Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/August 2007

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

The article was promoted 17:53, 31 August 2007.

[edit] Ine of Wessex

Another Anglo-Saxon king of Wessex. For comparison purposes, his predecessor Cædwalla of Wessex is now an FA, and Æthelbald of Mercia, a contemporary, is also an FA. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Some unnecessary year links and total over-templating of the footnotes, both of which I can/will tackle later today or tomorrow. Circeus 00:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. User:Outriggr did the unlinking. Circeus 20:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment A pronunciation guide would be useful. Is the name "Eye-n" or "Ee-nay" (or something else)? —Cuiviénen 23:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting question. I have no idea on this one, but I know a couple of people I can ask. I'm pretty sure none of the references I'm using cover this. I've always assumed it rhymed with "wine", but I could be wrong. I'll post here again if I can find out more. Mike Christie (talk) 10:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The rule of doubled consonants for short vowels gets regularized later, so the vowel could be long or short. If short, the logical pronunciation is "innuh." If long, the vowel would have been the "continental i" (η). The "i" of "I" and "wine" would be the least likely. If we have Latin authors writing it as "Ine," then it's likely the "eennuh," as Latin did obey the doubled consonant rule. It would be my best guess that it is the ήnuh. (If we found rhymes, we'd nail it down, but they don't exist from the period with the name.) Geogre 02:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hadn't thought of looking at Latin versions. The only source I know for the Latin is Bede, and it's indexed there in my Penguin translation as "Ini". So would that be "eeny"? I don't have the original Latin. Mike Christie (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Followup note: at the AS prosopography site, they list Inus, Yny, and Yni as well as Ine and Ini. Yny and Yni come from charters. Mike Christie (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

| may be right. It is, then, "eeny," as in "meeny, miny, moe." The Yny would be "eeny," but the "Yni" suggests "Eenuh," so, when combined with the others, it's likely that the most common (and Bede is probably the "Ine" source) pronunciation was "een" with the /i/ we have in "thin" and "in," which would put it like the contemporary "Enid" but without the final stop. Geogre 12:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've copied the above exchange to the article talk page. If Geogre had been certain of the pronunciation I think it might have gone in as uncontroversial, but since there is some uncertainty I've left it as a note on the talk page for when a reference can be found. Thanks to Geogre for the background and additional info on this. Mike Christie (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Mo? -- !! ?? 09:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Very well written, referenced, and, as, far as I can tell with my abysmal knowledge of history, comprehensive. Only a very small quibble. Under "Christianity", there is a quick mention that Ine originally opposed the creation of the Diocese of Sherborne (Now Salisbury), but there is no further details on this anywhere in this or the diocese article. I'm thinking either the mention should be developed, or dropped. Circeus 23:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the reference -- it comes from the Blackwell encyclopaedia, and there's no more there about it. That entry is written by Barbara Yorke, and I checked her "Kings and Kingdoms" (as well as some other sources) and found nothing more. So I think it might as well go. Mike Christie (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - This is a question since I know nothing about the subject. Does Christianity need its own section or could it go under another heading like "Internal affairs" since it is such a short section? Mattisse 14:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It could be merged, if commenters here think that would be better. I'd suggest keeping it separate though, because the influence and spread of Christianity through the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms is a major topic of historical study for this period. A reader with some interest in Ine might well look for a section about Ine's relationship with the church. Also, it didn't seem a very natural fit in the other section, which is in itself somewhat a collection of miscellanea. But I can reorganize things if people think that's an improvement. Mike Christie (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: It's traditional in histories of the Anglo-Saxon peoples to follow certain narratives. This article reflects most of these themes. One is, "How do tribes become kingdoms and kingdoms become a nation?" Another is, "How does the church convert a pagan island and civilize a barbarous people?" Another is, "How does a financial arrangement emerge that leads to taxation and the eventual ability to defend the island against invaders (under Alfred)?" Yet another is, "How do the people begin to think of themselves as non-Norse and see the other Norse as enemies?" Therefore, a breakout of "Christianity" is a convention in any history of an AS king. Even if there isn't that much to say in a quick article, it's one of the sections that should be present in all the articles on AS kings after 600. I'm not one who believes in a great deal of enforced uniformity, but this is more scholarly tradition than conformity, so I'd recommend keeping the section. Geogre 02:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Provisional oppose. Neutral. I've looked at the lead, and have the following issues.
  • Ouch: "under his overlordship"—Exposed at the top, so can you find another word for "under"?
  • "some but not all"—just "some"? But WP wants precision: "some two-thirds"? "more than half"?
  • "Ine retained some but not all of these territorial gains: by the end of his reign the kingdoms of Kent, Sussex and Essex were no longer under West Saxon domination. However, Ine maintained control of what is now Hampshire, and consolidated and extended Wessex's territory in the western peninsula." The relationships between the sentences is awkward. Full-stop after "gains", then semicolon after "domination"?
  • "first began"—one of them, not both.
  • "though none are known that bear his name"—As soon as I see "are known", I feel like a reference: known to whom? Otherwise, just remove the "are known" here, as long as it's clarified in the body of the article.
  • "Trade is thought to have increased significantly during his reign, with the town of Hamwih (now Southampton) becoming important." Same here: "thought"—who'se thinking? I'd remove this and say "Trade increased", again, expecting greater detail and/or referencing below. Such hedging (explicit uncertainty) becomes intrusive, especially in the lead. "Is noted for"—same issue. Better to say that his code of laws was an important step in ..., or something like that.
  • "They shed"—remove "they" (this will be an ellipsis).
  • I like the stubby third para (except "move" instead of "go"?).

Please locate a collaborator to have the whole text copy-edited, after you've done what you can with the hedging/referencing thing. Tony 04:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've done the lead per your notes and will follow up when I've also done a pass on the body. Here are some comments on the lead:

• under his overlordship -- I made this under his control, which is less precise but suffices for the lead, I think. I agree—not easy to think of a synonym for "under": "subject to his overlordship" is all I can think of.
• some but not all -- changed to "was unable to retain all", which I hope eliminates the question of what proportion was retained. The loss of territory is covered in some detail in the body.
• Ine retained -- I've restructured the sentences as you suggested. I'm tempted to make the two sentences into one very long one, since the structure is "statement: illustration; counterillustration", but I think it would be too long.
• first began -- dropped "first".
• none are known -- the issue here is that coins are being found all the time, and a coin may still be found with Ine's name. I've changed it to "none have yet been found", which makes it clearer why "none exist" would be an unsafe assertion. Except that "none" is always singular.
• Trade is thought -- I dropped the qualification as you requested.
• Is noted for -- I've left this as is since I'd like to clarify the intent here and see what you think. What I meant by this is something like "Ine's laws are much commented upon by historians", or "Historians have treated the laws as one of the most important facts of Ine's reign." I could just cut out the "noted" part completely, and leave it at: "Ine issued a code of laws in about 694," and possibly then join that to the subsequent sentence.
• They shed -- done.
• move vs. go -- I'm going to leave this as is, I think. Two reasons: one is that "'go" sounds more as if the journey itself is important, which is the case here -- there is an element of pilgrimage in Ine's decision. Second, to my ears at least, "move" has too many connotations of calling up the removal van company and arranging for your books to be shipped. I think "go" is more neutral.

As I said, I'll post here again when I've had a go at the rest. If any other copy-editing editor wants to have a go, please do; I agree with Tony that fresh eyes are usually best, but I'll also plan to do it myself. Mike Christie (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've done a pass and removed the inclemencies I could spot. Tony, please let me know if you see further issues. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Mike, thanks, good work. But I see little problems wherever I look, so can we find a third party to go through it? Search the edit histories of simliar FAs (England, histories) and other good articles to locate new wikicollaborators; this is potentially rewarding in the long term. "Reign": Remove "fairly" as vague and unencyclopedic. Remove the dot in the caption (MOS). Since there's a reference number at the end of the sentence, remove "is known to have" and make it a plain statement. "Comprised" rather than "consisted of" to emphasis wholeness (Fowler says!). "in either 704 or 705"—spot the redundant word. There's a lot of good in this article, but it needs polishing. I support it in the expectation that you'll locate the right collaborator(s).

I appreciate you having faith in me to get it done. I have approached one possible collaborator, and have one other in mind if that fails me; I could always ask my wife, whose professional writing experience exceeds mine, but that might be asking for trouble. Anyway, I'll post a note here when/if I get some help on this. Mike Christie (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Your wife is by your side and not helping? Moral pressure, please! Tony 06:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

My wife marked up a hardcopy, and I've entered those changes; plus Outriggr and qp10qp have both done substantial copyedits (thank you both). Would you take another look and see if the problems are resolved? Mike Christie (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support Looks like the rest of the featured Articles Kai Su?^{My Talk Page} 16:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'll maybe take a look tomorrow, if I get chance, but do we have to begin the article with a question mark? I would prefer "(died 728)" DrKiernan 14:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed it per your suggestion; I think it's gone back and forth a couple of times per different editors' preferences. Mike Christie (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Support Excellent work once again! Minor points: repetition in the lead of "during [his/Ine's] reign"; sceattas = pounds or pennies?; death date is given as 728 at first but then "the following year" (after 726) at the end – should "728" read "in or after 727"? DrKiernan 11:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think someone else fixed the repetition; there are two occurrences left which seems acceptable to me, particularly since "in Ine's" looks so odd on the page. The date of death issue is fixed. Sceattas: they were probably known to contemporaries as pennies, per the WP sceat article (I don't have another source for that assertion) but the ASC uses the word pounds in the entry referred to for 694. It's "punda" in the B text, per this online version. The conjecture that the pounds are sceats comes from the knowledge of what a king's weregild would be. Does this need expansion on the page? Mike Christie (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments. I have some suggestions and queries, but I see no reason why this article shouldn't soon be another FA. After all, there's a finite amount to be said about this king, and, as always with Mike Christie's work, the ground is carefully and cautiously covered. I congratulate him on all his excellent Anglo-Saxon articles. The clear prose style is particularly impressive; this is an encyclopedic quality often overlooked by FA writers. I applaud the way technical and precise terms are unobtrusively explained en passant.

Please don't feel daunted by the number of comments: most of them can be addressed very easily, I imagine. And do ignore anything here that you feel is off target, of course. I'm already very close to supporting.

• in the words of a contemporary chronicler. I suggest it would be better to make it clear that this contemporary chronicler was Bede. Otherwise, some readers may ask "what other contemporary chroniclers were there, then?"

• On a similar point of making the nature of sources clear, I suggest the article should not risk implying that the Annales Cambriae were in any way more contemporary than the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. "The Annales Cambriae record that in 722..." might give that impression, I suspect.

• Ingeld/Ingild. Two different spellings.

• Cuthburh. The article could perhaps mention here that she and Aldfrith separated and that she founded the abbey at Wimborne. (Annoyingly, I bought some scholarly pamphlets when I visited the minster and chained library there but can't blasted well find them at the moment.) She was a big cheese in her day, in her way: and she provides another piece of evidence for Ine's patronage of religious establishments.

• It might be worth a line about the practice of and reasons for going to Rome at this time. Bede has something on it, I think.

• Are we sure that the Schola Saxonum was only for men? I've no idea, but if we don't know, we need to be cautious with the language, since so many Anglo-Saxon women also went to Rome.

• further evidence comes from a land-grant, thought to be genuine. I think we need a touch more here, since one wouldn't expect the article to be referring to a land grant which was not thought to be genuine.

• It may be that Cenred gave up his claim to the throne in favour of Ine, but there is no comparable circumstance in Anglo-Saxon history. There are plenty of examples of people giving up their throne, and we cannot always know how they were related to their successors. If this is based on Stenton, I think he means that there was no comparable example of co-kingship between father and son. But I wouldn't even make a big deal of that, as such, because Ine may have ruled a different area at first (Sussex, for example, given the interest he took in the Mul business and Kent). And off the top of my head, I'd say that Aethelwulf carried out a similar role at the end of Egbert's reign, as a sub-king. Certainly that sort of overlap was common in Europe.

• The West Saxons had since expanded further down the Cornish peninsula, pushing back the boundary with the British kingdom of Dumnonia, which probably consisted of what is now Devon and Cornwall. Possibly Somerset, too, since Ine built at Taunton. I'm not comfortable with "Cornish peninsula" here. "Corn" means "horn" and only applies to the southwestern end of the southwestern peninsula. Although it is possible that the Cornovii had lived further east too, I believe that Devon had partly been evacuated by this time, to judge by the place names, with the Cornish retreating into Cornwall proper and Brittany in the sixth and seventh centuries. I would avoid the word peninsula here altogether and go for "further west".

• He or his people campaigned across the Tamar in Cornwall, though unsuccessfully: the Annales Cambriae record that in 722 the British defeated their enemies at the Hehil, which has been identified as the river Hayle. I find this a little unclear. They were unsuccessful in 722, but do we know the result of the 710 campaign? And although it's true that some historians think Hehil is Hayle, I don't believe the spot has been identified. It is actually impossible to identify the site of the battle from the evidence; and historians have also suggested the Camel estuary, which used to be called Heil, as well as Hele, Jacobstow (near the Ottery), and Hele in Devon. In The South West to AD 1000, Malcom Todd and Andrew Fleming say that both the Hayle and the Camel are "too far west to be taken seriously". Hayle is certainly in the extreme west of Cornwall. The Camel, however, strikes me as possible, because it is in north Cornwall, not far from the ethnic dividing line along the Ottery. On that point, I would add that fighting in Cornwall is not just a matter of fighting across the Tamar, because in the north, beyond the source of the Tamar, the boundary between the two cultures, which is pronounced in the name places, is along the Ottery. The battle was likely to have been fought around there somewhere, in my opinion, as may have been the later battle in which Egbert defeated the Cornish. It's the only part of Cornwall which doesn't possess natural defences (Cornwall's Achilles hehil, one might say). Extreme caution in the wording is needed, I think, even if the result is vagueness.

• John of Worcester, a twelfth-century source, states that Geraint was killed in this battle. The casual reader might ask what a twelfth-century source would know, so might it be mentioned here that John had access to chronicles at Hereford and Worcester which have now been lost. I've a lot of time for John?

• "Other conflicts" section: This is surely too short. It would be so easy to lose it by adding the Taunton incident to the Dumnonia section and the Cynewulf to the tail of the Ealdberht material. We don't know for sure if Ealdberht was an aetheling, but the incident seems to be of a piece and a time with the Cynewulf one. Admittedly, we don't know where the latter happened, and so it doesn't fit any geographical heading; but the article could say that it is not known where it took place and I'm sure no one would mind it being in the south-east section. Especially if it were the last item.

• an exile fled. He sounds more like a fugitive to me. When a king sends someone into exile, he doesn't usually chase after him. And he couldn't have been an exile before he fled.

• The amount offered to Ine by Wihtred is uncertain; most manuscripts of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle record "thirty thousand", and some specify thirty thousand pounds. If the pounds are equal to sceattas, then this amount is the equal of a king's wergild (a criminal reparation) according to Mercian law. I think the explanation of what wergild was needs to be a little clearer. Also, it's not clear to me why Mercian law is mentioned here (presumably it's the source of the explanation), and I'm not sure it needs to be. In this context, we probably need to learn why Ine is thought to be the first known minter, which I presume is because of the mention of "pennies" in his laws (Kirby, 222; I think you were asking above for another reference). Nothing's easy, though: how on earth does one explain that sceattas might have been equivalent to pounds but called "pennies"?

• Evidence for Ine's control of Surrey comes from the introduction to his laws, in which he refers to Eorcenwald, bishop of London—and hence of Surrey, which was in the diocese of London—as "my bishop". I was unclear about the status of Surrey in the article. I made a change which might not have helped. Did it have a status as an individual kingdom? If not, was it a part of Essex? If so, why did Ine control it separately? And if he at some point controlled Essex, why mention Surrey if it was part of it? Kirby says, "he was certainly regarded as king in Surrey early in his reign". But what does this mean? Why say this and not, for example, "in Hampshire", or whatever? Was Surrey perhaps a minor kingship, like that of the Hwicce?

• By this point Surrey had clearly passed out of West Saxon control. Bede records that Ine held Sussex in subjection for "several years", but in 722 an exile named Ealdberht fled to Surrey and Sussex, and Ine invaded Sussex as a result. This point seems to follow from a much earlier letter and events of 704 or 705. Is that synthesis inevitable? How do we know that Surrey had passed out of West-Saxon control, from the evidence given? We are only told that Ine held Sussex in subjection, followed by some information about Sussex—nothing about Surrey. If the implication is that Ealdberht would only have fled to those places if Ine no longer controlled them, perhaps that should be brought out slightly more. And do we have any idea why Ine's control would be weakening in Surrey? Was Mercia starting to expand into this area yet?

• The first mention of the office of ealdorman in Wessex, and the first references to the shires they led. Were there mentions of these in other kingdoms before? It would be interesting to be told, for historical context.

• It is probable that the assembly of large cattle herds would have been easier to achieve via royal command and taxation than through any nascent market system. I felt this was one of the few sentences where the article lapsed from its clear prose style. I'm not sure "Nascent market system" will mean much to most readers, and it clashes unfortunately with the image of a "cattle market", at least in my mind. The sentence needs a strong verb, I suggest.

• A fragment of Ine’s laws can also be found in British Museum MS Burney 277. Is this a separate fragment, or one of the bits from the fire? How many different copies have survived in whole or part? (I take it three, but if so, that might be best indicated).

• I wasn't clear about the word "used" in relation to Alfred's use of the old laws. Did he incorporate them into his own laws, or combine them with each other, or what? How do we know which bits are Ine's? Why are we sure (I daresay we are, but I couldn't work it out) that the overlaps between Ine and Wihtred's laws weren't brought into play later, when Alfred was stitching different laws together (given that it says we probably do not have Ine's original version)? Do we know what kings' laws were "used" by Alfred other than Ine's?

• ceorl. I'd suggest this is a technical term and requires a phrase of explanation ("Saxon freeman", or something?).

• communally. I'm not sure this is clear. It seems to clash with the point that the ceorls owned individual pieces of land. The solution I would propose is to cut it.

• it is probable that this was the prevalent agricultural method throughout the midlands. I can't work out what this means here. Does it mean the central areas of Wessex, given that the westcountry was different? It's not a normal term in England, except to describe the area in mid England, roughly where Mercia was.

• does not occur. Does the present tense indicate archaeological evidence? I think that needs to be made slightly clearer.

• yard. This seems to be a square measure in this context. Does it mean what we would think of as a square yard? A yard, in itself, is only a measure of length—at least these days.

• The information about the prologue to the laws is repeated somewhat in the "Christianity" section. It might be worth varying the wording between the two.

• The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that Ine built a minster at Glastonbury. This must refer to additional building or re-building since the church at Glastonbury is known to have been established as a British monastery. It might be worth checking the wording in the ASC again, perhaps in more than one translation, to see what exactly was said. The passage sets up an opposition between minster/church/monastery that I suspect is not really needed. And it slightly questions what was probably just a report of new buildings in the existing foundation.

• Bede's wording, as given, implies that Ine was still king when he died in Rome. The article, however, says that he had abdicated the year before.

• Should Oswald be mentioned at the end, since he fought for the succession?

Anyway, I've thoroughly enjoyed reading the article and making these notes. Boy o boy, does this stuff bring me back to my schooldays, when I was Anglo-Saxon mad! I apologise for getting slightly carried away! qp10qp 00:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed comments; always a pleasure to get queries on content as well as form. I'll use your bullet identifications and sign each one separately so you can respond under each one if necessary. I'll do these as I get to them.

• in the words of a contemporary chronicler. Done. Mike Christie (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Neatly done.qp10qp 12:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• On a similar point . . . I added a parenthetical comment that the chronicle dates from the tenth century, and cited that. Mike Christie (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The scruple is worth it, I think.qp10qp 12:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ingeld/Ingild. Fixed; I used "Ingild", since that's the most common in the secondary sources; only Stenton and Swanton have "Ingeld". Mike Christie (talk) 03:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

OK.qp10qp 12:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Cuthburh. Done. I can't actually find a ref that says Wimborne Abbey was at that time in the see of Sherborne, but it's in the modern see of Salisbury, judging by the map, so I believe it's the case. Mike Christie (talk) 04:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You are safe with that, because even though Wimborne lies at the extreme east of Dorset, Dorset was all part of the new diocese of Sherborne at this time. It also lies just to the west of the New Forest (still a marked landscape feature today), which appears to have been the dividing line. By the way, I don't know if it was only a temporary measure, but I'm surprised you've cut the mention of the splitting of the Winchester diocese: to me that's a significant fact, as it suggests West-Saxon expansion to the west was expected to be permanent. It might be worth mentioning Aldhelm's name in that context, too; one suspects he was appointed, given his letter to Geraint of Dumnonia, for his expertise in the doctrinal issues between the Roman and Celtic churches.qp10qp 12:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Wimborne, the map on p. 145 of Blair's Introduction to Anglo-Saxon England ("Approximate diocesan boundaries c. 750") shows it in the diocese of Winchester. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Angus. Re the cut sentence, qp, I cut it because I couldn't expand on the note on Ine's initial opposition -- see my response to Circeus above. I agree it is relevant. I'll put this on my list to re-add appropriately; if you can find a source on Ine's opposition, please let me know. Mike Christie (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

But it can be sourced without mentioning any opposition. And Wimborne can be mentioned without saying what diocese it was under.

On the diocese, little is provable for this period, of course: we can't even be sure that dioceses were run like they were later, and Wimborne may have been independent at that time. Wimborne seems to have been part of the diocese of Salisbury in the eleventh century, when the bishopric moved there (via Ramsbury) in the eleventh century. That the Sherborne diocese had jurisdiction "west of the wood", as the ASC says, is problematic. I doubt the possibility that "west of Selwood", as appears in one ASC manuscript, refers to the west of Selwood in Somerset, since Berkshire, well to the east, seems to have been under the Sherborne diocese. "West of Selwood" was a term more appropriate to Alfred's time, I suspect, when the chronicles were constructed, referring to the areas in the west where Alfred had retreated from the Danes.qp10qp 14:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I've readded the material with the above in mind. The map Angus pointed me at might be a useful one for me to reproduce, both for this article and others; I'll see if I can find time for that. Mike Christie (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Happy with the edit.qp10qp 18:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• It might be worth a line . . . Done; there's actually a short note about the practice right under Bede's comments about Ine, so I cited that. Mike Christie (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine.qp10qp 18:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Are we sure that the Schola Saxonum was only for men? I've tweaked it to use "English" rather than "Englishmen". The source I cited, the Penguin Asser, does in fact say "Englishmen", but as you say this is not a safe assumption. Mike Christie (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine.qp10qp 18:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• further evidence comes from a land-grant, thought to be genuine. This is probably just excessive caution on my part, so I've cut the "thought to be genuine". I introduced it because Kirby makes a disparaging aside: "If the evidence, admittedly not here of the best, of land-grants can be accepted, . . . ." I wasn't sure whether he meant these land-grants were unreliable or that land-grants in general were a poor witness, but I don't think this needs to make it to the page so I've cut it. I did leave in the reference link to the charter in question. Mike Christie (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

OK.qp10qp 18:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• It may be that Cenred gave up his claim to the throne in favour of Ine, but there is no comparable circumstance in Anglo-Saxon history. It is indeed based on Stenton. Here's what I was trying to paraphrase: "Primitive Germanic custom may well have allowed a son to secure the kingship of his people during the lifetime of an unambitious father, but there is no English parallel to the case of Ine and Cenred." Do I need to reword to make sure the sense is clear? Or is it still not worth including? Mike Christie (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I argued my case higher up. Stenton's point cannot baldly be applied in the following way: It may be that Cenred gave up his claim to the throne in favour of Ine, but there is no comparable circumstance in Anglo-Saxon history. This is because other kings gave up their thrones in favour of successors. And we do not always know the relationship between kings and their successors, anyway. Stenton may be right that there is no exact parallel, but there are near parallels, so one needs to be very precise about what there is no exact parallel to.qp10qp 18:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right; after reading your comments again I decided to just cut the sentence completely. I don't think it adds enough to be worth being precise enough about to keep. Mike Christie (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• The West Saxons had since expanded . . . I just cut the word "Cornish"; "further west" would have been three "wests" in about two lines, and I felt that would clank a bit. Could I just say "the southwestern peninsula"? On Somerset, I don't have a source that says Ine conquered it, or that Dumnonia held any of it prior to Ine's accession -- Stenton just says that it was probably in Ine's time that Devon was conquered, and doesn't mention Somerset. So I'd rather not mention that without having something to cite. Mike Christie (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"Southwestern peninsula" is fine. I think the chances that Dumnonia was exactly equivalent to today's Devon and Cornwall is unlikely, though. The Oxford History of Britain says, "Cornwall, Devon, and Somerset formed the British kingdom of Dumnonia...the inhabitants were pushed back by the Anglo-Saxons during the seventh and eighth centuries, though Cornwall held out till 838." But the context in the article wasn't whether Somerset was conquered by Ine but whether the region had been conquered since Ceawlin (To the west, Ceawlin of Wessex is known to have reached the Bristol Channel one hundred years before. The West Saxons had since expanded further down the peninsula, pushing back the boundary with the British kingdom of Dumnonia, which probably consisted of what is now Devon and Cornwall). My point is only that they must have pushed back some areas of Somerset, too, to get to this position. The Chronicle says that Centwine pushed the Britons back as far as the sea, and surely this can only mean that they reached the coast of Somerset, at the least. However, it's not a big deal and the addition of a word like "roughly" would cover all angles, I think.

I did some rewording here; let me know what you think. Mike Christie (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is surely unexceptionable now.qp10qp 18:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• He or his people campaigned across the Tamar. I have edited the text to blur it somewhat, as you suggested. However, part is technically uncited now: the Stenton ref assert that it's the Hayle. Could you give me the page ref for the Todd/Fleming, so I can cite that? Mike Christie (talk) 03:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

On Hehil, the ref is: Malcom Todd and Andrew Fleming, The South West to AD 1000, 1987, London: Longman, p. 273, ISBN 0584492734. The best references for Cornwall are that book and Philip Peyton's Cornwall: A History (Payton, by the way, opts for the Camel in the same way that Stenton opts for Hayle—and so the present wording in the article is judicious).

This is now cited from Todd & Fleming; thanks for the details. Mike Christie (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I can relax now. :) qp10qp 18:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• John of Worcester, a twelfth-century source . . . . I have moved the "twelfth-century" comment to the footnote and reffed John's access to versions of the ASC. Mike Christie (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It's good. He may have had a Welsh source for the Geraint info as well. But the AS chronicles there were probably also using some Welsh annals, so the edit covers all possibilities.qp10qp 18:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Other conflicts. Well, I'll move this if you really think it should go, but I have to say I'd rather not put the Cynewulf material in any geographically specific section. I do realize the section is small, and I spent some time considering other organizational approaches, but I don't like any of them better. One option would be to remove the headings at this level, and let the organization flow from the paragraph text. Would that be an improvement? Mike Christie (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it would. At the moment the article is identifying the Taunton incident as a conflict comparable to the Cynewulf matter. I have always imagined it in the context of the southwestern expansion. Either way, we don't know, because, as Stenton says, the AS entry is "by no means luminous". The most likely conflict at Taunton, it seems to me, would be that Ine's fortess had been recaptured and so his queen burned it in reconquering and suppressing the region. Guesswork, of course, but no worse than the article's present guess that a quarrel had arisen in the royal family. I'd prefer a neutral, uninterpreted, noting of that incident—placing it in the southwestern context. But this is a small matter, and what you decide isn't going to affect whether I support the article.

• an exile fled. As I understand it, the use of the term "exile" in secondary sources is often shorthand for someone who might have been a contender for the throne, or at least a threat to the existing king, and who cannot stay in the kingdom as a result. He is almost always a fugitive, I would think; Edwin of Northumbria was a fugitive from Aethelfrith when Raedwald took his part, but as I recall is described as an exile. So I would be concerned about implicitly losing information if I change to "fugitive". The information in this paragraph is compressed largely from Kirby, who conjecturally makes Ealdberht part of a narrative involving the destruction of Taunton and a rebellion; this is where Kirby brings in the possible Ingild connection. I'd left this out as conjecture that I hadn't seen repeated elsewhere, but it is reasonable and does provide a framework for covering this material. Would expanding this paragraph somewhat address your concern? Mike Christie (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I take your point. But an exile isn't an exile until he has fled or been sent away. It's not important to me, anyway: I leave it to you.qp10qp 18:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• The amount offered to Ine by Wihtred . . . . Three issues here. I think I've dealt with the "wergild" problem; please take a look and see what you think. I dropped the reference to Mercian law: that's from Swanton, who gives a reference to an original and a translation in Whitelock's EHD. I don't have the original text, but from EHD it turns out to be a reference to CCCC MS 201, which includes a text called "Concerning the Law of the Mercians"; that text also appears in the Textus Roffensis. In that text is this: ". . . a king's simple wergild is the wergild of six thegns by the law of the Mercians, namely 30,000 sceattas, which is 120 pounds in all." (Whitelock adds a note pointing out that a thegn's wergild is defined in the preceding lines as 1200 shilllings, so that the total should have been 28,800 sceattas if we take four pennies/sceattas to the shilling.) I think this is too much detail, though, so what I've done is simply excise the reference to Mercian law--the relevant point for the reader is just that it's plausbile that the punda are here sceattas because Mul was a king and that's the amount of a king's wergild. Swanton presumably mentions it because wergilds did vary by kingdom (I assume; haven't looked) so the statement needed to be qualified in his mind. I can do the same if you think it's necessary; I think most of what I've just written above would be in a footnote rather than the main text, but that could work well. The third point you raise is that of Ine as first minter. The Blackwell Encyclopaedia simply cites supporting "archaeological and numismatic evidence", without giving references, but there's more support in Kirby. (I evidently have a different edition from you--p. 222 is beyond the end of my copy--so perhaps this is the same reference you're referring to.) On p. 126 of my edition, near the end of the chapter on the Southumbrian kingdoms, he says "By c. 700 the area of circulation of the sceatta [shouldn't he say sceat?] . . . was widening to embrace the Thames valley and Hamwic, near Southampton, was emerging as an important trading settlement . . . ." There are two references (53 and 54 in case that helps you spot this in your differently paginated edition), one numismatic, and one to do with early towns. Is an extra cite enough here, or is some text needed in the article itself? Mike Christie (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I was going to tell you that I'd cocked that up, because the reference was actually to Stenton 222, where he mentions "pennies". This is what comes of having scribbled and jumbled notes! I think the wergild paragraph is now masterly: it conveys the complexities concisely. I do, however, feel that something is needed in the article saying why it is thought that Ine may have been first to mint coins. From your comments and what I have read, the deduction is made from the circulation and mention of the coins during his reign.qp10qp 19:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I added a line based on the bit of Kirby I mentioned above. I looked at Stenton, but I think I don't need to mention the "pennies=sceattas" point; I don't mention pennies in the article, so I think we're OK without it. Mike Christie (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

OK.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Evidence for Ine's control of Surrey and By this point Surrey had clearly passed out of West Saxon control: I'm going to combine these two points for purposes of commentary. Here's what I think are the facts about Ine, Surrey, and Essex; perhaps this can be reorganized into more coherent text for the article. With regard to Essex, there is no evidence that I know of that Ine ever controlled all of Essex; it's not recorded that Caedwalla conquered Essex or had influence on their kings. Surrey was never a kingdom, I believe, but is mentioned as a territory in early sources -- in fact the 722 entry is the first such mention in the ASC. The introduction to the laws imply that Ine controlled at least part of Eorcenwald's territory (Stenton makes that deduction explicitly); the letter of Wealdhere demonstrates that Ine did not have overlordship of the East Saxons, and had lost control of Surrey. As for why Ine's control was weakening, Kirby suggests that Kentish influence was growing, though it's conjecture on his part. I can add that if it would be useful -- it's part of the same conjectural section where he discusses Ealdberht's rebellion (mentioned above). Anyway, let me know what you think of this material and I can rework to clarify whatever is unclear. Mike Christie (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is largely a clarity issue. It just needs to be written more sharply, I think. The article says that "Sussex, Surrey and Kent had all recovered their independence by the end of his reign". But in Surrey's case, what independence, if it wasn't a kingdom? The article says that London and Surrey were under the East Saxons but also that Ine lost control of Surrey: putting two and two together, one would deduce that the East Saxons took Surrey off Ine. But you mention that Kirby suggests Kentish power was an influence here. The point about Surrey's independence was never followed up. I just think the text needs simplifying, perhaps, to remove the conundrum.qp10qp 19:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I've done a bit of a rewrite here, but haven't mentioned Kirby's theory. Partly this is because doing so would require me to absorb the note on Taunton too, which would then force me to fix the "Other Conflicts" section. That would also conflict with your request to make the note on Taunton neutral and avoid mentioning the cause, since Kirby's conjecture is about familial rebellion. However, I would still like to find a way to mention the possibility of Kentish influence causing Ine trouble. I hope this is fixed enough for support; if so I'll work on the other points and come back to this last. Mike Christie (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Your article on Aethelbald also seemed to imply there might have been Mercian influence here too. No one knows, is probably the bottom line.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• The first mention of the office of ealdorman in Wessex . . . . I've done a bit of poking around and I can't answer this. The ASC has a mention in 653 that I noticed, and there may be earlier ones, but of course that doesn't prove it was a contemporary term in 653. Charters would be better evidence if they survived from that period; the Blackwell entry cites charter evidence in support of Ine having created the shires. Anyway, I don't think I have enough info to expand on this, I'm afraid. Mike Christie (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the ASC entry you mention, that refers to Mercia: on that basis this sentence just about holds. As you say, it's a messy business because the ASC is late ninth century, really, and a lot of the contemporary stuff was in Latin, which had all sorts of words for the same concept anyway. No change is fine.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• It is probable that the assembly of large cattle herds . . . . I have expanded this paragraph, using additional material from Yorke, and I've cut the problematic sentence. Let me know what you think of the rewrite. One specific question: I've been using "Hamwih" rather than "Hamwic" because the only source I have that devotes a substantial amount of attention to it (Campbell, The Anglo-Saxons) says that "Hamwih" is the convention when talking about the mid-Saxon site. However, the other sources seem to all say "Hamwic" in all cases. Any opinions about which to use? Mike Christie (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

After I wrote that I checked Blackwell, and it says unequivocally that "Hamwih" is an error, so I'm changing it. Mike Christie (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I've always seen Hamwic, too. I'm glad the fancy sentence has gone.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• A fragment of Ine’s laws . . . . I have reworded this, and I hope it's now clear; there are indeed three surviving mss in whole or part. Mike Christie (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Clear now, thanks.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• I wasn't clear about the word "used" in relation to Alfred's use of the old laws. There are two things to be communicated: one is that Alfred says in his lawcode that "those [laws] which I found either in the days of Ine, my kinsman, or of Offa, king of the Mercians, or of Æthelberht [. . .] which seemed to me most just, I collected herein, and omitted the others." The other is that Ine's laws were appended to Alfred's. There is no indication whether the copied version represents the edited version, or if on the contrary the laws are Ine's original laws, and the process of creating Alfred's laws is what Alfred is referring to when he says he omitted some. The first reference to the source says Alfred "appended them"; would it be clearer to say "appended a copy of them"? The second reference, now that I look at it, doesn't even seem necessary; there's no reason in an article on Ine to mention that Alfred used Offa's laws. I've cut it; does that solve the problem?

Much better now, because the word "used" confused me before.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• ceorl. Done. Mike Christie (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• communally. Done; I cut the clause. Mike Christie (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It save the reader from thinking too much there (me, anyway.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• it is probable that this was the prevalent agricultural method throughout the midlands. Expanded and clarified (I hope). Mike Christie (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Aha, I understand now. I might just add a word or two there to clarify even further.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• does not occur. Unfortunately all I have from Stenton here is this: "A large part of England never came under the open-field system. It is not found in the far north nor the north-west, along the Welsh border or in Devon." I don't see how to make much more of this than I have; is there a wording you'd prefer? Mike Christie (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it to the past tense; the present tense threw me.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• yard. I think this is now fixed. Not sure if I really need the virgate link there; it would be more useful if there were more on the other end of the link. Mike Christie (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Might as well. I suppose we have to imagine what articles may be like in the future. That's a very helpful edit, by the way.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• The information about the prologue to the laws . . . . I've moved the extended quote to the section on Christianity and cut it from the laws section; does that do it? The quote was certainly too much to repeat, and I think it's more useful in the Christianity section. Mike Christie (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Slicker.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle . . . . The text in Chronicle A is "7 he getimbrade þæt menster æt Glæstingabyrig"; it is apparently a marginal note added in the early eleventh century. Swanton translates it as "and he built the minster at Glastonbury". Swanton's note is what I was using as my source; he says "This . . . must refer to additional building, or re-building, since Glastonbury was the site of a British monastery; here as elsewhere Ine was completing or adding to what others had begun." Any thoughts on how to improve the article text? Mike Christie (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, go along with Swanton. Compare that sensible sentence of his with the church at Glastonbury is known to have been established as a British monastery. A church isn't a monastery. Monasteries have churches and other buildings in the complex.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, now you point it out the word is clearly muddled. I've cleaned this up. Mike Christie (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Phew.qp10qp 14:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Bede's wording Fixed, I hope; see what you think. Mike Christie (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oswald. Done, in the last paragraph. Mike Christie (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. This is a certain FA for me. There is a limited amount known about Ine, and what is known is comprehensively covered here. The article cites excellent sources throughout, but it goes further: it also compares the best sources and makes the most cautious assessments, avoiding the more idiosyncratic views of the leading historians on the subject. This makes it a highly reliable and valuable resource. Any reader who comes here without knowing much or anything about the subject will not only learn the essential facts but will also sense the limitations of the evidence and the complications of the primary sources. I see there's no opposition to this article in this review, and that is as it should be. I would raise my eyebrow at anyone who opposed, quite honestly. Apart from the history, the article is written in an unusually clear, explanatory prose of a type we could with more of on Wikipedia, in my opinion. Many congratulations to Mike Christie for all his diligence: something to be proud of here.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Very solid article. The one omission (which Mike probably wasn't aware of) is that 15 charters survive from his reign of varying degrees of authenticity -- per my count of P.H. Sawyer's Anglo-Saxon Charters. I think that this material should somehow be worked into the article -- after all, they are a substantial chunk of the scrappy materials for this period of AS history. I will admit, after glancing over the abstract's in Sawyer's work, I don't see an easy way to integrate them beyond offering some qualifications to Ine's patronage of religious houses & authoritative opinions on the authenticity of Cenred's problematic land-grant. -- llywrch 07:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added a primary source link in the references to a query showing all of Ine's charters -- Anglo-Saxons.net agrees with your count of 15. I hadn't thought of doing this, and I think this would be good to add to other kings. However, I'm not sure about integrating them into the text, without finding a secondary source to reference them -- some already are referenced, of course, but I'm just concerned anything else I did would be original research. If you spot anything you think should be covered, let me know, though. Mike Christie (talk) 03:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support Excellent work. Comment Ine's wife, Æthelburg, is only once mentioned in the article, and quite vaguely (under the section about other conflicts). As this is an article about royalty, should the name be stated somewhere near the lead? I read through this article and found nothing wrong concerning the prose; you have my support. HansHermans 19:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I daresay she is hardly mentioned in the article because she is only mentioned once in the sources, and then enigmatically.qp10qp 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I read a few more of Mike's FA's and it seems that none of them mention these things. Does this information belong in the box, though? HansHermans 00:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It does indeed; I added it. Thanks for reminding me on that. I also found a place to mention it early in the first section, which I hope addresses your concern anyway. Mike Christie (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The 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 17:53, 31 August 2007.

[edit] Pilot (Smallville)

I believe this article is basically knocking on the FA status' door, but that it needs some unbiased eyes to criticize everything that I've missed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose:
  • The entire lead section is unsourced, which leads me to wonder if it's original research.
  • There are several grammar errors (e.g. "the WB" should be "The WB" (proper name) and there are commas missing on American dates).
  • I found the "plot" section non-fulfilling, it told me little about what actually happens in the episode (i.e. it's not comprehensive).
  • The grammar is inconsistent² (commas and full stops inside and outside quotation marks).
  • IMDb is not a reliable source, the credits can be modified by any registered user (see the edit button here). The WGA does furnish crew credits to the IMDb, but even so only those marked with "(WGA)" could be taken as reliable.
  • The article relies heavily on the book Smallville: The Official Companion Season 1 and the DVD commentary "Pilot" commentary by Al Gough, Miles Millar and David Nutter. I believe this could be taken as a copyright violation. The information should probably be cited to other reliable secondary sources.
  • The article should primarily rely on sources independent of the subject.
  • This external link should probably be removed, I'm not convinced it meets WP:EL:
    1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
    2. Links mainly intended to promote a website.
    3. Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.
  • I find some of the text to be awkward, for example "known simply as". It isn't "known simply as" as it "is".
• Hope this helps. Matthew 10:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Leads don't require citations. Alientraveller 10:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Since when? Could you please provide your source for that? Matthew 10:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Everything in the lead should also be mentioned later and should have citation there. Buc 17:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
      • It is. There is a citation for a quote that was used, now.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Facts are not copyrighted. Alientraveller 10:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Facts and ideas can't be copyrighted, but their expression/structure can. Matthew 10:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Clearly you're just new to the FA process. Anyway, I'll assume good faith and not let this escalate. Alientraveller 11:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Clearly you simply couldn't respond to my comments. And I'm not sure how good faith comes in to it. Matthew 13:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I could respond, but I'm not too bothered about correcting someone who wants to remain incorrect. Alientraveller 14:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I believe you ;-). Matthew 14:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • There is a big debate about the facts in the lead thing going on, and the last FAC I started Aquaman (TV program), even Raul said that it wasn't necessary. But, again..if you'll let me know what you think needs a source, then it's fine. As for the sources..you cannot restructure quotes. It's a quote no matter what you do, otherwise it isn't a quote any longer. Plus, the vast majority of my information came from the DVD commentary, which is straight from the horse's mouth and there isn't any restructuring to it. All my secondary, third party sources are in the place they should be...the reaction section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• You'll need to let me know what you're challenging, since i've always been a believer in the "leads don't need sources since they should summarize". Obviously I'm not summarizing good enough if something is challengeable.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
  • I'm honestly not interested in Raul's opinion, what I'm interested in is what the policy/guidelines state. Nobody has presented one that supports your position. "If you'll let me know what you think needs a source, then it's fine", this is what I think needs sourcing: Any material that is likely to be challenged. Matthew 13:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not going to play a teeter-totter game with you. Either tell me what you are challenging, or drop it. You cannot say "verify whatever is challenged" (since it is ALL stated in the body already, with sources) and then not tell me what you are challenging.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
      • The whole lead, like I said "The entire lead section is unsourced". Matthew 14:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
        • • Please point to specifics you think are controversial enough that they need citations in the lead; considering that the article isn't that it doens't take much to scroll down. WP:LEAD says it must conform to WP:V, but it also says that citations are only necessary for thing likely to be challeneged, or quotes. I'm sorry, but being an ass and saying "I challenge the whole thing" doesn't work. What do you feel is controversial enough that it needs a citation. The airdate (which I put a source in the infobox for ya), writers, directors, basic production information...none of that is controversial enough to need a citation. Though, I think I'll put a citation next to "Middle America", because that was a quote. [which I just did].  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Fixing the The WB and commas in the dates. I only saw one date without commas..please let me know if there were others.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
• The plot states the basic plot of the show, with very little details, since any neccessary details for context are mentioned elsewhere. It was heavily trimmed because of the peer review it had, where Awadewit through it wasn't succint enough. I mean, I'd rather it wasn't like "Pilot (House)", where the plot outweighs the real world content.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
  • Well it's too basic then, so much so that it just seems like useless minutiae to me. Matthew 13:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
    • That's you. Again, I'm not going to play this back and forth game. Either tell me exactly what you think needs a bit more explaination, or drop it. If I add more, you can simply go "that's too much". Tell me exactly what you think needs better explaination.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
      • I think the whole section would probably be better rewritten (500-1,000 words). But if you don't wish to do this, then you could try adding some more detail (like stating the important elements of the episode). Matthew 14:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
        • 1000 words? LMAO. Film articles do not even recommend that, and you are saying that a 42 minute television show needs 1000 words? This is why we have the Wikia link at the bottom, it has all the words you'll ever need. I did state important elements of the episode, and just that. I didn't state tiny details. Again, if you have a specific thing you think needs better explaination, let me know, otherwise simply stating "put 1000 words there" isn't going to help or happen.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• I fixed all the quote marks and punctuation.
• So you'd rather I use this IMDb link for Annette O'Toole's role in Superman III?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
  • "IMDb is not a reliable source", so no, I'm saying you should find a reliable source. Matthew 13:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
    • IMDb is reliable for filmographies, as it's easily verifiable via the credits. If you like, I'll simply cite the DVD for that film. Her role in that film isn't even controversial, so challenging something that can be verified by clicking "closing credits" in a DVD chapter selection menu isn't really a concern of this article's quality or reliableness. But I've duplicated a reference that mentioned it as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
      • No it isn't, IMDb is user submitted. So, "Because IMDb watchers say so" isn't a good enough source. You could cite the movie, but it's a primary source. I'd preferably prefer a secondary source (they are preferred over primary sources according to policy). I've even gone to the trouble of locating two sources which appear to be reliable (click and click). Matthew 14:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• The information is just interviews, primary sources, and not Paul Simpson's personal interpretations.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
• We cannot tell people "sorry, this doesn't fit Wikipedia, it should be transwikied to a Wikia or similer site"...but then say "but you cannot link to it from here".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
  • Who's we? I wouldn't tell somebody to transwiki content to Wikia. Matthew 13:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, guidelines say this, but then again, you're the one that doesn't think we should follow guidelines.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
      • Which guideline says to transwiki to Wikia? Matthew 14:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Why, Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) mentions transwiking.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Fixed this issue.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
• Support This is what a single episode article looks like. It is well written, covers all major aspects, is well cited, neutral, and stable. It follows the relevant style guidelines, including WP:WAF, with an over all real world approach to the information. Even reading the plot section, it is clear that this is a work of fiction, especially since it includes the commentary about the writing. The only non-free image has an acceptable rationale, and the free image is quite appropriate. The article does not lose focus, and keeps the information very well organized. Jay32183 19:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support per Jay. Cliff smith 00:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support per Jay as well. Changed "made" to "rendered", but that was more a matter of personal taste than a fault. Not much else to say really, Jay summed it up in a nutshell. :) Paul730 01:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support as per Bignole and Jay - the article is exceptionally well-written. Whatever clown thought cites are needed in the Lead needs some re-education before they contribute to discussions at this level. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: My eye spies some copy-editing to be done, so I will do that. Otherwise, the article appears appropriately broad in content and also well-referenced. If there's anything that comes up during my c/e revision, I'll mention it here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Not sure any of the second paragraph is really notable enough to be in the lead. Buc 17:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The lead is supposed to summarize the entire article. The second paragraph is there is provide a summary of the production. It was something requested in the peer review.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support with comments:
  • It says "8.4 million viewers watched the pilot's debut." Based on what the sources say, shouldn't it say "8.4 million viewers watched the series' debut" or "8.4 million viewers watched the pilot?" It sounds like 8.4 watched the first ten minutes and then turned off the television (which could be what happened). Then it says "3.9 million viewers" watched the pilot but I don't see a source.
    • Well, the pilot has aired many times, so "debut" would insinuate that it was the first time that got the 8.4. The 3.9 million is part of the source that follows the 3.8 million information. It would have been a bit overdone if I linked one sentence and linked the following sentence with the same source. Maybe we can trim the wording and put in a semicolon, so that it's known it's part of the same statement. What do you think?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh, disregard what I said about the 3.9. I never understood what those share numbers meant, but if that means that 3.9/8.4 million viewers were adults 18-49 then it's fine the way it is. --thedemonhog talk • edits 23:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
        • It does, though I've never been able to read that stuff to be honest. I tried to make it as understandable to casual readers as possible. Anyway, I connected the two so that it is more clear they came from one source.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "After viewing the pilot DVD, when it was released in Canada, Conrad stated,..." Does it matter where it was released?
    • Maybe not, maybe so. It wasn't released in the US as a single disc for a long time. I'll trim it down to just him viewing the pilot. I guess really, how he viewed it and when he viewed it are irrelevant to the basic idea that "he viewed it".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
  • The single "further reading" link looks out of place. Could there be room made for it in "external links" or "references?"
    • It isn't referenced, but EL might be an acceptable place for it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
  • There is no mention of the unaired pilot. (One of the guys I used to go to school with guest starred in Smallville as young Lex Luthor and was paid $500 CAD to shave his head. I believe it was in the unaired pilot, which I am downloading right now.)
    • It's briefly mentioned in the casting section. There isn't anything about that I've found beyond the tid bit about the recasting of Martha Kent. I've never read anything about a recasting of Lex Luthor.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overall, it was a great article. Good work. --thedemonhog talk • edits 23:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I was a bit confused. It states that the pilot "follows Clark as he...attempts to stop a vengeful student from killing the Smallville High students." That's a bit vague. Whom does the Smallville High students refer to? All of them? And on a minor note: Smallville High School students might be better (and less informal). Since this was in the lead, I was led to believe that this was crucial in the plot of the pilot, and would be explained further. However, when I got to the Plot section, this was discussed in one throw-away sentence at the end, which doesn't really illuminate much more than the vague sentence in the lead. Also, it was a bit jarring to me to be reading about Gough and Millar in the plot section; those sentences broke up the narrative thread of the section. Finally, please copy edit the entire article. I don't think the best of Wikipedia should feature typos and simple grammar mistakes, especially comma abuse. For example:

Gough and Millar had five months for casting, but their primary focus was initially on finding an actor to play Clark Kent. They received Kristin Kreuk's audition tape, <-- no comma should be here for the role of Lana Lang, and liked it so much →that they immediately showed her to the network.[4] Tom Welling, after twice turning down the producers' attempts to get him to audition for the role of Clark Kent, eventually accepted the opportunity to be apart of the show.[8] It was David Nutter who finally convinced Welling to read the script for the pilot, and found Welling's picture in a photo album at the casting director's office. <-- Huh? What's this clause doing in this sentence? Welling's manager did not want him to take the role, <-- no comma should be here because it could hurt his feature film career, but Welling liked the script and agreed to come in for an audition. 69.202.54.91 03:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Yeah, the "vengeful student" attempts to kill all of them. If you think "school" would help, ok. It was a "B" story, that wasn't the focus of the episode. I've added a bit more explaining his motives for killing people, and why he was after the whole school basically. Took out the "initially". Removed those extra commas. That clause wasn't supposed to be there. It was supposed to say "after he found..." I've corrected that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose These fixes needed:

• "thought was "amazing."[9]For one of his auditions" - space needed after ref
• Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes regarding dash usage. Em dashes should be unspaced. "18-49 male demographic" needs an en dash
• "5 months" - Whole numbers under 11 should be spelled out as words. Epbr123 08:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Taken care of.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    • "Superman myth - this time showing us" and dashes in ref titles still to fix. Epbr123 11:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Did I get them all that time?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
        • The dashes you placed in the ref titles should have either been spaced en dahes or unspaced em dashes. Epbr123 11:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• I thought they were already "spaced en dashes" before I just changed them. Ok, this is becoming a bit too confusing. Is it possible for you to correct it, since it's such a small issue and the article isn't that large that it would take that long to do it? I'm aware it isn't your obligation to do so, but I think it's clear that I don't get the "en dash" "em dash" thing, since I've tried correcting, and from your comment, I'm just making it worse.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The 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 17:53, 31 August 2007.

[edit] Augustus

All hail Imperator Caesar Divi Filius Augustus! Savior of Rome! Tremble before his article! Beware ye frail and timid wikipedian plebs who dare not read and review this article, for you shall then serve as lunchmeat for the lion's den, shortly after a "eunuch snip" at the genitals with a rusty hedge-clipper while forced to 85 consecutive hours of listening to Cher's Greatest Hits! Augustus is one of the most important figures in human history, and his article deserves more editing respect than you all have been giving him. For neglecting his article all of you will be brought out into a Nevada desert where you will be beaten with baseball bats and buried alive, but I'll leave that dirty work to Joe Pesci. The article is very well-sourced, no POV statements that I can see, is a shining example of what "broad coverage" in a wiki article should be, has plenty of good pics that are copyright safe, yet do not overwhelm the article, and the article has plenty of great and entertaining detail without going off-topic or out of summary style. Therefore I nominate his article as a featured article candidate. Got a problem with that, tough guy? Then object to the article here! But if you're like "forget about it!" - then give your support.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comments Support -looks good...but a few tweaks to brilliantize the prose....I feel we're over the line. I too am happy to leave the gallery to consensus; hence if no-one else objects - no problem. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

father.... and was governor of Macedonia - was --> had been - pluperfect tense better here as occurred prior to stream of events already in past tense.

When Caesar was killed on the Ides of March (the 15th) 44 BC, Octavius was in Apollonia, Illyria, studying and undergoing military training. - reduce number of clauses by switching thus: "When Caesar was killed on the Ides of March (the 15th) 44 BC, Octavius was studying and undergoing military training in Apollonia, Illyria." (3 --> 2)

Great suggestions, I will take those to heart and edit the article thus.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Could you please make the good article nomination tag go away, since it's a featured article candidate? And take it off the GAC page?

Sure thing, it is done.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Octavian could not rely economically on his presently limited funds. - lose "economically" as redundant. (back again after dinner) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

funds that were alotted by Caesar in the intended war against Parthia.. -should the 'in' be 'to'?

Better yet, the 'in' should be 'for', as in 'for the intended war'.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

..made no action against Octavian, since Octavian was later using that money.. - change 2nd 'Octavian' to 'he'

..dictator's assassins. The assassins were granted a general amnesty.. - change to "dictator's assassins; they had been granted a general amnesty.." (tense and reduce repetition)

Although Mark Antony was amassing political clout, Octavian still had opportunity to rival him as the leading member of the faction which supported Caesar. - clout? something a tad more formal, like 'support' or 'following'...also sounds a bit smother if replace "which supported" with "supporting".

this situation spelled opportunity for Octavian, - erm, "spelled opportunity" can you think of another way to phrase this?

Cicero was also known to defend Octavian against Antony's taunts that Octavian lacked noble lineage of consular ancestors, with Cicero stating of Octavian - change to "Cicero was also known to have defended Octavian against Antony's taunts that he lacked noble lineage of consular ancestors; he stated..."

You have several places where names are repeated often - the trick being trying to 'mix it up' a bit while not introducing any ambiguity on who is being talked about....I'm trying to figure examples wehre this can be addressed without amibguity.

..Antony left Cleopatra. Antony sailed to Italy in 40 BC with a large force... - try "Antony left Cleopatra; he sailed to Italy in 40 BC with a large force.." - I love semicolons

..Octavian sent only one-tenth of the amount of legionaries promised, .. -try "Octavian sent only one-tenth the number of those promised, "

Octavian had previously shown little mercy to military combatants and acted in ways that proved unpopular with the Roman people -replace "proved" with "had proven" (tense)

Once again, good suggestions that I find no objections to (except for one slight difference, 'for' instead of 'to'). Therefore I have changed each sentence in question.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok back to it - Marching into Rome, the Roman Senate appointed him and Marcus Agrippa as dual consuls. - erm who marched into Rome? Looks like the Senate did from the construction of this sentence.

According to Roman religious beliefs, the title symbolized a stamp of authority over humanity, and in fact nature, that went beyond any constitutional definition of his status. - tricky - the " and in fact nature" might be a good place to use mdashes to demarkate it better. Normally would shorten a sentence like this but reads clearly.

Additionally, after the harsh methods employed - I think we could lose the "Additionally" here - the sentence stands ok without it.

...change in name would also serve to separate his benign reign as Augustus ... - ok, playing thesaurus again, I feel it'd look a little more polished with 'demarkate', 'differentiate' or 'delineate' or something than 'separate' to really get teh essence of teh verb right.

In addition, Augustus was granted the right to hang.. - I think we can lose first two words.

This was a clever political ploy by Augustus; - can lose "political"

When, in 22 BC, Augustus failed to stand for election as consul, fears arose once again that Augustus was being forced from power by the aristocratic Senate. - can change to "When Augustus failed to stand for election as consul in 22 BC, fears arose once again that he was being forced from power by the aristocratic Senate."

The next two sentences both mention 22 BC, trying to reword to reduce repetition would be helpful but I concede it is tricky. You could try "the same year" or something.

Arminius, who fled that battle but was killed four years later in 19 due to treachery - I presume an AD should be added here?

In order to ensure stability, Augustus needed to designate an heir to his unique position in Roman society and government. - try " To ensure stability, he needed to designate an heir to his unique position in Roman society and government."

Even though it is obvious, may be a good idea to stick an OED reference for the etymolgy of Kaiser and Tsar.

It was under Augustus that the city of Rome was utterly transformed,.. - try "The city of Rome was utterly transformed under Augustus,"

..with Rome's first institutionalized.. - try "with its first institutionalized.."

Augustus wished to embody the spirit of Republican virtue and norms, and to level with the lay people. - to be level? Even then I'm unsure - be good to stick egalitarian in somehow.

In looking back on the reign of Augustus and its legacy to the Roman world, its longevity should not be overlooked as a key factor in its success - try "The longevity of Augustus' reign and its legacy to the Roman world should not be overlooked as a key factor in its success"

smoother

In tax reform section I'm wondering whether describing them as 1st, 2nd 3rd is necessary - maybe just describing would be more succinct.

For the upkeep of roads, Augustus created the senatorial group of the curatores viarum - try "Augustus created the senatorial group of the curatores viarum for the upkeep of roads"

I'd lose the gallery -it doesn't add anything stuck at the bottom there and would be jarring in the text. All those buildlings will be illustrated on their own pages.

Final point - I'm not a fan of See also sections but concede there may be problems incorporating these through the text.

In summary, an excellent read - prose is good but a little "clause-y" which I have highlighted examples found above. I'd be happy once all addressed but some other folks may find some more. Congrats. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I am addressing those concerns right now. There's one of yours I find a problem with, though, and that is putting "AD" after "19" when "AD" is already implied a few lines up with the date of the Teutoburg battle in 9 AD. The reader should understand that the following years of 13 and 19 are also AD, not BC.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

AD's are harmless. If we're not sure, better to have too many than too few; confusing the reader is worse than a slight loss in elegance. But I'll get to that section. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have finally addressed all of your concerns. However, there are a couple points of my own I must make:

I'd lose the gallery -it doesn't add anything stuck at the bottom there and would be jarring in the text. All those buildlings will be illustrated on their own pages.—Casliber

Really? What better way is there to represent text than to illustrate it with a picture? I think it wraps up the section fairly well. 2 out of four of those buildings are not described and wikilinked in the section. How is it jarring in the text? I'd like to get a second opinion about the gallery. If others are displeased for the same or other reasons, then you have my word that it will be removed from the article.

Final point - I'm not a fan of See also sections but concede there may be problems incorporating these through the text.—Casliber

That's fine. If I had it my way, I would make this article twice as long as it is, with whole sections on Augustan literature, poetry, lifestyles, culture of the age, the types of beverages and hairstyles that were popular in his reign, etc. However, wikipedia states that an article cannot be any larger than 100 KB, and this article is certainly pushing the limit at 92 KB. Unfortunately, this article's waistline has already reached a state of near obesity; any further expansion would mean time for liposuction. Lol.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Splendid work. I wish I could have helped more but unfortunately, due to excessive downloading in the past month, my internet provider has temporarily slowed my internet connection, which makes editing, especially on large articles, somewhat difficult. Anyway, one thing I would still like to see incorporated into the text is the establishment of the Praetorian Guard. Military reforms under Augustus are covered in the Augustus' legacy section but it makes no mention of the Guard, which is kind of curious since the Praetorians were after all, one of the most outwardly visible symbols of Augustus' power, and an integral part of the principate itself. --Steerpike 19:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

My God man, you're right. I'm not sure how I overlooked that "elephant standing in the living room," but I will add it. While thinking of Augustus and his many reforms, I was not thinking of the reign of Tiberius, where the Praetorian Guard under Sejanus actually became politically important. But yes, it would be silly not to mention it here.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to announce that there are two shiny new sentences about the Praetorian Guard in the legacy section, as well as a mentioning of it in the introduction.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Object. The image Image:Marcus Antonius1.jpg seems to be sourced to "Vatican Museum", but has a license tag of "public domain as a work of the US government". Which is correct? --Carnildo 06:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter now, I have gotten rid of that picture and replaced it with another from Commons, one that is a suitable replacement. Still object?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 09:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Objection withdrawn. --Carnildo 18:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The article Augustus in popular culture should have a link from this page shouldn't it? Currently it is an orphan article.--Jackyd101 11:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Great find! Unfortunately, this article is too big to merge that and create a new section, so I have just put it in the See also section for now. I might make it a "Further information" link at the top of the "Legacy" section. What do you think?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is much too big to merge into the present article. I recommend that you make it a link from somewhere in the Legacy section, perhaps incorporating only the most important repreentations into the text (if any). I simply thought that since the popular culture is basically a sub-article the main Augustus article should link to it. Your suggestion is probably the best way to go.--Jackyd101 21:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - I'd think about a one-liner in Legacy with something about his profile not being as high as JC (Julius not Jesus) but of his numberous depictions in film etc, then link to AiPC page. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have moved it to the top of the legacy section under a "Further information" link; since it is an important sub-article, I think it deserves its attention there rather than being buried in the text of the legacy section as a "|" reworded link.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Support - Now that that is sorted out, I give my support to this absolutely superb article. i do however have a couple of issues which, although they do not prevent me supporting the piece, should be changed. 1) Can we have a reference for the statement at the end of the fourth paragraph in Augustus' Legacy where it says that Trajan is often compared to Augustus? 2) Augustus' early life is a little weak, obviously its been split off due to size constraints, but whats left suffers from one line paragraphs, can this be tidied a little? (I would also prefer a bit more information about his young life, but given the size constraints thats probably not possible). Beyond these two things, this is a fantastic article on a very complex issue and I commend you heartily for your achievement with it.--Jackyd101 10:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Great! I'm glad you support. As to your first concern: I never wrote that to begin with, that was someone else's doing. I don't think I'll be able to find a citation for it anytime soon, so I will strike it from the article until I (hopefully) do find something for it. It makes sense though, Trajan was one of Rome's greatest emperors, in terms of the monuments and buildings he left behind, as well as pushing Rome's borders to the greatest extent they would be (well into modern-day Iraq). As for his early life, you are correct, size constraints are already a problem, one of the reasons why I did not want to merge Augustus in popular culture with this article. I may add a couple more sentences in the beginning section, but to be honest, I already have! It was worse before.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The comparison to Trajan stems from the fact that every emperor after Trajan was honored by the Senate with the prayer Felicior Augusto, Melior Traiano (may he be luckier than Augustus, and better than Trajan). See for example Gibbon, History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume 1, Chapter 3, note 45. I think this deserves to be left in the article. --Steerpike 14:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I just did a minor edit onthe early life section to merge a couple of the shorter paragraphs, leaving the text unchanged. I jut feel this looks a bit tidier, see what you think. In regards to the Trajan thing, I wasn't disputing its factual accuracy (in fact I agree with it), but it should still have a citation. The one from Gibbon wopuld be perfect. Great job, all the best.--Jackyd101 16:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support Comment From the lead: "Marc Antony was forced to commit suicide". How can a person be forced to commit suicide? HansHermans 21:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. When I was writing it, the intent was to briefly mention the situation he was in that forced him to act, because he was one the eve of being decimated by Octavian's forces in Egypt. He chose a way out by killing himself instead of being captured or killed in battle. I'll reword that sentence and simply state: "Mark Antony committed suicide"...which he did.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, you can be forced to commit suicide. Think about it. If someone has you locked in a tower, refusing to feed you so that you'll starve to death, and says you can go two ways: jumping out the top window, or swallowing this poison given to you, than that would most certainly be forced suicide. Lol.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

But if you don't listen to the guy, and choose to starve to death, he was responsible for the death (as he didn't let you have food), so it wasn't suicide. Cheers, HansHermans 02:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Lol. Good point. Thanks for the support!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Not quite yet. Well researched; largely well written. I will return with detailed comments; but it could use a copy-edit. I recommend a read-through by a literate editor who knows nothing about Roman history; this can be very profitable.
• My major reservation is one of tone. The nominator has made clear that he has a strong PoV on Augustus; this is fine, but he should lean over backwards to avoid having it show up in the article. One way to do this would be to read Syme and include his data; one footnote and a dismissal as "revisionist" are unfair to Sir Ronald's position in clasical historiography.

Nitpicks:

• Please consider consolidating multiple footnotes at the same point into one, citing several passages. It's much easier to read the article that way; and actually easier (when, as here, most passages in the sources are cited once) to follow what sources are being cited for a given point.
• The phrase his borrowed name is clumsy and technically inaccurate. He didn't borrow his name, he was bequeathed it.

Much more follows. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Augustus is an anthology. It should be cited as such or CCAA, not by the name of its editor. More importantly, the different articles should be cited, preferably by title and author. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• This should have a section on Augustus' names. That would simplify both the first line and the beginning of Early life.
• The intro is seriously flawed, including
  • garbles:due to his blood relation and reputation with his grand uncle Julius Caesar.
  • Dubious claims of fact:
    • Augustus ruled in actuality as an autocrat for 41 years (he wasn't an autocrat before 27 BC? or do you actually mean 28?)
    • Augustus used his political power and martial might to form the Second Triumvirate over Rome. Anthony had nothing to do with it?
  • Misleading statements: yet he never claimed to be an emperor or even dictator. Defensible only in the sense that Emperor was not an office, and Augustus never held the office of dictator.

Rather than present a full criticism here, I will take this to the talk page. See Talk:Augustus#intro. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Response I just want to make it clear, although I hold Augustus in high esteem, I do not want that reflected in any possible POV statements that might appear in the article. I will address your concerns as soon as possible, but I just started my first semester of my senior year of college, and already I am bogged down with reading assignments. I hope you understand if I am unable to frequently respond or make copy-edits during this week, as I will be busy. I agree, an experienced copy-editor should be summoned. Maybe we should take this to the league of copyeditors?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed all present concerns on the talk page.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

As you have requested, I have converted all of the Galinsky inline citations to CCAA instead, with full title and author name of each chapter from that book, and edited the reference section to fit the new changes.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have rewritten the intro myself; but these are typical of the small flaws throughout the article. This will be FA; but not until they are fixed. That process is now underway, but the tone and the blunders must be fixed before I will support. (My other suggestions, here and elsewhere, are editing comments, not conditions for promotion.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support once the few facts I've tagged with {{fact}} are referenced (I have no doubt references exist, they just need tagging). I've done a little copyediting, tidying up some of the phrasing, but don't have time to go through the article properly (I think it would need that before getting to FA). Neil ム 10:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Holy rusted metal, Batman! What are we going to do about those tags! Lol. Honestly, though, I don't have citations for any of the things you tagged, so I will be deleting them from the article until I can find proper references and cited pages. Furthermore, I don't want "citation needed" tags in an article I'm trying to promote as a Featured Article. I hope everyone understands that. Plus, the things that were tagged won't be sorely missed when deleted, they were more side-comments if anything (except for the part about taxes, I'll try the hardest to find citations for that)--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Please leave the tags. FA is worthless if it results in a worsening of the article; and any competent reviewer will recognize that this discussion explains the {{cn}}s. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Response - The article is worse without them? I beg to differ. This article is far too big, 95 KB, pushing it to the limit since 100 KB is outright unacceptable (meaning time to break the article into sub-articles, if not trimming it down to a manageable size). The uncited, tagged comments were useful, but were not as important as crucial information already stated in the article. Here are the sentences I deleted (which can always be reinstated if someone wants to find citations for them):
  • "Subsequently, they were even adopted by many invading Germanic tribes as insignia of their right to rule."
  • "His reforms are considered to have had substantial beneficial effects on both the fairness of the tax system and its effects on the Empire's economic prosperity."
  • "Its abolition was an enormous relief to the people."

I'm sure some of you could find citations for these, but I do not have time since summer vacation has ended and school has started this week for me. I have a mountain of other books to read right now, I don't have time to go to my library, check out more books on Augustus, and scour through them just to cite these. The article is fine without them. If you don't believe me, read the sections where they were deleted. There is already a ton of information for the reader to digest. Enough has been added, don't place the straw that breaks the camel's back, I say.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • Good luck; do see if your college library has Syme; most do. You should enjoy him; his book is a good read, and as applicable now as the day it was written. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The 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 17:53, 31 August 2007.

[edit] Ramón Emeterio Betances

As was the case with Héctor Lavoe below this article was taken to Good Article status as a result of the work of some members of WikiProject Puerto Rico, most notably Demf. The article then underwent a Peer review that only received an automated review, after discussing the situation with Mtmelendez who was the original nominator we agreed that most adecuate next step was to take the article directly to FAC, as with Lavoe any points presented here will be attended ASAP by members of WikiProject Puerto Rico, thanks for your time. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Could you provide the ISBN for the book you use as a reference? --Eddie in public 19:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - From El Desterado de Paris? - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, and for Cuba: The pursuit for freedom. --Eddie in public 19:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
      • The complete publisher and ISBN information is on the "Primary Sources" part of this section. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Oh. Well, then. Support. Excellent article. --Boricuaeddie 23:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support After having reviewed this article a couple of times elsewhere, I am happy to be able to support it for FA. It is well-written, appears comprehensive (I am no expert) and as well-researched as it can be. I am so happy that we have editors who can provide us with information from foreign-language sources in such a detailed and interesting way. Thanks! Awadewit | talk 09:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support, I created this baby which was a regular article until Demf came along and poured his heart and soul into it turning it into a great article. Finally, Users Mtmelendez, Caribbean H.Q. and Boricuaeddie gave it it's finishing touch. The love, commitment and dedication into making this article an FAC, by all of these contributors exemplifies what Wikipedia is really all about. Tony the Marine 02:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comments Is there any reason why "literally" is used here: "Betances was born in Cabo Rojo, Puerto Rico, literally in the building that now houses..."? Also ref 31 probably needs to be fleshed out a bit instead of just having a URL. Title, author, date, etc. 69.202.63.165 15:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Response: "literally" was taken care of anonymously, and I took care of the URL reference. Your suggestions are welcome. Thanks. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 18:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The 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 17:53, 31 August 2007.

[edit] 1880 Republican National Convention

This article was featured on DYK and then successfully nominated for GA at the end of June. I've basically done some copyediting of the article, and I think it's FA-worthy. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Support - A well-referenced and interesting read. The balloting section may need either splitting or trimming, IMO.Bakaman 16:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Support - looks good to me. Martinp23 22:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support I can't think of any suggestions or comments to make. The article is well-written, well-referenced with what look to be good, reliable sources, and meets other criteria that's expected of featured articles. --Aude (talk) 05:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The 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 21:28, 30 August 2007.

[edit] Aikido

previous FAC

• I am nominating this article for the second time. The first nomination closed without passing in late March which was a bit disappointing considering most of the points raised were addressed to the satisfaction of those who made them. I hope that those changes and those made over the subsequent months are satisfactory. The aikido article has been featured in the Portal:Martial arts and is considered to be a very good model for the martial arts articles. It is far more detailed than the Esparanto version and far better referenced than the French and Esparanto versions, both of which made featured article status. Aikido in itself is difficult to write about as there are a number of important styles that have their own take on the art. The specifics are detailed on pages relating to those styles and in my opinion the current Aikido article does an admirable job of representing a style neutral overview of the art. The developement of the article was a long slow process with contributions of practitioners and instructors from several styles of Aikido.Peter Rehse 08:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I've added a number of requests for citations. As a rule try to make sure that every paragraph has at least one citation. The article is almost there, you just need to get extra citations in and watch out for double spaces after full stops. John Smith's 13:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

All your requested citations (and a couple more) have been added.Peter Rehse 04:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This article appears to be written from an informed martial arts viewpoint which is sympathetic to the practice of Aikido. Take the section "Spirit of Aikido", for instance, it mixes philosophy and critical assessment in an odd way. How is the notion of "moving" elevated when compared to "clashing"? Who considers aikido to be symbolic, outside of its founder? The history and technique sections seem well composed, but the troublesome trend appears again in "Mental training". To someone who is not well versed in the martial arts, the importance and effect of this is not clear. One wonders how the ability to relax the mind and body allow a practitioner to meet an attack with "confidence and directness" (and what do these terms refer to - getting hit, blocking, or countering?). Ueshiba's quotation is equally enigmatic, is there some criticism or analysis which could be included that delineates his intent?

I removed the word "elevated" - that was POV.Peter Rehse 06:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The "some consider" statement is in need of clarification. Is this the majority view held by practitioners? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I did not write it, tend to agree with you, and don't see aikido in that way but some do. No idea about majority or not. Let me think about it. If it can't be supported one way or the other I will remove it.Peter Rehse 07:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the entire sentence. It really adds nothing to the section and I agree with the problems it causes.Peter Rehse 04:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

A few other points:

• • The history section ends abruptly in the 50s/60s, something notable must have happened to the field in the past forty years.

The history comment was quite good - the ending seemed pretty abrupt. Basically after that time period covered the history of Aikido is really the history of the independent styles which are covered in their own articles. However, the emergence of those styles, is part of the history. I therefore moved the Style section into the History section and expanded it a bit.Peter Rehse 06:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Physical training, mental training, & Ki tend to intersect in a few places, perhaps it would make sense to consolidate them.

Sure there is some intersection of physcial, mental and ki - since they all come together to form aikido. Yet they are distinct and should be kept separate.Peter Rehse 06:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, this was an outsider's appraisal of the coverage. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Another paragraph to "Styles of aikido" or another section, something that explains the extent of aikido proliferation in mainstream martial arts. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand the comment about "aikido proliferation in mainstream martial arts". It is pretty mainstream in its own right, something that has been demonstrated within the article. It has an international breadth and has been established over quite a long period.Peter Rehse 06:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This concern was ancillary to the point about the history section. The article has a better flow now that the two are merged and the development/spread of Aikido is easier to understand. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support I have not been a contributor to this article, but have watched its progress with interest over the past few months since the July attempt. I'm very impressed: it's a clearly written, well-referenced, inclusive article. The section on physical technique is excellent in distilling perhaps hundreds of techniques in the art to a dozen or so major attack types and response types. The descriptions avoid being too detailed, yet each is clear what kind of attack or response it is. I disagree with the comment above that the mental training paragraph is unclear; I think the average reader would understand that cultivating a calm presence of mind would be an advantage during an attack. I think this is great work and definitely worthy of featured status. BWatkins 19:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for the obvious reason that there are {{citation needed}} tags left. That's an absolute showstopper for FA. Otherwise, it's very good - well structured, sensible use of images, meaningful citations, etc. Will change to support when missing citations have been inserted. 82.71.48.158 21:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well there is one left and of course the tags were added after the submission - the reference is availabe just that it might take a bit of digging to find an exact one.Peter Rehse 06:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

All citation tags have been filled.Peter Rehse 04:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support I've been a part-time contributor, but feel the article was ready months ago. Mike Searson 03:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose This article would probably meet the GA criteria, but it has a very long way to go before it is representative of the very best of Wikipedia. The introduction is slim when compared to other FA articles and the general standard. The section currently titled "Spirit of Aikido" should be renamed for encyclopedic tone to a more sober title such as Etymology or something similar. Several potentially controversial statements, such as the statement of Ueshiba's goal in the intro, are not directly cited. I'm not sure if descendant articles exist (such as History of Aikido) but they should be linked under the headers for the appropriate sections if they do. The article is heavy on technical aspects such as technique execution and lexicography, and lacking in others. This is a general symptom of the basic problem with the article; it reads like it was plainly written for and by Aikidoka. An FA-class article needs to work harder to state the obvious and write for the previously uneducated reader. Examples of areas needing expansion to reach true comprehensiveness include: current events history, at least some mention of the tangible differences in every style rather than just dates and names, further discussion of the art's relation to and influence on any other martial arts, the article lacks a sufficient discussion of how Ueshiba's writings shaped the practice and theory of Aikido, and the article seems to lack a substantial discussion of why Aikido has not been morphed into a competitive sport like Karate or Taekwondo. Lastly, the article contains no mention of any criticism of Aikido, such as that to be found in martial arts circles. Despite what I feel is pretty obvious empirical evidence, not everybody takes Aikido's word on the effectiveness of the techniques and approach at face value. I forget exactly where I've seen it, but I have also heard criticism of potential for injury in Aikido training. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Critism section has been started. Injuries were discussed in the article already with references but expanded in the Critism section.Peter Rehse 01:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Expanded the introduction section to more clearly define what AIkido is and how it is distinguished from other common martial arts.Peter Rehse 07:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Differences in styles has been alluded to but is best expanded in the individual articles. The intro expansion I think further addresses the issue.Peter Rehse 07:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Writings - well frankly speaking they didn't really. His relationship to his senior students when they studied with him is far more important. Most of the literature available was written once or twice removed.Peter Rehse 07:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Spirit of Aikido section has been renamed.Peter Rehse 09:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for improving on most of these points. However, I honestly must say that for a martial art which is so widely popular and rich in complexity, the article still feels as if it isn't comprehensive enough for me to fully support it as part of the best of Wikipedia. I understand that having descendant articles for history and styles can cut down on the content of the parent article, but I'm just not comfortable signing off as it stands. Good work so far though. VanTucky ^(talk) 06:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support I've been a minor contributor (mainly vandal spotting). From reading the article as someone who knows a minimal about about Aikido this gives a good introduction and overview and is well sourced. VanTucky's point about not being comprehensive enough seem more opinion, a complex subject cannot be covered comprehensively in an encyclopaedia, but it can be introduced comprehensively which this does. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 12:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The 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 21:28, 30 August 2007.

[edit] Bupropion

I think this is what you would call a "Featured Article Status", I am thus nominating it, so that it becomes official. Anyways research wise I like this chemical a lot, so if it is not at "FA level" yet, I will improve it based on the comments received I have done like just 4 edits after the FA review started. I am sorry. --Savedthat 03:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comments. Nice start. Pls see WP:MOSBOLD, WP:DASH, WP:UNITS, WP:LEAD and WP:MEDMOS. Did you consider peer review or good article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have seen those rules you mentioned, but I cannot connect the dots, what exactly is this article not following? I have decided to go straight to FA candidate because it has a more stringent review system. Thus, I can start doing additional research immediately on this substance if it does not meet criteria.--Savedthat 04:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is head and shoulders above most pharm articles, but ... Bolding is used where it shouldn't be, the lead could be expanded to a compelling, stand-alone summary of the entire article, there is incorrect use of hyphens where endashes are needed, all numbers and units of measurement need non-breaking hardspaces, there's a citation in a section heading, you should explain your use of trade names (see the footnote at Tourette syndrome), and section headings don't conform with WP:MEDMOS. Each citation that is not to a journal-published source should be scrutinized to see if it can be replaced with refereed sources. External links can probably be pruned per WP:EL, WP:RS, WP:NOT; is there anything there that can't be found in the DMOZ link or in the article and its sources? If so, the article may not be comprehensive. Fvasconcellos (talk · contribs) is familiar with pharm articles and FAC; he might be willing to help out. (Speaking of comprehensive, I don't find the words tic or Tourette syndrome in the article.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking for a sample article to guide you, but I'm afraid you're blazing new territory. Antioxidant is the most recent FA, but it's not a class pharmaceutical, so isn't really comparable. Neither is caffeine. Paracetamol is a very old FA, probably doesn't meet current standards, and needs review. So, there isn't really a pharm FA to compare to, but TimVickers (talk · contribs) could help you prepare for WP:GAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Poorly written and MOS breaches.

• MOS breachs—hyphens/dashes; why are simple years linked? Read MOS on linking.
• compared with for contrasts.
• "have confirmed efficacy of bupropion"—"the" is missing

And tons more. Tony 10:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment You may want to contact Paul gene (talk · contribs), the article's main contributor. BTW, anyone consider dropping WP:PHARM a line? What are we, chopped liver? :) I jest, I jest. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, here we go:

• The "History" section is excellent, way above average for pharm articles. It is asking for references, though; they shouldn't be too hard to find.
• The article is quite heavy on stats; this is not a bad thing, but more prose would make it more readable. There are a lot of parenthetical statements throughout. It would be nice to rewrite some of these; get crazy with em dashes.
• "Pharmacokinetics" is quite technical. I've no problem with it but it is probably above the lay reader. It also took me a couple of seconds to get acquainted with the metabolites table; its syntax could perhaps be improved to make it... prettier? :)
• "Availability in the UK" should be expanded to "Availability" with country-specific subsections as needed; I hate to toot my own horn, but Orlistat does a good job of this. The list of trade names could go in as a subsection of "Availability" as well; making it two- or three-column, if possible, would help readability.
• "only if you are able to get a letter from a smoking cessation clinic to your GP"... Second-person writing is a no-no.
• IMHO there's nothing in "Additional information" which couldn't be rearranged within the rest of the article. "Overdosage" doesn't fit in with "Availability"; it could be a stand-alone section or go with Adverse effects.

There's more to come, but I'm off to lunch now :) Will see what else I can do later. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

• The smoking cessation paragraph under indications should be improved using the later cited cochrane review on antidepressants for smoking cessation.
• Should a study showing equal effectiveness as placebo be included in the article?
• The number of prescriptions in one specific year in one specific country does not belong to the lead section I think.
• History: withdrawal from market, was this in the U.S. only or worldwide?
• The suicide risk section should start with objective information about the suicide risk, not with "the FDA requires...".

--WS 18:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments - go for it - this one is doable. Main thing is that WP is an encyclopedia not a pharmaceutical info pamphlet- so the prose should be richer. I am happy to help with copyediting. Only thing of substance I can't see so far is that it has a reputation for benig psychotogenic (at least in Australia) so evidnce refuting or supporting that would be importand.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments Overall, I think this is one of the best drug articles I've seen on Wikipedia yet! I think it covers the topic quite well, is well-referenced, and interesting to read. I've made a couple of minor changes to the article. A couple of things still remain. Here's my detailed comments:

I am reviewing this version of the article.

The lead is a bit short. It should be a concise summary of the article. As a summary, it should ideally not contain any references (inline citations would be placed on the material later in the article that is being cited). WP:LEAD can help in this regard.

I like the indications section, as it is written out in reasonably good prose and not just a list, like a lot of other drug articles. This provides an excellent example for others to follow.

The metabolism image in the pharmacokinetics section seems a bit odd, with the drug on the right and the metabolites pointing back to the left. I would think that it should be the other way around. Also, the quality of some of the lines in the sketch seems a bit choppy. What chemical software was used to create it?

The pharmacokinetics section seems a bit crowded with the image and the table right next to each other. Perhaps the table could be moved to the bottom of the section, after all the text?

References are only indicated for one of the three bullet points under 'dosage'. With specific dosage information provided, a reference should be there.

While the colorful table in the 'availability in the UK' section looks nice and all; (a) it is unreferenced and (b) I am uncertain exactly what it is contributing to the article? It seems to go a bit beyond the purpose of an encyclopedia to provide a listing and descriptions of each of the different pills of the drug; you can look up — perhaps a far more accurate version — on the manufacturer's official website. Plus, is the table specific to the UK? Where's the US version? I would recommend removing this section, and possibily moving the text at the beginning to another section of the article, and finding a reference for it.

"Recently, addition of bupropion to a mood-stabilizer in patients with bipolar depressions was shown to have the same effectiveness as placebo." -- This statement should probably be integrated with a different section. It seems out of place in its own brief subsection under 'additional information'. Once it's removed, I'd recommend renaming the main section to 'trade names' and removing the identically-named subsection.

Dr. Cash 06:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• I believe the bolding problem has been fixed. [1] & [2]. Y Done --Savedthat 05:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• The Trade Name section has been made as a subsection of Additional Information. [3]. Y Done --Savedthat 05:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Copy-editing has been done here [4], thank you Wouterstomp; and here [5], thank you Axl; and here [6] & [7], thank you Fvasconcellos; and here [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13],

[14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], & [32], thank you Derek.cashman; and here [33] & [34], thank you Outriggr --Savedthat 05:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Dash fixes have been done here [35] & [36] & [37], thank you Fvasconcellos; and here [38] & [39], thank you SandyGeorgia; and here [40], thank you Brighterorange Y Done --Savedthat 05:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Reference Scrutinizing has been done here [41] & [42], thank you Fvasconcellos. Y Done --Savedthat 05:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Manual of Style (dates and numbers) has been done here [43], thank you SandyGeorgia. Y Done --Savedthat 05:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• WP:RS, WP:EL, WP:NOT pruning has been done here [44], thank you SandyGeorgia. Y Done --Savedthat 05:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• "The lead... should ideally not contain any references" — Dr. Cash (Derek Cashman)

With respect, I don't think that this is correct. Look at Wikipedia:Lead section#Citations in the lead section. This indicates that references in this section are less important (because appropriate references should be present later in the article); "there is not, however, a citation exception specific to leads". Axl 20:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. In particular, material likely to be challenged and quotations should be cited in the lead. --Savedthat 21:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me on that. I often think of the lead section in wikipedia as similar to a scientific abstract, which should not contain references. Wiki does take a stand similar to this, but does not explicitly prohibit references in the lead. Dr. Cash 00:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Savedthat, thank you for noting my contribution above. However, copyediting is not "done"—the article needs quite a bit of work in this area, and I've done maybe half of it so far. I am willing to continue if there are others also engaged in improving this to FA status. –Outriggr § 07:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I've finished my contribution to the copyediting of this article... there is always room for improvement, but I feel it's in much better shape than it was, with the efforts of a number of us. –Outriggr § 08:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Round 2 of copy editing has been done here [45], [46], & [47] thank you Outriggr; and here [48], [49],

[50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], & [61], thank you Derek.cashman; and here [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], & [70], thank you Fvasconcellos; and here [71], [72], & [73], thank you Casliber --Savedthat 11:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note on Comprehensiveness - before this can pass, some work needs to be done on comprehensiveness. Rather than clog the page here I am leaving items on the talk page - they are a deal-breaker for me anyway so m vote is currently Oppose for the record but we are really nearly there (nice rhyme ain't it?) and I am close to supporting. The end is in sight.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm close to Supporting. The article has improved a lot, particularly with regard to referencing and thanks to copy editing efforts. There are still a few minor (dashes and WP:MOSNUM) and not so minor (a few under-referenced paragraphs) obstacles, but I think this is a strong candidate. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support. The article has come a long way, and, as Casliber says below, I think we're "over the line". Any remaining concerns of mine are minor, and don't stand in the way of an FA pass. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Support: the content is impressive, but there seems to be something missing. Perhaps it is the structure of the content. I'm not greatly troubled by the quality of the prose as others are; it's really a matter of susbtance for me. Maybe it's the nature of the subject matter but the content doesn't seem to interlink between sections 100%. But all said I'm still voting support because it's very comprehensive and well-researched. Manderiko 08:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note The sections have since been rearranged. You may want to have another look and see whether or not it was an improvement. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I think we're over the line; in terms of sources I think the best has been done from what reliable sources are available and the prose has much improved. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I really like the direction this article has gone over the past couple of days, it has improved a lot. While I may not be as reliable on the copyediting and manual of style perspective as far as FA status goes (I'll defer to other reviewers there), from a scientific standpoint, I think the article is very complete, well referenced, and well written. Dr. Cash 07:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comments regarding Neutral Point of View:
  • I'm not a physician or pharmacologist, but I'll comment on what I can. I honestly don't see how this pertains to NPOV. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• "Bupropion is an atypical antidepressant that acts as a norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake inhibitor, and nicotinic antagonist."

If it is nicotinic antagonist it will make people smoke more to get the same effect. I read some journal article that states when Bupropion is taken in higher doses it makes people smoke more.

Actually, it is postulated that nicotinic antagonists, such as mecamylamine (and to a lesser extent bupropion), reduce the urge to smoke by preventing nicotine from doing its thing. I can't find any such article; do you mean this small study, which used acute, therapeutic doses? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes thats the study I was referring to...It makes no sense: increasing the dose of Bupropion has an opposite effect in regards with smoking cessation? --1ws1 02:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Fvasconcellos pretty much has it right. To be specific, bupropion is a competitive antagonist of the [acetylcholinergic] nicotinic receptor. What this means is that it binds at the same active site as nicotine and prevents nicotine from interacting there. So in other words, smoking cigarettes or obtaining nicotine in other ways prevents it from having any effect at its normal site, so it effectively neutralizes it. Dr. Cash 05:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Bupropion is a non-competitive antagonist of nicotinic receptors. See the article. Still prevents nicotine from acting, though.Paul gene 03:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• "Bupropion improved ratings of "energy", which had decreased under the influence of the SSRI; also noted were improvements of mood and motivation" & "Bupropion is more effective than SSRIs at improving symptoms of hypersomnia and fatigue in depressed patients."

I have the opposite reaction when I take Bupropion. I sleep for hours straight. Aren't there any studies that say Bupropion makes people drowsy?

Agitation is far more common than drowsiness with bupropion. In clinical studies, there was no difference in the incidence of drowsiness between bupropion and placebo. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Bupropion shouldn't cause drowsiness in patients; it's properties as a dopamine reuptake inhibitor should give it an effect similar to other stimulating drugs, such as cocaine, methamphetamine, ritalin, etc. If bupropion is making you "sleep for hours straight" and makes you drowsy, I would think that you might be experiencing an interaction with another drug, or bupropion may just not work with you (drugs do have different effects on different people -- see pharmacogenomics). Anyway, it almost sounds more like you're seeking medical advice than responding to the article, so if you're still having drowsiness issues, I would suggest that you consult your physician. Dr. Cash 06:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Olanzapine (Zyprexa) a dopamine & serotonin antagonist is sometimes prescribed for bipolar depression. Now I am really confused.

If increasing the levels of dopamine & serotonin in the brain via Bupropion & Citalopram (Celexa) can cure depression, reducing the levels of dopamine & serotonin via Zyprexa can cure bipolar depression?

It's not that simple, particularly regarding the word "cure" :) Long story short, olanzapine is prescribed to treat the manic part of bipolar disorder, usually in conjunction with an antidepressant. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If they take anti-depressants along with anti-psychotics the levels of the dopamine & serotonin will remain the same as before as the medicines are now contradicting themselves! --1ws1 10:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Bupropion being a dopamine reuptake inhibitor increases the level of dopamine in the brain right? So are there studies for Bupropion to treat Parkinson's disease which is caused by low levels of dopamine?

A single 1984 study found bupropion to be mildly effective in Parkinson's, though side effects limited its utility. I don't have access to the full text, so I don't know whether or not it's even worth a mention. (Good study design, relevance etc.) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Very poor study, claims to be double-blind but no protocol is described. Very poorly written, almost incomprehensible. I relegated it to a footnote in the article.Paul gene 04:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Studies on the drug Modafinil (Alertec) have shown it to inhibit the reuptake of dopamine and, more potently, norepinephrine. While the co-administration of a dopamine antagonist is known to decrease the stimulant effect of amphetamine, it does not negate the wakefulness-promoting actions of modafinil.

What was my question again....I forgot... I probably have ADHD....lol--1ws1 01:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is relevant to the bupropion article, but I believe antipsychotics like Zyprexa are prescribed to treat the manic part of bipolar disorder. A lot of bipolar patients also take an antidepressant.

A friend of mine also reported sedation with bupropion. Can't find anything about it, but I'm not very good at searching for journal articles. --Galaxiaad 01:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There are bound to be idiosyncratic reactions to any drug. I know of a person who gets very irritable and anxious from benzodiazepines.Paul gene 03:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support - conforms to wikipedia standards. --1ws1 03:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, not there yet, not comprehensive, not necessarily neutral, although it can certainly make it with a bit more attention. Wikipedia has to take care not to be an advertisement for smoking cessation or for GlaxoSmithKline. It doesn't appear that PMID 17685748 has been factored into the article at all. Causality and comorbidy of smoking with psychiatric disorders have to be sorted out relative to claims that the medication aids in smoking cessation. Whether the bupropion is actually treating underlying psychiatric disorders (ADHD, dpression) that lead to increased smoking, and reduces smoking indirectly via treating other underlying disorders, has not been addressed here. There are also case reports of tic exacerbation in patients on bupropion, which has not been mentioned. We shouldn't downplay side effects of medications or overplay their efficacy. Better attention to wikilinking or definitions is also needed; example only—it appears that Wiki has no article defining "placebo-controlled", so things like that need to be defined for laypersons who may not understand the significance (alternately, an article on placebo-controlled studies needs to be created). Please run through again and make sure all technical terms, not familiar to a layperson, are linked or defined. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow, that's a very recent study. Regarding "Whether the bupropion is actually treating underlying psychiatric disorders...", we need to be very careful not to wander into OR territory, but I don't have to tell you that :) Is PMID 8428875 a good enough analysis of tic exacerbation? It's a case series and quite dated, but seems appropriate. Perhaps someone more adept at analysing the literature (hint, hint) could help out :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is not an advertisement for bupropion for smoking cessation. Equal efficacy of nicotine patch is pointed out. The fact that the new medication varenicline is more effective is also noted in the article. Paul gene 04:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is not an advertisement for GSK. Personally, I hold a very dim view of GSK, but it has nothing to do with the fascinating pharmacology of bupropion. Please give examples to correct.

PMID 17685748 is included now.Paul gene 04:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Bupropion is specific for smoking cessation and does not simply treat a possible underlying depression. Results of trials of other antidepressants such as SSRIs (four trials of fluoxetine, one of sertraline and one of paroxetine), venlafaxine and moclobemide for smoking cessation were all negative. See the Cochrane Database review reference in the article.Paul gene 04:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Tics have been reported only in children treated with bupropion for ADHD. Bupropion should not be used in children according to the recent FDA guidelines. And I do not believe anybody uses it in the USA. So the issue of tics is moot.Paul gene 04:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I've struck my Oppose since both of the items I was concerned about have been added, but the commentary above is surprising. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding since the way you interspersed your comments is confusing, but are you really saying that 1) bupropion isn't used in the US, 2) bupropion isn't used off-label in children, and 3) tic exacerbations are moot in a med used often to treat ADHD, considering the high comorbidity between ADHD and tics? <scratching my head ... as long as the article is accurate ... but these certainly are not moot points. Wiki pharm articles have to be comprehensive, and that means common off-label uses have to be considered.> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

O-ops, stupid mistake. Let me re-write incorporating the answer to your objections. Tics have been reported only in children treated with bupropion for ADHD, not in adults. Bupropion should not be used in children. Since 2004, it is not simply an off-label use, it is the use of the drug in a population where it is contraindicated. While it is possible that a very small number of psychiatrists would still use bupropion in children with depression as a drug of the last resort, it is inconceivable and highly improbable that anyone would use it for ADHD in children, since bupropion’s efficacy in children with ADHD has not been demonstrated. (In the largest double-blind study conducted bupropion was not better than placebo, for the review see PMID: 9554326). Thus, bupropion for ADHD in children is in no way a common off-label use, and it is not necessary to include the tics issue in the article. By the way, do you think I should add to the article that bupropion is not efficacious for ADHD in children?Paul gene 01:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I linked the article to placebo and blind clinical studies. The two latter articles contain explanations sufficient for understanding the concept of double-blind placebo study.Paul gene 04:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • Recent, but a well-established phenomenon (something I happen to know because of the issue of self-medication with nicotine in Tourette syndrome); there probably is data to sort that out without getting into OR. If someone does the research and tells me there's no data, I'll strike, but there has been a lot of work on this concept with TS, so I strongly suspect there should be something. If the drug is actually treating underlying depression or attention deficit, it may not actually be acting as an effective smoking cessation med—did the studies showing that it helps with smoking cessation control for comorbid psychiatric disorders? Someone has to dig up the research, or convince me there is none; if they haven't controlled for other disorders, that needs to be sorted out somehow, if there's any literature. Similar on exacerbation of tics; people with TS won't touch the stuff because it has that rap. Is the exacerbation actually due to the natural waxing and waning of tics, and do controlled studies show bupropion increases tics no more than placebo (as in the case of stimulants as discussed at Treatment of Tourette syndrome? I really don't know; I don't follow bupropion studies as closely as I follow the stimulants, because people with TS avoid the stuff. ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Ps, on the hint hint, I would if I knew where to find these answers or if I had free full access to journal articles—I don't—and I'm up to my eyeballs trying to salvage Asperger syndrome at FAR right now. At least I can point others in the direction to look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I thought of another idea that might help you track this down: are there trials of smoking cessation comparing bupropion to methylphenidate or other stimulants, or SSRIs? If the bupropion is actually working to control smoking because it's addressing self-medication of underlying psychiatric disorders via nicotine, we'd expect to find success in other medications that treat those conditions and comparisons between the types of medications. I just want us to take care in presenting it as a smoking cessation med without a full investigation of other studies; if it's actually working by treating self-medication of underlying conditions like depression or attention deficit, Prozac or Ritalin is probably cheaper, and we shouldn't become an "advert" for Wellbutrin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Bupropion is specific for smoking cessation and does not simply treat a possible underlying depression. Results of trials of other antidepressants such as SSRIs (four trials of fluoxetine, one of sertraline and one of paroxetine), venlafaxine and moclobemide for smoking cessation were all negative. See the Cochrane Database review reference in the article.Paul gene 04:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

While I haven't been able to find evidence in the literature that suggests that the smoking cessation mechanism works by treating self-medication of underlying conditions like ADHD or depression, this paper (PMID 12044800), published in 2002, does challenge the earlier research that bupropion is a nicotinic antagonist. The findings indicate that bupropion exhibits a similar overall feeling as nicotine, but works by a different mechanism of action that doesn't involve inhibition of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor. Dr. Cash 02:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The link does not work, please provide a formal citation or PMID Thank youPaul gene 04:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC). OK. This paper does not present a problem. That study was done on rats. As pointed out in the article, "As bupropion is rapidly converted in the body into several metabolites with differing activity, its action cannot be understood without reference to its metabolism." And "There are significant interspecies differences in the metabolism of bupropion, with guinea pigs' metabolism of the drug being closest to that of humans.[74] Particular caution is needed when extrapolating the results of experiments on rats to humans since hydroxybupropion, the main metabolite of bupropion in humans, is absent in rats.[75]" In mice bupropion does antagonize the behavioral action of nicotine (ref [2] in the article). Later, the authors of the paper you quote (PMID 12044800), found that some metabolites of bupropion antagonize nicotine's action in rats acting through nicotinic receptors, and some partially substitute for it, probably acting through the NE and SER uptake inhibition (see ref 81). Also look at the receptor inhibition data in the Table 1. The bottom line is, if you see a study of bupropion in rats, disregard it - the researchers did not do their homework.Paul gene 12:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Two issues are troubling me. There is a very high rate of comorbid tics in ADHD (and vica-versa as well), so the issue of tic exacerbation when bupropion is used to treat ADHD needs to be addressed. I don't have the full-text of the Spencer study Fvasconcellos mentioned; I've only seen reference to it in other journal reviews. And, the statement in PMID 17685748 that stimulant use affected smoking but bupropion didn't raises the question of what's being treated. If there's no data, there's no data, but I wanted to make sure someone looked into this (and can the new study be incorporated?). Will someone pls ping me when these are resolved so I can strike?? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

PMID 17685748 is included now. Drop a note on my user page if you need more detailsPaul gene 04:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• According to my experience, while taking Celexa a SSRI medication was more useful in smoking cessation. (While not taking Wellbutrin) Seriously, have the scientist done studies on this subject? --1ws1 17:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes they did. Bupropion is specific for smoking cessation and does not simply treat a possible underlying depression. Results of trials of other antidepressants such as SSRIs (four trials of fluoxetine, one of sertraline and one of paroxetine), venlafaxine and moclobemide for smoking cessation were all negative. See the Cochrane Database review reference in the article.Paul gene 04:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Also regarding "If bupropion is making you "sleep for hours straight" and makes you drowsy, I would think that you might be experiencing an interaction with another drug, or bupropion may just not work with you (drugs do have different effects on different people -- see pharmacogenomics). Anyway, it almost sounds more like you're seeking medical advice than responding to the article, so if you're still having drowsiness issues, I would suggest that you consult your physician." Perhaps, Fvasconcellos can provide the relevant studies which show that "In clinical studies, there was no difference in the incidence of drowsiness between bupropion and placebo.", please? --1ws1 18:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• One more request to Fvasconcellos, can you provide that study you were talking about regarding Wellbutrin & Parkinson's disease, please? --1ws1 18:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a couple of studies regarding bupropion and Parkinson's Disease, most of which are exploring its use to treat depression related to PD, not actual PD itself. This study however, found that it was mildly efficacious in treating PD, due to its dopaminergic agonist (actually, dopamine reuptake inhibitor) properties, but there were significant side effects in treating PD with bupropion. Here is a listing of other scientific publications relating to bupropion and PD, most of which are studies on treating depression related to PD instead of the PD itself. Dr. Cash 18:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Derek. Regarding drowsiness, the prescribing information summarizes this in the Adverse effects section. It's linked to from the article, or you can just go here. Again, this issue is best discussed with your physician. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Good job Derek in adding the PD section. Fvasconcellos from your link it says that Somnolence was reported in 2% people taking 300mg/day, 3% taking 400mg/day & placebo 2%. So what can be inferred from that? --1ws1 02:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing. The difference is by chance.Paul gene 12:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's basically it. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Also are there any scientific studies done to explain Why Increasing the dose of Bupropion Has an Opposite Effect in regards with smoking cessation? --1ws1 02:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking for this at google scholar and pubmed. So far, I haven't found any scientific evidence that supports this assertion. Dr. Cash 02:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Am I allowed to delete comments made before 20th August because all issues have been addressed right? Looking forward to seeing this article on the main page, so more scientific studies are done on solving treatment resistant depression. I have tried all the anti-depressants prescribed by my psychiatrist, nothing worked, 6 months per anti-depressant. My only alternative choice is Electric Shock Therapy, which I am scared of. I had rather suicide than let them put electricity in my bran. Do scientists read Wikipedia? --9urges 15:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The 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 21:28, 30 August 2007.

[edit] Renewable energy in Scotland

This article has passed GA, been peer reviewed, given an A rating by WikiProjects Scotland and Energy reviewers, and is a stable and comprehensive review of the subject, which I believe meets the FA criteria. Ben MacDui (Talk) 09:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Some images have thumbnail sizes set - which they shouldn't have.

• Fixed Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Is Image:Scotland Harris 1.jpg really the best image to summarise the entire article? - i.e. at the lead. Is it even a good image at all for this article? I'm guessing the idea is to convey the raw potential of wave energy - this image does not even show particularly powerful waves.

• The image is not the most dramatic or top quality I agree. It does however convey four main ideas - wind, wave, tide and Scotland. It may not be a dramatic scene but it is fairly typical of the territory that has the greatest potential. It also hints at the "battle that pitches environmentalists against conservationists" referred to later on. Do we really want industrial production in this pristine wilderness? I have looked again at Commons and I am familiar with almost all of the 200 or so articles about Scotland's islands and I am not aware of a better one of its type.

A kind person has provided a new image which may incorporate many of these ideas whilst also being of better quality. It is now the 'lead' image. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The image is really really dark. You can tell it was taken during the day I think due to the gleam on the turbines. I'm no photo expert, but I used the "auto level" enhancement in Adobe photoshop - and the difference is dramatic. Though I'm not trying to be difficult, maybe leave it and if anyone else has a problem with it..? Mark83 11:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Certainly improved - hopefully fixed. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Image:EU_Windmill.jpg would be better - also because the placement at the minute is totally random.

• I agree that it is both a better quality image and not well placed, but not that it is a better image for the lead. It would imply that the article is mostly about onshore wind, which is a high profile issue but only a small aspect of the subject matter. However if you are not convinced I will swop them.

• Image now removed per comment by User:Carnildo below. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Image:Wind turbine at Nigg.jpg - I suppose the thinking is to show turbines are both manufactured and used in Scotland? It's just my opinion, but I think an image of an actual Scottish wind turbine in operation would be better. Also turbine is a small percentage of the image.

• Sadly few turbines are manufactured in Britain or Scotland. It is there simply because it is a rare free image of the world's largest wind turbine under construction. I am afraid I lack a boat large enough to motor out and take a snap of its actual operation. Again, if you don't like it it could easily be exchanged for Image:EU_Windmill.jpg above or something similar. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • No, I see what you mean. Mark83 11:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Fair use rationale required for Image:Pelamis.JPG

• I'm looking into this.

• Image now removed per comment by User:Carnildo below. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Image:Wfm_m8_motorway.jpg - What is with this image and the caption "The M8 motorway in Glasgow. Vehicles powered from renewable sources not shown."?? i.e. they are all conventionally powered cars? And that's been established how? There's about 68 vehicles in the image, not all of them can be seen. Conjecture to say none of them are powered by renewable sources.

• I feared my attempt at some light relief might not pass muster with everyone. I am presuming they are all conventially powered, and whilst you are right it is 'conjecture' to say so, the odds are massively stacked in this direction. I have removed the image.

• • I don't see what "One writer described the Hebrides as "the Isles on the Edge of the Sea where men are welcome - if they are hard in body and in spirit tenacious."[84]" adds to the article. Describe the area. Fluffy language not encyclopedic.

• I am only learning the trade - FA criterion 1a says " "Well written" means that the prose is engaging," and I have tried to provide colourful language from time to time. The word are those of the foremost writer on the subject of the western seaboard of Scotland. I think it makes the point rather better than anything I might be able to offer, but I'll remove it if you like. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I would prefer a plain description - but no, I see where you're coming from. Let's leave for now. Mark83 11:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Image:Tattered_saltire.jpg - again, don't see the point of this image.

• The tattered flag implies a battle. The fact that it is a Saltire alone indicates that the struggle is perhaps a civil war - an idea that may be unfamiliar to Scots who have all-too-often perceived the political process as being one in which the big-picture decisions are taken elsewhere. Perhaps I am being over-lyrical again. I could get a picture of a line of pylons or some smaller windmills? Suggestions are very welcome. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Over-lyrical? Perhaps. But again, I see where your coming from. Let's leave for now. Mark83 11:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• • "Recent events" is a list, should be converted to prose? "New data appears on a regular basis. Milestones in 2007:" is not flowing, engaging prose.

• Latter attended to.
• The former is trickier. The information appears as and when - my intention was to remove it at the year end and place it in the main body as required. I will reword it as prose now by grouping issues together. Done. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Nuclear power mentioned but not linked.

• Fixed Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• • "Ethanol cannot be commercially produced as a fuel in Scotland, for the time being at least.[42]" It is not explained in either the article OR the reference as far as I can see.

• Absolutely right. Westray and Orkney College have some figures on this, but for some reason it is not quoted in the reference provided. I will get one asap. The reason is of course that the yields of sugar are too low. Fixed. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Linking could do with a tidy up - e.g. 1st, 2nd & 3rd instances of "carbon dioxide" not linked, not until 4th instance. Overlinked too - just link 1st instance and no more. Mark83 20:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Attended to and hopefully fixed. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support Well written, well referenced, good use of free images, and overall very impressively done. My only suggestions would be to perhaps keep the "Summary of Scotland's resource potential" table and notes at the every end of the article (as it seems a fitting end and transitions into the references, etc). This would mean moving the "Recent Events" section before the table.

• Done. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The Recent Events section could also have its many one sentence paragraphs merged into larger paragraphs.

• Will do - see above Done. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, I was involved in the peer review of this article back in April and made a few edits (<10) to it then. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support Oppose: It's clear that a lot of good work has gone into this article, but I don't think it is yet worthy of FA status. There are two related problems. Firstly, the article talks too much about non-renewables such as carbon sequestration, clean coal, and nuclear power. These are clearly off the topic of the article. Secondly, the article is not comprehensive in its discussion of renewables. There is just so much more that could be said about the actual deployment of technologies such as hydroelectricity and wind power in particular. I couldn't find the answer to basic questions such as: What are the ten largest hydro installations in Scotland, in terms of installed capacity? What are the ten largest wind farms in Scotland? -- Johnfos 21:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Johnfos. I'm afraid I can't agree. First of all, as the intro to the section says even if they are not 'renewables' (and some people argue that they are, even if you and I don't), the more quickly they are rolled out the less investment is available, and the less political will there is, to support genuine renewables. The nuclear energy section is simply a sentence. Carbon offsetting is a big issue. Even Global Compact companies are on this bandwagon. Countries such as Norway are likely to include sequestration as part of their ambitious CO2 reduction targets, and the section is essentially there to point out some of the problems this may cause. Hydrogen, we may agree, is likely to be crucial to any serious long-term renewables strategy. I am more than willing to improve this section but to remove or significantly reduce it would not make sense to me. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Secondly, the article was not conceived as a list of power stations, but as an essay on the prospects for the various technologies. The former exists elsewhere, and although it is not a great article, I was remiss in not including it. I have now added it to the 'See also' section. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi MacDui. You are quite right in that the article is "an essay on the prospects for the various technologies". It is much more an essay than an encyclopedia article. And it focuses on future prospects much more than what is actually happening in the present. Perhaps the article should be called "Prospects for renewable energy in Scotland".

In terms of other renewable energy articles which are GAs, Renewable energy in Iceland, Renewable energy commercialization and Renewable energy commercialization in Australia, there are none which discuss carbon sequestration, clean coal, and nuclear power. And the world's single most authoritative source on the matter, the International Energy Agency, does not classify these as renewable.^[1][2] There is a skewed emphasis in this article, and so much that could be said about what is happening with renewables in Scotland just isn't being said.

I can't believe that there is only one paragraph on hydro. The carbon sequestration section is longer than the hydro section. How can this possibly make sense to you? -- Johnfos 08:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well first of all, you are absolutely right about the short section on Hydro. It remains the second largest producer. Its contemporary visibility is very low as the growth potential is extremely limited but that is no excuse. More now added. It seems surprising there is not an article on the topic, but so it goes.

Arguably the sequestration sub-section does go on a bit and I have removed part of it that simply provides more data. I don’t know the Icelandic scene at all well, although they and Governor Schwarzenegger seem to be leading the field in hydrogen promotion. I imagine their article does not mention sequestration because the have no oil fields and therefore no-one is seriously talking about the road to renewables being paved via this method. (Likewise Australia?) Let me be quite clear, I am not either attempting to argue that it is renewable, or that it is desirable. I am however making the point (apparently not very well) that the issue already is, and is likely to continue to be a major factor in the ongoing and very high profile debate that is happening in Scotland. I am more than happy to continue to dialogue about its tenor, size, focus etc. but in an environment where there is intense competition for political and commercial support for technologies which address climate change, and which in the public’s mind tend to be lumped together, I can’t imagine an article that failed to mention the subject at all making any sense.

With nuclear, all I have done is make the point that it is not a renewable fuel, although some try to argue that it is. I don’t think that is ‘off-topic’.

With clean coal, again this is a huge issue that surely needs mentioning. Possibly because to the best of my knowledge there is no article about the Scottish response to climate change generally it goes on a bit, (a la sequestration) and again I have cut it back.

Perhaps this dialogue is question of our starting points - you may be looking at it from the point of view of someone who is deeply concerned about renewable energy and don't want the issue muddied by extraneous information. That's fair enough, but I am also trying to look at it from the point of view of someone interested in Scotland, who wants to know what the renewable scene is all about, not just in its purest sense, but in its specific political and commercial context.

Finally, in a more general response to the above I have renamed the section headers to make the ‘challenges and opportunities’ issue that these and other technologies offer to renewables more explicit. Ben MacDui (Talk) 16:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks, MacDui, for those changes. The issue is resolved now as far as I am concerned and I hope you get FA... In terms of where I am coming from, I simply wanted to make sure that basic information should be included and more speculative info not given undue weight. regards, Johnfos 04:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Object:
  1. Image:Pelamis.JPG, Image:EU Windmill.jpg are tagged as fair use, but could be replaced by a free-licensed image.

• Both images now removed. The former is easy to replace if needed. There is no useful replacement for the Pelamis image available on Commons that I can see and candidly I have no idea how to get one. I have a photo of one at sea taken from Orkney, but it is all but indistinguishable from the waves. I'll try and get hold of a picture of a manufacturers offices or something along those lines. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• 1. The image Image:Tattered saltire.jpg may or may not have been licensed under the CC-BY license. Since the license status of the image is uncertain, it shouldn't be used. --Carnildo 02:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Now replaced - although this does not of course answer Mark83's query. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• --Carnildo 02:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Would any of the pictures on slides 6 and 12 of this US Government EPA website be OK for a free Pelamis image? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No idea. They don't say where any of those images came from. --Carnildo 03:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose—prose needs attention throughout. Just look at the opening few sentences—messy.

• Tony - I am somewhat in awe of your writing skills, but taking a deep breath, here goes.

• • "In addition to an existing installed capacity of 1.3 Gigawatts (GW) of hydro-electric schemes, Scotland has an estimated potential of 36.5 GW for wind and 7.5 GW tidal power, 25% of the estimated total capacity for the European Union and up to 14 GW of wave power potential (10% of the EU capacity)." Let me get this right: are these averages? No one would run a hydro plant full bore throughout the day: it's ideal as peak production. Wind and tidal are highly variable. I'd like to see this expressed as an average, or better, as GW hours per ?year or whatever is standard.

• No. As it says, they are estimates of 'installed capacity'. As I noted on the talk page when the article was created "I have attempted to provide as coherent a picture as possible in the circumstances by, for example, sticking mostly to predictions of maximum output in GW. Using energy productions in TWh (i.e. of actual production) might be more useful in some ways but would tend to obscure the underlying assumptions unless every reference included a measure for maximum output, capacity factor and assumed production, which might prove cumbersome." Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"Potential of 36.5 GW of, not for, even though repeated.

• Fixed. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The back-ellipsis of "power" (wind power) is awkward.

• I am sure you are right, but I don't know where this problem is.

The EU figure is expressed within commas and then within parentheses: confusing. Remove "the" before "EU". Remove "existing". Remove "even" and the preceding comma.

• Fixed. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"Natural resource base" is equated with "renewable energy"—no.

• I've added 'for renewables'. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Add "fossil-" before "fuel" to make it clear?

• It is actually all fuels (including fossil, nuclear and renewable). Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The subsequent sentence refers to "the resource": which one is that?

• I have added 'renewable'. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Try to find others to help with the copy-editing. Tony 13:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have made such a request and I will of course remove any further glitches I spot.

And PS, while I'm on this topic, can you remove the thousands of "ons" from "Retrieved on [date]". Some of them are already free of this idle word here. Seems to be a scourge on WP. Tony 13:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• They should of course be consistent, and I will do as you request, although I notice that of the five FA articles I looked at today all used 'on'. Ben MacDui (Talk) 16:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• I may have spoken to soon. I normally use the standard <ref>Citation</ref> tags, but the 'on' would seem to be a feature of the {{citeweb}} template - hence its growing prominence. Is there a way to amend the templates preferences that you know of? Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• On the assumption that there isn't I have added 'on' to the few remaining example of the former. I agree it is unnecessary word but I don't think I can be blamed if editors chose to spend their time changing the former to the latter. It does not seem to breach any policy or guideline that I am aware of and at least the usage is now consistent. Ben MacDui (Talk) 07:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'll try to raise the matter of this silly "on" word at the template. That's good if the thousands of examples can be fixed at a stroke.

• I’ll watch for developments (and assist if need be). Grumbled at them as it seems a bit sleepy.

"Renewable fuel"? Guess you're referring to ethanol?

• More likely biodiesel in Scotland.

Unsure I like this distinction between seasonal fuels and fuels that form over different time spans. I'm trying to grapple with this implied maximum output in the "estimated potential", versus the "installed capacity". It assumes all wind and tidal turbines going full bore ... in that respect, it's not a realistic measure, since you can run a coal-fired station at full bore 24/7, but the output of the others needs to be equated with this as an estimated average, surely. I'm only a lay-person, but it seems like common sense. Tony 13:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Happily, the calculations do not make this assumption, unhappily they make numerous others that are hard to assess. Thus with say a nuclear facility with an installed capacity of 1 MW, you can assume that its potential energy production is going to be close to 1 MW x 24 hours per day X 365 days per year. Lets say its ‘capacity factor’ (i.e. likely run time at full bore) is 95%. This gives c. 8.3 GWh per annum.

If you have a 1 MW windmill instead you get 1 x 24 x 365 x a capacity of factor of say 20% on the east coast (where there isn’t much wind) and 45% or more on the west coast, (where there is). Perhaps on average you will get 30% and c. 2.6 GWh per annum.

The ‘Potential Energy’ column is a series of estimates based on these average capacity factors for each technology. Unfortunately the providers of the data rarely make their assumptions explicit, and the numbers do vary. If they were reliable and from an agreed common source it might make much more sense to use the potential energy figures in the main text, but they are neither so the ‘installed capacity’ figures tend to get used - although this results in regular mental arithmetic exercises if you are attempting to compare the technologies. It is evidently not obvious from the article how this works and I will see what can be done to make it less arcane.

Now attempted in a note following the summary table. Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You might want to try using {{Ref label}} and {{Note label}} tags to put in more detailed notes that have wikilinked superscripts (so the material is accessible within the text to interested persons). For examples, see Demosthenes (FA) or List of Pennsylvania state parks (FL). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion - I have added such a beast for the above 'installed capacity' note so that it links in with the lead para. I'll check over it and see if I can spot other possible uses. Ben MacDui (Talk) 09:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support: Having worked in some aspects of the renewables industry, I recognise that it covers all of the areas. The article is accurate, informative, very well written and referenced. --Bill Reid | Talk 12:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support: Excellent article, well-referenced, extremely engaging writing style. Globaltraveller 20:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The 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 21:28, 30 August 2007.

[edit] Gregory of Nazianzus

Self-nomination. This article, currently GA-status, has been improved and expanded this year. It draws from several respected academic sources and is reasonably complete in its treatment of Gregory. I'm willing make what changes are needed to get consensus for FA-status. Thanks. Majoreditor 03:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Majoreditor 14:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support A well presented scholarly article. I'd like more secular openion, but its a fine read. Ceoil 12:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comments I've fixed a few cases of spaces between punctuation and ref - you may wish to run through and check for more. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 23:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

(Expanding on first comment) An enjoyable read; I found it generally accessable, which is an achievement in itself for a 4th century historical figure. However:

• I found the lead much heavier going than the rest of the article: "the patristic age","establishing the paradigm of Byzantine theologians and church officials". I'm afraid that even after reading the rest of the article, I'm not sure what either of those means. In addition, I would note that half the main article is biography; if the lead is summarising the main article, then biographical details ought to get at least a few sentences, if not a paragraph, of the lead.
• There's a tendency towards long sentences with minimal punctuation here and there - "The two friends then entered a period of close fraternal cooperation as they participated in a great rhetorical contest of the Caesarean church precipitated by the arrival of accomplished Arian theologians and rhetors." - which I think could be looked at to further improve the readability of the (already good) prose.
• "From his deathbed, Basil reminded them of Gregory's capabilities and likely recommended his friend to champion the trinitarian cause in Constantinople." comes in the section after Basil's death is first reported, which made me do a double-take.
• "Gregory used this occasion to deliver a final address (Or. 42) and then departed." I think Or 42 needs explaining, expanding, or wikilinking, as I can't tell what it is (apart from some term for his final address - Or for Oratory?)
• I think some expansion in the Influence section on his modern relevance could be useful - the final sentance gives some, but if you're not knowledgable about Christianity, I'm not sure how much that tells you.
• Is there any information on his being made a saint?
• Further Reading is enormous. Personally I'd prefer a much smaller list of the best extension reading.
• I'm not very well up on copyright, but I'm wondering if the notice on the main image is correct? Obviously the photo is someone's work and they can release it, but shouldn't the image photographed have a rationale as well? If the fresco is as old as it looks, then I imagine providing one is easy.

Feel free to disagree with any of the above; a number of them are fairly subjective. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 19:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment could use a little wikilinking. E.g. in the lead: "Gregory is widely considered the most accomplished rhetorical stylist of the patristic age. As a classically trained speaker and philosopher he infused Hellenism into the early church, establishing the paradigm of Byzantine theologians and church officials." That's quite a bunch of terms that could be wikified. Chensiyuan 15:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments. You're raising some good questions. I'll start to address them over the next few days. Majoreditor 21:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support/Comments Most of the article is written extremely well, and also helps to give an extensive description of Gregory to someone who would have no prior knowledge of the man; eg myself, an Egyptian Muslim. A couple of tweaks I'd like to suggest though, once they're modified I'll gladly change my vote to strong support.

• 1- The sentence about Emperor Valens dying is short and arupt in comparison to the rest of the article, Maybe fusing it with the nest sentence would keep the flow smooth, such as "Following the death of Emperor Valens in 387, the succession of Theodosius I. . .etc" perhaps?
• 2- "Throughout his life Gregory faced stark choices. Should he pursue studies as a rhetor or philosopher? Would a monastic life be more appropriate than public ministry? Was it better to blaze his own path or follow the course mapped for him by his father and Basil? Gregory's writings illuminate the conflicts which both tormented and motivated him. Biographers suggest that it was this dialectic which defined him, forged his character and inspired his search for meaning and truth."

This paragraph is a bit promotional and/or philosophical, not to mention unneccessary. If this is a direct quote from Ruether then it should be stated as such in the text, although even that may not deem it beneficially informative in any way. If it is original text I recommend it be removed.

• 3- I sort of agree with Winklethorpe about the Further Reading list being excessively large, although it's not that big a deal to me.
• 4- I definitely agree about a part describing the details of his ascension to sainthood, as in when it happened and which pope oversaw the proceedings. Not only is it important for informational reasons (and I'm personally very interested to know these details), it also solves the suggestion by Winklethorpe about expanding the Influence section and giving it the final touch, as I think that's the only section that could use some polishing.
• Other than these, a very good job indeed. Swimforestswim 10:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The 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 21:28, 30 August 2007.

[edit] Tim Duncan

A very solid GA about the four-time NBA basketball champion and triple NBA Finals Most Valuable Player, copyedited and cleaned up multiple times. I feel it meets the WP:WIAFA criteria, or at least will do after polish by experienced editors. Duncan is also already in this thirties, so stability will be not a big issue. I was also waiting for the peer review, but unfortunately there is quite a backlog at the moment, so no feedback. —Onomatopoeia 13:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support as nom. —Onomatopoeia 13:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support; together with Onomatopoeia and several editors from the NBA Wikiproject we have edited this article over a long period of time, and we'd be willing to address any concerns raised here by others. Chensiyuan 13:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support: article is complete and objective. Manderiko 13:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support: Very thorough article on Tim Duncan. If there is one minor thing that could be worked on, it would be to expand the "other interests" section since it's a little stubby. RyguyMN 15:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually the section used to be a little longer but I thought the other information bordered on "trivial", so they were taken out. But I would see if anything of worth can be added, thanks. Chensiyuan 15:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support, Very well done and thorough article! Good work to all who worked on it. FamicomJL 16:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support - must've read my mind, didn't even mention the other changes :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support It's well-written and clear. The sections are perfect. This article would make a great FAC. Basketball fan24111 11:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I have a little issue with this line "Still, the power forward's main drawback in his game remains his inconsistent free throw shooting, with a career average of less than 70%.", I personally wouldn't call shooting 68% from the free throw line inconsistent for a big man, I feel 'average' would be a more acurate description of it since several centers and as in this case strong forwards have terrible accuaracy from the line (a certain center comes to mind here). Besides this the article is very comprehensible and significantly well written. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Y Done Your point about the FT shootnig is taken and implemented. Chensiyuan 01:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Well written, extremely cited, and easy to understand (as a non-basketball fan). Also, TonytheTiger, PLEASE stop with your one-man crusade to fill every sports bio with box scores; you've done this with prior sports FACs. Chris Young's article is loaded with box scores, it is possible for an article to be OVERcited. You're the only one who thinks box scores are necessary for FA status, and as many sports bios are FA-quality without box scores, you've been proven wrong. Kindly stop, it just makes for contentious and unnecessary debate. Anthony Hit me up... 15:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Of the half dozen FACs I have suggested adding Box scores to, only Martin Broduer (the 1st one) got through without the simple additions I requested. Anyone who thinks the article would not be improved with a box score of a quadruple double just miss is free to say so. Anyone who thinks any other game I am requesting a simple box score for is free to say that the box score would not improve the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support, Well written and documents Duncan's life and career very well, just needs polishing as errors are mentioned here.Sabar^Cont 17:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The prose could use some work. Here are a few examples of less-than-professional writing:

:*Having lost his mother – who served as a huge inspiration to his life – to breast cancer, he acts as an ambassador against the disease. The parenthetical phrase in this sentence comes at an awkward point. Try reading the sentence out loud.

• • Y Done First, thank you for your comments and follow-up even as we respond. I've tried making the sentence less awkward -- how does the new phrasing sound (see last lines of lead). Chensiyuan 13:08, 20 August 2007

(UTC)

• • • Well, another user has pointed out that "ambassadors against cancer/the disease/etc" is awkward, since you can't really be an ambassador against something. That hasn't really been addressed. Plus, it just seems weird to begin a two-subject sentence with a participal phrase that modifies only one of the subjects. Zagalejo 17:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I'd take the point on "against" first. I know at least BBC uses such language in some of its articles, see e.g. [74], [75]. Chensiyuan 23:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
        • The BBC is also guilty of no-nos like "very unique" and "comprised of". Zagalejo 00:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
          • well i think "comprised of" in that specific instance is correct; moreover that's an editable BBC page akin to a wiki... but I don't want to split hairs. I know where you two are coming from re: "ambassadors against". I'd see if I can rewrite that part. Chensiyuan 00:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
            • rewritten. Chensiyuan 03:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
              • Whoops, should have looked at that one page more closely. (Although most writing guides will tell you that you that "comprised of" is always incorrect. [76]) But whatever. The sentence looks OK to me now.Zagalejo 19:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• With a double double career average, he is one of the most consistent players in the NBA, having been selected in all ten years of his professional career for both the All-NBA and All-Defensive teams and for being a perennial Most Valuable Player and Defensive Player of the Year candidate. Read this sentence carefully. We're saying that Duncan has been "selected...for being a perennial Most Valuable Player candidate...". That's messy. Reword and organize things a little bit better.
  • I agree with all your comments below save for this one. I don't see the confusion arising. Chensiyuan 23:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not that the meaning was unclear; the phrasing is just clunky. However, the problem is somewhat difficult for me to put into words, so I tried to fix it myself. Zagalejo 00:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

***Later in that section, we have this sentence: As one of the league's best interior defenders, he ranks constantly as one of the top scorers, rebounders and shotblockers in the league. The way this sentence is structured, you'd think Duncan's scoring is directly related to his interior defense. Zagalejo 01:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Y Done added an "also" to eliminate possible correlation. Chensiyuan 03:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, I think the "As" is what's suggesting correlation. However, most of that sentence just seems redundant, anyway. We've already mentioned his career double-double and his DPOY candidacy. Zagalejo 06:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• In his career, the two-time MVP (2002, 2003), four-time NBA champion (1999, 2003, 2005, 2007) and three-time NBA Finals MVP (1999, 2003, 2005) Duncan has collected a number of individual and team honours. This sentence seems silly to me. Aren't the MVP awards and championships "individual and team honours" themselves? If the "Honors" section is a summary of his awards anyway, why frontload the first sentence like that? (And shouldn't "honours" be honors, to be consistent with the section header?)
  • Y Done Inconsistent honors spelling fixed.
  • Y Done Rephrased and eliminated the said duplicity. Chensiyuan 04:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• The Spurs captain has also stated that he chose #21 for his jersey to honor his brother-in-law's college number, since he was the main inspiration for him to play basketball... This isn't so much of a prose concern as a request for more info. Who was Duncan's brother-in-law? Why isn't he mentioned in "Early life" if he was Duncan's inspiration to play basketball?
  • Y Done I took your suggestion to mention brother-in-law inspiration in "early life". Better now? Chensiyuan 13:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Have we found a name for him? I'm just curious. Zagalejo 17:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I've tried, no success. Chensiyuan 00:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I mean, I wouldn't let that be the deciding factor; I'm just wondering if it is someone well-known. Zagalejo 19:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Some general advice: watch out for informal phrases ("big men"), and make sure that non-hoops fans can understand all of the basketball terminology. (For example, we introduce the term "low post moves" in the "Wake Forest University" section without clearly explaining what that means.) Zagalejo 19:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • There isn't a wikilink for low post moves or its equivalent -- any idea how to explain it without being clumsy? Chensiyuan 23:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
    • For lack of a better idea, we could link to Basketball_court#Low_post_area. Zagalejo 00:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
      • That's not too bad an idea actually. Would need some time to consider the rest of your suggestions though... Chensiyuan 01:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Y Done wikilinked low post and removed "big men". Chensiyuan 03:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Oh, and if you're a member of the NBA WikiProject, please make that clear. I'm a member myself. Zagalejo 19:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Uh, I see no reason for this to be a requirement. As long as it is a fair review of the article, I see no reason to include this information as long as there is no conflict of interest. Just because you are a member of a Wikiproject, it doesn't mean you have to flag yourself as such. Remember, assume good faith, unless otherwise given reason not to... — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm assuming good faith. I just thought this was standard procedure. Zagalejo 02:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• It is standard procedure. How can we tell if it is a fair review or that there is no conflict of interest. Its good faith to declare that you are a project member. Ceoil 10:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose (NBA Wikiprokect member) The content of the article is very solid. However, I think there can be some improvement to the writing. Some of it suggests alot of POV and uses unencyclopedic tones. Examples:
  • 1 - Dominated his opposition with an uncanny array of moves. Y Done removed/rephrased.
  • 2 - Played smothering defense. Y Done removed.
  • 3 - The Spurs were smarting / were still reeling Y Done removed/rephrased.
  • 4 - The Spurs disposed of the Timberwolves Y Done word change.
  • 5 - Duncan and his Spurs sought revenge Y Done removed/rephrased.
  • 6 - etc...
  • Note:
    • Also, I've never heard Tim Duncan being called Merlin during an NBA game or published in an article. I think that's an example of fancruft, and seems a bit trivial. Overall, it's a solid article, just needs to be combed over to ensure the language and tone remains encyclopedic. Zodiiak 19:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I've tried addressing your concerns above. Regarding "Merlin" and other interests et al, would need to consult Onomatopoeia before making a move on it. Chensiyuan 23:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think the article lacks comprehensiveness and in some places is a bit POV

• In many of the comments about the playing style and skill, pundit analysis is taken as a fact. Please make sure that all of these are noted as general opinion, rather than fact. Secondly, "proven by the fact that his playoff career averages are even higher than his regular-season stats" - I do not think stats in sport can be taken as "proof" of superiority etc.

• I presume you are taking issue with proof of clutch play. My view is this: in playoffs, the standard of games are by and large higher, since the teams with the best records qualify for the playoffs. Playoffs are also a measure of a player's big match occasion, or in American terms, "clutch" performance. I think it's a fair and reasonable inference that a person who constantly records higher stats during playoffs (while not playing many more minutes per game), has got an extra dimension about his play. One of those dimenstions is clutch play. Chensiyuan 14:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• "NBA legend" - POV. There are quite a few instances of things like this from my experience reading basketball articles.

• • Y Done —Onomatopoeia 12:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• There are probably other instances of things which are metaphorical and not actual. Here are a few exmaples.

• "long string of painful post-season losses" not in the source given and also rather POV. "the Spurs were considered a notable threat in the NBA. Now with both an experienced center in Robinson and the number one pick in Duncan, the Spurs featured one of the best frontcourts in the NBA. The Duncan and Robinson duo became known as the "Twin Towers" - every source in this para is raw stats. Where did you get all this qualitative info from. Article is unsourced in places

Y Done, got rid of that sentence —Onomatopoeia 12:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comprehensiveness holes

• If this guy was the first player in the draft, there would have been quite a media circus about him. Why did SAS want him so badly, what was their rationale in picking him. Contract negotiations? What is his contract, when was it renewed and so forth? IF he is an MVP he should have many contract offers from other teams. This needs to be discussed.

• I would have thought that his performances in college set the context as to why he was coveted during the draft. Regarding contractual details, generally they are not disclosed per team policy although sites like basketball-reference.com offer figures -- but they remain guesses in my opinion. More importantly, as far as I know, in many good sports articles, details on the player's contract are seldom discussed, unless the wages are truly exceptional. Finally, regarding rival bids for his services -- I've tried searching for such details but had no luck. Unless somebody here says there have been meaningful speculation over his future at previous points of his career, this could be chimerical. Chensiyuan 13:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• I mean the coach would have said "He is an exciting prospect becuase........ Also different teams have different weaknesses and needs to fix up" Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Very statistical type of an article. There is roughly a para for each season, which consists of season's average, and the season's team results in the playoffs and the votes that he got for awards. If Duncan is always in the All Star team and is a multiple MVP, then we expect some brilliant and memorable performances in certain matches that will be spoken of over and over. I see no such matches here. It would be hard to fathom a multiple MVP with no stylish performances or match winning performances in important games and so forth. why are their no critical performances

• I agree with most of your comments, but I should note that Duncan hasn't really had many "stylish" performances. The average NBA fan probably couldn't describe any specific Duncan games. Duncan is efficient and consistent, but he's not flashy, and he shows very little emotion on the court. His playing style doesn't lend itself to dramatic descriptions. Zagalejo 06:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• To clarify: Duncan has been a crucial part of his team's success, but you'd still end up describing his greatest games in terms of statistics. Unlike Michael Jordan, who has a long list of acrobatic moves and game-winning jumpers, Duncan gets most of his points with methodical moves close to the basket. Zagalejo 19:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with both points raised by Zagalejo. Chensiyuan 14:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• True he might not be stylish, but he will still have some games where he was more influential than others. Especially in the finals. Surely there must be instances of important games where he scored 30+ points etc or, when his team was down at the last breakk and he scored 10-15 points in a big burst. Like any game defining performances. Atm, the reader will think that he played aexactly the same way in each match (judging by the article). What about suspensions? Did he ever get any? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Captaincy. Should be some discussion of leadership skills surely? You also note in the US national team section that he "led" the team. Do you mean captaincy or just being the main player. If he was captain this need to be explicirt.

• Y Done sharp observation re: "led". I have removed the ambiguity. Will expand on leadership. Chensiyuan 13:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• In general, 36k is not so big for a contemporary player who is regarded as one of the best of his generation. There is plenty of room for general expansion. Surely there is a book about him?

Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• You are right in that more information could be added about him. But that can be said of any given article. It's a question of relevance and more importantly, value-addedness isn't it. My view is that as it stands, his basketball career is well-covered. His transactional history is almost non-existent, and as said he's not a "memorable game" kind of player but that's exactly what makes him stand out -- substance over style, success over style. Off the court, he's not the sort of flamboyant star where there's much to talk about, except maybe his philanthropy, which is covered. Chensiyuan 16:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well some futher exploration in a book wouldn't go astray. If it doesn't work out it can be forked to the team season article or whatever. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Neutral This article is poorly written and incomplete. I only got through his college career. I expect my complaints on the early portion are indicative of the entire article. The article should visit WP:PR, and WP:BIOPR before returning to WP:FAC. Come back after completing a WP:PR visit. However, here are the beginnings of my objection.

The 2nd paragraph of the lead is poorly written stylistically.

“His strong performances for the college team attracted the attention of basketball scouts.” Is so big of an understatement and misstatement that it might be misleading. Duncan’s four performance at the college level which culminated in him being Player of the Year attracted attention or something like it would be better.

“He soon earned the nickname "The Big Fundamental", due to his use of basic and seemingly unspectacular basketball moves to great effect.” I am a pretty big sports fan and have never heard of this nickname. I don’t think it is important enough to be in the 2 paragraph summary.

I think on this point I'm very certain most people would disagree with you -- that is his most common nickname. Chensiyuan 06:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'll back Chensiyuan up on this one. I agree with most of Tony's comments, though. Zagalejo 06:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

O.K. I'll back down on this point.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Among others usually refers to persons. Here you mean Among other accomplishments or Among his many accomplishments or something like it.

between 1995 to 1997 is ungrammatical. Y Done Chensiyuan 06:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Y DoneThe third paragraph of the Wake Forest section is a wreck making progress. Furthermore, it does not tell me how Wake finished in the NCAA tournament, ACC tournament or ACC regular season with Duncan. Basketball is a team sport. Please address this concern.

I think you could more easily summarize Duncan's college career in a wikitable with the following columns: NCAA Record, ACC record, ACC Tournament Finish (seed), NCAA Tournament Round loss (seed, Opposing team), Official Awards. If a wikitable is not desirable please provide the info textually. The way it is layed out in 1994 you can not tell they were the 5 seed and lost in the 2nd round to 4 seed Kansas, for example. I am sure Kansas was lead by a future NBA draftee. For his Junior season provide a link to the Brevin Knight game. This should get you on the right track.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, Duncan must hold numerous ACC and Wake Forest records. I don’t see any. Is it possible to find any. This objection is not so strong however, since he placed high among NCAA in many important stats.

Y Done —Onomatopoeia 08:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Although Duncan only won ACC tournaments and got some Sweet Sixteen bids, Wake is not a traditional ACC power and this is very good for their program. I think talking about the ACC championships should be more impressive. I think you should be able to say his team defeated UNC teams led by X, & Y and Duke teams led by X, & Y for given years for example. It will add some flavor. Currently the Wake Forest section is 5300 words and I am sure it can be filled out in less than 7500 words. Also the Sophomore season paragraph seems slapped together. Please copy edit it and split the paragraph accordingly. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There should be some mention of his rarity for his era as a four year collegian. He could have come out early and gotten big bucks. Many think he is exemplary for polishing of his skills before coming out and attribute his success to this decision. His article is incomplete without mention of this dimension.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 06:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Y Done, at least why he gave up millions by not entering the NBA early. However, the college section needs some rework. —Onomatopoeia 12:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Y Done, College section is fleshed out now. —Onomatopoeia 08:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

See Peer review for further instructions. I have also requested an automated peer review which should be forthcoming in the peer review.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, this article is one of the few athlete bios that fails to mention his biggest single game performances. All of his big pro games can be cited with box scores and/recaps because he is an internet era star. Some of his big games should be mentioned. I know from working on Chris Young (pitcher) that college games are available back to about 1995 making Duncans Junior and Senior season big game box scores citable. Please mention his biggest games if you can find them. The talk page mentions one big game.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please cite the close Quad double with a box score.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I like to see all important games cited with box scores or recaps and most are. However, 1998 NBA Playoffs game 2 against the Suns needs a box score/recap as does the 2002 NBA Playoffs game 5 against the Lakers. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Y Done —Onomatopoeia 14:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment -I'm not familiar with much US basketball so I can't comment on comprehensiveness but I don't feel the prose is too bad. There are a couple of minor tweaks and the tone is a little glowing in places but I'll highlight what I can see. I thin kyuo're nearly over the line though :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

:Duncan, current captain of the Spurs, is one of the most successful players of his generation. -I think this sentence is probably unnecessary. Try tacking on "Current captain of the spurs" onto the next sentence somehow and let the achievements speak for themselves maybe. (not a strong criticism though and could be left as is) - alternately - move the bit about 4 championships up to here, which is better than vague sentence "most successful"

Y Done —Onomatopoeia 12:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

In school, Duncan was a bright pupil, and soon dreamt of becoming an Olympic-level swimmer - flip to "Duncan was a bright pupil in school, (one fewer comma/clause) and soon dreamt of becoming an Olympic-level swimmer (redundant)

Y Done —Onomatopoeia 12:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

:However, Duncan's dreams.. - drop "However"

Y Done —Onomatopoeia 12:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

:drop 'mortal' in next para - who has a non-mortal fear of sharks?

Y Done —Onomatopoeia 12:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Originally only looking for a way to cope with his pain - drop "only" - redundant

Y Done —Onomatopoeia 12:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

:Overall, Duncan led Wake Forest to a 97–31 win-loss record, finished his college career as the leading shot blocker in NCAA history, and is one of only ten players with mor.. - drop "overall" and change first comma to "and". Trn 2nd comma into semicolon.

Y Done —Onomatopoeia 12:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Not really my area of expertises so I can't really show support (not yet anyway). But here are a few minor things I noticed. Doesn't say which country he is from (I'm assuming it's the USA).

• • The word "American" in the lead provides a link to the US page, the nationality space in the infobox says it also. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"The power forward Duncan a four-time NBA champion and a three-time NBA Finals Most Valuable Player and the current captain of the Spurs ." should be a comma or "is" after "Duncan", should be a comma instead of the first "and" and there is a space before the full stop.

• • Fixed Sabar^Cont 07:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"won the NBA Most Valuable Player Award twice" maybe "won two NBA Most Valuable Player Award" would be better. Particularly since that's how the rest of the sentance is set out. "seemingly unspectacular basketball moves to great effect" POV

• • Reworded Sabar^Cont 07:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Does his height and weight need to be in the lead since it's also in the infobox.
  • Not really problematic since a lot of other information in the article body is also found in the infobox, such as date of birth, place of birth etc. Weight/height is particularly pertinent for basketballers since it can determine which position the player plays. Chensiyuan 15:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Staying in collegeSabar^Cont 07:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • But how do they relate to Duncan? Buc 11:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"degree before becomign a professional athlete." becoming miss-spelt

• • FixedSabar^Cont 07:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Huge for the Spurs maybe. But did it really effect Duncan? Buc 11:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC) "Duncan continued his strong play." "strong play" doesn't sound right to me.

• "swept the Los Angeles Lakers and the Portland Trail Blazers 4–0" remove either "swept" or "4-0"
  • There has to be redundancy as series are(were) not all a best-of-seven in the NBASabar^Cont 07:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Just have "4-0" then. Buc 11:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"and finally defeated the New York Knicks 4–1 in the Finals" why finally?

• • Removed finally, redundant as it was the finalsSabar^Cont 07:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"Nonetheless, Duncan rebounded in the next season. With strong regular-season averages of 22.2 points" not sure why there is a full stop after "season".

• • FixedSabar^Cont 07:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• "but then bowed out" WW
  • Elaborate? They lost, aka "bowed out of the competition"Sabar^Cont 07:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words Buc 11:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't think that phrase qualifies as weasel though. Chensiyuan 14:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"Duncan became even better in the 2001-02 season" POV

• • Duncan has significant statistical gains over his previous seasons, reworded sentence.Sabar^Cont 07:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• "Spurs were defeated 1–4 by the eventual champions" do we really need to know that they were the eventual champions?
  • Yes Sabar^Cont 07:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Why? Buc 11:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
      • This really has no right or wrong answer, but it's just to provide some context. If anything it drives home the point that the Spurs and Lakers have some form of rivalry, which is the case. Chensiyuan 14:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"saw Duncan being named NBA MVP" "being" is redundant here

• • FixedSabar^Cont 07:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Do you really need to keep listing his points, rebounds, assists and blocks per game. They're only numbers after all and are listed in his stats anyway.
  • Statistics are an important measure of his performance and are a non-pov way to evaluate performance.Sabar^Cont
    • But as someone who doesn't know much about the sport they mean nothing to me. Phares like "lead the league in..." and "his PPG went up by..." would give a better perspective of how good a season it was. Buc 11:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
      • You raise a legitimate point, but it's quite a dilemma too. Duncan has never really led the league in anything (as in first), he's just constantly amongst the top in points, rebounds and blocks, and his play is kept simple. I know it may mean nothing to a non-bball fan. But if I could give a soccer analogy -- since you're more familiar with that sport -- how else can I try to drive home a point that someone like Paul Scholes is a great player but to say he scores 10+ goals a season, has a high pass-completion rate, has a good number of assists, even though he has never led in any of these categories? The point is, mentioning these statistics do give a slight clue as to the player's quality. It doesn't give a great picture, but I hope you understand the dilemma I'm talking about. Chensiyuan 14:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
        • "led the league" was just an example I wasn't suggesting you use that exsact phares. Say something like "was Xth in the league". Also I have no problem with the use of stats to show how good a seson it was, but the raw stats on there own are not very helpful. For example "Finshed 4th of 10 with a total of 30" is more helpful than "finshed with a total 30" Buc 09:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• "following Derek Fisher's buzzer beater shot in the crucial Game 5" not really anything to do with Duncan
  • Derek Fisher's 0.4 shot was instrumental in losing the series, especially considering the clock controversy and Duncan's previous play. Plus it is one of the top greatest playoff moments from the NBA and ESPN.Sabar^Cont 07:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Very nice to know but that's my piont, it has nothing to do with Duncan. Buc 11:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
      • It's just harmless elaboration that keeps the article from reading like a list of each post season with stats following. Sabar^Cont 18:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"was instrumental in Game 7" POV

• • Not sure how it is POV, his stats were exceptional and that only shows his offensive performance. Not to mention it was the clinching game of the series, Duncan won the Finals MVP, ect. The referenced recap asserts the same thing.Sabar^Cont 07:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • "instrumental" is a WW. Buc 11:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I really think some adjectival liberty is permissible here -- in the context of that game, the numbers support the usage. Chensiyuan 13:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't think it is PoV, especially in the context of the Finals MVP being awarded right after. Sabar^Cont 18:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• "outscored rival power forward Dirk Nowitzki by 32.2–27.1 points" why is he a rival? and what is the significance to him scoring more pionts than him?
  • They play the same position and man-to-man defense causes players to usually end up guarding their counterpart. Points is a measure of performance (and hence the premise that Duncan is the best at his position), although I would prefer PER as a statistic.Sabar^Cont 07:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok well you need to explain this. Buc 11:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Any suggestions on rewording this without getting off-topic on Duncan? It's in the scope of basketball fundamentals, hence I'm hesitant to put it in there, it seems like bloat. Sabar^Cont 18:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"The Spurs ended up losing Game 7 in overtime" you've already mentioned that it went to OT and what was the score?

• • Y Done removed the repetition. Chensiyuan 15:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Not much about the 2006-07 seson considering they won the championship.

• • The regular season is unimportant as the only bearings it has on the playoffs are seeding, injuries, and trades, none of which has effect. Sabar^Cont 07:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Could still do with exspanding it though. Other than his stats, there is really nothing about Duncan at all. Buc 11:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Mentioned his all-star appearance, not much else happened with Duncan that is noteworthy. Sabar^Cont 18:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"International career" section seems a bit short, has he played for U.S at any other times other than the 2004 Olympics? How did he perform in the individual games?

• • Duncan's international career is not particularly protracted. As to notable individual games, well considering the level of success of the USA team in recent times -- you get the picture. Chensiyuan 12:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • With all due respect there in nothing about his success with USA team. Buc 13:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
      • To clarify, I mean to say he's not had much success with the USA team, and there have also, to my knowledge, been any notable games he played in. By virtue of the lack of success, no less. Chensiyuan 15:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"Player profile" section maybe a better title would be "Style of play"

• • Matter of preference. I know in many soccer articles SOP is the norm, but there's no hard and fast. Matter of fact, many NBA GAs use PP. Chensiyuan 12:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Don't think "Off the court" is really long enough to have sub-sections
• "and married Amy, an ex-cheerleader at Wake Forest University" maiden name?
• "Finally, Duncan states" why finally? also "says" would be better than "states"
  • Semantics really. I don't think the phraseology is problematic. Chensiyuan 12:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• No Collage stats
  • Elaborate? Chensiyuan 12:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • NBA stats are there but his Collage stats aren't. Buc 13:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I would have thought they are mentioned to some extent in the Wake Forest section. Or do you mean a table? Chensiyuan 14:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes a table. It's just a suggestion though. Buc 19:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Unfortunately I've yet to find a source which extensively documents all his college statistics. Chensiyuan 14:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

NBA statistics don't seem to have a ref.

• • Which? I thought I had them all covered. Sometimes, the ref comes after a paragraph instead of every line. I believe the WP policy is that not every single line needs to have an inline ref. Once every (short) para is fine too. Chensiyuan 12:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The full table in the "NBA statistics" section. Buc 13:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Y Done I see. Well, there now. Chensiyuan 15:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about the EA Sports NBA Live Cover Athletes template but that's not really to do with the article.

• • I didn't create the template but I think its perpetuated existence is begin. Chensiyuan 12:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ref from nba.com/history could just say nba.com really.

• • It's quite a different kettle of fish. Chensiyuan 12:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ref #27 and #33 not dated

• • Y Done very sharp, thanks. Chensiyuan 12:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• #36 not working

Was #43 just T.V Broadcast?

• • Y Done no, newspaper. Chensiyuan 13:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Is this really a realiable soures when there is no link? Buc 13:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes -- consider too that citing a book would also not provide a link. Chensiyuan 14:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
        • If you really wanted to you could order the archived newspaper from the EN. Sabar^Cont 18:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good though, as someone who knows very little about the sport I found it easy to follow. Buc 16:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Does not meet the brilliant, compelling prose criteria for FA, and is not even that well written. A few examples:
  • The second sentence of the first paragraph (The 6'11", 260-pound[2] power forward Duncan a four-time NBA champion and a three-time NBA Finals Most Valuable Player and the current captain of the Spurs .) lacks a verb, needs at least one comma, and has a space before the period.
    • Y Done fixed by another editor. Chensiyuan 12:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Not done, the space is still there. Also, for readers used to the metric system (i.e. most of the world outside the US) why not include the metric equivalents of his height and weight (as is done in the infobox)?Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Couldn't quite see the space due to textwrap but it's gone now. Re: metric, is this required by wp:mos? Chensiyuan 23:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
          • It is in the MOS, "Conversions to and from metric and imperial/US units are generally provided, except where inserting a conversion would make a common expression awkward". Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
            • Y Done Alright thanks for that. Chensiyuan 03:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The last sentence in the third paragraph (Having lost his mother to breast cancer at a young age, Duncan and his wife act as ambassadors against the disease.[4]) makes little sense - have you ever heard of an ambassador against something? Aren't they ambassadors for breast cancer awareness, prevention, and research?
    • Yes I have, see my comment above. I can find more examples if you want. Chensiyuan 23:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I removed the strikthrough as this is not changed and is still awkward - I read the ref and it makes no mention of Duncan's wife joining him in his charity work, not does it use the word ambassador, not does it specifcally say he is against breast cancer (mentions cancer once, also a lot of work with chuldren's charities). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
      • (i) the ref does say his wife is the vice-president of the Tim Duncan Foundation, (ii) as far as I can tell describing him as an ambassador is not wrong given what he's done, (iii) you are right about no specific mention of breast cancer, I'd try to fix that. Chensiyuan 00:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I Googled "Ambassador against" and found several examples, although almost all seem to be appointed by a government or the United Nations (as were your examples). It was not a phrase with which I was familiar and apologize I did not know of it. The ref cited still does not say he (or his wife) are ambassadors, nor could I find any online sources independent of this article that called him and his wife ambassadors. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Shouldnt be an issue now. Chensiyuan 03:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The lead paragraphs are supposed to summarize the whole article, especially anything mentioned in a header or subheader, but his International career (Olympics) is not mentioned in the lead.
    • Y Done good point, and implemented. Chensiyuan 14:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • From the Early life subsection Because of his fear of sharks, he soon lost enthusiasm for his sport, and received a major emotional blow when his mother Ione was diagnosed with breast cancer and died one day before his 14th birthday.[5] This makes it sound as if his fear of sharks had something to do with his mother's breast cancer diagnosis, and it makes it sound as if his mother was diagnosed and died on the same day, right before his birthday.

I also find many of the references have problems.

• • His own website (slamduncan.com) is cited eight times (refs 1 and 6) but a subject's own website does not meet WP:RS.
    • Y Done WP:RS prefaces by saying the rules are not set in stone and common sense should be applied. Re: ref 1, it is used simply to show where he was born. It is acceptable. Re ref 6, they are used to back up claims of his own story, not meant to push opinions etc. E.g., him making promises to his mother. Chensiyuan 12:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • As noted above, many links are broken. For example, in the Wake Forest subsection, the first sentence (At Wake Forest, Duncan overcame early transition problems and established himself as one of the top college players of his generation.) is unsourced (and does not even give the years he was at Wake Forest). The next sentence is based on an adidas press release - since adidas is paying Mr. Duncan a lot of money, they might not be the most unbiased source to quote. The third sentence ref (to usabasketball.com) is broken.
  • Almost all of the references are online - there is a lot of magazine (Sports Illustrated, etc.) and newspaper coverage of the NBA and a quick look at amazon.com shows over a dozen books on him. Get thee to a library ;-)
    • I don't deny that a variety of sources can be helpful, but consider somebody like me who lives in Asia and has no money in the bank account. I think using only onlines sources per se should not be a fault; it's a question of whether the websites are reliable and objective. Let's face it, many things in paper form are transposed on webform. Moreover, I don't really see a WP rule stating the use of only online sources should render an article an instant FAC failure. Chensiyuan 12:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I think the issue here is WP:NPOV. There is no representation of almost any of the print sources in the article. Over a dozen books and major magazines are not cited, just because they are not online. Can't any of your collaborators go to a library that has at least some of these books and mags? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I think if any of them could obtain materials, they would. I speak only for myself. Regarding your point on NPOV, well a variety of sources would be very necessary if this article makes a lot of POV claims, which I think it does not. Most of the content is borne from the statistics. Another chunk is on his family/personal life and causes. If indeed the issue is objectivity, well statistics and facts of a person's life are pretty objective. Perhaps you can give an e.g. of something in this article which would be better if backed by books and mags, thanks. Chensiyuan 23:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Well the books or magazines could be used to fix the blank reference (currently #5), or to replace the broken usabasketball.com refs (the links still do not work, though here you could also use the Wayback Machine), or to replace much of the personal biography data taken from the subject's own website (slamduncan.com) with something less potentially biased. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• the usabasketball ref works now... Chensiyuan 03:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• ref 5 is no longer blank, i think it got deleted accidentally, thanks. Chensiyuan 03:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that it seems like a fairly short article and the sentence structure is often choppy. A good start, but not FA yet. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Comment: I have withdrawn my oppose (above) as the specific points I raised have been addressed, but I cannot support this FAC with no books and very few print refs cited, especially when we know there are many biographies of Tim Duncan out there. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Thank you for your legitimate comments, I'll try to get SOME print media. The problem is that I live in Germany, and neither in libraries nor newspaper stands there is ANYTHING with Tim Duncan; basketball is deeply unpopular here. Borrowing a book is not an option with me (yes, I went through several big libraries; all they got is Michael Jordan) and if I try to order a book about Tim Duncan NOW online, it will be only available in 2-3 weeks from now AND it is expensive for me. If someone living in the U.S. could help, super, if not, I'll try to dig up something elsewhere. —Onomatopoeia 07:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have lived in Germany and know the difficulties involved in getting American print resources there. Have you asked on the NBA WikiProject if anyone in the US can help? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Yes, wonders exist! Got a book about TD and am in the midst of adding info. —Onomatopoeia 16:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section break

Introducing a new section to facilitate discussion. And BTW, his "college" section has also been rewritten. —Onomatopoeia 08:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Just a general comment: it's considered bad form to cross out another user's comments. When they are satisfied, they can cross out their comments themselves. Zagalejo 17:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, I did not know that, sorry. I just restored the un-struck version. —Onomatopoeia 18:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are my pionts again since it's a bit of a mess up there.

• shouldn't be ref in lead. Everything in the lead should be mentioned later.
  • I believe this technically does not breach anything. Many FAs that make the mainpage have refs in the lead. Since a lead summarises the article, by way of logic a ref in the lead is at worst superflously pre-emptory.Chensiyuan 13:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Maybe something in the "Early life" section about this Dave Odom guy's first impretions of him.
  • Y Done Chensiyuan 13:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• "Duncan's style of play was simple but effective, combining an array of low-post moves, mid-range bank shots and tough defense" maybe move this to "Player profile"
  • Not mutually exclusive. Chensiyuan 13:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Very little about his 95 and 96 seasons.
  • Y Done ever since Onomatopoeia expanded the college section. Chensiyuan 13:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• "In contrast to Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant or LeBron James" But how do they relate to Duncan?
  • Garnett, Bryant and James entered the NBA after high school (A Levels equivalent), whereas Duncan actually completed college before entering the NBA, which is very rare. Garnett et al are just high profile examples of players who entered after high school. Chensiyuan 13:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Needs explaining. Buc 08:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Y Done clarified that they are Duncan's contemporaires. —Onomatopoeia 08:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Is some other player's retirement really the best reason to start a new section?
  • Yes, David was one of the best centers of his era and a keystone to the defense the Spurs played, which they place first in their system of play. Replacing a 20/10 future hall of famer with a random guy off free agency or the draft without a lottery pick is pretty huge.
    • • Y Done Pointed out that Robinson said Duncan was reluctant to be a leader at first than "just" a very good player. —Onomatopoeia 13:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Huge for the Spurs maybe. But did it really effect Duncan?
• "the Spurs were considered a notable threat in the NBA." needs ref.
  • Apart from it not really being a contentious point (the litmus test for ref IMO), the subsequent ref for "Twin Towers" corroborates the point of the Spurs being a threat. Chensiyuan 13:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• "Although they beat the Phoenix Suns in the first round, they lost in the second round to the eventual Western Conference Champion Utah Jazz." I think "They beat the Phoenix Suns in the first round and then lost in the second round to the eventual Western Conference Champion Utah Jazz." would be better, also what were the scores in these games?
  • Y Done Chensiyuan 13:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• "swept the Los Angeles Lakers and the Portland Trail Blazers 4–0" remove "swept"
  • It's sports terminology, not POV. Chensiyuan 13:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I think he means that "swept" is redundant to 4-0. Zagalejo 19:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I see, but swept doesn't necessarily mean 4-0. It just means "x"-0, so no harm stating the exact score, since not every playoffs had the 7 game format. Chensiyuan 07:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Read my comment again. I said remove swept and keep 4-0. Buc 08:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Circuitous! Chensiyuan 08:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Do you really need to keep listing his points, rebounds, assists and blocks per game. They're only numbers after all and are listed in his stats anyway.
  • You raise a legitimate point, but it's quite a dilemma too. Duncan has never really led the league in anything (as in first), he's just constantly amongst the top in points, rebounds and blocks, and his play is kept simple. I know it may mean nothing to a non-bball fan. But if I could give a soccer analogy -- since you're more familiar with that sport -- how else can I try to drive home a point that someone like Paul Scholes is a great player but to say he scores 10+ goals a season, has a high pass-completion rate, has a good number of assists, even though he has never led in any of these categories? The point is, mentioning these statistics do give a slight clue as to the player's quality. It doesn't give a great picture, but I hope you understand the dilemma I'm talking about.
    • "led the league" was just an example I wasn't suggesting you use that exact phares. Say something like "was Xth in the league". Also I have no problem with the use of stats to show how good a seson it was, but the raw stats on there own are not very helpful. For example "Finshed 4th of 10 with a total of 30" is more helpful than "finshed with a total 30"
      • Y Done I hope so, at least. Put some places where TD ranked X in year Y. —Onomatopoeia 13:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• "following Derek Fisher's buzzer beater shot in the crucial Game 5" not really anything to do with Duncan
  • narrative liberty? Chensiyuan 12:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Y Done, clarifed that Duncan hit a super clutch shot with 0.4 second left to go which put the Spurs ahead with 0.4s left in the game. And THEN Fisher let go of his dagger. —Onomatopoeia 09:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• "outscored rival power forward Dirk Nowitzki by 32.2–27.1 points" why is he a rival? and what is the significance to him scoring more pionts than him?
  • They play the same position and man-to-man defense causes players to usually end up guarding their counterpart. Points is a measure of performance (and hence the premise that Duncan is the best at his position), although I would prefer PER as a statistic.
    • Ok well you need to explain this.
      • That they play the same position does not require explanation since it's established at the start Duncan is also a power forward; as for "rival", well it just means Nowitzki was his opponent in that game, as opposed to a team-mate. Chensiyuan 13:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Buc 10:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Y Done —Onomatopoeia 08:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• In the Leader of the Spurs (2003-present) section a lot of words are a lot words in backets unnessasarily. Buc 05:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Important announcement

Hi there, I am happy to say that I just got hold of a copy of Slam Duncan by Kevin Kiernan, a Tim Duncan bio which perfectly meets WP:RS. I'll add info to the TD article as I read through this book. —Onomatopoeia 15:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The 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 21:28, 30 August 2007.

[edit] Harry S. Truman

See previous noms at: previous FAC 1 and previous FAC 2.

Several editors have recently worked hard to improve this article on President Truman, a two-term US President during two wars. Per Dr pda's script the prose size is 58k; and the article size is 108k, about the size of the FA on Gerald Ford. Rlevse 11:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The lead gives a good overview of his time in office as President, but nothing before or after. Shouldn't the lead sum up his whole life? In my opinion, it'd be nice to devote a short paragraph on what he did leading up to the presidency. Also, perhaps you could have a "Selected bibliography" section that's fleshed out with at least a few comprehensive sources, instead of providing just a link to Bibliography of Harry S. Truman (if I recall, I believe those Main Article templates are only supposed to be used when you actually have content in the section as a summary of the so-called Main Article). 69.202.41.119 01:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Put the primary bibiography bits back in. We cut the whole thing and made a separate article when cutting file size. Added to lead too. Thanks for the input.Rlevse 02:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support It's good article. (P.S. is this vote a violation of WP:ILIKEIT? Only in a featured form, and not a deletion form?) MalwareSmarts 02:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would be, since you think it's a good article, as opposed to liking it because it's about Harry Truman. --RandomOrca2 03:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support have to agree, this is very good. Sumoeagle179 09:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support BRILLIANT Luxurious.gaurav 05:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support I wish I could leave some feedback as to how to improve this, but I don't think I personally could improve it. It seems to be about just right the way it is, and other editors clearly agree with me. MrPrada 14:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The idea that 58k of prose is now some kind of acceptable standard is rather disconcerting. Attention spans among readers haven't increased two-fold in the last few years just because technical limitations are less restricting, and focus is still supposed to be a criterium worth respecting. Peter ^Isotalo 04:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support with suggestion Fantastic article with especially nice depth in the pre-presidency life of a man who's article could so easily get dominated by his presidential life. My only major question here is could the lead be shortened? Especially noticeable in the middle paragraph the lead goes into so many specifics about so much it becomes really a full subsection in itself. Also, tiny thing, but shouldn't the 1952 election simply be a subsection of his Presidency, following in the style of Gerald Ford and 1976, since it was an election he took part in (for at least a short time) as the sitting president? Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

DONE. Cut the lead some, pls advise if there are more specific suggestions; and created the subsection.Rlevse 20:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlevse (talk • contribs)

• Oppose The death numbers ("around 110,000 people were killed in the two bombings") for the Atomic bombings are presented as undisputed fact. They also don't specify whether these were deaths that occurred by the end of 1945 (normally how they are counted), or some other measure. For Hiroshima, the number estimated is 140,000 (+/- 10,000) by the end of 1945. [77] [78], [79] For Nagasaki, the number is 70,000-74,000, by the end of 1945. [80] [81], [82] So, the combined total given in the article appears to be off by ~100,000. More difficult is estimating the number who died since 1945, due to A-bomb related illnesses, with widely varying figures among many sources. I would leave those figures out of this article and let them be discussed in the main article on the Atomic bombings. --Aude (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

FIXED. removed raw numbers.Rlevse 10:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The 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 21:28, 30 August 2007.

[edit] Dungeons & Dragons

previous FAC

Back for more abuse. :-) In addition to some massaging of the text, the following revisions have been made to address the actionable objections raised during the previous FAC attempt:

• Literary citations have been used in preference to user pages for referencing. (Because of its generalized nature, the suggested Fine book was not found particularly useful in this regard; although it has been cited once.)
• The two images that were deemed objectionable have been replaced.
• Some short paragraphs were merged.
• Mention is made of D&D's Hall of Fame status in the Games magazine. Otherwise, independent critical acclaim has proven hard to come by, alas. (But suggestions would be appreciated.)

Please take a look and see what you think. I'll try to address any specific constructive criticism. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Support I supported it last time, and I continue to do so. It has improved even more. I find no obvious variance with WP:WIAFA Good job! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Support - I'm not a fan of See also sections but concede these are difficult to incorporate without impacting on the overall flow of the article adversely. Being a gamer intermittently since '78 I find it comprehensive; the prose is good enough not to be noticed and crisp anmd clear throughout. congrats. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Support seems to have scrubbed up well as it were, can't find nothin' wrong with it, well done --Brendan44 00:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment

• I think there should be a summary of the article in the See Also section in the article

Then make them as Main Article links. Then lose the see also section.

• No mention of of it's reference in Futurama in References in popular culture section.
• Why is there a Notes and a references section? Buc 08:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment The Notes section is like footnotes, the are directly linked to relevant sections of the text. However, many of the citations are re-used over and over again. Instead of repeating the citatation (which is just wasteful of space and creates redundant entries likely to diverge) or having a single footnote (which means you can't give specific page numbers for specific citations), the footnotes contain Harvard references like "(Johnson et al. 2004:23)" and you go down to the references to get the full entry. It's a bit unusual, but I find it a good compromise and it's acceptable according to the "Citing sources" style guidelines — Alan De Smet | Talk 15:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose There is still a lot of room for improvement in the flow of the article. --Hornet35 14:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Please could you be more specific about what you find objectionable in the flow? The sectioning seems to have a logical arrangement. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
    • This user has a "suspected sock puppet" warning on their user page and has not responded to a legitimate request for clarification. I'm going to treat this objection as addressed. — RJH (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Support I think the article looks good, looks like there's been some hard work on it. I think it's ready. But everything can be improved, and made better. Thanks, Meldshal42 16:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support, very well done. I've made a few minor edits. --GRuban 02:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your beneficial updates. — RJH (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Repeating since my pionts seemed to have ignored

Comment

• I think there should be a summary of the article in the See Also section in the article

Then make them as Main Article links. Then lose the see also section.

• No mention of of it's reference in Futurama in References in popular culture section.

  Buc 12:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  • In response:
    • I'm unclear exactly certain what you're asking for in regards to the "See Also" section. Per Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also, the "See also" section is just a set of links. Do you want a separate summary page of this summary-style article? The current "See also" section appears to be useful as is.
    • It's really difficult to include every bit of trivia in a high-level article of this nature, and still keep the page focused. Otherwise the section could conflict with Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections. I think the statement that, "Numerous games, films and cultural references based on D&D or D&D-like fantasies, characters, or adventures have been ubiquitous since the end of the 1970s" covers it appropriately.
  • Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The intro should make it clear that D&D is principally played as a tabletop game. The concept of role-playing games is pretty hazy to a lot of people.--Nydas^(Talk) 12:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I added a sentence to the first paragraph of the first section to cover this. The lead is a getting a little on the large size, so I didn't want to add further bloat. (But I'm not sure how to trim it without losing useful summary information.) Thank you. — RJH (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • You also might consider changing the phrase "a fantasy role-playing game (RPG)" in the first sentence to "a fantasy tabletop role-playing game (RPG)". I think that would address Nydas' concern without significantly lengthening the introduction. Dugwiki 22:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately that definition would exclude other viable options used for play (such as play-by-post). But it's probably close enough for now. Thanks. — RJH (talk)
        • If it makes you feel better, RJ, think of it like chess. Chess would be called a "board game" even though technically you can play it online or by mail. Similarly, even though you can play D&D on formats other than a physical tabletop, and there are D&D inspired computer games, the core game from which it's all derived is a tabletop game. Dugwiki 16:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes. Like I said, it's close enough. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support The article seems to meet all the checklist points for featured article status. I disagree with the suggestion above that the Futurama reference specifically needs to be added to the article. Not every individual mention of D&D on television or film needs to be included. You only need to have enough in the article to reasonably verify the claim that D&D has appeared in "numerous" films and television shows, and I think the article accomplishes that goal. In making a pass just now I only had a couple of extremely minor quibbles, and I made only one very minor change. So the article would appear to be reasonably stable, comprehensive and accurate. Good stuff. :) Dugwiki 22:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I pointed an even more D&D knowledgeable friend of mine at this article and he said:

I was reading the D&D article and had a few possible corrections to offer. I'm not sure how to do that on wikipedia itself, so I am offering them to you directly to do what you will with them. 1) Under Game mechanics, when it describes methods for generating PC ability scores, it describes rolling dice. A new, and, I gather, fairly common mechanic in 3.0 and 3.5 edition, is called point buy. I haven't been in a group that uses it, but I have heard of groups that use it, and gather it is fairly common in D&D tournaments. This method involves using a certain number of points to buy characteristics. Typically PCs get 8s for free in the 6 stats, then pay 1 point for each point of a stat above 8 till 14 (costing 6), 2 points beyond that for a 15 and another for a 16 (costing 10), and 3 points more for a 17 and another 3 for an 18 (costing 16). I think typically people start with 25 points, but it can vary according to what the DM wants. 2) In the same section, hit points aren't really determined by race. Just by class, level, and constitution. There are feats and spells and magic items which can give more hit points, but race doesn't factor into it except insofar as some races get bonuses or penalties on constitution and there are a few classes that only certain races can play which may have higher or lower hit points. Oh, monster race characters (very rare) and various monster NPCs, do often have their hit die type determined by race, but an elven 5th level fighter with a 14 con gets the same rolls and bonuses for hit points as a dwarven 5th level fighter with a 14 con. 3) In the influence section it mentions "...The role-playing movement initiated by D&D would lead to release of the science fiction games Traveller (1977) and RuneQuest (1978)... ". Runequest is more of a medieval then a science fiction setting. Characters uses spells, swords, bows, and armor, not psionics, rayguns, and spaceships. Ok. Hope that helps. It seems like a very thorough article on the whole, as most of the stuff on Wikipedia seems to me.

So there may be a few things to fix. Good luck. --GRuban 20:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Race has minimal impact on HPs: Agreed, "race" deleted from list. RuneQuest is not SciFi: Agreed. Clairified. Should mention point buy attributes: this isn't the default assumption for the game, so it's probably getting too detailed, doubly so since there are multiple different point buy systems. Thanks for the suggestions. — Alan De Smet | Talk 04:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The 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 21:28, 30 August 2007.

[edit] Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

Thanks to useful comments from visitors to the talk page, and helpful comments from an early good article nomination I am ready to submit the Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion article for featured article candidacy. I have selectively added images with concise and relevant captions, and broken down the page into further subsections, as per the comments of one visitor to the talk page; I have responded to the comments of the GA reviewer, and I have continued to add to the article to ensure comprehensive coverage, a sensible article structure, and satisfactory prose. I will be glad to receive any further stylistic and compositional criticisms, as well as any other criticisms you would seek to submit in regards to this article. If this article is not up to par right now, I should hope it to be by the end of this nomination! Many thanks for your time! Geuiwogbil 07:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comments - Overall it looks like a very in-depth article that is well referenced and has good coverage of the various topics related to it. I do have some suggestions though.

• 1.The lead paragraphs does not have any citations. Most of the info is sourced in other places in the article, but it won't hurt to source it in the lead too.

Did that. Geuiwogbil 13:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• 2.You may want to have a short introductory paragraph for the "Business" section. Something that will briefly outline and introduce the subsections. I think doing so will provide the reader with better understanding of how the subsections relate together. In my opinion, it seemed to jump a bit in the first couple subsections.

Originally, I hadn't broken the article down by "business" and "design", keeping with a rough chronological rather than the current topical overview. The switch to a topical overview might have mangled the connection between the paragraphs, since the connection between them all is really quite loose. I've just decided that "Publisher relations" would fit better with the "Design" portion of the article, rather than with the "Business" portion. Now I think the "Business" section flows in a good rough chronological stream, without the odd jump to employee relations early on. Does it look better now? Geuiwogbil 14:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• 3.The phrase "remaining silent on what games the games were for." in the rumors section sounds a bit off, you might want reword it. Other than that, the editors have done a very good job on the article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 06:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC))

I've removed that comment; the implications it gives should be apparent merely from the downplayed importance of the ES ref. Geuiwogbil 13:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Guyinblack25, I'll be right on them. Geuiwogbil 12:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Well sourced and adequately covers the various aspects of developing a game. Also, the recent changes helped to further improve an already good article. Good job editors. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC))

Oppose. Not bad, but needs copy-editing before it can be considered for promotion. Find someone new. Don't just correct these samples:

• Read MOS on ellipses. Spaces required both sides.
• "2 years"—read MOS on spelling out numbers.
• "As of the announcement,"—yuck: "At the time of"?
• "Was finishing up with"—not sufficiently formal for this register.
• Why is "2002" linked? Some secret in that article?
• "team that would "[push] the bleeding-edge ..."—avoid the square bracket by starting the quote after "push"?
• "online retailers had already begun bundling"—Remove "already".
• "amidst"? It's not the bible. Try "amid".
• "worrying flurry"—Fowler would call this a jingle.
• "and delays for various other company products"—Spot the redundant word.
• "Most of the blame was given to"—give blame? Tony 01:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Not that I assume to have satisfied you, but I believe I've addressed the samples. I'll try to find another copyeditor to address any further issues. Geuiwogbil 03:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• I did a general series of fixes for the ellipses. (I had no idea that part of the MOS even existed until today.)
• For the "2" rather than "two" issue, I believe that your instance was the only instance of that rule disobeyed.
• Did that; couldn't extrapolate any general rule from the statement.
• I really don't have any sense of "formal ... register", so any further comments there would certainly help.
• I've delinked all the partial dates.
• I've fixed your instance and two other instances of bracketed text within quotation-marks. There's another, but it's nestled snugly in the middle of a quoted segment, and that quoted segment is actually a quoted segment within the cited source; fishing it out seems quite impossible.
• Apologies for the archaism. I can't find any more of that.
• Ha! Apologies for the jingle. I think that's the only [alliterative phrase/redundancy of sound] in the piece. Do alert me to others.
• Removed the redundancy there. I'm not good at spotting that sort of thing, so I'm unsure if any remain.
• Fixed that; I am unsure if there are any further problems.

• Thanks for the fix-suggestions! Geuiwogbil 04:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Listed at WP:LOCE. I'm still willing to address any more particular comments if you have them. Geuiwogbil 03:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The good Sdornan has kindly offered to do a copy-edit of the article. He's about half-way through now. Geuiwogbil 18:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support- Per nom. The sunder king 11:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Assuming the copy-edit gets finished, a great article. --PresN 15:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support, excellent. Everyking 23:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional support, please fix:

• The thumbnail of Image:Oblivion—Horse Armor.jpg looks awful.
• Add a see also section including links to relevant articles in the series, Oblivion itself, Development history of The Elder Scrolls series, etc.
• Make the summary of this article in Dev hist of TES more concise. Not this article, but related and bad.

User:Krator (t c) 08:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know what you mean on the first point. Should I adjust the image size? Put in an "upright" tag? Or is the image itself terrible? I've added in a px specification, against the general recommendations of the MOS, for the exceptional purpose, here, of enhancing "the readability or layout of an article". Is your concern jaggies? Because I think the px specification fixes that.
• I've added a "See Also" for Development history of The Elder Scrolls series and The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind (for contrastive purposes). A link to Oblivion seems redundant, as the template at the bottom of the article already fulfills that role. Or is the template too far down?
• I don't think you can oppose FACs based on the content of other articles, but I'll have a go at this one. Just shorter? I don't know what you mean when you bluntly say "bad". I've taken the leading paragraphs from this article and used them there. Is that adequate? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 09:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Supporting, all my concerns have been addressed. About the template at the bottom, a move to the see also section would be good I think. User:Krator (t c) 09:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Did the move. Thanks for your commentary and support! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 10:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The 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 21:28, 30 August 2007.

[edit] Hispanic Americans in World War II

"Self-nom"-There were several reasons which motivated me to write this article. One of them is that the Hispanic contributions in World War II have been omitted in the history text books of the United States and therefore are seldom mentioned. Another reason is that I believe in the educational possibilities of Wikipedia and by writting such an article I would be able to reach and educate millions of readers about these contributions, thereby allowing recognition to those who deserve it. I have tried to make this one of my best articles and one that I hope deserves FA status. Thank you. Tony the Marine 19:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You have to rename this article. When I first saw it on my watch list, I assumed it was about the contribution of Hispanics in the United States to WWII, and this has to be clear in the article's title, because Hispanics fought for many other countries in WWII, not just as part of the US military forces. KP Botany 19:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Will do as soon as I get home (smile) Tony the Marine 21:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Tony, I'm concerned about the number of personal webpages used to source the article; several of them don't meet WP:V, WP:RS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• I will change the title to "Hispanic Americans in World War II", which I believe is more appropriate. The reason that I originally named "Hispanics" is because the term is generally used in the U.S. to describe an ethnicity, however I see the validity of your observation. In regard to the webpages, I will look into it. Tony the Marine 23:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved page as recommended and I almost made a mess of it (smile). Tony the Marine 23:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Support will most likely be support after a couple of things are fixed (sorry Tony, but I know that you would rather I was critical :) )
  • the Lead is very long, would id be possibly to trim some of the info into other sections? Possibly by a paragraph or so?
  • 65th regiment, is there a particular reason why this is the section title while other units are discussed?
  • PFC Guy Gabaldon, how did he capture so many soldiers?
    • He could speak Japanese, and convinced them they were outnumbered, surrounded, and fighting was hopeless, so they surrendered. The article needs to say that. It's still an achievement, but human. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "He captured more enemy soldiers then Sergeant Alvin York, who was awarded the Medal of Honor, during World War I, for having captured 132 enemy German soldiers" it almost sounds like the article is having a whine about that :D
  • List of Hispanic Medal of Honor recipients could be incorporated into the prose of that section of this article perhaps?
  • Postscript End of the War, this is an unusual section title, not sure if I quite follow....
  • There are a number of one sentence paragraphs that could be incorporated

There may be a couple of copy edit issues as well but I can have a trawl through and fix any that I find. If you could answer or address some of my points above, the article would definitely get my support for FA. SGGH ^speak! 23:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• • 1. I know that the lead paragraph may be a little long, However I have seen to many FAC complaints as to the fact that intro paragraphs are not long enough and I believe that this one goes in accord with the length of the article

2. In regard to PFC Guy PFC Guy Gabaldon, since there is an article in Wikipedia which details his accomplishments and I have linked said article, I don't want to take up too much by expanding what is already available. 3. There is no whine, only a comparison, because there have been many movements to have PFC Guy Gabaldon's Navy Cross upgraded to MoH without any success. The intention is to have the reader will wonder why and seek further knowledge about the issues involved. 4-6, these are minor issues which can be taken care of. Tony the Marine 00:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Postscript End of the War? fixed Tony the Marine 00:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oops! I forgot to answer about the 65th Infantry. I have written about the other units in the article, but sourced information is rather limited. The 65th Infantry of Puerto Rico is widely known for their participation in the Korean War, but their contributions in WW II are rarely mentioned and I have corrected this wrong. Tony the Marine 00:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey impressive, it covers basically every possible aspect I could think of and reading it leaves clear how hispanic people heavily helped in maintaining this nation's freedom. Yeah this is definitely worth of my Support. -凶 02:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• It looks great, Tony, I fixed a couple of typoes and I support. Andre (talk) 10:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Changed my vote to support after my points were answered. Great stuff :) SGGH ^speak! 13:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support, There is nothing like this anywhere. Antonio Martin 18:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support I can't find anything on the internet on the topic and there few books and scholarly journals that chronicle the accomplishments and brave contributions of the 65th Infantry. Tony (the article's author) is one of the foremost experts on the military accomplishments of Hispanic-Americans in the United States Armed Forces that I know. It would be a great tragedy for a site such as Wikipedia to not cover this important topic many out there know so little about. --XLR8TION 22:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Work needed. I worked on the article for a few hours tonight; it's not close to ready for promotion. I fixed several MOS errors (WP:MOSNUM, WP:DASH and WP:MSH), hanging references not attached to quotes, and then started working from the bottom on copyediting and completing references. I found several significant copyediting errors that changed the intended meaning. Most of the sources don't yet have full biblio information, with publishers not yet identified, so reliability of sources can't be identified (nonetheless, I flagged non-reliable sources and personal webpages just in the sections I worked on, for example, a personal website referencing hard data about World War II). Much work remains to be done; I did as much as I can tonight and I'll be glad to help, but this article is not ready for FA status. See the sample edits in the diff above for an idea of the work still needed. I'm sorry to swim against the tide of the Puerto Rican editors, but we can get this fixed, and it should be fixed. Once the sourcing, copyediting and MOS issues are cleaned up, the WP:LEAD will need attention; it goes into too much detail, for example, the definition of hispanic isn't really appropriate to the lead. There are several sections containing information that strays off topic and is covered in links (things like definitions of discrimination or segregation, covered in other wiki articles, and sound esssayish). Numerous uncited statements. Less than half the way through cleaning up refs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • A complete turnaround in the sourcing in the last day;[83] I'll look at Tony1's copyedit concerns next (and watch for the "she" nurse). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose—1a, and I'm concerned about what Sandy says in relation to referencing. The first two paragraphs provide ample evidence that a thorough copy-edit by fresh eyes is required. Significantly below par. Random examples:
  • Ungainly repetition: "the United States" appears again and again and again through the lead. Change some to "the nation" and "the country". "every military conflict in which the United States has been involved from the American Revolution to the present day." Why not "every U.S. military conflict since the American Revolution". Then "any" again and again in one sentence. That's easy to fix.
  • "When a Japanese Imperial Navy carrier fleet launched an unexpected attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, Hispanics, who were subject to widespread discrimination both at home and the military, joined the ranks of the Army, Navy and Marine Corps, either as volunteers or as a result of the draft in defense of the United States"—The clause on discrimination doesn't sit smoothly in this long sentence. Introduce it in another sentence. Needs recasting; remove the text after "draft"; adds nothing in the context.
  • Hands up who doesn't know what a nurse is; or the English language; or combat, battlefields, munitions. Really! We DO speak English, and these are dictionary terms. Please audit the whole article for overlinking, so that your high-value links aren't diluted by useless ones.
• "this is a rough estimate and the exact number of Hispanics who served will never be known"—Remove "who served". There's a lot of redundancy, given the wider context. Please audit the whole article in this respect. Tony 12:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: you need to sort out what the 200th and 515th National Guard units were. They're referred to as battalions, then Coastal Artillery regiments. Please find and insert the correct titles. Hey, rereading, noticed you used '...for her service to our country...' in reference to a nurse. Avoid this: the Net ain't American. Cheers Buckshot06 15:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, I believe that concerns have been taken care of. User:Buckshot06, you were right about the Regiment and Battalion observation, however, I can not seem to find the "for her service to our country" which you stated. Please if you do be my guest and fix it, if not let me know exactly where it appears. Tony the Marine 04:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose/Neutral Having looked over the article I feel that there is too much emphasis on "trees" and not enough on the "forest"; this should be a broad overview of Hispanics in WWII, yet a sizable chunk of it seems devoted to individual hispanics and the sacrafices that they made in service to the United States. Also, some primary categorical reoginzation is in order: if I were you, I would consider merging the Aviators, Servicewomen, Senior Officers, and Submarine Commanders sections into the European and Pacific theatre sections, and merging Discrimintation into postscript. I would also suggest creating an "Honoring Hispanics who Served" section and merging Hero Street, USA and the Medal of Honor Section into this new section. Lastly, I would highly recommend dismantling the "see also" section and placing the content into the parent article to cut down on space. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • As the article states, the Department of Defense did not document the contributions of Hispanics and therefore due to the lack of the same it is a diffcult task to make an emphasis on the "forest". The "trees" that are mentioned are notable men and women who for unknown reasons seem to have fallen into the cracks of history and are rarely mentioned in history books. Your recommendations will be taken into consideration. Tony the Marine 06:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Not a real bright move on the DoD's part now, was it? I mean its not like us white folks did all the work in the wars -- for crying out loud man slaves fought for our nation during the civil war, and all people seem to remember are the contributions made by white folks. As a history major I can say in honesty that it concerns me immensly that what I learn in an institute of higher education may be nothing more than the history white poeple want me learn. Even more disturbing is the fact the articles I have promoted to FA status may be negleting a few good men simply becuase they were minorties. Since you have agreed to look into my recommendations I will exchange my weak oppose for a neutral, when and if the other concerns are addressed I will re-evaluate my stance. Until then, I will leave you alone to handle the problem as you see fit. Good luck, Tony. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely some of your suggestions will be worked on. I find your perspective (Comments on history) refreshing. Omissions made in history books have no justification and I believe that future historians such as yourself will look into correcting these faults. Tony the Marine 20:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I merged several of the sections per Tom's suggestions, and trimmed the See also to reflect articles already linked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support Looks better than it did. I still have some reservations about the sizable amount of bio material present in the article; however, I can not in good faith oppose because the DoD did a shoddy job of keeping records on the matter. Tony's done the best with what he had to work with, and the article does satisfy all needed FA criteria. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Ethnic nationalistic puff piece. Gives disproportionate weight to what was, in terms of numbers and impact, a small minority. Singles out individuals to give a distorted view of the group's contribution to the war, therefore fails to give a neutral and broad view. A perfect example of historical revisionism, but with enough holes for the reader to see through. Michael ^talk 10:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm truly sorry that you feel that way, however this not about Ethnic nationalistic nor about rewriting history. Until recently the contributions made by African Americans and Native Americans were also ignored by our historians also. This is about about contributions of a group which should never have been omitted in the first place. Tony the Marine 18:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The contribution of minorities in any conflict of any country is often overlooked. These types of articles bring about information and narratives of people and events which are considered very useful for ethnic and minority studies. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 20:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not on the basis that they're minorities and therefore, by some twist of logic, by default irrelevant. It's the fact that you're giving disproportionate weight to the figures you talk about. It's a list of figures who, by some measure, have performed well in the fighting; suitable for a article in a magazine called diversity weekly, but not in an encylopedia. Could we get away with the same article style for White Americans or African Americans? How do you think those articles would look if they were like yours?

No, it is a puff piece. Filled with unencylopedic garbage ("Thank the good Lord for making me a Latino.") and made to make people feel pride in their origins, rather than a neutral and complete history of Hispanics in WW. There's also a whole section dedicated to lecturing people on the evils of racism. But, your bandwagon has spoken, and this piece of trash will soon be an FA—sheep! Michael ^talk 02:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, its a shame that the "Land of the free" is the only nation that is still influenced by racist interests (dividing its own population based on heritage), I guess in Australia there isn't racial discrimination (yeah right...) but what can one expect of an user that has been blocked for uncivility after all ignorance is the worst sin there is. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support- excellent article that highlights the incredible and undeniable contributions of Hispanics to a war that changed the world. I'm truly sad that people still feel the way Michael does. --Boricuaeddie 18:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly Support- most of the many Hispanics who volunteered or were drafted and served during WWII upon reaching the age of 21 were not allowed to vote for their Commander-in-Chief, either because they were not American citizens yet, resided in the territory of Puerto Rico or were subject to the same barriers (poll taxes, etc) that African Americans were subject to, yet they were proud to serve. I recently attended a funeral service at the National Cemtery in Hato Tejas, Puerto Rico and was able to walk around newly-placed headstones and was impressed at the large number of WWII vets who have recently been buried there. That's the best evidence of the large participation of Hispanics in that war that this excellent article documents. Finally, the timing for the decision that we must reach on this article is excellent---within weeks of the premiere of the Ken Burns PBS documentary that totally ignores Hispanic participation in WWII and at the time that the 'Borinqueneers' documentary is inching its way into the schedules of some PBS stations with large Puerto Rican populations.Pr4ever 20:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support this article is breathtaking in its scope, research and prose. Tony, you have truly outdone yourself. Beautiful work and a credit to what Wikipedians can accomplish. Bravo! --David Shankbone 20:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support. It looks really good, Tony. I realize we are having to rely almost entirely on testimonials and biographies, which makes it difficult to give a generalized picture. It is quite an accomplishment to be able to piece together such a cogent narrative from such a fragmented literature. Almost all the Mexican American civil rights leaders I have studied have some experience with the war. It might do to expand on the role of WWII in propelling the Hispanic American civil rights movement. And there was also the religious contribution. Fray Angélico Chávez was a chaplain in the pacific, for example.--Rockero 21:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Can I note that the supporters below my oppose are Hispanics who jumped on the bandwagon to support their comrade. Numbers, eh? Michael ^talk 02:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Miguel/Michael: I thought you were Hispanic, too! Or is it only a minority of Anglos who oppose this nomination?Pr4ever 02:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, User:Michael, please stop insulting someone else's work with comments such as "puff piece", "garbage" and "trash". You are being disrespectful and not acting in a civil manner. You have already cast your vote and expressed your opinion. Go on with your life, please. Tony the Marine 05:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Why? This is going to be promoted due to a bunch of Hispanics jumping on the bandwagon to support this article. It isn't being examined critically. Numbers don't mean it's good. Answer my query above. Michael ^talk 13:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support Sumoeagle179 21:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support, on the condition that the table with how many Hispanics won medals for their service somehow be shifted to the left or the right. The stark white space on both sides is very distracting and draws away from what otherwise is a good article. Oh, and Michael, I'm 100% WASP as hell, and I think it's a wonderful article. Have I been watching too many Chico and the Man reruns? What's my excuse? Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 22:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Done! At first I thought that it would overlape too much into the other section, but it doesn't look too bad at all. Tony the Marine 23:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I've re-read the article, taking into considerations the arguments made by Michael, however I still stand by my argument that this type of article is a welcome narrative useful for minority and Hispanic studies. Although it sometimes dedicates time to describe the actions of individuals, the article incorporates so much info that its still comprehensive. The article also provides statistics and information on regiments and battalions. Plenty of reliable sources and the article's comprehensiveness make me lean towards support, despite Michael's arguments. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 10:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• There seem to be many plenty of not so reliable sources, almost all on the side of the Hispanic or the veterans' groups. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• BTW, It should be noted that Michael, feels that "regardless of their ethnicity and political orientation, all Americans are indeed fools." see: [84]. His ill feelings are towards Americans in general and not towards one group in particular. Tony the Marine 16:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral I like the article, but don't think its FA material. --evrik ^(talk) 13:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The second setence in the lead: Hispanics, who constitute the largest minority group in the United States, might be misleading as it leads the reader to think that they were the largest minority during World War II. Please specify the time period fot this fact. Thank you. CG 09:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Done, Tony the Marine 17:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support. I've been on vacation so I missed the entire previous discussion over this article. Reading the article with a fresh eye, I must say it definitely qualifies as one of the best Wikipedia articles. Also, despite Michael's view, this is not a "ethnic nationalistic puff piece." While this was mentioned before, Ken Burns upcoming documentary makes no mention of Hispanic contributions to WWII and this fact has been incredibly controversial. The fact that such a well-regarded filmmaker like Burns would be taken to task for such an omission shows that this subject is incredibly valid and needed at Wikipedia. Otherwise, this is a well written and well researched article deserving of FA status.--Alabamaboy 21:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - Firstly, it uses a lot of sources which in my opinion are biased.

• "Undaunted Courage Mexican American Patriots Of World War II. Latino Advocates for Education, Inc." - I do not think an ethnic awareness/pride group should be used, especially as we are talking about something 60 years ago and there should be no shortage of opportunities for historians to write about it
• Just walking through the first 25 footnotes, I find a high amount of sources which for me, definitely not acceptable

• 3 - Appears to be from an ethnic messageboard/website: "The myth of immigrants draining our health care system and raising costs doesn't have a basis in reality. So, now that we know immigrants use less health care - is that a good thing or a bad thing for public health and community well being?" gives me the impression that this source is definitely not academically oriented or reliable.
• 6 - Rosie the Riveter: About.com - mirror of Wikipedia
• 7 - "Undaunted Courage Mexican American Patriots Of World War II" - Latino advocate website again
• 9 - Hispanic online - appears to be a ethnic pride site - "A new generation carries on a proud military tradition"
• 10 - mervino.com - appears to be a home-made website
• 11 -American Veteran's Committee for Puerto Rico Self-Determination - appears to be Hispanic veterans lobby group
• 14 - www.valerosos.com/ - appears to be an unpublichsed essay hosted on the website of a descendant of a veteran

So, out of the first 14 refs, I feel that 7 are already biased or unreliable, mostly consisting of ethnic sites which tend to be too rosy, while others are veterans groups and probably are also pro-soldier and romanticised. Glancing down the lists there appears to be a lot of self-made websites by veterans and so forth. This, in my opinion is not acceptable for Wikipedia. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I feel that the article is written in a emotional tone which deviates from the objectiveness required for an encyclopedia. I think the discrimination section sticks out for me. Generally, I do tend to avoid using first-person quotes, ie, long quotes of a person talking about themselves. The vast majority of autobiographical accounts of all things, IMHO, tend to err on the side of being self-serving - the memoirs of politicians and sports coaches etc vitriolically blaming everyone else for the problems and so forth.....While in this case, one would generally agree that Hispanics and other minority groups got the rough end of the stick, the prolific use of first-person recollections swing the POV balance towards the first person. First person recollections of all types also tend to put the reader into their shoes and their POV and tend to emotionalise things in an excessive manner, which IMHO makes the article flowery in that section. In general, the highly anecdotal style in which this article is written, will gear it towards pulling heart strings rather than objective coverage. One example is how it says "leaving behind a family" in one of the examples. This is true of a very substantial if not a majority of servicemen, that they go into battle with an anxious family at home. Such padding, IMO, is not encyclopedic. On the other hand, someone could decide to be not so romanticised and add accounts of boozing or womanising. If we are to discuss notablity, we should focus on teh general statistics and so forth, and then mention things proportional to WP:N, which means generals, admirals, air force commanders, colonels, majors and so forth in decreasing priority. As it stands, the article is dominated by anecdotes of some people who received citations for bravery and so forth but were Lieutenants. Looking at the table you have provided tells me that thousands of people received Bronze Stars, but the case of one or two are prominently highlighted when neither the rank of lieutenant nor a bronze star are particularly rare but in fact rather common. This skews the article towards romanticism and one would suspect that all Hispanics either received bravery awards, were high ranking officers or were extremely decorated - over and above the average person. Conversely one might ask what the statistics on bad soldiers were, eg dishonorable discharges, court martials and desertions. I feel that this article is mostly a collection of "success stories" and is not a fair account. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, your comments are more then welcomed. In regard to the sources, the reliablility of the same were verified by User:SandyGeorgia which is a very capable person. You must remember that the Department of Defense did not keep stats on Hispanics during that era and therefore we must depend on the documentation gathered by such people as Maggie-Rivas for the University of Texas. In regard to the decorations table, it clearly states: "the figures are based on listings of military service personnel that have been complied from military records, historical documentation, or personal accounts." True the table lists 2 thousand Silver Star Medals and 1 thousand Bronze Star Medals, but this is not to romanticise and is a small number when it is estimated that possibly over 500,000 Hispanics served. My intentions are not to romanticise the Hispanic experience. I have provided some the horrors which these men suffered with examples of the Bataan Death March and the suffering of the common family with the example of the Sandoval family. History books themselves are baised and are written in accordance to the beliefs of the eras in which they are written. I have written about the accomplishments of some successful Hispanics, which mind you were Generals, Admirals, Colonels, Captains and just regular foot soldiers because these accounts are not mentioned in history books. Discrimination played a big role in the lives of these men and was a big issue then as it is now. I had to relie on the interviews conducted by Prof. Maggie-Rivas team, of those who suffered it in the flesh and quote them. Maybe that is why the contributions made by Hispanics were omitted then and continue to be omitted now. As I stated before, I have written this article within Wikipedia policy without having to enter into original research. I want to thank you once again for you opinion and I want you to know that I don't mind your oppose, because you handled yourself in a civil manner. Tony the Marine 06:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article has improved markedly since I first read over it; I didn't comment then due to some lively discussion/distraction taking place, but I don't think some major concerns have been addressed. Blnguyen brought up the issue of sources, and some are still suspect.

It's understandable that there may not be readily available data/sources on hispanicsin ww2, but I don't think enough effort has been made to find academic sources. There are hardly any references that are books or journal articles.

Although the large chunks of monologue have been removed, I'm still concerned about the mini-biographies. What criteria was used to choose who to profile? They may be highest ranking, but were they the most notable or have the most impact? Where are the citations proclaiming the importance of the chosen few above the others?

The section on discrimination as others have mentioned, is somewhat tenuous. If you want an extended discussion of racism and discussion during ww2, where's any mention of the Zoot-suit riots? [85].

Recurring dreams 11:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment,Thank you for your concerns. At times it seems as if these are the same questions asked over and over again, but asking never hurts.

1. The concern about the reliability of the sources were already once handled by User: SandyGeorgia as stated almost at the beginning of this FAC. Those that are mentioned as suspect are sources which are cited by Hispanic historians, in which case makes them reliable. I would love to cite more books or journals and I would if they were to be found, however since this is a subject which did not receive the same attention as others and I am not allowed to indulge in original research, it will be up to future historians to make sure that these contributions will be documented and posted on journals so that future generations may benefit from their findings.

2. I have made it a point to note the contributions of every notable Hispanic officer that I could find. These are not mini-bios, the mini-bios can be found in the links provided which will lead the reader to the subjects page. The two Generals mentioned did make important contributions to the outcome of the war. In regard to the other four soldiers mentioned with some degree of length, their feats such as capturing over 1,000 enemy soldiers, the most decorated soldier, becoming the last “Ace in Day” and becoming the first recipient of the Medal of Honor on American soil, truly deserve to be described. All who made notable contributions as members of the Armed Forces of the United States during the war are mentioned regardless of the impact which these contributions have made.

3. Although the Zoot-Suit riots occurred in Los Angles in 1943, between American sailors and Mexican and Filipino Americans, it had nothing to do with the contributions of Hispanic Americans in World War II. Discrimination was rampant throughout the United States, however the subject of Discrimination within the article is about the situation within the military and the fact that those served their country continued to face discrimination as civilians. The testimony of four soldiers from different backgrounds and races were used and this was intentional so that the reader could understand that there were many soldiers who had to deal with two enemies, the one aboard and the one at home.

I am sorry if this article does not meet what some may consider encyclopedic material, but I did the best that I could with what little I had. Tony the Marine 21:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

*Oppose - Perhaps this article, with some work, could be cleaned up. My objections, in addition to those listed by Blnguyen (bananabucket), are the following (these are examples):

• The article has a great deal of irrelevant information that interferes with a clear focus on the subject. For example, information about the 2000 census has nothing to do with World War II. Long descriptions of general material about the war, about industries related to the war, how many aircraft were produced, about women in the military (WAVES) etc. is just general World War II material, irrelevant to the article's subject, and the related references do not mention Hispanics. All of the Rosie the Riveter stuff is irrelevant as none of the sources to Rosie the Riveter mention Hispanic women, and one of them is to about.com, a Wikipedia mirror site. (I am surprised that is still in the article, as it was mentioned above and is a clear violation of WP:V, WP:RS etc.) Irrelevant sites not mentioning Hispanics include:
  • http://www.rosietheriveter.org/congresshonorsrosies.htm
  • http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/journey/rosie-transcript.html
  • http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A85740
  • http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Aerospace/WWII_Industry/Aero7.htm

• Several of the references go to sites that are not worthy sources for a FA. References that go to book sales sites (http://www.latinoadvocates.org/purchasebook2005.html), to sites that are offering paid registration for an event (http://www.bataanmarch.com/History.htm), or memorial sites that are soliciting donations (http://www.womensmemorial.org/Education/HisHistory.html) are not unbiased, reliable sources . Nor are personal memorial sites like http://mervino.com/window/IBB/canpics/can46-1.html eligible as sources.

• Some of the sources are questionable for other reasons also. For example, one that goes to http://www.angelfire.com/nm/bcmfofnm/names/names_pu/ralphrodriguez.html says NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw, but then there is no subsequent mention of Tom Brokaw and the information there is clearly not an NBC broadcast transcript.

• Many references do not prove the point for which they are a footnote, e.g. The paragraph ending with "The new migrants gained knowledge and working skills that would serve them well." is linked with a footnote to http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p105521_index.html. Quotation from that site:

"My results illustrate that while scholars attribute Puerto Rican emigration to overpopulation and rising unemployment, news articles consistently addressed issues related to employment, while rarely mentioning the impact of overpopulation. In addition, my findings show that articles in the early years of the Great Migration portray migration positively or debate the issue. In the later years, there are signfiicantly more articles that portray migration negatively as well as articles that treated migration neutrally."

That does not support the material it purports to in the paragraph.

• For any US Census information, there is no reason not to use the US Census site itself which has plenty of analyses, not the Encyclopedia Britannica or other less direct sources.

I urge you to take seriously other reviewers comments. Mattisse 23:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, Mattisse Thank you, not for the oppose mind you, but for pointing out these things for me. I will look into them. Sometimes we are too blind to see the obvious. Tony the Marine 02:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• I have changed some references, plus trimmed some fat off the article. www.womensmemorial.org/Education/HisHistory.html are the only people who have documented the contributions of not only female Hispanics, but the contributions of women in general and I believe them to be reliable. Tony the Marine 06:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support - per nom and XLR8TION. Murcielago 16:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - You are still using an about.com link: http://womenshistory.about.com/od/rosie/which is not a permissible link. Further, I tried several links on that page and they were either a "page no longer here" type message, as for example the NPR link, or went to pages that did not mention Hispanic women. Could you give a direct link to a Rosie the Riveter article that mentions Hispanic women? (I humbly suggest that this is not that important to your article anyway. Rose the Riveter was really geared at white women, as in those days there was no consciousness—as you are aware—of minority participation in World War II. The issue of the all black units in that war did not reach public consciousness until much later, so it is hard to believe that Rosie the Riveter was ahead of it's time. In fact, one of your major points is that there was no awareness. Rosie the Riveter material on Hispanic women would be an argument that you are wrong.)
  • Also, could you provide a reference for this statement: "Hispanics who resided in the mainland of the United States and who were fluent in English were assigned to regular military units; otherwise they were assigned to units made up of mostly Hispanics. Those who were of fair skin color were assigned to units made up of Caucasians and those who were of dark skin color were sent to the segregated all-black military units." (I am not saying this is not true, but again, I don't think it it necessary to your main point. Also, it is somewhat ambiguous. What happened to Hispanics who resided on the mainland of the United States and were fluent in English but had dark skin? You are suggesting that they were assigned to regular military units. Is this the case?)
  • Perhaps I could suggest to you that you think about what you want this article to be about. Do you want it to be about discrimination against Hispanics during World World II? Or do you want it to be about the Hispanic contribution to World War II? If is is the latter, then you could find some reliable sources that state, yes discrimination existed. Then you could find a good source or two saying Hispanic contribution is therefor unknown and unreported. Then perhaps you would have a justification for saying, "Although the numbers of Hispanic soldiers is unknown, we have some first-person accounts of individual Hispanic soldiers that suggest that the contributions of Hispanic soldiers was valiant and give some examples. Then you could list the medal winners etc. I do not know if that would pass FA but it would be more focused on the Hispanic participation in World War II, if that is your goal. Mattisse 17:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, Mattisse, your suggestions are more then welcomed and I will take you up on them. The main focus will be on Hispanic contributions, while the discrimination should only be a sub-subject. I will get eliminate http://womenshistory.about.com/od/rosie/ (I don't know why but, I thought I had)Tony the Marine 00:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Did a lot more trimming. I'm breaking my head, which one is the NPR link? Tony the Marine 01:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This about.com link, http://womenshistory.about.com/od/rosie/Rosie_the_Riveter_Women_in_the_Factories_of_World_War_II.htm, which is not permissible anyway, has the NPR link on its list of links. Mattisse 12:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, Mattisse, I'm sure that I have already eliminated that link. I went over the links and I haven't been able to pin-point it. If you can, please let me know if you see it and where it is at. The article looks much better with all of the trimming, don't you agree? Tony the Marine 15:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment, My apologies to User's Blnguyen and Recurring dreams, you were right to be concerned about the references. Mia culpa - I have responded to the suggestions. Tony the Marine 16:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - You need to be very careful about footnotes. The footnote to the War Museum does not say anything about coverage in history books, as far as I can tell, so it should not be included with the footnote. You don't need the history book sentence in there anyway, in my opinion. Mattisse 16:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I would reduce the first paragraph to something like this:

Hispanic Americans in World War II fought in every major battle in the European Theatre, from North Africa to the Battle of the Bulge, and in the Pacific Theater of Operations, from Bataan to Okinawa. Hispanics have participated in every U.S. military conflict since the American Revolution.^[3] According to the National World War II Museum, between 250,000 and 500,000 Hispanic Americans served in the Armed Forces during WWII. The exact number is unknown as at the time Hispanics were counted as whites. The only racial groups to have separate statistics kept were African-Americans and Asian-Americans.^[4]

You have a lot of extra stuff that isn't needed and that is not referenced. I think it detracts from your main points. Mattisse 17:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, Good suggestion and done, but I must give you the credit for the rephrasing.:) Tony the Marine 17:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - How about this for second paragraph:

When a Japanese Imperial Navy carrier fleet launched an unexpected attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, Hispanic Americans joined the ranks of the Army, Navy and Marine Corps as volunteers or through the draft. They saw active combat in both the European and Pacific Theatres of war and participated on the home front.^[5] Hundreds of women joined the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps (WAACs) and Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service (WAVES), serving as nurses and in administrative positions. Many worked in the manufacturing plants that produced munitions and material, while the men who usually performed this work were away at war.^[6]

It repeats a little the first sentence but maybe you can get away with it. Then eliminate the part of the third paragraph you have already covered. Instead, you can give a summary of what the article is going to be about, the facts you do know plus some justification for the personal stories. Mattisse 18:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Will do, Mattisse I truly appreciate your suggestions because they are excellent and within what is expected in Wikipedia. They haven't compromised the message of the article and that is why I am making the changes recommended. I want others to know that I am not making them to sway a change in the oppose votes ( I must admit that support votes are nicer (smile) , I have too often seen FAC's people do not change their votes even after the suggestions have been taken into consideration. Tony the Marine 19:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Supporting, lots of work has been done, issues addressed quickly, politely, and diligently, thank you. I'm also going to take the liberty to add a few tweaks of my own, if you don't like them, feel free to change or revert; I hope they're improvements, but my support doesn't depend on them being kept. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Oppose, I'm afraid, Needs editing by Japanese patriot. :-) It's clearly a labor of love, but a bit too gung-ho, a bit too clearly written by an American patriot. I'd love to support, since there is a lot of good content, but I can hear patriotic music playing as I read much of this article. Some examples:
  • "When a Japanese Imperial Navy carrier fleet launched an unexpected attack on Pearl Harbor" - in the lead? Surely the way the war started didn't make that much of a difference to Hispanic participation in WW2, considering they participated in every war before or since. Note I don't know if it would really hurt to keep because it is part of the intro.
    • It has nothing to do with Hispanic American participation. Yes, it was an important episode for World War 2, but so was the Battle of the Bulge, and Tobruk, and Stalingrad, and D-Day, and the invasion of Poland, and the fall of Berlin, and the bombing of Hiroshima. None of those belong in the lead of this particular article, which should be a summary of the main points of the article. This isn't one of them. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Good point, Done
  • In fact, I'd move "Hispanics have participated in every U.S. military conflict since the American Revolution." out of the lead as well, this article is really about WW2, and this sentence is out of place in that paragraph. It's important, just not lead-important. Note, I would love to keep this. Since most Americans are unaware of the Hispanic contributions in WW II, they are even less aware that Hispanics have made contributions from the founding of the nation. In way this is may way of saying "Hey, guess what? Hispanics have always taken arms for the U.S., not just WW II, the only thing is that you didn't know about because their contributions have always been overlooked". I don't know if I make any sense.
    • I still think it doesn't fit the paragraph, but I can see how it might be important enough for the lead somewhere. If you can figure out a better place to move it, I'd prefer that, but I won't oppose over just this. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Decided to eliminate, doesn't fit in
      • Heh. I do think it belongs somewhere, it is an important bit of data about the participation of Hispanic Americans in US wars in general, clearly worth a sentence. I put it in another section, again not ideal, but I couldn't find a perfect place for it, so better to have it somewhere than nowhere. If you want, you can even move it back to the lead. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "Gabaldon, ... displayed extreme courage and initiative ... single-handedly capturing enemy civilian and military personnel. Working alone ... daringly entered ... frequently in the face of hostile fire ... succeeded ... not only ... vital ... well over ." - that reads like it could be from his award citation, meant to inspire. We're only meant to give facts. Done

More on this section:

• • • Private First Class (PFC) Guy Gabaldon... PFC Guy Gabaldon (1926–2006) ... he was a Private First Class (PFC) - redundant.Fixed
    • Wikilink Hell to Eternity Done
    • I read a bit more on Gabaldon; it seems like he mostly persuaded the Japanese to surrender by saying they'd be killed otherwise.[86] This article makes it sound like he violently captured over 1000 soldiers by personal combat, one at a time, and the only reason he didn't get a medal of honor like York was bigotry. While bigotry might still have been part of it, if convincing 1000+ people to surrender was a cause for a medal of honor, every commander who wins a big battle and doesn't massacre his captives would have one. By leaving out the word "persuaded" or "convinced", we're misleading by implication. replace word
  • "gave their lives for their country" - died. Done
  • "The outcome of the battle was so stunning" - ahem. I don't think the Japanese would have used that word. Done
  • "In December 1942, a year after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Quesada took the First Air Defense Wing to North Africa in the heat of battle." - In December 1943, Quesada took the First Air Defense Wing to fight in North Africa. Fixed
    • Not really, still mentions Pearl Harbor, which has nothing more to do with Quesada than it does with Patton. Now, Fixed
  • "the greatest invasion in history" - Fixed
    • No, now it just says "considered by some". My point isn't debating whether it is or not, my point is that the article is overly patriotic and gung-ho, and needs to be more objective. It can't help being somewhat gung-ho, since it's about the achievements of soldiers, there is no way to get around "Hero Street", but the least it can do is not inject it unnecessarily. Just give the facts, and wikilink for those who want to know more: provided air cover for the landings on Normandy Beach. Word eliminated
  • "Edubigis and Angelina Sandoval immigrated to the U.S. with a dream of having a better life." - Fixed
  • "their son's request to serve the country." - Eliminated
  • The failure to include any Hispanics in the film has been recognized and criticized by ordinary citizens, Hispanic leaders, and Congressional leaders alike. - important, but shorten and rephrase What do you think will be a better rephrase? Done
  • the starving and outnumbered troops surrendered to the Japanese. The men of the 200th and 515th Battalions laid down their arms after being given a direct order. - combine, unless it was only the 200th and 515th who got an order, and the others merely surrendered Fixed
    • being given a direct ordera - "being given a direct order" or "direct orders" Fixed

There are also other issues

• • has an ancestor from a Spanish-speaking Latin America. - dump "a Spanish-speaking", Brazilians are Hispanic too Note, In accordance to U.S. Census, Brazilians, are not considered "Hispanics" since their language is Portuguese (Similar to the people of Surinam). They are, howver considered as "Latinos" or "Latins" since the do come from "Latin-America". You go figure.

    The Census says anyone is Hispanic who says they are Hispanic. Their suggested definition, however, includes all of South America, without excluding Brazil. 1993 2000 Also, don't forget the context. We're talking the racial prejudice of 1941. Are you honestly going to claim that 1941 people with anti-Hispanic prejudice would make exceptions for Brazilians? It's at least debatable, but this article isn't the place for the debate. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Rephrased

  • "One of the members of the 149th WAAC Post Headquarters Company was Tech4 Carmen Contreras-Bozak, who served in Algiers within General Dwight D. Eisenhower’s theatre headquarters. Tech4 Carmen Contreras-Bozak joined" - join the one-sentence paragraph with the next, and don't repeat her rank or first name. Fixed
  • "rendered overseas duties" - served, or if you like, were stationed Fixed
    • It's not fixed, but not a big deal, I'll live with it. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "Other Hispanic Servicewomen like Conterras" - don't capitalize Servicewomen, and misspelled name Fixed
  • "among them were Maria Rodriguez-Denton and Sergeant Mary Castro." - contains no information, considering the next two paragraphs say that. Fixed
    • Better. Combine with next paragraph, though, otherwise it's a 1-sentence paragraph. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Done
  • Same for "Two other notable Hispanic submarine commanders were..." - if you don't such a sentence for the first 3, don't do it for the last 2 Fixed
  • "Sergeant Mary Castro was the first Hispanic woman from San Antonio, Texas, to join the WAAC." - that's her distinction? At that rate, we should have a hundred paragraphs like that: the first Hispanic woman from Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston, New York to join the WAVES, WAAC, WAAF... Unless she's more notable than that, I'd get rid of the whole mention, unfortunately. Also makes it easier to get rid of the "among them" phrasing, above. :-) Castro eliminated
  • "Hispanic female nurses wanted to volunteer for service, however they were not accepted into the Army or Navy Nurse Corps" - Why not? Good question, my assumption would be that the Dept of Defense, didn't think at the time that bilingual nurses would be needed.
  • In 1944, the Army Nurse Corps (ANC) decided to accept Puerto Rican nurses.- only? Not other Hispanics? Why? Note, the only verfiable source mentions only the PR nurses. There aren't any statements about other Hispanic nurses. Could be that stats were not kept on those who were not from Puerto Rico, similar to what happened to the Hispanics that served in regular Army units.
    • Would be nice to find out, but I couldn't find it myself. No big deal.
  • represented a moral blow - morale? Note, can't find this one, can you do me the honoe of fixing it?
    • Done.
  • Did Quesada actually write "FM 100-20, "Command and Employment of Air Power,"? Part of it? Note the source states (and so does the article) that he and the allied commnders forged FM 100-20, but there is no mention about who were the others, except that Quesdad was the principal force behind the concept.
    • Good enough.
  • "f the 22 families on Second Street," - f? Fixed
  • thos ewho - those who Note, I can't find this one, would you do me the honor of fixing it?
    • Done.
  • Rios Rodriguez ... In an interview, PFC Raul Rios Rodriguez from Puerto Rico - full name first, short name later Fixed
  • He recalls the racial remarks made by a Captain while he was wounded. “That was the first time I was called a smart-ass Mexican,” said Rodriguez, speaking of an incident that occurred in the Philippines. - who was wounded, Rodriguez, or the Captain? What was smart-ass about being wounded? Move "in the Phillipines" to the first sentence, dump "speaking of an incident". Fixed
  • President Truman's military aide, Gen. Harry H. Vaughan joined - comma after Vaughan, or move "Truman's aide," after Vaughan Fixed
  • same place, Senator Johnson is mentioned 3 times in 3 sentences, just Johnson after the first 2.Fixed
  • one of the most notable was Desi Arnaz. Cuban bandleader, Desi Arnaz, - combine the sentences, wikilink the first, not the second mention. Done
  • because a of prior knee injury - of a prior Fixed
  • I'd move Homefront section up after all the other "Types of service" sections, before the "After the war" sections - Honoring and Discrimination Good idea, done
  • 515th Anti-Aircraft Artillery Battalions from New Mexico ... and the 158th Regimental Combat Team from Arizona. - wikilink both states or neither Fixed
  • These Hispanic and non-Hispanic soldiers endured the 12-day, 85-mile Bataan Death March from Bataan to the Japanese prison camps and remained in captivity for 34 months.[14] They were marched in scorching heat through the Philippine jungle. - move the 34 month captivity after the march sentence.Fixed'
  • The European Theater was subdivided into three areas: the Eastern Front, the Western Front and the Mediterranean Theater. - true, but if you never mention the 3 areas again in the article, why do we care? Note, I thought that some people reading may like to know exactly what was the Europen Theater, if you feel that it should be rephrased let me know again.
    • There's a lot more to the European Theater than just being divided into 3 fronts... that's what the wikilink is for. Yes, still feel it should go. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Eliminated some words
  • some active combat units, such as the 65th Infantry Regiment from Puerto Rico, were made up mostly of Hispanics. One of these units was the 141st Regiment of the 36th Texas Infantry - how about "some active combat units, such as the 65th ... and the 141st ..." ? Done, sounds better.

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, would you reconsider your vote after your concerns are addressed? Just courious. Tony the Marine 23:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Of course, that's the whole idea. Let me look. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC) You got most, a few left, and some new stuff:
  • Lead: Hispanic Americans in World War II fought in every major battle in the European Theatre, from North Africa to the Battle of the Bulge, and in the Pacific Theater of Operations... They saw active combat in both the European and Pacific Theatres of war - redundant. Fixed
  • Lead: According to Undaunted Courage Mexican American Patriots Of World War II, published in 2005 by Latino Advocates for Education, Inc., at least 9,170 Hispanic Americans died in the conflict. - Too much detail on the book for the lead. I'd shorten to either "According to Latino Advocates for Education, Inc., at least...", or "According to Undaunted Courage Mexican American Patriots Of World War II, at least ...", but reserve the publishing details for later in the article. I admit it also worries me that such an important point is made with reference to an advocacy group, and one for education, rather than military or history, and that the book seems to focus on Mexican Americans, rather than Hispanic Americans, but it's certainly better to have something rather than nothing. Done
    • I see others object to this source as well. Here is a better one, from Senator Robert Menendez: (Microsoft word) http://menendez.senate.gov/pdf/MemorialDayLLLEng.doc "Half a million Latinos served in the Armed Forces during WWII, and more than 9,000 Latinos gave their lives in defense of our country." Here is another better one, the National WW2 Museum: www.nationalww2museum.org/education/education_numbers.html "How many Hispanic Americans served in the U.S. military during WWII? Between 250,000 and 500,000." Don't drop the book altogether, it does get press LA Times official archive, but it's good to have backup. Added Menedez words, Could you check the link for me?
      • Checked. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The Sandoval’s were; first of the Sandoval’s to die ; Other families like the Sandoval’s had - remove apostrophes, these are plural not possessive Fixed
    • Not quite, but I got the remaining one. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • One family, the Nevarez family, from Los Angeles, California, had a total of eight siblings serving in the Armed Forces. - was this the record? If not, I'd remove "One family", otherwise we're implying there were no others. Done
  • Reference "5 ^ a b c" has no text.Fixed'
  • The Undaunted Courage Mexican American Patriots Of World War II reference has a "retrieved" date but no URL link. If it isn't a URL, it doesn't need a "retrieved" date. Does it have an ISBN? Fixed
  • Reference "16 ^ [1] Ralph Rodriguez" needs a title, and don't put SARA KUNZ all in caps. Fixed
  • "Sacrifice of the Sandoval families: " - I think these 5 words can go. It seems like yet another way to squeeze in another section, there is plenty of organization in this article. The fact the rest of the Hero Street section is about the Sandovals speaks for itself. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Fixed

• Comment - I believe it is a FAC rule that images are supposed to be set at default size. Mattisse 22:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Done, You did it yourself, thanks Tony the Marine 00:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Concerns have been taken care of, It looks like new Tony the Marine 00:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Changed from oppose above. Thanks to much work by AnonEMouse and a great attitude on the part of Tony the Marine, this article, covering an important and neglected topic, has been very much improved. I believe it warrants FA status. Mattisse 16:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Two things - (A) what is the status of the article with regard to unreliable sources? (B) Tony posted on my talk page about Michael's comments above. I gave him some specific advice for how to handle it, but I don't see this incorporated into the article. Raul654 17:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment, Hi Raul, good to see you. A. Taken care of, B. User:AnonEMouse, who is an experienced FAC editor and a neutral party (not Hispanic), vetted the entire article, checking references, material emphasized, and everything else. Answers in your talk page. Tony the Marine 18:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support -much improved since first nominated.Rlevse 00:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• For such a controversial topic, I'm not satisfied that the general level of referencing (WP:RS) represents the "best work of Wikipedia". Sorry, but unless some references (as noted by Blnguyen) are changed to minimize this problem, I'm opposing this article getting FAC status. Also, thw quotes sourced using [67], [69] and [70] are pointless, as it isn't intergral to the context (or started by "He stated," etc.), and it's merely citing what you've reworded in the paragraph above. The overuse of quotes in that section look a little amateur, to be honest. Daniel 05:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment all of the referencing concerns of User:Blnguyen have been taken care of as witnessed by users: Mattisse, AnonEMouse and SandyGeorgia all of which are experienced FAC editors and neutral. I hope that you understand that official documentation of the experiences of these men were not kept and therefore, we must depend on the documented interviews to provide information on the discrimination which went on and was known, but was never spoken about in public. Tony the Marine 05:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The 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 21:28, 30 August 2007.

[edit] Victoria Cross for New Zealand

(Self-nomination) Although this article is short, in my opinion it is worthy of FA standard. It sailed through GA which is its current status. It is comprehensive in it's coverage of the highest medal for gallantry that can be awarded to New Zealand personnel. Thanks in advance for any comments. Woodym555 15:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment It seems very unnecessary to have links to the other three Victoria Cross articles both in Similar decorations section, the See also section and in the Victoria Cross template. --Peter Andersen 17:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, point taken, removed them from the "see also" section. I think they serve a purpose in the other sections though. Woodym555 17:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment only one problem the prose of the section "Awarding the Medal" isnt coherent there two distinct discusions taking place and over lapping each other. The result is that the final sentence As with the original Victoria Cross any recommendations will pass through the military hierachy to the Minister for Defence.[20] reads as if its tacked on. There appears to be some formal process as to how the final decision to award is reached, that needs to given some depth. Bill (Willy) Apiata current status should be equal unimpeded explanation as well. Gnangarra 09:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I now support the promtoions to FA, if it wasnt already clear from my comment below Gnangarra 01:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support: Nice well written and well reffed page. It seems to tell me all I need to know about Victoria Cross for New Zealand. Giano 16:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - "The Victoria Cross for New Zealand was established in 1999 and, as of July 2007, has been awarded only once." - er ... !!! So this is an article about an award that was only awarded once? I was wondering why the lead for this article seemed to be a copy of Victoria Cross, and why there is a long list of unrelated awards (Medal of Honor for example; not a cross, nothing to do with Victoria, nothing to do with New Zealand ...) . There just isn't a lot to say here that isn't said better elsewhere. Sorry. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• comment since the Victoria Cross has always been awarded to New Zealand service personnel, the difference is that since 1999 the confirmation of the award has been removed from the UK system to a wholely NZ system. This change doesnt dimmish or revalue past/present/future recipients, its still the highest award for valour in New Zealand. What it does do is alter the process that itself warrant an article, but given that the new process has already conferred the award to someone its even more appropriate to distinguish that process from the Victoria Cross article where the inclusion of this person is no longer appropriate. Gnangarra 01:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I understood that. It sounds like you're saying that the article is about every time the Victoria Cross, in any incarnation, has ever been awarded to New Zealanders. If so, then it's misleadingly titled, and still largely a copy of the Victoria Cross article, and still doesn't justify a list of unrelated awards for other countries... In short, still oppose. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• It is the equivalent of the Medal of Honor and the others, for New Zealanders hence the see also section. Commonality between this article and the article Victoria Cross is also to be expected given that it was until 1999 the same award. Maybe the article could be at Victoria Cross (New Zealand) instead. Gnangarra 13:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It was originally at Victoria Cross (New Zealand) but this is not its official name and as such i think it would breach the WP:NAME guidelines. The Victoria Cross for New Zealand is a separate award to the Victoria Cross, awarded by a separate Government. The list of New Zealander Victoria Cross recipients and other Victoria Cross related lists cover the New Zealand recipients perfectly adequately. The Similar awards section is added to provide a link to the other Highest awards of gallantry that a country can bestow. After a comment on the peer review of the VC for Australia article i have decided to create a template that would replace this section. I am not entirely clear of your objections, do you think the article should include all New Zealander recipients of the VC? The fact that the VC for New Zealand has been awarded only once does not disqualify it from having an article on Wikipedia. Woodym555 16:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not nominating the article for deletion, I just don't think it's original enough for featured article status. It's basically about the history of the Victoria Cross in general, not about the Victoria Cross for New Zealand. FAs should not be mostly material that best belongs in other articles, that's just not our best work. For those who want chapter and verse, it fails Wikipedia:Featured article criteria #4, "It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)". It does not stay focused on the main topic, as over half the article is not about the Victoria Cross for New Zealand. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)I don't think i can address these comments, and the comments made in the discussion on AnonEMouse's talk page. To put in information about all New Zealanders would be going against the title of the page. It is about the VC for NZ and its history. Its history is deeply intertwined with that of the Victoria Cross. The history of the Victoria Cross is pertinent and important in understanding the history of this separate award.

As to removing the appearances section, i think that would be completely wrong. Just because the appearance is the same as the VC, it does not mean that the appearances section of this page should be replaced with a wikilink. In terms of criterion 4, the article is focused on the main topic: the VC for NZ. For the origins of the history section, the VC and VCNZ share the same for the most part. All the information on the history of the Victoria Cross is not included in this article, only the information that is pertinent to the VCNZ is retained in this article.

I have discussed this at the WP:ODM talk page and User:Xdamr, one of the main contributors in this field, agrees that the VC for NZ should stay focused on the VC for NZ and not on all New Zealanders who ever won the Victoria Cross. Simply put i cannot fix your oppose vote, it is in effect a conscientious objection. Woodym555 12:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose—Please fix spelled out conversion (inches)—MOS. Faulty prose throughout. Random examples—semicolong in lead is wrong; more commas would make for easier reading; "the medal can reach over £200,000 at auction"—sounds like my arm reaching over to get something. "Several countries"—unencyclopedic vagueness. Needs serious work. Withdraw and reconsider, please. Tony 07:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think that there is faulty prose throughout. Whilst the medal statement in the intro could be misread, i don't think it will be. Even so i have changed the sentence to reflect your concerns. It now reads as "medal has been sold for over £200,000 at auction." In terms of 'needs serious work' could you please be more specific? Thanks Woodym555 16:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Should the "References" section be "Further reading"? Are any of these cited in the article? Check hyphens in "Notes"; at least one is wrong. Imperial and metrics main units? Inconsistent. Tony 11:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • References and further reading have now been separated. There was only one hyphen that i could see in the notes and that should have been a dash: changed it. (am i blind, i couldn't see any hyphens, sorry if i am missing something) It is now a metric article as per MOS and NZ convention. Thanks for your constructive comments. Woodym555 12:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• MOS breaches in title case for titles.
  • FixedWoodym555 14:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• MOS breach in "27 g" and "mm".
  • FixedWoodym555 15:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• MOS breach in period after non-sentence captions.
  • FixedWoodym555 14:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Nonfree Image:VictoriaCrossObv.jpg, used in this article, has no fair-use rationale. —Angr 16:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • FU rationale has been added by the uploader, User:Xdamr. Woodym555 13:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • No, it hasn't. Xdamr merely removed the no-rationale tag without adding a rationale. The image is used in several articles and needs a separate rationale for each use; so far it doesn't have a rationale for any. —Angr 17:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
      • You were right, it hadn't, just the bolierplate had been added. I have now orphaned the image due to the existence of an admittedly lower quality, free use image. I have now orphaned the fair use image (therefore there are no more image problems with this article). Thanks Woodym555 20:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. I have to concur with AnonEMouse. You (Woodym555) rightly emphasize that this is a different award than the original VC. But then why is about half of the lead section about the original VC? I can understand that a couple of sentences are necessery to give the historical background, but certainly not half of the lead. The same goes for the main part of the article. Why all of this information about the materials the original award was made out of? I think only the metal used now is relevant.--Carabinieri 01:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It is the same metal used now that is used for the Victoria Cross. That is why the history is included, because it has shares its history with the Victoria Cross. I will try to amend the lead soon. Woodym555 09:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Just to say that i have amended the lead to completely focus on the VC for NZ. I have not changed the metal because the history is completely pertinent and relevant. Any other concerns? Woodym555 11:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
      • The lead looks good now. What I was referring to with my remarks concerning the origing of the metal used in the VC, is that there are several sentences referring to metals that were never used for the VC for NZ. Only the third sentence in the second paragraph of the "Victoria Cross" section seems to be about metal actually used in the NZ medals. --Carabinieri 13:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
        • After rereading the article i see your concerns. I have removed the information about the metal during WWI and WWII, beacuse, as you rightly stated it does not pertain to the VC for NZ. Any other areas of concern? Thanks Woodym555 13:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
          • No that's all. The article is a bit short, but it does seem to cover the topic about as extensively as possible, considering the fact that the cross has only been awarded once. So I support.--Carabinieri 11:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The 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 21:28, 30 August 2007.

[edit] 1981 Irish hunger strike

Self nomination. Article is a good article and gone through peer review. The only peer review recommendation was sortable tables which I don't really think are appropriate due to the contents of the tables, but that's easy enough to fix if others disagree. I have improved the formatting of the tables so they are the same width though. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• I support this; the article is well-written and adequately referenced. I'd like to see a more sophisticated approach in the analyses in some places, but that's just me. I think it meets the standard. --John 17:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Object:
  1. The image Image:Victory To the Prisoners Poster.JPG is used under fair use, but does not appear to be discussed in the article.
  2. What is the status of freedom of panorama legislation in the relevant areas? Can Image:Hunger Strikers.jpg, Image:St James's support the hunger strikers.jpg, and Image:Hunger Strike.JPG be licensed under a free license? --Carnildo 18:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

  1. Not an image I added, and I've removed it now.
  2. I'll leave that for someone who knows about the situation, as I don't. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean the sittueeateoin ;) Ceoil 11:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite possibly. The murals are overused in NI related articles anyway, so I've hunted down some free images of memorials instead. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --Carnildo 01:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support <-- Feels like a loaded statement somehow, but this is an excellent, pacy, overview. Ceoil 10:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support per nom. --Hornet35 14:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm curious about the reason given for Bobby Sands' conviction: "possession of a revolver which had been fired at the police". As far as I can tell, this accurately describes his situation, but does it represents the introduction of a POV here? (I know this is a touchy subject for some, so let me say I have no position on this; I'm just asking.) Wouldn't his offense be simply "Possession of a firearm", as you give it for some others in the table? I assume that the fact the revolver had been fired at the police was relevant in the trial, but what was the actual conviction for? The additional few words imply that he was not shown to have fired it himself; true, as far as I can say, but why mention this extenuating circumstance for Sands and not for the others? Mike Christie (talk) 12:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Good point, I've changed that. The conviction was quite strange, there were four people convicted on the same charge, as they were all in the same car where the revolver was found. While the ballistic evidence of the gun having been used in prior offences may have been a mitigating factor with regards to the sentence, it wasn't part of the charge. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support - A well handled piece of coverage of a very controversial issue. I do have two comments though, firstly given that this occured in the context of the Troubles, they should probably be linked somewhere in the lead and secondly phyrric should not be capitalised in the consequences section.--Jackyd101 10:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Done. I've seen Phyrric capitalised or not, there doesn't seem to any standard form for it. As it refers to Pyrrhus of Epirus I'd have thought it would be capitalised, in a similar way to Stalinist, Trotskyite, Thatcherite and so on, but it's a minor thing anyway. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Actually I've since been informed it should be capitalised, various dictionaries use that form - [87]. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support A well-written article about an important event, and a remarkably NPOV treatment of a controversial subject. The recent changes to the images have improved it IMO. Scolaire 11:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I would consider expanding the lead per WP:LEAD: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article" and "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic". I think more detail on the second hunger strike is desirable, for instance the important fact that "the prisoners joined one at a time and at staggered intervals" and the consequences of that in terms of public opinion, political fallout etc. The "Consequences" and "Commemoration" sections, including the rise of Sinn Féin, might be made into a short third paragraph. Scolaire 11:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I think the lead does everything it needs to. It's difficult to explain the strategy involved in the second hunger strike concisely without confusing the reader. The public opinion is adequately demonstrated with the Sands funeral attendance, and the political fallout was the rise of Sinn Féin. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment There is no mention of the cultural legacy of the hunger strike - the most notable ommission being Some Mother's Son, a Helen Mirren film directly inspired by the hunger strike.--Macca7174_talk 20:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Both that and H3 were in a "See also" section, which was pruned by Ceoil. I've added them back to the Commemorations section, they should be in the article and it seems the most sensible place for them. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The 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 21:28, 30 August 2007.

[edit] Oxidative phosphorylation‎

Self nomination. Article is currently a GA and is 65 kb in size. Tim Vickers 23:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Very impressive. One of the best technical scientific articles I've read here on Wikipedia. —Verrai 05:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comments from User:AshLin

I'm the GA reviewer of this article but being non tech and having done it a month plus ago, I have regained my newbie POV. Para 3 of the lead needs modification.

• - :The energy released as electrons flow through this ...electron transport chain is used to transport protons across the inner mitochondrial membrane. This generates a pH gradient and a electrical potential across this membrane. The energy is released as protons flow back across ...the membrane and down this gradient, through a large enzyme called ATP synthase.

Shouldnt release of energy be involved in only one of the flows? You have energy released first as electrons flow across then as protons flow across. Please clarify. AshLin 05:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Reworded to try to make clearer that energy is transferred from one form to another as part of this process. Tim Vickers 14:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Tim, In this sentance,

For example, the oxidation of the 10 NADH and 2 succinate molecules created during the complete oxidation of one molecule of glucose to carbon dioxide and water, produces about 26 ATP molecules.[4] In contrast glycolysis only produces 2 molecules of ATP. This ATP yield is the theoretical maximum value, in practice some protons leak across the membrane, lowering the yield of ATP.[5]

the ATP yield appears to point to that of glycolysis rather than P. Oxid. because of its juxtaposition. Could it be rewritten so that the glycolysis yield is mentioned first and high ATP yield of P. Oxid. is later, so that the statement This ATP yield is the theoretical... yield of ATP. now cannot be confused to mean something else. AshLin 16:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point, rearranged. Tim Vickers 16:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support. AshLin 17:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Previous reviewer: please don't segment the page (see instructions). This is an excellent article at first look. Can you fix a few MOS things: some hyphens for page ranges remain in the bib. Minus signs (see MOS), not hyphens, in the table. Lead: "in eukaryotes" needs a matching comma. "An redox"? Tony 14:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hyphens fixed, "An redox" zapped, comma added, and a new type of dash added to the table. Tim Vickers 14:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I never look at who the nominator is: no wonder it's excellent! Tony 13:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Avala 16:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support, very nice article of a good size for the topic, with excellent referencing and clear, helpful images. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Will serve as a good model for other articles. --Arcadian 20:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support - This article is the heights of brilliancy! Luxurious.gaurav 10:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. An excellent article, generally as clear as an article on something so technical stands much chance of being, well referenced, up to date and well illustrated.
  • My main problem is with the history section, which seems rather terse, oddly placed at the end, and unlinked to the main text; for example, how does chemiosmotic theory link with the main text?

Argh, terrible omission. Added definition of chemiosmosis and link in first section and lead. Hopefully, that gives more context. It goes best at the end though, since it discusses the discovery of things that are defined and explained above.

• • The alternative reductases and oxidases section felt a little brief. Are these alternative reactions substitutive or additive? What proportion of oxidative phosphorylation do they handle, where used?

Expression levels are variable, as noted at end of section on what advantages they may confer. No single simple answer I'm afraid.

• • A glossary might help newbies to understand the terminology, especially the numerous different names for the complexes. Care should be taken to choose one main naming convention and stick with it, eg in complex III figure caption, a different name is used from the text.

Caption fixed, I get rather lost in all the alternative names myself. I'm worried that hyperlinks and a glossary would be redundant. As I've gone along I've created articles on anything needing defining, so if there are any terms remaining unlinked that need articles, I'll do these as well.

• • The article uses US spelling, and should therefore standardise on 'heme'. I've done a lot of this, but complex II figure needs changing.

Fixed. Damn colonials.

• • In section on complex II, I couldn't make sense of 'As this reaction releases less energy than the reduction of oxidation of NADH' -- seems to be either a typo or a bad phrasing.

Typo, fixed.

• • In section on complex III, could mention that ubisemiquinone (Q.-) is a free radical.

Added.

• • Organisation of complexes section -- 'Initially, the respiratory chain complexes were thought to diffuse freely and independently in the mitochondrial membrane' is little unclear. When does initially refer to? Can you provide a reference?

Reworded and ref added.

• • In the Prokaryotic section, it read a little oddly when the introduction stated that the section would concentrate on E. coli, but later introduced Nitrobacter. I'd suggest separating these into sub-sections. Can the repetitive sentences that book-end the table be amalgamated? The sentence that starts 'This flexibility is possible' reads as a little clumsy; could you just say 'use the same ubiquinone pool'?

Reworded as you suggest and added ref.

• • The headers in the table on E. coli need some definitions, eg redox pair, midpoint potential. Can you give some idea of how common usage of these different redox pairs are?

These terms are all linked, defining "Midpoint potential" in particular would need an entire section of its own, which I added to the article I linked to, rather than this one. I've added an explanation of what "midpoint potential" indicates in practice to the last sentence above the table.

• • ATP synthase section -- the aside on vacuolar H+ATPases was a little confusing; perhaps it could be moved? 'Rotation might be caused by changes in the ionization of amino acids in this ring' (paragraph 4) 'in this ring' needs clarifying. I'd suggest not referencing colours of the diagram in the text as the text should stand alone if the figure is removed or changed.

On the other hand, if the figures change, the text can be changed as well, I think the colours are particularly important to help readers follow the animation.

• • I wondered whether colour coding for oxidised and reduced in various of the figures might be helpful?
  • The minus in e- is rather small in the figures.

Either minus enlarged in complex I and IV, or figure enlarged in complex III.

• • Figure captions use dash to introduce text, which is rather confusing given the abundance of hyphens in the compound names. Perhaps change to a colon or full stop?

Switched to colons.

• • Can 1st diagram on ATP synthase be modified to show the path of the protons?

Espresso Addict 16:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support. This is FAC quality. I do have some comments and points were I (who never took Biochemistry) was confused.
  • Lead: I found the lead to be a little weak. I would like to see it introduce chemiosmosis (which is never mentioned in article text outside of the History section despite being used in subtitles and hatnotes). I would also like to see it clarify that "eletron transport chain" does not always mean the specific version used by mitochondria. I was confused by that point into thinking that the "Energy transfer by chemiosmosis" section was only talking of eukaryotes. Also the last two-sentance paragraph is very awkward.

Lead reworded to define chemiosmosis and electron transport chains.

• • Energy transfer by chemiosmosis: As I said above the term chemiosmosis is never mentioned in this section, which is confusing. I think it does give a nice overview, but when first reading it I couldn't understand that is was to be an overview and not the first step. I think it could be titled better.

Retitled "Overview of energy transfer by chemiosmosis".

• • Eukaryotic electron transport chains: This whole section is so good at times I forgot the article was meant to be about more than this. I understand the reasons, but it would be nice if the introductory paragraphs contained a disclaimer about why so much focus is given here.

Done, in second paragraph of this section's lead.

• • Electron transfer flavoprotein-Q oxidoreductase: This appears to me to be an "an alternative entry point to the electron transport chain." If I am correct, is there a reason it is not labeled as such like Complex II is. If I am wrong where does it fit in with the rest of the chain?

This is a quirk of the nomenclature for historical reasons that I'm not very clear about, I've reworded the first sentence of this and complex II to try to clarify their respective roles.

• • Prokaryotic electron transport chains: Can we have some illustrations here. Every illustration seems to involve a mitochondria. Also a short explanation of what midpoint potential would be useful, the link is not (unless of course you already understand it and expect the link to give you the detailed math).

Now defined in last sentence of text above table.

• • Reactive oxygen species: Molecular oxygen is . . . a strong oxidizing agent This sentence opens the section and seems a bit . . . circular. Can this be actually explained. "Oxidizing agent" to me means something that can not be shipped together with flammables. Also you mention the mitochondrial answer to this problem, what is the prokaryote answer?

Reworded to say "cells" rather than "mitochondria" as this is a universal problem in aerobic life.

• • Big picture: Maybe these thoughts have no place in this particular article, but I can't help wondering. This is obviously a key process, it seems to be the "raison d'être" of mitochondria. So I wonder is it? The sometimes-advantage of prokaryotes having a more flexible process is mentioned, but their also must be a disadvantage to that system. What advantage do mitochondria offer that explain their continued existence? I think it must have to do with this whole process. Does the evolution of this process and it varied forms deserve coverage in this article?--BirgitteSB 18:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The "raison d'être" of mitochondria, as you put it, is increased surface area. That benefits oxidative phosphorylation, but it also benefits other metabolic functions that gain from having more membrane to work with. More membrane space allows more copies of the same enzymes, which allows those processes to occur in more places at once. At least, that's what high school biology taught me that I haven't since forgotten. —Verrai 05:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Some small cleanups here and there I'm fixing as I find them, but nothing show(i.e.,FA)-stopping. (forgot to mention: very nice, comprehensive article covering the material well for multiple target audiences). DMacks 22:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Typography question: in the enzymes and substrates table, do enzyme names contain the formatting of the underlying chemical terms? That is, should the "D" in "D-amino acid dehydrogenase" be small-caps, given that it represents the D optical isomer configuration? Likewise, should the "N" in "Trimethylamine N-oxide reductase" be italicized per IUPAC rules for locants? DMacks 16:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, enzyme names should follow chemical nomenclature, fixed the ones you mentioned. Tim Vickers 16:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The 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 18:13, 25 August 2007.

[edit] Orion (mythology)

Self nomination. I took this article in hand, after several complaints on the talk page that previous versions were pushing one interpretation of Greek mythology; but the result seems to be largely stable. I have avoided sythesizing a narrative out of the several different tellings of this myth in antiquity. It would be WP:SYNTH to assert that all the somewhat inconsistent authors are incomplete versions of some ur-story. I have also tried to avoid giving any undue weight to any of the modern interpretations of Greek mythology.

This has been to Peer Review, and the chief comment was "What influence has this myth had, aside from being a source for mythographers?" The answer seems to be: Not much. I have included such references to Orion, the myth as opposed to the constellation, in modern culture as I can find. Project Orion is not one; Ted Taylor took the name out of the sky at random.

I believe this complies with WP:MOS on such points of detail as the placement of footnotes. Please feel free to correct any oversights in such matters yourselves. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Fixes needed - I'm a bit busy but just on a quick look there are some preliminary housekeeping issues - refs need ISBNs and some other info such as publisher an location where available - putting in cite format would be really helpful. I'd also make that a subsection of footnotes above. Also, many paragraphs are short and the prose a bit choppy. I'll be back in a day or two but there's plenty to get started on. These things need addressing before a closer look. If not done in 2-3 days I'll be happy to chip in. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll see which of these references have ISBN's; they are not brandnew books. I dislike the {{cite}} tags; they are invisible to the reader, andall they do is provide formating information which is more maintainable if done by hand. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Both the Graves and the older Kerenyi have no ISBNs for the edition consulted, but I was able to find ISBNs for reprints. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

PS: The lead should summarise the article - as is it meanders a bit and could do with reorganizing

Doubtless I am too familiar with it; it seems to me to fit the article well. Could you do a draft of what you have in mind? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

An excellent, well-referenced article. This should certainly be the template for other entries on figures from classical mythology. The complete referencing of the multipe and conflicting ancient accounts is certainly a great improvement on the usual attempt by encyclopedia to streamline these stories. To completely round off the article a brief section on the appearance of Orion in classical art would be perfect -- his appearance or lack thereof. The LIMC should have some information on this topic (a site/book linked to on the [Greek mythology] page. --Theranos 10:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

An excellent suggestion, which I have now followed; unfortunately LIMC does not return anything; neither does Perseus Project, here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think that there is any better encyclopedic article on Orion; thus I have no other choice but to support this well-researched and well-worked article, despite my reservations. And my reservations - proposals for improvement at the same time - are mainly concentrated on the following issues:

• Prose: sometimes I get the impression it gets choppy and a bit seamless. Especially the last paragraphs in "Variants", the whole "Relationships", and the first half of "Modern Interpretations" are IMO a bit problematic: too short sentences not well inter-connected. See also paragraphs like this one: "An inscription cataloged by epigraphist Louis Robert shows that the veneration of Orion at Tanagra extended well into Roman times.[6] Hyria (Orion's purported birthplace) lay in the territory of Tanagra.[7] Orion could be a considered "national hero" to the region, and he may have been the divine champion of the Boeotians to which an Athenian epigram attributed their defeat at the Battle of Coronea. [8]" The sentence "Hyria (Orion's purported birthplace) lay in the territory of Tanagra." is in the middle of nowhere. In general I agree with the "dry" comment of Anomie in the peer-review, and I think you should make the flow of the prose a bit "smoother".
  • The prose you discuss is largely new, an effort to supply some of the omissions Anomie saw; I'll have a read-through. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I have rewritten the passages mentioned, and added topic sentences. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• "There are, as often, numerous variants in other authors; most of these are incidental mentions in poems and scholiasts. Vergil, for instance, shows[30] Orion, as a giant, not walking on the Aegean, but wading through it." In cases like this one I feel that the citation would be better placed at the end of the sentence.
  • Probably right Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Something I may not have got correctly. We have two versions of his death: 1) Artemis hit and killed him. 2) Earth created the Scorpion; and then what? I may imagine what happened but ... And it is Scorpio or Scorpion?
  • He fought with, or (in other sources) was pursued by, the Scorpion, which stung him so that he died. Thanks for the pair of eyes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    • This was said under Hesiod's version, of which this passage is a variant. But I've spelled it out. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The name of the species (and the proper translation of the ancient texts) is scorpion; the common name of the constellation is Scorpio; its proper name appears to be Scorpius. I;ll add a note. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Since Orion (constellation) is linked within the text (in the lead), do you really need the "See also" section?
  • It was linked within the text, when someone felt a need to add the See also anyway. I don't really care either way, myself; but it may be a reader service. Maybe we should add Scorpius (constellation). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• I did not go in detail through the "Notes" and "References", and, therefore, I cannot comment on any possible inconsistencies with MoS.--Yannismarou 14:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The article needs a copyedit by a third-party. These are some examples of prose problems:

• "It also has different death story" - missing "a"?
  • Done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• "Several sources tell different stories of how Artemis killed Orion, either with her arrows, or by producing the Scorpion." I think "several" should be replaced by "other"
  • No, it shouldn't. See below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• "Ancient poets differed greatly on who it was that Aesculapius brought back from the dead; for which Zeus killed him with a lightning bolt." - the semi-colon should be a comma. Who did Zeus kill: Aesculapius or the person brought back from the dead?
  • Rephrased for other reasons. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• "In the Odyssey, Ulysses sees him hunting in the Underworld, a great slayer of animals, with a bronze club; but he is also mentioned as a constellation, as the lover of the Goddess Dawn - slain by Artemis; and as the most handsome of the earthborn." - was the Underworld a great slayer of animals? The semi-colon before "but" should be a comma. The comma after "constellation" should be a semi-colon. The hyphen should either be a spaced en dash or an unspaced em dash.
  • This is the same delusion as below that equal main clauses, in the presence of semicolons, can be separated by commas. There should be a comma after Artemis; anyone who wishes to play with hyphens is free to do so. and i've changed the punctuating nyphen. 02:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• "Hyginus also connects him with several constellations"– the "also" is redundant
  • No, it isn't. But the real flaw here is that the same construction was used in two consecutive paragraphs. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• "until Zeus intervened and raised the whole lot to the stars" - "the whole lot" isn't encyclopedic
  • Paedantry, but I've changed for other reasons.. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• "the story that he chases the Pleiades themselves goes back to the Works and Days." - "that" should be replaced by "in which". Who is "he"? "Goes back to" isn't encyclopedic. "Themselves" is redundant.
  • The core of this sentence is "Orion chased the mother of the Pleiades; he chased the Pleiades themselves." Themselves is not redundant; it is mandatory. But it may be that this has been overly elaborated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Rephrased. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "Goes back to" is three English syllables. This is better than five Latinate ones; there are enough learned polysyllables in the article already. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• "sources vary in what they include; but the major incidents" - the semi-colon should be a comma
  • This is a compound sentence; the second half includes not only commas, but semicolons; dividing with a comma would be a hierarchy error. Compare Fowler's Modern English Usage "Stops", §Semi-colons. But it may be that the sentence should be divided. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• PDF sources need to be labelled.
  • So they do. All three of them now are. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Page ranges in the footnotes need en dashes rather than hyphens. Epbr123 10:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Some of these are valuable; and the article does need a copyedit. I disagree on others; in general, schoolmarm English is a bug, not a feature. On still others, Epbr123 would cut information in his copy edit; in particular, there are multiple sources which say that Artemis killed Orion, more numerous than those which say, like Hesiod, that Gaea did. "Other sources tell different stories of how Artemis killed Orion" would lose this implication. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • As often above, Epbr123 has found points where the prose genuinely needs consideration. It would be more helpful if he had identified the problems correctly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm just letting you know that you should never strike through other users' comments. Thanks. Epbr123 11:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Feel free to unstrike; this was only a way of marking which comments are now moot, since they deal with particular pieces of the text which have been changed. Other comments are welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose—Support. 1a and MOS. Here are a few of the many issues. Please don't just fix these. Someone new should run through the whole text (it's worth it—the article has merit, but fails thus far).
  • "fairly obscure"—Like "quite" and "very", "fairly" is unencyclopedically vague.
    • Not my writing, as it happens; but it seems a reasonable summary of the facts. Pseudo-Eratosthenes and Telesarchus may be truly obscure; but the Bibliotheke and Hyginus, while not anywhere near as well known as Hesiod or Horace, are only fairly obscure. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "the margins of ancient poets"—what, around their waists?
  • Why the blue background for Note 2? I hope that "dubious" really is authoritatively justified in this source.
    • I don't see any blue background, or any reason there should be one; it may be a isolated computer interaction. As for the content, see the quotations from OCD in the footnote; if "ignorance", "forgery" do not justify dubious, what would? . Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
      • The blue background is a feature of cite.php; when you click on a citation the corresponding note is highlighted in blue. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Notes: "572-7" and many other instances—Read MOS on number ranges (en dash and double closing digit. required). Same for References.
  • "most of the stories of him are only recorded in incidental allusions"—No, position "only" as far to the right as possible: this is ambiguous.
    • Where did you find this rule of thumb? "Only" should be next to the word it modifies; again, see Modern English Usage — or any other competent authority. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "Corinna sang of Orion conquering and naming all the land of the dawn.[29]"—Is this a whole paragraph? There are other similarly stubby paras.
  • MOS breach concerning quotation italics.
    • Where? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• MOS breach concerning ranges (en dash).
  • MOS breach concerning period in captions. Tony 14:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support -- Excellent and enlightening. Nothing that would improve the article is immediately obvious to me. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: This article has 82 footnotes, in small font. Anyone who can see the difference between a hyphen and an ndash, at that scale, and feels the labor of changing them the most effective contribution they can make to WP, or to this article, should feel free to do so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Use Find and Replace. Epbr123 17:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't edit in Word; I have only Wikipedia's buttons. If it's easier for you, go ahead. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
      • How about Internet Explorer's Find and Replace? Epbr123 18:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
        • First I knew it had one; and I can't find it on their help. Now I'm sure that's just MicroSoft doing its usual job; but if this minor flaw is so easy to fix, why not do a service to WP, and fix it? I certainly wouldn't revert; as I said, I can't see the difference in the <small> font. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

          Using a non-Microsoft browser, and perhaps two minutes of my time, I have searched for the hyphen-minus character (U+002D) and replaced it with an en dash character (U+2013) where appropriate. I believe some editors may prefer to see an HTML character entity, "&ndash;", but I have followed my usual practice in UTF-8 and used the actual character, "–", found below the edit window as the first "Insert" item. --KSmrq^T 05:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

          Thanks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In other news, I've asked several places for a copyeditor. If they agree with Epbr123 in wanting a comma splice, or Tony1 in his desire to call a source 40% obscure, and to separate "only" from the word it modifies, so be it; English is established by consensus. For my part, I am relieved that it is such details we are discussing, instead of Yannismarou's substantive qualms, which I hope I have answered. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support - fulfils criteria. Much improved than when I last looked. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I see Matisse is now copyediting. I will review the results next week when I come back from vacation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Conditional Support Support conditional upon the above and below additional issues brought forth by other editors being addressed. Please reformat all images to default size IAW WP:MoS#Images. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Huh? If any image was not sized "thumb", alone, as the section linked to recommends, Matisse has fixed it. Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended; while there are exceptions, I do not see any examples of them here. Which of these images is not default size? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment - I changed the images to the default because I read — BQZip01 — ^talk's comment above. So at the time the comment was made, the images were not default. Mattisse 11:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Please check the Footnotes for appropriateness, completeness and format. Example: "Another mythographer, Liberalis, tells of Menippe and Metioche, daughters of Orion, who sacrificed themselves for their country's good and were transformed into comets." The footnote to this sentence leads to a wikilink of an article on Antoninus Liberalis plus a page number. I do not see a work by Antoninus Liberalis under References. Thank you. Mattisse 14:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  This is the quite standard method of citing poems and classical texts, by book and chapter, paragraph, or line; one example of it is cited in WP:ATTFAQ. I have added the (redundant) information that the title of Liberalis' work is the Metamorphoses and that 25 is a section number; Liberalis' work is the only thing he wrote, and is a single book. When, as usual, the division is standard across editions, it is both customary and preferable to citing the page of a specific edition, which is useless to anyone who does not have access to that edition.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  WP:ATTFAQ is not a current standard and the page is being retained for historical reasons only. Please read WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:RS. Mattisse 11:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

  I watched the implosion of WP:ATT and WP:ATTFAQ at close hand. Large parts of them were controversial and widely deprecated; large parts of them were never disputed. This is one of the latter; it should be salvaged. If WP:CITE doesn't say anything about using the methods of citing usual in a given field of scholarship, it really ought to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Further comment—It's much improved, but there's a remaining issue: the breach of MOS in the persistent use of a single closing digit for page ranges in the notes/references. It can't pass until these are fixed. Tony 10:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)^{[citation needed]}
  • Done. Where is this rule? It's not in WP:MOS#En_dashes, where one would expect it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I'm supporting in terms of readability and this being an informative article. I learnt a fair amount reading it, and nothing really jumped out except one thing: is it possibly to have something on the name? I'll explain in more detail below. Carcharoth 23:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Etymology. Is Orion the English translation of the Greek name? Would it be possible to have (a) the original Greek name given somewhere (in the Greek alphabet); and (b) the point at which the name Orion entered the English language - was it it, for example, a recent translation from a Greek or Latin text, or does the name enter the English language much earlier? I realise this is an article about the mythical person, not the etymology of the name, but I wondered if a paragraph or two on this would be possible? I brief look at this etymology suggests that a brief discourse on this could touch on Orion in other cultures as well, though that may veer too far towards the constellation material. Essentially, what I am asking is how much does Orion, the Greek myth, influence the words and myth of Orion that spread to other cultures? I see there has been discussion on the talk page of the Greek etymology (did this get dropped?), and some of the possible precursor concepts (was this also dropped?), but not much on the transmission of the name and myth after Greek times. The etymology I linked to above says: "1398, from Gk. Oarion, of unknown origin, though some speculate on Akkadian Uru-anna "the Light of Heaven." Another Gk. name for it was Kandaon, a title of Ares, god of war, and it is represented in most cultures as a giant (e.g. O.Ir. Caomai "the Armed King," O.N. Orwandil, O.S. Ebuðrung)." (Orwandil = Orvandil, the other links mostly don't work; Gk. is Ancient Greek, O.Ir is Old Irish, O.N is Old Norse, O.S. is Old Saxon). Most of this, may, of course, be to do with the constellation, not the Greek mythical figure, and the 'Modern' section does touch on this. It might be helpful to ferret out approximately when the English began to refer to the constellation as Orion, and what they called it before that, and how this relates to the Greek myth. Carcharoth 23:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Orion is the transliteration of the Greek. I'm not sure when the Anglo-Saxons began to use the Greek constellations; presumably before Solomon and Saturn. For Candaon, see that article; what sources I can find on that obscure name regard the identification with the hero Orion as doubtful; the constellation is another question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
      • OK, is it possible to say in the article that the name Orion is a transliteration from the original Greek, and to give the Greek it is transliterated from? And to say when it was first transliterated (in modern times, and earlier times, back to A-S times)? Just some sort of idea when people would have first been using the English word 'Orion' and whether they would have meant the constellation or the hero or both. The transliteration bit should be easy - the rest might be harder, so don't worry if there are no definite answers in the sources. Carcharoth 09:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I found "Orion (Ωρίων)" if that helps? I also found The Greek Wikipedia article on the constellation, but I don't know enough about the differences between modern and ancient Greek. Carcharoth 10:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Update: the article now has the original Greek as well, that's wonderful. Thanks. Carcharoth 13:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
        • The transliteration dates back at least to Cicero; I hope this implicitly answers that question also. I simply don't know when Orion is first mentioned in English; IIRC the constellation is attested in Chaucer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Dates. Could the historical context be made clearer by scattering a few "2nd century BC" and similar references through the text? eg. Hesiod ~ 700BC, Homer 7-8 century BC. There are vague phrases like "as late as the Roman Empire" (relies on the reader knowing the dates of the Roman Empire - better to give a date range). Natalis Comes - say that this is now 16th century. Phrases like "There was a movement a century ago" will date - in 20 years times, people will be unclear what you are referring to. Give the dates of the movement, as well as saying "a century ago". Also, many of cultural references are missing dates, eg. in the last sentence. And the last sentence is a bit of a poor ending. I think the ending of an article is as important as the start. Bring the narrative to a close in some way. Carcharoth 23:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Dates are a useful idea. I'll see what I can do; one problem is that the dates of most of the sources are doubtful; for example, the Astronomy may not even be by Hesiod, and Hesiod's date (and identity) are disputed.
    • I will see if I can think of a way to end the whole article with a bang; I am accustomed to newspaper style, which encourages articles to trail off with the least important elements. The modern cultural uses are last because they depend on the explanation of the myth in the rest of the article, and I don't see any slambang finish there; but I've put Eliot last, as the best available. Suggestions are welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The best I can see is the passage

      The other, which Diodorus ascribes to Hesiod, relates that there was once a broad sea between Sicily and the mainland. Orion built the whole Peloris, the Punta del Faro, and the temple to Poseidon at the tip, after which he settled in Euboea. He was then "numbered among the stars of heaven and thus won for himself immortal remembrance".

    But this is the logical end to the myth, not the article - it used to be the end of that section. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

    • I suggest finding a source that summarises the whole range, from antiquity to modern times, and, well, paraphasing them in a few sentences at the end. Carcharoth 09:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
      • The whole range of literary uses of Orion? That would be very useful; I would be glad to use one if it exists, but I haven't seen any. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Ending with the picture is a nice touch. I like it! Carcharoth 13:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Why does this bit "The margin of the Empress Eudocia's copy", link Eudocia (presumably a woman) with the man Euphorion of Chalcis? Needs more explanation. Carcharoth 10:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The footnote was misplaced in the copy-edit. In general, I have tried to keep obscure names (Euphorion, Apollodorus, Liberalis) in footnotes, and restrict the text to writers the general reader may have heard of before, like Homer, Ovid and Lucian. The link appears to be some effort at disambiguation; unfortunately, my source simply said Eudocia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
      • It would be interesting to know which Eudoxia, but as you say, if the sources fall silent there is not much to be done. Carcharoth 13:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "One modern critic suggests this is the original version." - the footnote says "Fontenrose" - some readers will know to then look at the Bibliography, and see you mean the book by Fontenrose published in 1981. Others will find this too obscure and not understand what you've said here. Can you not set things up so people can click Fontenrose in the reference, and be taken to the bibliography? Carcharoth 10:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    • A useful idea. I don't think {{ref}}, {{notes}} mechanic will do that; but I'll see. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Your use of op cit works well. The Wikipedia article on op cit was interesting to find. Carcharoth 13:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "Now, in the twentieth century..." - we are now in the 21st century. Pre-ceding sentence needs changing as well (the "a century ago" bit). Carcharoth 10:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "Philip Glass has also written a shorter work on Orion, as have Tōru Takemitsu,[78] Kaija Saariaho,[79] and John Casken.[80] David Bedford's late-twentieth-century works are about the constellation rather than the mythical figure as he is an amateur astronomer.[81]" - the date details here are shoved down to footnotes, and the other details (Japanese, Finnish, English) are only available if people click on the links. It feels like you've shortened a trivia list here. I'd suggest either including them properly, or leaving out. Carcharoth 11:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I see you've rewritten to deal with this. I would prefer to keep them for now; it's not as if we are overflowing with cultural references. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment for now. I didn't have the time to read the whole article yet, but I will do so within the next couple of days. It looks good so far. Except:
  • "He is described as a great hunter in the ancient Greek epic, the Odyssey, when Odysseus meets him in the underworld." Are "great hunter" the words used by Homer? In that case, quotation marks would be appropriate.
    • No, not an exact quotation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "In the Odyssey, Ulysses sees him hunting in the underworld, a great slayer of animals with a bronze club, and he is also mentioned as a constellation as the lover of the Goddess Dawn—slain by Artemis—and as the most handsome of the earthborn." Though I don't feel very strongly about this and definately wouldn't insist on it, it might be better to either use Ulysses or Odysseus, to make the article easier to follow for people who don't know much about the Odyssey.
    • Both Ulysses and Odyssey are English usage; the first instance above should be changed, thanks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "In several cases, although the work that has come down to us bears the name of a famous scholar, such as Apollodorus of Athens, Eratosthenes, or Gaius Julius Hyginus, what survives is often an ancient forgery or an abridgment of the original compilation by a later writer of dubious competence." Again, I don't feel very strongly about this either, but I think using first person pronouns just sounds really unprofessional.
    • Standard English idiom, especially in this field; but we can use "surviving", I suppose. I have changed; "surviving" is shorter, but I think less vivid. If anyone else misses the idiom, do change back. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I've had quite a few English teachers discourage any use of first person pronouns in formal writing, so I guess I'm kind of allergic to it. Anyway, according to WP:MOS: "it is sometimes appropriate to use we or one when referring to an experience that anyone, any reader, would be expected to have, such as general perceptual experiences". So using "us" is without question within the bounds of Wikipedia policy, I personally really dislike it though.--Carabinieri 20:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "When they offered him a favor, he asked for the birth of sons. The gods took the bull's hide and ejaculated, or urinated, into it[11] and buried it in the earth, then told him to dig it up ten lunations later." Evem if it's not exactly the same thing, I think months will do in place of "lunations".
    • I thought about "months"; but lunations may help to explain why ten and not nine; but it could use a footnote. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I think writing "nine months" in the prose and adding that "ten lunations" was used in the book in a footnote would be the best solution. Reading the article, I didn't associate this with the length of the human gestation period and I doubt the readers will.--Carabinieri 20:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Already done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "A second full telling (even shorter than the summary of Hesiod) is in a Roman-era collection of myths based largely on the mythologist and poet Pherecydes of Leros." Neither webster.com, nor askoxford.com list "telling" as a noun. Are you sure this is correct usage?--Carabinieri 16:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
    • This is the English gerund, which see. This is not listed in dictionaries any more than the participle or the third person singular, for the same reason: they are regular derivatives of the present stem. (Perhaps less so, since in English, unlike other Germanic languages, the gerund is spelled exactly like the participle.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
    • References to something being a "re-telling" is possibly a more common way to encounter this. A Google search for a full telling confirms that telling can be used this way. Carcharoth 20:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I've now finished reading the article. I think it's close to FA, but there are still a few issues. Especially the third in this list bothers me and keeps me from supporting:
  • "One modern critic suggests this is the original version." I think the critic deserves to be called by his name. Though this isn't a case of WP:AWW, because the source of the statement is given in the footnote, I think it would be better to make this more obvious or explicit. Why not "Joseph Fontenrose, classical scholar at the University of California, Berkeley, suggests ..."?
    • Because it would be verbose. Fontenrose is fully credited with his interpretation below; this is a side issue. Given the necessary emphasis on the three gods below, it seems useful to have the disagreement here in the text; anyone who cares which scholar has a footnote. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "Peck, p.200; giving Hyginus's etymology for Urion, but describing it as "fantastic". Oeneus from Kerenyi Gods, citing Servius's note to Aeneid 10.763; which actually reads Oenopion; but this may be corruption." Peck isn't in the list of references. Is this supposed to be Pack?
    • Yes, thank you. Fixed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "Other ancient scholia say, as does Hesiod, that Orion was the son of Poseidon and his mother was a daughter of Minos; but they call the daughter Brylle or Hyeles." Now that is a bit weasly. There are more cases of this: "Latin sources", "Other mythographers", "One source", "Later mythographers, etc. Wouldn't it be easier to just name these sources/mythographers?
    • I doubt it would be easier. There are three classes of ancient sources here:
      1. The general reader may be expected to have heard of Hesiod, Ovid, Lucian, and so forth; or at least to recognize that they are someone literate people have heard of. These are named in the text.
      2. Names like Apollodorus, Hyginus, Servius, and Euphorion are likely to be more intimidating than useful. It is useful to identify Servius as Latin; it may be useful to identify him as third century AD, or the annotator of Vergil; but his name will help only a small minority, and they won't need the other identifications. These names are in the notes, as far as practicable, which further include (for Eratosthenes, Apollodorus, and Hyginus) the consensus assertion that the work that has come down to us bearing the name X is almost certainly not by X. Explaining this in the text would be digressive.
      3. Several of the sources are anonymous scholia, only citable with such forms as "scholiast to Nicander's Theriaca, l. 15." These are not in the text; sometimes, they are not in the notes, because no Wikipedian has consulted them. These cannot be named; in some cases, the scholiast does not cite any source. There are footnotes citing Frazer's notes to Apollodorus, and Kerenyi; these are where I found them.

    This is in part a reaction to the form I found, which repeatedly wrote of Pseudo-Eratosthenes. I found this confusing and unnecessary, and I'm a classicist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

    • • I doubt repeating the words "source" and "mythographer" over and over is particularly useful. Who's going to be intimidated by Latin and Greek names? Even if most people won't know who these people are, they'll figure they are sources or mythographers and in some cases would even be helped by links to the articles about the sources/mythographers. What I'm saying is there's no harm in naming the people.--Carabinieri 23:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I'll do a read-through, and see if there is avoidable repetition. All I can say about intimidation is that I was. These are the most obscure authors imaginable; having their names thrown at me as though I might be expected to know them was daunting. Furthermore, I had at least heard of some of them; and there were fewer of them then than now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Done; there were only three uses of "mythographer" in the whole grand section, and I disposed of two. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "Orion is used by Horace, who tells of his death at the hands of Diana/Artemis" WP:MOS discourages the use of slashes, "as it suggests that the two are related, but does not specify how".
    • The relation between Diana and Artemis is explained under Diana (mythology), to whom this links. Many readers will require no explanation; some readers will require the long form. The short form would be "the Roman name for Artemis", and that is incomplete to the point of error. It seems clumsy to insert an digression on the relation between Greek and Roman divinities in the middle of a sentence on Horace. Perhaps another note. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Added note. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support --Vonones 00:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The 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 18:13, 25 August 2007.

[edit] Triptych, May–June 1973

Self nom. 1973 triptych by the Irish artist Francis Bacon, and the second in his series of three "Black Triptychs". Thanks to Outriggr for help with the prose. Ceoil 17:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak support - Overall good job, but I'm still not thrilled at the way the frist couple paragraphs under Biographical context read. Otherwise, good.--Esprit15d 19:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Oppose: Overall, the article is good -- very thorugh and well researched. But I feel the composition could use some improvement. Of the four featured article criteria, I recommend addressing the following:

1. Basic criteria met?:

1a. Well written?

• "when he painted" - during this time painting (when isn't totally right)
• "from the event," - rm the comma

Done. Ceoil 09:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• As I was reading the biographical context section, I found the first ten sentences or so a bit disjointed and jarring - not in content but order. One minute we were reading a Dyer bio, then suddenly about Bacon's attraction to him. I would start off the whole section with this "Bacon's prior affairs had all been with older men, and though those men were similarly tumultuous, Bacon had been the one who was dominated. Bacon's first lover Peter Lacy would often tear up the young artist's paintings, and in drunken rages, beat up him up, and leave him on the street half conscious."[9] In contrast, Bacon was attracted to Dyer's vulnerability and trusting nature. Then, start a new paragraph after "...between theft, borstal, and jail." Group information describing Dyer's general demeanor and appearance together, followed by the sentence beginning "Dyer was typical of Bacon's taste..." (this sentence should be preceded by the sentence beginning "Dyer was a borderline alcoholic...") The rearrangement most probably will necessitate some rephrasing for clarity. This sentence: "However, over time those traits overwhelmed their affair, and by 1970, Bacon was just providing Dyer with enough money to stay more or less permanently drunk." should probably be moved to later on, to follow the chronological progression of the section.

Outriggr has looked after this. Ceoil 09:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• This sentence "Many critics have cited Dyer's portraits as favourites, including Michel Leiris and Lawrence Gowling." would be better placed in a Critical response section (or something similarly named)

There is not enough published material available to create a "critical reception" section. Very often Bacon's paintings went straight into private collections, and though I was unable to find out for sure, I think thats what hapened here. Paintings are not like albums; they are not "released", and generally Bacon's paintings did not ssurface until they were featured in retrospectives. Ceoil 09:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• "to draw Bacon's attention" - should be followed by a comma

Done. Ceoil 09:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• "he had planted cannabis" - rm "had"

Done. Ceoil 09:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• This sentence "In an effort to draw Bacon's attention he had planted cannabis in Bacon's flat before phoning the police, and had attempted suicide on a number of earlier occasions." breaks up the narrative: (a) What call to the police? (B) Mention the suicide attempts before this (since it occurs before the evening being discussed) probably in the previous paragraph, near the end.
• "along with the deaths of his friends Belcher, Rawsthorn, Watson, Deakin, and his nanny Winifred" - who are these people? They are like a laundry list of unknowns. There deaths might be mentioned earlier OR collectively ("several friends lost over the course of his life") OR add some context for whom these persons are. You might think of a better way to incorporate it.

All notables, except for the nanny, though she was a strong character in herself. I'm very taken by these people, they seem like the kind of persons it would be fun to go for a pint with, expect stubbs. For now outriggr has clarified. Ceoil 13:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

*"Bacon rendered this awareness by pronouncing a wristwatch" - I think pronounce is probably the wrong word; it doens't make much sense here.

Bacon used an interesting technique here, but I haven't explained it properly. Will have a think, deleting until I have a better sentence. Ceoil 13:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• "panel is bounded" - is bound

See comment below. Ceoil 09:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

1b. Comprehensive? I would think there should be a Critical response section. Critique is scattered throughout, sometimes well, sometimes jarringly.

See above. Ceoil 22:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

1c. Factually accurate?

• This sentence "Bacon's treatment of his lover in these canvasses emphasises his subject's physicality while remaining uncharacteristically tender". needs a reference, unless it is already substatiated by reference 11.

Need to check that. Ceoil 09:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The source covers it. Ceoil 13:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

1d. Neutral? Yes

1e. Stable? Yes

2. Complies with Manual of style and relevant WikiProjects?:

2a. Concise lead section? Yes

2b. Hierarchical headings Yes

2c. Table of contents? Yes

2d. Sufficient inline citations? Yes

3. Properly placed, tagged and/or rationalized images?: I question the use of Female Nude Standing in a Doorway 1972 in this article. Its connection to this article is tenuous.

4. Appropriate length?: Yes

When these issues are addressed, notes the changes here and notify me on my talk page. Thank you for your work so far. — Esprit15d 20:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Esprit, for such a considered review; I'll take on board you points and report back when resolved. Ceoil 21:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

A minor note on "is bounded": this seems correct, as the usage is not the past tense of "bind", but "bound (v)--form the boundary of; be contiguous to". See entry four at m-w.com. –Outriggr § 21:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

As a note of interest, I posted two replies to Esprit, but they are not appearing on my screen. one, two. Very odd. Ceoil 14:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC) They were corrupted by a html template which has since been removed. Ceoil 22:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support, meets the criteria in my assessment. D. Recorder 01:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral. I'd like to see more work on the writing. Here are a few morsels to get you going.
• MOS breach in the title: unspaced en dash clearly required, since "1973" applies to both months. Check that the creators got it wrong, I guess.

I've moved the page as suggested. We were unsure of the correct format at the time. Ceoil 22:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• "setting a record for a Bacon canvas"—OK, it's an attempt at elegance, but the metaphor is a little laboured. Do canvases sell for so much? "Work". And later, it's spelt with a double s.

Reworded as "work"; double s is the correct plural form for Brit Eng? Ceoil 22:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• I hate "burglarizing": come on, guys.

Agree, reworded. Ceoil 22:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Our readers shouldn't have to hit the "borstal" link to learn what it means. Gloss on the spot, in a brief phrase.

Rephrased as "juvenile detention center", left it unlinked. Ceoil 22:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Surely BrEng is the go here? Why "spiraled"?

Spiraled was maybe a little over dramatic; reworded with the slightly less excitable "descended"; he did go downhill fairly rapidly. Ceoil 22:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Tony 09:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, "spiraled" is US spelling—that was my point. Tony 15:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I missed that; but I'm sticking with 'descended'. As regards US spelling, this is with a large pinch of salt [88] Anyway, I take your pont and will look over the text for similar lapses. Ceoil 22:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support. That's really good. Nothing wrong with it. --maclean 05:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support LuciferMorgan 12:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The 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 18:13, 25 August 2007.

[edit] Oklahoma

Self Nomination Oklahoma's Centennial is coming up, and the article has undergone extensive renovation. The article is concise, well cited, and comprehensive. Okiefromokla•talk 02:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments Close, but not there yet... Some issues to consider:

• The lead does not really need to be explicitly referenced. I wouldn't necessarily consider removing any refs, but since the lead is a summary, every fact in the lead should be referenced later in the article.
• The economy section seems incomplete. No mention is given to agriculture, yet the lead specifically calls it a "major food producer". Indeed the entire section reads a tad hagiographic. Have there been NO issues, no negative sectors of the Oklahoma economy at ALL?
• The cities and towns section does not explain the defintion of these in an Oklahoma context. Definitions of "cities" and of "towns" varies widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. An explanatory paragraph may help.
• The Brances of Gov't section makes NO mention of the executive, and there are two paragraphs smashed into one. There should be 3 paragraphs here: One for Executive one for Legislative and one for Judicial. Since the one paragraph that is there deals with two unrelated topics (legislative and judicial) it should at LEAST be split.

The article still needs some spit polish. This should be a start. I am sure others will find some issues. It is a pretty darned good start at an FA, but still not quite there yet. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I do note that the agriculture section I added is a little small, but I managed to pick the highlights of some very boring stats and reports. Let me know if you have any suggestions for more content if needed. I added a negative fact to economy (OK is one of the worst states for using of non-renewable energy) but not sure what else to add. I looked at Minnesota (the only state featured article) for some ideas, but its just a rundown of the economic strengths and statistics of that state and not much help. Lastly, I usually argue against removing refs from the lead (my personal feelings), but since every ref in the lead is already in the body, it wouldn't be difficult to remove them if that's what is decided here or if you feel strongly about it. Thanks for the suggestions and thanks in advance for continued input. Okiefromokla•talk 17:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: I reworked the lead a bit and changed the ref layout to be less cluttered. Okiefromokla•talk 02:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Caught one more thing "total of twelve years service in both the House and Senate"... Is that 12 cumulative years, or 12 years per house? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Cumulative. I changed the wording to make it more clear and added a ref since it wasn't in the current one. Okiefromokla•talk 16:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose—Improved; provisional neutral. 1a. Gets off to a cracking pace, and I was looking forward to adding my support. But then I struck trouble as early as the lead:
  • "A hotbed for college athletics"—Some readers will have visions of locker rooms and showers. Reword.

Done

• • See MOS on linking: why are many dictionary words linked? We do speak English. For example, in the lead, "mountain ranges", "forests", "Christianity", "territory", none of them piped to a focused article. Please audit the whole article for these and delink so that high-value links are not diluted.

Will do. Though remember Wikipedia is worldwide. Would you support wikilinking the word Taoism or even Islam? Christianity is not a worldwide religion, and certainly has a point to the article, as it descirbes the overwhelming religious makeup of the state. "Territory" is linked to Territories of the United States, since this is what Indian Territory was, and that's the subject of the sentence. I will go through and comb the lesser-needed wikilinks.

• • What is this doing in the lead? Even without the extraneous stuff, it has problems.

"With a prevalence of German and Native American ancestry, more than 25 languages are spoken in the state, the most in the nation.[12]Hmm...that's funny Manahattan has about 190 and Roges Park in Chicago ( only 1.9 sq miles) has about 120 languages."

That was vandalism added early this morning, its deleted now. About your comment that the lead has problems: You should know that I have a hard time writing great leads. If the lead is really so bad, please give productive suggestions for improving it if needed, rather than opposing the article because of it.

• • "It" (I guess that means Oklahoma) once served as a ... territory for Native Americans. Um, I think it's strange to cast an administrative/political unit of the conquering Europeans as a territory that had any meaning whatsoever to the original owners.

I don't care to argue the socio-political meaning of Indian Territory but during most of the 19th century it was an organized territory designated to Native Ameircans by the federal government, which recieved dozens of relocated tribes. Please read through the history section. I did, however, reword it to make it clear what the terrotory was.

• • "roughly even political makeup"—it's sort of explained in the rest of the sentence, but this is a vague, unsatisfactory expression. And how can political "makeup" (rather informal word for this context) be defined by the number of registered voters for parties: that is only one narrow definition.

I changed the wording to make it more clear.

And at random: "Forests cover approximately 24% of the state"—Remove "approximately"; the lack of decimal point flags that it's approximate. Temperature chart: Ugly Upper-Case Letters And Rather Large Font Size. Plus indicate F/C somewhere. % then percent. Metric equivalents throughout (I noticed acres). Caption for oil machine is missing a word and a hyphen. "Arts and theater"—category problem in that title. Just "Arts". "Fine art museums"—hyphen, I think. "Carries a circulation"? Has. En dashes and hyphens mixed in list of religions.

The section is Art and theater because it talks about art and theater. This is a common section title in FA places, I have never seen anyone object to it. Also, you are incorrect, it is number, then % sign.

Another issue is that all 158 references are to websites, although there are plenty of books in "Further reading". Bit unbalanced.

It is not a requirement for featured articles to be sourced from books. In fact, many editors believe websites should be the only citations since Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and its easy to have the source at your fingertips rather than to have to find a book to check if the statement is accurately cited.

Please engage new collaborators to help sift through the prose of the entire article. What I've mentioned here is just a small sample. This is worth saving and can be brought up to standard if you act now. Tony 11:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting; I have been waiting a while for someone to comment. As you can see, I went through and commented on each of your points, and some of them I do not agree with (I hopefully fixed the issues you pointed out that I didn't comment on). Also, please give more examples of what needs to be "sift"ed out of the prose. I read through it, and it appears fine to me. Okiefromokla•talk 16:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. You need to locate collaborators; fresh eyes are a great advantage at this stage. There are many copy-editors on WP lurking on the edit-history pages of similar articles. Ask them nicely. You've used both "%" and "percent": that was my point—consistency within an article is required. While I was flicking through to confirm that, I found a hyphen used wrongly as a minus sign; have you decided whether your C degree signs will be spaced or unspaced? Read MOS on units of measurement and math. symbols. Tony 00:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I have to say I am very relieved you didn't mean that the "%" sign goes before the percent number... I was a little worried lol. All the %s have been changed to "percent" except for in the religion section, because to paraphrase WP:MOS: "percent" should be used in the body of the text except in complicated lists. I have taken care of other dash/hyphen, metric, temperature degree spacing, and other MOS problems, at least the ones I caught. I will continue to double check for errors periodically, as you might want to as well before supporting the article. About the prose needing a copy-edit, I have asked some editors for help, but I am also frustrated that this wouldn't be something I can't fix on my own. We can wait, of course, for some other editors to comb through the article but I would extremely appreciate any example you could give me so I could also attempt to work on it myself. Any particular sections in need? Any particular specific issues? Also, are you fine with what I have done in response to your previous list of requests? I'd like to cross out all that have been satisfied. Thanks again. Okiefromokla•talk 02:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Left and right side images squeezing text to one word a line. Need to fiddle with them to avoid this. Also at the top of the History section.

I don't know what you mean. With my resolution and pic size preference there are no problems like this anywhere in the article. Usually, the number of words per-line is different for different resolutions or pic prefs, so there really isn't a way for the article to look uniform for every possible setting on each induvidual computer. Someone is bound to get a version that doesn't look as flowing as it does on most resolutions. If I can fix it, I will, but since there isn't any problem on my end I can't see what to do.

• Temperature table: text now obscured.

Not sure what you mean by this, but I increased the font size for good measure.

• 56 and 17 inches; um ... in normal speak, what's that?

I added the metric conversion, if that't what you meant.

*"Man-made"—well, many readers would prefer a gender-neutral term, but it's not mandatory. "Articificial"?

I'm not sure "artificial" is the right word. They're not "artificial" lakes, they're real lakes that were created by dams, so to say they are "artificial" is a little misleading, I think. I'll try to think of a better way to put it in the article maybe.*"United States history"—"American" better?

done.

• "the state had the fastest growing gross domestic product in the nation from 2005 to 2006, with a 10.8 percent rate of growth over the previous year, totaling $134 billion in 2006." "Fastest-growing" avoids possible ambiguity. Remove "over the previous year. We're told this in the lead, too, but nowhere do you provide the GDP per capita, which many readers would like as a measure of wealth.

Removed "over previous year" and inserted GDP per-capita.

*"Economy" section has lots of trivial links, such as "energy" and "government" (??)—they're not even piped to "Energy in Oklahoma". These should all go, so that important ones stand out. This issue hasn't been addressed throughout. I can see about a hundred. All spattered blue, which is harder to read and spoils the nice look of your article.

I went through and eliminated more wikilinks, let me know if its enough. Okiefromokla•talk 16:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Support I don't had time to read this word for word, but it looks good. The lead compiles with WP:LEAD, and I am satisfied with the citations.--milk the cows (Talk) 16:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Support I never did respond after all of the changes were made. This article is much improved, and I am glad to lend my support to it! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Support After briefly looking over this article, I feel that it is worthy of FA status. I'm very impressed with the number of citations. The article is extremely thorough. I wonder if the article may, in fact, go into a bit too much depth in a few sections; perhaps some of that material would be better suited for subarticles? Still, I am fully behind granting this article FA status. Great work! --MatthewUND^(talk) 05:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support
  • Should probably add that there are no major league teams to the start of the sports section
  • Aren't OU/OSU sports the biggest sports draw in the state? Maybe they should be made more prominent in the section.
  • Clarify that PRI is broadcast in the state, not based there (based in in my state :)
  • Need to mention Native American government in some way.
• Other than that it's excellent! It's a lot of work getting a start article to FA isn't it? I worked on Minnesota for months. -Ravedave 04:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I should thank you because I used Minnesota as a rough guideline for content when I and other editors almost completely rewrote this article. I do have a few reservations about a couple of your suggestions though:

• I don't really see reason to clutter the sports section with repetitive information, since it is already clearly stated that: "The NBA's New Orleans Hornets became the first major sports franchise based in Oklahoma when ... " Besides, most states don't have major sports teams, so I don't know if its such an important fact to clearly spell out that Oklahoma doesn't. It should be clear when only minor league professional teams are mentioned in the section.

• I added "minor league" in front of professional, that clears it up for me. Here in MN if you say "professional sports" people think major league, hence my confusion.

• While OU and OSU are certainly large sports attractions, since its a short section and there is limited space, I chose to order the three paragraphs in the most logical order I could: regular professional sports, irregular professional sports (the hornets, golf tournaments, etc), and college sports. I would have to probably re-write and re-structure the section to put college sports more at the top, and I certainly will do so but I wanted to explain the reasoning behind why it's this way before I did. What do you think?

• I personally would rank them by attendance/popularity, but this way is fine. It was my impression OKans were rabid OU fans.

Haha, well half of us would applaud you for that and half of us would probably stone you for that. I went to OSU for a semester myself... Okiefromokla•talk 03:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• The other two bullets I completed.

Thanks! Okiefromokla•talk 00:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent, I left additional comments above but the article is definitely FA quality. Congrats! -Ravedave 01:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I absolutely think that this should be a FA. I translate it to Norwegian, and think it's very good. Jannizz

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

The 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 18:13, 25 August 2007.

[edit] Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough

Self nomination. I believe this article meets the Featured Article Criteria. It is of a suitable length; in-line citations have been used clearly; images are relevant, have no copyright restrictions, and contain suitably detailed captions. References have been ordered by surname and web links have been correctly formatted. It passed the Good Article review, and the reviewer suggested it be nominated for Featured Article status once the issues he detailed had been fixed. These have now been resolved. The content is relevant and does not go into too much detail.PeterSymonds 20:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support (Disclaimer: I was the GA reviewer.) This article is well-researched, beautifully written and, as far as I can tell, comprehensive. The article clearly articulates its main points and engages the reader. Well done. Awadewit | talk 04:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support. This appears to be very comprehensive. My only complaint would be that the wording describing her fall from favor and reinstatement could be just a bit clearer. I was confused at first before I read it carefully. Her fall from favor in 1811 was final with Anne, but after Anne died in 1814, Sarah returned to favor. The important thing to mention is that the death lead to the reinstatement, and this would solve this problem in the LEAD and other places. Just a couple of words would do the trick.--Filll 15:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This has been fixed. Thanks for pointing it out PeterSymonds 15:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support: Sorry to take so long to vote on this but I started to read it thoroughly and then finding out many things I did not know going off to check them and then getting caught in diverting tangents. This page is great - truly the sort of page I enjoy reading. I particularly love the lead image, this article does not even have a horrible info box - truly amazing. I wish I had written it. I look forward to seeing on the main page very soon. Giano 20:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for your support and very kind comments! PeterSymonds 20:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments: This is a very good article and in my opinion within touching distance of FA quality. The fact that you have used excellent sources is a great strength. I have a list of points and queries, but none is major: if they are addressed, I am sure I'll be able to support.