Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/April 2008

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

The article was promoted 23:15, 30 April 2008.

[edit] Degrassi: The Next Generation

previous FAC (02:34, 13 December 2007)

Self-nominator. The article has undergone a Good Article Review and and Peer Review since it's first FA nomination. It is currently a Good Article. The PR closed on April 9, since then the article has undergone minor and asethetic edits. It is fairly stable, except on Fridays, when new episodes air in the United States. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support My only issue was resolved. If there are other issues later, I am sure they will be fixed. I couldn't find anything major. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment You have a no route to host external link. PeterSymonds | talk 17:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't really know what that means, or how to reply, except to say that the link works.. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 21:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The picture captioned "The character Emma Nelson, introduced in Degrassi Junior High," is causing heading problems and should probably be moved around, or "concept" should be expanded so that she fits in the whole section. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it up to the top of the section and to the right side of the page for now. I'll trawl the internet to see if I can add anything else, but I think the paragraph covers all the information there is. How is the image placement now? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Its better (heading wise) but now she is looking the opposite way. lol. That poor girl. I attempted a small expansion relying on the information provided in one of your references. How does that look? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

lol, I didn't even think about that! And your edit is wonderful, thank you. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 01:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Glad to be of help at the Peer Review. PeterSymonds | talk 06:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • current ref 4 Stohn, Stephen "Shooting Season 3" says it's from a message board.
    • That's right. The prose in the article under the Exec producers section gives more information:

"When production of season three began, a user on the official D:TNG website with the alias "ExecProducer" began a thread called "Shooting Season 3", revealing production details, guest actors, scheduling information and DVD release details. He referred to himself as "Stephen Stohn" in one post, although although it was not until the release of the Degrassi: Generations - The Official 411 guidebook in 2005, when Stohn confirmed the rumor." References are given in the article. I would hope that given this, an WP:IAR clause might apply here :) -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

For some reason, the link checker tool didn't translcude onto the page, so didn't check that. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything has been addressed, I think. Thanks so far! -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support - the peer review was vast and I'm glad to see all major issues have been well dealt with. Good work... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support all my concerns have been addressed. Collectonian (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose with some grammar comments: (it's early, so let me know if I'm wrong on anything)

• "130 episodes have aired as of April 28, 2008." - Don't start a sentence with a number

• Fixed with "As of April 28, 2008, 130 episodes have aired."

• "The Degrassi universe was created in 1980 by Linda Schuyler, a former school teacher, and her partner Kit Hood under their production company Playing With Time" - passive voice

• Fixed with "Linda Schuyler, a former school teacher, and her partner Kit Hood, under their production company Playing With Time created the Degrassi universe in 1980"

• "During the next few months, they slowly start planning what has happened to the characters of Degrassi High in order to develop a reunion themed show." - wrong verb tense

• Fixed with "Over the following months, they slowly started planning what had happened to the characters of Degrassi High in order to develop a reunion-themed show."

• "In May, 2000, the project was pitched with the original reunion episode plan serving as the pilot to the new series." - passive voice

• Fixed with "The project was pitched to CTV with the original reunion episode serving as the pilot to the new series in May 2000."

• "During the first three seasons the lyrics, which include the line "whatever it takes, I know I can make it through", were performed by a children's choir over an 80s pop tune." - passive voice

• Fixed by rewriting the first half of the paragraph.

• "In season four the theme was reworked by Dave Ogilvie and Anthony Valcic of Canadian industrial/pop group Jakalope," - passive voice

• Fixed with "Dave Ogilvie and Anthony Valcic of Canadian industrial/pop group Jakalope reworked and performed the song with a heavier sound, reflecting the growing maturity of the characters in season four."

• "Jim McGrath creates a musical score using an instrumental version of the theme music" - this sentence seems odd. I think it should say "creates the"

• Done

• Completely pedantic question: In "Filming locations", is there any reason to write about Stages A, C, and B in that particular order?

• Done Fixed by rearranging alphabetically

• "In the pilot episode, seven actors from the previous Degrassi actors fourteen actors reprised their roles for a school reunion." - self-explanatory

• Fixed with "The pilot episode featured the return of seven Degrassi alumni."

• "An example of this is when he named Caitlin Bree from the movie Clerks after his favorite Degrassi character, Caitlin Ryan." - start with "for example"

• Done

• "In 2005, Smith and Mewes guest star as themselves in the final three episodes of the fourth season" - verb tense

• Done

• "While the earlier Degrassi series aired in Canada on CBC, Degrassi: The Next Generation airs on CTV, and as Degrassi, nouvelle génération on VRAK.TV, the French language channel.[51]." - stray period after the citation, "and as" doesn't make sense

• Fixed with "...and the French language channel VRAK.TV as Degrassi, nouvelle génération'"

• "and it wasn't until the ninth episode that CTV actually aired an episode before The N" - contraction

• Done

• "and it wasn't until the thirteenth that CTV were able to premiere new episodes" - contraction

• Done

• "Registered users of the Canadian and American iTunes Stores are also able to purchase" - try "can purchase" or "may purchase"

• Done. Went with "may"

• "By the end of season two, it had become the most popular Canadian show for the three younger age groups" - maybe "youngest" should be here?

• Fixed. Also changed "kids" to children", "teens" to teenagers" and "adults" to "young adults"

• "Criticism" should be renamed "Critical reception"

• Done

• "The latter episodes were not shown for three years, causing an uproar amongst fans who organised a petition and caught the attention of the CBC, the National Post and The London Free Press in Canada, and the New York Times in the U.S." - did the fans catch attention, or did the petition?

• Good catch. Fixed.

This is what I have for now. Give me a shout when this has been taken care of.-Wafulz (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Hopefully they've been addressed correctly. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 17:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll give the article another read Thursday or Friday.-Wafulz (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 23:15, 30 April 2008.

[edit] Interstate 70 in Utah

Self-Nom: I'm nominating this article for featured article because... Over the course of the past year this article has steadily progressed from stub to a GA (rated A class by WP:USRD.) I have tried to write this page in a style that it would be interesting to both a roadgeek and a general audience. I think this article would make a good FA, and am willing to fix whatever is found that is not FA worthy.Davemeistermoab (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment - speaking as a roadgeek myself (M62 motorway), I think it'd be a good idea to swap the route and history sections around, seeing as the history section provides a bit of discontinuity. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Manual of Style calls for the route description to come first. It is my understanding that the ordering of those 2 sections has been the subject of a long-standing debate with supporters on either side. I'd prefer to see more comments before re-ordering. On a personal level, I would be happy with either ordering. Davemeistermoab (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said in the NY 174 FAC, in my mind, it really depends on what sort of history the history section focuses on to determine whether history or RD should be first. Since I-70's history mostly focuses on construction and similar pre-Interstate routes, I think it would be fine to switch them, since you don't have the lack of context issues due to the comparison between the historic present-day routing that you have with NY 174. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with switching, if consensus says that's better. What I don't want to do is spend 3 hours on a major overhaul of the article, to have the next reviewer say. You know, it would be better if you put the Route description first. =-)Dave (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't take three hours to switch it around. Just copy-and-paste it to the desired location. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

To do it right would. I'd have to go through and find all acronyms that are explained in in the Route description section but also used in the History section. Then move the text that explains what the San Rafael Swell is to the history section, etc. It would take time.Dave (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That is true. Personally, I think the Route Description should come before History. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a revision with the sections reversed at User:Davemeistermoab/sandbox, if anybody else wants to opine on which order is better. However, I'm inclined to believe the article does read better with the history section first.Dave (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments—Good, but could still do with a spruce up in the prose department. Here are random examples:

• Case issues: "Unlike most Interstate Highways"—MOS says generic items are in lower case, I think. And pipe the link to "U.S. Highway" for the same reason. Interstate Highway System ... that seems to require lower case too, despite the usage in the title of the eponymous article.

Interstate Highway and U.S. Highway are proper nouns in the United States. Interstate Highway (with caps) refers to a specific network of highways authorized by congress in 1956. Similarly U.S. Highway (in caps) refers to a different network of highways first established in 1926.

• "also" is rather freely bandied about. The last one in the lead could go.

Removed

• "trumpet interchange" redirects to a broader article; can you pipe to the section, at least?

Changed redirect

• Subtitle "Route description"—why not dispense with the second word?

This is the recommended title to be used per Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Manual of Style

• "an odd looking mountain"—something missing?

Nice Catch, thanks

• "Big Rock Candy Mountain" links to an article about a song, so pipe-link "song" instead.

Done

• "Interstate 70 inside Spotted Wolf Canyon"—Inside is a little awkward. "in"? or recast?

Done

• "2 major geographic obstacles"—MOS breach.

Fixed, Thanks

And more ... TONY (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I am fixing the above items on my sandbox copy. I'll have the article updated with fixes shortly. Thanks for the review.Dave (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, there is a difference between Interstate Highway and interstate highway... for example, Interstate 16 is an Interstate Highway but not an interstate highway. --Rschen7754 (T C) 16:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

In terms of "Route description" - that is how all of the road articles are supposed to do it across the board per WP:HWY, WP:USRD, WP:CRWP, and WP:UKRD, including the recently passed FACs, New York State Route 174 and Interstate 355. --16:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - very good article, would like to see some more in regards to some minor issues...

• FA articles should generally have no red wikilinks.
  • That is incorrect. There is nothing wrong with redlinks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Those were wikilinked per request at ACR, removed.

• What is a UDOT? This acronym is wikilinked, ...but a FA article should have all acronyms explained at least once in the article.

This is spelled out in the first instance in prose, in the "Wasatch Plateau" section, however it wasn't wikilinked, so it still needs to be fixed.

Thanks again.

• Same with a BLM? This acronym is wikilinked, but still should be written out at least once IMHO

Same, This is spelled out in the first instance in prose, in the Transcontinental Railroads section.

Thanks

• The intro states that It does not serve or connect any large cities in Utah. and then their is a tabular box listing major cities. Can this be clarified - what is a large city and what is a major city?

Good point, I'll have to work on this a bit. This is explained in the "Sevier Valley" section of the article, but not accurately summarized in the lead. I'll work on it.

I have clarified the lead. Please advise if you still have objections.

Ahh !I understand now :-)

• Is there any information regarding speed limits along the route?

I'll see what I can find. I know this information, it's more of a question of finding a "reliable source".

Sigh, I have found websites that list speed limit information, but these would surely be challenged as reliable sources. I cannot find any official table on UDOT or FWHA's website. Sorry. I can add the site I found as an external link, if agreed this would be ok.

Thanks - For the search, the citations would be necessary for such a fact so an external link is fine by me. Twas just curious with the description of the terrain and the emergency semi brake run off and such. SriMesh | talk 01:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The external link I found is here:[1]. Although, this is not complete, missing the truck speed limits (40MPH) placed on the hilly areas. I'll keep looking, and if I can't find a better one, use this as an external link. The page is actually very good, but with a URL of members.aol.com would certainly be challenged as a self published source. Dave (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• What are the naming conventions for Utah interstate articles? There is Interstate 80 Interstate 70 in Utah Interstate 15 in Utah and Interstate 215 (Utah)

The convention for the WP:USRD project is Interstate 80 refers to the national article for a multi-state Interstate Highway. Interstate 70 in Utah refers to the single state portion of a multi-state Interstate Highway and Interstate 215 (Utah) refers to when there are two or more single-state Interstate Highways with the same number. This would be better explained in the Interstate Highway System article, and it is to an extent.

• Can/should the USA route of the full Interstate 70 be shown in the Utah article for those not familiar with how the interstate highway impacts upon this Utah segment of the I-70?

The national route is depicted on the national article, which is the first wikilink in the lead.

Kind Regards and good luck SriMesh | talk 01:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I am making the requested changes on my sandbox copy and will have them fixed shortly.Dave (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The statement above about redlinks was incorrect; notable topics and people should be redlinked, and there is nothing wrong with redlinks, in an FA or in any article. If you removed necessary redlinks, pls reinstate them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I wish you would have responded 5 minutes quicker. I just removed them. Thanks for the correction. I'll put them back =-)Dave (talk) 04:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Mentioned the red wikilinks, as I have had articles at GAC not approved due to red links and the article needed updating, or red link article creation. Thanks for the heads up, that tis not pre-requisite.SriMesh | talk 01:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Due to the above improvements changed comments to support, great article, and good luck again. Thanks for the notes and commentsSriMesh | talk 01:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

mentioned above.

• Comment I don't see the bolding of the title in the lead. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Lead_section#Formatting a bold title is not always appropriate. I chose not to bold the title so that I could wikilink Interstate 70 in the first sentence, which I felt to be more important. This same portion of the MOS advises against having bolded links in the lead. However, if you have a better way to word the lead sentence to allow both bolding and a wikilink, I would be most grateful. I freely admit I'm not the worlds best writer, as evidenced by the number of grammatical errors found by others. I have debated using the {{main}} template to accomplish this. Thanks for the review. Dave (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Raul uses the lead to write the blurbs for TFA, so when you can comply with WP:LEAD, it's helpful to do so. I made some changes to bold the article title;[2] more tweaking may be needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit Sandy. To respond to some of the edit summaries: I knew it was questionable if "State Route 4" should be bolded or not. There is a discussion going on about this at WP:USRD right now, with a misconception currently prevailing. I will report your comments to avoid other road related FAC's from having the same issue. I take responsibility for the sloppy template coding. I didn't know which template to use for a newspaper article, and ended up changing like 4 or 5 times. The slop you saw was leftovers from the older templates. Thanks again.Dave (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's less of a misconception than it is interpreting WP:REDIRECT against WP:MOSBOLD. I'd advise SandyGeorgia to see this discussion for what I believe are valid concerns about removing boldface from designations that redirect to that article. – TMF 04:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

OpposeI feel bad for chiming in so late, but I have a big problem with the unshielded main image. See the New York State Route 28 FAC discussion above and the discussion at WT:USRD/MTF.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're being picky here. Isn't this like rejecting an FA for FDR because the lead photo doesn't show him in a wheelchair? I'll see what I can do with improving the map, but I don't think this is grounds alone for rejecting an FA, nor do I think the Maps task force could re-do it in time for this review, even if consensus says as current is "bad".Dave (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this is way too minor to warrant an oppose. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support, concerns addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Comments Very good, almost there.
  • The lead is a little jarring in its series of short sentences. There are some related ideas that could be connected, such as: "It does not serve or connect any urban areas in Utah. Richfield is the largest Utah city served by the freeway." Actually, the second sentence sort of implies the first.

I have played with the lead. Please advise if you still have concerns.

• • "Unlike most Interstate Highways..." I don't think I would capitalize when you are referring to "interstate highways" generally and not by name.

I know you struck the objection per comments of others, but as this has been raised twice now I would like to explain. Interstate 70 is an Interstate Highway (with caps). There is a difference. Interstate 19 is an Interstate Highway but not an interstate highway. U.S. Route 50 is an interstate highway but not an Interstate Highway. It's a roadgeek thing =-)

That makes much more sense than previous explanations - thank you. --Laser brain (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• • "Because I-70 was built over an entirely new route, I-70 has many notable oddities in the Interstate Highway System." Notable oddities? The next things you mention are more "trivia" or "interesting facts" than oddities. An oddity would be a loop-the-loop or something.

I see your point, but I've tried 3 or 4 ways and I can't come up with a better way to word this. I welcome your suggestions.

What do you think of it the way I reworded it? --Laser brain (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)s

That's fine, thanks. Dave (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• • A bit of overlinking.. you don't need to link general terms like "motorist" and "environmentalist".

Removed 4 linked terms.

• • In the Sevier Valley heading, there are four sentences (including three in a row) that begin with "The highway..."

The word highway only appeared in 3 instances in the entire paragraph, and once as an adjective, so you're exaggerating a little bit. =-) That's ok though, your point was valid, and I removed one instance.

• • "The construction of the freeway through the swell is considered 'one of the most significant highway construction feats of its time' and is an engineering marvel." You really need a source for a statement like this that isn't published by the DOT.

Currently the claim is sourced by the Federal Highway Administration, not the state DOT that built it. If you prefer, The Deseret News article could also be used to source this claim.

• • I would like to see a footer row in the Exit list table citing a source. --Laser brain (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The exit list is already sourced on the top of the table. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I see that but I don't care for it. Someone looking for the source of data for the whole table isn't going to be looking for a footnote over one heading. I think tables of data should write out the source in a footer row. See how this is done in Saffron. --Laser brain (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I tried your suggestion and I like it. But this is breaking tradition in the WP:USRD articles, so prepare for some backlash =-).

I love a rebel. It looks good, though - maybe it'll catch on! --Laser brain (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and feedback. Please advise if I have not addressed your concerns.Dave (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • Regarding "Interstate Highway"- this has already been mentioned and addressed above. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I saw. I don't actually agree that you are using it as a proper noun in that case, but it's not worth pursuing. --Laser brain (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
        • U.S. Route 395 is an interstate highway but not an Interstate Highway. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment re: Interstate vs. interstate highways & maps:

• This is a part of the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, also known as the Interstate Highway System. Not all Interstate Highways run across state lines. There are four such highways on the island of Oahu, thousands of miles from the mainland. Interstate 96 only runs in Michigan. Other highways run interstate, i.e. across state lines, such as U.S. Route 41 which runs from Copper Harbor, MI to Miami, FL. I-70 is an Interstate Highway because it is part of the Interstate Highway System, even if this article is only about the section in Utah. As such I will oppose any an all further discussion to suggest using interstate when it is properly an Interstate. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• The second point that has drawn some criticism from me watching this review is over the map. It is all fine and dandy to express a preference over changes to the map. Unfortunately though, maps are not as easily edited as the rest of the content of an article. Unlike the prose content of the article, graphics do require some specialized tools for editing. The editor that created the map is no longer as active on Wikipedia as previously, something I lament for other reasons. The editor that did the majority of the work on this article may or may not have the graphic arts or mapping skills needed to make the changes being requested. If a reviewer cannot find anything more that he feels is unacceptable than how a map is drawn, a map which forms a small part of the total information presented, and uses that map as the sole basis for an opposition to the promotion of an otherwise fine article, then I say it is well within the judgement of the FA directors to disregard that opposition when deciphering consensus.

Having said all of that, I tentatively 'support promotion of this article, reserving the right to offer constructive suggestions for improvement. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support I honestly don't see anything wrong with the article. In my eyes, the prose is excellent and engaging, and made me want to read it until the end of the article. Amazing amount of information and references, as well. A very informing and interesting read. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 18:14, 29 April 2008.

[edit] Nebular hypothesis

Self-nominator. I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been significantly expanded and now, in my opinion, is FA ready. This article is about the currently prevailing theory on formation of the planets. Ruslik (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

All other links and sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support I did not give it a thorough reading, because the topic is extremely dense, but from what I have read, it appears to be well done. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support—It's a fine article and appears to meet the FA criteria. I may be seeing the occasional missing article or hyphen, but I'll let the grammar experts check that. =) —RJH (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support This is an excellent explanation of the hypothesis. Despite the necessary astronomical terms, the prose is engaging. I enjoyed reading the article and I will enjoy reading it again. It is a fine example of those few and far between articles that engage the reader enough to make return visits. I usually spot problems with grammar; there are none that I can see. Well done. --GrahamColm^Talk 19:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm sorry, Ruslik, I did not get to this during PR; not editing much. Please can you deal with the excess bluelink problem? The same terms are linked over and over again. Marskell (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed excessive bluelinks. Now every long subsection has only one wikilink for every term. Ruslik (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect there are some missing hyphens throughout the article, but I'm not a grammarian: perhaps ask Tony1 to check?

producing 1 cm sized particles.[10] ... The accretion process, by which 1 km planetesimals grow into 1,000 km sized bodies, ...

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 18:14, 29 April 2008.

[edit] Boydell Shakespeare Gallery

This article on an eighteenth-century project that was dedicated to promoting Shakespeare both through art and through a new edition of the Bard's plays has been quite difficult to write. The project covers a gallery of paintings, a folio of prints, and an edition of the plays. The article has been peer reviewed and critiqued on the talk page. Rupert Clayton has provided valuable assistance, particularly with regards to the gallery building itself. One hurdle to be overcome in writing this article is the source limitations: the most commonly cited sources are two dissertations. I have used them because they are the most complete sources and because they are cited by other published works on the topics. I am not sure this issue has arisen at FAC before, but I wanted to make reviewers aware of it. I know this issue has arisen elsewhere on Wikipedia and I wasn't sure what the ultimate consensus was regarding the use of dissertations. I believe that since there is so little scholarship on this topic and since these dissertations are cited by experts in the field, their use is justified. Awadewit (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Watching this since since it's inception last November, and am impressed with its development since. Its great. Ceoil (talk) 10:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Comment - it's excellent work, but it seems a little confused over what the Boydell Shakespeare Gallery was. The lead says it was was a collection of pictures...focused around an illustrated edition of William Shakespeare's works and a folio of prints from the London gallery; later on we are told Boydell's Shakespeare project contained three parts: an illustrated edition of Shakespeare's plays, a folio of prints from the gallery... and a public gallery where the original paintings for the prints would hang; and then we get The "magnificent and accurate" Shakespeare edition which Boydell began in 1786 was to be the focus of his enterprise. The second explanation treating it as a "project" would seem better to me (after all, Boydell published other works "From the Shakespeare Gallery" that weren't anything to do with Shakespeare). Yomangani^talk 14:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Boydell started by thinking that the edition and its illustrations would be the focus but then the gallery took over the project. How best to make this clear? The initial statements attempt to describe what the gallery is and later the articles tries to describe the changing focus of the project. Any help on this would be appreciated. (Note: all of the works associated with the Shakespeare Gallery were on Shakespearean subjects, as far as I know.) Awadewit (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe just reword the opening paragraph, as the rest isn't contradictory. I left a suggestion—very much a draft—on the talk page. (With regard to the note: he published Hogarth's Works in 1790 from the Shakespeare Gallery—admittedly there were a few Shakespearean scenes in there, but it wasn't chiefly a Shakespeare set). Yomangani^talk 15:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Are you sure the Hogarth's Works was connected with the Gallery and not a separate project? During the 1790s the Boydells engaged in several other projects. If this is part of the Gallery, it should be part of the article. Do you have any references for that? Awadewit (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• See new first paragraph of lead. Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• The publisher info reads thus:The Original Works of William Hogarth. Sold by John and Josiah Boydell, at the Shakespeare Gallery, Pall-Mall, and No. 90, Cheapside, London, 1790. I suppose you could argue they weren't publishing it as a "Shakespeare Gallery" edition, but it probably rates a mention. It's reproduced in Hogarth's Graphic Works, 3rd edition, p.20. (The plates that Boydell bought from Jane Hogarth were sold off in the auction too). Yomangani^talk 18:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think you can use that as evidence since the Boydell publishing firm was located at that building throughout all of the years of the Shakespeare enterprise and published other books under that address (as the article notes). I think that is just advertising for the Shakespeare Gallery embedded in publishing information. Moreover, everything Boydell owned was sold off in the auction. I think we need much more solid evidence than this that Hogarth's Prints was considered part of the Shakespeare enterprise. I haven't seen it mentioned in any of the published works I have read on the Gallery, so I am reticent to include it on such slim evidence. Awadewit (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't have a problem with not including it; the "at the Shakespeare Gallery" was what I wanted to point out, and the new lead makes it clear it is more than just a collection of paintings (the mention of the plates being sold off was just for colour. I think it is a sad twist that Hogarth got the whole Shakespeare painting thing rolling and Boydell ends up having to flog his plates off to finance the white elephant of the gallery). Anyway, you've addressed my one niggle, so I'm supporting. Have you considered using Hogarth's David Garrick as Richard III in place of the scene from The Tempest? - you could illustrate two sub-topics with a single image (but maybe that's over the top). Yomangani^talk 23:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• I used to have that image in the article when the Shakespeare section was longer. :) Replaced. Awadewit (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

All other links and sources look good. I don't have an issue with using a dissertation, myself. In medieval history, it isn't that unknown to cite dissertations and theses. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I also have no problem with the dissertations, considering they appear to comply with WP:SPS: the most commonly cited sources are two dissertations. I have used them because they are the most complete sources and because they are cited by other published works on the topics. But. My long experience at WP:FAR tells me that we don't want to be chasing this down five years from now if Awadewit is gone from Wiki and someone questions those sources (it is such a shame to have to defeature articles because no one is around who can locate the original info, and it happens frequently). It would be helpful to leave a record of the authors' credentials and publications on the FAC, where they can easily be tracked down five years from now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The two major dissertations used have both been published by Garland Press and would be available in any major university research library. I'm not sure what credentials and publications you want me to list here - if these authors had gone on to write books and articles on their dissertation topics, I would have used those. They did not. I have already listed the reasons I used the dissertations. Awadewit (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If they would be widely available, then there's no issue (that wasn't clear from your first statement). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick comment on this... I'd say a dissertation (even unpublished) is absolutely a reliable source. And North American dissertations, at least, are easy enough to get hold of (increasingly as online download) from UMI (though that link may require a subscription) in Michigan. In fact, here's mine! If you order it from them, I get a (very small) royalty! Go on, you know you want to!  ;) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Certainly meets FA standard, although I would hope it can be broadened as per my earlier comments on the talk page at some point. Johnbod (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• I tried to address those. I added a paragraph or so about the engravings from the catalogue I obtained and more material on the artistic legacy of the Gallery's works. Unfortunately, the articles in the catalogue discuss many of the paintings individually. It is a good resource for the artists' individual articles, I think. Awadewit (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I wonder if you could get Tony1 to give this the once-over. I felt that the prose was awkward at times, and though I tried to do some copy-editing I didn't have time or energy to do more. (Probably the same for Tony1, sadly). A couple of quick examples: —This is part of a comment by Jbmurray (of 10:19, April 25, 2008 ), which was interrupted by the following:

  "the theatre was rebounding" Strange word, and "rebounding" from what?

Explaining the decline of the theatre after the Restoration would be outside the scope of the article, I think. What do you think? Reworded: According to Shakespeare scholar Gary Taylor, although the theatre was undergoing a revival, it was not profitable for dramatists, and thus very few good tragedies were written during this time. Awadewit (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Shakespeare's reputation profited from this dearth, for his were the only decent ones playing." "Dearth" and "decent" both seem odd choices.

Reworded: Shakespeare's reputation profited from this lack: his were the only good dramas playing. Awadewit (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• NB was Shakespeare really promoted as British rather than (more specifically) English?

• Absolutely - Shakespeare helped bring the disparate parts of British culture together. Britons united around Shakespeare as a great national writer. Rising "British" nationalism specifically was tied to him. Awadewit (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Shakespeare would have considered himself an Englishman, and "Britain" wasn't yet formed in the sense that people would apply to the time. Furthermore, most English would not consider themselves "British" in the 18th century, nor in the 19th century. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We are not talking about what Shakespeare considered himself. We are talking about his reputation in the eighteenth century. Those are very different concepts. There are many books about the rise of British nationalism in the eighteenth century. One is Linda Colley's Britons (this is one of the standard narratives of the period). This article is based on well-known Shakespearean scholarship that documents the rise of Shakespeare's reputation as part of British nationalism in the eighteenth century. See Gary Taylor's book (in the bib), for example. Awadewit (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with Awadewit's answer. Mine was a query from a non-expert. (And I don't think anything in the article needs to be changed on this point.) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I am dissatisfied with her answer. I have never, never, in my experience found anyone who deemed Shakespeare as British in the 18th century. He has always been called an Englishman. Most of those who lived in England called themselves English. British was a colonial term. It was a term despised by most of the people. Most of the 18th century writers, even in the colonies, titled themselves "Englishman". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The only book I have that covers this is Jonathan Bate's The Genius of Shakespeare, which is about the history of Shakespeare's reputation. Bate says: "conceived as the foundation of a British school of 'history painting', the Boydell paintings were intended to offer a more idealized and heroic repertoire of Shakespearean images than were available in the theatre"; Bate also suggests that "Shakespeare rose to pre-eminence in the period 1660–1830 on the back of the British Empire, the strength of the middle class and the reaction against the French Revolution". This is so close to what is in the article that I had to check that Bate wasn't the reference. qp10qp (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Qp's quote speaks for itself. Its conclusions match the other scholarship I have read on this issue. Awadewit (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Qp's quote only proves that scholars now use the term. Not that the term was used back then. There is a huge difference, and anachronism is another word for wrong. By calling him British, you would be appealing to a Scottish sentiment, which was not what those of the 18th century would have done, unless they were Scottish. That is a fact. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, Qp's source is wrong. "Great Britain" was established by the Act of Union in 1707. That means that the source claims the name 47 years before it actually existed. Ottava Rima (talk)

(Outdent) If you look at the Shakespeare page, you see - "Joseph Addison ("Among the English, Shakespeare has incomparably excelled all others")", which is just one example of him being described in his nature setting. There is a tendency in the modern period to anachronistically deem things "Britain" when they are really English, and those in the 18th and 19th century were very aware, because the English did not want to be Scottish or Irish. They were English. Here is what Samuel Johnson stated in his preface to Shakespeare: "The English nation, int he time of Shakespeare, was yet struggling to emerge from barbarity." Not British. English. He identified him as English. I can go on. There are many other 18th century writers that identified Shakespeare as English. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

These are irrelevant pieces of evidence. We are not talking about Shakespeare in his natural setting or his own time. We are talking about how British nationalism emerged in the eighteenth century. Shakespeare's reputation, long after he was dead, is a part of that development. I have directed you to a book on British nationalism and Shakespeare's reputation. Qp has offered a quotation supporting this position. Shakespeare, in his own time, was undoubtedly English. That is not the point up for debate. The point is that in the eighteenth century Shakespeare began to represent a British identity. That is the scholarship that we have pointed you to states. Awadewit (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

British nationalism? emerging? This article has nothing to do with British nationalism, nor is there anything to suggest that Shakespeare had anything to do with such. He was viewed by those of the 18th century as English, not British. Anachronism is not appropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The article's claims are based on the best scholarship. If you want to dispute it, you must also use scholarship to back up your claims. When you have listed the works by eighteenth-century historians and Shakespearean scholars you have consulted that verify your position, I will respond. Awadewit (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but thats not how verifiability works. I have already proven that the sources provided were wrong by a simple comparison of dates that show they are based on false premises. I have even cited contemporaries that used "English". You have provided nothing. Verifiability is against you. Also, when you say "British", you would then have to prove where Scottish people felt represented by Shakespeare, or that Scottish scholars have viewed Shakespeare as part of their country and not as an Englishman. That is, after all, the definition of "British", which requires Scottish and English combined, in the 18th century.Ottava Rima (talk) 03:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

* For those interested: "Shakespeare in the Periodicals, 1700-1740: A Study of the Growth of a Knowledge of the Dramatist in the Eighteenth Century" by George Winchester Stone, Jr. (Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Jul., 1951), pp. 220-232) examines Shakespeare as viewed by the English (not British).

• "Shakespeare and Radicalism: The Uses and Abuses of Shakespeare in Nineteenth-Century Popular Politics" by Antony Taylor (The Historical Journal, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Jun., 2002), pp. 357-379) says "Through this agitation a link into the memories of the national past, Shakespeare's England, and the politics and theatricality of the popular platform is identified" and continues to talk about Shakespeare and England, not Britain. For example: "illustrate the tensions between elite and plebian radical readings of the national past, and of the literary landscape of England", not Britain.
• "The Making of the English Canon" by Jonathan Brody Kramnick ( PMLA, Vol. 112, No. 5 (Oct., 1997), pp. 1087-1101) as you can guess, it goes on to talk about how he was viewed as English. It also goes on to talk about how three people (Shakespeare, Milton, and Spencer) were viewed as the English canon between 1740-1760. This is not British, but English.
• "The Genesis and Character of English Nationalism" by Hans Kohn (Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Jan., 1940), pp. 69-94) can you guess what this one argues?

I could go on, I have at least 40 articles saying the same thing over and over.

There is no actual evidence from real, factual, sources that verify the claims by Awadewit. Shakespeare has been viewed as English, not British. He is an English bard, not a British. This was true in the 18th century, especially with its utter prevalent dislike of Englishmen to be termed anything but "English". Ottava Rima (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

First, these are articles. I read entire books that cover the seventeenth, eighteenth, and some of the nineteenth centuries when researching this topic. The books are not limited to small portions of time. Shakespeare himself was English: that is not in dispute. The point the article is making is that his reputation, beginning in the eighteenth century, was a British one. He was viewed as a national icon. Considering I have consulted the best works on this topic, not a random collection of articles, my level of certainty regarding this conclusion is still high. Thanks again.

"There is no actual evidence from real, factual, sources that verify the claims by Awadewit." - This is untrue: See the sources cited in the article and the source quoted above by Qp. Awadewit (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Britain was changing from an oral to a print culture." British culture was changing, rather than Britain itself?

  "Boydell's Shakespeare project contained three parts: an illustrated edition of Shakespeare's plays; a folio of prints from the gallery (originally intended to be a folio of prints from the edition of Shakespeare's plays); and a public gallery where the original paintings for the prints would hang." The second element of the list assumes the gallery, which is only in fact mentioned subsequently, as the third element.

  "Even the paper quality was extraordinarily high: Boydell chose to use Whatman paper." Given that Whatman paper's a redlink, it might be worth explaining what's so special about it. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 10:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, none of my sources say. History of paper is not something I'm all that keen to investigate. Anyone up for that? Awadewit (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh. No. But perhaps this could be finessed; at present it looks as though the readers should be aware that "Whatman paper" is something special. In fact, I'd just be tempted to delete the second half of the sentence, in that none of us knows what it means really, and nobody's about to write the "Whatman paper" article. I'm happy enough to know that the paper quality was high. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Being a bit of a dabbler in inks, I can add that there's no mystery about Whatman paper, which is still available and often used for ink drawing and watercolour. The paper is thick, has a woven surface, and makes you want to stroke it. I daresay it would make a dull subject for a Wikipedia article, but I think the red link is justified. qp10qp (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• (ec) Google has plenty like this. Johnbod (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's between me, Johnbod, and (never underestimate him) that punk Yomangani to get this done first! qp10qp (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

consider yourself volunteered! Nb High Sheriff of Kent, East Malling Stream,Maidstone and The Weald (UK Parliament constituency) and others from a WP search. Johnbod (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I rather jibed at "Britain was changing from an oral to a print culture" too, especially as the same remark was made in the Tale of a Tub, I seem to recall, relating to a century earlier. I'm not sure the Gallery came at an especially rapid phase of this change - before cheap paper, and long after the target market for the various manifestations of the Gallery were well used to print in many forms. Perhaps best cut. Johnbod (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The entire eighteenth century was part of the transformation from oral to print. That statement is sourced to a very well-respected scholar - do you want more examples of such statements? I can find them. That is an accurate statement. Tony1 doesn't do copy editing at FAC, as far as I know. I will try to find someone else and I will work on the issues you mention. Awadewit (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

And the 15th, 16th, 17th and 19th too; I can't really see much relevance to this subject. Johnbod (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I will try to find more specific descriptions of how the 18th century differed from the others. Awadewit (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to offer some more suggestions a little later. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have asked Mike Christie and Qp to help out with the copy editing. Awadewit (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit done. qp10qp (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment for Ottava Rima. I should say I find your interventions hard to read. I try to assume good faith, but your stubbornness in sticking to your position despite apparent consensus against you is notable. I have half-wondered if you were a sock of Awadewit's, cunningly designed to win her sympathy and to ensure that other editors do not ask pesky questions about, for instance, the difference between England and Britain. No, no, of course I do not seriously think that. But you might consider that your interventions could end up rather counter-productive? Please note that this is a comment and an observation only, and that I don't want to sidetrack the discussion about the article itself by initiating a long conversation. Feel free to agree or to disagree with my observation; I will not be arguing the point. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus against me? What consensus? Wikipedia is not a Democracy. Multiple voices voting on one side does not make a consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support - well written, nicely illustrated, and, in my opinion, this is both correctly cited and well referenced. I like the illustrations, but a few seemed to me close to sandwiching text (Gallery building section), which the MOS frowns on. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The one other option here is to remove one of the images. I thought both were important enough to include - the actual gallery building itself and the sculpture of Shakespeare - that a little sandwiching was acceptable. What do you think? Awadewit (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks fine to me, with maximum default pic size but a reasonable size screen. On a small screen it might not be so great. Johnbod (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I primarily use a laptop which has a relatively small screen, so that may be part of it. If no one else has a problem with, then this is what they make Ignore All Rules for. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Support - Well written as always; the one instance of text sandwiched between images is acceptable to me, as stacking would look worse in the section; overall compliant with WP:WIAFA and just lovely. Maralia (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: An exceptionally thorough and comprehensive article, which I found fascinating. I'm leaning towards support, but I do have a few queries. —This is part of a comment by Qp10qp (of 22:59, April 26, 2008 ), which was interrupted by the following:

• There is perhaps a detail missing in the bit about the theatre being unprofitable, leading to the lack of good tragedies. I changed it to "writing plays was not profitable", but this may not be right. The missing link for me arises somewhere between: a) it was unprofitable b) therefore few good tragedies were written. If theatre was unprofitable, why is tragedy singled out? The general point also seems to glide over the fact that Shakespeare was not just about tragedies. Macklin was famous as Shylock, for example.

That change is an error - I've fixed it. It is only that tragedy was unprofitable and therefore no good tragedies were being written. For some reason, audiences didn't like Shakespeare's comedies at the time. Other comedies were popular, though. Should I add information about the comedies? I wasn't sure how much detail to go into. This section has already been drastically cut down. :( Awadewit (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it just about passes now, if by "dramas" (in the Hollywood sense of a serious narrative) the reader assumes "tragedies". I still think there's a missing logic jump here, but now it's better disguised. qp10qp (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've changed "dramas" to "tragedies". This theatrical history is all bound up with specific personalities like Colley Cibber and the theater wars of the 1680s and 1690s. *sigh* I really don't know how to summarize it well. I want it make sense. I'm not a fan of illogic. Let's make this work. Can you spell out for me what is missing? I'm seeing the whole picture and it is really hard for me to step back and see only the redaction. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it makes exact sense now.

I think the reason Shakespeare's comedies weren't in vogue was to do with lingering classicism and the sense that his comedies were too earthy, native, and unruly. Certainly Macklin was a huge hit as Shylock, if we class The Merchant of Venice as a comedy (not exactly a barrel of laughs, Lancelot Gobbo being about the unfunniest clown in Shakespeare, though it's a close-run thing between him, Stephano, and Trinculo, IMO). qp10qp (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• In the 18th century, Shakespeare became associated with rising British nationalism, and Boydell tapped into the same rich market that many other entrepreneurs were exploiting. Again, here I seem to be missing the link between the first part of the sentence and the last. I'm assuming that British nationalism produced a certain type of market, but this is not explained.

• The market of Shakespeare as national icon. The modern day equivalent is souvenir shops. How best to word this? Awadewit (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What about substituting "mood" for "rich market"? ("Mood" implies commercial possibilites, but it would also bridge back to the first part of the sentence.) qp10qp (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Replaced. Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• However, the long delay in publishing the prints and the illustrated edition prompted criticism. Because they were hurried, and many illustrations had to be done by lesser artists ... For me, "long" delay" and "hurried" are not reconciled here. This is in the lead, but as far as I can see the main article does not talk of either delays or hurrying.

• Delay: This is mentioned in the second half of the "Reaction" section briefly - Gillray criticized the project for it. It is mentioned again at the beginning of the "Collapse" section with the mention of the drop of subscriptions. There are just very few details on this anywhere.

I didn't connect the drop in subscriptions with delay or hurry. The only hint on delay is Criticism increased as the project dragged on; James Gillray published a cartoon labelled "Boydell sacrificing the Works of Shakespeare to the Devil of Money-Bags", but even there, I didn't read Gillray's comment as about delay, and I assumed that "dragged on" was simply a form of words.

• Hurry: The hurry happens after the delay. The rush to finish without financial disaster. I found only the vaguest references to this. I think the details would be in dusty records somewhere. I ran into a lot of trouble trying to tell the "story" of this enterprise. Where do you think I should add sentences about these issues? Awadewit (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If anything were to be added, I'd suggest the best place would be at the beginning of the "Collapse" section, in connection with the variety of engravers and poor quality of many engravings, etc. But if there is no real detail on this, the easiest thing might just be to tweak the wording in the lead so that the reader doesn't expect to hear about delays and hurrying.qp10qp (talk)

See diff. Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That's ideal. qp10qp (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• The gallery is called "Boydell gallery", "Boydell's gallery" and "the Boydells' gallery". On the nephew Josiah Boydell, the article says that he was John Boydell's partner, but he is kept in the background. Late in the article it says that Josiah Boydell was saved from bankruptcy by the lottery; but earlier, the article says that The project eventually bankrupted Boydell. Was John bankrupted but not his nephew?

• It should be called either "the Boydell gallery" or "Boydell's gallery". Anything else is a mistake. Josiah is his nephew and a painter for the edition - also a junior partner. The project bankrupted John Boydell and saved Josiah from bankruptcy (John was dead at that point - he died right in the middle of the lottery). To be clear, "Boydell" is always John Boydell. It is clear from the scholarship that he was the one in charge. Josiah is barely mentioned. Please advise where this needs to be made clearer. Awadewit (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the two instances of "Boydells'" to "Boydell's", and this largely solves it (I had read from the distinction that Josiah had risen to an equal partnership—how much there is in an apostrophe!). I'd suggest that John's bankruptcy needs to be mentioned in the main body of the article, because as things stand, it is mentioned in the lead, but the only mention of bankruptcy in the article concerns Josiah. qp10qp (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tried the clarify "John" versus "Josiah" in the "Collapse" section, but this whole story is complicated. Whether John actually went bankrupt is probably a matter to split legal hairs over. John Boydell was trying to save his business by having the lottery. But he died before the lottery was over. Josiah then inherited the business and was saved from bankruptcy because of the lottery. The most important point is that the Shakespeare enterprise helped push John Boydell's firm into financial insolvency. I think this is made clearly in the article. Let me know if you think it is not. Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. What, then, about "the project eventually led Boydell to the verge of bankruptcy"? qp10qp (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Changed to The project caused the Boydell firm to become insolvent, and they were forced to sell the gallery at a lottery. Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Towards the end of the century, the theatre became associated with the masses and Shakespeare's status as a playwright was no longer enough to hold his former consideration as a "great writer". I couldn't work out the meaning of this sentence.

• That seems to have been changed. Shakespeare's association with drama during the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries assured him respect. However, because the theater became associated with popular culture in the mid- to late eighteenth century, being a playwright began to look slightly sketchy (even though Shakespeare wasn't a playwright during the eighteenth century - it was guilt by association). Thoughts on how to phrase this? Awadewit (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm scratching my head here. As far as I know, there was no decline in Shakespeare's prestige at the end of the century, popular theatre or no. qp10qp (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What is prestige rested on changed. Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I leave it to you, but it remains a poor sentence, in my opinion. qp10qp (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Now: He had originally been respected as a playwright, but once the theatre became association with the masses, Shakespeare's status as a "great writer" shifted. - Then goes on to talk about Shakespeare in print. Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• In the quote about the dinner, an Alderman is mentioned. I know that this is Boydell, but some readers may be confused here unless they are informed elsewhere in the article that Boydell was an Alderman. Was he also Lord Mayor?

• Yes, he was Lord Mayor. I've linked Alderman and put Boydell's name in brackets there. Awadewit (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of links in quotes, but this does solve it. qp10qp (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't like links in quotes either, but I think a long digression into what an Alderman is should not happen in this article. That is more appropriate for the John Boydell article. Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. qp10qp (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• The edition was to be financed through a subscription campaign, during which the buyers would pay part of the price up front and the remainder on delivery. This unusual practice was necessitated by the fact that over £350,000—an enormous sum at the time—was eventually spent. What was unusual about this (what was different from other subscription schemes?).

• I don't know. It was just described as unusual. Awadewit (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I only asked because when I read Uglow's William Hogarth, I remember that subscription rackets of every sort were all the rage. qp10qp (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get the sense anywhere that this was a racket. Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that. If your source says it was unusual, that's good enough for me. qp10qp (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Although the Boydells ended with 1,384 subscriptions, the rate of subscriptions dropped and remaining subscriptions were also increasingly in doubt. How did this work? Does "remaining" mean "existing" here? Were people paying a certain sum every so often? And what did they get in return? Were they resubscribing for subsequent material?

• I have a feeling it was all very ad hoc. "Remaining" means "already subscribed". It is not at all clear to me what they got and when or whether everyone got the same thing. These details are not explained in the few sources that exist. Art historians don't deem them important, I guess. Awadewit (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a shame. My plodding mind just can't picture the relationship between the subscription and the product. One would assume that subscribers paid so much in advance and the rest on delivery, or perhaps that they paid so much a month. However, it is not clear to me why they would still be subscribing once they had the goods, unless, as in modern hire purchase, they went on paying until they were paid up. The latter strikes me as the likeliest explanation for Josiah's continued search for the subscription money: that people had taken delivery of the folios, editions, or whatever, and had then defaulted on their remaining payments. qp10qp (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I really can't say. I can speculate, but we know what that leads to. Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much a matter of speculation as of trying make the language more exact. But there is a limit, I admit, if the sources aren't clear. qp10qp (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• In June 1788, Boydell and his nephew secured the lease on a site at 52 Pall Mall to rebuild the gallery. The article does not say that it was built before or had to be rebuilt.

• That was a mistake introduced during copy editing by someone. I've fixed it. Awadewit (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. qp10qp (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• The Shakespeare Gallery, when it opened on 4 May 1789, contained 34 paintings, and by the end of its run it had between 167 and 170. By "end of its run", does this mean by the time it closed?

• Yes. Awadewit (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

An exhibition can have a run, perhaps, but not a gallery. This sounds more like a theatrical term to me. qp10qp (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've heard of exhibitions having runs, but perhaps this is a modern art gallery term? (I worked at an art gallery in New York for a while.) Perhaps this is anachronistic? Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exhibitions have runs, but not galleries. (Is the Tate gallery having a run?) No big deal. qp10qp (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the Shakespeare Gallery was considered both an exhibition and a gallery. The whole thing is so odd and complicated. Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• In mentioning Rowe's edition, is it worth saying that it was the first illustrated Shakespeare?

• We could. Awadewit (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a ref and can add it; but please make it clear if you do not want this. It's very much on-topic, I think. qp10qp (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Added to sourced to Taylor. Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Neat. qp10qp (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• What's a "modeller"?

• No idea - Rupert Clayton added that, I believe. Awadewit (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Life's too short to investigate, so no matter. qp10qp (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I was quite surprised to find that the lucky William Tassie, "modeller, of Leicester Fields" is also lucky enough to have his own wikipedia page. Turns out he and his uncle did minute things with gems and cameos. Rupert Clayton (talk) 06:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I really appreciate the meticulous care with which this article was built. One can tell. qp10qp (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Support: All queries answered to my satisfaction. qp10qp (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the careful copy editing and helpful questions! As usual, you've pointed to the areas which are the weakest. I wish I had better answers for you. Awadewit (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Marvellous stuff. Many thanks also to qp --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I've left some minor notes on the talk page, but nothing that prevents me from supporting. Fine work. Mike Christie (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've tried to address these - thanks so much for the copy editing! Awadewit (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The lead states that the illustrated edition "was released between 1791 and 1803", but later, it's stated that the "first volumes of the Dramatic Works were published in 1791 and the last in 1805."

Fixed - should be 1803. Awadewit (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

BuddingJournalist 23:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Beautiful work and a pleasure to read! Some small things:

• "However, according to Friedman" Might be good to introduce Friedman with the full name here and a short adjective (Shakespeare scholar?) for readers.

• Done. Awadewit (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• "This unusual practice..." It was unclear to me as a lay reader whether this referred to the unusualness of holding a subscription campaign or the buyers paying "part of the price up front and the remainder on delivery".

• I don't know precisely what was unusual about it (see discussion above). Awadewit (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• "When a subscription was circulated for a medal to be struck" I was confused as to what this meant.

• Should it say "for a medal to be made"? Awadewit (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• "to develop and cut a new typeface" Would a description of the typeface be warranted here? Or would it be too much unnecessary detail?

• I don't know enough about it to include anything interesting. Sorry! :( Awadewit (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• "printed from the texts of Reed and Malone" Perhaps a bracketed editorial insert on who Reed was? Or maybe a link?

• Linked. Awadewit (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

BuddingJournalist 23:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 18:14, 29 April 2008.

[edit] Age of Empires

Article has gone through 2 GA reviews (first failed, second passed) and an extensive peer review. Lots of copyediting too. Seems ready to me, look forward to comments from others. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment don't have time for a good review, but this is so I watchlist the page and don't forget about you...
  • "The series commenced with the first game, Age of Empires, in 1997. Seven games have been released from the series, as well as three spin-offs." Commenced? Just seems to stick out from the text. Perhaps reword to be more straightfoward "The series began with 1997's AoE..." Secondly "seven games..." reword to "Ensemble has released seven titles in the series, as well as three spin-offs (could list what they are)
    • Done, and done (but didn't list as that'd be too long...) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "The games in the series " remove "in the series, I think it's been established
    • Done. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "The popularity and quality of the games has earned Ensemble Studios a reputation which has lead to them working with developer Bungie Studios on Halo Wars." this doesn't exactly make sense to a reader: how does a reputation correlate to Halo Wars? Perhaps it should be "a reputation for real time strategy games; when Bungie Studios wanted to create a RTS based in the Halo universe, they chose Ensemble" or something like that.
    • Good suggestion, did something similar. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "as well as its uncommon use of a game system which treats both player and non-players fairly" maybe you should elaborate more on that?
    • Done. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:AoE Helmets.jpg is in my opinion rather ugly with the borders. Could another image serve it better? (Or I might make some myself)...
    • Photoshop hates me. I'll ask around, if you don't want to. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

More to come, but a good job so far, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following sites reliable?
  • http://www.tothegame.com/
    • Replaced. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • http://aoe.heavengames.com/
    • Most popular AoE fansite. Used for a downloads page (in other words, citing the file, it's just that Microsoft no longer hosts it, as far as I can see) and an interview. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • http://artho.com/age/AoE_1.html
    • Removed...couldn't find anything else. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • http://www.macgamer.net/games/aom/civs/
    • Replaced with a GameSpot ref. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • http://www.mobiletechreview.com/
    • Has an author certified, appears to be a gaming review site (a la IGN) for mobile phone games. I think I found it through Metacritic, for what that's worth. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • http://www.music4games.net/Features_Display.aspx?id=64
    • See David Fuchs' comment below. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • http://www.gamenikki.com/g3/reviews/pc/Display.php?id=1
    • Again, author certified and found through Metacritic, for what that's worth. I'll try and find another viewpoint on that. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• http://www.fileplanet.com/articles/more/124/ deadlinked for me.
  • Found a copy of it on web archive, hence linking to that. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• http://www.havok.com/content/view/188/53/ requires registration/or something as I can't access the page.
  • Replaced with IGN ref. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

All links checked out fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

DHMO will have to speak for the others, but Music4Games is not a self-published source, has a staff, et al, and is a major partner for game music events. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Bless your lucky stars I'm a gamer, so I've heard of a lot of the sites ya'll use. At least you're spared the questions on IGN/Gamespot/etc. (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm very grateful for that! :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

struck the replaced ones, left the others up for others to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support based on additional changes that cited information and removal of excessive non-free content. The rest are stylistic issues and not important enough to warrant an oppose. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all your help. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Some sections lack references. Non-free image used without corresponding section explaining absolute important to the article. I don't understand from the article why there is a "series" article that mostly rehashes the individual game articles, is this a a glorified list? References seem to be about individual games, not about the series as a series. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Which sections lack references? I'm not seeing them, sorry. Which non-free image is used without a decent explanation? Again, I'm sorry, but it's very difficult for me to fix the issues if I don't know what they are. If you're unsure as to the article's layout, you may wish to look at Mana (series), Kingdom Hearts (series), Halo (series), etc.—to describe the games is an essential element of the article. I've added as many references discussing the series as a whole as I could find, there weren't that many, surprisingly. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles lacking references 1,2,3,6, and yes, these paragraphs introduce some information that should be cited. I don't see why the icons are necessary to the article, nor do I see how icons could be absolutely important to it, so the fairuse rationale for FA (which is higher than standard article) doesn't match up in my eyes. I just looked at the Mana series, and the way series are discussed is far different than the way you put forward. Note, they have history and design, whereas, you have summaries of the plot. Maybe you should follow the chart format put forth by the Mana series and move the development section up in order to show that this is a page on the series instead of just a rehash of every other page. Now, there is a problem with the other "series" games, which can be seen on their FAs - they were passed with very few commentators. Two supports and twp possible oppose for Mana, for instance. The same goes for Kingdom Hearts. Hmm. I don't really know what to tell you to use as a guide here. It seems that our major problems is that there aren't enough people to really come up with a unified consensus on "series" formats. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm very confused...the FAC is for this article, yet you say other articles lack references? Or, if sections, then the external links section (among others) lacks references? Icons/images dealt with below (removing). Please see Halo_(series)#Games - the best example of what I was talking about in terms of game info. I'm not sure about that last point...there seems to be a consistent and well structured format that's appeared on numerous FAs. If you disagree with it, the best place to go is WT:VG. I think I've done everything actionable in your oppose. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Paragraphs for this article. Sorry, that was left out, but in context, that should have been understood. Especially when I mentioned in the preceding statement. Its not hard to look at your own article and determine which paragraphs lack citations. And the Halo series doesn't offer anything to justify many of the problems with your article, especially with the constant duplication of other information. You haven't provided why the series is notable. You have only provided why parts of the series are notable. This, if anything, is easily accomplished by a category. Furthermore, the Halo series is not an FA, so you can't use it to even form a basis for what an FA should look like. You lack effective notability, there are paragraphs missing citations, and there are images that are inappropriate for FAs. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for misreading you. I wasn't taking this as well as I could have (I suppose I blame school and stuff here, right?...), and I really should have read your comments again. Sorry for the confusion, especially on my part. To address, briefly, the other points - yes, the Halo one isn't an FA, but it's close, and the other ones pointed to are FAs...I suppose some series get different coverage to others, and in the case of this one, most mention of the series is generally in the context of talking about an individual game (in a review of it, etc.), so that's all I have to work with, I guess. Also, the images have been changed around a bit...how are they now? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• The following are lines that need citations:

• How "Age of Mythology" can be considered as part of the "Age of Empires" "series", because it is not a sequel.

• I've added some references that make note of it being in the series. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• "The Age of Empires series has been highly successful commercially, with sales in excess of 15 million copies."

• Ref is this one, in the Reception and legacy section. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• "The popularity and quality of the games has earned Ensemble Studios a reputation in real-time strategy gaming"

• Tried to clarify this a bit in the Reception and legacy section. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• "leading to fellow developer Bungie choosing Ensemble to create Halo Wars"

• Same as above. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• "as well as its uncommon use of a game system which treats both player and non-players fairly, as opposed to the use of "cheating" artificial intelligence (AI)."

• See Artificial intelligence section. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• "However, Age of Mythology had only one campaign; it was also longer and had a more distinct story than the other games in the series.[2] Age of Empires III split its campaign into three "Act"s; each “Act” covers the story of a generation of the fictional "Black" family.[3]" How do either of these sentences fit in with "common gameplay elements"?

• Trimmed, thanks for pointing it out. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• "The missions in a campaign mostly follow a historical setting and focus;" Apparently not if you include "Age of Mythology" as you have.

• Reworded (generally, hence emphasising the AoM exception). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• "For example, while Germany at the time of Age of Empires III was largely Protestant, the design of the German church building is Catholic rather than Protestant."

• Sourced now. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• "The series' sporadic faithfulness to history has earned them criticism for the games. "

• Done. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• "The series’ spinoff, Age of Mythology, and its expansion pack, The Titans, are set during the Classical period, but focus on mythology rather than history as their themes." The page of Age of Mythology doesn't call it a spin-off, so you need evidence to justify the inclusion.

• Hmm...not sure why the AoM article didn't say that, I've reworded it there. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• "was the first game in the series as well as the first major release from Ensemble Studios." -major- is a term that needs a citation.

• Got one! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Due to the games taking place around historical events, the team often had to do large amounts of research to depict the events."

• Done. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• "The artificial intelligence (AI) used in the Age of Empires series has received praises many times." Also, the use of "praises many times" is awkward.

• Reworded. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• "He created the original music in Age of Empires with sounds of instruments from the periods in the games."

• Done. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Age of Empires has often been credited for influencing numerous real-time strategy games and series, including Empire Earth, Cossacks (and its sequel), and Rome: Total War."

• Done. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Finally, you have sections without "main article" links to their appropriate articles, which isn't following standard format. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• "The series began with the first game," Redundant. It's not going to start with the second game, is it?
  • Maybe...>_> dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• The second paragraph describes the setting and focus, but still doesn't mention about how the game is actually played.
  • Added a bit. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• "which has lead to developer Bungie Studios choosing to work with them on Halo Wars." Awkward phrasing. I was going to suggest the word "collaborate" but I guess that's in the next sentence.
  • How is it now? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Better. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Shouldn't "AI" be written out in full the first time it's used?
  • Yeah, it is now. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• First caption: No need to put "Age of Empires", because that can be seen and is also the topic of the article, so it's obvious.
  • Looks awkward without it (just "Series logo")... dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• "Turn based" is hyphenated in the Wikipedia article, so it probably should be here.
  • Done. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• "The series features several recurring modes of play; "random map", "death match", and "campaign"." Not sure about this, but shouldn't a colon be used here as opposed to the semi-colon? Tell me if I'm mistaken.
  • I think you're mistaken...though I'm not competent enough to explain why, it just seems right. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• "The attention to detail on units and characters in games varies For instance"?
  • Added full stop. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• I have a problem with the second paragraph of "Common gameplay elements", because it's confused between whether it wants to explain how the game is played, or how it is made. Plus, we even get a bit of "Reception" thrown in there as well.
  • I see your general point (reception? Where?), and have reworded some. I suppose the way the game works does sometimes interrelate with how it's designed...but I'll try and do some more on that too. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• "one of the first history based real-time strategy video games to be created." Any chance of a source?
  • No. :( Removed. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    • AHEM. Oh ye of little faith, that was the second result from googling - "Age of Empires" Historical RTS - :{D Someoneanother 21:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Much appreciated! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Too much repetition: "Despite the year spent developing the game, there were still numerous bugs in the game". The subsequent sentence then uses "despite" again.
  • Reworded. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• "with over 3 million units sold," I learned in my own FAC that, apparently, "more than" should be used as opposed to "over". Anyway, shouldn't "3" be written out in full here? Same for other examples of this.
  • Gotcha. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• "with over 3 million units sold, and spending years high on sales charts." Is there any way that this could be reworded to sound better than it does now.
  • Yes, and done. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• "the player choses a"?
  • Not seeing the problem...? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Should be "chooses". Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Seems to be fixed...how did I not work that out!? :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• "The first version contained multiple software bugs, though many of were". them?
  • Yep. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• "The game introduced several new units and the concept of "unique technologies"." There's no point in stating it and then not explaining it.
  • Added a bit. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• "The Age of Kings was more successful than its predecessors". But according to this, its predecessor sold more. Reword to say that it was more successful critically.
  • Done. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• "was released on October 23, 2007; breaking the "tradition" of one expansion per game." Are you sure that that semi-colon should be there instead of a comma?
  • I'm never sure. :) Fixed. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• "The Asian Dynasties was slightly less well reviewed" This doesn't say that the game got lower scores, only that the reviews themselves were of lower quality, which I don't think is what's trying to be said.
  • Fixed. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• Don't use full stops at the end of captions if they're not full sentences.
  • OK. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• "Spin-off" is hyphenated in the header, although it isn't in the text in other parts of the article. Needs consistency.
  • Fixed. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• "The game is similar to other turn based games, such as Advance Wars," This article's getting opposed unless you replace Advance Wars with Fire Emblem;-). Only joking—keep it as it is.
  • Maybe I should say "other GOOD turn based games", to avoid such problems in future? :D dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• "Age of Mythology went platinum," Not sure about the wording here.
  • It's what we use on music articles, unsure if there's a different way of doing it here... dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• "Age of Empires: The Age of Kings earned an 80% score" Why use "earned" here. I would personally replace that word. Seems to imply that it attained these scores deservedly.
  • But they were deserving! Reworded anyway. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• "The games in the Age of Empires series were developed in similar ways" to each other?
  • Seems rather obvious, so I'd rather not. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• "of the game; a first for both teams." Again with the punctuation usage. I may be wrong, but I don't thiink it's technically correct.
  • I think semicolon is correct here. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• Inconsistent sources: some use *forename**Surname* while others use the reverse order.
  • All seem to be fixed now. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• What's going on with ref 25?
  • Fixed. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• Ref 68 probably isn't a reliable source considering it was written by a randomer.
  • Gone. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I Hope this helps. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 09:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It does, thanks! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Most issues have been resolved now; nice work on making the amendments. I'm afraid that I'm unwilling to support though. I'm just not confident that the prose is "engaging, even brilliant"; I just think it needs that extra bit of polish, sorry. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully the stuff below will sort that out. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support since it has improved a lot since it passed the GA (where there wasn't even a "Gameplay" section, this part was covered only in each game). And let's hope the rest of the games reach GA/FA class (only AOE III, one of its expansion packs, and AOM have it so far).igordebraga ≠ 16:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. :) Yep, slowly working on get the series towards FT. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    • But you'd better add some gameplay image, since it's hard reaching FA with only a logo. igordebraga ≠ 02:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Images added, will ping elcobbola again. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Now we've entered a conundrum. WP:NFCC#8 requires that fair use images contribute significantly to our understanding. Both you and the editor suggesting more images have implicitly and explicitly supported promotion even in their absence. Isn't the implication, then, that they aren't really necessary to facilitate understanding? FAs do not require any images whatsoever, and we can't compare nominations to other FAs. That being said, there might be a case to be made for Image:Age of empires.jpg (certainly not Image:Age of Mythology ingame screenshot.jpg, however, as it is of tangential relevance, at best). The AoE image, however, would need to be low resolution (NFCC#3B) and have a relevant and appropriate purpose statement ("fighting tactics and battle are thoroughly discussed" seems patently false, no?) Obviously, I'd rather the additional images not be included for reasons of logical consistency, unambiguous policy compliance, precedent, etc., but I won't oppose if just the AoE and logo images are used (assuming the AoE's issues are corrected). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 23:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
          • It's just that, as the links show, all Featured VG series have in-game images. They help showing how the games are and how the gameplay goes. But if the first one only needs a resize, fine. But I'll do it only if "H2O" is too lazy for it... igordebraga ≠ 04:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
            • That's not relevant. FAC nominations need to be evaluated against policy, not other FAs. Existing FAs may have had images added after promotion, or the images may not have been checked for NFCC compliance in the first place. As I've said, comments made thus far have implicitly and explicitly indicated that the new fair use images are not supported by NFCC#8. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 05:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
              • The AoM image is gone. igordebraga, if you could do a resize, I would appreciate it—I'm hopeless with that sort of thing. elcobbola, I expanded on the caption for the AoE image. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
                • The caption was actually fine (does it violate succinctness now?); the problem is that the AoE rationale's purpose statement isn't applicable to this article (it was just copied and pasted from another article's rationale, no?) The AoE rationale just needs to be tweaked to articulate the image's particular role in this article. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
                  • Aah, thanks for clarifying. Expanded the FURG. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Resized. igordebraga ≠ 02:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Many thanks. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Support. My concerns have been addressed. The article is comprehensive, well-organized and reasonably well-wrriten. Karanacs (talk) 13:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • These were followed by a trio of games centering around Europe in the Middle Ages, as well as the Spanish colonization of Mexico.

Change around to on.

Done. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Age of Empires III split its campaign into three "Act"s; each “Act” covers the story of a generation of the fictional "Black" family

Change "Act"s to "Acts"

Done. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• • The missions in a campaign mostly follow a historical setting and focus; faithfulness to history was an less important to the team

Change an less to a less.

Reworded. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• • A spin off game have been loosely set in the historical time period of the original Age of Empires, but have focused on fictional elements of Greek, Egyptian, and Norse mythology.

Change A spin off game have been...but have focused.... to A spin off game has been...but has focused on...

Done. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• • "Death match" starts players off with large amounts of resources and have them fight until only one side remains.

Has is singular and have is plural. So here change have to has at it refers to Death Match..

Fixed. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• • The review scores from Metacritic as well as Game Rankings show that they were retrieved in January, 2008 according to the URL access date. These review scores will undoubtedly change with upgrades or new game releases over the next few years. For this article to be timeless, it would be good to place the date of the rankings, if not in the prose, then as an extension of the reference citation... such as The following games have the highest average score of main sites as of April 15, 2008:

Hmm...I doubt any new reviews will come out, since none of the games are very recent. I'll add that note in anyway, in case new games come out... dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Kind Regards and good luck SriMesh | talk 02:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks heaps for taking a look. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

SupportThank you for replying above, I have changed my comments to support. I feel the latter half of the article has a smoother flow than the top of the article, but overall presented well. Good Luck!! Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 02:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I appreciate it. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: One of the first things that struck me when looking down the article is that the first image - the series title one - looks awful. Is there any chance of replacing it with a better image of the series title, preferably one with a slightly bigger size on the page? It just looks out of place and somehow "wrong". Hardly a major point, but to me it has a slightly negative impact on presentation. -- Sabre (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I really wish I could do something about it, but despite a lot of searching, I haven't found anything. :( If you do find something, feel free to upload it over the old image (or link here and I'll do it)... dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Just checked back to see how this is progressing, the new image is fantastic, far better than the previous one. Good job whoever dug it up. -- Sabre (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't have a problem with the article as a whole, but I had 5 specific objections to assertions in the article when I was reading through it; I summarized on the talk page. If it's going to be called FA, these probably ought to be addressed; I didn't change the article itself because I don't have the sources right now and am frankly feeling lazy. Coanda-1910 (talk) 07:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments there. All done or replied to. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Support Clear, accurate, and well-focused on the topic. My concerns have been resolved. Coanda-1910 (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Reliable sources concerns have not been addressed; please refer to WP:V policy in establishing whether sources are reliable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I've done some more searching and found replacements for the aoe.heavengames.com link noted above. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Looks good to me. Support. Though there are some issues with the reliability of some sources, the fact is that most of these are cited on the page as being a view, not an absolute. We're not talking about a hard science here. --rm 'w avu 01:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Mostly prose. I've only skimmed the beginning, but what I found is enough to make me oppose. Here are a sampling of problems I found. As always, please go through the entire article; don't just fix these.
  • "The games are set against historical events throughout time." As opposed to "historical events" throughout something else?
    • Trimmed. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "The initial games focused on events..." Initial is far too vague here. Two, three, four?
    • Two. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "the artificial intelligences fight players " This grammatical usage of AI strikes me as quite odd.
    • Reworded a bit, not sure if this helps. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "Most of the Age of Empires games belong to the real-time strategy genre (with the exception of the" Why not say all and get rid of the parens?
    • Done as suggested. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "The most popular of the series' game modes is "random map"" Really? This is certainly not stated in the source you give. And what does "most popular" mean anyway? How exactly is popularity measured here?
    • The source called it a hallmark of the series...not really the same, so reworded. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "In a "Death match" game" Death is capitalized because?
    • Not sure why...it's been fixed. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "however, Age of Mythology and Age of Empires III have been exceptions to this trend." Meaning what? One campaign? No campaign? State explicitly.
    • Done. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "yet design teams do not strive for absolute historical accuracy" Design teams? This certainly throws readers. "yet do not strive for" is perfectly fine.
    • Done as suggested. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "For example, while Germany at the time of Age of Empires III..." "At the time of"?
    • Fixed. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "However, the design team did take great care" Now singular and past tense. Is this a specific game's design team?
    • Yep, clarified. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "that are relatively well-known but also include" Spot the missing punctuation mark.
    • Found it! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "The series' sporadic faithfulness to history has earned them criticism for the games." Now series is plural? Also, the reader assumes "them" refers to the series here, so why "for the games"?
    • Fixed. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "Moreover, critics have panned..." Moreover implies that this is something different than the previous sentence(s). This is not the case here.
    • Reworded. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "none of whom ever fought in history" "ever" implies "in history".
    • Fixed. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

BuddingJournalist 02:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

All these are done, I'll try and get a full copyedit done, and also ask someone external. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Striking out for now, but I have yet to revisit the article in-depth. BuddingJournalist 20:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I've copyedited it, and it looks good: not too specific, not too vague. Well done DHMO. (By the way, did anyone notice this FAC is longer than the article itself...) · AndonicO ^Engage. 02:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 18:14, 29 April 2008.

[edit] Yao Ming

(here goes) I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's recently passed GA (actually, very recently, hehe), and I think it is good enough in terms of comprehensiveness, verability, etc. to fulfill the criteria. Noble Story (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following a reliable source?
  • http://www.nbadraft.net/profiles/yaoming.htm
    • It's one of the major NBA draft sites, and it's reliable.
      • Please establish its reliability in terms of policy, WP:V, WP:SPS or WP:SELFPUB. The only thing I can find on its website is this page, which gives us nothing to go on except that its owned by something called Sports Phenoms. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I am unconvinced that this is a reliable source, but it's only used once, and doesn't seem to be used controversially. Please try to replace this source with a better one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • http://mediatakeout.com/Exclusives/Nia_Yao.html
    • It's a link of the hoax.

All other links checked out. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'd appreciate feedback on my first pass through for language and WP style. - Dan (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Seems OK to me. Noble Story (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• (copied at article talk page) this is the diff for my copyediting on your FAC (and there are a few other edits mixed in there). I could be wrong about anything. Feel free to revert. Feel free to ask. I am happy to look things up and provide support for my edits, or try to. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Initial comments

• The lead doesn't really emphasize Yao's status as a major cultural figure in China. His importance goes beyond basketball, with all of his sponsorships and the like.
• Some of the language is repetitive. For example, the phrase "at the same age" appears twice in the first paragraph of "Early life and CBA career".
• The description of the Charles Barkley-Kenny Smith bet is misleading. Barkley actually kissed a donkey ("Kenny's ass", in a different sense) [3].
• Would it be possible to say something about Yao's transition to American culture? I remember it being a big deal when he received his driver's license.
• I'll try to pitch in with some general copyediting over the weekend.

Zagalejo^^^ 05:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've reworded the "at the same age" part, and I've expanded the lead. I've also clarified the part about Barkley's bet (hopefully without going to off-topic). However, as for talking about his transition...I would think that it would obvious that he had to make adjustments. And I don't really know if all of the details would be notable ("Yao missed Chinese food", "Yao looked happier getting his driver's license than he did beating the Lakers", etc.). Noble Story (talk) 06:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• The lead looks better. I still think the Smith/Barkley bet could be clarified further; I'll try fiddling around with that part later. Regarding the transition to American culture, I think we should at least say a little more about Colin Pine, since he played a pretty significant role during Yao's rookie year. Zagalejo^^^ 07:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've added a part about Colin Pine. However, I don't know about the Barkley part. As I said before, it would be hard to fully tell the story without getting off-topic.Noble Story (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think the article would be clearer (and more fun to read) if we just quote Barkley's initial promise. Everything hinges on the fact that Barkley explicitly said "ass", and not "behind", "butt", etc. I'll try to dig up a good source for that quote. Zagalejo^^^ 16:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Chensiyuan

1. "Yao finished with 10 points and 10 rebounds; O'Neal scored 31 points and 13 rebounds." - won't hurt with a boxscore ref; since we're dealing with statistics, we should ensure verifiability.

   Added ref.

2. "In the summer of 2004, the Rockets acquired Tracy McGrady from the Orlando Magic in a seven-player trade that also sent Steve Francis and Cuttino Mobley to Orlando." - perhaps (and strictly perhaps) Yao's reception to the trade is worth mentioning. Did he for example think that the Rockets would become serious contenders? I'm not referring of course to the general sentiments of feeling excited whenever there's a trade lol.

   Added trade response.

• Just out of curiosity, could I see those two quotes in their entirety (IE, the full sentences)? Zagalejo^^^ 04:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• The full paragraph containing the two quotes (from Yao: A Life in Two Worlds) is as follows: "I will miss them," Yao said later. "All three helped me in every way my first two seasons. Stevie, as team leader, looked out for me like a brother and I will always think of them all as friends. But I also know now this is a business and anyone can be traded. Maybe I will be traded one day, too. For now, all I can say is I'm excited about playing with Tracy McGrady. He can do some amazing things and I'm looking forward to seeing him do them every day with me, instead of a couple of times a year against me."

1. I'm all for using images, but since this article doesn't suffer from a lack of quality (and legal) images, I think the image with the caption "Yao answers questions from reporters" doesn't really add anything to the article. It's just a closeup of his face, but his face is already quite clearly seen in some of the other pics. Just a view. Chensiyuan (talk) 06:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

   Actually, I wanted to capture the sense of his being surrounded by reporters (note the mics arounds him). But if you feel it is extraneous, please remove it. Noble Story (talk) 06:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments Nice article. Here are a few suggestions:

• Would like to see a section on how he plays basketball, with some views on his strengths (size, shooting touch, rebounding) and weaknesses (slow, some call him "soft"). See Tim Duncan for an example. If you decide to make this section, make sure it's sourced well, like the rest of the article.

• I've thought long and hard about it, but I think in the end it is too hard to keep it NOPV. Even if you link to different articles, 99% of the time it will only be someone's so-called "expert" opinion.

• Why is there a fan club in External links? This should be removed.

• In this case, the fan club is not an independent operation, it is actually connected to Yao, asin he posts messages there (occasionally), and so on.

• Sentence suggestion: "The Rockets made the playoffs for the first time in Yao's career, as they claimed the seventh seed in the Western Conference. Although, eventually, the NBA finalist Los Angeles Lakers eliminated Houston in the first round, with the Rockets winning only one game." Try "The Rockets made the playoffs for the first time in Yao's career, claiming the seventh seed in the Western Conference. In the first round, however, the Los Angeles Lakers eliminated Houston in five games".

• I've reworded it accordingly.

• If the Rockets' winning streak before Yao's injury this year is mentioned, it should also be stated that they won the next 10 games without him. It comes off like he was the primary reason for the streak, when in reality the whole team was playing well. Something about the statement just rubs me the wrong way. Giants2008 (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've attempted to reword it better. Noble Story (talk) 10:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Support - a very good and well-sourced article, I think that an improvement could be to cite the statements in the lead paragraph as well as within all the rest of the article. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any specific statements. Most of the statements in the lead are pretty general, and are already referenced in the main body. Noble Story (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

In a lot of the FA's I've seen there are footnotes everywhere in the article - including the lead. I think I'll try adding refs to the lead myself - it's good for more casual readers who don't have much time to dig into the main sections. Plus, verification is easier. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think there are problems with verifiability -- all statements are referenced in the main body, as I said, except for the one about his height, which I referenced. And again, the statements are mostly general, and don't make any specific, could-be-controversial claims. Noble Story (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Support - as good as Tim Duncan, even with less background info. igordebraga ≠ 20:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Support - Overall a fine article. Just do me a quick favor. In the lead: "However, the Rockets have not advanced past the first round of the playoffs since he has joined the team,". Remove "has". Other than that, very good work. Giants2008 (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• object - why is there no section on his playing style, attributes and technique. #2, IIRC, his parents were advised by the communist govt to get together to increase the % of giving birth to child that was inclined towards basketball. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Stats also need consistency. All the averages should be given to the same decimal place. If it is 22.0 then put 22.0 not 22. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've addressed the parts about his profile above. The allegations about "his parents were advised by the communist govt to get together to increase the % of giving birth to child that was inclined towards basketball" was speculation, nothing more. And exactly where are you referring to when you talk about stat consistency? Noble Story (talk) 04:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• You sure it was just speculation? I remember seeing that presented as a fact in a Sports Illustrated article a few years ago. Zagalejo^^^ 23:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• OK, I've added a sentence about it. Noble Story (talk) 12:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• In his 2008 season, where points and blocks are not given as averages. There is another occurance in his first playoff series versus the Lakers. In 2006 World Championships, nine is spelled out, unlike the rest of the article. Giants2008 (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• OK, I've corrected that. Noble Story (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks very good. I noticed this on the GAN list, and since then it's continued to improve. My only suggestion would be to remove his birthplace at the start per WP:DATE. Peanut4 (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Noble Story (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments. The article seems to be pretty comprehensive. I think the prose is okay but could be improved. Here are some suggestions of what to look for in the prose:

• Watch for repetitive word choice "Yao was initially pressured...Li also pressured Yao...."; "contract entitled Evergreen to 33% of Yao's earnings,[4] but the contract", etc
  • Done.
• There aren't good transitions between thoughts in some paragraphs. For example the 2005-2008 section spends several sentences discussing an injury that led to him missing 21 games and then, without saying anything about his performance or when he came back, it starts talking about him making the All-Star game again.
  • Done.
• Check to make sure that all of your clauses make sense together. This sentence, for example, implies that the Rockets didn't win many games because Yao and McGrady did not play together "Yao and McGrady played only 31 games together,[55] and the Rockets did not make the playoffs, winning only 34 games" (if that is someone's speculation it should be reworded better)
  • Is it speculation? If a team loses its two best players for an extended period of time (two thirds of the season), then it pretty obvious they will do worse.
• Watch for wordiness. Cleaner, tighter prose generally sounds better)
  • Done (I think).
• Shouldn't refer to him as "Yao Ming" in the body of the article after the first reference (unless its in a quote). Some places in the article are mixed between "Yao" and "Yao Ming"
  • Done. Noble Story (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support language and style. I'm not qualified to support other aspects. I just did a few minor edits to tighten it up; I'm quite happy with it now. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 18:14, 29 April 2008.

[edit] Oil shale

Self-nominator. Beagel (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.sdnp.jo/International_Oil_Conference/rtos-A106.pdf

These are materials of the international oil shale conference held on 7—9 November 2006 in Amman. Only top-level oil shale experts were invited to the conference as speakers. So, the fact of delivering speech in this conference makes it reliable. Also, this is probably among the best information, which is possible to get about Chinese oil shale industry as there really lack of other reliable sources (except articles of some Chinese oil shale researchers published in the Oil Shale journal).Beagel (talk) 06:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

All links checked out fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I struck the resolved issues, and left the others for others to decide. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Three links are dead per link checker. --Efe (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Dead links are fixed.Beagel (talk) 07:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support, issues resolved. The only small optional request remains: 2.8–3.3 trillion (2.8–3.3 x 1012) U.S. barrels of recoverable oil. - please give some sort of comparison to oil usage today or estimated remaining oil. Renata (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Renata, this comparison is made in the Reserves section of the article where it says there is 1.317 trillion barrels of convention oil reserves as of 01-01-2007. Hope that helps. Cheers Dexcel (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support — MOJSKA 666 - Leave a message here 14:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent article. Perhaps boost the third paragraph of the lead (currently only one sentence long) with something from the History or Environment impact sections (currently absent from lead)? --maclean 06:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Expanded this paragraph with environmental issues.Beagel (talk) 10:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent use of summary style. You've managed to make a complex topic very accessible to the average reader. Karanacs (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 00:57, 28 April 2008.

[edit] Easy Jet

I'm nominating this article for featured article because after extensive copyediting I feel it meets the FAC criteria. It's about one of the most influential Quarter Horse racehorses and stallions of the last half of the 20th century, not about the airline. And it's short too! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Obviously I should write more horse articles, rather than bishops. Horses get folks to review quicker... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support, Good article, all references checked out OK. Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 16:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support, Yes, I would accept this article as a Featured Article. The tree diagram is probably the best evidence of a well laid-out article. --Marianian (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support for a lucid, informative and engaging insight into a culture alien to me. One can tell engaging prose when all the "illustrations" appear in the mind of the reader. (A good lesson for all FAC nominators). My heart was warmed by the good-natured and patient replies to my questions. (Another good lesson for FAC nominators). Easy Jet will shine out of the Main Page. --GrahamColm^Talk 19:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Well written and comprehensive. I also examined the sources (since that is usually Ealdgyth's job) and they all appear to be reliable. Full disclosure: Prior to the FAC nom I copyedited and reviewed this article at Ealdgyth's request. She already addressed all of the issues I had found in that review.[4] Karanacs (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support - A well-written article overall. Here are several things to look at improving.
• First sentence of Racing career: "and was placed below third only twice" remove was. It sounds like the horse was placed by someone else instead of him finishing the races there.
• Same in last sentence of paragraph.
• Third paragraph of section: "and only the fourth two year old to be named World Champion." At least one dash needed.
• Third paragraph of Retirement and career at stud: "In March 2008 he still led the list of All-time leading sires of Quarter Horse racehorses by winners," Capitalization issue? Giants2008 (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem. The AQHA puts out the lists every year, and they are titled lists, so I think they need a capital on the front. Quarter Horse is the breed name, and thus a proper noun and should be captialized also, I think. Grammar isn't my strong suit, so if I'm off on my theory, please let me know. Fixed the other issues, also. Thanks for finding them! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just confused by the setup. In the paragraph in question, the lists start with All Time, then they switch to All-time. Is this how they are supposed to be? If so, disregard my comment. Giants2008 (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Okay, now I see the problem. I'll pick one and stick with it. Be a second (gotta fix dinner) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Got it, see anything else wrong? Thanks for catching that one. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Thumbs up from my point of view. Giants2008 (talk) 01:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• Very minor, but I would like to see the image in the infobox slightly larger.

I'm not sure how big I can make a fair use image without running into too big. Elcobbola? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said, it's very minor and probably unnecessary, so it should be fine. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Needs non-breaking spaces throughout.

I hit everything I could think of that might possibly need one. If there are others, I have no idea they need them. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like you got them all. As long as you put them between numbers and the text after them, you should be good. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• As a sire, he was the first All American Futurity winner to sire a Futurity winner, and went on to sire no fewer than three winners of that race, and nine Champion Quarter Running Horses. "No fewer than" seems very unneeded and superfluous to me.

Removed. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• I cannot call myself an expert (or even a beginner for that matter) of horses, so I would like to see some explaination of the terms used.^{Waned, foaled, dam, damsire, sire, etc.}

Sire is just father. Should be reasonably self-explanatory. Weaned is the same as a baby being weaned from breast milk. I honestly didn't think I needed to explain that.Ealdgyth - Talk 01:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard of most if not all of those terms. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed the infobox to maternal grandsire. I explained sire, dam, foaled in the article. If I change the infobox from sire to father, that would create issues with other horse articles. I'll explain weaning also. I am afraid that I'm going to have to leave the terms in the infobox, they really aren't that out there, they are also used for humans. See Sire at Wiktionary Dam at Wiktionary Wean at Wiktionary. I'll explain them in the article, however. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Easy Jet raced for two years, starting 38 races; of these, he won 27, came in second seven times and third twice, and placed below third only twice, with race earnings totaling $445,721. Too long of a sentence, IMO.

Broken into two sentences. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Great, looks good. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• In winning the All American, he led from the wire on a sloppy, muddy track. "Sloppy, muddy" doesn't sound very encyclopediac.

That's what the description of the racing surface was though. If you go to the racetrack, they will announce the condition of the track, and sloppy muddy is the term for something closely resembling a mudpit. That is the correct racing term for the condition of the track, so it'll probalby have to stay sounding that way. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, very well then. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Other than that, it seems very good. Good work! Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed most of these. The infobox is not something I can change the terminology around that much, though. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I don't mind the terminology in the infobox. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support As the one who passed the GAN a while ago, I think it's an excellent article and worth of FA. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support—Nice one, Ealdgyth. (CoI disclosure: I did copy-edit it a while ago.) TONY (talk) 06:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Succinct, informative and interesting (although this comes from someone whose knowledge of horses is limited to knowing that they make dandy shoes - probably not the most pleasant of thoughts for horse enthusiasts, but there you have it ;) ). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Question In order to answer a question, I have just ordered and received the full race record of Easy Jet. Should I add this information into the article in a table form? Or should I leave it out? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that might be overkill for this article since I was in so many races. It might be a good basis for Easy Jet race record (a future Featured List?), which could then be linked to in this article. Karanacs (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. What, this horse is more important than The Black? Actually, I don't know anything about horse racing, other than what I now know about Easy Jet. Good article. I enjoyed reading it. --Moni3 (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: most of the capped comments above did not constitute a valid oppose: categories do not need to be alphabetical, cite templates are not required (the citations are fine), and the external links were fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 00:57, 28 April 2008.

[edit] Gorgosaurus

This is a belated nomination for featured article status of another collaborative effort from Wikiproject dinosaurs, which after conferring with (very busy) expert main contributor of content Sheep81 is felt to be comprehensive. The images are free and the article has been copyedited by me and other WP:dino editors over time. It is another piece in the puzzle of a future Featured Topic and I feel it is the equal to several other featured dino articles. Please tell us how we can improve it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• what makes http://dml.cmnh.org/2005Sep/msg00345.html a reliable source? It looks like an email or posting to a newsgroup.
• http://www.mnhn.ul.pt/geologia/gaia/12.pdf gave me a can't find the server error.

All other links checked out okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

On the first case, There's the fact that the author is a respected paleontologist we have an article on engaged in conversation another one? The second checks out just fine for me, so it must have been a minor connection burp. Circeus (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Circeus summed it up well on first one, on second, it worked ok for me...pdf issue? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Could be some weirdness related to the hotel I'm at while on the road. figured better to tell that someone is having issues than stay quiet. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely - some links do seem a bit temperamental. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Another quality FA from WP:DINO. Except for some choppiness in life history section, everything looks great. bibliomaniac15 23:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Read through, made some copyediting (mostly in paleoecology. I missed the bit about ALberta being annexed by the U.S., shame on me). My only small concern is that I'm not too sure whether "These are the only two described albertosaurine genera, although other undescribed species may exist." (under "Classification and systematics") is really necessary (new species would have fairly little impact. New genera, however...) Circeus (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  Good point. I'd put in taxa for species as that can mean both species and genera, question is whether taxa is as easy to understand. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support, seems on par with the other featured dinosaur articles. Funkynusayri (talk) 13:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments: This was quite a good read. I just had two questions/comments before I support. Not being a dinosaur expert, hopefully I can ask these without sounding like a fool. :-p

Absolutely - ask away, the point is to make it readable and remove ambiguity :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

1. This sentence seems a bit off to me, though I could just be reading it wrong. "Typically for members of its family, dozens of large, sharp teeth lined its jaws, while its two-fingered forelimbs were comparatively small." Is there a word or two missing?

Both this sentence and the preceding have introductory clauses that qulaify Gorgy's attributes as typical of tyrannosaurids. Hence I pulled out the clause and replaced with a semicolon to connect the two sentences thus:

Like most known tyrannosaurids, Gorgosaurus was a bipedal predator weighing more than a metric ton]]; dozens of large, sharp teeth lined its jaws, while its two-fingered forelimbs were comparatively small.

Hopefully this highlights the second bit is also 'like most tyrannosaurids'. I could also replace the first 3 words with "Typically for members of its family" as well. Does that clarify it?Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

1. The "Description" section seems to focus a great deal on the skull, while the rest of the body is briefly summarized in the last paragraph. I realize such features are often used to differentiate between animals, and not all the facts are available for dinosaurs. But it seems to unbalance the section in my opinion. Is there any extra info to include or a way to balance the section?

I'll have a think on this one, the big toothy skull is clearly a discussion point but appreciate the issue. later. Had a look, it is not too different in makeup from some of the other related dino FAs like Tyrannosaurus or Albertosaurus, but I think I'll be able to add some more material on other bits of the body. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The skull is mainly how we tell tyrannosaurids apart from each other and is usually considered their "signature" adaptation (ie, how we tell them apart from other dinosaur groups). Their postcrania are pretty standard between genera and other than the proportions aren't even that different from other theropods really. So the reason why it seems to focus on the skull is because the author is biased towards things that are more interesting for him to write about. :) Sheep81 (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

One more thing of note, with the first image in "Descriptions" left aligned, should the rest of the images be staggered to maintain consistency? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC))

Depending on the resolution of the screens of individual readers, the infobox might collide with the image and create a lot of white space if it is right aligned. So well, I guess it's left aligned just in case. On a related note, it's best not to fix the size of individual images to a specific value unless the image contains letters, but just let them remain unspecified thumbs, otherwise the page won't adjust to individual user preferences. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I figured that might have been the reason. Should every other image also be left aligned to create a consistent appearance/staggered pattern? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC))

Doesn't seem to be an issue elsewhere where the taxobox "touches" the text, but maybe it should be left, right, left right, or similar. It probably just comes down to aesthetics and seems very random on other articles. Here are the guidelines[5] Seems that it is preferred that subjects "face" the text. Funkynusayri (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I often alternate left/right unless there are issues with headings. I just realised the 'facing' issues and guess it applies to dinosaurs as well as humans :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Moral Support as member of WP:DINO; I have gone through it and tweaked a few things that struck me, but otherwise I think the information and formatting is up to par. I will also be available for fixes. J. Spencer (talk) 04:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I am a member of WP:DINO. The article looks quite nice. I have checked the text for clarity and grammar, and have only found a few things that struck me as off (fewer/less than confusion, etc). I am less familiar with tyrannosaurids than some other dinosaur clades, but this article seems to be good to go, based on comparisons with articles Tyrannosaurus, Tarbosaurus, and Albertosaurus. I have, however, replaced the tiny cladogram in this article with one that is more robust: if the text is going to discuss Gorgosaurus and its relationships with other tyrannosaurid genera (Daspleto-, Tarbo-, Alberto- and T. rex), then those other genera really should be included in the diagram (more than just a line indicating "to tyrannosaurines"). The old cladogram wasn't really illustrating the text next to which it was placed. On the issue of readability: I have no idea how to use the readability tool thing, though that might well be useful here. No other observations at this time. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 00:57, 28 April 2008.

[edit] 1960 South Vietnamese coup attempt

Article about a failed coup. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Image:Major-general-lansdale.jpg needs a verifiable source, per WP:IUP. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support - besides that one image that has a flaw regarding copyright, I have the overall impression that this article is qualified to be a featured one. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support - This is a solid article on a very specific event. It looks to be well-sourced to reliable sources. It is well-written and illustrated with helpful images that are all in the public domain. The article is written clearly and concisely. Although not as familiar with this period of history as I should be, I was able to follow the article easily. Very nicely done. Small questions and suggestions:

• I am not convinced that the infobox is necessary. It is huge and I am not convinced of its helpfulness in this instance.

Yeah I know, but with WP:MILHIST this stuff is almost compulsory in any major battle article which is seeking accreditation. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I see - that's the way the cookie crumbles over there. I know the Coordinator. I'll see what I can do. :) Awadewit (talk) 03:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Diem promoted officers on loyalty rather than skill, and played senior officers against one another in order to weaken and prevent them from challenging his rule. - in order to weaken what? the government?

Fixed. The military command. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• One of the underlying reasons was that many ARVN officers were members of other anti-communist nationalist groups that were opposed to Diem - explain what the ARVN is in the text of the article

Done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for so promptly fixing everything! I will now promptly sign! (oops!) Awadewit (talk) 03:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Another excellent article on Vietnamese Military History. Excellently-sourced, well written. No objections here. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 00:57, 28 April 2008.

[edit] Confirmed Dead

Self-nomination This article from WP:LOST on the second fourth season episode of the television show Lost was passed as a good article seven minutes ago by Bláthnaid (is that a new record?), who wrote that, "This is an excellent article. It is well written, the plot section is succinct, and there is lots of interesting real world information." Thanks to Sceptre, who wrote the plot section's prose. –thedemonhog talk • edits 15:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll just have a look at the section I wrote to see if I can improve the prose. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - "Daniel, Charlotte, Miles and Charlotte". Shouldn't that be "Daniel, Charlotte, Miles and Frank"? Sceptre ^(talk) 16:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Support Well-written, fully referenced, yada yada yada. What Lost S4 episode isn't?
  • Some reviewers praised the episode for doing a fine job of introducing the new characters, while others criticized this by saying that it caused the pace to slow.
    • Saying "the new characters" is assuming readers already know who the new characters are, which hasn't been mentioned by this point. Maybe reword.
    • After reading over the Reception section, I'm not fully convinced that reviewers (generally) criticised the episode's pace at all, let alone blaming this on the introduction of the new characters.
  • The narrative takes place in late December 2004 over ninety days after the crash - is it possible to reword so it doesn't sound as if the episode takes place over a period of ninety days?
  • Miles is a medium, who is hired... - no need for a comma unless we say "Miles, a medium, is hired..."
  • Charlotte is an anthropologist, who finds... - as above unless we have "Charlotte, an anthropologist, finds..."
  • Locke's group finds Charlotte, takes her prisoner, and dispose of her tracking device - "group" is a singular noun (although referring to multiple people) so grammatically "disposes" would be correct as with "takes".
  • several people become discontent with Locke's revelation that he is following the instructions of Walt Lloyd (Malcolm David Kelley), who had left the island a month previously[7] and they also question - being a bit picky with grammar but IMO the commas act a little like brackets and thus there should be another comma before the ref. Just the way I'd write it, though - commas are personal things. ;)
  • specifically, Charlotte's identity - no need for comma.
  • In the first instance of ref8 although ref tags generally should be placed after punctuation I'd go with the tag before the em dash, just because the dashes bracket off what is almost its own statement (if that makes sense; I'm not the best at explaining things... see Dash#Em dash) so it just makes sense to keep the tag inside the dashes.
  • the writer-producers that "it would be cool - they "believed that..."? They "thought that..."?
  • As I've said before, "much different" doesn't sound grammatically correct but leave it in if you think it's just because I'm Australian.
  • Mader's character's name... - no need to re-state "Mader".
  • A typical Lost episode contains fifty visual effects shots. Citation?
  • No need to use separate refs for 31 & 32 for different pages of an article. Put 'em both under page 1.
• We'll have to check up with Guinness on the GAN to FAC record, but I reckon seven minutes is worth a few FA brownie points. —97198 talk 04:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I am unsure of how to word the late December/over ninety days sentence. The citation for effects is the next in the paragraph. The article has been edited for all other points. Thank you, –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay, thanks for that and never mind about the sentence. Great job! —97198 talk 07:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I took care of the "December/over" sentence; the easy fix is just to use "more than" when "over" is ambiguous (a commas was necessary here as well). Some stricter grammarians dislike "over" for describing quantities, but I do not share that opinion. BuddingJournalist 17:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Couple of small things need fixing:

• "rumoured BE spelling > "rumored" AE
• kilometres > "kilometers"
• 130 kilometres offshore needs conversion into miles
• introductions of new characters > "introduction of new characters"

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take responsibility for the British English: I wrote that section and I'm British, so... yeah. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I will also take responsibility for the British English because I am Canadian. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The idea is to not mix and match styles so either it's all AE or all BE. The obvious choice seems AE as this series has strong national links to the US, per WP:ENGVAR. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Well-done, especially the Reception section, which is excellent. A couple minor points:

• Most or all of the episode was shot from September 11[28] to 23, 2007[29] and filming overlapped with the following episode.[30] -- In this sentence, it seems odd to have citations in the middle like that, when they are not directly after a comma. Best IMO to move those cites all to the end of the sentence, in that particular case. Cirt (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• References section -- pushed over to the left by the Wikiquote box - I'd suggest moving the Wikiquote box to a "External links" section, and add one or two helpful links to that section. Perhaps IMDB and the show's website about the episode. Cirt (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• The plot could use two or so brief background sentences, though this is not necessarily required because the reader can go to the other wiki articles for background - but still, it would be helpful. Cirt (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Overall, great work, these are just some other pointers which would make the article better. Cirt (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 16:46, 24 April 2008.

[edit] USS Orizaba (ID-1536)

Self-nomination I'm nominating this article for featured article consideration because I believe it meets all the requirements. It underwent a WP:MILHIST peer review here and successfully passed a A-Class review here — Bellhalla (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Very interesting read, references look good. Thanks for working on such a fine article. Dincher (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support A very good article. Great work on it. Jmsloderbeck (Talk) 00:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Contribs: Jmsloderbeck (talk · contribs) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Support I see nothing glaringly wrong with this article other than what has already been mentioned above. --Brad (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Support. Alright, it looks like my issues have been addressed. I'm sure I could find other nit-picky things to complain about, but for the most part it looks great. You have my Support. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Support No remaining issues. Well done. Maralia (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Support - Have watched this article matriculate and can see nothing that would lead me to have an issue with this article becoming an FA forthwith. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

CommentI should have commented earlier, because at Jack Kemp I am debating about the repeated publisher and works links. I don't think they should have been delinked here. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not really getting what you mean, but I see negligible value in repeated links to The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, etc. Maralia (talk) 04:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support -- Good, well balanced article. Very rarely do I support on first reading. Just a suggestion: You could add the location where the ship was scrapped, and the callsign of the ship (is it ID 1536?). =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The sources I have don't say where the ship was scrapped. ID-1536 was its US Navy designation in World War I; its call sign in the US Navy (at some point in time) was "NUBY". If Navsource Naval History is deemed a reliable source (see discussion above), i'll be happy to add the call sign (plus its reference to Navsource) into the article. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Call sign added to World War II section on infobox; I found a WWII-era source that shows NUBY was the call sign during WWII (at least). — Bellhalla (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I just found two minor issues, but I fixed them myself. Good work.--Carabinieri (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Exceptional article. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 20:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 16:46, 24 April 2008.

[edit] Black Moshannon State Park

Co-Nominators Ruhrfisch and Dincher

We are nominating this article for featured article because we believe that is represents some of the best work that wikipedia has to offer regarding state parks. It has undergone an extensive peer review (thanks to The Rambling Man, VerruckteDan, Ben MacDui, Dtbohrer and María) which is archived on the talk page. Ruhrfisch and Dincher (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Great article, very complete and well referenced. Definitely one of Wikipedia's finest. This is great work from all the editors, especially User:Dincher and User:Ruhrfisch. VerruckteDan (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and kinds words. Dincher (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ditto on the thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your helpful comments Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No problem. All of my comments (except for one, which is pending) were addressed or explained, and I think this is an excellent article. Thus, I Support. This has to be one of the best Geography articles on Wikipedia. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your support, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Support language and style (I'm not qualified yet to support more). Editors were very attentive to my concerns, and everyone else's. Great article. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Comments - just getting my feet wet having a look-through. Comments below..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

::Black Moshannon State Park is open for year round recreation and features an extensive network of trails... - something about this sentence to me sounds like a advertising brochure. I thought all parks were open year round, and it makes it sound like recreation is the main aim of the park (rather than conservation). The word features is what makes the second bit sound advertorial. I am trying to think of a different way to phrase it but you guys know the park better....Actually, the first clause is redundant: try " There is an extensive network of trails which allow (year-round) hiking, biking, and viewing the bog habitat at the Black Moshannon State Natural Area. " - is any meaning lost?

There are several Pennsylvania state parks in remote areas or atop mountains that are for all intents and purposes closed in winter. I tried putting your sentence in without the paranthesis "There is an extensive network of trails which allow year-round hiking, biking, and viewing the bog habitat at the Black Moshannon State Natural Area." and realized that in the winter when the snow is deep you can't hike or mountain bike on the trails. I have changed the word "features" to the more neutral "has" and tweaked slightly so it now reads: Black Moshannon State Park is open year round for recreation and has an extensive network of trails... Also, Juliancolton has asked (above) if there should be an "of" in viewing [of] the bog habitat. I tend to think not, but would appreciate your opinion on this. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC) OK. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• (outdent) I definitely prefer the 'viewing' without the 'of' too. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

:Lenape (or Delaware) - I am Australian and got confused for a second here; an epithet after 'Delaware' - x- Indian, or x-tribe, may be helpful.

:::I added tribe, thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

::Early on, the CCC constructed a dam at Black Moshannon Lake - actually, a year or date would be better here if available

The most specific information is given in one the National Register of Historic Places nomination forms [6] and is just "One of the first jobs undertaken by the CCC at Black Moshannon was the construction of a new dam at Black Moshannon Lake." We also have the black and white CCC photo published in 1936 showing men working on the completed dam. My guess is that the dam was begun in 1933 and finished that year or by 1934, but I have no verifiable source for that. Sorry, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The CCC-built dam forming Black Moshannon Lake was replaced in the 1950s by the current structure - again, why not exact date?

Again, the most specific sources (NRHP nomination forms again) all just say the new dam was built in the 1950s. Sorry, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Since its establishment in 1937, Black Moshannon State Park has undergone several changes. - this is a little vague and could be more specific, i.e. it is about chunks of the park used for other purposes (?) This is not a deal-breaker really as I am a bit conflicted about it.

It is meant to introduce the section and the fact that, although many of the CCC-built facilities still exist, the park is not a museum and there have been other developments since the CCC finished their work - i.e. the airport, ski area, new facilities, Bog Natural Area, etc. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be great to have a bit more detail in the Wildlife section - rare or unusual critters, or those which normally occur further north. It is a tad listy as it stands

Sorry, didn't see the IBA, but then you have some bird stuff in wildlife. Id be inclined to make this a 4 lvl heading under wildlife

Changed, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

::Nineteen cabins are available for use at Black Moshannon State Park. - err, sounds like an ad, how about "Nineteen cabins are used by visitors at Black Moshannon State Park." or something similar.

How about "Nineteen cabins can be used by visitors at Black Moshannon State Park."? I think that "are used" makes it sound like everyone uses them, which is not the case. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, better. I put it in. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, gotta sleep now - I'll try to get onto more from Boating, fishing, and hunting down tomorrow. Very interesting reading and should pass this time. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful comments and rest well. I must admit I do not understand "should pass this time" as this has not been in FAC before. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't meant it like that. nevermind. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Some more: Edward Gertler... - erm, who? A couple of words on who he is would be good to clarify why what he says is notable. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Edward Gertler is the author of the book used in reference 36. Dincher (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

::Yeah, so if he's a notable local celebrity for some reason would be good to put that in eg. Longtime canoeist/kayaker and author Edward Gertler says....

Already done. Didn't you check it? Dincher (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. Great. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Finally, very nearly there. It would be great if you could get any more wildlife info (eg on the bears or whatver) in hte wildlife section which looks a little short and listy compared with the bird bit. If there is nil then don't worry too much but essentially it is a natural area so a little more on the fauna would be good. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments. The wildlife at the park isn't that unusual for Pennsylvania. The bear, deer, squirrel, etc., are pretty much plentiful. The IBA received special treatment since the birds are unusual for the rest of PA. Perhaps we could add a bit about how the common wildlife has come back since the lumber era. Dincher (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Just added a sentence about how the animals have come back from very low population levels. Dincher (talk) 05:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Better, I think we're over the line. I am in Australia so haven't a clue what the normal wildlife of Pennsylvania is. I think these sort of articles provide a great opportunity to go into greater depth on ecological material. Compared with what I could find on some Australian natural areas it's still a tiny bit underdone but it ain't a deal-breaker no more. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Thanks very much for your comments, edits, and support Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Thank you for your support. Dincher (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

All other links checked out okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Support. Well done, both of you. --Moni3 (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and the suggestions. You've helped make this article better. Dincher (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks for your suggestions, copyedit, and support, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• I think I've said that for all WP:PENNA state park articles I've reviewed: please reduce the dazzling of unnecessary wikilinks in the references. You don't need to link PADCNR in the references to begin with, much less every time it shows up. Most other city and department links are at the very least arguably unnecessary. Circeus (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. Thanks. Dincher (talk) 05:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Looks very well written, although I haven't gone through it properly. TONY (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Comments This is a thoroughly-researched, well-written, and carefully illustrated article. I have a few questions and comments before I support.

• The 1892 local history - is this a seminal local history? is there nothing else? If not, the age of the source should be made clear in the prose.

• After this, the lands of the West Branch Susquehanna River valley were under the nominal control of the Iroquois - I tend to think that nineteenth-century works on Native Americans have been supplanted by more up-to-date history, perhaps more than two years after the Wounded Knee Massacre?
• The forests near the three original counties, Philadelphia, Bucks, and Chester, were the first to be harvested, as the early settlers used the readily available timber to build homes, barns, and ships, and cleared the land for agriculture. The demand for lumber slowly increased and by the time of the American Revolution the lumber industry had reached the interior and mountainous regions of Pennsylvania

• Meginnes (1892 history) is a seminal local history, but is now nowhere the only source cited for anything in the article. I added a few more citations to other, more modern references to the Native Americans and Lumber sections for this and the next question. The 1892 history is useful for a general reader in that it is available online (the other history references for the Native Americans are print only, as is Taber's work on the West Branch Susquehanna lumber industry centered in Williamsport). Is this OK? I suppose we could remove these if required to, but I just reread Meginness' chapter on "ABORIGINAL OCCUPATION" and it has the Susquehannocks (and all their names), the war with the Iroquois they lost, the Lenape (he even uses their own name, as well as Delaware) being subject to the Iroquois and being allowed to move into the West Branch Susquehanna watershed, and their all leaving the area. I would prefer to keep it. Perhaps it could be added to the reference for Wallace's "Indians of Pennsylvania" with some sort of note - "For a general overview of Native American History in the West Branch Susquehanna watershed, see ..." and the lumber chapter could be added to the Taber note? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think adding the note you propose would be a good idea. Awadewit (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• I have moved both Meginness chapter references into notes as described above and hope this meets your request. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• While there are no known archeological sites within Black Moshannon State Park, the name Moshannon (pronounced /Mō ˈsha-nən/) is derived from a Lenape (or Delaware) name for Moshannon and Black Moshannon Creeks: Moss-hanne, which means "moose stream" or "elk stream" - Are we sure about this fact, sourced to a 1928 work on Native American linguistic history?
  • No known archeological sites is now sourced to three references - just to be clear, I can find no mention of archeological sites within the park in any source on it or on Black Moshannon Creek I have read (and I read the 300 hits for "Black Moshannon" on Google Books, looked in libraries, etc.) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I was asking whether we are sure about the name - I was assuming that was what the source was used for. Awadewit (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Sorry for my misunderstanding. Donehoo is incredibly thorough and goes back to original documents (maps, land deeds, traveler's journals, etc.) usually in the PA State Archives and cites these, plus he apparently knew or at least understood Iroquoian and Lenape and other Native languages and gives the probable original Native American language name or names (most have been corrupted more than "Moss hanne" -> Moshannon). The Susquehanna River Basin Commission still cites him on their official website. The park website and other sources (Gertler for one) agree on "Moss hanne" too - should I add one of them? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I am reassured - thank you. Awadewit (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• This source has an author and publication information - it should be included in the footnote.
  • Fixed, thanks for the catch! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Not all of the footnotes are formatted the same way. Some have the author's first name first and some have the last name first, for example.
  • Fixed, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• This source does not look reliable to me and I am not convinced by the rationale provided above. Note that the website says: "If you have any additional information about this ski area, please contact DCSki's Editor, or add your comments by scrolling below. To view historical information about other lost ski areas in the Mid-Atlantic region, click here. Note that DCSki's Lost Ski Areas section contains recollections pieced together by DCSki readers. We try to continually develop a clearer and more accurate picture of closed ski areas, but understand that some of the details reported on this page may be inaccurate." The comments included in Wikipedia's article appear to be from a random reader.
  • I was able to find some more data from the New York Times and some other sources removed the DC Ski ref and the sentence on it closing due to lack of snow making equipment. In the process of looking I also found more data for the airport, 50th anniversary of the park, and climate, so I added those too. I did not find anything on archeology. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• This link wasn't working when I checked.
  • It has been moved to here and is fixed in the article. Thanks and good catch, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ruhrfisch knows what I think of infoboxes. I will accept that these editors deem the infobox necessary. However, this one is out of control! Cut a map! The box is too busy!

Disagree. A general map of the park and a specific map of the historical area are relevant and should stay. Dincher (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The infobox follows the model of Presque Isle State Park which is FA. I know you dislike boxes - where in the MOS is "too busy" listed, and is this an actionable criterion? If absolutley required to, I suppose the park map could go in place of the Antes sign. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that both maps are useful, however my eyes refuse to look at them because of all of business in the box. I would suggest removing the Antes sign (which the user has to click on to read anyway) and placing one of the maps there. (I consider this part of good article layout, which is part the WP:MOS, which is criteria 2, if you want to get picky about it.)Awadewit (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, the park map is out of the infobox and in the Native American History section. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Antes Historical Marker.jpg - This image is not particularly enlightening.

Disagree. It it gives an additional history of the area. Shows how the land has gone from a town to a "wilderness". Dincher (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It could go if it must. Dincher (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The sign doesn't really show that (it is a picture of text!) and the user has to click on it to read it. Awadewit (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I swapped it for another picture of where the tavern and village used to be. Long term the Antes school house is still standing and I will try to get a picture of it for this section (only have it in the background in a few cruddy / unusable pictures now). Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• At times, particularly in the "Ecology" section, I felt overwhelmed by links. Is there any way to fix this situation?
  • We wanted to link each plant and animal for readers unfamiliar with the area and its ecology. I have gone through and made sure that no links are duplicated in the body of the article Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah, but I think cutting out links like hunting, trapping, and 19th century will help make these high-value links more visible. Right now, some of the paragraphs just look like lists of links. Awadewit (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

gone, gone, gone. Dincher (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I will take a second look for more links tomorrow Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Two sections of the article sound too much like an advertisement for the park to me:

• The "Cabins" section gives so much detail about what is in the cabins and when they are available that I felt like I was reading a brochure.

I believe this information is needed because it is an article about the park. I feel like there is too much info about the history, ecology and geology. I feel like cutting out details about the facilities at the park will even further diminish the details on what is actually available to the visitor. Dincher (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked this section somewhat, removing some adjectives, etc.,

I still think this is unnecessary information, but unless other reviewers mention it, I will let it go. Awadewit (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Does the "Trails" section need to list every trail? I think examples would be sufficient. Again, I had a brochure moment.

Same thoughts as the cabins. Dincher (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)What criteria would be used for examples? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed several repeated instances of "gentle slopes" and one "steep". This should read less like a brochure. Dincher (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The brochure moments are still there for me. Examples:

All cabin renters need to bring their own dinnerware, pots and pans, towels, dishes, and bed linens

Shortened this a bit, but I still feel like readers will need to know if they need to bring household items. Dincher (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The use of these picnic tables and unreserved pavilions is first come, first served, and they are free of charge

I don't understand the problem here. It clearly states the availability of the facilities.Dincher (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not exactly sure how to choose the trails, but something must be done. When I got to this list, I just groaned - readers are not interested in every detail about the park. We have to remember that we are not here to provide detailed hiking information about the park. We are not just replicating the parks website. We need to be selective. I noticed that one trail won an award - that is an obvious choice for inclusion. Awadewit (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I eliminated a few of them kept, Allegheny Front Trail it is a major trail that passes through the park and could be it's own article, kept Bog Trail it's the winner. Kept Hay Road Trail it is historical. Kept Moss-Hanne Trail it goes through the natural area. Kept Ski Slope Trail it is historical, as is Sleepy Hollow Trail. Kept Snowmobile Trail it is a connector trail to snowmobile trails in the state forest (I wish there was no such thing (snowmobile trails in state forests that is.)), kept Star Mill Trail it's also historical. Dincher (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked this a bit - all 13 trails are still in the article, but only 6 of 13 are in the "Trails" section - one is now in Native Americans, four are in the "Lumber" section (in a block of 3 and Tent Hill Trail after Tent Hill), Ski Slope Trail is in "Modern Era" (guess where?), and Sleepy Hollow Trail's story of gypsy moth recovery now follows the forests in the "Wildlife" section. I call it the getting small children to eat method - chop it up into little bits and mix it in with things they like. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I always like being compared to a small child. :) Awadewit (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Why do we need a list of nearby state parks?

There are 120 Pennsylvania state park articles that have nearby state parks listed. I believe this information is relevant to the reader that is interested in visiting this particular park and any nearby parks. Dincher (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)This also follows the model of FA Presque Isle State Park Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• I want a picture of the "watermelon seed spitting contest"!
  • I'll see what I can do in July Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for an interesting read! As usual, Ruhr, your images are beautiful! Awadewit (talk) 05:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Initial response: Thanks very much for your careful reading, comments, and questions, which I will work on responding to individually. However, I wanted to make clear that this is one of 120 Pennsylvania state parks. As such, we have tried to do certain things the same through all 120 articles, although there are naturally some variations. I will also note that some of the issues on Native American references are my fault - this section has been rewritten in PR and again here in FAC and I was not as careful as I should have been and apologize. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your critical eye, helpful comments, and support. I apologize again for the small child remark - I was trying to make an analogy, not cast aspersions. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! Dincher (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support: I meant to get to this sooner, but (insert charming excuse for lack of time here). I participated in the Peer Review and thought the article excellent then, but as is usually the case, the article has improved even more due to helpful comments from FAC reviewers able to get here before me. Wonderful work, guys; this is a highly interesting and well put together article that deserves its gold star. María (habla conmigo) 23:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and all the work at PR! Dincher (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - thanks very much for your careful reading, comments and support Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 16:46, 24 April 2008.

[edit] Flag of Canada

previous FAC

I am self-nominating this article because I believe it meets the relevant criteria, and recently helped to get the article promoted to Good Article status. Gary King (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments As a Canadian I would like to see this as a FA. However:

• The chart on my PC is squished and disturbed.
• Is there no way to expand the alternative section?

I will post my other comments later when I have the time. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• The image gallery should look fine if you are using a resolution of 1024x768 or greater, which covers pretty much everybody. What screen size are you using?
• The alternative section is a new addition. In reality, it would be more appropriate as a subsection of an existing section, but it is not really related to any of the other sections. Perhaps if some new heading suggestions could be given, then it could be merged into one of them. Gary King (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support.--Avala (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Minor concern - This isn't an oppose, and it might be stylistic. However: There are two sources at the top and a lot of facts. That worries me. Some of it should be common, especially in Canada, but an South African (for example) reading the article might not know such things. Also, if this passes (and it most likely will unless something big comes up), will we all be singing "O Canada"? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • References generally do not need to be in the lead as long as the information is also presented later on in the article and properly referenced there. I also plan on making O Canada a WP:FA, so if you don't sing now, you will sing then ;) Gary King (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I know, thats why I said stylistic. Its a good article, from what I can tell. And that song was always fun. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Am I correct that http://fraser.cc/FlagsCan/Nation/Union.html is hosted by the author? And was originally a printed book? Who was the publisher?
  • Yes and yes. Still seeking a publisher, but it was published in 1997 according to his CV website. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Okay, don't be insulted, but is http://flagspot.net/flags/index.html considered a reliable source for FAC? I know it is considered by the flag project, but I'm double checking for FA.
  • Yes. Usually for FOTW, it has to come from somewhere first before any editor puts anything on. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)