Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/October 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Bizarre Ride II the Pharcyde

Self Nomination/Support. Like my Enta Da Stage article, I scraped together what little information there is about the album from a few interviews and album reviews, so I'd say I did a good job. Very well referenced, thorough, touches everything about it. And don't say anything about the few little unreferenced sections, because those came from the books listed in the Citations section. --PDTantisocial 10:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - this can't be an FA until there is fair use rationale for all of those images. Image:Edotmwbox.jpg is a good representation of rationale in case you haven't seen it on other images. gren グレン 11:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - added fair use rationale for images. --PDTantisocial 12:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Too many fair use images, not all sources meet WP:RS. (About.com, for example, is not a reliable source, and there are many others of that "quality".) Sandy 17:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Further, information from books needs to be inline cited, including page numbers. Sandy 17:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with Sandy with the sources, a decent article on a minor rap album I never heard of, would support if it's fixed, , also I don't think a Personnel section is needed. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 18:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the two featured album articles both have as many or more fair use images and they got featured, and they both have a personnel section. --PDTantisocial 23:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Please read the commentary on the individual editor pages recommended at the bottom of WP:WIAFA. It doesn't matter what else might have squeaked by FAC: it's your article we're looking at now. Sandy 00:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed sources from epinons, about, etc, added inline citations. --PDTantisocial 00:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't get how there's too many fair use images, there's only four pictures within the article, that ain't shit. The singles information shouldn't matter, that adds to the quality of the article. --PDTantisocial 00:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I took the two extra album covers off. Now there's only a picture of the four rappers, and a picture of the producer, that's reasonable. --PDTantisocial 02:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Half of "Critical recognition" consists of two long quotes. I also see a few other long quotes around, some of which one after the other. This is not so nice for the prose. That's what I think. I don't say delete them, but I'd incorporate some of them in the main prose.--Yannismarou 12:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Moved the quotes around and mixed them into the text more. --PDTantisocial 01:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Can we get some supports/objects here? All I've got is comments (and I've fixed everything stated). --PDTantisocial 01:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: I believe the article meets the criteria. - Tutmosis 16:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—Not written to the required "professional" standard. Here are random examples from the top. An entire copy-edit is needed, preferably by someone who's unfamiliar with the text.
    • Tense at the opening: "was produced by ...". "... and is today one of the most acclaimed ..."—Remove "today", since it's present tense already.
    • "High School friends"—Why the upper-case S?
    • "J-Swift provided production for ten songs and five interludes, totalling to fifteen of the album's sixteen tracks." Try this: "J-Swift produced 10 songs and five interludes—15 of the album's 16 tracks." Numbers usually better for 10 and above.Tony 13:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object.
    1. In Conception: Please use years as references for the passage of time in the narrative. I thought that it started post-high school until the "after school program" was mentioned.
    2. In Recording: Is the whole J-Swift story needed? It seems that you could get rid of the quote and cut the relevant prose in half and not affect the content relevant to the album.
    3. In Lyrical content: You need some citations, such as for the Rolling Stone quotation. In the phrase "has been described as an extention of the 'Daisy Age'", the person who gave the description should be identified and cited.
    4. In Production: you run into a narrative problem with Recording. J-Swift is described as saying that the members were claiming production credit and quit, but you then write "featured the acclaimed production work of J-Swift". If J-Swift quit, how could he get all the credit for the production? Did the members actually claim production credit or is J-Swift insane? If the other members actually did some production, should some of the credit go to them?
    5. You use the word "unique" twice in this article. Are you 100% sure that you want to make the statement that no other album or group has, before or since, resembled Pharcyde and this album in any significant way?
    6. The lead states "Upon its release, Bizarre Ride was hailed by critics", while Critical recognition states, "At the time of its release, Bizarre Ride received good, though at times unspectacular reviews." One of these contradictory statements must be false and the other needs to be removed.
    7. Some years need to be added to the narrative flow in Alternative hip hop to give the reader some reference. The section is all set up to declare that Pharcyde was the first commercially successful alt hip hop group, and then says "became one of the first successful alternative acts". The "one of" begs for more explanation.
    8. The article has five citations to cduniverse.com, to a page that is selling the album. I noticed the first citation, for the description of the album as "refreshing" in the lead, links to the cduniverse.com, which in turn states that "refreshing" is from a Spin album review. External link citations going to a commercial site to quote reviews that you have not read (I can only assume as you are not citing the actual reviews) and which the article is not stating that it is citing? This is about as wrong as it gets.
    9. The general quality of the citations is quite low. Given that early 1990s hip hop is making it into musical ethnography classes and that study of hip hop is an accepted academic discipline, I find it hard to believe that there aren't some more rigorous sources. I would recommend asking Wikipedia:WikiProject hip hop or the lead contributors at Illmatic if they can suggest any other sources.
    10. The length and number of quotations is unusual. I normally interpret multiple extended quotations as a sign that the writer isn't sure enough of the topic to do their own synthesis and is thus forced to rely on another's words. Please try to cut them down.
I had to start playing Officer when I started reading and I probably haven't thought of Del tha Funkee Homosapien in a decade, so thanks for taking me back. Also, when responding here, please indent as you would on a talk page. I had to do a double take when I first saw this FAC before realizing that there was an interaction. Good luck. - BanyanTree 07:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pinkham Notch

Nomination The article is well written, and due to its large number of citations, is verifiable. Sturgeonman 22:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I see that a peer review was attempted 6 days earlier but unfortunetely it's not quite active. I have a few issues:
    • LEAD needs to be expanded. For article this size I would say 2 paragraphs.
    • "Fishing" definetely needs to be expanded or merged.
    • 2 main sources is quite low. Some footnotes such as "Wildcat Mountain" and "USGS" can be combined to become 1 citation used multiple times. See Citing a footnote more than once at Wikipedia:Footnotes. Also your footnotes can be more detailed.
  • I wonder if there is an infobox for this sort of thing, hope another user can point you to one if there is. A good thing to include in one (that's missing from this article) is a location of the pass on a map.
  • Overall I would say the article feels incomplete (hmm). Here's some possible ideas:
    • mention climate.
    • Who discovered this pass?
    • Was it used before "tourism" or hosted any significant event (Example: battle?)
    • Maybe you could mention fauna/flora?

Good luck - Tutmosis 00:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Good progress. My support awaits minor issues of language and copyedits. Object.
    • "Pinkham Notch is an excellent example of a glacial "U-shaped" valley..." How do we know that. It should need a citation if being "excellent" is claimed.
    • Inconsistancy in referencing. Sometimes "pp385", sometimes "p385", sometimes "385". Also, sometimes comma separate consecutive pages, and sometimes dashes.
    • Stub sections like "Fishing".
    • Sometimes, for peaks, "As the notch rounds E peak..." is used, while at other places, it is in quotation marks like "D" and "E".
    • "The road was completed in 1861, and tourism exploded." Awkward phrasing.
    • What is "height-of-land"?
    • "Although trail distances seem short, the trip to the summit should not be underestimated..." This sentence passes a value judgement.
    • External links in "Skiing" section need to be converted to ref.
    • Apart from these, I am not sure if I understand the first reference. Is it a map; or a video clip of 7.5 minutes? — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Response
  • Actually, the reference is a map. "Minutes" is a unit of circular measure, a division of the "degree" that is used for latitude. The map covers 7.5 minutes of latitude and longitude.
  • In addition, height-of-land is a term refering to the highest point of a mountain pass, from which drainages are divided.
  • I removed the "Fishing" section altogether because there is really nothing more to say, and it just reiterates drainages mentioned earlier in the article.
  • I also fixed the citation issue with pages, and the inconsistency of peak names.
  • As for the previous comment, I addressed several issues: I introduced an environment section that addresses flora and fauna, climate, and their changes with elevation, and also included more about the notch's discovery and early use. However, due to inaccessability, early human use of the notch was limited, and no battles or other significant events occured in the area.
  • I also added a map, which assists visualization of the "geography section"
  • I need help with the lead section. What should I mention? Sturgeonman 18:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm gonna go out on a limb here and Conditionally Support until the lead is expanded. Just summarize the most general information: look for the most common facts/points from every section. You can also try the technique of taking jot notes for this article just like if were in a class in college. - Tutmosis 23:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I contributed to the peer review of this article, and the biggest issues (citations and recreation section) have been dealt with. As it stands now this is an excellently written article; however, there are several other possible improvements.
    • As stated before and in peer review, the lead needs at least several more sentences to summarize all other sections. (Environment, History, Recreation)
    • The history section ends in 1958; hasn't anything happened since?

I will support if at least the lead is expanded.Joshdboz 13:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Response
  • I fixed the lead section. Let me know how it is. Also, if you see suggestions that I have fixed, strike them out. It's easier for me to see what I need to fix that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturgeonman (talk • contribs)
I still feel the lead is incomplete. Mention; Jeremy Belknap who discovered it, its part of the White Mountain National Forest, how many peeks it has + the most notable, general elevation of the notch, how long the notch is (is that even in the article?), its accessable by New Hampshire Route 16, it was formed by Laurentide ice sheet + when.
Also whats this mean: "Pinkham Notch was developed later than other areas of New England"?
"is an excellent example of a glacial "U-shaped". "Excellent" pushes pov. Adjectives should be avoided unless a publication uses it and you can source it. - Tutmosis 14:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Support now, great article. - Tutmosis 21:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support-Thanks for expanding the lead. This has developed into quite a concise and comprehensive article. I would still keep an eye out for more history if possible, otherwise, excellent work. Joshdboz 20:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Response-I addressed some of the other issued mentioned in the previous objection:
  • Fixed phrasing of Auto Road sentence
  • Removed "excellent"; unnecessary, POV problem.
  • I disagree about the "underestimation" sentence. It shows that although the trails seem tame, in fact they are not. Thousands of inexperienced hikers ascend the mountain expecting a cakewalk; some get away with only fatigue and having to turn back. Others die. This is an important aspect of hiking the mountain, and is therefore an important part of the article.
  • I also converted the links in the skiing section to references. -- Sturgeonman 23:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Citation 15 is broked and couldn't citation 7 go into 1? Please fix. - Tutmosis 23:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Got it- Thanks -- Sturgeonman 00:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Copyedit and prose problems, choppy prose, needs work on "compelling and brilliant". Random example:
    • (Choppy sentences, with no connection, and less than compelling content - long lines are common?) The area also has many opportunities for both alpine and nordic skiing. The bowl of Tuckerman Ravine is famous for its extremely steep backcountry skiing.[39] Long lines are common during the peak spring-skiing season of April and May.
    • On the highest slopes of the west wall of the notch, trees are unable to grow, and an "alpine zone" of alpine-arctic vegetation exists.[19] Vegetation in this zone tends to be lichens, sedges or small, low-lying plants that can resist the constant exposure to the wind. Most plants in this area are perennial; the growing season is far to short to allow for annuals. (Tends to be? Trees are unable to grow should be worked into other definition of an alpine zone. "Far to short?") These are examples only: the prose needs work. Sandy 19:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—1a. Needs a good copy-edit throughout. A particular problem is both repetition and laboured attempts to avoid it.
    • In the lead, two sentences in a row start with "Due to ... ".
    • "a number of ecosystems have developed at different elevations throughout the notch, including several of rare or endemic nature." Why not make it less awkward by removing the tired expressions ("of a X nature", "including", "a number of")? Try this: "several rare or endemic ecosystems have developed at different elevations throughout the notch."
    • "but its isolation among high mountains prevented further development for several years. However, the construction of New Hampshire Route 16 has led to increased accessibility and a rise in tourism." A "but" and a "however" in succession. "Increased" and "rise" — when attempts to provide variety in wording are obvious, there's usually a problem. And do you mean "a rise in the number of tourists"?
    • Off onto the first section, and we have "which forms ... which forms".
    • "the northeast United States", but previously "the Eastern United States". The grammar should be consistent.
    • "A number of glacial cirques are found on this side of the notch"—Again, it would be better not to labour for variety; "are found on" sticks out. Just make it "There are a number of ... on this side ...". Who's doing the finding?
    • Idle "alsos" that should be weeded out.

IMO, the nominator should be temporarily banned for making the previous, abusive comment. Tony 06:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Response

I apologize for the obscene comment, and was just joking around. I was a little frustrated, and will try to control myself better in the future. Sorry Sandy, Tony, and anyone else who may have been offended. However, you must realize that its just a word. Take it easy! -- Sturgeonman 19:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dolphin drive hunting

Self-nomination. The article has had a peer review, all issues mentioned in which have been adressed, and has recently been promoted to good article status after correcting a few minor issues. I feel the article is as neutral as possible, especially considering the controversial nature of the subject. Further, it is a subject I suspect many people will find interesting yet do not know much about. BabyNuke 15:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment In the lead sentence "...method of hunting dolphins and occasionally other small whale species by..." shouldn't "other whale species" be replaced with "other cetaceans"? Dolphins aren't usually considered whales but both dolphins and whales are considered cetaceans. Joelito (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll change it, though I do not believe it matters much. A Sperm Whale is also a cetacean, and dolphins are definatly whales, toothed whales to be exact, but in popular usage the word whale is usually only applied to the larger species so I can understand the possiblity of confusion, but then again, the exact defintion of cetacean is probably also not clear to many. An other option would be saying "other small toothed whales". I'll replace it with "small cetaceans" for now. BabyNuke 16:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Several concerns:
  • The article needs sources in several key places.
    • "Exactly how many dolphins are killed in Japan this way each year isn't known, but the number is believed to be several thousand each year." by whom is this number believed?
    • "In ancient Hawaii fishermen used to hunt dolphins for their meat, driving them onto the beach and killing them. In their ancient legal system, dolphin meat was considered to be kapu (forbidden) for women together with several other kinds of food." Needs a source.
    • "About a thousand pilot whales are killed this way each year on the Faroe Islands, but numbers vary greatly per year. The amount of pilot whales killed each year is not believed to be a threath to the sustainability of the population, but the brutality of the hunt has resulted in international criticism especially from animal welfare organisations." Source?
Referenced now. BabyNuke 21:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The prose needs a copyedit.
I suppose I'm not the best judge of that, but in the GA review it was stated that the article had compelling prose (see talk page). BabyNuke 21:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I would prefer the removal of inline external jumps.
I see no other option. I only do this twice and only because these organisations have no article here at wikipedia nor are they really notable enough for them to be expeceted to get one. So linking to their websites I find a very reasonable and also the most reader friendly alternative. BabyNuke 21:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Does criticsm only apply to Japan? Joelito (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Strangely enough, it does. There is some criticism in all cases, but it all pales in comparison to the criticism the Japanese hunts receive for some reason. Just go look at some of the websites of animal welfare organisations, only a few if any mention any of the other drive hunts and even then, the main focus is always Japan. BabyNuke 21:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—1a and 2a. As soon as I saw the comment above that at GA it was regarded as being compelling prose, I thought "uh-oh, better take a look at this".
    • "Dolphin drive hunting, also called dolphin drive fishing, is a method of hunting dolphins and occasionally other small cetaceans by driving them together with boats and then usually in to a bay or on to a beach, preventing their escape by closing off the route to the open sea or ocean with boats and nets." This very first sentence is on the long side; why not split it with a semicolon or full-stop. "Into" and "onto" should be single words.
    • The second sentence, which is tiny by comparison, contains "hunted this way", and this phrase appears again a line later.
    • "The largest number of dolphins hunted this way is in Japan, but the practice also occurs on the Solomon Islands, the Faroe Islands and Peru." "But" is a false contrast here.
    • "In most cases, dolphins are hunted for their meat, however, some dolphins captured in drive hunts end up in dolphinariums." The "however" contrast may be OK, but would be smoother as "Dolphins are mostly hunted for their meat; some are captured and end up in dolphinariums."
    • The lead doesn't prepare me for the article.

Needs considerable work. Tony 13:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you clarify as to what the lead is missing? Fixed the other issues you mentioned, though that was only the lead so I assume you could write an A4 with similar problems. BabyNuke 15:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dixie Mission

I believe this article meets all the requirements for a featured article. The subject is an important topic, more so with the changing relationship between the United States and the Peoples Republic of China. I believe it clearly conveys the history involved, and is entertaining to boot. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 02:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment It might be an idea to write stubs for the red links if you think they're important enough to link to. I haven't read through the rest of it, but this is something you can be getting on with before other people put their oar in. Terri G 11:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Fixed the other day. Hopefully, everything else looks to be in good shape.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 17:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—Not badly written, but there are glitches; these need to be weeded out to reach the required "professional" standard. Here's a false contrast ("However"):
    • "The idea for a military mission in Chinese Communist territory preceded the development of the Dixie Mission, such as a plan by the Office of Strategic Services to send agents into north China. However, the first major impetus for the mission began with a memo written on January 15, 1944, by John Paton Davies, Jr., a Foreign Service Officer serving in the China Burma India Theater (CBI)."
    • Inconsistent terminology for "the Communists" (initial upper case is odd unless you first use "Chinese Communist Party", i.e., their title).
    • "potential and useful wartime ally"—why not "potentially useful wartime ally"?
    • "due to the disputed nature of the Chinese communists"—Bit clumsy.
    • "a bright point between the People's Republic of China and the United States during the time of the administration of President Richard M. Nixon."—First item a little odd. Remove "the time of".

These are just random examples from the lead, which suggests that the whole text needs a good massage. Tony 01:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the criticism, Tony. I've gone in and made the fixes you brought up, and I'll take a closer look at the rest of the text later today to make sure there aren't any other isolated glitches. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 12:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Went back and looked over it. I touched up a few things, but per usual, I may be too close to the article to spot any other problems. So please feel free to alert me.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 00:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Pittsburgh

This article is a good example of a Wikipedia article on the history of an American city. While keeping within article size guidelines, it is a more comprehensive history than can be found in many book-length treatments. Lorant's excellent history, for example, lacks a pre-European section. The article would be of interest to many readers, I believe, because the city has had such a colorful history. The article also has compelling graphics that convey the transformations the city has undergone. Tomcool 22:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. It's a good subject for a FA and there's plenty of good material in the article, but there are some problems that need resolving. There's no lead section at all, the reader is dropped, without context, into a somewhat fragmentary account of various native nations living in an area that has not been related to Pittsburgh. It's great to have an article suggest that there's much to be said about native history in a particular region of N. America, but a heading like "Native American era (possibly 19,000 years ago to 1747 A.D.)" is too sharply defined (did the Native era come to an abrupt end in 1747? Is it certain that there were no Native people in the area before 19,000 years ago - better to leave the heading more general). More needs to be said about the Native history of the area (e.g. I suspect disease wasn't their only killer). For my taste the article is a little listy, but you may disagree, either way, the layout could probably be tidied a bit - it seems haphazard. There are some copyediting issues to deal with, but nothing that can't be easily fixed, I think. How about working on it a bit more, then I think it will be a very plausible FA candidate. Pinkville 23:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Object I've never been able to object to an FAC without reading a single word, but this fails WP:WIAFA criterion 2(a) right off the bat by having no lead whatsoever. The pictures are also very poorly placed- why are the vast majority of them centered on the page? The word "possibly" should be removed from the first heading, as it's incredibly unencyclopedic; perhaps the use of "circa" would be better. I'm with Pinkville on there being too many lists and tables. There are also far too many red links (I counted thirteen in the article); if something is important enough to link to (and, hell, Braddock's Field is linked to twice), at least write a stub for it. Fuinally, there are too many one- and two-sentence paragraphs. This is definitely a very good article- among the high points are that all of the images are fair-use and relevant to the article, the prose is generally good and everything is well-referenced- but it needs some work to be of Featured quality. -- Kicking222 02:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you all for your prompt and helpful feedback. I have addressed your concerns by:

  • writing a lead section, following the guidance of WP:Lead.
  • placing most of the images to the right, leaving only panaramic images in the center, and tweaking their sizes so that they fit well within their sections, remain large enough to be viewed as thumbnails, and appear proportionate to one other.
  • consolidating too-short paragraphs into larger, related paragraphs
  • removing internal links to relatively obscure entities such as Captain Simeon Ecuyer, and creating stub articles for Braddock's Field and Edgar Thomson Works

Regarding listiness, I have left in the lists, because they are the most economical and readable way to convey a lot of specific data. I've attempted to create a fact-filled article, using the 1911 EB article on Pittsburgh as a model. Since the contributors have already exceeded WP:LENGTH by 5kb (especially since adding the lead section), the only way to reduce the listiness is to eliminate (rather than put into narrative) some of the lists, with subsequent loss of detail. I hope that in the light of the above changes, you will reconsider your votes. Tomcool 17:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment The ballpark photo should be placed next to the "Reinvention" section, as it is from this most recent time period. I'm currently re-evaluating the article. I can definitely say that you've done a great job with the article, and a great job with cleaning it up. -- Kicking222 22:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed to Weak Support While there are still a few minor problems (the section "The Steel City" still has a ton of one-sentence paragraphs, and with little detail on many of the important events mentioned, such as the 1877 railroad strike and the Homestead Strike"; "helping to make possible the Allied victory" is also a wee bit too POV/unencyclopedic for my tastes; the final photo in the article is too large and still unnecessarily centered), I think this has quickly become an excellent article. I can get around the listiness, though I'm just slightly concerned about the prose, but I can't explain why. A few thinks are also wikilinked to way too much; Governor Dinwiddie is linked to three times in four paragraphs, and Fort Duquesne is linked to in consecutive sentences. Per convention, something need only be linked to once (or, at the very most, once per section of the article). Despite these details, which can easily be fixed (if I wasn't about to leave, I'd probably fix them myself), I think I am confident enough in the current state of the article to !vote to support it. -- Kicking222 22:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I've further amended the article in response to the feedback above. I've eliminated redundant internal links, consolidated short paragraphs into longer paragraphs, eliminated some less important lists and converted others into narrative. I've also futher adjusted the image placements, added detail to the captions, and added an image of an engraving of the Union Deport fire of 1877. Re: moving the ballpark image; I need an image in that section of a Ren. I project, and the 3 Rivers stadium is probably the most famous. I've added detail to the caption in order to make it clear why the image is included in that section. Tomcool 19:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Obejct—1a. Here are examples in the lead of why the whole text needs to be copy-edited.
    • Opening sentence: "... over the control of the forks of the Ohio, which is where the Allegheny River and the Monongahela River join to form the Ohio." Vague and repetitive; is the Ohio a river itself?
    • "in order to"—no, just "to" (as well, you have "order" in the subsequent sentence, which makes for a little repetition).
    • "He also named the settlement between the rivers "Pittsborough"—Remove "also" and it flows better. Every sentence is an "also".
    • "when farmers rebelled against the new federal government about taxes on whiskey." "About" is not the right word—"rebel about"?
    • "A great fire burned over a thousand buildings in 1845"—I took it first as "burned over", but no, you mean "burned more than". Please change the other "overs".
    • "The city's population swelled to half a million, including many European immigrants." When?
    • "shrunk"? Nope, "shrank".

Don't just fix these; find someone else to go through the whole article carefully. Tony 01:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'd like to withdraw this article from FAC. We'll work on the copy editing and reference density, submit for peer review, and then resubmit for FA later. Tomcool 15:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atomic theory

I have done a lot of work on this article, trying to give an elegant story on how the modern concept of atoms evolved, starting with the ancient Greeks and finishing with quantum physicists. Kurzon 17:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Object - insufficient references. Pagrashtak 01:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Object - as above. Add a wider variety of references - there must be many on the subject or similar. CloudNine 16:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Object - great concise article but it needs to be referenced much more. --mdmanser 07:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've added a number of references. How is it now? Does it need more?Kurzon 18:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Very short. How about GA? Wiki-newbie 19:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen Hurricane Irene (2005)? WP:FA doesn't have a length requirement. This article is already rated A-class on the physics assessment scale, a GA would be a step downBorisblue 06:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per others. Never Mystic (tc) 17:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support now that references have been provided. But suggest withdrawing nomination and putting it for peer review first. Borisblue 06:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Still needs more references, especially in the historical section. Also, there is very little detail about the quantum mechanical model of the atom; as the currently accepted model, this should be described in depth, or perhaps even be the focus of the article. --Zvika 19:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The modern model of the atom is already better described on the pages for atom and electron configuration. This article focuses on the historical development of atomic theory.Kurzon 09:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree for the following reasons:
  1. How is a reader supposed to know that the history of atomic theory is found in Atomic theory, while the currently accepted atomic theory is found in Atom? (The electron configuration article only describes some aspects of the modern theory.)
  2. The section we are talking about is titled "Modern atomic theory", yet contains only one sentence about the current theory -- the very last sentence in the article.
Perhaps Section 2.4 should be renamed "Early quantum models" or some such, and the last paragraph in it could be expanded to a new Section 2.5, called "Current atomic theory", starting with {{main|Atom}}, and having about 3-4 paragraphs summarizing Section 3 of Atom. --Zvika 14:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment only: "The atomic theory" refers to the idea that the universe is made of atoms, and we go to Epicurus and others for it. To some degree, Spinoza's theory of monads was a form of atomic theory, as well. This has virtually nothing to do with the actual physical atom and is, instead, the philosophical position of realism. The model of the universe we embrace now is not the atomic theory, as it's not really theoretical now. Atomism is a very important line of thought in the history of philosophy, and I agree that any article on the theory should not be concerned with physics, quite. A headnote disambiguation ought to take care of things, and a proper lead. Geogre 11:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an old FAC, restarted here now for the third time. Needs to be removed. Sandy (Talk) 12:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National Ignition Facility

The NIF is an interesting (IMHO) big science project that is poised to be the first device to create "ignition" level fusion. A few of us have completely overhauled this article over the past few weeks. We have added a clear description of how the laser works, as well as a separate section on how it is used to create fusion. NIF has not been problem free, and the article also covers these problems in a neutral fashion, complete with plenty of refs in case anyone from LLNL complains. To top it all off, it contains a number of interesting pictures with clear and concise captions.

BTW if the edit history makes it look like a work in progress, it's not. There were a number of specific items we wanted to make sure were mentioned in the article, and the last one went in today.

Maury 20:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Needs proper formatting of references, needs sourcing of some weasely statements ("some say"), that's just what I've spotted quickly. Also, you might want to put an FAC box on the talk page. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Yeah the refs thing bugs me too. But they are SO hard to edit! Is there a tool out there for doing this? BTW, what's a FAC box? (oh, duh, answered my own question) Maury
  • Oppose 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. I did some minor copy editing. However no matter the prose, the article needs: 1) more references 2) removal of weasel words. Also KDP_crystal.jpg needs a size on it, how big is "huge"? I will continue to do copy editing to the article but unfortunatly I do not have access to any sort of scientific journals so I can't help with the references. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 04:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I ran the auto peer review script (left results on talk page) there is also some minor things that can be done to the article like increasing cross links. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 04:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I believe I have fixed most/all of these points. Maury 14:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm glad that someone has taken the time to do this page - but there are a number of errors and misleading statements. Briefly. Introduction: The first light date is certainly incorrect - I think the correct date would be Dec 2002. Description: 1) millions to hundreds of millions K is too broad a range - insert 'few tens of millions of K'. 2) The usage 'internal temperature' is confusing. I would rephrase 'the combination of heating and compression create the required conditions for fusion'. NIF and ICF. 1) Remarks on the failings of NOVA are just plain misleading. NOVA was also an indirect drive machine. One major point that the authors do not seem to grasp is that beam uniformity (e.g. the spatial uniformity of an individual beam)is not a significant issue for indirect drive ICF. In indirect drive ICF the RT instability is seeded, over short spatial scales, by capsule non-uniformities, and over longer spatial scales, by irradiation non-uniformities caused by the fact that each beam creates its own hotspot where it interacts with the wall - which radiate more x-rays than the surrounding wall- this creates lesser, but (with the smaller number of beams on NOVA) problematic fluctuations in the x-ray drive at the surface of the capsule, which drive Rayleigh Taylor over longer spatial scales. With DIRECT drive beam uniformity is a HUGE issue since the lasers actually hit the capsule. Beam non-uniformities in indirect drive are 'spatially smoothed' by the fact that the scale length of the non-uniformities are much less than the distance from the wall to the capsule. (Practical example to aid understanding: hold two light bulbs (not spot lights or flash lamps - just regular bulbs) one foot apart, six inches above your desk. You see non uniformity in the radiation on your desk. Hold them them twenty feet above your desk and you won't see any non uniformity : spatial smoothing). 2) I might be being a little picky here, but most of the proposed NIF hohlraum variants are made of an alloy of predominantly heavy metals not 'some heavy metal' : the alloy is designed to have a particularly high opacity to the x-rays which drive the implosion. 3) It's true that x-ray ablation is more efficient. However only in the sense that if you are comparing 100kJ of x-rays to 100kJ of laser light actually falling on the capsule you'll do more work with the x-rays. The main problem with direct drive is that of laser imprint driven Rayleigh Taylor instabilities seeded by both beam non-uniformity and the difficulty in evenly illuminating the surface of a capsule with multiple beams (circular beams will always overlap for any n number of beams with n>2). If you could do away with this problem direct drive would have a MUCH higher real efficiency since you lose so much energy in heating the hohlraum wall. Which brings me on to 4) The amount of x-ray energy actually driving the implosion is much less than 600kJ to 1MJ. Your reference is valid (though used inappropriately): it represents a speculation along the lines of 'if we did x, y and z then this might become possible' though. It doesn't reflect what they are definitely intending to do at present (except regards using alloy hohlraums as previously noted). Your diagram gives a better reflection of what is being proposed at present (10-20% of 1.8MJ on capsule) and the lower of those two figures is perhaps better grounded in past experience. Unfortunately, there may be issues with making some of the changes proposed in the reference you use (e.g. running in green), and more experiments are needed to determine whether there would be a problem or not - which is why it isn't 'the plan' for the ignition experiments - and why these aren't the right numbers to use for this article.
    • Comment: I believe I have addressed all of these too. Except for one, the Dec'02 date, isn't that for NOVETTE? BTW, "some heavy metal" meant "one type of heavy metal among several possible choises", not "a little bit of heavy metal", I did fix this wording. Please, keep them coming, the article gets better with every one! Maury 14:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
      • NOVETTE??!! that switched on in like ~'83!  :) He's probably right aboout NIF and '02. It likely did take its first (ever, on any beam) shot then. --Deglr6328 20:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—Needs a thorough copy-edit throughout. Here are random issues at the top.
    • First sentence trips up: "The National Ignition Facility, or NIF, is an ultra-high energy, very high-power laser research device currently under construction at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, in Livermore, California." "Currently" adds nothing to the present tense: please remove it. If you want to specify the year, maybe, but best if someone remembers to change the wording when construction has finished. "As of May 2006, sixteen of the lasers have been completed." Shouldn't that be "had"?
    • "The device's main roles"—better as "The main roles of the device".
    • "high energy" as a double epithet should be hyphenated, to match what appears in the first sentence.
    • Year links ... um ... why? When I hit 2009, I find that it starts on a Thursday, and is the last year in the current decade (disputable, anyway). Then it tells me about Bulgaria. Hello ...
    • "The basic goal of any inertial confinement fusion (ICF) system is to quickly heat the outer layers of a "target" with the laser. This heat explosively vaporizes the outer surface of the target and heat it into a plasma." "Heat" x 3, and the last one is ungrammatical. "An", not "any", which is a unnecessary amplification. Tony 03:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment—Reads well, but too much like the promotional material written by the tech editing staff of a national laboratory. Needs fewer adjectives & a more technically accurate rewrite. Egregious examples:
  • "very high density (many times the density of lead for instance)"— so how dense in gm/cm³?
  • "very center of the compressed fuel"—as opposed to the "center of the compressed fuel"?
  • "millions of kelvins"—"millions of Kelvins" or the more traditional "millions of °K" (yes, I’m old enough to be old fashioned)
  • "extremely symmetrical"— how symmetrical?
  • "single ultrabright flash"—how bright is ultrabright?
Williamborg (Bill) 04:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] M1 Garand

Last time this was up for FA status it failed, but I think a good amount of work has been done into cleaning up and referencing the page. There are abundant sources, good pictures, and quality, well-written information. Plus, it is a very important rifle (and not just for gun buffs). I guess that's it. Deleuze 07:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Object:
    • Image:Dodgarand2.jpg has no fair use rationale, and I'm not convinced that it qualifies for fair use.
    • You've got {{note}} templates used inside ref tags, which causes dead backlinks. I'm not sure what is being attempted with this.Fixed this one myself. Pagrashtak 18:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Lead sentence:The M1 Garand (more formally the United States Rifle, Caliber .30, M1) was the first semi-automatic rifle in the world to be generally issued to infantry. - shouldn't you say "The United States Rifle, Caliber .30, M1, commonly known as the M1 Garand, ..." or something similar? The phrase "in the world" is not needed.
    • Insufficient references - for example, the entire History section contains only one inline citation. The Accessories section has none.
    • Prose needs some work. Examples: At the time, it was believed that a detachable magazine on a general-issue service rifle would be easily lost by U.S. soldiers (a criticism made of British soldiers and the Lee-Enfield 50 years previously), would render the weapon too susceptible to clogging from dirt and debris (a belief that proved unfounded with the adoption of the M1 Carbine), and that a protruding magazine would complicate existing manual-of-arms drills. - long and awkward. The M1 was developed by Springfield Armory firearms designer John Garand. The prototypes were refined during the 1920s and 1930s. - Does not flow well. As stated earlier, the M1 Garand was the direct predecessor of the M14 rifle that replaced it. - contains redundant text, and the phrase "As stated earlier" should be avoided.
Pagrashtak 02:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I feel the article would benefit from more background. The introductory remark about being the "first general issue self-loading rifle" may be confusing as the article doesn't explain why the qualifier "general issue" is needed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This article lacks a separate "criticism" paragraph about the disadvantages of the M1 rifle. Mieciu K 00:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    Why is that necessary? Disadvantages compared to what? A criticism header would probably be fairly disjointed, as this was a service rifle for just under thirty years. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—1a and 1c. Here are random problems at the top, which indicate that the whole text needs sifting and weeding, preferably by a copy-editor who's unfamiliar with it. Particular problems are redundancies, false contrasts and undesirable repetitions.
    • "It officially replaced the Springfield M1903 rifle as the standard service rifle of the United States military in 1936, and was in turn replaced by the M14 (which was derived from the M1) in 1957." As soon as you say "officially", I start to want a reference.
    • "The majority of M1 rifles"—Do you mean "Most"?
    • "It is still used by various drill teams"—Spot the redundant word.
    • "The word "Garand" is pronounced variably as [gəˈrand] or [ˈgærənd], although descendants (and close friend Julian Hatcher) of the rifle's designer, John Garand, generally agree it should be the latter." False contrast: replace the comma + "although" with a semicolon. We have "though" and "although" in the lead. The other one is a false contrast too, strictly speaking. And I see "although" two lines later, where it's not a false contrast, but is starting to be repetitive.
    • "Springfield Armory produced modest quantities of the M1 Garand in the late 1930s and in ever-increasing numbers from 1940 to late 1945"—You're the expert, so please provide verification via a reference. The status of the article then increases.
    • "as well as"—this is an amplified version of "and". Is it necessary?
    • "the Department of Defense determined a need for additional production of the Garand, and two new contracts were awarded." Do you have access to the archival papers, reports, decisions? This type of assertion is under-referenced throughout. Tony 01:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopædia Britannica

This article has already acheived Good Article status. Some users suggested that we nominate this for Featured Article candidate. Just imagine featuring this article: with the growing tension between Britannica and Wikimedia, it would show that Wikipedia is a true neutral encyclopedia, capable of featuring its own competitor. Anyway, this article is already in good shape, with sufficient and complete citations, as well as following the Manual of Style. It was recently Peer Reviewed and Auto (Javascript) Peer Reviewed, and the helpful criticism(s) was taken into account. NauticaShades 20:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Object, but this isn't bad at all. I still think that too much emphasis is placed on Wikipedia—the comparison with Wikipedia takes up more space than the comparison with all other encyclopedias. Cut down on the details of the Nature study, and provide more details from Kister's Best Encyclopedias. What other criticism has there been other than spelling? I'm not sure that the spelling issue deserves an entire level 2 section. Finally, more citations would be helpful—there's alot of material in the history section that isn't cited. And use {{cite web}} or {{cite book}} for references. Fix these issues and I'll come back and give it a closer look. --Spangineeres (háblame) 23:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The criticism was renecetly added, and I agree it isn't really needed. Or at least, i it is, it should be more complete. Unfortunately I don't have Kister's, but I'll look into it. As for citations, that, I can do. NauticaShades 07:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The blockquotes in the history section are a bit awkward (to me at least). I wasn't even sure the first two were quotes and not formatting mistakes until I checked the footnote. If this is to be kept, the formatting should be more clear somehow, I think. But why do we need to quote verbatum here? Is there a good reason we can't write this in our own words? --W.marsh 02:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok, I fixed the format. NauticaShades 10:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose The article titled is mispelled. How do you even make that crazy character? Tobyk777 00:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • False. Britannica always spells its name using the a-e ligature. NauticaShades 14:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral for now, because I haven't looked at this as much as is needed to comment exactly. I will say, having commented briefly re the intro during the PR, that much excellent work has been done in terms of sourcing and organization. Good work Nautica!

Personally, I think the Wiki - Britannica comparison should actually be reduced. We leap from History to CD-roms and then to an elaborate comparison to "us". Now, you may not want to reduce it, b/c other editors will argue otherwise, so perhaps expand sections surrounding it. For example, while the history is long, the 11th edition could be given its own section(?).

Later, we have "Current version" as a level-two and then "Editors" (which doesn't fit) and "Versions" (which is redundant). Fix that sectioning.

Also, I added two fact requests yesterday (important stuff, because it's comparing to other encyclopedias) and those should be taken care of.

This a bit of "macro" comment—I'll try to look at the prose later. This has greatly improved anyhow, and this FAC is a good first attempt, even if the article is not quite there. Marskell 23:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

  • The first quote, up against an image, will be narrowed to a short, vertical column on small screens. In the comparison section, please consider making the point that the standards of writing on WP are likely to vary more than in EB. Tony 02:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Be careful with that though; make sure there's a reference—I think the Nature study mentioned something about how the Wikipedia articles were less uniform in general, so perhaps mention that. --Spangineeres (háblame) 13:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Just a minor point: "Encarta, released in 1993, became a software staple with almost every computer purchase" -- can you provide a citation for this? Maybe the statement is true for computers sold in the US, but I don't think I've ever seen a copy of Encarta in my country. --Zvika 17:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure this was the case in the US and UK. A citation might be hard, though. NauticaShades 20:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, if you can't cite a source, I think such a strong phrase should be changed. How's my current revision? --Zvika 06:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Contains unsourced POV about its spelling style being confusing. Bramlet Abercrombie 20:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The everythign2 reference needs to go. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 20:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flat Earth

This is a good article and has been a succesful collaberation of religious historians and science historians in the wiki environment. It mirrors the prevelance of straw man argumentation in modern society and the breakdown of dialogue between science and religion while simotaniously prooving that in the wiki environment such discussion can take place and defeating misrepresentations within that dialoguge is something all parties can help to break down. Home Computer 19:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment The article is quite listy, especially the "In popular culture" section. Prose would be better than lists in these cases. Jay32183 23:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Remove the popular culture section, incorporate the really notable ones in the article instead. Borisblue 03:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Object. I've actually read this article before, and liked it, but I cannot support it for FA status for two reasons: it has a pop culture section, and it lacks non-Western perspective. ergot 00:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per ergot. Plus, the referencing style is mixed (there is at least one direct external link in addition to the footnotes) and it's way too listy. Mikker (...) 02:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'd be willing to "prosify" the work, add a bit of vocab variety, and add an Asian/Indian perspective. At this point, maybe it couldn't be a featured article, but if I'm not busy with school and all (which might not happen that soon), I might be able to make it a quaint Main Page thing. I'd prefer to read a book upon it first, though. Gracenotes T § 23:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The article could be featured, it just needs a lot of work. If you would like to work on it and have the time, then feel free. Jay32183 01:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I would gladly support it for FA status if you were to do that. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, I would appreciate it if you could let me know on my talk page if it is nominated again, as I don't get a chance to look at FA candidates often enough. ergot 23:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Graffiti

Self Nomination

Hi everyone,

I came accross this article a little while ago and, after learning that it's a former featured article, I decided to restore it to its former glory. I rewrote it, added refs etc., and it's just gone through peer review. I think that this would a good featered article because it's well-written, covers an important topic, and has lots of useful information on it. What do you guys think? Thanks,

Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 06:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Thank you, but I see an evidence of {{fact}} tags at the bottom. Would you mind fixing that?--Rmky87 15:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about the passive-aggressiveness, but seriously, this needs to be taken care of, and why is the {{citation style}} template still there?--Rmky87 21:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, the citation template has been removed, but where is this aforementioned [citation needed] tag? I can't seem to find it. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 00:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Here. It's the only one I could find.--Rmky87 13:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, it's been fixed. Anything else? Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 14:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Nothing I can see, which unfortunately does not mean that nothing is there.--Rmky87 18:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object for being not comprehensive. It covers ancient graffiti only in ancient Rome, then briefly alludes to Mayans and skips straight to the 1970s. The only coverage of Asia is about an American being lashed in Singapore. Tuf-Kat 08:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, insufficient referencing. Graffiti#Die_Hard_era has no sources, as does most of the section before it, so it comes off as original research. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, this wasn't listed on the FAC page, listing now. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Acually it was listed on the FAC page, but removed yesterday as a fail from Raul, redelisting.

[edit] Spot the Dog

I believe this article is as comprehensive about the venerable institution that is Spot as is possible. I want to spread the magic. Lost Number 01:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  • object no references, too many lists, 99% of the article is just sumarizing the plot of the books, all of one sentence touches on importance, and it's not cited. Sorry... may be a useful article but it's not up to current FA standards. --W.marsh 02:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object No references, very listy, TOC is too large for content, images lack fair use rationale. Pagrashtak 04:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not much of interest here, and no citations.HeBhagawan 05:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • OpposeI find it a tad hard to read, a bit too much lists in my opinion. Qaanaaq

[edit] Taichung City

Taichung City, maintained by Ludahai, exemplefies Wikipedia's quality standards. It is long, yet compact and deserves featured article status like any other good article. Auroranorth 10:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Refer to peer review, there are several featured city articles, this article is not of that standard. --Peta 11:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I am the primary author of the article and I agree. I still have a lot of work to do on the article. I am merely seeking opinions at this stage, not featured article status for either Wikipedia or WikiCities Project. Ludahai 00:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object and refer to peer review Stubby sections, way too many lists, and a copyedit is needed.UberCryxic 02:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. I think this article is featured article standard, but it could still use some improvement. --FreshFruitsRule 20:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Solidarity

It has been some time since I nominated a FAC, but I hope it was worth it :) History of Solidarity, perhaps the most famous trade union in the world, and one of the most widely recognized Poland-related subjects. Pictures, citations... I hope you enjoy it. Comments, as always, appreciated! -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Imporper refs.To begin with, please either remove or rereference statements referred to books published by Xlibris. This is the house for self-published authors. Serious academics do not use it as they are published by the Unviersity press and reputable publishers. While it might be OK to refer to such book when stating a fact one witnessed (memoirs are OK), judgements from such books (like Solidarity is responsible for the Europe-wide fall of communism), are unacceptable. --Irpen 22:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • One book by XLibris is used as inline citation three times, in all cases it is accompanied by another source (Lynne Rienner Publishers, Routledge). While you may dispute reliability of Xlibris, please note that Solidarity's importance in the fall of communism is also supported by this citation, and I am sure you will agree Routledge is a reliable publisher ("The first blodless transition from Communism to democracy [...] set the signal for other countries").-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Even "set the signal" is a highly POV statement that belongs to a single author. But even that is not the same as "sparked off". Anyway, I already corrected that. But pls remove the refs to XLibris book entirely as it is used exclusively to support not facts but opinions. --Irpen 23:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I see no reason to remove XLibris book, it's a useful secondary refs, nowehere used as an only ref. And since you seem not convinced about causation in Solidarity contributing to the Autumn of Nations, here is another citation, from Princeton University Press book: "[Solidarity's] influence throughout the region was incalculable. [...] We will then see how the [...] Polish opposition inspired the rest of the region through 1989". See this page from that book for a specific example of how Solidarity influenced events in Hungary. I hope that two citations are enough for you, if not, then please provide references that state Solidarity's had little or no influence on the Revolutions of 1989 and fall of communism. PS. In case 2:0 is not convincing, here is 4:0 - [1], [2]. You'll forgive me if I will not cite the text here at that time (those two refs specifically mention Solidarity's contribution to the 'fall of communism')-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reagan and Pope pictures. What are they doing here and how do they illustrate the article? --Irpen 23:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you should read the article and see where the text mentions Reagan and Pope. Then you will see the relevance of those photos. If still in doubt, letm me throw this helpful ref; it should clarify the reasons for why those pics are there.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I read the article. I see those pics out of place. --Irpen 00:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Could you be more specific? On my screen they are more or less below the para describing the importance of those personas.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
          • This image of Reagan talking to Pope or this one when talking to Gorby are just clutter. The only time Reagan is mentoned in the text is in the sentence: "Ronald Reagan imposed economic sanctions on Poland". How is this illustrated by those images? --Irpen 01:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Sanctions were important, and the text also mentions aid to Solidarity. Further the caption of the picture is a good place to note the alliance of Reagan and the Pope. As for the Gorby picture, it's and old relic, from before I found more relevant pictures; if you think it's really an unneeded clutter, be bold and remove it, although Gorby was important to Solidarity too - perahps you'd like to expand the para mentioning him with a sentence or two on how his policies allowed Solidarity to fluorish?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
              • If you want to speak about alliance of Reagan and Pope do so in relevant articles. And in any case, even if you think it belongs to this article (IMO it does not) "good place to note" it is the article's text which should be illustrated by the pic. The pic was disconnected from the article it was supposed to illustrate. Same with Gorby pic. The pic was disconnected and had a nonsense caption too. The meeting, by itself, does not signify the imnprovement of relations. Brezhnev met Ford, Carter and Reagan. See eg. Strategic Arms Limitation Talks. --Irpen 02:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
                • Considering that Solidarity was one of the main rasons and targets of Reagan and Pope alliance, I'd believe it deserves a mention here. You are correct that the information should be in text, not the picture - I will fix it. As for the Gorby meeting, I don't know much about it, so I am assuming you are right and it was unnecessary.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
                  • "one of the main rasons and targets of Reagan and Pope alliance" was Poland and not Solidarity. This whole stuff belongs to articles about politics, countries and their histories, not the article about a labor Union where you attempt to retell the history of Poland from 70s till today. Seems like POV forking to me. --Irpen 22:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
                    • Certainly, Poland was the higher level target, and this is described in the History of Poland (1945-1989), but Solidarity was their most important tool. Again, please provide refs if you disagree with me. For now, enjoy this one: "When [Regan and Pope] met in person, both were of mind to join forces to free Poland from communist rule. [...] The weapons chosen by Pope and the President were neither guns nor butter, but the nurturing of the Solidarity propaganda machine.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Several things plague the current form of the article:
    • Paragraph layout is moderately messy. There is too much one sentence paragraphs that could be merged.
    • Pictures could use alternate layout (left, then right, then left and so on) to save space in some more sections (e.g.) "Martial law (1981-1983)".
    • And the most important thing: numerous POV issues. The text reads in some places like a newspaper or a schoolbook (and a bad one), not like an encyclopedia article. Let's look at this precisely.
      • "deepening internal crisis of Soviet-style societies due to degradation of morale" - care to explain this one? Are you talking about Poland or Warsaw pact in general? Cause if what we have in Russia and some former Soviet republics now is an improvement of the morale, then I'm the Chinese emperor... Degradation of economy, maybe, but of the morale...
      • "stomped out by the government" - unencyclopedic. Sure a more neutral formulation could be used.
      • "The fall of the communist regime marked a new chapter in the history of Poland and in the history of Solidarity." - This reads like a bad newspaper.
      • Finally, the thing about Solidarity responsible for the fall of the USSR and/or its "influence led to the intensification and spread of anti-communist ideas and movements throughout the countries of the Eastern Bloc, weakening their communist governments." is quite questionable in itself.

I'm stopping here but there are some other examples as well in the text... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

In which part of the article do we claim that Solidarity was responsible for the fall of USSR? As discussed above, we have academic refs that it was responsible for fall of communism in Poland and contributed to the Autumn of Nations in the entire region. What is it that you find questionable, exactly - and what refs do you have to back up your case?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support wholeheartedly. Another great article. Sure, it could do with some better pictures or twice the number of refs (every sentenced referenced by at least three sources could be nice), but I believe it's as close as it gets. And don't forget the lead - all is there and that's how FA leads should look like. //Halibutt 23:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - some of issues Irpen and Grafik mentioned are worth to attend but overall it looks good Alex Bakharev
  • Support. Very good article. POV issues can always arise but this one really deserves it. - Darwinek 12:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per Irpen and Grafik fr. We have too many biased FAs (such as Soviet-Polish War) with {{NPOV}} tag applied to them most of the time. No need to spawn more propaganda on Main Page. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • 3/4 support. Had to vote on this one. The contents are very nice, concise, an excellent read. The article could use a few more references though, it'd also be useful to polish up the English here and there. --Ouro 10:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Just one minor point. I would use a different image at the start of the article, as the license for a Time cover image is somewhat restrictive, plus the message it conveys pushes a certain point of view. Balcer 19:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Was there a single instance when a Polish editor did not support Piotrus when voting on FAC? I believe Wikipedia needs to resolve the problem of voting along the national lines, if it wants to keep FAs respected by the wider community of editors. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
      • And was there a single instance when Ghirla supported any Poland-related FA? //Halibutt 11:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Halibutt, getting the politically charged article to a FA level is difficult and almost impossible task. This is because of the very nature of politics. What can Ghirla (or others) do if attempts to FA are always made with the politically charged articles? Why not try FAing some article in the innocent topic where lack of Politics would bring POV issues to zero? Instead one after one you and Piotrus attempt to FA highly controversial articles. The idea of having articles on the complex issue at the FA level is commendeble by itself. But in the current stage of Wikipedia when no scholarly oversight is attempted achieving it is next to impossible. Perhaps such articles may be refined at Citizendium. --Irpen 18:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Feel free to join that wiki fork if you think it is not a total waste of time; I (and Halibutt, I am sure), who have featured many articles about controversial subjects, are sure to stay on Wiki were we feel our work is most needed and we will certainly work on others FAs, without much thought to whether they are controversial or not.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  06:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with comments that the article looks cluttered, there are too many pictures and sveral of them have very undescriptive captions. The article has cite needed tags. It could also use a copyedit (by a native english speaker), there are monsters like this "Even through some among the Solidarity tried to distance themselves from the right-wing government and assume a more left-wing stance, Solidarity was still identified with the government and suffered from the increasing disillusionment of the population, as transition from communist to a capitalist system failed to generate instant wealth and raise living standards in Poland to those in the West, and the shock therapy (Balcerowicz's Plan) generated much opposition.", and there are lots of instances where the phrasing isn't correct and there are basic grammar errors like "worse state then 8 years earlier". The text is also overly familiar in places, and uses foreshadowing like "In reality, the talks would radically alter the shape of the Polish government and society" which I don't think is appropriate for a chronological re-telling of history in an encyclopedia.--Peta 11:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • There are no cite needed tags anymore. As for copyedit, we have been waiting for month for a native English speaker to read the article and correct the language; it is an objection I cannot address myself. As for pictures, feel free to fix them by moving/deleting/improving captions; as I said, it looks all right to me.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Until it gets one it is not featured standard. There are several copyeditors around, Tony, Wayward and others; just ask someone. --Peta 23:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose, I waited a little after expressing my initial concerns and watched how the article goes. Now I conclude that the article has fundamental problems that simply cannot be addressed in its current shape even if a whole lot of good-faith NPOVing is attempted. The main problem of the article is that the it is destined to be an unnecessary POV fork. Whatever material in it belongs actually to the history of the Polish labor union can very well be covered in Solidarity article which is not overly long and does not warrant spinning off the History of Organization from the Organization article itself. As such, whatever in the article is directly related to Solidarity, needs to be moved to the Solidarity article. The article, however, is wider. It attempts to retell the History of Poland and Politics in Poland from 1970s till today. There is absolutely no need for such POV fork. History and Politics articles already exist. Telling the history of Poland through the prizm of the History of Solidarity is destined to be a POV magnet and it is. This article will be getting the cliche catch-phrases by certain POV pushers such as "when Poland "regained independence" from the USSR in 1989 (!) and will never be NPOV. In fact, it is impossible to have an NPOV article which by its concept designed to be a POV fork of other topics. The article is OK to stay if it is so dear to its authors but it cannot do that under the prestigeous "FA" label. --Irpen 18:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Somehow I am not suprised that after I addressed your above objections you decided to oppose on another ground. The article has over 50 inline references, with almost every single fact accompanied by an inline ctatio from western academic publication verifiable online (via Google Print) - but of course without citing a single reference to support your POV you declare the article 'destined to be an unnecessary POV fork'. Your argument that we don't need 'history or an organization' type article is bizzarre: Wiki is not paper and we have both the room for detailed history, and a reason to split a detailed history section from main subject, which should contain sections on structure, influence, membership and such issues. Finally, considering both the influence of this organization and it's political aspect, I see nothing objectionable that it is closely connected to History of Poland (1945-1989); history of Solidarity and history of Poland are obviously connected; just as, for example, History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is connected to the history of Russia. Perhaps you should demand that those articles - and many other - are merged, and that nothing less specific then 'history of country' deserves to be FACed? I can see how using your logic one can demand deFAing of Russian constitutional crisis of 1993, as it obviously portrays history of Russia in 1993 through the prism of the Russian constitutional crisis of that year. PS. Many reliable academic authors note that Poland regained independence in 1989: [3] (Central European University), [4],(Routldege) [5] (Cambridge), [6] (Universal Encyclopedia of Philosophy), [7] Speech of Polish president (ok, that's not academic, but is interesting). Again, feel free to provide refs to the contrary. Oh, and care to explain your reasoning of using an edit to Karol Świerczewski to object to nomination of History of Solidarity article?? PS2. I wonder if labelling respected editors as 'POV pushers' is not offensive...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
      • This kind of response is regrettable, but I will try to answer what's answerable in it. My main objection is article's being a fork. You claim I do so "without citing a single reference to support your POV". Who references to support who POV? This is more than about factual accuracy. This is about Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. You say that my argument for the lack of necessity for the history of organization article if the organization article is already there is "bizarre". What's bizarre? What the organization article is left to be about? I do not "demand" anything merged. But if "History of CPSU" is to be merged anywhere it is CPSU and not History of Russia. Most importantly, though, is that "History of CPSU" is not being attempted to get a FA status that would bring 24 hours of the mainpage exposure. So that problem is less pressing at the moment. Your analogy with the constitutional crisis article is so far fetched that I won't even elaborate what the difference is. As for the phrases like "Poland regained independence in 1989", sure some opinionated writers may claim so. I can find references stating that killing animals is Genocide. This won't give me a right to mention this matter-of-factly as an established fact in other articles. Articles to discuss contentious points when both POVs may be presented would be Animal rights and Ethics of eating meat. Similarly, start a Polish statehood article to discuss the POV that Poland lacked any until 1989. --Irpen 01:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Regarding the independence issue, first of all, this is not a concern related to this article. We are discussing History of Solidarity, not some other article, and nowhere does this article mentions that 'Poland regained independence in 1989'. That said, IF the article were to state this, you cannot claim it is POV by 'opinionated authors' (who nonetheless are published by Cambridge University Press) unless you can present an alternative POV backed by sources other then your personal opinions. If you look at the top of this page, you may be suprised to find out that "If you oppose a nomination, write *Object or *Oppose followed by the reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the FA Director may ignore it. ". The same policy applies to your claim that the article is POVed: present sources to back up your claim or your objections may not be counted. You say that 'this is more than about factual accuracy'. Incorrect. Wikipedia policies are verifiability, and neutrality; you fail to make a case that anything else then your personal view would suggest the articles fail to conform to those policies. Last but not least, I already explained to you above that there is no need to merge the 'History...' article with the main organization article. Certainly, some material from it can be used to expand the main article, but 'history of Solidarity' is as encyclopedic as any other history of... article out there. Once the aspect (historical or other) of an article becomes sufficiently long, it is split and expanded in its subarticle; I see no reason why this would not be applicable here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Piotrus, my main claim is more fundamental that the article is POVed or inaccurate. The article is a POV fork by design. You see, History of City article is different from the City article because the latter also covers geography, demographics, public transportation, administrative status, city government, etc. Organization is different from the city. I repeat, what is left for the Solidarity article to cover is the history article is spun off? Second, what is left for the History of Poland article of the same period covered by solidarity. The article basically repeats it. It is up to Raul to decide whether to, as you put it, "ignore my comments". Your opinion that he should is very helpful. --Irpen 05:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Indeed, I think it is. Although I am repeating this for the third time, article about history of an organization is not the same thing as an article about an organization (which should cover issues like structure, membership, influences, activities, traditions, etc.) and is not the same thing as history of other entities, larger or smaller, that also happened in this period. If, as you wrote above, your main claim to objection is that you think this article has no right to exist and should be merged into main Solidarity and/or history of Poland articles, than *I* do not think it is a valid objection, especially as dozens of other contributors and reviewers have not arrived at the same conclusion, and we have hundreds of 'history of an organization' articles on Wiki. Although I doubt I can convince you, so indeed, it will be up to Raul to decide whether to count your objection or not.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  06:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
              • Right now, Solidarity is an obscure organization and it owes all its prominence to its history, the role it played in the events of 70s and 80s. Some even think that it played a major role in the Soviet collapse. While ridiculous, it is perhaps a notable opinion of the Polish nationalist thought. Let it be mentioned as such, no objections. Now, in view of the incomparability of the Solidarity's historic role to its current obscurity you want the organization article to be devoted to the harldy notable aspects and keep all the really prominent info in the daughter article. Also, the title allows to fork an entire history of Poland for this period into this article which you have done already. This is an unencyclopedic approach and we cannot have it's exemplification on the main page for 24 hours. --Irpen 20:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
                • Your arguments are, sorry to say this, what is ridiculous. You fail to present any source to back up your offensive statements of the article presenting a 'fork' and 'a notable opinion of the Polish nationalist thought', even though in fact 90% of refs are English academic books. Solidarity is still one of the largest trade unions in Poland, and with 1,5m members and making headlines almost every day ([8]) it is hardly 'obscure'. And history of Solidarity is quite different from history of Poland (1945-1989), which any reader can attest comparing this FAC to the other FA.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose for now. Footnotes go after punctuation, not before, and not in the middle of a sentence. Rlevse 19:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Fixed the 4 references (footnotes) which were before full stop. However as for those inside a sentence they are there to indicate they reference a particular, possibly controversial fact, and thus I feel they should be left where they are.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Wiki and standard English rules say at the end of punctuation, not at the end of punctuation when we feel like it. Rlevse 01:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    • In academia citations are often found inside sentences. Granted, they are usuall Harvard style, not footnotes), nonetheless I think that being reliable and telling the readers which reference is to which fact is important. Consider this example: "Lech Walesa was relesed [ref] but other activists were imprisoned. [ref2]" vs "Lech Walesa was relesed but other activists were imprisoned [ref][ref2]." Which sentence is more clear and informative?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Update: I have rewritten some sentences, now virtually all refs follow a punctuation sign. Is this acceptable now?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment on the question whether the "History of an object" should make part of "this object" article. As indicated by Piotrus, usually this not the case. I would like to stress that in the particular case of History of Solidarity some wikipedia editors were absolutely right to separate it from the Solidarity. The point is, as the article and the references therein explain in details, that historically the Solidarity was quite a different thing from what it is now. Nowadays, the classical definition of a trade union may be successfully applied. Historically, however, it was rather a social mouvement involving about 25% of the population and an unprecendented phenomenon in this part of Europe. We have good reasons to describe it separately. Actually, the present structure of articles helps to understand that important difference (and the Solidarity article can get some more development).--Beaumont (@) 15:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Well done. Essentiallly, it wins when compared to many other texts on the subject, encyclopedic ones included. References for any crucial statement. Some language issues can be easily addressed, I would like to see some copyediting in action; a little effort is entirely justified by the quality of the information the article contains (well, I'm making some minor improvements). I think we could wish the article gets into a next encyclopedia contest. --Beaumont (@) 19:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems that the article meets all the FA criteria. Comprehensive, well-written - great article! Jacek Kendysz 17:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support The let's call it historical Solidarity, and the trade union as it is today are quite two different things. I agree that the article needs editing to be understandable in English, but as I saw Logologist already working on it, I'm confident it'll be fine.--SylwiaS | talk 17:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United Nations

This, from what I have read, is a very good article about an interesting topic and definitely material worth considering later on for the Main Page. My only concern is with the touchy political topics it might and encompass and lack of information in some of the footnotes. Nicholasink 02:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Refer to peer review --Peta 02:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Despite the lack of info in some footnotes, I think this is a FA quality article. †he Bread 03:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Refer to peer review. Some stubby and listy sections. Also referencing problems in some parts. i think it needs further work.--Yannismarou 06:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, per Yanni. Many paragraphs are unreferenced, many of current references are just external links without description. Too many lists, not enough pictures. Not FA quality.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object agree with Yannismarou and Piotrus, and weasel words. Sandy 19:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: the lead could use some work, huge parts of the article is unrefed & it is way too list heavy. Mikker (...) 04:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose The UN is a large and well established organization and as such by now has many scholarly books published about it. I do not know which books are the most important books about the UN but I am sure they exist. It would be like the (English) Mawdudi article going for FAC without citing the Vali Nasr book. For this to be featured it should rely mostly on books and scholarly articles--not news sites. gren グレン 09:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Koan

This article explains the subject well, is objective, and is thorough.

  • The references section was messed up by this edit and needs fixing. Gimmetrow 01:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object:
    • The references section needs to be fixed, as mentioned.
    • Although it's hard to tell in its current state, I believe more references will be needed.
    • The lead section is long, yet does not give the reader an adequate description of a koan. From one of the examples: is "A monk asked Tung Shan, 'What is Buddha?' Tung Shan said, 'Three pounds of flax'." the koan, or "What is Buddha?" together with the response "Three pounds of flax" the koan, or is just the question "What is Buddha?" the koan?
    • The Interpretation section seems more like a textbook than an encyclopedia article.
Pagrashtak 02:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Why? Because:
  1. The lead section, as Pagrashtak points out, is long—too long, in fact—and quite unfocussed, rambling rather unsteadily from definition to example to history and back to definition, etc.
  2. The layout of the "Examples" section is quite bad: rather than putting the information in the bullet beneath the example, it would be better to give that info in a footnote.
  3. (And yes, by the way, the footnotes/references need to be redone, as they have been all but destroyed.)
  4. The layout of "Roles of the koan in Zen practice" is also bad: long, unbroken paragraphs; bullets; a bit of unreferenced and possibly original research (the comparison with "Man's extremity is God's opportunity"); etc.
  5. Some other bits and pieces in the rest of the article which I haven't the time to mention now.

Overall—sorry, but it just ain't ready yet. —Saposcat 06:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

N.B. Reference section has been fixed and renamed "Notes"; but the article still requires a "References" section to collate all the references into one list. —Saposcat 10:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane David

Well-written, long-edited article that I believe, after slow, steady improvements, meets FAC. CrazyC83 17:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose. Doesn't use cite.php, and is not comprehensive enough imo regarding preparations. I refuse to believe there is so little information on preparations for a Cat 2 hurricane in the U.S. – Chacor 17:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose The lead and "Storm History" sections have no citations at all; the statements in the lead and the numbers in "Storm History" should certainly be sourced. For a hurricane which killed 2,000+ people in the Dominican Republic and only 68 elsewhere, there is almost no information on the impact and aftermath of the hurricane on that nation. Shouldn't a nation which suffered such tremendous casualities be mentioned in the "Aftermath" section? The most info is about the US, which had only 5 deaths and sufferend only one-fifth of the total monetary loss caused by David. In general, the "Aftermath" section should definitely be expanded to, if possible, look at aspects of the hurricane such as clean-up efforts and the rebuilding of homes. (Another example for this section: If 70% of the Dominican Republic's crops were destroyed, what happened? Was there a famine? Did the economy suffer? Did the nation have to import crops? Was financial aid needed from other nations?) Finally, I like all of the images, but I think at least one image of actual damage- as opposed to a bunch of radar displays- would be a big improvement. Overall, the article is excellent, but I don't think it's up to FA standards yet. -- Kicking222 17:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Re. images - there used to be three, all deleted for copyvio. – Chacor 17:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Though I was the person who put most of the content there, I don't think it's FA status. Per Chacor, there's not enough info on preparations, and per above there should be more on Dominica or Dominican Republic. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the same reasons as above. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Haphazard citations, and also not formatted with {{cite web}} et al, to start. Titoxd(?!?) 03:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per others. The article doesn't list many references such as other hurricane articles, including Hurricane Gloria or Hurricane Mitch. You should locate some more sources for the unsupported claims. Never Mystic (tc) 21:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above, and primarally no {{cite web}}, etc., reference tags. Hello32020 20:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mobile Suit Gundam

Meets criteria, it's a very popular anime, and yeah, not much else really to say. Jay Kana

Oppose - It fails some of the criteria. Everything necessary needs to be wikilinked (one section has just 2 of them). Lists either need to be completely removed or integrated into prose and the article needs to be referenced like other featured articles. Don't be discouraged though. A bit of hard work and the article will be there in no time. What's there at the moment looks to be good, but just not in the form of a featured article. --mdmanser 21:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No references, most of the article is lists. --zippedmartin 18:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - No references, very listy, images claiming fair use have no rationale, video game titles should be italicized. Suggest delisting. Pagrashtak 00:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. No references, giant lists, not a single screenshot, plus all the other problems pointed out above.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Hume

Good A-Class. Eyu100 04:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Looks promising to me. The prose is interesting and flowing. The section organization is odd though:
    • Footnotes should be at the bottom, shouldn't they?
    • References are partly numbered, partly bulletized... if the bulleted ones are not referenced, don't they belong in "Further reading"?
    • David Hume#Perspectives of Hume - isn't this supposed to appear sometime further up, rather than after the "See also" and "Further reading" sections?
--Zvika 15:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: I think that the article would need a section on Hume as an historian: Hume's history was one of the best fruits of 18th century historiography, and deserves to be discussed. Also, I find Piotrus' points very sound.--Aldux 11:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Not enough references: there entire unreferenced sections. Perspectives has lots of tiny paras, and works is a not-very-pretty-but-long list.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shigeru Miyamoto

Shigeru Miyamoto deserves a spot on the featured article list because of his amazing work with Nintendo and the Wii

Doshindude 20:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment there are no inline refs and the article has {{fact}} templates. However much Shigeru Miyamoto may deserve an FA, he won't get one if these issues are not resolved. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose: You're right, he does deserve an FA. So it's a shame that his article is so poorly referenced. Rampart 23:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Object: Articles are featured based on WP:WIAFA criteria, not the merit of the subject. Suggest delisting. Pagrashtak 02:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose: per Pagrashtak. Also, it hardly seems comprehensive, it shouldn't have trivia, it is unreferenced and the lead could do with serious work. Mikker (...) 03:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose: per above. No references, too short and section naming needs to be addressed. --13:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose: References are needed. Sir Crazyswordsman 01:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose no references whatsoever and it has a really, really narrow scope (wouldn't probably pass GA). Hbdragon88 07:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vancouver

Self nomination.

It's been a while since the previous FAC, and the article is in better shape. -- Selmo (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Please link to the FAC archive. On another note, "The city is consistently ranked within the top 3 cities in the world in which to live" needs a citation in the Social fabric section.—Abraham Lure 01:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is a problem with the Template:Olympic Winter Games Host Cities at the bottom. It shows up vertically for me, though in the Calgary article, it shows up as it is supposed to. Pepsidrinka 16:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's my hometown! I want to return to visit! ...Now, to business:
  1. The lead section is not well-rounded. It should essentially summarize the article as a whole (or at least the most sufficient points), but it's all statistics here. Also, there is no reference for the claim that Vancouver residents are called "Vancouverites" (which I've never heard of before).#Indication that it will host the 2010 Olympics Games in the lead section seems unnecessary. That should be merged with Sports and recreation.
Strongly disagree that Olympics reference is too trivial for the lead section. This is a huge deal for the city (oddly enough, considering it's just a 2 week sports event), and is having a profound influence on the development and economy of the city. Go figure.Bobanny
I find it hard to believe you're from here yet never heard "Vancouverite." Unless there is competing term for Vancouver residents (Vancouverers?), I strongly disagree that it requires a reference, which is consistent with FA cities and others (Seattleites, Detroiters, Torontonians, New Yorkers, etc.).Bobanny

#The history section is short and the inclusion of two images makes it look messy and unorganized.#In Scenery (a sub-section of Geography) the first sentence ("Vancouver is internationally renowned for its beautiful scenery") is unreferenced. As a matter of fact, the section should be merged with another part of Geography because of its length. #The Air Pollution section is odd; most of it is unreferenced and written in a vague style. #Image:VanPan.jpg is outrageously long.

The image has been replaced with a better quality image of the same view, which is also a much smaller file. It is, however, still a long image, but the thumbnail size has been decreased.Bobanny

#There is no fair use rationale for Image:SamSullivan.jpg. #The Electricity sub-section of Infrastructure is two sentences and needs to be merged. #The first sentence of Lifestyle ("The city of Vancouver has developed a reputation as a tolerant city that is open to social experimentation and alternative lifestyles as well as being willing to explore alternative drug policies") is unreferenced and makes no sense. Since when did Vancouver become tolerant to open social experimentation (or perhaps I've been away for too long)? #Skyline is far too detailed. It needs to be shortened. #Countless POV issues.

I believe POV issues have been resolved. If others disagree, please point out specifics.Bobanny

#Many claims are not sourced or improperly sourced.

There might still be some, but definately not "many." I'll take another look later.Bobanny

#The writing is confusing in most parts and sometimes infactual.

Taken care of now. -- Selmo (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

#The contents table is overly long.

I've shrunk that a while ago. -- Selmo (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. There are several other issues as well. Basically, it needs a complete rewrite.
This article has many problems, but if its editors can slowly improve it, I would love to support it at a later date. Currently, though, it is not ready for FA status and I recommend a solid peer review. There should be more print sources for a well-known city too. Never Mystic (tc) 22:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your great suggestions. At WP:PR, noone has a comment, here, I actually get feedback. -- Selmo (talk) 22:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand what you mean! Sometimes FAC is the only solution in receiving feedback. If you want more, just ask me. Never Mystic (tc) 01:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
That's fine for now. Thanks for your contributions to the article. -- Selmo (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bereishit (parsha)

I put this up for a peer review, which has attracted exactly 0 comments. I can only assume therefore, that the article is of a high enough standard that it does not require any further work. So the next step is FA. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 13:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment There are no inline citations. Rlevse 15:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
There wouldn't be. All references are included as part of the text. The closest you come to inline citations are the direct links to the relevant parts of Genesis in the summary. I don't think this can be corrected, unless I can find the works of Maimonides online to quote where he says there is one mitzvot. I'll see what I can find. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 15:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I looked and found a list of Maimonides' count of the commandments but felt that the direct link to a copy of the Bible where it can be checked for one's self is sufficent. So basically, this article has no inline citations because it one of the few that doesn't actually need any. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 15:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. While 'Summary' may not require citations other then those to primary sources, other sections do, particulalry 'In Rabbinic interpretation'. Also, there is information in lead which is not repeated in main body: remember lead is supposed to be summary, and should not contain unique information.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
In Rabbinic Interpretation is referenced. That's what "(Genesis Rabba 1:4.)" and "(Mishnah Avot 5:1.)" are. The other sections are similar. I have rewritten the stuff in the lead you referred to and [laced it in the main article. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 18:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The lead is better now, but I am still not happy with the article being referenced solely on primary sources. As it is, the article may or may not be in violation of Wikipedia:No original research - I don't know enough about this subject to be certain. See particularly the Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary_and_secondary_sources. I would suggest that this article should be expanded with secondary sources (like those articles or books) before it is comprehensive enough for a FA.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC}
I don't think Genesis Rabba and Mishnah Avot are primary sources - they're rabbinical commentaries interpreting and, well, commenting on the parsha. You can see a copy of the Rabba here. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 08:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not a specialist here, but I still think that the article is based on two few sources with evident POV. It needs to be expanded with academic sources I indicated above.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - Unfortunately, zero peer review comments only means that peer review does not attract enough attention.
    • This article is almost entirely a summary of the text. An encyclopedia article should go beyond a mere rehashing of the plot.
    • The "Commandments" section is a mere sentence. Section merged.
    • The article needs to be made more accessible to the lay person. Sentences like "The haftarah for the parsha is: for Ashkenazi Jews: Isaiah 42:5–43:10..." mean nothing unless one already has an understanding of these words.
    • The "References in classical sources" section is not very useful. There is no discussion of what is listed. Renamed to Further reading.
    • In accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), do not include links in headings.
Pagrashtak 18:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Surely a summary of the parsha is quite important? The article is on a section of the torah, is not the most vital thing to explain what it is. I'm not sure what exactly I can add to the commandments section: there's only one after all and "be fruitful and multiply" is fairly self-explanatory. I've explained what a haftarah is, is that clear enough for the casual reader? I've removed the creation link from the heading. What do you want in the References in Classical Sources section? I thought it didn't really need anything, as a bibliography. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 18:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying you should remove the summary. I'm saying that if you were to remove it, there would be a stub left, and that's a problem. If the commandments section cannot expand beyond what it is, it should not be its own section. If it can, it should be expanded. If you're intending the "References in classical sources" section to serve as a bibliography, it's not clear. Perhaps "Further reading" would be a more appropriate heading? Pagrashtak 01:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've renamed it Further Reading. What I've done to the commandments is I've merged it with in rabbinical interpretation, because Mainmonides was a rabbi. I know it's inadequate as a paragraph, but trying to work it in with the previous two just doesn't seem to fit. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 08:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I've struck two comments, the rest still need work. Pagrashtak 20:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I have removed all links in headers, and tried to explain further what unfamiliar words mean without breaking the flow. I'm not sure more more I can expand the article with: it is, after all, an article on a piece of text; naturally a summary would take up a large amount of space. It only has one commandment, which I've expanded, and I've written an overview prior to the summary itself. What else can I add? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 20:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Since there is little information other than the summary of the plot, I suspect that it is not comprehensive. However, since I am largely unfamiliar with the subject, I can't specifically say what needs to be added. If Raul feels that this invalidates my point, then so be it. Pagrashtak 22:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, what I'll do is drop a message off at the Jewish Wikiprojects, and see if they think it can be expanded or not. In the meantime, I notice that you have not crossed out "terms for the layman" what else do you feel needs explaining? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 23:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This is indeed, just a summary of Genesis. There needs to be a lot more on the specifically Jewish stuff that differentiates it from the Genesis story in the Christian Bible or in the Koran, more about Hebrew, more about Judaism, more categories (at the moment, it is only categorised in Weekly Torah readings). More on the history of it being read out, and why it is read out. Also, the pictures might be specifically illustrating Christian themes (not sure). Can you find specifically Jewish images drawn by Jewish people? Carcharoth 08:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United Nations Security Council

Nominated by User:Romtobbi

I came across this article while doing other research and have found it to be an extremely useful article and in my mind worthy of feature article status. It meets all the feature article criteria; it is well written and very comprehensive, and as far as I can tell is factually accurate and its neautrality is uncompromised. Romtobbi 06:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose My first concern when I look at the article is the number of "citation needed" tags. That, and the fact that there are only 4 references. It looks like a very comprehensive and to-the-point article but not one that is sorted out in the correct featured article manner. --mdmanser 07:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Lack of inline citations & MOS problems. Suggest a peer review & copyedit are carried out. Alexj2002 10:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose, numerous deficiencies as listed above, refer to peer review. Sandy 13:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States

Nominated by Sean gorter

A very good article. Very specific, many images, includes its 41 states and many more reasons. •Sean•gorter•(T) (P) 05:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

"Support per nom"? But you are the nominator. Are you just trying to bulk up the appearance of support? Tony 13:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. He may think (wrongly) that such a support is standard procedure. —Cuiviénen 20:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—1a; poorly written. Here are random examples from the top.
    • Ungrammatical sentence: "Columbus Day, a holiday in the U.S. and other countries in the Americas commemorating Columbus' October 1492 landing." Huh?
    • "A female personification of the country is also called Columbia; she is similar to Britannia." Ambiguous: so the female personification is called something else too? Is this tid-bit appropriate in a prominent section just below the ToC?
    • "[The US] is ... bounded by ... Canada to the north. Alaska also borders Canada,...". Ambiguous, and jumbled categories.
    • "The adjectival and demonymic forms for the United States are American, a point of controversy among some." If you don't provide the details of the controversy and of who "some" are, it's best not to mention this.
    • 'The term "united States of America"'—Wouldn't that be an upper-case "U"? Explained by nominator." Tony 03:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Confusion between "The Americas" and "the US", under "Name".
    • "On the other end of the spectrum, Death Valley, California once reached 134 °F (56.7 °C); the second-highest temperature ever recorded on Earth." Should that be a comma rather than a semicolon?
    • Ungainly repetition: "On average, the mountains of the western states receive the most snow and are among the snowiest places on Earth."

I won't read further. The whole article needs serious copy-editing. Many hours' work. Tony 13:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Quick response - no, it wouldn't be an upper-case 'u', the original references to the country used "united" as an adjective, not as part of the name. On everything else, you're probably right. --Golbez 16:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - While comprehensive, this article is in need of a few formatting edits, per above. A few issues with the infobox displaying in Firefox. Pcbene 05:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Tony. Also, why does the Ecology section have only one subsection. Either name the section Flora and Fauna or name it Ecology and mention other aspects of ecology. There is no need to have a single subsection within a section. Also, does the recent Iraq war deserve a paragraph in the history section? See Wikipedia:Recentism. Also the findings about the first usage of the term "America" has no source. The religion subsection could use some serious condensing. And couldn't the cusine, music and movies subsections all be assimilated into the culture section, with more detailed discussion belong in Culture of the United States? Pepsidrinka 16:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose massive TOC in addition to the already identified issues.--Peta 02:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This article has been nominated several times before. You should probably put the archives of those nominations here for easy access.UberCryxic 18:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Nom has less than 50 mainspace edits, and several of those are either very clueless or vandalism (moving mortar to morter [9], for example). Between that, the "41 states" comment, and the hundreds of edits this user has put into his userspace, I feel like he could use either a mentorship or a block to set him on the right track ...some kind of drastic change. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sasha (DJ)

I have put a lot of work into this article in preparing it to be a Featured Article. I previously nominated it, and it was opposed due to some relatively minor issues some editors had with it that I have since fixed. Archive here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sasha (DJ)/archive1. This is a stable article, well-sourced, and which I now believe reflects the standards of "brilliant prose" on Wikipedia. This has been through a successful "Good Article" nomination, a peer review, and a previous FAC nomination. I believe it is of appropriate length and the information contained therein is accurate, NPOV, and quite verifiable. Its difficult to find much negative press on Sasha, but I feel its a well-balanced article integrating positive and negative criticisms, stylistic/artistic, and biographical information. Wickethewok 15:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Head scratching - I can't find the archived previous nomination, can you help? --Mcginnly | Natter 16:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  • No prob, I should fix that link anyway. Wickethewok 19:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment Image:Sasha fundacion presskit.gif fails Wikipedia:Fair use criteria #1 and needs to be deleted. Jkelly 17:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I just want to make sure I understand correctly: this image is bad because another image could be created? Is that essentially why it fails? Is there any difference between this case and the lead picture used for Elliott Smith? In any case, I will put in a different (free) headshot, but it will lack the excellent clarity of any promotional photo. I'm putting in a few emails to Sasha's management asking for free-licensing options on a picture. I'm putting in a free image for now in any case... Wickethewok 18:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, the new image I uploaded doesn't look that bad. Wickethewok 18:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Excellent! Nice work. Jkelly 20:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment God I'm loath to do this - It's pretty close this article, but it still seems to have some prose problems - I started editing the last 3 paragraphs (working upwards), and found quite a bit to tweak (I got bored doing it). Sorry about this chaps but could you have another go over it. Also there's one phrase I didn't change because I didn't really understand what it was trying to say. "He most often uses the built-in plugins [of Ableton] due to stability and performance issues." I don't understand this - it sounds like a non-sequitur - you probably need to say what the stability and performance issues are, or "He primarily uses the Ableton's built-in plugins because of their stability and performance benefits." Finally, this article still reads as a tribute to Sasha - Is there really no objective criticism out their of his work? --Mcginnly | Natter 12:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • There seems to be little criticism of Sasha, as he seems to be at that level of popularity where its only cool to praise him, similarly to The KLF. I'm not a rabid Sasha fan or anything, btw ;-). I'll look through metacritic and will hopefully find some more criticisms. Also, thanks for going over the article and editing it, Mcginnly, it really does need a second set of eyes to go over the small stuff. Last FAC, people just said that the language needed to be fixed up, but they weren't specific and didn't edit the article any, so thanks for the hands-on involvement. I'll fix up that Ableton plugins sentence - its supposed to mean that he uses the built-in plugins because they are more stable/efficient than user-made plugins. Wickethewok 19:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I'm not going to do the rest of the article. Come on man where's your backbone, one last push! The way I do it is to take each sentence one at a time and read it 3 times - aloud if necessary, if it doesn't sound like it's written in an encyclopedia I'll rewrite it. --Mcginnly | Natter 19:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'll go over it again. I'm not giving up on it ;-). In any case, I managed to find some negative reviews and have integrated them. I just went over it again rather thoroughly, but I will do so again later tonight. Wickethewok 20:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the lack of criticism is because you are only looking at pro-dance sources, suggest you might look at criticsm of dance music in general that cites sasha. I know I stopped listening to it in the late 90's because after ten years it just seemed really stale, had lost it's real experimental edge, the scene had become rather cocaine nasty and the rise of the 'superstar DJ' seemed to be run against the original "could be anyone of us" anonymous dj ethos, I'm sure they'll be something out there that says something citably similar. --Mcginnly | Natter 10:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I already added in some negative reviews/comments/criticisms regarding his later albums/styles (Communicate, Involver, ADD). Do you think there needs to be more in there? I'll try to find some regarding his earlier work along the lines of what you've said. Wickethewok 12:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • "1.(b) "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details." - so yes if it exists and is citable it should be there. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm very anti the superstar DJs too, and also stopped listening to new dance music because I felt the genre had done all it could. However, I don't think that just because we hold this opinion it automatically means there will be stacks of negative reviews about Sasha. Sure we could probably find some pieces saying superstars DJs are w*nkers, or dance music is dead long live rock, and perhaps these things could be briefly mentioned. In summary, though, I trust Wickthewok not to have cherrypicked, and unless we can come up with tons of material saying "Sasha is crap" I think we can't accuse him of ignoring any significant critical opinion in this article. --kingboyk 15:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I've found a few articles that discuss the commercialization of the "superstar DJ" and what have you. I'm going to try to integrate them now. Wickethewok 18:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, I added in a few sentences regarding this. Tell me what ya think.  :) Wickethewok 19:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment can you please integrate "personal life" into the main article. Its strange why its relegated to the bottom of the article, which is a biography. Rama's arrow 00:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Yup. I added it to the end of the bio section, as its mostly about his current life. Thanks for the suggestion. Going over it one (last?) time now... Wickethewok 01:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I've done a couple touch-ups. In my opinion, it reads like a quality encyclopedia article. I believe I've gotten all the word redundancies, confusing sentences, and all that type of stuff out of there. I've been critiquing my writing for awhile now, and haven't found anything major or minor to fix still. If I'm incorrect, please point out what I'm missing. Infinite thanks! Wickethewok 07:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The research and dedication to detail is extremely impressive. I'm not sure the prose is absolutely "brilliant" in terms of being world class, stunning, blow my socks off, oh my god sort of quality, but is the article good enough to grace a paper enyclopedia? Does it showcase Wikipedia as a serious resource? I'd answer yes to both of those. --kingboyk 15:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The recent changes to this article push me over the line. This is a very impressive article and I think it deserves to be recognised as one of Wikipedia's best. Support. --kingboyk 13:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article still has prose problems (Apologies for the delay I've been on Holiday).
"As a child, his earliest exposure to music was primarily Motown records" His exposure can't be both "earliest" (1 thing) and "Primarily" (The main 1 of many things). Why not say something like; "As a child, he was exposed to a great deal of music from Motown Records."
The term "resident" and "residency" is used a number of times but is not linked or defined in the article - a link is provided to residency (as in, resident of a house) but not in the dance music sense. My granny will think Sasha lives at the club.
"Resident Haçienda DJ Jon DaSilva helped Sasha get booked at his club". Confusing sentence - logically, it tells us that Jon DaSilva Helped Sasha get booked at his (Jon's) club. This club isn't named and the confusion arises by mentioning the Hacienda in the first part of the sentence.
The article has far too many "due to's", can't we replace some of them with "because of's"?
"He left his residency at Shelley's due to increased gang violence in and around the club. Due to his stay at Shelley's, Sasha was offered performing jobs in London and Australia." - 2 "due to's" in consecutive sentences - I'm confused again; the 1st sentence says he left his residency the second, at first scan, seems to read that he stayed after all but was then offered jobs in London and Australia?
"John Digweed had been DJ-ing for ten years before getting a residency at Renaissance where he met Sasha.[8] Their partnership started during Sasha's final performances at Renaissance.......... " This paragraph needs rewriting - John Digweed is introduced in the first sentence, in the second, a partnership is alluded to that has not previously been mentioned. What sort of partnership? It clunks a bit. "Sasha's final performances" - does this relate to the last couple of records he would play in any given evening or the last few performances of his residency? --Mcginnly | Natter 12:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for getting back to me. I corrected the stuff you listed and have gone through and corrected similar sentences that may be confusing/ambiguous in the article as well. Let me know what you think. Thanks for the help btw. Wickethewok 14:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Supportsubject to sorting out 1. "In Sasha's later months at Renaissance, Sasha partnered with fellow resident DJ John Digweed" - please disambiguate whether these 'later months' refer to the months after the events of the preceeding paragraph or his 'last months'. and 2. Providing a date when he left renaissance (quoting this at the start of the paragraph will probably frame the whole paragraph much better anyway)
Sorted - sweet as a nut mate - top article etc. :-)))))))) --Mcginnly | Natter 22:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. Thank you soo much for your copyediting and suggestions, Mcginnly! Much appreciated! Wickethewok 06:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe the response he was actually looking for was "nice one, geezer!" ;) --kingboyk 16:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't understand your British people speak...  ;-P Wickethewok 16:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support first DJ article i've seen that warranted its FA status. Cheers mate your work is ace!  ALKIVAR™ 03:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The article needs a thorough copyedit by a fresh set of eyes. The prose is choppy, lacking fluidity and connection between sentences. Here are some completely random samples:
    • In Sasha's last months at Renaissance leading up to his April 1994 departure, Sasha partnered with fellow resident DJ John Digweed. John Digweed had been DJ-ing for ten years before becoming a resident at Renaissance where he met Sasha.
      • Perhaps something along the lines of, In the final months before his April 1994 departure from Renaissance, Sasha partnered with fellow resident DJ John Digweed, who ...
    • Sasha and Digweed embarked with Jimmy Van M on their "Delta Heavy" tour across the United States in 2002. The tour was produced by Warped Tour creator Kevin Lyman. Delta Heavy covered 31 cities and played to 85,000 people in total.
      • Maybe something like this to combine the 3 sentences into one: In 2002, Sasha, Digweed, and Jimmy Van M embarked on their "Delta Heavy" tour of the United States, produced by Warped Tour creator Kevin Lyman, covering 31 cities and playing to 85,000 people.
  • I'm not a great copy editor, so my suggested fixes might not be the best, but fixing is needed throughout. Sandy 18:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Hiya, Sandy. I touched up the article attempting to make the sentences flow better. While I didn't follow your wording suggestions exactly, I'm glad you pointed this issue out. I revised things like this throughout, and am quite interested in hearing your opinion of the article as it currently stands. Additional looking at "by a fresh set of eyes" is of course welcome. Wickethewok 19:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I messaged Sandy a few days ago, but no luck getting her to check out my new edits.  :( Wickethewok 06:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I sincerely apologize, Wikethewok; apparently I overlooked your message. I am traveling now, on a very slow dialup: I will see if someone else can have a look, and check back as soon as I can get on a decent connection. Sandy 14:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No prob. Seems like it needs another copy-edit anyway... Wickethewok 06:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object until the prose is cleaned up to "professional" standards, as required. Repetition is a problem. I see "helped expand" and "helped popularize" in the lead (reword one, and insert "to" into the other); "enjoy/ed" occurs twice in the third para; "eventually" occurs twice within two lines in the next section (see below); "building up his record collection" almost repeated. The whole text needs a repetition audit.
    • "Drawn to both the acid house music and the attitude he found associated with it"—oh, just an epithet or two before "attitude", to give us an idea?
    • "eventually moved to nearby Disley"—vague; avoid "eventually" in an encyclopedic register.
    • "With DJ Jon DaSilva's assistance, Sasha got booked at The Haçienda." "Got booked" is ugly, and isn't that what happens when you're stopped for speeding?
    • "Because of his recently successful performances"—bit awkward.

This needs someone else who's interested in the topic to go through it carefully. Use the list of copy-editors that you've made over the months (I hope you have). Ask them nicely, and express interest in their work. It's called "collaboration". Tony 14:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verity Lambert

Self-nomination. I've done a lot of work bringing the standard of this article up recently and am quite pleased with the result, so I thought I'd give it a shot. It spent a week on peer review here, but attracted only one feedback response, which I feel I have adequately responded to. I also posted asking for comment at two relevant WikiProjects, Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who and Wikipedia:WikiProject Television, getting only one comment, which was positive. Angmering 06:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Support, well referenced, and a good read. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, lots of references, quite lengthy while not being overly boring, and plenty of pictures. --Thelb4 19:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Could do with a few stylistic tweaks, but very very minor ones; as it stands, it holds up to any other FA here. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Holds up to all the FA criteria, and an interesting read. --Brian Olsen 17:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Object. Needs a serious and thorough copy edit, top to bottom. Here are just a few examples of the problems throughout the article: (Switching to Object, as there has been no copy edit. Copyedit needs are extensive. Sandy 12:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC) )
    • A weasle word (perhaps) in the lead doesn't set a good encyclopedic tone; perhaps you can find a way to reword the lead to avoid the weasle word?
    • "In a television career spanning from the mid-1950s to the 2000s" from is redundant.
    • worked for ... as well as running ... switches tenses.
    • An example of awkward prose, which is found throughout: "Born in London, Lambert was educated at Roedean School, which she left at the age of sixteen and then studied for a year at the Sorbonne in Paris, followed by eighteen months at a secretarial college in London.[4]" "Her first job was typing menus at the Kensington De Vere Hotel, who employed her because she had been to France and could speak French.[4]" (The hotel is a who?) "She entered the television industry in 1956 when she joined Granada Television as a secretary working in the company's press office, where she was sacked after six months.[4]" (entered when she joined?)
  • I stopped at that point: please enlist a good copyeditor to run through the entire article and polish the prose. It might help to have a look at Tony's copyedit exercises at the bottom of the WP:WIAFA page. Sandy 17:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Prose related problems aplenty in the article. Here are few more...
    • "Perhaps her best known work is as the initial producer of the science-fiction series Doctor Who for the BBC, from 1963 to 1965." The use of "as" after "is" makes the sentence look like it is missing a predicate (the sentence not telling what she did as a producer of Doctor Who that made her famous) with the predicate being absorbed as additional information (qualifier) of the noun. A better sentence structure would be "She is best known for...."
    • "In a television career spanning from the mid-1950s to the 2000s, Lambert has worked for Associated British Corporation, the BBC, London Weekend Television, Thames Television and Euston Films, as well as for Thorn EMI Screen Entertainment in the film industry and running her own production company, Cinema Verity." Too long, winding prose. Consider breaking up.
    • "(He did not die on camera, but rather off-stage just prior to a scene in which he was to appear)." The sentence is good enough to be placed outside braces.
    • "Newman had specifically recruited her to produce a new educational science-fiction adventure serial for children which he had personally initiated the creation of: the serial was called Doctor Who." Awkward prose. Should be re-written without colons.
  • Apart from these there are more problems which I summarize below.
    • The dates need to be wikilinked. I have edited one as a sample.
    • Dashes for number ranges in references don't follow WP:DASH.
    • The article seems to have too many weasel words (guarding terms, discounting terms, etc). — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment. This is a bit of a gestalt reply to the last two objections, I'm afraid — I don't mean to seem rude but you both seemed to object along similar lines so one response to you both seemed easiest. Thank you for all of your comments — I have now gone through and done a copy-edit of the article and tried to act on your criticisms and suggestions as best I can. Please do let me know if I have missed things / not done enough, etc. (Incidentally, I'm pretty sure British English allows a hotel to be a who when talking about it as an employer rather than an actual building, but for the sake of clarity I've changed it). Angmering 17:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Just additionally adding that User:Josiah Rowe has agreed to also have a go at copyediting the article, although as he's busy at the moment he'll be unable to do so until Tuesday at the earliest — I hope it's okay to keep the FAC open until then. Angmering 10:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I've done one copyediting pass, smoothing out some of the clunkier sentences. The article might benefit from another pass by a more experienced copyeditor, but I think it has been improved. I'd be interested to see whether Ambuj and Sandy's concerns have been addressed. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Back for second look:

  • "Lambert was a pioneer woman in British television — when she was appointed to Doctor Who in 1963, she was the youngest and only female drama producer working at the BBC.[1]" I'd prefer a semi-colon in place of the dash, but that may be just style. The dash suggests (to me) something parenthetical, or an aside, rather than a continuation of the same thought. This is not an objection, rather a question/style issue.
  • "Lambert began working in television in the 1950s, and as of 2006 continues to work as a producer. After leaving the BBC in 1969, Lambert worked for several other television companies, most notably Thames Television and Euston Films in the 1970s and 80s." Could you replace the second "Lambert" with a "she"?
  • "The British Film Institute's Screenonline reference website describes Lambert as ... " What makes it a "reference" website?
  • "She was sacked from this job after six months." Why? Left me hanging. The next sentence says, "After leaving Granada, ... " which seems to contradict that she was fired.
  • "She then moved from the administrative to the production side of television, working on drama programming for ABC, particularly on the popular anthology series Armchair Theatre." We don't get a sense of how she moved from being a fired secretary to working in production. Why "particularly"? Can't it be something like, "She then moved from administration to production, working on drama programming for ABC's popular anthology series, Armchair Theatre."
  • "On November 28, 1958, Lambert was working as a production assistant on Armchair Theatre when actor Gareth Jones died during a live television broadcast of the hour-long play "Underground". Jones did not die on camera, but rather off-stage just prior to a scene in which he was to appear." The next sentence tells us why we need to know he died off camera, but at the point we encounter this sentence, it's a mystery why we're being given this information. Maybe doing it this way would help:
    • On November 28, 1958, while Lambert was working as a production assistant on Armchair Theatre, actor Gareth Jones died off-stage just prior to his scene during a live television broadcast of the hour-long play "Underground".
  • "Although Newman had already offered the producership of Doctor Who to both Don Taylor[8] and Shaun Sutton,[9] both of whom had declined the offer, he was very keen to ensure that Lambert took the position after his experience of working with her at ABC." Can be simplified:
    • Don Taylor and Shaun Sutton had both declined to produce Doctor Who, and after his experience working with her at ABC, Newman was keen to ensure that Lambert took the position.

I'm still getting tangled up in some of the prose, and would feel better if you had another good copyedit, from a fresh set of eyes. Sandy 22:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a go later on today at implementing your suggestions, and finding another user to give it another copyedit. Angmering 06:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I have now implemented or adapted most of the specific recommendations you stated above. I have also asked another user, User:BillyH, to bring "a fresh set of eyes" to the article, as you suggested. He has taken a look, and in his edit summary said that he "Couldn't find anything that needed changing except for a few spelling errors." Angmering 23:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Third look: the prose is still very difficult. Random samples:
    • The Naked Civil Servant won a British Academy Television Award (BAFTA) for its star John Hurt as well as a Broadcasting Press Guild Award and a prize at the Prix Italia;[14] Rock Follies won a BAFTA and a Royal Television Society Award,[15] while Widows also gained BAFTA nominations and ratings of over 12 million — unusually for a drama serial, it picked up viewers over the course of its six-week run.
    • The long development period of Adam Adamant delayed its production, and during this delay Newman gave her the initial episodes of a new soap opera, The Newcomers, to produce.
    • Subsequent, subsequently, however, however: Lambert's relationship with Bleasdale was not entirely smooth, however — the writer has admitted in subsequent interviews that he "wanted to kill Verity Lambert"[19] after she insisted on the cutting of large portions of his first draft script before production began. However, Bleasdale subsequently admitted that she was right about the majority of the cut material, and when the production was finished he only missed one small scene from those she had demanded be excised.
  • I hope you can locate a copyeditor who is able to smooth out and polish the prose throughout. Sandy 18:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Given that two users have already gone through the article at my request and it still doesn't satisfy your concerns, can you suggest a user who might be able to have a look? Angmering 19:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support--Jamdav86 12:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Music of Italy

It's been a long time since I've done much FAC work, but I think this article has turned out very well. It was largely written by me and User:Jeffmatt, and it's a GA and an A-Class WP:WOMUS article (though WOMUS is largely me, so take that with a grain of salt). It's involved quite a bit of discussion, as this is a bit of a tricky subject. I'm of the opinion that a "music of" should primarily be about the modern country -- how music currently has an effect on the lives of Italians. Of course, to some degree, history is a major part of that, and in addition, Italian music history is extremely notable in the grand scheme of things... So finding the appropriate amounts of content in different areas is a precarious balancing act. It's 83kb with all the frills, but much of that is the references, pics, and other stuff (mostly references).

This article has 59KB of prose as of 30 September 2006

FYI: Jeffmatt's Italian, but he uses mostly British spelling and I use American. In copyediting, I switched it to American so that it was consistent. I may have missed some though, so please fix any British spelling you encounter (or switch it all to British, I don't really care).

No, for FYI, Jeffmatt is American, but lives in Italy. He switches spelling. He once spelled it "theather" amd claimed it was New Zealand spelling. Keeps people on their toes. Or at least off of mine. Jeffmatt 04:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, okay, nevermind then. Sorry. Tuf-Kat 07:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks in advance for commenting, Tuf-Kat 01:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Note 10 has empty <ref></ref> tags. -Fsotrain0901:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, an edit conflict from commenting before I officially even launch the nom! I just fixed it, but thanks. Tuf-Kat 01:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Anything on the development of Gregorian Chant? Didn't that occur at least partially in Italy? Or at least, it ended up there as a result of the Catholic Church. --Spangineeres (háblame) 01:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • That's part of the history vs. modern issue I alluded to. Gregorian chant developed geographically in Italy, but it predated everything of major relevance to modern Italian music. And it's not particularly more important in Italy than in France, etc. (Not that I'm an expert on early music, but that's my understanding). The very nice music history of Italy was previously a part of this article, but I removed it a few weeks ago (even it only gives 6 paragraphs to everything before the Renaissance). Tuf-Kat 02:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Uncomprehensive or wrongly named. If this article is about the Modern history of italian music, that should be its title. It if is the whole history, lacking anything before the Renaissance is unacceptable. Judgesurreal777
That is part of the problem that Tuf-Kat refers to above--and he, I, and a few other contributors went round and round for months on this--the balance between history and the present. I am not sure what "Modern history of Italian music" would even mean, to tell you the truth. Or even "History of Modern Italian Music" (which is a contradiction in terms). I think the article has attemped to answer a potential reader's question, "What is the music of Italy like today?" and puts in a reasonable amount of historical information so that a reader is not left completely hanging in the present. Thank you for your comment. Jeffmatt 04:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
If that's the question you want to answer, then this needs to be at "Modern music of Italy". Music of Italy needs to answer the question, "What is the music of Italy?" (with no exceptions). If you're not going to at least briefly discuss all of the music of Italy, you should have a good reason (like no reliable sources existing), or change the title. --Spangineeres (háblame) 16:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
But it covers plenty of music that is not modern. It covers all the most important points of Italian music history -- stuff sufficiently distant in the past is not part of the music of Italy if Italy is defined as the country. If Italy is defined as the penninsula and politically united islands, then this article would need to be expanded to cover lots of topics irrelevant to the country. Gregorian chant occurred largely in what we now call Italy, but that was way before "Italy" really existed, and it is of no more relevance to the lives of anyone that has ever lived in "Italy" (the country) than it is relevant to the lives of people that have lived in France, Sweden or the United States. IOW, we should have an article on the music of the country of Italy, because it's a very notable topic and it should not cover topics tangential to the country of Italy; topics that occurred in the distant past are also notable but are not relevant to the country of Italy, so it makes sense to put them in a different article that can cover them thoroughly and in an appropriate historical context (i.e. music history of Italy). Tuf-Kat 22:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Interesting argument. If that's the definition of "Italy", I suppose it makes sense that this article not cover the old stuff. Personally, however, I would rather see a relatively short level two section that discusses pre-"Italy" music in extremely broad terms. After all, the article on Italy covers all the way back to the Roman Empire, and USA briefly covers the time period before Europeans arrived. --Spangineeres (háblame) 22:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I guess as I see it, a single section can't possibly hope to cover the old stuff. Covering back to Gregorian chant would be a thousand years of history, and I don't think there's any reason to stop in the 9th century. But maybe I can work in a couple sentences here and there to discuss some of the earliest stuff in the peninsula. Tuf-Kat 03:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
As part of a general trim, I added an explicit explanation and a link to Gregorian chant. Tuf-Kat 14:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I find this strangely disjointed. First off, I agree with the above; this is really music in post-Risorgimento Italy. More to the point, there are a number of main articles (cited in the text here) on the various different sections: classical, folk, etc.... So what is the point of this very long but not particularly exhaustive article, when much of the content could be forked to those individual articles? (btw, you list the Verdi Requiem under instrumental music). Eusebeus 15:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Aside from the history stuff which is being discussed, what do you feel makes this not comprehensive? Much of the content could be forked to subarticles (in theory, all of it should be duplicated in subarticles, IMO, but some of those don't exist yet), but this page is an overview of all the most important facts about each field in the topic, per summary style. Tuf-Kat 22:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
      • It may just be my preference, but I prefer an article like Music_of_France which acts as a clearing house for the various specialty articles on each subject. This one finds an unhappy balance between overview and reference to more detailed exposition. And, of course, this cannot begin to be comprehensive in a historical context. Music in Venice or in Florence would be as large again, so I ask instead, what is the purpose of this article? I think it should be to direct readers to more in depth anaylsis. Eusebeus 23:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Hmm... I don't see where we disagree exactly. As I see it, music of France, while not terrible, has too specific subsections. They focus on relatively minor topics, like the folk musics of specific regions, which while interesting, are not really the most important subjects. The benefit of a "music of France" article is that it can focus on how music relates to France, while articles on the musics of specific regions and genres can focus more on what makes their topics unique. This is what music of Italy does better than music of France, IMO, because it discusses more general, far-reaching topics - it touches on many more subjects than the France article, but focuses on how they are and are not related. In other words, music of Italy is a "clearing house for the various specialty articles on each subject" (e.g. Italian folk music, Italian popular music). So... I'm not sure where we disagree, except that I think music of France is in poor shape in just about every way. Tuf-Kat 03:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
          • I don't think there was anything wrong with mentioning the Requiem thing, there, since all that sentence says it that it isn't opera. But one example's probably enough anyway, so I removed it. Tuf-Kat 19:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

As one of the major contributors to this article, I appreciate all the comments and admit to being confused, myself. If "Italy" is a general cultural repository (a reasonable view and my own original one), then the article would have to be of the "no exceptions" kind, mentioned above. Such an article might even be called "Italian music" (in a way that "Italian architecture" might be handled differently than "Architecture of Italy"). If "Italy" is a modern nation state (which it is, even though there is almost no place to park) then the focus should be at least similar to other Music of (country) articles. The fact that "Italy" is both—in a way that most other places are not—means we have to have a compromise. We split off a lot of the early history to another article, Music history of Italy, and wound up with, in my opinion, just such a compromise: enough history to support a presentation of music as it exists today in Italy, with enough pointers to other articles to satisfy at least some of the historical requirements of readers looking for more. Thanks again. Jeffmatt 05:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Suppport - Great article. Raul654 18:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you very much for the comment. Bless you!Jeffmatt 06:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Why so few pictures, though? --Ghirla -трёп- 13:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks - on the pictures, I don't think there's an unreasonably low amount, especially if you take into account the sound samples, which are arguably much more useful for an article about music. Tuf-Kat 01:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: I'm still mulling over this whole "definition of Italy" thing, and I've got a question—how was the line between Music of Italy and Music history of Italy determined? The country didn't become a nation state until 1861, several centuries after opera. Thus, I don't see any reason to make the split before opera. However, assuming that there is a good reason, at the very least, the lead of this article needs to specify the time period covered in the article, and give a link to Music history of Italy. Maybe even a disambig style phrase at the top like: This article covers the music of Italy since the 15th century; for music before this see Music history of Italy. But we better have a good reason for drawing a line there. --Spangineeres (háblame) 17:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think an explicit line is necessary because it doesn't exist historically. History should be (and I think is) covered in as much as it has affected modern music, which is a different cutoff for pop music, opera and folk dances. There shouldn't be a strict delineation for any individual field either on the same basic idea - "Italian folk music" wasn't invented in any particular timeframe, and implying that it was by just starting somewhere would not be neutral and would be counterfactual. Therefore, we start with the assumption that we're talking about folk music as it has impacted real, living Italians (or at least somewhat recently living), and cover as much history as is necessary to describe that (which is a not insignificant amount). How did we determine which history to include? By covering more or less the same spread of info as the sources cited. Basically, there was a history section at one point, and it was removed. What was left was a series of sections by topic, all of which touched on history. We added a bit more history where necessary (because we were previously assuming the reader had already read the history section), but ultimately, historical info will be either relevant to something recent and therefore included, or not relevant and thus not included.
    • What it boils down to is that "history" is a lot of stuff almost entirely irrelevant to how music shapes the lives of Italians - it would make no sense to cover Gregorian chant or the Italian ars nova, for example, while not the early development of American and British pop and rock, both of which have had profound effects on the lives of pretty much all Italians that have lived for the last couple decades, even if all those things occurred outside what we now call Italy. It would be disingenous to conflate stuff that coincidentally occured within the current political boundaries of Italy with topics that have actually influenced the "music of Italy" in a significant way.
    • Anyway, I feel like I'm ranting now, and I'm not sure I'm really making a point. I don't mean to be insulting to anyone - I'm confident Spangineer et al is commenting in good faith, and I can certainly see the reasoning behind the other side of the argument. Tuf-Kat 01:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh, and I'll point out that music history of Italy currently goes up to the 19th century. It shouldn't stop there, as history has continued... well, until yesterday, really. Presumably we'll stop somewhere in the last decade or so, based on the availability of verifiable historical commentary rather than current eventsy-type commentary. Tuf-Kat 01:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
        • That's certainly a valid way to look at it. What would you think about adding a disambig statement at the top that says something along the lines of This article covers the music of modern Italy. For more complete treatment of Italy's musical history, see music history of Italy. Just a thought; if you're not convinced it's necessary that's fine. It's just that I'm not sure what our readers will expect out of the article, and perhaps an explanatory note at the top would be helpful.
        • Incidentally, I object, but that's completely unrelated to the name confusion. More citations in the "Imported styles" section would be helpful (one at the end of every paragraph?). Same thing for "Venues, festivals and holidays", "Education", and "Scholarship"; there aren't many there either. I've added some {{fact}} tags at key spots, but if possible, reference everything in the article, not just what I mark. That said, the article appears to be generally well-written and comprehensive—great job with this! --Spangineeres (háblame) 06:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
          • One more thing—do you have page numbers for the references you refer to only by name in the notes? Those would be handy for someone doing research or verifying the article's contents. --Spangineeres (háblame) 06:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I have started to fill in a few of the "citation needed" items inserted by Spangineer. I'm not sure I agree that they are all necessary, but better to have too many than too few, I suppose. As far as what readers expect and get from such an article: it is a good encyclopedic point of reference for students and general readers seeking information about the Music of and in Italy. It has enough historical pointers for those looking for that information, as well (at least potentially, since some of the pointers go to items that are, as yet, incomplete--the Music History of Italy, for example). If the debate is about the meaning of "Italy," that's a tough one. I still think the article does justice to much of the history and, at the same time, fits the Wikipedia idea that we should have a Music of (nation) series. Maybe I'm beating a dead horse, here. On the other hand, I helped kill it. Jeffmatt 06:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • FIrst, Raul, I'm going to lock horns with you again WRT conflict of interest. You should not be supporting or objecting here, and then making executive decisions—as you position allows—on the fate of a nomination. You can't be judge, jury and attorney at the same time, so I ask you to withdraw your "Support" comment, which I note is followed by an unctuous "Bless you" from one of the nominators. Do you like having your boots licked by nominators? This is all improper, and risks diminishing respect for the openness and fairness of the process.
I wasn't being unctious. I'm a newcomer to Wikipedia. I thought I was being funny. Loosen your corset. I'm all in favor of fairness and openness. My comments on the points you raise are below. Thank you. Jeffmatt 13:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—1a and 1c. There are plenty of examples just in the lead as to why this article should not, in its present form, be promoted, despite what the Director of this process has unwisely stated earlier in this process.
    • "Musical developments in Italy during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance spread throughout Europe." This all-encompassing statement is a problem. It appears to assume that all musical developments in Italy during that period spread throughout Europe, which is simply not true. If only some did, we'd like to know which ones here, or to have more detailed treatment further down flagged here.
I don't read that sentence as being so all-inclusive. I thought it meant, simply, that some of the musical developments in Italy spread to other parts of Europe. If it doesn't mean that, it shouldn't be much of a problem to change, Thank you for pointing it out. Jeffmatt 16:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the problem is that it could be read as all-inclusive. If this sentence is retained, it should list specific (and even general) innovations in Italy that spread. That's beyond my knowledge, but recitative and solo-tutti might be candidates, as might certain aspects of opera. I'm worried about over-generalisations in the lead. (Tony1)
    • "Innovations in musical scales, harmony, notation, and musical theater led directly to opera in the late 16th century, and the origin of much of modern European classical music, such as the symphony and concerto." Innovations in notation led directly to opera ... funny way of putting it—
Indeed, but we didn't put it that way. With all due respect, you have distorted the context. We don't say, "Innovations in notation led directly to opera." We said that innovations in a number of things--including notation--led directly to a number of other things. That strikes me as a true statement, unless you want to quibble about the word "directly." On the other hand, how could you have had operas and symphonies without precise pitch notation? Jeffmatt 16:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, it's uncertain as to whether it should be read as "each item, of itself" contributed to the development of opera, or "together, these items did". It's vague, and the experts will kill it as soon as they see such ambiguity. I suggest that you don't refer to notation here, because it's just too all-encompassing: so many musical forms arose from the invention of notation—we don't need to say this here. I don't see this as a philosophical question (below), but a technical, musical, historical one.


didn't these innovations lead to many forms of music in many countries? This grand statement should be withdrawn and replaced with something more useful and focused. And can innovations lead to the origin of something?

Well, I don't know, but I think that last question is a philosophical one that doesn't have much to do with the article.Jeffmatt 16:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    • "The field of classical music includes instrumental and vocal forms, ranging from experimental art music and international fusions to opera, which is also a major segment of popular music." It would be surprising if classical music everywhere didn't comprise both instrument and vocal forms. The next problem is that rest of the sentence doesn't extend or enhance this idea—it mentions opera, but are "international fusions" instrumental? The sentence is not cohesive or logical. The notion that opera is both classical and popular needs to be announced or explained more explicitly before it's assumed in passing as here.
Admittedly, the point of opera being "popular" needs clarification, perhaps along the distinction of upper-case (even though you hate that!) C for "Classical" music (the last half of the 18th century) and "classical" music (all symphonies and operas). Upper-case "Popular" could mean what we undertand when we say "pop" music and lower-case "popular" could mean that which is liked by the people, in which case, "Opera is popular music" is a true statement.Jeffmatt 18:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
It's getting complicated. I'd pitch it at music lovers who may have only limited knowledge of the historical and technical stuff. (But that's your call—it just has to be evenly pitched throughout.)
    • "American jazz and hip hop"—We wonder whether these forms are composed in Italy; the list this appears in is a jumbled and arbitrary selection.
Yes, it could be more orderly.Jeffmatt 18:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    • "Italian folk music remains an important part of the country's musical heritage"—The assumption is that in most countries, folk music has receded.
I think you have really over-analyzed that use of "remains". How about "is"? Jeffmatt 18:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it has, but in an encyclopedic article, this knowledge should not be casually assumed of the reader.

    • Lots of "includes/ing", and "ranges" and "range" in the lead.
Not a problem to spruce up the vocabulary. I just got stuck on "range". It's such a nice word.Jeffmatt 18:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm careful about "variety of", "range of" and "includes". Often redundant, and can weaken the impact of a statement.

Not good enough. The problems are on a deeper level than just the language at the clause level; they involve logic, cogency and overall cohesiveness. Tony 06:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The article may seem, as one person noted, "strangely disjointed". I think that comes from having tried to tie a lot of things together under a single rubric, but I still think it's cohesive. Thank you very much for the comments. Jeffmatt 16:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jusuf Prazina

Self-nomination. I've worked on this article extensively, using numerous sources to write a good-sized text about a fairly obscure topic. I'm more or less satisfied with my work now and feel it's time to nominate it for FA status. Live Forever 06:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment A few more redlinks than I'm comfortable with, especially in "See Also": two of the three names are redlinks. Please either create stubs or black them. -Fsotrain09 00:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose the commentaries in brackets "(presumably in the latter half of 1962, as various media reported him as being thirty-years-old in both '92 and '93)" are they really necessary why not just say born in late 1962 then cite sources. Over all the majority of paragraphs have these, the size of paragraphs needs to be reduced, 10-12 line paragraphs is too much. A see also section shouldn't have Red links it should only list existing articles. Gnangarra 12:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment I copy edited the lead, some rewording. Suggest that the use of Juka be limited to quotes and commentary from 3rd parties, he should be referred to more formally. Gnangarra 13:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Red links in See also ? (I moved See also to conform to WP:LAYOUT.) Has this article been peer reviewed? Sandy 15:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colosseum

Self-nomination. I noticed that this article was one of those for which improvements were invited for Danny's Contest. I've rewritten and considerably expanded it with new sections, new images and better referencing; I've learned quite a lot more about the Colosseum in the process (who knew that it nearly became a wool factory to provide employment for Rome's prostitutes??). Hopefully it now meets the FA criteria. -- ChrisO 12:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this has any bearing on an FAC, but I wanted to mention that this article is almost constantly vandalized. It's not too major, and it is easy to fix, but sometimes vandalism remains for weeks, there is just so much of it. Adam Bishop 15:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it does have any particular bearing on FAC, to be honest, but thanks for pointing it out - the article's on my watchlist. I suspect the vandalism probably comes from kids doing school projects. The article itself is one of the 700 "basic subjects for which the English Wikipedia should have a corresponding featured article", hence this nomination. -- ChrisO 16:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Per WP:FA?'s section on an article being stable, vandalism reverts do not have a bearing on an article being featured. -- Kicking222 22:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - consodilate the fact that it was built in a site with a "natural depression" with the later statement that is wasn't.--ppm 21:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
It was built on a valley floor rather than into the side of a hill as had previously been the usual practice. I've modified the wording to make this clearer. -- ChrisO 22:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Not enough references - I count many paragraphs without a single inline citation. I think 'Christians and the Colosseum' can be merged into ancient history section. 'Usage' should probably be merged into history as well. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stegosaurus

Hi there, I feel this has most of what has been written about Stegosaurus, thus is comprehensive, neutral and I've tried to write a nice intro. Lemme know what y'all think Support and self-nom. Cas Liber 13:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: Has had Peer Review and I felt we dealt with as much as we could. Cas Liber 14:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The article needs to be expanded, I'm sure there is more information available. Overall, a lot of very short sections, some parts are listy, more prose would be advisable. The "Popular culture" section is a third of the entire article which is not acceptable for a scientific topic. Also, pop culture has merely one footnote. Sloan21 15:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, trying to deal with listy feel. Have added a couple of refs to pop culture - not sure how to reference films though. Link to IMDB? Cas Liber 00:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Was stegosaurus really the shape indicated in the scale picture? It looks like it's been squashed (as if it ran headlong into a wall!). Generally the article looks OK, but I would have thought it would be a bit longer. Terri G 17:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Yep, alot of dinosaurs' postures have changed over recent years and Stegosaurus is one whose tail was held up high and front down low, giving it an odd appearance.Cas Liber 20:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

*Comment The sections feel all together too short, and I'm not keen on the Plate Arrangement content being a list.—Abraham Lure 22:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If too listy, do people feel, for instance, that one subheading 'Plates' is better than 3 (Plates/Plate function/Plate arrangement)?Cas Liber 00:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Trying to address the concerns listed above, I merged two of the shorter sections and expanded one section, adding details about Stegosaurus height and juvenile measurements, with references. I also added some other details. The Popular Culture section is now much less than 1/3 of the article (450 of 2,974 words, not including the footnotes and stuff at the end, meaning it represents about 15% of the article). I support this article's FA status: Stegosaurus is one of the best-known dinosaurs. The references come almost entirely from professional paleontological papers, from Marsh's 1879 description to Fastovsky et als 2005 paper on dermal plate function. There are also a number of book references and museum links. The images are current, and fall within the current scientific theories concerning what Stegosaurus looked like. The content is stable and is not the subject of constant edit wars. The length is sufficient in that it accurately describes each of the species of Stegosaurus, even the dubious species, how these species differed from the holotype, who first described them, and when. Worthy article. (For the record, I am a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs).Firsfron of Ronchester 06:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments. I fixed your references (footnotes follow punctuation, please read WP:FN), this article is very listy and needs to be converted to (hopefully compelling and brilliant) prose, and the popular culture contains a whole lot of trivia. Sandy 15:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, thanks for making these minor fixes to the article. There are two lists in this article. The first lists the various species, and the second the four types of plate arrangement theory which have been proposed over the years. I'm certainly willing to convert both of these to paragraph form, but our Featured Articles Albatross, Gray Wolf, Jaguar, Orca, etc, use lists for their respective species. Is it really a good idea to convert these lists of species into paragraph form? Firsfron of Ronchester 16:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Forgot to mention: I will work on the popular culture section later today. Thanks for the comments. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't like lists when the content would make good prose, but recognizing that is perhaps a personal preference, I haven't made that an objection. The fixes to help the article conform with WP:FN's where to place ref tags are thanks to User:Gimmetrow's fabulous new ref fixer. Sandy 17:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I've made some adjustments, mostly to the popular culture section, trying to address your concerns. There's still trivia-type information in there, but I tried to present it as more cohesive, with the examples listed to provide support for the statements made about Stegosaurus being one of the more widely-known (or recognized) dinosaurs. If this is still unacceptable, I'll keep working on it.Firsfron of Ronchester 19:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Minor Comment - from the Cinema section: "a roaring Stegosaurus, which behaves like an irritable rhinoceros and charges" - the irritable rhinoceros comment needs a source or it's POV.—Abraham Lure 23:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Sentence fixed. The part about the "irritable rhino" has been removed. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
An alternative if people still feel unhappy about listiness would be keeping the species as listed but putting the doubtful ones into a text paragraph.Cas Liber 00:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm certainly willing to make the edits, if it's still too "listy" for folks. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Object. Just comparing it with other Dinosaurs FAs, this article (about a popular dino) is of much lower quality. The Description section could be expanded and the prose improved. eg: The fact about the juvenile stego is incorporated separatly in the section, while it should be part of a description about the dino growth or the history of discovery. In addition, could you add the range of the fossile in the infobox? One more thing, if we follow the convention used in other Dino FAs, you should write in the lead: Stegosaurus...is a genus of Stegosaurid, armored Dinosaurs... CG 14:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment Consistency is good, but each article doesn't need to begin with the same sentence. I will certainly incorporate your other suggestions into the article, although this nomination has failed. Thanks for your comments. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mazda MX-5

This article appears to meet all of the criteria for a FA:

1. It is well written and comprehensive. It covers the history of the car from inception to the current day. It is factually accurate with references and citations where appropriate. It is NPOV, being almost entirely factual. It is very stable, having been so for several months since some major improvements by user user: mafmafmaf.

2. It is MOS compliant, with a short lead section, hierarchical headings and an excellent table of contents.

3. It uses a number of appropriate images to illustrate the topic with which it deals.

4. It is of an appropriate length for an article that covers a topic that extends over a period of 17 years. It is of comparable length to other featured articles on similar topics such as Mini.

I nominate the article for FA status. D-bot 05:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Refer to peer review. I fixed your few inline citations (footnotes follow punctuation) and moved the fac template to the talk page. The lead is inadequate (see WP:LEAD), the article is mostly uncited, the prose is informal and needs polishing ("Shift forward to 1981."). There is a lot of helpful info at the bottom of WP:WIAFA that can help you prepare this article for FAC. Sandy 15:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have improved the lead section and replaced some of the colloquial language to take into account these comments. I will address the referencing issues when I have the time.D-bot 00:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Object - The lead section is incredibly long and references are insufficient. One footnote is a raw URI — please format these, preferably with {{cite web}}. "Mazda promotional literature." is not an acceptable reference, as it does not contain enough information to allow the reader to find the source and verify. Pagrashtak 18:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gold Coast, Queensland

I think this is one of WP's very best articals that i have seen only at B class and should be a FA. Has plently of info and images making it usful to anyone who needs to to a project on it!!! Nathannoblet 10:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Refer to peer review. Not well cited, mixes referencing styles, inadequate lead (see WP:LEAD), numerous short stubby paragraphs, contains external jumps, doesn't conform to WP:LAYOUT, and I fixed your 3 inline citations (footnotes follow punctuation). I didn't check the prose, because the article structure is a long ways from featured. Sandy 14:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Refer to peer review - Agree with the points raised above. The article does not convey a correct prioritisation of information. Example "Tourism and landmarks" begins with "Tourism is Gold Coast City's main industry." I'll take it a step further - it is one of the major tourism centres in Australia, and globally it is a desirable destination. Without tourism the Gold Coast ceases to exist -and this topic is covered near the end of the article in four inadequately written paragraphs. Meanwhile "Sport and recreation" uses 9 subheadings to discuss 9 different sports most of which are played in every city in Australia, and are not part of the Gold Coast's uniqueness or identity. Surf lifesaving / "Iron Man" carnivals are not mentioned as a sport. There are tags for 2 sections to be split into new articles, which suggests the article is far from acceptable, and there are way too many short choppy sentences, with numerous short paragraphs, and too many headers, subheaders and sub-subheaders. It has some good points, but it needs a lot of work. Rossrs 15:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Semitism

Well written, comprehensive, full of inline citations, and stable. Deserves to be a featured article. Masterhomer 04:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. 1a, 1d, 2b, 2c, 4. Sandy 00:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC) Refer to peer review. Lots to do here to get this article ready for FAC. Summary style and a tighter focus is needed: the Table of Contents is overwhelming, and See also is out of control (can't any of that be incorporated into text?). The section headings need attention per WP:MOS, Further reading is actually External links and appears to be a link farm, mixed referencing styles are used, the article uses weasle words ("some argue", "some say", "some see"), there are short stubby sections (e.g.; The demonizing of the Jews, Host desecration), and there are entire sections that are unreferenced. This referencing doesn't work: "According to the 2005 U.S. State Department Report on Global Anti-Semitism, anti-Semitism in Europe has increased significantly in recent years (but see fn.31 below)." There is no reference to the State Dept Report, and footnote # 31 is not static - it will change with time.) Sandy 04:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The article has already spewed into dozens of other articles. I don't think it is a topic that is easy to shorten. As for standard references and headings, I'm working on that and it should be done soon enough. Masterhomer 05:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Object in current form.I think this article can be improved, but the improvement can be done in the time frame of this current nomination and should be kept here for the time being.Maxflight 16:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Object - simply too large. almost every paragraph has grammatical or other problems. Random sample: "The Swiss banned kosher slaughter in 1902 and saw an anti-Semitic backlash against a proposal to refused to lift it a century later." both grammatically incorrect and pov.--ppm 21:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose in current form - way too many problems with the writing and organization. The article feels more like a list than anything else and is lacking a focus, especially beyond the historical introduction. Many short paragraphs look like incomplete compromises of revert wars. There are pretty bad redundancies (e.g. the bit about the use of nazi-symbolism in anti-zionist propaganda). An effort should be made to rethink an article which is not simply a list of summaries of other articles but rather an article which presents some meta-information and completely relies on the country-specific articles for instance. Furthermore, POV is still a big concern. I'll cite a few examples that seemed more flagrant:
    1. Bans on kosher slaughter are given undue weight.
    2. many anti-Semites are pro-Arab. I see no use for that sentence except innuendo.
    3. Little or nothing is said about criticism or controversy on the actual extent of new anti-semitism.
    4. Anecdotes like Hitler's Cross are presented as significant (whereas, no matter how dumbfouding that incident may be, it's more telling of ignorance than anti-semitism). Mel Gibson's DUI incident also does not belong here. It's an anecdote which has zero importance in an article that's supposed to have depth. (although I guess this is not a POV issue per se)
    5. Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism section is a bit "weaseley" opposing a "large variety of commentators" to "critics".
  • object This article is too long. Except for a few sentences, all of the material of the section 'Anti-Semitism and the Christian World' needs to either be moved to an article of its own or moved into the articles that are referenced in this article. The material need not be repeated twice--in the referenced article and here. Thanks Hmains 04:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Religion

This just seems like a very comprehensive article about a hugely influential band86.132.211.71 14:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, someone just nominated this, but I think that the intro paragraph is going to need some work (right now it's just two sentences), as well as the addition of any additional references if we can find 'em. For the intro PP, perhaps some mention could be made of the lyrical content (both with regards to meaning as well as to the vocabulary)... If I can think of a good way to phrase it myself, I'll post something. m13b 13:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there could be something in there about their trademark 'oozin aahs'

  • Strong Oppose lead is too short and is completely devoid of references. The Filmaker 14:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose ditto Rlevse 16:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Short lead, very listy, no inline citations. Sandy 17:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Refer to Peer Review, this just needs too much work to be on FAC. Suggest delisting. — mark ✎ 19:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
To that I agree. Putting up for peer review instead. Feel free to delist, unsure how myself. m13b 17:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fin Whale

I peer reviwed this one first, so do you think it will become a featured article? Daniel10 07:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)




  • Comment, Daniel Wikipedia:Peer review/Fin Whale/archive2 advised converting references to inline citations. As far as i see you made no changes after peer review request. For now major problem is using inline citations. And also you can think about other advise. --Ugur Basak 08:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but I don't no how to make an inline citation. How do you do that?Daniel10 09:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Check this page WP:FN :) --Ugur Basak 10:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I still don't understand. Daniel10 11:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Which part don't you understand? - Tutmosis 14:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
How to make an inline citation. Daniel10 17:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Daniel, see here: [10] - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Samsara. Daniel10 12:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Short on detail, under-referenced, not actively worked on -> problems can't be addressed. Rest in peace until someone finds time to resurrect you. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Great article. Very interesting, and well-written. 81.178.108.250 07:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Not cited, not even close. Sandy 19:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
What! This is so close to featured, that it is REALLY GOOD! 85.210.27.212 10:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The peer review made reference to the fact that "Fin Whale" is capitalized throughout the article. The article falls under WikiProject Cetaceans, whose article standards mandate capitalization of common names of cetacean species. I agree that it looks awkward and is inconsistently applied throughout the article. I have left a note on the project's talk page to see if the standard can be clarified or modified. I've also made some copyedits to the page, but agree that the article sorely lacks references. I'm willing to help convert to inline citations, but need someone with those general reference texts to break them down for me. Neil916 (Talk) 23:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atomic theory

I have done a lot of work on this article, trying to give an elegant story on how the modern concept of atoms evolved, starting with the ancient Greeks and finishing with quantum physicists. Kurzon 17:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Object - insufficient references. Pagrashtak 01:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Object - as above. Add a wider variety of references - there must be many on the subject or similar. CloudNine 16:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Object - great concise article but it needs to be referenced much more. --mdmanser 07:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've added a number of references. How is it now? Does it need more?Kurzon 18:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Very short. How about GA? Wiki-newbie 19:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen Hurricane Irene (2005)? WP:FA doesn't have a length requirement. This article is already rated A-class on the physics assessment scale, a GA would be a step downBorisblue 06:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per others. Never Mystic (tc) 17:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support now that references have been provided. But suggest withdrawing nomination and putting it for peer review first. Borisblue 06:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Still needs more references, especially in the historical section. Also, there is very little detail about the quantum mechanical model of the atom; as the currently accepted model, this should be described in depth, or perhaps even be the focus of the article. --Zvika 19:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The modern model of the atom is already better described on the pages for atom and electron configuration. This article focuses on the historical development of atomic theory.Kurzon 09:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree for the following reasons:
  1. How is a reader supposed to know that the history of atomic theory is found in Atomic theory, while the currently accepted atomic theory is found in Atom? (The electron configuration article only describes some aspects of the modern theory.)
  2. The section we are talking about is titled "Modern atomic theory", yet contains only one sentence about the current theory -- the very last sentence in the article.
Perhaps Section 2.4 should be renamed "Early quantum models" or some such, and the last paragraph in it could be expanded to a new Section 2.5, called "Current atomic theory", starting with {{main|Atom}}, and having about 3-4 paragraphs summarizing Section 3 of Atom. --Zvika 14:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment only: "The atomic theory" refers to the idea that the universe is made of atoms, and we go to Epicurus and others for it. To some degree, Spinoza's theory of monads was a form of atomic theory, as well. This has virtually nothing to do with the actual physical atom and is, instead, the philosophical position of realism. The model of the universe we embrace now is not the atomic theory, as it's not really theoretical now. Atomism is a very important line of thought in the history of philosophy, and I agree that any article on the theory should not be concerned with physics, quite. A headnote disambiguation ought to take care of things, and a proper lead. Geogre 11:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an old FAC, restarted here now for the third time. Needs to be removed. Sandy (Talk) 12:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hastings, Ontario

I have worked on this article for the last few months on and off. I have put a lot of time into it, and have done my best. I believe it now meets the criteria.

All I have to say is, please give the article a good read. I am sure you will find it quite interesting, informative and well written. Thank you.

Dhastings 01:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose; perhaps bring to peer review No inline citations; a bad lead; "sources" include MapQuest and The Weather Network (and not even specific pages- just the main sites); a WP:BJAODN-worthy "special thanks" to the above sources (which is, to be honest, somewhat ludicrous); use of a featured image depicting Denver, Colorado (what, exactly, does this have to do with Hastings, Ontario?); the first section after the (overly-long) table of contents is about nearby communities, which, as far as the article concerned, is nearly irrelevant; tons of one-sentence paragraphs; an inexplicable listing of how far Hastings is from other towns; an equally-inexplicable link to a Hastings business directory; an advertisement for a resort which takes ad copy directly from the resort; generally, very little background about the town itself... sorry, but this is not even close to a good article. Best of luck on improving the article, and please read WP:WIAFA. -- Kicking222 02:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I think your main concern is the structure of the article. As Kicking222 said above, you need to imporve the lead for starters. But personally I think the content is fine but the layout is not. Reduce the number of sections and merge them into one another. Climate figures should be set out in a horizontal box as done in most other city and town pages. Using an appropriate infobox at the top could summarise a lot of the information that's spread out through the article. What you've done is good, but not what constitutes a featured article on Wikipedia. --mdmanser 04:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note User:Dhastings has also put this article up as a Good Article candidate. I failed the article last night, citing specific reasons and pointing the user to WP:WIAGA; see my notice here. Dhastings then blanked the talk page (also removing the notice that it's an FAC), made very marginal changes which barely addressed any of the problems in the article, and resubmitted it to WP:GAC. I'm not going to judge it this time, but somebody else can feel free to fail it themselves, and then warn the user that this article will never be a GA until many, many problems are resolved. -- Kicking222 22:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leicester City F.C.

This article was a mess up until recently but I submitted it for a Peer Review and have address all the issues as far as I am aware. Tried to model it on the Arsenal F.C. article. I have rewritten large chunks so it is mostly a self nom. Jimmmmmmmmm 19:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment The article appears to be well written, but I have a number of concerns that I believe should be addressed before I make a definite decision. Firstly you will need to add in a lot more references, as well as convert all of your references to the one style of footnotes (there are a few wayward ones under "Colours, Crest and Traditions." Secondly in the article you make a lot of claims that are unsubstantiated such as "the obvious inclusion of seats after the Hillsborough disaster." Perhaps with that example you could change the way you say that to "the cumpolsory shift towards an all-seater stadium" or something to that effect, or just references it. But what is most concerning is that there quite a number of errors in grammar and punctuation. I suggest you read over the article at least twice and fix both them and colloquialisms. Other than that I'm happy! --mdmanser 22:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Right think I have addressed the reference problem, and the Hillsborough one. On the grammar etc, I have copied this to word and no grammar errors are visible. As I pretty much wrote this article I fail to see how I'm gonna spot them. Maybe you could point them out. Much apprieciated. Jimmmmmmmmm 23:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - this article is still currently listed in Peer Review at this moment in time; it could do with a little more time to iron out any remaining issues. Qwghlm 00:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this still in Peer Review? Would have thought it would have dropped out by now it's been there for two weeks with no new comment. Needs moving along. I understand you Qwghlm may not have time yourself but nobody has reviewed this article since your initial one about 2 weeks ago. Maybe I was a bit quick coming here but it won't get done otherwise. Jimmmmmmmmm 07:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It can wait a few more weeks; the article has gone under a massive rewrite and a period of time to stabilise it, iron out any awkward bits is usually preferable. I don't see why there needs to be a rush. Qwghlm 12:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm just not very patient. Jimmmmmmmmm 16:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Generally good, but not FA level yet.
  • Several areas need copyediting and spellchecking. A lot of the history consists of sentences in the form under the management of x the club did y or similar. I'll run through the prose myself at some point, but major work is needed.
  • I find it surprising that the club's two major trophy wins have only a single sentence between them.
  • As mentioned above, references are fairly sparse. Claims such as This change was unpopular, and dropped at the end of the season ("Colours" section) should be cited. Referencing should be in a consistent style, preferably the Cite.php format.
  • The lead mentions rivalries with other clubs, but these are not mentioned anywhere else in the article. Oldelpaso 18:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—1a; poorly written, incl. stubby paragraphs. Why is it abbreviated in the title (F dot C dot), and spelt out at the start of the main text? Tony 01:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Presumably because the common name uses "F.C." and the full name spells out the abbreviation. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Tony Firstly, Arsenal is a featured article and it's Arsenal F.C. so that should be a problem and the paragraph are not stubby there might be one, but thats it. Your too picky. Jimmmmmmmmm 14:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Jim, I honestly can't decipher what you mean. Please rewrite your response so that it's intelligible. I queried F.C. because I found it strange to abbreviate in the title, but I accept that this is a well-known title. I'm very picky, but not "too" picky. Please read the FA Criteria and the instructions at the top of this page. Tony 15:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - the mixture of inline and footer references needs fixing. BlueValour 17:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thiruvananthapuram

The article is prepared so as to match it as per the standards mentioned in WP:INCITIES.
So, I am nominating the article for the featured article status.

-- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me...) :-) 11:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

  • How could you pronounce that? - Patricknoddy 8:08am September 30, 2006 (EDT)
Thiru - anantha - puram => Th as in Thin.
key => (tĭr'ūvənŭn'təpur'əm).
Also called Trivandrum (trə-văn'drəm) -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me...) :-) 13:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Also listen to the ogg file linked right in the first sentence. :) - Taxman Talk 14:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing to object way to many unsupported, POV statements. Even with citations the article needs work for POV balance. Also much of the rest of the problems pointed out haven't been fixed. Comments. It's good, definitely improved from when it was listed on peer review, but still needs work. Almost all of my comments from peer review could be repeated again. It is improved along those lines, just needs a lot more. There are still a lot of unsupported statements throughout, there's still colloquial language, demographics needs expanding, infrastructure, etc. "Foreign tourists are flocking to ..." is an example of a statement needing factual restatement and sourcing. Particularly the last section needs more support from reliable sources or just remove the statements that can't be supported. For some of the media outlets listed it's not clear if they are national resources that are available in the city or if they are based there. If not based there, I'm not sure they should be mentioned. - Taxman Talk 14:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Object. Does not abide by featured article criteria 2 (compliance with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects). Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities does not have any scope for section like City's Importance and Future prospects. Also the subsection Science and Technology need to be removed/ incorporated. The article still has "Citation nededed" template. Some parts of the article are choppy, for example, in History, last paragraph of Geography. In demographics, if possible, give some notable comparison with other cities of India/ Kerala (for example, the sex ratio). Many words/phrases need wikilinking. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The issues are addressed now. The section City's Importance and Future prospects need not be removed, as it carries relevent sources. The Demographicssection is expanded now. The infrastructure of the city such as water supply and electricity is also included. The references from the lead section is removed as per WP:LEAD. More inline references are added to the article to increase reliability. Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me...) :-) 16:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    We know you support because you nominated the article, so I moved your comment to a response. While it is getting better, much of what is pointed out above is still a problem. There are still a lot of unsupported statements throughout, there's still colloquial language, the last section is still a problem. The culture section still doesn't cover the things culture sections in other geographic entity articles do, food for example. The demographics or culture should tell us about the ethnic groups, is there any conflict. The statement on languages spoken needs a reference. The unemployment problem could use more discussion, and should probably be moved to the economics section. 34.3% is extremely high, and the tone and focus of the economics section sounding like the economy is very rosy doesn't match up with the unemployment number. Several sections still need improvement for flow. They are choppy an some paragraphs are two short with one or two sentences. Also the reference cited for the statement that tourists are flocking to Thiruvananthapuram isn't really supported by that source, making me concerned about the others. Keep up the good work, there's more to go. - Taxman Talk 18:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The article has been in FAC for quite some time. The article has undergone some improvement during the fac. However, the editors seem to be adamant regarding some points. The article has got a section (Strategic Importance) that is unacceptable under both Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities and Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities. So, as I have previosly stated, the article clearly does not abide by featured article criteria 2. And though the section has enough citations, as Ragib (talk · contribs) has stated, it "...projects an opinion" apart from information The informations can be incorporated in other sections like economy, geography, history etc. Also, several wikilinking is needed. ther are lots of names of organisations which should be wikilinked. In fact, the article still needs copyediting. The citation style is not correct always. Sometimes the superscript is there before the punctuation mark, rather than after.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The format suggested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities or [Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities]], is not a mandatory thing. Those templates are created to help the editors in understanding the various topics to be covered. It is not a hard coded rule that only those mentioned in the template should be included in the article. And a WP:FA criteria never says that a city article should be only confined, what the template says. For instance, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities is not stating any thing about other facets of infrastructure (apart from Transport) like water supply, sewage system or electrical supply system of a city. So if a city article is expanded to include these information also, will that article be rejected the WP:FA status ???? !!!!!
We need not be so stubborn on such issues, as it adds more information in the encyclopedia (and thats what an encyclopedia is for, I believe).
The section strategic importance is much relevent to the article about Thiruvananthapuram. It is the first city in India's South. It lies close to Srilanka, Maldives, and the US military base at Diego Garcia, in Indian Ocean. The Southern Air Command HQ is in this city. The military authorities are planning to upgrade it to a Tri-Service Command Station, where the Army, Navy and AirForce Commands will be operating from this area, because of this strategic location. Thiruvananthapuram city is just one Notical mile away from the East-West Shipping Axis. The International air-route fly above this city.
These points are stated in the section "Strategic Importance". The relevant citations are also given. Now, how can we say that the section is just a mere opinion, not a reliable information?? Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me...) :-) 11:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Attention. The article is not abiding by another point of Featured Article critreia 2. The article does not follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Please see this section of Wikipedia:Footnotes and place footnotes accordingly. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


  • Comments. The unemployment rate and the growth in economy is not very much dependent on each other in Indian scenario. For eg; lets take the example of Kerala. Kerala's GDP growth is 9.2% in 2004–2005 and 7.4% in fiscal year 2003–2004, which indicates a steep increase in the economy. Kerala's per capita GDP — 11,819 INR — is significantly higher than the all-India average. Additionally, Kerala's Human Development Index and standard of living statistics are the nation's best. But Kerala's unemployment rate is variously estimated at 19.2% and 20.77%. The unemployment rate also was increasing during the period when the economical indexes shown steady growth !! You can obviously find a big controversy in these figures.
The same is applicable for all the Indian cities. The reasons are many. I am not getting further into it. Please see the article on Kerala to get the related sources of the figures I mentioned above. Infact, some statements are copy-pasted from that page. --Samaleks


  • Strong Support: This article is an excellent one, and , after having had two peer reviews, is one of the most professional articles I've read till date in Wikipedia. rohith 11:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: The article is well-written. Improvements made on the article by addressing to the issues mentioned appreciated. The article is well organized, and is a real good stuff amongst Indian cities. I could not find any serious issues for not giving the Featured Star to this article. Full Support from my side. --Samaleks 15:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments: 1) The article seems to have a revert/edit war over the naming of the city. This should be resolved, and the article made stable. 2) The strategic importance section should be merged with other sections ... it is a nonstandard section for city articles, and projects an opinion rather than information. 3) Education section is a mess ... should be cleaned, a photo added, and the list removed. 4. Instead of making climate a lone subsection under geography, remove the subsecton header, and rename the section as "Geography and climate" . That's all for now ... --Ragib 07:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
* Just two reverts doesnt means that there is an edit war going on.. The section Strategic importance is not a mere opinion. It is very much informative, and is well tailored with relevent sources. Adding a photo in the education section can be done. But as of now, there are no photos(which is not copyrighted) available. We can fix this as soon as any editor is uploading relevent picture. The section Geography is changed as per your suggestion. Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me...) :-) 18:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
* Education section is cleaned up, and a photo is added. Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me...) :-) 22:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


  • Support: Beautiful article with well organized data. --Sathyalal 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments It is rather late for proofreading but this being a Friday evening and having nothing better to do, I checked the intro and the first four sections. Some questions and comments :

  1. The early rulers of the city were the Ays.  : Ays is currently linked to an Egyptian dynasty.
  2. Thiruvananthapuram was made the capital of Travancore in 1745.  : This clashes with Travancore#Dharma_Raja and Padmanabhapuram both of which says that it was in 1795.
  3. the Observatory (1836), : 1837 as per Swathi_Thirunal_Rama_Varma#As_a_Ruler
  4. A political conference of the Congress was held in the city under the presidency of Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramaiah, in 1938. : What was this ? Just a conference or something bigger than that ?
  5. The first Indian space rocket was developed and launched from the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC) located in the outskirts of the city in 1966. : What is the reference for 1966 ? The online sources mention 1963-67.
  6. Technopark has developed into the largest IT Park in India  : The official site says that it is "among the two largest IT parks in India today", which usually means that it is not the largest in India. This news item from last year talks about a larger one which is "in progress".
  7. The park has around 110 companies employing over 12,500 professionals : Elsewhere it is "close to 100 companies" and "about 12000" professionals.
  8. Many references point to the homepage of http://www.keralaitmission.org/ and not to the specific article(s).
  9. The city was rated as the best 2nd tier metro : The list of cities includes Kolkota which is not 2nd tier.
  10. There are around 20 government owned and 60 privately owned medium and large scale industrial units in Thiruvanathapuram : The reference provided is http://www.kerala.gov.in/statistical/panchayat_statistics2001/thiru_cont.htm and http://www.kerala.gov.in/statistical/panchayat_statistics2001/thiru_10.pdf is the link of Large/Medium/Small scale industries. It is not obvious how the figures of 20 and 60 were arrived at. Tintin (talk) 11:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

A few more :

  1. As someone who is somewhat familiar with Tvm, it would have helped to say clearly what comes under Trivandrum and what does not - a map of the city would be even better. For eg, it is not obvious for a non-Trivandrumite whether places like Vellayambalam and Pappanmcode are in or out.
  2. Ref 17 (http://www.keralaports.gov.in/vizhinjm.htm ) isn't working.
  3. The increase in the unemployment rate was from 8.8(1998) to 34.3(2003) The reference (http://www.sacw.net/Labour/uneployementkerala.pdf ) mentions the unemployment rate in the Thiruvananthapuram district, not Thiruvananthapuram city. This makes the assumption that the urban and rural rates are the same. Is this correct ?
  4. Ditto for suicide rates.
  5. Aaraat of Padmanabha Swamy Temple,  : It is not explained either here or in the temple article what aaraat is.
  6. The literacy rate in Thiruvananthapuram, according to the 2001 census, is 89.36 percent 92.68 percent among males and 86.26 percent among females. This is again for the district.
  7. The importance of the city, apart from being the capital of India’s most literate[36] and socially developed state,[37][38] is a strategically important city in Southern India. : Grammar Tintin (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There are a few Trivandrums scattered around the article - The people of Trivandrum are , (CRPF) based in Trivandrum, Trivandrum also holds the distinction etc. It should use Thiruvananthapuram throughout. Tintin (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow... That was a real good proof reading, Tintin. I'm working on your points. Here goes, a few of it :

  1. - Removed the wrong link to the Ays
  2. - Regarding the shifting of capital. Well, this part is quite ambigous. It was in 1745, that the capital was shifted when Marthanda Varma shifted his residence to here. It became more relevent when he surrendered his country to Sreee Padmanabha through an act referred to as 'Thrippadi danam'. But, still the government officers were in Padmanabhapuram. It was during the reign of Dharma Raja, that the entire administrative section got shifted. Any ways, majority historians refer to 1745 as the year when Thiruvananthapuram became the capital. Brittanica also says the same [11].
  3. - Corrected . Observatory was started in 1837 [12].
  4. - It was a conference of INC, that was held under the presidency of Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramaiah.
  5. - Corrected. The first rocket launch in India was from TERLS in 1963. Here is an interesting article for you to read..
  6. - Regarding Technopark, The link you provided says that the upcoming park in Chennai will be having 1.2 million square feet by 2007. In Technopark, the current built up space is 1.5million square feet. This does not include the Phase 3 expansion of Technopark. The office space of the new building Thejaswini is also not taken in to account in this figure.
  7. - Regarding the number of employees and companies; Corrected . It is 12500 employees in 108 companies, as the official site says.
  8. - The site is using scripts to get in to the page. There is no seperate urls for each page, as you notice in html web sites.
  9. - Will reframe the sentence
  10. - i will try to find the source of it.

Rest soon.. -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me...) :-) 00:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Ref (http://www.keralaports.gov.in/vizhinjm.htm ) - It is working fine in my PC !
  • suicide rates and unemployment rates - Split in the urban and rural rates are not available. The same holds for literacy also.
  • Aaraat of Padmanabha Swamy Temple,  : Done in the article; Sree Padmanabhaswamy temple
  • Occurances of Trivandrum is changed to Thiruvananthapuram in the areas where it is mentioning the city name.

Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me...) :-) 00:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Re. Technopark and things whose status may change at any time, it may be safer to add a "as of 2006".
  • Vizhinjam is now working for me too !
  • Suicide, literacy rates etc : In the current form it is misleading. For literacy, I guess the rate in the Tvm city will be a few percentages higher than that of the Tvm district. (To use an extreme simile, it is like taking the literacy rate of the Kerala state and presenting it as the data for the Tvm district !) If it is for the district, it may be mentioned in the article; or if the data is not available for the city, it may be dropped altogether. Tintin (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Object - The article seems to really requires a thorough proof reading by someone not attached to the project. Sentences like "The importance of the city, apart from being the capital of India’s most literate[37] and socially developed state,[38][39] is a strategically important city..." make little sense to me. Information can be presented without making it sound like an advertisement. What does being capital of blabla state have anything to do with strategic importance? I will not even go into why an entire section on strategic importance is not needed for an Indian city that is farthest located from Pakistan and China. --Blacksun 03:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I believe that the word "strategic importance" is not to ne equated only to proximity to China or Pakistan. Well, "strategic" has myriad connotations, it could denote vital importance in the military, commercial or even the scientific spheres.

1) Trivandrum is the southernmost major city in India. Its location at the tip of the subcontinent is strategic for its command of the northern Indian Ocean. The airforce base here provides a launch pad for maritime patrols and long range radar surveillance.

2) Trivandrum is the Headquarters of the Indian Air Force's Southern Air Command. The HQ commands air force bases all across South India. The triservice Aerospace Command is likely to be set up here as well, considering its importance. A Recent Update

3) The city is located very close to international shipping channels. Just ten nautical miles offshore is the Persian Gulf/Suez - Malacca ship route which accounts for almost one-third of all traffic on the seas. This is why the upcoming Vizhinjam International Transshipment Terminal assumes so much importance combined with its world class natural draft.

4) Trivandrum is also by far the most important location for the Indian Space Programme with the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre and associated facilities which are responsible for almost all components of the space programme. Indeed, the Thumba Equatorial Rocket Launching Station (TERLS) was one of the first spaceports in Asia and the very first in India.It was only phased out later due to the proximity to the city.

Guess that summarises some of the reasons that sentence was put in. Hope it goes some way in settling the doubts that existed. Cheers! Ajaypp 18:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

All things that can be said for many other Indian cities. At end of the day it is really not that strategically important to merit an entire section. Anyways their are MANY other problems with this article. I am shocked at the "strong supports" it is getting. Just a quick glance shows spelling errors. Furthermore, it has illogical things like Ayurvedic resorts under strategic importance section. How exactly is that strategically important? The quality of the prose is inconsistent with some very dodgy sentence structure. This article does not meet the standards of FA in its current state. --Blacksun 06:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Strong Support: With a strong list of comprehensive supporting articles and concise wording in the main article, it paints a clear picture of the city, its life and people. I think it should definitely be a Featured Article. Ajaypp 14:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Strong Support: A great article which explains the heart and soul of a great city. This document describes all the faces of this cosmopolitan city. Anyone who read this document can come to trivandrum as if to their home. It is that much descriptive. Santhosh J(aka Ponnambalam)21:00, 10 October 2006 (IST)

Strong Support: Excellent article with well organized and concise information about the city and people --Altruist 03:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steely Dan

  1. I believe it meets the criteria.
  2. The subject is a major band. Fenrir2000 15:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I think Steely Dan meets the required criteria. I have found it to be a well written source that covers the bands entire career and does not leave out any obviously missing information. It is easy to understand, has a good layout and contains a lot of content. The trivia section does not seem to be a bother but I am not sure if it should remain (at least in its present form) if the article is to be featured.Devin 20:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. As glad as I have been to see The Music of My Life reflected in the Main Page FAs over the last year (Genesis, Phil Collins, Pink Floyd and Rush) and as much as I like the band this article needs work.

    For starters:

    Gaucho gets very short shrift compared to the other albums. Why no cover picture? It almost feels like the editor or editors who wrote the section were trying to get through it so they could get to the other stuff they were most interested in. But it was their last original album for years and generated two Top 40 singles.

    Peacock terms and POV: "The reasons why this group of songs is so remarkable are twofold"; "This collection is the raw genesis of the surgical and sardonic musical style that Steely Dan would become known for". "Although some doubted that they could last as a studio-only group, Becker and Fagen proved their critics wrong in spectacular fashion with the 1977 release of their sixth LP, the dazzling, jazz-oriented Aja, which saw them using the services of top-notch jazz and jazz-rock and soul musicians" Either source those statements or get them out of there.

    And speaking of sourcing, it's very spotty (by which I mean nearly nonexistent) throughout the entire album section: "It's clear in these recordings that they're formulating their piano-driven jazz/funk/rock which comes on their first album, Can't Buy A Thrill." To whom?. "it would soon become obvious that Fagen's voice was in fact ideally suited to their material" Again, to whom? "Becker and Fagen were dissatisfied with the sound of the album (caused by a faulty DBX noise reduction system) and for years refused to listen to the album in its final form." Source? The whole "Second Arrangement" story and Karen Stanley need to be sourced too.

    Clunky prose: "The movie was one of the year's worst box-office disasters but the song was another hit, barely missing out on the Top 20 in the US and was another minor hit in the UK, and the group still performs it today"; "Becker and Fagen had planned on leaving ABC for Warner Brothers and wanted to release the next album on it, but MCA claimed ownership of the material and blocked Fagen and Becker from putting it out on any other label"; "His girlfriend at the time, Karen Stanley, was found dead in their shared Upper West Side Apartment, of a drug overdose."

    The post-Gaucho section talks of a "reconciliation" but there is no evidence of any friction between them in the text (and I don't think I remembered any at the time; they just wanted to do their own things for a while and stayed in touch).

    The Trivia section, as the talk page suggests, cannot pass FA in its present form. First, it reiterates the information about the Keith Jarrett lawsuit already in the article. Second, some of the trivia in it is unsourced. Third, a lot of it is really germane to specific songs and should and could really go into articles about those songs (if they don't exist, create them).

    Most importantly, I think you need to withdraw this nomination and take it to peer review, as there is no indication this was done and it is usually extremely helpful when prepping an article for a run at the golden star. Daniel Case 01:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose: Some image do not have source information. --Abu Badali 12:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I suggest you take another look at the article. The image use has been cleared up and most (if not all) of the problems mentioned are fixed. Devin 15:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Source is ok now. But images violate Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #1, as free photos of living persons can be created (See #8 on Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. Consider contacting them at their website to release some image under a free license. See WP:COPYREQ for tips on doind that. And let me know if any help is needed. --Abu Badali 16:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose for now pretty good article but I think that any article with a remaining "Trivia" section is short of FAC. Either that information is too trivial and should be deleted or it is relevant and should be incorporated into the article (or the appropriate subarticle, say for that Cousin Dupree thing). Pascal.Tesson 21:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Colbert

This article has already been listed as a good article for a living person. It received some positive feedback on its peer review. It's thoroughly researched and includes a lot of different information in NPOV manner.--Twintone 03:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Colbert Report just failed as a featured article; have you checked this article to make sure it doesn't fall into the problems of that one? Right off the bat, I can tell that, as with that article, the lead is too short; if it was an adequate description of him, the hatnote would be unnecessary. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Another issue is the layout; several of the sections lead off with images or boxes at both sides, squeezing the text down to a tiny column. That really needs to be fixed. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The four consecutive citations in the second sentence in the lead (which only establishes the shows he's involved with) seem quite excessive. Especially since it's the lead, the summary of the entire article. / Peter Isotalo 12:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I did not intend to do it; I intended just to comment, but I'll immediately explain the reason I object:
  • Peer-reviews are not for fun. In the peer review of this article User:UberCryxic made three correct remarks: 1) the lead is short, 2) the Quotes section needs deletion (I agree! Why do we use such a section? It is useless as User:UberCryxic says, 3) Other roles section needs better structure and composition (the prose is not good, since there are incoherent and one-sentence paragrpahs). The problem is that User:UberCryxic made these remarks, but User:Twintone did not do anything to implement them and came straight here without making any improvement to the article according to these suggestions! Not only that but User:Twintone did not even give an answer to the peer-review for the reason he does not materialize these suggestions!
I initially intented to suggest exactly what UberCryxic had suggested. But seeing that these suggestions had already been done and the nominator of this FAC didn't care at all and came here as if nothing important had been suggested, I had no choice but to object. I think that the nominator should first give some answers in the peer-review, then ameliorate the article and then come here. The article as it is now is not ready for FAC and its nominator does not take seriously the suggestions made for the article's improvement.--Yannismarou 18:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per above. Very disrespectful on user Twintone part to disregard peer review comments. Peer review is already very inactive because reviewers don't wish to waste time on something that's not going to be done. - Tutmosis 20:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object I agree with the points above, and I think there are too many fair use images. Why do we need three images from the Colbert Report just to show Stephen Colbert? That's probably too many even if the images were free, because they take up too much space and clutter the article. Jay32183 20:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I completely agree with Yannismarou. Sandy 23:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Suppor. Well written..VERY well cited. If it were about most any other comedian/actor/commentator, who did not dare to tweak Jimbo's beard, it would most certainly be a shoo in for the mainpage. But I guess we're just not big enough to take few playful shots are we? Unlike G.W. Bush, who for all his obvious failures, at least pretended to be a gracious host/target.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tracking animal migration

Very well written article. Gives good detail http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Tracking_animal_migration&action=edit&section=1and is defitnley featured article criteria. --Zonerocks 02:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Several glaring problems:
  1. The tone is wholly inappropriate for wikipedia, being written more as an essay than a reference.
  2. The article is far too short
  3. It hasn't gone through peer review
  4. You wrote the article yourself, but didn't specify that it was a self-nom

I'd recommend that you reread WP:WIAFA and take this article to peer review when you feel it's more up to standards; it seems like it needs a fundamental rewrite for tone and a significant expansion before it reaches that point. You should also check out the statements being made over at the AFD for the other article that you mostly wrote, because the issues of essay tone really apply here. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Also, the image appears to be a copyright violation, and most of the content in the article is redundant to Bird ringing. The image should be deleted and the articles merged. Never mind the tone needs more work first. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • First expand then refer to peer-review. This article is not even ready for a pee-review. It needs expansion, some rewriting and then peer-review. Faaaaaar away from FAC.--Yannismarou 18:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - article is too short, no inline citations, no references at all. Not formatted to Wikipedia's style - section headers should not be in all caps, wikilinks seem to be haphazardly selected. Pagrashtak 03:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. In addition to what others have already pointed out:
  1. Copyvio image
  2. Article is an orphan!

I'd be more likely to vote delete in an AfD than support to FAC. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose I can't even count the number of problems with this article. Let's see... it's an orphan; the second sentence of the (incredibly short) lead is not a sentence; it has one picture, and it's got no copyright info; lots of external links but zero citations; a lot of words are wikilinked for no reason at all (for example: path, patterns, locations, recreation, etc., etc.); two paragraphs are indented for no reason whatsoever... and that's just what I felt like typing before I got tired. I'm with Samsara- this is much closer to deletion than anything close to even Good Article status. I'm sorry, Zonerocks- it genuinely is a good start, but please check out WP:FA?. -- Kicking222 19:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Expand it, run it by peer review to get some ideas for improvement. Sandy 23:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bucharest

I am not sure whether you'll agree yet but this certainly has potential for a featured article. Let me know what you think - it may require slight editing and clean up. If you don't think it is yet keep it under the group of articles that have the potential. It covers all aspects of the city but on reading I think the crime section will need cleanup and citing --Ernst Stavro Blofeld 18:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment In just the second paragraph alone, I find many problems. "By European standards Bucharest is not an old city..." needs a comma after "standards". "...its existence being first referred to by scholars as late as 1459" is unsourced- when this is mentioned later ("First mentioned as "the Citadel of Bucureşti" in 1459"), it is still unsourced. "Since then it has gone through a variety of changes becoming the state capital of Romania in 1862..." also needs a comma. As far as "Although much of the historic centre was damaged or destroyed by war, earthquakes and Nicolae Ceauşescu's program of systematization, much survived...": when you take away the descriptors of what destroyed the center, the sentence reads "Although much was damaged or destroyed, much survived." That's a pretty pointless sentence. "...in recent years the city is experiencing an economic and cultural boom..." should read has been, not is. I can't imagine the rest of the article is FA-worthy if the lead is so poorly edited. -- Kicking222 22:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose / some more comments 1) Nicolae Ceauşescu's name is wikilinked five times in the article. That's quite unnecessary. 2) The "Visual Arts" subsection begins "In terms of visual arts," which is also unnecessary. The "Culture", "Architecture", "Media", and "Sports" sections- about 30 paragraphs total- have a grand total of two citations. 4) I see little reason for the image gallery in the middle of the article, especially when some of the images are of nondescript and/or unimportant locations. 5) In the lead, the population is given as 1,921,751 from the 2002 census; later, the article claims that census determined the population was 2,082,000. 6) The "Portrayal in Film and Fiction" section is both a mess and probably not needed at all. The article is definitely a good article, and perhaps a Good Article, but Featured? Sorry. -- Kicking222 22:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please correct the fac template on the talk page; it now says the article is a former FAC candidate. If that's the case, the old fac should be moved to an archive file, and the new fac should link to it. The instructions are given in Number 4 of the nominating procedure at WP:FAC. Sandy 15:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, while some of the criticisms above (including the bulk from Kicking222) are quite legitimate, if you think a comma is needed, or a name is linked too many times, wouldn't it be simpler to add the comma than to complain and to cite that as a reason it shouldn't be an FA? I'll fix it if no one already has, but I find this petty. As for the sentence "Although much was damaged…": why, yes, if you remove half the sentence, it loses much of its point. But by no means all of it: both the fact that much of the historical center has been destroyed and the fact that much survived are important. - Jmabel | Talk 16:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, looking again at the sentence that begins "By European standards Bucharest is not an old city...", I'm not convinced it would be improved by a comma after "Bucharest". This comes down to what Lynne Truss describes as the battle between berks and wankers over just where to use commas. Using her terminology, apparently I am more of a berk and Kicking222 more of a wanker. - Jmabel | Talk 16:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swabian War

The German version, which was inspired by and partly translated from this article, has already become a featured article at the German Wikipedia. In turn, some of Sidonius' work on that German article has found its way back into our English article. Has been through peer review; the suggestions made there have been acted upon. Self-nomination by Lupo 14:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. References need a lot of work:
    • 13 refs for such a prose length is not enough by any means, whole paragraphs are unreferenced.
    • The "notes" and "refs" section must be consistent, meaning a book in notes must be referenced in references (sic). Otherwise, it belongs to further reading.
  • Watch out for date formats.
  • Things like "(all too) powerful" could appear unencyclopedic to most people.

It is a nice attempt, but with references in such a state, it won't go further. You may want to send it to Military History Peer Review, where you're likely to get more suggestions... :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

    • Thanks for these comments. On my approach to referencing, see the peer review. I don't understand your "notes" and "refs" comment, please clarify. (Götz v. Berlichingen is under "Primary sources", and so is Pirckheimer.) Finally, of course the fact that the German article went to FA doesn't mean this one should do so automatically—where did I say so? Lupo 15:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, you have two sections: "notes" and "references". Books used in notes must be exactly the same as books used in references. If you use books in notes and don't list them in references, it is problematic. If you list books in references but don't use them in notes, they belong to further reading rather than references. Under its present state, it's not the case. For instance, Meles, B. (whoever he is) is not in the "references" section.
      • As for "Personally, I employ a different approach in cases where I use a few main sources that give an overview. I consider any sentence implicitly referenced to the main sources", I disagree. There has been an evolution of FA standards and a lot of Wikipedians (including me) think that every fact which is either not common knowledge (e.g. not "Spree flows through Berlin") or dubious, must be referenced. You will notice that I comment on the whole thing and do not object, however, other wikipedians are likely to say the same thing as I did.
      • Finally, I never said you claimed something about en and de wiki, it was just a general remark. Sorry, I have some graphomanic excesses sometimes, so I removed it as to not spoil the page. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I still don't get it: Meles is reference 8, used twice in the section entitled "Further consequences". The article has three endnote-like sections: footnotes, which are short explanatory notices that would be slightly off-topic in the flow of the main text; references, which lists the individual sources, and "primary sources", giving pointers to, well, primary sources. Maybe I'm not seeing the wood for the trees...? Or wait... are you talking about refs 12 and 13 (Sieber-Lehmann and the Idiotikon) used only in footnote "a"? I don't see how that could be a problem... Lupo 19:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - template {{fn}} is discouraged - please convert the 4 notes to {{ref}}/{{note}}. Also, I find it confusing to see numbers for both notes and pure citations - the notes should use letters (a,b,c,d) to distinguish them more clearly from the citation numbers. Gimmetrow 16:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Huh? I hadn't noticed it's been deprecated. Why on Earth would anyone deprecate a perfectly useful and sensible way of doing this? Where's the discussion about this? I just played around with this ref label/note label stuff, and it strikes me as utterly complicated and overengineered. The proper way would've been to implement fn/fnb in terms of this complex ref/note stuff, not force people to jump through hoops to get the formatting even halfway right. Lupo 19:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry about the fuss. Yes it probably would have been good to rewrite fn/fnb in terms of ref/note; I may do that eventually. Gimmetrow 21:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I forgot to mention that I did change it to use letters... Lupo 11:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose until the artilce has had a good copyedit; indecipherable stuff like this occurs throughout the text;
  • The independence of the Eidgenossen and their freedom compared to the common people in Swabia was a powerful model for the latter
  • Other rivalries had been slowly aggravating, too.
  • Concerning the interior politics of the empire, Maximilian I, like other Holy Roman Emperors before and after him, had to face struggles with other powerful princes and he thus sought to secure his position and the imperial monarchy by furthering centralisation.
Someone in the military history project might be able to help--Peta 02:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Rephrased the first, eliminated the second. The third prompted me to do a major expansion of the "background" section; as I have already pointed out on your talk page, such a comment makes it clear that the article did not explain certain things well enough. I hope it's better now. Since you said such problems existed "throughout" the article, would you be so kind to point them out, so that I or others wouldn't have to guess which statements you alluded to? Lupo 10:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arctic Monkeys

(Partial self-nom - have done some work on article)

Having been improving steadily for at least a year (having become a Good Article), I feel that it is finally time to nominate this article. The article is : 1(a-e) Well written, neutral, stable etc. and extensively referenced, 2(a) has an appropriate intro, (b-c) well sectioned with a TOC, 3 all images have Fair Use rationale where appropriate, also includes at least one free image, under Creative Commons 2.0, 4 Not too long, with child articles where sections have grown too long. As a result, I feel that it is finally worth nominating this for Featured Arcticle (groan!) status. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 18:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I've removed the 2nd NME image per the rationale in my edit summary. One magazine cover scan is questionable, two just isn't cricket. --kingboyk 19:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough; that is probably the better image anyway. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 22:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd support that. Looks good to me. ♠PMC♠ 19:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article doesn't look bad, but there are issues:
  1. The actual music (style, influences, etc.) is not discussed enough
  2. The band's general image and popularity in the UK are not clearly addressed
I would still like to see a clearer statement about their popularity. The article states sales records, but also "Critics have said that they are one in a long line of largely overhyped "NME bands". So what's their general public image exactly?
  1. What to expect on live performances should probably be mentioned more thoroughly
And there are a lot of style problems:
  1. Quotes should not be italicised, per the WP:MoS
  2. Decide on a style for the dash (– or - or —)
Still a problem ("Emergence: 2002-2005", "Initial releases: October 2005 — January 2006", "Beneath the Boardwalk – a collection of the band's songs")
  1. All songtitels should be in italics without quotes ("Fake Tales of San Francisco", "I Bet You Look Good on the Dancefloor", etc.)
  2. A lot of citations in the middle of sentences, most should probably go at the end
  3. Magazine titles must be in italics (NME)
  4. "General references:" should not be in small font -- EnemyOfTheState 23:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    All songtitels should be in italics without quotes... Actually, this is not true. The proper style in English is quotes without italics. Andrew Levine 04:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
In that case all song titles that are in italics have to be changed accordingly then. -- EnemyOfTheState 10:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
There aren't any, or at least they've been fixed. Andrew Levine 17:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not is an album, not a song, so it is in italics. Songs however are not in italics. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 20:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I've fixed all of the above with exceptions of the "live acts" issue. Could you clarify what you mean? smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 21:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the band so I'm not sure if this applies, but if there is anything distinctive about a typical Arctic Monkeys concert then it should be mentioned in the article (e.g. there is an entire article about Pink Floyd live performances). -- EnemyOfTheState 14:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The Arctics don't really have very "whizzy" live shows; no pyrotechnics or giant pig-balloons here. The sing-along nature of the shows is addressed, however. Laïka 14:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments
  1. "Further criticism came when the band collected their award for Best British Band at the NME Awards 2006, when Turner said, directing his comments at the NME, "We did the triple, but in all honesty...who else was going to be the best British band at the moment, you know? You can't write about something that much and not give us best British band . . . know what I mean"" - This sentence is ended with a reference. However, the reference does not direct any criticism at the group, and nor does it even say there was criticism. The Independent article simply records what the Arctic Monkeys said. I'd like there to be a citation actually criticising them here, to support the claim.
  2. "On 2 September 2006 it was announced that the band will appear on Sky Sports' Saturday-morning football show Soccer AM the following week, marking what would have been their first ever live interview on British television." This is unclear. Did they actually do the interview, or just say they would and then not show up?—Abraham Lure 01:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
With regards to point 2, the next sentance clears this up ("However, the band won the 2006 Mercury Prize four days before appearing on Soccer AM, and gave their first live interview to Jo Whiley on BBC4."). smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 09:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
And you're right about the first point. I've removed the quote as I can't find any direct criticism of the quote.
I'd lose the "it was announced that the band will appear on Sky Sports' Saturday-morning football show" quote. It's fancruft. Who cares that they were scheduled to appear on a football chat show? Whilst it's of interest to note their first actual radio television interview, prereports or cancelled appearances are not enyclopedic issues. Save it for the fanzine. --kingboyk 10:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
PS Before some bright sparks points out that I've documented a cancelled appearance in The K Foundation burn a million quid :), that's a little more significant as the K Foundation did a runner and then announced "no more talking about this issue". Whether or not the Arctic Monkeys appeared on Soccer AM (!) is trivia. --kingboyk 10:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not bad article, but I'm also concerned by the fact that the style and the musical influences of the group are not discussed in detail. I think that for a FA of a band this is necessary. You could take some ideas from Rush (band), which is a phainomenal article for me. Without this further analysis (style, musical influences) through verifiable sources, I cannot support this article.--Yannismarou 09:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Good idea; I've added a Musical style section. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 10:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I did some fixing witht the inline citations. It is not nice to have many inline citations within a propositions. It interrupts the flow of the article. Take care of that. Anyway... Although I must notice that I'm not an expert in this particular field, I give you my support and I hope that you will address the concerns of the other evaluators as well.--Yannismarou 13:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Band logo at the top needs a fair use rationale. Also, the reference for their "80s fascination" leads nowhere. Andrew Levine 17:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Both fixed. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 19:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—The writing needs cleaning up throughout. A fine tooth-comb is required.
    • Second sentence; it's a list that should be consistently worded—"on" for all, and not "playing" for just one member.
    • "are generally considered part of the part of the"—two facing mirrors?
    • "Towards the end of 2004"—just "In late 2004".
    • Heading: 2002-May 2005. Give months for both or neither. Consider using an en dash instead of a squishy little hyphen. And elsewhere, I don't like the use of hyphens as punctuation in titles.
    • Common words linked; do we really need Internet linked (twice, one with upper-case I, one with lower-case i)?
    • "thousands of copies pre-ordered, . On ..." Tony 02:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks; I've dealt with the above points. I do however think Internet should be linked once; WP:CONTEXT states "major connections with the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully" should be linked, which I believe Internet is, being a major part of their early career. Laïka 09:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per Tony. Tony gave examples of problems which are pervasive throughout the text: cleaning up those few examples isn't enough. The article has prose problems throughout. Here's a sample sentence: "In late 2004, the band began to gain a reputation around an increasing part of the north of England,[14] receiving attention from BBC Radio 1 and the British tabloid press." Began to gain? Increasing part? Receiving attention? The entire article needs a thorough copyedit. The prose is not brilliant, the lead is not a concise and compelling summary of the article. Please have someone clear the images, as you seem to have too many claims of Fair Use. The bottom of the article suffers from sloppy visual presentation, with varying fonts, italics, etc. Sandy 23:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I've had a go at copyeditting the article. I don't understand what you mean by "The bottom of the article suffers from sloppy visual presentation, with varying fonts, italics" though; there's only the one, standard font, and use of italics is that defined by the MOS (Magazine titles and album titles). Laïka 07:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Telecommunication

A good article on a core topic that can hopefully achieve featured status or, if not, be improved along the way. Cedars 09:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you for bringing a core topic to a high quality. Those are definitely harder to work on that specialist topics. 1. Per WP:LEAD the lead needs to be expanded and be a proper summary of all of the most important facets of the rest of the article. 2. I can't shake the idea that the topic breakdown in the article isn't properly prioritized by the most important facets of the subject. The major headings shown seems like overview, history, and then several functional examples, and overall don't seem carefully chosen. What about other aspects of telecommunication such as impact on society, economics, etc? Sorry I can't be more helpful, it's not really my area. Maybe a survey of a few of the best telecom related textbooks could give an idea of what the most important subtopics to cover are. - Taxman Talk 01:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the thoughts Taxman. I've added a second paragraph to the lead and a section on society and telecommunication. Cedars 09:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
      • That's a good start, but the lead needs another paragraph and given the relative importance of that new paragraph in the society and telecom section, the coverage of that should be about tripled or more in exchange for part of the history section which is too long for an overview article. More detail on the history should go to History of telecommunication. Still need more on social effects, such as what do sociologists say about it's effect on people, more on the economic effects, etc. - Taxman Talk 13:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I have added a note on communication theory to the article the discipline that discusses the social impact of all forms of communication including telecommunication. I am hesitant to add another paragraph to the lead (given the article is already quite long) but I might add an extra sentence or two. Cedars 00:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
          • The more I think about it the more I reallize how important the impact is and therefore should get more space in the article. Properly balanced (hence well written) articles allocate space based on the importance of the subtopic to the main topic. One more sentence referring to another article isn't enough, and a one sentence orphan paragraph isn't good style either. Finally WP:LEAD basically requires a 3-4 paragraph lead for this size article, and it should properly summarize all important aspects of the topic. I know it's not easy, and may take more research to cover the impact, but it still needs to be done. - Taxman Talk 12:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Just a cursory comment: This broad article would benefit from the use of Template:Main for each of the sections. WP:SUMMARY might also apply. –Outriggr § 08:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The article is still less than 50 kB (43 kB to be precise) and according to article size guidelines does not need to be split yet. I suppose the history section could be spun-off but I would like to leave it as-is for the moment. Cedars 09:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I have trimmed the history section so it is now only one screen long and moved the additional content to history of telecommunication. Cedars 00:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, the article is really well done. One small thing, can you think of a better name for the explanation section, mabye terminology or key concepts would work?--Peta 02:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the support and I agree with the name change (explanation was originally chosen by another contributor). Cedars 08:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object I'm not sure if this article is comprehensive - I'm basically looking for a discussion of this article's real scope before asking actual additions to the article. Along the lines of Taxman's points, are there sections needed on how governments worldwide manage telecommunications? How does the core infrastructure, distribution system for various modes of telecommunications work? What kinds of such systems exist? On the economic and industrial effects of telecom? Shouldn't cellular phone networks be discussed more? Upcoming innovation? Telecom in developed countries and differences with other parts of the world? Rama's arrow 21:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Rama,
Here are my responses to your questions:
Are there sections needed on how governments worldwide manage telecommunications? Government regulations are not a major facet of telecommunication. Where government regulations prescribe a particular standard, as is the case with television and radio, it is noted. In fact three paragraphs are spent on radio and television standards. It is possible to mention something about Chinese censorship of the Internet, is that perhaps what you were looking for?
How does the core infrastructure, distribution system for various modes of telecommunications work? This is what the article tries to explain both through the history and modern operation section. I will try to think about how it can be made a little clearer.
What kinds of such systems exist? This is explained in the article. The article talks about optical fibre, the standards for transmission across optical fibre (Synchronous Optical Networking and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy), the various standards for digital broadcasts (ATSC, DVB and ISDB), the various protocols used in LANs and the Internet, etc.
On the economic and industrial effects of telecom? "In 2006, estimates place the telecommunication industry's revenue at $1.2 trillion or just under 3% of the gross world product.[7] Good telecommunication infrastructure is widely acknowledged as important for economic success in the modern world both on a micro and macroeconomic scale.[8]".
Shouldn't cellular phone networks be discussed more? They have a paragraph, but they are really part of the telephone network and use much of the same infrastructure. I will try to make this a little clearer.
Upcoming innovation? The article talks about the analogue/digtal switchover, IPv6 and developments in optical transmission such as dense wavelength-division multiplexing. What specific innovations did you want the article to mention?
Telecom in developed countries and differences with other parts of the world? The digital access index has a whole paragraph in Society and telecommunication and much of the first paragraph in that section is also about this.
Cedars 00:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object for now. The article is good and shows promise, but like Taxman and Rama, I get a feeling that there are some issues that are not adequately covered, while others are explained in too much detail for such a generic article, so you get a "shopping list" feeling. Here are some examples:
    • I think the Modern operation section is overly technical and lists many protocols and standards, while neglecting to explain overall ideas. For example, no reference is made to the fact that the Internet does not have a hierarchical structure, unlike other telecom services. The explanation of telephony is similarly lacking (compare with the short but excellent article PSTN).
    • The Key concepts section is pretty good, but ends with two detailed paragraphs about modulation, which is too much for a single topic. The stuff about Bluetooth is definitely not a "key concept", it is just an unnecessary detail.
    • I, too, think the Society and telecommunication section is too short, and the link in the end to communication theory is weird; maybe make it a Template:Main?
    • Re government management: governments regulations are a major facet of telecom. A major expense of cell phone companies is frequency lease from the government; this is not mentioned. The FCC has a history of affecting the development of telecom technology by imposing regulations (for example, E911).
    • I would add a short talk about standardization in the key concepts section. This is an important aspect of telecoms, and one on which a lot of money is spent.
    • The division into sections on Internet, Telephony etc. makes it difficult to discuss future trends like unified messaging. Perhaps you could add a section on Emerging technologies.
This is an important topic and has already improved considerably. I hope you manage to get it up to featured status! --Zvika 09:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angelina Jolie

Self-nomination. I wrote/rewrote big parts of the article in the last months and I think it now offers a comprehensive look at a very popular topic. The article has been peer reviewed (Wikipedia:Peer review/Angelina Jolie/archive1) in August. The article includes a rather broad section for her children, since it has been decided these articles should be merged into their mother's page (here, here and here). -- EnemyOfTheState 18:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Just a quick comment, as I've not read it in full yet (but so far I'm impressed): I think the "children" section actually fits in quite nicely, and is surprisingly well written. However, I would say if an otherwise FA quality is being brought down in quality by an AFD decision the AFD decision should be ignored. Specifically, if you feel that the article is too long with this section in place, split the section out into one new article covering all 3 of her children. --kingboyk 20:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I think much of the children part of the article (in addition to the tatoos) suffers from embarassing and unencyclopedic trivial detail.--Peta 01:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't see how the children section offers so much unencyclopedic trivial detail, there is a "Suri Cruise" section on the FA Katie Holmes that is twice as long as any of the children's sections in this article. The tattoo section is rather popular and was even copied by other websites. It's at the very end of the text and doesn't disrupt the prose. -- EnemyOfTheState 11:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It looks like there are far too many images claiming Fair Use. The inline citations start strong, but drop off halfway through Humanitarian Work. Commas are lacking throughout. It seems comprehensive, but I'm not sure it "stays tightly focused". Does seem to delve too much into the children, who could all be summarized in one section. Referencing is sporadic; in spite of an abundance of citations, sporadic statements are strangely unattributed. "In an interview with People she and her brother stated that, being children of divorcees, they relied on one another and because of that they hold on to each other as a means of emotional support." Uncited. Children of divorcees? Why are the children's names bolded in the lead? Prose is informal: "Now roles started coming fast for Jolie." Contains external jumps. The lead goes into a lot of detail, without providing a compelling overview of the article. I don't think this article is quite ready for FAC; a more detailed peer review might help. Sandy 02:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The inline citiations don't just drop off halfway through Humanitarian Work, but the individual field trips are cited via "Field Missions" in the Reference section; otherwise entire paragraphs would have footnotes for every sentence, which seemed excessive. The children's names are bold because all three redirect there and the article is a substitute for their own articles. I wasn't aware that two external jumps are considered a problem (could be easily removed). The lead focuses on her acting career, which I considered appropriate, but all other themes of the article are briefly touched (relationships, media, children, humanitarian work). -- EnemyOfTheState 11:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the following reasons:
  1. Introducing Jolie as "Academy Award-winning" is POV, because it emphasizes her career-highlights before the reader knows that she's an actress.
    • I will remove it, if that is actually WP policy/consensus, but I doubt it is. There are several FA with such an intro (Henry Fonda, Uma Thurman). Plus, is stating a fact really POV?
      • The lead section in the Uma Thurman is ridiculously short and should warrant FA review. All articles do not have to follow one another, which would result in carbon copies more than a collaborative effort. Never Mystic (tc) 22:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. The lead informaion box is too long; why is there a field stating her "career milestones"? It's also POV to assume her career-best roles without support from critics or notes/references. Please remove this.
  3. There are a lot of images. The public domain ones can stay, but how many of those fair use-claimed screenshots are required?
    • Using screenshots to illustrate the career of an actor is pretty common. It might be reasonable to remove one or two of the screenshots, but deleting all of them will only hurt the quality of the article IMHO.
      • I never asked you to remove them all; one or two non-public domain images would be fine. Never Mystic (tc) 22:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Some sentences are obscure, including: Jolie has gone on record as saying that a positive effect resulting from the large number of tattoos on her body is that, while she is not opposed to film nudity, filmmakers have been forced to become more creative when plotting any nude or love scenes involving her.
  5. Please reverse the filmography so that it's chronological.
    • I know this an ongoing argument, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) lists both orders as equal options. There are also FA examples using reversed order (Julia Stiles), not to mention pretty much every movie site (IMDb, Rottentomatoes, etc.). I'm not sure if that is a valid point of objection.
      • This is an encyclopedia article and not an unorganized fan-gush bloated film listing (IMDb). This is a very valid objection. Never Mystic (tc) 22:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I reversed the filmography and the sentence mentioned above has been rephrased, though I guess you have concerns about other sentences as well? -- EnemyOfTheState 18:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Actually, I don't. It seems to be well-written in most parts, but perhaps you could copy-edit some of it? It's not a major objection though, so I'm going to scratch that portion too. Never Mystic (tc) 19:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Are three separate sections chroniciling Jolie's children really necessary?
    • As mentioned above all three articles of her children redirect to Angelina Jolie. So this basically helps people who were only searching for information for any of the children. I doubt that deleting the sub-headlines or combining the section helps the layout. -- EnemyOfTheState 21:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
      • They should be trimmed, because they're long. Never Mystic (tc) 22:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I took out a few sentences, though I won't cut it down significantly, unless there is a clear consensus for it. -- EnemyOfTheState 11:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Looking at it now, it seems all right, but I'm not entirely happy with its length. There's a lot of excessive information, including where one of her children lived before she adopted him/her, debate on the original mother of one of her children, the first offering of Shiloh's photos, and more. It all seems like too much. Never Mystic (tc) 00:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Never Mystic (tc) 20:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Concerns above have been addressed. "Children" is fine as it is, all three children are pretty notable with a considerable celebrity (as established in the text); only reliable sources are cited, no tabloid stories, and half of the section doesn't deal directly with the children anyway, but rather with the adoption procedure, legal problems, citizenship or media attention. The AfD discussion for Shiloh was almost split evenly, the amount of information is justified. Sloan21 16:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - it's mostly good, but has some problems.
  • language could be made more formal in some areas - "She started a life of fast-living and active self-loathing", "Jolie later explained this is how she got interested in acting, not from her father","designed to seduce her way into the headquarters of her creators' rivals and blow up." (?). etc. It needs a good copyedit, and the word "Superstardom" is horrendously POV and reeks of a bad fan magazine. Do we have to use such superlatives? She is a highly successful actress. That's sufficient.
    • I don't see a big problem with the first two sentences and right now I can't think of an elegant way to make them more "formal". I changed your third example. I don't agree with your objection to "superstar". I understand from your user page you don't like these phrases in general (Things that annoy me ... The word "megastar"), but I actually consider it an acurate description. Her popularity is established in the media section, plus superstar doesn't necessarily have a positive connotation anyway. I don't mind if another headline is use, but "highly successful actress" is certainly not suitably.
      • I can't think of an elegant way to make them formal either but "active self-loathing" sounds more like pop psychology than encyclopedic description. "Superstardom" is one of my pet hates (as per my user page, yes). The thing I dislike about it, is that it is a meaningless superlative that is thrown around so freely that whatever slim definition the word once had, has been lost through overuse and misuse. I think Jolie is a superstar, and one of the best current examples of one, but in an encyclopedic context, I think we can do better than regurgitate what a lot of fan magazines have been saying. I hadn't considered your point that the word might not have only a positive connotation - that's very perceptive, but I think the duality of it would be lost on many readers, as it was lost on me. "Highly successful actress" is obviously bad (worse, in fact). Something as simple as "Mainsteam success" would be clean, accurate and neutral. Just a suggestion. The previous headers are without unnecessary hyperbole so why not this one? I'll put my money where my mouth is and try to find alternatives for some of the phrases that bother me, but I'll leave the header to you lest the article suffers from my biased loathing of the word "superstar".  ;-) And if you prefer to keep it, that's fine with me. OK? Rossrs 12:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I've gone through and copyedited what I thought needed to be changed. Most edits were in the early life and early career sections. I've changed wording, but I've tried not to change the intent. I hope it's ok. Rossrs 14:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Thank you very much for copyediting the entire article, excellent work. Regarding the "Superstardom" headline, I considered "International success", though that wouldn't be precise, since she had her first worldwide success in 1999. Calling her "highly regarded" is more POV than that sub-header though; or maybe it's just me ;) -- EnemyOfTheState 16:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The section about the children is basically OK. I think it's a little too detailed but it demonstrates the level of interest these lucky babies have stirred up. It's better than I thought it would be at first glance. Having a subheading for each child is a mistake though. One heading under which they are each discussed would be more appropriate. The subheaders increase the size of the TOC and create the impression that, in an article about Angelina Jolie, there is detailed discussion of three people who are not Angelina Jolie. Not a good thing. They may be her kids, but so what : we don't, for example, have subheaders for each of her husbands, or Brad Pitt, or Jon Voigt, who are all more "famous" than any of the children.
    • I removed the headlines, not sure if this will resolve this issue.
      • Absolutely. I think that's all that was needed there. Thank you. Rossrs 12:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The section about the tattoos is far too detailed. It's sourced and it's accurate (I guess), but it's also irrelevant and unencylopedic. The article does not need this level of trivia where each tattoo is described. Suffice to say that she has tattoos and this can be covered in one or two sentences.
    • I removed the list, but turned a few into prose, since I don't consider them pure trivia, some reflect her character as well.
      • I think this strikes the right balance. Excellent. The way you've written it now is far more engaging and more relevant than the huge list. Again, thank you. Rossrs 12:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There are numerous quotations throughout and most of them are in standard quotation marks. Why is the Roger Ebert quote and the quotations under "Humanitarian work" shown using the Cquote format? It should be consistent and stick to one format or the other. (But there are far too many quotations to consider using Cquote throughout the article anyhow).
    • These are pull-quotes as discribed in Template:Cquote and they are not meant to be formated in the same way as the other quotes. This seems to be common practice, used in several FA (Alpha Phi Alpha, Diane Keaton, Katie Holmes, etc.). Not sure what the problem is exactly.
      • It could be my misunderstanding. I don't understand why a pull quote would be used for Ebert but not for (for example) Variety. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but to me it looks odd.
        • Well, the idea is obvious: to have a few interesting quotes as an eye catcher for readers who just have a quick look. Ebert, the most famous film critic in the U.S., with a comment on her Oscar winning role seems appropriate. -- EnemyOfTheState 16:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • We have a Commons image Image:2005 06 15 rice-jolie 600.jpg to illustrate the "Humanitarian work" section so the two fair use images are superfluous and should be removed. Image:NotesFromMyTravels.jpg should go - the book is mentioned in the article but it's not discussed, and certainly not to the point that a book cover is needed. Image:Jga.jpg assumes fair use although a fair use rationale is not provided. We already know what Jolie looks like, and as far as I can see, this only shows us what she looks like while holding a passport. It's not crucial to the article, adds nothing (but the passport), and therefore any fair use claim would fall apart. Rossrs 16:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I removed the book cover, though I don't really understand the problem with the other picture. It illustrates the key point of the section, the appointment by UNHCR, and the fair use claim is acceptable. The image was made and released to promote her involvement and the UN agency in general. I would think there is a 99% change UNHCR is actually happy if we use the picture. -- EnemyOfTheState 08:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
      • UNHCR is possibly happy. I can't imagine they would be unhappy. Who knows? That's not the point and neither is the 1% chance that they are unhappy. We should be using fair use images sparingly, almost as a last resort, and only when they convey something that is not conveyed or depicted adequately by the text or by other images. If the image was of Jolie at work, or as part of a delegation, or with some official ... or showed her doing something relevant to the work, and that by seeing it we would understand more deeply what she was about, I would be the first one trying to ensure the image was kept. The fact is this particular image shows two things - one, Angelina Jolie and two, a UNHCR passport. We may not know what a UNHCR passport looks like, but we don't need to. Therefore the image adds nothing to our understanding and it serves a decorative purpose. I believe that for a featured article, every aspect of it must be above reproach. Is there an image which shows Jolie more obviously in her role and doing more than just smiling for the camera? Because if so, I think substituting such an image would greatly add to the article. Rossrs 12:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I deleted the image. Of course there are many pictures of her on field missions, e.g. on her UNHCR page -> photo gallery. But I'm not sure if these images could be justified as promo pictures. There are other images on Wikimedia Commons of her, but they all show her in Washington, similar to the one already displayed. -- EnemyOfTheState 16:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don Vicente Rama Memorial National High School

Self-nomination I have spent a lot of time in this article in order to have our school at least an article in Wikipedia. I asked for pictures and infos about our school. I am very glad that Wikipedia didn't question the intergity of my article. The article speaks a lot about the Don Vicente Rama Memorial National High School. It not too popular on search engines because it's not a private school (it's only a public school) that's why I don't have a lot of sources. But the article is very informative because it is mainly based on the School Improvement Plan of our Principal. I would be very happy if this article would be nominated and hopefully be a featured article. Kevin Ray 08:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. No sources other than the schools own improvement plan, extremely poor image syntax, too many lists, over-bolding, etc. I don't think it's even ready for peer review... / Peter Isotalo 09:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Per Peter. This is faaaaaaar away from FA status. It needs rewriting and then peer-review.--Yannismarou 09:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. speedy remove per WP:SNOW Rlevse 00:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Kevin, Hopkins School is a recently-promoted FA, which may give you some guidelines. Notice the clean layout and Table of Contents, well-developed lead, thorough inline citations, and comprehensive coverage of all areas of the school. Once you get closer to that, peer review can help get the article tuned up for FAC. Sandy 01:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Here's another sample for you Kevin: Plano Senior High School. Maybe you can find enough sources from your state newspapers. Keep writing! Sandy 22:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Kevin, I am impressed with how your article about your school sticks to factual description and doesn't cheerlead. Not many school articles can say that. I believe it would be difficult for this to become a featured article, partially because Wikipedia's standards for Verifiability make it hard to supply independent references for many high schools. But don't let that stop you from trying to improve the articles you work on here! –Outriggr § 07:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. This article is a mess. The sections really need tidying up, there's large areas of whitespace, and I count one source... A definite no. --Alex (Talk) 13:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per above, try intergrating some of the lists into paragraphs. VulcanStar6
  • Object, I'm a little worried about the article as a whole because it isn't sourced much at all. This all can't be in the improvement plan. It also shows why when subjects get too specific it's nearly impossible to create an article about them with widely accessible and credible sources. gren グレン 12:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ocean surface wave

I found this to be an exceedingly informative and well-written article.Ebzlef 02:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Refer to peer review, not FA material. No inline citations, very listy, lead too short and does not summarize article. Sandy 03:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Sandy beat me to it. No citations; as far as being a FA is concerned, not much else needs to be said. Also, if this happened to be a FA, it would absolutely be the shortest one ever. -- Kicking222 03:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Refer to peer review. Per all above.--Yannismarou 09:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback. I did zero authoring, so I don't know if it makes sense for me to ask for peer review. But I appreciate the feedback regarding both the article and the process.Ebzlef 20:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fredrik Reinfeldt

Have been totally rewritten latly, and looks good in my eyes. The only criteria that might not be perfect, is that it's connected to current event so the content might change. →AzaToth 01:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Object Lead does not summarize article and is too short. Too many bigblock quote sections-I find them distracting. Trivia section needs to go or be absorbed into prose in appropriate sections. Rlevse 12:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Lead is too short. "Controversies" section is a list, when it should very obviously be prose. Parts of the "Trivia" section are unnecessary, and none of the sentences are even capitalized. Too many big-block quotes, especially considering all of the quotes consist of one or two sentences. Only one picture in the entire article. -- Kicking222 19:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Was ment to be posted as a peer review, but my brain malfunctioned then and I posted it here. →AzaToth 20:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long-term potentiation

Really well written, abundant referencing, contains a lot of info, and very comprehensive, especially since it is on a topic that can be very obscure. dr.alf 09:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose for now. Good lead paragraph and clear writing. However, some specific concerns.

  • Strictly speaking, cell growth is a separate process from cell division. The section on "Early theories" may confuse readers by merging these processes.
  • In "Phases of LTP" the discussion of E-LTP seems to imply that new AMPA receptors are produced in the abscence of protein synthesis. Are the receptors re-localised to the synapse from intracellular stores? Needs to clarify.
  • Second paragraph in the "Phases of LTP" section unreferenced. Need at minimum a few refs for statement that many investigators doubt existence of this effect.
  • In "Early LTP" what the magnesium blockade is either needs referenced or linked, as it is not explained in the text.
  • (Pavlidis, et al., 2000) reference in "Reterograde signalling" section needs coverting to proper format.
  • Would you like an structural image of PKA or another one of the kinases mentioned? If you would like me to generate one for you drop me a note on my talk page.TimVickers 18:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I've added part of CaMKII's structure, which should suffice for now, but another image (preferably of PLCζ) would be excellent. --David Iberri (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll have another look at this over the weekend. TimVickers 00:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. I still intend to make some major revisions (eg, the L-LTP needs a major overhaul), but I'd love to hear feedback about the minor touchups I've made over the past couple weeks. Thanks, David Iberri (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
L-LTP has been rewritten. --David Iberri (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose for now. The two things that would most benefit this article's readability are explicit definitions of what it means to "strengthen" a synapse (the section in the neuron article isn't really enough) and of the difference between "induced" and "expressed" LTP. A few more specific comments:

I agree that a section on synaptic strengthening might help, but I haven't had a chance to add it. Hopefully the distinction between induction and expression is clearer now. --David Iberri (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • There's a scattering of statements that could use a citation, e.g. "...can last from hours to days, months, and years." in the lead.
    • Agreed. I've begun adding references for these, but there are undoubtedly others. I'll add them as I find the appropriate reference. --David Iberri (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The "Types of LTP" section tells that LTP differs between different neurons and between neurons of different ages, but it doesn't say what differs (duration? ease of induction? etc). I'd move this section after "Phases" and expand it.
    • I've explained things a bit better now, but am still unsure whether this section needs expansion. --David Iberri (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The "Properties" section has several very short subsections and might work better as a single multi-paragraph section.
    • I've changed it to a definition list. Is this better? --David Iberri (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There are strange juxtapositions, as in "There is also considerable evidence that late LTP prompts the postsynaptic synthesis of a retrograde messenger that diffuses to the presynaptic cell increasing the probability of neurotransmitter vesicle release on subsequent stimuli. All of this is largely hypothetical." -- so is there evidence, or is it hypothetical? If there is evidence, cite it; if not, cite a statement of the hypothesis.
    • Some of this was the product of multiple editors (myself included) working on the article without specific regard for how their contributions flowed with the rest of the article. I've fixed a few of these and will do the rest in time. --David Iberri (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not getting a clear sense of how much controversy there is over L-LTP; the statement that some investigators doubt it is uncited and doesn't say why they are doubtful. The L-LTP section itself is written as if there is no real dispute.
    • The latest revision hopefully clears up the problems with the L-LTP section. --David Iberri (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Like Tim, I'm confused about E-LTP somehow being independent of protein synthesis; clarification is needed on the mechanism here. The high acronym density might also benefit from a diagram of the signaling pathway.
    • Agreed. I think the E-LTP section is a bit clearer now, but L-LTP needs work. I'll get on it soon. --David Iberri (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I've added diagrams of the mechanisms. --David Iberri (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Also, the L-LTP section has been entirely rewritten. --David Iberri (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "Retrograde signaling" has tone problems ("unfortunately", "still life in..."). The previous section says "While LTP is induced postsynaptically, it is partially expressed presynaptically." but this one says "LTP, at least early LTP, is expressed entirely postsynaptically." Then this same paragraph ends with "since contrary to dogma, LTP induction does not appear to be entirely postsynaptic." As a reader I now have no idea whether there's a presynaptic effect or what it is. This reads as if the literature is contradictory but the author tried to beat it into submission, or the author(s) of this text are not clear on the point.
    • Most of these oddities should be resolved now. --David Iberri (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The sentence "The mere fact that cultured synapses can undergo long-term potentiation when stimulated by electrodes says little about LTP's relation to memory in an intact organism." is odd, as the lead and history sections say this has been observed in vivo. A simple transition like "LTP has also been observed in vivo and influences behavioral memory" is less 'pretty-sounding' but also less puzzling to the reader who skipped directly to this section.
    • Should be cleaned up now hopefully. --David Iberri (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Opabinia regalis 23:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Dr. alf, thanks for the nomination; Tim and Opabinia, thanks for your comments, they've been amazingly helpful in reorganizing and improving the article. I look forward to any additional comments you may have. Cheers, David Iberri (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] University of Chicago

I strongly believe this article should be featured. After two peer reviews and many edits, this page is certainly one of the best university articles on Wikipedia. I am nominating it again to be a featured article. -- Noetic Sage 22:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Archive of first nomination in April 2006

  • Comments — The article mostly cites Web pages, magazine, and newspaper articles and fails to cite books and journal articles (for example, Harper's University by Richard J. Storr and various books and articles on the Chicago Schools of Economics, Sociology, etc.). Sometimes the article reads like a marketing piece; for example, the section on the Economics Department doesn't mention the various controversies that have been associated with the Chicago School of Economics. The history section skips over the important controversies during the 1950s and '60s related to urban renewal and student political activities. The sequence of 9 footnotes after "...one of the world's foremost universities" looks strange—wouldn't it be preferable to consolidate them as one long footnote? — BRMo 23:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The student protest activities of the 1960's seem kind of cliche. They occurred everywhere and Chicago was not really an exceptional center compared to say, the SDS' presence at Columbia or peace movement at Berkeley. Meanwhile, as for the urban renewal controversy, I am not saying they don't exist, but in the grand scheme of thing again they are rather mundane. Nearly every major urban university, big ticket or not, gets into fights with its neighboors over how to allocate land.

  • Comments Listy, notable alumni not cited, does not follow WP:MOS on section headings. Sandy 23:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Alumni list is now cited. Can you please elaborate on why the article does not follow the section heading guidelines? -- mcshadypl TC 05:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Please don't strike comments from other reviewers: wait for us to come back and strike ourselves. I do not see references for the notable alumni (where are they?), and the article is still very listy. An example of sections heading which don't conform is Faculty and alumni, followed by Notable faculty and alumni.
  • Please sign your posts. If I perceive an objection to be illegitimate and invalid, it is only appropriate to remove it. Furthermore, it does not seem that the author of the original comment has even followed up on my statement. Thus, how can I expect him to strike it out himself? -- mcshadypl TC 06:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This is very unsightly in the lead of an article: The University of Chicago is widely recognized as one of the world's foremost universities.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] The same thing can be accomplished by combining mention of all sources inside one set of ref tags. For an example of how that was done effectively in an exemplary FA, see Daniel Boone. This article should go to peer review. Sandy 18:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object; Images are too big (800x600 resolution is still common), and a few references are weak. Don't use other encyclopedias to back up claims; go to the actual sources. Also, don't put sources in the text itself (like "adapted from the official page"); just cite sources normally. And putting half a dozen citations in a row is overkill—if they're all necessary, put them in the same note. --Spangineeres (háblame) 00:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: Please remove the image gallery. It is quite unhelpful. NatusRoma | Talk 05:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Image gallery has been removed. -- mcshadypl TC 05:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support rmv excessive images as per Spangineer and NatusRoma. Also, add more information on administrative structure and financials. Reduce the citations - for example, you provide so many citations to back up claim that UC is one of the best - that is excessive and not necessary. Prose require copyediting. I'm saying "conditional support" because I think you can fix this problem swiftly. Rama's arrow 19:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Send to peer review. The images are too large and unevenly spaced. Too many lists. There should not be one or two sentence paragraphs. These are just a few things that need to be improved before the article is FA. --Xtreambar 00:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object The history section is short for a school founded in 1891, and seems to need a lot of work. The current history starts out ok around 1891, and then jumps to 1947. Did nothing happen during this period? Also, the history section makes a number of claims in bulleted format yet none of these claims are cited. And towards the end of the history it starts to turn into a "in 1955, in 1978, in 1999, in 2006," not the most exemplary writing. KnightLago 13:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, references 6 and 29 don't seem to work. 6 goes to the NYT but not to a specific article, and 29 doesn't work at all. KnightLago 13:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder

self nom Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder is one of the most commonly diagnosed mental disorders. Its also one of the more controversial. For quite some time, this article was subject to lots of bad edits. Myself and other editors have worked quite hard to clean it up. Today it is now stable, comprehensive, and well referenced. Last week it was accorded GA status. It satisfies all of the FA criteria. I think it is time that it be accorded FA status as well.--*Kat* 07:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Has this article been through peer review? I have extensive comments, which might be better placed at PR. Sandy 12:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • No, but I'm beginning to wish that it had.
  • I only listed some examples of my objections, which are actually far too extensive to list here. Sandy 18:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong object. This article is not ready for FA: GA does not an FA make, and the work needed is extensive. (By the way, with the extent of sourcing, copy edit, and POV/OR issues, I would not approve it for GA either.) I would like to see you run this by the Medical Projects (there are at least 3 Medical WikiProjects that could help). Also, reviewing Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles) can provide some helpful tips. I see problems with respect to copy editing, comprehensiveness, quality of sources, undue weight, and WP:MOS issues at least. You might also want to review Asperger syndrome, which recently went through WP:FAR and was mostly brought to standard.
    • Weasle words, for example, the first sentence encountered is extremely weasly: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (sometimes referred to as ADD) is thought to be a neurological disorder, always present from childhood, which manifests itself with symptoms such as hyperactivity, forgetfulness, poor impulse control, and distractibility.[2]
    • The infobox is not complete and not correctly formatted, see Tourette syndrome for a more thorough example.
    • The article is listy. For example, History is a list, should be converted to prose and referenced to higher quality sources.
      • Actually I wouldn't mind splitting that section off into a separate article altogether. Would that work?
        • Splitting entirely, no. See the guide to writing medical articles - History should be included. You could employ Summary Style, but I don't think it's needed. Read the History of Tourette syndrome to see if you can't convert this to prose. However, addressing these items will not be enough to make this article FA worthy. I suggest withdrawing the nom and dealing with this on the talk page or via peer review. Sandy 18:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • See also has too many unrelated articles, or articles that should be incorporated into the text. Why one researcher and not others?
    • Sourcing - first, please include PMIDs on all journal-published sources, so the reader can easily access them. Far too many unofficial and personal websites are used in the sourcing of this article, and the sources stray much too far from peer-reviewed sources. Please review this section of WP:RS. When Biederman and his peers are cited only once, I immediately question the quality of references used. You should be using the highest-quality research and researchers, and no personal websites. POV is always an issue with ADHD. You also have LARGE blocks of text with absolutely no inline citations (for example, see Diagnosis).
      • All medical articles that can be found on PubMed (most of them) have a PMID. Journals published outside the United States can't be found in PubMed.
    • External links need extensive cleanup: please review WP:EL and WP:NOT. Wiki should link only to the highest-quality medical sources and established, recognized organiations, sites, and research: Wiki is not a support group. Linking to appropriate DMOZ categories is one way to avoid the link farm. Not all of your External links qualify as reliable sources - see link I gave above.
      • It is going to be very difficult impossible to find credible sources for the minority views that are prevalent. Especially for the sections on alternative medicines and Parental Roles. You just can't find that sort of information credible publications. Which is why the proponents of those views (like Drs. Sobo and Breggin) publish their clap trap on personal webpages.
        • I disagree. Similarly, on your possible advantages, you cite a non-reliable source, when others are available. Again, for positive aspects from reliable sources, see Tourette syndrome and Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome. I know the research, and disagree that any of these views can't be presented from reliable sources. And, if there is no info from reliable sources for the info, it doesn't belong in the article, which is why the article is very POV and contains OR. I understand the controversy you are dealing with, and appreciate the amount of the cleanup you've done to get to where you are, but it is not FA material yet. Sandy 18:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Further reading equally needs extensive cleanup; it is out of control. First, it should be alphabetical. Some of the sources are of questionable applicability to ADHD, and may just be adverts. Not all include ISBNs or PMIDs. There are far too many personal websites or sources that don't meet WP:RS. Eliminate all personal ADHD websites unless you can justify them as reliable per the criteria above.
      • I wouldn't call it out of control, but I have trimmed it down and alphabetized it considerably. By the time you read this (hopefully) I'll have the ISBNs in there as well.
    • Now, turning to content:
      • I see no mention of comorbids. Comorbidity in ADHD is very high, and huge issue: it should be mentioned.
      • Terminology does not include DAMP, which - bogus or not - needs to be addressed.
      • Your first image is a brain scan: there is extreme controversy and misinformation in the field (think D. Amen) surrounding the usefulness of brain imaging in ADHD. Presenting a brain scan early on - without discussing that controversy - could mislead the reader. The article says, it's not complete or comprehensive, has no source, and needs to be copy edited.
        • Huh? The image is sourced.
          • Not the point - the problem is that the issue of brain imaging work in ADHD is not dealt with comprehensively or accurately. Sandy 18:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
      • "Other diagnostic methods, such as those involving magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), may detect the presence of ADHD by analyzing images of the patient's brain, are usually not recommended (see brain scans). " The article also says: "Neurometrics, PET scans, FMRI, or SPECT scans have the potential to provide a more objective diagnosis." To my knowledge, this statement is completely inaccurate. The usefulness of brain imaging is still as a research tool, not as a diagnostic tool. This article needs to cite its sources. Because of sentences like this, I suspect POV or OR in the article, and question its GA status.
        • Paragraph has been reworded.
      • Undue weight throughout: Diet as a cause is given more weight than more accepted causes.
        • There really isn't an accepted "cause" of ADHD. Genetic factors come close but even then, there isn't much known. That paragraph
        • On the other hand there are many, many theories related to diet. None of them have been given more than two sentences, but since four or five of the most common ones are mentioned, that paragraph is naturally longer.
          • Genetic is the most accepted cause; undue weight is given to others. Sandy 18:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Alternative treatment is given more weight than mainstream treatment (which is another List, by the way, which should be converted to prose). Again, POV and OR is apparent in the article, which is light on the medical viewpoint.
        • I'll work on turning the mainstream treatment list into a paragraph.
      • Examples of need for copyedit and better sources: "There is no compelling evidence that social factors, alone, can create ADHD. (However, see discussion of parental role in section below) The few environmental factors implicated fall in the realm of biohazards including alcohol, tobacco smoke, and lead poisoning. Allergies (including those to artificial additives)[29] as well as complications during pregnancy and birth--including premature birth--might also play a role." There are VERY good sources about the role of epigenetic factors in spectrum disorders, and the article cites none of the good ADHD medical research. Also, sentence needs copy edit.
  • The article cites work done by Hallowell, Ratey, Zamektin, Wilens and Cohen among others. Those are some of the most highly respected researchers in the field.
    • Short, stubby paragraphs and sections - the TOC is out of control and overwhelming, and many of the sections need to be converted to better prose.
  • OK, there is MUCH more, but this should be enough. I don't think the article is close to being FA ready, POV and OR need to be addressed, the article needs to be cited and sources used improved, and I *highly* recommend you try to get the WikiProjects involved.

Sandy 15:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Opinion noted.  :-) --*Kat* 17:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • There is *much* more, but I don't believe FAC should be overburdened by listing everything here: it would take too many pages. Re-working a few sections and lists will not address the problems. Sandy 18:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

On a separate note, the templates on the ADHD article talk page for FAC and GA have been altered; the GA template does not include the correct links, so it doesn't seem wise to be writing individual templates when standardized ones are supposed to be used. Sandy 18:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Here are the articles which should be linked to in the completed infobox:one of the WikiPhysicians should be able to help on that:

As you will see from these sources, the Wiki article still has quite a ways to go.Sandy 19:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment -working in the field of mental health as I do, I can say that the causes of the syndrome of symptoms we call ADHD is much more controversial and disputed than schizophrenia, autism, PTSD and the article needs to reflect that rather than present it as a given. Cas Liber 20:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A.C. Milan

It's an excellent article! User:Barbagianni Potente

  • Support Barbagianni Potente, 8.40, 28 september 2006 (UTC)
  • Refer to Peer Review This is not an excellent article at all. There are barely any citations and the article is filled with stubs and lists.UberCryxic 13:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Definatly not a featured article. UberCryxic was right when he/she said there were no citations and also when he/she said there were lots of stubs and lists. Daniel10 18:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Definatly NON neutral article and without information about match-fixing scandal of 1980 (Colombo) and 1982 (Farina), similar a Calciopoli. --Dantemateo 20:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per the others. However, I do want to say the article is pretty good: with thorough, in-line citations, I would reconsider. Surely there has been a lot of material written about this subject? It shouldn't be too hard to find sources concerning the history of the club. Mangojuicetalk 15:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object There are no in-line citations and certain sections should be expanded. -- Underneath-it-All 15:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object for many reasons, but the following are the most pertinent:
    • No inline citations, which are especially necessary for where the article discusses controversies.
    • The history section is unbalanced and concentrates on the present too much; it is also split into too many small subsections.
    • The reserve/youth squads are not notable enough for inclusion, as are details of the therapists/masseurs.
    • No criteria given for what makes a former players or coaches "notable" or worthy of inclusion in the list.
    • The current UEFA Club ranking is not really relevant to the article. Qwghlm 21:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Needs more sources. AJSDA115 00:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seinfeld

Great article, seems to match all criteria. Good use of images, sources are cited properly, and is overall a very informative, interesting read. Honestly, I'm surprised it hasn't been featured before. 64.135.205.238 18:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Note This nomination was incorrectly placed on the page of another nomination: CM Punk. I went through the whole nomination procedure for this user. That is why my user name appears on all nomination procedure related pages. - Tutmosis 19:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose too large amount of unsourced material. The Filmaker 19:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm with The Filmaker- tons of unsourced claims. Just a few examples: "During the show's current syndictation run, it continually ranks in the syndication's top 10 programs list"; "In general, product placement became much more frequent in TV shows after Seinfeld demonstrated that a successful show could work specific products into its plots and dialogue" (which is currently tagged as needing citation); "The show divided even more of its audience in its final two seasons." There are also a ton of screenshots; I really don't think any article (no matter what its size) should have so many fair use images. In addition, the article failed to become a GA in July- perhaps work should go to making it good enough for that plateau first. -- Kicking222 22:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I liked this article last time it was nominated. I'll probably see this get snowballed, but I'll give it a support vote, as it is rather interesting. FireSpike 20:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Although length is not an FAC issue, it really is very very long. Maybe post-Seinfeld careers, DVD information and stuff like that could be even split into their own articles. The notable episodes section is so POV! The whole article actually reads like one fan's opinon; the 'notable' episodes, criticism, the ending etc etc. There are not nearly enough references, and a lot of images as well, stuff like the logos gallary is a bit of a fair-use stretch. And screenshots representing characters/cast would be better off without credits obscuring them (Newman's image)...Needs a lot of work. Seinfann 07:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article too long, unsourced, most of it is fancruft, such as sections on The Soup Nazi,The Contest--Coasttocoast 03:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EarthBound

Warning This featured article candidacy has been closed and is now archived. Please make no efforts to edit its contents. Direct comments to the article's current talk page.

The game itself is full of cultural references and is a good game, and the article is informative. 68.9.69.63 19:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose. It's on its way, but it doesn't have enough references. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note This nomination was incorrectly placed directly onto Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. I went through the whole nomination procedure for this user. That is why my user name appears on all nomination procedure related pages. - Tutmosis 19:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, peer review first, fails many of the points determined in the criteria. Most important, lack of references, trivia section extremely long, some refences are just external links embedded into the article, virtually all the images lack a fair use rationale, inappropriate person ("you"), etc. I suggest sending the article to peer review first. -- ReyBrujo 19:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I actually want to work on it. It will be my next article, I promise. Sir Crazyswordsman 20:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
There are a lot of benefits of creating an account. - Tutmosis 20:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I HAVE an account. I was logged out for some reason. Sir Crazyswordsman 20:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Oops sorry for the misunderstanding. :) - Tutmosis 20:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. After looking at the article, here's what needs to be done:
    • Prosify the lists.
    • References are needed. Mass numbers of them. Old issues of Nintendo Power, GamePro, and websites such as Gamespot, Gamerankings, IGN, and in this case, Starmen.net should help. Also, the story section needs references. I have a copy of the Player's Guide as well, and I should be able to get that for you in several months.
    • The Playable Characters section needs massive prosification. A story section should be added.
    • A development section should be added, including the localization and censorship parts of it.
  • These are very basic things that need to be done. I'll see what I can do when my schedule allows for it. This is my third favorite game of all time and seeing it featured would make my day. But it's just not ready yet. Sir Crazyswordsman 21:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, WP:SNOW? jaco♫plane 03:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Pagrashtak 22:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimmy Wales

I've scanned the article, and I must remark that this is one very comprehensive piece of writing. I think it's time Wikipedia gave its creator's article FA status. -- Selmo (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: I have no problem with the article, but the idea really bothers me. It would sound like massive vanity to an outsider, though I know it's not. It's the "featured". "Good" or "high quality" would be fine.Derex 09:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Careful, someone might bring out this old chestnut: "your objection is not actionable." –Outriggr § 03:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The intro is insufficient for a FA. Needs to summarize the article and be suitable for inclusion on the main page. Several of the sources do not meet WP:RS and seem a bit self-referential, and really wouldn't be acceptable with other subjects. Also just not very interesting as an FA, and I'm a Wikipedian... I can only imagine how dull it must people to people who aren't all into Wikipedia, the article would put people to sleep. Of course that last part is not really actionable. --W.marsh 15:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Derex is correct. The subject matter itself disqualifies it from Featured Article status. Madman 19:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Not a valid reason to object, Wikipedia was an FA for a while til recently, if the article is well written and meets the criteria, it should be featured. Going on the main page likely won't happen though. Jaranda wat's sup 20:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Jaranda is correct. Raul654 23:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm not used to working with articles on people, so I don't know what to think. All articles seem to be different in this matter. Jimbo's article looks a bit short, but I don't know how much more info can surface on him. Frankly, I don't think subject matter should disqualify something from being an FA. (I also wonder what Jimbo would think if he saw his article on FAC). I'll probably abstain, although it does look like a good article. Sir Crazyswordsman 02:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Essentially self-bio. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Jimbo did not/does not have anything to do with his artice being featured, we do. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  17:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object; short lead and poor referencing. Primary sources like emails, newsgroup postings, and edits shouldn't be used. --Spangineeres (háblame) 23:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object; lead's not there, one-sentence paragraphs which say little, and newsgroup postings are not reliable sources. Sandy 23:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Some things you may wish to consider: there are excessive direct quotes from Jimbo, I think; it breaks up the flow of the prose in a lot of areas. Some paragraphs are too short, such as the awards section, which could be a single paragraph. And some minor flow issues that I will go and deal with now. If an article is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia, it is worthy of being made FA. It just needs to be good enough. Dev920 (Tory?) 09:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In order for an article to be a Featured Article, it should first be, you know, good. This article is actually quite bad in several important respects. Controversial claims are made without attribution. (Example: the bit from Wired about my trading career is something I have objected to repeatedly but it is still reported on as fact.) My birthdate is sourced to a cut and paste from Wikipedia (original research), and is in fact completely at odds with what my birth certificate says. The number $100,000 appears, with no source. The number $500,000 appears, no source. The article implies falsely that the foundation spent $25,000 on my travel. False, and original research. (And a good example of what is wrong with original research.) I could go on, but you begin to see my point.--Jimbo Wales 16:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
That would be why I didn't vote support. : ) Dev920 (Tory?) 16:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belgrade

Article is close to perfection. I can't see anything that hasn't been covered, so hopefully we'll all agree it deserves FA status.--estavisti 23:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Support - It is a really great article to read. The article improvement drive helped the article as well. --Krytan 23:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - Granted it is well written, but as the peer review indicates, some of the lists should be either re-arranged or written out. Other than that, I think that this article is worthy of FA status --Хајдук Еру (Talk || Cont) 23:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - WAAAAAY too many lists. Too few inline citations. I would like to see a photo in the infobox as well.--DaveOinSF 23:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose: Poorly referenced, should be written in summary style, overwhelmingly large ToC.
  • Comment I don't really see why a lot of people seem to be obsessed with lists. There are a few, but some things are better laid out in lists than in paragraphs. If you feel that strongly about it, would you consider helping me out with them? --estavisti 01:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    Here's a few cities which have achieved FA: Cape Town; Hong Kong; San Francisco. They all have few or no lists. Look how they dealt with the sections you claim work better as lists.--DaveOinSF 04:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Listy, one-sentence and stubby paragraphs, and poorly referenced. Sandy 18:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Per nom -- Nathannoblet 23:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Per Sandy+wrong linking to external links. I strongly recommend a new peer-review and a thorough study of the FA criteria.--Yannismarou 07:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Nine references for a 60 Kilobyte article, with entire sections completely unsourced. "By the beginning of 2008 Belgrade will start construction of a light rail transit system." Says who? "The bridge was destroyed in 1941 and rebuilt after the end of World War II as a single span bridge, at the time it was the longest bridge of that kind in the world." Where is that stated? The "Middle Ages" section could be completely made up, and I wouldn't have a clue. -- Kicking222 19:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toraja

Self-nomination of an article about indigenous ethnic group in Indonesia. The article has been through a peer-review and it has recently been archived. We haven't yet any Indonesia-related article for FA, so it's a good shot with this article. A reviewer said that this article is ready for FA and I've checked the FA criteria, which I think it is. Your critics/suggestions are very welcomed. — Indon (reply) — 12:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Object for now, but it has great potential. The culture section is not comprehensive. While it covers some interesting things, it doesn't cover language, food, music, dance, etc. We should know the language distribution, what outside languages people speak, and a sumary of the language's features. There's sort of economic information weaved in the article, but nothing clear and cohesively organized. Just tell us in a cohesive section what the principal economic activities are, how many people work elsewhere, what the wealth distribution is, etc. I can't think off the top of my head what all topics an article on an ethnic group should cover, but try looking at others, including articles on geographic entities to see if any other major headings would apply here. The lead is confusing, it says most are Christian and Muslim, then goes on to say Torajan religian is recognized as Hindu. Does that mean a Torajan religion or the religion of everyone? The word Torajan as an adjective could imply the religion of all Torajan people. If so, how does that coordinate with most people being Christian? Finally, eliminate the short, one and two sentence orphan paragraphs. They should either be expanded, merged with related material or removed. The last sentence of the lead needs more context for aluk to make sense to someone that doesn't already know the subject. - Taxman Talk 17:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    Answers:
    • Yeah, I think the article is not comprehensive enough. I'll take a note of your suggestions in the To-Do list.
    • Torajan is the adjective word for Toraja people. Their religions are varied, but there is one original Torajan religion before the Dutch came. However, it's a good input. I'll fix the unclear.
    — Indon (reply) — 09:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per Taxman. Also, the lead is too long: it should briefly summarize the article, about 3 paragraphs, and entice the author to read further. As noted by Taxman, there are many short and stubby paragraphs: article flow needs to be improved to compelling/brilliant level. Some prose is awkward, and has weasle words ("Slavery in Toraja was often self-imposed as an alternative to starvation. Sometimes people became slaves when they had a debt, pledging to work as payment. In this case, they became the family's property.") What is that floating "Indonesian" in the middle of the page above Notes? (A note: good start, good sources, but be wary of GA reviewers making claims about FA readiness :-) Sandy 18:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    Answers:
    • The lead is in 4 paragraphs for the following aims: (1) context (2) ethymology (3) summary of its culture (4) summary of its history. I want to make it able to stand as one article, per WP:LS. Compressed lead section into 3 paragraphs. Anyway, the lead section is much shorter than Cricket, for example.
    • The floating "Indonesian" was came from the WP:CITET template for the language optional field. I'm just following the template guideline. Fixed.
    • ... and thanks for your valuable inputs. — Indon (reply) — 09:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Clinton

Great Article about a Great President. Deserves FAC. Mercenary2k 03:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Miscellaneous facts are tagged and unencyclopedic, article doesn't conform to WP:GTL, Recommend to peer review. Sandy 12:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Refer to peer-review. Not ready for FA. Listy sections. Short lead. Insufficient inline citations. Needs work.--Yannismarou 15:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • In addition to what has been said already, sections need to be broken out into separate articles, with only a summary in the main article. Images need to be better placed to allow text to flow. Peer review would help. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per Yannis. Rama's arrow 19:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object This article is crazy unsourced and pov. This shouldnt have been nominated. Jasper23 01:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak object The lead is too short, lacking citation. At my resolution the pictures seem fine and I don't really see any glaring POV problems. If the lead if fixed and more in-line citations are provided, I will consider changing my vote to "Support." Regards, Signaturebrendel 06:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly Object This article is poorly sourced, full of politics (i.e. POV), full of factual inaccuracies, and like the man himself so complex and full of contradictions that no one can ever reliably know what is truth and what is fiction.--Hokeman 03:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Try WP:GOOD Aquafish talk 21:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - It seems like a good article and could achieve FA status with a bit more work, but it needs to pass through the GA process first (indeed, it is a requirement I believe). -- Cielomobile minor7♭5 05:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oops, didn't see it already was a Good article. Object still Per Gerdbrendel. Aquafish talk 19:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bohemian Rhapsody

Great song and fits all of the criteria. It is also a "good article"

  • Support —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AceKingQueenJack (talk • contribs) .
  • Object; referencing is poor. Whole sections lack citations. --Spangineeres (háblame) 00:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, the first fact in "Trivia" (which I just removed) was incorrect. In 2005, "(Is This the Way To) Amarillo" was knocked off #1 by "Lonely," a word that was in the previous song's lyrics. How many other unreferenced facts here are wrong? Andrew Levine 01:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support One of the most famous songs in history, and a good article to boot. Kingfisherswift 09:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object; Being famous and a good article isn't enough. It needs to better than that, FA quality and this isn't. Trivia section needs incorporated into body, too few refs, See also goes above refs, the footnotes and refs could be in the same Reference section with the two refs at the bottom, see other FA articles on songs for more. Rlevse 11:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Ojbect per Rlevse. Also prose needs to be upgraded. Please see WP:WIAFA Rama's arrow 00:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I find it hard to believe that there are no book or journal references to this song. Please try to find some to diversify the reference section and to expand the article further. — BrianSmithson 03:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - referencing issues brought up by Spangineer --ZeWrestler Talk 16:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Poor referencing and research. Stubby and listy sections. The article could be further developed.--Yannismarou 10:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object as there are not near enough references with whole sections going unreferenced. Citations should also be written in the same style. The last reference in the Notes section, which should be called reference section, is not written in the same manner as the perceeding references. This article needs more in-line citations and make sure all citations follow the same layout and style. Regards, Signaturebrendel 06:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Object. Two references from Sound on Sound, one from the BBC, and some miscellaneous crap off the web. Geez. People, this is one of the most written about songs in history. If the net doesn't have enough info on it go to a library! --kingboyk 13:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Referencing is quite poor (they are all web sources, it'd be nice to seem some offline sources as well) and possibly a fair use sample of a part of the song as described at Wikipedia:Music samples to go with something from the song structure section. Alexj2002 08:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The CW Television Network

OK, this may be out of hype, but it's a big page with lots of interesting info for a network that just launched recently. --(trogga) 03:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Support per my own nom. --(trogga) 03:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article fails the stable criteria as the network was just launched in the last week. In addition, the article only features two references, well below the standard for an FA. The Filmaker 03:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral If some more references were added I would change to Support. - Mike Beckham 03:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object needs more references and extensive copyediting. Also, as the network launching is news, there could be more information to add in a short period of time. Rama's arrow 03:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Refer to peer-review Don't bring these articles here, if you haven't gone through at leat one peer-review. I see listy sections, lack of inline citations, not-recommended ways to link external links etc.etc.etc. Go first for a peer-review. The article may have the potential, but it is not ready.--Yannismarou 11:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Refer to peer-review, per Yannismarou. Fails criteria, IMO. SergeantBolt (t,c) 22:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This article is packed full of information and certainly deserves this honor. -- Some Person 10:19, September 23, 2006 (CST)

(Table removed). FAC is not a vote. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No need for this table. FAC is not a voting process, and the number of oppose or support votes does not influence the promotion of the article. CG 16:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. External jumps, mixed citation styles, and needs extensive inline cite work. Sandy 00:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Too few references, too much trivia. Also, I request the editor who has included the support/oppose table to remove it. FAC is not a vote. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object as per TheFilmaker. Merosonox 07:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Upgrade to FA I may however support a good article nomination. It just isn't good enough for FA status yet though. Hello32020 01:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dragon Ball Z

  • Support I nominate this acticle because it is very well written. I think that this should be a featured article.

Fastnaturedude 01:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC) Fastnaturedude

  • Object, no references. I don't have to go farther than that... Titoxd(?!?) 02:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support No references? Oh really? Fastnaturedude 03:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The article has been a good article candidate that failed, with concerns that appear not to have been addressed. The article fails 1c (verifiability, no enough references) and 3 (Image:Dragonballz.jpg does not have a fair use rationale). -- ReyBrujo 04:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, external links are not references. YoBub 05:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Refer to Peer Review First! Not only no references, but also stubby sections and subsections.UberCryxic 05:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong object Setting aside the lack of references, there's no discussion of plot, character, development or reception. Too much information (and uncited speculation) about distribution.--Monocrat 06:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong object. No way is this a FA quality article. In addition to the comments above, almost 3/4 of the article is extremely list & table heavy... Please write (mostly) in prose. Also, the lead needs some serious work. Mikker (...) 09:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Object - Yes, you don't have any references. No in line citations. Horrible, ugly cast table. Lots of bulleted lists. Not to be mean, but I wouldn't pass this for GA. Please send this to peer review. --PresN 21:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object as per Mikkerpikker. Merosonox 07:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: Needs at least a plot summary and information about characters not just a cast list and saying that it is a continuation of Dragonball and they save Earth and other planets.  Orfen User Talk 02:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United Kingdom

This article is full of pictures, over 60 citations and features a detailed history, politics and geography of the countries. It is rated as a good article and I'm surprised it hasn't already been a FA. (Mattpitt1991 13:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC))

Objection. See literature section and recent associated talk page discussion. The need to convert the random lists of names into a proper UK literature summary was agreed but has not yet been addressed. Viewfinder 14:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Object needs reorganization and copyediting. The obvious problem is that there is a lot of UK info to handle, that's understandable. But this size management has killed the "compelling prose" requirement of FAs. The culture sections are very long, as opposed to the history section - there is a lot of imbalance. The "Law" section needs to be compressed into "government," and "cities" should be discussed in a section about "subdivisions," which should talk about counties, burroughs, islands, territories. Rama's arrow 19:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Weak object needs reorganization and imbalance like Rama said. Content is good though. It is very hard to do an article about a country, there's a lot to say. --Pedro 22:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Object Lead is way too long, the infobox looks rather messy (the footnotes for the box are longer than the box itself), still [Citation needed] boxes in the prose. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 18:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Object—poorly written and, I'm afraid, pompous in places. Tony 15:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] North Carolina State University

It is extremely well written, good picture use and a very interesting article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AceKingQueenJack (talk • contribs) .

  • Support —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.188.247.124 (talk • contribs) .
  • Object; the second half of the article needs citations too. --Spangineeres (háblame) 05:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There's lots of blank space at #Chief_executives. Can it be fixed? Thanks. WP 08:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. For the following reasons:
    • Large parts of the article are unreferenced. (Student life and Campus).
    • "People" section is list heavy with little prose. (See University of Michigan for preferred style)
    • Stubby sections. (Student government, Atheletics, etc).
    • Standard appendices don't follow Wikipedia:Guide to layout.
    • Fair-use images like NCSU Technician header.PNG and Newblocks.gif need a detailed fair use rationale.
    • Apart from these objections, I feel that providing external links to each and every department, and detailing all degrees in them doesn't help the article. Also, too many red-links in the template at the bottom is distracting. The lead is also a bit short for an article of this size. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per above, plus:
  1. lead is too short and doesn't sumamrize article
  2. longitude is wrong, it is west longitude, not east.
  3. ref format is not consistent, esp numbers 5 and 17. Rlevse 15:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per above, plus: endowment needs citation, history is very very short, alumni section doesn't follow format set by previous featured articles, see Duke University and look at its format. KnightLago 02:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Green Day

Previous nomination at archive2.

  • Support Resubmitted as it's been improved from this.Buc 09:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have made some quick attempt at fixing your submission moving your commont here from the archived discussion. I also saw that the article had a couple of external links that should be converted to refernces. Jeltz talk 17:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object; large sections of unreferenced text. See especially "The New Millennium (2000–Present)". Also, there's a citation needed tag that needs to be addressed. And please review WP:FUC; I don't think we need to be using this many non-free images. --Spangineeres (háblame) 05:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Too many fair-use images. Almost all of them without source information and fair-use rationale. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per above GShton 21:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object undercited, mixes reference styles, image problem. Sandy 22:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anglo-Saxon hunting

Great article! One of the more scholarly contributions on Wikipedia. I'm surprised it hasn't been published in the Journal of Medieval History, and should be a shoo-in. Much better than most of the pop cultural crap on here. --Pewlosels 06:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Obviously!Pewlosels 06:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • What is that huge cleanup tag saying there? It doesn't have any references! They are required by the Featured article criteria, so I have to object. Titoxd(?!?) 06:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I dont think its a cleanup tag, I think its an "unsourced" tag. In any case, please keep in mind that this is dark ages history and there might not be many sources available, and certainly none in English.Pewlosels 06:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I can assure you there is a huge and growing academic literature on Dark Age history so there may be few popular sources to consult, but there are plenty of academic sources. Mikker (...) 09:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Obviously. There is no way that an article that is unreferenced can be featured. Or scholarly. No scholarly journal has nil references Todd661 08:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Obviously. Ermmm... to the nominator, please familiarise yourself with WP:WIAFA. Thanks, Mikker (...) 09:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object for the most obvious reason of no sources, but I also wonder about the general organization of the article in terms of its title and what it tries to cover. It does cover Anglo-Saxon hunting, but it also covers the Norman period; some change is necessary. Beyond that I didn't scrutinize this too heavily, but I did notice a very unencyclopedic bit at the end about what Robin Hood would think if he lived in the 1960s. Everyking 10:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy close, fails almost every aspect of FAC. --Golbez 13:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy close per WP:SNOW. Kafziel Talk 16:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I went out Anglo-Saxon hunting today, but unfortunately I couldn't find any Anglo-Saxons. --kingboyk 13:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brown Bear

Nomination.The Brown Bear I think is a very well written page. It has many pictures and good illustrations and i hope it will be a featured article. I have nominated it because:

  1. It is a very well written page.

# There are many pictures and they are very clear.

# There are many paragraphs.

# There is lots of info.

Daniel10 14:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for teling me that.

Daniel10 16:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Support Is very good!P.S. I'm italian, but I don't like Italian Wikipedia. W Englis Wiki!

Barbagianni potente, 8.34, 28 september 2006 (UTC)

  • Object Number of issues. See Peer Review script I ran for you and put on the article's talk page. Not enough refs too. Rlevse 15:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Not yet. Random capitalisation. Confusion in section on current habitats in North America & Europe with its history. I gave up after that. JMcC 15:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object To the above concerns, I add that 2 of the 5 pictures in the article are using deprecated image copyright tags: Image:Grizzly_SierraMag_July2005.jpg with {{fairuse}} and Image:Brown_bear_rearing.jpg with {{notify}}.The first one also lacks proper source info (it only says it was scanned from "July/August 2005 Sierra Magazine", but no info on authour or copyright holder). --Abu Badali 17:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You might want to fix the opening sentence. The mass of the bear is not the general focus of the article, and should not be in the first sentence. Sturgeonman 23:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Daniel10 is right, it is a very well-written page. And also I love bears. There is lots of information on it and now two subspecies (Grizzly and Kodiak) have their own articles. Also, the pictures are now not unliscensed. 81.179.113.20 10:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
"And also I love bears." Are you kidding? Sloan21 12:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The imafge copyright issues remain, anon, don't remove copyright infomation from images.--Peta 01:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object the article is disorganised, prose is average, it is poorly cited and there are copyright issues that need to be resolved. Take it to peer review first next time.--Peta 01:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per Peta, lead not compelling, should go to peer review. Sandy 22:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object the section on Bear encounters is unencyclopedic, and requires cleaning up. The lead sentence is inappropriate and the references are too few. --Alex (Talk) 13:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bergen

Nomination. This is a page that i feel doesn't have many major problems, and i could easily see it as a featured article. --Trygvebw 08:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. See Chicago for a sample of a FA on a city. Bergen has no reference section and no inline citations. All the external jumps, ([13]), need to be made footnotes, preferably in cit php format. Rlevse 14:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    Chicago is not an FA.--DaveOinSF 18:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    I don't think so. Chicago has been nominated a couple times before but I don't think it ever passed. San Francisco just recently became an FA. --DaveOinSF 18:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: No citations.—Abraham Lure
  • Now you have some citations, I see. However, the formatting needs fixing so the edit buttons for the Climate, Universities, Commerce and Transportation are in the correct place and not all alongside each other next to the Transportation section. The reason for the fault is the images dominating the entire right of that area of the article. I'd also like to see the citations use templates so the URLs have titles and dates accessed.—Abraham Lure 23:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as there is only an insufficient amount of in-line citations. Also please use the citation template to its full potential and give each reference a title, so the reference section isn't just a long list of URLs. That's said the pictures and illustrations of the article are great! But the citations need some work. Regards, Signaturebrendel 06:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: References and citations have been added. Good illustrations. Might need some slight fixes. --Bohtor 12:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Many sections are completely unreferenced. The vast majority of the references all pertain to a single section. As gerdbrendel stated, none of the references are titled. Also, is it just me, or are there actually too many pictures? Seeing them all in a row, at least, slightly takes away from the article (in my- perhaps singular- opinion). The pictures are also poorly placed- a "typical summer day" next to the "Commerce" section, some houses next to the "Transportation" section, etc. One line in particular is completely out of place; one of the listings under Commerce is "TV industry (TV 2 - the largest commercial TV station's headquarters)", which is grammatically odd, and I don't think TV can really be considered an "industry" nor "commerce". Finally, some of the statistics are only stated in metric (i.e. not converting Celsius to Fahrenheit). I think this article should be peer reviewed and perhaps made a good article before renomination to FA status. -- Kicking222 23:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with Kicking222, perhaps you will have to reorganize a little bit the use of references in order to reach equal results in all the sections, not just one.--Gustavo86 04:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Undercited, has external jumps, peer review might help. Sandy 22:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EastEnders

It failed it's former FAC nomination, but all the reasons it failed have been fixed now, and it's been much improved. Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 18:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It could do with a general copyedit and reordering : I shall try to do that myself at some point. However, apart from this, the content seems far too myopic and focused on events of the 2000s : the 1990s are barely mentioned at all. Morwen - Talk 22:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
In Popular Culture could use changes. You have only referenced Eastenders references on other various television programs, though Eastenders is throughout all British culture. It also seems a little silly that nearly every single program you mention just happens to be a BBC production, as Eastenders is, and so gives little indication of "Eastenders in popular culture". Some references and more depth is required there. However, the paragraph about Derek Martin being on Little Britain goes into far too much depth and feels gratuitous.—Abraham Lure 23:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Certain parts still need inline citations. Also, there's a 'Trivia section' - either put the info elsewhere in the article or rid. LuciferMorgan 01:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Poorly referenced, doesn't conform to WP:LAYOUT, has a Trivia section. Sandy (Talk) 15:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments/Questions: How can you say it's poorly referenced?! And maybe you'd like to say how it doesn't conform to WP:LAYOUT? (And I've removed the trivia section - which was an aim of our project, and now I've found a sitable place to put the information...) Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 20:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Masturbation

Excellent article. Well written and cited and very through. Mercenary2k 12:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: without going in detail, I notice there is an odd mix between references in footnotes(<ref></ref>) and external links(like [16]) in the main text. If possible (and it ought to) I feel that all external links should be converted into footnoted references. WegianWarrior 13:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Object—1a, 1b, 2a.

    • "It can refer to excitation either by oneself or by another (see mutual masturbation). It is part of a larger set of activities known as autoeroticism ..."—This is contradictory: masturbation by another person is hardly autoerotic.
    • References urgently needed in the lead.
    • The lead doesn't prepare me for the greater level of detail in the body of the text.
    • "Is believed to"—by whom? I want a reference if you're going to use that wording.
    • Do we need to know about an "esoteric and little-used synonym" just below the ToC?
    • "Female masturbation techniques are quite numerous and perhaps more varied than those of males."—"Quite" is not encyclopedic in this context (vague); nor is "perhaps".

I'm not bothering with the rest; I get the gist. It's vague and indulges in many sweeping, unreferenced claims. Tony 16:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. Seriously. The lead needs work and the referencing is horrible. It mixes footnotes, direct external links and Harvard. More than that, there is at least one {{fact}} tag and huge sections of the article is unrefed. Please withdraw nom. Mikker (...) 23:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. per above. Sumoeagle179 00:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm delisting this nomination per WP:SNOW. Bishonen | talk 06:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Pornography in the United States

After passing the GA status, the article underwent some more edits and I finally decided to put it. --Brand спойт 19:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

First sentence: "Pornography in the United States as a legal term by itself at the federal level, except the generic terms "hardcore pornography" and "child pornography", does not exist since the 1973 Miller v. California case, when the U.S. Supreme Court added a legal significance to the term "obscenity", which encompasses the hardcore and is defined by the Miller test."
To be honest, this sentence was so incomprehensible I had to stop. Give me a few minutes. Marskell 21:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment I'm with Marskell. Um, what? -- Kicking222 22:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, is the seal of the US Supreme Court really necessary? How does it improve the article in any way? -- Kicking222 22:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the article simply needs some marginal images rather than of nude girls :P --Brand спойт 10:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In its present state the article is often unintelligible (right from the first sentence, as mentioned above). Remarkably, the article barely mentions feminism, a subject that surely has much bearing on pornography in the US. Much rewriting and rethinking of the article is needed before it can reasonably be made a FA. Pinkville 23:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
OK. The current peer review apparently failed, thanks for pointing out here. --Brand спойт 12:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll oppose, having had my few minutes. Normally I wouldn't do so immediately, but this is so far from 1a that it shouldn't be considered for FA at this point. Brand has put in a lot of work, but (not to offend in the slightest) a native speaker needs to engage this to correct for tense and use of prepositions. The writing is just not right. To use an example from the already cited first sentence, "does not exist since" ought to be "has not existed since" (the sentence needs total reworking otherwise). Many other examples can be pulled out. This leaves aside the coverage issue.
  • And I just gotta ask this: why did this become a good article four days ago? Really, what are they doing over there? Marskell 23:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • You'd have to ask Lincher, as he's the one who reviewed it. --PresN 05:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh yeah, Oppose. --PresN 05:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Oppose—Appallingly written. To reinforce what Marskell says, I'd vote to close down the GA system on this basis. It's a journey into the random, without checks and balances. Tony 01:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shit

Why not? Jay Kana 20:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Because of the two ugly maintenance tags?
  • Or the fact that there aren't any references?--Paul 21:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

there is a lot of needless junk on this page it needs a good clean up. Jmm6f488 14:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big Brother (UK series 7)

Self nomination This article has been reviewed, and the concerns addressed have been met. I think it's time that WP:BIGBRO had a large achievement. --Alex (Talk) 21:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Seems poorly written. It's not enough to end every sentence with a footnote; it has to be well written and interesting too. I'll wait until our more knowledgeable reviewers and copyeditors speak up, but to me on first look it seems to be some way from brilliant prose. --kingboyk 22:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I feel like you use the official website far too much, especially for a tv show which is, when airing, almost continually in 3rd party media.—Abraham Lure 23:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Almost entirely referenced to one website (it's own); numerous short stubby paragraphs; still has an ongoing peer review, where it's only been one week; and as noted by Kingboyk, there's nothing compelling or brilliant here. It merely retells an already boring story. If the first two sentences in the body are indicative of the rest of the text, it's not enticing. "Of the twenty-two housemates introduced into the House through the whole series, fourteen entered on the launch night. This was more than in any previous series." "Introduced into" the house? "Through" the whole series? Which number was more than any previous: 14 or 22? Is this sentence trying to say something like: There were fourteen housemates when the series started, growing to a total of twenty-two participants—more than any previous Big Brother series. I'm not sure what the sentences are trying to say. Sandy 23:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Please don't say the story is "boring" even if you think it is. Firstly "boring" is probably the wrong word to use, and secondly the whole point of this review is to see how it would do as a FA, not what you personally think of the show. It isn't the place for personal opinion, and while I respect it may need rewriting in places, it is only "boring" if you have the opinion that it is. Thank you. --Alex (Talk) 09:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Alex: my "boring" referred to the story line of the show, not your article. But you've still got to work to get compelling, brilliant prose from the material dealt you by Big Brother. Sandy 09:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that you thought the show story line was boring, because that is my point above: assess the article not the subject. --Alex (Talk) 09:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm saying that your prose still has to be compelling. Sandy 09:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Fails 1(b) and 4. I don't think the article is anything like analytic enough. The largest part of it simply consists of a summary of the events in the house. Almost all the references are to the C4 official website. For a featured article I would expect extensive press references and more discussion of the differing views on reality TV. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 09:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The differing views of reality TV are probably best left to the main Big Brother UK article. --Alex (Talk) 09:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Right. But this article is presented without any background or context at all. The first occurence of the word "task", for example, is "Sam and Aisleyne, were introduced[2] as part of the Meal or No Meal task (see Week 2)", and then (Week 1) "The first task was "The Big Brotherhood"". I know the BB format, but assume your readers don't. Sloppy writing abounds: "George walked from the House on Day 13 as he didn't want to be famous.", "All the housemates (with the exception of Bonnie, Dawn and Glyn) became members of "The Big Brotherhood"." (what the hell's that?). "This series saw the largest number of housemates to leave without eviction, with three exiting the House. This beat series 3, where there were a total of fourteen housemates and two people walked;" Is is a contest for how many leave without "eviction"? "Walked"?? --kingboyk 10:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Move to peer review. Poorly structured. Doesn't provide context. Far from brilliant prose. Not an interesting read. Sorry, but tis true. --kingboyk 10:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
It has already had a peer review, where it received mstly positive feedback, and the negative areas were addressed. Could you please provide examples for your above statement? --Alex (Talk) 10:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
No, it's currently on peer review (according to the notice on the talk page anyway), and yes I have read the PR. This article is way below FA so I'm not going to give a detailed analysis on FAC. I'll post the above comments and a few other points on the PR. As it currently stands, you should be looking at GA first as the prose doesn't need to be so brilliant. However, even for GA you'll need to provide more context. --kingboyk 10:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, but it wasn't helpful that it was only thse who had helped with the article reviewed it. Do you suggest I delist this? --Alex (Talk) 10:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think that would be best. This article can get to FA, but it's some way off. It needs severe copyediting and restructuring. I think you should aim for GA first which isn't so strict on brilliant prose. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I hope you can use the advice here and on the PR to make a really great article. --kingboyk 11:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] White Dawg

A compelling and masterfully written article on one of the most poignant and heartfelt young philosophes of the contemporary Western World. I don't know how we could have missed this one. Policratus 19:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Policratus 19:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm going to assume good faith that this is a serious nomination, and suggest the nom withdraw, get some more sources, and put it through a peer review before trying this again. Next to no sources, not very compelling for prose, hardly comprehensive. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I'm fairly certain this nomination was a joke; this was the nominator's second action as an editor at Wikipedia other than to nominate the Ainu people article for deletion. --Kuzaar-T-C- 19:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose and speedy remove from list per Kuzaar. Rlevse 20:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zoo Tycoon 2: Endangered Species

My FIRST featured article candidate. It is super cool, and also, it hasn't been edited in a while.

Sigeway 17:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment You are right, Sigeway, the article has not been edited since 27th September (just to be accurate). By the way, I made the article, Zoo Tycoon 2: Endangered Species.

Daniel10 17:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong object not even close, speedy remove per WP:SNOW. Rlevse 17:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong object, Speedy Close. It's rated as a stub on the talk page, and there's a reason for that. --PresN 18:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong object I haven't seen that username in the page's history. Probably a joke based off of the ridiculous FA nom for Earthbound. --Tristam 04:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HSV Senator

This is a nominated article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voritecorp (talk • contribs)

  • No references. See WP:WIAFA. So short that it's probably not even worth a peer review. The article is almost unable to be read unless the reader has a knowledge of abbreviations relating to car engines. -- Kicking222 02:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - no refs, trivia section, inaccessable to non-technical reader, not great writing, too short... you get the picture. Please work on expanding, and submit to peer review. --PresN 02:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. 137.22.121.199 02:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)