting was the Vero Beach meeting?
  • Copy edit: that helped the referendum passed; maintain a 50,000-seat stadium; develop a youth recreation center on the land; They duo of pitching aces decided
  • I thought the only Wrigley Field was in Chicago - can you quantify that's a Los Angeles minor league stadium?
  • Who remained Chairman until his death in 1979? It's unclear.
  • Seems like I should understand this, but I don't: by the end of the 1980s, they had not only became the first franchise to draw three million fans, but also they had done it more times than all other franchises combined
  • It was even said that - by whom? Rumored? Reported? Be specific here.
  • The last paragraph in Retire from presidency has me completely lost. Please don't make me cry.
  • His legacy is that of changing the mindset of a league whose southernmost and westernmost team What did his legacy change the mindset to? Or was it that he changed the league itself and not the mindset?

It appears that you have the material for a featured article here. I think it probably reads great for baseball enthusiasts, but I can't imagine the article on the main page for English speakers all over the world to try to comprehend its significance and detail. Please work on making it engaging, so that by the end I should want to plop myself into Dodger Stadium and yell obscenities at the umpire. --Moni3 (talk) 21:09, 18 May 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 01:51, 19 May 2008.

[edit] Moncton

previous FAC (23:46, 23 February 2008)


Self-nominator - This article was a FAC in February, it failed to get enough support, however I felt all the issues brought up were resolved. I have since added more info, better sources, and footnotes aswell. I have changed the images around (notibly the head image was improved vastly). I have also done some general cleanup and grammar and spelling improvements. I feel that the article is now featured article material. Thanks in advance! :) Stu pendousmat (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 02:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Resolved commentary from user ErgoSum88 (talk) 03:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support — Well sourced, images re-arranged, pronunciation added, and prose has been improved. Good work! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Was going to leave it at comments, but have to make it an Oppose without even a really detailed read: —This is part of a comment by Circeus (of 05:05, May 12, 2008 ), which was interrupted by the following:
    • The "architecture" section is nothing but "tallest buildings in Moncton". What are its landmarks? What about its urban planning? What architectural styles are typical of older buildings or tied to historical events? What are the city's main neighborhoods? etc. etc.
      • Moncton doesnt have any named neighbourhoods besides a few local names, like "west end" just because its on the west side of town...and Ive searched to see if there is a list anywhere and there is not. As far as landmarks there arent really any "landmark" buildings that I know of...besides two really old buildings, that are only "landmarks" because they are super old...besides that there isnt really any famous or signifigant buildings, thats why the section is mainly about the most prominent buildings in the cities skyline, its far from a list of tallest buildings, if you want to see what that looks like go here: List of tallest buildings in Moncton. The issue here is that Moncton is a fairly modern city, it only becan to develop a lot during the mid to late 20th century...so the few old buildings in the city arent really that amazing.
        • In that case, I'd drop the entire section (a list of tallest building does not an "architecture" section make), move "list of tallest buildings" to "see also", if you really want to keep a link, and integrate "city park" into the preceding geography section. Circeus (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • There is serious red link fear here. Red links are not bad, they are essential to a wiki to indicate articles that ought to exist. I added one link for the city of Coverdale, New Brunswick that was a ridiculous omission amongst a number of existing articles, and other examples are easy to find, verging on undue weight: all Anglophones high school are linked, but the Francophone ones were conspicuously delinked, implying that articles are not even worth writing, see also under "Media".
      • I doubt there is any "fear" of redlinks, merely a lack of enthusiasm for adding them. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 05:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I call it "fear" because such an absolute absence of them in an article that long can only mean that they have systematically removed at some point. 06:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Red links are ugly, but I guess I could just make some stubs and link them. Stu pendousmat (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
            • I added in several more wikilinks, including the Francophone high schools. Stu pendousmat (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Several short paragraph or sections ("health facilities", "transportation"), and prose could be improved in quite a few places.
      • Health facilities is large enough to describe the two hospitals in Moncton I feel, prose was just improoved, should I take the article to the copyedit place so they can do more? Cause Im no good at copyediting really.
        • One-paragrapoh sections: "tidal bore" (is that worthy of an entire section? I think a briefs mention when describing theriver is enough, keep the lengthy stuff for the river article), "Nearby natural features" (wouldn't that do better a tourism section?), "railways" and "highways". One-sentence paragraphs in "architecture", "urban parks", "economy" and "Health facilities". Over halfhave 2-sentence paragraphs thatcould be easily combinedtogether or to other paragraphs. Circeus (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • General doublecheck to avoid other goofs like this one might be a good idea.
    • The gallery is really not necessary. The images are not that good or showing important features, and if they were, they could replace other, less good images in the article.
      • To be honest, I added the image gallery after removing less-than-relevant images from the main article. Therefore, I agree that they are unnecessary. But a simple link to a Commons gallery will fix this problem. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 05:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I removed the gallery, there is already a link to a commons page (which I made a long time ago)...so thats fine. Stu pendousmat (talk) 01:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • One more thing: The intro feels unbalanced. It's possibly just me,but it seems to concentrate a bit too much on the city's economic recovery. I'll freely admit I'm not very good at intro-writing myself, but I'd think it could be improved a bit.
  • Circeus (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Moni3

I don't know if this is the same Moncton mentioned in "Ramblin' Man" by Lemon Jelly, but I like that song, so I read the article.

  • Not sure about that haha, never really heard the song. Thanks for the review though, Ill work on it! Stu pendousmat (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it would help readers to split the History section into parts with subheadings.
    • We used to have it like that but when it was put through GA we reached a concensus that it was too bulky looking...see New York City (FA) for reference.
  • Am I correct that Acadians from this region ended up in Louisiana, making them Cajuns? Do you think it's worth it to mention that, even briefly?
    • I dont think this is something very notable to the article, I believe that would be covered in the "history of the acadians" article of the article covering the deportation, which is wikilinked...at any rate I would never find a source stating that information. Stu pendousmat (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not nuts about the list format in the Architecture section, and I think you could connect the paragraphs in Urban parks.
  • In Demography, is it proper to have a semicolon then "additionally"? I think that's redundant.
  • The first paragraph in Economy needs a copy edit. I think "employing" reads better as "employ" and one of your sentences begins with 1.4 million.
  • I think you could connect a lot of these small paragraphs in Economy with some work on segues between them. Actually, anywhere there are small paragraphs, please consider connecting them with larger ones. The article reads much more smoothly that way.
  • In Arts & Culture, I'd like to see if there are specialties with the theaters and museums. Because - clearly something unique should be shown at a theater named Live Bait Theatre (sounds like the back of a bait shop), and I would like to know if the museums and galleries focus on any particular style of art or exhibition.
  • Is it only my perception that the importance and size of Canadian cities should be explained in the number of Tim Horton's within them? Ok, maybe just me...
    • Funny that you mention that, little known fact about Moncton, the city actually has 33 Tims locations...the most Tim Hortons per capita of any city! haha...we love our coffee. Stu pendousmat (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What's U de M in the Sports section?
  • I'm also not crazy about the list in Entertainment and shopping.
  • Is sq ft a measurement commonly used in Canada? Is there a reason why most of the article features metric measurements, then sq ft is used in the Entertainment section?
    • sq/ft is still the common usage in Canada for floor space, for malls and office buildings etc. Stu pendousmat (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Generally, I think the prose is bare and too basic now for a featured article. I'm not sure how to explain this, but basic prose reminds me of getting up in the morning sore and stove up, while after you've got all the kinks and pops out and have stretched out a bit, it flows better. Keep stretching it. Connect your paragraphs better, and include topic sentences at the beginning of sections that the information within the section will support. Short paragraphs make the reader jump from one subject to the next. Having them too often makes the article read as if it's ADD. This may be difficult to do in a mid-size city, but try to hammer away at this.
  • Please contact my talk page if you have questions. Good luck. --Moni3 (talk) 19:00, 17 May 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 16:11, 18 May 2008.

[edit] Gilberto Gil

Self-nominator. Short, but has gone through a successful GA review and exceedingly useful peer review. Kakofonous (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

    • I'd like to request the withdrawal of this nom per the above recommendation. --Kakofonous (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment How do you know this is comprehensive? For someone with such a long and successful musical career as well as involvement in politics, it is hard to believe that this is all that can be said. Mangostar (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • In all the searching I have done for references (which, sadly, does not seem to have turned up any books), I've found quite a few hits and quite a few less reliable ones, plus the fact that there is not even clear consensus among the sources as to such a rudimentary piece of info as Gil's birth date (ended up going with the one on his website). The sources from sites with reliable people behind them, as well as those that reference other published information, have turned up the content in the article so far. However, I will do some more looking, and thanks for the comment. --Kakofonous (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Just as a supplementary note: I did find some more info, but this may be at or near the limit of reliable stuff I can add. I will keep looking, as Mangostar's comment is certainly valid. --Kakofonous (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, but there are plenty of English-language sources on Brazilian popular culture and politics from the 1960s to the present day. All of them will cover Gil to some extent. These 727 hits on Google books are just an initial indication of that fact. I'm bewildered at the notion that you have not been able to turn up any books. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. This is, to me, an example of the proper path an article should take to FAC. It had a substantive peer review where issues were raised and resolved. It has now been stable for at least a month. Any issues I found were resolved in peer review. Speaking to Mangostar's point above: I had a similar concern, initially, about comprehensiveness so I did some research. I did not find anything substantial past what Kakofonous found. There may be additional sources in Portuguese but that is not within the scope of this project. --Laser brain (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Having helped peer review the article, as well as giving it a GAN review, I see no other issues to prevent me from supporting. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • What makes the following sites reliable?
    • http://biography.jrank.org/pages/2802/Gil-Gilberto.html
      • Cites its sources.
        • Is there still an issue with this site, or did you forget to strike?
          • Just because it cites it sources doesn't mean it necessarily is reliable. Who is behind the site? Who is the author? Are they noted in the field of history/biography/etc? If it cites its sources why not just cite those sources direct? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(out) I replaced the source with other reliable ones. --Kakofonous (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

    • http://www.angus-reid.com/
    • http://www.afropop.org/
      • Site in itself is not reliable, but the page cited is an interview with Gilberto Gil, giving a representation of his personal opinion.
        • Alternatively, if the site is not considered to be one that presents interviews reliably, I could remove the statement cited by this source. --Kakofonous (talk) 04:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Ideally, it would be found somewhere more reliable. It's an on the fence site in terms of reliablity to me, It's not particularly contentious material however. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
            • As it's a fairly obscure interview, I don't believe it exists anywhere else. --Kakofonous (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
              • I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
          • If you're keen on interviews with Gil, why not look here, say? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Still on the road, which means I am not able to reply as quickly as usual. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. All the references are online, which I think is unacceptable for a figure of this stature. See the list of books published on him here. And I recognize that there are almost all in Portuguese, but there are also innumerable starting points for English language research. You could start here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Will be visiting a library tomorrow. --Kakofonous (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Authors to look for: Charles Perrone, Christopher Dunn, Lorraine Leu, Idelber Avelar, Robert Stam, Larry Crook.... Good luck! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Granted, it was a relatively small library, but what they had was even less than I expected. Searched all the authors you mentioned, plus the interview book; Crook is on order for inter-library loan, as is Tropical Truth: A Story of Music and Revolution in Brazil by Caetano Veloso, the interview book was not available, as were the others. The books on loan are expected to arrive in a week to ten days. However, I may be able to access Encyclopedia Africana, which Google Books said had quite a few mentions of Gil, sometime sooner. Stay tuned. --Kakofonous (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
          • That's actually available online at google books. Mangostar (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
            • All it gives me is a thing saying "this part of the book is not available", and it turns out I was wrong about being able to access that book somewhere else. However, I did end up ordering some excellent resources online, and am in the process of adding info from them. --Kakofonous (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • A lot of work is going into this right now, including the addition of much better sources (though I've added an inline citation specifically about the note regarding the prison experience; and I kind of doubt that all the citations from Wald are from the same three pages). I'm withdrawing my "oppose" for now. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Support. Good prose, sufficient references and suitable images make for a very readable article. Well done! — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • "He began his performance career as a bossa nova musician, but soon began writing songs that reflected a new focus on political awareness and social activism."—"and soon began", since it contradicts nothing?
  • "The two moved to London in the late 1960s after being instructed to leave the country of Brazil."—Remove the last two words; they're in the background.
  • "However" better at the start of the sentence.
  • "He also settled on guitar"—Too many "alsos". This one could go. Weed out a few others throughout.
  • You can probably dispense with "(English: ... " for the translations—what they are is obvious.
  • "That same year"—pick the redundant word.

Needs massaging throughout, but quite good. TONY (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Have taken care of these comments to the best of my ability and done some more massaging in areas you didn't specifically mention. --Kakofonous (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments by Moni3

I found it an interesting article, and engaging in light of the fact that I know squat about Brazilian music or culture. But, as is the case with someone completely new to your topic, I have some questions.

  • Can you provide brief descriptions of what makes the types of Brazilian music Gil popularized unique? Such as instruments used, beat, lyrics, etc?
    • What do you feel is missing? There are quite a few description of his style in the "Musical style" section.
  • It's not clear to me what Gil was doing that was so threatening to warrant his arrest.
    • Added some info—there really is no clear explanation, as the arrest was not based on a crime, rather that his and other tropicalistas' actions were not pleasing to the dictatorship. I have added some explanations that have been used.
  • Is there nothing more on Gil's personal life than his marijuana use? He's a public figure, so there should be material printed about his family life, no?
    • Shockingly little has been written about his personal life (IMDB has more than any other source, but it's not reliable), but I've added some.
  • With a section on Legacy so short, it implies he doesn't have much of a legacy. In fact, the material in that section is about music style. Would you consider connecting it to the section above, or expanding it to provide examples of other musicians he has influenced, awards won, etc? --Moni3 (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It was connected originally but was changed after some shuffling. I have restored it. --Kakofonous (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
What separates forro, baião, and samba, for example? I'm not looking for a comparative sentence but it would be helpful and interesting to read something like He was influenced by the sounds of XXX in northeast Brazilian forró music, where XXX is a particular instrument or beat. What about altering the sentence in Musical style to Gil performed primarily in a blend of traditional Brazilian styles, such as using XXX from baião and XXX from samba.
The explanation about Gil's arrest is clearer, thank you. You might want to say Tepel and Steward are historians or writers. I though Tepel was a government official 'til I looked at the source. --Moni3 (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
For the most part in the references where his stylistic influences are mentioned there is nothing specific about what he drew from each style. I was able to provide a little context for baião and samba, however. --Kakofonous (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Not yet. Thanks for pinging me. I see lots that I don't like, at random.
    • MOS breach: Gil says that his mother was his "chief supporter;" she bought him ... (see "logical punctuation").
    • "He was influenced by northeast Brazilian forró music, but also listened to international stars such as ..." Why is listening to intern. stars somehow at odds with the influence of forro? When fixed, will "also" be required?
    • WAY too overcited. Every sentence has a number-clutter at the end. Please ration by removing successive repeats, where readers usually accept that once a citation appears once (or even twice) in a paragraph, it can and typically does have wider ambit than merely a single statement. It's cumbersome as is.
    • "became the series's musical director"—ouch.

No, these random catches indicate that you need to collaborate with a copy-editor who is into the field: research related FAs and other articles, locating word-nerds through the edit history/edit summaries. Building collaborations is at the heart of the WP experience. Not good enough yet. TONY (talk) 08:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I have to agree with Tony, I'm afraid. This article is very promising, and Kakofonous is doing sterling work on researching and expanding it. But really it's too soon for it to come to FAC. It takes time to figure out how to integrate new material, and make the prose flow. In fact, I'd recommend that Kakofonous withdraw the article's candidacy. I should also say that I'm prepared to help, at least intermittently, with the article in the meantime, in preparation for a subsequent FAC attempt in the future. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:07, 17 May 2008.

[edit] Gardens of Versailles

previous nomination withdrawn

Note: nominated by user:elighthart

Oppose. This article needs a great deal of work to meet the Featured Article criteria. There are almost no inline citations in the article, and much of the article is in list format rather than prose. Karanacs (talk) 02:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose, basic attention to FA criteria has not been paid. A lot of work has obviously been done on the article, but suggest working with an experience FA writer to bring it up to standards. --Laser brain (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
French Wikipedia: Jardins de Versailles has material that doesn't appear here. There is a rich bibliography on this subject to be tapped. --Wetman (talk) 06:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. However, I see that user:elighthart is well aware of the other material as they have ambitiously nominated simultaneously as a French FAC. --ROGER DAVIES talk 04:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - *Sigh* This was peer reviewed by me, and I left a long list of things to do at the PR page, but the editor just ignored it all...and now it pops up on FAC. What a waste of time and effort. See Wikipedia:Peer review/Gardens of Versailles/archive1, then get it peer reviewed again, then get it on WP:GA, and then come back here. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 06:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Definitely not a waste of time. You left a great, detailed review and anyone wishing to improve the article can use that to do so. Detailed reviews are very valuable. It's not your fault someone jumped the gun and nominated here. - Taxman Talk 15:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Introduction is too short. Too many images which are relevant but clutter up the page, I'm not sure how we deal with articles discussing so many works of art but it doesn't look right to me. Some images are left-aligned under headings. "Esthetic" is misspelled. But most importantly.... lack of citations and an apparent dis-interest in taking advantage of PR which could've easily fixed these problems. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:07, 17 May 2008.

[edit] Half-Life 2: Episode One

previous FAC (01:41, 3 April 2008)


Nominator: Article has been vastly improved since last FAC and hopefully deserves another run. Qjuad (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Co-nom Qjuad has graciously let me co-nominate this article, so I am doing so now. Gary King (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - there's more useful stuff in the commentary than I'm seeing. Sceptre (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • {{cite web}} still not filled out (author, dates, et al) for the refs.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

All done Gary King (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • As per Laser Brain below, I'm concerned about the use of the developer DVD. While using it for facts isn't an issue, the usage seems somewhat slanted and NPOV; for example, "Co-operative play was significantly enhanced with friendly non-player characters (NPC), most notably with the character of Alyx Vance; her AI was specifically designed for co-op play in Episode One so she would complement the player's abilities." - it all kind of reads like an advert.
      I have tried to trim down the more POV stuff, but a lot of also states "the developer said" to show that this was stated by them. Gary King (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Reception: weighted fine, but I was wondering if you could dig up more reviews to pad out the section more (or just make more with what you have.)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose, I spotted quite a few basic issues at a glance, indicating that much more work is needed before this is ready for closer examination. Suggest a general peer review and copyedit. A crucial point that has eluded a lot of video game candidates is that a non-video game person needs to help identify and weed out "game guide" language.
    • The fair use rationale is not properly completed for Image:Image-HL2EP1cover.jpg (not to mention it has "Image" in its filename). Please use {{Non-free use rationale}} to get the required elements.
    • The lead is disjointed and overly-devoted to explaining how Episode One fits in with various other packages and installations. Largely irrelevant to the general readership. It suffices to state where this falls in the progression of releases and move on to other things.
    • Too much "As with Half Life 2..." type language. Some basic context is okay but this needs to be fully comprehensive and understandable as its own article. Readers should not have to visit other Half Life articles to understand this one.
    • Jargon abound (ex. "... primarily its high dynamic range rendering capabilities and the upgraded facial animation system."; "port"; the lead will immediately lose a non-gamer)
    • Problems with reliable sources - what makes http://www.gamerevolution.com reliable? It appears to be user-submitted reviews that definitely cannot be used as sources.
      • This source has been replaced. Qjuad (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        • The newly added reference is even less reliable, as it appears to be a blog. It also does not exist for {{VG reviews}}. Gary King (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I'll search for a more reliable replacement. Qjuad (talk) 09:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Significant reliance on primary and non-neutral sources, such as the DVD, official web sites, and press releases.
    • The prose is quite rough and needs a thorough copyedit. For example, "The episode takes place immediately after the end of Half-Life 2..." (extra words); "As a direct continuation of Half-Life 2, no significant changes to the gameplay were made." (no apparent subject). --Laser brain (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
It's always nice to see that you are on top of things, Laser brain :) I will address these concerns along with the ones at Twilight Princess this week; I've been trying to stay away from FAC this weekend. Gary King (talk) 03:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I have replaced some of the DVD references with other references, and have done some copyediting to the article. Gary King (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I will go through the article again on my next pass through the FAC list; in the mean time, please consider honoring my request for a copyedit by a non-gamer. --Laser brain (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll do so but I can't guarantee that anyone will act on it because I've asked for copyedits at least once a day from multiple editors for different articles. Gary King (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
We're running the risk of Sandy moving us to the Talk page, but I'll just say therein lies the reason not to have multiple articles up for review at once. --Laser brain (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
They're not mine; I'm co-noming them. I'm not the primary contributor of the articles, but I am willing to help out with them. Gary King (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I've made some more major changes to the article. Gary King (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Gary King, Qjuad has not returned to this article or the FAC since the nomination, you have at least four nominations running, each one of your nominations are taking enormous FAC resources, and FAC is not peer review. Please choose two FACs to withdraw. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I have continued this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Metroid Prime 3: Corruption. Gary King (talk) 03:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I intend to give this FAC a thorough look come the weekend - unfortunately I am unable to take on the comments and suggested changes until then. Qjuad (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:FAC instructions, second paragraph: "Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • "The artificial intelligence (AI) for Alyx Vance..." - who's Alyx Vance? After reading the lead I thought she was a playable character, so you might want to take a look at clarifying there, and at introducing her character here.
    • I have specified that she is computer-controlled in the lead. I think the word 'companion' should communicate her role in the game; there is no need to use a lengthy introduction for her, at least until Setting. Gary King (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In all of the Storyline refs, Valve Corporation is named and linked twice...is there any particular reason for this?
    • This is because Valve is entered in both the 'Developer' and 'Publisher' of the game. Gary King (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Eli reluctantly agrees when he sees no other option." - but in the ref you quote Kleiner...
    • The quote is when Kleiner explains what needs to be done to slow the core's progression. Gary King (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, characters are referred to by first name in prose, but by surname in references...consistency is your friend.
    • That's a good point; the reason for some of this is the last names for some of the characters are the same. The first name was used when the last name would be ambiguous. I'm not quite sure what should be done in this case? Gary King (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Dr. Kleiner appears..." - last time you referred to him as "Isaac Kleiner", again consistency is good and this section could do with a good once-over.
    • I've removed the Dr. The name issue is discussed above. Gary King (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Check en dashes in the Development section (–), in most cases I think they should be em dashes (—) and not spaced.
  • Check italics for video games in last paragraph of Development section.
  • Maybe it's just me, but of late I've only been seeing really short reception sections...I really do prefer to see at least a paragraph on each general area of critique (gameplay/graphics/sound/value/multiplayer (if appropriate)).
    • I'll see what else I can find, but this game is more of an expansion pack than a full-fledged game, so it hasn't gotten as much attention as other games have.

dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay. Still on the road, so didn't check links. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I have replaced the first one with GameSpot, and the second with EuroGamer. Gary King (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
All done! Ealdgyth - Talk 03:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:07, 17 May 2008.

[edit] Acid2

I've done quite a bit of work on this article, and I think that it provides a nice, well sourced, comprehensive discussion of the Acid2 test. I hope that it will be selected as a featured article and I welcome suggestions on how to improve it further. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments:
  • "versions these browsers are expected" - +'of'
  • I think the non-compliant applications section focuses too much on IE in comparison the amount of time spent discussing Gecko-based browsers. In fact there is almost no mention in the prose sections of the article of Firefox, Opera, etc.
  • "Lie challenged Microsoft to design Internet Explorer 7, then in development, to pass the test." I think that should probably be rephrased to something like 'challenged Microsoft to pass with the test with their under-developement Internet Explorer 7', unless he actually did challenge them to write a new version of IE that they hadn't already been planning to make anyway

-- Naerii 00:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The grammar is fixed. There are two reasons why IE gets so much coverage. First, the test was originally designed with Internet Explorer's pitiful standards support in mind. Second, Internet Explorer 8 passes the test...sort of. It takes extra space to explain the "sort of". If Microsoft decides to make IE8 pass properly for the final release, then this article's prose will be cut down quite a bit. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - all lists or tables, few information :-( --Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 11:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree. The whole article consists of lists, tables, and other non-prose stuff. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment As a web developer who is familiar with the test suite, there isn't much else to add, although I can sympathize with those who look at the article and only see a bunch of stubby paragraphs, lists, and big tables. Gary King (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Being on the road, I didnt check external links. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Finally, I've gone through the other references you mentioned correcting problems, and http://www.princexml.com/samples/acid2/ works fine for me. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
And now there are four more citations to back up and reinforce the Opera Mini paragraph. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it's way too short and most of that is made up of lists. Sorry. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It would really help if you would tell me what you'd like to see in the article, instead of just saying it's too short. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • First up, I don't have an issue with it being "full of lists" or whatever. Rtd, I suggest you raise this at WT:FAC if you are unsure.
  • re. the reliable source issues above, the SEO FAC is a good read.
  • "It was developed in the spirit of the Acid1 test, a relatively narrow test of Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) compliance." - perhaps move "the" and "test" on either side of Acid1; considering the name and the subsequent use of "test" it's fairly obvious what Acid1 is.
  • "However, later on Microsoft joined other browser makers" - reword...perhaps start with "Microsoft later joined..."
  • "On 23 April 2005, Acid2 was updated to fix a bug" - no more detail on this?
  • Why all the whitespace around this image?
    • Because I wanted all the screenshots for all the browsers to be the same size, and the easiest way to do that is to change the screen resolution to 800x600 (the smallest video resolution that I could use without going through a significant amount of trouble) and set the browser to full screen. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Changing font sizes, zoom level, applying user stylesheets, etc." - "etc." isn't really encyclopediac...if the list of ways to break the test is too length, just say "Actions such as changing font sizes..."
  • "will not display an object element's content or its fallback content" - the wiktionary link seems irrelevant here (click it; nothing about computing).
    • It does explain that fallback means "A backup plan or contingency strategy; an alternative which can be used if something goes wrong with the main plan; a recourse." I don't think that the word "fallback" is widely used, so a link to a dictionary definition seemed like a good idea. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "However, the prerelease version of Gecko 1.9 passes the test, and so future versions of these browsers are expected to pass the test." - could this do without the repeated use of "test"...reads poorly
  • Several of the listed external links could feasibly be used as references...they're not really doing much in that section.

dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. Quite a few aspects of the subject are not addressed, or only addressed briefly. The lists in "Overview" and "Passing conditions" should be written as prose and explained. What does "CSS generated content" or "hovering effects" mean? The average reader needs an explanation. This should also have more info about how the test was developed and how it is performed. How accepted is it in the industry? A gallery is usually a sign of an article in development. Some images could be merged with the non-compliant applications section. Gimmetrow 19:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the suggestions. Please go ahead and help implement them if you'd like, as I don't think I'll have enough time to work on them right away. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The gallery is there to illustrate just how poorly various browsers perform, and only major releases of browsers that were available when Acid2 was released or afterwards are included. A potentially larger gallery is available at Commons:Acid2. The images were originally included as thumbnails down the side of the article, but this was rather ugly and a side-by-side comparison using the <gallery> tag is much nicer-looking. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Re:lists/charts -- in my view, this is not a strong objection unless you can explain why the information would better be presented as prose. For instance, in this article, the last large table and the list of compliant browsers look like good candidates for the type of presentation they currently use. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:07, 17 May 2008.

[edit] 1995 Japanese Grand Prix

previous FAC (00:05, 19 April 2008)


I originally nominated this article for FA a few weeks back, but it was failed. It has since gone through a thorough peer review, meaning it has gone from this to this (see diff). I am confident, with the work that has already taken place on the article that it meets the FA criteria currently in place. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments I participated in the peer review, and my comments on the sources as well as the responses from the editors of the article are located there. Interested reviewers can look there for information, as I'm on the road. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Ealdgyth's questions about reliable sources can be found on the peer review (copied over because she's on the road):
  • the material used is relevant to their notability - Yep.
  • it is not contentious - Not contentious, the event was seen on television in nearly 200 countries and watched by millions of people's.
  • it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject - Correct, all claims are to do with events related to subject.
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it - Pretty clear for the above in my view.
  • the article is not based primarily on such sources - The article is based on a wide variety of sources, including Autocourse, GrandPrix.com and The Formula One Website, so it's not based primarily on SPS. D.M.N. (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:SPS says Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as: the list above. In otherwords, Chicanef1 could be used in an article about Chicanef1, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Seeing as this is taking us no where, maybe it's worth me starting up a RfC on the Formula One WikiProject talkpage to get a wide variety of opinions on the above sources and come to a decision about whether they are reliable or not. D.M.N. (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Issues resolved. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Changed to Support, provided the image issue raised below is resolved. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Leaning support - A lot of work has gone into this article, and it shows. I still found a few issues, though.
    • Practice and qualifying: "Schumacher finished in first place in the first session," Two firsts close together. See if you can change one of them.
      • Changed to "Schumacher was fastest in the first session,", which get's rid of the 1st "first". D.M.N. (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "Schumacher clinched his tenth pole position of his career," Another redundancy. Try "Schumacher clinched his tenth career pole position".
      • Sounds better. Changed to your version. D.M.N. (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Race: Figures shouldn't normally begin a sentence per WP:MOSNUM. 22 starts a sentence here.
      • Changed that sentence that starts with 22 to: "Out of the 24 cars that qualified, only 22 took the start". - D.M.N. (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "hitting the wall after the contact". Two thes here. Try "a wall".
    • I also agree that the article could use a comma check, as I found some problems related to that. Once these are taken care of, I will be happy to give my full support. Well-done. Giants2008 (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks. As noted earlier, I've asked Tony1 nicely to do a comma check. D.M.N. (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I've gone ahead and removed a few commas myself, mainly from the "Race" section. D.M.N. (talk) 07:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Note to Sandy/Raul: I feel I have addressed the above comments. Please see the diff of me informing Giants2008 on hisa talkpage. Thanks. D.M.N. (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
            • I'm satisfied with the commas now. The sources, although they have been criticized, are probably the best that can be found for a 1995 race, before the Internet became what it is today. As for a picture, again, the race took place 13 years ago, and it will be very hard to find a picture today. I gave my full support above, as I now believe the article is worthy of being featured. Giants2008 (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
              • Just to clarify, when I say it's lacking a picture, I mean a free picture. I saw the fair-use photo of the podium ceremony. Assuming the photo's use is valid, I think it's as much as can be expected. Giants2008 (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • For a featured article, I would really expect at least one (perferrably good) photograph of the race. --Cambrasa confab 14:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I've found a appropriate photo here taken from the race weekend. Could I crop it, and upload it? Failing that, there's this photo, but that would require the photo to be cropped. There are no appropriate photos on Flickr of the race weekend. There's also this photo (see sidebar) which might be appropriate. Of course with all of the above, I would have to provide a FUR. D.M.N. (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      • It's unlikely that Tony will have time to fix commas (you might ask User:Epbr123), and User:Elcobbola can advise you on images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Ok. Anyway, I've asked someone else to do a comma check in the meantime. D.M.N. (talk) 07:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Issues resolved — Wackymacs (talk) 08:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - Desperately needs a picture of the race. Otherwise good. — Wackymacs (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note - I've added two (hopefully OK) images, with proper NFUR rationale's. D.M.N. (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Very nice - but please use Template:Non-free use rationale on both of those images. — Wackymacs (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment - Do those photos actually meet FU guidelines? To me, it just looks like they're being used for illustration, as they don't depict any historically notable event (you may be able to argue the podium is, but a generic Benetton picture definitely isn't). AlexJ (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Alex, I've done a lot of Google searches, and cannot find any images whatsoever of the race start or any other moments within the race. The Benetton image was from qualifying. D.M.N. (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Sure, from experience I know just how hard it can be to find pictures of the races before digicams became prevalent. However that doesn't exempt the article from having to meet the criteria which states "Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content" - I'm not convinced that Benetton image does. AlexJ (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
            • I've removed it. Maybe I could get a screenshot of the season review? D.M.N. (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Dear D.M.N., googling not the only way to obtain materials. You could for example go to a good old-fashioned city library and dig through old newspapers to find pictures, which you can scan and include in low resolution. You could also try to contact the photographer who made the picture and if you ask nicely, they might allow you to use it on Wikipedia. You could also try to dig for amateur pictures on web forums or flickr, and ask the authors for permission. The podium picture you have included is good, but its quality is too poor for a featured article in my opinion. The problem is not the low resolution, the problem are the strong jpeg compression artefacts that make it look unaesthetic. Can you find the same picture with a low resolution, but a higher compression ratio? A picture of the cars is also needed in my opinion. --Cambrasa confab 15:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I've found an image of the start. Would that be OK? As for the podium, I'll try and find the same picture with a low resolution. D.M.N. (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I've found an image of the podium but at a different angle. D.M.N. (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Another image of the start can be found on this page. A freely-licensed image of Michael Schumacher's Benetton B195 has also recently been uploaded to the Commons, and I have posted a link to it on the article's talk page.-- Diniz(talk) 19:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Thanks, Diniz! I'm not going to insert them at the moment, because I want others to comment on which one they think will be better to insert. D.M.N. (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment:

  • The big problem with this kind of article is to find ways of dealing elegantly with the inevitably large number of very similar formulaic statements, for example, race positions and lap times. It becomes tedious reading "XXX came first/second, with XXX points/with a time of X:XX.XXXX" umpteen times. Is there any other way of dealing with this? For example, with little tables? --ROGER DAVIES talk 03:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, I don't think there's another way to get round that, motor racing is a sport which uses a lot of forumlaic statements (top speed; fastest lap; race results). The tables at the bottom are used for the qualifying and race results, but I don't think there is a way to get round it in the main body of the article. D.M.N. (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—Cr 1a:

  • The opening is not promising: "The race was contested over 53 laps, with Michael Schumacher winning the race for the Benetton team after starting from pole position. Mika Häkkinen finished second in a McLaren, with Johnny Herbert third in the other Benetton." Please, let's move on from this noun + gerund thing, and "with" as a connector, which are awkward and strictly speaking ungrammatical: "The race, contested over 53 laps, was won by Michael Schumacher for the Benetton team. Mika Häkkinen finished second in a McLaren, and Johnny Herbert third in the other Benetton." I see the same grammatical glitch in the next bit: "both the Williams team's cars retiring from the race".
  • "Jean Alesi, driving for Ferrari, started second beside Schumacher at the start of the race. However, his car moved forward before the start, and he had to serve a 10-second stop and go penalty. Alesi climbed up to second, before retiring on lap 25." Remove "at the start of the race". Logical problems then ... "However, SINCE his car HAD ..., he was forced to .... stop-and-go penalty." Bombsite.
    • WP:CIVIL. Calling a article I have developed a "bombsite" is quite frankly, insulting. You are the only one that has a problem, with this, no one else above has. D.M.N. (talk) 08:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Done the above. I find your attitude a bit too much. Calling it a bombsite makes me pissed off thinking my hard work went for sod all. The fact you only did the lead shows you can't be bovered to review the rest of the article - maybe if you did that, and maybe if more people reviewed the article, it would be in a better state. I take it my point at WT:FAC last month never really got anywhere. D.M.N. (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Now, please have the whole article copy-edited thoroughly; this is not at all good enough for featured status, which explicitly requires a "professional" standard of writing. TONY (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Why? I refuse to go to WP:LOCE, as you are left waiting there for at least a year. Some requests are still on there from a year ago. D.M.N. (talk) 08:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Tony, you may be interested in that I looked at this earlier. As a result, I've made these edits to the article. Please look and comment below. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments regarding criterion three:
    • Image:Podium1995JapanGP.jpg needs (1) a copyright tag, per WP:NFCC#10B,(2) a verifiable source, per NFCC#10A and WP:IUP (URL is a dead link to Google cache) and (3) a relevant purpose of use, per NFCC#10C (current purpose of "show[ing] subject of this article and how the event depicted is significant to the sporting world" does not appear to be relevant. How do three drivers really depict an auto race? How do the three drivers depict, illustrate or prove that this event was important to "the sporting world"?)
    • See MOS:FLAG#Help_the_reader_rather_than_decorate ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Done. To address your second bullet point, it helps the reader as it shows the three drivers that finished first, second and third in the auto race. D.M.N. (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Could the same be done be achieved with freely licenced pictures of the three? AlexJ (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Possibly. But, the driver may not be at the same team as he was in 1995, for instance a picture of Michael Schumacher in Ferrari overalls on the article would be pretty useless in my view. D.M.N. (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
        • The image source is still a dead link (note, by the way, that we should be linking to the page on which the image is used, not directly to the image itself) and the purpose has not been changed. How are the flags in the "Classification" section helpful? The section's use of flags seems to be identical to the MOS page's example of what not to do. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Done the image thing. The flags in the "Classification" identifies what nationality the driver it. It is in this exact same format on all 755+ Formula One race reports, including the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix & 2005 United States Grand Prix articles. Removing it from this means effectively they will have to be removed from all the other race reports for consistency. D.M.N. (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Ok, so now just the bizarrely disconnected purpose remains (it seems copy and pasted; ideally it would explicitly describe the content of the image and its necessary function in illustrating the article). The implication of removing the flags would be that this article would be meeting MOS; other articles are not germane to this FAC. I'm not aware of an FAC ever failing for not meeting MOS, so this isn't a highly important issue. As much as we Germans love our Schumi, however, I just don't see the necessity of knowing the nationality of all these drivers (perhaps if this were an Olympic event, but...) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
              • I guess you have a point, but as you perfectly pointed out it's not a highly important issue. And, hey, it seems like me and you both love Schumi! (Pitty he never came back, but meh!) To do with the image, I've added a little to the description on the image page. D.M.N. (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
                • Nationality of the drivers in F1 is relevant - the television captions on the world feed use flags alongside the drivers name, and at the end of the race the Top 3 will have their flag raised above them on the podium and the winner gets his national anthem played. I believe the flags serve a useful purpose and are more than mere decoration. AlexJ (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not happy about doing this because the article has been through a lot, but it is still not up to standard. I am disappointed to see that it has still not gone through a thorough copyedit. The play-by-play is still mystifying to a layperson which was my concern at the last FAC. Some poor advice was given at the peer review which (by no fault of the nominator) unfortunately compounded prose problems. For example, someone had you change "Williams were..." to "Williams was..." without regard to the former being proper British English. You now have inconsistency ("Benetton were..." and "Williams was...") as a result. D.M.N., it's not far away, but you simply have to poke around and get a serious, uninvolved copyeditor in there. --Laser brain (talk) 02:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • That particular example "Williams were", I've changed back to "Williams was" having just re-read the sentence back. Are there any particular parts which you think are not up to scratch? D.M.N. (talk) 06:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No comments after five days, so it gets archived with a 3 Support, 2 Oppose consensus. It's NOT my fault if editors don't get back to me with further comments, is it? Disgraceful. D.M.N. (talk) 09:10, 17 May 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 15:30, 16 May 2008.

[edit] Marriott School of Management

Self-nominator
I'm nominating this article for featured article because the article underwent a few rigorous reviews in the GAN process, I feel it now meets the FA criteria, it is comparable to its FA counterpart Tuck School of Business, and it will add a lot of value to the FA portfolio. Thank you for your consideration! Eustress (talk) 02:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)
  • Link reference publishers when they have an article, such as for Salt Lake Tribune.

Gary King (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Issues resolved, ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose, you have a good start here, but it is far from FA standard. I recommend, at the least, a thorough peer review (which will get you exposure to more editors) and a copyedit for prose and NPOV from an uninvolved editor. Initial problems are a POV slant (the lead reads like a marketing brochure for the school, ex. "This emphasis, along with the consistent high rankings..."; "first among recruiters"), heavy reliance on primary sources (the BYU web sites), and comprehensiveness. At a glance, the History section will need a major expansion after further research is done. You have one sentence dedicated to how the school began, skipping from 1919 to 1957. --Laser brain (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "First among recruiters" is a direct quote from a very reliable and applicable source (BusinessWeek). Other POV issues can be address if delineated. The MSM actually started in 1975, so history is scant, but I provided supplementary BYU-business information to add context. Thank you for your review. --Eustress (talk) 04:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      • FAC is not the proper venue for laundry lists of article problems. Peer review is the first step. I'm not satisfied with your explanation of the "first among recruiters" language or the lack of comprehensiveness. Yes BusinessWeek is a reliable source but you're not actually citing it.. you're citing a BYU press release that cites a BusinessWeek statistic. Is "first among recruiters" backed by hard data in an objective article? What does it mean? That recruiters placing more students from here than anywhere else? Or just that they like it? What are the parameters and survey methods?
  • I added a second supporting citation for the "first among recruiters" part—info from BusinessWeek on how they compute this particular ranking. I don't think an extant discussion about the accuracy of BusinessWeek is required or even possible in this article; it's a reliable source and readers can read more into it if they want to draw their own conclusions. Unfortunately I can't provide the direct link to the former ranking, as it is a premium service that costs money; hence why I referenced the BYU site, but I think the second source should help the case. --Eustress (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
There is much more POV language:
  • You mention the "ethics" thing in the lead and elsewhere.. once again, it is ultimately linked to a poll of recruiters. Recruiters have a strong conflict of interest and POV and you should not be citing anything a recruiter said.
  • The ethics part is supported by the #2 ethics ranking by the WSJ and the book Business with Integrity, but the wording can tweaked if needed. --Eustress (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "... [T]he school stresses a collaborative and teamwork-based approach to learning ..." Marketing fluff sourced to a BYU web site.
  • "Many of the faculty are recognized experts ..." Sourced to a BYU web site.
I suggest withdrawing the nomination and opening a peer review where other editors can scour the article for POV language. Anything even slightly subjective cannot be sourced to a BYU web site. Further legwork is also needed to flesh out the History. --Laser brain (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I might be pressing my luck going back and forth with you more, but know that it's with the best intention, as I appreciate your review and truly want to make Wikipedia the best it can be—which includes getting a good article like this to FA status in a timely manner. Regarding fixing some apparent POV issues, when I conduct GAN reviews (btw, this is my first FAC process), I not only point out problems but will also help to fix minor issues to help the article along. Now, this is completely dependent upon your goodwill, but I can wait a month to go through Peer Review, or you could just reword or point out the issues (me preferring the latter). With respect to the History section, it is comparable in length and content to FAs Tuck School of Business and Cornell University (institutions founded almost a century before the MSM); I have scoured various resources for MSM history, but due to its relatively short period of history, I feel this is about it.
I have responded quickly to all concerns raised in this FAC and hope my request is reasonable. Thanks for your consideration! --Eustress (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The back and forth is no problem, trust me. I do understand where you're coming from but what you're requesting isn't possible at FAC. Most reviewers here, myself included, work hard just to read each article and provide comments for the ones that are "almost there". When I review an article that is "close", I will correct minor errors as I'm reading and then post a list of other fixes I'm requesting.
For the ones that need substantial work, as I believe this one does, I just post that there are major problems that need fixed before I will invest the time in a detailed review. I simply don't have the time to pull them up to standard while they're here. That's not a reviewer's job - that's the job of the collaborators and copyeditors before the article gets here. If I did that for each article that is posted here without being near FA standard, I would never get even 1/4 way through the candidate list. I hope that makes sense. --Laser brain (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, how do I withdraw the nomination? I can't find any instructions on how to do so and don't want to mess things up. --Eustress (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • I did notice a large number of the sources are from the school or BYU. Primary sources need to be used with care to make sure that NPOV is maintained. Well over half the article is sourced to BYU/MSM sources, which is a LOT.
  • 34/65 references come from MSM- or BYU-related sites...a LITTLE more than half. So, hypothetically, there might be good consensus in the article with a 50-50 relationship. If there are blatant NPOV issues, they can fixed quickly if presented. Thank you. --Eustress (talk) 04:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Current ref 51 "2007 Faculty Pioneers" is lacking a publisher
  • Current ref 52 "APPAM Awards" is lacking a publisher
Still on the road, so didn't check links. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 22:29, 14 May 2008.

[edit] The Principal and the Pauper

This is my first FA nomination in a while. It is modelled after every other Simpsons FA. I will address concerns as they are brought up. -- Scorpion0422 15:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment -- I added a few sources/info to the Reception section, so I won't comment "Support" - but I think this article is very well-done. One suggestion: might look better to replace the {{Cquote}} formatting in the Concept section with {{Quotebox}} instead, and align that to the right. Cirt (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I couldn't find anything wrong with the article (and, apparently, neither could you). It seems just as good - better, even - as another Simpsons FA I have read (The Joy of Sect). Teh Rote (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - this is very good, I did a copy-edit mainly removing overlinking, unnecessary cites and qualifying people once again in the body. However I still have a few little niggles:
  • "It originally aired on the Fox network in the United States on 28 September 1997." - stuff in the lead needs to be mentioned again in the body.
  • It's mentioned and sourced in the infobox.
  • "Although it was produced by Bill Oakley and Josh Weinstein as part of the season eight production code, it aired during the ninth season as a holdover."--ditto. "Holdover" is kinda technical; could you rephrase?
  • I actually don't think the "as a holdover" part is entirely necessay, so I removed it.
  • "At the time of production, there was little opposition, although Harry Shearer"--Who's Harry Shearer? You might want to delink, remove first name and unqualify him in the "Reaction from staff" section.
  • Fixed.
  • "being an envelope pusher." reword.
  • Fixed
  • "Keeler himself said,"
  • Fixed
  • "Warren Martyn and Adrian Wood, have defended the episode"--Are you sure they defended the episode rather than just praise it? In other words, did they acknowledge that most people hate it, and then say, "no, we think its awesome"? Then they defended it. If they just said that its awesome, then its praise.
  • Fixed
More later, indopug (talk) 07:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion0422 17:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
All other links worked fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Some comments
  • Is it clear from the episode that the assembly occurs on the eve of Skinner's anniversary (as in the night before), and not on the anniversary itself?
  • In the plot section, we sometimes call the "fake Skinner" Armin and sometimes call him Tamzarian. I think we should be consistent.
  • The production section doesn't flow very well. It's mostly a list of unconnected topics. I'll try to work on that later.
More to follow, maybe. Zagalejo^^^ 18:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why are both Image:The Simpsons 4F23.png and Image:PrincipalandthePauper.JPG necessary? Both depict "key scenes", both depict "key characters" and both serve to provide identification of the episode and illustration of synopsis. WP:NFCC#3A requires minimal use, specifically "Multiple items are not used if one will suffice". Additionally, the latter is not low resolution (NFCC#3B) and the purpose appears to have been largely copy and pasted (e.g. it references a nonexistent "cover"). NFCC#10C requires language to be clear and relevant to each use. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Response: Removed image Image:PrincipalandthePauper.JPG from the article, per above comment. Cirt (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • A general question Which is correct: twentieth, or 20th? The MOS currently says to spell out numbers greater than ten, but that particular section has a disputed tag. Unless this dispute is resolved, I'd feel better just sticking with Turabian style, which recommends, "The general rule followed by many writers and by the University of Chicago Press is to spell out all numbers through one hundred . . . The general rule applies to ordinal as well as cardinal numbers" (2.29-2.30, in my book). The MLA Handbook recommends the same thing (2.5.2 in my book). Any thoughts? Zagalejo^^^ 16:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't appear to spelling out numbers, which is in dispute on the talk page. --Maitch (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I haven't looked through the 99+ archives, so I'm not sure exactly what is in dispute, or how that guideline was arrived at in the first place. Are there any "real world" style guides that recommend something similar? Writing twentieth as 20th just looks wrong to me. Maybe Tony or SandyGeorgia can chime in.Zagalejo^^^ 17:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
From WP:MOSNUM: "In the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers (from zero to nine) are given as words; numbers of more than one digit are generally rendered as figures, and alternatively as words if they are expressed in one or two words (sixteen, eighty-four, two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million)." so you CAN write 20th as twentieth. indopug (talk) 07:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't read that too carefully. I changed it back to twentieth. Zagalejo^^^ 07:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Further

  • Why does "Guest star(s): Martin Sheen" in the infobox need citing? (I removed it myself but it was added back) Isn't it listed at the end of the episode, in the credits? Its like how you don't need to ref that Nancy Cartwright was in episode.
  • The references need formatting; make sure newspapers are italicised and wikilinked only on the first instance of their occurrence. Also article names need to be in "quotes". Not sure if The Simpsons The Complete Ninth Season DVD commentary for the episode "The Principal and the Pauper" is the right way to write that down; I think some of that should that should go outside italics.
  • I've never really been satisfied with the references for the DVD commentaries. There was a brief discussion about them on the Simpsons project page, but that didn't lead to any changes. Zagalejo^^^ 07:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm going to vouch for the re-addition of that pic of Skinner being shipped (er, trained) out--at low-res and with proper rationale added. I think it does significantly illustrate the plot; the idea of them "banish[ing] the real Skinner from town by tying him to a chair on a freight train car." is a crucial part of the overall absurdity of the episode. The pic illustrates how literally the reader must take that plot description. indopug (talk) 07:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Of course it does; the point is that you had two images . The "shipping out" image is indeed superior to the current one, but, if it's restored, the image of the two standing together needs to go per NFCC#3A. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 11:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The pic with the two Skinners is excellent for the infobox because at a quick glance helps the reader get a sense of the main concept of this episode--that the Skinner we have known for all these years is a fake. Another point in its favour is that by showing the real Skinner in military garb; it also helps in the characterization of the two--that the Real one has more serious/army-like personality than the Fake, which is important to the understanding of the article. On the other hand, the railroad pic illustrates a specific--and vital-- plot point (which I've explained above, and you've allowed as acceptable reasoning). Hence both images are necessary--one for quick illustration of entire concept of the story and the other to illo an important plot point and theme (absurdity)--as they are not "fulfilling the same function". indopug (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, come come, it's not such a big deal. Let's just please everybody and leave it the way it is at present, with the one image of the 2 Skinners in the infobox. Cirt (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What about my first two comments? indopug (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  • New comments
  • I was getting ready to do some work on the production section, but I realized that there is a lot of potential overlap between that section and the "Concept" subsection under "Controversy". Would it be possible to move some of the "Concept" stuff to "Production," and devote "Controversy" to the negative reaction?
  • I'll see what I can do.
Hmm... I think I'll fiddle with it a little more. It's kind of hard to draw the line between "Production" and "Controversy"- the long Keeler quote, for example, could fit in either section. I'm still not sure what's the best way to organize this information. Zagalejo^^^ 05:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "The writers thought it would be a challenging episode to write, and Keeler often received difficult assignments."
I'm a bit confused by this sentence, and how it is derived from the source. Was Keeler assigned by someone else to write this episode, or did he volunteer to write it?
I just removed it.
  • "At the time of production, there was little opposition, although Harry Shearer, the voice of Principal Skinner, was 'a little peeved'."
It's wrong to state for a fact that "there was little opposition". That's only the way Oakley remembered it nine years later. He might have forgotten some things over the years, or might have been unaware of certain backroom grumblings.
Fixed.
  • Could we mention that the name "Armin Tamzarian" was basically used without the real Tamzarian's permission? I think the story behind that is kind of interesting. Zagalejo^^^ 21:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That part originally did go more into depth about it but someone removed it. I'll expand it a little. --

Scorpion0422 00:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait, was he already a Fox lawyer when the episode was being produced? I'll have to listen to the commentar again. Zagalejo^^^ 05:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a good idea, I haven't listened to the commentary in a while and that I no longer have that disk. And about the Keeler quote, I really think it should stay because it sums his thoughts behind the meaning of the episode very nicely. -- Scorpion0422 05:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments
  • Newspapers, magazines, and the like in refs need italics - noticed Boston Globe in ref 10.
  • First paragraph of lead has some short sentences that could merge...for instance "Principal Skinner admits that his name is actually Armin Tamzarian. He had thought that the real Skinner, a friend from the army, had died in the Vietnam War. Tamzarian decides to leave Springfield forever, only to return later in the episode." could be merged a bit...
  • Shouldn't the episodes in the infobox all have quotation marks around them?
  • Yes. We'll have to change all the episode list templates. Zagalejo^^^ 15:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In the Plot section he is sometimes referred to as Armin and sometimes as Tamzarian. It's awkward to read things like "begin to distrust Armin. Tamzarian decides that" when it's talking about the same person.
  • I decided to change all the "Tamzarian's" to "Armin's". If people think Tamzarian is better, let me know. Zagalejo^^^ 15:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "In the original draft, there were two sentences that Keeler felt illustrated this point even better and would have made all of the difference in the episode. However, they were cut for time." - what were they?
  • I believe that Keeler said he didn't remember them, or something like that. I'll have to listen to the audio commentary again to be sure. Zagalejo^^^ 15:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "September 22–28, 1997" - date wlinking?

Non FAC note: This is actually one of my favourite Simpsons episodes. Interesting that it was reviewed negatively. Yeah...anyways. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)
  • When using ellipsis in quotes, be consistent. In Reception, "reviled by many of the fans ... for its dispensing with series continuity" uses ..., and "but of his hectorish Mom as well. [...] Martin Sheen steals the show" uses [...]. I suggest using [...] just because it stands out more so it is more obvious that you have purposely removed some text.
  • Wikilink the full dates in references, such as reference #1. Also, link the publishers in the references, even for {{cite book}} and {{cite video}}.

That is all for now. Gary King (talk) 03:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Both fixed. I made sure the first usage of each publisher is linked (where articles exist, in one case there was no page for a publisher). Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 03:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    Minor issue, but ref. 7 has 20th Century Fox linked when ref. 4 is the first occurrence. Also, ref. 17, 19, and 20 have publishers in bold; I'm guessing there are a few apostrophes astray there. Gary King (talk) 04:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and I'm very concerned that this nomination is appearing here. Proper steps were not taken to prepare it and get it to proper FA status before bringing it here. First, I don't see where the other major editors (Zagalejo, Cirt, Qst) were asked if this was ready. If they were consulted, please show me where, because if their comments here are any indication, they may not have been too enthusiastic about sending it here. Second, only a nominal peer edit was done and it shows. The prose varies from rough to "correct" but not brilliant as required by criterion 1a. Additionally, the sourcing is very poor and relies mostly on primary sources. The Controversy section sourced to the DVD? Please, you need to find neutral, secondary sources for all but basic facts. This needs a lot of work. --Laser brain (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The reason the DVD commentary is used as a source in the controversy section is because a lot of it deals with their opinions (and a lot of the stuff that needs other sourcing has it, like Harry Shearer's opinions). As for notifying others, Cirt was the one that suggested the FAC, I informed Zagalejo of it several times, and Qst was told on IRC. I'll try and get some copyeditors to take a look. -- Scorpion0422 13:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay, I have made it so that only the writers' direct opinions in the controversy section are sourced by the DVD commentary. -- Scorpion0422 13:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • In response I wasn't really a major editor really, I just added a bit of stuff to the Reception section. But yes, I was aware that the article was going to FAC and honestly I think it is of FA quality and I would "Support" right here, were I not a major contributor to the article, as per my comment, above. Cirt (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The DVD is a fair source (and really the only source) for the writers' own opinions about the episode. I agree with most of your comments, though. I hadn't taken a clear position until this point, but I'm gonna have to go with oppose. The problems in this article won't be solved without a lot of hard work and group discussion. It's a great topic - it's been on my to-do list for a while - but it's not FA material just yet. (For the record, I never really contributed much to the content of the article. I have the second-most edits, but most of those were just minor tweaks here and there, the bulk of which occurred during this FAC.) Zagalejo^^^ 05:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 21:25, 13 May 2008.

[edit] National Ignition Facility

previous FAC


I am going to re-nominate this article for FA status. It previously failed due to "lack of ref" in October 2006, but this, and a number of minor issues, have been addressed since then. In addition, it has been extensively peer reviewed by staff at the LLNL, who sent me numerous references, new images, corrections, and even comments on formatting and punctuation. I believe it is safe to say, IMHO, that it is the best "single" article on the topic available anywhere, which seems like the very definition of "featured article". Maury (talk) 20:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. Some of your references are incomplete. All references should have a publisher, and internet sources should have an accessdate. Try using {{cite news}}, {{cite web}}, or others if it makes it easier.-Wafulz (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Are these actual requirements? They do not appear in the FAC, and the cite guide is certainly not specific on this. I'll happily add them if they are a requirement, but otherwise I would rather avoid too much leaf raking. Maury (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Citing sources#Provide full citations says that you need enough information for other editors to identify your source. At a bare minimum, this would mean giving (where possible) an author, a publisher, a title, a URL/doi, and a date/accessdate. This is especially true for any links that are on the internet - if a link dies and all we have is a title and URL, it can be very difficult to trace a mirror or a different source.-Wafulz (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Well ok. Access dates are easy enough ("today"), but can you be more specific about the others? IE, what links do you feel do not provide enough detail? Maury (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Done I think, drop a note if I missed any. Maury (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
No, using the cite family of templates is not a requirement for an FA or for any article, but consistently and correctly formatted citations is a requirement (2c) for FAs. See WP:CITE/ES and WP:WIAFA. All sources need a title and publisher, author and publication date when available, and last access date on websources, dates should be consistently linked and formatted within citations, and the page numbering and author name convention you use should be the same across all citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think I have met these requirements in all of the CITEs now. I went to every single one of them to make sure they worked, added any missing authors, and re-formatted them all to use the same style (authors, title, publication, date, pages, link date). If you find any counterexamples, let me know. Maury (talk) 02:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
BTW, what do the lock icons mean on some of the refs? Maury (talk) 02:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The lock icons means it is a "secure" server (https:// "s" for secure). It just means the transmissions of the page are encrypted for security reasons, usually when it involves credit card numbers, although I have no idea why it is used in these cases. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Ahhh. I can think of all sorts of jokes about why they have it turned on... Maury (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I am concerned about the lack of refs in the "background" section. Generally, I like to see at least one ref per paragraph... even when the information is taken from another wikiarticle, there should be refs provided. You probably could just copy and past the applicable refs from ICF mechanism to make it easier. Also, bold type should not be included anywhere but in the lead section, unless the bold type is a redirect to that section of the article... try using italics for emphasis. Another issue, using italics and quotes to refer to specific words is redundant... stick to one or the other (see Use–mention distinction). Also, instead of a gallery at the end of the article, try incorporating the images into the article itself. There are few images as it is, so condensing them all into a gallery just exacerbates the problem. Otherwise, a good read which I would be glad to support. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, perhaps I don't understand the bolding. I was under the impression that it should be used on any term that is integral to the article. IE, if talking about a car one would speak of the wheels. Is this not the case? I'll add refs to the other section, I don't believe it needs them but I'm getting tired of everyone asking. Maury (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Done, that was easy, first hit was the right one! Maury (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Keeping things on track here :-) The statement above isn't completely correct; see WP:MOSBOLD for correct applications of bold font. Also see WP:ITALICS for correct us of italics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Well if anyone really feels that the single instance of "extra" bolding, which is a proper name BTW and very very much in keeping with common practice, really really requires un-bolding, be my guest. But really, isn't anyone going to comment on the content of the article? Not one vote pro or con yet? Maury (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually common practice is not have bolding anywhere but in the lead, and the few exceptions stated at WP:BOLD. My statement wasn't completely correct, although I was correct by saying these items should not be in bold. I'm also not sure if the simultaneous use of italics and quotes are necessary, but I wont press the issue, no big deal. My remaining concerns...
    • Introduction is too short. It should adequately summarize the article, and not contain any information that isn't already in the article itself. Refs are normally not necessary as the information should be redundant. Read WP:LEAD for more info.
    • Image galleries are discouraged unless necessary. Try incorporating the images into the article, there are few images in the article and they are all grouped in the gallery, it would look better if you spread them around the article and perhaps add them adjacent to relevant text if possible. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images for more info.
    • Units of measure unfamiliar to the average reader should be wikilinked on the first instance, like picoseconds and megajoules.
    • Could use a more thorough copyedit for prose. Phrases such as "far and away" (just "far" will do) and "in order to" (just "to" will do) are unnecessary and redundant. See User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a#Misplaced_formality for some helpful tips.

Good luck. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"Try incorporating the images into the article" During the last round one of the oppose points was that there were too many images in the body and it was suggested I move them to a gallery. So I did. I will look into the units issue.
Hmmm, well I haven't reviewed the history of this article, but as it is now, there are very few images. There are plenty of long stretches of text with no images at all. Everyone has a different opinion but common practice is galleries should only be a last resort for articles with an abundance of relevant images. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: criterion three concerns:
    • Image:NIF building layout.jpg needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP; "a LLNL publication" is not sufficent. Which one?
    • Image:Nif hohlraum.jpg and Image:NIF target chamber.jpg need verifiable sources; they currently source to themselves.
    • Image:Laser glass slabs.jpg needs a verifiable source.
    • The aforementioned and most, if not all, other images are sourced from LLNL. The LLNL disclaimer sets forth "LLNL-authored documents including, but not limited to, articles, photographs, drawings, and other information subsisting in text, images, and/or other media, are sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. Accordingly, the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free license to publish or reproduce these documents, or allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes." (emphasis added) The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory article sets forth "Until September 30, 2007 LLNL was directly managed and operated solely by the University of California". Given that the images predate 2007 (e.g. Image:Fusion microcapsule.jpg is from 2002), what is the basis for the claim that these images are the work of the federal government? The disclaimer's verbiage of the DOE merely "sponsor[ing]" and holding "nonexclusive" rights seems quite implicate that these are not federal works. Am I misunderstanding the relationship between LLNL and the DOE? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Am I misunderstanding the relationship between LLNL and the DOE? Basically yes. This has been hashed out in great detail in the past in a variety of places. Simply put, the labs all put up language like this somewhere on their pages, but it's just not true. It's like the NFL saying "all rights reserved", which is equally untrue. I should point out that the latest image was sent to me by LLNL specifically for use in the article, so for what it's worth... As to the sources, I have added them all. Maury (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you would be kind enough to provide links/diffs for this hashing out? I somehow doubt LLNL's attorneys would be so quick to dismiss the truthfulness of that disclaimer. The underlying question remains unanswered: is LLNL (the author of these images) actually a federal government entity? Federal sponsorship does not a federal entity make. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Try as I might I can no longer find the thread in question, it was two years ago and not directly related. However, I took the time to write to the LLNL and their lawyers are now on it.
But while I'm here, I need to express my disagreement with the claim "underlying question remains unanswered: is LLNL (the author of these images) actually a federal government entity". That's not the underlying question at all. The underlying question is whether or not the images can be used on the Wiki. All else is academic. Maury (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The images are being claimed as public domain on the basis that they are works of the United States Federal Government. No evidence has been provided that this is the case and, in fact, licensing at the source implicitly contradicts the claim. If LLNL indeed sent you an image to use in this article, forward to OTRS and re-license as needed (e.g. CC, GFDL, or {{PD-author}}). Licensing {{PD-USGov}} is not verifiable or supported. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Just wait. I am in contact with LLNL and we are trying to get the matter resolved. They're lawyers, I assume this will not be immediate. Maury (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE:

"We are most definitely a US Government website. Just check the URL for the .gov suffix. At the bottom of each page, you see the following text: Operated by Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, for the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration"

This statement was sent to me by my primary contact at LLNL. Do you require more, or does this satisfy you? Maury (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll add more anyway: "The rule I learned long ago from our legal staff when I was a TV news reporter is that anything on a US Government website is public domain when used in a news context. And certainly, an article on Wikipedia qualifies in that regard." Same person, employee of LLNL, completely credible, primary contact for this project. Maury (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Another update: Ok, well now I've had another e-mail from LLNL that states the exact opposite! I do consider this one to be less authoritative though, it's the "person that answers e-mail" sent to the lab, whereas the quotes above are from a primary source in the NIF project itself. I think it's safe to say, sadly, that it's still up in the air. There's more than a little irony here: does anyone else see the potentially amusing side of this given that they make nuclear bombs? BTW, is there any reason these can't be Free Use? Both of the people in question have stated they are usable under those conditions. I'd rather not use this, but I think the article really suffers without the images. Maury (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the irony is that copyrights and licensing are more complex than nuclear physics. Physics was my Nebenfach (don't know the English equivalent) as an undergrad, and I find myself dearly missing laws that aren't open to interpretation, but I digress. The issue isn't really with the images themselves (i.e. as compilations of pixels). The concern, rather, is only that Wikipedia - and especially featured articles - shouldn't be representing images as being in the public domain without at least a preponderance of evidence to support the claim.
Here's the problem with the email from the more credible contact: "We are most definitely a US Government website" doesn't help us, as the statement we really need from them is "we are most definitely a US federal government entity". The .gov suffix is troublesome, as it indicates only a host, not an author (z.B. university students get .edu space, but the material they post thereon isn't necessarily authored by the university. More pertinently, U.S. senators get .gov pages on which they may, similarly, post material not necessarily authored by the federal government). All that needs to be established is that the author of the images (LLNL) is a federal government entity. If the contact could confirm this, that would resolve the issue.
I suspect the “rule” they quote to be a misunderstanding of Fair Use law. Copyrighted images may indeed be used for educational purposes (such as news) without violating copyright, but that is distinct from entering public domain (an image cannot be public domain for one use and protected for “other” uses – once PD, always PD).
OTRS wouldbe useful if your contact has authority to speak for LLNL. Then they, as the “author” could state/confirm that they release the images to the public domain (or GFDL, CC, etc) and the licenses could be updated accordingly. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
It is unlikely he is in a position to do so. Having been through this process before with UCalBerk and Argonne, I can say without too much hesitation that it is unlikely there is anyone in the DoE or LLNL that will go on record. We have no heard back from the lawyers though, so I think we should give that another day or so.
But given the chance that this is not PDGov in the end, what then? Can I fair-use them? Maury (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose, it is a good start but there are too many immediate issues to warrant close examination for FA status right now. Most of them have existed since the article lost GA status. I will list the major issues:
    • The diagrams are poorly-used. Rather than attempting to describe the diagram in the caption (On left is this.. this is shown in blue..) You need to add call-outs and make it a useful diagram. I note this has been an issue since last year.
    • The lead is entirely inadequate. I see this was a concern that even got the article de-listed at GA, and it has not been addressed.
    • The prose is unpolished and need a serious copyedit. Problems are easily-spotted, even in the scant lead: "... NIF is five years behind schedule and almost four times over budget."
    • MoS problems (ex: 500 terawatt should be hyphenated or use a non-breaking space)
    • References are malformed or incorrect.. another problem that's been around since losing GA status. --Laser brain (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Well these are all new to me. The only thing I recall about the captions was that they were too long, when I asked for ways to improve them I received no concrete response. The prose example you give I don't understand, perhaps I'm just dumb but it reads fine to me. I have re-written every single reference, if you have specific examples of "malformed or incorrect" ones I'll happily fix them. Maury (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. There are various MOS issues, the prose ranges from non-encyclopedic to overly-jargony, and there are still serious citation issues. I think the article shows promise in its comprehensiveness, but it needs a great deal of work still to be ready for FA.

  • This needs to have an encyclopedic tone. Some phrasing is not up to that standard (for example: "NIF is far and away the largest...", "The basic idea behind any ")
  • "Construction of the NIF is currently estimated to be completed in 2009 " - replace currently with a concrete date as we don't know when this estimate was made
  • I concur with the other reviewers - the lead needs to be expanded to more adequately summarize the article
  • What does this mean "which are amplified 4-each'"
  • This claim must have a citation "This number is far and away beyond the number and size of beams of any preceding ICF laser." (and it needs to be rewritten)
    • Note, this is not referring to the claim in the lead, but to the corresponding claim in the body of the article. Karanacs (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Need a citation for "Improvements to the design since then have allowed them to surpass their initial design "
  • "According to LLN" - Who/What is LLNL? I don't think that has been defined in the article body before it is used
    • Note, although this is marked fixed below, it doesn't appear to have changed.
  • Is there a cite for this? "Given the time scale of a few billionths of a second, the power is correspondingly very high (500 terawatts)."
  • Need a citation for "The conversion process is about 50% efficient, reducing delivered energy to a nominal 1.8 MJ (500 terawatts)."
  • I didn't completely follow a lot of what is in the laser section. I am not that familiar with lasers and many of the terms used here - it sounded like jargon to me. I have no idea whether it will be possible to rewrite it accurately into terms a layman will understand though.
  • Headings shouldn't begin with "The"
  • Any citations for this data (especially the numbers): the case of the NIF, the large delivered power allows for the use of a much larger target; the baseline pellet design is about 2 mm in diameter, chilled to about 18 degrees above absolute zero and lined with a layer of solid deuterium-tritium (DT) fuel. The hollow interior also contains a small amount of DT gas.
  • I think WP:ITALICS has been violated in the article.
    • Not fixed - still at least two instances of words italicized that shouldn't be. Karanacs (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Need citation for "Fusion gains in this configuration are estimated to be anywhere between ten and thirty times; less than the symmetrical direct-drive approach, but obtainable with no changes to the NIF beamline layout"
  • Need citation for "producing results almost as good as the fully symmetric direct drive approach"
  • Need citation for "at the time it was just beyond the state of the art"
  • Need citation for "In operation, Nova was able to deliver about 20 to 30 kJ of laser energy, about half of what was initially expected, due to various nonlinear optical effects."
  • Need a citation for "The initial estimates from 1992 estimated construction costs around $400 million, with construction taking place from 1995 to 1999"
  • I also agree that the gallery should be eliminated, with the pictures spread throughout the article.
  • Reference 44 (Nuclear testing gear in doubt ) is not formatted properly. This reference appears to be a blog, which would fail WP:RS.
    • Thank you for putting in the publisher. This is a blog though, which fails WP:RS. You need to find a new source. Karanacs (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Some references do not have publisher information (ref 45- New Cost and Schedule Estimates for National Ignition Facility. )

Karanacs (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Progress report I would like to collect the comments above, although others have told me two opposes means it's basically over.

Completed

  • Units of measure unfamiliar to the average reader should be wikilinked on the first instance, like picoseconds and megajoules.
  • Phrases such as "far and away" (just "far" will do) and "in order to" (just "to" will do) are unnecessary
  • What does this mean "which are amplified 4-each'"
  • MoS problems (ex: 500 terawatt should be hyphenated or use a non-breaking space)
  • (for example: "NIF is far and away the largest...", "The basic idea behind any ")
  • According to LLN" - Who/What is LLNL?
  • replace currently with a concrete date
  • Need a citation for "Improvements to the design since then have allowed them to surpass their initial design ", Moved existing cite one line.
  • Need a citation for "The conversion process is about 50% efficient, reducing delivered energy to a nominal 1.8 MJ (500 terawatts)." Moved existing cite one line.
  • I think WP:ITALICS has been violated in the article.
  • Reference 44 (Nuclear testing gear in doubt ) is not formatted properly. This reference appears to be a blog, which would fail WP:RS.
  • Some references do not have publisher information (ref 45- New Cost and Schedule Estimates for National Ignition Facility. )

Require Clarification

  • Headings shouldn't begin with "The" "laser" doesn't seem right. NIF laser? Driver? Something else?
  • Introduction is too short. What information is missing that you think the introduction is missing? I'd like to fix this ASAP. Contrary to the second instance of this, the LEAD has undergone major edits in the near past in order to address former problems.
  • I didn't completely follow a lot of what is in the laser section. I am not that familiar with lasers Ok, sooooo, what do we do?
  • Is there a cite for this? "Given the time scale of a few billionths of a second, the power is correspondingly very high (500 terawatts)." P = E x t. I do not believe this requires a cite.

Disagree

  • Need citation for "Fusion gains in this configuration are estimated to be anywhere between ten and thirty times; less than the symmetrical direct-drive approach, but obtainable with no changes to the NIF beamline layout"
  • Need citation for "producing results almost as good as the fully symmetric direct drive approach"
  • Need citation for "at the time it was just beyond the state of the art"
  • Need citation for "In operation, Nova was able to deliver about 20 to 30 kJ of laser energy, about half of what was initially expected, due to various nonlinear optical effects."
  • Need a citation for "The initial estimates from 1992 estimated construction costs around $400 million, with construction taking place from 1995 to 1999"
  • Need citation for "producing results almost as good as the fully symmetric direct drive approach"

All of these are clearly cited in-place. The link appear before the specific sentence, but only in cases where that claim is "more important" to have the ref physically close to it. I see no need to insert the same reference multiple times in a single paragraph.

Can't satisfy everyone

  • I also agree that the gallery should be eliminated, with the pictures spread throughout the article.
  • Image galleries are discouraged unless necessary.

I have read over all relevant materials in the MOS and the links above, and simply put, the second of these statements is not true. The section on galleries clearly states there is no agreed-on policy. But if we confine ourselves to the specific case here, as I mentioned before, the gallery was introduced specifically because the former FA (or GA, I don't recall) said there were too many images in the body and they should be put in a gallery. I fear that if I change this, someone else will "strongly oppose" it for that reason. What am I to do?

  • This number is far and away beyond the number and size of beams of any preceding ICF laser

Above a reviewer states that there should be no references in the lead. I agree, I hate references in the lead when the explanation follows shortly - as is the case here. So if I move the HOW reference (which does state this, directly) into the LEAD, then I'm violating a different complaint.

  • the prose ranges from non-encyclopedic to overly-jargony
  • The prose is unpolished and need a serious copyedit.

I quote the very first review (as opposed to comment) from the former FA, "The prose in the article is very good. I really appreciate how the text is readable by the layman, but also contains enough information to keep people with more knowledge reading on." So again, this appears to come down to a disagreement about reviewers. What can I do to make everyone happy? When I get specific examples I change them, but I keep getting vague "needs edit", which is really not helpful at all. Is there some sort of objective measure we can apply here?

I believe this covers every remaining point above, with the exception of the licensing question, which is ongoing. If I have missed any, please add.

Please note that the previous FA nom was in October 2006, 18 months ago. There is a possibility that the article has changed, that interpretation of the criteria has gotten stricter, or that the previous reviewer wasn't great at identifying good prose. I'd recommend that you look through the list of science FAs, find a recent one that looks well-written and ask the person who wrote it to copyedit this one. (Regardless, an 18-month old FAC nom doesn't really tell you anything about community consensus or the state of the article as it is today.)
As for my comments about not understanding, I think that has a lot to do with the jargon. Removing or explaining some of that more fully will help increase the understanding of lay reviewers.
As for citations, if you are citing statistics or something that is opinion, the citation needs to go after the statement, not before. That's standard practice for inline citations; otherwise, how on earth do you know that the statement goes with that citation? If you are going to use inline citations (as is now required for FA status), please use them correctly.

Karanacs (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to focus just on the last point to start. The citations in question (outlined above) are part of single paragraphs on a single topic. For instance, the PDD targets paragraph; there is a single reference that covers all of the points within. Perhaps I am confused as to what the problem is? Maury (talk) 17:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Interesting: ok so after some poking about I came across this (lengthy!) thread at the end of a paragraph Citations at the end of a paragraph which is discussing this precise issue. The outcome? A long argument with no apparent conclusion. :-( Maury (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment While I sympathize with your plight, Karanacs brings up a good point. The last FAC was 18 months ago, standards may have changed. It is standard practice to not use galleries unless necessary. If you'll look at other nominations you will get an idea of what is the current consensus. Also, reading WP:MOS and tips listed at WP:FA? and User:Jengod/Some_common_objections_to_featured_status_and_how_to_avoid_them. BTW, I still count about 8 "in order to" phrases. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh I don't mind, if you think they'll fit inline I'd much rather have that -- it's not like I like galleries! The article has grown in length (although not a huge amount) so that does seem like there's more room to play with. Maury (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • When using abbreviations in the footnotes, (such as LLNL) it's helfpul to do something like Lawrence Livermore National Library (LLNL) at the first usage of the abbreviation. I'd actually perfer that all abbreviations in the references were spelled out since most folks don't read them all, just pick and choose and it's harder to figure out what is meant if you have to scan up and down the references list trying to figure out what an unfamiliar abbreviation is.
  • Can we be consistent in the formatting of the journal references? Some of the journal names are italicised, others aren't. One or the other would help folks figure out the references a bit easier.
  • Current ref 31 "letter from Charles Curtis, Undersecretary of Energy" is this a published reference? WP:RS frowns on unpublished sources.
  • Current ref 32, I have no idea what this means. Is this a federal code reference or to something else published?
  • Current ref 35 "Natural Resources Defense council..." is lacking a publisher
  • Current ref 37 "C. W. Cranfill "Concerns about NIF..." is this a published memo? See about about unpublished sources and Wikipedia.
  • Current ref 48 "Science Scope, 288 (5471)..." Is this a journal article? If so, we should cite the author and title.
  • Current ref 54 "A. Fitzpatrick, I Oelrich "The Stockpile Stewardship..." is lacking a publisher
Being on the road, I didnt check external links. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys was off for most of the weekend and I'm just getting started again now. Is there anything immediate? I'll start reading the diffs... Maury (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, working on the above. Ok, some progress...

  • fixed abbrs, including S&TR, tell me if there's any others (FAS maybe?)
  • geez, it seems they have been undergoing some edits. I'll see if I can clean them up again.
  • Current ref 32 -- weird, fixed and clarified
  • Current ref 35 -- is there a standard for quoting a court document? Like a docket number or something? "Civil Action No. 00-2431" appears to be the call for this, and there was an amendment to it as well, although it's Abraham in that case, who took the place of Richarson.
  • Current ref 48 -- got it
  • Current ref 54 -- fixed
  • Current ref 37 -- this is currently outstanding. I've seen it, but I don't recall if it was journal published. It's attached to point that I'm more than willing to lose from the article if I don't find it.

Maury (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm playing with the images to get rid of the gallery, but it looks like the only way to make it work is lose half of them. Maury (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose by Dweller

I'm still unfamiliar with the history of this article, but it seems like it could do with a rigorous Peer Review. The prose in particular needs significant work; it looks/reads like a labour of love by experts that confounds the layman. We don't want it dumbed down, but it must be accessible. Sorry to oppose, but FAC isn't the place for help with a reworking; articles here should need a tweak or perhaps a generous helping hand. This is simply too needy.

Looking at the Lead alone, I found the following issues, some of which are major problems:

  • I'm confused. Is this thing being built, or is it built? Lead says it's under construction, but then deals with how it works in present tense, instead of future.
  • If no-one's ever been able to get to ignition, it's a bit presumptuous to assume this will succeed. Tone down "NIF uses powerful lasers to heat and compress a small amount of hydrogen fuel to the point where nuclear fusion reactions take place." to allow for the possibility it won't ever work
  • Typo - "budgetted"
  • I can't work out when the construction began. Note the date in the Lead.
  • "Progress since the mid-2000s has been much smoother." Smoother than what?
  • The caption is massive... and very confusing. Could the room be labelled? I couldn't see anything purple. There's two different elements that have been coloured blue, so I don't know which is which. Can't see a silver colour either. Why not pick distinctive colours and judiciously apply some labels?
  • Expand slightly the controversy over the potential nuclear weapons usage.

Sorry again. --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, close the FA. Oh well. I have to say it's refreshing to see people actually discuss the content. Maury (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
If you can continue to improve the article along the suggestions implemented here, please do so. It's not far off, so it doesn't need to be closed unless you can't work on the article for a while. - Taxman Talk 17:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Given the comments above it seems there is a lot more wrong than just crossing the T's. Comments like "prose in particular needs significant work" (or similar from three different reviewers) suggest that I am simply not seeing the forest for the trees. Maury (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
You can't please everybody but use the comments here to make as many improvements as you can. You may be able to satisfy enough, and if not, at least it will be in a better state before it's over. Then retrying will be easier. Don't lose sight of the fact that you have done great work. The issues raised are relatively minor in relation to the difficult work you've already done. - Taxman Talk 17:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 21:25, 13 May 2008.

[edit] Super Smash Bros. Brawl

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has already been peer reviewed by User: Ashnard in a way which was similar to FA nomination. The article itself is completely cited, all images have correct fair-use rationales, and the style of writing is encyclopedic. haha169 (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I am worried by the fact that much of the references come from a primary source (or I assume that www.smashbros.com is a primary source). Ottava Rima (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply I don't really think that it would be an issue. If it does become an issue, we could always replace some of the references. But we'll see what happens. --haha169 (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Most of them seem to be limited to the gameplay section, so they wouldn't be controversial. It is just odd to scroll down a reference section and see so many of the same in a row. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
You can either reference the official site or the game itself for most gameplay. I suppose you could reference a Brady Games Guide or Prima Games Guide if you really wanted to. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 00:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • The reception section is really bloated. Wikipedian06 (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Discuss that on the talk page, not the FAC. And I must tell you, it is shorter than some of the FAs out there, like BioShock, so will you please stop complaining? --haha169 (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Why? Pagrashtak 19:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Because it is a non-issue. See the article's talk page under "Recent Reception Edits". --haha169 (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
          • While I don't agree with his statement, this is an appropriate venue to list any concerns with the article. If Wikipedian had said something demonstratively false, such as "The article has no references" that would be inappropriate. However, this is a subjective concern and the entire purpose of the FAC process is to list those concerns and let others determine the merit and severity of any potential problems. If it's truly a non-issue, then no one will agree with Wikipedian06, and no harm will have come. Pagrashtak 19:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
            • Yes, you are stating the truth. However, he posted his comment on the FAC before even consulting the talk page, which was already having an active discussion on the issue. If you'll look, he hasn't even contributed to the discussion at all, so I was merely telling him where the discussion was. I did have poor word choice, but it is annoying to have an editor start a problem, and not contributing to the discussion. It leads us to a dead end. Plus, nobody did agree with him, and no harm did start. I think this discussion should stop, I'm not too interested in having a discussion of this subject on a FAC. --haha169 (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment This article seems perfect so long as an edit war does not spring up. Just to be sure I am going to reread the article. This article randomly goes into periods of time when edit wars happen. We really need to watch out for this.--Smashbrosboy 02:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Minor Support the article is in great shape, even if it won't fulfill criteria 1e (stability) very much for three reasons: vandalism, new sales data and awards. igordebraga ≠ 23:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Although new sales data and awards do, vandalism does not mean the article is unstable. Vandalism is added, it's reverted, the article stays the same. Epass (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't think we'll be getting new sales data for at least another 2 months, since that has been updated very slowly since I've been working on this article. As for awards, I doubt Brawl will be getting a notable award to put up...so... As for vandalism, it hasn't been hard hit recently (which I'm happy about). I'm more primarily concerned about edit wars, which pop up at random times, usually over petty things. Anyways, thanks for the support, albeit minor. --haha169 (talk) 00:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. The references are being fixed, and there really aren't many edit wars. Aside from the recent one over GiantBomb, the last was over Dixie Kong being playable, and that was a while ago, before the game came out. The sales data won't come in until June 17; the European release date, or if the Australian date is before then. As for awards, they'd have to be something pretty notable, and if there were, a sentence is added, it doesn't really affect the stability that much. The article has well spread out images, and its section are neither to long or two short. It deserves FA. Epass (talk) 10:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. A good deal of time and effort have definitely been invested into the article. I can see no pressing issues to relate, and the article has stabilized since the last dispute. If anything, I can see the only problem being minor vandalism, but that isn't nearly enough to jeopardize stability. In any case, I can think of no significant reason to oppose FA for the article. -- Comandante {Talk} 20:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I hope the three editors who supported above, after a long list of questions were posted about reliable sources, are aware that WP:V is policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't say that the remaining 2 one issues with verifiability is a big problem. They said "no significant reason", among others. I'm working on the joystiq one right now, as well. --haha169 (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments I've only read the lead.
    • "As the third installment of the Super Smash Bros. series, Brawl's roster..." Misplaced modifier
      • Seems fine to me. Elaborate more, please? --haha169 (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Read up on misplaced/dangling modifiers (Google is your friend!), then revisit the sentence and spot what is wrong. BuddingJournalist 00:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Yeah, I already Googled it. I still don't understand...I see how there is a minor awkwardness there, but I'm not really sure how to fix it. I think I'll go tweaking around. --haha169 (talk) 00:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
            • "As the third installment..." is modifying "Brawl's roster". The roster is not the third installment though. The game is. BuddingJournalist 00:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
              • Oh. I'll fix soon. --haha169 (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
                • I did something to it. Comments appreciated on if there is still a problem with the current revision. --haha169 (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • FixedSatoryu went and revised that sentence to make it flow even better. --haha169 (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "some of them rearranged by 38 renowned video game composers." Conflict between "some" and "38"
      • Fixed --haha169 (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, kind of. Re-read the result of your edit though. It's always good to proofread. BuddingJournalist 00:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
          • It is! I fixed a bit, and then Satoryu found another problem. It should be done now. --haha169 (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
            • Still unclear; wordy as well. Let's break this down:
            • "The game's music was individually composed or rearranged by one of the 38 renowned video game composers involved in the game's soundtrack, which consists of various themes present in previously released Nintendo video games."
              • "The game's music was individually composed or rearranged by one of the 38..." Surely, you mean each individual track was composed by one of 38, right?
                • Yeah, we do. I'll correct that immediately. Consider it fixed.--haha169 (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
              • "involved in the game's soundtrack" Seeing as how you state that they composed/rearranged the music, this is extraneous.
                • It is, but some previous editors thought otherwise. I think that this makes it most clear.--haha169 (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
              • "which consists of various themes present in" Wordy. "which consists of themes from" BuddingJournalist 01:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "When development of the game began in October 2005,[11] Nintendo had enlisted the help of various outside developers in an office in Tokyo exclusively for its development." Conflict between "when...began" and perfect tense. "in an office in Tokyo..." does not seem to placed correctly; it's currently implying that the office in Tokyo is where Nintendo recruited the developers.
      • Fixed --haha169 (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Better, but the repetition of "development" (there's already "developers" there too) is ungainly. The tension of using the "when...began" construct and the perfect tense is still there too. BuddingJournalist 00:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I understand your concern, but I can't really find a synonym for "developers" and "developed", and i was also unable to thing of a way to rephrase the "when...began" issue, so... --haha169 (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
            • I find that hard to believe. "Nintendo began developing the game in October 2005, and enlisted the help of third-party developers to work in a Tokyo office rented exclusively for Brawl." Wasn't so difficult. By the way, the "Sakurai, Masahiro. Foreword. Smashbros.com." reference does not work. BuddingJournalist 01:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
              • Your right. That works. I'm sorry, I've been fixing errors on this FAC by myself, that I've been going brain dead a bit. I'll see what I can do with that reference. --haha169 (talk) 03:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
                • Fixed Replaced the ref with an archive of the same date, and replaced that sentence with your suggestion. Thank you!--haha169 (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Spell out and put the abbreviations in parens on first use. BuddingJournalist 05:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm not really sure what you mean by that last one, but I'll get to work on the other three. We've been having problems with #2 already, and resulted in a minor edit war a few months back. I'll see what I can do.--haha169 (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
        • See Wikipedia:MOS#Acronyms_and_abbreviations for abbreviations. An example would be "United States (US)". Note that some of your use of abbreviations-as-adjectives is colloquial ("featuring CGI cut scenes" would be better as "featuring computer-generated cut scenes", as CGI is really computer-generated imagery, a noun.) BuddingJournalist 00:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Which exact issues are you referring to? --haha169 (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Ahh, I see. I'll get to work on that. --haha169 (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Wait, actually, I still don't "see". Sorry for the shifting moods here. But which examples would you like abbreviated? Satoryu gave a good example as why not to abb. SSE, but I don't see anything else that needs such abbreviation. --haha169 (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
            • I don't want things abbreviated, but spelled out. An example from the lead: "CEO" -> "Chief Executive Officer (CEO)". You can lose the "(CEO)" if you don't plan on using it later. Like MOS says, this should be done on first use for all abbreviations. BuddingJournalist 01:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
              • Okay, well I spelled out CGI. There really isn't much left. SSBB is used several times as well. --haha169 (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
                • I think the problem is done. You changed the CEO, right? --haha169 (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I'm sorry but I feel this needs a significant amount of copyediting and MOS cleanup. Examples follow:

Resolved issues from Maralia (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

In the future, please respond below the reviewer's signature, rather than interspersing replies throughout their comments. I have hidden my previous comments as most of them have been addressed, with exception of the following:

  • Punctuation in/around quotations still needs work (example: "Edge concluded that while the Smash Bros. games have often been "derided as button-mashing," Brawl features "one of the most enduringly innovative and deep systems of any fighter."")
  • Logical quotation is still an issue; nearly every quotation in the 'Reception and sales' section needs ending punctuation to be moved outside quote marks.
  • Punctuation in image captions still needs cleanup (example: " Selection of characters in Super Smash Bros. Brawl that are available for play.")
  • "Each character has four unique moves, which often have unique effects beyond damaging an opponent." - You need not use my phrasing, but using 'unique' twice is weak
  • "Most of the individual tracks within the game were arranged by one of 38 renowned video game composers, which mainly consists of various themes present in previously released video games." - Two problems: (1) the first half can be read 'most of the tracks were arranged by the same guy'; (2) the second half reads as though it modifies 'composers'.
  • This now reads "The game's musical score was composed through the collaboration between 38 renowned video game composers. The soundtrack ultimately consists of various themes present in previously released video games." Neither sentence is really crystal clear: did the 38 composers actually collaborate (I got the impression they just individually composed tracks)? Are all the tracks based on preexisting video game music, or only some of them (I think I asked this question before, but didn't see an answer)?

I have not struck my oppose as I still feel this needs significant work. The plot section should be intelligible to a reader who is not already familiar with Mario games. The article still needs a thorough copyedit to fix grammar and punctuation issues beyond the examples I provided. Maralia (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, I'll do it this way. How is the music sentence in the intro now? I separated it into 2 sentences as well as did a major revision. The plot was fancruft in my opinion, but I don't really know if I'm allowed to delete it. I'll bring it up in the talk page. I'll work on the rest tomorrow. Thanks for the reviews! --haha169 (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I also went and fixed the image caption. I see how my previous revision did absolutely nothing to address your problem. Sorry about that. --haha169 (talk) 03:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I've updated my comments, crossing out a couple addressed issues and elaborating on some of the remaining ones. I will gladly keep plugging away with you on specific examples, but this truly needs a full copyedit. Maralia (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll check out the reception sections of some FA video games for ideas on how to fix the quotation marks. As for the copy-edit, do you have good copy-editor to suggest? I'm not much of a copy-editor, and I've never brought an article up to FAC before, so this is my first time here.--haha169 (talk) 04:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the quotation issue in the lead and reception section. --haha169 (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Neutral- This article needs some work. Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 21:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I really would appreciate it if you could be more specific like the editors above. I already know the article needs some work, but if you could give examples, that would be immensely helpful. --haha169 (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments.

  • "Brawl's roster of Nintendo characters expands from that of its predecessor, while also being the first in the series to feature third-party characters" - sounds choppy...I get what you're saying, but it could be worded better (I think the "while" kills it somewhat)
  • The setup of the lead is awkward for a VG article. Check last month's VG newsletter, IIRC Masem wrote quite a good piece about that sort of thing.
  • "Brawl was announced at a pre-E3 press conference by Nintendo president and Chief Executive Officer Satoru Iwata" - in which year?
  • "At E3 2007, Nintendo of America's president, Reggie Fils-Aime, stated that the game would be released on 3 December 2007 in the Americas." - I think only the first comma is needed
  • In the lead it's somtimes referred to as Brawl and sometimes by its full name...be consistent.
    • Actually, this issue occurs throughout.
  • "Mario and Kirby fighting Bowser and King Dedede." (image caption) - it's a free for all, don't imply there are teams
  • The SSBM FAC had plenty of issues with citation and stuff on gameplay...might want to look at it and see if there's anything relevant there for this one.
  • The characters can fight each other using a variety of attacks...characters have access to more powerful smash attacks" - some issues with these sentences. 1) You can attack by simply pressing a button and not touching the control stick (eg. simply pressing A or B on the GCN controller). 2) What's a smash attack and how do you get one?
  • "and are usually invincible" - usually implies exceptions...I'm fairly certain all the pokemon are invincible, not so sure on assist trophies?
  • A lot of the gameplay discussion involves statements like "as in the previous game". IMO this isn't necessary; the article discusses THIS game, not the previous ones. You can draw connenctions in cases of notable similarities/difference, but not for every case...
  • Smash Bros. DOJO!! referencing needs work; halfway through it changes from being the publisher (no italics) to the work (italics)...be consistent.
  • "SSE has a team system for the characters." - sounds clunky...for the characters - for who else??
  • "Masahiro Sakurai claimed that this mode..." - you don't need to wlink or use his full name every time...only use his surname subsequent times
  • "which transports part of the world into Subspace" --> "transporting part of the world into Subspace".
  • The /vast/ majority of gameplay content comes from one source (Smash Bros. Dojo)...not a huge deal, but more sourcing from gaming publications (IGN, GameSpot, you know...) would be preferred...
  • The Vault section is not that major a part of the game that it deserves that much discussion is it?
  • "such as the Metal Gear Solid-inspired Shadow Moses Island" - isn't there an article for MGS (the game)? If yes, why link to the series' article?
  • "Sakurai stated that these people had spent excessive amounts of time playing Super Smash Bros. Melee" - quote needs source
  • "we would like to launch this game on January 24th, 2008" - wlink the date
  • "aside from Snake.[67] The inclusion of Konami-created character Solid Snake" - probably use his full name and wlink him the first time you name him....
  • "Suggestions were no longer being taken..." - probably merge this with the previous paragraph
  • "who awarded it with a perfect score[83]," - put ref after comma
  • Check italics for ref publishers in reception section (especially).
  • "In Japan, Brawl sold over 500,000 units on launch day,[90]" - any reason why you use a French source for this? In any case, can you get one in English?
  • Is the Development section image necessary?
  • Same in the Inclusion of characters section.

Personally, I thought it was way too similar to SSBM. Agree with some of the reviewers noted, I guess. The multiplayer was good, as is always the case with a Smash Bros. game...but nothing to get massively excited over, IMO. Well, you could get excited over my comments here, I suppose. :) Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the multiple comments! Due to me being very busy today, I'll probably check these out tomorrow. A quick glance, however, shows me that I can do some really interesting fixing up with your suggestions. (P.S. love the username water) --haha169 (talk) 04:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed Things by haha169 in response to Dihydrogen Monoxide:
    • I fixed the Smash Bros. DOJO references, added Sakurai, Masahiro as the author of each ref tag that was lacking. --haha169 (talk) 05:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Lead consistency-changed "Super Smash Bros. Brawl" in lead to "Brawl".--haha169 (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Added year for pre-E3 thing. --haha169 (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Fixed up the lead per the newsletter. --haha169 (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Removed the unnecessary second comma in, "At E3 2007, Nintendo of America's president, Reggie Fils-Aime, stated..."--haha169 (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Image caption no longer implies that there are teams. --haha169 (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "who awarded it with a perfect score[83]," - I moved the ref after the comma. --haha169 (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I feel those images are necessary to address Snake as a Third party (in inclusion of characters), but the Sonic/Mario one is confusing. Its been there for a while, but I have never questioned its location before. I suggest you ask one of the older editors such as Satoryu or Jéské. --haha169 (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • We used the French ref because it is a little difficult to find Japanese launch day sales data. Apparently, Gamespot, IGN, and 1up didn't care about it. --haha169 (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Masahiro Sakurai has been changed to "Sakurai" all except two important instances and un-wikilinked. --haha169 (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The Vault section is, aside from multi-player and solo modes, the only place where you can actually play Brawl. Therefore, I find it important to mention objects such as stickers that affect solo gamelay.--haha169 (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "Transporting...Subspace" That quote is now fixed. I didn't really use your suggestion, but it is fixed nonetheless. --haha169 (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "As in the previous game" is only mentioned once, and I think it being as a reference to Melee is quite useful. --haha169 (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't see anything wrong with the italics in the ref section. Edge and Nintendo Power are italicized due to them being published magazines. The rest are not because they are just websites. We do this according the the VG Reviews infobox. --haha169 (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The ref templates continuity issue; (publisher/work) issue has been fixed. --haha169 (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The reliable cite says exactly that, so there is no valid argument against the non-invincible/invincible thing. However, I could give an example: Stafy is not invincible in any way.--haha169 (talk) 04:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "Brawl's roster of Nintendo characters expands from that of its predecessor, while also being the first in the series to feature third-party characters" was fixed after that massive intro revision. --haha169 (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Support. My issues are addressed; I will continue to copyedit. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Thanks a lot! Your new copyedit seems to have fixed quite a few extremely stupid "word flow" issues. I'll see if I can catch more of those.--haha169 (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Seems to fit the bill. RC-0722 247.5/1 04:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. An FA nominator rarely gets much appreciation, and we take these rare supports as our reward of a job well done. However, same as I asked the above neutral, could you expand a bit than that one sentence? I would love to know what are the positives of the article we worked so hard on. --haha169 (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, a lot of work on prose needed. Dihydrogen Monoxide provides a great starting list above, but you really need to grab an unfamiliar and experienced copyeditor to work through the text. Issues easily spotted - these are just from the lead:
    • The long line of Japanese characters in the first line is extremely visually distracting. The game is sold in English-speaking countries with an official English name; the Japanese characters are not needed.
    • "The game's musical score was composed through the collaboration between 38 renowned video game composers." Grammar.
    • "The soundtrack ultimately consists of various themes present in previously released video games." What purpose is the word "ultimately" serving?
    • "Later that night, Masahiro Sakurai, the director of the previous two games in the Smash Bros. series, accepted the role of director for the third installment." Accepted from whom?
    • "... Nintendo had enlisted the help of various outside developers to work exclusively for Brawl..." They didn't work for "Brawl", they worked for Nintendo, yes?
    • "However, the game would later be delayed to February 10, 2008..." Grammar.
    • I have to echo Dihydrogen Monoxide's comment that the frequent "As with its predecessors..." comments are not necessary. --Laser brain (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Laser, I appreciate your concerns, and they are quite similar to dihydorgen's views. However, your first concern will not be addressed unless you are able to change the Wikipedia policy. A small note on a Wikiproject which isn't even supported just simply will not do. I'll work on the others once I am done addressing Maralia's and dihydrogen's. --haha169 (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt attention. As I said, these are just examples - you need someone who has not worked on this article to give it a fresh copyedit. --Laser brain (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand. Do you have any good copy-editors in mind, though? --haha169 (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed Things by haha169 in response to Laser brain:
    • "Ultimately" is no longer in that sentence.--haha169 (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't see what is wrong with the grammar here: "The game's musical score was composed through the collaboration between 38 renowned video game composers." --haha169 (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The sentences: "Later that night, Masahiro Sakurai, the director of the previous two games in the Smash Bros. series, accepted the role of director for the third installment." and "... Nintendo had enlisted the help of various outside developers to work exclusively for Brawl..." are no longer remotely the same in the current revision, and your concerns have been fixed in the revision.--haha169 (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "However, the game would later be delayed to February 10, 2008..." - Fixed. --haha169 (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm happy to copyedit this one (as I did SSBM) if you like (since Laser brain asked for one). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks so much! Any copy-editing, especially in the lead and trimming down the gameplay section, would be extremely helpful. I trust that you are at least somewhat familiar with the game so you know what things to trim out and what to keep? Anyways, thanks again! --haha169 (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, and could you cross out all the things that you think are fixed? I provided a list of what I think I've fixed down below. I would like to know what concerns I have fixed. --haha169 (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Criterion 3 concerns:
    • Image:Brawlmenu.jpg, Image:SSB Sonic Mario.PNG, Image:SolidSnakeandMarioinBrawl.jpg - all of them don't really fit criteria 3 for WP:FA?, under Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, p. 8 (note, the wording is under reconsideration, so I'm applying both to this FAC.) According to the current version, "non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", the proposal reads "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article." How are the above shots defensible as contributing significantly to the article's content? The 'playable characters' tells us everyone who is in the game, so how do mugshots significantly help the reader? For the sonic-solid snake shots; how do vanity shots really help the text? You can just click a link to see what Snake and Sonic look like, so there has to be some commentary for them to stand on their own (also, the choice of images overall is somewhat bad. Why oh why is Mario in every screenshot???) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Snake and Sonic are in the images with Mario to show their presence in the game as the first third-party characters within the game. The character roster is there to show who is in the game without over-fluffing the text as well as showing the reader what Brawl's select screen looks like (this style is the same in all of Brawl's select screens). Furthermore, each of the Wii games have a significantly different select screen style (Search Metroid Prime 3, and Mario Galaxy's select screens on Google), so this image is also relaying that information. As for your question regarding Mario, he is in every image because Nintendo decided to release only images that had Mario in them. The ones that didn’t have Mario in them were images that we deemed not necessary to include. I’ve just noticed that, but Mario is a very important Nintendo mascot…--haha169 (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
        • References and prose tell readers that Sonic and Snake are in the game; how does an image significantly aid that? What makes Brawl's select screen very important to readers who have never played the game? None of these images have any sort of commentary attached to them; if they serve as window dressing, they should not be in the article. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I stand by the character roster. Melee has an image of the character screen, but they have a luxury that we don't: an image released by Nintendo that includes all the characters. Therefore, we use a select screen. It is important to the reader to know exactly what kind of characters are making an appearance and how the game's selection is styled. You could be right about the Mario and Sonic one, since that image has no relevancy to the text, but the Snake and Mario must stay as well. For one point, none of the images in the Solid Snake article depicts him from outside the Metal Gear world. This particular one includes him and his trademark Cardboard box (Brawl style), as well as Mario on Delfino Plaza. There is absolutely no alternative to this at all. Even the graphics on the images in the Solid Snake article are different. --haha169 (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
            • I've asked Elco to give a second opinion on the images. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
              • All right. I take it that Elco is an editor, not a bot or program? I'll wait for his comments, then. --haha169 (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
                • Oh sorry, Elco is User:Elcobbola, he's pretty much the go-to guy for Ffair use/image concerns. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • Okay. I couldn't find an "elco" anywhere. Thanks for clarifying that. He seems trustworthy and experienced so I'll take his suggestions. However, I think the Snake image should still stay. If the other two must be removed, then so be it. --haha169 (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • A short comment:
    • Almost immediately into the lead there is abundance of VG jargon that could be simplified or emphasized less until there is more space to do the explanation. For someone who almost never plays video games (except for a penchant for Soulcalibur II), the jargonish aspects make navigating the article much more difficult, especially so soon into the text. --Kakofonous (talk) 04:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
      • What type of "jargon" are you talking about? In the first paragraph, all I see is a nice description about the game's development. The second is a short summary on the game's gameplay and the third is the game's reception. The lead seems fine to me. As for the gameplay section, it might be a little too long, but it is hardly making the article difficult to navigate. --haha169 (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Laser Brain and Kakofonous, i.e. for problems with prose and over-abundance with jargon. I went in and did some copy-editing before having a look at the FAC discussion here, only to note that many of the things I'd changed had been raised as concerns here already, e.g. the frequent "As with its predecessors" (and variants thereof). In combination, it looks too much as though this article is only comprehensible by, and is indeed aimed at, those who are already familiar with the previous game in the "Super Smash Bros" series. This is an unacceptably small potential public. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Which is, obviously, why I'm requesting for copy-editors. So far, all of the editors on the article, with the possible exception of our GA assessor (who became a minor editor after the assessment) is familiar with the game. Therefore, it is rather difficult to phrase it in a way which makes it easier to understand. However, I believe that the article is still well written enough that people who are not familiar with the article will still be able to understand, except for some parts of the Gameplay. You don't have to be familiar with the subject to understand the Development and Reception sections. However, I agree that a thorough copy-edit in the Gameplay section may be needed.--haha169 (talk) 02:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak support The article is very good but I'm sure that there is some things that we can do to improve the article. If I had any ideas on how to improve it, I'd say so. If anyone can suggest on how to improve the article, suggest ideas.Looneyman (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per criterion three concerns:
    • Image:Brawlmenu.jpg - NFCC#3A requires minimal use. Image:SSBB Cover.jpg already contains numerous character images in amount and detail that seem perfectly adequate to provide illustration/understanding/etc. of the characters, their style, their types, etc. I'm not convinced of the necessity of seeing every last character; a sampling is sufficient to provide the desired understanding.
    • Image:SSB Sonic Mario.PNG appears to be purely decorative. That the two characters appear together is a concept conveyed easily by prose (NFCC#1). Seeing Sonic (Mario appears on the cover) does not seem to be necessary (NFCC#3A) to understand the game, the rivalry, etc. If you're desperate to have them together, why not replace Image:SSBB Emissary Gameplay.jpg (which is Mario vs. Pit) with an equivalent in which Mario is against Sonic?
      • Yes, I totally agree. I've removed this from the article. --haha169 (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Image:SolidSnakeandMarioinBrawl.jpg does not have a license (NFCC#10B) and also appears to be replaceable by text and/or depiction of Snake seems capable of being consolidated into a gameplay shot. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Reply I'll consider removing the Brawl Menu after a talk page excursion, but I still believe Snake's image should stay. My reasons are listed above with my discussion with David Fuchs. --haha169 (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
        • As an actionable item relevant to this FAC, I'm not sure an excursion is necessary, but I'm happy to continue the discussion in a different venue, if so desired. On the issue of snake, try not to focus too much on the character. Remember, the article is about SSBB, so the primary consideration for fair use images is whether they help us to understand that topic. Why is seeing Snake from "outside the Metal Gear world" necessary to understand SSBB itself or his inclusion therein? The importance of Snake, as discussed in the article, seems to be that he is a third-party character; how does an image convey this concept above and beyond prose (NFCC#1)? Why not replace one of the gameplay screenshots with one in which Snake is a participant (NFCC#3A), essentially killing two birds with one stone? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 21:25, 13 May 2008.

[edit] The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess

previous FAC

OK, yet another Zelda FAC... a current GA, this article is well-written, referenced and illustrated, since the failed FA candidacy last year has improved very much, and unlike the recent failures, is comprehensive and detailed in all sections. igordebraga ≠ 16:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Co-nom User:Igordebraga has let me add myself as a co-nom :) Cheers! Gary King (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from David Fuchs (talk · contribs)
  • Ouch, that hurt... I wouldn't call any FAC a "failure"... but anyway, some opening comments:
    • "Twilight met with both commercial and critical success." - eh, could you expand that and state what reviewers liked/didn't about the game?
    • "it was delayed by Nintendo so that the EAD staff could add more content and refine the game." since it's a new paragraph, replace "it" with Twilight Princess and specify who EAD is- I can figure out its the people you were talking about in the first paragraph, but suddenly using the abbreviation is bad.

I'll have more to say later, but for now, I got real-life fish to fry. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Sorry if my words were bad (specially because the second one was your work... and was very close to passing, unlike the first one). But anyway, fixed both suggestions, and I'm open to anything you say, Fuchs. igordebraga ≠ 22:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No problem, my man. Anyway, some more stuff:
    • The whole first paragraph of gameplay is horrible for anyone who has never picked up a Zelda game: "Twilight Princess features a stylized, naturalistic art style (similar to, but far more advanced than that found in Ocarina of Time), rather than the cel-shaded look that The Wind Waker exhibited — although it still makes use of cel-shading effects, as it uses a very heavily modified version of The Wind Waker’s engine.[1] In a further departure from The Wind Waker, Link is once again a young man, as opposed to a child, as in the latter part of Ocarina of Time and in The Adventure of Link. The game also has a darker tone, similar to Majora's Mask.[10]" - if you're going to talk about these other games, do so in relation to what they *are*, ex. more advanced than previous game OoT" or something similar.) Really, it shouldn't start out like this at all: is it a third person shooter? Who knows, because that info isn't there.
    • Continuing with gameplay: "The singular exception to this is Midna" exception to what? "Returning from Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask, a horse can again be ridden in Twilight Princess." bad sentence structure, et al. Really, the gameplay needs to be reorganized so it flows better and addresses key issues.
    • Abilities section; seems to belong with statements in gameplay, another reason it needs to be reorganized.
    • Plot: perhaps there should be a setting/characters component to the synopsis so people are familiarized with the game and its world?
      • The other Legend of Zelda FAs don't have these, so that's the route this article took, also. Gary King (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "British publication NGC Magazine claimed, in December 2005, that when the GameCube version is played on Wii, the player will be given the option of using the Wii's unique controller;[33] and it was not suspected that two versions of the game would be released." Lots of, commas here, make, it hard to read.
      • Fixed. ("just funny" note: in a previous FAC of mine, someone used the same reasoning saying Eats, Shoots & Leaves instead)
    • "Some reviews have mentioned drawbacks about the game, however. The most commonly mentioned is that the game, having been designed for the GameCube, is not up to scratch with the cutting-edge graphics of its competitors. Some aspects of the game's design have been more firmly criticized by a number of reviewers. " Doesn't sound like good prose, and is unreferenced. Don't deal with generalities, or source them.
      • Fixed, unless you have more examples. igordebraga ≠ 04:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

More later, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Begun the first and second, will try my best to fix (even if I haven't played it yet, have a GameCube but could only afford Wind Waker). igordebraga ≠ 02:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Reworked Gameplay (thus first, second and third potentially done). igordebraga ≠ 17:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Comments (2) from David Fuchs (talk · contribs)
It's still nebulous for someone who hasn't played the game.
  • Comments
    • "Along with new weapons, Link can get two shields, one made of wood and other of metal, and three suits, the regular green garb, a Zora Armor which allows him to breathe underwater, and the Magic Armor which gives invincibility while draining his money. Unlike previous games, magic arrows are not available..." Why would someone who has never played the game know what magic arrows are, or care?
    • "Twilight Princess retains the basic gameplay from the 3D Zelda games, with basic actions such as walking, running, attacking, defending, and automatic jumping at ledges."- can you talk about what kind of a game TP is before we launch into how it is similar?
    • "The protagonist Link also uses the control system introduced in Ocarina of Time that allows him to "lock-on" to an enemy or other target." Suddenly jumps into minutiae of gameplay, once again is not helping a novice reader understand the game.
    • "Link battles enemies, collects items, and solves puzzles to progress through a dungeon, fighting a boss at the end. " this is better, but it's entirely understated. How does the story progress? How do players advance through stages? What people and items aid Link in his quest? What new gameplay features were added? The section seems looped in on itself and not following a most-important -> detail scheme which makes it confusing to read.
    • "Link is a young adult similar to the one from latter part of Ocarina of Time, unlike the child hero from the previous game, and as opposed to the cartoon-looking cel-shaded of its predecessor, Twilight Princess features a stylized, naturalistic art style, similar to, but far more advanced than that found in Ocarina of Time." awkward sentence, break up into two. Perhaps you should explain why it doesn't follow The Wind Waker look, and how that was a radical departure from previous games? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
      • More gameplay work, and put why it doesn't follow in Development. What I missed, and anything else? igordebraga ≠ 05:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
All other links worked. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


  • Comment The pictures "sandwiching" text with the infobox is problematic and will need to be addressed. Perhaps shrink the infobox picture some, remove the imput devices and media, and that will give you more room for pictures. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I've moved one of the images down. It should be better now. Gary King (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Fix that reception section box, and I'll give a more elaborate comment. (The awards section is completely irrelevant. Just leave the Game of the Year awards at the bottom of a normal VG Reviews template box. --haha169 (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Separate those awards with a new section...I believe there is one, but I forgot the code. And keep only the MOST relevant game of the year awards...since those are awkwardly long. (Gamespot and X-Play game of year. That's it). The rest of the article seems nice. Cut down a bit on the plot if possible, and remove one of those 3 images in the gameplay section. (Or relocate it) --haha169 (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm using the Awards feature of {{VG Reviews}} for the awards, and have stripped it down to only a few. Gary King (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks like my comments have been addressed. I Support, as soon as I see the plot section cut down a bit more. --haha169 (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This page is showing me a grand total of FIVE dead links in the article. You should try and fix that immediately. --haha169 (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

All fixed Gary King (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm Supporting this article now. It have improved vastly since the day I first wrote a complaint about the images on the talk page. In fact, I was ignored! FAC does wonders to articles...--haha169 (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Why are you supporting twice? igordebraga ≠ 05:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Haha, it would be helpful if you would keep your commentary together (I've moved this) and Support only once. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I'll keep that in mind. I honestly don't remember supporting before, unless I changed my mind and forgot to mention it here. I changed my mind after I noticed the image clutter, then decided to support once that happened and the fact that the article vastly improved. Sorry about the misunderstanding. I forgot to leave a note. --haha169 (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support - Got some things to fix;
  • Fair use rationales are extremely vague; they need to say exactly what they demonstrate and why it significantly contributes to the article.
  • None of the images really demonstrate the art direction which was so highly praised, perhaps replace one of the gameplay images, which seem somewhat redundant, with one showing the art style. A shot from the Twilight realm might work.
    • Not sure what shot you are looking for. Anyways, I don't have my Wii with me right now... Gary King (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Added a new image to Development highlighting artistic style in the Twilight Realm, since one image was removed from Gameplay. Gary King (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • There is no reference in the box for EGM's Game Informers game of the year.
  • Just noticed, a bunch of citations are unformatted and are just bare internet links.
    • They were just added by some anonymous users. They are done. Gary King (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Those are the only issues I see. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

All resolved, though I still think that there should be a picture showing the much praised art direction. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, a picture showing the art direction, hurray! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Reliable sources need to be resolved, not per a WikiProject, not per a Wiki article: per WP:V. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs)
  • "and Nintendo GameCube video game consoles." - just "gamecube" will do fine...
    I think it should be kept. Doesn't detract from the statement and helps clarify that both the Wii and GameCube are video game consoles. Gary King (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "Nintendo so that the" - rmv that
  • "The Wii version was released on the dates of the Wii launch, in November and December of 2006." - what was the actual date? It can't be both months...
  • "Twilight met with both" - use its full name (as in, TP)
  • "review websites such as IGN, EGM, 1UP.com, and Game Informer " - check italics...IGN, for instance, shouldn't...nor should 1UP, not sure about rest
  • "he basic gameplay from the 3D Zelda games is retained, with basic" - basic...basic...reword
  • "there is a 'lock-on' mechanism" - on what? Clarify that it's on the hook
    Lock-on is for any weapon in the game; it is not dependent on what weapon you are using. Gary King (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "the set name of the horse from Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask" - both have been wlinked already
  • "Along with new weapons..." - split shields and suits into separate sentences, for flow
  • "will come through the television like other sounds instead" - the stuff after television probably isn't necessary...at least, rmv instead
  • "a control scheme mostly identical" woah....
  • "The AI can also detect the player from a much larger distance than in Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, or The Wind Waker." - needs source
  • Ref 24: Wired needs italics
  • In Music section, just use surnames for people after first mention
  • "then-untitled Zelda game was shown." - italics needed
  • Work on short paragraphs in Development section
  • "and the award of Best..." - refs needed here
  • "one for GCN" - GCN - GameCube. ALso ref needed here
  • 1st para of Wii version section has qoutes needing refs
  • "[43]--->" - typo?
  • "a web site that compiles game reviews and averages reviewers' scores" - not needed; wlink is there. Same for Metacritic
  • "month by Game Informer in the January 2007 issue." - needs italics and ref

dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

All of the above are done. Gary King (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I am withholding my support until the stability issue noted by Coanda-1910 is resolved—a note on my talk page when that's done will get my support (or, if I forget, consider this a support if the oppose below is struck...thanks Sandy! :). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Coanda-1910 (talk · contribs)
  • Weak Oppose: There's a current discussion on the article thread about the last sentence of the opener - the one about some reviewers calling it the "greatest Zelda game ever." I have an opinion on the topic, laid out in the talk page, but that's not really what this objection is about. I simply think that the opening section of the article probably ought to be stable before it gets FA status. If consensus is reached on the topic (either way), I'll withdraw my opposition. Coanda-1910 (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    It's not really unstable as it hasn't been touched in a few days. The page just agreed with the user but a few users helped pitch in to make the statement less POV and more accurate. Gary King (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Stability issues would be that major facts about the article are changing, massive vandalism or edit wars; wording issues do not equal article stability problems. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
If there was anything to oppose about this article, it would probably be the 3 images clogging the gameplay section. One of the first two could be removed in the future if consensus is reached, but it isn't that big of an issue. Stability definitely isn't a problem. --haha169 (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I still am not exactly thrilled about the way it reads and I did see an ongoing discussion of the wording, but I can see either side and don't have a major issue with it as is; I also agree that it's not a huge part of the article. Withdrawing objection. Coanda-1910 (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Midna bids Link and Zelda farewell, and then shatters the twilight mirror with one of her tears. After Midna enters the portal, the Mirror shatters" in the final Plot paragraph sound redundant. Also the first two gameplay screneshots, the first one could be removed completely and the second put in its place to make that area seem less cluttered. Also the second screenshot could be cropped of its black bars to match the rest of the screenshots. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    Reworded. "After Midna" is used, though, because both Link and Zelda are mentioned in the previous sentence (and Zelda is female, so 'She' would be ambiguous). Moved image, and cropped. Gary King (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Great job, the article looks wonderful, and it satisfies the criteria. Hello32020 (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The writing is only just reasonable (much improved in this area from a while ago, but it needs to be polished, especially after the top—a quick run through by a copy-editor). Just at random (suggesting there's lots more) ...
    • "Link can get different armor"—but stubby, and "get" is ungainly here. Then "which ... which".
    • ice, fire and Light: one cap?
  • More commas wouldn't go astray (less objective, though). Especially in longish sentences.
    • "Wolf Link has also an improved sense of smell, which allows him to follow trails left by certain characters in the game (or obtaining scents of other things to guide him, such as medicine or fish), and is also the only way players are able to see wandering spirits and hunt for the Poes—which can neither be seen (except for the lanterns they carry) nor attacked without the ability"—If "also" really is necessary (often it's not), it's in the wrong position. "to obtain", surely, to match the previous grammar; then a totally redundant "also". Weed them out. This sentence is a long snake.
  • "The game's score was composed by"—Which word is redundant? And "the game's title screen".
  • "Kondo originally stated that he "would really like to push for" the music being performed by an orchestra, as he considers live instruments much more deep and expressive than the ones used in digital music." Ungrammatical; why not "for an acoustic orchestral performance" (and I think you need to distinguish it from a synthesised orchestral sound.
  • "The game falls chronologically over a century after Ocarina of Time"—No, use "more than" or we think it's over = during the course of. Boring to have to disambiguate in reverse.

Now these are taken throughout at random. It's within reach, but not promotable yet. Please let me know when someone fresh has worked on it. TONY (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Issues resolved, Black Kite 17:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Black Kite 17:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The items above have been addressed. Gary King (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Criterion 3: I was the reviewer who asked Black Kite to take a look at the copyright implications, so that I (and perhaps others) have an opportunity of learning how this critical aspect of WP's mission should be reviewed. Thank you, Black Kite. TONY (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Laser brain (talk · contribs)
  • Oppose, 1a. Very good start, but the prose is not up to standard yet. Suggest a general copyedit by an experienced and uninvolved editor. The gameplay and plot sections stray into "game guide" territory and away from our general audience.
    • The lengthy translation of the title is extremely visually distracting. What is the purpose? This is en.wiki. If someone wants to see the title in Japanese they can click the interwiki link, yes?
    • There are too many sentences in the lead that begin with either the game title or "The game..."
    • "This makes Twilight Princess the first Zelda game to debut at the launch of a Nintendo console." Avoid beginning sentences with the word "This" referring to a previous idea. Restate the idea.
    • Ditto: "This is triggered with the Z button for the Wii and the L button for the GameCube."
    • Ditto: "This is not a completely separate place like the Dark World in A Link to the Past..."
    • Need someone to check comma usage throughout.
    • Check single-quote use where double-quotes are proper.
    • "Players start with a wooden shield that can be replaced with a metal one which withstands magical attacks." Surely the character gets the shield, not the player. I mean, that would be pretty cool, but check use of the terms player and character throughout. They are not interchangable.
    • "To operate the game, the Wii version uses the Wii Remote..." The player uses the remote, not the "Wii version".
    • Check for passive voice that eliminates or obscures the subjects. --Laser brain (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed the above issues; I'll do another run through the article to check it again. Gary King (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Could you take a second look at the article? I think we resolved these issues now. Gary King (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Gary, I think further work is needed, although I have tremendous respect for the work you have done thus far. I think this would benefit from an "uninvolved" copyedit which is means you grab an editor who hasn't seen the text. I recommended getting a non-video game person because this still reads too much like a game guide in places. I've had the experience of looking at my own article until I'm goo-goo and I know it's hard to disengage and ask for an external copyedit.. but it needs it. --Laser brain (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I've asked around already; I'm awaiting responses. All the copyedits I know are up to their necks in copyediting requests, and I can't blame them for passing this one up. Why does everyone have to discriminate against video game articles so much :p Gary King (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I managed to somehow get Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare to FA status a few days ago, so I don't see why I can't get this one there, also. C'mon, pull it together Gary! Alright, I just got to refresh my mental state first before doing a thorough copyediting of this article; I love Zelda, but I've read this article so many times that I sometimes feel like I live in the Zelda universe. Gary King (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I have asked User:Laser brain to take a second look at the article after making some major changes to it. Gary King (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I sincerely hate to say it but much more work still needed. I think you desperately need a fresh pair of eyes on this. I don't have to go far into the Gameplay section before the writing is more Nintendo Power than Wikipedia. Attention needed to grammar, and sentences like "There are also three suits: the standard green garb, a Zora Armor which allows Link to breathe underwater, and a Magic Armor which provides invincibility while draining his money." --Laser brain (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I have made another significant change to the Gameplay section. Let me know if it has improved. Gary King (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments from BuddingJournalist (talk · contribs)
  • Oppose 1a. Examples:
    • "with the help of a mysterious creature named Midna" Ambiguous "with". ("prevent...with the help of" or "engulfing Hyrule with the help of"?)
    • "In addition, review websites " "In addition" does not work here as the previous sentence is unrelated.
    • "The basic gameplay from the 3D Zelda games" This assumes readers are familiar with the gameplay of these "3D" Zelda games.
      • It is explained in the next sentence.
    • "The game features several dungeons, which are large, enclosed, and often underground areas where" Ungainly "often...where" construct.
    • "To complete a dungeon, Link primarily uses" Presumably he uses these to fight enemies, not to "complete" a dungeon. Or maybe I'm just not getting the nebulous definition of "complete" here.
    • "warp points" Explain/link for the uninitiated please.
    • "the set name of the horse" What is a "set" name?
    • "Along with the new weapons, different armor is available for Link" What? Where is the mention of "the new weapons" beforehand? We just have a description of weapons. What's new? What does "different" mean in this context? Different meaning from previous games? Or different as in players can choose different pieces of armor as they see fit?
    • "the former is used by Zelda" link please.
    • "To operate the game, the Wii version" misplaced modifier
    • "He transforms into a wolf he enters the Twilight Realm" huh?
    • In general, the article relies far too heavily on the passive. BuddingJournalist 17:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Fixed all - but the passive, that will take more time... igordebraga ≠ 03:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Could you take a second look at the article? I think we resolved these issues now. Gary King (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm still an oppose here per Laser brain. The writing does not sparkle and the article seems to assume readers are familiar with the series/game, which is a big no-no. Some examples I've found while skimming the article:
  • "The story focuses on Link, who tries to prevent the Twilight Realm from engulfing Hyrule." And the Twilight Realm is what? An organization? This is in the lead, no less.
  • "exists that allows circle strafing while staying aimed on the enemy, which is triggered" Awkward placement of "which"
  • "Twilight Princess only offers regular arrows" This is contradicted by the next clause and sentence.
  • "Twilight Realm, a void which corrupted parts of Hyrule"
  • "When Link is in wolf form...When in wolf form, Link"
  • "and hunt for Poes, which can neither be" And Poes are?
  • "The built-in speaker on the remote is used for sounds " Is used for? The reader wonders by whom. Try "emits" or something similar.
  • "The enemy's AI in" Abbreviations should be spelled out on first use. This particular use of "AI" is colloquial and is pretty much only used in video game parlance. I would not consider it standard for an encyclopedia.
  • "Enemies react to a defeated enemy" Huh?
  • "There is no extensive voice acting in the game" Jarring jump of topic in the middle of a paragraph. BuddingJournalist 08:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I've made another major copyedit of the Gameplay section, so please let me know if it has improved. Gary King (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Still far too easy to spot errors. Few examples:
  • "To make combat easier, a "lock-on" mechanism exists allowing..." Long, awkward sentence. Begin by changing "mechanism exists allowing" -> "mechanism allows" and go from there.
  • "help him jump further"
  • "with a stylized, naturalistic art style" ambiguous modifier.
  • "a very heavily" We can do better than "very". The "however" in the sentence makes little sense.
  • "and the Nunchuk's motion sensors and pointers in conjunction with the buttons." No idea what is trying to be said here. Link for Nunchuk?
  • "By comparison, the GameCube version uses a control scheme similar to The Wind Waker" That'd be a fine comparison if only all readers are familiar with how to play The Wind Waker.
  • "A major difference between the control schemes" Which control schemes? The Wind Waker and the GameCube version of Twilight Princess, as the previous sentence suggests? Or the Wii and GameCube version?
  • "is that Link is able to equip only two items because the Z button is used to call Midna if the player is in need of help" And this is referring to which control scheme?
  • "before he wakes and" Wakes -> either "wakes up" or "awakens".
  • "if he will help her" help her do what? BuddingJournalist 12:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Japanese characters—Laser brain is perfectly justified in raising the issue of just why the bizarre practice of stamping out non-Roman characters is slavishly repeated in this article (there's even a romanised equivalent of the Japanese-language title, which doesn't help either). The fact that it has been occurring unchecked in other video-game articles provides more reason to question the practice, since the openings of so many of our vid articles are damaged by what is meaningless clutter to all but a tiny, privileged minority of English-speakers. The place for Japanese characters is in the Japanese WP, like ... HERE.

See my objection to this regrettable practice at the WikiProject: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Japanese characters are totally inappropriate. I suggest that the nominator make the first strike against the clutter by removing it (and probably the romanised Japanese-language equivalent, too); that would enable the text to engage our readers at the very start, rather than distract them and interrupt their concentration. TONY (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I always enjoy being part of a revolution. Where do I sign up? Oh, right... removed! Kazaam. I should also point out that this article is in no way a representation of support or opposition to this guideline put forward by this WikiProject. Please don't sue me. Gary King (talk) 16:12, 6 May 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 14:27, 11 May 2008.

[edit] Strap-on dildo

I have read the article and was blown away at its thoroughness. It is comprehensive; just about anything one would want to know about strap on dildoes. Its prose is brilliant, at times poetic. It has a number of tasteful images that instruct and enlighten without becoming overbearing. I can't believe this isn't already an FA. It features the best of wikipedia, nay humanity. JeanLatore (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. Seems to be completely unreferenced. Is this a joke? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • STRONG OPPOSE and DELIST Unreferenced.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is clearly a joke Stu pendousmat (talk) 01:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose because it does not mention there is a tiny island in Florida Bay called Dildo Key. Named for the dildo cactus, which is named for the dildo. Oh, and the lack of citations is a minor annoyance. --Moni3 (talk) 01:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strap off (I tried) Clearly a joke nom. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry. As much as I'd like it to be a featured article (being the original author and photographer), no one has anwered my pleas for help finding references (I can't cite myself or product lists for everything), and as such it is not going to be a featured article at this time (I'll save the rant on why reference-obsession hurts the encyclopedia for another place). If you want it to be a featured article, please lend a hand finding references! due to the taboo (and often illegal) nature of most of the activities strapons are used for, references are hard to find, and I don't have access to some of the places that would provide good references. So remove the nomination now, lend a hand finding some, then submit it again! Bushytails (talk) 06:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The principle editor has stated the article isn't FAC ready and has requested withdrawal. I have left a note for JeanLatore's mentor and will also leave a note for JeanLatore to adhere to WP:FAC instructions in the future. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:58, 11 May 2008.

[edit] Omar Khadr

This article represents the collaborative work of a number of editors (myself included), from a variety of backgrounds with some diametrically-opposed viewpoints on the case. However it has been torn apart with a fine NPOV comb from both sides, leaving it a strong article without even a whiff of POV remaining.

It is timely, as Khadr's military commission is scheduled to begin very shortly - and is the only Guantanamo-related article that nears Featured Article status. Close collaboration with sources, including the family of the subject, the author of a book on the subject, the Department of Defense (and yes, JTFGTMO staff at Guantanamo themselves) means that every single photograph (31 of them!) has been released into the public domain, every letter that the subject has written has similarly been released, Wikisource has all the trial documentation of each of his trials in the past six years (linked from the WP article), as well as a number of Public-Domain news releases about the case (chiefly from the DoD, with one coming from The Wire as I recall).

With 249 citations, spanning every single statement in the article, an effort has even been made to double tap references and provide at least two references for each fact.

The article is long (although fits within the maximum size dictated by Wikipedia:Article size), and has been carefully vetted and had sentences, paragraphs, even entire sections pulled out to keep it as concise as possible. Some have been moved to the articles on other family members (see template at the bottom), while others have been moved to the fork Canadian response to Omar Khadr. Nary a stray word should still exist in the article that isn't necessary - we've boiled down six years of news articles, a full-length novel and a number of documentaries, into a single Wiki article. Modesty aside, it is a marvel at how much information is contained within.

Since April it has undergone a Peer Review and passed GA-status, and now it only awaits the necessary mechanism to become a Featured Article.

  • Nominator is the significantly principle editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Per article stats:
Sherurcij 678 11/12/2005 02:09 05/08/2008 14:36 32:12 h
Geo Swan 89 03/27/2005 23:24 05/03/2008 08:01 12.9 d
Dlafferty 23 03/22/2008 22:16 04/19/2008 08:26 29:52 h
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: There are a large number of images in the article that result in "breaking" the text into blocks with lots of whitespace. Many of these images are similar to others, for instance, the three images of "the building". Many of these images should be removed, or moved into a separate gallery. Maury (talk) 03:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I assume it's an issue of screen resolution - is it just the shots of the compound that are "breaking" the article layout for you? If so, I'll move the three left-aligned shots to a Commons-link in the footer. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 03:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Update, three images removed to Commons, CommonsCat link added. Article layout should not be 'broken' anymore. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 17:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment There are a large number of images. Some are perhaps unnecessary and redundant, such as the multiple photos of him as a child, and multiple shots of the destroyed buildings. Perhaps if you could rearrange and reduce the photos it would be easier to read. If you have a large screen resolution try reducing the size of the window to simulate a smaller screen size, or just change your entire screen resolution in your system settings. I'm on a laptop with 1440x900 and the images were rather crowded and produced large white spaces. I only gave the prose a cursory glance but the multitude of images made it hard to read. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 05:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Images should be fixed now, yes? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 07:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Not quite, so I took the liberty of fixing it myself. I removed some of the photos which I thought were unnecessary. If you object to the removals, you can always put a gallery or a link to a commons gallery (which is more the standard)... otherwise, photos should not crowd the article. As a general rule, there should not be more than one photo per two or three paragraphs, and photos should not be on both sides of the page at once, which tends to squeeze the text between them. Photos should not have pixel sizes unless it is necessary to display a photo at larger sizes, they should be determined by user preferences by default. Also, I fixed the table which had some coding errors and I centered it because there just wasn't enough room for it to have text floated around it. Another issue, the introduction is awfully short for such a long article. It should be expanded to provide a more thorough summary of the entire article. I found multiple violations of the Manual of Style so I'm reserving support for a more in-depth analysis because this is a hefty read. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Wow, I think perhaps you were a little over-the-top in removing photos. It's important to the context of the article for somebody reading it to see the photos of the helicopter medevac, or when it says "The Vice-President's office released an image of Khadr planting landmines", to show that image. I've restored the photos themselves, but you're right about the sizing issue - so I've taken your advice there and removed the default sizes in favour of user-supported thumbnails (with the exception of Image:KHadr5.png which requires a default size to show any detail). In addition, your comment about the number of photos doesn't take into the account the fact the article text has seen 2 or 3 paragraphs merged into one throughout it, in an attempt to condense the size. There are over 300 sentences, with only 31 images, making it an image per ten sentences. And finally, the only 'profile' images which could be argued to be unnecessary, are in those sections that don't otherwise have many photos. Yee and Begg are the two most obvious candidates that could be moved...but since those sections would otherwise have no images and they're Public Domain, I don't see that there's much point. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 14:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) sorry, but I think re-adding the images was a bad idea, the "breakage" is back and I'm on a second computer. I stand by my first comment: many of these images are redundant. Khadr as a young child. is a good one, but we certainly don't need Khadr at the Metro Toronto Zoo., which is both poor quality and shows the same topic. We then have Khadr was known as his mother's favourite and An early photo of Khadr's mother which have similar problems. I suggest keeping only the first and last of this set. Moving on, I can see no purpose to One of Khadr's colleagues seen in the video, The 57th Medical team that ran the MedEvac. Almost as weak are "Another view of the buildings, A new tent-city, Supreme Court of Canada, Fred Borch, Col. Morris Davis or The interior of the courtroom, The trailer where CSR, which have almost nothing to do with the topic. This is an article about Khadr, not Gitmo. Maury (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Oppose I think everyone is in agreement that there are too many images. Yes, lots of them are relevant, but that doesn't mean they have to be in the article. I'm sure I could find ten thousand photos of cats, but that doesn't mean they all belong in the cat article. It doesn't matter how much the text has been condensed, you can't cram that many photos around such a small amount of text like that, it looks horrible. Either make a gallery or remove the photos. Also, you reverted my changes to the table.... and the first row of the table is unreadable. You should place <small> tags instead of the <sub> tags as it lowers the row of text into the middle of the next row and makes it unreadable. Perhaps you should read the Manual of Style and come back when this article is in better shape. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment (ec) Many images were licensed under the public domain by Zaynab Khadr (talk · contribs) (Zaynab Khadr) here. Do we actually know that this person is indeed the real Zaynab Khadr? It would be better if the Khadr family sent an e-mail through OTRS explicitly saying that they wanted the images licensed under the public domain. I also agree with Maury; there are way too many pictures all around the article ("Early life", "Capture", "The firefight" and "Aftermath" have a lot of whitespace). Some of the pictures are unnecessary, like the four images of the building. There are also MoS issues, such as the placement of references before a comma (it's supposed to be placed after the punctuation mark) and the incorrect linking of dates. "March 31" by itself would be linked, as would "March 31, 1992". "1992" by itself wouldn't be linked, though. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 05:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't think any of the images were licensed by the Wiki user (although it is indeed Zaynab Khadr), but through personal contact with the family. I can certainly have an OTRS ticket created this week however, not a problem. Again, I'm not sure how any of them other than "Aftermath" have whitespace - any chance you could toss a screenshot? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 05:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Update, the referencing issue has been resolved (I also double-checked sequential numbering on multi-refs). If you find me the MoS quote about linking years, I'll fix that as well - but last I heard from MoS, years were never to be linked. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 07:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support -- disclaimer, I worked on this article, but not recently.
    • disclaimer2, I never participated in an FA discussion before.
    • This article has been improved to a remarkable extent. My hats off to those who made the recent improvements.
    • Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose, a decent start but a long way off.
    • Way, way too many images. "Khadr at the Metro Toronto Zoo."? "American soldiers standing outside the compound."? Significant work required to reduce the images to what actually lend comprehension to the article. Free images being available is not a reason to put them all in the article.
    • The formatting/layout are a mess due to the number and placement of images.
    • The lead is much too short for an article of this size. It does not adequately summarize the article.
    • The prose is not up to professional standard in many places. Example: "He claimed his vision of Jannah involved a swimming pool filled with Jell-O." Seemingly random statement unconnected with the preceding statements. Is that supposed to illustrate his being smart?
    • Passive voice obscures or eliminates subjects, even when the subject is required for understanding. Example: "Returning to Pakistan with his family, Ahmed was arrested in 1995 after it was alleged that he had connections to the financing of Ayman al-Zawahiri's bombing of the Egyptian embassy in Pakistan."
    • Vague statements require clarity. Example: "During their stay, the family often visited the compound of Osama Bin Laden, and the children of the two families played together." What two families?
    • Citations are frequently malformed and required information is absent. Example, the book Guantanamo's Child is oft-cited but incorrectly formatted in the References section. Page numbers are not cited, making verification nearly impossible. --Laser brain (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I'll fix the citations in the references section although I don't think it's practical to list a separate page number for all 45 of the references to the book, etc. WP:LEAD is clear that four paragraphs should be the maximum for a lead, I'm not sure which parts you think aren't properly summarised or how the lead should be expanded? If anything, I would expect the opposite argument, that it's too long. Also, not all statements of facts are required "to illustrate his being smart" or anything similar, such a thing would border on POV - the statements exist because they are true and lend context to understanding the person, not to advance a particular belief that the subject is/isn't smart. I'm also unclear how images photos of the battle are not useful to understanding the battle. I've removed three images, and I've said I could understand removing one of the childhood images - but I really don't see that removing photos of his capture would "help" the article in any fashion - quite the opposite I think they would decrease understanding. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 17:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Update: The book citation has been fixed, and the example of "passive voice" and "vague statement" have been rewritten. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 17:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
        • It is not fixed - still malformed. Citing page numbers is not practical now because you didn't do it as you were writing, but it's still needed. There should be separate sections of Notes and References so you can cite the page numbers in notes and then cite the book in the References section. See Ima Hogg for an example. WP:V, non-negotiable. The lead not anywhere near four full paragraphs and doesn't mention much of what the article discusses. The entire body of prose needs work, not just the examples. The photos continue to clutter the entire article - each need a careful examination of what understanding it is providing. The issues with this article will not be solved by a few pokes and prods here at FAC - it needs lengthy and careful examination by copyeditors and other editors. Suggest general peer review or relevant WikiProjects for help. --Laser brain (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
It's been through a peer review, two wikiProjects and Good-Article status. WP:V says nothing about page numbers being "non-negotiable", in fact it doesn't even say they are necessary. I don't mind rewriting the intro to be longer if that's the remaining issue, although I think it currently fits WP:LEAD perfectly. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 18:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Please review my issue list again. The lead is far from the "remaining issue". Quick fixes will not be sufficient here. I will check back in 1 or 2 days to see if substantive work has been done allowing closer examination of the text. --Laser brain (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I just can't help but feel this is not FA and contains way too much information that has little to do with the topic at hand. The article is 20 pages long on my screen. Contrary to the comments in the lead here, the article is absolutely filled with verbiage that could be removed: for instance, I really don't think we need to know how fresh the straw was, or that the gate was green. More to the point, I would argue that the vast majority of the "firefight" article simply doesn't belong here, if anywhere. Many of the details sections following strike me as completely trivial. Am I wrong in thinking that, given the topic matter, an article about the length of Mumia Abu-Jamal is appropriate? Maury (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
While a second "Oppose" is pretty much a death knell sealing any chances to working towards FA - I'd like to respond anyways to point out that readers of the Mumia article are told only that "On December 9, 1981, Philadelphia Police Department officer Daniel Faulkner was shot and killed during a routine traffic stop of a vehicle belonging to William Cook, Abu-Jamal's younger brother. In the altercation Abu-Jamal was wounded by a shot from Faulkner, and collapsed on the sidewalk." - that's really not enough contextual information to offer any detail on the event. Was he shot with a rifle? shotgun? revolver? Was it a legal firearm? Who was driving the vehicle, Mumia? His brother? Someone else? Who fired first, Faulkner or Abu-Jamal? The simple lack of information makes the article worse than the Omar Khadr article. There is no reason that known information shouldn't be included if relevant to the subject. Whether a granary is full of fresh straw, or an abandoned outbuilding is relevant, the fact that O. J. Simpson's Ford Bronco was white is relevant, if a detail is known I can't think of any logical reason to let it fall from the history books. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 19:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - It's too much. I agree with too many images, many sandwiching text, making it hard to read. The entire article, but particularly Time at Guantanamo, needs a thorough copy edit to make it easier to read. There is no reason for an article about a teenager to have over 200 citations, numbers 13, 20, 27 used that many times. The citations need a cleanup. It's clearly well-referenced, but it needs a lot of work to make people want to read it. --Moni3 (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments - a number of websites in the references are lacking publisher and last access date information. Even more websites in the references are lacking either publisher or last access date. Being on the road and with limited wiki editing time, I just can't take the time to read through 136 references double checking them. I'll try to get back to this later when I'm home or they are fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. This is simply not yet FA material. Here are some objections:

  • Over-illustrated. Concur with reviewers above.
  • Cites/refs. These are (IMO) messy and complicated. Consider the "short cite/full reference" system (Hamlet or Emily Dickinson as models) which is clearer, neater and less duplicatory.
  • Comprehensiveness/factual accuracy/neutrality (1): this article glosses over the Khadr family's links to terrorism. Omar's father has been linked to Al-Qaeda; his late brother was apparently a suicide bomber. In the murky world of the "War on Terror", this is enough for indefinite detention. It also goes a long way to explaining the Canadian government's reluctance to take up the cudgels on his behalf. This article needs to tell the whole story, including family background, for context.
  • Comprehensiveness/factual accuracy/neutrality (2): bowdlerisation of the reasons why the family moved to Pakistan. The source says it was to "spare them from 'drugs and homosexual relationships' ", which has become "animus for western social influences". Khadr's mother holds views that some western liberals might find unattractive (though many Christian evangelists, for example, would agree wholeheartedly with them) but so what? They are part of Khadr's founding influences.
  • Comprehensiveness/factual accuracy/neutrality (3): The article fails to lay out the US' point of view for continued detention. Guantanamo is meant to be beyond the normal rule of law. Therefore, being caught in arms (or in close proximity to arms); coming from an apparently Al-Qaeda poster family, etc is sufficient justication for detention of itself. Sure this is all circumstantial stuff – rumour, innuendo, confessions under duress, and guilt by association – but that's the way Guantanamo was meant to operate, with drumhead court-martials to punish malfaisants.
  • Comprehensiveness/factual accuracy/neutrality (4): The emphasis on exoneration about the hand grenade in the lead sets the scene for what is essentially a "release Khadr" sub-text.
  • WP:UNDUE on the shoot-out and capture.
  • Copy: longwinded. As noted above, it needs vigorous pruning. Find a hardnosed collaborator to cut it back to essentials.
  • WP:COI concerns: I raised these at the peer review but they were dismissed out of hand. I don't think you have the distance necessary to write a featured article on a profoundly difficult subject. Find an uninvolved copy-editor to steer a middle course.
--ROGER DAVIES talk 05:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • One brief comment -- it is a mistake to criticize the article for not reporting that one of Khadr's brothers was a suicide bomber -- because none of his brother's were suicide bombers. Geo Swan (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Rejoinder: I said apparently a suicide bomber. This allegation is reported in the sources cited here and therefore needs covering, along with any suitably sourced rebuttal. It goes to the heart of Khadr's upbringing and cannot just be airbrushed out. What was the Jesuit saw? "Give me the boy and I will give you the man."?
As further evidence of the atmosphere in which Omar Khadr was raised, the excellent Rolling Stone article cited here says Ahmed said Khadr, Omar's father, always said he did not want to die in bed. He wanted to be killed. When his children were very young, he told them, "If you love me, pray that I will get martyred." Three times he asked Omar's older brother Abdurahman to become a suicide bomber. --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What you wrote was: "...his late brother was apparently a suicide bomber..." In an article on the moon landings there is no requirement to say "the landings cast doubt on the theory the moon is made of green cheese". Similarly, since the only brother to have passed away did so on infancy, because of a heart defect, there is no reason to address misinformed comments on his late brother's suicide bombings. Geo Swan (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The info came from one of the article's sources. Are you saying the source is unreliable? --ROGER DAVIES talk 03:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you can offer your sources for your assertions about the "US point of view", over on the article's talk page? Contrary to your assertion it is official US policy that the captives are not being "punished". Without references none of the material you assert is missing could be placed in the article, without violating WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Geo Swan (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Rejoiner: At a very basic level, Rumsfeld's notorious "worst of the worse" speech is a good place to start. I haven't suggested that the detainees are being "punished": the Guantanamo ethos is preventative detention. Millions of words have been written on this including Lawless World: America and the Making and Breaking of Global Rules (ISBN 0-670-03452-5) and Torture Team: Deception, Cruelty and the Compromise of Law (ISBN 978-1846140082]], both by Philippe Sands. --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Erm, that one goes right over my head as Rumsfeld and Bush were Secretary of Defense and President/Commander-in-chief respectively at the time and were certainly not acting in a private capacity. Anyhow, to drag this back to the point, I think the article, to be comprehensive, needs to contextualise Guantanamo as part of the War on Terror. --ROGER DAVIES talk 03:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:58, 11 May 2008.

[edit] James Clerk Maxwell

previous FAC

Nominated by an anon here

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.154.166.238 (talk • contribs) 15:09, May 5, 2008

  • Comment - This is a very good article and the nominator is right to be impressed with it. Although clearly not ready for FA, (which I'm sure the major contributors realise), hopefully this FAC will stimulate further work on this potential treasure. GrahamColmTalk 16:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is a long way from FA status: I was surprised to learn that someone had nominated it here. I have been working on the article for a while, albeit painfully slowly. There is however much to do in terms of content alone, besides reviewing for writing quality, sourcing and everything else that makes for a successful FAC. I'd welcome people's suggestions for improvement now or at any time, though. — BillC talk 22:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I would take the nomination as a compliment. I'd be happy to help with this important article. GrahamColmTalk 22:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments:
This external link doesn't work.
The accessdate on ref #51 needs to be fixed.
"The greatest work of Maxwell's life was devoted to electricity." sounds a bit off
"Maxwell's most important contribution" to...?
Obviously there are two sections which could do with expansion
I think the 'Legacy' list should be converted to prose
I think the begining of the 'colour analysis' section ("Maxwell also made") sounds a bit odd as it's the first time some of his contributions are listed.. perhaps it should be moved to come after the electricity section if you're going to say 'also'?
As the 'personality' section deals with poetry it should probably be retitled as such
There are a few minor typos/errors throughout, for example "King's college London" not having 'college' capitalised.
  • Sadly I'd been reading this article for a while before I realised that this was the guy who came up with Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution! Somehow when I read it in the lead it didn't fully register in my head :( I'd love to help out with this if I get the time. -- Naerii 22:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Woe betide any mortal suggesting what Sandy should do; but I suggest she close this nomination and encourage us to get on with it. Graham. GrahamColmTalk 23:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
If anyone's interested in collaborating on this, please join in on Talk:James Clerk Maxwell. — BillC talk 21:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: Contrary to the comments above, I think this article is an excellent basis for a fast-track to FA. there are lots of comments about it not being FA quality above, but few specifics of any gravity. Capitalization and a few word changes? Ok, let's just do it. The only FA-rejectable "offence" I can find is "many stub sections", but this actually turns out to be "two", and I don't consider either of them to require expansion. That is especially true for control theory, which is a minor historical point, and might be safely removed entirely. Let's get specific, put up the problems, fix it, and FA it. Maury (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    A few paragraphs are also unreferenced. Also, there are a few cleanup tags, especially those focused on article expansion. I can't personally say if the article needs expansion or not since I don't know much about Maxwell (even though I did take Physics during Twelfth grade in high school), but it seems like it's lacking information. If not, then perhaps a few of the shorter sections could be merged together. Gary King (talk) 04:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. There is in fact only one real stub, the sentence on control theory, which can be solved simply enough by moving it to its place in chronological sequence and removing the header. (That is the condition; I would do it myself but may have to leave without notice.) Beyond that, there are no non-trivial actionable complaints. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I have completed a number of changes to this section, increased detail level, and added additional references. If there are remaining issues, please let me know. Maury (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for now based on some citation issues. I am impressed that the article is able to explain some of the mathematical concepts so that a layman can understand them, but I believe the article needs a copyedit to eliminate redundancies and awkward phrasing. I've provided a very few examples of some of these prose issues.

  • Per WP:ITALICS, don't italicize quotations
  • Per WP:MOSQUOTE, quotations of under 4 lines should not be broken out from the text.
  • There's a lot of awkward phrasing in the article (Examples only: " and themselves to become notable scholars", "included some highly regarded names" - names, not professors?, "In October 1850, already an accomplished mathematician,"). I'd recommend a thorough copyedit.
  • Watch for redundant phrasing as well ("earning himself " instead of "Earning", etc)
  • I'm a bit confused by this sentence "responsibilities as head of department, devising the syllabus and preparing the lectures" - did he devise syllabi and prepare lectures for other people, or for his own classes? If those were his own classes, then that reflects his responsibilities as a professor, in addition to his head of dept responsibilities.
  • Is there a citation for "In 1871, he became the first Cavendish Professor of Physics at Cambridge."
  • Is there a citation for "He supervised every step of the progress of the building and of the purchase of the very valuable collection of apparatus paid for by "
  • Occasionally he's referred to as "Clerk Maxwell" instead of "Maxwell". Please be consistent.
  • Any critical analysis of his poems? Any information on how popular the collection was?
  • Need a citation for this " his quantitative connection between light and electromagnetism is considered one of the great triumphs of 19th century physics."
  • Need a citation for "It was considered the final word on the issue"
  • Need a citation for "instruments which he devised for these investigations were simple and convenient in use" (simple and convenient can be personal preference adjectives, so let's see who said this)
  • There are no citations in the kinetic theory section. I think it needs at least one.
  • I'd prefer to see the legacy section converted to prose instead of a list. If it remains as a list, please remove full stops at the end as these are not complete sentences for the most part
  • Is thepeerage.com a reliable source?

Karanacs (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Other sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article makes only cursory use of the most recent scholarly biography, Harman's The Natural Philosophy. I'm not super familiar with the state of Maxwell scholarship, but in the areas I am familiar with the article falls well short. I suspect that an article based mainly on Harman's work would mean serious changes throughout the article.
The discussion of religion in this article is totally inadequate; the one-paragraph section seems focused on historiographical issues rather than actually explaining the evolution of Maxwell's religious views and the role they played in his scientific work. As Crosbie Smith has argued in The Science of Energy (1998), "Maxwell's deeply Christian perspective on nature and society became inseparable from his central commitment to the science of energy" (p. 211); this is something that ought to play a role in the discussion of his scientific work throughout the article. Another grave (and related) omission is the lack of broader intellectual context for the scientific work. Dividing that discussion into cut-and-dry sections on Maxwell's "Contributions" to different fields neglects the main scientific (and socio-political) agenda his work was a part of...the recasting of physics into the language of energy (see Smith's Science of Energy).
The discussion of aether/ether theory (which is unreferenced) is particularly out of step with current historical thought on that issue. Maxwell had a complex mathematical ether theory that needs to be explained in relationship to his electromagnetic and kinetic theory work, and in relation to other thought on ether around the same time. The current discussion is the physics textbook version of history. Einstein and Michelson-Morley have little relevance to Maxwell's ether work of 4 decades earlier. (And indeed, Michelson-Morley played little if any role in the genesis of Einstein's special relativity.)--ragesoss (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Michelson-Morley played little if any role in the genesis of Einstein's special relativity. Really now? If ragesoss means only the genesis of SR as part of Einstein's own intellectual history, as distinct from the rest of physics, this would be exaggerated; as a general statement, I should like to see a source, any source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to Einstein's own intellectual history. "If any" was hedging, since I didn't remember the precise details offhand..."little role" is fair assessment of how recent historical work has characterized it, I think. The MM experiment was invoked by Einstein afterwards, but does not seem to have been central in any way to Einstein's formulation of special relativity. Einstein had primarily theoretical (and perhaps practical) as opposed to experimental reasons for rejecting ether. See Peter Galison's Einstein's Clocks, Poincaré's Maps (2003), among other sources: "To Einstein [Michelson's work] was just one more suggestive piece of evidence that the very idea of the ether was 'superfluous.'" (p. 204) This is in contrast to Lorentz and Poincaré, who viewed ether drift experiments as crucial and interpreted Michelson's interferometer experiments in terms of ether theory and the contraction of matter (i.e., the interferometer's arms) as it moved through the ether. It was not until after special relativity that the Michelson-Morley experiment was seen as a decisive disproof of the ether. Even then, a number of experimenters continued to pursue similar experiments; the Michelson–Morley experiment article lists ones continuing until 1930. I don't know the source for it, but that article even states that "As late as 1920, Einstein himself still spoke of a type of ether...". In any case, the idea of ether is a moving target, and one that moved quite a long ways from Maxwell to Michelson-Morley to special relativity.--ragesoss (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:58, 11 May 2008.

[edit] Deva Victrix

Self-nominator I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it fulfils the FA criteria; it's undergone a peer review. The article is about a Roman town in England. All constructive criticism is welcome. Nev1 (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

  • Current ref 78 "Chester Ampitheatre Project" is lacking a publisher.
All other links worked fine. Full disclosure, I passed this article for GA earlier in April. Hopefully, I can find time to do a fuller review later. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Publisher added. Nev1 (talk) 12:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - excellent and comprehensive article. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Non-issue, ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments In general very good - I have made some smallish clarificatory edits. The name Victrix should be explained, and the relationship of the Roman town/camp to the modern city expanded, probably with a final section. Neither here nor in Chester city walls is it explained what portions of the current city walls follow the line of the Roman walls. a superimposed map would help greatly. Nor I think is the Chester Museum mentioned. What modern streets follow Roman patterns? Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The Chester Museum is the Grosvenor Museum. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Victrix is now explained as meaning victorious. I should be able to expand on the city walls tomorrow, although a map showing it may be challenging. How do you think the relationship between the Roman town/camp to the modern city should be expanded? Nev1 (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, describing the 4 corners in terms of modern locations, mentioning any main streets and wall sections following Roman paths, and (if any) other minor remaining traces of the Roman city. Was there a bridge, or ford? I've forgotten if one was mentioned. Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'm afraid the changes will have to wait until at least Tuesday as I don't have access to the sources I've been using. Nev1 (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose The copy isn't up to snuff I'm afraid, which is a pity because this is lovingly put together and well researched. It needs a vigorous prune by competent classicist (or at least an editor familiar with the period) to excise some of the repetition, longwindedness and awkwardnesses. Here are some random examples:
  • first in timber and then by the end of the first century they started to use stone > "first in timber and from the end of the first century in stone"?
  • The fortress walls were rebuilt in stone, the new wall was 1.36 metres (4.5 ft) thick at the base of the wall and 1.06 metres (3.5 ft) thick at the top > "The new stone walls were 1.36 metres (4.5 ft) thick at the base and 1.06 metres (3.5 ft) thick at the top"?
  • most likely diminished in line with the rest of the Empire > "most likely diminished in line with the rest of the empire's forces"?
  • Translate canabae legionis?
  • Consolidate all the "cabanae legionis fragments into one section? Perhaps with an explanation? They're scattered throughout the text and disrupt the flow.
  • In "#Legionary quarry", "be seen today" appears in two proximate sentences.
  • In "#Foundation", "baths for the soldiers to maintain hygiene" > is it necessary to explain what baths are for? A similar explanation appears elsewhere in the article (in #Legionary baths).
  • Consistency: centuries are mostly spelled out ("first" and "second") but "1st and 2nd century" appears in #Foundation.
  • Repetition: Two explanations of building started in the 70s in #Foundation.
  • Repetition: Numerous explanations of buildings being rebuilt in stone.
--ROGER DAVIES talk 11:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I've had a go at copy editing some of the article myself, I think it's better but probably not complete. I've done the things you suggests (apart from the translation of canabae legionis, it means something of the legion or legionary something) and would appreciate it if you could take another look and give some more suggestions. Nev1 (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Canabae legionis = Huts (or wine-booths) of the legion. Camp-followers, I suppose, in modern army speak.
I really do urge you to get someone else to copy-edit it for you. You can try a request at the Milhist logistics dept or in the Milhist Classical warfare task force. Another candidate might be Geuiwogbil (who is knowledgeable about Roman emperors). --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:50, 10 May 2008.

[edit] Ninja Gaiden (2004 video game)

Self-nomination. This video game article has been brought to GA-class and been rated as a Wikiproject A-class material one year ago. It has been brought to a recent peer review and has several issues pertaining to FA criteria resolved. For the issue of prose and grammar, I have rewritten the article for easy readability (tools indicate an average of grade 8–9 — 13&14 years old). I am nominating it for FA because I believe the article fulfills the criteria. Jappalang (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. Per mine (and many others') comments at the peer review. I think the prose is excellent and the article is ready. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • What makes the following sites reliable?
    • http://www.entdepot.com/
      The site has established itself in the gaming industry for its reviews. It is acknowledged by Blizzard, Bethesda, and IGN.[38][39] Jappalang (talk) 09:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The links from Blizzard and Bethesda just say that the site awarded those companies some awards. IGN links show that they noted reviews on the site. Helpful, but still not a total reliablity gauge. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
        Humanizing Technologies considers this site as one of their Medium rank sources—the same as GameSpot, IGN, and GameSpy.[40] Jappalang (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • http://www.gamingtrend.com/
      The site has also gained recognition in the industry for its reviews (Bethesda, Next Generation Magazine). It is also a portal for Business Wire's (a Berkshire-Hathaway company) distribution network.[41] Jappalang (talk) 09:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Same sort of deal as above. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
        Humanizing Technologies also considers it a Medium rank source. Jappalang (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • http://www.gamingworldx.com/index.shtml
      GamingWorld X has also gained recognition for its reviews, namely GameZone. [42] Jappalang (talk) 09:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
      • As above. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
        Removed. Aside from the GameZone endorsement, I have yet to find anything to support it. (Sean Nagasawa was credited as a Hardcore Tester in the Guitar Hero III manual, but...) Jappalang (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • http://www.videogamer.com/
      This is Pro-G, despite the url. Pro-G is an established gaming magazine that has an editorial staff in place. Jappalang (talk) 09:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • http://www.dignews.com/
      Digital Entertainment News is a small 2-year old site and (DEN is older than 2 years but its current website underwent a redesign 2 years back, hence the 2006 copyright) has an editorial system in place. News 4 Gamers have acknowledged their reviews.[43] Jappalang (talk) 09:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
      DEN is based in Seattle. It seems it has a reputation in Seattle. Its Editor-in-Chief, Daniel Pelfrey, has contributed an article on video games in The Seattle Times. He has also been invited to a panel at the Seattle Sputnik (the Seattle area chapter of the International Game Developers Association) to talk about the games industry and its media.[44] The Annual Elan Awards (Canadian Awards for Electronic and Animated Arts) consider DEN as part of their press listings.[45] Jappalang (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Hm. This is borderline on the "considered an expert in the field" type of thing. I think I'll leave this out for others to decide for themselves. Probably, assuming that the information it is sourcing isn't that controversial, it might qualify. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
        Humanizing Technologies also considers it a Medium rank source. Jappalang (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • http://spong.com/index.jsp
      Despite its small startup, Spong has an editoral system in place. According to their About page, they also host and maintain press and trade sites for companies like Nintendo, THQ, Midway, System 3 and Ubisoft. Jappalang (talk) 09:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
      Per Andrew Micklethwaite's entry at Spong's team information, they are paid staff. Hence, Spong is a professional company per their offered services. Jappalang (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      Turns out there are several blogs/forums/opinions on Spong's reliability. It appears to be a professional "tabloid" website in which truths can be found along with inaccurate news. I have replaced all citations from Spong with more reliable sources—Famitsu, GameSpot, and 1UP.com. Jappalang (talk) 01:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • http://www.psu.com/
      I am looking up on this site's background and will get back to it later. Jappalang (talk) 09:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
      Turns out there are a few blogs and forums postings that can put doubts on its reliability per Wikipedia standards. I have replaced this site with GameSpot and IGN sources. Jappalang (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • http://www.destructoid.com/
      I was using it to act as the source for the Ninja Gaiden Sigma T-shirt deal. I think Destructoid is a similar deal to Kotaku. Reliability should be proven per each editor. I have no idea of how William Haley is regarded in the industry. I can replace the site with Ottsel's blog. Ottsel (real name: Jack DeVries) is the Contributing Editor for IGN's Nintendo Team. On his blog, he talked of his days at GameStop where he handed out the T-shirt with Ninja Gaiden Sigma. Is that an acceptable WP:SPS as a source? Alternatively, I can remove the Destructoid site without a replacement since the T-shirt deal is sort of non-controvesial. Jappalang (talk) 09:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Go ahead and replace it with Ottsel, which is probably a safer ref. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
        Done, replaced with Ottsel's blog entry. Jappalang (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • http://www.kotous.com/
      This is the website of the United States branch of figurine maker Kotobukiya. It is used to report the lineup of the Ninja Gaiden figures. As such, it is a primary source and reliable. Jappalang (talk) 09:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • http://web.archive.org/web/20070228060509/http://dreamstation.cc/news/video_games/id2647
      I have replaced the archived press release with a GameSpot article that is still online. Jappalang (talk) 09:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, in previous FACs, we seem to have reached the decision that Kotaku is reliable on a case by case basis, depending on whether the writer of the reference being used is well known in the video game industry. Explain why current ref 91 Brian Ashcraft "Win Signed Ninja Gaiden..." is reliable.
    I replaced the reference with the Japanese article from Famitsu, which Ashcraft had reported the translation of. Famitsu is certainly a reliable publication of video games news. Jappalang (talk) 09:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Same for current ref 92 Michael Mcwhertor "Ninja Gaiden Sigma Gets Collectors..."
    I replaced it with the press release by Tecmo, which was released by Business Wire.
Still on the road, so replies won't be as fast as usual. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Needs a lot of work.

  • Fails criteria 1a - lots of places in which the prose could be improved. The flow in the lead is terrible. Consider re-writing the lead, so that it is two concise paragraphs.
  • The quote at the start of the Gameplay section doesn't add anything - it's not even explained or mentioned later on at all.
  • "Each region usually has a linear path connecting its entrances. Encounters populate this path and several off the path areas." - Huh? I'm not following this.
  • "It follows the pacing of a typical action-adventure game;" - The pacing?
  • " The game measures how well players do against four standards:" ...Consider instead: "The game measures players against four standards" or " The game measures player success against four standards"
  • "The Video game remakes Ninja Gaiden Black and Sigma introduced another game mode called Mission Mode comprising short sessions of combat." - Consider this instead: "The video game remakes Ninja Gaiden Black and Sigma introduced Mission Mode, comprising short sessions of combat."
  • I have focused on the first section "Gameplay" - please find someone to copy-edit all sections.
  • Also see User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

— Wackymacs (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - The article's use of non-free images fails our policy WP:NFCC. The two box covers at the bottom of the article are clearly both decorative, while the screenshots appear to be chosen at random and do not greatly increase the reader's understanding of the article (WP:NFCC#8). Black Kite 20:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the box covers and an image in the Story subsection. I have replaced the image in the Gameplay section with a GIF that demonstrates the benefits of ultimate techniques. For the image at the start of the Plot and settings section, its caption has been altered to fit the context. Do these actions address your concerns? Jappalang (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
If I may chime in here...I personally think the GIF makes it worse. It distracts the reader and since it's so tiny, it really doesn't show a lot or add anything to the article. — Wackymacs (talk) 07:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Does not meet the requirements of 1a. Examples culled from the beginning:
    • "Team Ninja had developed the game" Why the perfect here?
    • "Although it used ...it moved" Ambiguous "it".
    • Second paragraph awkwardly jumps from one disparate topic to another.
    • "Team Ninja went on working on the game" Continued working on the game?
    • "this carried on in" Ambiguous "this". What is being "carried on"?
    • "The Ninja Gaiden saga goes on in..." More use of crude "go on".
    • "Encounters populate this path " What?
    • "several off the path areas" What punctuation is missing here?
    • "There are dragon busts scattered in the regions serving" Awkward passive when active is stronger and works perfectly fine.
    • "third person"
    • "and even run up" Why the "even" qualifier? Sounds more like press release material instead of an encyclopedic article.
    • "It follows the pacing of a typical" The clause after the semicolon describes the structure, not the pacing.
    • "The Video game remakes " Video is capitalized because?
    • "to complete a difficulty to unlock the next harder difficulty." Confusing to laypersons.
    • "God of War lead combat engine designer" What is God of War and what's its relation to Ninja Gaiden (i.e. why is the article talking about this particular designer and his views on Ninja Gaiden)? Link needs disambig. BuddingJournalist 16:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support impressive article which I nominated for the GA (like Jappalang's previous work). May even be too detailed (78kb long), but nothing seems superfluous. igordebraga ≠ 22:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:50, 10 May 2008.

[edit] Battle of Waterloo

Nominator: Last year, I was involved in successful a drive to get the article to GA status. At that point we worked to a peer review that was more stringent than required for GA, with a view to eventually reaching FA. Since then, the core contributors have made quite a few minor changes and tweaks, and the idea of nominating it for FA has been thrown around. Here's the nomination. Even if unsuccessful, this is likely to drive work to bring the article to FA status. (Also, given the topic, this is an article that really should be one Wikipedia's best.) Kieran (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The contributor of that image, Frank Schulenburg, is a fairly prominent WP member (on the board for de). I've dropped him a message on his talk page to ask for details on the picture's origins. In the worst case, we could remove it, or find a verified alternate source. (Obviously the underlying painting is out of copyright, but we need to ensure that the 2-dimensional representation was taken in a country where this does not generate a new copyright, or if not that the originator released it under a WP-compatible license.) -Kieran (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Herr Schulenberg came through. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments (forgive my typing, I'm on the road with an unfamiliar laptop keyboard)

I'm on the road again, and the link checker tool doesn't like this hotel's ISP, I am getting a LOT of timeout errors, which I suspect are related to the hotel ISP. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Orders of Battle refs, there is a wiki page Order of Battle of the Waterloo Campaign so referencing this page might be more internally consistent.

I can certainly defend the reference to the Napoleon Series site http://www.napoleon-series.org/index.html, it is without doubt the premier web-site for Napoleonic History. Its editor-in-chief is a published author in the field and many other published authors, including academics, have contributed articles to the site or are regular habitues of the discussion pages. The level of scholarship of the content of the site is second to none.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/cpcook/letters/pages/waterloorha.htm contains a verbatim extract from a book written by an eyewitness of the battle (Captain Cavalie Mercer of the Royal Horse Artillery). However, the whole book is on Googlebooks so the reference could be switched to this and give page numbers quite easily.

Urselius (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Ref 10 changed to one with page number.

Urselius (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

on this one, I don't honestly know. I retain some concerns that the sourcing isn't showing a great deal of newer sources, nor academic sources. This is the Battle of Waterloo, I'm pretty sure it's been studied by academic historians recently? But, this is well past my own field of study or my own interests. I'm not a Napoleonic scholar or student, and thus I can't for sure say that the sourcing isn't the best that it could be. I'm still on the road, so I can't do any sort of checking in my own library, so I'm going to leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. The book sources used are certainly fine, although I'm not entirely sure about the website Napoleon Series, it does sound at least somewhat reliable. I'd like to see some third party coverage of the site as being reliable/noteworthy/etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I am concerned by the list of sources as well. I haven't gone through and matched each note to each sentence yet, but I will later this weekend. I was wondering if the editors could describe how they did their research? The first list of "suggested books" I turned to failed to include these nineteenth-century sources and did include many more twentieth-century sources. If we could know something about the research methodology that went into the article, perhaps we would be reassured. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Each of the editors will have to speak for him/herself. I myself used Peter Hofschroers works on the subject, as a basis for adding the sections about Prussian participation then cross checked with Col. Chesney's work, then back referenced to Barbero's work on the subject. One of the tougher things about this subject is the amount of bad history that has been done on it. One has only to look at the history channel to be sorely disappointed in a most recent example. National bias is another problem with this battle and everything has to be checked against various books to be sure nothing has been erm... slanted. The article use to be one of raging blogs on the editing section when the editors stood together and insisted that nothing would be added to the article without citation and that editorial comments would be kept to a minimum and insisting on a "just the facts" presentation without elaboration and with accurate citation. The authors that I chose were Hofschorer 20th century(German sourcing unavailable in most books), Chesney (19th century Chair of the Sandhurst Military College), and Barbero 21st century (Head of the History department of an Italian College). If any of these were debateable Hofschroer would be that source because of his approach that Germanic speaking populations were mostly to be credited for the victory (ie 75% of the troops involved on the allied side) which was not embraced by the English historians all that warmly. Even in this case I found him to be balanced in his approach and his sources were Prussian regimental histories not available but through his works in English and even in this case it was checked against Chesney and Barbero for accuracy and weight lent on who had the best sourcing available. In some cases this was Chesney as he still had access to the German General Staff's histories that were mostly lost at the end of WW2, in most others it was Hofschroers. In no case was a novel view allowed into the article but rather only when there was in a broad sense a concurence did I go forward. Tirronan (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The whole subject is a minefield of varying bias, often nationalistic in origin, by historians and authors. Anyone writing an encyclopaedic treatment is continually treading a tightrope. Recently there has been controversy over a book by David Hamilton-Williams (Waterloo: New Perspectives: The Great Battle Reappraised) over veracity of sources. The same could be said of Hofschroer in regards to his reappraisal of how Wellington treated his Prussian allies and how early he knew of Napoleon's advance across the Belgian frontier. Thus even recent works cannot be viewed as canonical. The treatment of the work of earlier historians is also moot, W. Siborne wrote his history of the Waterloo campaign in the 1840s, Hamilton-Williams regards him as being unreliable at best and deliberately anti-Dutch-Belgian at worst, whilst Hofschroer thinks highly of his work. Barbero's book, he being an Italian, is refreshingly free of nationalistic bias, though I consider it has a number of mistakes of interpretation and a few instances of factual error. There is no particular merit in the referencing of more recent works over referencing older ones, once due consideration for jingoism in older books is taken into account, indeed the older works would be written when their audience included veterans of the battle and woe betide any author who made a blunder as rebuttals would come thick and fast in contemporary journals. In short any encyclopaedia entry written must be a mosaic of sources in order for a balanced, or reasonably balanced, view to be obtained. Urselius (talk) 12:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for these very lucid answers. I am the process of digging up reviews of the various books listed in the bibliography. This will take me a while.
  • I've now read a bibliographic essay on sources important for Napoleonic history. It points to Chandler's Campaigns of Napoleon (which this article uses) and calls it the standard work on Napoleonic military history but notes that "on the whole [it] puts a favourable gloss on Napoleon's genius as a commander". Apparently Chandler also wrote a supplementary volume entitled On the Napoleonic Wars not used here. The article lists several other important works not used in the article: Owen Connelly's Blundering to Glory (1988), which presents Napoleon in a less favorable light than Chandler, and Charles Esdaile's The Wars of Napoleon, which deals with the structure of the armies and the the "wider, political, social, and economic repercussions of the wars" across Europe, something missing from the article.
  • The essay also describes recent trends in Napoleonic historiography, such as the revisionism that began around 1969 and 1970. This revisionism, which affected French Revolution historiography as well, "tended to shift the emphasis more towards the underlying structure of the Napoleonic regime....it is now fashionable to view the Revolutionary and Napoleonic 'experience' not so much as a succession of ruptures which ended in military dictatorship, but more as an evolving process with important themes of continuity across the whole period". This change in historiography was so important that it was taught in my undergraduate class. I am curious how this affected the coverage of the Battle of Waterloo in particular. Does anyone know? I haven't the time to dig through all of the books listed in the essay here. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
To put another POV, why should we care to note in the battle article much about the regime of an international outlaw who usurped power for less than 100 days? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Review of modern sources
  • Adkin: I question the use of Adkin, which according to a review I read by Clifford Harmon from VMI in the Journal of Military History, is a coffee table book without references and an unhelpful bibliography. According to the review, the bibliography also reveals "an almost total lack of French sources" which handicaps Adkins analysis. While the reviewer says that the book has its good points - bringing history alive - I'm not sure that this is the type of source we want to be using.
  • Barbero: Not reviewed in academic journals.
  • Chandler: Recommended as standard history of Napoleonic military history in Geoffrey Ellis's bibliographic essay.
  • Longford: At the time Longford's book came out, it was praised for its readability and its attention to the private details of Wellington's life. Her ability to portray battles accurately was at times questioned. I do not know what the current opinion is of this book or whether it has been surpassed, but I'm not sure this is the best Wellington book to be using for the Waterloo article. Thoughts?
  • Hofschroer: Acknowledging the nationalistic bias problem, reviewers have noted that Hofschroer has done an important service in bringing the German sources to light but point out that he argues his case is a bit too strongly, saying that "no serious British historian has ever sought to deny the fact that Wellington's army was in its majority German, Dutch, and Belgain....In consequence, Hofschroer doth protest too much, whilst he is at times as parti pris as the writers he criticises". It seems to me that the editors have tried to cancel out these biases.
  • Roberts: Not reviewed in academic journals.
  • Weller: Not reviewed in academic journals.

I will look for non-academic reviews of these other books, but it does not fill me with confidence that there are no academic reviews of them. Awadewit (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments - I have read the article over once and am now reading it again, much more slowly as I look at the notes. Here are my initial comments.
  • The lead needs to be rewritten - it is choppy, especially at the end. This is Waterloo! Let's be eloquent.
  • I would suggest a copy edit by Roger Davies. He writes military history articles and is a good copy editor.
  • There is next to nothing in the article explaining the battle's political significance. I would suggest adding a "Background" section on the Napoleonic Wars so that readers know what is ending with Waterloo. I would also suggest expanding the "Aftermath" section. This battle was a major event in society - that needs to be emphasized and explained. Societies that been at war for a generation suddenly were not anymore (this is currently covered in a tiny paragraph).
  • I would suggest adding an "Overview" section so that the reader knows where the article is going. It is a bit hard to follow everything without some sort of guide.
  • There are too many large quotations - cut some of them out and integrate the others into the article more thorough. Many of them are just sitting there without much explanation. Also, they are all call-out quotes. According to WP:MOSQUOTE, they should only be blockquotes.
I hope these suggestions help. Awadewit (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Adkin has received a generally good reception amongst those active in writing within the field. I would admit that his bibliography and references are not the finest; as an accessible synthesis it is probably the best single volume available - I think it is far better and more detailed than Chandler's Waterloo volume. Generally the Napoleonic Wars are a field in which the "talented amateur" is recognised as having a valuable role, it isn't seen as being the sole preserve of the academic (unlike certain other periods of history knowledge of extinct languages is not a prerequisite).
As to the wider implications you cite I would emphasise that this is an entry on the battle itself, there is a separate wiki page on the Waterloo Campaign (or 100 Days - I can't remember the exact title) which should, in my opinion, be the place for wider political comment and background.
Urselius (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've changed the quotes to be blockquotes. (I think we decided we liked the way the cquotes looked, but I see that that formatting is only intended for real call-out quotes). As for length and number - the purpose of many was to convey a sense of the battle, to make the article more accessible. Some convey fact, but quite a few convey a very human and often poetic sense of the events of the battle. But, if the consensus is to winnow them down, we winnow them down.
I've also done a minor copyedit of the lead, but it probably needs more work to be truly eloquent. It's occurred to me that, while the article deals mostly with the events of the battle, only 1/4 of the lead does so, suggesting that it maybe needs some rebalancing?
I wonder if an overview might not be a bad idea. Are there examples of a good one? I've found allusions to it in the style guide, but not very concrete suggestions as to how it should be structured. (e.g. should it follow "This article begins with a discussion of ..." form)
If background were to be added, I think it should be very brief. Perhaps a summarised version of the Napoleonic Wars article, drawing heavily on the content in the lead? -Kieran (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is what Awa meant, but my similar comments below did not mean the wider context of the whole Napoleonic Wars, but the very specific context of Waterloo. For example there is no link to (our very poor stub on) Waterloo Day, which was virtually a national holiday in Britain for most of the 19th century, nor to the famous disruption on the financial markets, and the Rothschild's coup with the pigeons. Hundred Days will be no use here either. For FA, with such an epoch-making battle, a narrow military historical approach is not enough. Some highlights from the predictably poor Waterloo in popular culture should go in a final section, and the Prince Regent's shameless claims to have participated are another indicator of the battle's status in the British psyche, which was nearly matched in that of the French - diplomatic awkwardnesses around both Waterloo Station, terminus until now of the Eurostar, and the Waterloo Chamber at Windsor, both regularly feature in the British press. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've started work on this section, as suggested. It still needs some POV-balancing (very anglo-centric so far) and some more sources (I can't get at most of the historical articles on the topic of the cultural/sociological impact of the battle). It's a start, though. -Kieran (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it is a mistake. There is an article Waterloo in popular culture. All that is needed in this article, if anything is one small paragraph to introduce the article Waterloo in popular culture, otherwise why not put back all that is in Waterloo in popular culture, because who judges what is important to add in this section? I think it is better off as a line in the See also section. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Because what (I think) the several reviewers who have raised similar points are after is not a list of computer games featuring Waterloo but an attempt at a brief encyclopedic treatment of the enormous impact of the battle on the rest of the 19th century outside the sphere of pure military history. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
And I think it opens up a can of worms, better to add any such points to aftermath. Because thinks like "The fact that Waterloo Station was, from 1994 until 2008, the landing point for French visitors to the country arriving on the Eurostar, was found insulting by some French even in modern times." and "with references in modern literature, including Asterix," is not the sort of think we need in this article. But I suggest we discuss this further on the talk page of the article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Note: A family issue has very suddenly arisen that requires my attention. I will not be able to continue reviewing this article until about a week from now. I'm very sorry. Awadewit (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I've looked at Chandler as a source but found his work to be rather the light weight compared to other authors already covered here. Although a noted era author on the period when it came to this article it has very much got to be to the point of "this unit at this time did this to this effect" to be terribly useful. Perhaps another look at the overview will be required though this is covered in the Waterloo campaign. Tirronan (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Very good, but needs a thorough check over. I have copy-edited some points, but one of the specialists should go over it.
  • "Wellington's misapprehension" needs explaining. This has been expanded Tirronan (talk) 05:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "In the centre about the road south of the inn La Belle Alliance..." does "about" mean "on both sides of"?
  • "Twelve hours later Grouchy, still following his orders, defeated ..." Later than what? This has been rewriten Tirronan (talk) 05:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I have desized some of the pictures, per MoS, but without using "upright". They look ok to me, but upright could be used to reduce them. Others are still very small, and more commons images could be added. Personally I would make the map of the battle full-size across the screen.
  • Something about the Rothschilds and their pigeons? The reception of the news in general? In general the article could do with a wider scope - I had to add Lord Uxbridge's leg to see also.

Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Web references need to be formatted consistently and fleshed out (author, publisher, retrieval dates). BuddingJournalist 23:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment (Sorry for my poor English, I'm French). Very good narrative of the battle, but in my opinion the article lacks : 1) A part about the historiography of the battle - there is much to say about how the battle has been seen by academic researchers and taught in school (in England as in France). 2) A part about the paintings depicting the battle, pop culture (ABBA...) - I know there is a specific article, but it's only a list and it should be summarized in the main article. --Bsm15 (talk) 08:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Commenting on recent historiography could open a can of worms. Law suits have been filed by some of the authors involved in recent spats, we might not want to go there! Urselius (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I didn't mean commenting, but quoting appropriately the main authors on the subject and putting in perspective their theses ; it will provide a global perspective on the battle the article lacks of now, IMO. --Bsm15 (talk) 10:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that is a very bad idea. If ever there was a battle where nationalism still plays a very strong hand this is it. All you will be doing is summing up these different views: The Brits won the battle despite their other allies, with a little bit of help late in the day from the Prussians to help mop up. The British were loosing until the Prussians turned up and won the Battle. The French lost only because the Emperor -- the finest general who has ever graced a battlefield -- was unwell and his dull subordinates failed to execute his brilliant plan properly. What about the Dutch? AND DON'T FORGET THE BELGIANS! --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually I've always liked Brigadier Gerard explanation "So high was the spirit of France at that time that every other spirit would have quailed before it; but these people, these English, had neither spirit nor soul, but only solid, immovable beef, against which we broke ourselves in vain. That was it, my friends! On the one side, poetry, gallantry, self-sacrifice--all that is beautiful and heroic. On the other side,beef. Our hopes, our ideals, our dreams--all were shattered on that terrible beef of Old England." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Now what? Most (or all?) of the minor issues (references, copy, images) seem to have been addressed. However, we seem to be at an impassé about histiography and/or popular culture. The FA reviewers have requested sections dealing with this, while the main contributors to the article are opposed. Certainly, looking at other featured battles the Waterloo article as it stands seems to fit with the structure of these without delving into histiography. Can we have some discussion to decide whether or not it is necessary, as this seems to be the only sticking point now? -Kieran (talk) 23:07, 9 May 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 15:17, 8 May 2008.

[edit] Sports PNF

I'm nominating this article for featured article because...Self-nominatorChuck (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Currently tagged for a merger and not a single internal link. Please check out What is a featured article? if you haven't already. Among other problems, the article is not well written (poor prose, contractions used, contains a "conclusion" section), it only uses one source, and the diagrams (while appreciated) are of low quality.-Wafulz (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose—Wafulz has given a good list of improvements needed, so I won't add too much more. I would suggest you withdraw the FAC for now, resolve the proposed merge, find additional sources, and either submit the article Wikipedia:Peer review or find interested editors who can help you improve the article. Pagrashtak 14:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - can this be closed early, as this article is FAR from being of any acceptable standard, let alone featured article. --ZimZalaBim talk 15:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - The other reviewers are right. I would like to see a better reason for nominating an article than "because". Also, any article that hasn't been rated at all will likely be a poor FAC. Listen to Pagrashtak and put it up for peer review. It needs a ton of work to even be a Good article. Giants2008 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - no good images (we have got possible copyviols!!), to wikify. (-.-') --Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 11:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • yeah, I fear those "sketches" might be tracings of actual images from the (sole) book used as a reference. --ZimZalaBim talk 12:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The article is less than two weeks old. As mentioned, no internal link, a single source. It's apparent this article needs more work before being considered. --Porqin (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose I don't know what else I can say about it that hasn't already been said. No wikilinks, relies upon a single source, written more like a manual than an article... and those photos of a guy standing in his laundry room??? I know we're not supposed to judge an article based on the quality of the photos but sheesh... those are terrible, no offense. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 09:39, 8 May 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 15:17, 8 May 2008.

[edit] Tower Building of the Little Rock Arsenal

I have been working on this article for quite a while and I think it's ready to be featured. --The_stuart (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Tony is correct, one FAC at a time. Please pick one to go forward with. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://users.aristotle.net/~russjohn/warriors/macpark.html
      • The fact that he has a whole website devoted to Arkansas history, plus that article has three citations at the bottom. --The_stuart (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
        • No, that does not make it a reliable source. I can create a website devoted to Arkansas history and write some articles with citations, too, but that doesn't make it reliable. Is he a noted scholar of Arkansas history? If not, this doesn't appear to be a reliable source; use the sources he provides instead.
          • I've removed this source. --The_stuart (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

BuddingJournalist 22:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Current ref 2 "From Turbulence to Tranquility .." is lacking publisher information. Also current refs 6, 7 and 12 which are the same website, different parts.
All other links checked out okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Resolved issues. Karanacs (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Interesting topic, but numerous MOS issues and the prose should be improved to allow better flow within paragraphs. There are also some referencing issues.

  • Need metric conversion for all standard units: acres should also include hectares and ft should include m
  • the first paragraph doesn't seem to be organized that well; should be rewritten for better flow
    • Reworded, hope it's better. --The_stuart (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Better, but still not great. The prose is not very good and it still doesn't flow that well. Karanacs (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • need a citation immediately after a quotation even if the next citation covers that (just in case someone later inserts text)
  • The first paragraph in the Civil War section needs better transition between thoughts; I understand why the telegraph message is important to the section but it seems to be just dropped into the paragrpah.
  • The first part of this sentence does not make much sense "The item was intended simply as a piece of news, but telegraph lines quickly spread the news through out the state, fueling procession sentiment" (and do you mean "procession" or "pro-secession"?)
  • I'd like to see a sentence or two about the standoff between the governor and the troops added to the lead
  • I think this sentence is missing a word or two "The building was drastically altered the inside and outside"
  • There is no publisher listed for ref 2 (From Turbulence to Tranquility: The Little Rock Arsenal Part 1. ) I see now that several other of the refs come from this site and none have publishers listed
  • No publisher listed for ref 12 ("Bernie Babcock Gained Fame as Author")

Karanacs (talk) 14:29, 7 May 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 01:50, 7 May 2008.

[edit] 2008 Super Tuesday tornado outbreak

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe this meets all FA criteria. The article recently went through a rigerous GAN and subsequent cleanup. There are no {{fact}} tags or any remaining issues from the GAN. The only issue could be a bit of jargon in the meteorological sypnosis. The article was revied by a WP:SEVERE member who understands some of the complex terms. Otherwise, I believe all statements are referenced using Cite Web fully. Thank you, Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment While I believe that this is by far one of the WP:SEVERE's best articles, I have just a couple minor comments. First, could you add UTCs to the Meteorological Synopsis? Second, ref 15 isn't working right. After these things are addressed, I will support. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • ReplyWell, I have fixed the format issue, but dicovered the link does not work. I am not the best at finding archived NWS statements, in fact I never have except for the archived warnings from WFO OUN. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 01:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry I didn't say this before, but I just noticed that some of the references have accessdates, and some don't. It's not the end of the world, but I'd prefer to see consistency in the refs. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, if the link doesn't work you should try to replace the link or just remove the associated information. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I would, but it is about tornado emergencies and it somewhat important since it was a record. I've searched for on the archives I could find, and couldn't find it. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
That could be a problem. On the link checker, it says all links are OK, but obviously some of the references don't work. You could put [dead link] in the ref for the time being, and I'll try to find a replacement for you. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

All other links checked out okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I have fixed ref 100. I would have to agree that those are not really reliable, but they are the only things out there for those statements. The high risk statement definately has to stay to show how historic this outbreak was. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
You could use the SPC archives... Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The SPC archives only go back through 2003 or so. I will be gone all mrorning and into the early afternoon. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
This is 2008, we don't need them from 2003 or earliler. ;) I'll look for them for you when I get the chance. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid we do need an outlook from 1998 for the February high risk reference, since that last was last time one was issued. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
You mean this? ;) Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
No, that's from April. It was February 10, 1998, just a derecho over the Gulf Coast Probably not very many, if any references can be found about it, and if there are any, I doubt that it will refer to the high risk. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Ooh, I see. I've found some blogs that refer to the high-risk, but they clearly arn't a RS. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have put access dates on all references now! Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, looks good to me. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is some rather awkward writing in this article:
  • "Temperatures across many areas reached the 70s°F (21–26 °C) with local reports in the low 80s°F (27 °C) across portions of Alabama with dewpoint temperatures in the mid–60s°F (17–20 °C)". With ... with, portions of Alabama?
  • "... hail as large as softballs". Is that big? I'm not from the US, so I don't know how large a softball is.
  • "In Arkansas, the 13 fatalities were the most fatalities since 25 were killed during the Benton, Arkansas Tornado Outbreak on 1 March 1997." How do you kill a fatality?
  • "Some of the most powerful storms were situated across the Memphis and Jackson areas between 23:00 UTC and 00:30 UTC while numerous other tornadoes were reported across northern Mississippi northwest of Tupelo, Mississippi ...". Does the "while" mean that these other tornadoes also occurred between 23:00 and 00:30?
  • "A record five tornado emergency declarations were issued, four located in Tennessee ..." That doesn't sound right, "located" in?
  • "The first of the long-track supercells of the outbreak, and the longest continuous track of any single tornado, developed about 5:00 pm ..." The article was using UTC earlier.

These are just a few examples; the text needs some work yet I think. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Reply
  • First comment: The "with" refers to the local reports, not the portions of Alabama.
  • Third comment: That sentence sounds perfectly normal to me. How do you suggest we write it instead?
  • Fourth comment: The while does mean other tornadoes occured during that time period and makes perfect sense to me.
  • Fifth comment: Once again, that is proper grammar. "Located in" means that tornado emergencies were issued in Tenneessee.
  • Sixth comment: I have decided to use UTC only in the sypnosis only. I am using local time in all other sections as discussed on WT:SEVERE and above. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Drive-by reply:
2. Right, but readers not from the U.S. will not be familiar with that comparison. Try to find a more universal size comparison.
3. The repetition of "fatalities" is ungainly (you can cut the second one safely). "were killed" is currently modifying "fatalities", but storms can't kill fatalities (nor can anything else). They can, however, kill people; insert "people" after 25.
5. "located" is ungainly here. Just "in" makes for a better flowing sentence. BuddingJournalist 17:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Why is boldface being used for the risks and EF ratings? Also, provide context for the EF ratings on first use ("The tornado was rated an EF4 on the Enhanced Fujita Scale"). BuddingJournalist 17:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. There is much to like about this article. It's informative and it seems to be well researched. My only reservation is that it is not well enough written to be considered of the professional standard demanded of FAs. I have fixed the points I raised in my comment above, but they were only examples. "... the first such issuance in February since 10 February 1998" Is "issuance" even a word? The article needs some polishing, probably best done by someone with fresh eyes. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Give me a couple days and I'll see what I can do about the flow & prose. Gopher backer (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply

  • All of the issues brought up by Budding Journalist have been rectified. As for the boldface, it is used for what it is designed for, emphasis. I will put the first mention of an EF rating in context. Once again, issuance is a word, look at the English Wikitionary. I am going to bring in a outside person who is a grammar whiz to look at the article. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
RE: boldface. It should not be used for emphasis. BuddingJournalist 23:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. When the prose has been sorted out I look forward to being able to support this nomination. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Boldface: 1. It is project standard, and 2.I don't see how italics really emphasize anything. As for the prose, I just went through the article with the grammar whiz mentioned above on the phone. I believe I have rectified all prose issues. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
? The use of italics for emphasis is standard not only in Wikipedia (by consensus), but also in almost any other publication. Could you point me to the project's rationale for overriding MOS? I also don't see why the risks and EF ratings need to be emphasized. BuddingJournalist 00:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The risks and EF ratings are key elements to the synoptic history of the system, and therefore need to be bolded. Besides, it's project standards. I don't see any reason why it should be any different. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I am withdrawing this nomination, and I will be taking a Wikibreak for a long time. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 01:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to withdraw. If you want, I can take over the nomination and see what I can do. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
No, just leave it alone. I have done everthing possible for this article, but people seem to think I am lazy and don't want to do anything. Do not expect me to respond to anymore messages for a long time. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Nobody think you're lazy. Remember, this is FAC, and a featured article has to be perfect, so people are very strict when reviewing articles. Don't take it personally. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why this article should be withdrawn either. But the issues raised do have have to be addressed, not just shrugged off. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I see no reason to withdraw either, especially if Juliancolton is willing to take over the nom if SKYWARN goes on wikibreak. "people seem to think I am lazy and don't want to do anything" I have seen no evidence of anyone thinking that you are lazy, and I certainly hope that I'm not included in the "people" you cite. No one thinks you're lazy. FACs can certainly be frustrating, but remember that reviewers are commenting on the article, not editors. Please don't take criticisms of the article personally. BuddingJournalist 02:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:17, 6 May 2008.

[edit] Mary Seacole

  • Self-nomination. As Mary Seacole's initial GA nominator, I have improved the article from B status to GA, and significant changes occured during that process which helped develop the article and gave a good general copy-edit to the article. I'll do my best to address those concerns that are brought up. Rudget (Help?) 18:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
"Thousands of troops from all the countries involved were drafted to the area, disease broke out almost immediately, and hundreds died of fever (mostly cholera);" - sounds wrong(?) -- Naerii 18:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Reworded. Rudget (Help?) 18:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment, want very much to support if the follow are changed:

  • This phrase: an inexperienced doctor sent by the Panamanian government, and the Catholic church, which paraded images of saints and prayed for divine intervention sounds a bit disparaging to Catholics, and although it may have been true, to keep this language, you'll have to cite the statement.
    • Re-worded. Rudget (Help?) 12:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I read this sentence three times: Salih notes the use of a white American pidgin vernacular, contrasting with Seacole's clear English, as an inversion of renditions of "black" speech in contemporary literature, and as a claim of moral and intellectual superiority and still was unable to understand it. Can you rewrite it?
    • Re-worded. I've tried my best to understand it myself, but as I wasn't the original author of that statement, I interpreted in a more simpler sense. Rudget (Help?) 12:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delink the dates that aren't connected to years.
  • This seems like a disjointed edit that never got rewritten properly: On one occasion attending wounded troops under fire she dislocated her right thumb, an injury which never healed entirely;[61] she often treated French, Sardinian and Russian casualties alike.
  • Is the term "knock-down prices" as informal as it seems?
    • Re-worded. Rudget (Help?) 11:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • There's no punctuation at the end of this sentence: over 1,000 artists performed, including 11 military bands and an orchestra conducted by Louis Antoine Jullien. The festival was attended by a crowd of 40,000[82]
  • A citation is needed here: "I have witnessed her devotion and her courage ... and I trust that England will never forget one who has nursed her sick, who sought out her wounded to aid and succour them and who performed the last offices for some of her illustrious dead"
    • Done. I'm pretty sure this quotation in this page came after the publishing of the English Heritage article, so to that end, I don't believe EH have copied content from the article. Rudget (Help?) 12:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I fixed a couple evident copy edit issues. I suggest a fine tooth comb to make sure it's all taken care of.
  • The last three sentences need to be made into a single paragraph.

I enjoyed reading this article. I think you'll have to do some editing, but after the prose is worked out, it will make a nice FA. --Moni3 (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. This sentence drives me nuts because I still can't understand it: Salih notes the use of American pidgin, against Seacole's clear English, as representational of a supposed white moral and intellectual superiority. Would it be accurate to say "Historian Salih notes that Seacole used American pidgin to satirize the assumed white moral and intellectual superiority, since she used her own clear English in everyday speech"?
Yes, the last three sentences in Recognition. --Moni3 (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I also enjoyed this article and hope it achieves RA status but have a few questions/comments:

  • In the lede the sentence "She operated boarding houses in Panama and Crimea while treating the sick." gave me the impression this was simultaneously & could be reworded.
    • Done. Rudget (Help?) 11:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
      • still not sure about that one
  • The units mile(km) should be linked on first use.
  • Is the Lord Rokeby mentioned one of those listed at Baron Rokeby?
  • Is the paragraph "West Indies was a lucrative outpost of the British Empire....." particularly relevant to the life of Mary Seacole? Although setting the context it doesn't seem immediately relevant.
  • still not sure about that one
    • Oops. Missed that out before. Done now. Rudget (Help?) 14:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Does the picture of a "Traditional Panamanian Building" add anything to the article?
    • Removed, after reflection, not much use in article. Shuffled around those that were remaining. Rudget (Help?) 11:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Are there any supporting references for the "hundreds who died" in 1854 in the Crimea (or even more accurate figures) as the level of cholera, as this seems to be a significant factor?
  • Where is Navy Bay - is she travelling from Panama or Jamaica?
  • I'm not sure about the phrase "Florence Nightingale took against Seacole" I know what you mean & it is supported in the subsequent paragraph, but is an unusual form of words.
    • Re-worded. Rudget (Help?) 11:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't understand "both a Miss Nightingale and a Soyer" - what is a Soyer? does this relate to Alexis Soyer mentioned earlier? or the Soyer who described her young relative later in the same section?
    • Re-worded. Rudget (Help?) 11:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • But I still don't know what a "Soyer" is ?
    • Internet search seems to suggests it means chef in this particular context, so its been replaced. Rudget (Help?) 14:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "In August Seacole was once again on Cathcart's Hill for the final assault on Sevastopol on Friday 7 September 1855." seems like a date conflict.
    • Copy-edited. Rudget (Help?) 11:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Back in London in 1856 we find her "considered setting up shop with Day in Aldershot, Hampshire, but nothing materialised" & later in the same paragraph we find her closing the shop.
    • Re-worded. I don't know why that was, copy-edited with replacement of conflicting statement. Rudget (Help?) 11:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What does the comment about Jamaica being "politically changed in her absence" mean? had she been charged or was there unrest on the island?
    • Re-worded. Rudget (Help?) 11:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Several financial amounts are mentioned in her will - are these supported by ref 94?
    • Indeed they are. Rudget (Help?) 11:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

As a nurse I was vaguely aware of her contribution in the Crimea but I've learnt a lot from reading this article.— Rod talk 21:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There also appear to be several broken external links (at least when I checked)

— Rod talk 22:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I've struck through the ones I'm happy are sorted but there are a couple of others where I can't see what change has been made or that it has resolved the issue.— Rod talk 13:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • What makes the following sites reliable?
  • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/ is a concern. When I've checked their articles on subjects I know, they are very simplistic and seem designed to reach a juvenile audience. While I've yet to catch them wrong on a fact, they definitely give a school child version of history. I would be leery of using them for much beyond basic facts or as a second source to buttress another source.
    • Like I said below, it's very hard to find any substantive resources out there, and so consequently only an autobiography, a few books and simplistic historical view by a school-orientated website are able to supply "good" references. I apologise for not using any other sources, but in the absence of them and the similarities between other FAs with a reliance upon autobiographies, I'd keep it as is for now. Rudget (Help?) 12:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Current ref 6 "Who's Who in British History" is the full bibliographical information given elsewhere in the notes? I'm not seeing it in the References section...
  • Likewise Salih? I'm not seeing a reference by that last name in the References.
    • Done. Fourth one down at Mary_Seacole#References. Rudget (Help?) 12:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Since you list it in the references by Seacole, and only give Salih as the editor much further into the reference, you should either list the Salih ref as a separate title if you're using a long introduction written by Salih as a separate source, or just ref it as Seacole. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Current ref 50 "Spartacus Schoolnet" is lacking publisher and last access date. Also, see above for concerns about this site. It's also lacking a true title since the title of the page linked to is "Florence Nightengale"
  • Large chunks of the article appear to be referenced to her own autobiography? That would be a concern about relying too much on her own primary accounts.
    • The problem is that with the events happening over 150 years ago, its hard to find any other sources available for the article, and so consequently there is no other choice but to use the autobiography (and other reliable sources) as the primary references. Rudget (Help?) 12:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I've pointed out some Google Scholar refs I found on a quick search. Not sure if you're able to get a hold of them or not. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Current ref 96 is actually linked to the Spartacus web page on Secole, not to a Punch magazine article. If you are using the quotation on the Spartacus site, you really should state that it's quoted on that site, because the current footnote implies you're using the Punch magazine article direct, not through an intermediary source.
    • Clarified. Rudget (Help?) 12:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Current ref 104 "Mary Seacole Leadership..." is lacking publisher and last access date.
    • Seems fine to me. Rudget (Help?) 12:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
      • It's 105 now, after some movement of refs. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Same for current ref 108 "New exhibition..."
    • Already done. Rudget (Help?) 12:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • http://healthweb.blink.org.uk/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=82 deadlinked for me.
Still on the road, so it will be less often updating things since I'm busy. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Done. Replaced with Home Office link. Rudget (Help?) 12:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I went over to Google Scholar and turned up these articles that might be helpful
Hope these are helpful. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I can't view them for some reason. Possible Google Scholar virus? Rudget (Help?) 13:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
They are links to published journal articles, not to the articles themselves. You'd need to either have JSTOR access, get someone with JSTOR access to get the articles for you, or get them through your library. I'll also note that she has an Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article, that should probably be consulted and would be a good source for basic information on her life. If you can't access it yourself, leave me a note here and email me and I'll email you the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
That is a good list of scholarly sources of the kind that should be used to source a bio; I usually pay for PubMed articles, or ask a friend to e-mail them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Asking a friend (who has paid for access to a database/JSTOR or similar service) to provide copies of these materials, may be a breach of a licence agreement and probably should not be recommended here.— Rod talk 19:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
You've got some assumptions in parentheses. Anyway, Rudget, the PubMed articles can be ordered thru Medline, or obtained in a medical library, and they are the kinds of sources that would be good to access. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm allowed to pass on any of my university's resources for "scholarly purposes" and I have here:[46]. Graham. GrahamColmTalk 23:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Support This is a brilliant article and a real pleasure to read, the prose is superb. For an encyclopedic article, I can't praise it highly enough, what a fascinating woman and an amazing life. There were some inconsistencies with British English spelling, but I think I got to most of them but please check. I don't understand the policy on linking of dates yet, so please check this too. (I saw an August 1926 that was not linked, but other dates were). Lastly—and this is probably not actionable—I don't like the spelling of Tchernaya. Chernaya means black in Russian and begins with the letter Ч (Ch)not Ц (Ts). But I see this erroneous transliteration is quite common, I will probably have to live with it. Oh, and well done by the way for another Wikipedia treasure. GrahamColmTalk 12:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Support I did the GA review with a recommendation that the copyediting and prose be tightened before FAC, and this seems to have been largely addresses. Two points that ought to be fixed

  1. refs 2,3 and 5 in the intro do not follow punctuation, contra MoS
  1. Done. Rudget (Help?) 10:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. Opening five days a week and closing Sundays my maths isn't what it used to be but 5 + 1 doesn't quite make 7.
  1. Done. Rudget (Help?) 10:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Jimfbleak (talk) 05:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for now, mostly to do with comprehensiveness concerns and missed opportunities.

  • Perhaps spell out the feud with Nightingale in more detail? It wouldn't hurt to mention Nightingale's barking mad behaviour on her return to the UK.
  • Allegations of profiteering from the British Hotel?
  • Reasons why the British Hotel failed? (Overstocked when the end of the war came.)
  • Put the average nurse of the period into context? Nightingale's general fears were not unfounded: many were alcoholic old biddies, ex-tarts well past their sell-by date etc
  • Reasons why the UK benefits failed? (Extravagant expenses incurred by the promoters.)
  • Social climbing? The bizarre bequests in her will to members of the royal family (who didn't need it).
  • Count Gleichen. Which Count Gleichen?
  • More on Alexis Soyer? Chief chef of (I think) the Savoy in London at the time. He had a government brief to improve Crimean diet and invented a special field kitchen for the campaign.
  • The term "doctress" was used by Seacole of herself too.
--ROGER DAVIES talk 11:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • For most of these, I can write about them (especially the one regarding Nightingale), but I can't find any sources at all to back up the statements I could potentially make. Would that be a problem? On a side note, does not the article cover all of these aspects in its present revision? Some of these requests I don't find particularly practical, and with those comments in brackets to the left it appears to promote some sort of a POV siding with Mary Seacole against the introduction of Nightingale's perspective, I would be hesitant to add them. Rudget (Help?) 14:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you'll find all my remarks covered in Robinson as it's the only biography of Seacole I've read. I don't think I'm introducing an anti-Nightingale POV as my remarks about the state of nurses back her view. --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Ack, I know. I just don't want to be responsible for including potentially, what could be portrayed as, "damaging" material to an article with only one source to back them up. I've got some other content being forwarded to me however, that might help further. Rudget (Help?) 14:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A few points on the lead:

  • "Seacole was taught herbal remedies and folk medicine by her mother, who kept a boarding house for disabled Crimean war veterans" - I doubt Seacole's mother put up many disabled veterans of the Crimean War (1854-6) when Seacole was young (before, say, 1826), nor, indeed, before the mother's own death (in 1844).
  • "Seacole was considered an expert on the symptoms of cholera." - by whom was she considered an expert?
  • Seacole "was only saved from adversity by the Commander-in-Chief of the British Forces, Lord Rokeby". What do you mean by "Commander-in-Chief of the British Forces"? Commander of the British forces in the Crimea? Or of the whole British Army? When was Henry Montagu, 6th Baron Rokeby either of these? The former were Lord Raglan (died June 1855), then General Sir James Simpson (resigned November 1855) (no article, it seems), then Sir William John Codrington; see Commander-in-Chief of the Forces for a list of the latter.

I hope these are not indicative of the whole.

Echoing Roger Davies, while there may be a dearth of primary sources, lots of secondary sources have been published in recent years. For example, there is no mention of or citations to Helen Rappaport's No Place for Ladies (published in 2007) - Rappaport owns the NPG portait, incidentally. Seacole - female, non-white, provincial, little or no formal training, herbal remedies - can easily be compared with and contrasted to Nightingale and the more formal medical establishment of the times.

I also noticed that your first edit to this article was on 30 March 2008, when it was, shall we say, quite well developed - already 49k long and 100 footnotes - and here are the changes since then. Some of the changes are a little troubling: I imagine the original editors had sources to justify the material that has been excised (for example, the behaviour of the Catholic church in Panama; details of Seacole's husband; Seacole's implicit claim of superiority over the Americans by having them speak a pidgin English, inverting the contemporary denigratory "black" pattern of speech; how lucrative the West Indies were to the British). I wonder if any of the editors who contributed to this article before you took it under your wing have anything to say. -- Testing times (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Rudget is busy in real life for the next couple of days, (?exams). It's not for me to answer the above, but we are collaborating on sources, [47]. I hope I will be forgiven for poking my nose in here. GrahamColmTalk 23:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe Testing times was referring to ALoan. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes; but I believe User:Giano II had a hand in this article too. -- Testing times (talk) 07:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I have just spotted the "self nomination." This page may have been developed and improved slightly, but for ever it always seemed the particular baby of User: ALoan, who often asked me for help and advice on it. I don't see that many vast changes. Giano (talk) 06:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per the inaccuracies and lacking details mentioned above. Assigning Lord Rokeby the position of Commander-in-Chief was done by Giano here. An easy mistake to make when knocking out a new lead and without expertise on the subject, but I find it worrying that the statement has not been altered since November 2006 even though the details of Rokeby's command have been retained unchanged—he is mentioned as commander of the 1st Division in the Crimea twice—and the article has supposedly been significantly changed and developed (amazingly, the stub started on Rokeby repeated this error, despite the source clearly stating that Simpson was the Commander-in-Chief and Rokeby Commander of the 1st Division—Giano's words obviously carry too much weight to be easily dismissed). This lack of rigour (the glaring error of her mother running a boarding house for Crimean veterans is another obvious example), coupled with the diff provided by Testing times, suggest the article as it stands is a slightly less accurate and less comprehensive version than when it was rated "B" (which just goes to show how useful the rating system is, I guess).Yomanganitalk 14:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Closing note: I was silly to think this article would even get anywhere near FA; I don't have enough time to do all these corrections and as Giano points out, ALoan was the creator of this, but seeing as he is absent and I was the next largest contributor, hopefully it wouldn't matter. Nomination withdrawn. Rudget (Help?) 15:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Please don't be too disheartened. No-one owns this article. It is a good article (not merely in the a Wikipedia:Good article sense) and not too far from WP:FA-standard, but there are some parts - mentioned above - that need modification, and there is more research to be done.
As to "largest contributor", don't confuse number of edits with size of contribution. -- Testing times (talk) 07:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:17, 6 May 2008.

[edit] Priory of Sion

Self-nominator: I'm nominating Priory of Sion, which has recently been listed as a good article under the good article criteria, for featured article because it is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable. Furthermore, there has been tremendous popular interest in this topic due to the international success of the book The Da Vinci Code and the film made from it. Loremaster (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments. There seems to be a lack of photos. I know it seems rather hard to find free images, but two? Is it me, or does it seem rather overwhelming to have so many inline cites in the lead? I'll do my other comments later when I have the time. So far, it looks good, aside from my comments. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I added some pictures. I'll work on captions as soon as possible. I'll reduce the number of inline cites in the Lead --Loremaster (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The photos? Yes. Check the criteria. The inline cites about the lead I think should be in the MOS. And thank you. Other issues seem to be resolved. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I had to delete 3 of the 4 pictures I added. I (or someone else) will try to add a picture of Pierre Plantard the man behind the Priory of Sion hoax. --Loremaster (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • The following refs are lacking publisher information:
    • Current ref 12 "Klinghofer, David "The Da Vinci Protocols"
    • Current ref 13 "Miller, Laura "The Da Vinci Crock"
    • Current ref 15 "Thompson, Damian "How Da Vinci Code tapped ..."
    • Current ref 21 Anderson, Stephen "Pierre Plantard the .." Also, what makes this a reliable source?
    • Current ref 22 Introvigne Massimo Beyond the Da Vinci Code..." What makes this a reliable source? Also, it says "Preliminary version, do not reporduce or quote without the consent of the author" at the top.
    • Current ref 37 "Burns, Alex "holy blood, holy grail" Also, what makes this a reliable source?
    • Current ref 39, Aho, Barbar "The Merovingian Dynasty..." Also, what makes this a reliable source?
    • Current ref 46 "Les Cahiers des Rennes-le-Chateau" is lacking publisher and other bibliographic information.
    • Current ref 47 "jean=Jacques Bedu Les Sources Secretes .. lacking publisher
    • Current ref 58 "Tomb discovered in france considered knights templar... " Also, this is a press release?
    • Current ref 60 O'Neill Tim "History vs the Da Vinci code.." Also, what makes this a reliable source?
    • Current ref 62 "Prieure of Sion..." Also, what makes this a reliable source?
    • Current ref 63 "Ravipinto, Dan "Gabriel Knight 3 review.." also what makes this a reliable source?
    • Current ref 64 Harris, Craif "All Music Guide..."
  • Current ref 14 "Miller, Laura "Jesus the coverup" actually goes to the Kilnghofer article above. I think the link's misplaced.
  • Current ref 17 is a bare url. Needs formatting and should give a publisher, etc.
  • Current ref 52 "Gino Sandri works for a white-collar trade union..." the website listed is just a bare url, needs publisher and last access dated at the very least, and more bibilographical details would be good.
  • Current ref 56 Bloodline the Movie website is a bare url, needs formatting and publisher and last access date
  • Same for current ref 57 Ben Hammott.
  • Same for current ref 59, which should say it's a french website. Also, what makes this a reliable source? Looks like, (translating through babelfish) that this is a people finder site?
All other links worked fine.
If I get a chance, I'll try to come back and review this article. (It means I'm going to have to throw some more books in the books to take with pile though...) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I can provide all the required sources. I've been involved in this subject matter since the 1970s. Wfgh66 (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Because Ealdgyth is traveling, I'm adding a note in her absence that publishers have still not been supplied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Issues resolved, ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Indopug's vote and comments
  • Strong oppose (continued below): This article was nominated for FAC just a few hours after it passed a rather lenient GA review. It is largely the work of a single editor, and has neither been peer-reviewed nor copy-edited; two things this article sorely needs. The following are an indicative list of problems, not a exhaustive one: —This is part of a comment by Indopug (of 09:36, May 2, 2008 ), which was interrupted by the following:
Except for the Lead, the Priory of Sion article is largely the work of User:Wfgh66, with the support of other editors, that was written months if not years ago. The article was relatively "dormant" until a few weeks ago when I decided to copy-edit it to raise its quality enough to get both Good Article and Feature Article status. In other words, I've been working to finess someone else's idiosyncratic prose without completely wiping out what this individual wrote. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Prose
  • This article suffers from sentences often running on and on and on; right off in the lead I see:
  • "However, it has come to refer to a mythical secret society plotting to restore the Merovingian dynasty to the thrones of Europe and Jerusalem since the Middle Ages, which was speculated about in, and popularized by, the 1982 controversial non-fiction book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, and later claimed as factual in the preface of the 2003 conspiracy fiction novel by Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code."--I've read short stories that were shorter than that sentence.
Fair point. Fixed it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Despite the exhaustive debunking of the Priory of Sion as one the great hoaxes of the 20th century by journalists and scholars, some skeptics have expressed concern that the proliferation and popularity of books, websites and films inspired by this hoax have contributed to the mainstreaming of conspiracy theories, pseudohistory, superstition and other confusions but also of the romantic reactionary ideology promoted in these works."--and novels smaller than this one.
Fair point. Fixed it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Unencylopedic tone: "Indeed, the offices of the Priory of Sion and its journal were at Plantard's apartment." why indeed?
Why indeed. Fixed it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "There is ample evidence that it had several members, as indicated by the numerous articles contained in its journal Circuit, written by a number of different people." i had to read this sentence four times before I could understand it.
It's perfectly understandable to pretty much everyone I know who read it except you. Although I'm sure you've now "poisoned the well" so to speak... ;) --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "The articles of the association as indicated in its statutes formalized the goal of creating a..." What? Is such overly formally language required? I think there is a grammatical error/error in conveying the meaning there too.
Fair point. Fixed it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the next sentence too; I think the entire prose needs rewriting/editing, as nothing is clear in those first two paragraphs. It is honestly very difficult to read.
Although I agree that they could be improved, I don't get why you seem to have such difficulty understanding it. Anyway, fixed it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • However, the bulk of the activities of the Priory of Sion bore no resemblance whatsoever to the objectives as outlined in its statutes." and then "The first issue of its journal, Circuit, is dated 27 May, 1956, and, in total, twelve issues of the journal appeared."--why are these two sentences next to each other?
Because the bulk of the activities consisted of producing a journal. That being said, fixed it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Also chanced upon this stubby thing: "André Bonhomme played no part since 1956."--in what?
Fair point. Fixed it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Just get a copy-editor who has never seen the text before. The language seems complicated and the sentences very convoluted. Every now and then a word is missing like "was" in the fourth para of History. I won't be crossing these as they were just examples; the entire text needs a cleanup; as I've mentioned. indopug (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Easier said than done. As for the language being complicated and the sentences convoluted, its a tricky subject to get a handle on and I've been working to finess the prose but most of it is not mine. As for the missing words, you'll have have to point them out or add them yourself because I don't see any so far (probably because I am tired...). --Loremaster (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm barely halfway through the first section and I think I better stop: get a copy-edit from somebody who is not familiar with the text.
MoS
  • Dates are formatted wrongly: [[January 1]], 2007 is not correct. Since this is an article about a French organisation, I think it should be [[1 January]] [[2007]]. (I'm not sure what system France follows)
I disagree. I don't think an English Wikipedia article should change its dating format simply because its topic is about a French organization. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand the problem; review Wikipedia:MOSDATE. Dates are written either as [[1 January]] [[2007]] (international system) or [[January 1]], [[2007]] (American system). The current system is simply incorrect.
I understand now that the problem has been better explained to me. ;) Fixed it. --Loremaster (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Still incorrect. Follow my lead indopug (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the lead. Fixed it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weird linking, why is France linked in the first paragraph of the History after French etc has been mentioned before?
Because "French" and "France" are two different things. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Begging your pardon, but I do believe "French town" implies a town located in France; a link at "marginal French fraternal organisation" in the lead should do. Also there is plenty of overlinking throughout; after the first mention in the body, refer to him only as "Plantard" without first name or link. Common English words like pedigree and hoax should not be linked. indopug (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
All fair points except for the internal link in the word "hoax" because the article it links to has an entry on the Priory of Sion. Anyway, fixed all of it. --Loremaster (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The sections are named "Priory of Sion history", "Priory of Sion myth" and "Alleged Grand Masters of the Priory of Sion" in an article called "Priory of Sion"--spot the redundancies.
Fair point. Fixed it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "For more details on this topic, see The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.": I don't think that's correct or necessary; the book is linked later anyway.
Fair point. Fixed it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Roger-Patrice Pelat is linked to French wikipedia; that is definitely not normal and I'm not sure if its permissible either.
Fair point. Fixed it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Um, no you didn't. indopug (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Um, yes I did. I removed the link to the French Wikipedia article but there is no English Wikipedia article on the man last time I checked that's why we were using the French link in the first place. --Loremaster (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
If you removed the link, then I never made this edit. indopug (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh! I was referring to The Pelat Affair section not the Alleged Grand Masters section. --Loremaster (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Try to avoid these "[31][32][33][34][35]", they awfully hinder readability. Try spreading the cites across the sentence.
Fair point. Fixed it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
What about the last paragraph of The Plantard Plot? indopug (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Missed it. Fixed it. --Loremaster (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Images
  • Image:Prieure de sion-logo.svg is an Svg file meaning it is of potentially infinite size, yet I find that #3 of the fair-use rationale used for that article is "It is a low resolution image, and thus not suitable for production of counterfeit goods."
I will leave this to someone else to fix.
I've "fixed" this. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. --Loremaster (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The SVG is back. indopug (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I put it back, because I think converting this to PNG is misguided (I reduced the nominal resolution of the SVG, though). We have lots of fair use vector logos. Using vector versions is important for the longevity of the encyclopedia: Screen resolutions will continue to increase (and people have different preferences for the display size of images anyway) and we want to be able to produce high-quality print versions of articles as well. Our fair use claim only requires that the quality be no more than what we need for the purposes at hand, which I believe to be justifiable in this and other cases for that reason. — brighterorange (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
But an SVG file is potentially scalable to infinite size. Criterion #3b of WP:NFCC requires "Low- rather than high-resolution...is used". So a non-free SVG fails the criteria by an, um, infinite margin. I do not think the nominal size matters here; since anybody can scale to whatever size they want anyway. indopug (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Indopug is correct. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; what resolutions might be used are not relevant. Infinite resolution (i.e. scalable) is not appropriate for fair use images. The existence of other non-free .svg files is, similarly, not germane to discussion of images in this article. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTAL is irrelevant here, because it is a content policy, not a statement about how we interpret the future of the encyclopedia itself. I think yours is a dangerous and pointlessly overconservative interpretation of policy. Fair use doctrine requires us to not use a portion of the work beyond what is sufficient for our needs; here the needs of the encyclopedia extend to rendering the logo at multiple sizes and in other media as time goes on. This is quite reasonable. For those needs a fixed-size bitmap is insufficient. Reductionist arguments about "infinite resolution" are non-productive, because the law that the policies are based on don't talk about resolution, and vector graphics don't have resolution. My mention of the other SVG logos is meant as evidence that this is acceptable practice among conscientious editors and that this logo is by no means an outlier. For example, Wikipedia:Logos implies that fair-use SVG logos are acceptable by making recommendations on the detail contained within them; we have {{SVG-Logo}}; and just look at all the SVGs in category:All non-free logos, including in a number of featured articles like Microsoft. Do you think those are all mistaken? There's no value in deleting useful content if we are not required to by law, so let's not search for reasons to delete, but reasons to keep. — brighterorange (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Its either dangerous or pointless but not both --Lemmey talk 23:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't quote or link WP:CRYSTAL. It's unfortunate that you have failed to comprehend what I'm actually saying: we should not be making content decisions based on speculation. We don't know the needs of the encyclopedia in the future. Here and now, policy explicitly requires low resolution (the antithesis of infinite or scalable resolution). Policy which, by the way, is deliberately more restrictive than law. WP:LOGO is a guideline, not policy, and any implications therein are subordinate to NFCC. The Microsoft logo, like all text-only logos, is not copyrighted. SVG is perfectly fine in those cases and, even then, has a minority representation in the category you provided; the existence of other images failing to conform to policy is not a license to do the same. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 23:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Isn't "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" precisely what WP:CRYSTAL says? What do you mean you didn't quote it? Either way, we're certainly free to anticipate the needs of the encyclopedia in the future (this is why we work on it), and make and interpret policy in that light. Why not? Policy does not say that you may not use vector graphics as fair use—you are interpreting the policy in an unnecessarily narrow way. We clearly do it in many instances. Also: The Microsoft logo is not copyrighted? Whaa? Where did you get that idea? It's not just text. — brighterorange (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Why not add free pics of a few more grandmasters? Is there a pic of Plantard? Even if non-free, I think you can argue for fair-use.
Fair point regarding Plantard. However, I don't think it would be a good idea to add more free pictures of *alleged* grand masters since the entire list is a *lie*. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
<befuddled> what does the addition of pictures have to do with the fact that the list is a lie? </befuddled> FYI, since he's dead, that non-free pic can used for the infobox in Plantard's article too.
My point is that, beyond the popular focus on Leonardo da Vinci, it doesn't really serve a useful purpose to add pictures of people who weren't really grand masters of the Priory of Sion. In other words, it's already bad enough their names have been dragged into this hoax. Do we really need to add their pictures as well? As for the picture of Pierre Plantard, it was my intention to add it to Plantard's article once we find a good one. --Loremaster (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Content
  • the lead sentence says (or Priory of Zion) where Zion links to an article about "a term that most often designates the Land of Israel and its capital, Jerusalem." Yet here I find only peripheral mention of Israel. Also, if PoS was named after a mountain, then, well, I'm confused. What I'm saying is: are you sure that the "Zion" in the alternative translation of the organisation's name refers to the Israeli Zion, or is it just a modification of "Sion"?
Fair point. Fixed it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I do hope you realise that that was a pretty serious mistake, which implied incorrect interpretations of the PoS being associated with Israel. indopug (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Putting aside that I don't need to be lectured by you, it wasn't a mistake. Pierre Plantard wanted to mislead people in thinking the Priory of Sion was associated with Israel. However, I've removed the internal link since this deception isn't explained in the Lead (nor should it be at that point). --Loremaster (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "In popular culture": this section just makes me laugh. "The band Priory of Brion formed by Led Zeppelin's Robert Plant in 1999 is an amalgamation of the name "Priory of Sion" and Monty Python's Life of Brian." - Really? Wow! Here we have an article about an organisation that claims to have descendants from Leonardo da Vinci and beyond, and we find it equally important to note the origin of the name of a band not notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article! Please, get rid of that entire section; there are guidelines about it too.
I strongly disagree with the notion of deleting the entire section. However, I agree that it should more closely follow the guidelines of the Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles page so I will work on it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, there is nothing here that is not trivial. What episode of what TV show mentions PoS is not encyclopedic information. Its also funny that Da Vinci code is mentioned there again. Another point is that if you let a section like this stay, IPs and other inexperienced editors will add even more sub-trivial information. indopug (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand all of that. However, I still support its inclusion unless it becomes the sole reason why the Priory of Sion cannot become a Featured Article. --Loremaster (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The article gets too listy towards the end; although the grand master lists cannot be avoided, I do believe that the assertions of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail can be converted to paragraphs.
I disagree. I think the "list format" better illustrates the exact goals of the Priory of Sion. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The most worrying thing I found was a post on the talk page regarding the possibility of Masonic roots; digging a bit deeper and what do I find in the last two days' edit history of the article: [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], an edit war!
Calm down. It's not really an "edit war". Even if it was, it was over an extremely minor issue. Furthermore, the dispute has now been resolved as you can see on the talk page. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Edit wars over minor issues are even worse than major ones and remain a serious violation of the orange pillar. They particularly stem from WP:OWN issues. --Lemmey talk 16:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your first point but the second point doesn't apply to this situation. Regardless, it's been resolved. --Loremaster (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Clearly, this article was brought a little too fast to FAC, and needs extensive content reviewing, copy-editing and a peer-review or two. All the same, this is an intriguing subject, and I look forward to seeing it in polished form sometime in the near future. indopug (talk) 09:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Although you brought up some good points that have now been used to improve the article, I think your judgement is too harsh. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope you're right, but the prose need reworking and I also see Ealdgyth's sourcing concerns are not taken care of. indopug (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I am working on the prose. As for the sourcing concerns, User:Wfgh66 said he would work on it. Do you mind crossing out the issues you have raised that are now resolved? --Loremaster (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Elcobbola and Indopug. I think the article needs extensive copyediting. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Indopug --Lemmey talk 20:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Loremaster, can you please review WP:TALK, particularly about excessive markup on talk pages? The bolded replies are making all of this hard to read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Where to begin? The whole tone of the article is non-encyclopedic. Substantial sections are not referenced and, perhaps more importantly, neither are the very many controversial claims. It reads like a conspiracy theory. How on earth did this article achieve GA? The prose is at its best poor. I couldn't bear to read more than than half of it. GrahamColmTalk 21:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree that the tone might be not encyclopedic enough, I find the suggestion that it reads like a "conspiracy theory" absurd when in fact the whole article is reporting the debunking of a conspiracy theory! --Loremaster (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(I'm moving unresolved concerns here, due to unreadability of the thing above. Please do not interrupt my comments, post your replies after them. I'll stike out stuff that's been addressed)

Strong oppose
  • The prose is poor. Get an independent, as yet uninvolved, copy-editor to clean it up.
  • I find it hard to understand why you cannot get the dates right, even after I showed you what to do. The syntax is [[1 March]] [[2008]] and the resulting display, depending on your settings, is 1 March 2008.
  • There seem to be edit conflicts: first regarding Masonic connections, second about some Aquarius logo thing.
  • Popular culture section that mentions all the video games in the world that reference the priory and a Robert Plant band nobody's ever heard of.
  • Ealdgyth's citation worries have been left unaddressed for a week. indopug (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments for Indopug

  • I will try to find a copy-editor but the problem is that Priory of Sion is a very complicated subject. If someone is not familiar with its details, their editing can very easily damage the factual accuracy of the article.
  • I admit that my exhausting schedule during the past week as meant that I've only been able to read and implement recommendations in a relative "rush" due to limited time. However, I still fail to see where I haven't gotten the dates right. Perhaps I am simply too tired to have noticed a mistake.
  • I will try to moderate these edits conflicts once and for all, which were not occuring before the Featured Article nomination process started.
  • Since the In popular culture section has become a problem, I will delete it.
  • User talk:Wfgh66, the person most familiar with the reliable sources for the content of the article, is still in the process of mastering Wikipedia guidelines for citing sources.

--Loremaster (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Motion to table candidate and initiate a copy-edit request

I think theres enough issues and recurring issues listed above to warrant tabling this candidate & I ask the FA director to review and make a decision.

  • This article contains multiple actionable objections have not been resolved in spite of an extensive discussion; and consensus for promotion has not been reached. --Lemmey talk 23:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Please read the instructions at WP:FAC and do not create sub-sections on the page. Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:12, 4 May 2008.

[edit] Iván Rodríguez

previous FAC never submitted at WP:FAC

I expanded this article and had it brought up to GA, and I think that it is FA status after looking over it. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Irish! 20:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments
  • I cannot call myself an expert in baseball, so apologies if my comments are making no sense.
  • Needs Non-breaking spaces throughout.
  • He won the World Series with the Florida Marlins in 2003, and again reached the World Series as the starting catcher for the 2006 Detroit Tigers.Rodríguez has caught two no-hitters for two different pitchers. Needs a space between the two sentences.
  • I'd really like to see more information in the "Early life" section.
A Google search reveals no other things that haven't already been mentioned.
  • Iván Rodríguez was born in Manatí, and raised in Vega Baja, Puerto Rico. I think the mention of Puerto Rico would be better after the name of the first city.
  • In his first game, Rodríguez went 3-for-3 against Spartanburg. While I at least know what 3-for-3 means, it could mean nothing to a regular reader. More explaination for terms and numbers like that would be great.
  • In fact, no other catcher in the past 35 years has been as successful at this aspect of the game, with Rodríguez throwing out 48% of attempted basestealers through May 2006, far more than the runner-up during this period, the late Thurman Munson.[8] A couple problems with that sentence. First off, it's too long, and has too many commas, making it slightly difficult to read. Second, when it says "in the past 35 years", does that mean operationally, or 35 years before the current time?
  • He hit the home run off right-hander Storm Davis. He was named to the Major League Baseball (MLB) Rookie all-star team by both Topps and Baseball America and finished in fourth place in the American League Rookie of the Year voting. He also placed first in throwing out runners, catching 48.6% of runners attempting to steal.[9] This occurrs numerous times in the article, when three or four sentences in a row start with "He". Try to mix up the wording some.

I'll have more later. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

More comments:

  • Rodríguez played in the Puerto Rican Winter League over the winter, but he suffered a severe knee injury which kept him on the bench for the rest of the season. Does this mean he literally sat on the bench for the entire season?Check markY
  • On October 9, the Tigers announced that they were picking up the fifth-year, 13-million-dollar option on Rodríguez's contract, keeping him in a Tiger uniform through at least the 2008 season. In a Tiger uniform? Does this mean he is playing with the Tigers, or he just likes the uniform so much that he's going to wear it for the rest of the year? (I know the answer, but some people might not.)Check markY
  • Please replace that in-text external link with a reference. Check markY

That's it from me. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
He wrote it on his own experiences, so it is reliable.
Primary sources aren't always the best sources for information though. Witnesses aren't always reliable. What makes this a primary source that is needed?
It explains information about his charity, and his early life. This could not be found in another place. The "personal tid-bits" were part of an interview with the Fort Worth Business Press, but can not be found in an archive. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Irish! 15:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't think this is ready to be featured yet. Here are some examples of problems with the article.

  • A couple of references still have the publisher in the title. Please seperate them to match the rest.
  • "Rodríguez was awarded the American League (AL) Most Valuable Player Award in 1999." There is a redundancy here. Change "was awarded" to "won".
  • "He ranked fourth in the AL among catchers in batting average, at .260." That batting average is not very impressive for an MVP. How about using his home run and RBI totals for the season to provide context on how Rodriguez earned the award?
  • "Rodríguez has caught two no-hitters for two different pitchers". Delete the first "two". It now sounds like he caught two no-hitters for both pitchers.
  • "The first one was in 1994 when he caught a perfect game by Kenny Rogers". Comma after 1994. The full date of the perfect game would be nice too.
  • "The most recent one was on June 12, 2007 when he caught the no-hitter thrown by Justin Verlander." Try this instead: "The most recent was on June 12, 2007, when he caught Justin Verlander's no-hitter."
  • Another issue with the no-hitters: Neither is mentioned in the season recaps.
  • Early life, second sentence: Change U.S. to United States.
  • "Ivan's first job consisted of delivering flyers in the shopping malls in Puerto Rico." Try "Rodríguez's first job was delivering flyers to shopping malls." We already know he was in Puerto Rico at the time.
  • Typo in fifth sentence of section: two→too.

These are almost all in the lead and and half of Early life, so there are likely other problems. Get some editors new to the article to help out. Giants2008 (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Support Nice article about one of the best ever. Dincher (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Version: [56] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Very well done, and close, but I have issues with some of the wording as well:

  • "no other catcher in the past 35 years of the League has been as successful at this aspect of the game, with Rodríguez throwing out 48% of attempted basestealers through May 2006." - this entire sentence is awkward. Given that it is in the major leagues section, it is a given that the "League" is MLB, so it's redundant. The sentence can also be simplified: "Over the last 35 years, Rodriguez has been the most successful catcher in this aspect, throwing out 48% of attempted basestealers through May 2006." Also, why to May 2006? Is there not a more recent cite available?
  • "He placed high on his team in many statistics" - This statement in the 1994-97 section is redundant, since you list the stats that he placed high on his team immediately after.
  • The 1994-97 section needs more citations, especially statements regarding the records he set for doubles and at-bats by a catcher.
  • "1997 season, Rodríguez also placed first among catchers in many categories in Major League Baseball. These categories were hits, runs, runs batted in, and doubles." - duplicate use of the word "categories". Consider simplifying.
  • "He placed second in home runs among catchers, below only Sandy Alomar, Jr. of the Cleveland Indians, who had 20 home runs." - Why do you mention how many home runs Alomar had, but not Rodriguez?
  • "On July 24, Rodríguez suffered a season-ending injury in a game against the Anaheim Angels. While trying to make a throw to second base, his thumb made contact with the swing of Mo Vaughn's bat. He fractured his right thumb and underwent surgery the next day. This injury caused him to miss the rest of the season." - Redundancies again. Why do you mention that he suffered a season ending injury twice?
  • "Even though he was injured, he was still named to the second-team of the Baseball America Major League Baseball All-Star Team." - Redundant and awkward. Perhaps: "Despite his injury, Rodriguez was still named a MLB second-team All-Star by Baseball America."
  • "He was selected to his ninth straight MLB All-Star Game in a row," - again, redundant. ...in a row. can be removed. Also, which record did he tie Johnny Bench for? The overall record, or just the record for catchers?
  • "This was his eighth season in a row with batting average of .300 or above." - should be "with a batting average..." Look over the article for simple word errors like this. I also saw a couple typos.
  • I'd recommend removing the statement about the 2003 season and wining the title with the Marlins from the end of the 2000-2002 section. It's unnecessary, and doesn't belong in that section.
  • "In 2006, Rodríguez returned to throwing out runners attempting to steal a base at a very high percentage, as he did in his earlier career" - why is this notable? You've already explained that he was a prolific catcher at throwing runners out. What happened during the middle years of his career that makes this important?
  • There are a lot of "On x day, he did y" statements. It reads like a point form list rather than a cohesive paragraph.
  • Why is it important that Rodriguez led the majors in exhibition home runs this year?
  • Would it be possible to mention what Rodriguez did in the World Baseball Classic? The section seems very empty, simply stating that he played, and who his teammates were - which isn't all that relevant to Rodriguez himself. Certainly more can be said about what he did?
  • On the steroid allegations, I think it would be beneficial to include Rodriguez's statement of denial, rather than simply stating "he denied the allegations" after spending the rest of the section describing the allegations.
  • Delink his wife's name if she isn't notable.
  • The lack of his career statistics is odd to me, but it would appear this was a project decision to simply list his stats via external links? Guess there is nothing actionable there, it just seems interesting to me.

All in all, you've done an excellent job with the article, and are quite close. My biggest concern is the numerous duplication of words and statements. There is a lot of room for simplification. Resolute 01:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose. This is some way from FA quality. The lead is underdeveloped, as indeed are many of the other sections. And there are still numerous problems with the prose. "went had three hits in three at bats" is but one example. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Closing notes: the nominator hasn't edited the article since April 25. After reading Jbmurray's Oppose, I revisited the diff of the article (above) that received Support and found numerous grammatical errors, MoS issues, linking problems, and citation issues. If the nominator is still following, I suggest opening a peer review and following all of the tips at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008, including inviting previous opposers and peer review volunteers to the peer review to comment and help sort out the issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:12, 4 May 2008.

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

previous FAC (00:02, 25 March 2008)


  • Self-Nomination The article has improved from its previous nomination, I believe the issues preventing its promotion have been addressed. It has also since been promoted from a GA to an A-class article. -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 20:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


Issues resolved, ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

All other links worked and checked out fine for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The first one, per the "about us" section, the people who run the cite are military pundits on CNN news etc, so they are respected analysts. Some of them also held directorship/high admin jobs in space research, which is also a part of GlobalSecurity. I've tossed off the last one because I found the same info on a better site. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I seem to have tossed off the second one as well.... is it still there? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see it either, I'll leave the global security one out for others to decide on their own. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Globalsecurity.org is a "gold standard" source. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 06:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I missed this in the HRC mess, what makes it a gold standard source per WP:RS? We need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Did you not read the article? GlobalSecurity.org. It's a reliable source according to Forbes.com (linnk in the article), Quantcast [57], Popsci.com, Alsos.wlu.edu, etc. It's ridiculous that this is even a question. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 16:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I read the article. The forbes link is the ONLY sourced information in the Global Security article. Just having a wikipedia article with one source doesn't make it a reliable source. The other link you gave, wlu. edu, was much more helpful about showing that it's a reliable source. I'm not sure how the other two links you gave established reliability, but the Forbes and the wlu.edu site together satisfy my concerns. Thank you. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Swatjester, please note that we are all volunteers, everyone here has the same goal of making sure our FAs are the best they can be, no question on a FAC is ridiculous if its goal is to make sure we're using the best possible sources, and reviewers who take their "job" of reviewing seriously are appreciated, as strenuous review enhances the quality of a star once it's bestowed. Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly disagree unless a few more dead-tree sources are found that do not rely on U.S. military sources. The brigade has a long history, and this should not be documented from official sources so close to the subject, but from third-party references. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose The sources are perilously close to WP:COI, coming almost entirely from the US military. This was raised at the Milhist A-class review and needs addressing.--ROGER DAVIES talk 06:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I've turfed most of them. The museum appears to be independent of the US Army, and so is Army Times. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I noticed but we've still got a fair number of them. Can this be neutralised further because otherwise it's rather a good article. --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Update - I'm working on it. Down to about 10-12% I think. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The copy looks fine but I haven't had time to give it close scrutiny. Maybe tomorrow, --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Is there some way that I can solicit for additional reviewers in the meantime? The commenters have not come back and no one seems to be giving opinions now. -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 04:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
It has been listed at User:Deckiller/FAC urgents for several days. Perhaps you can post at MilHist (taking note of the WP:CANVASS guideline). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
It's already been posted at MilHist, but that only attracted the project leader to the GA. -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 23:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose — It's a really nice article with plenty of wonderful graphics and photos, but I'd really like to see a few more citations from different sources. I'm particularly concerned about so much reliance on those first two cites — the GlobalSecurity one in particular. The prose is good, but I'd like to see some of the red links stubbed out or removed altogether; the battalions and "Iraqi gold" in particular are of questionable utility. The prose is good, but it's too limited by the sources you have. I imagine that as you add more sources, you'll be able to expand the detail of the article more than it is right now — thus resolving a minor issue. By all means, keep it up! It's an interesting topic, and I can't wait to see what you do with it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Extra redlinks removed. -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 15:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Redlinks are not a valid oppose; any article that could meet notability should be left as a redlink. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
And I just realized that I said "the prose is good" twice in rapid succession. Doh! JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:12, 4 May 2008.

[edit] Jack Kemp

previous FAC (19:02, 9 April 2008)

At nomination 1, I had just responded to most of the negative feedback the day it was closed. I think it might have passed had it stayed up another day. However, I have expanded the page a bit by sourcing details from U. S. News & World Report, Atlantic Monthly, and Newsweek to supplement the page that I felt was already pretty high quality. Its length still remains within the same range as the other world leaders noted on the first nomination although it is longer than the typical WP biography. I continue to believe that this is among the finest articles on WP and hope a few people now agree.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Support, as before, only more strongly. With a penetrating focus on the various phases of Kemp's life and career, an eminently readable style, and almost 300 footnotes (!), no question. Biruitorul (talk) 01:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Terrific writing, the article is very comprehensive on his entire life and careers, and neutral on all portions of it. Hello32020 (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Provisional Support Oppose - Too many simple grammar mistakes and other issues.
Issues resolved, Giants2008 (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Giants2008 (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Noting that Giants oppose is not unsupported, it continues below (it would help if reviewers would keep commentary together, as this appears as an invalid support, without commentary). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, both for not keeping my comments together and for not seeing this comment for two days. I'll do it differently in the future. Giants2008 (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with Giants2008. Although I've only read the lead and the first section, I can tell this article needs quite a bit of work.
    • The lead is kind of a mess. First, I don't get the structure. Why does it start with his career as a politician, then move to his time as a football player, then go on with the time after his political life, and finish by mentioning that he was in the Army (when? no one knows)? Second, it doesn't mention that Kemp left public life and then a paragraph starts with "Since returning to public life". Furthermore: "Kemp has held duties in official capacities to promote American football and has been a political advocate for the Republican Party and retired professional football players." Of course he was an advocate for the Republicans; he was in office as a member of the party. "Kemp is also a veteran of the United States Army who has authored, co-authored, and edited several books." What has his having been in the Army have to do with the books he wrote? They don't seem to deal with the military.
      • I have swapped the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. This gives the WP:LEAD an opening paragraph describing his most important/notable roles. Then subsequent paragraphs give high level detail related to these important roles in sequential order. I moved the bit about the military to complete this reordering.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "Kemp, who was born, raised and educated in Los Angeles, California, attended Fairfax High School, which is known both for its historically high concentration of Jewish students and for producing celebrities." The fact that he grew up in Los Angeles is already mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
    • "Although by the end of the century, Fairfax had become a majority Hispanic high school,[6] over 95 percent of Kemp's classmates were Jewish and he became a supporter of Jewish causes." By the end of what century? I presume you mean the 20th. Then it should be "would become"; the "had" implies that it had a Hispanic majority by the time Kemp attended it.
    • "Boasting an alumni of notable actors, athletes, and musicians, Fairfax is noted by celebrity-seeking guides.[8] The school is located on Melrose Avenue, and its alumni include Herb Alpert, David Arquette, Lenny Kravitz, Ricardo Montalban, David Janssen, Timothy Hutton and Mickey Rooney.[9][6]" The flow of these sentences is kind of weird. First it talks about the school's alumni, then it moves on to its location and then goes back to the alumni.
    • "Despite his proximity to the trappings of celebrity and entitlement, Kemp learned to embrace diversity and hard work during his experience working with his brothers at his father's trucking company in downtown Los Angeles." What? "Proximity to the trappings of celebrity and entitlement" normally turns people into bigots?
    • "Kemp's habit of rigorous reading showed in high school where he read history and philosophy books" If he had this habit before high school - as this sentence suggests - then it already it showed before by him reading other books.--Carabinieri (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Revised text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry for taking so long to respond, but I was hoping this article would develop a bit, if I wait a little, since you were discussing it with a lot of other editors. I still feel there are lots of problems in this article. Its structure is often unclear and it needs copyediting.
          • "Jim Mora, who would become a future NFL head coach" That's redundant. He already was a future NFL head coach.
          • The lack of dates in the "Early life" section makes kind of hard to follow. When did he graduate from high school? And from college? Were his military service and his studies at Long Beach State University and California Western University concurrent?
            • I added 1953 for his high school graduation. The Marriage section says "she graduated from Occidental College in 1958, which was a year after Kemp graduated" so it is clear he graduated college in 1957.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
          • The fact that Cookie Gilchrist was traded to the Broncos in 1965 is mentioned twice
            • One is in directs quotes (primary source). The other is a tertiary reference to a secondary source that is properly cited. Does that count as twice? A lot of times people will say something and you may not know whether they are telling a story with precise details. Thus, I added a properly sourced tertiary statement. Let me know if this is wrong.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Why are Kemp's appearances in magazines give so much coverage? Kemp's campaign for Congress, on the other, isn't covered at all.
            • A person like Kemp was probably in hundreds if not thousands of magazine stories over the course of his life. This article cites dozens as secondary sources because they are WP:RS. In addition it notes his most important magazine cover appearance and how it almost did not happen. It also refers to a politically charged magazine story about homosexual affairs. It is the only reference I found to this controversy which was an important part of his political history since it occurred while he was a political staffer. Having an article sourced by Time, Newsweek, Atlantic Monthly, U. S. News & World Report, and the New York Times is a good thing. I began my attempt to clean up this article at the Buffalo & Erie County Public Library (BECPL). I asked them what kind of sources they had for his political career and they said they had a file of clippings from the Buffalo News. If the main Buffalo Library had nothing but newpaper clippings to summarize one of the three most important politicians (after Grover Cleveland and Millard Fillmore) in the history of the city, then dozens of quality magazine articles from dozens of political pundits is a huge step up for the worlds repository of Kemp information. As for his congressional campaign the article states that he ran on some issues advised by Nixon staffers and it describes the state of his district. I confess that many politician articles have complete details of electoral results. I will put in a request with the BECPL for his congressional electoral results. This will get me numerical results in all likelihood. I have no indication of the history of his electoral campaigns. I have no information of hotly contested years. I imagine as a Republican from a traditionally Democratic district there were some interesting contests over the years. The article at 10300+ words is already challenging the not much more than 10000 word limit. Further detail on his congressional races would need to be in a separate article, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
          • There are quite a few weasel terms: "he was considered a John F. Kennedy throwback", "Kemp is described as the most proactive combatant", "he was heralded as a 'courageous voice in the wilderness'", "He is as fondly remembered for", "and he is described as having", "Kemp is known as an independent politician" just to name a few from "Congress" section. Try mentioning who said these things.
            • Is it still a WP:WEASEL violation to use such phrasing when almost every sentence in the article is followed immediately with a citation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Further on this issue:
              • "he was considered a John F. Kennedy throwback" -Clifford May reported in the New York Times that a political science professor said as much and two other articles later in the article make JFK comparisons.
              • "Kemp is described as the most proactive combatant"
              • "he was heralded as a 'courageous voice in the wilderness'"
              • "He is as fondly remembered for"
                • I don't know a better way to incorporate the fact that Karen Tumulty and Mike Duffy (not sure if this is the right guy from the dab) use his hair as the standard by which politician's hair is measured. This is a tertiary reference to a valid secondary WP:RS. He is viewed by many secondary sources as a handsome, JFK-like fellow with good hair. He eventually got to play a role where he was the stud quarterback in afterlife as a politician. I don't know what to say other than that I included 300+ refs so you can see for yourself.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
              • "and he is described as having"
                • followed immediately by two sources mentioning JFK. With two sources and earlier reference nothing else is needed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
              • "Kemp is known as an independent politician"
          • I don't get why much of the paragraph that starts with "In the early 21st century, Kemp" is in this particular section. I also don't get the point of sentences like "Pete du Pont was another progressive conservative" at all. That whole section seems to need a better structure.--Carabinieri (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottava Rima (talk • contribs) 15:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - This article is incredibly long, and being over 100k, unwieldy. Perhaps make a page devoted to his football career and to his political career and "main article" link them with summations of both in their own categories. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
And they are in violation of MoS guidelines also for their excessive length. And "only" 62k? You mean "only" violation MoS by 2k, when MoS tries to have people top off around 50k total? And for your information, the "text" portion is how you read "readable prose" according to the tool, and that doesn't include references which even the MoS includes, so, I would guess you are a good 20k over. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Violations of MoS are violations of MoS. If an FA is more than 10 printable pages, then it should be removed from FA status until it is trimmed down. Your page is 3 printable pages greater than the maximum suggested under MoS. Please, if you want to follow standard formating procedures, do what is recommended. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not dismiss your arguments, but you miss the point. The guideline says the problem area is when the articl is much more than 6,000 to 10,000 words and Kemp is at 10383. It also says that although over 60KB in length is probably a candidate to be split the real problem is at over 100KB and Kemp is at 62.6KB.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
1. Do not bring up off topic things such as that. 2. 10,000 "words" is meaningless, since you should be looking at the readable prose amount, which says 50k. 50k of small words could be over 10,000 words, and 50k of large words could be under 10,000 k. But its still the same size, which makes it the same download rate. As a frequent user of dialup, it makes it extremely hard to load pages. Hence part of the reason why it is there to begin with. Also, that 100kb use to refer to total size, until it was altered to say readable prose without consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
When I talk about 60KB I am refering to this guideline.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
And I am refering to - "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose". Now, to the "rule of thumb" it use to read "total size" not "readable prose", so you should note that. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I have gotten it down to 9995 words.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


More comments - After another look, I'm actually more concerned about the article.

Issues resolved, Giants2008 (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment While I have all these eyes on the page, can someone address the talk page concern of where the Jr. came from.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment made previously on the article talk, but no response there. In the second paragraph of "Cabinet" is the project opposed by Congress the same as the project opposed by Darman? They have the same description, so it's rather confusing. Also, I do not consider the overall wording of this paragraph to be neutral. Take for example the phrase "welfare reform to correct government offsets". Certainly it is a welfare "change". Whether it's a "reform" or is a pov. Similarly with the word "correct". There are also other wording issues. I edited it once, but was reverted so I'll leave the issue here for discussion. And to be clear, I'm not saying or implying that any editor is personally biased. .... A separate comment about FAC: There has been good progress with this article, but I don't think the writing is all that great yet. Lots of issues have been identified and corrected above. I've made a fair few edits myself. But my feeling is that FAC is the place to bring an article that is already well-copyedited, and just needs a minor tweak or two. This was a major issue in the last FAC, and basically the article needs a new set of eyes from someone with great writing skills. That said, the facts and references and coverage all seem to be of FA quality to me. Jpmonroe (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
First of all, let me say I am no serious scholar of politics. You can tell by my major contributions by project that I only have one check other than Kemp by WP:PLT. It is quite possible that I have misinterpreted a political scenario that someone who thrives on politics would understand better than I. It is also quite possible that in my reading of the 300 or so references for this article I have misinterpreted the secondary source in a few places. The first few sentences of this articleparagraph are all refed by one New York Times article. You are free to edit to correct my interpretation. In fact, I welcome it. This was not the flavor of edit that was reverted. Your edits were reverted because 1. facts were moved from one place to another without regard for citation (I.E. a fact from a sentence reference by one source was moved to another sentence reference by other sources), 2. high school facts were moved to the youth paragraph. 3. facts were removed that help us understand his background. If you make a correction that helps us better understand/interpret a reference and retain the WP:ATT and WP:V qualities of the article it would be welcome. I welcome the eyes. My own eyes were weary. For every ref you see included in the article there are two or three that I read and did not include so my eyes are definitely getting weary. It is quite a responsibility to properly sketch an encyclopedic biography like this and really think a person who is relevant to as many projects as Kemp is relevant to should have a lot more hands willing to get involved. I understand my citing style may be tough to work with, but that is how you get an article seriously considered at FA using the internet. I am here to get feedback toward an FA. I am going to reread the article once or twice and see if I can better present the facts. It may take me a while. I am not so sure I want to engage in a debate over whether the semantics of reform vs. change are appropriate. Like I said. I am not trying to POV this guy. I am actually a lifelong Democrat and you can look at this tool to count the edits at Jesse Jackson, Good article Michelle Obama, Good article Jesse Jackson, Jr., Good article Toni Preckwinkle and Sandi Jackson to see what I mean. I in fact do not know enough about the political spectrum to say whether you are in fact claiming I am POVing some republican ideologies since Kemp had a liberal bent. I just attempted to paraphrase or pick relevant quotes from various WP:RSs. What would be best is if you think I am POVing, note sentences and words just like some of the edits above and I will go line by line with you. The more your corrections get into iterpreting sociopolitical stuff the longer each response will take. A lot of the above has been just getting grammar and citations correct. Choosing the proper words to correctly relay facts is a slightly more complicated issue that will take longer, but I am willing to go there to get the article right.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't understand your reply. My comment notes exactly something I think is non-neutral, and says why. It is also states clearly that I do not think you are biased (and I've said that 4 times now). Intent is not the issue, and I wish you'd just stick to my very specific issues with the text instead of manufacturing an attack on your integrity out of nothing. Good grief. As to the rest, my opinion is that the writing isn't polished yet, and you've had several dozen specific comments about that in this FAC and the one last week. Disagreeing with my attempts to help doesn't change that. Bottom line, as it stands I oppose this nomination for the reasons above. However, I don't see much constructive coming out my involvement here or edits to the article, so I'll just bow out and leave it to the deliberations of others. Jpmonroe (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is the problem http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Kemp&diff=195312078&oldid=195245691 . I screwed up the edit. Check out the added ref and see if you still have a problem.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I have fixed your problem above. I imagine you might better understand the semantic nuances and would love for your advice. My comments that you say you do not understand above are probably more related to the comments that you made on your user talk page yesterday about me unknowingly pushing a point by word choice. I apologize if you did not like my joke about threatening to take action against you for calling me a Republican (I don't truly feel being a Republican is that bad a thing. When I was going door-to-door in Indiana this past weekend for the Obama campaign I even told the Republicans I hope they make their voice known because I believe in a Democracy). It seems to me that wikipedia is at a loss for your lack of patience with me. You have erased our discoure on your talk page, but at one point you said I've been biting my tongue, but your writing is generally poorly organized. Random facts here and there, and then back to the same facts in completely different paragraphs. My problem is that I am working from seven or eight hundred articles and piecing facts together. It is probably more common for a person to have a few biographies to work from rather than a hodge podge of magazine and newspaper articles, but JFK has no biography so I am working with what I have. I would prefer to reply to your directed comments than to just lose you. At one point yesterday you said you wold not oppose. Then although the article was unchanged you opposed for some reason probably related to my joke on your user talk page. I apologize if I offend. Wikipedia would be better off if you would point out topics that you think I have discussed in several parts of the article inappropriately rather than you just give up on me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment — Fantastic work, Tony. Keeps getting better, though I think it's passed into the boundaries of "too much of a good thing." I'd support splitting Kemp's football career off. I kind of feel that I share the blame, since I suggested expanding his football career the first time around, but I feel that it's definitely worth splitting off now. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I have the a couple of problems with splitting the article.
      1. The article is not really that long compared to his peer group. Look at Good articleRice, C. & Good articleClinton, H. among others.
      2. Although I could scale down the football section here, while I am here in Chicago I could not beef up the football career section into a quality dedicated article that describes his college career (Los Angeles resources needed) and his professional career (Buffalo/ Los Angeles/ San Diego resources needed although possibly all detail could be found in Buffalo) in detail. I am aware that since he was a Little All American, he was a star college and probably star high school football player. Someone with Los Angeles resources should tackle that topic. From Buffalo, someone could probably detail each season of Kemp's AFL career. I am just not capable of creating a quality split article from here. As I recall the information was available at the Buffalo Public Library.
      3. The current article has approximately the proper depth to describe his football career for a complete bio, but further detail would probably be too much of a good thing.
      4. Do you think the average person looking for Jack Kemp's football career comes here and feels overwhelmed? Probably not. Do you think the average person is left wanting for more football detail? Possibly, but I can do no better without going back to Buffalo and then to Los Angeles.
      5. Looking at WP:SS, especially Wikipedia:Summary_style#Size (which generally considers whether and article is "readable and easy to navigate") and looking at WP:SIZE (which describes a limit of 6,000 to 10,000 words), I do not feel the article significantly exceeds current standards. The readability tool currently show Jack Kemp at 10383 words. This is not "much longer", to quote WP:SIZE, than the recommended limit.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • P.S. I have called the Occidental College Library and they can not help me unless I am either a student, faculty member or alumni or I am able to physically come to the library in California.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • My main concern is that today he's more commonly known for his political career rather than his football career. It's my theory (just guessing, now) that folks searching for him would be looking for information about his political career first. I've got no problems with page length, but from a readability standpoint, it's almost as if you have two different people: Jack Kemp the football player, and Jack Kemp the politician. My main concern is that you've developed the article to the point where someone looking for information about one particular period in his life may have a harder time looking for it due to the information about the other periods in his life. It's just my opinion, though. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Issues resolved, Giants2008 (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Issues resolved, Giants2008 (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support — Well-cited, complete, and interesting. It adequately covers the subject, and though I have concerns about the article length, they're not enough to override my willingness to support the article. It's better than 95% of the articles on Wikipedia (including many FAs I've seen), and I don't see any gripping reason not to support. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


Issues resolved. Karanacs (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. The article appears very well-sourced and comprehensive. However, the prose needs work to reduce redundancy and to weed out irrelevant information. There is also a serious issue with people's opinions being presented and not being properly attributed. This leads the article to have a slight pro-Kemp POV. I've highlighted a few instances of this, but the entire article should be gone through with a fine-tooth comb to get all of them.
  • I'm not entirely sure why so much space is given to describing Fairfax high School. I'd cut it down to "Kemp attended Fairfax High School,[1] which is known both for its historically high concentration of Jewish students and for producing celebrities. Over 95 percent of Kemp's classmates were Jewish and he became a supporter of Jewish causes." and then move onto "Kemp learned to embrace diversity and hard work during his experience working with his brothers at his father's trucking company in downtown Los Angeles". Unless you know of any celebrities who were Kemp's classmates, that list does not belong in this article, and neither does information about what Fairfax looked like 50 years after Kemp was there.
    • Changed celebrity list.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
      • There are still too many random facts included. Why does this matter "Boasting an alumni of notable actors, athletes, and musicians, Fairfax is noted by celebrity-seeking guides"? Why does the location of the school matter in this article? I would also remove this sentence "Other alumni born in the 1930s include Chuck Essegian, David Janssen, Jerry Leiber, Norm Sherry, Phil Spector and Arnold Steinhardt.", because we have no idea whether they were actually in school with Kemp or not (someone born in 1930 would have graduated when Kemp arrived; Kemp would have graduated before someone born in the later years got there). Keep the article focused on facts directly relevant to Kemp. Karanacs (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I removed the 1930s list. I am trying to give the paragraph a flavor that he went to a very famous high school, with rich kids and future celebrities. If you have ever been to Hollywood, you may be familiar with the part of its tourism industry that ferries tourists around to celebrity sites. His high school was on the list of destinations. Saying he went to Fairfax gives the reader no information other than the name of the school. There was much more than name to inform the reader about. The purpose of mentioning a high school for a person sho is who is most notable for things that happened in his fifties and sixties is to explain his background at the FA level. For a start or B-class article just knowing the name is good. For an FA, many high schools contributed significantly to the subjects background. That is the case here. Melrose Avenue/Place is a famous street. This contributes to the flavor of the paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "the Kemps switched their official residence " - does this mean they moved or they had 2 homes and just choose to spend more time in the other one?
    • It is standard for a congressman to have a home in his district and in the Washington DC area. I don't have any good sources for this fact though. I am also unsure whether the Kemps continue to own their New York State residence. Do you want the text to change in any way?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I wonder if this might be better placed later in the article. At this point, his political career hasn't been established yet. Karanacs (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The paragraph beginning "After his experience with the NFL, Kemp served as a private in the..." needs help with the prose. This just doesn't flow well.
  • There is a lot of unnecessary detail in the article. For example:
    • Does it matter where Joanne attended high school or grew up?
      • since she is not notable, his is the place to describe his family. It is probably no less relevant than the fact that his sons played pro football. I don't think removing the information improves the project.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
        • What value does adding the information give? I don't think anyone would care where she grew up or went to school. Karanacs (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
          • First of all, the article dedicates all of two sentences to Kemp's wife. This is hardly overemphasis. There are many possible levels of details in the article. We could say Kemp has been married for fifty years to someone. We could say who by adding her first name. We could also add her maiden name. We could give their relationship an explanation. In this case we just note that the were college sweethearts. We could give some background on the woman. If she was from a notable family we could mention her notable family members and business ventures. For example, it is not uncommon to say something like Kemp married so and so, who is the daughter of big daddy x and mother y. Big daddy x was the son of super big daddy z who founded mamoth company xx. By omission, here it is implied that she is not of a notable family. How much should we say. Secondary sources have told us where she is from and nothing more. We report what secondary sources say. I think that is a good guideline in this case for what to include. If Kemp had had four wives each sharing the role of non-notable significant other, then jsut mentioning names might be O.K. In this case, I actually wish I could say something like Joanne grew up as a cheerleader in Fillmore and was a cheerleader at Occidentally when she met Jack. We have no such detail. I think the sentence describing where she is from is a keeper.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Why does it matter, in this article, why the Chargers moved to San Diego? Couldn't that just be shortened to "In 1961, the Chargers moved to San Diego. That year, Kemp led them to a 12-2 record..."
      • The detail is color for the article that gives us some background since Kemp would later work for the San Diego Union. I abbreviated the reference however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
        • The two instances are so far apart that I didn't pick up on it. I still think it doesn't add anything, and in an article this long anything that can be left out probably should. Karanacs (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Is this important? "Kemp's 1961 Chargers roommate and Pro Football Hall of Famer, Ron Mix was denied a deferment" Was Mix injured? If not, no real comparison.
    • Why is so much information included about the Yellowstone Mountain Club?
  • The article needs to be reread to try to tighten the prose. For example, phrases like "An interesting event occurred " don't add anything useful to a sentence.
  • Do bulldozers and snowballs really need to be wikilinked?
    • This is an international encyclopedia and I would imagine many international readers may be less than familiar with the terms and we have aritcles for them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Bulldozers and snowballs aren't only in North America. Karanacs (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
        • In an article that at last count had 1338 wikilinks, it is very likely that 1 or 2% of these are of debatable necessity. I personally don't know that much about bulldozers and have not even read their article on WP. I do however feel that the reader should be able to find out a little bit about them since we mention them. I kind of feel the same way about snowballs, except that I think many readers know as much as they might want to about them by personal experience. I will unlink the latter, but find it hard to beleieve that most readers know a lot about bulldozers even though they may know what the term means. In the context of this article, I believe it is likely that a WP:GA or better article on bulldozers might mention that on occasion they are used outside of construction for snow removal. It might describe particular models specially designed for snow removal rather than as a construction tool. O.K. wait a second, I am going to take my first look at the bulldozer page. this section should mention snow removal modifications. I'd be interestted in knowing what is different about a bulldozer used for snow removal than for earthmoving.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think we need to include the weights in stones. Kg should be enough.
  • Per WP:MOSQUOTE, don't use cquotes; use blockquote instead. However, it also says don't offset quotations of 4 lines or less.
  • This is an example of multiple problems I've seen throughout the article:

"Kemp is described as the most proactive combatant in the war on poverty since Robert Kennedy,[76] but Kemp's view on a war on poverty was quite different than earlier combatants such as Lyndon Johnson, for example, since Kemp believed in incentive-based systems instead of more traditional government social programs"

    • Outright repetition "war on poverty" phrase used twice in the same sentence
    • Overly long and clunky sentence
    • "Kemp is described " - by whom?
      • What is proper protocol when you put the quote right after the statement. Is it still a violation of WP:AWW if the citation immediately follows the statement?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't know if it technically violates or not, but I do think it needs to be made more clear. Karanacs (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Unnecessary wordiness: "such as Lyndon Johnson, for example," -> such as and for example serve the same purpose in the sentence
      • fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Please note that the changes you fixed to this sentence were only examples; I saw similar problems throughout the article. Karanacs (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I am not familiar with this scandal and not sure what the sentence is trying to say "The article explained allegations of 1967 Sacramento office Reagan staffer homosexual activity that Kemp has been cleared of." (and please don't end a sentence with a preposition)
  • This sentence seems a little POV-ish. A rewrite into more encyclopedic terms or a better disclosure of who said this might help "is as fondly remembered for his good hair and handsome looks as for his athletic prowess and political savvy"
  • statements like this are a little grandiose "Thereafter, Kemp began espousing supply side economics far and wide" - perhaps a bit more clarification?
  • Unnecessary wikilinking - prisons, medical treatment, credit car...
  • " 1988, if Kemp had succeeded when he surrendered his congressional seat to run for President of the United States,[3] it would have made him the first person to move from the United States House of Representatives to the White House since James Garfield" - However, he didn't win, and I'm sure he's not the only Representative to try, so why is this important?
  • "although he was a successful man of ideas" sounds a bit POV.
  • "The political pundits recognized him, however, as a visionary idea man." - I doubt this was all political pundits. This should mention specific political pundits
  • The two clauses in this sentence don't have an obvious connection to me "Although Kemp was unable to procure money for his visions, he was among the administration's leading users of first-class corporate jets.[1"
  • "Bush's vision on racial issues was compared to a man riding backward in a railroad car, never seeing anything until it had rushed past him" - Ouch! This should definitely be attributed to a specific person.
  • what about the LA reiots made Kemp "a focal point of the administration"? This needs to be expanded a bit.
  • "of Kemp's most storied fundraisers occurred during the Super Bowl XXVIII festivities." - what about it was storied? (sorry, I don't get it)
  • "Kemp was considered the star of the 1992 Republican National Convention." - by whom?
  • there should not be external links in the body of the article, and there is not reason to list the NYSE codes anyway for the companies he's served on (those should be in the company articles)
  • I feel like some of the information in the Post-political life section is really irrelevant in the grand scheme of things (see Wikipedia:Recentism). For example, why is it important that this article mention
    • that he served as an intermediary with Dole and Gingrich?
    • that he gave money to Libby?
    • his involvement in Defense of Democracies? (doesn't even say how he was involved)
  • This sentence does not belon in the books section: "Kemp, who at the time of writing An American Renaissance was a newly converted supply-side economics convert, says the message is best summarized as saying that "A rising tide lifts all boats"

Karanacs (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—The writing is not of the required professional standard. Please don't fix just these random examples; another person is necessary to sift through the whole article.

  • My AmEng dictionary says "well known" must be hyphenated. I think this has come up before in your nominations.
  • "set most AFL career passing statistical records"—I don't understand it; a hyphen somewhere might help, but "passing"?
  • Why not start a stub to avoid the redlink right at the start? You, after all, are suggesting by it that an article should be started ...
    • My sources for the stub are so limited that the stub would be rhetorical. Then once it is bluelinked it want call for attention like a redlink.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Hyphen again: "supply-side policies", please. Pipe it to include the hyphen. See similar hyphen further on in the lead.
  • "his more centrist stances advocating immigration reform"—I'm not convinced that such advocacy necessarily identifies centrism. POV.
  • "Kemp has had official roles to promote American football and advocate for retired professional football players. In addition, he has authored, co-authored, and edited several books." He has "had" roles to? Sounds as though he had roles in order to ...—is that the meaning? Clumsy sentence in all. Remove "In addition".

Eeny-meeny-miny-mo:

  • "The Berlin Wall was erected in August 1961...."—A para opening with this would be expected to have something obvious to do with the topic. But the reader has to work hard to piece together what on earth its relevance is. Very poor cohesion, stuck in a section on football.
  • More cohesion issues: "This ploy did not get by Buffalo Bill coach Lou Saban, and the Bills picked up Kemp for the $100 waiver fee on 25 September,[34] one of the biggest bargains in pro football history." This starts a section, but refers back to the previous section. Bad idea. "get by" is rather informal. So is "picked up for"—ungrammatical, probably. This part, and the end of the previous section, are all a bit beyond the non-expert. Context should be established more transparently. Same issue about assumed expertise in "a blowout pre-season loss"—I have no idea what "blowout" means. Engage me as a non-expert, and I might be interested; you could teach me something.
    • I think I got the sloppy language. Blowout is on a dab page. I assume the reader will know the relevant one is the sports related term until it gets its own article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The requirement for professional standards of formatting, and MOS's guideline about overlinking: "bulldozer": run past me why that needs to be linked?
    • Repeating the argument from above with another reviewer: In an article that at last count had 1339 wikilinks, it is very likely that 1 or 2% of these are of debatable necessity. I personally don't know that much about bulldozers and have not even read their article on WP. I do however feel that the reader should be able to find out a little bit about them since we mention them. I doubt that most readers know a lot about bulldozers even though they may know what the term means. In the context of this article, I believe it is likely that a WP:GA or better article on bulldozers might mention that on occasion they are used outside of construction for snow removal. It might describe particular models specially designed for snow removal rather than as a construction tool. this section should mention snow removal modifications. I'd be interestted in knowing what is different about a bulldozer used for snow removal than for earthmoving.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Please don't provide imperial units and then both metric and imperial units (st?) within the parentheses.

And lots more. Some patches are OK, but all needs to be good. TONY (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for now sorry. I have spent the past hour reading the article, [58], so I should comment. The article is close to FA standard but not quite there. For an article of this length, the prose has to be excellent and engaging. Some sections are: Congress (1971-1989), but the standard falls again. There are ambiguous sentences beginning with some and a lot of redundancy. I feel that the article could be reduced by at least 10%, without losing any facts. The punctuation is a problem: more commas please. Lastly, are there better expressions for heavily jewish, culture him, historically high, (sounds like it no longer is), and rigorous reader. I'm sorry to oppose the promotion of such a fine article. Please get a fresh pair of eyes to go through it. GrahamColmTalk 15:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Closing notes: With the accumulation of five substantial opposes, the initial supporting comments of "With a penetrating focus on the various phases of Kemp's life and career, an eminently readable style ..." and "Terrific writing ..." become difficult to rationalize. I suggest following the tips at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 to open and invite previous opposers and peer review volunteers to help prepare the article for FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 4 May 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 00:14, 4 May 2008.

[edit] Xzibit

previous FAC withdrawn 16:06, May 1, 2008

Nomination - I'm nominating this article for featured article because it exemplefies good articles about rap musicians on Wikipedia. Signed, Laughing at my money now (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose—The lead is insufficient, per Wikipedia:Lead section. Large sections are without references. The references that do exist are not formatted correctly or are missing vital information, such as publisher and accessdate. I suggest working toward good article first—this needs a major amount of work before it can be featured. Pagrashtak 17:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly recommend withdrawal (again): The most cursory of glances reveals substantial deficiencies. WP:LEAD is inadequate; entire sections are unreferenced; references are of questionable reliability (e.g. current ref 6 address implies it is a blog), grammar is poor; prose is poor; even basic MOS is not followed (e.g. captions); etc. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Suggest withdrawal. Please read What is a featured article?-Wafulz (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The article is almost at FAC status. Just a few more hours work, a little tweaking here, a little tweaking there. Yep, that should just about do it. :) Gary King (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Others have already pointed why this article should not be a FA. I don't have anything more to say. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose I didn't even have to read past the first half of the article to see that it's not even close to being FA-worthy. Lack of references, short lead, not the best writing, MoS, etc. Needs a total rewrite. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sorry. The prose ranges from non-encyclopedic at best to very poor, with euphemisms, colloquialisms and clichés. There are not enough reliable references. The point of view is not neutral and is biased in favour of the subject. The article needs a peer-review, a copy-edit, to be tested by the Good Article criteria before FAC can even be considered. It has a long way to go. GrahamColmTalk 17:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Closing note: I suggest the information at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 may be helpful in starting a peer review and following the tips there to locate editors to contribute to the peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 4 May 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 00:14, 4 May 2008.

[edit] Alcohol in the Bible

Self-nomination. I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets the FA criteria (though perhaps some of the strings of footnotes need to be modified -- but I don't see any guidance on how best to do this, I didn't receive any instruction on it from PR, but I hope to quickly resolve it here). I am a primary contributor to the article. --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the dashes per SandyGeorgia's comment in an edit summary. --Flex (talk/contribs) 17:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Moni3

Neat topic. I'm please to see it here at FAC.

  • Has someone demanded the multiple citations in a row? I see them in several sections, including the lead. I think they're distracting. I understand that anything involving interpretation of the Bible will be controversial, but if you plan to cite claims in the text that appear also in the lead, I think it's ok to leave the citations out of the lead. I also notice whopping lists of citations in the Alcoholic content section. I suggest you cite a claim three times at the most, or include further phrases or sentences that those citations back up.
  • Can you put the three points of a list into prose in the first section?
  • I've never seen such a citation method as what is in the Hebrew and Greek tables. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that I'm unfamiliar with it. Other editors here are more familiar with proper citing methods than I.
  • I had no idea such a claim as this was possible: All interpreters agree that the Hebrew and Christian scriptures condemn ordinary drunkenness in passages such as these (all from the NIV) When was the last time all interpreters agreed on anything Biblical?
  • It would help to name Holofernes in the text as he's depicted in an image (this is one of my favorite paintings, btw).
  • This is a lonely sentence: In short, in biblical literature ordinary drunkenness is a serious spiritual and moral failing.l that should be attached to a paragraph. In fact, you have a few one-sentence paragraphs. You might also want to consider joining some of your smaller paragraphs together.

Clearly this is a well-researched article. Very good job. --Moni3 (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your comments. I'll do my best to address them in the article soon, but I wanted to reply to your first bullet. The article has received numerous fact requests -- either in the form of editing changes or {{fact}} requests -- from a few Christians who believe (against a broad and numerous scholarly consensus but not without a few scholars of their own) that wine etc. were usually non-alcoholic in the Bible. Here's one on this article, but they are and have been more frequent over at the related article Christianity and alcohol, from which this article spun off. Here's one for the latter article from this morning changing the text and requesting a citation for the very first phrase in the intro, which is already cited below in the body. I have typically duplicated the references as requested rather than repeatedly revert and point the (usually anonymous) editor down to another part of the article. --Flex (talk/contribs) 17:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand it's controversial. I think there are ways to handle it. I suggest you take the citations out of the lead unless you're quoting a statement. If people have specific problems with a claim in the article, cite it three times, then place other citations within a footnote section, similarly to what I had to do with Citation #88 in To Kill a Mockingbird. You chose a topic that it seems lots of people have an interest in, so you may be fending people off for a long time with fact tags. But if you want it to be FA, I think you're going to have to clean up the lists of citations. --Moni3 (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I have attempted to address all your concerns (do you have any further comments on those?), save for the first bullet. I'm fine with trimming down or reworking the references as you suggest, and I'll definitely take a look at TKAM. However, since that change is (potentially) a big job, I'd like to get further input on the best way to do it for the whole article so I know everyone will be satisfied. As for the tables of Greek and Hebrew, such things are present in many secondary and tertiary works dealing with this subject, e.g., Gentry's God Gave Wine, Reynold's Biblical Approach to Alcohol, "wine" in Cyclopeadia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, "wine" in Easton's Bible Dictionary, and "Wine; wine press" in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. I have tried to make them a little more useful and accessible by tablizing the lists. --Flex (talk/contribs) 02:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. This was an interesting article, but I can't support in its current format due to citation issues.

  • There is massive overlinking in the article. Examples of words in the lead that do not need to be wikilinked: joy, blesssing, fruit, beer, vineyard, wine, grape juice)
  • this sentence is not worded well "The relationships between Judaism and alcohol and Christianity and alcohol have generally followed this same pattern, with some dissenters particularly among Christians around the time of Prohibition.'
  • This clause needs to be reworded "each is a set of historical artifacts that evidence views during their respective time periods of composition and editing"; it makes it sound as if the evidencing only occurred whilethe books were written instead of providing evidence of attitudes of the time they were written
  • I echo Moni's skepticism of this claim; "All interpreters agree that the New Testament teaching on and exemplary use of alcoholic beverages reflects the attitudes and ideas found in earlier biblical literature"; If it remains in the article it needs big-time sourcing
  • Per WP:EL, there should be no external links in the body of the article.
  • Rather than ass "see Christianity and alcohol on the different viewpoints" into the article, can this go in a "Further information" template at the top of that section
  • " either sold for consumption or stored in a cellar or cistern, lasting for three to four years" - needs to be reworded; lasting implies the wine goes bad or is discarded after 3-4 years
  • Again, a bold "all interpreters believe" claim must be vigorously source: "All interpreters agree that the Hebrew and Christian scriptures condemn ordinary drunkenness in passages such as these "
  • "In short, in biblical literature ordinary drunkenness is a serious spiritual and moral failing" - we don't really need concluding sentences to sum up everything in that section.
  • I know that the footnote for the sentence "Kings were forbidden to abuse alcohol lest their judgments be unjust." says that there are differing interpretations of that sentence, but it again needs to be presented in the prose. otherwise the article appears to be contradicting itself.
  • can you add a wikilink to first fruits? I was not familiar with the term
  • I am concerned that many interpretations of the text in the Bible are sourced to a Bible verse and not to a scholarly book. The article makes it clear that translations vary and that scholars disagree on the meaning of some passages. To then source an interpretation of the verse to the Bible itself is bordering on WP:OR, in my opinion.
  • again, an "all agreed" with no source "No matter what the reason why he abstained or had stomach problems, all agree that the wine in question was intended as medicine to help improve Timothy's health"

Karanacs (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I will try to address them soon. --Flex (talk/contribs) 17:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I have now attempted to address these concerns. My comments and questions follow:
  • Regarding your third bullet, I intended to say exactly how you understood it because I did not want to presume the correctness of any theory about the times when the books were written. For instance, some say Deuteronomy was substantially penned by Moses, while others say it was Davidic, while others say it was post-exilic (cf. Deuteronomy#Composition, which is incomplete but gives enough of the general idea). The post-exilic customs were surely much different than those of the time of Moses, and since respectable scholars still argue for each different time period, I don't want to assume that the customs as written accurately reflect the customs of the time portrayed rather than a later time.
  • Regarding the external links, I am a big enforcer of the guidelines about ELs in the body. However, I'd note that the guidelines say links should "not normally" be used in the body. I deviated in two ways here that I think are reasonable exceptions (i.e., non-normal circumstances). First, I link to Biblegateway.com for some Bible verses, but I don't see this as significantly different from using the {{bibleverse}} template, except that I can cite multiple verses at once. Once I decided to make use of multiple verse citations, which I think is far easier for the reader than linking to each individual verse, I just made it consistent throughout for all the verses. Second, in the Greek and Hebrew tables, I link to the entry in Strong's concordance, combined with some Hebrew and Greek lexicons. Since this is where I got some of the definitions from and since the Strong's number is a common way to reference the words, I added a link. It don't think it would be unreasonable, however, to move the linking of the Strong's number into a footnote instead if you think that is much to be preferred.
  • Regarding your suggestion for using {{further}}, my only hang up is that putting it at the top of the section means that it is not clear why the reader should see that article. Here the article is referenced only to define abstentionist and prohibitionist. Perhaps I should just define them inline in addition to referencing that article in some way for more info?
  • Regarding "lasting for three to four years", you have understood correctly. According to the cited sources, the stored wine would only last 3-4 years max. Should I reword it?
  • Regarding the statement about kings, I think the sentence "Kings were forbidden to abuse alcohol lest their judgments be unjust," could be affirmed by anyone. The dispute comes in when one tries to define "abuse," which moderationists and some abstentionists take to mean "use too much" and other abstentionists and all prohibitionists take to mean simply "use". Is it not sufficiently neutral/ambiguous for you?
  • Regarding citing the Bible: I see that I need to make this clearer. Except for a few isolated cases that I've tried to cover in some detail with multiple sources, there isn't much dispute when it comes to wine except for the lexicography (e.g., is the meaning of yayin/oinos alcoholic or non-alcoholic in some particular passage?). So, to take the first two citations as examples, no one -- and I think I can honestly say that without fear of any reasoned contradiction from any quarter whatsoever -- disputes that the Bible says Noah planted a vineyard and got drunk in Ge 9:20-27, and no one disputes that the Bible says Jesus made wine at the wedding at Cana in Jn 2. Moreover, no one disputes that yayin (oinos in the LXX) in the Noah story mean fermented juice since it is clear that drunkenness resulted from him drinking it. OTOH, some abstentionists and all prohibitionists argue that at Cana the oinos must be assumed to be non-alcoholic (or at the very least highly diluted). So the disputable part is entirely related to the definitions of the beverage words, not that the Bible says wine or some other beverage was used.
I think it would be nigh impossible to write an article about alcohol in the Bible without citing the primary source rather extensively (cf. the encyclopedia articles like those I cited above for Moni3, which have different standards than the WP but still provide a good comparison). I could cite secondary sources for each of these Bible citations also, but that would just about quintuple the number of references. Where there is dispute, I have attempted to express it. Are there particular places where you think I need a secondary source? How can I do this better?
Have I addressed all your concerns, aside from any that you already raised or re-raised based on my responses above? Do you have any input on how I should best handle multiple source citations?[1][2][3][4][5][6] --Flex (talk/contribs) 03:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Karanacs. The refs are a bit out of hand as well. ~ UBeR (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Issues resolved, ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Firm Oppose What you do have is really sterling work, but the article doesn't seem to be truly comprehensive in its coverage. If the topic is "alcohol in the bible", then you've left what seems to be a considerable amount of factual material about the impact of the coverage of alcohol in the bible societally. It's not just about the various theoretical interpretations of the individual passages, it's about how the coverage of alcohol in the bible has impacted Western society. To be comprehensive, this article must give information about how alcohol in the bible informed the real world use and abuse of the substance. For example: How did mentions of alcohol in the bible impact the push for American Prohibition? Supposedly during the push for Prohibition, entire alcohol-free bibles were printed. How does the coverage of alcohol in the bible compare to that of other major religious texts, such as the koran, buddhist texts, hindu texts, etc.? You're just missing all of the historical context that makes this topic important. A mere recounting of mentions and their various liturgical interpretations by theologians is not enough by a long shot. VanTucky 01:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your reply. Regarding the historical context, you seem to be asking for some of the same content as at Christianity and alcohol. For reference, I started that article, and because of length as it developed, I broke the section on "Alcohol in the Bible" off as this {{main}} article, per WP:SUMMARY. Consequently, I tried to keep this article focused on the texts at hand as its subject matter and let the summary article(s) handle its impact on history of alcohol in general and the traditions of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, Bahá'í Faith, or any other group that regards the Bible as at least somewhat holy. Thus, my first reaction is to say that that sort of material doesn't really belong here and would expand this article beyond its titular purpose, but I'm open to being convinced. On the other hand, I don't think a brief comparison with other religious texts like would necessarily be out of place, though given the title of this article and the large number of other religious texts out there, perhaps a separate article would be best for that as well (cf. Summary_of_Christian_eschatological_differences). --Flex (talk/contribs) 02:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments (forgive my typing, I'm on the road with an unfamiliar laptop keyboard)

I'm on the road again, and the link checker tool doesn't like this hotel's ISP, I am getting a LOT of timeout errors, which I suspect are related to the hotel ISP. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I'll try to address them soon (working through the list above). --Flex (talk/contribs) 02:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose if we delete the references, the article may be very very short; ok, it's well-referenced, but: 1/4 of the rest part is a table, so the KB of text are 15-20 :( Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 16:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • One objection - the table must be made comprehensive. "Etc." is unacceptable. I think that this can be done without making the table too large. If it can't then the table needs to be collapsed or moved to a separate list, which this article summarizes in an objective manner (i.e. it can't cherry-pick examples). Savidan 17:25, 3 May 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 00:14, 4 May 2008.

[edit] American Graffiti

I have donated a great deal of effort towards this article. I'm strongly looking for suggestions and opinions of other editors to get this to FA status. Thanks. -Wildroot (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a really good article for a really good movie. A think that the plot section could possibly be expanded a bit, considering the size of the rest of the article. I would also be interested in a brief section on the soundtrack with a {{Main}} link. Looks good overall. Good work. Grsztalk 05:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but the plot section is good enough as it is—Wildroot (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Picky, but if you're going to refer to a book subsequently by its author's last name, it'd be nice if they were listed by the last name first so that you can find the full bibliographical entry easier.
  • What makes http://www.geraldpeary.com/essays/def/fields-verna.html a reliable source?
It's an interview with Fields—Wildroot (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but what makes the site it is on a reliable place for interviews? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Fine, I'll take it. Yeesh. —Wildroot (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You use IMDb a bit, it might be safer to use the awards' sites themselves for some of the awards.
All other links and sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but it's really hard to find the archives of even their own links.—Wildroot (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment it strikes me as odd that the only screenshot is Wolfman Jack... and I think the caption is a little hokey. Can I have some more justification of why it's an image of him and not a group image or the main characters? 128.175.80.4 (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
It's a pivotal moment in the film, where the main protagonist sees the outlook of his decision. However, I probably should add an image of the group or something.—Wildroot (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment the opening sentence is too long and complicated. "American Graffiti is a comedy-drama film directed by George Lucas." should be enough. The genre as of now (with the year also attached) is a little confusing to read. Overlinking galore: don't link Lucas, Universal, Coppola or any of the actors after their mention in the prose. indopug (talk) 11:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Humph, "If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text." Also, I see Universal, Ron Howard among other things still overlinked. indopug (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's that big of a deal. Besides, Ron Howard is a bad-ass.—Wildroot (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Neutral: I love this film, so I'm glad to see its article is of such high quality. A few points:
  • "Storyline" is one word.
  • Another user mentioned overlinking above, and I have to agree. Ron Howard and Wolfman Jack are linked three or four times in the body of the article and there are other examples of similar terms; it's not a big deal, but it's annoyingly repetitive.
  • That characters and actors are mentioned in the plot and the separate "Cast" section is also somewhat repetitive, as well. I've seen film articles that take an either/or stance with this and I approve: if there's a cast section, there's no need to have parenthetical actors' names in the plot section.
  • Why isn't there a section on the soundtrack? 41 Original Hits from the Soundtrack of American Graffiti exists as a spin-off article, but shouldn't there be a short, summarized section about the impact of the film's soundtrack in the main film article? The music plays such an important role in the film, it seems a shame to ignore it. All that we have now is a "see also" link at the top and details about how much the rights cost.
I can't really find info on how successful the soundtrack was. However, I could "merge" the soundtrack article into a section. I did that same thing for The Truman Show. What do you guys think?—Wildroot (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I believe it should be merged back in. María (habla conmigo) 18:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Great work! Now I've got "At the Hop" stuck in my head... María (habla conmigo) 14:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: Changed my !vote to neutral; Johnbod and others below brought up some very good points that I did not previously take into account. Note to Wildroot: in responding to reviewers, you may wish to tune down the attitude. Replies like "Yeesh" and dismissing well meaning comments as "dumb suggestions" will only turn people off from this nomination. You're not entitled to satisfy every single person here, but politeness goes a long way. Just FYI. María (habla conmigo) 18:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments: A great film, nice to see a full article review. Some minor, very minor points below:

  • Lucas stated, "I was Terry [the Toad], fumbling with girls. Then I became a drag racer like John [Milner]. And finally I became Curt [Henderson]." could be written as stated without the editor's notations as to characters.
  • "Lucas contacted Gloria Katz and Willard Huyck to write the script, but they were too busy with Messiah of Evil (1972). However Katz and Huyck were willing to write the story with Lucas." Confusing, were they too busy and yet worked on the script?
Katz and Huyck didn't work on the script right away. They turned it down at first because they were working on Messiah of Evil. They basically were nice enough to help Lucas write a little story outline. NOT a script. However, later on (probably like a year), they had their schedules open to help Lucas with his screenplay with dialouge and stuff. I hope that answers your question.—Wildroot (talk) 05:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "contributory factor", try "contributed."
done
  • "They also passed on the science fiction idea, which Lucas temporarily shelved (this would eventually become the birth of Star Wars)." Awkward phrasing, were they involved in the Star Wars? evidently not, so it really doesn't lead to the film. "Birth of" = "genesis, creation, start, beginning."
done
  • Love the quote and the use of a quotebox.
thank you
  • "with Steve Bolander (Ron Howard) and Laurie Henderson's (Cindy Williams) storyline" instead "with the Steve Bolander (Ron Howard) and Laurie Henderson (Cindy Williams) storyline" or "with the storylines of Steve Bolander (Ron Howard) and Laurie Henderson (Cindy Williams)." Note "storyline" correctly spelled here.
done
  • "Other locations included Sonoma, Richmond, Van Ness, and Novato" is a list, eliminate the Harvard comma, and write it as " Other locations included Sonoma, Richmond, Van Ness and Novato."
done
  • That other title list is huge and detracts from the rest of the article. Have you considered a framing statement and a sub-article?
Sorry, what exactly is a "framing statement"?—Wildroot (talk) 05:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Major area to consider is to set up a true endnotes and bibliography since you have references that stem from major works. e.g. References: Notes: (1) Hearn 2005, pp. 55–57. (2) Hearn 2005, p. 53. Bibliography: Hearn, Marcus. The Cinema of George Lucas. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 2005. ISBN 0-8109-4968-7. If you are interested, I can help you set up this system with Harvard citations (which you are using – sort of...) and an APA or MLA bibliographical record. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 06:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC).
I'm sorry, I respect your enthusiasm, I just don't want to go into specifics with Harvard stuff. I wrote my references similar to the style of the Jurassic Park (film) article.—Wildroot (talk) 05:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The article is not ready yet. The prose is below the required standard in many places. There are missing prepositions, tense-switching and some strange expressions. I have made some suggestions here, [59] and below are more examples:

  • The film's box office success made George Lucas an instant millionaire, giving a large amount of the profits to Haskell Wexler for his visual consulting help during filming, and to Wolfman Jack. - and he gave ?
Don't see any problem
  • ...was intrigued by the idea and impressed with Lucas's work on THX 1138 (1971), offering Lucas the chance to direct Lady Ice (1973). - and offered ?
Don't see any problem
  • ...and intrigued with both American Graffiti and Lucas's untitled science fiction film, giving Lucas $10,000 to develop a script. - gave Lucas?
I Don't know what your problem is, but in wikipedia we like to copyedit. I believe you are trying to say something in your three suggestions above but I can't tell what you are trying to say. —Wildroot (talk) 03:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Filming was interrupted by fixing camera mounts to cars .. - ??
Don't see any problem
  • The final shooting script came 160 pages. - ? to ?
OK. So what?—Wildroot (talk) 03:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • ..feeling he was commercially famous after.. - commercially famous?
In short sense The Godfather made Coppola a famous guy in the mainstream crowd of the 1970s. Everyone liked Godfather and Coppola directed the film.
  • Katz and Huyck wanted to tell the fate of the girls.. - tell of the fate ?
Don't see any problem
  • Eventually, good word of mouth around various employees at Universal .. - ?
Don't see any problem
  • while Paul Le Mat was sent to the hospital, finding out he was allergic to walnuts. - and found out?
Not a big deal.
  • A street racer who is roughly older than most teenagers.. - roughly older?
  • Curt is the most personal towards George Lucas, as he himself finds some of the film autobiographical.  ???
Don't see any problem
"towards" is ungrammatical. Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Lucas persuaded the studio for a $775,000 budget, which made Coppola reluctant enough to start raising money himself, although Coppola ultimately failed. - reluctant enough ?
Yes, Coppola was inspired to start funding some own money but he failed. Does that answer your question?
  • His girlfriend Laurie, who is also Curt's year-younger sister, is unsure of him leaving, - year-younger ?
Meaning she is the same age as Curt is.
"unsure of him leaving" is ungrammatical too. "about" ? Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • ..with a five-page story treatment and less than US$500 to his name. - story treatment ?
In the film industry it "story treatment" just means a story outline, or what the plot is basically about. Quit freaking out.

These are examples of many problems throughout the article. Someone new to the article is needed to help with this.--GrahamColmTalk 08:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

PS The nominator should not strike-out any of the reviewers' comments. To date they have all been added by the nominator. If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. GrahamColmTalk 13:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Wildroot, please review the instructions on the WP:FAC page, and please refrain from striking comments made by other editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now. The prose is frankly pretty poor - take the opening para, bits in bold:

American Graffiti is a 1973 comedy-drama film directed by George Lucas, and written by Lucas, Gloria Katz and Willard Huyck. The film includes a cast of Richard Dreyfuss, Ron Howard, Paul Le Mat, Charles Martin Smith, Cindy Williams, Candy Clark, Mackenzie Phillips and Harrison Ford. American Graffiti is set in 1962 Modesto, California, and tells of the exploits of a group of teenagers and their adventures within one night of driving around town, listening to pirate radio personality Wolfman Jack (who cameos as himself)."

-personally I would prefer "has a cameo role" too. There is persistent poor use of present participles. Despite the nominator's "I'm strongly looking for suggestions and opinions of other editors" the valid points by others above have been mostly dismissed, and unless this changes, don't expect my !vote to change. The plot section should include the final "what happened to them" bits. Generally the legacy section could do with a bit more on the wider 50s/early 60s nostalgia of which the film was an important popularizer. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Listen, I striked out those comments because I completed them. I listened to all your guys' suggestions and I did the ones I found to be at least good for this article. Some of you guys had dumb suggestions that weren't even that big of a deal. I'm sorry I crossed them out, I must have read the statements wrong at WP:FAC. I thought it said cross them out rather than using graphics. My bad. For know on I'll just put Done at the end of every comment when it is, well, "done".—Wildroot (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - This is a great film that deserves a comprehensive wikipedia article. Unfortunately, I have to agree with many of the previous comments regarding the extremely poor prose of the article. This should have gone through a peer review prior to nomination.-Hal Raglan (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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

The article was not promoted 18:19, 2 May 2008.

[edit] Aberdeen F.C.

Self-nomination as major contributor. I'm nominating this article for featured article because it meets all of the featured article criteria and is a well written and concise article about the football team. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Issues resolved, ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 23:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
All links checked out fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I've left the two RSSSF things out for folks to decide on their own. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments *Old Firm is linked twice in the lead.

  • I would remove the last sentence of Recent years. It's a stubby paragraph, and will probably become outdated quickly.
  • Colours and crest: "and the initial shirt sponsors were JVC" should be "and the initial shirt sponsor was JVC".
  • Managers: "List full time managers" should be "List of full-time managers". Giants2008 (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Done all. Thanks for the input. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 07:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • I passed this as a GA, and it's improved since. However, I think it may have been better to put it through a Peer Review, before coming here. I can't support it until all the references have been sorted as above. I had some concerns of these at GAN, but they have certainly improved since the first GAN. Some other comments though:
    • Don't force the image sizes where it's unnecessary.
      • Done.
    • "but the silverware ended up in Glasgow." - silverware is informal.
      • Changed to "league title".
    • "Aberdeen remain the only Scottish club to have won two European trophies." I think this needs a reference.
      • Doing...
    • "Following Ferguson, a succession of managers tried to live up to the standards he had set, most meeting with little or no success." As does this probably.
      • Done.

Peanut4 (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

    • I'll add this in line with my other comments, but I've spotted this because of a suggestion below. "German giants Bayern Munich" is WP:PEACOCK. Needs to be changed to another more factual description for Bayern Munich. Peanut4 (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Done.
  • Weak object The history section has a recentist slant because two paragraphs are about the last four years, whereas most of the early periods are divided into groups about 20 years for two paragraphs. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
This is all the more unusual because it appears that the club was most successful in the early 1980s, judging by the Euro results. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I've cut some recentism now.
Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm wavering here. The article has no major flaws, but still has some rough edges which need to be sorted out before it can become a featured article.
    • As much as I like images of Manchester United defeats, a picture of a match involving two other clubs is of no relevance here. There is also an inconsistency between the use of FC Copenhagen in the caption and FC København in the body.
Hehe, gone.
    • German giants (and 1983 throwbacks) Bayern München. There is no mention of an event in 1983 anywhere else in the section, and the term "throwbacks" is too informal for encyclopedic use.
Gone also.
    • The History section has a tendency to follow the pattern "In [year], [manager] was appointed, he did x and y". A little rephrasing to make parts more club-focused than manager-focused would be beneficial.
Doing this.
    • The Ferguson era deserves more depth; it currently has roughly the same amount of prose as this season's European run.
Expanded this.
    • Shirt sponsorship began in 1987, and the initial shirt sponsor was JVC, who also sponsored Arsenal in England. I don't see why their Arsenal sponsorship is relevant. Also, this is one of a few run-on sentences present in the article.
Removed the irrelevant stuff, working on the run on sentences
    • fifth largest average attendance in the SPL in 2006–07,[41] with more than 10,000. The ref gives an exact figure, so there's no need to use an approximation.
Done.
    • Reaching the third round of the UEFA Cup is not an honour. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Removed.
I have put some further comments on the article talk page. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • I read the word "Scottish" no less than six times in the second sentence in the lead. A bit too much.
  • "Aberdeen's league record is jointly the third best " in what sense? Most league titles only or overall positions or some other measure?
  • Expand UK in the lead to United Kingdom.
  • "Having been historically the only senior team within a wide area" ? Not sure this reads well at the moment.
  • Place citations in numerical order (I see [11][12][2], for instance)
  • Alex Smith doesn't link correctly.
  • Admiral links to the naval rank.
  • "...outside the Merkland road, or family, stand" I don't get it.
  • "The stadium's name comes from the Pictish for "place of manure".[32]" oddly positioned, probably ought to come right after first use of Pittodrie.
  • Calderwood's To column probably best to say present

My comments.. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Done them all. Thanks, weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. OK, I admit that I am influenced by the fact that the period in which I lived in Aberdeen (and went to Pittodrie fairly regularly) was during the shambolic 1999-2000 season. And shambolic it surely was... by some strange fluke they got to the Scottish cup final but ended up having to field a midfielder in goal; and they were in Europe, again by some strange set of circumstances, only to lose to some Irish part-timers. Anyhow, my point being... does the article not rather blow Aberdeen's trumpet? Yes, they are arguably Scotland's third football team, but they come so far behind Celtic and Rangers it's not funny. (This is briefly referenced in the fact that they were the last club outside the Old Firm to win the League... almost a quarter of a century ago...)
  • Otherwise, the prose could do with improvement. There are innumerable which/that issues, and other areas where fluency and coherence could be improved. If I have time, I may dive in and undertake some edits myself, rather than listing them all here. One very small instance, because it's almost comic: "Aberdeen were inspired by Halliday, now playing in red." Presumably it's not Halliday who was playing in red, despite the implication left the by grammatical construction? (Sidenote: this is an endemic problem in Wikipedia: someone should write up some sort of tutorial about the use of dependent clauses.) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Right, well, I've fixed the one example you gave, but I don't think the article needs changing for POV. Any other football FA will read like this one; in my mind, this is better than saying "Aberdeen's league record is absolutely terrible compared to the Old Firm", because that is mentioned, but not to the extent of being written by Smithy. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Support - One other thing I noticed was in the last paragraph of Supporters and nicknames, last paragraph, ; may be referred to by some supporters as "The Dandy Dons" or "The Dandies",. I would start a new sentence there. Otherwise, I think it meets the criteria, and is ready to be promoted. Giants2008 (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very, very much for the support. I have addressed your concern. Cheers, weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose by User:Dweller

Sorry - quite a lot here, of which the most crucial are some citation issues:

  • (Opening sentence) Pedantically, Aberdeen Football Club is not "... a team". The team is part of the club, which includes all kinds of assets other than the team itself. Slight reword please.
  • "Aberdeen's league record is jointly the third best alongside Hibs and Hearts" the nature of the record is ambiguous - is this for league title wins? I'd assume "league record" means either W/D/L record or total points won, or something similar.
  • Wikilink Donald Colman in the Lead and unlink him later.
  • "Aberdeen have tended to attract a sizeable support from the city and surrounding areas": "a sizeable" is WP:PEACOCK. By many other clubs' standards, an average of 11,980 is peanuts. By others' it's overwhelming. Just drop those words and it reads fine.
  • Clumsy: "Aberdeen have no geographically close rivals; their nearest neighbours at the same level are in the city of Dundee, with Dundee United having been their principal rivals in the New Firm in the 1980s." I suggest "Aberdeen have no geographically close rivals. Their nearest neighbours at the same level are in Dundee; in the 1980s, they formed the New Firm rivalry with Dundee United."
  • In the opening line, you've used plural for the club ("are") which is fine except you've used singular in "The current Aberdeen F.C. was formed" and elsewhere. I suggest that you adopt a strategy I've used in FC articles of referring to the Club in singular (like any business) and the team in the plural. Up to you, but you do need to be consistent.
  • MOSNUM suggests 7th should be seventh
  • I'd like to see some citing around the club stopping playing during WWI. Was there competitive football to drop out of?
  • Colman's invention of the dug-out definitely needs citing. If it's in source 6, it's worth repeating it across the 2 sentences per extraordinary claims
  • "the Second World War virtually cancelled football competition." Ugh. Please reword.
  • "Formation and early struggle" section mentions almost no struggling. It looks from the chart as if they finished (almost?) bottom of the league immediately before WWI - this should be specified for balance, and there's definitely some relegation that's not mentioned.
  • "Steady rise" as a section heading sounds like POV. In my opinion, it's not very steady and the chart seems to agree with me. Either way, it's an opinion, which is bad.
  • "From this early success, Halliday's side reached two more Scottish Cup finals, in 1953 and 1954" Are you connecting a cup win in 47 with two more 6 and 7 years later? That seems very dubious. How many players played in both 47 and 54?
  • "Shaw stepped aside for another former favourite player, Tommy Pearson" I might have missed it, but who was the previous former favourite player?
  • The backbone of Ferguson's side looks like your POV
  • "Aberdeen remain the only Scottish club to have won two European trophies." needs a cite
  • "Premier division" is the capitalisation correct?
  • I found the History section hard going. It seemed quite bitty and without a flow. Could do with being smoothed by a copyeditor - NB I don't think the whole article needs c-e work
  • Can you smoke anywhere in Pittodrie in 2008? I'm surprised.
  • Various cites (eg numbers 36 and 37 re the Red Army) need to move to after pieces of punctuation
  • The Red Ultras website is definitely not RS
  • Squad list seems unreferenced. Ditto for managers. Ditto for honours. That's three biggies for me.
  • The Hall of Fame people should be shot for not including Fergie. Just my 2p!

Sorry :-( --Dweller (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Languages