Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates | Featured log

1 July 2007

[edit] July 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 21:04, 31 July 2007.

[edit] E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial

previous FAC

Nom restarted (old nom) Raul654 16:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on. I was so close. Alientraveller 16:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Support - per my reasoning in the previous FAC. Gran² 18:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Posting Gran2's comments so that it is easy to read them: "I personally feel that this article is as comprehensive as it needs to be. I wouldn't have supported it at the start of its FAC, but the recent changes to the structure and cutting back of FU images is good in my mind. I learnt a lot from this article, particularly because I knew next to nothing about the film, having only seen it once. But there you are, a very fine article in my book. Awadewit | talk 03:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Object

1a - "the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" - While I feel that is very difficult to achieve "brilliant" writing on wikipedia (too many editors, too many restrictions on the prose style), I do feel that a "professional standard" is achievable. That has not yet been reached here; please find a good copy editor who has not worked on this article to review it.
1b and 1c - ""Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge." - The article does not use the most reliable sources. In the "Themes" section (which I am happy to see has been added), for example, the editors have ignored all of the film criticism written by scholars on this film. Thus the variety of interpretations of the film, the explanations of the film's meaning and a history of its iconographic status in American society are lost.
1d - There is a slight POV in this article. Statements such as The film is a reflection of Steven Spielberg's childhood are POV. That is one interpretation of the film. There are others that are just as valid. Spielberg should not be given priority here (see intentional fallacy).
2d - "consistently formatted inline citations" - The footnotes are not consistently cited. Awadewit | talk 23:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried looking up other sources, including one Bignole sent to me, but it was sheer rubbish. Nonetheless, I'll try to expand the themes section. But your POV accusation is bizzare, and I'll ignore it. Alientraveller 09:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure why you are saying that all of the film criticism on E.T. is "rubbish." By the way, editors do not get choose what to include and what to ignore in such a broad fashion. The whole point of WP:NPOV and WP:ATT is that articles must represent the published opinions on the matter, not the editors' opinions. Therefore the editors must try to sort through the criticism and find the general points of agreement as well as any important interpretations. Awadewit | talk 10:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

When I meant rubbish, I meant poorly written. I didn't get it at all: so therefore I am unable to refine the point and incorporate it. Alientraveller 10:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand. You decided not to include any film criticism by scholars because you thought their writing was bad or because you didn't understand it? The quality of the writing is immaterial; whatever articles and books published by film scholars that exist should be the basis of particular parts of the article, such as the "Themes" section since such work represents the consensus of scholars on the topic. If you didn't understand it, you need to ask someone else to read it and add the appropriate material into the article. Lack of comprehension is also not a sufficient reason for excluding such a wide body of work. Awadewit | talk 10:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't include because I cannot understand it. It's that simple a problem. Alientraveller 11:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you posted messages asking for help on the WikiProject Film site or asked other editors to help out? Awadewit | talk 02:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The POV objection is anything but bizarre. The article should not privilege Steven Spielberg's interpretation of his own film. Statements such as the one I quoted do just that. Taking some time to delve into film criticism as a discipline would help you understand why that is such a flawed method. I tried to explain the problems with such a method before, but to no avail; perhaps others can do better than I. Awadewit | talk 10:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it's his film, he's telling the story. Indeed, we should try to incorporate other views, but we should put fringe views over Spielberg. Do you plan to do any work on the article by the way? Alientraveller 10:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read intentional fallacy, as I suggested. The discipline of film criticism, whose practitioners are the experts that this article should rely on, do not agree with you regarding the importance of Spielberg's interpretation. I am not advocating including "fringe" interpretations. I am advocating including scholarly interpretations. The methods of film scholars need to be respected in this article, if it is to be an FA, because they are the experts in this field. Whether or not you agree with their methods is irrelevant - the article cannot reflect the editors' desires or opinions. It must reflect the published work on the topic. I cannot repeat this enough. It doesn't matter if you radically disagree with what the sources say, you must still include and explain it because that is what reliable experts have said. Here is an example. I study eighteenth-century children's literature and I have very specific opinions about certain texts and authors that are radically different from the published material (for example, I feel that religion is central to the Mary Wollstonecraft's Original Stories from Real Life), but I cannot refuse to include what those other scholars have said on the text, even if I think they are wrong, because they are published and I am not (yet). Only when my articles have been published, can I challenge those other interpretations. If you really want to say in any film article that the filmmaker's opinions should be given more weight than any other person's, you are going to have to publish something on that, because that is not the current state of the scholarship. I hope that explanation is clear. Awadewit | talk 10:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not plan on doing any work on the article. As I have repeatedly said, I do not feel that reviewers, especially at FAC, are bound to edit articles that they feel do not meet the criteria. If that were the case, none of us would do anything else. We review what people bring to us. Oftentimes the separation between reviewer and editor is beneficial. Reviewers have more distance from the article and can evaluate it more dispassionately and objectively. Awadewit | talk 10:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment At the moment, I have to agree with Awadewit. The article really does need a tip-to-toe, serious copyedit. I've done a little tonight and I'll pitch in some more tomorrow, but some more help would definitely be appreciated. I won't pretend to love this movie, but it is extremely significant and deserves an FA level article. A good effort has been made already, but/and a good deal of work remains to be done.—DocKino 05:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Alientraveller 09:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

~~Support~~ - I stumbled on the article accidentally and was amazed this wasn't an FA already. Re the criticism of the film being an interpretation of Spielberg's childhood, surely this could be rectified by rewording the article to state that Spielberg created the film with his childhood experiences in mind - it's a minor problem at any rate. Johnleemk | Talk 15:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the Spielberg problem can partly be rectified that way, but not entirely. You seem to be missing the point the article is missing substantial research. It has only two interpretations of the film and none of the material in that section is based on "expert testimony", you might say. Please look at the sources - there is no scholarship there whatsoever. Awadewit | talk 13:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- I was mistaken about the breadth of the sourcing; the nominator has clearly not covered the scholarship out there as brought up in your original opposing comment. (And I am aghast that people think "these sources aren't online" is a good enough excuse not to cite them.) I think this is still a fine article, but clearly insufficiently comprehensive. I wouldn't mind seeing it pass, since I'm of the laxer old school when it comes to FAs, but this is an article I can't support. It's a great article, but it could be so much better. Johnleemk | Talk 02:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Support - As far as I can tell, the issues raised above have been sufficiently addressed. It felt a little long, but it's only 35 KB. BenB4 13:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the issues haven't been addressed. I just looked backed at the "Themes" section. There are still only two interpretations. The Spielberg childhood bit and the Christian bit. As the primary editor has admitted that he cannot understand scholarly film criticism, we have a problem. I hope he is looking for someone to help him out, because I know that those two interpretations aren't the only two, nor do they represent the "mainstream" opinion among scholars (the experts we are supposed to be relying on). I could tell this from my quick survey of the articles while digging up research on the previous go-around for this FAC. Awadewit | talk 13:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not your right to just tramp over someone else's opinion. Either way, that's all I've found under WP:V. At least there's no fringe views. Alientraveller 15:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "tramping" over other people's opinions. I'm simply saying that if the two reviewers above would take the time to check the scholarship like I did, or stop to carefully consider what is in the article, they would realize that this article is incomplete. Awadewit | talk 20:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a link or citation for the scholarly criticism you mention? BenB4 21:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

All you have to do is click on the "old nom" link to see that discussion. Awadewit | talk 21:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well we now have tolerance as another theme, if you were wondering. But I look forward to finding more reliable sources. Until then, I don't think you should go around telling people "what" they should think. Alientraveller 08:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You still seem to be missing the fundamental point, though, which is that the "Themes" section should be primarily based on research into film criticism. The tolerance theme is sourced to the producer on the DVD. There is already plenty of material on the page about what the filmmakers thought the film was about. While that is important, it is not the end all, be all of interpretation. The article is still missing the expert's interpretations. Awadewit | talk 09:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean viewers' interpretations? Well unlike say, The Prestige, which is meant to be up to the viewer's interpretation, the filmmakers clearly state their intent, and anything else could be fringey. Rest assured, the Christ-figure stuff is there, which is an important interpretation of the film. More stuff will be added, but for now, the section is fine: adding quotes for the sake of it isn't necessary. Alientraveller 09:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't mean viewers' interpretations. As I have said over and over again, I am talking about film scholars. Their views are not "fringe" necessarily. The editors of this article are responsible for finding the most common scholarly interpretations of this film. Just because the filmmakers state their intent, doesn't mean that that intent is conveyed or that that meaning is the only one. Please read intentional fallacy again. The Christian interpretation should be sourced to a peer-reviewed publication, meaning a legitimate version of it would have been published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. You have not cited it from any such place - you have cited it from a book on E.T. citing a pamphlet. I am not asking you to add quotes for the sake of it - I am asking you to do real research. Awadewit | talk 10:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It flows perfectly fine, and film scholars are viewers. Anyway, I have little access to such editorials, and the one I read amounted to nothing really. But rest assured, Bignole will be adding some soon. Alientraveller 10:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not about flow. It is about basing the article on the best available sources. You have not done that. Wikipedia policy, rightly says, that its articles will primarily be based on secondary sources written by experts (in this case academics). This section, in particular, is based on primary sources (the filmmakers themselves). Please read this explanation of sources. Just two other bits of information, articles published by scholars are not "editorials" (editorials are opinion pieces published in newspapers) and I have a hard time understanding how you can say that the article you read "amounted to nothing" when you admitted you could not understand it. I am happy that Bignole is helping you out. I look forward to seeing the article improved. Awadewit | talk 10:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) If it helps, think of this as a novel instead. The article covers the author's interpretation of the work, some casual readers' interpretations, and very little literary criticism. If there were no scholarly work on E.T., that would be one thing, but film scholars have written about it, and given their own interpretations of it, and the article does not fully reflect this. Johnleemk | Talk 17:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Johnleemk's objections. I don't have time to work on the article, but a few good sources I found in a jstor search are The Look Back in "E.T.", by Ilsa J. Bick, Cinema Journal 1992; Enter Textuality: Echoes from the Extra-Terrestrial, by Thomas A. Sebeok, Poetics Today 1985; Of Living Machines and Living-Machines: Blade Runner and the Terminal Genre, by William Fisher, New Literary History 1988. Calliopejen1 08:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well that sucks considering I can't enter that database. Alientraveller 10:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

But the articles are still available in major public libraries and university research libraries. Awadewit | talk 11:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't have access to a university. Alientraveller 11:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Almost all major public universities (such as state universities) allow the public to use their resources. Most private universities will do so, if you explain your research interests. Awadewit | talk 11:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Where do you live? Things might be different this side of the Atlantic. Alientraveller 12:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Which side are you on? I am on the American side. As far as I know, though, British public and university libraries have become much more open in the past few decades. Awadewit | talk 12:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well not as I'm concerned. The Harrow libraries I am member of don't really offer much beyond books and language learning materials. The Internet is my main resource. But Bignole has told me to take my mind off this article. As I'm concerned, it's FA, and savage it as you wish, but I care not for one little section where I have to find books and visit universities for a general purpose encyclopedia. Good day, and until then, I hope to find more people to help out. Maybe including you, so you can put your keyboard where your keyboard... No wait that won't work... Alientraveller 12:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There is always interlibrary loan. If you don't want to do research, perhaps you should find something else to do on wikipedia. Writing articles requires "finding books" and "going to libraries", I'm afraid. What do you think the Encyclopedia Brittanica's articles are, exactly? They are articles written by scholars who have spent years "reading books" and "going to libraries". In order to replicate their articles or do better, we must be willing to undertake the same research. Awadewit | talk 06:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

From the themes section: "Universal Studios appealed directly to the Christian market, with a poster reminiscent of Michelangelo's Creation of Adam and a logo reading "Peace"." Do you have a source for this? I agree that the poster looks like that but it's nowhere near obvious enough to stand on its own merits. Calliopejen1 15:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Alientraveller 15:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. Lots of information and nicely written. Avala 16:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~—Reluctant neutral. 1a, but it's nearly there. Get someone fresh to run through. It was too easy to pick up little glitches at random.
- "$10.5 million"—MOSNUM says don't link it this way. And why make us hit the dollar link to find that you mean US dollars? Who needs it linked? Just "US$10.5 million", please, and subsequently just $XX, unlinked.
- "E.T.."—English-speakers never double the dots at the end of a sentence. Right back to Fowler and beyond. One dot counts for both roles here.
- "E.T. was an enormous box office hit"—Hits are enormous, aren't they, so remove the bloat word?
- "The film was rereleased in 1985 and 2002, with altered special effects and additional scenes for the 2002 version." Repetition/redundancy (This is exposed in the lead.) "The film was rereleased in 1985, and in 2002 with altered special effects and additional scenes." Don't you think?
- "to keep it hidden from their mother and the government"—very odd couple, mom and government.
- "due in part to E.T. becoming intoxicated after drinking Coors beer at home and ..."—Ungrammatical noun plus gerund ("E.T. becoming"). Nominalise it: "due partly to E.T.'s intoxication from drinking Coors beer and ..."
- dubs itself "E.T."—See MOS on "Words as words". I think this should be italic instead of quoted, whereas "phone home" is an actual quote of what the creature says in the film, yes?
- "to get convincing emotional performances from his cast"—Get? Professional writing would avoid this dull thud. Try "achieve" or something else.
- "A scene that Spielberg said triggered speculation as to whether the film was intentionally a religious parable." Believe it or not, this caption is just a nominal group (large noun). MOS says no period.

I'd like to see this one succeed. Tony 04:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Done, and further copyediting was done for the reception section. Alientraveller 08:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Last para under "Plot" needs a bit of attention: E.T. "dies" and "awakens"? Perhaps "dies/revives", or "appears to die/awakens". Also, E.T. is "it" throughout except in last two lines of this para where there are two "his" and two "he". (Unless I've missed a subtlety here?) PamD 09:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Asked to revisit this: here's what's been done since. It's improved.
- "a gross of $11 million"—Nope, "grossing $11 ...". And am I being dumb, or do you need to say "in the first ?weekend", or some such time-phrase?
- MOS says you must use en dashes for page ranges, not hyphens. ("25–41", not "25-41"). Please fix. I'm not entirely happy, and would be pleased for this to receive more sprucing. Guess I'll go to neutral. Tony 12:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. Good article. I just have a few concerns and hope these can be adressed:
- "The film was shot from September to December 1981 in California on a budget of US$10.5 million." According to the infobox this figure is only an estimate. If this is the case, then that sentence should also reflect it.
- "Tamara De Treaux, another dwarf, and a boy born without legs took turns wearing the costume, depending on what scene was being filmed." Why "another" dwarf? She's the first dwarf mentioned in the article?
- "Spielberg drew the story of E.T. from the divorce of his own parents" That's really been mentioned often enough.
- "George Will was one of few to pan the film, feeling it spread subversive notions about childhood and science." Would it be possible to have just a few words elaborating on what he meant exactly?--Carabinieri 00:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Support A great article for a great film Green Owl ^Uh ^uh

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 article was promoted 21:04, 31 July 2007.

[edit] CM Punk

After the article failed last October, several improvements have been made to the article, and I feel that it could pass FA this time. If any small, minor edits are needed, I will rectify it. Davnel03 16:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Despite popular belief that this lead to his release from TNA, fueled by the fact Punk didn't appear on TNA after this incident, Punk has stated that this had no bearing on his TNA career and the reason he stopped appearing on TNA was that TNA officials believed that he and Dinero had not gotten over as heels, having turned on Raven becoming a tag team managed by their old rival James Mitchell, and so the angle had been put on hold.[15] - This is bit of a long sentence and would benefit from being split into two sentences. LuciferMorgan 13:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Y Done - might need slight adjustments. Davnel03 16:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment - The linking of dates in this article is not uniform throughout the aritcle. In some places, full dates (i.e January 31, 1981) are linked, and in other places only the day/month ( February 4, 1981) part is linked. I understand that after a particular year has been linked once, you may not want to link it again, however even that method of date-linking has not been done uniformly throughout the article. I also tend to shy away from linking single years (i.e. 2001) unless it signifies something extremely important. Thanks :) --Naha|^(talk) 18:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Y Done -- Oakster Talk 09:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Support After reading a number of professional wrestling articles on wikipedia I must say this is one of the best I have read and think it deserves FA status well done! (Everlast1910 16:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC))
Support I believe that this article should be awarded FA status, quite simply because all of the above issues raised with the article have been fixed. If no other problems are presented, this article should pass. --SteelersFan UK06 03:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Support. Very extensively well written article, sources check out good with all statements cited. Photos work well with the article.--Kranar drogin 01:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
CommentAfter leaving the federation because unlike his friends Punk genuinely wanted to be a wrestler and saw it as more than simple fun Punk enrolled as a student at the "Steel Domain" wrestling school in Chicago, where he was trained by Ace Steel, Danny Dominion and Kevin Quinn to become a professional wrestler and as part of the training wrestled at St. Paul's Steel Domain Wrestling. That sentence is too long and puts several different statements together in one big sentence. You should consider revising it for readability and make it at least 2 sentences. Otherwise a very well written article IMO MPJ-DK 05:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Y Done Nikki311 18:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment Try avoiding the scrolly box for references. Pandacomics 17:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree since I've seen people make a big deal of it before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/European_Parliament and its links to other discussions). DrWarpMind 22:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Y Done Davnel03 07:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Scrollref was deleted by the community because it messes up printed versions and mirrors; please remove the scrolls. Incorrect use of bolding throughout, see WP:MOSBOLD. A good portion of the article is lists or trivia. Ohio Valley Wrestling (the bulk of your sources) returns a 404 error. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Y Done Davnel03 08:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 21:04, 31 July 2007.

[edit] Night of the Long Knives

Self-nomination. This article details a critical event in modern history. I have used a variety of scholarly sources to document it, especially the two most respected sources in English on Hitler, those by Richard J. Evans and Ian Kershaw. I have sourced almost every factual statement in the article, and strove to cover all significant points even-handedly. Although I have dramatically overhauled the article, I did it after responding to constructive criticisms of a number of editors. It has been peer reviewed by four or five established editors (see discussion page). It also passed GA status on its first nomination. I have also examined the article for WP:MOS adherence. Again, this is an important subject, and it deserves to be a FA. I welcome any suggestions on how to further improve this article.--Mcattell 01:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment are there any web refs available?Rlevse 11:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple of websites that deal with the subject matter. One is so throughly erroneous (meaning contradicted by written sources by professional historians) I didn't include it in the external sources area. One is adequate, but does not deal with the subject as well as any of the books do. Some of the major books cited have been scanned and available on the web at Amazon.com, through the "Search Inside" feature. If you search for "purge" or "knives" in the book, you can get to the material that deals with the subject matter. Hope this helps. --Mcattell 13:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Print based material is always preferred over web based material, so good job on using book sources. LuciferMorgan 13:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The Night of the Long Knives represented a turning point in the conduct of German government. From then on, it was clear that the Nazi Party was in unquestioned control of the state, that Hitler was in control of the Nazi party, and that both were fully prepared to use brutal violence to accomplish their political objectives. - Would you say this is a viewpoint commonly held by scholars who've studied the event, or are there historians who hold a differing view as to the significance of this event? LuciferMorgan 13:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

~~That sentence was one of the few that have remained intact from the article of several months ago, and probably needs to be revised. I will revise within the next twelve hours.~~--Mcattell 15:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool, as I was just curious as to whether historians wholly agree on that or if they have differing arguments (as you know, historians tend to emphasis certain events and motives etc.). LuciferMorgan 17:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Done: I limited the concluding paragraph to statement that adheres to the broad consensus of historians of the era.--Mcattell 23:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it's a broadly held opinion by historians, then I proclaim my Support. Good work, and I hope you lend your talents to other Nazi events like the Reichstag Fire or Kristallnacht - I find it an interesting period of history. LuciferMorgan 01:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Support - Article is very well-written and informative, discusses an important topic, has many reliable references, and has images that greatly add to the article (with detailed rationales for the two fair use images). that require such).

Upon reading the article, I had a few minor concerns:

Wording - as the German courts and parliament, or Reichstag - Is clarification of "Reichstag" necessary? This is a fairly familiar term for most people, and people who would like to learn more about it can easily click on the link. If clarification is necessary, I would think it should go after the prominent wikilink, such as: as the German courts and Reichstag, or parliament. The same goes for the sentence about the Reichswehr, though I'll admit this is a less familiar term that may be in need of clarification. Y Done
Link to Reichstag - The wikilink in the article for Reichstag directed the user to the dab page for Reichstag. I fixed the link, and it now directs to Reichstag (institution), but possibly the Reichstag (building) article would also be appropriate. Anyway, as the dab page is clearly not the intended redirect, I went ahead and changed the link.
Quote - "A chancellor sentences and shoots members of his own private army!" he wrote. - Not a grammar expert, but wouldn't He wrote, "A chancellor sentences and shoots members of his own private army!" or "A chancellor sentences and shoots members of his own private army!", he wrote be more appropriate? Y Done
Online links - I know it has already been mentioned above that there are no online refs available, but are there absolutely no websites that give non-contradictory information that could be used as external links? A few external links would add to the article and give readers the chance to go outside Wikipedia and get more information.

There is a website called "Spartacus International" that used to be in external links, but I removed it because most of what is written there is flat-out wrong. Not only that, but it's just stub. In fact, the site seems to implicitly excuse Hitler by incorrectly minimizing his role. Just a few examples from that site:

"Many were shot as soon as they were captured but Hitler decided to pardon Roehm because of his past services to the movement." That's completely untrue. No historian that I have ever read mentions anything about a pardon. It never happened. Why would Hitler even issue a "pardon" since the courts were never involved in the first place?

"However, after much pressure from Hermann Goering and Heinrich Himmler, Hitler agreed that Roehm should die." False. Goering and Himmler wanted Rohm to die, but they did not have to pressure Hitler. Hitler made his own decision.

"The purge of the SA was kept secret until it was announced by Adolf Hitler on 13th July." Again, flat-out wrong. As it is now correctly stated in the Wikipedia article, Gobbels made a radio address to the nation much earlier to try to squelch rapidly spreading rumors about the purge.

Most of the earlier entry on Wikipedia, from a few months ago, seems to have been simply cut and paste from this site. I won't object if somebody adds this site to the "External Links" section, but when a website contains such erroneous information I (IMHO) would prefer that Wikipedia not directly link to it, because it implicitly lends credence to the stub. In any event, I think that the subject of Nazism itself leads to more erroneous and disreputable sites than, say, the history of New Zealand, so we should choose external links with care. In any event, I did add links to Brittanica Concise, a free site, and to a site at the Holocaust Museum.Y Done--Mcattell 16:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Overall, my concerns are minimal. This is a great article that is worthy of FA status. A job well done. Raime 01:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

~~I think that these are excellent points, and I will address them soon.~~

Done Thanks for your help.--Mcattell 02:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Support I think this is FA quality, I do have some small concerns.
- Hitler and the Sturmabteilung (SA) I wonder if the first few paragraphs need a little reorganization. The section starts in 1933 with Hilter's appointment and follows the next few month's political events. Then we jump back the 1920's and then focus in June 1932 how that violent month had influence on support for Hitler. Then we reintroduce Hitler's appointment and the political events following it and the rest of the section continues chronologically.
- Conflict between the army and the SA
  - A combat veteran of the First World War, Röhm had recently announced that he would execute twelve men in retaliation for the killing of any stormtrooper. This sentence must have been moved around, because I cannot place what "recently" should be compared with. Also I am not sure who is killing SA members? the army? the communists in street brawls? This just seems out of context.
  - Blomberg and many of his fellow officers regarded the SA as a plebeian brown-uniformed mob that endangered the position of the army as the sole repository of German military power. and Blomberg and others in the military saw the SA as a source of recruits for an enlarged and revitalized army. These statements seem contradictory, and it especially troubling because they are separated by a paragraph. I think the issue of how they could hold both views at the same time needs to addressed. Whether with "at worst, at best" or focusing on the first view being about an independent uncontrolled SA and the second view being their hope for the SA once brought to heel.
  - In January 1934, Röhm presented Blomberg with a memorandum demanding that the SA replace the army as the nation's ground forces, and that the Reichswehr become a training adjunct to the SA. I still would like a little more background about this. What possessed Rohm to make such a move? Why did he think it would be supported? How did Blomberg immediately respond? Did anything happen between the memo and the meeting at the end of Feb.?
- Growing pressure against the SA:Good work on this section since the peer review. I think is much more informative now.
  - By the spring of 1934, Röhm's vision of a new German army with the SA at its core came into conflict with Hitler's plan to consolidate power and expand the Reichswehr. Because their plans for the army were mutually exclusive, Röhm's success could only come at Hitler's expense. Considering we already covered the memo and the pledge this seems to be backtracking. It seems to me that after Rohm signs the pledge his "vision of a new German army with the SA at its core" is pretty much dead. If I am correct I think you need to do a little rearrangement here; memo, conflicting visions, and finally meeting resulting in pledge. If I am wrong, maybe you can clarify that Rohm did not plan on honoring that pledge or signed only because it was expedient. Or something else actually based on sources to reinforce that his vision held even after signing the pledge.
  - and the hoped for (but never attained) command of the army for Göring. I find this very awkward, how about something like "and Goring saw the destruction of a chief rival for the future command of the army."
- Purge
  - Enraged, Hitler tore the epaulets off the shirt of Obergruppenfuhrer Schneidhuber, the Chief of the Munich Police, and shouted at him that he would be shot. Is this the Chief of Munich Police a member of the SA? or was he supposed to have stopped the street violence? I am a little confused about how this ties in.
  - Arriving back at party headquarters in Munich, Hitler addressed the assembled. Consumed with rage, Hitler denounced "the worst treachery in world history." The fact that no plot by Röhm to overthrow the regime ever existed did not prevent Hitler from denouncing the leadership of the SA. "Undisciplined and disobedient characters, and asocial or diseased elements," according to Hitler, would be annihilated. The crowd, which included many SA members fortunate enough to escape arrest, shouted its approval. Hess even volunteered to shoot the "traitors" himself. Göbbels, who had been with Hitler at Bad Wiessee, set the final phase of the plan in motion. Upon returning to Berlin, he telephoned Göring with the codeword Kolibri to loose the execution squads on the rest of their unsuspecting victims This paragraph is a little problematic and lacks cohesion. "the assembled" needs to be clarified. The second and third sentence need to be combined somehow so you not talk of how Hilter wasn't prevented from denouncing the plot after a quote of him denouncing the plot. Is Hess at this assembly? Is Gobbels? Does the reaction of the assembly have an impact on Gobbels putting the purge in motion?
  - Such relentless violence cemented the fearsome reputation of the Gestapo as the Nazis' secret police. I am not very skilled at grammar but this sentence doesn't sit well with me.
- Aftermath
  - The army's support for the purge, however, would have consequences for the institution. This doesn't really say anything, what are "consequences for the institution"? consequences on it's independence? consequences on it's reputation?
  - the later enormity of the Holocaust. Earlier "the commandant of the Dachau concentration camp" is mentioned. Is the Holocaust an ongoing or future event at this time?
- Tone:In the peer review one of my big concerns was tone. You have done a great job addressing that. There were two phrasing that still seemed overly dramatic to me.
  - Germany's inter-war experiment with democracy, the Weimar Republic.
  - loose the execution squads on the rest of their unsuspecting victims.--BirgitteSB 23:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Conditional support after some issues are addressed:
- In Aftermath, we read: Concerned with presenting the massacre as legally sanctioned, Hitler had the cabinet approve a measure on July 3 that declared, "The measures taken on June 30, July 1 and 2 to suppress treasonous assaults are legal as acts of self-defense by the State." In the next paragraph, we read: In the following weeks, Reich Justice Minister Franz Gürtner, a conservative who had been Bavarian Justice Minister in the years of the Weimar Republic, demonstrated his loyalty to the new regime by writing a law that added a legal veneer to the purge. It met no opposition in the Reichstag.
  - These paragraphs read as though they are describing two different measures, while in fact they both talk about the same law passed by the Cabinet, the Gesetz über Maßnahmen der Staatsnotwehr of July 3, 1934. This should be cleaned up. (The paragraphs also contradict each other as to who provided the impetus for this law: Hitler or Gürtner?)
  - Also, the legal citation for the law should be provided (RGB 1934 I, S. 529).
  - Since Hitler had made the Reichstag pass the Enabling Act of 1933 which allowed the Executive to enact laws, it apears superfluous to mention that the law met no opposition in the Reichstag. The Reichstag had already ceased to function as a legislative assembly, and I'm not eve sure whether it regularly met at all at this time.
  - Instead of "as legally sanctioned", wouldn't be "as lawful" better? Sandstein 07:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

These are excellent suggestions, and I will address them within the next week. (I'm a little sick right now). --Mcattell 16:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Support An engaging and articulate retelling of a fairly shocking series of events. Ceoil 20:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 21:04, 31 July 2007.

[edit] Postage stamps of Ireland

Self nomination A well rounded article deserving of WP:FA status as it meets the criteria for an FAC so I look forward to seeing this become the first philatelic FA.

A couple of Philately WikiProject editors have suggested this is the best quality "Postage stamps of ..." articles on Wikipedia and that it is likely of WP:FA quality. One editor said that we should aspire that all "Postage stamps of ..." articles should be of this depth and quality of content. As the primary editor of this article, sure I am biased, but I think objective too; I agree with them, considering it took more than 3 months to write, checking details from all the sources listed. On that point, my only concern is with the bibliographic references that are used as sources for many of the statements made. I wonder if these should not be inline but in doing that I suspect there would be no cleanly laid out books section? By way of background to my contributions you might look at a couple of my other recent major page edits, such as, Postal history and Letter sheet as well as my active work on the Philately Portal. ww2censor 18:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Object: My apologies, I'm skimming this and commenting on random bits: ~~Non-free images lack fair use rationale.~~ The lead is insufficient. Why is there a blank section? (Exhibition souvenirs) Years seem to be overlinked (for my taste), yet I see complete dates that aren't linked. The word present links to 2006? Instead of "from 1922 to present", why not "since 1922", which avoids the issue altogether? I'd suggest something similar for the "now"s that link to June (!) 2007. Date ranges need en dashes, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes). There are too many headings and subheadings for the current text. For example, "Postage dues" has many one-sentence subheadings. Pagra shtak 19:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Follow up: I believe I have addressed all your concerns:

The fair use rational for stamp is that unless there is a specific copyright permission they can only be used in articles about the stamps themselves. So all non-free images now include a statement that fair use is claimed as this an absolutely fair use because they are used in an article about stamps. That issue was talked about before where stamps were used in non-stamp articles but that is not the case here.
The introduction was incorporated into the lead at some stage but I though that was too long in that form. I will take advise on that and be happy to join the lead to the intro if that would be preferred.
Blank section removed - not very important in the overall view.
Reduced year links to a bare minimum. I hope dates are now not "under-linked".
Rephrased the "up to 2006/2007" per suggestion.
Added emdash for the one date range.
Reformatted several subheadings as bold text so they don't appear in the TOC and now the TOC is more compact, especially "Postage dues" ww2censor 21:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but "Absolutely correct Fair use in article Postage stamps of Ireland." is not a valid fair use rationale. You have to say why it qualifies for fair use under Wikipedia's Non-free content criteria. Please see Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline. As for the lead, Wikipedia:Lead section says that the lead should be able to serve as a stand-alone summary of the article. Do you feel this is the case? It's much better without the numerous year links, but full dates should be linked to allow date formatting, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). The "since [date]" is better, but I still see the word now being linked to June 2007. This needs to be fixed also. Date ranges take en dashes, not em dashes. I didn't see the one you updated, but I saw a range that needs an en dash that didn't have one. The table of contents is better, but still needs work. You've got 19 primary sections—more than the primary and secondary headings of World War II combined! This is most likely indicative of a need for restructuring. Pagra shtak 14:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

2nd follow up, You are a hard task master but I appreciate that. Sometimes noticing the small things too is what this is about.

According to fair use of stamps they must be "For identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject" and that is the case for all the images that are actually stamps, not labels. Also I refer to the Irish statutes for Irish Government copyright that states "Government copyright in a work shall expire 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made." So perhaps those images older than 50 years should be made into {{PD-stamp}}. I have also asked another, well experience administrator and philatelic editor to review the images in the article for me, so I will defer on those for the moment and leave you a post when I have revised the licensing, with fire-use rational or an other licence, depending on his suggestions. Do you suggest that I use the {{Non-free media rationale}} template anyway? Image licensing will be acceptable.
Based on your suggestions regarding the TOC I have revised the sections to make more sense and reduce their number, moving around a few sections to make more sense IMHO. There are now only 7 main sections, four with subsections. As part of the TOC revision I have pulled most of the "intro" out into the lead section and feel it stands better than before giving a good overview of the topic. One problem I have is with the image placement in the lead section. Any advise on that?
Dashes - I think I have found them all and edited as suggested.
All full dates have been linked and all solo year dates unlinked.
Found the last linked "now" date problem.

ww2censor 17:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

All image licences have been revised in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and copyright of the images. There should now be no issue with them. ww2censor 01:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. Although your heading changes simplified the TOC, they still chop up the text and make it hard to read. The text still has dash problems. Pagra shtak 16:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

3rd follow up I think I reintroduced several dashes during my inline citation edits and forgot to alter them.

The lead has been expanded.
I think I found all the dashes now and replaced them with ndashes, if not, please tell me exactly where they are because they are hard to spot.
The postage due and the stamp issuing authorities sections have been compressed without removing contents, so I hope you feel they flow better. Several of the subsection could be expended but only with detail that I don't think belongs here. Most of the sections have complete catalogues written about them, but this is not a catalogue, so unless I was to pad the sections I don't think there is much else I can add without seeming to be catalogue like. Each section in necessary and I cannot see a way of combining them without losing the individuality they require. More specific advise would be appreciated on how to achieve the layout you envision if it still lacks the construction you think appropriate.

Thanks for the input. ww2censor 00:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I did find some minor copyedits which I fixed myself. The article seems generally to be thorough, comprehensive and well-referenced, with nice graphics, and I will be happy to support the nomination if the following can be addressed:

Criterion 2d requires "consistently formatted inline citations" and I'd like to see a few more of these. I understand that for a subject like this there may be a lot of material coming from a handful of books, but I think five inline refs is too few.

Done - There are now 30 inline citations, hopefully not too many but I think I have covered all the statements that might be questioned.

In the Overprints section it states: "These stamps were issued and in use in Great Britain between 1912 and 1922." I assume this refers to the original GB issues without the overprinting? If so, this should be clarified.

Done - copyedited to clarify. The un-overprinted stamps were issued and in use in United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland between 1912 and 1922 and continued in use in Great Britain and Northern Ireland until 1936

In the Definitives section it states: "Some series changes are not just design changes but utilise a different watermark..." This is unclear to me; it implies to me that a watermark change alone would not count as a series change, but the article only seems to describe six designs (original, Gerl (should these be 1968-9?), Craig/Wildbur, Heritage/Treasures, Birds, Flowers). Is this because high-values have been counted separately, or should it say something like "Two series changes involved only a change of watermark, but six involved complete design changes..."?

Done - copyedited to clarify. Two series changes involved only a change of watermark, but six involved a complete redesign, or changes necessary due to currency changes; sterling to decimal, and decimal to Euro. (I would love to rephrase with less use of the word "changes". Any ideas?)

Later in that section, "The first definitives where all values were printed in full colour and many different values were issued until stamps featuring flowers native to the Woodlands and Hedgerows of Ireland were issued on September 9, 2004." I'm unsure what this means; should it say "The first definitives where all values were printed in full colour were issued on September 9, 2004, featuring flowers native to the Woodlands and Hedgerows of Ireland."?

Done - copyedited to clarify. Irish birds feature in the 1997 stamps that span the changes of currency used from the Irish pound, through dual currency issues to the introduction of the Euro. These were the first definitives where all values were printed in full colour. On September 9, 2004, a new series was issued, featuring flowers native to the Woodlands and Hedgerows of Ireland.

In the "Collecting" section, "more in response to a view of profit rather than the real function of the postal service" (and the section following that: this sounds like a POV (though I suspect it may be a valid one!). Can you provide an inline reference to substantiate this claim, which An Post might want to deny!

I love the picture of the watermark! Walkerma 07:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Done - removed possible POV text as I cannot immediately find a source.

Follow up Thanks for the input. I like all of the copyedits that are mainly clarity and grammar related. And I though I could speak decent Hiberno-English! Thanks.

One small issue is the addition of a "the" before ESB who I know prefer to NOT use a definite article in front of the name; as in, ESB, not the ESB, but I would let that go from a normal grammar point of view as it might be considered WP:NOR.
I will try to address the other issues you mention in the next 24 hours if possible. I was wondering about the number of inline references but was worried about having too many to the same sources. One question in that regard. If I put a book in an inline ref, should it still be listed in the general reference material?
Again thanks, I will leave you a message when I have addressed all your mentioned concerns. ww2censor 13:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I don't like dozens of cites from the same book, but sometimes it can be useful to have a few, at least. I confess to getting confused myself, the rules have changed so much (and there are different styles too!), but I'd suggest having two sections, as used in a recent FA, Mary of Teck (which you could perhaps emulate). I don't think you need 62 inline, though! The inline cites are mainly needed IMHO for (a) key pieces of information (like the date An Post began) and (b) controversial statements. One good way to look at it is to imagine someone else inserting the fact (and pretend you didn't know the fact) - would it look unsubstantiated, or seem like vandalism? Inline cites can also be helpful for very specific facts such as "There were XXYY Irish stamps released during the 20th century". You can put in different pages from the same book as footnotes; if you want to cite the same pages multiple times, use the ref name system (see Daspletosaurus refs 1, 7, 8). I usually take a look at what the newest FAs look like, see this list, and copy the best of what they do. If you need help with formatting, let me know. Walkerma 16:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

2nd follow up Again thanks Walkerma for the input. I have annotated the specific issued mentioned individually. I understand you comment about too many citations from the same book and the worst I have is 4 from one book so hope that is not a problem. I looked some of the recent FAs to see the styles used and hopefully I have absorbed enough. I just wish I knew if there was a way of combining references to the same source when different pages are being referred to, not just several references to the exact same citation. Would appreciate your comments on the citations as well as the copyedits. It surprises me that no one else has weighed in on this yet. Is there a way to encourage people to get involved? Cheers & again thanks. ww2censor 04:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Support: All of my concerns have been very carefully addressed in admirable fashion, and I believe the article now meets the criteria. Thanks for taking the time to polish this article. Nice work. Walkerma 05:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

~~Object~~—It's better. Polish? No, it fails 1a without a doubt. Let's look at the top.
- "issued by the stamp issuing authority"—oh ... can't we avoid this repetition in the opening sentence? And I didn't want to find another repetition in the very next sentence: "Ireland, Ireland". Then stamps, stamps, stamps, and other reps, including stamps, stamp, stamps again. I'm not saying that words can't be repeated, but it is an unfortunate feature of the text right throught the lead.
- Pity the opening para is one sentence.
- "chose to overprint the existing British stamps, with Irish text, to provide"—Does it flow better without the first comma? Remove the comma before "notable".
- "as well as with the production of eight designed series in the intervening years; nine series in all." These last four words are stuck at the end like a shag on a rock. The choice of a semicolon is questionable (an em dash would be better, but consider recasting?)
- Remove "many" and "some". When you say "were also produced", in addition to what? (Unclear.)
- "Styles of watermark"—pipe to the singular.
- "Irish-issued"—hyphen please, as for "stamp-issuing authorities".

I haven't even finished the lead; there's enough to occupy several good copy-editors for hours throughout the text. These were only examples. Tony 15:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Follow up It's unfortunate, for me, that you concentrated exclusively on the lead because I just expended the lead a few days ago at the suggestion of User:Pagrashtak who reviewed this WP:FAC first. Anyway, Since your comments, I have copyedited it based on your comments and have done the same for the rest of the article and hope your critical eye will not be displeased.

You are correct about the excessive use of the word stamp/s, but what other word is there to use? Unless you are an experienced philatelist you would not know the term adhesive label as an alternative, but I have tried to reduce its use as much as possible. Other words that reappear often are: issue or issued and series, but again I have tried to reduce their use and vary the words and make their use less repetitive.
Revised the one sentence first paragraph
Recast the "nine series" sentence
"Were also produced" has been clarified with additional explanatory text
In my copyedit I have attempted to address all your comments about the lead - hopefully the initial bad taste you got has been tempered, if not gone, and you can give the article, with the revised lead, your once over even if you do have some critical yet constructive suggestions at the end.

Thanks for your time ww2censor 03:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. I got interested in this one and spent a bit of time working on the copyediting. I hope it's a lot cleaner now, with some paragraphs a bit clearer. I can't judge the content, so this is perhaps not a very strong support, but I think it's well-structured and appears thorough, and is sufficiently well-cited. I think the prose is professional though not brilliant. Overall a fine article. Mike Christie (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Further comment to my oppose—I disagree with the previous reviewer: the prose is barely acceptable and not professional. I took a sample from the middle: "Postage stamps: Overprints". I shouldn't be so easily able to find glitches if this is promotable.
- "... in United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland between 1912 and 1922 and continued in use in Great Britain and Northern Ireland until ...." Why do we need the same link twice in same article, let alone the same two lines? Isn't it the United Kingdom of ...?
- "the final, high value, stamps were issued."—Remove the comma after "value" and hyphen "high value" (see MOS).
- "In 1922, as an interim measure, before the first specially designed definitives were ready, a series of ..."—Remove the halting, unnecessary comma after "measure".
- Second para, Feldman states (direct quote)—attribution please.
- "Several specialised philatelic books and exhibits have concentrated on this topic." "Several" isn't very encyclopedic. Either name a few as examples, provide the number ("at least three") and/or provide a reference.
- Third para—"The Provisional Government of Ireland (Irish Rialtas Sealadach na hÉireann) overprints were initially issued on February 17, 1922 with eight low value and three high value stamps being overprinted by Dollard and four stamps overprinted by Thom." Again, hyphens required (and there's another required in the subsequent para—you locate it). Why is "Irish" in italics (twice)? "Being" is ungrammatical and awkward; remove it?

This article should be an FA, but can't be until fresh eyes go through it and fix up the prose. Tony 11:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Some prose problems.

"Registered envelopes have appeared in many different values and sizes." - "different" is redundant, "have appeared in many different values" is ungrammatical
"Between 1963 and 2000 a small number of philatelically influenced items are known produced by six different users."
"Stamps of the period may have the watermark in any of several different states of inversion" - "in any state of inversion" may be better
"1922-23 First Definitive Series" - en dash needed
"1 shilling airmail stamp - Vox Hibernia" - en dash needed
Judging by a Google search, "un-overprinted" is usually unhyphenated
Full dates in the footnotes should be wikilinked. Epbr123 00:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Follow up: Thanks Epbr123 for the comments. I have corrected all the prose problems you mentioned, except for the Vox Hibernia en dash. Nowhere have I seen an en dash used for this. Neither the stamps themselves (look at the image in full size), nor ANY of the Irish stamp catalogues used as sources in the article show an en dash. Also a newsletter (06/2006 issue 13) produced by the current stamp issuing authority, An Post, has two pages given over to the airmail stamps. It does not use an en dash either. You can view the pdf here or link to it from this web page. Hope you agree with that veiwpoint but I would consider changing it if you convince me. If you see any other problems please let me know. Thanks ww2censor 02:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes, either an unspaced em dash or a spaced en dash should be used. The same applies to this sentence: "The designs feature the Flight of the Angel Victor - Messenger of St. Patrick - carrying the Voice of the Irish Vox Hibernia" Epbr123 10:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I don't mean Vox Hibernia should be hyphenated. Epbr123 10:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I misunderstood your Vox Hibernia en dash comment, but it is done now and I found one other one elsewhere. Cheers & thanks ww2censor 16:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

All fixed. Epbr123 09:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of my (SandyGeorgia) concerns, now all addressed

*Comment. There's a problem with the TOC and image layout per WP:LEAD. Bolding is used incorrectly in sources (see WP:MOSBOLD), book titles are correctly italicized automatically in cite templates, and no extra formatting is needed. External links might need review and pruning per WP:EL and WP:NOT. Dashes on date ranges are incorrect and some words that should be hyphenated use endashes (mid-1960s should be a hyphen, not an endash; see WP:DASH). If these items are corrected, and prose objections (above) are struck, pls ping me and I'll support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Follow up

I am not sure what your specific concern is about the TOC and image layout. After re-reading the WP:LEAD but cannot see anything that the current setup contravenes. Please explain more fully.
Bold book titles have been revised per WP:MOSBOLD.
The external links could possibly have the catalogue publishers removed but besides those I cannot justify removing any others. Do you agree? (before I actually remove any)
Dashes have been reviewed and edited as appropriate. If I have missed any please let me know.
The prose objections are nearly finished. Just one specific concern needs checking before finishing (hopefully) final edits.

Thanks for the review. ww2censor 04:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

On the TOC and the image, WP:LEAD says, "The table of contents... appears between the lead section and the first headline;" WP:MOS#Images says "Start the article with a right-aligned image. " The layout of your lead is non-standard, as you've forced the TOC to the right and the image to the left.

I have moved the TOC to the left and image to the right, BUT, I think it looks terrible. The image belongs that bit further down the lead where it was and now there is a huge white space between the TOC and the right margin which really irritates me, but if MOS guidelines require it to be this way, then so be it. I prefer the previous layout !

On External links, I do believe you should lower the linkage to stamp catalogues, per WP:EL, WP:RS and WP:NOT. Are any of those sites commercial ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, actually they are commercial sites, but who else makes stamp catalogues except stamp catalogue publishers? However, most are wikilinked in the article itself so that should suffice so they are gone

Another tip: your footnotes are made harder to read than necessary by the repeated information. It's only aesthetics, but they will be more readable (and your article will be more editable) if you change this (sample):

^ Feldman, David (1968). Handbook of Irish Philately. Dublin, Ireland: David Feldman & the Dolman Press, p 22.
^ Feldman, David (1968). Handbook of Irish Philately. Dublin, Ireland: David Feldman & the Dolman Press, p 21.

to this, throughout (sample):

^ Feldman (1968), p 22.
^ Feldman (1968), p 21.

This will also shorten the article in edit mode, making it easier to edit, as you can use the cite templates once only (in the Sources); cite templates really chunk up article size. This is not an objection: just a suggestion.

Funnily enough I was going to combine these two Feldman ref, as they irritated me too, into one ref because they are sequential pages, but this is one of the few refs that follow one another in the {{reflist}}. I might take on the suggestion and do a reduced ref for those that are listed in the sources.
Actually for now, I don't think so. I had a look at reducing the inline refs per your suggestion but as I am using the cite book tags, this requires the title in each tag, it think all the references need to be rewritten completely to achieve that layout, so for now I think I will leave them alone and remember for the future. As you said, it is a suggestion not an objection, so that's it for the moment. Thanks ww2censor 21:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Struck everything, a few minor notes left on your talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that prose objections are all struck; ping me after you've gotten through this, and I'll support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It's much better written now (particularly the reduction in irritating repetitions), and I won't stand in the way of promotion. But I do find little issues still. Such as ...
- What is a "semi-state" organisation? I'm suspicious that this is really code for a restructured organisation still under total control of the state. If it's governed by an act of parliament, and is not privately capitalised, it's a state organisation. Can you clarify?

I found a wikilink to clarify this.

- "The spelling ERIE for ÉIRE could be due to hasty preparation though this is a correct, old Irish, spelling." "may have been due to hasty preparation, although this is ?the correct ..." (Please note the changes; in particular, was there one old I spelling, or a number: "a" or "the"?)

Rephrased to clarify

- "had control of" = "controlled".

Done

- "nine Irish definitive stamp series"—definitive? Is this a standard philatelic term? Ah, I think it is, so I hope it's glossed on first occurrence ...

This is linked in the 3rd sentence of the lead.

- There's a lot of "due to". Tony 09:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I will reduce incidence of "due to" later today.

There is still one issue from your previous comments that I want to address. It is the "Several specialised philatelic books and exhibits have concentrated on this topic." sentence.

Thanks for taking the time to review. ww2censor 14:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Revised the instances of "due to". Also rewrote "Several specialised philatelic books" and removed exhibits as I cannot immediately verify exhibits, so could be regarded as POV. ww2censor 04:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

~~Weak oppose~~ The final section, about stamp collection, is severely undercited, as there are only three citations in 4 (or 5, if you count the single sentence) paragraphs. There are passages about the history of commemorative stamps that, for all I know, are completely made up. Two full paragraphs have no references at all. -- Kicking222 20:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Follow up: Have added some extra inline citations for this section. Hope you approve. Any other issues please post here. Thanks ww2censor 03:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Change to weak support. As mentioned above, the prose is not perfect, but now that my main issue has been mostly resolved (that last paragraph is still uncited, but there's not much that really has to be cited- with that said I would prefer something there), I think the prose is sufficiently decent, in combination with the other aspects of the article, to warrant featured status. -- Kicking222 12:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 21:04, 31 July 2007.

[edit] You Only Move Twice

Just came aross this while browsing. Thought it looked very impressive.Buc 06:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I'm one of the main contributors to the page, and this nom stunned me. I think it needs work in its present form, so I'll see what I can do. I'll address any concerns about the page, but it is modelled after Cape Feare and Homer's Phobia, both of which are featured articles. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 06:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think some mention of the plot is required in the lead: would that need a cite? Alientraveller 09:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Most immediate thing that comes to mind, the lead section does not meet lead criteria. You might want to read Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Lead section. BIGNOLE

(Contact me) 11:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Something here annoys me, and it's bugged me ever since I passed the GAC. Wouldn't it better to have a screenshot of the Simpsons' kitchen rather than the "eh" of the Globex employees? Alientraveller 20:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Does one exsist? Buc 09:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  - It would be no problem to get a screenshot, I just don't think it's necessary. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It's just the image in the production section is one whole "eh"? I'd prefer an image of the kitchen, considering it is modelled on a real one. Alientraveller

Again, does one exsist? Buc 17:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, if one is deemed preferable either Scorpion or I could get one in the space of 5 minutes. Gran² 17:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~ Support - Please redo the section on leads. In addition, I feel the references need work. Specifically, you don't need a reference (especially the same one) for every sentence, merely every claim. For example you don't need Blah blah blah.² Blah blah blah.² Blah blah blah.² when Blah blah blah. Blah blah blah. Blah blah blah.² will suffice. In addition, I feel this article could use some more images (only 2?). On top of that, the prose isn't exactly the best. In short, it seems like a nice article, but doesn't quite satisfy the merits of a Featured Article. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Any image that could be included would be fair use, and we are trying to limit the number of fair use images on the page. We've been trying to hunt down a free one of Albert Brooks (Hank Scorpio) to no avail. As for the references, I was basically trying to get citation for every fact that could otherwise be seen as POV/OR. The lead is modelled after other Simpsons episode FAs, but I'll clean it up where I can and I'll do what I can for the prose. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough on the images, but I still think that there could be more images (I understand limiting fair use stuff, but I believe the lack of images detracts from the articles). If we disagree, we disagree. As for the lead, wow. I can't imagine what I was thinking when writing that. What I meant to say was to read the article on how leads should be done. The big thing is that everything in the lead should later be mentioned in the article and, therefore, needs no references. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

All cites are clear from the lead. Also I find it hilarious that you used the link to my talk page to represent a reference, very good. Gran² 15:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I had to use something to demonstrate my point; thought you might find it amusing if you ever caught it. :-)

The problem is not the fact that the lead's citations are bad in some way, but that it has them at all. IAW Wikipedia:Lead section, "since the lead summarizes the main text (which will be referenced), supplying citations in the lead as well is an unnecessary duplication" It has been fixed by Scorpion⁰⁴²². Accordingly, it now has my support, but I feel that the text could certainly be more compelling and an additional fair use image would contribute to the article. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm on the borderline of casting my "vote" as not supporting this article. The major problem I'm having is the line: He works for a Steve Jobs-esque boss named Hank Scorpio who, unbeknownst to Homer, is an Ernst Stavro Blofeld style supervillain. Is there any reference for the article's claim is that Scorpio is a "Steve Jobs-esque" because that is merely an opinion. --Souphanousinphone 02:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Also, I want to add is that is it necessary to mention IGN in the intro? The Cape Feare and Homer's Phobia's article intros mention the Emmy awards because it is the United States' television industry major award. While, IGN is just some popular website that targets certain demographics which are usually teenagers up to 30 something males. --Souphanousinphone 03:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  - - If you had read the article, you would have seen that there is a similar statement in the production section. Scorpio is compared to both Steve Jobs and Blofield in the DVD commentary by Josh Weinstein. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
      - We shouldn't be specific with awards one in the lead anyway. It may be an American show, but it's broadcast in other locations, and since this is an english Wikipedia and not the American Wikipedia, we shouldn't give preference to these awards in the lead. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
        
        Basically, I added it because I felt some sourced mention of the episodes acclaim was needed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Support - I just realized that was capable of supporting the page because I didn`t nominate it. It`s come a long way since the nom and I think it is much better than it was. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Support Ratings would be nice and it seems that the reception section is made up of opinions from the show's crew. In the "Plot" section, it says, "Homer does an excellent job of motivating his team, but notices that they are starting to get overworked. He decides to motivate them by buying them hammocks..." It might be better to say, "Homer notices that they are starting to get overworked. He decides to motivate them by buying them hammocks..." --thedemonhog talk • edits 19:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- It's very hard to find ratings info for Simpsons episodes from reliable sources. I've tried using the Nielson website, but it hasn't worked out very well for me. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 21:04, 31 July 2007.

[edit] Kaziranga National Park

Well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable. Amartyabag, Pradiptaray, Nichalp, Dwaipayanc and others have done a wonderful job. Nicely referenced and nicely laid out with good images, and reads nice too. If there are any minor issues that need to be solved, we can address them here pretty very quickly. Aditya Kabir 13:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC) It is a national park and a World Heritage Site in Golaghat and Nagaon districts of Assam, India. Two-thirds of the world's Great One-horned Rhinoceroses live in the park. Kaziranga has the highest density of tigers among protected areas in the World and was declared a Tiger Reserve in 2006. The park has large breeding populations of Elephant, Water Buffalo and Swamp Deer. Kaziranga is recognized as an Important Bird Area by Birdlife International for conservation of avifaunal species. I ask every wildlife interested person and for further conservation of critically endangered rihnos to support this article and to correct minor sentence problems themselves if possible. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 05:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Support - Well documented and informative article.Deserves to be a FA. - P.K.Niyogi 09:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Mild Oppose — To me the "Etymology" section seems awkwardly written, and does not satisfy 1(a) of the FA criteria. It needs a re-write and some paragraph breaks. The first paragraph of the lead also seems to lack a natural flow, and reads like a concatenation of a bulleted list. There are one or two minor punctuation/grammar issues in the text that I'm sure will be cleaned up, and the use of the phrase "took off" to describe a career appears to be vernacular. Other than that, the article seems pretty decent. — RJH (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the etymology section and tried to make it more presentable. Can you please have a look and give feedback?-Deepraj | Talk 16:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I made some extensive rearrangements to the "Etymology" section, before I saw that Deepraj had already made some changes. Chaipau 21:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed my opposition. — RJH (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment - These sentences could be better phrased "Grasslands dominate the western reaches of the park which are typically at a lower altitude than the eastern end, with tall elephant grass on the higher ground while the short grasses cover the lower grounds surrounding the bheels or flood created ponds."^[1] "After a decreasing trend for past few years, six one-horned rhinoceroses were killed by poachers in the early 2007, with a report establishing links for funding the Islamic militant groups in Bangladesh connected to Al Qaida."^[2] There's also some incorrect dash usage. Epbr123 20:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the Flora and Conservation Management sections in which the above sentences occur along with some minor copy-editing. Can you please have a look and give further feedback if you feel anything else is necessary?-Deepraj | Talk 16:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

"There is tall elephant grass on the higher ground" - sentences shouldn't start with "there" when the "there" doesn't stand for anything. "Tall elephant grass is on the higher ground" is better. Epbr123 17:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Done RedoneAmartyabag ^TALK2ME 06:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Support - Me as one of the main contributor support this article to be granted FA status. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 05:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment- ~~replace {{convert|37|°C|°F|0}} and some more with {{convert|37|°C|°F|0|lk=on}}. rest there is no problem regarding the content except Etymology section- it needs a bit improved.~~ after you address all the req. feel free to strike away my comments. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 08:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

right now i just fixed one as an example. after you address rest of them, then strike away my comments. Sushant gupta (talk · contribs)04:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:MOS, only for the first time the links to the Units is needed. Atleast once of all the units has been linked, the etymology section has been redone by Deepraj. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 06:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Object - ~~The transport section needs some references.~~ Many of the sources are the website of KNP. I believe that these cannot be taken to be independent sources. Thirdly, I think some of the sentences might be improved, although I am no expert on (1a)
- According to another legend Srimanta Sankardeva, the 16th century saint-scholar, once blessed a childless couple, Kazi and Rangai, and asked them to dig a big pond in the region so that their name would live on
  - ~~shouldn't the comma be after "legend"?~~
- ~~he was told it came from Kaziranga and the legend how it got its name~~
  - ~~I don't understand that~~
- ~~Pieces of monoliths associated with Karbi rule found scattered in the area seems to bear testimony to this assertion~~
- ~~shouldn't it be "seem to bear testimony"~~
There are probably other bits and pieces which can be improved by copyediting. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Done some copyedit in the Etymology section and added references in the transport section and other. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 12:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am satisfied with the notes that were struck out by Amartyabag. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Action List

^ corrected by Deepraj on 16:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
^ corrected by Deepraj on 16:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Support -Nice article, must say. It is as good as the park. Luxurious.gaurav 15:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Support A well sourced and interesting article.Baka man 05:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 21:04, 31 July 2007.

[edit] Georg Cantor

Self-nom by Ling.Nut but many others contributed significantly.
suck balls bitch This article has an A-rating in WikiProject Biography,WikiProject Mathematics, WikiProject Germany and WikiProject Philosophy. It had a positive Peer Review. It has been collaborated on by several mathematicians and other editors. It is well-developed and has a boxful of references (plus more stored away in case of challenges). Ling.Nut 16:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
oppose. I am extremely disappointed by what has happened to the section on ancestry since I wrote it; I attempted to be factual and non-tendentious; this is neither. The rest of the article will require more consideration; this can be discussed on its talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment The relevant discussion regarding this 'Oppose' vote is on the article's Talk, here. FA reviewers can judge for themselves whether or not these are valid grounds for opposing Featured Article status. Ling.Nut 20:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- suck it I may simply edit it again; but I offer an oppotunity to justify the changes. The rest of the suck balls article has been thoroughly revised, and I intend to comment on that when I have perused it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson
  - Edited; I think it's improved, and am withdrawing the oppose; but the edit history should be checked before it is put on the main page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Articles that depend strongly on a single source, as Dauben here, have been failed from both GA and FA for citing their source as rarely as this article does, and indicating it no better. This is not an oppose, because I think those decisions were wrong; but it should be borne in mind. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- It has more than thirty cites to the main source (which is well indicated in footnote 2). I would be shocked if such a well sourced article had been failed previously for such a reason. Geometry guy 00:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment Does anyone have any input on making Georg Cantor the selected biography for the Logic Portal for the month of August? I suppose it might be a good mark for it. Perhaps the timing is an issue, and some time down the road would be better? Please advise. Gregbard 10:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Support. I had some concerns about the mathematical sections, but I fixed them. This article is in excellent state, well referenced and sourced. Geometry guy 00:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Support with misgivings I like this article a lot, and I recognize the love and care that have been lavished on it. However, I fear that it does not reach out to lay-people in the way that a general encyclopedia should; most of it reads like a biographical sketch written for the mathematical cognoscenti. I really wish that there were a section describing in simple terms for the lay-person why the real numbers are not countable, and that that result were described with appropriate emphasis in the lead section. Bonus points for a discussion of the rationals! :) If Scientific American can do it, then so can we, no? At least perhaps someone should write a daughter article that does all that and then include a link to the daughter article. Non nobis solum — we do not write Wikipedia articles for ourselves, but for earnest students who wish to learn; please build a bridge to them, lest our work be in vain. Willow 01:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

PS. Minor point: can one make a link to non-standard analysis from transfinite numbers? It occurs to me that there is a 1-to-1 mapping between a finite repeating decimal such as

$\frac{1}{3} = 0.33333\ldots = 3*10^{-1} + 3*10^{-2} + 3*10^{-3} + \cdots$

and an infinite number, by inverting the signs of all the exponents

$3*10^{1} + 3*10^{2} + 3*10^{3} + \ldots$

which, when inverted, should give an infinitesimal. One might be able to define an ordering on the infinitesimals based on the ordering of the finite decimals. Just a stray thought, Willow 01:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment from non-mathematician: Cantor thought infinitesimals were evil (not literally), and resisted attempts to define them using transfinite numbers. I'm not exactly sure what hat means, but it might mean that connecting the two in this article won't work....? Ling.Nut 01:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Further comment/request clarification: If I understand Willow 's reservations correctly, it seems she is wanting the article to explain the logic of Cantor's diagonal argument (which mathematicians find so swoon-inducingly elegant) ...? Ling.Nut 02:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ling.Nut, thanks for your note! :) I'm not particular about the method, although I agree that the diagonal argument seems like the rigorous proof most likely to be intelligible. The main thing is to clarify the uncountability of the reals; there are probably many ways of doing it. You might begin with a simpler, non-rigorous, intuitive argument, then move to the rationals, and thence to the reals. If you stick to arguments that seem ridiculously kindergarten-simple to you, then the rest of us might have a chance of understanding them. ;) Ramp up gradually; keep the simpler arguments close to the beginning of the article, so that readers don't drift away before they get to the good stuff :) Good luck and best wishes, and I know you'll have good help Willow 03:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This should be done in Cantor's diagonal argument. The article on Georg Cantor is a biography, not an introduction to transfinite set theory. Geometry guy 09:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I see your point and whatever you all decide is fine; the purely biographical material is excellently written and you definitely have my support either way. But please consider that readers will want to understand why they should care about Georg Cantor, what did he do important? The article has a section on his "Work", which to me seems as though it would be rough sledding for many readers. I would suggest either to (1) simplify the language throughout that section — which, unfortunately, would make it less accurate, I guess — or (2) choose one or two core concepts (e.g., power sets or that there are different types of infinity) and explain that/them in detail, either here or in a linked daughter article. Perhaps more Figures might help, e.g., illustrating the power set, and a more lay-friendly Figure for the bijection? I suspect that the two ovals with the symbols and arrows may be mysterious to many readers. There's the more picturesque metaphor of comparing the number of grains of sand in two buckets, or (say) matching parents and children at a very large adoption agency; perhaps do the finite case and then extend to the infinite? I just think readers would be happier if they came away understanding one thing well, rather than five things vaguely; grasping one concept might also inspire them to try to learn more, which would be a Good Thing, no? Willow 10:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Comment: In response to Willow's comments, we added a new super-top-level intro to his Works, which is extremely abbreviated/simplified. IMHO, the nuts and bolts of actually explaining his work in a digestible fashion should be done in the relevant articles which are dedicated to aspects of his work — see e.g. Cantor's diagonal argument. I agree that article and others need work, but that fact should not penalize this article. Ling.Nut 18:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment -
- I think the second sentence under Youth and studies would be better if worded as "Georg, the eldest of six children, was an outstanding violinist, having inherited his parents' considerable musical and artistic talents."
  - Fixed thanks. Ling.Nut 10:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps I am reading this incorrectly, but the 7th paragraph under Teacher and researcher reads, "Cantor suffered his first known bout of depression in 1884.[18] This emotional crisis led him to apply to lecture on philosophy rather than on mathematics. He also began an intense study of Elizabethan literature in an attempt to prove that Francis Bacon wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare; this ultimately resulted in two pamphlets, published in 1896 and 1897.[19] Every one of the fifty-two letters he wrote to Gösta Mittag-Leffler in 1884 attacked Kronecker. A passage from one of these letters is revealing of the damage to Cantor's self-confidence:" - This seems to jump into information about letters to G M-L. The way it is worded is as if these letters have been previously mentioned, however, they have not. Additionally, I recommend removing the "on" before "mathematics".
  - Fixed thanks. Ling.Nut 10:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Following the previous, "Cantor soon recovered in 1885, and subsequently made further important contributions, including his famous diagonal argument and theorem, but he never attained again the high level of his remarkable papers of 1874–84." - This prose could use some work. Possibly, "*Cantor soon recovered and, in 1885, made further important contributions including his famous diagonal argument and theorem, but he never again attained the high level of his remarkable papers of 1974-84."
  - Fixed thanks. Ling.Nut 10:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- ~~Under Late years, "After Cantor's 1884 hospitalization, there is no record that he was in any sanatorium again until 1899.[21] Later that same year," - Later which year? 1884 or 1899?~~
  - Fixed thanks. Ling.Nut 10:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- ~~Following the previous, "and this tragedy finally drained Cantor of much of his passion for mathematics." - "Finally" seems out of place.~~
  - Fixed thanks. Ling.Nut 10:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- "The events of 1904 preceded a series of hospitalizations at intervals of two or three years." - "two or three years" or "two and three years"?
  - Not fixed, the original seems acceptable. Ling.Nut 10:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Second paragraph under Set theory, "... transcendental numbers is nondenumerable (that is, not countable)." - The meaning of nondenumerable has already been explained a couple times. I recommend removing the info in parenthesis.
  - Fixed thanks. Ling.Nut 10:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- ~~Following the previous, "Cantor had shown that union of two denumerable sets must be denumerable." - Is there a word missing? Such as "that the union"?~~
  - Fixed thanks. Ling.Nut 10:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Under Continuum hypothesis, "there exists no set whose power is greater" - Should that be "whose" or "thats"?
  - Not fixed, the original seems acceptable. Ling.Nut 10:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Unable to complete review at this time. Lara ♥Love 07:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: This is a fine article and deserves to be an FA. However, I have some problems with the lead section. It should summarise the article, but unfortunately there are some interesting "teasers" in the lead that are not fully explained in the article. For example, Poincaré's quote is quite strong, but is not explained. Kronecker's opposition is explained well, but I cannot see the connection between his opposition on a mathematical basis and the quote that Cantor is a "corruptor of youth". There is also a mismatch between the lead section and the philosophy section. Wittgenstein is mentioned in the lead, but there are no details in the philosophy section. Some additional sentences on the Christian theologians' objections with Cantor's theory would be nice. As it is, both sections just state that there were objections without any details. Finally, it would be great to add details, if the sources provide it, on the motivations behind Cantor's philosophical beliefs (why did he believe in direct communication from God, why was he the only person in Halle that did not believe in a deterministic universe, etc.). This addition would make this a better biography article as well as a mathematics/philosophy article. The last point isn't a big deal though, but please fix the mismatch of the lead and the rest of the article. --RelHistBuff 15:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply: OK the quote regarding Poincare is explained in a new paragraph beginning "Debate among mathematicians grew out of...". More to come... Ling.Nut 20:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Further reply: amplified "corrupter of youth"
Further reply: I really thought the Catholic argument was clear before this, but I added 1 more sentence to make it (hopefully) even more perspicuous: see "God's exclusive claim to supreme infinity". As for Wittgenstein, explaining his thought is of course difficult, but I gave a (probably inadequate) 1-sentence summary at the end of the paragraph beginning "Debate among mathematicians...". I hope this satisfies RelHistBuff's concerns Ling.Nut 23:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You have my Support. Very nice article on a complex man. --RelHistBuff 06:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Support - All issues I found were addressed or explained. I feel it now meets the criteria. A very well-written article. Lara ♥Love 03:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 21:04, 31 July 2007.

[edit] Parasaurolophus

Submitted for your approval, Parasaurolophus, another production of Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs. This article is extensively cited (40 referenced documents), presents useful images, and covers its topics in detail using the standard dinosaur article format; a particular point of interest is the thorough discussion of the many proposed functions of its hollow crest. External links are germane, the length is comparable to present dinosaur FAs, and, outside of a brief run-in with creationist POV in May, it has been stable. J. Spencer 02:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

shotgun Support - I'll disclose I'm one of the WP dino collab team but this is on par with the other dino FAs of similar length - I feel it fulfils all criteria well. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Good overall, but:

There isn't any mention of P. cyrtocristatus in the description section at all. Y Done
There's also no comparison to other lambeosaurids.
You have two paragraphs in the description section that start with "Like ____ __________s..." (mixed it up a bit) Y Done
"The length of the type specimen of P. walkeri is estimated at 9.5 meters (31 ft). However, its skull and crest are only about 1.6 meters (5.2 ft) long"... a 1.6 meter-long skull, is that supposed to be short? I know you are comparing it to P. tubicen but you might want to rephrase that so it doesn't sound like you're downplaying the length of that skull. Y Done
On my screen the two pictures in the Description section don't really fit. I realize that all depends on the size of the window and whatnot but consider moving it elsewhere (or adding more text!). Y Done
The whole "Species" section seems redundant and out of place to me. Most of that information is just repeated from the previous couple sections or could be placed there instead.
A lot of things are wikilinked multiple times. You really only need to link it the first time. I would go through and remove all of the duplicate wikilinks.
Sometimes there are two spaces between sentences, other times there's only one. I think it's accepted to have only one space, so you might want to go through and fix those where they are found. Y Done I think
Some of your sentences are pretty complicated, you might want to see if you can combine clauses and things to make them read simpler. The less commas and semicolons the better in my opinion.
On the other hand, get rid of sentences that start with "but". Use "however" or add them onto the previous sentence. Y Done

Just some things to keep you busy, buddy. I'm sure this will pass sooner or later. I wonder if anybody outside the Project will respond... Sheep81 06:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Also there's no explanation of the etymology of the generic name in the text, is there? I must have missed it if there is. Sheep81 07:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right on the last bit - done.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Do the double spaces actually show up? Count me surprised. I think multiple wikilinks can be useful if there's been a large amount of text between them, so you don't have to hunt for the first occurrence if "x" was linked in the lead and then shows up again in the last section, but I'm not going to get into a fight about that. J. Spencer 13:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I made some check-offs, but feel free to de-check. A couple of questions/points on your suggestions, by number:

2. What would you suggest? They're all pretty much the same except for crests.

6. I took out a particularly redundant sentence, but I like the section as a brief summary. Any ideas?

7. I removed a number of them, although I think they should stay when an unfamiliar term, like a formation name, is used again after a break.

9. This is actually restrained for me. Check the edit summary for this difference on another article :). J. Spencer 02:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

2) I guess you could compare the crests then, briefly. The only description of the other lambeosaurids is "helmet-crested" which doesn't really tell the reader that much (what kind of helmet?) You could do this briefly in the Classification section.

6) Could you make the Species section a subheading of Classification?

7) Not my preference, but that's fine. I just noticed that things like "juvenile" and "meter" and "plant" were linked multiple times, when to be honest I'm not even sure they need to be linked once.

9) Haha, well I've had to work on it myself a bit also. I tried to read through and make a few changes which made it easier for me personally to read. Sheep81 06:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

~~Neutral until resolution to problem fixed...~~→Changed to Support I like the article & think it is one of the project's better articles. However, under the section "Paleobiology" there is a subsection called "Habitat". Unless I'm mistaken, "Habitat" refers to Paleoecology, and Paleoecology & Paleobiology are two entirely different things. "Habitat" should be split off into another section like "Paleobiology" but be named "Paleoecology". Other than that, everything is awesome... Spawn Man 08:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Sheep81: Okay, sounds like good ideas. I just took care of #6. J. Spencer 14:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Spawn Man: Originally, I thought no, but then I looked at the other FAs and thought about it, and it's a good idea, so I changed it and will make a couple of other alterations in other articles. J. Spencer 14:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the change JS - Changed to support above↑. Spawn Man 10:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Support - I am a member of WP:DINO but mostly I just watch them in case they try and take over WP:BIRD. Good article, though I think they should work on my favourite dinosaur, Corythosaurus. Two minor quibbles, is it duckbill or duck-billed? And first sentence pronounced RP [ˌpæɹəsɔːˈɹɒləfəs], GA [ˌpæɹəsɔˈɹɑləfəs], in common usage is also RP [ˌpæɹəˌsɔːɹəˈləʊfəs], GA [ˌpæɹəˌsɔɹəˈloʊfəs], and meaning "near crested lizard" in reference to Saurolophus).... where is the parenthesis supposed to start? Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it both ways, but I've been using duckbill, so I standardized it. The parentheses start after Parasaurolophus; it's a long parenthetical statement because Parks was being clever about Saurolophus and because people pronounce it two different ways. J. Spencer 14:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, when are we going to make WP:BIRD a subproject of WP:DINO anyway? You know how paraphyly angers cladists... it would be safer for everyone. :) Sheep81 18:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Watch it, or Wikiproject Reptiles will grab us both....Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. Copyedits by user:Pgan002 (of the League of Copyeditors) and user:Circeus (who always seems quite thorough) lead me to believe the content is clear and understandable, with removals of redundancies and refining of flowing prose. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Support as a member of WP:DINO. Let me just say that I really, really hope some outside editors will weigh in on this article though. Sheep81 21:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Support. A high quality, thorough article which meets all requirements. Just two minor comments; there is a single redlink to hadrosaurine in the article that could have an article created for it. Also, the description section is a bit choppy, but i understand its hard to expand or link most of those sentences. Great work Kare Kare 02:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

At this point "hadrosaurine" should redirect to hadrosaur, but oddly enough no one used it before. J. Spencer 02:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Support Another good article for the Dinosaur--A cool night green owl 12:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 21:04, 31 July 2007.

[edit] Banksia ericifolia

I am nominating a fourth Banksia article for FAC, this is the first one in several months - I feel it is equivalent to the others; Banksia integrifolia and Banksia epica being the most recent. It is easily the most comprehensive account on the plant online, thoroughly referenced (inlined and cite format), neutral and stable. I feel the prose is the equal of the others and have copyedited wih some help from others. It has a concise lead summarising the article and the images are free (I took most of the photos meself!). There are 2 redlinks which I can fix promptly. Leave me input and I'll address promptly. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good article. The end section - the actual finish up of the article - might like a see also section, and a few more external links might be nice just to round the article off. otheriwse I think this looks good to be ed. Cheers -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm not a huge fan of See Also sections (but can be persuaded) - I put a link to another official botanic gardens page and there's commons links etc. at the bottom. Can you think of anything on wiki that you feel would be good to have at the bottom for quick reference or which somehow cannot be linked in the main article? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

- Come to think of it - not really. So scratch the see also section if you want. But I think maybe, if at all possible, a few more externals might be nice, just to sort of fill up that big white space at the bottom. If you cant: thats fine too. These are very minor things we are talking; all I am saying is discountable. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Support I've hidden my list because the striking and stuff makes it confusing to look at. Circeus 11:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Long discussion of my (Circéus) comments, now all addressed

*~~Conditional~~ Support ~~If these issues can be clarified:~~

- ~~"The bark is a smooth grey colour with lenticels, but can become thicker with age."~~
  - ~~Thickness has never been mentioned so far...~~
    
    (OK -expanded and reworded to reduce ambiguity)
- ~~"Old flowers fall off the cones, often to reveal numerous small dark grey to dull black finely furred follicles."~~
  - ~~What cones? Not the best way to introduce the fruits... And "often" is just confusing the matters~~
    
    reworded to "Old flower spikes fade to brown and then grey with age; old flower parts soon fall, revealing numerous small dark grey to dull black finely furred follicles." - not sure whether to add "on the naked spikes" to the end - more explanatory but starts to get repetitive. - feel free to add if you feel it sounds better
- ~~"they are ridged on each valve and remain closed until burnt by fire."~~
  - ~~What? the flowers?~~
    
    (follicles - done)
- ~~"Occasionally, plants occur which produce multiple flower spikes of varying sizes."~~
  - I'd think pictures in the article makes it obvious that most plants produce multiple flower spikes...
    
    (no, multi- spikes are pretty rare - I was just chuffed it occurred on the one in my garden - hence the nice photo which is the only one to diplay multi-spikes)
    
    Ah... it sounds like multiple spikes are produced by the plant overall. THat is what needs to be clarified: multiple spikes from the same point
- When "macrantha" and "microphylla" are mentioned under "taxonomy", the level at which they were placed should be mentioned. Also, what exactly has Salkin noted? In the current formulation, it seems to be the publication of "macrantha".
  
  (Sort of - he noted the difference of the northern populations and named them "microphylla" though this was not an official description. Alex later concurred there was a difference and officially named them as subsp. macrantha)
  
  Further clarified. Circeus 16:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- "to the west of coastal areas."
  - Considering the location discussed, is it necessary to specify "to the west"??
    
    (you're right - removed)
- A distribution map would make a great addition (almost necessary, in fact) to this article
  
  (agree - one is coming...)
  
  Yay! Circeus 16:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  - The map has now arrived Gnan garra 15:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- ~~"nectariferous birds"~~
  - ~~Wait, wait, doesn't nectariferous means "which produces nectar"?~~
    
    fixed now Circeus 02:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- ~~The prose in the cultivar list could probably still be improved. Keep in mind my previous suggestion about a centralized list, too.~~
  
  I've gone through the cultivar section and ensured all are grammatical sentences as I realise alot was in note form still. I'm not convinced paragraphs is (are?) the best way to go as it will look a bit listy then anyway. I am happy to see what consensus arises with further review. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  
  I think it's probably the only format that can be used if the cultivars have no articles and have to be in the parent species articles. At least those are well-developed.Circeus 16:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Circeus 23:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Support From an outsiders point of view, i think the article looks pretty good, meets all the criteria. My only nitpicks are the following:
- In the image in "description" the name of the plant is bolded, yet in other pictures the name isnt? it just doesnt seem consistant. Personally, i dont think it should be bolded in the first place. (yoicks! well spotted and removed)
- I dislike it when two or more citations marks are eight next to eachother, it looks ugly. You may wish to "merge" them (see reference 22 on Hamersley). This happens several times in the article, 26&27, 5&6, 7&8. (It's late here - will have a look at Hamersley tomorrow as I've not seen it done elsewhere)
- (Previously mentioned) Massive white gap at the bottom of the page (ext links). Maybe you could slide some of the commons/source boxes up little bit, so that there isnt the white gaps. (will tweak away tomorrow)
Apart from those few nitpicks, i think the article is ready for the star. Twenty Years 14:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

formatted EL's into a table, to remove the white space. Gnan garra 15:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding combined notes, I don't think it works very well for complete references (as opposed to abbreviated ones). Multiple footnotes are alright. Circeus 11:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Support~~Comment~~ This article covers the subject matter very thoroughly. It is well-written ~~in general, but there are just a couple of sections that I think need attention as follows:~~

~~Taxonomy~~

In the second paragraph of the taxonomy section there is a bit of a rapid-fire namedropping (Salisbury, Alf Salkin, Theile, Mast, Eric Jones, Shaun Havery) mostly with no introduction / context /link to indicate who the people are i.e. botanist, taxonomist etc. Also I think that consistently including the first names of all individuals for their first mention in a WP article (in contrast to a scientific paper) would be a bit more “user friendly” for a wider readership.

(OK, I've clarified several of the more important ones with nationalities and occupations where known and first names - I had meant to do this but forgot, so thanks for reminding me)

~~:Cultivation~~

As in nature, Banksia ericifolia inflorescences attract birds to the garden. (need to state that the bird attractant qualities of this plant are a factor making it popular in cultivation, but the wording which makes a rigid distinction between what happens in gardens and nature doesn’t work )

Done

~~:Note that named cultivars are propagated by cuttings. (Need to drop the slightly terse “Note” and add a small expansion explaning why)~~ --Melburnian 08:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Y Done - though pondering whether to move this sentence to cultivar section actually...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

My comments done and dusted; I fully support this article's promotion to featured status. Nice work. Melburnian 12:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 21:04, 31 July 2007.

[edit] Sophie Blanchard

The first female professional balloonist, she learned the hard way that hydrogen and fireworks don't mix. When I started work on this I assumed that there was very little information on her, but some trawling through books has turned up rather a lot. There is a degree of disagreement between the sources on many aspects of her life and I've tried to cover this objectively in the article. Unfortunately, many of the main sources are in French; whenever possible I've tried to substitute an English version, but this has been impossible for a lot of the information. Yomangani ^talk 11:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Support Put simply, this is a great damn article. -- Kicking222 22:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Support Agreed, this article is short and to the point, but well written and has a good amount of citations for its small size; plus, a very interesting topic.--PericlesofAthens 23:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment a couple of things: cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- After a number of mishaps, in 1819 she became the first woman to be killed... - this initial clause juxtaposed with the next statement doesn't quite 'gel' for me. I think I'd remove it as it is a bit vague (everyone has mishaps?) - also its position somehow makes it look like it should be related to her death in some other way than 'ballooning is a risky profession'. Maybe a sentence stating something like that just before the death bit would be better.
  - I think we can take it that mishaps refers to ballooning rather spilling her tea, but I've expanded this anyway. Yomangani ^talk 12:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't the meaning of mishaps but how it juxtaposed with the next clause. Anyway, all nice now :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

- The prose in the first section is more choppy than elsewhere but then I figure this may be related to the sparseness of the reference. Elsewhere the article reads well - as I mentioned I'd expand the mishaps into a sentence about the dangerousness or risks etc. she had.
  - That's a result of having copious information on her death and only a series of unconnected one-liners for the rest of her life. Considering the paucity of detail available I think it is substantially less choppy than it could be. Yomangani ^talk 12:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting - ~~Conditional~~ Support ~~once above fixed.~~ cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Support The redlinks should be removed if the corresponding articles are not going to be created in the near future. Otherwise, no problems with support for this article at all. --Ianmacm 20:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support, though I disagree about removing the redlinks. Yomangani^talk 12:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Redlinks achieve nothing without the corresponding article. A person will click on them and they go nowhere. Unless there is a likelihood that someone will create the article with the redlink, they should be removed.--Ianmacm 08:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    - If the article will never be created I entirely agree. Yomangani ^talk 11:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment

PDF sources need a "format=PDF" parameter in their citation template
Page ranges in the footnotes need en dashes rather than hyphens
Some full dates in the footnotes need linking
"The couple faced bankruptcy due to Blanchard's poor business sense" - "due to" should be used only if it can be substituted with "caused by". Epbr123 21:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the first three. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that Sandy. I've changed due to as since it was worth mentioning it obviously causes problems, though I'm not quite sure what you were getting at, Epbr123. Yomangani ^talk 12:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"Due to" means "caused by". People mistakenly think it can also be used for "because of". Epbr123 13:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, got it. Modern usage is for owing to/due to to be used interchangeably for because of, but perhaps Fowler is still holding out on that one. Yomangani ^talk 13:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Also:

"Blanchard may have given some demonstrations of parachuting herself" – the "some" is redundant
- I disagree. It is acting as a non-specific quantifier. It may not be entirely necessary to impart the information, but we could reduce the entire article to about five rather terse bullet points if that was the only aim. Yomangani ^talk 23:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The "herself" is ambiguous. Did she make make parachute jumps from the balloon? Epbr123 08:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It is as ambiguous as the source which said something along the lines of "Mme Blanchard and others have demonstrated the use of parachutes after Garnerin's first jump". It is likely that the source meant to imply that she jumped herself, but it doesn't say that and it is the only source which mentions it. Yomangani ^talk 11:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I mean is the article trying to say she gave some demonstrations of parachuting herself out of the balloon? If not, is the "herself" redundant? Epbr123 12:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The phrasing was meant to imply the same level of ambiguity as the source without reproducing it verbatim (albeit translated). She might have jumped from the balloon herself, and this is what I inferred from my reading, but she may have just demonstrated parachutes by some other means (such as dropping puppies attached to them). I think dropping the "herself" would make it read as if it was more likely that she didn't jump. Yomangani ^talk 13:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The Crotchets In the Air book in the reference section is dated 138.
- Fixed. Well spotted. Yomangani ^talk 23:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Em dashes should be unspaced. Epbr123 22:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed. Yomangani ^talk 23:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong support - excellent article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 16:08, 30 July 2007.

[edit] Be Here Now

Mediocre album by a great band (Oasis); there is a good story here, hope that it is conveyed. Co-nom with WesleyDodds. Ceoil 23:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I'm afraid. It's pretty comprehensive but is lacking citations, and the prose is a bit clumsy. Specifics from the first paragraph:

Citations for album sales.

Good catch, done. Ceoil 23:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Citation for Ignition's publicity management.

I don't understand; their activity is fully explained and detailed in the article body. Read it. Ceoil 23:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"retrospectively the album is typically viewed as over-indulgent and bloated" - contradicts with the info box which has pretty good ratings for the album.

Good catch, clarified. Ceoil 23:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No explanation for why the album got lots of publicity despite Ignition trying to keep it low key.

Self evident, but clarified for you. Ceoil 23:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

In the rest of the article (without a detailed look):

I'm not sure about the fair use rationale for album covers.

Read up. Not a valid objection. Ceoil 23:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The charts section is pretty bad. Why only the canadian and US for the album? Also,I have no idea what the different singles charts actually are. All the charts should be linked and there should be citations for the positions.

I agree. I'll tidy it up a bit. Ceoil 23:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Ceoil 20:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Quantpole 13:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Quantpole, facts supported in the article body are not normally cited in the lead. Ceoil 23:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The more usuall vote from an editor who who has not taken "a detailed look" is "comment" and not "object" bty. Ceoil 23:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Some cites cover more than one sentence - editors have to watch how cited an article is. If the articles gets overcited there's been a new tendency to oppose due to "excessive citations", so there's the issue of trying to find a proper balance. LuciferMorgan 17:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I have most of the same sources Ceoil used and I can assure the editors many of the cite tags cover mutiple sentences. WesleyDodds 19:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was saying in short. LuciferMorgan 11:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Note for editors I've messaged Quantpole on his talk page and asked if he can revisit the article and assess whether he still feels his vote is valid. Hopefully he will revisit this FAC. LuciferMorgan 20:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment "Music and lyrics" section needs a load of work - you can't use sentences like "The tracks are more layered and intricate that before, and each contains multiple guitar overdubs" and word them as though they are factual. This is an opinion, and should be attributed to whoever feels that way. This is reflective of the whole section, and should be addressed. I'll give it a few days, but if it stays that way I'll be voting oppose since I feel it gives readers an inaccurate impression, and "factually accurate" is a part of 1c. Other than this, I can't spot any problems. LuciferMorgan 11:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Almost every review brought up the points you highlighted; will do. I take your general point that the section needs some more work and tweaking; happily I found a few new sources this morning. Ceoil 11:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, "reflective of the whole section"; this short section has 17 inline cites, and you picked the only one sentence that did not have direct attribution. The fact is cited now, anyhow. Ceoil 15:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not referring to citations - it's cited fine as far as I am aware, and needs no action on that front. I'm referring to attribution to whoever gave what opinion. For example, to correct this would be "Critic A of X magazine said the tracks "are more layered and intricate that before, and each contains multiple guitar overdubs"." This would show that this is opinion, and not fact like the article seems to imply. LuciferMorgan 16:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Things like "multiple guitar overdubs" are not openions, the album is heavily overdubbed as a fact. This kind of thing is self evident even from the short sample if you have knowledge of studio technique. It goes back to the old argument of citing that the sun is hot. No need to say that, according to X, "the sun is hot", because it begs the question "but what do Y and Z think." Ceoil 17:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact that the sun is hot is rather different, and I wasn't asking for citations. Please read what I said - "I'm not referring to citations". I was referring to attribution, ie. naming the person who holds whatever opinion. LuciferMorgan 20:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the issue seems to have been addressed since my comment. So, in the light of that, I fail to understand your defensive nature. I'm not making a criticism as I think the Alternative music Project does some good Wikipedia work, so there's no need for comments like "this kind of thing is self evident even from the short sample if you have knowledge of studio technique". I don't profess to have knowledge of studio technique, though I hope that doesn't make my opinions about the article less valid. LuciferMorgan 20:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Eek, that sentence looks a lot worse now that when I typed it, and I've struck it; sorry about that. I take you point however, it's been adressed. Ceoil 19:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments Mostly good, but some problems with quotes from sources seen below.

"turning over 420,000 units..." seems kind of colloquial to me.

Fixed. WesleyDodds 08:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"the band's two previous albums had resulted in media frenzy and over-hype..." What does 'over-hype' mean exactly?

Clarified. Ceoil 19:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

""The only reason anyone was there was the money. Noel had decided Liam was a shit singer. Liam had decided he hated Noel's songs. So on we went. Massive amounts of drugs. Big fights. Bad vibes. Shit recordings."" is from the lead, and ""He just shrugged and said it would be all right. So on we went. Massive amounts of drugs. Big fights. Bad vibes. Shit recordings."" is from the recording section. Which of these quotes if correct? There must be ellipses (...) if things are left out of a particular quote, which is what I think happened here.

Ok, I've checked both sources, which are based on the same interview conducted by Q magazine. The quote Q printed is longer and covers two paragraphs, and the quote Q has on the website seems to be a synthesis of Morris' sentences. The magazine version is probably more reliable; I'll leave it to Ceoil to address that. WesleyDodds 08:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Its sourced to the print edition. I've straightened it out. Ceoil 19:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

In music and lyrics section, second paragraph, two sentences in a row start with "While...". This is awkward.

Fixed. WesleyDodds 08:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

In marketing section, ""not discuss the album with anyone - including you partner at home. It basically said don't talk to your girlfriend about it when you at home in bed."" The 'you' at the end should be 'you're', but I don't know if that is a typo or a mistake from the actual source?

Fixed. Ceoil 19:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Also in marketing section, ""We sit in [Oasis] meetings today and we're like 'It's on the internet..."" Internet should be capitalized, but can't check the source. Another quote: "I remember listening to "All Around the World" and laughing - actually quite presurably - because..." 'Presurably' is not a word. Check the source again to correct these mistakes.

Both fixed. Ceoil 19:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Reception section, "pledging not to sell the record earlier than eight A.M." That can't be the correct format for writing times, can it?

God no. Fixed. Ceoil 19:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Reception section, "capping the success of Oasis and electoral victory of the Labour Party" I don't understand the connection with the Labour Party. Could this be elaborated on?

It's a little off topic to get into, so I removed the Labour Party bit. Ceoil 19:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Same section, quotation ""the fact is that nothing could have lived up to the fevered expectations that surrounded it's release doesn't..." This should be "its" not "it's". Same problem as above: is this a typo or mistake in the actual source?

Checked reference. Fixed. WesleyDodds 08:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Overall it's pretty good; a good read. Nathanalex 21:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy edit bty. Ceoil 19:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment, that lead is a little too huge. 24.47.149.158 14:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Support If only the Metal Project had such dedicated Project members (sigh). LuciferMorgan 20:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Found the following problems,
"So colossally did Be Here Now fail to meet expectations, that it killed off Britpop, overnight ending the careers of also-ran bands such as Cast, Sleeper, and Gene. Years after the album's release, music critic Jon Savage pinpointed Be Here Now as the moment where the Britpop movement ended." - 2 adjacent sentences mention the death of britpop. It looks clumsy and should clubbed into one.

Clubbed. Ceoil 20:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

".... and the height Britpop's popularity." The very next sentence - doesn't make any sense.

Clarified. Ceoil 20:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"Oasis were by now having meetings with the Prime Minister of Britain and holidaying with Johnny Depp and Kate Moss in Mick Jagger's villa in Mustique" - Sentence seems unencyclopedic in some way.

Clarified. Ceoil 20:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"Noel Oasis let it known that Oasis had an album's worth of songs demoed, and the general feeling was that they should record as soon as possible." - Noel Oasis? And also link "demoed".

Edited. Ceoil 20:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"The Sun's showbiz editor Dominic Mohan recalled of the period: "We had quite a few Oasis contacts on the payroll. I don't know whether any were drug dealers, but there was always a few dodgy characters about."" - Could you say when he had recalled, starting the sentence with "In 2007, The Sun's ..."

Source does not give date of quote. Ceoil 20:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

In the infobox, the Recorded section looks unreadable, keep each studio in a different line. Same with producers.

Done Ceoil 20:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TommyStardust (talk • contribs) 17:37, 7 July 2007.

Thanks for the comments, the article is tighter now. Ceoil 20:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Support The article's come quite a long way, a lot of good work has gone into it, and I have to say it deserves to be featured. ErleGrey (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

- Support - All my concerns have been addressed. Tommy Stardust 20:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Support All outstanding issues addressed. Dave101→talk 19:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Support seems good enough. Hope the Oasis, Definitely Maybe and Morning Glory? articles reach this level soon. igordebraga ≠ 12:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Further copy-editting by a third-party required - "and it's 1995 follow up (What's the Story) Morning Glory?", "before it's release", "he received a call telling him he wouldn't be able to". There is also some incorrect dash usage. Epbr123 23:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"he received a call telling him he wouldn't be able to" - Good spot, that was a v. poor sentence indeed. I've straightened it out a bit now. Found and fixed a few dash issues as well. I've always had problems with it's vs. its, combing the text right now. Ceoil 18:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Support Everything above has been addressed, and I believe the article is more than ready for FA status. NSR77 ^T_C 02:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Weak support, the article looks fantastic to me, but I would really advise an editor to add the {{update after}} template after dated statistics - it flags the statistic after it expires to make it tand out so that it can be updated later; I actually prefer it over wikilinking.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 12:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

~~Oppose:~~ Overall good. But I saw a few grammar and stylistic things that should be corrected. Upon their correction, notify me on my talk page.

~~"went onto become the" - "onto" should be two words (on to)~~
"As of 2007, the album" - as of 2007 should be wikilinked

Only full dates are wikilinked. WesleyDodds 07:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"As of" dates are also wikilinked, since they connect to pages like this one, and are then monitored for updating by this wiki-effort. If you prefer, you may also add the template {{Update after}} to the phrase, following the comma. For more information on how to use it, go here.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Its not mandatory; excessive blue linking hinders readability. Ceoil 21:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

~~"artistically it failed to live" - it should be "has failed" to match the tense of the rest of the sentence~~
But now, there should be a comma after artistically, in "Artistically Be Here Now".--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 12:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
~~"company Ignition were aware" - I think it would read better if Ignition were in commas, but regardless, it should say "company Ignition was aware" (company is singular)~~
~~"access to album" - " access to the album"~~
~~"their last stay on the island" should be followed by a comma~~
"in six months since" should be "in the six months after"

Done. Ceoil 18:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This passage:

that involved going "into this room in the morning, come out for lunch, go back in, come out for dinner, go back in, then go to bed."

doesn't have parrallelism. Reword the section before the quote so that each verb in the series is in the present (going is the gerund). Let me know if you don't understand.

Done. Ceoil 18:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the British dating formatting, but this "On 10 and 11 August 1996" looks wrong, specifically the "and". Also, the rest of the dates in the article are formatted Month day, year, and this should be dated that way, as well as wikilinked.
~~"Noel let it known that" should be "Noel let it be known that"~~
~~This passage~~

~~Noel let it known that he had an album's worth of songs demoed~~

is in passive voice, which isn't always wrong, but here, obscures the meaning. It causeses the sentence to sound like someone else demoed the songs (possibly the correct meaning) or that the grammar is wrong and Noel did it himself (in which case it should read "Noel let it be known that he had demoed an album's worth of songs"). I would recommend changing it to the latter reading, or specifying who demoed the songs (thus eliminating passive voice).

- The statement is still in passive voice, but at least it's clearer.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 12:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
~~"management took the decision to" - may not be wrong, but shouldn't it be "management made the decision to"~~

Fixed. WesleyDodds 07:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

~~"attempted to cover up by" - should be "attempted to cover them up by"~~
~~"In many instances" should be followed by a comma~~
- I changed my mind. That looks fine.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 12:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
~~"he dubbed 10 channels" - spell out 10 (ten); the same goes for "first heard the 72 minute Be"~~
"when the album did go on sale" should be followed by a comma

Done. Ceoil 18:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

~~"one had to got back" I know this is in a quote, but shouldn't that be "go back"? If the source actually did have "got back", this should be followed by [sic]~~

*This statement definitely needs referencing

~~So colossally did Be Here Now fail to meet expectations, that it killed off Britpop, overnight ending the careers of also-ran bands such as Cast, Sleeper, and Gene.~~

Also, I doubt the hyperbole of this statement; I'm sure the album did some damage, and even killed the careers of the mentioned bands - but has Britpop every died? I mean, Coldplay kicked in just after the release of this album. Regardless, the opinion needs to be substantiated by a reference.

Fixed this. Oh, and Coldplay technically isn't Britpop. They drew from a strand of Radiohead-influenced alt-rock that replaced Britpop. WesleyDodds 07:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

~~Read this aloud, and you'll see the problem~~

~~Reflecting in 2007, Garry Mulholland admitted, "the fact is that nothing could have lived up to the fevered expectations that surrounded its release doesn't change the facts.~~

~~Was this quote transcribed correctly?~~

"The Gallagher brothers hold different opinions" should be "The Gallagher brothers hold differing opinions" Currently, it sounds like the following opinions are going to contradict the opinions we just read, when they are actually pretty identical. It's not until I kept reading that I realized it was talking about the Gallagher brothers among themselves.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 18:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for an insightful review. Ceoil 21:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 16:08, 30 July 2007.

[edit] Shaw and Crompton

I think this city article passes the FA criteria. Epbr123 09:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

~~Conditional s~~Support User:Jhamez84 and User:Peteb16 have put in a lot of work on this page and should be congratulated for their achievement. However, some of the paragraphs are very short and some of the phrasing is a little strange. There should be at least one citation per paragraph, in my opinion. I recommend that they continue to work on the article and bring it back here when they're ready. DrKiernan 11:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The short paragraphs have been fixed and some more citations have been provided. Could you please give some examples of where the phrasing could be improved. Thanks. Epbr123 21:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, some specific pointers would be really appreciated. And thank you for the kind words of support also. Jhamez84 02:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

~~:::The new paragraph structure is great. In terms of phrasing, I'm particularly thinking of:~~

~~the paragraph beginning "The River Beal"~~
~~the sentence starting "Like Oldham, from which"~~
~~"acts as a consultee" - "is consulted"?"~~
~~"sitting of a small chapel" - "siting"? This phrase (But not, I appreciate, the information) is repeated in the next sentence: "the site of a small chapel".~~
~~"archeologists", check spelling.~~
~~"Whilst in 1076," can we drop the whilst? I know it's widely used (I used to use it very often myself) but its use is deprecated by other editors as an archaism.~~
~~"the Norman conquest forces"~~
~~"saw it fit", can we drop the it?~~
~~"public woods" or wood?~~
~~"than any other town in the world." and "any other place in the world." Repetition.~~
~~"capsual", check spelling~~
~~"in-between" can we drop the in?~~
~~"It then lists eight names" This is my personal view, but I would prefer that we remember them as men not names.~~
~~" after redevelopment of the junction to a large roundabout" - "after the junction was redeveloped as a large roundabout"~~
~~"sortation" - "sorting"?~~
~~"a 1899 built public swimming pool" - "a swimming pool built in 1899"?~~

~~I really enjoyed reading it. I used to live in Royton. I'm supporting on the basis that you will continue to improve and watch the page. DrKiernan 07:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)~~

All those examples have been fixed. Epbr123 09:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~
- Structure: Why use a catch-all "Present day" section? The first two paragraphs would go well in the Geography section to describe its character. The sub-headings are standard sections for city articles. The "Future developments" section sounds like it should be in the Economy section.
- Comprehensiveness: The Geography section is dominated by things that are around the town (mountains, other towns, a river which does run through it) but has little on describing the geopraghy of the town and nothing on the built environment. There is more weight given to individual war memorials than town layout, infrastructure, roads, etc. - a map would help in this respect. In the Civic history section, elaborate on what the civil parish does for the town (the intro sentence defines it as a civil parish but according to the body that only means they have planning permission.) In Demographics there is more to a demographic profile than the number of people and their ethnic background, expand on this (eg. average age, household size, etc.) Nothing available on crime or media?
- Prose: "The parish council elects fourteen Councillors..." how many members are on the parish coucil and where do they elect Councillors to? "Shaw and Crompton has become a popular residential area of relative prosperity and a variety of housing types to suit families, couples, individuals and professionals." (advert language)
~~There is a lot of good stuff here, it just needs clearly communication ~~and a more intuitive structure.~~ --maclean 05:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)~~

**Comment: The title "Geography and administration" was a compromise as the traditional counties folk opposed the use of contemporary human geography as "geography". I'd be more than happy to use the term Geography however.

~~The "Present day" section seems to work for these smaller settlements - if we remove it, we then have several smaller, but elevated sections, which I'm not sure would work on their own.~~

Are for the parish council, I'm not sure how that's been put in, it's worded wrong (the parish council is itself made up of the 14 councillors!). As for the advert language, well that's what the citation says so I'm reluctant to change this as it may be misappropriation and misinterpretation of the reference. Jza84 01:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

*Comment: I believe I've addressed most of these issues. However, the trouble is, little material about the parish council and joking aside, this parish council does little beyond planning permission... I will see what I can gather for the "built environment", though again, it may be difficult to find suitable citation and source material. Jza84 01:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment:In my view, all issues raised thusfar have been addressed. Demography and Built environment has been extended (with reference material of course), whilst the layout has been standardised to a FA CITY class level. Jza84 16:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment I think this is the best "UK place" nom so far. The history section is the best I've seen in one of these, and the article manages to cover most of the details without becoming too disjointed. I think the war memorials are covered in a little too much detail, it's struggling a little to find "landmarks" and the big compass is annoying, but those are just personal preferences and not valid objections. I'll support if you can clear up the points listed below:
- Gilbert de Notton was granted the estate from descendants of the Norman conquest. I've changed this to Norman conquerors but the meaning is unclear. Had the line died out? Should it be by descendants or as a descendant?
- following the death of the last remaining family members, the site was sold and the manor was demolished in 1952 How many of those events happened in 1952?
  - Comment: Just this one to be honest. The family owned two large properties - Crompton House (which was given to the Church of England in 1926) and Crompton Hall (which was demolished in 1952). There was no wider demolision, in this town or elsewhere. Jza84 11:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    - Obviously I wasn't clear. I meant how many of these three events (death of the last remaining family members, sale of the site, manor demolished) happened in 1952? The sentence structure can be changed to make it clear, but I couldn't copy edit it myself, as although the hall was clearly demolished in 1952, I wasn't able to work out if either of the other two events occurred that year. Yomangani^talk 23:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
      - Ahh, I understand now. Yes the family died in 1926, and Crompton Hall sat unoccupied for many years; I read somewhere that Crompton Urban District Council didn't want it demolished, but for legal reasons it was - that may explain the time difference. However I read that long before I joined Wikipedia, and I'm now unsure of the source. Jza84 23:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- The legacy of the Cromptons is apparent in the area - how?
- Shaw and Crompton owes much of its history to the Industrial Revolution, in particular to 19th century cotton spinning, which provided the area with rapid expansion, prosperity and economic growth. So much so, that by 1913, Shaw and Crompton had one-sixth of the spindles of the Oldham Parliamentary Borough. I don't find that the second sentence leads naturally from the first and the one-sixth of the spindles is a bit of an obtuse way of representing the dominance of the cotton industry.
- However, events following World War I, and competition from abroad, led to a severe depression in the British cotton industry. I assume this should be World War II, as the article has already discussed the boom after World War I. If not some explanation is required.
- Shaw and Crompton has since formed part of the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham ever since? or did it later form part of the borough (in which case a date would be nice).
- The parish council comprises 14 locally elected members including three which also act as councillors to the wider Oldham local authority, and is consulted in planning processes which affect the area Who is consulted? The is suggests the parish council, but the sentence structure suggests it should be are and refer to the 3 councillors.
- ...but does have a town crier - a purely ceremonial role? It would be good to mention that if so.
- ~~The unemployment figures differ between the text and the comparison box.~~
- The store cost £15million to construct, and is the first of its kind in the United Kingdom to use environmentally friendly construction techniques - what is "its kind"? Supermarkets?
  
  I actually meant the "of its kind" needed changing in this sentence. It needs to be specific as it is making a claim to precedence. It is the first supermarket in the United Kingdom to use... or it is the first supermarket of over x thousand square feet in the United Kingdom to use... or whatever. Yomangani ^talk 22:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- three cops of spun cotton cops could probably use a link or explanation
- ~~"Religious sites" is actually "Christian sites". Are there any sites for other religions?~~
  - Comment: there is a small mosque - I'm trying to find a reference. Jza84 18:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- ~~Are park names supposed to be in italics?~~
- no immediate residents complained nor the police nor the local council’s child protection unit provided representations during the formal application period - doesn't make sense at all
- However, a legally watertight argument from the applicant - this is dodgy. Legally watertight is always opinion; it would be better to explain the the argument.
- The units of measurement need tightening up: there are some without metric conversions, some without imperial conversions, and use of square miles and acres.

Yomangani ^talk 16:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic feedback. I've struck some comments I've fixed with this sig. I will work hard to fix the remaining issues asap. Jza84 18:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The Compass Table was changed to a new one. the new one is almost ridiculously over-large, mainly because of a large graphic in the centre that is not really necessary. I've reverted it back to the old compass table which is compact and looks more neat. If one is obliged to use the new compass table, I'd sooner one was not used at all, but the information contained in it placed in the text instead. DDStretch (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Support : I think this is a great article. Just one minor quibble "convenient position" in the economy section could be considered POV although the following sentances explain why it's position might be considered convenient for distribution. — Rod ^talk 08:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

- Comment: That's a fair point and one that I hope has now been addressed to your satisfaction. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

*Oppose: Really good and informative article. There are, however, a few unreferenced parts:

- ~~the second paragraph of the "Big Lamp" section~~
- ~~the "Education" section~~
- ~~the "Religious sites" section~~
- ~~the "Community facilities" section--Carabinieri 20:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)~~
- Comment: I've added sources to these sections. Does that address your concerns? Jza84 18:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Yeah, thanks. Support.--Carabinieri 00:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

At the time of this sig, we have three impartial supports and no opposision. Jza84 11:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 16:08, 30 July 2007.

[edit] Roy Welensky

Article about a famous white African leader during the decolonisation period that I wrote up in two weeks. Has been prose checked by Tony, full of references, and is interesting enough. I look forward to the response. Michael ^talk 10:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I did this a while ago, and I suspect it's the kiss of death to admit my contribution. It will certainly generate a lot of scrutiny. Tony 11:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Tony. Michael ^talk 11:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Just quickly, but if someone comes along and places a reference between your ibids, it's going to mess things up. Cheers, darkliight^[πalk] 11:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

1) Are editors that foolish? 2) The likelihood of this article being substantially altered is remote. Michael ^talk 12:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

1) Supposing not would be a big assumption for an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. 2) Swap so for not in 1). Even minor rearrangements of text could disrupt the ibids. Anyway, just an idle comment, so I'll leave it at that. Cheers, darkliight^[πalk] 12:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

1) Do you really want an answer to that question? :) Sheep81 13:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

A strange and hearty anonymous user has seen to some formatting improvements. Bravo! Michael ^talk 06:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Support - Comprehensive and well-written for the most part. Just go through and make sure ~~all of~~ you clearly specify who you are talking about when you use pronouns. An example from the first paragraph of the "New constitutions" section: "After Banda was released from prison against the wishes of Welensky, he travelled to the United Kingdom, where he took part in the Nyasaland constitutional talks. The outcome was a constitution which, through a voting system that was equally as complex as that of the federation itself, amounted to black majority rule for the territory. Bitter and angry at what he saw as British ignorance to the situation, he did not comprehend how the British were willing to deal with Banda." Who's "he"? I assume it's Welensky based on context, but I shouldn't have to read through to the end of the sentence just to be able to guess who the subject is. Thanks! Sheep81 13:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment. It's not common practice to bold parts of image captions. Could you unbold them? CG 11:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose due to missing citations and prose issues. Comment
- Another pronoun issue -- "With the advent of African rule in two of the Federation's three territories, it collapsed in 1963." Possibly reword to "After the advent of African rule in two of the three Federation territories, the Federation collapsed in 1963."

Fixed.

The problem is "it" could either refer to African rule or the Federation. need to spell out that it is the Federation that collapsed.

- ~~I would wikilink Afrikaner in the Youth section.~~

Done.

- ~~If his mother's family is a ninth-generation Afrikaner, it stands to reason that her family had lived in Africa for centuries, so you probably don't need to spell that out.~~

Corrected.

- This sentence is bad. It makes it sound like a) Welensky's mother was 11 when she died and b) she died because she was treatet by Godfrey Huggins. ~~The sentence is also not sourced.~~ -- "At the age of 11, Welensky's mother died, having been treated by Godfrey Huggins, a doctor who was later to become the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia."

Rewritten.

Still need a source, and the sentence still does not read well.

- ~~Do you need to say "train driver (railroad engineer)" or can it just read "train driver" or "railroad engineer?" It seems silly to have both.~~

Fixed.

~~railroad engineer should not be capitalized.~~

- ~~The last 2 paragraphs of youth section seem to go back and forth between boxing and the railroad. Can you separate those out into two distinct paragraphs, one on boxing and one on railroad career?~~

Done.

- ~~Do you have a year for when he married Elizabeth Henderson?~~

Unfortunately, no. So I can't fix this one. Hopefully it will not be a block.

- ~~The Colonial politics section needs citations~~

Refs done.

- ~~DO you know the name of the Governor who prevented Welensky from enlisting?~~

Not named in any of my resources, so no. Again, hopefully not a block.

- ~~First paragraph of Amalgamation and Federation section needs citations~~

Refs done.

- I think the article overuses parentheses. Instead, try to incorporate the text into the article. Sometimes it's as easy as using commas around the phrase instead of the parentheses.
- In this quote: "However, he insisted that "and for as long as I can see, in that partnership [the whites] will be senior partners" you don't need to begin his quote with "and"

I know that in some articles quotes are used to excess, but in this case, they are quite appropriate. The parentheses are essential to the... integrity... of the quote itself.

- "It was fortunate for them " - This is not appropriate for a formal encyclopedia article

Removed.

- Do a copyedit for comma usage. There are several places where a comma is used to apparently combine 2 sentences, but the second half is not a complete sentence and therefore no comma should be used. For example: "It marked the decline of a gradual approach to decolonisation, and a rapid speeding up of the process"

I fail to see how this is a problem, and I don't believe that my use of the common is technically incorrect. The article has already been copyedited by Tony.

- ~~Remove red links~~

There are a grand total of four red links (that I remember), so I do not think this is a problem. In time all will have articles.

- Problem with your transition into this quote: "of making the situation "as consisting of two opposed policies, black rule and white rule. They naturally prefer to aim for black rule and hope they will experience this, which they regard as the apotheosis of Colonial Office policy". instead of beginning the quote with "as consisting," use "[consist] .."

Fixed.

- This sentence and its quotation change pronouns halfway through, using he and I. It needs to be a consistent point-of-view. "In January 1959, he stated in a speech that he "put Salisbury [the capital] on fire ... I got Salisbury rocking, rocking, and got it awake out of its political sleep..."[23] , after which his followers stoned passing cars and verbally abused whites."

Perhaps you could suggest an appropriate way to fix this. At this point, I see no remedy (or a need to have a remedy, as I see no problem).

- ~~Need a citation for this: "after which his followers stoned passing cars and verbally abused whites."~~

Refs added.

- This sentence doesn't make sense to me: "Welensky obtained the meeting's proceedings" Shouldn't it be, "discovered the meeting's plans" or something along those lines?

No, he obtained the proceedings, as it said. It was a meeting, with minutes (proceedings was chosen as "minutes" would sound a bit funny).

I've never heard "proceedings" used in place of minutes. Is that common in British English? Karanacs 17:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

- ~~Instead of using "the Governor," use his name. "the Governor proclaimed a state of emergency on March 3,"~~

I do not have the name of the Governor, unfortunately.

- ~~Need citation for paragraph about African nationalist parties being banned and renamed~~

This was fun to go through, having to find citations all over the place for banning, and reforming. In there though.

- ~~Need citation for last half of first paragraph of Commissions and MacMillan section~~

Refs added.

- "The outcome was a constitution which, through a voting system that was equally as complex as that of the federation itself, amounted to black majority rule for the territory. Bitter and angry at what he saw as British ignorance to the situation, he did not comprehend how the British were willing to deal with Banda. " -- Who is "he"?

Corrected.

- mixed pronoun usage here -- in one half of the sentence his refers to Banda, in the other half to Welensky. "In Welensky's words, since his release from prison, "[Banda] was careful to appeal for calm and to condemn violence"[33], but he was averse to Banda's demands for black majority rule and believed that granting it to the territory would mean the end of the " This also needs a citation.

Fixed and ref added.

- This sentence needs to be rewritten. "Eventually, Welensky was comfortable to have an African majority in Nyasaland and for the province to secede, seeking to preserve only a union of the two Rhodesias" "was comfortable to have" is not proper English, and your verb tenses don't match in the two clauses

Easily fixed.

- ~~Need citation for first paragraph of Territorial and federal elections section~~
- ~~Need citation for this "but ensured that the talks went smoothly"~~
- ~~Need citation for the events that happened when the FR declared unilateral independence~~

Refs ll provided, but I do think the article is getting quite overloaded with them.

It may seem like overkill, but for verification purposes, it is best to have everything cited.Karanacs 17:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Karanacs 15:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Responses inline. I hope you can cross out that oppose. Michael ^talk 09:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. Excellent work as usual. Rebecca 12:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
~~Oppose~~ Further copy-editing needed.

These have redundancies: "brought the different parties to an agreement." "All of the nationalists groups" "removing various restrictions imposed".
"With new constitutions in place for the territories, elections were held throughout 1961–62, with Welensky's UFP being beaten in each one." - repetition of "with".
Try not to use the word "whilst".
"Prior to" is overly formal.
"Famous" is a peacock term. Epbr123 09:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The redundancies and "famous" are worthy objections, and I have corrected them, but the others do seem to be leaning towards a certain type of English. "Whilst" and "prior to" and words and phrases which would be associated with a more formal type of speech, and should not be frowned upon here, as they are not overly pompous. Michael ^talk 10:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Oppose withdrawn. Epbr123 10:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Support As Rebecca said, excellent writing as always. Perspicacite 08:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The article is generally really well-written. The problem is that it seems to focus too much on Rhodesian history rather than keeping to Welensky's biography. There are whole paragraphs that do not mention. While it is important to give the political/historical/etc. context. I think the article currently goes too far. I would love to change support this one once this issue has been taken care of. Also:
- The following all deserve to be linked (even if it's only a red link): European Railway Workers Union, Northern Rhodesian Legislative Council, Northern Rhodesian Labour Party, Victoria Falls Hotel (even if you don't add a redlink, the blue one to the article about the waterfalls should definately be removed), South African Parliament
- Often, an event is described without mentioning when it took place. Specifically, the following need to have the year they took place in added: "A British general election was held and the Conservatives gained power.", "The party was successful in its first election, with twice the votes of the opposition Confederate Party", "The Southern Rhodesian Government, under the leadership of Garfield Todd, began removing restrictions imposed on native Africans."
- "Apart from organising the federation, Welensky won a significant political battle at home against the British South Africa Company (BSAC), which controlled mineral rights and the associated royalties throughout Northern Rhodesia." Does "at home" mean in Great Britain?
- "Having lived outside the territory for more than 25 years and unable to speak his native African language, he required the assistance of interpreters to communicate with the population, whom he stirred into a frenzy with his speeches" What is "his native African language"? The langage of Nyasaland?--Carabinieri 17:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I will agree with you wholeheartedly that at times the article goes into significant detail of Rhodesian history. But Welensky was the main player in much of it, his own autobiography is a Rhodesian history treasure trove, and I think that it needs to be included to put things *in context*. The article reads well for a newcomer to Rhodesia (most people don't know what it is), and this background history is an asset. I will add some more detail into those sentences noted, however. Michael ^talk 00:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I will also agree with you wholeheartedly that giving the context is important in some cases, but I believe this article just goes too far. Otherwise, it's a great article.--Carabinieri 19:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Support, everything looks to be in order now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 16:08, 30 July 2007.

[edit] John Mayer

Self-nomination. This is currently a good article. I (and some other editors) have poured into the article ad nauseam. It has been through three peer reviews (a couple that were pretty anorexic). I think the article is encyclopedic, and real effort (sometimes painfully) has been put into cutting the fancruft. The article abounds in resources, many from reputable music sources (AMG, Rolling Stone, NME, etc...) Also, because John blogs so much and gives, like, an interview everyday, much of it is first hand accounts, verified by multiple sources. I have tried to work on the prose; I read the article out loud and tried to eliminate redundancies, run-on sentences, superfluous, wordy bits, and the like. I think it is thorough, as it covers all of John's major endeavors in and out of music, including his personal life. But it isn't filled with hourly are-they-or-aren't-they Jessica Simpson updates either. The images and music samples are all kosher. No edit wars. I really want this article to be great, and am eagerly open to (polite) criticism. Thanks in advance.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 14:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment Selected events looks like a trivia section. ShadowHalo 19:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- If several editors agree with this statement (after reading the section), I don't mind conceding, and with this in mind, I've already removed a great deal of the section. But, the section amounts to (1) a simple acknowledgment that he has played himself on TV, (2) a brief mention of his endorsements and (3) his affiliation with MacWorld. I (humbly) believe they are not just a laundry list of funky facts, but really subsets of activities he's involved in. Of the three, I most defend the MacWorld part, as his affiliation with Steve Jobs and Apple is essentially a side project, although, most accurately, it is not. I welcome more feedback in this regard.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 20:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Weak support My only objections are that the Notes and Selected events sections should be merged into the main article. The notes shouldn't be hard to do: just put them where they're a note now. To be honest I don't see why they're notes at all. As for selected events, they all fit in his biography rather well, except perhaps the Family Guy one, which wouldn't be a very big loss if you couldn't fit it in. I suppose you could if you said "In the {{date}} episode of Family Guy..." or something to fit it in the chronology. Atropos 03:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- I will definitely try to integrate the "Selected events" section into the body of the article. The Family Guy thing can be deep-sixed, and is really a remnant of a time when there was a whole section dedicated to that episode. The reason the Notes section was created was because, if you read those facts, they significantly break up the fluidity of the sections that they are referenced from. I would love more feedback in this regard, and I'll also see what can be integrated there as well.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 11:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Support Oppose for now. The prose has been cleaned up a lot since I reviewed it in the last peer review :) There are some other issues that need to be addressed before this will be FA quality, however. Great job with the changes! Karanacs 20:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Very minor things:
  - ~~per WP:MOS, Need commas after single years (i.e., in 2003,)~~ Y Done
  - ~~The first sentence in second paragraph of the lead sounds awkward to me.~~ Y Done
  - ~~"gotten involved in charity" -> possibly "He is also involved in charitable activities"~~ Y Done
  - ~~First two sentences of Early career start with "After." The next two in that paragraph start with They. Can some of these be changed to something else?~~ Y Done
  - ~~Instead of "(with AMG)", use ", of All Music Guide,"~~ Y Done
  - ~~The wikilink for AMG goes to a disambig page -- please fix.~~ Y Done
  - ~~Paragraph about Heaveier Things has a lot of repetitive sentence beginnings~~ Y Done
  - ~~Need a better transition between last two sentences of Early life paragraph beginning "soon after getting his guitar,"~~ Y Done
- ~~I agree that the notes need to be incorporated into the text.~~ Y Done
  - At best the Michael J. Fox can be merged. The other two are entirely to disruptive to merge with the body. The note about his father is only kept because it is such popular folklore that when I deleted it previously editors would come back and add it. I think it makes sense to acknowledge that this is commonly thought, but wrong. The Tony Held note is WAY disruptive and extraneous. Apparently some editor(s) thought it was worth, including, however since it clarifies John's relationship with the company. ::Sigh:: In conclusion, I would rather remove the notes than merge them (although I would most prefer to keep it like it is).--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 19:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    - I see your point about the second note. I would just delete the third note; it doesn't really add anything to the article. Then I wrestle with whether it would be better to merge the MJF one and just have one note, or leave it as is. Karanacs 20:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- No citation for this sentence: "This major label "debut" included the first half of the songs that had appeared previously on his independent release." and the sentence itself is awkward (do you mean the first four songs or half of each of the 8 songs?) Y Done
  - I didn't write that, but, being familiar with the album, the person meant the first four songs on "Inside wants out" is on "Room for Squares." And it is now referenced and rephrased.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 21:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- ~~No citation for sentence "a remark that many mistook to mean that he was only 16 years old at the time."~~ Y Done
- ~~Need a citation for paragraph about live recordings~~ Y Done
- Need a citation for "lyrically underscores Mayer's decision to move away from acoustic pop music and towards blues with the line "Got a brand new blues that I can't explain."" or it might come across as WP:OR. Y Done
  - I would just as soon as remove this as actually search for citation. And, believe me, I fail GAs everyday for lack of citations, and I think this article shows my devotion to finding sources. However, it is really painfully obvious; the song says so pretty explicitly. I defend this (humble) opinion by saying there already are sources for his move to blues (the first half of the sentence), and the quote seems to me to just defy further explanation. But, if you think this is a significant issue, I'll just remove it (which I've been tempted to do for some time now. Though in hindsight, it somewhat justifies the existence of the clip from the song. I'll try to reword it.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 16:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    - What about citing the song lyrics at least, and then just add a cite for the first half of the sentence? Karanacs 03:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
      - Found a citation that came out last week that links the song and his move to blues.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
        
        Great job!Karanacs 14:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- ~~This sentence needs work: "This resulting EP was released on December 12, 2006 as, entitled The Village Sessions""~~ Y Done
- The link for Mayer's auction site is an external link. This should not be included inline, but could be listed in the External links section. The links to his blog and official site need to also be removed from the inline text as well. Y Done
- The Other projects section does not flow well from paragraph to paragraph. I think some of this information could be trimmed a great deal, and others could be reorganized. For example, I think you should have a separate section for charitable endeavors that would cover the first and last paragraphs of this section. Y Done
  - I merged the macworld and family guy reference into the mainstream success area chronologically. I then divided the project section into "Charity," "Design" and "Writing." This, or course, led to reviewing/re-writing the paragraphs for cohesion. I have marked this criteria as done (in my humble opinion) though I am still open to critique.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 18:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    - This looks great now! Karanacs 20:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- ~~Need better transitions between sentences in the first paragraph of the Touring section.~~Y Done
- ~~Do you really need a separate touring section, since there are mentions of his tours in other sections as well?~~ Y Done
  - I dunno know if I have to have it, I certainly didn't write it to begin with, but, regardless, I could only merge so much, and didn't want to delete some of the other info - sooooo, I trimmed boatloads of it, rm the subheading, and blanked out the unverified sentence.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 19:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- ~~Need a citation for "As of 2007, two are filled."~~ Y Done

I'll keep an eye on the page. If you fix all these things, I'll change my vote. Karanacs 16:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thorough feedback - you always do a great job of critique. I have began going through it, and the crossed out items I have either followed verbatim or corrected in a similar fashion. There are a few things I need clarified or have further comment on, which I will address shortly. Thanks again :)--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 21:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

And that, milady, is the curse of the Bambino. Which is my totally incoherent way of saying that I've tried to address every issue, and consider myself...coughdonecough.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 19:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment

~~Please see WP:PUNC for misplacement of end-quotation marks. I made a few sample edits.~~ Y Done

Comment: When I first saw this comment I was dumbstruck, since punctuation is one of my stronger suits, although I do not claim infallibility by any means. Regardless, when I read the actual policy, for all I could tell the system the system beared no resemblance to what I have seen in other grammar books (Eats, Shoots and Leaves immediately came to mind). In addition, I have repeatedly seen stated and practiced (here at Wikipedia and elsewhere) an acknowledgement of the differing rules of terminal punctuation and quotation marks between England and American English usage. All that said and done, I will try to make heads and tails of the policy, and put forth an effort to implement it, but I feel that this should not be considered criteria for not passing the article, especially since the policy itself states:

The Manual of Style does not claim to be the last word on Wikipedia style—everything here should be applied with thought, not robotically. These are not rigid laws, but principles that editors have found to work well in most circumstances. Thus, you are encouraged to follow these guidelines with flexibility.

- - --Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 17:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, that it is not a basis for failing the article, just a suggestion for improvement according to the Manual of Style, and of which I feel featured articles at least should follow. They are minor, just some ending quote marks are misplaced. Cricket02 19:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

~~Also, please see WP:CITET and WP:CITE/ES for correct use of citation templates.~~

The citation method I use differs from that page in only one detail. I have "(acessed...)" and the policy has "Retrieved on..." I could go through and change that, but again, the first line to the policy you reference is "There is currently no consensus on a preferred citation format for Wikipedia." And when I first started doing it that way last April, they guide I read used the word "access" (though, in Wikipedia fashion, it may have changed). Considering there are close to 80 citations, I hope that this would not be a dealbreaker. I might be able to use a "replace" feature to fix it, I'll see how it goes.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 17:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You need these cite templates to differentiate parameters such as publisher, etc., depending on if its "cite web" or "cite news" or "cite book", etc. template. I believe you'll find most featured articles use this method and I went through the same thing for FAC, reformatting all my references. But I am new at reviewing and will defer/inquire of more of an expert on the subject. Cricket02 19:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. For clarification, the article only contains two types of references: websites (most of which are to magazines and newspapers - Creative Loafing, Rolling Stone, NME, Spin, Bender, etc...) and a book. The two are cited differently, and according to the format at WP:CITET, as far as I can tell. I notice that you removed the {{done}} tag; let me know if that was not what you meant.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 20:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Cricket02 asked me to take a look at the discussion here. It's not necessary to use the cite templates, in fact, many of us (myself included) hate them because they chunk up the article size so much and return inconsistent results for some situations. My personal preference is to do footnotes manually, as this article does. What is important is that sources are consistently cited by whatever method is chosen and that all relevant bibliographic info is provided. If an editor uses the cite templates, then they should use each parameter (example publisher, date, accessdate) correctly; if cite templates aren't used, then a consistent bibliographic style should be used. For example, on websources, title, publisher and last access date must be given, and author and date should be given when available. The only thing that looks a bit different here is the No byline for author, which isn't really necessary, but I guess that's a permissible style. (I believe when there's no author, the cite templates place the date after the title; I like that appearance better, but that's stylistic.) I don't see anything in the ref formatting that rises to the level of Object, although I do see a lot of blog sources which I hope are used adequately, as blogs aren't typically reliable sources, and it appears as if a lot of the article is sourced to Mayer himself, but the formatting seems fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC) PS: an additional clarification. Cricket, the problem on your FAC was that the cite templates were used incorrectly, with publishers listed under author, which returned an inconsistent format vis-a-vis other sources which did have authors. What matters is a consistent bibliographic style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see! I knew you could articulate all that better than I could Sandy, thank you. I too thought the references looked good even without the templates, but wasn't sure exactly what was preferred for FA.Cricket02 22:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

~~And shouldn't the "Notes" section actually be the "References" section? Unsure if that's a preference thing or not.~~

Thanks SandyGeorgia for clarifying this issue. Side note: I know blog sources cannot be used for verification, but these are all from John's blog, and they only are used to verify things he's said. Never factual information (like that George Washington was X old when he died). Also, I'll look into the "no byline" formatting that you mentioned. Thanks again!--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 11:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

- - I believe that the way I have done it is correct. See WP:CITE, which suggests the heading order an naming that I have used. Of course, I'm welcome to feedback.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 17:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please state the copyright owners in the song sample information pages (they only state year of copyright). Also, cited text relating to the sound samples need to be incorporated into the sound sample boxes to justify fair use. (Example here)Cricket02 15:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Y Done

Will do :) --Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 17:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, and I will work to implement the suggestions.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 17:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. Looks like all issues have been addressed. Cricket02 22:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose for excessive fair-use image use. The two album covers are not discussed (yes, I know the albums are discussed, but the covers are not, which is an important distinction). Image:Jm wotwtc.jpg specifically is much too high resolution. Image:That's Enough John Mayer.jpg adds nothing that a prose mention couldn't cover - fair use should not be used to decorate trivia sections. Image:Rolling Stone - The New Guitar Gods.jpg is tagged with a license which explicitly explains that these uses, unless discussed with critical commentary related to the individual, are expressly disallowed. More free images should be pretty easy to obtain. The man's hardly a hermit. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree regarding album covers. Fairuse of: Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary). If the album is discussed, there is fair use of the album cover. Cricket02 17:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I, likewise, think the above policy is applies. I am addressing a response for each image below.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 17:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The two album covers: Respectfully and simply put, you're mistaken. Cricket02 has referenced the relevant policy above.
Image:Jm wotwtc.jpg - I've reduced the size of the image.
Image:That's Enough John Mayer.jpg - I removed it.
Image:Rolling Stone - The New Guitar Gods.jpg - For the sake of discussion, I have included the image tag verbiage here:

It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of magazine covers to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question, with the publication name either visible on the image itself or written in the image description above...qualifies as fair use.

The article directly discusses the issue pictured, and "Rolling Stone" is clearly visable. The tag continues:

It is not acceptable to use images with this tag in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover, unless used directly in connection with the publication of this image.

The article is directly discussing Mayer's connection with the publication of this image. It is discussing the honor he received of being named as a Guitar God and of appearing on the COVER of Rolling Stone. So your assertion that the image "is tagged with a license which explicitly explains that these uses...are expressly disallowed" are unfounded. Otherwise, I have complied with your other objections as substantiated by Wikipedia policy. Thank you for your input.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 20:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

See relevant discussion of the Fair Use issue at Talk:Slayer and WT:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks SandyGeorgia for bringing this discussion up, if no more than it gave me some perspective on the battles going on. However, I feel my comments above still stand, because (1) The references are talk pages, not policies; (2) This seems to be a campaign by Durin and "a number of us who are fighting fair use over use tooth and nail across a wide variety of articles" (his words). Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but no one is entitled to enforce their opinion without process, consensus and policy to back it up; (3) I only really thoroughly read his objections regarding album covers (since that's all that's relevant here) and all his complaints were about lack of fair use rationales, which is not the case here. On the Slayer article, he complained the images were used in other articles and thus redundant - an argument I've never heard, that honestly makes no sense to me, and that was refuted with gusto on the talk page. I don't want to seem like all his arguments were without merit (and I definitely believe in fair use rationales, not having 15 fair use images in one article, etc...) But until someone shows me a policy, law, or Jimbo Wales explaining to me why these images are't fair use, the arguments above still stand.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 12:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Support ~~Comment~~ ~~The prose need a lot of work. Examples only from the lead:~~

"began gaining" - Mixed tense.

I disagree. The gerund has no tense of itself (I am eating, I was eating, I will be eating), so where is the conflict? Please explain.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 03:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

~~"both did well commercially, going multi-platinum" - achieving multi-platinum status.~~ Y Done
"After originally performing mainly acoustic rock" - He began his career performing... Y Done
~~"Mayer made a transition towards the blues genre, in 2005, by collaborating" - why are commas bracketing "in 2005".~~ Y Done

An editor above told me that I had to put commas after every phrase that said "in YYYY." I'll happily remove it.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 03:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

~~"The blues influence can also be seen" - The influence of blues, drop the also.~~ Y Done
~~"Mayer's other interests include stand-up comedy, design, and writing" - Unclear; is he merely interested in these areas, or active.~~ Y Done
~~"and his efforts in averting man-made global climate change" - Latent POV.~~ Y Done

This was the result of wording battle with another editor. I'll fix it.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 03:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

~~In general the article is over linked; guitarist, clarinet, cardiac arrhythmia, panic attacks, Boston, Massachusetts, United Arab Emirates, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, in 2006.~~ Ceoil 22:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Done

rm all but in 2006, b/c it links to "as of" (in the case that this can be updated).

Thanks for your comments, I will get to it.

I see the work you did, I'm having another read and will post back later. The collecting watches thing is odd, no? ;) Ceoil 15:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Read it again; it's good, but there are still a few prose issues as highlighted by Tony below. Easily fixed, looking forward to voting support when these are dealt with. Ceoil 12:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Switched to support. Ceoil 20:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~

"The re-release also included" - "also" is redundant Y Done

The previous sentence lists things that were change for the re-release. Then this sentence mentions more. So I think removing "also" detracts from the logical fluidity of the sentence. But I changed it anyway.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 15:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You've made a good point so you can change it back if you prefer. Epbr123 15:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it back (sheepishly)--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 16:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

"Mayer has also done some endorsements" - "some" is redundant Y Done
"Mayer currently resides in" - "currently" is redundant Y Done

The word currently is "redundant" by definition (if one is speaking in the present tense, the event is always occurring currently). But I removed it anyway.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 15:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

"All of the album covers" - "of" is redundant Y Done
"outside of his genre" - "of" is redundant Y Done
"he began a string of collaborations with various important and provocative blues artists," - "various" is redundant, "famous" is a peacock term.

The word "famous" appears nowhere in the article. Otherwise Y Done--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 15:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant "important" is a peacock term. Epbr123 15:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Done

OK, I removed it.

"Mayer is partnering with Incase to produce various products" - "various" is redundant, "produce products" is repetitive Y Done

You seem to think that the word "various" means more than one, and thus is redundant if you use it with a plural? (Correct me if I'm wrong). Anyway, the word (which can verify yourself) basically means "of many different kinds purposefully arranged but lacking any uniformity" - which is the exact usage intended here. He is making several disparate products, but they are all "green." But, I changed it anyway.

I think the word "products" is enough to indicate that the products are of different kinds, so I think "various" is redundant. If you strongly disagree, you can change it back. Epbr123 15:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I kept it. It think items works just as well :)--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 16:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Its more formal to use "although" rather than "though"

I'm not sure what this means.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 15:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

"though" is a less formal abbreviation of "although", so "although" is better in an encyclopedia. Epbr123 15:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I changed them to although.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 16:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

"Although he's never been diagnosed" - avoid contractions Y Done

Where's the contradiction?--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 15:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

"he's" is a contraction. Epbr123 15:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yikes - I read that wrong. Fixed it.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 16:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

"The products are currently available only at his shows, although he has said they will eventually be available online" - this will eventually become outdated. Epbr123 11:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Much of the article will. He will probably eventually move, he and Jessica Simpson might get back together, his parents will die, he will probably stop writing some of of those blogs, the fifth album will eventually be released. But I (or anyone) can only write what is (ahem) currently true.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 15:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's better to say "As of July 2007, the products are only available at his shows, although he has said they will eventually be available online".

Done

OK.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 16:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention and critique. I've sought to apply it to the article. I hope you will reconsider your vote.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 15:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose wihdrawn. Epbr123 08:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Support Has come along nicely. Don't worry about the exceesive fair use-itis running amok on wiki these days. To them someone that lives on the steppes of Outer Mongolia can easily have a free photo taken of them and get back to wiki.Sumoeagle179 02:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose—1a and 2 (MOS). It's not bad, so once these are fixed and someone fresh has gone through it once more, I'll change to "Support".
- Redundant words, such as "first" in the second para, and "also" in the third (two of them).
  - This is not redundant. The word "first" has significance. It means this was the first genre that he played in. Considering he's dabbled in several, this is a chronological term - where's the redundancy? The "also" used in paragraph three means "in adition to the aforementioned, and (presuming you feel "also" is redundant because of the word "included") "included" does not signify "in addition to". If you insist, I'll change them (I want FA bad). Why not?Y Done--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 17:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- MOS says no final period in captions that aren't full sentences.Y Done
- "Mayer's name began to grow"—his name? How many letters did it become? "reputation".
  - No, name - they mean the same thing; check it out: Roget's Thesaurus, Merriam-Webster, WordSmyth.net, Infoplease.com, RhymeZone.com and even Wikitionary (You've never heard the song "You Give Love a Bad Name" before?)
    - Ceoil changed it.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 01:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- "Mayer came up with the song's concept - fantasies - and his vocals were sampled for the track." Read MOS on en dashes. I notice also spaced em dashes; MOS says em dashes are "normally unspaced".Y Done
- "with tickets often selling for as much as 1,625% over their face value"—This means "more than 17 times their face value", does it [17.25 times]? I hope so. Many readers would understand my quoted alternative more easily than the huge percentage value.Tony 12:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Y Done
  - Not that it matters, but what does this mean: "does it [17.25 times]? I hope so"?--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 18:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  - I appreciate your reading the article and offering your critique. I hope you will be motivated to change your vote.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment. The lead could do with some rewriting, I feel, and possibly could be expanded a bit.

His first two studio albums, Room for Squares and Heavier Things, both did well commercially, achieving multi-platinum status. - if they achieved multi-platinum status (which could be wikilinked for explanation), it's implied they did well commercially. "Both" is redundant. So it could just be "His first two studio albums, Room for Squares and Heavier Things,Y Done
Additionally, in 2003, he won a Best Male Pop Vocal Performance Grammy for his signature song, "Your Body Is a Wonderland". - "Additionally" isn't needed, and is rather jarring in such a short paragraph. Grammy should probably be included in the wikilink.
- Grammy is already wikilinked elsewhere in the article, in more appropriate places. Otherwise Y Done--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 01:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
ultimately formed - not sure what the "ultimately" adds
- A lot. Mayer's formation of the JMT was a culminating event. He stopped making original music for almost two years, and was dabbling in various genres, ranging from hip hop and film scores, to country and blues. Considering the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, the word ultimately is the abbreviated equivalent of two or three sentences in the "Change in musical direction" section.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 01:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
49th Annual Grammy Awards in February 2007 - excessive detail for the lead. "The 2007 Grammy Awards" or "the 49th Annual Grammy Awards", but we don't really need to know it was in February.Y Done
Mayer's career pursuits have occasionally extended to stand-up comedy, design, and writing; he has written pieces for several magazines, most notably for Esquire. - "career pursuits" is an odd phrase, to me. How "occasionally" has he been involved in these things? "Several magazines" - several is how many? Could probably remove it.Y Done
- If you don't like career pursuits, tell me what you like and I can change it. Also, I wasn't totally sure what you wanted removed, but I removed "occasionally" and "several".--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 01:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's me, but the lead just doesn't feel very cohesive at the moment. I would expand the paragraphs a bit; when they're only a couple of sentences it makes the prose seem choppy. Trebor 22:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This suggestion is kind of vague. The lead currently is separated according to the major shifts in the article - the "Your Body is Wonderland" years, the "blues-John-Mayer-Trio forward" era and "Other". I could add something about Jessica Simpson to make that last paragraph longer. If you could give me some specific suggestions or specify missing topics covered in the article, I could incorporate them.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 01:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 16:08, 30 July 2007.

[edit] Walter Model

Self-nomination. Model was one of the most important German field marshals of WWII, but he's rather less well-known than people like Rommel, von Rundstedt, etc. The article has already undergone a peer review and A-class review at the Military History Wikiproject, and I figure it's in good shape to be a featured article. -- Hongooi 08:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Support & Comment-->Looks pretty good. But a couple of things

No mention about his personal & family life. His wife, parents, children.
From July 1943 to January 1944, what did he do during that time?Mercenary2k 00:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There's not much available about his personal and family life AFAIK, at least not in English-language sources. Like I said, he burnt his papers before he died, which had made things difficult for historians ever since. July to Jan, he would have been at the Battle of Smolensk (1943). Seems hard to find out more about that battle, unless it's about Manstein further south (he always gets the glory), or from Russian-language sources. I'll see if I can dig something up from Glantz & House. Turns out he was actually on leave most of that time. -- Hongooi 13:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I did mention his son being a Brig Gen in the Bundeswehr...? -- Hongooi 13:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

In any case, both done. -- Hongooi 13:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Support -->Good enough for me. Mercenary2k 18:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Support -->Very informative, well-documented. It is almost too comprehensive for a single article, but then I couldn't specifically identify anything that should be cut.--Mcattell 22:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. Comprehensive and well referenced. Leith p 06:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I am curious about exactly what involvement he had in the war crimes mentioned. Leith p 10:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The specific charges he was indicted on, you mean? The root source for that appears to be Carlo D'Este's biographical essay, which doesn't go into much detail except to say there's no evidence he was aware of those specific acts. However, historians are generally agreed that he was deeply involved in the morally dubious German practices on the Eastern Front -- scorched-earth retreats, anti-partisan sweeps that killed thousands of civilians, etc. He may or may not have actively facilitated the more genocidal policies of the Nazis (einsatzgruppen et al), but he certainly never complained about them. Although it should also be said that he was far from the only German general who acted in this way. -- Hongooi 10:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment, pls review WP:MSH regarding use of "the" in section headings. Nice work !SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I gotta say that's an odd guideline. Looking at the sources I used for this article, almost all of them don't have any problem with "The" beginning a chapter title. Heck, one of them (Atlas of the Second World War, ed. Peter Young) uses "The ____" for nearly every section -- "The fall of Tobruk", "The attack on Leningrad", "The battle of Leyte Gulf", etc. I'll see what I can do. -- Hongooi 10:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Done, although I'm not really convinced it was necessary. -- Hongooi 14:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 16:08, 30 July 2007.

[edit] By the Way

In my opinion the best Chili Peppers album, although highly underrated. It was promoted to GA status in early June after a rewrite. Since then I've added a significant amount of information, and I'm hoping it can follow in Californication's footsteps and be promoted to Featured status. Self-nom. Have at. NSR77 ^T_C 04:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Support - I cleaned up a bunch of little things, and I think it looks good now. BenB4 14:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Support - I really like this album, and it's a very nicely written article. However, I have a question about the Singles chart. Why not source the three other thingies (like the UK Top 40, Modern Hits; only one is sourced). Also, what about other country's single's charting? For example, I randomly click on Sweden's info, and By The Way, Can't Stop, and The Zephyr Song all had been on the Swedish charts. Xihix 15:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Reference 43 covers the entire table, other then the new material I added. Two more major country charts are up there now, but I decided not to add more as the table is becoming large as it is. NSR77 ^T_C 16:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Support as good as the Californication one, detailed and illustrated. igordebraga ≠ 01:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - This section in the lead needs a citation: "Guitarist John Frusciante is credited with creating much of the album's melodies, bass lines and guitar progressions, therefore changing the direction of the recording dramatically" It's an extremely in-your-face statement that really stands without verification.
I'm not sure the "background" section is totally relevant to the article—at least not the first two paragraphs. The background given extends way too far back. If you could just expand on the third paragraph and say something brief about Frusciante's return, that should be enough. This section seems like apropriate background for Californication rather than By the Way.
This sentence is structured quite awkwardly: "In 'This Is the Place' Kiedis once again references his late friend, as he has done in other songs such as Knock Me Down, and once fellow band mate Hillel Slovak and how drugs forced him to miss the funeral: 'On the day my best friend died/I could not get my copper clean'." ; you might want to remove the "Knock me Down" reference and keep it straightforward. It may need a citation as well.
~~Here's a typo: "Other 'experimental' tracks include the trumpet based "On Mercury", a song centered "largegly" on ska."~~
~~The begining of the "release" section features a statement that is totally irrelevant to the article. "...although David Bowie had expressed interest in producing Californication.[19]".~~
I'm sorry to be so negative; but I guess during this phase, the positives have to go without saying. Grim-Gym 16:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't be sorry at all. The entire purpose of an FAC is to pinpoint any flaws in an article in order to rectify them. Lead sections are not required to be referenced, as they are, essentially, a summary of the article. The statement "Guitarist John Frusciante is credited with creating much of the album's melodies, bass lines and guitar progressions, therefore changing the direction of the recording dramatically" is sourced in, I believe, the first paragraph of the "Writing and composition" section. It is pretty well known that this is, more or less, John's album (expressed by several critics, some listed in the "Critical reception" section). The extensiveness of the Background section, I thought, in my opinion, was appropriate as it showed the reader that the Chili Peppers came back from a dip in success. If you really find it necessary to cut it out, then I'll work with it. I removed the statement about Bowie, and good eye on the "largely" typo! NSR77 ^T_C 21:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that you never introduce Anthony Kiedis by his full name. In Kiedis's first mention, "Frusciante and Kiedis collaborated together at each other's homes for days, discussing guitar progressions and lyrics.", it should say something like "singer" or "singer and lyricist Anthony Kiedis"
The awkward sentence I listed is still there, so I'll be a little more specific. Be brief; something like: "Kiedis wrote "This is the place" for late Chili Peppers guitarist Hillel Slovak, and describes how his drug use forced him to miss the funereal." would be sufficient.
The background needs to be more pertinent to how the band prepared for the recording of By the Way, and should focus much more on the aftermath of Californication. The first two paragraphs of the Californication and By the Way articles are essentially the same. If you could start with John's return and go from there, that would be much better. Grim-Gym 23:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Done. NSR77 ^T_C 00:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I tweaked the lead a bit for clarity. You just need to add a tiny bit of info about Frusciante's addiction and the fact that he was a former guitarist returning. Change the beginning of the background into a strong beginning paragraph, rather than the truncated middle paragraph it is, and all my qualms will be satisfied. Grim-Gym 03:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Done. I didn't really find it necessary to say Frusciante was once again returning, as it would have been redundant of Californication (album). Otherwise, I fixed the Background's first paragraph to be stronger. NSR77 ^T_C 11:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Support - All my problems have been fixed. I tweaked the background section a bit, and I'm satisfied now. Nice article. Grim-Gym 21:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Support - Looked through it, and to me it looks like it meets the critera. Great job! Tooga - BØRK! 22:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment I think the article could use another prose review. Some of the prose could be written more concisely. The fair use picture in "Writing and composition" really serves no purpose, plus you have that free image there; remove it. Who is Piero Scaruffi, and why is his criticism notable? Finally, I believe the track listing section needs to include songwriting credits (although I'm not entirely certain); if the band wrote every song together just insert "All songs written by the Red Hot Chili Peppers" at the top of the section. WesleyDodds 09:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- If possible, could you outline specific areas of overindulgence? The image has been removed, and, although I disagree with it, this article should be verification. Also, I added the line "All songs written by the Red Hot Chili Peppers" before the track listing. NSR77 ^T_C 14:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  - And please format the refs correctly, per WP:CITE/ES. All sources need a publisher, websources need a last access date, and author and publication date should be listed when available. I'll check back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Support. Detailed and accurate. Axl 06:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 16:08, 30 July 2007.

[edit] Hippopotamus

I believe the article is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable. Significantly, please note that the article contains extensive citations from Boisserie, who has done the most important recent research into hippo evolution. As such, the article is very current.
Complies with WP:LEDE, and uses ref tags and cite templates throughout.
In particular, I would like to note the exceptional quality and variety of the images on this article, all of which are appropriately licensed. The main image is a featured image. It features several of the creative drawings of User:Apokryltaros, the wonderful "Beware of Hippopotamus" sign, Ancient Egyptian hippopotamus art, and even the historical photo of the first zoo hippopotamus!
The article weighs in at 30K.
This article received an unofficial peer review through a recent GA nomination (after which the article has been dramatically expanded) and the thoughtful guidance of User:Casliber.
I have ready access to nearly all the sources used in this article, and can quickly expand any section, if reviewers feel it necessary. --JayHenry 07:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yippee, another biology article to review :) - it needs some fine tuning. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

:The hippopotamus is recognizable for its barrel-shaped torso, hairless body, stubby legs and tremendous size. They are roughly the same size as the White Rhinoceros, only elephants are always larger. - Singular then plural subject doesn't sit well, also some word substitution may make it sound better - how about "The hippopotamus is recognizable for its barrel-shaped torso, hairless body, stubby legs and tremendous size; similar in size to the White Rhinoceros, only elephants are consistently larger. "

Taxonomy and naming bit needs refs. I can pull out OED later ('bout to go off and have dinner here). ~~Hippopotaminae should not be italicised - genera and species only~~

Taxonomy and naming - para 3 - shouldn't the whole bit about relationship to whales be here too? Actually I'd say something like "Hippopotamidae were classically classified along...." and then remove the origins haeding as it can all go under taxonomy and then segue into evolution. ~~Under Evolution all the prehistoric genera need to be italicized and capitalized.~~ ..common, semi-aquatic... - can lose the comma

skinny - aargh - try "slender", "lean" or... (?)

There is fossil evidence that many Malagasy Hippos were butchered by humans.. - butchered sounds a tad emotive. just "hunted"?

Oh wow, thanks for all this fast and constructive feedback! I'm headed off to bed here, but will address all of this tomorrow. I never know what to italicize, but that's an easy fix, and the taxonomy section is mostly from the Linnean Journal. As for "butchered," it is my understanding that this literally means there is evidence of butchery, i.e. the preparation and cooking of meat as evidenced by burnt or chopped bones. --JayHenry 07:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(Butchery reply) OK, I'll be interested to see what others think but it has a pretty negative connotation to me but I'm happy to concede if I'm the only one that thinks this :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll read more later but it s enough to go on for now. Remember the lead needs to summarize all important points in article, so needs something about aggression in it too. Back later. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Lots of good stuff, but we're not there yet:

The taxobox should be sourced to the IUCN (you have the link already, ref 14) and/or the MSW3. You might ask User:UtherSRG for help with the latter source. Any subspecies and range listings should use these sources as a base, qualified by more specific sources.
As noted, the lead is not quite full enough. Give a nod to each of your main sections. Nothing on Culture or Conservation status, for example.
~~Most closely related to cetaceans?! Even-toed ungulate suggests differently.~~
~~Why does Conservation begin with a description of subspecies genetics? This should be up under Evolution (which should itself be retitled 'Evolution and taxonomy') and a subspecies list broken out.~~
A prose example: "There are estimates of their running speed varying from 30 km/h (18 mph) to 40 km/h (25 mph), or even 50 km/h (30 mph). The hippo can maintain these higher estimates for only a few hundred meters or yards." First is better as "Estimates of their running speed vary from..." Audit for redundant phrasing more generally. In second, the hippo does not maintain estimates, but maintains estimated high speeds.
~~Only one ref for the Description section? Compare a couple of sources for physical statistics. You also have "experts are split" unsourced. I would call it 'Physical description.'~~
"The hippopotamus is recognizable for its barrel-shaped torso, hairless body, stubby legs" is mentioned in the lead, and this needs more filling out under Physical description. Tell us, for instance, what adaptation advantage the body structure provides.

That's my first glance. You have most of what you need and the page is in good shape, but still some work to do. Cheers, Marskell 09:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

On Description vs. Physical description I'd disagree with my chum Marskell as I feel the adjective in this case is redundant and should be dropped for succinctness - all of the articles I've (successfully) put up for FAC have had the former rather than latter - but this FAC is going to get pretty messy if we discuss that in detail here. Otherwise M. is right as well about other issues. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In Evolution, should we mention the European Hippo, H. major? It was an important species in between the Ice Ages in Europe.--Mr Fink 13:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I like Marskell's suggestion to combine the taxonomy and evolution sections because with a hippopotamus they are so closely related. I have a question: is the evolution of hippos section getting long enough that it might be worthwhile to make it an Evolution of hippos sub-article, much like: Evolution of whales? Mr. Fink brings up an excellent point, that it doesn't mention H. major (which is sometimes considered a sub-species of H. amphibius, rather than a distinct species) at all, and indeed it doesn't mention a handful of the extinct hippos which are mentioned at Hippopotamidae. But the section is already rather long. To split? --JayHenry 15:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If we start an Evolution of Hippopotami article/sub-article, then we should also look into expanding Anthracotheriidae and related articles, too, as the anthracotheres are the direct ancestors of hippos.--Mr Fink 23:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I would avoid an 'Evolution of' article unless you feel you absolutely must make one. Evolution of cetaceans deals with an entire Order. Marskell 05:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I need to stop for the evening, but I've been cleaning and clarifying my sourcing -- I still need to address Marskell's point about the adaptation advantage of their body structure -- but otherwise I think I've covered concerns above. If there are things you'd like me to further address, please let me know and I'll work on it tomorrow evening. Quick fixes and a general copy-edit would be greatly appreciated as well, I've been looking at it so much my eyes are "sweat-bleeding" and I've no doubt introduced basic grammar errors throughout. --JayHenry 04:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have more:

Hippos have been known to be aggressive towards humans, and it is often claimed that hippos are the deadliest animal in Africa; - again - singular to plural in bolded bit

I'd rename Ancestry, classification or drop subheading altogether.

I'd like the subspecies bit expanded - so was it 5 and now 3? It isn't quite clear in the article - also where do the subspecies each occur - see other FAs such as Common Raven for a look at how it's laid out there.

~~Weak oppose~~ there is little mention of their social structure and habits, and the behavior section in general fails to be very comprehensive. If the Guinea pig article can go into so much detail, then surely the article on one of the most memorable African mammals can as well. VanTucky ^(talk) 21:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can certainly expand this section a little bit, and I will do so tonight. If, however, it's your impression that the hippopotamus has been more studied than the Guinea Pig, I'd like to gently disabuse you of that notion. The guinea pig is among the most studied animals in the history of science -- their name is in fact synonymous with research and testing. You can buy a guinea pig for pennies and run all sorts of controlled experiments. A hippopotamus is tremendously difficult to study. They are massive, dangerous animals that inhabit murky rivers in regions that are often themselves dangerous. No zoo has ever attempted to maintain an entire pod of hippos, thus their natural social structure can only be studied at great expense. I'll work hard to expand and improve this section, but please give me a hurdle that's possible to clear. There hasn't been 1/10th the research of hippos that there's been of guinea pigs. --JayHenry 21:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct that it's easier to study guinea pigs than hippos. But it seems that (from my experience) there is more comprehensive info already available on their behavior that is not present in the article. That's what I was getting at. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

And you are also correct! As I read through it, I think I can break out a separate subsection on "Social structure" or something like that. I'll take another read through the field studies and see what is missing. I'll add more detail here tonight. --JayHenry 22:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, good work on the behavior expansion. I'd now agree that the article is comprehensive in its coverage. But several sections - Description, Behavior, and "Hippos and Humans" - lack a proper intro to give a summarizing overview. This makes for a jarring read, as the article bounces from subject to subject without transitions. VanTucky ^(talk) 18:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

OK Support - no deal-breakers left for me. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment continued. Struck most above. Good catch on describing the anatomy via adaptation—just the sort of info that can raise a Wiki page above generic net stuff. Refs have increased and diversified. (Are you missing volume and issue number on some of the journal sources, however?) The taxobox needs sourcing and the lead still doesn't seem enough to me. I'd like to go through prose more closely, as well. All in all, very responsive work on this nomination JayH! Marskell 17:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, I'm not going to have a chance to work on the article tonight, but I wanted to say thank you for all your constructive feedback and patience during this process. It was my first FAC (but not my last!) and in the future I'll have a better idea of where to get an article before bringing it here. I know I've left some comments unaddressed, but I will get to all of those soon! Hopefully by the end of the weekend we'll have this sparkling. If you see any minor stuff, please don't ever hesitate to jump on the article and fix it (of course, it's a wiki, you don't need my permission!) --JayHenry 22:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Support Harlowraman 11:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Support Now that some changes have been made, looks good. VanTucky ^(talk) 18:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments. WP:DASH problems throughout, and WP:MOSBOLD problems. Hyphens are used where emdashes are needed, hyphens are used on date and number ranges where endashes should be used, and spaced emdashes are used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I just read through WP:DASH and WP:MOSBOLD. (It's amazing that WP:CREEP hasn't been marked as rejected, when it's even dictated that we have no spaces around emdashes!) I gave the article a careful line by line reading and fixed every single MOSBOLD and DASH error that I could find. --JayHenry 03:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 16:08, 30 July 2007.

[edit] Love. Angel. Music. Baby.

previous FAC

I didn't monitor the my watchlist while Hey Ya! was at FAC, so there were some problems with it when it was at its last FAC. I've done some copyediting and reorganization of the article. I removed some of the less useful links since it was looking pretty blue, and I removed some citations when there were several consecutive sentences going to the same one. The section about its impact has been condensed to remove stuff from unreliable sources, and it's now a little more clear on the markets that it had an impact on. If possible, I'd like to address any objections as soon as possible since I'll be away next week and may not have computer access, so if you do have objections, they should get taken care of within the day. 17Drew 08:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Weak Oppose No references in lead section, Track listing section and Production section. --Kaypoh 09:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Those sections aren't supposed to be referenced. The lead only needs references when there's information not contained in the main article text. The latter two are inherently referenced to the album. 17Drew 16:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This is correct. Velten 17:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I Agree. Luxurious.gaurav 03:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for answer. You all agree about that, so I will strike my oppose. --Kaypoh 09:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong Support - I have been working on the article for quite some time and i really like it. It is my one the favourite album articles. Luxurious.gaurav 10:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Support. Good work. Velten 17:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
~~Oppose~~ Some copy-editting needed.

"When the two began working on a song that Stefani stated was too personal, she left to visit Kanal, who played her a track on which he had been working and which became "Crash", another single from the album." - needs rephrasing and maybe splitting into two sentences.
"The Harajuku Girls are frequently mentioned on the album, with the song "Harajuku Girls" entirely dedicated to them." - the "with" is ungrammatical. It's best to use a semicolon instead, ie. "The Harajuku Girls are frequently mentioned on the album; the song "Harajuku Girls" is entirely dedicated to them."
"Love. Angel. Music. Baby. takes influence from a variety of 1980s genres, with one reviewer stating..." - the "with" is ungrammatical.
"L.A.M.B. also includes various styles of music" - the "also" is redundant.
"It received very mixed reviews, with several criticizing its repetitive use" - the "with" is ungrammatical and the "very" is redundant. Epbr123 22:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Done For some reason, I was under the impression that the with construction you pointed out was correct, but it looks like you're right. I've made the changes, and I found and fixed another sentence that had the same construction. 17Drew 06:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose removed. Epbr123 10:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments Under "Songs" section:

In discussion of the song "What You Waiting For": The song received very positive reviews, often noted as a highlight of the album."[23] Firstly, I would remove the word "very" for NPOV. Secondly, the reference from pitchforkmedia.com is just a review, and does not support the statement that the song is "often noted as a highlight of the album". Is there a better source for this statement?
Its single was moderately successful, reaching the top ten in most countries.[24] The source for this statement, MusicSquare is a user-edited site. Where did those stats come from? Was is http://acharts.us/? Can that source be used instead?
The second single, "Rich Girl" charted equally well.[25] Same thing, using MusicSquare as a source.
"Hollaback Girl", the third track, became the album's best-selling and most popular single. According to whom? It was written as a response to a derogatory comment by grunge musician Courtney Love,[26] I am a bit confused by this source (Rubenstein, Atoosa. "Courtney Love speaks about Gwen Stefani". Seventeen (August 2004): pg. 19.) As this is not an online source and I can't confirm what it says, by the title, it seems to me this article is about Courtney Love, and I question whether it supports the statement that the "song was written in response to a derogatory comment." Any way to elaborate on this, maybe by using a direct quote in the reference?
The fourth track "Cool" was very well-received by critics,[20][28] Again, please remove the word "very" for more of a NPOV.
The sixth single "Crash" was not heavily promoted and sold poorly, unable to reach the top forty in any country.[31] Who says it was not heavily promoted? And again, a MusicSquare source that is user edited. Where did the user get the info? I think MusicSquare is an informative site, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but I do question using it as a reliable source.
Please cite the descriptions used in the audio samples box to justify fair use.

Otherwise, this article is very well written and well-sourced. Good work. ♫ Cricket02 15:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I've taken care of most of the bullets (diff), but I do want to make sure of some stuff. The "highlight of the album" part came from the What You Waiting For? article, which has a paragraph of such reviews. Would it be good to use the Entertainment Weekly and Pitchfork reviews of the album (the one there's only for the single). Both are in the article right now, and point out the song as a highlight. I'm not sure what you mean about citing the descriptions. If you're referring to the captions in the article, the information should already be cited in the main article text. 17Drew 23:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, much better sourcing on chart positions. As concerns, The song received very positive reviews, often noted as a highlight of the album."[23] - Yes, I would use the Entertainment Weekly source for LAMB as well because it specifically cites that the song is a "one of the album's undeniable highs", and supports the text. But...unless you have multiple sources for this statement, you cannot use the word "often", see? I would recast the sentence somehow and attribute it, like maybe The song received positive reviews,[23] noted to be "one of the album's undeniable highs", by Entertainment Weekly.[ref] I do see that the captions in the audio samples box are cited within the main text, but for clarity, I would just be redundant and add the same sources to the captions within the box as well. This way no one has to search through the text to be sure those captions are sourced. Christ Illusion would be a good example. ♫ Cricket02 03:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I've taken care of everything then. 17Drew 03:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Great work. Support ♫ Cricket02 04:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Support - Very nice work, as per usual. Lara ♥Love 19:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 16:08, 30 July 2007.

[edit] Io (moon)

FARC; if repromoted, re-categorize at WP:FFA, has been on main page

previous FAC

User:Volcanopele has done an excellent job in bringing this article back up to code. It has completed its scienfitific peer reviw is, I think, ready for FA reconsideration. Serendipodous 13:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

~~Fixes needed~~ Support - looks good ~~but prose needs tweaking - a few so far:~~ cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

*remove 2nd "is" from first sentence in lead.

iron-sulfide - remove dash

This extreme geologic activity is the result of tidal heating, with friction generated within Io's interior by Jupiter's varying pull on Io. Several of Io's volcanoes produce volcanic plumes of sulfur and sulfur dioxide that climb as high as 500 km (310 mi). Io's surface is also dotted with more than 100 mountains that have been uplifted by extensive compression at the base of Io's silicate crust. - erm, there are 5 mentions of Io here which are a little jarring. I'd try:

"This extreme geologic activity is the result of tidal heating from friction generated deep within Io by Jupiter's varying pull. Several volcanoes produce plumes of sulfur and sulfur dioxide that climb as high as 500 km (310 mi). Io's surface is also dotted with more than 100 mountains that have been uplifted by extensive compression at the base of the silicate crust."

All three fixed. Added "at the base of the moon's silicate crust." --Volcanopele 05:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

*Io's volcanism is responsible for many of that satellite's unique features. Io's plumes.. - try "This volcanism is responsible for many of that satellite's unique features. Io's plumes.."

~~Since this is the start of a new paragraph, how about "Io's volcanism is responsible for many of that satellite's unique features. Its volcanic plumes..." --Volcanopele 05:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)~~

Io's plumes and lava flows (produce large surface changes, and) paint the surface in various shades of red, yellow, white, black, and green, largely due to the sulfurous compounds. - I'd remove bracketed bit as it is redundant as well as a bit clunky.

Clunky but we should make it clear here about how these volcanoes produce large surface changes. Maybe this is covered elsewhere in the lead section. In other words, not just say that these areas are painted. --Volcanopele 05:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

fair enough - some of these ideas can be tricky :). cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

These volcanic processes have given rise to a comparison of the visual appearance of Io's surface to a pizza. - "The resulting landscape has been compared with a pizza"

This I am a little worried about. We should make it clear that this is just a visual comparison. It is a popular one and I don't see anything wrong with including it, but I think the clunkiness maybe necessary. --Volcanopele 05:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, not a deal-breaker. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

*It was discovered, (along with the other Galilean satellites,) in in 1610 by Galileo Galilei. - move bracketed bit to end or remove

Moved to end. --Volcanopele 05:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

furthered --> fostered better?

Fostered suggests an active participation, something a discovery can't do. A scientists, a "discoverer" can foster, not a discovery. Though I think the changes in that sentence since the last time I made a pass through this section need to be fixed, even if I don't think changing furthered to fostered is the proper fix. The first two relate to theories that were either developed or gained support thanks to the discovery of Io. The third relates to a measurement made using Io. --Volcanopele 05:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, not a deal-breaker. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(From Earth,) Io remained nothing... - I'd remove bracketed bit as it is redundant

Hmm, could be. I haven't changed to this since I am not as sure, that while it maybe a bit redundant, that it is better prose without it. --Volcanopele 05:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, not a deal-breaker. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the 3 lists under Name be listed under surface instead?

The name section has come to include both info on the name of the satellite and the names used for surface features. I think it is appropriate to link to lists of surface feature names in this section. --Volcanopele 05:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, not a deal-breaker. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

*..from Dante's Inferno, names which .. - replace this comma with a semicolon

Are you sure about that? I removed "which are" though. --Volcanopele 05:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

*The approved feature types used for Io include: Patera (volcanic depressions), Mons, Mensa, Planum, and Tholus (mountains, with morphologic characteristics, like size, shape, and height, determining the term used), Fluctus (lava flows), Vallis (lava channels), Regio (large-scale, albedo features), and Active eruptive centers (locations where plume activity was the first sign of volcanic activity at a particular volcano) - I'd italicize the latin terms here.

Okay, I guess isolated like this they could be. I have italicized them. --Volcanopele 05:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

..in March 1610. - bit repetitive sounding - maybe drop the year

I'd prefer to keep it in. 1610 isn't used a lot in that section, so it isn't that redundant. It makes it clearer as to which March is being referred to since the section covers an extensive period of time. --Volcanopele 05:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, not a deal-breaker. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

*To follow up on the discoveries of the two Voyager probes and ground-based observations taken in the intervening years, the Galileo spacecraft arrived at Jupiter in 1995 after a six-year journey from Earth. - I'd move the whole first clause to the end of the sentence and remove the need for a comma.

Makes sense. You can follow the sentence a bit better that way. Fixed. --Volcanopele 05:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

*)For example,) Galileo observed the effects.. - I'd remove bracketed bit

Fixed. --Volcanopele 05:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

After residing an average of 40 days in the torus... --> residing recalls anthropomorphism - "remaining"?

Can't blame an editor for trying to mix up the word usage ;) It is a wee bit anthropomorphic, but it does fit within the definition given by M-W Online for Reside. --Volcanopele 05:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, not a deal-breaker. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The plasma torus emits light at ultraviolet wavelengths, allowing researchers to monitor variations (in the plasma torus). - this bracketed bit redundant

How about this rearrangement: "To study similar variations within the plasma torus, researchers measure the ultraviolet-wavelength light it emits". It reduces the redundancy and it makes the sentence fit in more with sentences before and after it. --Volcanopele 05:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Good save. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

* I think linking "Zg" would be prudent.

Yeah... I have converted that to kg. This isn't 1500 BC, people aren't scared of big numbers anymore. --Volcanopele 05:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Io has a density of 3.5275 grams per cubic centimeter, the highest of any moon in the Solar System, significantly higher than the other Galilean satellites (,) and (higher than the) Earth's moon - bracketed bits redundant

hmm, but that would would make it sound as if Io's density is significantly greater than the moon's, when it isn't (3.5275 vs. 3.346). --Volcanopele 05:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - good point - hadn't noticed. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

First para of Surface section has no inline cites.

You're right. I will try to fix that tomorrow (it is a little to late to go digging up references...) --Volcanopele 05:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Refs added to that section. --Volcanopele 21:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

"mafic" and "ultramafic" need linking

Where do you see that they aren't? The first instance, in Volcanism, I see has them linked. --Volcanopele 05:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

My bad. Didn't see them there - Oops. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Good luck - these are all easily fixed an' then yer over the line cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have replied to these above. --Volcanopele 05:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Support with comments. Overall a fine article and an enjoyable read. I have a few comments that I hope can be addressed:
- The following sentence is somewhat unclear to me: "Over a 20-hour period, these particles form a banana-shaped neutral cloud that can reach as far as 6 Jovian radii from Io, either inside Io's orbit and ahead of the satellite or outside Io's orbit and behind the satellite." So is there a cyclical process at work? Otherwise, what is the significance of the 20-hour period? Does the banana-shaped cloud oscillate back and forth?
- "quadrupole gravitational coefficients" is unexplained jargon.
- In the "Tidal Heating" section, you could mention where the energy comes from to maintain the tidal dissipation? I.e. is it from a net change in the resonant satellite orbital periods? Perhaps from a change in Jovian rotation? It must come from somewhere, but it's not really clear from the article.
Thank you. — RJH (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks your your support. I have added some text that I think should help to explain the first two points: "Over a 20-hour period, these particles spread out from Io to form a banana-shaped neutral cloud that can reach as far as 6 Jovian radii from Io,..." and "...measurements of the moon's mass, radius and quadrupole gravitational coefficients (numerical values related to how mass is distributed within an object) suggest that its interior...". As to your third point, the energy comes from Jupiter's gravity attempting to circularize Io's orbit through tidal dissipation. Europa and Ganymede's gravity act to maintain Io's orbital eccentricity, so the tidal dissipation adds energy to Io's interior rather than to orbital circularization. Thus energy is added to Io's interior and removed from Jupiter. --Volcanopele 19:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Support I did a copy-edit on this a month or two back. It is interesting, comprehensive and well illustrated. Yomangani ^talk 11:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 16:08, 30 July 2007.

[edit] Rock Springs massacre

This article started as one of my very first Wikipedia projects, almost a year ago. Since that time I have learned much about what constitutes quality around here. The current version of this article is the result of months of careful collaboration and discussion with numerous editors across different areas of Wikipedia. I put the majority of the "work" in on the writing but would be remiss if I tried to claim that others were not heavily involved with this article. Many, many comments have been addressed throughout the months and it has now come time to see if the article merits promotion to FA status. I feel that it is ready and if any objections are raised here they should be fairly easy to address. This article has no previous FACs and passed its only GA nomination in April 2007. (Self-nomination) IvoShandor 06:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Additional comment: I should also note that the article has been through the League of Copyeditors twice and been copy edited additionally by non-league members who I queried on talk pages. IvoShandor 02:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong Support. The article has been massively improved in the last few months. All of my past comments about the article have been addressed and I think the content, references etc all meet FA standards. LordHarris 12:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Support its refreshing to see an article ready for promotion at time of nomination. I have one comment but its nothing that impede my support of this article, Image:A Proud Chinese American Father.jpg its an image of a chinese person and child in San Francisco date taken was upto 20 years after the event, while its a nice photograph it doesnt appear to have any connection with the article, is it necessary Gnan garra 13:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There is probably a more relevant image I can find. I will see what I can do. Most of the images of immigrants available don't seem to fit the exact time period but I think I can find something possibly mine associated. Maybe. IvoShandor15:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Support I have run the article through spellcheck (no errors) and checked most of the references and they support the text cited. A difficult article to keep neutral, but this has been achieved throughout. Appears to be comprehensive, details the events, causes, reactions, resolutions, and I see no reason to not promote this. Really fine work.--MONGO 21:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Support I also did a checking on this article, and everything seems to be in line. There is a good number of photos to go along with the article. Now isn't this place part of the National Register of Historic Places? Maybe I just read it wrong, but shouldn't it then have an info box? Such as Columbine High School massacre and Virginia Tech massacre use, or this might just be something mundane? This won't change anything for me with my full support.--Kranar drogin 22:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The military camp used to be but is no longer extant. IvoShandor 01:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Support - Everything looks good here, per my own reading and the other comments above.--Danaman5 15:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Support Great article, written well, very interesting, and per uses above. James Luftan 17:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Support B-R-I-L-L-I-A-N-T Luxurious.gaurav 07:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Huge support I had honestly never heard of this until I came across the article. Thought it was another American Civil War battle, but boy was I wrong. It captivatingly connects the events of the massacre to political reaction (or lack thereof) and even goes on to explain how it led to further violence. Absolutely brilliant. Pandacomics 17:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Support - helped out a little bit with suggestions on the talk page a few months ago. The article still looks as good as it did then, and there is probably not much more that can be done. I do think the website with the annoying music is a reliable source, but that isn't really relevant here. :-) Carcharoth 00:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 15:54, 26 July 2007.

[edit] Sheerness

I believe this article passes the FA criteria. Epbr123 08:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Support A good read that is well cited.--Analogue Kid 14:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment and Support: Would it be an idea to mention that the town is unparished at all? It wouldn't be necessary, as I think it reads well as it is. DDStretch (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~
- Comprehensiveness: The Geography paragraph is dominated with the town's location relative to other places, but does little to explain its geographic features or its layout, also, the History section alluded to the town's built environment but the Geography section falls silent on this. The Demographics section is limited to 2001 stats and silent on any demographic shifts (eg. growth, aging, etc.) in history, since the last census, or since 2001. The Government section says it's within the Swale local government district but does not say what that means (give example of what Swale does for Sheerness). Is there no information on crime statistics (that's always interesting).
- ~~Prose: The Demographics section has 4 one-sentence paragraphs and is dominated with lists of data.~~
- ~~Units switch between metric|imperial and imperial|metric. --maclean 21:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)~~
  - I think I've addressed your concerns. Thanks. Epbr123 23:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose—Poorly written. Is there some push to ram through England-related articles? There are so many, and most suffer from poor writing. You need to assemble a small team of copy-editors first, and have more pride in your products. Fed up.

Let's look at the first para in History.

- Building, building, built, built, built, built.
- "paint they used to paint"
- "At the dockyard naval ships would be built,..." Hate this 'conditional-as-past-in-future' thing ("would").
- "led to the area becoming known as"—ungrammatical, strictly speaking (loosely speaking, it's just awkward).
- "In 1666, building commenced to replace it with a modern fort, however, this fort was destroyed a year later during ...". "Commenced" is rather too formal (reminds me of ballet school); try "started" or "began". So it started in 1666 and was destroyed a year later: when was it completed? Something stronger than a comma—such as a semicolon—is required before "however" (or change it to "but").
- "The poor housing and water supply near the dockyard caused delays in its construction due to a lack of workers, and it took until 1708 for the first dry-dock to be built". Why not just "delayed its construction"? The causal connections are mangled: poor housing --> lack of workers --> delays in construction --> 1708. See if you can make it nice and easy to read this chain of cause and effect. "to finish the first" would allow you to get rid of one of the "builts". See how easy it is? Tony 11:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  - "You need to assemble a small team of copy-editors first" - that is more difficult than it sounds. There are very few users who can copy-edit to your standard. "and have more pride in your products" - I had no idea there was anything wrong with the grammar. You can't expect each user to have as much grammar knowledge as you. Epbr123 17:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    - I am working on it. I agree that this article needs copy editing, but the criticism is unnecessarily snippy. Jehochman ^Talk 19:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Support The article is comprehensive and of appropriate length for the topic, thoroughly referenced and ~~reasonably~~ well-written. Jehochman ^Talk 20:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"Reasonably" well written fails to satisfy Criterion 1a, so the previous reviewer's support is illogical. I can't see how the prose is yet "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" as required. Take the opening:

"Sheerness is a town on the Isle of Sheppey, in north Kent, England. It is in the northwest corner of the island, beside the mouth of the River Medway. It has a population of 12,000 and is the largest town on the island."

- is, in, of, is in, of, is, on. Isle, island, island. "Medway" is unnecessarily repeated in the subsequent sentence. This repetitive wording is a bad start. Why the commas after "Sheppey" and "island"?

"After a Dutch attack in the 17th century, Samuel Pepys established a Royal Navy dockyard there, and the building and repair of warships took place at the yard until 1960."

- Does "there" mean at the river or in Sheerness? Clumsy wording in the last clause. --> "After a Dutch attack in 1692, Samuel Pepys, the Secretary to the Admiralty, established a Royal Navy dockyard in the town, where warships were built and repaired until its closure in 1960." I've guessed some of the details. Now it's more precise and informative and better written, don't you agree? It contains details that our readers will want to know to get the picture. That's what 1a means by "professional". You want a gold star, yes?

So I can't endorse this until the fine-tuning is done. I think it has the makings of a really good FA that we can be proud of, but significantly more work is required to achieve that. PS It's not just grammar, but a whole bunch of aspects of the language that will make it good. Do you know where to find copy-editors? Research the edit-history pages of related FAs. Tony 15:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Your concerns have been addresseed. The article has been reviewed by six copy-editors. Epbr123 10:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Several members of the League of Copyeditors, myself included, have been working on this article. Reviewers who have objected to featured status due to 1a concerns may want to take another look at the article. szyslak 07:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Support Um after a quick look, I feel that it meets fa criteria ~ peaceful dreams 23:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Support I've been inactive for a few days and came back to see a request on my talk page for a copyedit; I could find absolutely nothing to correct. The article in itself is well written and presented very well. SMC 13:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The "Government", "Demographics", "Economy", "Culture", "Transport", and "Education" sections should give a historical background on their respective topics. Take the "Government" section for example: Has the town always been a part of that parliamentary constituency? Does Sheerness traditionally vote Labour, or is this new? What I want to say is that the way the town was in the past is just as important as the way it is now. The article should therefore mention whether things have always been like this. Also:
- ~~The 18th century is not covered in the article. Even if nothing interested happened in this period, it would probably be worth noting if the town grew during this period, for example.~~
- "The dockyard closure led to thousands of job losses, and most of the nearby houses and shops in the Bluetown area eventually disappeared." I doubt the houses disappeared, maybe they were abandoned or they might even have been torn down, but they hardly disappeared.
- "~~The coast of the island has been designated a Site of Special Scientific Interest." Might be worth mentioning why.~~
- The two paragraphs discussing the climate in Sheerness are written in the past. I think using the present would sound better. I realize that you're trying to take the fact that the numbers are all based on measurements in 70's, 80's, and 90's, but the climate generally does not change very much, so it's safe to say that this is just the way the climate is in Sheerness.--Carabinieri 18:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  - I have added all you've suggested, except I don't think I'll be able to add anything to the education section and I think the history of the economy and transport have already been mentioned in the history section. Epbr123 22:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    - Thanks for your quick response and all the fixes. I can now support this FAC.--Carabinieri 23:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 15:54, 26 July 2007.

[edit] William Bruce (architect)

Recently passed GA with little amendment, and it was suggested that FA may be possible. Self nom. Edward Waverley 09:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment This looks like it needs some work before FA. For example, as per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a "concise overview" of the entire article, and it shouldn't just highlight the parts of his life that make the subject notable. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I expanded the lead a bit to cover the whole article - I think it now mentions all the main points. Can you give any other advice? Thanks, Edward Waverley 13:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Weak support It would be really, really nice to have more than two pictures of his works. BenB4 10:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I'm certainly going to support this great article but there are one or two minor questions before I do

"In 1663 Bruce travelled to France, and may have visited several notable houses including.... " I would prefer to see "he is believed to have visited" or "thought to have visited" with a ref to who thinks so.
" Bruce's early work involved advising and rebuilding" should that be "advising on the rebuilding"?
" he laid out "Italian" terraces, with.... " wasn't this something rather new for the era in Scotland if so more should be made of it
"but with French-inspired detailing..." I think perhaps French inspired detailing should be explained.
"The French-inspired Palladian" should be explained
Are there any more images of the country houses available? - the last four sections could do with an illustration or two.
"recognised as one of the finest buildings in the country" - recognized by whom?
"Defoe called Bruce "the Kit Wren of Scotland" - where did he call him this?
"Sir John Clerk of Penicuik named Bruce as "the chief introducer of architecture in this country", as above a quote need a cite. I see footnote 28 may cover this, could it be more explicit.
I would prefer to see Legacy section after family.
I don't like the info box, but that is the choice of the principal editors.

This is a great page, and I'm sure all of the above can easily be sorted, they are meant more as suggestions than demands conditional on support, but I would like to see them addressed before I do. Giano 14:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and support. I have added a couple of images, something that was definitely lacking. Giano I think your other comments are reasonable and I will seek to address them this week. Thanks, Edward Waverley 11:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, to address Giano's points:

expanded the ref regarding the French visits.
changed to "advising clients and rebuilding existing houses".
Italian terraces - I agree that this appears to be significant, but I cant find much further detail. The books I have access to are architectural in focus, and tend to skip over Bruce's contribution to Scottish garden history. Will see what else I can find.
'French inspired' explained a bit
pics added, see above.
Defoe, Clerk and Campbell quotes cited better.
Moved "family" up to end of "career" section, as it is more biographical. "legacy" follows from the architecture section.
I agree the infobox isnt great, but Architect seems the most appropriate one to use.

Further comments welcome. Thanks, Edward Waverley 16:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Support: Thanks you have addressed some of my points and I accept what you say. However, I have just spotted this phrase "These modern French designs, incorporating the latest innovations of Italian architecture, were highly influential on the young Bruce.[14] He had also certainly seen modern Dutch architecture when in Holland prior to the Restoration.[7]" We have three countries mentioned here, I think we need some explanation of what feature is coming from where - also I'm not sure by the time the French were incorporating the "Italian innovations" that they were still "the latest". I know what the author means but I'm not sure too many others will. Perhaps it should be made clearer. Another small point is: "French-derived detailing, such as the rustication on the facade at Mertoun" - Rustication is actually not "French-derived" - and again here "but with French-inspired features such as the rusticated basement stonework, and the giant order of corinthian pilasters, the latter possibly deriving from Bernini's first designs for the Louvre." - I will not allow the French to take the credit for these features. Sorry, I did not spot these points earlier - have you changed things since I last looked? I don't mean to be pedantic and nit picking - I would change it myself but I see it is reffed - so something has gone awry somewhere with someone. I think colossal order is a more correct term, (but that is preference - like the horrible info-box) but here is an instant ref to the fact the Italians got there first [1], and of course Bernini was Neapolitan by birth. I'm sure these things can be easily sorted. I'm not around Wikipedia much at the moment so I shall vote support on the assumption these things are cleared up because it is such a good article. I hope when Raul comes to evaluate this page he looks at the quality rather than the number of people showing interest in this FAC and promotes it to FA status. Sadly, this type of page seldom appears to interest the multitudes. Giano 17:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Support What can I say, it's great work. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. I've made a few tweaks that I hope will be helpful. --Wetman 21:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. Since I started English Baroque and French Baroque architecture more than a year ago, there has been very little interest in the subjects. Nice to see that some folks still find these topics worthy of their time and effort. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

- Thank you, thank you, thank you and thank you, respectively. Giano, I will check the sources again, but they do seem to suggest that these features are "French derived", although i think the meaning is that Bruce got the ideas from French buildings, not that these are intrinsically French inventions. Some more tweaking may be necessary to elucidate this better. I have always understood "giant order" and "colossal order" as being interchangeable terms? Edward Waverley 12:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 15:54, 26 July 2007.

[edit] Constitution of Belarus

After toying around with this for a few months, and passing WP:GA, I feel this article is ready. The only concern that I have with the article is the choice of picture for the main page; I admit the image I have up now isn't that great, but there are no free copies of the Constitution I could find on Google and other sites. Fair use would not be an option, since anyone can just snap a picture of it. I have a Constitution at home, so if a scan of the book cover is acceptable, then fine. But if you feel a substitute image, such as the State Emblem, would be acceptable for the main page, then I will remove the current image I have now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~ (see below) The article provides an adequate history and description, but there are many many missing aspects that prevent this from reaching FA status. While the Magna Carta and United States Constitution certainly have more history and literature surrounding them, these should serve as a guide for what a "constitution" page should look like. A historical review of the social and political circumstances leading to the convening of a reform assembly is currently present, but very short. What specific influences (either from other documents, history, or political philosophy)? Who were major actors (populists, military, old guard, reformists, etc.)? What were major motivators and controversies? While an outline description of the document and overview subsections is present, it would be greatly enhanced by including academic and/or judicial commentary on these sections sections, and the subsequent amendments and changes in interpretation should likewise include more context. ~~I would also upload a copy of the Constitution to WikiSource and liberally link to it.~~ Madcoverboy 05:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I see that this was already done in the external links.Madcoverboy 05:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  - I am not sure what the MOS says, but I included the Wikisource link and included the document in the official languages of the country, Russian and Belarusian. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Now, to address one of the objections, I already listed all of the influences that were present when the Constitution was made; other national constitutions, the period of Soviet rule and the desire to bring back Belarusian traditions that were nearly wiped out by the Soviets. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- A list other countries' constitutions is present, but no mention is made as to why they were included or why other constitutional republics were excluded. Similarly, did the Belorussian constitution influence others? Madcoverboy 15:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  - The source, BelTA, doesn't say why these Constitutions were included, they just said they were. To my knowledge, the Belarusian Constitution influenced no other constitution. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Another thing, I tried to find out who were the key players and I am not finding much in either Russian or English. The entire discussion about the Constitution, even from Government sources, just state discussion lasted for three years and once it passed, Belarus considered itself a part of the international community (which I covered). Not much is written about the document, other than how people claim Lukashenko abuses it or toys around with it. My focus is on the document, not about Lukashenko. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- The focus is where it should be, but there needs to be more context for the document than just describing what each section says. Why, for example, did it take 3 years to write a Constitution? Mention is made to the separation of powers, but I thought it was interesting that Belarus has a Constitutional Court separate from the Supreme Court. These sorts of distinctions and political structures should be made explicit, rather than just floatin in an infobox no-one ever reads. Madcoverboy 15:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  - I made a mention of the courts. As for why it took them three years, no idea. All sources I have found just said it took that time from the Declaration of State Sovereignty and passing the Constitution. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
What's hurting me is that, while the document is officially 13 years old, I have not found books talking about the constitution (other just pasting the constitution in it, verbatim, which I have in my room imported from Minsk), most English sites copy the document, say Lukashenko is a bad man or a "Liberate Us" site. Even going to government sites, they pretty much give the lines I already typed and paste the whole document. Everything here is everything that I know and that I could find, period. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- The article has improved, but I still do not feel as though it is comprehensive enough as many of the sections read like stubs. As Piotrus suggests, the article would stand to benefit from a Belorussian editor with access to more primary sources. Madcoverboy 16:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  - What sections feel stubby to you? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    - When asking questions, I'm going to use analogies to the US since that's what I know best even if it is likely inappropriate or incompatible. 2 (has a state of emergency ever been called? is their ability to be revoked controversial?), 5 (how are the powers of local governments delineated from those of the national? ie, is it analogous to a State or a county in the US? do the local governments collect taxes and pay the federal government, assess separate taxes, what services are they and not allowed to provide?), 6 (what oversight does the judicial or legislative bodies have on these legal and auditor branches?), 7 (who creates the national budget? are there state entities that are budgeted differently (like Social Security in US)? are taxes assessed by census/headcount? regressive, progressive, or flat? taxed on income, sales, or business revenue?, 9 (sounds like there should be some more history or context about how the Constitution was implemented or what laws were in conflict). Basically what I'm getting at with these, it's not enough to summarize the Constitution, but the powers enumerated within it have to be placed within historical, cultural, and political contexts as well. While not explicit in the U.S. Constitution, the document was obviously a response to the Articles of Confederation that were too weak to create a viable central government, which was in turn a response to a legitimate concern about power concentrated in any one location or body (the Crown). This article currently lacks these contexts, thus the reasons for the Constitution granting these powers is unclear. Using the stereotypical "post-Soviet nations can't get liberal/secular/federal democracies/republics to work," are these Constitutional powers vestiges of the Soviet regime or responses to it? Madcoverboy 19:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
      - No problem at all trying to use the US article, that is pretty much the only FA on a Constitution existing here. However, I am still researching your points now and I will come back with a full answer here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
        
        Weak oppose The article has improved and includes some needed context. There is still a lack of jurisprudence on interpreting the constitution, sources which may not be easily available in either English or the United States. Madcoverboy 15:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
        
        So you want cases determining how the courts interpret the Constitution? If so, I can dig that up. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Weak support. Another excellent work from Zscout370, but the article could really benefit from collaboration and help from a Belorussian editor(s) with access to sources in that language. In the end, I think that for English Wikipedia being the best article on the subject in an English-speaking world is enough for Featured level, but yes, this still has room for improvement, per above comments.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I asked User:Vlad fedorov, a law student and a resident of the Gomel Oblast, to look at the article. Before I saw the comments by Piotrus, I managed to find out why the Constitution was delayed, some direct influences on the document by Russia, some comparisons. As what Piotrus said, I would love to work with other editors, but I just cannot find any or I got their help before. Other native Belarusian users have either been missing or have died in real life. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Support. Madcoverboy gives some useful suggestions of things that could potentially be added to this article, and I also wonder if a bit more information about the process for amending the constitution couldn't be added (ala the US article). It seems to me, however, that such additions would most likely require the consultation of non-English sources, putting this excellent article beyond reach of FA status probably indefinitely. Considering that it is already a superb article, and at least in my opinion meets all the featured article criteria, I'd happily support it for FA status. Rebecca 04:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your support. I have added a sentence on what law conducts national referendums and I mentioned how they can be changed. Either both chambers pass it with a two-thirds majority (after a three month period has passed) or 50 percent plus one of voters support the amendments. I also noted on what sections can only be modified via only referendum. I admit this article is not as big as the US Constitution article is, but hopefully, it can be.User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Support, looks fine to me. —Nightstallion 15:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
~~Oppose~~. Further copyeditting is needed to remove redundancy from the prose, eg. the "of" could be removed from "all of the branches", and "various" could be removed from "they decide on the various bills that could become Belarusian law". Common terms like "vote" and "prison" shouldn't be wikilinked. Some full dates are wikilinked while others aren't; this needs to be consistent (including in the footnotes). "eighty-four percent", "77.3%", "83 percent" - more conistency is also needed with percentages. Inline citations belong immediately after punctuation marks. There shouldn't be anything in the lead not mentioned in the rest of the article. Epbr123 08:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- I checked the lead and everything mentioned there is mentioned in the article text. Working on the other issues you raised (should the dates be linked in just the article or both the article and reference links?). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Both the article and reference links. There is debate over whether dates need linking at all, but the most important thing is consistency. Epbr123 09:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
    - Article is done, just now to do the references. I also left some notes at the talk page; I can see if someone can snag the prose, since that is something which it seems I fail at the most. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
      - Links added to the references, the percentages bit are done, nuked most of the Wikilinks you mentioned, but the placement of the citations I still need to do, along with the prose. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
        
        Cite tags moved. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
        
        Oppose withdrawn. I've seen at least two more words that need delinking. Epbr123 15:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
- The "History" section should be split into more paragraphs. It's difficult to read.
- I agree that there is insufficient content dealing with the context of the constitution's enactment, the objectives of the (as it were) founding fathers (who are they?) and so on, as put forth by Madcoverboy above. This article absolutely needs to be based on first-grade Belarusian primary and secondary sources, since sufficient English sources are apparently not available. Based on my experience working with Swiss constitutional law, I would recommend to draw heavily on the leading university textbook on Belarusian constitutional law, and also on the minutes of the Supreme Soviet meetings adopting the constitution as well as the report (I presume one exists) of the expert commission (which I also presume existed) that drew up the constitution. Sandstein 15:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  - I split the history paragraph and re-arranged a few things in there. I am still looking for those law sources, but just not getting any help from anyone. I'll see if the National Archives could help. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Support Seems to be well written and provides comprehensive information on subject matter. Avala 16:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Support - looks fine to me, as GA reviewer. Giggy _U^CP 01:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 15:54, 26 July 2007.

[edit] Super Nintendo Entertainment System

Self-nomination We have been working on this article for several months, most impressively going from 5 to 56 references. It has had two peer reviews, the most recent receiving almost no feedback, and has just passed GA with the comment that it is good enough to be nominated for FA status. I eagerly await your comments. Anomie 01:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

~~Conditional oppose~~ Another video game article! My judgments are based upon Nintendo Entertainment System and Wii. Madcoverboy 06:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend moving all of the cruft about technical specifications and enhancement chips to a sister article or list and rewriting the section in a more readable summary style.
- Wii has a Technical specifications section, which doesn't even follow the MoS guideline on embedded lists, and NES has a technical specifications section in a style similar to this article, so I'm not sure where this recommendation comes from. Technical specifications are an important part of the console, and are needed for FA criterion 1b. A separate article about the technical specifications would end up on AfD (for being not notable, or some part of WP:NOT in a deletionist effort to counter the WP:BIAS you mentioned above), and the likely verdict would be to merge it back into this article. Anomie 15:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Are the "Quick reference" boxes necessary? Because they unnecessarily break up the format of the article at 1600x1200 and (obviously) repeat information that already is (or should be) in the text. I didn't see these boxes on the NES or Wii articles. Madcoverboy 16:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    - The discussion that led to their creation is at Talk:SNES#Old vs New. They compromise between the big list-o-information some people like to see for technical specifications (as in Wii) and the encyclopedic prose style required by the MoS, and IMO serve the section as "other media" towards FA criterion 3. Unfortunately, my display does not go to 1600x1200, but the section looks very nice at 800x600 and 1024x768. Anomie 17:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- The enhancement chips section has already undergone two rounds of summarization to reduce the cruft, but a "List of Super NES enhancement chips" list could do better by completely removing things like "ST010" from this article. I should also rewrite the section as prose per the MoS guideline on embedded lists. I will look into this later today. I may also propose a merge of some of the existing SNES chip articles into this list. Anomie 15:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Y Done
Include more about the launch and bestselling games, lessons learned from the NES and competing game systems.
- I wish that I could add more information on the launch. Unfortunately, there are a dearth of sources on this matter. At the time, most gaming magazines were not online and those that still exist have not bothered to transfer their archives to their websites. I've read both Game Over and The Ultimate History of Video Games, but neither has more useful information than what is already in the article. The newspaper articles I've found in Google News boil down to "Yup, it was released". Anomie 15:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Y Done
- I've just had an idea that may work to add information on some few notable games, but Mortal Kombat/Mortal Kombat II and Donkey Kong Country will probably be the only two. "Best-selling games" are out, as such a section is both a cruft magnet and suffers from a lack of reliable sources. Anomie 15:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Y Done
- As far as I've seen in the sources I've found, the major lesson learned from the NES was "no ZIF connector!". Coming off the over-90% market share of the NES, if anything Nintendo refused to learn any lessons there might have been from competing systems in time for them to affect the SNES. Anomie 15:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  - I've been unable to find any sources regarding lessons learned, even about the decision to abandon the ZIF connector. Anomie 14:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Y Done
Condense and combine the sections on lockout and emulation and discuss the licensing of the technology and games more.
- "Lockout" and "Emulation" are unrelated issues, in fact emulation can and does completely ignore two of the three lockout methods. Combining them would be like trying to combine "Geology" and "Culture" sections in a country's article. Anomie 15:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  - I don't see how they are different. Lockout prevents game cartridges from different markets from being interoperable or accessible. Emulation is a method for circumventing these physical/hardware barriers. They both reflect design choices to protect copyrights. Moreover, much of the information on the design aspects in "Lockout" should be in the "Technical Specifications" anyway. Madcoverboy 16:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    - Lockout prevents cartridges from other regions from being played on the console, just like DVD region coding prevents importation of discs. Emulation eliminates the console completely and allows the game code to be played on a PC; bypassing the lockout is a side effect and bonus. In fact, while the physical and CIC lockouts are easily ignored in emulation, the PAL/NTSC differences must be emulated and it would easily be possible to create a NTSC-only emulator. But just as the voltage on one pin of the PPU is sufficient to select 50 versus 60 Hz output, only a few lines of code are needed to do the same in an emulator. You're right that the lockout section should be moved to the technical specifications section; I've done it already. Anomie 17:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Y Done
- I will condense the lockout section (not so much information is needed regarding bypassing the lockouts), but I can't see what to remove from the "Emulation" section after the recent major cleanup. Anomie 15:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Y Done
- Information on the end of Nintendo's exclusive licensing policy (mainly since Nintendo was no longer the only game in town) is a good idea. I think I can work it in with the MK and DKC additions. Anomie 15:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Y Done
  - The sections need to be reorganized, although I wasn't able to find any standard structures for these types of articles on the WikiProject. I would recommend: Intro, History (to include "Market Share"), Technical Specifications, Peripherals, Titles, Hacking (to include the "Emulation and controversies" and "Enchancement" chips as well as the "Regional lockout" that isn't incoporated into "Tech Specs - Game Cartridge." Madcoverboy 16:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    - I don't agree that a "Hacking" section is appropriate, and Enhancement Chips definitely doesn't belong there. I'm also not sure about putting Market Share into History, both because it doesn't fit the narrative flow of the section and because a section heading seems necessary due to the nature of the Nintendo/Sega console war; IMO, it works best at the end of the article, as it brings a note of conclusion to the text. How about "History, Notable titles, Emulation, Technical specifications, Peripherals, Enhancement chips, Market share"? History of the console flows nicely into the historical nature of the new Notable titles section, and Emulation follows cleanly as post-history. Then the article changes gears to discuss the technical aspects of the console, followed by the add-on peripherals and the add-ons in the cartridges. Market share at the end gives the sense of conclusion to the article. Anomie 17:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Y Done

- Weak support I still don't like those info-boxes in the technical specs section since they muck up the formatting at 1600x1200 and appear to be largely redundant with the text, but the article has improved to FA status even if it could be improved further. Madcoverboy 14:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Support: Some minor cleanup (grammar) and copyediting would probably make the article even better, but it's in good shape and would make a fine FA. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've done some copyediting to the History section to make it read less like a sensationalized news story or press release. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Done

Other sections may also benefit from similar copyediting. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

~~Conditional oppose~~ The emulation section is a mess. The sentence that lists the number of systems that the SNES has been emulated on (the one that starts with PSP) is not cited. A sentence about Snes9x and ZSNES citing the Snes9x and ZSNES forums does not pass WP:N – they need to be supplamanted by reliable secondary sources independent of the creators. Could also mention what SNES games have been ported to Wii Virtual Console, as well. hbdragon88 23:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Hbdragon88 no longer opposes, see this comment. Anomie 00:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- References added: each system now has a reference to an emulator for that system; there may additionally be other emulators. Anomie 02:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Y Done
- WP:N does not apply: "These guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles." Anomie 02:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Additionally, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples suggests the following, which is the case for the forum sources you challenge:
  
  An Internet forum with identifiable, expert and credible moderators with a declared corrective moderation policy may , exceptionally, be considered reliable for some topics. In this sense, where moderators act as editors to review material and challenge or correct any factual errors, they could have an adequate level of integrity. This exception would only be appropriate to fields that are not well covered by print sources, where experts traditionally publish online.
  
  Anomie 02:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- See List of Virtual Console games (North America) (17 listed), List of Virtual Console games (Europe) (15 listed), and List of Virtual Console games (Japan) (24 listed). Further, "new" games are released weekly. Such a list would be difficult to maintain and completely out of place for this article. Anomie 02:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  
  I'm not saying list all of them, but perhaps list the first one that came out? Okay, so WP:N wasn't the right policy. How about the fact that they are not verified by relisable sources, secondary sources independent of the creators? I wouldn't lean on WP:SPS too much, I think that maks for a weak article. hbdragon88 02:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  
  I don't think the first Virtual Console release is any more relevant to this article than the first GBA remake, or the first game to have been playable on an emulator. The first games released for the system itself are barely relevant enough for mention on the basis of their being first.
  
  I've been dealing with SPS and related issues since I started trying to improve this article, and it has forced me to dig deep into WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, and the like and to consider the intent as well as the letter of the policies. I've reached several conclusions. The fact is that primary sources are not always bad, they are just easy to misuse and cannot establish Wikipedia:Notability. Secondary sources are not always available; in this case because emulation isn't "newsworthy", reports on emulation might invite retaliation or legal issues, and niche news sources generally simply report releases and review games. Self-published sources are not always bad, and can contain information that is relevant but that no one else feels a need to repeat. If you have specific weaknesses in mind, I will do my best to either strengthen or remove them. Generalities, however, are not helpful. Anomie 16:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Y Done

Comment Do NOT let GA class status influence your vote, as I discovered that the reviewer who gave this article GA status does not even know the GA criteria. The article will now undergo a formal GAC review. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- That does not appear to have been considered in the above, and I am finding it difficult to AGF based on your heavyhanded tactics. If you want to do a GAR, go ahead, but there is less call for you to demote the article without reason than there was for the original reviewer to promote it without using the checklist. Anomie 11:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~ Support Needs copy-editting by someone unfamiliar with the article. For example, these sentences could be better phrased, "Although each system is essentially the same, due to the different designs, each system can only play the games specifically made for its system." "Emulation projects began in 1996 with projects such as "VSMC" and "Super Pasofami", which, despite some important initial gains, did not last long past 1998.". Epbr123 15:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted to correct the two sentences you mentioned, and added some references in the process. KieferSkunk has already copyedited the History section, and I have requested a similar review of the rest of the article. Feel free to pitch in with further suggestions. Anomie 15:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Changed to support. Looks much better now. KieferSkunk has done a good job. Epbr123 19:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I can't take all the credit. Anomie has made some great edits and suggestions as well. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well-done Anomie. Epbr123 20:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, and thank both of you for helping. Anomie 20:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Done

The article was promoted 15:54, 26 July 2007.

[edit] Battle of Arras (1917)

Been working on this article for some time, it has been listed as Good Article, has passed a WP:MILHIST A-Class review and I think it is now ready for the big time. Any and all comments welcome, I'll do my best to address them speedily. Carom 16:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

~~Two (very) minor issues:~~
- ~~For the more myopic among us, could you add a brief thumbnail description to Image:Battle of Arras (1917).jpg where it appears in the "preliminary phase" section?~~
- Since Image:Battle of Arras 1917.jpg isn't used to illustrate the publication itself, it'll need a brief Fair Use Rationale on the image description page to remain in the article. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Caption added (by User:Roger Davies). On your second point, I'm no expert on fair use (on Wikipedia or elsewhere), and I'm not sure what would be an appropriate rationale here. The image was in the article when I began work on it - it's not mine, I don't know anything about the provenance, and I'm not wedded to it, so if it has to go, it has to go. Carom 18:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

FU rationales are fairly quick to write once you get the hang of them. If you tell me what point in the article the image is supposed to be illustrating, I can probably bodge one up in short order. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 19:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it may be better to ditch the image. It's not free, and I'm not sure that it illustrates anything particularly important. I may be able to dig up some free ones that work just as well, as there seems to be at least one possible image source suggested below... Carom 04:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Switched it for Image:Aftermath Arras.jpg, which has the double benefit of being both public domain and more illustrative of the "Aftermath" section (though not by much) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 14:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! And thanks for the higher resolution versions of the other images. Much appreciated! Also, shouldn't the old image (the unfree one) now be deleted as an orphaned fair use image? Carom 16:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

~~Object~~ — The article still has the same problem mentioned during the PR, namely the lead is not "capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article..." per Wikipedia:Lead_section. It discusses the Western Front strategy, the planning and the aftermath, but not the battle itself. Sections 2, 3 and 4 are skipped completely. The second paragraph of the lead is also not really discussed in the Prelude section. Specifically, the lead discusses the opening moves of the war and the situation as of 1915. To me this means it should be in the article body rather than a stand-alone paragraph in the lead. So I apologize but I just can't support this article for FA. — RJH (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to refactor the lead to address this comment. Hopefully you will let me know whether I succeeded. Carom 21:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. I've removed my objection. — RJH (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks for the comment, much appreciated. Carom 17:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I was ready to support the article, but I became puzzled by the italicized sentence in the "Battle in the air" section. Is that intended to be a comment? If so, some attribution is probably appropriate. Thanks. The article seems a bit comma-happy in places, but I'm sure that'll get spruced up. Also the use of italics (later in the text) to designate quotations seems a tad peculiar to me, as normally those would be used for internal thoughts. — RJH (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've changed italics, where appropriate, to roman plus quotation marks. --ROGER ^TALK 17:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Support — RJH (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Object. Insufficient density of citations, many sentences and even entire paragraphs have no citations. That said, this applies only to lesser parts of the article, so I hope to change my vote in a few days, after more citations are added.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

About 20 refs have now been added. Our policy has been to reference material that might be challenged, quotes etc. I've probably missed things so please let me know if you see any specific gaps. Thanks, --ROGER ^TALK 19:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added a few citation requests, we are getting close :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. --ROGER ^TALK 22:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, good job.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 10:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment — Some additional pictures might be useful, particularly in the "Prelude" and "First Phase" sections. It's only my personal preference that pictures should be used to break up long stretches of text where possible, so I can understand the article remaining as is. I further understand the difficulty of finding open-use images, but since the event is pre-1923, I'd think it wouldn't be too hard, but I may be wrong. JKBrooks85 13:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we've pretty much exhausted the Great War Primary Documents archive with regard to Arras, and I'm not aware of another large-scale online image repository for World War I. Obviously, the National Archives, etc. would (and do) have material, but most of these collections seem to require that you obtain permission to use even the public domain material that the possess, and as I'm not really all that familiar with how copyright law, etc. operate, I've avoided getting involved in trying to secure such permissions (if they're even really necessary). I'd love to have a few more images - I just don't know where to find them. Carom 16:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You could try the photographic archives at the Imperial War Museum site. Anything labelled as an "Official photograph" will by now be usable under {{PD-BritishGov}}. Just be careful though, as the IWM does stock a number of images from non-governmental sources, which, not having been published in the U.S., won't be usable til the standard Berne Convention dates. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look at that one. Carom 04:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

And bingo. Some good stuff there - I'll try and upload a few over the weekend. Thanks! Carom 04:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I've uploaded a couple of images that I thought appropriate (gleaned from the IWM site, thanks GeeJo), but that's about the extent of my image abilities. If anyone thinks the uploads are too small, or need cleanup, or what have you, I'm not really the person to ask (but I of course welcome any and all assistance of this nature). Carom 04:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Support — The additional pictures definitely break up the grey of the text and make it look visually appealing. JKBrooks85 23:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 15:54, 26 July 2007.

[edit] Karnataka

Karnataka is one of the states in India. This article has had a collaboration from Karnataka WikiProject members. The article has undergone a several rounds of copyedits, and is equipped with ample references, images, and significant sections that are necessary and required in an Indian state article. The article is written in summary style in Indian English. Each of the sections is expanded in detail in its own sub-article, for greater details and references covering that section.

The article has completed peer reviews at India WikiProject as well as the at the general Peer review.

I request constructive feedback from other editors, that could help improving the article further, and building the consensus towards taking it to FA. Thanks, - KNM ^Talk 03:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose- i think history section needs a lot of citation. Sushant gupta 13:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As I have said above, the article is in summary style and each section is a summary of one or more sub-articles which have ample citations. For "History" section, please refer to the sub-articles History of Karnataka, Political history of medieval Karnataka (a featured article by itself) and Origin of Karnataka's name. Hope this helps. - KNM ^Talk 15:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've never seen anyone win around here with that argument.--Rmky87 16:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, despite having great daughter articles, this article must have citations as needed/demanded. This is an independent article in summary style, with appropriate link to appropriate daughter/related articles. However, per FA criteria 1c, it must have appropriate citations. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply Adequate citations and references have been added now to the "History" section. Thanks. - KNM ^Talk 19:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify what KNM said, I want to point out the relevant policy. WP:SS says -

"There is no need to repeat all the references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article, unless they are required to support a specific point. The policy on sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, says that sources must be provided for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations."

I'd also like to note that several(nearly a hundred) citations were removed from the article in the last few weeks. This was done because the citations themselves ran into nearly 15kb and the article was getting bloated. But if editors here feel that we misunderstood the policy, please let us know. Bringing the citations back shouldnt be a problem at all. Sarvagnya 07:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Why a separate "Religion' section that largely discusses history of religions? Information given in this section should be incorporated in "History", "Demography", "Culture" etc. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, a section on "Divisions" can be created mentioning the administrative divisions (districts), with a map with locators. Some information on districts that has been given in "Demography' can be incorporated in 'Division" as well.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the religion section is pretty much fine as it discusses whole lot of useful information. As per the division section is concerned, I feel that listing all districts in the main article is not really necessary. A link to districts of Karnataka should serve the purpose. Listing all districts in this article is more information than needed for this summary style article IMHO. Gnanapiti 04:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Dwaipayan's points are well taken. But, I do not feel that the Religion section is not really out of place considering the fact that Religion has always been an integral part of people's lives in India, infact around the world. And anybody reading an article about a region/place will certainly be interested in its "Religion" of its people, just as he'd be interested in History or Geography of the region.
I agree that the contents of this section can be hived off into other sections, but I am not convinced that it is really necessary. Come to think of it, there is always bound to be some 'overlap' between history/religion/culture sections, but imo they have to be treated seperately and care has to be taken not to repeat any info across sections. If need be, perhaps a few more lines can be added to the Religion section itself describing the "present" situation with regards to religion in Karnataka. We could probably explore moving "Religion" as a subsection of "History" or "Culture"(just as "climate" is a subsection of "Geography"), but then again, I am not sure it is really necessary. Just my 2 cents. Sarvagnya 06:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Divisions or names of districts is needed, history section needs more references. Sections must be organised accordingly. See West Bengal for references. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 05:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

- Added more citation to history section.Dineshkannambadi 17:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. ok.. a list of districts was infact a part of the article until about a month ago. But the listing was looking awkward and taking too much space and was removed. We could perhaps add a section like in the West Bengal article mentioning the divisions in prose form. Sarvagnya 06:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

- I agree. Lets add the district info and make it more discreet and less of an eyesore than it used to be a month back. I will add a few more citations to the history section. Dineshkannambadi 14:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

- - I have added a section on subdivsions to the main article. The section is now in prose, rather than a list of districts. -- Naveen ^(talk) 15:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments contd. First, I have not read the whole article, so my comments may be incomplete/partially applicable. Please do not mind, and rectify me if needed.

I still hold my view that the content of "Religion" section can be incorporated in other sections such as History, Demographics, Culture etc. Information contained in this section can be further summarized, because it discusses only the history of religion in Karnataka. In fact, it can be renamed "History of religion". Now think, does an article on a state need a section called "History of religion"? This time, I say an emphatic "no". That is why I am suggesting removal of this section. Dwaipayan (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

While some of the sentences from religion section can be moved and absorbed in other sections, others fit perfectly in the current section with the name Religion. Advaita, Vishistadvaita, Dvaita, Madhvacharya, Adi Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya, Veerashaivism, Basava and their relevance to Karnataka is significant and it is required to be mentioned in the article. These information fit well together as a group under Religion section.

Also, I do not think it discussed only the history of religion in Karnataka. Like sentences such as "Udupi, Sringeri, Gokarna and Melkote are well-known places of Sanskrit and Vedic learning", "This was to form the basis of the Lingayat faith and today counts millions among its followers.", "Today, both Islam and Christianity have a sizeable following in the state and have contributed richly to the cultural cosmopolitanism of the state." and so on. These information talk about present state of affairs on religion in Karnataka and cannot be considered historical information. I hope this helps. - KNM ^Talk 21:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, not really. "Udupi, Sringeri, Gokarna and Melkote are well-known places of Sanskrit and Vedic learning"—can be includede in "Education"; "This was to form the basis of the Lingayat faith and today counts millions among its followers."—can be told in "Demography", with citation and less rhetorically; "Today, both Islam and Christianity have a sizeable following in the state and have contributed richly to the cultural cosmopolitanism of the state."—repetition (Christian and Muslim percentages mentioned in Demography already) and flowery words. "Shravanabelagola, Mudabidri and Karkala are famous for Jain history and monuments..."—tourist information, although combined with historical perspective nicely. Better be in "Tourism". I have a feeling the section "Tourism" (though I have not read it) would repeat information from other sections such as Flora and Fauna, Geography. Please take care of repetition.

Of course Advaita, Vishistadvaita, Dvaita, Madhvacharya, Adi Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya, Veerashaivism, Basava and their relevance to Karnataka is significant and it is required to be mentioned in the article. But that can be done, I repeat, in "History", "Culture" etc. This will also probably reduce the readable prose size.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I beg to disagree here. Like I said before, there is bound to be some overlap between sections. But I am not convinced that they cannot exist as seperate sections. Many sentences for that matter can also be made to fit into other sections. But there is no point in doing it just for the sake of doing it. It will only leave the article more chaotic and less focussed. For example, I can point out several sentences in India which can be 'piece-mealed' away into other sections. Taj Mahal, for example can equally be at home in the history section as in the culture section; Details of film industry can be moved to Economy from Culture; Stats of labour force can be carted off into Demographics from Economy; Details of foreign relations can be moved into the Politics section... there just would be no end to it. Similarly, Madhva, Basava etc., can also argued to belong to the History section. But no. They're obviously better off in the Religion section! We only have to take care that we dont repeat info... ie., we dont mention Madhva and Basava both in the history and religion sections.
A section on "Religion" is perfectly justified in an article that deals with a state of about 6 crore people of whom only an insignificant percentage(if at all) are counted as atheists. I feel that the section on Religion was quite crisp and well written(could do with a little more cpedit though). I request Dwai to think once again about this and I'd also request other reviewers to chime in. Sarvagnya 20:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding need of citations, yes, "...sources must be provided for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged...". And any statistics, numbers or even a simple-looking sentence can be challenged. For example, data in "Demography" need to be referenced. Same goes true for data in economy. Please cite, it will be an easy job since you have excellent supporting/daughter articles. Do not worry about bloating size of inline citations. What matters is "readable prose" size, not the size contributed by citations. See the FAC of Jerusalem where the readable prose size was mentioned in the nomination itself. --Dwaipayan (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these inputs, Dwaipayan. As long as there is no restriction on increased article size, there shouldn't be any problems at all for adding the citations. We'll just need to bring them from the corresponding sub-articles. The requested section (History) is now well-sourced. Thanks. - KNM ^Talk 21:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I also have some reservations on the sections "Language" and "Tourism". Since I have not read these sections, I won't comment now. --Dwaipayan (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment on sport section - The first sentence seems to be OR and is not listed in the daughter article with a reference. The sentence about the distinguished swimmers and athletes seem over the top and weaselish, since it doesn't enumerate or name any sportspeople or achievements. The assertion about cricket being most popular is not sourced in the daughter article, the ref given is about ticket prices and you need to to explain popular in terms of TV/Radio/registered participation/ or crowds. I rm "prestigious" from the Ranji Trophy - not needed and POV. Also probably should mention that Mumbai won 15+ ?? times in total otherwise ppl will think that K is the strongest state. I also toned down the thing about the majority being from K, since this occurred in only two matches and were isolated cases, since mostly there were only four regulars from Karnataka in the late 90s (Kumble, Dravid, V Prasad and Srinath). But I think there may be other cases of unintended bias in the article. So more eyes are needed. Onto generalities, the prose did not seem the best (slang like "team India") and there are some ref-formatiing issues. Don't use "Online version of...". simply put "publisher=Cricinfo". Where there is an author, use "first=Roopy|last=Rao" so that it appears "Rao, Roopy" as required. Don't need the copyright everywhere and need to use "date=yyyy-mm-dd" in the cite as I have changed some as required. In the book refs, need "pp. 243-244." not "pp243-244" - full stops and spaces are missing. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply - Page number formats have been updated to include full stops and spaces. Cricket sentence is modified such that it is one of the most popular sports, instead of the most popular sport. - KNM ^Talk 03:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Reply - Copyright information (© yyyy) in several citations have been removed. - KNM ^Talk 02:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Reply - In all the citations that have used accessdate property, now the date format used is "yyyy-mm-dd". Just now made sure about this for all the citations, and corrected as required. Thanks, - KNM ^Talk 03:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Noted Thankyou - I guess I may read other parts sometime and make comments if they are of any use. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

*Comment- Economy, demography and government section needs to be cited properly disregarding the fact that the factual source is from the subsets of the topic. thanks, Sushant gupta 01:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply - First sentence in sports section is removed. Sentence about swimming is modified according to new citation. Mumbai winning highest number of Ranji trophies being mentioned.(37!! Gosh). References are added to Economy, demography and Government sections. Gnanapiti 02:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

More comments "Culture" not comprehensive. Folk arts, music, painting have been covered. But architecture, drama, cinema, festivals needed. Is literature covered in "Language" (I have not read that section yet).--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Also missing are dress and food.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Culture section now covers the above mentioned topics. Gnanapiti 15:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Further comments- in the geography section, last para, first line-

...About 38,724 km² (or 20% of Karnataka's geographic area) are covered by forests...
the line doesn't follow WP:MoS. Sushant gupta 01:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply - Can you please be more specific on where WP:MoS is not followed? The number is comma separated after three least significant digits, which is acceptable per WP:MoS#Scientific_style

The Wikipedia rule for commas and periods in numbers is, for example 12,345,678.901—contrary to Continental style.

Also, km² is acceptable per precedent FA India. Thanks, - KNM ^Talk 01:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

if that is so then why was i opposed when i nominated Himachal Pradesh for FAC. most of them who reviewed the article were the participants of india workgroup only. Sushant gupta 08:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean we need to use Square kilometre instead? Please elaborate and we'll correct it. Or please go ahead and correct yourself whatever you feel is appropriate. Gnanapiti 15:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I have not actually read the article yet but just looking at it I see one major problem: Explosion of pictures. Please, keep no more than two images per section. For instance, in the economy section their is no need for the infosys image. Graphs are fine by themselves. Also, the info box image is all messed up on my laptop. --Blacksun 09:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Infosys image has been removed from the Economy section. If you could please let us know the exact issue with infobox image, that would help fixing it up. Thank you - KNM ^Talk 18:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox image is working properly now. However, It is my opinion that their are still a few too many images in the article. I don't think any one section in this article should have more than two images as none of them are that long. But that is more subjective I suppose. I will try to read it later and give more comments. --Blacksun 11:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments: I have not yet finished reading the article, so will add to the following list:
- In the Government section:
  - "~~... with the Governor appointed for five years as the constitutional head."~~: is it worth mentioning that the Governor is appointed by the President of India ? Also I assume the constitution being refereed to is India's (do Indian states have constitutions ?) ... if so, this may not be clear to a casual reader, and it may be better to use formal/ceremonial head like the Government of Karnataka article does.

hmm.. Added ref for this 'constitutional head'. As for pres appointing him.. well.. all Guvs in India hold office 'during the pleasure' of the Pres and are appointed by him. So just thought it was worth mentioning. Sarvagnya 16:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

- - "The governor appoints the Chief Minister and his council of ministers ..": while techically accurate, this does not paint the right picture for an uninformed reader. Reword.
  - "Chief Minister and his council of ministers in whom a great deal of legislative power is vested.": I think the CM and CoM have executive powers and can drive the legislative agenda, but the legislative power is formally vested in the Assembly/Council. Please check.

Hmm.. technically the Guv is the last word on any administrative matter. The CM and CoM can 'advise' him but the Guv can use his 'discretionary' powers at any point to overrule them. Added ref. Sarvagnya 16:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

- - ~~The important relationship between Legislative Assembly and CM/CoM is not mentioned.~~
  - "The Executive arm of the Government is headed by Deputy Commissioners ...": IMO the DC heads the administrative arm rather than the executive arm. Please check (and let me know if I am misinformed!)

You may be right. It is actually the Governer who heads the executive. So even if DCs are part of the 'executive', they cannot be the 'heads'. Will check. Sarvagnya 16:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

- - ~~Why is Deputy Commissioners plural, while Deputy Commissioner of Police and Deputy Conservator of Forests are talked about in the singular?~~
  - "strange animal" -> chimaera
  - "The emblem also carries two strange animals with the face of an elephant and the body of a lion. This state emblem is carried on all official correspondence of the Government of Karnataka." Relevance ?
- In the Economy section:
  - ~~"...GSDP (Gross State Domestic Product) of 9.2%... " I assume you mean growth rate. Also usually better to mention size of economy before growth statistics.~~
    - Yes, it is the growth rate. This has been clarified in the article now... - ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits}13:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  - " ...of Karnataka in 2006-2007 is about Rs. 1940.09 billion". is -> was; also mention % of Indian GDP.
    - This has been addressed now... - ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits}13:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  - ~~"... inflation rate of Karnataka" of -> in. The section could use a light copyedit. Also mention national rate for consistency with previous sentences.~~
    - National inflation rate has been added now. - ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits}14:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  - ~~"Like much of the rest of the country, the economy is primarily agrarian" Not true by the usual metric of contribution to GDP/GDSP.~~
    - Reworded the statement to remove any ambiguity. - ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits}14:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  - ~~Hindustan Motors is not public sector.~~
    - Corrected now. - ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits}14:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  - "A total of 1973 companies ..." the exact number is meaningless without particular date. Either say, around 2000, or mention exact date in sentence.
    - This has been addressed now. There were 1973 companies at the end of 2006-07. - ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits}13:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  - ~~Indicate that IT is an abbreviation for Information Technology.~~
    - This has been addressed now. - ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits}13:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  - ~~Biotech stats. needs citation.~~
    - Citation has been provided in the daughter article, Economy of Karnataka. Will bring it in if needed... - ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits}14:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Overall the section reads somewhat like a publicity pamphlet, with positive features earning a mention, even though they are of little importance, for example "The coastal districts of Udupi and Dakshina Kannada have a branch for every 500 persons - the best distribution of banks in India." and no mention of basic data on , say, poverty rate. The sole (arguably) negative information I found in the section was "Much of this is dependent on the southwest monsoon as only 26.5% of the sown area is under irrigation." While the remarkable recent progress needs to be highlighted, the section needs more balance.
    - Poverty rate details have been added. - ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits}14:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- In the Transport section:
  - "... a project that is regarded as one of the feats of Indian engineering for several reasons." doesn't make grammatical sense, and again sounds POV. Not to belittle the achievement but remember that for an international audience an engineering feat is something like the Panama canal or the Chunnel. The overall section is well-balanced though.

I've changed the sentence and perhaps toned down a bit to "India's biggest railway project of this century" referenced from a release from Press Information Bereau of India. Gnanapiti 16:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

- - Should the Transport section contain information about private transport too (say, number of cars etc) or is it the convention to discuss only mass transport ?
- In the Education section:
  - "... like the Indian Institute of Science" like -> such as
    - Corrected now. - ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits}14:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  - ~~Section needs a light copyedit and some statistics need references, else it reads well!~~
    - Appropriate citations have been provided in the daughter article; Education in Karnataka - ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits}14:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply - References added. Gnanapiti 15:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

- In the Media section:
  - ~~"In 1935, Aakashvani, the first private radio station in India, was started by Prof. M.V. Gopalaswamy." Where ?~~
    - This was at Mysore and this info has been added now - ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits}13:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  - ~~"Nisarga Sampada and Sasya Sanjeevini ..." Need context as to when, where by whom ?~~
    - Context has been included now... - ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits}13:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  - ~~"Later, the BBC sent a team to make a study of this series." Sorry, but this sounds like a parochial boast, on par with "Scientists at NASA are studying ..."~~
    - Removed this. - ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits}13:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  - ~~"Recently, several FM radio channels have sprung up and have become popular." Quantify ?~~
    - Added more infomation and citations to corroborate this sentence now... - ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits}13:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- In the Flora and fauna section:
  - ~~Second paragraph needs citation (possibly to a general reference), and the last few sentences are a bit list-y, but otherwise the section covers the topic well.~~

General references are added to the second paragraph. Listings of Wild animals, birds, species of trees are reduced now. - KNM ^Talk 18:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

- In the Tourism section:
  - ~~Need reference for protected monuments statistics.~~
  - ~~"Another 25,000 monuments have yet to receive protection." What does this mean ?~~
  - ~~"...21 wildlife sanctuaries ..." 21 or 25 as mentioned in previous section. Reference would help.~~
  - "Recently Karnataka has emerged as a hot spot for health care tourism in India, attracting health tourists from all over the world." Second part of sentence (starting from in India.. ) is redundant.

Reply - Reference added for protected monuments. Fixed number of wildlife sanctuaries(25). Removed redundant part in the sentence.Gnanapiti 15:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

- In the Reference section:
  - John Keay, History of India -> India: A history

Reply - Fixed book name. Gnanapiti 15:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare 10:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The article is well written. Some items to take care of:
- Lead:
  - ~~Jnanapith awards are mentioned in lead, but not expanded later.~~

Reply - Expanded in "Language" section. - KNM ^Talk 02:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

- - comprises 27 district missing "of"

Reply - Corrected. - KNM ^Talk 02:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Follow up: KNM did correct it, but I changed it back to "comprises", based on [2] Abecedare 02:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

- - Karnataka is the only state in India that has significantly contributed to both forms of Indian classical music, the Carnatic music and Hindustani music traditions. Sounds POV. A possible restatement could be Karnataka has contributed significantly...

Reply - Modified accordingly. - KNM ^Talk 02:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

- History:
  - ~~Could use a sentence or two about freedom fighters in 1800s and 1900s~~

Since Dinesh is the major contributor for History section, I guess we'll wait for him to come and add a sentence or two. I've informed him. Gnanapiti 03:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Update - I have added a paragraph covering the freedom movement in the 19th and 20th century. It has some red links but will create stubs soon. Sarvagnya 09:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

- Geography:
  - ~~Some terms wikilinked multiple times like "Western Ghats" and "Archaen". There may be more.~~

Reply - Removed the additional wikilinks to "Archean" and "Western Ghats" in "Geography" and "Flora and fauna" sections respectively. Will look out for more such instances in other sections of the article, and correct them as required. Thanks. - KNM ^Talk 03:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

- - ~~Some terms could use a wikilink like "gneisses". I didn't know what they were. Someone should try the auto wikilink tool on this page and pick any relevant links it offers.~~

Reply - "gneiss" was already wikilinked, in an earlier sentence ( the Archean complex made up of Dharwad schists and granitic gneisses,... ). However, Wikilinked few more not-so-common words in this section. - KNM ^Talk 02:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

- Sub divisions:
  - Each district is subdivided into Sub-Divisions, governed by a sub-divisional magistrate. Too many "subdivide"s.

Reply - Replaced the word "subdivided" with "divided". - KNM ^Talk 02:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

- - ~~This section could be merged with the Government and administration section.~~

Reply - There was already a discussion about adding this section, during this FAC. And as per other reviewers, and especially as per other India state FAs, (West Bengal, Kerala), "Sub divisions" has to be an independent section. Hope that clarifies. - KNM ^Talk 02:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

- Government:
  - '~~'The administration is each district is headed by a Deputy Commissioners. The first "is" should be "in". Commisioners should lose the "s".~~

Reply - Corrected. - KNM ^Talk 02:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read the rest of the article yet. Lotlil 22:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and comments, Lotlil. - KNM ^Talk 02:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Support - The lead section may need a few references, but that is a minor issue.Baka man 04:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

All points in the lead are later expanded in different sections with most of them carrying references to the best of my knowledge. If you still feel we need to add some references, I'll go ahead and add them. Please let me know what you think. Gnanapiti 05:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Economy:
- is one of the economically more progressive states in India. Sounds POV. May be the national average figure or the state's rank could drive home the point.
- The paragraph on manufacturing could be modified a bit. Instead of listing companies, it may be better to list the items manufactured like aircraft (?), heavy machinery etc. If the data is easy to find, we could present some figures indicating why the state is a hub for manufacturing these items.
- ~~ISRO in the manufacturing para seems out of place.~~

Reply - This has been addressed to make it more clear that ISRO is a Science and Technology institute. Naveen ^(talk) 14:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

- A separate para on prominent companies headquartered in Karnataka could be useful. The info is already in the text, just needs to be reformatted (like the companies in manufacturing para, IT, ISRO, bio tech etc).

Reply - This section of manufacturing now mentions non-manufacturing companies which are headquartered in Karnataka. Naveen ^(talk) 14:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up - I was thinking this could be made a para by itself - highlighting the major companies that are headquartered in the state. Not too keen on it, though. Lotlil 02:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

- This feat has earned Bangalore the sobriquet, Silicon Valley of India. The text currently implies that the tag came about because of the 2006-07 achievement, which is not true. The tag could be added seamlessly to the first line of the para.

Reply - Sentence restructured to clarify the context. Naveen ^(talk) 14:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

- at the forefront of the rapid strides that India has been making. Needs to be toned down a bit. May be just say something like Karnataka leads other states in biotechnology....
- ~~Biocluster of 158/300 part needs citations.~~

Lotlil 18:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Reference added for biocluster. Toned down biotechnology sentence. Merged silicon valley sentence with first sentence in the para. Gnanapiti 18:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Support: I have perused about half the article in detail and pointed out some minor issues above, which have been addressed. A quick glance over the rest of the sections didn't point to any must-fix item. Will continue to comment on the finer details until this FAC is open. Appreciate the constructive team work on this article. Lotlil 01:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

Can any one add a photo of any or some local newspapers?? Though this is not a criteria. bUt will enhance the article. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 06:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply - The media section now has a photo of one of the popular local newspapers. Thanks for your constructive feedback. -- Naveen ^(talk) 02:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Support overall, but needs some more editing (2(a)):
- This article appears comprehensive. Good job, guys.
- Some unidiomatic/eccentric phrasing (e.g., "finding pride of place in the state"
- Droll: "hand-axe culture evidenced by discoveries of, among other things, hand axes". De-uglify this by adding more details.
- A small problem w/ touristy/booster-ish loaded language: "boasts" (why not "hosts" or "has produced"?), Karnataka is a remarkable state with a fascinating history/culture; let the raw facts tell the story and strip out unnecessary stuff. Allow readers to come to their own conclusions.
- a few extra commas may be needed to clarify sentence meaning and distinguish clauses
- Some ungrammatical phrasing (e.g., "evidences of"—I've fixed this and several other examples).
- Most wording/grammar issues appear to have been resolved
- Ping Nichalp. To start, he'll be wondering why:
  - sections are begun with left-aligned images (looks ugly/makes text hard to read—I agree w/ this)
  - charts are not svg (would look better and be *much* easier to update when new stats are published—agree also)
It's great to see that another state is about to be featured. Overall, I liked reading this article and learned interesting things. Saravask 22:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Support and General comment - This article has been a enormous exercise in copyediting (atleast as far as my contributions on wiki are concerned). The article increased dramatically in size in the last couple of months and it has taken some frenzied cleanup, pruning, copyediting, wikilinking etc., by the WP:KAR members. In terms of numbers, the article shot up from around 45kb in may to nearly 80kb before some serious copyediting brought it back to around 58k (several 'downstream' articles were created in the process). It shot up once again(thanks greatly to Amar) to over 90k and was copyedited back to about 70k. A bulk of the citations were then done away with and the article was brought further down to around 55k. Now that editors here demanded that the citations be added back, it was done and the size is back in the 70s.
All these cycles of adding info, pruning, cpeditng... in quick succession have meant that the article has suffered slightly in terms of style (the 'unidiomatic' stuff that Saravask talks about). I suspect that this also has to do with the fact that the WP:KAR editors have been at it far too long and must just be weary of the never ending cpedits(its true atleast in my case). I am sure that these 'style issues' can be ironed out in a few rounds of cpedits by some fresh pair of eyes. In the meanwhile, I certainly feel that it is FA material and support its promotion. And also appreciate all those who have taken the pains to go through the article, review and cpedit it. Sarvagnya 00:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Support a comprehensive, well organized and illustrated article. As Saravask mentions above, there are a few minor prose and copyediting issues, but those should be easy to resolve especially if a few non-involved editors give the article a quick read-through (I'll try to help with this aspect). Good job overall by an active group of editors in both writing a FA class article and responding to reviewers concerns conscientiously! Abecedare 02:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Support Superb article, very informative and has great set of illustrative images. NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 06:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Support Well written article.Gives an excellent description about the state and people of Karnataka. Excellent use of the images too..Great work guys..Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 07:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Support This article has been one of those that have undergone multiple cp-edits from multiple people and it is now in a good shape containing relevant and comprehensive information related to the state of Karnataka. Few minor style issues (if any) can be rectified easily. However, the article in its current shape looks complete as far as the information that it should contain is concerned and is certainly FA material. Hence I support its promotion. Thanks to all the editors who made this happen. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits}09:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Support After the multitude of copy edits and addressing all the constructive feedback it has received in this FAC, the article is definitely FA class. I support this promotion. -- Naveen ^(talk) 13:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Support - Well written article and very informative. Appreciate all the hard work that has gone into it. Need more efforts like this one to make Wikipedia keep its informativeness improving. Good luck. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 09:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Support FA quality, didn't see much wrong with it, although there are a few red links which probably should have stubs created for them. Other than that, great job, and the article deserves to be featured. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support This article is undeniably FA quality. I support this motion per Naveen. Sinhala freedom 19:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 15:54, 26 July 2007.

[edit] Cardinal-nephew

Self-nomination. Meticulously referenced article with plenty of free images and an interesting subject matter. It is, I believe, exhaustive in terms of the number of referencable facts about this obscure topic. Has been recognized as a good article, and improved substantially since then. I filed a peer review to see if anything could be done about this list of cardinal-nephews, but quicly realized (with the help of LordHarris) that the obvious solution was to move that to a separate list: list of cardinal-nephews. I hope that you'll support this article; otherwise, I'd be happy to address any actionable objections. Savidan 00:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment - It's a pretty nice article, but it needs a bit of work. First order of business that I can immediately notice is that, unless things have changed since I was last around here, years without dates should not be wikilinked. Also, there is currently a discussion on the proper format of date ranges that you might want to pay close attention to. I also wonder if all those date ranges are even needed, though I'll leave this discussion up to someone else and just posit the thought. I also don't like the large amount of red links as a matter of personal style. I think a truly thorough article will leave no red link unfixed in case someone wants to do further research on subjects within this larger subject. My last immediate problem is the lead. I personally don't think it is doing a tremendous job of inviting the reader into the rest of the article. There's too much action going on, whether it be date ranges or names or wikilinking or footnotes...it's all just a bunch of clutter. On top of that, I think it could be expanded a bit to adequately summarize the article. Nice job on the references, though I suggest fixing the clutter there as well by separating the bibliography from the notes like you might find here. Cheers, JHMM13^(Disc) 07:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- I will unlink all the date ranges, but I prefer to leave them for now. As there are several hundred popes, and the difference of one ordinal number may mean several hundred years, I think it is necessary to give the reader context. Savidan 14:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  - It looks surprisingly less cluttered without the blue links for the date ranges. Amazing how that works, eh? :-D JHMM13^(Disc) 04:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- I do intend to one day fill all these redlinks. For now, I think it's reasonable to redirect them to the pope who was their uncle in most cases with the {R with possibilities} template. Savidan 14:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Nice job, and to the user below, note how I said it was "a matter of personal style." I'm not entirely sure what you (Briangotts) are trying to say by it "is not an appropriate grounds for opposing." I was not opposing and I made it clear that it was my personal preference, and I think the preference of many users, to see a featured article that supplies links to help suppress the confusion rather than add to it. Blue links = good. Red links = bad. Especially if these are links to people who you might want to look up because of confusion over context or other reasons. Once again, nice job, Savidan. JHMM13^(Disc) 04:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- What bit of information do you think needs to be added to the intro? Savidan 14:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  - My main concern is that the article devotes an entire section to the role of cardinal-nephews in conclaves, yet it is not mentioned at all in the lead. Furthermore, the lead should not have two sentences straggling off the end. You should tie it together somehow and create a proper paragraph. JHMM13^(Disc) 04:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't quite understand what you want me to do to make there be less "action going on" or why relevant wikilinks and footnotes are a bad think. See if you think it's less cluttered once I fix the date ranges. Savidan 14:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Generally the lead shouldn't be a place for excessive use of footnotes. Perhaps one or two footnotes to deal with things only mentioned in the lead (like a note on the spelling of a person's name if it's a biographical article), but the majority of this stuff should be information that is supplied in the body of the article. The lead should represent the whole of the article and serve as a small summary of the entire thing. Generally speaking, if it's worthy of inclusion in the lead, it should probably be in the article, so put the note in the article, not in the lead. JHMM13^(Disc) 04:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'll separate the biography from the footnotes for sources that are cited more than once. Savidan 14:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Nice job, but I'd still like to see a complete separation, even for single-cited sources...just for continuity's sake. You can do this if you agree with me...if not, the way it is is fine. JHMM13^(Disc) 04:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  - The above-described actions have been completed. Can I get an update from you on where the article stands? Savidan 15:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    - It stands quite well, just as it did before. Another quick thing...I'm not sure you need the "Main article: Cardinal Secretary of State" tag there since it is not a spinoff of this article. Just let it be linked in the main part. I still haven't read the entire thing thoroughly and on continued arbitrary section reading I'm finding various syntax issues like single-sentence paragraphs that you might want to fix. The quote boxes irk me a little too. I do like the use of quote boxes, but these ones seem to use far too much space for what they have in them. Could you search around for another style, perhaps? Thanks, JHMM13^(Disc) 04:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me from breaking with the imbedded format. I'm inclined not to remove the quote boxes (which are used in other featured articles), although I will change the references as you ask, if you can point to some guideline (actually, even a few examples of outstanding articles would be fine). As for the intro, I will explore ways to to make it more inclusive, but I might have to sleep on that. I'm not incline to move the foot noted material from the intro to another part of the article and then repeat it uncited in the intro. The whole point is that those sentences are summary material, but I wanted to avoid original research in the way I summarized the trends. As I said, I will make some change to the intro, and notify you when its done. Savidan 17:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I will forgive you in time X-D. Please check out this discussion which is very relevant to this FAC. Incidentally, I'd love the opinion of our most esteemed friend Titoxd here. Again, the quote boxes are just a personal thing. I like this template better. If you agree, stick it in. If you don't, keep yours. JHMM13^(Disc) 22:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong support. Meticulous and thorough. Presence of redlinks is not an appropriate grounds for opposing. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, but, just to be clear, the redlinks have been eliminated. Savidan 18:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong Support I think the list problem has been sorted. LordHarris 22:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
~~Comment~~ - so, I've been poked to look at the article. Overall, it is very good, but there are a few things I noticed. Separating them by section:
1. Lede
  - It is unclear whether Cardinal nephew is a term used for the historical office, or for the current Cardinal Secretary-of-State.
2. Before 1566
  - Delink 1059. All of the other years have been delinked.
  - What sources indicate that Saint Anselmo da Baggio was brother of Pope Alexander II? By the way, source #9 doesn't load for me.
  - I'm confused by the following sentence:
    
    "by the Council of Bazill [(1430—1440)], Session 21, the number of Cardinals was not to be above 24, and not any nephew of the Pope or of any Cardinal was to be of that number. (Session 23.)"[10]
  - What is the point of the brackets and the Harvard citation? It's the only one I see in the article, and it seems the sentence can be reworked to avoid mixing citation styles.
  - "A cardinal-nephew could usually expect cushy appointments"... is there another word to use instead of "cushy"? It breaks the tone of the prose.
3. The Cardinal Nephew: 1566-1692
  - When did Pope Paul V elevate Roberto Ubaldini to Cardinal Nephew?
  - Consider breaking up the following run-on sentence:
    
    "Many historians consider Olimpia Maidalchini, the sister-in-law of Pope Innocent X (1644—1655), to have been a de facto Cardinal Nephew, although the position was formally held by her son, Camillo Pamphilj, (after Pamphilj renounced his cardinalate in order to wed) her nephew, Francesco Maidalchini, and (after Francesco proved incompetent) Camillo Astalli, her cousin.[33][34]"
4. Role in conclaves
  - What on Earth is Instruzione al cardinal Padrone circa il modo come si dve procurare una fazione di cardinali con tutti i requisiti che deve avere per lo stabilimento della sua grandezza? I assume it is some sort of document, but more info would be nice.
5. Legacy
  - It is better to include "List of Prohibited Books", which the casual reader may understand more than Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Don't remove the actual Latin title, just add the vernacular English term next to it.
Overall, it isn't bad, again, and these things are fairly minor, so I wouldn't consider this an oppose. As an addendum, there's a ton of quotation templates, so that's just a trivial preference issue... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have augmented the lead as JHMM13 suggested and cleared up the Cardinal Secretary of State thing which Titoxd pointed out. Do either of you have any lingering concerns about the lead?

The source is at the end of the sentence; unfortunately, the entire "[www.fiu.edu/~mirandas/cardinals.htm Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church]" site seems to be down right now. If it's not back up within a week, I'll go through the cache and substitute the printed references which Mirandas gives. I used the site itself because the sources are extremely archaic and the site itself is quite reputable, being included in the Library of Congress's "MINERVA Web Preservation Project" and being linked by multiple scholarly sites, including Britannica.

The Council of Bazill sentence is just a quote from a (relatively ancient book). I can find no other mention of such a council or even figure out where Bazill might be. I didn't want to paraphrase because its possible that the author wasn't extremely precise with his choice of wording, as is common with older books. The brackets are the dates that I found for when this Council of Bazill took place. It's not a Harvard citation; its part of the original quote. He's refering to Session 23 of the Council of Bazill. Again, I didn't want to reword this because I am skeptical about the rigorousness of the source.

I'm out of town at the moment, so pardon me for leaving the rest of your comments for the time being. Savidan 05:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe one day I'll write an article about Instruzione al cardinal Padrone; as I explained in the article it offers choice pieces of advice about how to consolidate power in the college. The rest of your comments I have implemented. Savidan 16:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. I'm not sure whether I was unclear about the source comment: I see it is there, but it would be better if the name of at least one source were explicitly stated in the prose. Instead of "Some sources say brother", write, "Some sources, such as the New York Times, say brother". (And yes, the NYT is the most absurd thing I could come up with.) But, again, otherwise, it deserves to be FA'd. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Oooooh, re-reading that I can see why another source might be needed. It's not that there are two sources in conflict; it's that one source says it could be either. I changed it to make that more clear. Savidan 23:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

While it wasn't what I was saying, I'll file this one as WORKSFORME. Support. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Support - Nice job...all the changes are great! JHMM13^(Disc) 19:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 15:54, 26 July 2007.

[edit] Dookie

Just a few days ago, about four, I saw this article of perhaps my favorite album, in horrible shape. I had many sources, so I decided to make it better. That day, I completely re wrote the article, and sent it in for a GA the next day. It passed, and since then, I have been asking a couple of different users to help me with it. After much editing of grammar, sources, pictures, and many other stuff, I believe it is ready for you guys, here at the FAC. Hope it passes sooner or later! Oh, it's a self nomination, by the way. Xihix 01:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Support - as this article's GA reviewer (I passed it a few days ago), it has my support. Giggy _U^CP 01:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Support I brought up my concerns on this article with Xihix on IRC... he fixed them almost immediately. I have no other outstanding issues with this article. It is well written, referenced, and quite good. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose There are some issues that remain with the article. It currently isn't ready for FA status; more work needs to be done:

~~Reference 10 needs to be dated with the issue # and month. Its current state is not acceptable.~~
~~References 12-19 have no publisher stated. Identify the publisher.~~
~~Reference 11 states Billboard as a publisher. It is a magazine; therefore the name must be italicized.~~
~~The "Album Name and Art" has this one big quote placed in the middle. Some of it is alright, but most of it is over excessive nonsense not needed in the article.~~
~~"The name of the album originated from the band members' habit of eating food on the road while touring that had often turned bad." is awkwardly worded.~~
~~Much of the "Writing and Composition" talks exclusively about the five singles released for the album, and little else. Some more expansion on at least some of the other 9 tracks would be nice.~~
"During the fight, bassist Dirnt fell off the stage, and while trying to climb back on, the actions of a security guard caused him to injure his arm and break three of his teeth." does "bassist Dirnt" really need to be present? Also, what actions of the security guards? Did they kick him? Please clarify this.
"Rob Cavallo was chosen as the main producer of the album, after the band was looking for one after signing with Reprise" Wordy. Could be "Rob Cavallo was chosen as the main producer of the album, as the band was looking for someone to produce their next album after signing with Reprise."
~~A meticulous copy edit is desperately needed.~~

I was jumping around from place to place to see if any flaws caught my eye. As obvious, many did. I have not taken a complete assessment of the article as of yet. The article is a bit away from FA class. NSR77 ^T_C 02:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

~~I have done everything you listed above, except the copy edit, which another editer and I are doing now. Xihix 16:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)~~
~~Please check some suggestions at Xihix's talk page- TwoOars 21:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)~~

~~I also fixed the ones you listed that seemed necessary. Xihix 03:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)~~

Comment on my Opposition - I am still opposing this FA as the "Critical Reception" section is weak. How about some reviews from Time, EW, NME, Stylus, Mojo, Q, Rolling Stone, Pop Matters, etc.? You, currently, only have one major critic present. NSR77 ^T_C 04:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

~~I guess I didn't sound clear the first time, I'm sorry. It never existed, or if it did, it's long gone or not on the internet. Xihix 04:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)~~

~~Well, after some searching for some old archived articles, I found two major critical reviews and put them both in the critical reception. Enjoy. Xihix 15:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)~~

Most things appear to be OK now for a support. NSR77 ^T_C 15:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. With an album, such as Dookie, being released over ten years ago, any material that might be relevant to the article has gone down the memory hole and cannot be located. The reason why many of the tracks are not listed in the article for the "Writing and Composition" sections is because the author could not find sources on why the songs were written at all. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Doolittle (album) seems to do fine, regardless of being almost 20 years old. NSR77 ^T_C 15:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps because it has freaking books written about it? I'm sure if Billie Joe made an autobiography, I could make all of the Green Day albums GA'd. Not only that, it seems to be considered one of the best albums ever by many different sources, as I see in the article. Same goes for Nirvana or Beatles articles; it's just a popularity contest, and since they are dubbed as the best by a lot of old people, they have more coverage. Xihix 16:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. Very comprehensive and well-sourced, and an example of what articles on albums should aspire towards. The fact that this album is 13 years old, as Zscout370 pointed out, predating the rise of the Internet, makes the effort put into researching the album even more commendable. Krimpet 03:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Nitpicks. Blah blah blah great article blah blah little issues that could be fixed, the usual. Numbered for your pleasure convenience.
1. ~~Why is the Longview quote blockquoted? Why is that quote there at all? It's kind of empty.~~
2. ~~"The song never had an official music video, however, a certain live performance of the song is often associated as a music video, which is found on Green Day's official website." - Needs a reference~~
3. ~~There's informal language scattered all over the place. "Most of the singles fared well in various charts too" is one example.~~
4. "Release and reception" is pretty scrambled. The first paragraph is about producing and making the album, and seems to belong somewhere above. The second paragraph is about the album selling well, the third paragraph starts out talking about critics but seems to wander off into the subject of fan backlash, then the fourth paragraph starts off talking about new fans and the backlash from old fans then lurches off into the subject of sales numbers again before talking about awards.
  
  ~~This is the only objection I'd oppose over.~~
5. ~~Accolades could probably be rewritten into prose instead of a needless, ugly table, and reincorporated into "Release and reception," as it is critical reception.~~
6. ~~The chart tables could probably be moved up into "Release and reception".~~
~~Hopefully this helps. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)~~

~~I fixed them all, except the accolades and the chart tables, as I modeled them off of other albums that have FA status, so I think those should be fine. Xihix 05:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)~~ (psst, look down for more crossed out, convo continued to there)
Commment The lead needs expansion (perhaps include some details about the album's musical style and subject matter). Also, a brief overview of the musical style is required (in my opinion). The article is also in need of a copyedit (see here) I would help more, but I'm away from the keyboard a lot at the moment. CloudNine 10:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I agree with the need for a copyedit- I made a couple of small edits myself, but more are needed. Also, the refs could do with expansion- some are lacking in publisher information, and all seem to be lacking in little extra bits of information which make them that little bit more professional and useful- dates, authors, that kind of thing. However, the article is mostly excellent, and would make a good featured article. J Milburn 14:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe all of the refs have been fixed since I first put this up for FAC. May you give me some examples of the incomplete ones so I may fix them? Xihix 14:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

*Oppose The article is written in an over-colloquial tone and has various grammatical errors. Some examples:

1. ~~"More accolades available on the site." This is a sentence fragment.~~
2. ~~"Eventually, the band left Lookout! Records on friendly terms, and signed on to Reprise." "signed on to Reprise" is not an independent clause and the last comma should be removed.~~
3. The article is filled with amateurish conjunct phrases. ("Following the underground success of 1992's Kerplunk!,"; "Much of the album's content was written by Armstrong"; etc.) This is a nit-pick, but featured articles should be held to a high standard.
4. ~~The first few sentences of "Release and reception" need a rewrite. "Went" is a poor verb choice in a featured article.--Amalgamation 18:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)~~
~~Y Done All have been fixed. Xihix 18:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)~~

~~A general copyedit is in progress. CloudNine 18:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)~~

~~Very excellent copy edit CloudNine, I don't see how the article couldn't be FA'd at this point. Xihix 19:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)~~

I'd just like to comment on this guy's oppose. I've since left him a message to come see if it's satisfactory, but when I checked, he's only made six edits to Wikipedia, and hasn't responded to me. I'm just to assume he supports now. Xihix 20:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Support - Its a fairly small article but its well sourced, well referenced, and also written quite well..I'll give it a thumbs up.. :)..--Comet styles 15:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Support, I don't think it's too short at all. --Golbez 20:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Support since the Green Day article is frequently criticized, is nice to see a GD one in such great shape. igordebraga ≠ 14:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
~~Nitpicks mark two. This is about scattered, overlapping topics. This counts as an oppose for the time being.~~
1. ~~"Release" isn't about the release at all, it's about sales numbers. It's also two screenfuls away from "Chart positions" for some reason.~~
2. ~~"Accolades" is separated from "Critical reception."~~
3. ~~"Critical reception" has more stuff about fans calling the band sell-outs, separate from the similar commentary in "Background."~~
4. "Critical reception" is lousy with unclear or informal language. "The band did not enjoy these statements" is a bit incoherent, and "Even the New York Times, regardless of their positive comments before, also had claimed that Green Day was far from punk anymore, and was pop instead" is incredibly awkwardly worded. There's more of this; these are just examples.
5. ~~The review links in the infobox should be references.~~
~~There's still work left to do. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)~~

Let me start off saying I completely modeled the article after other albums that obtained FA, such as Californication. I suppose if they had these things, Dookie should, too. That said, let me explain myself.

~~The release I've seen on other FA albums talked about sales in the release section. They, too, had the chart position tables two screenfuls away.~~
~~Accolades was seperated in every other FA album.~~
~~The reason they were sell outs in "Background" was slighty different, and was at a different time (post album release).~~
~~Yes, I will fix this. Thanks for pointing this one out.~~
~~Nope, they shouldn't. Again, look at other FA albums for more info.~~
~~Also, nope, I believe no more work is needed other than the CR fixing. Xihix 05:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)~~

"Another FA is equally poorly organized" is not a response to my objections. This article has serious organizational problems, and this is an actionable objection. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. Have you ever commented on an album FAC? All of these albums are FA'ed and have a similar structure to Dookie: Adore, Californication, Enta Da Stage, Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers), Freak Out!, Kid A, Supernature, and Surfer Rosa. For your sake, I'll combine the Accolades and Reception, but I don't think I should combine the chartings. And, I'd like to mention, if so many albums that had a charting there became FA, it must surely be alright. Xihix 22:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you combined the Accolades and Reception (which are combined or proximate in most of your examples). Still, we have two different places in the article talking about sales numbers, and we have two different places in the article talking about fan backlash with lots of topical overlap. That's bad organization. While other FAs may make the same mistake, it's a lot more likely that nobody thought to scrutinize the organization of the articles that carefully. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not see where I mentioned the sales in two places, other than the release area and the lead (which should be in the lead). As for the fan backlash, the Background area talks about the backlash for joining a Major Label. The second backlash, which is in the Reception area, is because of the new fans they were obtaining, and the new "pop-ier" sound the band had. Other than that, I think I have fixed all the dis-organization. Xihix 22:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

~~As for the sales numbers, chart numbers are sales numbers.~~

~~As for the fan backlash, that division isn't evident at all. Let's dissect the last two paragraphs...~~

~~"However, many other music critics, and even some other mainstream bands, claimed the band had sold out for signing to a major label, and called them "watered down punk imposters"."~~

~~Criticism for joining a major label.~~

~~" The New York Times, regardless of their previous positive comments, also mentioned that Green Day was far from punk and was pop instead."~~

~~Still awkwardly phrased.~~

~~"The band did not respond initially to these comments, but later claimed that they were "just trying to be themselves" and that "it's our band, we can do whatever we want.""~~

~~Not sure what they're talking about, but it seems to be a response to joining a major label, since no mention of a "pop-ier" sound has been made.~~

~~"Dirnt claimed that the follow up album, Insomniac, one of the band's hardest albums lyrically and musically, was the band releasing their anger at all the criticism from critics and former fans."~~

~~Wandering off on a tangent; this really belongs in the Insomniac article.~~

~~"Dookie helped attract many new fans to Green Day, which furthered the labeling of the band as "sell-outs" by older fans."~~

~~^{[citation needed]}~~

~~"As a result of this, the band did not receive a warm welcome home upon returning to Berkeley, California. The hatred of former fans led to physical violence in some cases, some right on the streets."~~

~~So the old fans didn't like them because they had new fans? ^{[citation needed]}?~~

~~"924 Gilman Street, the club where Green Day first debuted , had banned Green Day from ever entering the club, as "No Major Labels" were allowed, and the ban still stands today."~~

~~Awkwardly phrased, and, again, it's the fans calling them sell-outs for signing with a major label, exactly like in the section above in "Background."~~

~~The Reception section is still poorly organized on its own lights, and still overlaps largely with the Background section. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)~~

Chart numbers are separate from other FA album articles. I won't change that. When it's been accepted to be at a different place so many times before, there must be something about it that makes it being separate fine. Again, have you ever commented a FAC album?
~~The criticism for signing to a major label before was from the former fans. The criticism post release was from critics and other mainstream bands.~~
~~I'm sorry, but there's no other way to word that. And it isn't that awkward, I brought in several 3rd party people to read it, and they all understood it.~~
~~Actually, the last part of the New York Times said pop quite clearly.~~
As the Reception section is post album release, talking about the future is allowed. And, the writing for Insomniac was done before they went to record it, some of the songs were wrote during the tour of Dookie.

~~I fixed everything else. Xihix 23:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)~~

My objections stand. Reception is still poorly written and overlaps largely with Background. There's probably a enough content for an entire section on fan response, instead of scattering it all over the place. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I swear, I do not see where fans are mentioned anywhere other than the lead, Background, and the VERY LAST word of Reception after I took it out a few edits ago. Other than that VERY last word, the Reception and Background no longer overlap. And before you mention "Major Labels", the major labels in the Background was from the fans, and the major label mention in Reception was from PROFESSIONAL critics and OTHER MAINSTREAM BANDS. Alright? Xihix 23:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It has since been rewritten, and I'm largely happy with the article. I still don't like the sales charts being dumped at the end like that, but apparently this isn't the place to change standard style, so I don't plan on quibbling about it any more. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Support I don't like their music, but the article looks good and is well sourced. The numbers in the tables could be aligned differently, though. Reinis^talk 20:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Support It's quite well written! Good job. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 01:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Support Well written and sourced. ~ Wikihermit 01:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Reaffirming my opposition. This article does not yet meet the "well written and stable" ("Well written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard.") requirements given in WP:FACR. While a number of improvements have occurred in the past few days, Dookie needs a bit more time to mature while editors tweak the general wording and style. --Amalgamation 02:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You say it needs to mature and have be written better. Give me some examples, then. Honestly, you've been a member for a few days and do not have that many edits at all, and you say that you "Glad to see I sit at the conservative end of Wikipedia, then."[3]. I'm not saying you're a bad editor, but you're saying that the people who are very good editors and quite a few admins do not know the FAC criteria? Xihix 02:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, let's be civil and leave out the personal attacks. My edit count and talk page have nothing to do with the FA viability of this article. My contributions may be small, but 20% of my edits have occurred on the article in question. I'm on your side. Dookie has an overall amateurish tone and the extra time is for myself and others to massage it out. --Amalgamation 03:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying you don't know what's FA criteria; I'm saying if all these experienced editors believe this article's writing and tone are good, why wouldn't it be? Also, I would really like an example or two of bad writing, so I can fix it. You're the only person standing in the way of an FA (everyone has consensus at this point except you), so I just want to fix it to change your mind. Xihix 03:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 15:54, 26 July 2007.

[edit] Grand Forks, North Dakota

previous FAC

I feel that the article now has the standard of being FA status. It is thoroughly written, with a consistent flow, and is very well cited (with over 100 citations).--milk the cows (Talk) 21:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Support As the main contributor to this article over the last few years, I think it is now worthy of FA status. The article has been very well sourced and the text is informative, flows well, and gives a very good overview of what the subject is about. --MatthewUND^(talk) 21:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Support The article is thoroughly cited, flows well, and is very informative. Weatherman90 21:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Support The article is comparable to other featured articles for U.S. cities of similar size (e.g. Ann Arbor, Michigan). It is particularly well referenced, drawing from many diverse sources.--Hokeman 20:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The image in the Government looks ugly when it's outside of the little table there. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 01:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose This article is pretty long, it feels like the editors have been trying to cramp every available information (e.g. Health Care) into it. However, the article should serve only as an introduction.Coloane 18:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think that the length is perfect; look at FA Detroit, Michigan, its 20 kilobytes longer. As far as health care, why shouldn't it be there? Its part of the city. Weatherman90 01:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment This is North Dakota, where there aren't any cities with more than 100,000 people (besides maybe Fargo now), and Grand Forks is a health care center in terms of ND and northwest Minnesota--milk the cows (Talk) 18:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment While the article is not long compared to other FA cities, Grand Forks is a small town and I feel that the article is in general too detailed, and, as user Coloane said, is not a mere introduction to the city. My suggestions below should help with that.

The lead of the article is too long for an article of this size. It must only cover the most important points and emphasize them according to how they are emphasized in the body. From the body, I see no reason why the city's racial makeup should be in the lead, as it is barely mentioned in the body and not a highlight of the article. Also, the comment that the city has "mostly recovered from the flooding" should not be in the lead - the mention of the flood alone is the important highlight, not the fact that the city has recovered. Also, consider removing the statements that the city has a system of parks and theatres. I'm not hung up on it, but consider it a strong suggestion since the lead needs to be shorter and every city has parks, etc.
There should be no one or two sentence paragraphs. Even try to limit the number of three sentence paragraphs.
There are too many short subsections; there's no need to break the article up so much. For instance, "sports" and "recreation" should be combined into just sports. Transportation and Healthcare could be combined into one "Infrastructure" section. Take away subheadings below "Cityscape." Combine "sites of interest" into appropriate sections: there are mentions of sports arenas, cultural centers, and shopping areas - move these to sports, culture, and economy, respectively. But make sure none of it is redundant, as it seems like much of it is. (In reality, the "shopping" section should be removed all together - we don't need to know about the city's malls and stores. This isn't a cityguide, its an encyclopedia article.) - The recreation section is ok if you want to leave it like that
~~Remove famous residents list.~~ Make a new article and link it to the "see also" section.
~~The sister cities section is way too long. This is way too much detail about a topic that has nothing to do with the city itself. Remove the vast majority of it.~~
~~Remove red links.~~
~~Remove parentheses within the prose. Integrate information within the parentheses into the actual sentence.~~
While I understand about the lack of free-use images on the web, I would love to see more pictures in this article, though it may look less text-dominated after the sites of interest and other sections have been removed, shortened, and integrated. Nevertheless, surely there must be someone with pictures of Grand Forks. However, I would not oppose this article for not being able to acquire more pictures.
It seems like there is much repeating going on. For example, UND is talked about in many different sections, commercial areas are talked about in different sections, as are sports, culture, etc. Limit topics to their respective sections only, please. It would make the article much more concise, instead of having key bits of economic, sports, education, and tourism information sprinkled about everywhere. - I didn't read the article word for word again, but from skimming through the article this looks better.
On the other hand, I am completely satisfied with the number of citations! :) Okiefromokla•talk 02:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

One more thing - ref #57 is broken. Okiefromokla•talk 02:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I've spent the last few hours implementing many of the changes you suggested. I think the article is now in even better shape than it was before your suggestions. I really appreciate your advice and thoughts on the article. I still need to do some work on the intro, but I'm not sure if it is really that long. You're right that a little condensing is in order though. Thanks again for the feedback! --MatthewUND^(talk) 09:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Good job. Previously, the article looked choppy and incomplete with so many short sentences and sections, but now it looks much fuller and more pleasant, it reads better, and it looks like it has more information even though the article's overall size has decreased. About the lead; I just did a character count of the body in MS Word, and the prose has less than 20,000 characters. According to WP:LEAD, a four paragraph lead is only warranted for an article with a body of greater than 30,000 characters. The recommendation of WP:LEAD is for an article of this size to have a 2 to 3 paragraph lead. Right now, the lead is at the longest I would want for any large city article, but for an article of this size, three concise but informative paragraphs no longer than the current paragraph size is what I would be satisfied with, provded they adequately summarize the article. No need to rewrite the lead completely, just remove the more detailed facts and condense information. The only other real issue I see is the geography section. Both the geography and climate subsections could be at least a few sentences longer. There has to be something more you can say about the region's geography and topography. In all, the article has improved considerably and provided that my remaining concerns are met, I will gladly support it. Okiefromokla•talk 17:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, could there possibly be another picture of the river or a park to go in culture? And some of the article's current pictures have a tag for needing a different license. Okiefromokla•talk 17:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I've tried to shorten/condense the lead. I've added a bit to the climate section (taken from the main climate article). I'm not sure what to add to the geography section...this part of the country doesn't have too many notable geographic traits. The city is flatter than you could probably imagine...nothing even remotely likes hills and no lakes. I looked at the images and I think they now all have ok tags. Any ideas on that geography thing? --MatthewUND^(talk) 09:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It was close. I know I sound nit-picky, but I went ahead and did a sample edit by editing the lead down to its most basic condensed possible outcome. Obviously, feel free to revert it or change it to whatever specifications you wish, as this is just to show you some of the words I removed for reference. Its not a big deal. I understand about the flatness haha. I used to live in Nebraska. It was flat. But it's ok, the geography section is actually satisfactory now. Its a good article; it will be one of the favorite FAs. I'll see what you do to the lead from here and then I'll support it. Okiefromokla•talk 17:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll be sure to take some photographs of downtown, the Red River, Alerus Center/Canad Inn, REA/BESC, and anything else that should be worthy.--milk the cows (Talk) 19:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm not fortunate enough to have a digital camera, but I think some new pics of local landmarks would be a wonderful addition to this and other GF/EGF articles. --MatthewUND^(talk) 09:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 01:59, 24 July 2007.

[edit] Mackinac Island

previous FAC

Self nomination This GA failed its previous FAC due to copyediting concerns. I addressed the specific concerns raised and went through the entire article myself. The "Etymology" section had a significant copyedit by another user. However, it has been listed on the league of copyeditors FAC proofreading page for well over a month and I've asked three other editors to take a look at it. None, even when provided with a link to the old FAC to see the specific concerns, have been able to find anything more than a couple minor things or a typo. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Support: Well written, correct grammer & spelling, etc. --Random ^{Say it here!} 20:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Support read this during the last FAC and everything looked alright... my 2 concerns were addressed. --W.marsh 02:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Comments, if you please....

The jump between 'The road encircling the island and closely hugging the shoreline is M-185, one of the few highways in the United States without motorized vehicles.[11] The island has numerous candy shops that line the streets of the village. is really jarring. Are numerous candy shops really a distinguishing feature of the island for that matter? Many touristy places tend to have candy shops. If they are then try and lead the reader in, for example The village is mostly geared towards tourism and retail, particularly numerous candy shops or something like that.
~~80% of the island is wild, and a State Park at that, and no mention is made whatsover of the wildlife, ecology or conservation of the island. Something of an omission I feel.~~
~~Does info about the economy exist? I imagine it is mostly tourism but it is still worth mentioning.~~
The layout of the article, starting with general geography, then history, then geology, then etymology, then culture, seems erratic. Etymology can probably be dragged into history, which can sit next to culture, with geology and geography nearer the front (with the hopefully created natural history section).
see also's are un-FAish and Historic places might look better as a series of paragraphs with a line about each and their importance?

Just some thoughts. the article is good but slightly disjointed and in need of some more info/better organisation. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- To address some comments: The number of candy shops is relevant as the island is famous (regionally) for its fudge. I will look at the organiztion of the Description section - I never did like that section. There isn't a whole lot of wildlife, its mainly a state park for historical reasons. I did find a source that discusses ecology though, so that should be added soon. As for economy, the most I could probably add without just listing demographic percentages would proabably be a sentence near the end of the history section about current economy (as History already discusses past economy). If I can find a source for it, I will add it. I will try to restructure it. My original intent was an order-of-importance type arrangement, though I'm not sure how culture ended up at the end. Etymology could be a subsection of history. I'm thinking something like:
  1. General Description
  2. History (with etymolgy added as a subsection)
  3. Historic places (to keep History together)
  4. Culture
  5. Ecology
  6. Geology (while this chronogically would go first, IMO, its the least important)
- As for historic places, if I can write it without going into unnecessary detail on each place (as each building has its own article except for The Agency House of the American Fur Company) and without it sounding too choppy, I will try to proseify it. As for See also, it can proabaly be trimmed a bit to remove ones that are already linked in the article, but I looked at other FAs and many have See also sections. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 15:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  - I've restructured the article, trimmed the See also section, and added a section about ecology, including terrain, mammals, birds, flowers, and trees. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've looked over the changes and it looks better. The overall sequence isn't what I would have chosen but it is at least rational now. The inclusion of information on candy shops makes sense the way you describe it here, do include that rationalisation in the article and like I said make it so that it doesn't jar as badly while reading. I'm glad you've included a section on the ecology but the source is pretty awful - anything that describes a bat as a species (rather than an order) is pretty ghastly. I have located a journal article on the vegetation of the island and will use it to improve that section and I hope to find some more info on the birds too. FYI you capitalised a lot of generic bird and plant names that should be lowercase, only bird species should be uppercase.

Some more things I want to bring up... Regarding see also's - yeah some FAs have them but they should be avoided if at all possible. Straits of Mackinac Shipwreck Preserve can be worked into the ecology section, Mackinac Island Town Crier possibly into the culture section, and the bridge has nothing to do with the island and doesn't need to be in this article.

Mackinac Island Honor Scouts is of dubious importance and is quite a large section for such a seemingly trivial thing. Please explain or discuss the significance (to scouting or the island's culture).

Like I said this is good and with some more work it can be featured. I'll do some digging on the natural history (my area of speciality) and improve that section, perhaps you could ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology for a pair of eyes to glance over that section just to make sure its okay. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ecology is not exactly my strong point, as you could probably tell. The source used for that section is also used elsewhere in the article (though I don't know if it was all written by the same person, the name I'm using is just who they say to credit) it's generally accurate (we did find one other misinterpretation of an event in history) but it is written more for common knowledge. Its helpful as it is condensed and contains a lot of info in one place. As for the scouting part, it should probably be here as it would be tough to write an article on just that. I can proably trim a lot of the excess stuff and just leave the parts that are historically and culturally relevant. Also, as far as birds and plants go, is it better to leave the common names in or should the actual species names be used? Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant the common names of specific species. Blue Jay is a species, and therefore capitalised. But owls, hawks, warblers etc are just types and are uncapitalised. Capitalisation of common names only really applies to birds, it's an ornithological convention. As for the scout thing, trimming sounds good. I think I can see that it is important to scouting and deserves a mention, just try and explain that. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've trimmed the scouting part and added some info about the island's newspaper to bring the See also section down to one entry (for now). I've been doing a little research on the economy as well. The only source I've found that isn't just a sweeping generaliztion as part of a much larger article covers the entire county. of which the island is just a small part of. Geology has been checked and expanded by a member of the WikiProject. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've expanded the Historic places section from a bulleted list to 1-4 sentences about each place. I wish I could write equally about some, but many seem to be on the register mainly because they are really old, some don't have many sources. Another editor has finished off the see also section, adding info about the underwater preserve to ecology. All that remains is the Description section. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

~~Fixes needed, seems to have WP:MSH problems, as the article title is repeated in several section headings.~~ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed now, removed Mackinac from Etymology heading and Mackinac Island from Honor Scouts heading. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
And, finally, the Description section is cleaned up. I moved a few things around so it makes more sense (at least to me, but it is 11:30 PM local time). The general order of the description section is: Basic geography, population, accessibility, travel on the island, parks, which leads to hotels, leading to downtown, and the candy shops. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

'~~Oppose~~ until the writing is fixed. Somewhat improved. It's a good article, and not hard, frankly, for someone fresh to go through it. Here are examples of why it all needs a massage. (One thing I see is too great a concern for lexical variety.)
- Area to three decimal places? Right at the opening? Use one decimal place.
- "In the late 19th century, the island became a popular tourist attraction and summer colony. Much of Mackinac Island has undergone"—No, spell it out first, abbreviate to "island" second.
- All English speakers hyphenate "well-known".
- Its ban on numerous cultural events? And the three items are not properly presented in that list, anyway.
- "The island is approximately 13 kilometers (8 mi) in circumference and about 9 square kilometers (3.5 mi²) in total area. The highest point of the island is the historic Fort George (officially called Fort Holmes since 1815), which is 97 meters (320 ft) above the lake level and about 270 meters (890 ft) above sea level." Sorry to nitpick, but are you making a subtle distinction between "approximately" and "about"? Just use about (once). After the three decimal places a few sentences back, first we don't need a repetition of the area; and you haven't rounded the sq. km correctly. And then we have "about 270 meters"—how much more accurate can we get in this context?
- Paragraphing of "Description" needs rejigging. Merge the first two, and then don't start with "It".
- "during the winter"—one redundant word. Tony 02:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've fixed all the specific things you mentioned. As for having someone go through the whole article, I'm not sure how to go about that anymore. It has been on the WP:LOCE FAC proofreading list for over 2 months and has been on the top for most of that time. I have asked 3 editors to go through it, none have found anything more than minor typos. If you would like to go through it and make changes, that would be much appreciated. If you'd rather not edit it yourself, you can post problems here or email them to me if there are a lot. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Had a look-see at random in the middle of the article. I don't find the prose very enticing.

Every summer, a minimum of [at least?] 50 Michigan Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts at any one time, [stray comma] live and work on the island in alternating [alternate?] weeks. The program began in 1929 [add comma after year] when the state park commission [title? should have initial caps] invited eight Eagle Scouts, including young Gerald Ford, to serve as honor guards for the Michigan governor. In 1974, the program was expanded to include Girl Scouts ... Mackinac Island contains a wide variety of terrain, including fields, marshes, bogs, coastline, boreal forest, and limestone formations. The environment is legally preserved on the island by the State Historic Park designation. In addition, [remove previous two words, and then "About half of"] approximately one-half of the shoreline and adjacent waters off Mackinac Island, including the harbor (Haldimand Bay) and the southern and western shore of the Island [remove last three words—what else would it be of?] from Mission Point to Pointe aux Pins, is protected as part of the Straits of Mackinac Shipwreck Preserve, a state marine park.[45] As the island is separated from the mainland by three miles [metric equivalent, please] of water, few mammals inhabit the island [island x 2?], except those that traverse the ice during the winter months. Bats are the most abundant mammals on the island [remove last three words]. Crossing the water is no obstacle for bats [them?], ["because"?] there are plenty of [rather informal here] limestone caves serving as homes for the bats, and there are many insects on the island for the bat to prey on. The island is also [remove "also" as ambigious and redundant] frequented by migratory birds, [remove comma—there a quite a few stray commas throughout the text] on their trips between their summer and winter habitats. Eagles and hawks are abundant in April and May [ADD comma after "May"] while smaller birds such as Yellow Warblers, American Redstart, and Indigo Bunting are more common in early summer. Near the shoreline, gulls, herons, geese, and loons are common. Owls, including Snowy Owls and Great Grey Owls, come to the island from the Arctic to hunt in a [the?] warmer climate. Other birds, such as chickadees, cardinals, Blue Jays, and woodpeckers, live on the island year-round.[46] Mackinac Island also [remove "also", unless you want to weaken the flow] contains over 600 species of vascular plants. Flowering plants and wildflowers are abundant on the island [remove last three words], including Trillium, Trout Lily, Spring Beauty, Hepatica, Buttercups, and Hawkweeds in the forests and Orchids, Fringed Gentian and Jack-in-the-Pulpit along the shoreline. The island's forests are home to many varieties of trees, including maple, birch, elm, cedar, pine, and spruce.[rather a lot of "including"] Tony 14:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

All suggested fixes made as well as a few others. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Support: I've read the article, and I made several minor tweaks myself - these adjustments were more on subtle stuffs like lack of "the", overuse of "its" in the intro, simple logic &sequence problems, etc. The article is both broad and deep in coverage. (Wikimachine 02:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC))
Support: Rlevse 02:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Support well done. Sumoeagle179 10:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose per Tony and:
- "note the silent "c"" Do we really need that? I think people will notice it by themselves.
- What exacactly is a "strategic battle" as opposed to a non-strategic one? Does the term refer to the way the battle is fought?
- "The population grows considerably during summer, accommodating an average of 15,000 visitors per day." The source says "as many as" 15,000 not an average of 15,000. The same goes for the infobox.
- What happened on the island before the 17th century is only covered by two sentences in the whole article, one in the lead, one in the history section. This is the main reason for my oppose.--Carabinieri 17:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Two sentences on most points in the interior of North America before 1600 is fairly impressive. There has been an archaeological dig on the island, but its subject is the French fort, not the Native American presence. What sources do you have in mind? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    - I don't what sources cover this topic, it's not the reviewer's job to find sources. But looking through Amazon the book by Thomas Piljac and Pamela Lach seems to deal with the island's early history. This website also seems to contain some information on the topic, though I don't know to what extent it's reliable. Here is a bibliography on Mackinac County that might include some books on Mackinac Island history.--Carabinieri 23:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
      - I made you first 3 suggested fixes. I also am not sure about the reliablity of that website. It seems to be mostly a collection of oral tradition, slanted heavily toward one group. Some of it does not seem to be specific to the island either. Much more of the history after 1700 is documented and covered in multiple sources and that is why it is given more weight. This is similar to other articles. Germany has 2 sections that together cover 100 BCE to 1806 CE and 5 that cover 1814 to 1990. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 15:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
        
        Those were just some sources I was able to find in a quick five-minute search on the internet, I didn't vouch for their reliability or usefulness. I do, however, believe that the time before the Europeans arrived is a really important part of the Americas' history and should therefore get an appropriate amount of coverage.--Carabinieri 22:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've added 3 more sentences about the island before European exploration. It is from a reliable source and is a mixture of archaeology and legend. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help. Although I think this is still way too little, I'll let it pass. I do, however, have one last concern. The article relies heavily on websites promoting tourism on the island in one way or another. According to WP:RS "[a]rticles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources". Promotional sites are not third-party. Specifically, I'm concerned with footnotes # 2, 3, 7, 8, 14, 15, 20, 21, 30, 36, 37, 38, 40, 47, and 49. I don't doubt any of the information given in the sources. The problem is that if an article is primarily based on such sources, it will inevitably tend be one-sided or give certain aspects undue weight. Is there any way you could incorporate more scholarly or journalistic works into the article?--Carabinieri 01:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Some of those, 2, 3, 20, and 30, while published by a tourism-centered site, are written by a historian who has written books about the island. I also would not be too worried about the ones used for history, there isn't too much to slant there. I will look around for some others though. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  - I've replaced the "movies" ref with one from IMDB. Its not exactly journalistic, but it is more neutral than a chamber of commerce website. I added refs to the part about writers referring to Tocqueville's visit, Fuller's book, Thoreau's visit, Hale's stay, Woolson's stay, and Twain's lecture to replace #38. These are from various sources, including universities and Frommer's guide. (I moved them to the end of the paragraph as there were so many). Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Support well-written and well-referenced. AW 04:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 01:59, 24 July 2007.

[edit] Sargon of Akkad

Revamped and overhauled article, recently made GA. I did not originate the article but I did substantially modify it, not sure if that makes it a self-nom. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Support as nom. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Support, interesting topic and interesting article--Aziz1005 00:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
~~Comment~~ Support - very interesting article, nearly there.

Remove the 'In Fiction' section
Source (and hopefully expand) the statement "The Assyrian and Babylonian kings who based their empires in Mesopotamia saw themselves as the heirs of Sargon's empire."
When discussing the 'Sargon Legend', it could be clearer how the 'Legend' relates to the other documents mentioned in the section; also tense confusion with "When Sargon returned to Ur-Zababa, the king becomes frightened "

Can see this being an FA very soon. The Land 16:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed your issues with my latest edits, with the exception of the literature section. Many articles about notable people contain sections on literary works in which those figures have appeared. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In that case I'd significantly expand the mention of Nimrod, which is of encyclopedic value, and ditch the mention of the rather trivial comic. FAs need to avoid trivia. The Land 08:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the comic myself and supporting conditional on it not going back in ;) The Land 17:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - three columns of references probably isn't needed; two should be fine. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 00:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a stylistic preference; many FA's have three columns. This surely is not an issue that should deny the article FA status. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not opposing, but I am not very happy with the ToC organisation. There should be a separate discussion of what primary sources we have, when they were found, and how their respective date and status is evaluated, as well as some bits on the history of research on Sargon, who was involved, and how fixed our knowledge on Sargon is considered at present (any open debates?). Piecing together from the article body, we have the "Sargon legend", the Sumerian king list, the "Epic of the King of the Battle", the Chronicle of Early Kings, "The Neo-Assyrian Sargon text", and "another source (Nougayrol 169)". The article is also rather positive in many places. "Sargon's own daughter Enheduanna": it is by no means certain that she was his natural daughter. She was called his "daughter" sure enough, but this may as likely as not be just a court title. A dramatic account of Sargon's conquests is attributed to "Kramer, The Sumerians 61.; Van de Mieroop 64-66", which is fair enough, but it would not be superfluous to go into more detail as to what are our sources for this. Also missing is Sargon's Sumerian name (how does the "Sumerian Sargon Legend" spell Sargon?) The article is certainly fair, and I wouldn't expect more out of a Britannica article on Sargon, which is why I'm not opposing this FAC, but frankly the information given leaves me a bit unsatisfied. More issues: The article naively links to Azupiranu, an article on a "city". This is probably not really a city but a metaphor alluding that his mother tried to abort the fetus. At least speculations in this direction belong mentioned. Is the Akkadian form Šarukinu{{fact}} or Šarrukīnu? The bit on the parallel to Moses should mention Biblical scholars who maintain that the Moses birth story was in fact fashioned after the Sargon legend. We need more on the position of Sargon legend in the later Assyrian empire, and should probably treat later sources separately, just as we wouldn't use Matter of France material directly in a biography of Charlemagne. We need a clean report on what is known from inscriptions, what is known from 3rd millennium texts, and what is known from later Assyrian accounts. Please do not tell me to just {{sofixit}}. I would like to , but to address all the points just raised, I would have to sit down with the article for half a day at least. dab (�) 08:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Please give me a source for your assertion regarding the identity of Enheduanna and Azupiranu. I have never seen them identified as anything other than Sargon's daughter and birth city, respectively, and would be interested in reading about the controversy. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

not sure if I got this correctly. azupiranu means "saffron", and saffron was used for abortion, but the synthesis may be spurious, I have no reference for it at present in any case. dab (�) 18:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Moses/Sargon, my impression is that the scholars who maintain that Moses' story was cribbed from Sargon's were in the extreme minority. The prevalance of this motif in mythology around the world and the fact that there is no real way of telling which story, Moses or Sargon came first (the Sargon legend that has the castaway baby motif is from a Neo-Assyrian text that is later than or contemporaneous with much of the Torah) don't really lend themselves to such certainty.

With respect to the comments about organizing the sources, I see the point but I think that separating out the sources in this way would result in a long string of tiny sections as each source doesn't say very much. I have done my best to organize the material into a chronological narrative of Sargon's life and been very careful to identify which material comes from which source. The reader should be able to ascertain which items are from much later texts from reading the article. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Šarukinu vs. Šarrukīnu is just a matter of pronunciation. The latter is more accurate, because it makes more of an attempt to capture the original pronunciation of his name, according to how Assyriologists have deciphered the Akkadian language.--Šarukinu 22:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

it's a phonological difference. The cuneiform spellling apparently has no plene, so we need a reference to an Akkadian dictionary to establish kīnu "legitimate".

Support - Wikipedia needs more FA's about ancient Bet-Nahrain ("Mesopotamia")--Šarukinu 22:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Could there be a link in the article to a cunieform webfont (in a box like at the top of Japanese language for example)? I really like the map and the family tree, by the way.--Estrellador* 20:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Support, although I believe that the article could benefit from some expansion. I listed on talk page some points that could be mentioned. As it is, the article is head and shoulders above the level of our pages about ancient Mesopotamia (look at Umma, for instance). --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Support. Good and instresting article. Kyriakos 04:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose for now, fixes needed. Quotations are not italicized (WP:MOS#Italics) and the author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be given. The lead should be a compelling, stand-alone summary of the article. The article opens with three stubby sentences one after the other, with no connections:
- The "Sargon legend" is a Sumerian text purportedly describing Sargon's life. The extant versions are incomplete. The surviving fragments name Sargon's father as La'ibum.
~~"In literature is a section of one sentence. Either the section should be expanded, or the sentence could be incorporated elsewhere.~~
~~Date and number ranges (not only in the text, but including footnote page ranges and dates in references) are separated by endashes, not hyphens (see WP:DASH).~~
~~All websources should have a last access date and specify publisher.~~
Informal, unencyclopedic prose, sample: The name of Sargon's primary wife Tashlultum and those of a number of his children are known to us.
~~Vague statement begging for a citation: Two other sons, Ibarum and Abaish-Takal, are mentioned in some sources.~~
Prose: After coming to power in Kish, Sargon soon attacked Uruk, ... Soon after coming to power in Kish, Sargon attacked Uruk ???

The above are samples only, indicating the need for someone to audit throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the majority of these issues have been addressed now. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are solo years linked ? (WP:MOSNUM) Ibid should not be used in Wiki as it is dynamic; text can move or be inserted, changing footnotes. (See WP:FN and WP:CITE. Endashes on date and page ranges have not been corrected, per WP:DASH; the article still uses hyphens for dashes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who introduced ibid. to this article, & only because I couldn't think of a better short version of the book's title that would work for this article. Do you have a suggestion for a better way to cite this source? (BTW, complaining about hyphens vs. en/em dahses is getting a bit nit-picking, don't you think?) -- llywrch 02:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a need to shorten it, but why isn't Oppenheim in the Reference list anyway? No, I don't think expecting FAs to comply with criterion 2 (WP:MOS) is nitpicking. If FAs don't have to comply with our Manual of Style and WP:WIAFA, why do we bother to have them ? Let's just pass FAs the same way GAs are passed, because one person says so. Further, my oppose wasn't based only on criterion 2; I will strike my oppose once all issues, including 2—MOS, are resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

In point of fact, there are no more ibids. The citations are now uniform. With regard to hyphens vs. en/em dashes, I do believe that is nitpicking and I have no intention of going through and coding endashes throughout the article. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 01:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, citations look good now. If you'll note the full commentary above, my Oppose was not (and still is not) based on dashes. A thorough audit of the prose is needed, and I gave examples only. For example, looking at the current text, one finds:

Stories of Sargon's reign and might may have influenced the body of folklore later incorporated into the Bible.

I can't decipher what that sentence is trying to say; a prose audit is needed throughout, as well as adjusting still numerous instances of faulty dashes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the prose of the sentence is quite clear. The reference is to stories of Sargon's reign, meaning the period of his rule, and might, meaning his power. What is unclear? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ps, fixed the dashes myself with the help of Brighterorange. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

~~Is the section heading, "Wars in the north west and east" supposed to have a comma? The text doesn't discuss north west and east, so it's hard to tell.~~ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the source for the Chart of the Royal House of Akkad ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Continuing: thanks for fixing the north west and east section heading. I've looked at the comment from the GAC reviewer numerous times, trying to figure out why that phrase was singled out in the GA pass and no one else had mentioned it in three weeks, while I couldn't decipher its meaning. Regarding the sentence mentioned above: it references a "body" of literature, but the next sentence then gives only the example that scholars speculate that Sargon may have been Nimrod, leaving unclear if there is more to the entire "body" mentioned. If there is more to this speculation, could it be discussed in more detail or expanded to include a few more words so the reader knows there's more than one speculative example? Not knowing what is meant by "body of folklore" made me wonder about 1b (comprehensive). Also, recasting the sentence to avoid "might may" will be less of a tongue- and brain-twister. I'm also wondering if you planned to review my other comments above, so I can strike my Oppose. It started as an "oppose for now", as I expected these items to be easily resolvable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is clear what the "body of folklore" that went into the creation of the Bible means. I don't know how to clarify that statement. Obviously we don't know every piece of folklore on which the Biblical author or authors relied. Nimrod, as the article makes clear, is a larger-than-life figure in both the bible and the midrashic traditions that grew up around it, and may have been based on Sargon. I honestly don't understand what you're objecting to there. With respect to the "might may" sentence, I again think the meaning is clear. You are welcome to change it if you wish but I do not believe that the sentence violates any rule of English and therefore should not stand in the way of FA. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, as far as I can tell, all of the issues you raised have been addressed. Please identify any remaining issues you have. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments A couple of points:
- In the section "Origins and Rise to Power", you reference a source by its abbreviation "ABC" Which source is that? Assyrian And Babylonian Chronicles? I know a little about the subject, & the abbreviation is unfamiliar to even me.
- I see a number of citations of Samuel Noah Kramer, but none to his long-time rival & equally respected academic Thorkild Jacobsen. I own a copy of his edition of the Sumerian king list if you need help addressing this point. -- llywrch 18:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  - "ABC" is Grayson's Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. I have fixed the ref. I would greatly appreciate if you could add information from Jacobsen's work, as I do not have access to it. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    - After reading it for the first time in many months, I found that Jacobsen's work did not have much to contribute -- although I added it. So I tried to make up this deficit by adding from the translations in my copy of ANET -- which I hope stengthens this article. -- llywrch 02:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
      - Do you support the article for FA now? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
        
        I didn't know I had supported or objected to this article. My intent in commenting (& in making some edits) was just to help make it better. -- llywrch 06:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Support. Good article. Avala 16:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There are MOS issues here, but I'll support in the expectation that they'll be fixed. Mostly well-written and researched.
- I'm getting black-diamond question marks for the cuneiform at the top, both in the real text and the edit box. Is it my Mac OSX? Not a pretty sight.
- "c. 2334 BC–2279 BC"—No, read MOS on dashes and spacing.
- I see "seventh" and "7th"—normally, you'd spell out single-digit numbers.
- "To help limit the chance of revolt"—Remove "help", yes?
- "(r. 556–539 BC)"—what does "r." mean? Should this abbreviation be included at MOSNUM? Again, a spaced en dash is required where there are spaces within either or both items.
- I can't see one caption that is a real sentence, so please remove the periods. (See MOS.)
- Sandy's "might may" sentence: "Stories of Sargon's reign and might may have influenced the body of folklore later incorporated into the Bible." It's OK, but why not "Stories of Sargon's powerful reign may have influenced the body of folklore that was later incorporated into the Bible." Tony 04:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  - ack, on the date dashes. When Briangotts declined to fix the dashes, I contacted Brighterorange (who is testing a script), but his script chokes on BC dates, and I failed to correct them adequately manually. I think I've fixed them now to conform to WP:DASH. I incorporated Tony's suggested wording on that one sentence, and am striking my oppose; there were still a few small pending issues on my list (above), but I don't have time to keep following this FAC right now, and it generally looks quite good now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    - See [4], [5], .[6], [7], [8], [9]. "r." is quite common abbreviation for regnat or "ruled/reigned". Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment "A number of" is too wordy and sometimes redundant. "Several" could be used instead. "He captured Uruk and dismantled its famous walls." - the word "famous" is too subjective. Epbr123 10:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 01:59, 24 July 2007.

[edit] Plug-in hybrid

First FAC nom

Second nomination: This article is about a very important development in the automobile industry which promises to have a substantial impact on petroleum demand and greenhouse gas emissions. About three months ago I started an ad-hoc improvement drive just as some experts decided on their own to improve it. Two months ago, it underwent peer review, and all the issues raised and suggestions for improvement were followed. The result over the ensuing weeks stabilized into what I thought was a very well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral article. However, the comments from the first nomination last month pointed out many minor issues and some serious problems, not all of which I was able to fix. So, I withdrew that nomination. Thanks to other editors, all of the issues of which I'm aware have been fixed. In the mean time it was accepted by the editorial team for Version 0.7, and rated "A" class on WikiProject Automobiles' quality scale. So, I'm nominating it again. BenB4 21:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Support well written, well sourced. --trey 02:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong Oppose—1c; there is quite a bit of uncited hard data (examples only in Fuel efficiency and Operating costs), and sources aren't completely, correctly and consistently formatted (see WP:CITE/ES). Last access date and publisher should be given on all websources, and author and publication date should be given when available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

May I ask which statements you find unsupported? I know those sections take many facts from certain sources which makes it too likely that the citation might come a ways after the statement belonging to it. You might want to try the next one or two citations after the facts you are concerned about, even though they may be in the next paragraph, and see if you can verify them there. I assure you several subject matter experts have been over those sections with fine-toothed combs. As for the citation formats, I will address those in the next few days. BenB4 07:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Back for another look: citations are still not formatted completely. There are several missing publishers (see WP:CITE/ES). When examining a random source with no publisher identified, I find it to be a source of questionable reliability ([10]); this is why all publishers should be identified and why I am switching to Strong oppose. Reliability of sources must be apparent. Also, all websources should have last access dates. External links should be pruned per WP:EL, WP:NOT, WP:RS. Month-day combos should be wikilinked per WP:MOSNUM. Some prose is stubby: Advanced battery technology is under development.[34][35][36] Battery life expectancy is expected to increase.[37] (Why three refs to substantiate development?) The {{convert}} template should be used to express units of measurement in km as well as miles. Still more work needed here; keep going, but please identify publishers and make sure sources are reliable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by missing publishers. The word "publisher" appears only once in WP:CITE/ES, under books. Perhaps if you listed the reference numbers that you have a problem with, it would help me see what's missing (please.) The calcars-news email is actually a reliable source per WP:RS, because the author is the director and founder of CalCars, who is recognized widely as an independent expert in the field, and he's just forwarding a press release. I just went through every single reference, and the only ones without last-accessed dates are URLs to copies of printed publications. The month-day dates were all linked last FAC, but new dates got in without linking -- I will fix those right away. There are three references for development because someone added them -- as I recall they had corporate names and project descriptions but someone shortened them to the stubby statement because the details weren't considered to be within the scope of the article. I guess they stayed that way; I'll take a couple out. {{convert}} looks like a monumental undertaking; I'll try. BenB4 00:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how else to answer your questions, since I'm not understanding what you're not understanding, and the sample above should be clear. Look in your article, and notice that almost all (but not all) of your sources (the information you've include in between ref tags, often using cite templates) have a field identified in the cite template as either "publisher" or "work", or include information about the publisher of the website or information. We need to know the publisher of all sources. The sample I gave above is missing a publisher, and a Yahoo message board is not a reliable source; how do you know the message board poster cited the press release correctly and didn't alter it? Did you see the press release yourself? I'm sorry, it's so clear to me that I don't know how else to explain this. Some random samples:

(No publisher - who published this list ??) Current list of Prius PHEV conversions as of May 2007 there are at least 35 Prius PHEV conversions.
(Publisher, date and access date) Electric Auto Association (2007) "Battery Pack Configurations" Plug in Hybrid Electric Vehicle website, accessed April 25, 2007
(no access date) Synovate (August 16, 2006) "Survey shows 49% of consumers would consider buying a plug-in hybrid"
(what is this? wikis are generally not reliable) EAA-PHEV wiki: Mixed-mode accessed April 29, 2007

Although I don't usually recommend this, if you don't know how to format references consistently and correctly, you can use the cite templates throughout; the article uses some cite templates and has some manually formatted refs, so isn't consistent. (And PLEASE identify PDFs; I just had to restart my computer.) As to convert, the article can't be only in miles; kilometers and needed, and the convert template will deal with that as well as nowrap and WP:UNITS at the same time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As for the press release, the publisher is Business Wire, and I updated the reference to show that. The author of the email is Felix Kramer, the founder and director of the California Cars Initiative, who is a reliable source per WP:RS because he is "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" (e.g. [11]). The only reason we're using the mailing list URL is because Business Wire URLs apparently only last for a year, and the direct link doesn't work any more. Responding to your bullet points in turn:

You are absolutely right about the conversion list reference -- I have fixed it, and I apologize for overlooking it.
This seems perfectly clear to me: publisher=Electric Auto Association, date=2007, accessed=April 25, 2007 -- I do not see the issue.

Correct; that's why I listed it as an example of a ref that did give a publisher :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The Synovate survey was part of a paper publication but I will add an accessed date anyway.
The EAA wiki is being cited for itself, not for containing any fact. The text says that the EAA established a wiki for conversion information, and the reference is that wiki. Should it be linked inline instead of in a footnote?

That seems preferable to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Links to PDF files show up with Adobe PDF icons in both Firefox and IE for me. I am working on {{convert}} and hope to have it done in a day or two. BenB4 09:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

They don't show up in all old browsers; I get had when I'm on an old laptop. It's good to indicate them for other users who may be using old browsers. Striking some above; please ping me when you're ready for a new look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Another issue to be addressed is the lead. It should be a compelling, stand-alone summary of the entire article (see WP:LEAD). Rather than summarizing the article, it contains detail that isn't discussed elsewhere in the article, which necessitates the introduction of citations to fairly uncontroversial statements in the lead. Reworking the lead to a summary will lower the need to cite uncontroversial info in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Conditional Support - Informative and engaging. Will support once the cn tags are replaced by refs. --mav 04:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Done Two of the fact-tagged statements were actually sourced from the next reference at the end of their respective paragraphs; deleted two unsourced statements; added refs for the rest. BenB4 16:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

All hard data should be cited; you can accomplish this easily by using named refs. Since a lot of this is data that may change over time, covering citations with one cite in a later paragraph isn't the best way to handle it; future editors need to know the exact source of hard data, should text change or be moved around. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

~~I added cite needed tags as discussed in my original post, as the citations for hard data haven't yet been provided.~~ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Done At present, all the cn tags have been replaced by sources. BenB4 16:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Support A hot topic. User:BenB4 has done a great job cleaning up the references. Daniel.Cardenas 17:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Support An accurate and timely article on important emerging technology. Much credit to User:BenB4 for all the work towards cleaning up the article! --D0li0 12:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Has "citation needed" tags. Spamsara 11:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Y Done the first two were obviously from "the same study" as the text stated; the other one is sourced to a DoE report. BenB4 13:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
~~Back for another look: old cite tags have been addressed, but there's a new, unsourced paragraph. Are you planning to work on the lead?~~ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Added the ref. Which statements in the lead aren't summarizing the article? I think the only part is the list of vehicle types, but those were left in the first paragraph because they were definitional. All of the other statements, including the entire second and third paragraphs, are summaries of other parts of the article. BenB4 18:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  - I struck my Oppose since most issues have been addressed. The sentence in the lead that is still troubling me is:
    - While PHEVs are usually passenger vehicles, they can also be commercial passenger vans,[1] utility trucks,[2][3] school buses,[4] scooters,[5] and military vehicles.[6]
  - I don't find mention of supporting text in the body of the article (perhaps I missed it?), and those seem like fairly uncontroversial facts, not warranting cluttering the lead with citations. I was hoping you'd find a way to address that content in the body of the article, so that the lead didn't have to be cluttered with citations for uncontroversial statements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    - I agree those look terrible. They are what I was referring to about the list of vehicle types. I will see if I can find a way to move the references copying the sentence to another part of the article. I think there may be a good place to put it. BenB4 20:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Y Done moved the refs to Commercialization. BenB4 00:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I also think the patenting issues need more legal commentary - in at least some countries, technologies cannot be suppressed by the patent holder; often, companies can sue to obtain a license from the patent holder, especially in cases where the patent holder is not using the technology, as seems to be the case here. Spamsara 21:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- The article just repeats what the sources say. In the US at least, you can sit on a patent and force everyone else to refrain from using it if you want. BenB4 04:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  - This is what people say. And I happen to think what people say is incorrect. For an FA, we'll need some better authority. Spamsara 04:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    - The author of the book source in this case, Sherry Boschert, has been a reporter for Elsevier since 1991, and is president of the San Francisco Electric Vehicle Association. Her book is based on interviews of primary sources.[12] There is widespread agreement with her.[13] There is no question that Ovonics aggressively litigated their NiMH patents,[14] causing Toyota to withdraw their RAV4-EV. Do you know of any sources which contradict this? BenB4 16:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
      - There is a section in this article entitled, "patent encumbrance of NiMH batteries" which closes with the statement "Chevron and other oil-related interests suppressed the technology to forestall the introduction of plug-in hybrids". I'm sorry, but I don't see where you have any insight into the motives of Chevron. "to forestall the introduction of plug-in hybrids" - how do you know that this was their intention? Maybe they just saw what the intellectual property was worth, and bought it for that reason? Please show me how you can refute this alternative.
        
        Again, that is exactly what the Boschert book says. It's not my insight, it's hers, based on her interviews. Do you have any reason to believe that she is not a reliable source? BenB4 02:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
      - Referring specifically to your sources, it seems by the last source you cited in your comment above that a licensing agreement was reached which would allow Toyota to distribute said batteries commencing July 1, 2007, and certain batteries for certain applications at a commercial scale commencing July 1, 2010. There is no detail on exactly what kinds of batteries each refers to, but it's clear that a licensing agreement exists: "ECD and Ovonic Battery will receive a non-refundable patent license fee of $10 million in consideration of the licenses granted to MEI/PEVE with respect to NiMH batteries for consumer applications. Cobasys will receive a non-refundable patent license fee of $20 million in consideration of the licenses granted to MEI/PEVE and Toyota, of which $4 million will be placed in escrow to be used to pay PEVE upon reaching certain milestones under the next-generation high-performance NiMH battery module development project plan." Protecting your intellectual property is not the same as "forestalling the introduction of plug-in hybrids" by deliberate and malevolent "patent encumbrance" and "suppression of technology". Please change the wording to reflect what your sources actually support. Thank you. Spamsara 01:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
        
        The statement as it stands reflects Boschert's book accurately. The license was granted after it became clear that lithium ion batteries were more attractive for automotive applications. I think the statement should stay in unless you have a source which contradicts it. Speculation isn't an acceptable substitute for reliable sources. BenB4 02:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
        
        I'll admit that I don't have immediate access to the book to see what it contains. However, since you bring up the issue of reliability of sources, I would say that one of the sites you referenced above, evworld (where ev stands for "electric vehicle") can reasonably be assumed to reflect a particular POV. My feeling is that you may have to be a little more specific about exactly the evidence is that Boschert brings forward. It's not that I disagree with the general notion that it's difficult to establish a new technology that conflicts with a multi-billion dollar industry, I would only like it to be clear what is fact and what is Boschert's POV. It seems that all the arguments you've brought forward to far I've been able to fairly easily take apart, and the problem is that if the accused object to the phrasing of the article and contect WP:OFFICE, you may find that your article will get far more heavily censored than if you had done it yourself. Please make sure that everything you say is 100% defendable, and please clearly state "Boschert argues..." where this is appropriate. Remember that Wikipedia is not about THE TRUTH (tm), but only about verifiable fact, extreme accuracy, due balance, and proper attribution. Let's please get this article nice and clean, and if that is by laying out in more detail what the evidence is that Boschert brings forward, with direct attribution, and making clear what valid alternative interpretations are. For instance, licenses are often granted only after an infringement has become apparent. Nice and clean, please. Regards, Spamsara 03:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
        
        Y Done I checked to make sure the statement accurately reflects what is said in the book, and I added "According to San Francisco Electric Vehicle Association President Sherry Boschert," in front of the controversial statement. BenB4 04:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 01:59, 24 July 2007.

[edit] Technology of the Song Dynasty

The Song Dynasty was a prolific age of innovation and discovery in China. This article certainly does that era of history some justice in displaying feats of mechanical engineering, innovation in astronomical instruments, textile machinery, movable type printing, gunpowder warfare, civil engineering, nautics and seafaring technology, metallurgy, and harnessing of wind power. This article has a dozen different scholarly sources in its Reference section, and as of now, 100 inline citations. The lead portrays the overall themes of the article, and although the article itself is a bit lengthy at 58 kb, each section's length is justified by the relevance of its content. There is a total of 13 images in the article, only 4 of them do not belong to Wikimedia Commons, although none of them have copyright violations. The article is stable, and I can't single out any POV statements. In addition, this article has recently been elevated to GA status. Therefore, I nominate this article for FA status.--PericlesofAthens 04:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I like what I've read so far, and what you've done with this topic. Not a single article within it is without citations.--Rmky87 15:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I worked hard on this.--PericlesofAthens 22:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Support Very interesting and captivating article. A great read, even though I felt like it could use a copyedit here and there. Nothing jumped out as terrible, but if you can get someone to copy edit it then I'm sure you'll have no problems making FA. BenB4 13:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Support, An interesting and well done article, about an important era in Chinese history. Overall terrific work, (I think you can still get rid of some red ink). I'm mostly aware of Song (Sung ?) dynasty painting, and this article is educational, informative and deserves appreciation. Well done. Modernist 16:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Great! I'm glad you guys enjoyed the article. As you requested I have listed it on the League of Copyeditors proofreading page. Hopefully they'll get to it soon, since it doesn't seem like they have too much of a backlog (only 6 other articles ahead of mine).--PericlesofAthens 17:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Don't you think that you have overused Needham a bit? Is there anyone else who has written on this topic? Incidentally, I copyedited a bit of it.--Danaman5 03:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

True, his work represents the majority of inline citations, but honestly, I don't own too many books of my own, and my school library doesn't have many books about Chinese history during the Song period, let alone the history of Chinese science and technology specifically in the Song period. If you would like to find other sources, or use sources that you already have, that would be helpful. Also, thanks for copyediting it a bit, that was helpful.--PericlesofAthens 04:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Addressing your concern a bit, I am adding another source from Wagner's article on Chinese iron metallurgy in the 11th century. I'll try to find more sources if I can. So far (as I've counted) Needham represents 73 out of 104 inline citations.--PericlesofAthens 20:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Wouldn't a better title be Technological progress during the Song Dynasty? See also should be made much smaller, it is proffered to incorporate all links into the article and remove the section completely.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Technological progress during the Song Dynasty is ok, but it is a bit lengthy compared to the current title. Also, notice how this article was created with the same format of title as several other jutted-off articles for the main Song Dynasty article, including Architecture of the Song Dynasty, Culture of the Song Dynasty, Economy of the Song Dynasty, History of the Song Dynasty, and Society of the Song Dynasty. As to the "See also" section, I will shorten that if you feel it is too lengthy, which it most likely is.--PericlesofAthens 19:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

As you requested, I shortened the See also section a while ago.--PericlesofAthens 18:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. I like this article and think it should be featured. Avala 16:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. It's pretty silent here now, though. No responses in 5 days.--PericlesofAthens 16:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 01:59, 24 July 2007.

[edit] Aston Villa F.C.

This is a joint nomination with Everlast1910 because i think it is now worthy of FA status. It has been through a peer review and it has recently passed a GA review. Most of the comments from GA review have been corrected although one has not due to it breaking notability guidelines. Thankyou. Woodym555 14:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments from Universe=atom
- ~~Section 9.3 can definitely expanded. It gives the name to the main article, but there is no content in itself.~~
  - I have added the following: There have been 34 captains of Aston Villa F.C. in total. The current incumbent is Gareth Barry who has been Captain since 2006. The full list of captains can be found at List of Aston Villa captains. The subpage link is, i think, self explanatory in that it lists the captains of Aston Villa. Do i need to add anything else?
- ~~Grammar mistake: "...top-flight; 128 goals scored in season 1930–31." (Section 7) Perhaps the passive voice can be used.~~
  - Done, changed to: 128 goals were scored in the 1930–31 season
- Grammar: "Aston Villa Football Club was formed in March 1874 by members of the Villa Cross Wesleyan Chapel in Aston, now part of Birmingham." (section 1) Several mistakes: (1) The verb should be "were" because A.V.F.C is a collective noun, and in British English (which this article is supposed to follow), collective nouns get plural verbs. Besides, that is also how it is done in the introduction. (2) There should be commas before and after "1874." (3) It should be "which is now part of..." instead of the current "now part of..."
  - Done, added requested corrections
- ~~A reference is needed for the first sentence of the second paragraph of the introduction.~~
  - Done
- ~~Grammar: "By 1880 black jerseys with..." (Section 2) Comma is needed after "1880."~~
  - Done
- ~~Grammar: "No-one is quite sure why claret..." (Section 2) No hyphen is needed.~~
  - Done, changed to nobody
- The second to-last paragraph of Section 2 needs several references, as these theories can be severely challenged. A reference is provided at the end of the paragraph, but that only pertains to that one sentence.
  - Done, deleted Barton Arms statements as no verifiable reference (or any mention of it) could be found. I changed and referenced the Scottish angle.
- Major mistake: Section 3 should be renamed to "Stadium" from the current "Stadia." The reason is that the noun "stadium" is not derived from the Latin second declension neuter. So, the singular is "stadium," and the plural is "stadiums."
  - Done, i didn't name it that in the first place!
- Grammar: "Aston Villa's first match was against the local Aston Brook St Mary's Rugby team and as a condition of the match, the Villa side had to agree to play the first half under rugby rules and the second half under football rules." (Section 1) A comma is required between two independent clauses.
  - Done, changed into two sentences
- Grammar: "As with all English clubs, the Second World War brought about the loss of seven seasons and several careers were brought to a premature end by the conflict." (Section 1) Same as previous one.
  - Done
- ~~Grammar: "The club was floated by the previous owner and chairman Doug Ellis but in 2006 full control of the club was acquired by Randy Lerner." (Lead) Same as previous one.~~
  - Done
- ~~Grammar: "They returned to the second division as Champions the following year and they continued to rise all the way into the First Division and Europe in 1977." (Section 1) Same as previous one.~~
  - Done
- Grammar: "The traditional motto "Prepared" remains in the crest and the name Aston Villa has been shortened to AVFC, FC having been omitted from the previous crest." (Section 2) Same as previous one.
  - Done
- ~~Grammar: "The club was floated on the stock market in 1996 and the share price fluctuated in the ten years prior to the flotation." (Section 4) Same as previous one.~~
  - Done
- Grammar: "With mounting debts and Villa lying at the bottom of Division Two; the board sacked Cummings and within weeks the entire board resigned due to overwhelming pressure from fans." (Section 1) Two major grammar mistakes: (1) Same as previous one. (2) No semicolon is needed; a comma would do instead.
  - Done
- Grammar: "Aston Villa won their sixth FA Cup in 1920 although soon after the club began a slow decline that led to Villa, at the time one of the most famous and successful clubs in world football being relegated for the first time to the Second Division in 1936." (Section 1) I still do not understand what this sentence means. Several commas should be added throughout the sentence in order to give it a legible prose.
  - Done, changed to Aston Villa won their sixth FA Cup in 1920, soon after though the club began a slow decline that led to Villa, at the time one of the most famous and successful clubs in world football, being relegated in 1936 for the first time to the Second Division.
- ~~"To everyone's surprise, Saunders quit halfway through..." Perhaps some PoV is suggested by "To everyone's surprise".~~
  - Done, changed to: To the surprise of commentators and fans,
- "Villa reached the FA Cup final in 2000 (for the first time since 1957), but lost 1–0 to Chelsea in the last game to be played at the old Wembley Stadium." (Section 1) No comma is needed between compound verbs.
  - Done
- "After 23 years as chairman and single biggest shareholder (approx 38%), Doug Ellis finally decided to sell his stake in Aston Villa to Randy Lerner the owner of NFL franchise, the Cleveland Browns." (Section 1) Several mistakes: (1) "Approx" should be written out to "approximately". (2) A comma is needed before nonessential appositives, this time after "Randy Lerner." (3) A comma is not needed before essential appositives; this time, the one after "franchise" should be removed.
  - Done
- ~~Grammar: "...on May 2nd for..." (Section 2) I think that "May 2" would suffice.~~
  - Done, changed to 2 May
- ~~Grammar: "The new training ground was officially unveiled on May 6, 2007 by..." (Section 3) Commas are required after years."~~
  - Done
- ~~Grammar: "On August 14, 2006 it was confirmed that..." (Section 4) Same as previous one.~~
  - Done
- ~~Grammar: "He also appointed himself Chairman of theclub." (Section 4) Obvious mistake.~~
  - Done
- ~~A few more references are needed in the beginning of Section 4 for all that statistical data.~~
  - Not Done, all the data is contained within the reference closest to the data. As per MOS i have not duplicated references within the paragraph.

I am sure that all these mistakes can be fixed easily (most of them, at least). After all of my concerns have been take care of, I will vote "Support." Thank you. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 15:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

- My first replies are listed Woodym555 16:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have now corrected all of your requests although the expansion of section 9.3 is still open to debate. I would now appreciate any further comments. Thankyou for your diligence and attention to detail. Woodym555 16:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Support: Now that the points that I raised are taken care of, the article is much better and surely worthy of FA status. Cheers. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 09:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

~~*Minor Oppose~~ A few small things. Club honours needs ref. Not sure "Current reserve/Youth team players" is really notable. The Captains article is linked twice in the space of three lines. Some of the coaching staff sound a bit too minor to be notable. Why not list all the Managers? Lose the See also section. Don't really need the Traditional Home Kit image since it's in the lead infobox, maybe you could replace it with there first ever kit. Ditto the Current crest image. Buc 11:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

- Club honours:Done, added ref to each subsection
- Captains:Done, removed last sentence
- Coaching Staff:Done up to a point; I have removed two entries, the others all have articles on Wikipedia therefore meet notability guidelines. Gordan Cowans for example is a youth team coach but he was a great player in his own right.
- Managers:Not Done, there have been maany managers in Villa's history, it has been recommended in the past peer reviw and GA article to remove it to a subsection. Also many managers did not achieve much with Villa, as such i am inclined to leave it as a subpage.
- See Also:Done, removed
- Kit and Crest:Changed kit, the crest is there to show the progression of the crest, its evolution, and as such i think it is an important part of the section.
  - My replies are listed. I have now fixed what i can and commented on your problems that i haven't fixed, i have added in the proposed kit of 1886 instead of the chocolate kit. I would now appreciate any further comments. Thankyou Woodym555 15:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Support: Disclaimer: I am the GA reviewer of the article. The article is in good shape but for a few minor kinks that i want the nominator to address:

~~Provide reference to the club being called The Villans - first sentence in the lead section~~
- Done, added reference
~~Provide reference to the victory in the Birmingham Senior Cup~~
- Done, added reference from AVFC Hall of fame
~~The Ownership section doesn't provide data on pre-1968 data. Please add the same~~
- Done, added brief history paragraph as little is known, shares were bought and sold, Ellis was really the only significant buyer in its history
~~"The club was floated on the stock market in 1996, and the share price fluctuated in the ten years prior to the flotation." - shouldn't it be "since" instead of "prior to"?~~
- Done, changed to after, as it is no longer floated
"Randy Lerner took full control on September 18 as Randy Lerner had 89.69% of the share. On September 19, 2006, Aston Villa PLC executive Chairman Doug Ellis and his board resigned to be replaced with a new board headed by Randy Lerner.[30]" - replace "Randy Lerner" with "Lerner"
- Done
~~MCMXIV - either add Wikiarticle (atleast stub) or remove wikilink~~
- Done, created stub
[49] - add a sentence before the link or move the link to an appropriate place. Suggestion on sentence: "Aston Villa has won European and domestic league honours, though the last of it was in 1996 (League Cup winners).[49] The club won the FA Youth Cup in 2002"
- ~~As a sub point, consider moving FA Youth Cup as a seperate category instead of it being under Domestic --Kalyan 12:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)~~
  - Done, i have created a sub-section within the cups area, I have also created the sentence as per the main point.

I have fixed all of your queries and replied underneath. Thankyou again for your comments. Woodym555 14:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

All comments have been addressed --Kalyan 19:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from The Rambling Man

Sorry, late to join the party, my comments...

References [3], [4], [26] should be moved to right-hand side of punctuation.
- Done
On a similar but personal note, I'd expect to see the first reference in the lead be [1], not [3]. Looks a bit odd, I think, while I realise the infobox comes first in the markup, perhaps the citation could be made elsewhere in the text?
- Not done, i agree with you that it is unusual but that is the wikimarkup, the infobox needs to be referenced and so it must be so.
"the The Villans" in first sentence - off to a bad start!
- Done (whoops)
"...club was floated by the..." - needs a touch of explanation for the non-expert - perhaps just "...on the London Stock Exchange..." needs to be added... (unless the club is a sea-faring vehicle).
- Wikilinked to both
"...on 2 May for the 2007–2008 season..." needs to be consistent with rest of the article in both date and season formats.
- Done, cleared up consistency here and in other places
"plc" or "PLC"? Consistency required.
- Done
1990s or 1990's (and similar decade declarations) - again, consistency needed.
- Done, consistently "0s" now
£13 million or GB£3m? Consistency again. Plus, no need to wikilink GB£ so many times.
- Done, removed the plethora of wikilinks, replaced with GB£ for all but one
"...Names in bold are Villa Park board members..." - they're all bold, so any need for this?
- No there isn't now, there used to be, so deleted "bold" statement
The lead talks of "Second City Derby" while the "See also:" says "Birmingham Derby" - consistency.
- fixed by adding (also known as ...) in the lead
No citation for the Hannibal Lector claim.
- Deleted it, quite random anyway, (must have been added when i wasn't watching)
"...fictional "Aston Wanderers" During episodes ..." - grammar.
- Done, fixed typo.
No need for bold on Aston Villa in statistics - I assume it's wikilinked, so unlink it.
- Done
Refs [53] to [55] look untidy, either move to either side of colon or move to end of seasons.
- They are footnots explaing about the name change with regards to Division one etc, as such i have left for the moment.
FC vs F.C. - template uses FC, article uses F.C., in general the article just uses Aston Villa, the Captains section is on its own when it uses "Aston Villa F.C."...
- fixed consistency
Why all the small text in the notable players section? If it's worth saying, say it in normal size!
- Done, upgraded to normal size
Notable managers table - looks untidy, make Name, Nationality and Period columns one line deep and let the Honours column go as deep as it needs.
I'm not sure being "First manager under Randy Lerner" is a recognisable honour...!
- Done, albeit begrudgingly, not a notable manager with Aston Villa in his own right, (not yet anyway)

Let me know if there's anything more I can help with, hope some of this has been useful. The Rambling Man 16:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

- I have added my first replies, i have fixed everything except the table which as i am unsure of your intentions. I have left a note on your talk page. Woodym555 17:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from Cas Liber (and page break for ease of adding)

~~Nice but the prose still needs some massaging -I'll try to list: cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)~~

The club was founded in 1874 and have played at the club's current home ground, Villa Park, since 1897 - "club" repetitive - try "Founded in 1874, the club have played at Villa Park, their current home ground, since 1897" Y Done (Everlast1910 09:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

Aston Villa were founding members of Football League in 1888 and of the Premier League in 1992. - insert "the" before Football league and take out "of" before "the Premier League" Y Done (Everlast1910 09:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

..clubs to win the European Cup, in 1982. - I know its succinct but "clubs to win the European Cup, (which they did) in 1982." scans better Y Done (Everlast1910 09:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

~~All the above have now been addressed and fixed! (Everlast1910 09:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC))~~

~~Great - sorry got interrupted before and now I'll keep looking. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)~~

Villa were one of the founding members of the Premier League and in 1993, the inaugural season Aston Villa finished runners-up to Manchester United. - I think the commas got mixed up here - try "Villa were one of the founding members of the Premier League in 1993, and finished runners-up to Manchester United in the inaugural season." Done

Villa Park has hosted a number of England internationals at senior level. The first of which was in 1899, the most recent being in 2005. In all it has hosted 16 international matches. - a bit repetitive - could be more succinct with "Villa Park has hosted 16 England internationals at senior level, the first in 1899, and the most recent in 2005." Done

The Club have planning permission to extend the North Stand. This will involve the 'filling in' of the corners to either side of the North Stand. - the first sentnece is a bit short; I'd use a semicolon between them. Done

Villa Park was the first English ground to stage international football in three different centuries. - out of place where it is, should go after the segemnt on 16 internationals, and replace "Villa Park was" with "Thus it was" Done

Villa, also have a training ground at Bodymoor Heath in north Warwickshire. The training ground site was purchased by former Aston Villa Chairman Doug Ellis in the early 1970s from the farmer who owned the land. -eek! Try "The current training ground is located at Bodymoor Heath in north Warwickshire, the site for which was purchased by former Chairman Doug Ellis in the early 1970s from a local farmer." Done

I have implemented your suggestions for the above comments. Any further comments are most welcome. Thanks Woodym555 11:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, Support then. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 01:59, 24 July 2007.

[edit] Australian Defence Force

I am self-nominating this article on Australia's military for featured article consideration. The article has been peer reviewed and assessed as an A-Class article by the Military History WikiProject. --Nick Dowling 01:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Support ~~But, Image:ADF Deployments June 2007.PNG needs a caption explaining the color codes.~~ someone got that. BenB4 09:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Support. A well-written and organized article. Cla68 03:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose until properly copy-edited throughout (1a). Here are examples.
- "single service establishments"—hyphenate the first two words. Same for "active duty personnel".
  - Fixed
- "Century"—why upper-case C?
  - Why not? Anyway, fixed
- "about 51,000"—MOS says don't say "about". (Criterion 2)
  - Fixed
The lead is inadequate (2a).
- "It is the largest military in Oceania"—Oh come now, is that worthy of inclusion in the lead? Larger than the Tuvalu defence force, sure. Makes it sound so parochial.
  - Good point, fixed. It's significant enough to be retained though as this makes the ADF the region's police force/bully-boy (take your pick)
- "Plays a significant role in operations around the world"—I challenge that on the basis of POV (1c)
  - Fair enough.
- The second para of "Legal standing" has a number of prose issues.
  - Such as? - I've fiddled with the wording
- Why "ADF" and then fully spelt out, at the top of successive sections?
  - This is a deliberate attempt to avoid acronym over-load, which is always a problem in articles on the military. Always using 'ADF' looks ugly and 'Force'/'the Force'/'the military' aren't accepted usages in Australia. I've also tried to use 'the Australian military' to seperate the pre-ADF era.
- As elsewhere, ungainly repetition: "The Australian Defence Force's priorities are set out and explained in the 2000 Defence White Paper. This document was developed by the Australian Government to guide all aspects of Australian defence policy." There's no need for "Australian" x 3. One is enough here. Then "priorities" x 2. Needs a proper audit for such reps.
  - Fair enough. I would note, however, that some repetition of 'Australian Government' is unavoidable as this is the name commonly used in Australia to distinguish the Federal Government from the other levels of government.

The line-up shot under "Current structure" looks as though it's a spoof. Tony 14:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit odd, but it's the only portrait which was released to the media the latest appointments were made and nothing else is available elsewhere. From photos released to the media, the executive area of Defence headquarters is painted that horrible colour they're standing in front of. --Nick Dowling 23:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, please don't write "bully boy" or "police force"—POV. It will come up against local sensitivities, and we don't want to be accused of US-style ignorance of local cultures, do we? (Look at the party in Iraq.)
After the first occurrence of "Australian government", what else would "the government" refer to? The Tasmanian government? I'd use "the government" some of the time, at least.
- OK, point taken - I was definetly wrong. I've dropped the 'Australian' except where it is necessary (for example, to specify which government funds the ADF and which government approved a new US facility in West Australia)
What's ugly about "ADF"? The ADF itself uses it liberally. Acronym overload? (It's an initialism, not an acronym.) They're mighty useful, and avoid clutter and ungainly repetition of whole phrases.
- It's already used enough in the article, at least in my opinion. I spend my days looking at acronyms, so I am a bit phobic to the things though.
"Century" is not part of a title. Read MOS.
"In practice, the Governor General does not play a part in the ADF's command structure and the elected Australian Government controls the ADF. The Minister for Defence and several subordinate ministers exercise this control." --> "In practice, the Governor General plays no part in the ADF's command structure: the ADF is controlled by the elected Australian Government, mostly through the Minister for Defence and several subordinate ministers, although ...".
- This could just be my personal preference, but I think that short sentances work better than long ones. I've tried to keep the prose in the active tense where ever possible as well - with a lot of help from User:Alant.
The prose throughout needs more intensive treatment than this. Tony 04:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think that it reads about as well as most FAs - though I'm obviously biased! --Nick Dowling 08:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Support with a few fairly minor suggestions below. Cheers for a great article, Ian Rose 09:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- "Subsidiary and subsequent legislation handles these matters". Whilst "subsidiary" and "subsequent" obviously mean different things I think "Subsequent legislation" is sufficient.
  - Fixed
- In the infobox under "Current form", "(ADF established)" seems redundant.
  - I added it to explain what the change was to people browsing the article (I assume that the infobox will be the first thing people read). I don't think that it's well understood that the ADF is a fairly new organisation so this needed an upfront explanation.
- Linked date fragments, e.g. years in the infobox, tend to be discouraged.
  - Fixed
- Tenix Pty Ltd#Tenix_Defence currently redirects to Tenix#Tenix_Defence
  - Well spotted! Fixed
- If this is to be FA I would delink forward defence until an article is written, simply for neatness.
  - Good point - fixed
- Under Command Arrangements, for "The CDF commands the ADF under the direction of the Minister of Defence and is notionally equal with the Secretary of Defence", I'd suggest "notionally the equal of" if you don't want to put "equal to" (which is generally preferred to "equal with").
  - Fixed
- Prefer to say that White "has criticised the ADF's senior command structure" instead of "has a criticism of".
  - Fixed
- Recommend "day-to-day management" instead of "day to day".
  - Fixed
- In third para of Command Arrangements, don't know if you want to go into a bit more detail by mentioning the Maritime Commander, Land Commander and Air Commander, and their (2-star) ranks, as heads of Fleet Headquarters, Land Command and Air Command - may be a bit fussy.
  - I don't think that that's necessary - I think that it's obvious that these military commands would each have a commander, and if the article included all the 2 star positions in the ADF it would have to be expanded considerably.
- Under Defence Expenditure and Procurement, a typo: "Australia's GDP is larger than those of it's neigbours".
  - Fixed
- Under Current Bases, "The RAAF also maintains a network of bases in northern Australia to support operations to Australia's north", you can include a link to network of bases.
  - The sentance covers RAAF Darwin and Townsville which are operational bases as well as the three bare bases which are only occasionally activated. The bare bases are linked in the next sentance.
"The Australian Army Aviation Corps is equipped with 104 helicopters..."

The Australian Army Aviation article says that "the word corps does not appear in their name or on their badge". Which article is correct? Hawkeye7 09:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

- It's Australian Army Aviation - it seems to be the corps that dare not speak its name! Fixed. --Nick Dowling 00:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Support. The article has good structure, eloquent grammar and meticulous referencing. Alant 05:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Support. Very good article. I have no objections. Avala 16:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Support. Deserves FA status.Buckshot06 19:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 01:59, 24 July 2007.

[edit] Introduction to general relativity

This article has evolved quite a lot over the past months, and it has recently undergone a thorough peer review here. Having checked the FA criteria, I'm confident it's now a promising candidate for featured status. The topic is certainly important - general relativity is one of the fundamental theories of modern physics; on the other hand, the main article general relativity is necessarily quite technical. This article is meant to fill the gap and provide an accessible introduction that is suitable for a general audience. As I have contributed to the article's recent overhaul, this is a self-nomination. Markus Poessel 13:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong support and thank you so much. I've been trying to get my head around 'the' big theory of the 20th century for years, to no avail. This article, for some reason, actually makes sense! Nicely illustrated. The only comments I'd make is 1. "the gravitational deflection of light:" - isn't this effect observed when massive bodies pass in front of stars making them appear to move slightly to the observer - Is this observed during eclipses? perhaps a mention. 2. I did once read an analogy of curved spacetime as like a gridded sheet of rubber stretched flat onto which heavy (massive) spheres were placed. Objects moving along the sheet were then deflected in their paths by the resultant curvatures. I've no idea how accurate the analogy is, but it made for a useful graphic. Thanks again. --Joopercoopers 15:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome - and thanks for your support! Gravitational deflection of light is indeed observed as you describe, and I have now included a sentence about eclipses – thanks for the suggestion! I would like to keep the rubber sheet out of this, though. In my opinion (and in the opinion of all relativists to whom I have talked about this), it creates more problems than it solves. It has a number of confusing aspects (e.g. if gravity is the distortion of the rubber sheet, what makes the heavy sphere sink into the rubber sheet?) and is somewhat misleading in its main physics message (in fact, the deflection of objects that are forced to orbit around the sun is due almost exclusively to time distortions - the rubber sheet image suggests [wrongly] that space distortions are to blame). Markus Poessel 16:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for keeping rubber sheets out of most discussions! :-) --Joopercoopers 15:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No rubber!

~~Oppose~~ Comment (see below). This piece strikes a wonderful balance between theoretical literacy and accessibility. While I can image the pitched battles that must have occurred on general relativity with regard to striking such a balance, Wikipedia is not a textbook — information on the same topic shouldn't be mirrored across several pages. I would, however, suggest introducing this page to Simple English wikipedia. Madcoverboy 05:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The creation of introductory articles is explicitly recommended by Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible. Since the example given on that page is Introduction to special relativity, it would be difficult to argue that Introduction to general relativity does not meet the same criteria. That style guideline, by the way, is not in conflict with Wikipedia is not a textbook, which only tells us that an article should not read like a textbook – it shouldn't be written in textbook style, with leading questions, step-by-step problem solutions, and so on. Markus Poessel 07:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Rather than being "explicitly recommended" the page reads "it may be appropriate...(depending on the topic and the amount of interest in it)." I do not believe it is appropriate when it seems that little has been done to improve the primary page before forking the content. The general relativity page, while thorough, is not as readable as this intro article and lacks examples that this article has. A similar situation applies to the special relativity page and the other "introduction" pages I reviewed. I don't understand how the content in both the "primary" and "introduction" pages couldn't be merged and with judicious use of summary style with regard to both technical formulae as well as explanations/examples to make one excellent page providing an overview on the topic.Madcoverboy 14:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Come on chaps, this is a mindbendingly difficult subject for the lay reader and a good case for WP:IAR - the rules that apply to articles about computer games shouldn't be applied here. I'm the last to suggest we dumb down wikipedia but; 1. The general relativity article isn't here for consideration, it's the introduction. 2. This is a very important subject which most people don't have a grasp of. 3. to have a concise, accessible text for the lay reader is 'an example of our best work'. --Joopercoopers 15:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Especially since I don't think we are ignoring the rules. The guideline lists Introduction to special relativity as its example for a case where a "trampoline" page is appropriate. It's hard to see why general relativity should be treated differently. Markus Poessel 18:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Having done more research and searching, its apparent that this phenomena of "Introduction to x" is more prevalent than I thought. Per WP:WIAFA, an "introduction" article should fail 1(b) because it is necessarily non-comprehensive if it is just an introduction. In other words, if it is an introduction, why not put it into the introduction of the primary article? I continue to take issue with the content fork and ~~consensus-cum-resignation~~ resignation-cum-consensus (see WP:BIAS) to leaving the primary articles of important scientific concepts as bastions of impenetrable mathematics and technical jargon while developing excellent articles like this that should be included on the primary article in the first place. However, FAC is not the appropriate forum to debate this apparent consensus on content forks, so I withdraw my opposition.Madcoverboy 19:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. In this particular case, I hope that consensus-cum-resignation will not be an issue, anyway. Trying to improve the main article general relativity is next on my to-do-list after this FA candidacy is finished. --Markus Poessel 20:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. Bravo. –Outriggr § 04:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose on principle since it is an introductory article and in fact nominate for deletion/merge into main article. I have no complaint with the article content other than that it is an "introduction to" article for another article. I do not believe there should be two articles on every topic, one and introduction and one the full article - instead the one article should be made readable and useful to the average person. Science is no harder to explain to the layman than artistic or architectural movements, it simply needs to be done correctly. In any area of expertise there are conventions, terminologies and ideas that are unfamiliar to the lay reader. A good encyclopedia article discusses the subject anyway and makes it live. A good scientist is no more intelligent and able to grasp ideas than a good artist, mathematician, linguist, historian, whatever, and it is scientific conceit to suppose otherwise. General relativity may not have been trivial to figure out from first principles, but it is trivial to understand when explained properly. If an article is difficult to understand, fix the article, don't create a dumbed-down version of it. The problem here is that the main article on this topic is written by scientists for scientists, rather than for the layman. Each wikipedia article should make no preconceptions of the reader and if the reader cannot follow the article, then that is the article's fault, not the reader's. Give an eloquent enough writer the article Schwarzschild metric to work on and they could make it live for the reader. I am in absolute opposition to any article reaching FA that is effectively a dumbed-down version of another article. I can't understand why this wasn't addressed at the article's outset rather than on its FA candidacy- PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I should also point out that a lot of the hard science that it is argued must be included in the article could more properly be included in daughter articles or "proof of general realtivity" or "development of the theory of general relativity" or suchlike - an encyclopedia article should be about the phenomenon itself primarily, not about the work that went into inventing/discovering/proposing it. For example, I would expect an article on the Roman Empire, to be about the Roman empire primarily, not about the history of thought and archaeology that has built our modern view of it. By all means, again, put this is a "history of the development of the theory of general relativity" or similar, but the primary article out to be about what general relativity is, and what general relativity is can and shoudl be able to be explained simply in the main article without recourse to "dumbed down" and "science members only" versions - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

rest of discussion moved to talk, please continue discussing there, as the discussion has moved beyond the scope of this particular FAC Spamsara 04:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~ Comment I have to agree with Dan. It's indicative of a problem if an article needs an introductory article. To quote Charles Van Doren, "The ideal reader of an encyclopedia should be primarily the curious average man. He should only secondarily be the specialist and/or the high school student." Atropos 00:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet this article is exactly what is required for the "curious average man"... –Outriggr § 01:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Which is why it should be found at general relativity. Atropos 03:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Since you agree with Dan, would you consider also changing your vote to "Oppose on principle"? After all, you are not objecting to anything that can be addressed by improving this particular article - only complete withdrawal of the nomination will do. The discussion about "Introduction to...", yes or no, has now moved to the discussion page, so I'll be replying there. --Markus Poessel 06:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it to comment. The (in my opinion, very poor) way the science-inclined are handling their wing of the encyclopedia should not effect the question of whether this content is among our best. Atropos 03:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Support, with qualifications I think the authors have done a good job on this article, although perhaps not yet FAC level. Here are some major gaps that I see immediately, even as a beginner to GR:

I would argue that most (not all) of what you note below is not about gaps (let alone major gaps), but about how much detail there should be on topics for which other, more thorough, dedicated articles exist. In the current version of "Intro to GR", I have deliberately tried to keep matters as brief as possible - have a look at the article's talk page; brevity was being called for by the other editors. My personal preference would be to indeed include some more information on the topics you mention, so I will take your comments as ~~an excuse to follow my inclinations~~ a valuable suggestion to be followed. In consequence (and in reaction to your more specific comments, below) I have now expanded that section, and all the major astrophysics themes have gotten their own subsections. --Markus Poessel 10:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No significant treatment of the cosmological constant; this is an egregious omission, especially given that it's oft quoted ("my greatest blunder") and recent observations that it is not zero. Bonus points for discussing connection to wormholes! :)

You are right; the cosmological constant should, indeed, be mentioned. Fixed. --Markus Poessel 10:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Cosmology deserves its own section, separate from "Astrophysical applications". The lengths scales involved (1 stellar radius vs. billions of light-years) between black hole formation and the shape/origin of the universe suggest that these concepts do not belong in the same section. The average lay-person may also care more about the "Big Bang" than about black holes.

As they're both clearly part of astrophysics, as long as there is a section on astrophysics, that is where they belong, no? And remember that there are even subjects like "astro-particle physics" where the length-scales are as disparate as it gets. However, I hope the compromise solution that is now implemented is acceptable to you: All the major astrophysics subjects get their own subsections (and a somewhat more detailed description), so that the black holes are not lumped together with the expanding universes as closely as before. --Markus Poessel 10:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, light deflection and the consequent gravitational lensing did not originate with GR, although GR got its magnitude correct.

I will address this later, in reply to comments to that effect made below by another reviewer. --Markus Poessel 10:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Frame-dragging and geodetic effects deserve some kind of mention, given the recent Gravity probe B results.

Sure. But they do get mentioned in the current version, do they not? Including GPB (with link and reference) and the dates of the preliminary/final results? I do agree it should be mentioned, but I would hesitate to give it broader coverage (it is a rather special topic). --Markus Poessel 10:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a separate section for black holes and the "no hair" theorem? The public is curious about them. A passing references to the Schwarzschild metric, Kerr metric, etc. would be nice, perhaps as a {{See also}} header.

Again, a passing references to Schwarzschild is present in the current version. I have added a reference to Kerr. Also, having now given black holes a subsection of their own under "Astrophysical applications", I have worked in the "no hair" theorem as part of that. --Markus Poessel 10:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to some of the "Opposes" aboves, I think this article is essential. We would do our readers a disservice by trying cram too much into the General relativity article. Anyone who understands this subject realizes how difficult it is to explain, and why a stepwise approach is essential. One of Wikipedia's strengths is its (effectively) unlimited space, which I think we should harness for explaining difficult subjects such as general relativity. Willow 03:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to all of the current "Opposed". So far, no-one has opposed other than on principle, and I'm proud of that :-) --Markus Poessel 10:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

PS. I included some introductory material at Kepler problem in general relativity; please take whatever might be useful to you! :) Willow 03:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments – it's a refreshing change to find someone making suggestions that can actually be addressed by improving the article in question. I'll address them over the coming days; for today I have (frustratingly) spent my Wikipedia time on warding of Wiki-Unitarianism ("there can only be one!"). --Markus Poessel 10:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Support I cannot believe what I am reading here. Wikipedia is a new kind of encyclopedia and can invent its own style. Because wikipedia is not paper, it has the luxury of being able to address more groups of readers than a traditional encyclopedia. We should embrace that, not reject it. As Jimbo Wales has said, "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we’re doing." The "sum of all human knowledge" includes a real page on general relativity (with all of the math that I never studied) and a general-relativity-lite page for readers like myself. I, for one, am extremely grateful to the editors for all of the work they have put into this excellent article and am startled that others see only problems here. Awadewit | talk 06:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

PocklingtonDan writes, "general relativity may not have been trivial to figure out from first principles, but it is trivial to understand when explained properly". I do not think that this is true. As I understand it, if one graduates with a BS in physics, one still does not understand general relativity very well (if at all); it is a course taken only by graduate students who need it for their subfield. Not all physics professors could teach it; general relativity is not the pulleys and levers of classical mechanics. Awadewit | talk 06:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Atroops quotes Charles Van Doren (in what context, we don't know): "The ideal reader of an encyclopedia should be primarily the curious average man. He should only secondarily be the specialist and/or the high school student." - The "curious average man" is an impossible construct; it also leaves out half of the population. I would like to point out to Atroops that the editors of this page have very carefully considered their audience. It was discussed at the peer review. I was struck with how thoughtful the editor's comments were on that topic; few editors stop to consider their readership so carefully. Perhaps Atroops has neglected to read the peer review? Awadewit | talk 06:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Let us look at the WP:FACR:

1. "It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable."

(a) This article is exceptionally well-written for a wikipedia article.
(b) I cannot comment on the article's comprehensiveness, not being a physicist myself, but Willow has provided us with that assessment.
(c) The article is properly sourced to academic works and even provides references for the curious non-expert. I wish all wikipedia editors were so considerate.
(d) I believe the article to be neutral; no far-flung theories of relativity seem to be here, but Willow can speak to that better than I can.
(e) The article is stable; only minor changes, such as dashes, have been made to the page in the last week or so.

2. "It complies with the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects."

(a) It has an excellent lead.
(b) It has a clear and helpful organizational structure.
(c) Its TOC does not dominate the page.
(d) It has consistent citations.

3. "It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status."

This article has exceptionally helpful images, all of which are in the public domain.

4. "It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)."

For an introduction, this article does an excellent job of balancing detail with summary. I have read many explanations of general relativity for the layman (in popular science books such as The Elegant Universe). This is one of the best I have ever read. Awadewit | talk 06:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to quote from the explanation of "supporting and objecting" on WP:FAC itself: "If you oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''' followed by the reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the FA Director may ignore it."

I would like to suggest that Raul ignore the opposes that do not do this. Objections based on principle do not belong at FAC. You cannot oppose an article because you do not like the idea of it. That way lies censorship. Awadewit | talk 06:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong - there is something that can be done to address the objection, which is to merge the two articles into one single article ont he same topic, which is exactly what I proposed in my initial comment. Just because you are unwilling to address this issue doesn't mean that it cannot be addressed - PocklingtonDan (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I addressed this issue in my opening comments. See WP:MP if you want to propose a merger. This is not the forum for such a discussion. Awadewit | talk 08:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I could be wrong (and would certainly welcome correction) but I doubt that any previous article having reached FA-status so easily submitted to being merged into a lesser article and thus losing the status. Once (if?) this reaches FA and I nominate it to be merged with General relativity in good faith, would these talented editors so easily amputate their accomplishment? We would be having the same conversation, only now perhaps there is more participation and better chance of reaching a consensus (Linus's Law) on whether this is the type of article that should be held as an example for all others to strive for. In my opinion, it is not because we shouldn't encourage spinout topics targeting different audiences (although, different levels of detail, per summary style, is obviously acceptable). Madcoverboy 17:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that the "excellent work [smack], now do it again" aspect of an immediate merger proposal would probably move me to oppose merger, even in the absence of other arguments (which I have laid out on the discussion page). I would ask you to be patient for a few weeks (possibly months); as I said, one of my next goals is to improve the main article general relativity, hopefully to the point of FA status. Once we're there (whether this introduction makes FA or gets shot down on principle, never mind the guidelines), at least the hurdle of merging articles in different stages of development would be removed, and a merger discussion could indeed concentrate on the more fundamental question of "Introduction to...". --Markus Poessel 10:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that opposers of this article seriously consider what they are doing. There are many FAC's that need reviewing. Do they really believe that this page is so detrimental to wikipedia that it should not exist and thus merits this extensive discussion? I cannot see that having two pages on general relativity (one of the most important scientific discoveries of the twentieth century) is really such a problem. Those who want to read a layperson's introduction can read this and those who want a more advanced understanding can read the mathematical article. Who cares that they are not the same article (which would be huge if they were)? Why does this matter so much? If you don't want a technical article, don't read that one. Having both only enhances wikipedia. Please articulate a cogent argument for the harm done with these two articles. I don't see it. Awadewit | talk 08:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It is exactly because there are two pages on the same topic, each pandering to a specific audience that is a problem. As I said before, there is a resignation-cum-consensus (maybe I had that causation reversed in an earlier comment?) on wikipedia owing to systematic bias that it's "ok" to have impenetrable and contextless pages on mathematical and technical minutae, even on the most fundamental topics like this that leads us to the current situation wherein we are writing second articles within an encyclopedia simply to describe the first page of an encyclopedia. It's madness! Madcoverboy 17:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If you believe that the problem is "impenetrable and contextless pages on mathematical and technical minutae", you should support this page and suggest that general relativity be deleted (if you achieve its deletion, this one will be renamed "general relativity"). There is no reason to complain about the more accessible article, is there? Awadewit | talk 22:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I quote from one of the commenters: "This piece strikes a wonderful balance between theoretical literacy and accessibility." I cannot believe that someone who wrote this would want to stand in the way of the article becoming an FA or discourage the writing of other such articles. Awadewit | talk 08:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I still continue to oppose the article on principle because content forking inevitably leads to fiefdoms and incompatibility/contradiction. If the current "General Relativity" page was instead "Mathematics of general relativity" or "Theoretical constructs of general relativity" or some such technical subject and this "Introduction" page was instead the primary "General Relativity" article, I would have absolutely no opposition. I will respond to Markus' comprehensive response in due time on the talk page, but we should absolutely discourage the writing of other such introduction articles and instead focus on improving the original articles. Madcoverboy 17:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a semantic game with no real point. Awadewit | talk 22:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding evidence for my claims above: Here is a link to MIT's introduction to general relativity class. It is a graduate class; there is no "introduction to general relativity" class for undergraduates, only an "introduction to special relativity". Here is some of the knowledge required to take the class: "The course catalog lists 18.03 (differential equations), 18.06 (linear algebra), and 8.07 (electricity and magnetism) as prerequisites. Students should also be familiar with Lagrangians and action principles, Green's functions, and numerical analysis (some homework assignments will require the numerical solution of systems of differential equations)." Awadewit | talk 09:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what argument is being expounded with this evidence, but having been an undergraduate at MIT, allow me to address this hearsay. I can say with certainty that general and special relativity were covered in an introductory manner in 8.01 and 8.02 (intro physics classes required of all MIT undergraduates) and were developed more in 8.03 (Optics & Waves) and 8.033 (Relativity) which are the introductory classes for Physics majors. Likewise, there is an evening seminar for undergraduates entitled 8.224 Exploring Black Holes: General Relativity and Astrophysics. The prerequisites for these classes are Calculus and differential equations, and despite the arcane names, Lagrangians, Green's functions, and numerical analysis are likewise covered in any calc-based physics and DiffyQ class worth its weight. So no, general relativity isn't so complex that even MIT undergraduates couldn't possibly grasp the mathematics. Madcoverboy 17:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Quoting myself from above: "As I understand it, if one graduates with a BS in physics, one still does not understand general relativity very well (if at all); it is a course taken only by graduate students who need it for their subfield." - This is the claim being supported. I recognize that relativity in general is covered in a fleeting manner in 8.01 (I'm watching the lectures as we write) and 8.033, but again please read the statement. My point is that no "introduction to general relativity" class can be taught to undergraduates and the level of mathematics required for it goes beyond the "average curious reader". An entire class on "Introduction to special relativity" can be taught to undergraduates. Are you a physics major, by the way? I would like your opinion on whether or not undergraduate physics majors really understand general relativity - I have repeatedly heard it stated that they do not. Awadewit | talk 22:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

While I do not want to pass judgment on what MIT undergraduates can and cannot possibly grasp, I certainly welcome the support for my claim that an article on gr that meets the needs of beginning undergraduates (one of the sections of Wikipedia's readership) does require technical material (namely calculus and differential equations) that is not accessible to a general audience (the other important section of readership we are talking about here). --Markus Poessel 20:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This whole argument about MIT course materials seems extremely pointless to me. What MIT instructors decide to teach their students should not influence editorial decisions in Wikipedia. And basic calculus is not exactly a specialised field of mathematics. Anyone who studied math in high-school knows what differential equations are, if not special techniques to solve them. What this article needs is more respect for the average readers intellect. The aricle Introduction to special relativity ends at the doorstep of general relativity, by mentioning that the Minowski metric is globally valid only for flat spacetime and that this is extended in GTR by the field equation which can be solved to find the metric tensor (a term that has been intuitively explained earlier in the article as a distance formula, an extension of the Pythagorean theorem) in the space surrounding a given mass distribution. This is quite accessible (once you have read the whole article) and manages to explain something concrete to the reader about GTR in just one line: a perfect starting point for an introduction to general relativity. It allows the reader to leave with an understanding, not simply facts. I don't know the math of GTR, or I'll have tried something similar for this article. Loom91 15:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid that the majority of the population in the United States, anyway, does not know basic calculus (see my examples below). My high school, for example, offered a single course which very few people took. I didn't go to one of those fancy-schmancy suburban high schools with a plethora of mathematics and science courses. Nor do most students, I think. I would like to think that all this article needs is "more respect for the average reader's intellect" (inserting apostrophe), but part of the problem is simply the knowledge you need to begin this article. Many readers will not be able to understand this article (that would include almost all of the freshmen I have ever taught). Might you describe the reader who you think is going to read this page? Awadewit | talk 01:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

How strange! I know that the American education system is more... elementary than most others, but I didn't think that you could get through without ever touching calculus! In India (and in most other countries I'm aware of) calculus of functions of a single real variable (including an introduction to differential equations) is compulsory for all mathematics students in the country. Students of physics additionally have to study some basic vector calculus to deal with electrodynamics. Students of statistics have to study optimisation of functions of several real variables. This means that undergraduate math courses (I'm speaking from the first-year IIT syllabus) start calculus from somewhere close to Taylor expansions.

Here, course material does not vary from school to school. There are many eeducational boards (differing ostly in details of curriculum and standard of examination), but under any one the syllabus is the same in all schools. In addition, students aspiring for one of the more advanced engineering entrance examinations have likely learned more advanced calculus (say at the level of Apostol). Perhaps my perspective is biased and the global situation is not like this, but as far as I know IB students also have to compulsorily study calculus. Loom91 20:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Support and remind FA director that oppositions "on principle" should be ignored because they can not be resolved by edits to the article. BenB4 16:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment (was initially a support, then withdrawn, now supporting under a new section Carcharoth 22:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)) - [support] on principle (does that mean this can be ignored?). Seriously, I read it, I liked it, it was good. Wikipedia shouldn't get too technical, but it should sometimes offer a range of choices for readers. Not a suitable way to treat every subject, but it seems to work well here. Carcharoth 18:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

And about the summary style concerns. I see this article as a spin-off from the main article and part of a series on the topic. See Template:General_relativity. This way of structuring the article series fits and it works. No need to fix it if it isn't broken. Carcharoth 18:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I am mildly concerned though that the description of Eddington's experiment is dumbed down too much. The paragraph links to Tests of general relativity#Deflection of light by the Sun, but the summary in the introduction article fails to say or make clear enough the following: (a) Newton's theories also predict a deflection (half the value predicted in Einsteinian physics); (b) the doubt surrounding Eddington's results; (c) how Eddington's 'results' made the front page of many newspapers and made Einstein and general relativity world-famous; (d) the date and location of Eddington's eclipse observations (29 May 1919), though Tests of general relativity also fails to mention that the observations took place in 1919. Is the rest of the article like this? Withdrawing support for now. Carcharoth 18:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose much of what you are missing in the article has been left out in an effort to try to keep matters as brief as is possible while still conveying the essentials. I'm open to compromise – I have added the Newtonian prediction (it is also mentioned, although not under that name, in a footnote to an earlier section); I have added a cautionary remark that Eddington's results were not that accurate (but accurate enough), plus a reference (Hartl) that gives all the details about how the results were arrived at; I have added the year (and done the same for Pound-Rebka, to keep things balanced), but I have so far refrained from adding the day, month, and the two locations - details at that level are not included for any of the other tests that have been mentioned, and should, in my opinion, be left to the more detailed articles dealing with those tests. I don't know what exactly your ominous question about the rest of the article means – the rest of the article is also kept brief (for better accessibility), and hopefully not dumbed down (although some details are given only in the footnotes, again for better accessibility). If you have any specific concerns, I'll do my best to address them. -- Markus Poessel 17:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

My "ominous question"? It was merely reminding myself to check the rest of the article for things like this. :-) See my more detailed comments below. Carcharoth 11:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly "ominous" then, in the original sense - an omen of much more input to come. Many thanks for your detailed comments, which I will now address in more detail. --Markus Poessel 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments - I like to see proper historical context being provided. It is easy to add little things like this, and it is easy for readers to understand the history - it helps offset the sometimes heavy science explanation bits. Once that's been done, I'll almost certainly support, as the science explanation side of things is fairly good. Here are some more examples of 'missing years', plus some other concerns:

You give GR date as 1916, but fail to say when Newton published his theory. 1687 would be the equivalent publication date for Newton, I suppose. More generally, it is probably worth emphasizing just how long Newton's theory had been around for, and how many centuries of science Einstein was overthrowing (well, overthrowing is overstating it somewhat). It is also worth emphasizing that for everyday situations, Newton's theory is still perfectly adequate.

The reason I did not give the Newton date was that this is, well, an article about general relativity. I was trying to keep the lead as succinct as possible (and still am, in fact). I agree that it might be an improvement so say more about Newton; I have now inserted some information about this into the sections where I think that it fits in well: The beginning paragraph of "From sr to gr", and the beginning of "Observations". --Markus Poessel 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I like to see lead sections, and articles, ending with a few dated statements, allowing the reader to see how up-to-date (or how out-of-date) the article is. If there is a "2007" in there, then the reader knows when the article was written. If it says "2005", then the reader knows that they may need to find out somewhere else what has happened in the last two years.

OK, that seems a good idea. I have inserted a parenthesis into the final paragraph of the lead which shows the observational tests spanning from 1859 to 2006. --Markus Poessel 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"a non-technical introduction to this theory can be found in the article Introduction to special relativity" - I feel there should be a better way to write this, though the self-reference may be unavoidable. This also falls foul of my concern above, that you are shunting people off to read about special relativity, and then expecting them to come back and start again at the point "Soon after, he began to think about how to incorporate gravity into his new relativistic framework." - the reader who has not gone and read the article on special relativity (or its introduction) will wonder what this "relativistic framework" is. Surely it is worth a few sentences to lay the groundwork here for later explanations? If it is not actually necessary to understand special relativity in order to understand general relativity, then don't encourage readers to go and read that article.

This was something that was explicitly suggested in the peer review, but I agree that the result is not optimal in terms of smoothly flowing text. I think it is not necessary to understand special relativity at the level given in Introduction to special relativity to follow this text, beyond what is explicitly said later on (Minkowski and so on). I do not want to leave the link out altogether, but I have moved it to the top of the "See also" section now. --Markus Poessel 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"the privileged ("inertial") observers" - again, you send readers scrabbling for another article (or for chapter 2 of Wheeler), trying to work out what you mean here.

That is a good idea. I was hoping to keep readers from hurrying away by mentioning "inertial" only in quotation marks, but I have now added a few sentences of explanation. --Markus Poessel 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"the second observer's clocks are running faster" - I've always been uncomfortable with this analogy. It implies a technical reason for the clocks running at different speeds. In fact, the clocks are identical and running at the same speed, but time is different for one compared to the other. When someone says "clocks are running faster", someone can easily misunderstand this to mean that if you swap the clocks round, the one running faster is still running faster. In other words, it is not the clocks that are different, but the environment.

In a sense they are running at the same speed, in another sense they are not. Stationary spacetimes have a privileged way of defining coordinate time, and with respect to that time the two clocks are definitely running at different speed; in another sense, they are both running at the same speed "relative to local (proper) time", of course. I've tried to make clearer what is meant here. --Markus Poessel 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Dates reappear in the "From acceleration to geometry" section. "1907", "early nineteenth century", "1850s" and "late 1915". What would be helpful here is saying when Einstein first started working on general relativity. You say "it took Einstein three years", but three years from when? Also "With the help of Riemannian geometry, Einstein formulated a geometric description of gravity" - when was this? Admittedly, the books you are referring to, which are explaining the physics of this, probably don't give dates, so you will need to go to a history book instead, but some of the many biographies of Einstein out there should give these details. The Pais biography (Subtle is the Lord) will probably tell you what you need to know. Incidentially, how do you feel about linking authors in the references when they have Wikipedia articles? John Wheeler and Abraham Pais, for example?

I agree that the current version could use some more concrete dates, and I have added them. From Pais, I gather that Einstein really started about incorporating gravity in 1907 (p. 178), so I will make the "Soon after, he began to think about..." more precise. I've also added some explanation in the footnote; after all, we cannot see inside Einstein's mind. Riemannian geometry: Fixed (the date is now there, but before the elementary geometry; right where it says that Einstein started his search). Reference to Pais has been added as well. As for linking authors in the reference section, what would you liked changed? As far as I can see, both Wheeler and Pais have been wikilinked from quite some time now. --Markus Poessel 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Paraphrasing the doyen of American relativity research, John Wheeler" - this seems a bit over the top to me. Wheeler is well-known enough that you don't need to call him a doyen. Just leave a link to his article for people who want to know more about him, and call him a "US theoretical physicist" or something.

This was in direct response to a point raised in the peer review: Who is John Wheeler, and why should we care what he says? "US theoretical physicist" would answer the first, but not really the second. As far as I can see, it's not over the top, either - Wheeler basically brought general relativity research to the prominence it has now, and going by the PhD genealogies, he really is the granddaddy of American gr. Also, as far as I can tell (and I've talked to quite a number of American relativists as they visited AEI), he is the most respected US relativist in the community, so "doyen" does sound no more than descriptive. --Markus Poessel 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You use the phrase "probing the gravitational field" without explaining what you mean by this. If you mean "test" or "measure" or something more complicated, it would be best to explain this.

You're right; I've changed the first sentence a bit, hopefully it's clearer now. --Markus Poessel 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

At the end of the section "Einstein's equations" you give dates for some of the theories, but not all. Ideally you would put: Einstein's equations (date), then give solutions: Minkowski spacetime (date); Schwarzschild solution (1916); Kerr solution (1963); and Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker solution (1922-1935). OK, that last one looks a bit strange, but some form of historical context is needed. The reader may assume that you have given these solutions in chronological order, but you need to tell them as well.

Einstein's equations have already been dated in an earlier section; so has Minkowski spacetime – I have left out the dates for now (since Einstein's equations are not a solution, I am reluctant to insert a year; Minkowski would be redundant, but in line with the other solutions) and I have tried to find a more elegant way of dating FLRW. The dates should definitely make clear now that the order is not chronological. --Markus Poessel 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The "observations" section could still do with more dates. When were the radio telescope measurements of Mercury done? When were the measurements of Sirius B performed? When was Gravity Probe A launched? When were the quasar measurements (Eddington section) carried out?

Added dates for Mercury, Sirius B, Gravity Probe A, and the quasar measurements. --Markus Poessel 16:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your sentence on Eddington's results. See Predictive_power#Relativity and the 1919 eclipse. That has been marked as unreferenced, but the last I heard there was still enough controversy over this that you can't say Eddington's results were "sufficient to distinguish between the Newtonian and Einsteinian predictions".

Could you be a bit more concrete? I've read the references that I gave, and I have read Eddington's own description, and I have vague collections of some other articles about this. If you can give me a reference that takes into account all that is reliably known about the measurements, but still comes to the conclusion that the result quoted by Eddington was obtained by arbitrary "cherry picking", I will mention that (although it probably belongs in a footnote). --Markus Poessel 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"most recently by the Cassini space probe" - using phrases like "most recently" will date the article horribly in a few years time. Better to give the date when it carried out the experiment.

Well, I do hope to be around here for some time to make little updates. :-) And even if I weren't, someone would hopefully revisit this article whenever there are major developments. Anyway, I have added a year, as well. --Markus Poessel 16:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You mention atomic clocks again. What would be useful here is to mention the very first atomic clock tests of general relativity. When did they take place? I'm thinking here of the ones in high-altitude aeroplanes.

Added names and date. --Markus Poessel 16:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

In the section on the cosomological constant you say "From the late 1990s on". A phrase like this would be useful if you want to summarise the historical context of the various experimental tests of general relativity, rather than painstakingly date all of them.

OK, now that I've painstakingly dated so many at your behest, I've changed this, too. --Markus Poessel 16:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Other attempts to modify general relativity have been made" - do you have any dates for these? Are they recent or do they date all the way back to the 1920s?

Much more recent. I've added dates. --Markus Poessel 17:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

On another point, I sometimes disagree on the dividing line over when to send the reader off to read another article, and when to explain things in this article. I'll point out a few cases in the lead where you link to an article instead of providing a brief explanation in this article: gravitation, space and time. These are examples of articles that a reader should possibly read before this article, though I tend towards the best practice of keeping articles self-contained, and providing links for background information and further reading (astrophysics is a good example of something that doesn't need explaining in this article). To my mind, it is annoying when a reader has to keep reading other articles while trying to read this one, but at the end of the day, you often have to do this with such a complex topic.

I would have hoped that, in those cases, a reader should be able to read on and still understand the arguments set out in the text. I have added a parenthesis for gravitation, but I think the common vague understanding of what space and time are should be sufficient. --Markus Poessel 17:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The ending of the article: you end with the Pioneer anomaly. I think a better ending would be to bring the article as close to the present-day as possible and say what the very latest research and theories are.

OK, I'll change the title of that section and at least add a paragraph indicating what the hot topics are. --Markus Poessel 17:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hope that was helpful! Carcharoth 11:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Eminently so! Proof that there can never be enough sets of carefully scrutinizing eyes. Thanks! --Markus Poessel 17:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking good. I'll try and dig out the Eddington refs later this evening, after which I should be ready to support. Thanks for finding all those dates. Only one problem... This article is now better than History of general relativity! I've also bee reading Golden age of general relativity, which has a fascinating timeline. Maybe something to consider when doing an overhaul of all the relativity related material. Carcharoth 17:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Support - following the discussion above, but without prejudice to a later merge to an FA-standard non-mathematical article at general relativity. Eddington point taken to the article's talk page. Carcharoth 22:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
~~Support~~ ~~on principle~~, the principle being that an article that fully meets the featured article criteria deserves the label. The writing is excellent, with a tone and pacing just right to demystify this topic at an accessible level for an interested, intelligent reader. Furthermore, the article retains exceptional accuracy without resorting to technical digressions. The logical flow in the article may serve as a model to improve and arrange other relativity-related material in the encyclopedia, which frankly, is in some disarray. Tim Shuba 15:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Withdrawing support. Article is not stable and politics of FAC nomination have markedly reduced the quality of the writing. Tim Shuba 21:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Sorry we lost your support - I hope we can get it back. As for stability, I don't think we have an ongoing edit war, and remember that "improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply"! As for markedly reduced quality of writing, I'm optimistic that we're on our way to a version that has at least the quality of the original - please check back a bit later and reconsider! --Markus Poessel 07:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that edits to the article in response to the FAC are explicitly excluded from the stability criteria. I include my own edits among these: I could have complained here first and then fixed my complaints, but I regard this as pointless, and so I simply fixed the issues directly. Geometry guy 20:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  - While I was a bit daunted at first, I find it marvellous that this FAC review has led to the cooperation currently going on on the article's talk page. So far, the discussion is just the opposite of an edit war, it is a steady progression of presenting different viewpoints, reaching consensus, and moving on to the next issue. I can understand if Tim Shuba were to withhold support until the ongoing work there is completed, and I hope (in fact, am confident) that in the end, the quality of writing will be in fact better than when this discussion started. I can also understand if the FAC director chooses not to close this review before the editing over there is completed (although we are closer to consensus here now than I had hoped for). FAC review is meant to make an article better; this review, including the discussion on the article talk page, seems to me to be an excellent example of the kind of improvement you can hope for; I am at a loss to understand how this could possibly be held against the article. --Markus Poessel 20:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Support Excellent. Very relaxing read. I would encourage Markus to write more such introductions if it suits him. This article reminds me of a recommendation at Citizendium.Org that their articles should aim to have lucid highly readable introductions to topics rather than lists of information. This is primarily important when it comes to articles on the hard sciences which are difficult enough to understand as it is.-BillDeanCarter 12:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
~~Oppose~~ Comment. A good article, but I didn't find it very illuminating. A page of solid text without one single equation, not even the field equation! It may be very readable, but ultimately it tells the reader very little concrete about general relativity. It drones on, giving out a lot of pre-digested information (in fact, too much facts for an introduction) without ever trying to explore even superficially the connection between the principles and the results. It makes GTR appear to be a collection of facts, not emphasising understanding enough. Most importantly, it never excites the reader, never makes him gasp as understanding suddenly hit him, never leaves him wondering at the beauty of the universe and physics. I think it could benefit from a dash of the accessible but analytical and explanatory (as opposed to factual) approach employed by Introduction to special relativity. Loom91 12:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, you attribute the principle of equivalence to Einstine, when he was simply restating what Galileo had said in a more primitive form. In fact, the principle is often called Galilean equivalence. Very strange really, when you consider that the principle of relativity in its original form had also been stated by Galileo. Loom91 13:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Einsteine"? Is that a foreign language spelling? I notice that Introduction to special relativity has this spelling of Einstein in many places - could someone do a search-and-replace? Carcharoth 14:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Those typos and others now fixed. Carcharoth 22:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

As for the equivalence principle, please note that there are several of those around. In line with all the literature I'm aware of, I am attributing what is nowadays called the Einstein equivalence principle to Einstein, while you are probably talking about the weak equivalence principle. I'm not sure what you mean by "restating what Galileo had said in a more primitive form" - the Einstein equivalence principle, encompassing as it does all of physics (hence its use in embedding other physical theories, not just mechanics, in general relativit), is much more general than the weak equivalence principle. --Markus Poessel 18:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Galileo showed that all bodies fall at the same rate in a gravitational field. This directly leads to the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass. Einstein phrased this in the more sophisticated, but basically equivalent, form that a constant gravitational field is equivalent to a uniformly accelerated reference frame. I've seen the principle, even in its modern form, called the principle of Galilean equivalence (can't remember where, perhaps something by Penrose). If the literature attributes the prrinciple to Einstein, that's all right then. Loom91 20:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If we were talking about inertial=gravitational mass (or the universality of free fall), that would indeed be wrong to attribute to Einstein. My point is that the Einstein equivalence principle goes much further (and that is important for gr): it includes all laws of physics; otherwise, you couldn't really make any statements about light propagation by using sr, for instance. And you wouldn't get to the heuristic, but quite general "take the laws of sr, replace partial by covariant derivatives" recipe for formulating physical laws in general relativity. --Markus Poessel 22:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The Einstein equation is now in the text, and I have added some explanation of its meaning which attempts to provide some understanding that the theory is not arbitrary. Geometry guy 20:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

On a more general note, I think you and Markus both have valid points, but seem to be taking different approaches to introductory articles. Should introductory articles be a collection of links to other articles (essentially saying to the reader - read this article and those articles to get an idea of what this is all about), or should they be an expanded explanation of existing articles, linking to the articles but also explaining (with diagrams) what is meant? That, to me, seems to be at the heart of your two different approaches. For what it is worth, I did find Introduction to special relativity easier to read, but it did feel more like a textbook than an encyclopedia. Carcharoth 14:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Loom91; it would be much easier to address your objections if you could tell us a bit more what your pronouncements are based on. For instance, as far as I can see, the section "From special to general relativity", makes a coherent argument leading from the universality of free fall via the equivalence of gravity and acceleration, the problem of tidal forces and its resolution via the analogy to the geometry of curved surfaces to Einstein's geometric theory of gravity. Given this, I find it hard to understand how you come by your claim that the article, as it stands, makes GTR to be merely "a collection of facts".

You have told us that the article "drones on" and "never excites the reader": if it were so, it is a grievous fault. Yet more than thrice, earlier reviewers have read the article and have been so kind as to highly praise it, in tones kind enough to suggest that there was something akin to excitement there. Does this sound like an article that never excites "the reader", in general? Yet you say it never excites the reader, and I am, of course, assuming good faith. I write not to disprove what you wrote, but I write what I do know, namely that at least on some readers the article has had the desired effect. Could it that your pronouncement, in this case, is more an expression of your personal dislike, rather than a sentiment that, given the data available, can be attributed sweepingly to "the reader"? Bear with me; my mind is still over there with the article itself and I just remembered I wanted to fix another reference; I will pause and then come back and address the last part of your objection. --Markus Poessel 18:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Talking about a generalised abstract hypothetical reader is an unfortunate by-product of writing literary reviews :-) I was talking about my personal opinions, just like a movie reviewer might talk of the viewer feeling distinctly unsatisfied at the end of the film. Loom91 20:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought as much; just couldn't help pointing it out. My question is: Would you see yourself more as the reader of the "Introduction to..." article, or do you think you might head straight for the main article? It's hard to tell, since we're currently revamping it, but I think that the result would be much more what you're thinking about for your proposed introduction. --Markus Poessel 22:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Coming back, I have now added Einstein's equation, and I think it is an improvement - thanks! As for making the article more like Introduction to special relativity, I think there is a fundamental problem. Special relativity can be formulated (relatively) rigorously using only high-school mathematics (not even calculus). General relativity needs mathematics that is so advanced that even Einstein had to get help (Marcel Grossmann) when developing it, and that a "quick course" in the relevant mathematics is provided as a standard service by general relativity textbook. You can earn a PhD in physics without ever encountering the relevant mathematics in your studies. Given this, I would argue that there is no direct analogy; the mere fact that it works (sort of; cf. textbook character remark) for the present version of Introduction to special relativity should not be taken to mean that general relativity can be presented at the same relative level. If you are basing your faith that such a presentation is possible on anything other than that analogy, I would like to hear your reasons. That said, I am sure that one could add some more mathematics - say, a generalization of Pythagoras theorem to show what "metric components" are. But I do not see that this would tell the reader that much more about the physics of general relativity. On the other hand, I think you gravely underestimate the amount of math that the average reader has at their fingertips (braintips). In my experience, even Pythagoras' theorem will make many people switch off and lose interest. Why are books like those of Brian Greene so popular, while the valuable book of Schutz (2003), which does attempt something like you have in mind (but takes 400 pages to make it work, and even then does merely skim the edges of the real mathematical formalism) doesn't get rave reviews in the popular press? In my opinion, that is indicative of the fact that most people will find a presentation that goes easy on the math more accessible than one that requires them to unearth formulae they have never thought about after high school. I am not making a value judgment – it's the same reason that so few people read French or Spanish books in their original language, even though, in reading English language editions, they can be sure that a number of subtleties will have gotten lost in translation. I would be happy if those reviewers that were satisfied with the present version could give is information about how much more math they think could have been added without compromising accessibility. --Markus Poessel 19:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Since GTR is a geometric theory of spacetime, couldn't just a little bit of the math explained in intuitive visual terms? I'm thinking about metric tensors here, though I hope a few other parts could be given the same treatment. Math != equations. Saying matter curves spacetime -> sloppy pop science writing that gives the reader a false sense of understanding without saying anything concrete. Saying the field equations can be solved to give a quantitative measure of how the presence of mass distorts the way we measure in distance in flat space (explain briefly the evolution Pythagoras -> Minowski -> GTR) and what straight lines actually mean -> intelligent, accessible writing that may take two instead of one reading but is actually saying something. Note that I'm not saying the example of sloppy writing is the one being used in the article, only that it could do with a little more leaning towards the second.

I realise that I'm not being very concrete here, that's a disability. I wouldn't object if Raul disregarded my oppose. As for your statement about Pytahgoras's theorem, I find that hard to believe. Where I live, a person would probably be laughed at if he couldn't say the theorem. That's almost as basic as you can get. Even if it's true in USA (which seems to be a land of mathophobics), we need to ask ourselves: when writing about an undeniably mathematical and difficult topic like GTR, do we really want to cater to an audience that won't understand Pythagorass theorem? That section on from SR to GTR seems like a section the article should be based on, instead of looking like one of those sideboxes "containing more advanced material for interested students".

Implementing what I'm thinking of may require a fundamental restructuring though. Suddenly, the ridiculous suggestion of two different introductory articles is not looking that ridiuclous anymore. What's the disadvantage in letting readers choose and pick what works best for them? Loom91 20:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If you look more closely, there is more math (in terms of non-equations) there than in many popular science books. While it doesn't go as far as Pythagoras (I think you're still too optimistic about that), it does try to explain the metric by using the simple image of a sphere, and the fact that 30 degrees different in longitude do not always mean the same distance. As for the two different introductory articles, as I said above, I think the main article might head a bit more in the direction you're looking for than this "Introduction to...". It's currently being reworked; once it's done, there might not be the need for another introductory article like you're envisioning (but I'm sure there still will be the need for the introductory article we're currently discussing).

As for the audience, it's always encouraging to hear about math-friendly countries, but what you say about "do we really want to cater to...." - yes, I think we should! Those people's money is paying for a lot of research on the subject; there *are* aspects of general relativity that can be fascinating (sadly not to you, but that's may be because you have too much previous knowledge) without all but a basic notion of pictorial geometry, and even people who shudder when they think about high school math can be interested in cosmology and the question of where it all came from, in black holes and some of the most energetic phenomena in the universe, and, by implication, in the theory that made all that possible - general relativity. I can understand if you say the resulting article is not for you, but I'd like to ask you to take a step back and try to take a look through a different set of eyes. You're not a literary critic on this, you're part of a peer review process that is based on certain, specific criteria: Is the prose professional (we certainly don't want poor grammar, or articles that read like bad middle school essays)? Is the article reasonably comprehensive (and please don't read too much about this - leaving out Pythagoras is a matter of the level of presentation; leaving out the metric altogether might still be debatable; leaving out black holes would be unforgivable)? Reliable sources? Stable? Manual of style compliant (after all the hours spent on chasing the right kind of dashes, it better be)? Images? Proper length? This isn't about inspiration and about whether the article touches your soul (though that would be nice, and I am sad to hear of anyone - like you - who finds it boring and side-bar-ish; I hoped that readers with previous knowledge would at least appreciate how the article deals with many things that, in dumbed-down texts, are often not quite right - the relation of the bending of light to the equivalence principle, stuff like that). This is more about craftsmanship, albeit on a very high level. If, leaving aside your personal gut feeling and your inner literary critic, you think that the article shows bad craftsmanship, then by all means oppose. If not, even though you have a vague feeling of disappointment, I would ask you to consider changing "Oppose" to "Comment"; your different philosophy for writing an article like this would be noted, but the craftsmanship aspects acknowledged. And I'd certainly like to invite you to head over to the main article general relativity and join the bunch of us who have started re-working it. This is where I think the kind of basic-math-based explanation (such as the metric with generalized Pythagoras) might well find a proper place. --Markus Poessel 22:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

As you say, a personal feeling of disappointment and disagreement over target audience is probably not sufficient grounds to oppose. I change to comment. That leaves you with inanimous support (except Opposes on principle). Good job! My knowledge of GTR is severely limited, so I fear I could contribute little to the article, particularly since specialists in the subject must surely be working there. I will try to help out with accessibility issues. But won't the main article be the place to discuss differential topology, pseudo-Riemannian manifolds and other such esoteric what-nots rather than provide the basic, intuitive mathematical description I was proposing? Loom91 12:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for changing to "comment"! I am not sure how the main article will develop; the current consensus is that it should go easy on the more complicated formulae (there is an additional article "Mathematics of general relativity" for that), but it is, of course, going mention the more advanced concepts (and the necessary technical terms - comprehensiveness!); my hope is that at least some of what you were proposing (e.g. an image explaining generalized Pythagoras to motivate talk about the metric) can fit in there. It would still not be a systematic introduction at that level like Introduction to special relativity (and for general relativity, as I said, I'd think that kind of introduction is simply not possible - unless you go book-length, perhaps). We'll have to see how it works out - at the moment, my main concern is to get some sections written and well-referenced, but afterwards there will surely come a phase where your input on accessibility would be greatly appreciated. --Markus Poessel 12:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Addressable oppose. Great work, guys, but the image in the lede is unintelligible without explanation and saying that it is a "simulation based on the equations of general relativity" doesn't help much. The legend on the picture is just about too small to read and what's that tiny squiggly graph supposed to tell me? If we want a picture that really explains something to the reader this needs to be addressed. If we want an eye-candy picture then others would be better - for example the one in the lede of General relativity. Haukur 15:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I explained the picture using the caption at the image page. Carcharoth 15:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Thank you, that was quick and indeed an improvement. I still feel the image is a bit small, but okay. Haukur 15:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    - How about this new version? Following an off-the-record I received about the image possibly being a bit overwhelming, and taking my cue from Madcoverboy's proposed merged version, I've now taken the Cassini picture as a lead (and put Gravity Probe B where Cassini used to be). Is this better? --Markus Poessel 15:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
      - (As you might guess, I'm trying to gently persuade you to change your struck-out addressable oppose to a "Support"! --Markus Poessel 15:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
        
        I like the Cassini image. I still haven't read the article all the way through so I don't feel comfortable writing a "Support"! :) Haukur 21:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment on Edit 1 I have tried my hand at merging the two articles at ~~User:Madcoverboy/Sandbox/General relativity~~General relativity (BE BOLD!). I also put merge tags on both pages. I don't purport to be an expert, merely an educated user/reader/editor. I believe this version retains the technical literacy of the current general relativity page with the readability of the introduction. Obviously it could use a copy and fact check by an expert, but this is meant as a proof of concept that the main article can still be accessible without having to employ condescending/didactic assumptions about the reader requiring a second article to explain the first.Madcoverboy 18:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the basic flaw in your thinking is assuming that general relativity was already as it should be, as a higher-level main article. It isn't, and that's why your gesture might be bold, but it's not a proof of principle. I indicated earlier in this discussion that I was willing to put work into bringing it to the stage where a fair comparison (namely of a good introduction and a good main artice) should be possible, intended to do so, and that it should make matters clearer. You didn't bother to reply, and forged ahead. As also indicated in the discussion, there are "Introduction to..." + main article pairs where the comparison is less skewed, for instance Evolution and Introduction to Evolution, where the more technical of the two articles is in very good and the less technical one in good shape. You did not choose to make an example of those; instead, you chose the less suitable example. I know I should assume good faith, but it's getting hard. Let go of your anger! Tempting the dark side is. --Markus Poessel 20:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Although it may seem like "I have it out for this FAC (or you)" I am acting in the utmost good faith that the consensus "force" that is with me. I continue to assert that by electing Introduction to general relativity to FA-status, we are setting the precedent for electing future "introduction" articles when myself and other editors have expressed well-founded doubts about the merits of content forks (defining the audience, codifying the "introductory" style, selecting appropriate analogies/examples, cross-checking claims, grappling with verifiability/citations between articles). I certainly don't mean to sound alarmist, but I see these good-faith "Introduction" articles as the first step down a slippery slope whereby important/essential wikipedia content becomes ghettoized with some articles intended for some audiences and exclusive of others WP:BIAS. Although I didn't quite have the time in the last 2 days to change every single "introduction to" article, I was bold in editing this one since I was already so immersed in the material. Moreover, if GR was not already as it "should be" why is/was it rated an A-class article by two separate projects? I continue to believe that the primary pages can be written to appeal to the non-specialist/generalist while still retaining value as a scientific reference by judicious use of summary-style and linking to sub-articles as is already done (EFE, mathematics of general relativity, various solutions of EFE, etc). The reason, I believe, we are at loggerheads is because you would have the "Introduction" article be the first article read by a generally educated reader whereas I see no reason why "GR" couldn't be the same. Madcoverboy 20:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Madcoverboy, do you think you could maybe look at Genetics and Introduction to genetics? That is a better candidate for merging than this one. Maybe you could even undo your merger and let Markus see if he can achieve his aim for General relativity and Introduction to general relativity? Carcharoth 21:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no clear idea of how project-rating works - is it a single editor's decision? If yes, you should ask him or her. Reverse question: If all was as it should be, why did it fail its last FA candidacy? That certainly indicates a consensus for the need for improvement. Why does it have an impressive to-do list? I know that Introduction to general relativity was also rated A by the Math project, and that I then spent a sizeable amount of time and effort to bring it to its current state. As for the consensus being with you, don't forget that you are opposing on personal principle something that is allowed by a guideline, which has by definition been developed "through the consensus of many editors". It's frustrating enough seeing this article in danger of being shot down on principle – just as many others here, I joined since I enjoy creating content; I was aware that there were also guidelines to be followed; while I believe that content quality should always be more important than formal considerations (WP:IAR tells me I'm not alone), I was (and am) more than willing to follow these guidelines, and to make improvements in response to helpful suggestions. I didn't expect that someone would choose this article to make a steadfast last stand on some supremely important general principle, and that I would suddenly find myself in a classic Catch-22 situation where the only way to address an oppose would be to withdraw the candidacy. I was certainly not prepared (and OK, may be that was naive on my part) for being sucked into discussions where the article's content suddenly became completely irrelevant (and half hating myself for rising to the bait — as I'm doing now, come to think of it). All of the above would have been bad enough if it had been happening to demand compliance with a principle laid down somewhere in the guidelines or policies, clearly and unambiguously, or even almost clearly and more unambiguously than not. Talk about irony: all of this for a principle that is in direct opposition to an agreed-upon guideline? — OK, enough whining on my part. As I wrote on the talk page of that article, I'd like to see this as an opportunity to bring the main article general relativity to FA status; once that is done, we can have a look back and see whether we do need an "Introduction to..." or not. --Markus Poessel

I understand your frustration Markus and I would be similarly miffed if I was in your position. Since you are committed to both improving the GR article as well as revisiting this Intro article when (if?) GR hits FA, I'll relent. Per the discussion on Talk:General relativity, let's focus on bringing the main GR page to FA, and re-evaluating the need for this article to be merged then. In the meantime, this exclusionist Grinch will go off and kill all the other intro articles. ;) Madcoverboy 00:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, and I apologize for casting ever-so-slight aspersions on your good faith. I hope your skeptical "if?" is too pessimistic. --Markus Poessel 08:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Those editors who believe that a general introduction to general relativity for the layperson can easily be blended with a sophisticated, mathematical article would do well to look at this survey. The National Science Foundation does a "scientific literacy" survey each year (these results are then compared with Europe in the study). These are the most recent results (I believe). One interesting fact: fewer than half of the Americans surveyed knew that an electron was smaller than an atom. This kind of information should help keep us grounded, I believe, and keep us from assuming too much about the reader. Obviously, a self-selecting readership will come to this article, presumably one that is a bit more educated than this survey, but it is a good benchmark to start a conversation with. Other interesting results to look at are the math scores of high school and college students on standardized tests. Anyone who has seen those will know why books like The Elegant Universe don't use much, if any, mathematics. Awadewit | talk

Actually, the more I think about this, the more I think that the main article on general relativity should avoid mathematics, with all the mathematics shunted to a daughter article. I strongly oppose the idea that the main article on general relativity should go into any substantive detail about the mathematics. Carcharoth 22:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That is absurd; any article on general relativity without the mathematics is castrated. As I am repeatedly told by friends and books, mathematics is central to physics. I quote from a lay introduction to the Standard Model, Bruce A. Schumm's Deep Down Things: "To be deeply interested, however, does not mean to be steeped in the formal content, mathematically or scientifically, of physics. In particular, I presume little in the way of mathematical background--just some very basic notions of algebra and the concept of orders of magnitude. It is impossible, though, to elicit the critical notions of the theory of particle physics without an involved discussion of the mathematics that underlies it. The beautiful connection between the worlds of the mathematician and the physical scientist is one of the most interesting threads we'll follow and one for which there is precious little material available to non-professionals. That the abstractions of higher mathematics bear some relation to the physical world--in fact, seem to lie at the very heart of its order and operation--is one of the most profound revelations of the modern era." (2-3) There is no reason why we cannot have one article that loses "one of the most profound revelations of the modern era" by necessity ("Introduction") but also one that retains it ("General relativity"). Let us not pretend that an article on general relativity denuded of its mathematics would explain much at all; such an article should be titled "Introduction to general relativity" since that is what it is. Awadewit | talk 22:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

So what is the purpose of Mathematics of general relativity and Introduction to mathematics of general relativity? Are you saying that general relativity = mathematics? Where does that leave History of general relativity and Golden age of general relativity and Tests of general relativity? Not to mention all the articles in Template:General relativity. All of the articles I've mentioned can be written about with a minimum of mathematics. Would you include those in an article on general relativity, reducing the mathematical content to a small section, and if so, why not make that small section a summary of Mathematics of general relativity? Carcharoth 23:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am saying that you cannot understand general relativity without mathematics. This has been stated in numerous "popular" books that I have read. Ask a physicist. I'm sure that they will agree with me. Awadewit | talk 23:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The separate articles are clearly more specialized; I would not expect them to be as accessible and I see no reason to merge them. And, by the way, what do you mean "a minimum of mathematics"? That "introduction to mathematics of general relativity" is a joke; that may be "introductory" to a minute portion of the population, but it isn't to even the "average, educated, curious reader," in my opinion. I think that I speak for many humanities people (the world is divided in half, isn't it?) when I say that the last time we did any significant math was in high school. Thus, the extent of my mathematical knowledge is theoretically early calculus, although I only vaguely remember that. With such a dim memory of high school mathematics, it is impossible for me to understand these articles without learning material that might take me months or perhaps years (I have another life, too). I am not going to do that to read one article. I am interested in science, but I haven't yet taken the plunge to learn the math necessary to really understand it. Also, I think that you greatly underestimate the fear of math, at least among students in the United States. It begins early: elementary school teachers spend less time on math than any other subject, because they don't like it and don't really understand it. I demand that my freshmen composition students figure their own grades (if I give them a 35 out of 50 on an assignment, for example, I won't tell them what percentage it is) - they cannot do those basic functions. I, who know nothing about teaching math, have had to teach students how to do this. I even taught area once, to a group of students studying for their "scary" midterm in some obviously remedial math class. Many people are frightened by math and including any equations at all in an article will scare people away from the page. This is true even of people who read popular science books - they want something easy to understand, to read on the airplane, say. I doubt that readers coming to wikipedia for an "introduction to general relativity" are going to spend hours decoding the page if it contains equations. It is already getting to be a mite technical and long. Awadewit | talk 23:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Carcharoth, the answer to your question ("general relativity = math?") is basically yes, with only a few qualifications. Someone once said physics is a subject locally isomorphic to mathematics. To Awadewit, I find it frankly unbelievable that undergraduate students can't calculate percentage. Surely you are exaggerating? Even if that was true (my mind boggles even at the possibility, I can safely bet that I would be extremely hard pressed to find an adult who couldn't calculate the percentage of 35 out of 50 in their mind), should we really be aiming at that population? I think readers like you should be the standard (that is, we should set a dim knowledge of calculus as the minimum prerequisite). The concept of tensors can be introduced using vectors and matrices as the basis, and the elementary concepts of tensor calculus built up by restricting ourselves to a particular coordinate system and defining differentiation component by component. The concept of metric tensor can be derived from Pythagoras's theorem (which is actually a metric tensor itself). Curvature can be explained by starting from a bell-shaped curve and then generalising to 4 dimensions. Anyone with the inclination to really understand and a grounding in high-school math (as opposed to the man who only wants to flatter his ego and boast to his friends by reading some cheap pop sci book) could make it through such a treatment without suffering nervous breakdown. Loom91 11:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: I am not exaggerating about the percentage thing - it has happened numerous times, unbelievably enough (one person asked me what 90 out of 100 was). I swear on my wikipedia user account. :) I have seen even worse, though, sadly. Two stunners: a student who didn't know the difference between "throne" and "thrown" and a student who thought slavery ended one generation ago (and I don't mean metaphorical slavery of any kind, I mean the enslavement of blacks in the U.S.). I could go on and on in this vein, and so could anyone who teaches college students, I think; my experiences are not atypical, as far as I know (I am at a major state university in the US). Like I said in one of my postings, obviously the readers of this article are going to be self-selecting to an extent, but even so, we need to determine just how much those special readers are going to know. Grasping the "average" knowledge of a regular old person (such as in that NSF survey) gives us a place to start. I mean, I thought 99.99% of the people surveyed would at least know that the earth went around the sun. Not so - only around 70%, I believe. I'm afraid that under your system, I would not qualify as a reader for this article. My memory of high school calculus is so dim, that I don't think I could use it (imagine a language you learned in high school and never used again - that is what calculus is like for me - a shady memory - things look familiar, but I don't remember what to do with them anymore). I have been working on understanding vectors for several days now, but I have not come very far. The thing is, you cannot pile so many new concepts on readers at once. In the space of 30 to 60 minutes (let's say I took that much time to read this article - a staggeringly long time, by the way), under your outline, I would have to learn what a vector is, what a metric is, what a tensor is, and try to comprehend four dimensions (along with all of the other stuff in the article). That is a lot of work; while some people would be willing to do it, far more, I think, will give up. Which is better - to have more readers make it through the article with less understanding or to have a few of them gain a more precise understanding? I can see why you would vote for "fewer readers" and "more understanding", but as wikipedia is trying to convey knowledge to everyone, I vote for less understanding and less frustration; we are not a textbook. :) I think that it is useful to note that all of the popular science books I own (many, I don't know the exact number) stop at algebra or maybe a little trigonometry. I think that the same people who buy The Elegant Universe are going to be interested in this page. Apparently, most of the authors of those books think calculus is too advanced or not well-known enough to use it in their books. (Roger Penrose is the exception, but I don't really believe that his book is meant for lay people, even though he says it is.) Loom91, I share your desire to educate the reader and your desire to "raise the bar" as it were, and I attempt to do so in my classroom every day, but it is possible to raise the bar too high and have everyone come crashing down with you. I have horrible visions now of trying to explain a section of J. S. Mill's On Liberty to a class of freshmen - it haunts my dreams. Awadewit | talk 12:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

How sad! As a sidenote: it is not meaningful to say that the Earth goes around the Sun. You could just as easily say the Sun goes around the Earth. I also don't think Penrose is for the laymen, it's frighteningly dense to anyone who is not consulting references as he reads. Coming to the point, the dilemma you refer to is one faced by high-school physics teachers here. As they face a new batch of students who have just reached the eleventh grade, they need concepts of basic differential calculus right form the start, but the students are not going to reach that stage in math for a few more months. The solution they usually adopt is to forget the math teacher and teach calculus themselves. That takes time though (article space in case of WP) and is probably inaapropriate for WP. What if we defined the term derivative as the rate of change? That sounds tame enough. Loom91 12:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sidenote: I believe that the survey respondents thought we lived in an Earth-centered galaxy. The point there is, what is most important to know - that it doesn't really matter from which reference you discuss orbits, or that the ancients were wrong and Copernicus/Galileo were right? I would go with, again, best to know that the Earth isn't at the center of the galaxy. :) Moving on, I thought that all physics taught math alongside itself? All of my roommate's physics books begin with some sort of review, most often of mathematical subjects necessary for the book (I was just perusing the description of vectors and tensors in his classical mechanics book). "Rate of change" sounds fine, but I would really need to see it context. Awadewit | talk 12:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong support. Not only does it satisfies all the FA criteria, I believe it is a prime example of what is meant by well-written as "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard." Rather than discourage people from writing articles like this, we should be encouraging and so elevate the article to FA status. I don't see any problem with stability. In any case, it's a shame that some of the discussion here has led to actions like a merge request, which was obviously going to be rejected (and has been), and led to perceived stability issues and one subsequent withdrawal of support. --C S (Talk) 22:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ready to support plus comments. Like many others here, I have been surprised by the objections to this FAC on the grounds that it is an "Introduction" article. Let me offer a few of my own observations.
- I find it helpful to view Wikipedia not as a monolithic encyclopedia, but as a family of nested and overlapping encyclopedias: if WP is to become the "sum of all human knowledge", it must be this way, since general encyclopedias certainly are not. A general encyclopedia and (say) an encyclopedia of physics will contain different levels of detail. Sometimes WP can reconcile these differences, through summary articles, but sometimes introductions are needed. We can (and have to) be flexible about this.
- Take a look at Category:General relativity, which has 12 subcategories and at least 10 further significant subsubcategories: this is a vast field. General relativity is the main article for this category, and must survey the field in order to be broad in its coverage. It is currently 60kB long, despite being written in summary style, with (I counted) fourteen subarticles. The article must be mathematically technical in one or two places for completeness reasons (as discussed previously, this is a very mathematical subject), but this is not the main reason that it will overwhelm the lay reader: it is overwhelming because the topic is so vast. To suggest merging an introduction into this vast overview is ridiculous; this is exactly the kind of topic where a separate introduction, which focuses on the key points, is essential.
- Not all knowledge is easy to understand. There are some who object to technical FAs, or even technical articles in general. I accept there is a debate to be had about whether, or how often, technically difficult FAs should appear on the main page, but if WP is to fulfil its mission, then there is no question in my mind that it will include top quality articles of a technically difficult nature (and it already does). Instead the goal should be to make every article as accessible as possible, given the content. "Introduction" articles are no excuse for not making "main" articles as accessible as possible. This does not imply that "Introduction" articles should not exist where they are needed.
- There have been suggestions that this article cannot be broad in its coverage because it is an "Introduction". Let me remind them that the title determines the coverage: this article needs to be cover everything that a good "Introduction to general relativity" would cover.

I read through the article entirely and found it remarkably thorough. I had some criticisms, but rather than complain about them, I have fixed them myself. The edits coming out of this FA candidacy are now being assimilated into the article. Once they are, I am confident I will be able to give it my full support. Geometry guy 20:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 01:59, 24 July 2007.

[edit] Ailanthus altissima (Tree of heaven)

Most of the work was done by User:Djlayton4. I was asked to review this with an eye for FAC. I did, and ended up adding some extra material myself. I now think we're ready for another not-so-obscure plant FA. (And yes, I hope to present a non-weedy FAC at some point). Circeus 22:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

~~Support~~ Oppose. I had a misgiving about the fact that not every sentence is supported by a reference, ~~but it seems that this is a limitation of Cite.php in that~~ reference 2 supports most of the article, with 21 mentions. To address this, one would have to use referencing approaches dating from before Cite.php, and that's probably a worse evil than not having each sentence referenced (because those earlier approaches are less informative for the editor, and more breakable). Spamsara 22:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- As it is, in several cases, entire paragraphs (e.g. the last of "medicine") are covered by a single citation. Other than that though, it's really not clear to me what you mean. I could understand a request for more specific reference, but that is not exactly possible for internet documents, and as far as I know, all book references used include page numbers. Circeus 23:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  - There are two problems with that. a) how are people supposed to know that the reference covers the entire paragraph; b) someone will eventually come along and move the sentences around, and then it will no longer be obvious what was originally used to support what, except for sentences that originally were at the end of a paragraph. Spamsara 04:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    - The former is used in a number of FAs, and tediously adding a ref for every sentence makes the article almost illegible without actually removing the second issue, which is a liability of all referencing styles, without exception.Circeus 04:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
      - I've now opposed because I think that on closer inspection, it is quite a problem, and page numbers should be cited for each sentence to prevent article decay. Spamsara 04:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
        
        We can't "cite page numbers" for HTMl documents, and all the book references include page references.I fail to see how this is actionable. Circeus 05:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
        
        Because on closer examination, it turns out that Cite.php can cope with more than 26 citations for the same reference. So there's no problem with citing the reference for each sentence it supports. The clutter can be dealt with at a technical level - a feature request has been filed already. Spamsara 06:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
        
        Thanks for your suggestion, but I can't understand what you think the article would gain by having every sentence cited. It's standard practice in professional journals as well as Wikipedia to place a citation at the point where information from a particular source stops. Furthermore, there is no standard Wikipedia policy that supports your suggestion to be found in either Wikipedia:Citing sources or Wikipedia:Footnotes. I've checked the style guide for Nature and it also does not recommend citing every line, but it does place an explicit limit on the number of references. If you can find a good precedent for this practice, then I would be obliged to follow, but regardless I think it would be overkill. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 10:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
        
        In my opinion, FAs should have at least two citations per paragraph, in addition to having contentious statements and direct attributions cited. However, on per sentence is both unwieldy and unnecessary. Tim Vickers 18:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Support. I passed this at GAC and its tightened up and evolved nicely since then. Great work on a godawful weed. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe this article is not written from a NPOV. The article seems to be written from the POV that the tree of heaven is "a godawful weed". Wiki skylace 06:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Support ~~Comment~~ This is a very well written and informative article. ~~Just a couple of things that I've noted:~~

~~Opening paragraph: What is meant by: "An unusual member of the genus Ailanthus"~~

~~Cultivation: " Michael Dirr, a well-respected American horticulturalist": I agree but POV wording?~~ --Melburnian 07:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It means exactly what it says; that Ailanthus altissima is an unusual member of its genus for the reasons that follow that phrase (i.e. its non-tropic range). I suppose the wording could be seen as awkward, but I was going for sentence variation such that it wasn't a list that sounded like: "It is this. It is this also. It is this as well. etc.". I feel that in its current state it is perfectly understandable, but if you can improve upon it or can make a suggestion for its improvement, please do.

I also changed the second sentence to its current state. Before it read something like, "One writer notes...", but I felt that that didn't really speak to the fact that Dirr is practically the garden tree guru in the eyes of most gardeners. I also added "American" to make it clear that the unpopularity discussed is specific to the US in this case, as the tree is still used (and I can personally say it looks quite handsome) in northern European gardens. If you have a suggestion to improve the sentence, I'd be happy to change it, but as of this moment I can't think of a way to alter it without it losing some of its meaning. Perhaps we could replace "well-respected" with "eminent" or "important" or "celebrated" or "widely-published", but those all sound a bit non-neutral. Thanks for your comments Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 07:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

How about for the first: Unlike other members of the genus Ailanthus, it is found in temperate climates rather than the tropics. and for the second: Michael Dirr, currently professor of horticulture at the University of Georgia, reported that in 1982... (or something similar that shows his status without a value judgement).--Melburnian 08:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- I changed to "a noted American horticulturalist and professor at the University of Georgia", is that better? Circeus 15:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Both look better to me now. Thanks for the suggestions Melburnian and thanks for the fix Circeus. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 18:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If you look at WP:APT (phrases to watch for) generally adjectives promoting the persons notability are best avoided. "Noted" is very mild, but I still think it falls in this category, but that's just my opinion, and others may not be concerned. Thanks for amending the first paragraph, it takes out a hiccup in the all-important opening. Overall, I think that this is an excellent article, and I support its promotion to FA status.--Melburnian 01:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose The article is not neutral. It is heavily biased towards calling the plant a noxious weed. Such designations should be in a law/government section or an appendix, and should not drive the whole discussion about a species. Wikipedia should have global application and not be specific to one particular region. The article is not factual for example it says that it grows extensively along railroads, but goes on to say that it only occupies 1.7% of railways. I wouldn't call that extensive or factual. What does it mean for a plant to "spread aggressively"? Or to be "very difficult to eradicate"? This kind of language has more to do with opinion and conjecture than with fact. The article is not stable. It contains way to much opinion and bias to remain in it's current state. Wiki skylace 00:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Wiki, your NPOV warring over this issue has earned you a block. The article (and the plant's status and opinions about it) are very well referenced, so I fail to see the issue here. Circeus 20:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Support - good article that covers the subject. Contrary to the above oppose the article only discusses the invasive nature of the plant in a few sections (intro, distribution and a line in culture), and does so neutrally. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Support - after reading through the article several times, I can easily say this is FA material. The conflict from the above user's claims of POV in the article has only increased my confidence that this article presents a NPOV. It draws from a variety of sources and presents important factual information regarding its botanical history and cultivation and is extremely well-rounded. --Rkitko ^(talk) 20:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Support Well written, accurate, and the standard seems to be that if the nominator is working on it, it should be promoted--and Circeus is one of our best editors, who actually works to understand the issues other editors have with articles. KP Botany 04:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 01:59, 24 July 2007.

[edit] Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision

Respectfully submit this article about a ship collision between a United States Navy submarine and a Japanese fishing training ship for FAC review. The article has been through a peer review [15] and A-class review [16] with WP:MILHIST. Cla68 14:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Support per nom. Well-written and well-sourced. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment Some measurements are missing metric equivalents. Epbr123 18:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- The only missing measurement I could find in the article was one weight reference and that has now been converted. Cla68 21:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  - "towed back out to sea suspended about 90 feet below the towing barge, and scuttled in 8,500 ft (2,600 m) of water 16.5 miles south of Barbers Point" Epbr123 21:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
    - Oops. Fixed. Thank you. Cla68 02:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Support, perfect. AW 03:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Support - Very well sourced and balanced. John Smith's 11:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Support — The only quibble I had was addressed in the A-list review. Awesome work. JKBrooks85 01:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Support Great article, well referenced and engaging read. One minor quibble. In the first sentance of the article, Ehime Maru was unitalicized. This was a minor fix so I did it myself. Good job,. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Support Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Support An excellent article --Nick Dowling 10:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 20:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Soviet invasion of Poland (1939)

I just realized that this A-class article is quite up to our FA-class standards. So, without further due - please take a look and comment. Partial self-nom.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Update. All interested editors should find Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_July_13#Image:German_Soviet.jpg discussion interesting: Unnecessary unfree image showing Soviet and German officers meeting, doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text... Feel free to comment there.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Prima facie, Piotrus, I have a few comments and suggestions (which, you will note, I do not use as a means to validate an "oppose" vote). One thing I noticed is that the lead section is immense, and gets lost in the details without clarifying, in a clear succession, the essentials (who, what, where). I have made small edits to clarify some of that, but didn't want to risk harming the flow. You can address this yourself by simply condensing the paragraph about the Molotov Pact to a sentence or two (what it was and what it meant for the invasion; perhaps + Poland argued not to have existed any longer), and expanding on it in the "Prelude" section. There also appears to be some overlinking going on, and it seems that terms used tend not to be linked the first time they appear in the text, but in some unusual manner (the second, third, fourth times...), which gives the impression that the text is uncopyedited. The pictures could do with some rearrangement (I have to say it matters less that a pic and its corresponding text do not fall next to each other in the text, than that they cram the text from each side and turn it into a narrow column).

Overall: congrats for what looks to be like a well-referenced and valuable article. Dahn 20:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Added: also, I don't think that giving links to pages found on the google book search is appropriate or desirable. Dahn 21:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I will have a go at copyediting the lead tonight. But I must say that I don't agree that it is immemse, because a good lead tends to have three or four paragraphs and act as a summary of the article, which this does. All the same, I think some details of the pact and of the later history of Belarus and Ukraine can be removed without too much loss. I've carried these edits out.qp10qp 11:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I will let Qp10gp, a native speaker, take care of copyeditng. As for the lead, I think that the size is ok and fits WP:LEAD, but if you or others can cut something out, go right ahead. Also, feel free to rearrange the pics if you think some are unnecessary or are in the wrong section, they look fine on my screen. PS. As for Google Print links, I find them very useful - could you elaborate on your criticism of them?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 14:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Some issues I raised still stand: the format is messy (for example, "Poland" is not linked in the lead section, but it is repeatedly linked just lines apart in the body of text), and what about the use of google books links? I would rearrange the pictures (I notice that one is so crammed that, in my settings, it hides part of the text), but that is not an objection (neither are my other comments). Dahn 22:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If you could give more examples like with Poland, it would be appreciated, but mind that the article is constantly being tweaked. And what about the google book links?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It's mostly minor stuff, that could easily be corrected - for example, there is at least one instance where "Ukrainians and Belarusians", linked thusly, follows a sentence where both words are present and unliked; at the moment, one of the photo captions is not in correct English; portions of the text are a bit repetitive. I'm aware of it eing constantly tweaked - which is why I commented instead of copyediting (the risk for an edit conflict was just too high); this may be a problem in itself, since the article is supposed to be stable at the moment it passes FA.

About google books: I remember their direct quotation being discussed in another article, but I reviewed the discussion and it seems that people agree links can be used (as long as they do not replace the citation). So I was wrong on that one. Personally, I would recommend not using as sources those that one has not reviewed completely or significantly (solely relying on what the search will provide), but that is another matter altogether, and does not at all invalidate your fine efforts for sourcing.

I should add: from a political point of view, as far as I can tell, the article is very close to perfection if not already there; objections against it on such grounds are trivial and probably spiteful. However, I still think the text needs significant copyedits. Dahn 22:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Both Image:German Soviet.jpg and Image:Davidlowrendezvous.png are fair use tagged images lacking fair use rationales for use in this article. Further, since neither image is discussed inline in the article, the justification rationale would seem to be flimsy, as there's nothing for the images to contribute to within the text of the article. The article works fine without the images. --Durin 21:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As a side note: isn't Image:German Soviet.jpg PD in Germany at least? I honestly don't know. Dahn 21:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Added rationales.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 14:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Image:Wrzesien.gif should be in english. I think the prelude section could warm the reader up a little with some sort of intro sentence. Would History of Poland be a good "main article" link for the prelude section? I don't quite like the sectioning. I personally wasn't interested in the Prelude, however the current structure does not allow me to read only what happened during the actual invasion. The actual invasion part is in the prelude and then the allied reactions come before the main part describing the invasion. Overall the sections don't stand on their own.-Ravedave 03:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- It would be nice if somebody could translate it, although as a map its not really in need of that much translation. I am not sure what would be a good main article, Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact sounds like the best idea, I think. As for the sections, I am afraid I don't understand what you mean: per Qp10gp, the invasion is described in the a section of its own, prelude ends with the sentence about start of the invasion...?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 14:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The invasion is only mentioned in the last sentence of the "Prelude" section: "On 17 September 1939, the Red Army crossed the border into Poland." That the article then moves to the allied reaction is an attempt to represent the significance of what had happened: the moment the Soviets crossed the Rubicon, as it were, reactions from all around Europe meant that the die was cast and the World War was underway. To treat these events in this order is good narrative form, in my opinion: and history books often folow this order too. But the other thing to say is that maybe the title of this article raises false expectations in the reader, because really this was a very small military encounter, over and done with in a short time and involving relatively little fighting. "The Soviet Invasion of Poland" is therefore not so much an article about a military campaign but one about a whole set of political and diplomatic complexities which it both resulted from and set in motion. Personally I find these complexities fascinating, and I feel that the article sets them out with hard-won cogency; but I can understand the view that the build up, diplomatic repercussions, and consequences of the invasion fill the bulk of the article rather than the fighting itself, such as it was.qp10qp 12:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have placed "Allied reaction" after the battle details now; and this may be helpful to those who wish to get to the battle details sooner. I've made one or two little adjustments to smoothe this rearrangement.qp10qp 15:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Support another well done article from WP:MILHIST.Sumoeagle179 10:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. This article is not meeting FA standards just yet.
- The layout is somewhat messy, with several stubby sections ("Allied reaction" and "censorship" come to mind).
- Bullet lists at the end are ugly. I'm sure those links can be embroidered in the text far smoother and in a much better place (e.g. in the text itself).
- Copyedit problems:
  - "The over-450,000-1,000,000-strong" - is this English?
  - "On the Polish side, 6,000–7,000 soldiers died fighting the Red Army,[2] and 230,000–450,000 were taken prisoner—230,000 immediately after the campaign and 70,000 more when the Soviets annexed the Baltic States and assumed custody of Polish troops interned there." - stop with all those dashes please...
  - etc..
- References must have a space after and no before the text etc...
- Not all dates are wikified as they should be.
- Numerous POV issues were raised on the talk page and were, as far as I can judge, never corrected. By contrast, some other important issues - like ua/be ethnical reunification, are only skirted. In short, there is still much work to do, both content and format-wise. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Layout updated - no stubby sections. Bullet lists at the end (references, elinks) are standard, but if you show me an example of an article where it is done better, I will see about updating it Copyedit - I am leaving it to native speaker as mentioned above, same with dashes. I scanned the article and couldn't find any spaces messing reference layout, by all means, if you find any, do fix them (or at list point out here which ones are we talking about). Same with dates. As for POV issues, all discussions at talk have been settled, if you find any new POV issues that or any that were not resolved to your satisfaction, please be more specific. Please note that GA and A reviews were asked to take POV into account and both concluded POV issues are not apparent to this article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 15:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Grafikm: Piotrus has almagamated what you called stubby sections with "Aftermath", and I have added some material to the allied-reaction information, in case you felt that it was not sufficient. But to explain my approach, the information was carefully written to be an encyclopedic summary of the allied reaction; it can be extended considerably, of course, if you wish; but for me it is a virtue if an encyclopedia article can encapsulate a complex matter in clear brief, well-referenced prose, which was the intention on the matter of the allied reaction.

Concerning bullet point lists, I have deleted the battles because they are linked in the text, changed the heading to "See also", and cut the "Further reading" section, since there are now so many books in the notes and references for the reader to turn to for further information.

The figures, dashes, etc. are really difficult to express in clear English, but I'll have a go. I don't believe there are many copy-edit issues of that type in the article, though. It is largely written in lucid, fluent prose, I believe.

Numerous POV issues were raised on the talk page and were, as far as I can judge, never corrected. By contrast, some other important issues - like ua/be ethnical reunification, are only skirted.

I rather strongly disagree with this, Grafikm. I spent very many hours of my life (I have 158 edits to this article) picking off the POV material phrase by phrase and re-referencing to sources written in English, mostly by writers with no Polish bias. In the process, I added material about the Belarus and Ukrainian reunification. Look again, and you will see that the matter is specifically dealt with in two paragraphs and a block quotation in the "Aftermath section". In my opinion, to add any more would unbalance the article, since however one may be opposed to the Polish point of view, it would become uncomfortable if the article began to emphasize Belarusian and Ukrainian liberation and reunification issues ahead of the Polish ones, which included the fighting of the actual war and the mass murder and deportation of vast numbers of Polish people. My edits were careful, however, to make clear the Soviet position that concern for and repatriation of Belarusians and Ukrainians was one of their chief aims, and to include the lower estimates for murders and deportations provided from Russian sources. If I had edited the article from a Polish point of view, I would not have done that nor provided the Soviet POV and Ukrainian and Belarusian material which balances the article.

Finally, I would say that my intention in addressing the POV issues raised on the talk page was not to satisfy either a Polish or a Soviet point of view but to give weight to issues in the article in the same proportion that weight is given to them in the history books about this military campaign. When you say that there is still much more to do, I would ask what? I have read a good deal of material about this campaign, and I believe this article summarises it well. However, if you can give some suggestions as to what might be added I will certainly do so. I've asked the same of other critics of the page, and where they have made suggestions, I have acted on them; but too often, I have not been given anything to go on. Any objection here needs to be specific and actionable.qp10qp 16:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Strongly opposed. Being Belarusian of Western Belarus origin, I could note that the whole article is written exclusively from the Polish POV and all other POV's are edited out from the article by group of Polish users headed by Piotrus.
The article lacks the following important moments:
1. The territory of Poland at which Soviet troops entered was previously illegaly occupied by Poland. All Belarusians regarded Soviet troops as liberators from Polish Pilsudsky dictatorship which established regime of sanation on occupied Western Belarus and established concentration camps like Detention Camp Bereza Kartuska. I don't even mention Polish pogroms during which Poles were exterminating all non-Poles. You may look at this photo at which are people hanged by Poles in Belarus http://oldgazette.ru/lib/pogrom/0021.html. Also there are numerous other photos with Polish atrocities.
2. The article lacks any mentioning of Belarusian partisan movement for the liberation of Western Belarus. It also lacks mentioning of Belarusian resistance movement against Polish occupation. A lot of Belarusians were arrested, executed by Polish occupation authorities. It is completly outrageous that Piotrus is going to rate this article, because later he would use the argument like "This is A-rate article, and you are fresh noob" argument in order to sort out the attempts to add other POV's which should be covered in the article.
Vlad fedorov 16:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There was a brief history of the region in the article once, and I could put something like that in again, if you feel the article concentrates too much on the actual campaign. Most of the things you mention do not seem to me about the invasion: what happened was that a Soviet army invaded Poland (you may call it a liberation, and that point of view is represented in the article: but I must tell you that many history books call it an invasion and so Wikipedia policy is followed on that score) and as a result three things happened: many Poles were killed in battle or prisons or deported; most western Belarusians and Ukrainians were incorporated into new soviet rpublics, and World War two was truly set in motion. All these things are covered in the article, and it is made clear that the Soviets and Ukrainians and Belarusians regarded the campaign as a liberation; there are also cartoons and photos to that effect.

You are arguing for an expansion of the article into issues of the Polish occupations of parts of Belarus and Ukraine. These can be mentioned in a little pre-history, and I will look at doing that, but any more will unbalance the article, which is about this campaign. The article is not written from an exclusively Polish point of view: did you not notice that a large number of non-Polish sources are used? And that Soviet POV is stated rather than doubted. The article's position is set out in the lead: "The Soviet military operation, which the Politburo called "the liberation campaign", led to the incorporation of western Ukrainians and western Belarusians into the new expanded Soviet Ukrainian and Byelorussian republics". I can assure you that Polish bias could not have produced that sentence.qp10qp 17:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

" it is made clear that the Soviets and Ukrainians and Belarusians regarded the campaign as a liberation". Actually, this is incorrect :> The article notes that it was Soviet propaganda which attempted to portray it as such (albeit I don't think this is stressed strongly enough; at the very least the sentence you quote above ("which the Politburo called "the liberation campaign"") should be copied into the article, as currently it violates the principle that lead should summarize the article, but should not introduce information not repeated in the article (cursory search for Politbiuro shows it is mentione donly in lead...)), and a paragraph in the aftermath notes that in fact Ukrainian and Belarusian support was mixed at best.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no correct or incorrect when it comes to things like this, in my opinion. The way to approach it is in neutral language, rather than with qualifications such as "but this was propaganda", etc. The readers then see what happened for themselves and make their own judgement whether this was a liberation or not; any nudging would introduce POV, and we shouldn't underestimate the interpretive powers of the readers. As for whether the support was "mixed at best", that may apply more to what happened later: when the Poles were first defeated, it appears that the Belarusians and Ukrainians were pleased. The article shows that but also mentions some of the later problems they faced. I think that gets the balance right, without rewriting what happened at the time according to what happened later.qp10qp 12:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Vlad Fedorov. Please, do not be silly. The photo you have linked was taken in Mozyr (as the description says), and dear sir, Mozyr was not part of Poland in the interbellum.

Dear Tymek, no that photo are people hanged by Poles in Mozyr during occupation of Belarus in 1919-1921 by Poland and this photo demonstrates how Poles distort the history by claiming that Belarusian lands are part of Poland. Vlad fedorov 03:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As for Belarusian partisan movement in the interbellum - never heard of it. I know about general Bulak-Balachowicz (hope got the name right), but never heard about Belarussian guerilla in Poland. Never heard of executions of Belarussians in the interbellum either. Why do you say the territory was illegally occupied by Poland? Ever heard of Traty of Riga? Bereza Kartuska was not for Belarussians only, but mostly for Polish political prisoners and it was not a concentration camp for God's sake. Surely, Siberian camps were much more convenient for Belarussian patriots I pressume. Tymek 17:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Stanisław Bułak-Bałachowicz. Indeed, he represented the pro-Polish Belarusian faction allied with Poland during Polish-Soviet war, IIRC his forces numbered about 5,000. I don't think Soviet Union had any pro-independent Belarus forces in its ranks... but this is a bit OT, since we are discussing events that took place almost 20 years later.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Vlad, please be more civil and assume more good faith - your claims that I assessed this article as 'A' class myself is obviously false (it was assessed by WP:MILHIST team), and your speculation about how I'd deny new editors access to the article is quite offensive and obviously false to anybody who checks its talk page.

As for your (unsourced...) POV content comments: 1) as the (sourced) article makes clear, only some, not all, Belarusians supported the Soviets 2) I agree it would indeed by worthwile to mention poor relations between minorities and Polish government in the article. Perhaps some relevant fragments can be moved from Tadeusz Hołówko or similar articles, although in most cases they concentrate on the more numerous and organized Ukrainian faction 3) Sanacja, Piłsudski, Beraza, pogroms - all bear little relevance to the article; Piłsudski was actually known to be a stabilizing influence and was trying to improve the relations with the minorities 4) Belarusian resistance against Poland - per my comment no.2 I am not aware of any notable organization like Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists on Belarusian side, I certainly never heard anything about a 'resistance movement' - OUN was at best what we today would call a 'terrorist/extremist pro-indepence faction' receiving support only from a small minority, and again, any Belarusian equivelent would be even less fitting for 'resistance organization'. I checked Davies, who in his God's Playground has a paragraph on Belarusian minority: he mentions increasing repressions, but no executions, nor any armed resistance. He does note, however, that Belarusian minority had relatively small 'political awarness', and recommends further reading of Nicholas P. Vakar Belarussia: The Making of a Nation, unfortunatly I don't have access to that publication ATM but if you could recommend any English or Polish readings on Belarusian minority in interwar Poland, I'd be happy to take a look at it. PS. No Soviet sources, please.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the article now mentions growing tensions and conflicts between Polish government and minorities and its impact on minorities attitude during the Soviet invasion. If sources are provided for any other content (POV) related issues, I'll be happy to incorporate them into the article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

- - I don't think that the article has sufficient coverage of Belarusian, Ukrainian, Lithuanian and Russian POV's. Again, everything is covered from the POlish POV exclusively.
  - Piotrus argument is like if it is not Polish POV, than it is Soviet absolutely irrelevant to the discussion. Your problem Piotrus is not a few strokes mentioning other POVs exist.
  - For example even the name of the article doesn't fit other POV's. other than Polish. The name of the article is given absolutely from Polish POV. You try to make it everything clear, but it is not.
  - Why you haven' written that Polish goverment before this "invasion" was cooperating with Soviet Union by exchaning political prisoners, and namely Polish government extradited Belarusian national democrats to Soviets which were executed subsequently. Poland was cooperating with Soviets in the matter of Belarusian national movement extermination.
  - Another issue is cooperation of Poland with Germany and namely - signing of Hitler Pilsudki Pact in Warsaw in ~~1937~~1934 during the visit of Goebbels in Warsaw. You was very quick to mention Mlotov-Ribbentrop act by considerable amount of text, but in "good faith" of course failed to describe in full details and comment Hitler-Pilsudski Pact? Why this important moment - is not covered by your article pretenting to be A-rated? Vlad fedorov 02:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Despite your claims to the contrary, non-Polish POV is covered extensively, the article relies mostly on Western (not Polish) sources, as well as on the work of historians such as Ukrainian Orest Subtelny. The name, "invasion", is used by majority of Western sources. The minorities issue in now mentioned, and there is no need to go into details (for the same reason, OUN assassinations of Polish politicians are not discussed). Feel free to expand the historical section of Belorussian minority in Poland with that information. And since Józef Piłsudski died in 1935, I very much doubt he would sign any pact with Hitler in 1937. Again, you are welcomed to present a single source to back up your statements...--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 11:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Fedorov probably meant the non-aggression pact of 1934, whose main purpose was to normalize border relations--which had been on extremely poor terms pretty much since the end of World War I. I hardly see how this qualifies as Nazi-Polish "cooperation." — Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a part of the non-aggression treaty too. You also hardly see how the occupation by Poland of Czech territory during the division of Czechoslovakia occupation by Germany fits into the image of Poland as an Allies memeber, right? Vlad fedorov 06:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact of 1934 is in the better timeframe, indeed. But it also reminds me of another error in Vlad's argument: Piłsudski, far from being a Hitler ally, actually suggested several times to his Western Allies that Germany needs to be stopped, if war by necessary, and the policy of appeasement is a grave mistake. He was, unfortunately, ignored - and we all know who was right... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 02:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Poland occupied Czech region during Germany's partition of Czechoslovakia. So it wasn't innocent, indeed. Poland also occupied Western Belarus, Ukraine and Lithuania. It is written in every history textbook in Belarus, Ukraine and Lithuania. Vlad fedorov 06:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Belarus and the Ukraine were split between Poland and Russia in the Riga Peace Treaty (1921).

The Ukrainians, for example, would have preferred 100% to Poland (versus any to Russia), so it's hardly accurate to portray circumstances as Poland subjugating western Ukraine (implying the Ukraine preferred union with Russia). — Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Extremely one-sided article, beggining from the POV title to the actual coverage of events. --Kuban Cossack 17:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

In what way? Please give me something to work on.qp10qp 17:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Per Qp10gp, please be more specific. If you look at the top of the page, you'll note that Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the FA Director may ignore it. . --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I know it's useless to vote in the face of a crowd of traditional Piotrus-supporters, but I would like to repeat once again that {{POV-title}} is mandatory for this article. Either we term this campaign, the Polish-Soviet War, the so-called Polish-Muscovite War (1605–1618) as "invasions" or we avoid loaded language in the titles of all three articles. It is absolutely inacceptable to push one's POV by hook or by crook. The two instances of pure Polish aggression against Russia (or Muscovy, as Piotrus prefers to put it) are misrepresented in Wikipedia as border conflicts, while the act of reunification of Eastern Ukraine with Western Ukraine, of Eastern Belarus with Western Belarus is deemed an "invasion".
I know the term is supposed to be referenced, but so were the titles of each Polish invasion of Russia, which did not prevent Piotrus and his party from engineering the retention of their present titles. Put briefly, each Russian-Polish conflict instigated by Poland is cast in Wikipedia as a "war" or "uprising", each conflict instigated by Russia/USSR is trumpeted as an "invasion". The same bias runs throughout the article: where can we learn about Poland's overtures with Hitler? about the efforts of Polish diplomacy to prevent the alliance of Great Britain, France, and Soviet Union against Germany? I see the relevant data is carefully suppressed in order to represent Poland as an eternal selfless victim, as is normally done in the articles authored by Piotrus. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Other then criticism of article's authors, and unsourced claims in any case irrelevant to the subject of the article, do you have any actionable objections? PS. ~~I really would like to learn about those attempts to prevent the alliance,~~ and the "overtunes" - please suggest appropriate readings (no Soviet sources, please). Oh, and I do like the "Poland's overtures with Hitler" - even if fictional, it does make a nice contrast to the "Soviet-Nazi Symphony, you know :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC) PS. Diplomacy, including objections by Poland and several other governments to a Soviet proposal that they'd defend them if Soviet troops were to be stationed in them, is mentioned in the first para of the prelude... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  - As I'm sure you know, the Soviet-Nazi Symphony was inspired by the Polish-Nazi Étude, known as the Partition of Czechoslovakia. Your attitude "no Soviet sources, please" invites the retort "no Polish sources, please". --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    - I certainly would not use any Polish sources published officially during Polish People's Republic with regards to that subject. We have several sources (including Western academic ones) that point out that Soviet sources (and by those, I mean Soviet bloc sources) on tthat event are highly biased and influence by party line and propaganda. I double-checked to be sure, but AFAICT there is only one ref used from that period, and it is a bibuła by a respected Polish general and witness of the invasion, republished after 1991 and thus a reliable source. And this is off topic, but Partitions of Czechoslovakia was hardly orchestrated by Poland. Of course, you are more then welcome to present sourced contradicting me and add them to the relevant articles.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
      - There is no material difference between the sources published during the period of Polish People's Republic, the CIA/NGO propaganda, or the witch-hunters sponsored by the nationalist Kaczynski regime (Institute of National Rememberance, etc). They are all biased, in their own way, and have their own axes to grind, but there are some objective records that may be found in all three groups. Your attempts to make generalizations or to impeach a large swath of sources from a given period/country that you dislike intensely are intellectually dishonest. That's how "invasion"- and "massacre-talk" appears and infiltrates your articles. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
        
        Most Western academic sources call those events invasions, and Katyn a massacre, and your claims that they are CIA or Kaczynski's propaganda are not going to be ever treated seriously. On the other hand, plenty of Western academic works have concluded that there are extremely strong biases in Eastern Block works, and you are not going to change that either. Oh, and work Institute of National Remembrance is also quite reliable, and again, your dislike of their study of communist crimes is not going to change that, neither.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 11:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla, most of your comments do not seem to be about this article, and I would very much welcome any material you can provide or guide me to with regard to this particular article. As it stands, I believe its language is painstakingly neutral. Please do not assume that I have blindly used words like "invasion" and "massacre" without looking into them carefully. The word "invasion" is used by most of the western sources I have looked at; but I have taken into account the alternative view of the campaign by mentioning it in the article several times: the reader is left in no doubt that the Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians did not regard the campaign as an invasion. What more can I do in following Wikipedia policy? I researched the word "massacre" as it applies to Katyn and found that to be an established word used to describe it in history books, which is why I believe its use in the article is in keeping with policy. This is not "massacre-talk" because other deaths and murders are described in different terms in the article: it is a word applied specifically to the mass murders at Katyn.qp10qp 13:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

~~Oppose at present~~ Comment:

I was one of the reviewers who originally reviewed the article during its peer review. I had several comments for improvement then, but now the article is going for FA it must satisfy much more demanding criteria. I have several problems with the article as it stands that I would like to see addressed. Most are issues of neutrality or grammar/prose/good writing:
I personally find articles that use a single mixed reference set for both footnotes (editorial asides or notes) and citations (note of source of information) poor - it makes it impossible to know for each numbered footnote if you need to click on it to read a footnote or else if there is a citation only for that number. It also has the effect of falsely inflating the list of references when in fact many references are simply comments rather than citations of facts - it makes an article therefore seem more heavily cited than it actually is. I would strongly advocate using a system such as that used in War against Nabis of splitting the footnotes and citations into different sections. I will provide more detailed comments later, but this is the main issue I have with it at the moment. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Note we have no 'just footnotes', we either have direct references or footnotes that contain quotations and/or several references and/or explanation of some contradictions within them. Thus all references are in fact references, using a style found in many academic books (where a footnote may give you just a source, or a source and a discussion of it). I am not aware of a mechanism that would allow me to divide inline references, generated by cite.php (recommended by WP:CITE) in such a way that we could have plain references in one section, and more traditional footnotes, marked differently in text, in another. If you know how to do so, please let me know.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, using templates hcref and cnote it is possible to do exactly this - see War against Nabis for an example of this in use. I don't see the need for mixed footnotes - all of your references can easily be rewritten as either footnotes or citations, this is not mandated by FA requirements but I personally feel that it would be of great benefit to the article - it makes clear what statements are being precisely cited and which merely have notes, some of whose content may be cited. It almost seems like a sly way to not have to cite a fact whilst appearing to cite it - state in the article "5 plus 5 equals 11", cite it, and then in the mixed footnote/reference, have a discussion of the number 5 and the number 11 with cites, but not actually cite the statement made in the article. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Doh, I should've looked at the Nabis article before replying :) I completely missed the development of those templates, but I throughly support their use; I will see about converting the article ref system into them soon.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Piotrus, I am glad to see that you are happy to take this suggestion on board. As a result of various changes below, I am happy to change my "oppose" to a "comment". Once the above is implemented, will be happy to change my "comment" to a "support". - PocklingtonDan (talk) 06:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried my best to differentiate between notes and citations. I believe all notes are now proper notes; the 'long' citations are the few with quotes - I think they are acceptable in the current format. It appears that some long notes with several external links break the system, so in two cases I had to 'cheat' a little bit leaving the note text under the note - I hope this will be fixed in the future. Any further suggestions are welcome.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I am also most nervous about the degree of POV being claimed against the article. I would like to see this issue settled before the article makes FA. This should be done in a proper fashion - if editors have allegations of bias they shold point out the contested statements, provide opposing statements with citations and then rework the statement in the form "A belevies X (cite 1) but B believes Y (cite 2)". Whatever the disagreement, there is a scholarly way to resolve this. This should be done NOW, during the article's FAC candidacy, to remove any potential bias if and when it goes FA. it is not acceptable for this controversy to continue if and when the article makes FA status. My own point of view as someone reading the article but knowing little of the history it recounts is that the article is slightly biased. Not in that it states facts incorrectly, but that words are clearly chosen to slant the editorial aangle of the article. Many of the words need making more neutral and less loaded - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC) - this seems to have been addressed now

Indeed, if proper sources are presented that would suggest some POV is dominant (or missing) from the article, we will be happy to use them. User:Qp10qp, who, as far as I know, is not a Pole, has done a great job incorporating Soviet POV into the article, and I trust he will do so if new sources are presented. If you or any other editor would like to do some POV-improvements to the article, you are most welcomed: unfortunately as far as my biased sense is concerned, the article sounds neutral already.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This seems to have been addressed now - PocklingtonDan (talk) 06:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Needs a copyedit - eg in the very first sentence "Soviet invasion of Poland of 1939 was a military operation which started" - this should be either "Soviet invasion of Poland of 1939 was a military operation that started" or "Soviet invasion of Poland of 1939 was a military operation, which started" in order to be grammatically correct.

Again, I am leaving such matters in the hand of native speakers (and once again, thank you, User:Qp10qp, for the help with that!).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I do feel someone still needs to copyedit this article before it gets FA status, whoever that is - PocklingtonDan (talk) 06:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

In the infobox, why are the polish troop strength given in battalions but the soviet ones in divisions and brigades - this makes comparison difficult especially those who are unfamiliar with the terminology.

Because such data is given by our references, their authors didn't bother to much with standardization, unfortunately. Note that battalions were the highest unit of organization on the Polish side, while the Soviet units were organized on a much higher level. We can perhaps ilink the terms like battalions and divisions, although I don't think they would do much good until we have articles like battalion (Polish 1939) or division (Soviet 1939), those terms cover a really big variety of regional differences in organization, AFAIK.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If the polish strength is 20,000, then how were 250,000 polish troops captured - again this s in the infobox. This needs explaining or correcting

Please note that infobox also states: "improvised parts of the Polish Army". I have not been able to find any more information on those improvised parts, and this is a short description of a real mess: there were a few reasonably organized formations in the east, but there were also many more retreating in disarray from the Germans, all that created a mass of soldiers, some of which put a resistance but many just surrendered, that were in the end all taken prisoner by the Soviets.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Although the French, for their part, had made many promises to Poland before the German offensive, including air support, these assurances turned out to have been entirely cynical" - this language and similar throughout the article might need adjusting per wikipedia "words to avoid" as taking editorial leeway and not just reporting the facts - "cynical" is passing a value judgement. - FIXED

Agreed (and fixed), I don't think it was a word I added. If you catch any other instances of such POVed language, please let us know so it can be corrected.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"The Soviets murdered tens of thousands of Polish prisoners of war" - again murder is a perjorative word - "murder" is probably too strong a word here - use "kill", which presents exactly the same fact without passing judgement on it.

I'd leave it to the native speaker, but considering that this refers mostly to the Katyn massacre, which would in turn imply the use of the verb 'massacred', I think murder is neutral enough. But I don't see a big difference between murder and killing in terms of use in English language, so again, I may not be the best person to address this comment.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"The reaction of Poland's two main allies, France and Britain, was muted, since neither wanted a confrontation with the Soviet Union at that stage" - this is uncited and should be easy to cite if this is the official reason given or something reported in a published work elsewhere. If this is not the official reason given but a supposition of the author then this is original research and should not be included. Was it practical for Britain or France to intervene militarily at this point? Did they have any forces in place? - FIXED

Good catch, again it was not a statement added by myself. ~~I will look for refs, and hopefully the editor who added it will surface here, if nothing is found I will remove this in a few days.~~ Found a ref.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"The British evaded their obligations under the terms of the Anglo-Polish Agreement" - again evaded is a value judgement - since there was no declaration of war, as stated in the article, it is hard to say whether the mutual assistance treaty would have applied. - FIXED

Again, fixed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

~~"British Foreign Secretary Halifax bluntly told him that Britain was free to make up its own mind whether to declare war on the Soviet Union" - citation?~~ - FIXED

Again, fixed :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Lastly, I understand how frustrating the FA process can be and would like to commend the article's authors on taking the article this far. Chin up! - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it's nice to hear some words of encouragement :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply by Qp10qp to the points of Pocklington Dan:

In terms of what has happened to this article since the Good Article award: I would argue that it is no longer the same article and has been entirely rewritten in order to prepare it for FAC. Compare these two versions here to see what I mean. The article then had 41 references and it now has 82. As a native English speaker, I have rewritten most of the prose; and, though I suppose I must be blind to my own mistakes, I simply cannot see where copyediting issues remain in the prose. I'm surprised that no one has noticed such improvements to both referencing and prose. Here, for example, are the opening two paragraphs: are they not encyclopedic, neutral, concise? The same neutral and concise style was deliberately used throughout the article, with each occurence of words like "murder", "execution" or "annexe" carefully researched to justify its inclusion.qp10qp 14:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The Soviet invasion of Poland of 1939 was a military operation which started on 17 September 1939, during the early stages of World War II, sixteen days after the Nazi German attack on Poland. It ended in a decisive victory for the Soviet Union's Red Army.

Shortly before the onset of the war, in 1939, the Soviet Union attempted to create an anti-German alliance with the United Kingdom, France, Romania and Poland on the condition that Soviet troops be allowed to enter onto Polish territory. The negotiations ended in failure, after which the Soviets instead signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Nazi Germany on 23 August, in accordance with which, on 17 September, the Red Army crossed the eastern Polish border, following German successes in western Poland. To justify their actions, the Soviet Union issued a declaration that the Polish state had ceased to exist, and that the Soviet actions were intended to protect the Ukrainians and Belarusians who inhabited the eastern part of Poland.

qp10qp 14:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You say: Needs a copyedit - eg in the very first sentence "Soviet invasion of Poland of 1939 was a military operation which started" - this should be either "Soviet invasion of Poland of 1939 was a military operation that started" or "Soviet invasion of Poland of 1939 was a military operation, which started" in order to be grammatically correct.

It remains for me to address Grafikm's point about the figures and dashes in one place, but otherwise, I do not agree that the article needs a copyedit (apart from ongoing tidying of fresh edits by non-English speakers). You are wrong on the point about "which" and "that", by the way (once again, this is a matter of taste): the restrictive "which", like the restrictive "that", does not follow a comma; only the unrestrictive "which" follows a comma. However, since "that" and "which" are interchangeable in this construction, I am happy to change them round to suit your preference.qp10qp 15:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your point that you do not like to see notes and references combined is a matter of taste not FAC criteria. There is in fact a separate alphabetical list of references to help readers who wish to find a book quickly and allow the use of shortened references in the note section, where possible (such a list is requested by the criteria). The reason I prefer this method to the one with separate substantive notes is threefold: 1) with separate notes, you impose two types of note tag on the article and bother the reader to click twice: first to read the substantive note, then to read its reference; 2) subsequent editors may delete the reference without deleting the substantive note, leaving an orphaned note; 3) and most important to me, this method enables the combining of notes and references: in this article sometimes a reference is given combined with a note followed by a different reference, thus providing the reader with a reference which supports the point in the article, combined with further information, referenced to another source.

On this, you also say: It almost seems like a sly way to not have to cite a fact whilst appearing to cite it - state in the article "5 plus 5 equals 11", cite it, and then in the mixed footnote/reference, have a discussion of the number 5 and the number 11 with cites, but not actually cite the statement made in the article. But why would one spend ages researching the article and then only pretend to cite the information? I can't read the Polish and non-English sources, but I can promise you that all the English references have been checked and do reference the information in question; in many cases I even referenced things that were already referenced to Polish sources, just in case (those things that Piotrus reffed for you earlier, by the way, were actually reffed at the end of the passage, rather than at the end of each sentence; and expressions such as "cynical" and "failed to honour their obligations" were also precisely reffed to non-Polish sources, though I'm happy to see them to go if they are thought too strong). So, if you said to me, "I suspect this Polish reference of being fake", I could probably point you to one of the English sources for an alternative verification. It's a normal scholarly practice to mix pure cites, explanatory notes, and points of further information, though journals vary widely in their styles. (I see that Piotrus is changing the reffing system according to your suggestion, so this need not be an issue an more.)qp10qp 15:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Support - a well-written, thoroughly referenced account. Objections that the Soviet POV is not well enough presented seem tendentious. ~~One question, though: why is Template:Campaignbox Polish September Campaign present, given that refers to the German invasion?~~ Biruitorul 01:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The campaignbox is used because Polish September Campaign covers both the German and Soviet invasions, and thus the the campaignbox has both battles. Would you suggest creating a separate campaignbox with only Soviet-Polish battles?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that's fine -- now I've clicked on all the battles, I saw that a few refer to Polish-Soviet battles. "Invasion of Poland" does link to the German invasion, but I suppose that's fine. Biruitorul 02:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Again that Piotrus-style argument: "If it is not Polish, than it is Soviet". How about national Lithuanian, Belarusian, Ukrainian resistance movements against Polish occupation? Vlad fedorov 02:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

My advice: write something about those movements! I'd like to know about them myself, and if what you write meets the usual standards, then by all means let's keep it in the article. Biruitorul 02:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Where to write about? Piotrus would delete everything immediately!Vlad fedorov 04:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content is vandalism, and since Piotrus is not (to my knowledge) a vandal, you should have nothing to fear. Let's assume good faith, at least. Biruitorul 02:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. I think this article is better than many other former featured articles. Please note a huge amount of work invested here. The sourcing is excellent and illustrations are great. The subject is very difficult and fuels opposite opinions. The article describes Soviet invasion of Poland as seen by contemporary History and refutes old Soviet propaganda. The latter helps to follow WP:NPOV policy. Nobody is using pseudo-science like Lysenkoism for teaching genetics. Old Soviet propaganda is a kind of pseudo-science or more precisely a professional disinformation that has no place in this Encyclopedia. Unlike many other articles in WP, this article is free from Soviet falsifications of history.Biophys 04:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Belarusian national movement, as well as Ukrainian and Lithuanian was both against Poland and Soviet Union occupation. And I had argued about the total absense of these POV. However, Soviet Union POV whatever it is, should also be present if you pretend to be NPOV really. Please pay attention that Biophys now expilicitly advocates elimination of NPOV from the article. Vlad fedorov 04:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I would observe that Soviet historiography of the invasion and aftermath is both described and illustrated. "NPOV" should not be taken to mean "Soviet account of history" = (carries identical weight to) "Western account of history". — Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I just want to comment that NPOV comes around by mentioning every viewpoint and putting it in context, not by culling out viewpoints that you disagree with or term pseudo-science - you should not be taking the editorial position of culling out certain viewpoints but putting them in and contrasting the various viewpoint - this is the path to neutrality. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 06:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's precisely my point above. It is tendentious and intellectually dishonest to suppress material about the strenuous (not to say hysterical) attempts of pre-war Polish diplomacy to prevent the rapprochement between the West and Soviets against Hitler, a counterproductive attitude that ultimately resulted in the Soviet-Nazi Pact. Instead of picturing Poland as a victim of unmotivated aggression, we should have some words about Poland being one of Hitler's jackals during the partition of Czechoslovakia. Where's the relevant data about the revanchist plans of the Polish General Staff to invade the Soviet Union in the late 1930s? We have discussed it all over Wikipedia, but the article prefers not to mention these embarrassing points at all. That's why it reads like a tool of anti-Russian Kaczynski propaganda. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Soviet POV is discussed. So is modern Belorussian and Ukrainian (we even have a big quote from Orest Subtelny, and it is the only quote in the main body). As I said above and you ignored, Polish diplomacy rejection of Soviet offer of "help" is discussed in the first para of the prelude. Partitions of Czechoslovakia are irrelevant to this article (feel free to show a source that shows some connection between those events). Same with the plans you discuss: the only plan I am aware of, Plan Wschód, a recently created article that I will link from the Soviet Invasion shortly, was a defensive plan. Oh, and we am still waiting for you to present a single source to back up your POVs...--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 11:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla, do you not think that the following covers the breakdown in negotiations for an allied-Soviet treaty prior to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

Negotiations for a Soviet-British-French alliance failed in summer 1939 partly because of Soviet insistence on a sphere of influence stretching from Finland to Romania and on activation of the treaty not only by direct aggression but by "indirect aggression" towards territories in the assumed Soviet sphere of influence.[19] For their part, the Soviets believed the British and the French could not be trusted on the principle of collective security, since they had failed to assist Spain or protect Czechoslovakia from the Fascists and Nazis, and that the western allies might be content to see the Soviet Union and Germany exhaust themselves fighting each other.[20] Soviet demands for right of passage and pre-emptive entry into Poland, Romania and the Baltic States were rejected by the respective governments, who, as Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Józef Beck, put it, did not trust the Red Army, once on their territory, to ever leave.[8] On 23 August, the Soviets instead signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Nazi Germany, nine days before the German invasion.

These were the reasons that I found in the sources. The Polish objection to Soviet right of passage is mentioned, and so their obstruction on that point is covered in the article. If you have sources for other Polish objections being the main or overriding reason for the failure of the negotiations, please provide them. I would be genuinely prepared to use such additional information in the article because I'm rather disliking the suggestion that I have falsified or deliberately omitted facts (I haven't the slightest reason to do so).qp10qp 15:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. This is a great article, very well put together. I held back from fully endorsing it to see how the presentation issues were being addressed -- but now, after a few days of work (some in response to the constructive criticism above), it all looks much tighter and smooth. (A technical note: I especially like how it looks with the notes on two columns, but this works on only one of the browsers I use; anyone knows how to make that work always?) As for the above objections based on the Soviet point of view, I find them lacking in merit: what exactly is the beef there? I couldn't quite tell. To sum up: a hearty thumbs up for an FA — this article well deserves it. Turgidson 13:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The article is written in heavy, unimaginative language hard to follow from below the opening paragraph, the result of a lack of editorial cohesion. As we know, GA and FA candidates follow different requirements. The sheer accumulation of facts hardly constitutes brilliant writing of a professional standard. Besides, the volume of citations, notes and references exceeding the size of the actual text makes it easy to see why the article is so dumpy. Personally, I have a hard time accepting the tone of many statements, like the one about the invasion ending “in a decisive victory for the Soviet Union's Red Army.” Invasions don’t end in victories, but in conquering of foreign territories. --Poeticbent talk 16:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the article reads well to me, but neither of us is a native speaker. I'd like to say De gustibus non est disputandum but since style is one of the FA issues, please cite specific examples of "heavy, unimaginative language" so we can work on that. Speaking of which, high volume of citations, notes and references is a requirement of Featured Articles: surely you are not suggesting we have to many of those? People at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check would be quite shocked in that case; after all, our goal is to reference every single fact within Wikipedia. Moving on to invasions, I think invasions can and do end in victory, and the September Campaign ended in a victory for both Germans and Soviets. While 'decisive' adjective could be disputed, I think it's correct - although I will not oppose to its removal, if this is your goal.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course invasions can result in victories. In England, our main invader, William I of England, is known as "William the Conqueror", not "William the Occupier". I must say that the only times I have been accused of bad writing on Wikipedia have been by non-English speakers. I have no idea why that is, but perhaps my style, which uses parallel constructions, semicolons, and rhythmic echoes reads a little blurrily to a non-English speaker.

As far as I am concerned, the article follows a coherent and logical, even obvious, structure: prelude, campaign, aftermath.

The material is dense, of course. But I tried to avoid preparatory or passive constructions, and to locate readers quickly in each sentence. To lead readers through the article, I started most paragraphs with an active declarative sentence or phrase; and I ended each paragraph with a short snapper, to give the readers a sense of rhythm as they read through the article. I kept complex sentences to the middle of paragraphs.

In many places, more has gone into the prose than meets the eye. For example: “The Red Army had sowed confusion at first by claiming they were intervening to save Poland from the Nazis”. This short, direct sentence summarises a large wodge of reading matter; it is designed to act both as a prologue to the topic and as a representation of the prologue to the action.

With an article like this, however, you have to be careful not to use language that might seem too imaginative: for example, I’ve had the word “cynical” (to describe the French approach to supporting Poland) removed for sounding too POV, though it was referenced to a non-Polish source; but I understand the reasoning behind the change. When you are dealing with thousands of deaths and fairly recent history, I think it is wise to use cool language and allow the readers to provide the judgements and emotions themselves.qp10qp 21:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. Excellent article. The above objection by Poeticbent is the only serious argument I've seen so far for not supporting. But it is a thing easily correctible. I do not agree that the language is "heavy", but there are a lot of facts squized in the minimal possible volume, not something that you read in leasure time. But then, which FA about history are leasure readings? PS. how about "The ensuing fighting with the partially resisting - partially retreating Polish troops resulted in a decisive victory for the Soviet Union's Red Army." or smth similar. Anyway, the article is 99% of the way to FA.:Dc76 19:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now that would be heavy. :) qp10qp 21:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

ya, you are right, it is heavy :-) I wanted to say "the fighting", not "the invasion" resulted in a dicisive victory. :Dc76 12:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Support A good article, describing one of tragedies of Poland, which was stabbed in the back by Soviets, main allies of Nazi Germany until June 1941. Arguments put forward by some users from countries of former Soviet Union are ludicrous and remind me of best years of Stalinist propaganda. If somebody calls invasion of one country by another "the act of reunification", there is nothing to talk about with this gentleman (how about this - Poland seized Kiev in 1920 to reunificate Galicia with Kiev. How do you like it?). Also, Pilsudski - Hitler Pact of 1937? Where did you get this? Pilsudski's ghost must have signed it, I guess.
Partition of Czechoslovakia? It has nothing to do with the subject, besides - look at Zaolzie. Revanchist plans of the Polish General Staff to invade the Soviet Union in the late 1930s? Well, dear Sir. Poles are not that utterly stupid. Nobody serious in 1930s Poland ever dreamt of invading the Soviet giant. "Soviet-Nazi Symphony was inspired by the Polish-Nazi Étude" - well, poor old Uncle Joe was forced to sign a pact with Hitler because of the Poles. So sad.
Last but not least - some users from Soviet Union clearly expect Piotrus to write a book on this, I pressume, not an article. Tymek 22:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

please emphazise some and former. There are many users who had something to do with the former USSR. :Dc76 12:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure do, some and former. This is obvious, apologies Tymek 19:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

no problem, don't worry. But it's worth reminding, b/c it is not from former USSR vs from outside former USSR. Even Soviet literature before 1991 does not universaly call this "liberation", and "invasion" can also be found, for the two words are not mutually exclusive. (E.g. lattest: USA invaded Iraq and liberated its people from the dictature of Saddam Husein.) :Dc76 21:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. Very good article--clearly written, well illustrated and thoroughly referenced. I personally do not detect any untoward bias one way or the other, and if I may make a side-comment, I wish we could just put all these myths about the "Polish Cabal" to rest. Piotrus and Co. have done excellent work on this article and I personally am of the opinion that it is FA-caliber. There may be a few nit-picky grammar and punctuation details to fix (I saw some but can't remember where and haven't the time to go look for them again) but other than that, looks good. K. Lásztocska 22:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. Not much if anything to add to Lásztocska's comments directly above. It does read a bit dense, but I doubt that can be improved further without losing essential detail. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Support The density of information is well-suited for an encyclopaedia to be used as reference, and anyone starting research on this topic is better off starting here than any other single source - this is the greatest criteria. The only constructive comment would be to realign the refs to one format - the three different groups can be confusing to the casual reader. This is another good FA from a prolific and valued group of editors. István 04:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Support After giving the article a copyedit, it satisfies the criteria. - Merzbow 06:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Support ~~Oppose~~ I've spotted at least one {{fact}} tag, besides the sources the article is based on are mostly Polish and their reliability in such a sensitive area could be questionable. Imho such an article should be based on more neutral sources, with partisan sources (Polish or Russian) used occasionally to reference some details and with the appropriate attribution. Alæxis_¿question? 14:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as the citation tag in the lead is concerned, it must have been very recent and I hadn't noticed it. But it's always worth reading on through the article to see if lead material is cited elsewhere. Anyway, I've added a double citation to cover it there.

On Polish sources, those written in Polish are actually in the minority. I've read a great amount on this subject in English, and often, I promise, I was searching for information about the Russsian or partisan side of the matter (of which there is more included than has been implied by the article's critics above). Where Polish writers (or writers with Polish names) were published in English by publishing companies whose editorial policy I trust, then I was prepared to regard them as objectively reliable sources: for example: Prazmowska, published by Cambridge University Press. The English-language sources were written by people with such names that I often couldn't guess their original ethnicity: here are some of the names of such authors cited: Cienciala, Sanford, Rieber, Ferro, Shaw, Neilson, Kenez, Dunnigan, Snyder, Trenin, Gelven, Zaloga, Weinberg, Degras, Taylor, Fischer, Moynihan, Tucker, Jackson, Dean, Davies, Stachura, Ivanova, Wilson, Subtelny, Rummel, Kushner, Knox, Wegner. Who knows how many of these English-language authors were originally Polish, but clearly many of them weren't; I felt confident that there was enough referencing from these sources to balance any suspicion a reader might have about Polish-language sources: and in many cases, they do back up what the Polish sources reference. It would be good to have more Russian, Belarusian or Ukrainian sources, but I haven't been able to talk anyone from those ethnicities into helping with the article (and may I say that I believe them entirely when they say that this event is viewed quite differently in their cultures). However, I can assure you that the article fairly represents the material I could find in English-language sources and therefore provides Wikipedia with a reading of these events which is standard for the English-speaking world.qp10qp 15:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

A quick count in the current version of the article reveals: about 35 citations from Polish-language source, 3 from Russian (the disparity is not based on anything else then the fact that none of the editors engaged in writing this article can read Russian well enough) and about 110 citations from English-language. Printed references below note 27 English, 5 Polish and 1 Russian. I don't think that a single controversial fact is backed by Polish-sources only, they are used only for minor details. In any case, the argument that the article is based mostly on Polish sources certainly is incorrect. Please reconsider your argument, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've re-read the article more thoroughly and changed my mind a bit. It's really well written and maybe the sources' origins aren't such a problem. However I've also found some smaller issues:

1.The pre-war Polish relations with Germany (like the participation in the Chechoslovakia's partition) should be mentioned imho. One sentence should be enough...

“

Polish and Jewish citizens may at first have regarded a Soviet army as preferable to a German one,[6] but the Soviets were soon to prove as hostile and destructive towards the Polish people and their culture as the Nazis

”

“

The prisons, ghettos, internment, transit, labor and extermination camps, roundups, mass deportations, public executions, mobile killing units, death marches, deprivation, hunger, disease, and exposure all testify to the 'inhuman policies of both Hitler and Stalin' and 'were clearly aimed at the total extermination of Polish citizens, both Jews and Christians. Both regimes endorsed a systematic program of genocide

”

This is written not clear enough. First, I doubt that USSR wanted to extermine all Polish citizens - including Ukrainians, Belorussians and Jews. I don't know the context in which this appears in Ms. Olsak-Glass' review but this source is not enough to justify such a claim. The whole quote is confusing because it mixes German (ghettoes, ..) and Soviet (deportations,..) policies.

“

Of the 13.5 million civilians living in the newly annexed territories, Poles formed the largest single ethnic group, Ukrainians the second and Belarusians the third largest.[57]

”

“

"Among the population of Eastern territories were circa 38% Poles, 37% Ukrainians, 14.5% Belarusians, 8.4% Jewish, 0.9% Russians and 0.6% Germans"

”

This is likely to be true but it's written as to imply that Poles, being a plurality, had more moral rights to reign these territories. Of course I'm not accusing anyone of deliberately writing it this way but it'd be better to rephrase it (as in reality Ukrainians formed a majority in Western Ukraine and Belorussians - in Western Belarus).

“

The Soviets went on to pursue policies of Sovietization inimical to Ukrainian culture and Belarusian culture, as well as to Polish culture.

”

This is sourced by the book Elżbieta Trela-Mazur (1997). in Włodzimierz Bonusiak, Stanisław Jan Ciesielski, Zygmunt Mańkowski, Mikołaj Iwanow: Sowietyzacja oświaty w Małopolsce Wschodniej pod radziecką okupacją 1939–1941 (Sovietization of education in eastern Lesser Poland during the Soviet occupation 1939–1941). Kielce: Wyższa Szkoła Pedagogiczna im. Jana Kochanowskiego. I think that the words I bolded could be easily omitted from the article (as it's already written what Sovietization is) even though I agree with Bonusiak et al that Sovietization is inimical to just about any culture... Alæxis_¿question? 19:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

1. What's the significance of Partition of Czechoslovakia to the Soviet invasion? There are many interesting issues related to Polish (or Soviet...) foreign relations that are not mentioned due to not being very relevant, for example Polish-Romanian alliance, German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact, sanacja...

2. Since the quotes specifically distinguishes Poles from Jews, it is safe to assume that it does not include Belorussian or Ukrainians. The reference seems quite adequate for the point its making, but if you'd like to suggest some better, alternative rewording, go right ahead.

3. If you have a source that states just that, we can surely add it. Do note that if we were to remove current statement and introduce yours, the POV balance would shift the other way. I and presumably other editors have no problem with NPOVing that with your suggested formulation - but again, please provide citatins for it.

4. I will leave it to other editors to decide whether it is necessary, as indeed a link to Sovietization is the most important, and explanations of what the policy was is of secondary nature to the article.

Thank you for your comments, I hope we can resolve all those issues quickly.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Replies to comments of Alæxis

1.The pre-war Polish relations with Germany (like the participation in the Chechoslovakia's partition) should be mentioned imho. One sentence should be enough...'

I will look into this, as I have tried to many times before. It seems to me that though the Polish leaders were as much a bunch of nasty fascist-leaning heavies as any other late 1930s national leaders, they didn’t actually get on with Hitler. When he demanded access through Poland to Königsburg, for example, he was refused.

What those who accuse the Polish leaders of sympathy with Hitler should consider, in my opinion, is that Poland had no choice but to bend over backwards not to upset Hitler, because it was quite clear that he only wanted half an excuse to invade Poland. The British and French also put pressure on the Poles not to give Hitler an excuse to become aggressive. This was the key to Beck's policy of restraint towards Hitler, as far as I can see. In terms of future diplomacy and the legitimacy of the Polish state, it was essential that the Germans could at no point in the future come to a negotiating table claiming provocation. But I tend to think this stuff should go in the article on the German invasion of Poland.

On Czechoslovakia, you are not the first to mention this; but I have not come across a connection between Czechoslovakia and the Soviet-Polish campaign yet. I would be grateful if someone could point me to a source where I could research any such connection.

I've followed your advice and added this info to Invasion of Poland (1939) article. Let's see what happens )) Alæxis_¿question? 17:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

“

”

“

”

I have always disliked that source and that quotation in the notes. It was there long before the article even became a good article, and I think the article has outgrown it in quality; so you have given me an excuse to remove it. Source removed.

It wasn’t the main source for the information, however. Stachura makes a convincing case for similarity between the Nazi and Soviet treatment of the Poles, and so his reference is sufficient. Of course, the Soviets weren’t mass-murdering the Jews, but nor were the Nazis at this stage in history. What happened at Katyn was certainly horrendous; and though I don’t believe there was a deliberate attempt to exterminate all Polish citizens, I do believe there was a systematic attempt to wipe out the entire Polish superstructure of officers, lawyers, managers, bosses, politicians, etc.—even foremen. This policy was the same under the Soviets and the Nazis. Rieber (p. 44), who has looked into the documents released since 1990, says that the Stalinist regime "aimed at undermining Polish statehood and the gene pool of the Polish people".

“

Of the 13.5 million civilians living in the newly annexed territories, Poles formed the largest single ethnic group, Ukrainians the second and Belarusians the third largest.[57]

”

“

"Among the population of Eastern territories were circa 38% Poles, 37% Ukrainians, 14.5% Belarusians, 8.4% Jewish, 0.9% Russians and 0.6% Germans"

”

I have rephrased it so that all angles are covered. The note gave all the population figures, so no implication was intended. The article at no point suggests that the Poles had a right to rule those territories. (Those who had the right to rule those territories were the Belarusians and the Ukrainians, of course.)

“

The Soviets went on to pursue policies of Sovietization inimical to Ukrainian culture and Belarusian culture, as well as to Polish culture.

”

Fair enough. I don’t think it will be any loss to the article. What happened with Sovietization is clear enough from the following paragraph. Removed.

Thanks for your constructive comments.qp10qp 03:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Support Very well read; well referenced.--Kober^Talk 18:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Support. Gives the big image, a good gateway to the topic. I'm impressed by the detailed analysis by qp10qp. Article is flooded by references, (difficult to find more than 3 consecutive sequences without refs) and the sources are many. Now, when a major error (a bad colour of the Polish flag) has been corrected ;-) I can wholeheartedly support the nomination. --Beaumont (@) 14:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 20:57, 17 July 2007.

[edit] Structural history of the Roman military

This is the first nomination to be made for this article and it is a self-nomination. The article has been peer-reviewed, is a Good Article, and has most recently passed A-class review with virtually no criticism or suggestions for improvement. This is the second of 5 sister articles that I hope to take a FA, all covering various aspects of the military of ancient Rome. The first article, Campaign history of the Roman military is already a featured article, this is the second article, and the third through fifth articles are still start-class. This being my second time pushing an article to FA, I'm better prepared this time for just what a bruising it - and I - may take! Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit: I am taking a wikibreak for a short while, I find pushing articles through FA a stressful process and I need a break. Please note that I will not be able to respond to any further posted comments in this FA candidacy. Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I don't think the Bibliography section conforms with the manual of style; are these colorful boxes necessary? HHermans 01:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi HHermans, the bibliography "infoboxes" for each book certainly aren't strictly necessary and don't follow wikipedia convention in that I haven't seen this done before. However, they do not conflict with any specific part of the manual of style that I am aware of either and in my view bring the bibliography "to life" a little. Rather than having a dry text list of works, I thought it was an improvement on the traditional bibliography layout to be able to see a small thumbnail of the cover of each text. It is ultimately a matter of stylistic choice - removing it would have no detrimental effect on the contents of the article, but equally keeping it has no detrimental effect on the content of the article and also makes the bibliography more interesting to view in my opinion. I'm not going to have kittens if the bibligraphy has to be reverted to the traditional format, but equally I see no compelling reason for doing so. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This might look more aesthetic (and take up less vertical space) in two columns, one for primary sources and one for the secondary sources. Is this possible to implement? I would try it but I know little about the wikicode for these things HHermans 13:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This is actually set to render in two columns, and does render in two columns in most browsers on most platforms. The main browser not to support this code is internet explorer on windows and there is no way around this. Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Support If it's not against the manual of style, I have no objections. It looks a lot nicer now without the book images. Maybe you'll start a trend ;) Cheers HHermans 02:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Amazing work has gone in this broad yet specific topic (I applaud you) but I would wish to hear your arguement for making all the headings level 3 and the bibliography having fair use non-readable images of books? Thank you. 74.13.97.56 01:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the kind words, I ought to point out that although I have self-nominated this as the primary editor, there has been significant input from other users since the peer review stage on both factual information and copyediting of the text. On the question of making all the headings level 3 this was done for nothing other than stylistic reasons, ie to make the seciton title text a reasonable and consistent size throughout the article. I see what you are saying - that since they do not contain subheadings but are first-level headings that they should all be level 1 (or level 2?). However, I think having this giant text all the way down the article would look a little odd. If it needs doing to comply with manual of style, then so be it.

With regard to the images of the books in the bibliography, I feel I should justify firstly their inclusiona nd secondarily their size. I included them at all purely to make the bibliography more relevant and interesting and contemporary in feel - people always like to see what books look like even if it has no bearing on their content, which is why all book e=retailers have images of book covers on their websites. I was just trying to include some of that tacticle "this is a book" flavour to the bibliography. With regard to why the images are so small, I was keen to avoid their deletion from wikipedia, and thus made the images comply as far as possible with fair use policy. If it is possible under fair use to have high-res copies of the book covers (I didn't think it was but I might be misunderstanding the policy) then I can upload higher res images in their place and have the small thumbnails link to the high-res images. If this is preferred and permissible under fair use then let me know and I will do this. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The MoS calls for the base headings to be level 2, if I recall correctly; that's what's generally done in most articles, in any case. I wouldn't worry too much about the font size; that's something people can change through CSS, browser preferences, etc., anyways. Kirill 06:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Level3 headers changed to level2 headers now. personally I think the use of horizontal page break lines is now overly heavy on the page, but MOS is MOS I guess. Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 07:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as the images go, they don't really comply with the non-free content criteria, regardless of resolution, as they're being used decoratively rather than being an integral part of the article content. I strongly suggest removing them; you're likely to see no end of trouble otherwise. Kirill 06:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If the original images were revised to high-res, with the small thumbnails linking to them, would this help? The images are being used informationally/referentially rather than decoratively - ie I am referring to a book and putting an image of the book being referred to - this seems perfectly justified under fair use in my opinion, and there has been no previous objection to the images or article on this point. Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 07:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so—my understanding is that the NFCC require that the image add significantly to the reader's understanding of the topic of the article (which is admittedly rather stricter than pure fair use)—but I'm not an expert on this particular area of policy; suffice it to say that "galleries" of such images have been aggressively removed in the past. If you're unsure of how to proceed here, you should probably ask on WT:NONFREE, and one of the more NFCC-savvy admins that hang out there should be able to tell you if what you have is acceptable under the criteria. Kirill 12:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill, I'll post up there now and see what the consensus is. Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Acceptable_use_of_images_under_fair_use.3F if anybody is interested in following the discussion directly. I will follow the consensus opinion generated. Thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Support - a very well written and comprehensive article. --Nick Dowling 08:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Support - I found this to be a surprisingly well written and very good looking article. Good job. The Bearded One 09:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
~~Comments~~ Support

I'm not keen on the bibliography, with each book having its own box. The boxes are handcrafted out of HTML, adding significantly to the size of the article. The boxes won't display properly on low-resolution monitors, narrow browser windows or browsers with large text.--Nydas^(Talk) 12:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nydas. The boxes take up only about 20k. This is less than the extra size a browser must load from adding a single extra image to the article, so is trivial. The bibliography boxes can easily be converted to tempalates if preferred but it is important to realise that although this would make the page look smaller in wikipedia editing mode, the browser would ultimately be laoding the same amount of information. With regards to browser problems I have tested the display in low resolutions and in several browsers on different problems and there is no mroe problem with these items then there are with eg the info box at the top right. Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

20K is not insignificant for someone on dial-up. For me, using Firefox, the boxes overlap each other when the browser window is narrowed or the text size is set to large. For someone using a screen reader, the boxes will make it harder for them to navigate the bibliography.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nydas, my point is that if bandwidth is a concern, it would be better to remove one or more images from the article, which would have a far greater reduction in overall download size of the article than removing some HTML code - HTML is generally "light" in terms of file size. I understand your objections to the boxes but the same objections can be made about the proliferation of infoboxes, userboxes, campaign boxes, battle boxes, etc etc etc that are commonplace and are not objected to - the bibliography boxes use the same code as these so surely either none of them should exist or all of them should? I don't imagine the boxes would cause a screen reader problems because they generally ignore markup and read only text - the boxes should therefore be "invisible" to screen reader software. I have to admit however that I have not tested this with a screenreader so this point is kind of hypothetical and academic at this point. Does anyone have screenreader software isntalled to see if the boxes cause a particular problem? Thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Screen readers still need to be able to navigate between sections on pages, and I believe that they use divs to help do this. A barrage of unnamed divs may well confuse them. Users can turn images down or turn them off, but they can't turn off the biblioboxes. Another problem is they make it difficult to add or edit the entries. The edit button is a barrier to a lot of people, and an HTML-heavy setup won't help with that.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nydas, I think we might have to agree to disagree on this point - I don't see that the biblioboxes would possibly cause any extra problems. I have had a look at the source of The Wire, the current front-page featured article, and the page is littered with div tags, dozens of them, from the intereiki links to even the FA star itself having its own div and these are at the start of or in the middle of the article where they might interfere with reading whereas the biblio divs are at the end of the article where they couldn't possibly cause any interference. As I say, this point is academic unless it can be shown specifically that the biblioboxes do actually cause a problem not caused by wiki markup on other FA articles. I still can't see how they would do. As I say, we might have to agree to disagree! :-) Regarding editing the entries, I have now formatted these using a standard template, so that they are as easy to edit as a regular bibliography entry, which I hope you will agree is an improvement. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of the other divs have classes, which screen readers can use to navigate. However, there are loads of table tags (also bad for screen readers) used in infoboxes and elsewhere. You're right that there's not much point complaining about it here. The template is an improvement, so I now support.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, many thanks for your input on the two points above and for your support. Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The article could use more information on the Roman Navy, if it can be found.--Nydas^(Talk) 12:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nydas. I am aware that there is little information ont he structure of the navy, but this is primarily because there is little information ont hem. it is an area of active research today but most research deals with issues other than structure of the navy. Information is extremely difficult to find and I have covered this as much as possible givent he sources available to me. its possible that some specialist journals have some more info but not that I can find. Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment on lead. This is an impressive piece of work, and very close to where it needs to be. There are some specific places that might be improved, which I'll list below. I don't expect you to accept every one, but my view is that any comment about writing, even if off-based, should result in some change, if only because you might thereby save some other reader from making the same mistake. semper fictilis 12:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I would delete the clause "the most effective … known to history" and its note. It may be true (I'm not sure it could sustain much scrutiny), but it's a bit irrelevant and sounds like someone is trying a little too hard to make the article really, really, important. And the ref goes to 1911 EB, which is dated. semper fictilis 12:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi semperf, you are right that I did want to put in some quote relating to the important of ancient Rome and ancient Roman military. If you feel that the current quote is a little overblown, are you able to suggest a replacement at all? I would like to include a quote of some sort describing why its worth writing an article on the Roman military at all. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Is 'structural' the right word for what kind of history this is? To my ear, "organizational" might be better. semper fictilis 12:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I did consider several different options for the title but considered "structural" to be the best, since I wanted to cover the armies "constitution" as well as organization in one article - ie to cover what type of people (romans, colonists, barbarians etc) were enrolling in the army as well as how they were organised. I also wanted to make it clear that the article was covering only the major structure of each period too and not get too caught up in organizational intracacies about eg who reported to who, what ranks existed etc etc, which would be implicit in "organizational". I'm open to possibility of using a third name but I don't think "organizational" is any more accurate than "structural". Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- But, whatever the adjective, it should modify "Roman military", not "history"; structural history is the Annales school. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Four phases in the opening section could use some rough dates. semper fictilis 12:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm surprised that the point is made so meakly in "[auxiliaries] may have come to represent a majority of Rome's forces" (near the end of the introduction). According to Tacitus, the auxiliaries and legionaries were in roughly equal numbers in AD 14. Any increase in the use of auxilia will surely have made them the majority. semper fictilis 12:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi semperf, in fact the point is meant to be in relation to allied forces such as foederati in the late empire, rather than auxilia in the principate, if this is not clear I will have to reword it. The wording was changed at the request of User:Jacob Haller who has kept me on my toes by inserting "disputed" tags in several sections, even those with citations - to appease him I have had to tone down some of the previously certain language to include phrases such as "may have". Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments on tribal section. This section is a little weaker, presumably because the evidence is so thin. The best sourcing should both attribute what you write, but also give a reader works that they might consult if they're interested in further exploration. I'm not keen on the sourcing in this paragraph and suggest you replace Grant (here and everywhere else). Vogt (n. 4) is very good, but a citation to his work on the fall of the empire suggests to me that this can be improved. (I'll see what I can find for you.) Cary & Scullard is ok, but it might be better to plunder its footnotes, since they will cite what they regard as the most authoritative works. semper fictilis 12:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi semperf, I'm afraid that I have used the citations purely as "proof of fact" rather than "further reading". Perhaps int he bibliography it could be indicated what areas each book covered in what sort of detail? This could then double as a "further readign" section - what do you think? To not just list each work but summarise it also? This would also make even better use of the "bibliobox" boxes for each reference work. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If you do think this is a good idea (and it is definitely growing on me) then I could definitely use your input on summarising some of the works succintly. It does now strike me that being able to give some basic information on the coverage of each book rather than simply listing it would be of incredible use to readers. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Support - nicely written article that makes for interesting reading. Some issues:

~~Latini should be linked to Latins; otherwise, it goes to a disambiguation page.~~

Done - PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Over-referencing: Section "Proletariatisation of the infantry (217 BC to 107 BC )" - in the second and third paragraph, there are five consecutive footnotes going to the same reference (Gabba p. 9) - surely having one reference link at the end of each section would convey exactly the same information? There are further similar instances - two adjacent sentences, sometimes even linked with a semi-colon, each with its own, and exactly the same, reference. It looks a bit over-eager.

This was actually how some of these sections were originally. Due to repeated "cite needed" and "disputed" tags being added, I had to keep adding cites until the situation was as now. Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That's just silly, of course. Well, you have to decide whom you want to please - the people who are mainly interested in the substance, or the people who think that the form (in this case, every sentence having a numbered thingy) is important. --Markus Poessel 19:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

~~"Young, unproven men would serve as hastati, older men with some military experience as principes, and veteran troops of advanced age and experience as triarii" - missing full stop.~~

Fixed - PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

~~Inconsequent wikification: "including catafractarii or clibinarii, scutarii, and legionary cavalry known as promoti." - any reason why the promoti aren't wikified?~~

Fixed - PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

~~Sassanid should be wikified. So should Valens. And the Germans (as Germanic tribes)~~

All fixed - PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

~~as (coin) is the correct link, but surely the "(coin)" part shouldn't be visible.~~

Fixed now - PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

~~Brutus currently goes to a disambiguation page; please correct.~~

Fixed - PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

In general, more than 20 red links in a FAC is a bit disappointing. AFAIK, editors are encouraged to at least start stubs if they can.

It shouldn't be a reflection on the worth of the article that people have not written articles in the subject area on all the topics it covers IMO - PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It is mentioned somewhere, either in one of the MOS pages or in one of the pages about how a FA should look. I didn't manage to find it though - when I googled it, I basically got the 1900 pages where about as many users have mentioned in a FAC discussion that this is desirable (that number is certainly not bad for a consensus). I guess it's a matter of how much of a perfectionist you are. A small number of red links is certainly tolerated; larger numbers are frowned upon. Perhaps author-linking everyone in your bibliography just isn't a good idea? Unless you expect all those people to be or become personally notable? --Markus Poessel 19:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I take your point that a mass of red links can look bad. I think half the problem is that they are rendered in red which we associate immediately then with "error" rather than just "page not written just yet". I suppose its a personal thing but red wikilinks don't bother me at all - I just see them as an invitation to add more articles than a problem with the article being viewed. If there is some official policy against having too many red wikilinks I'll be happy enough to remove some but I've only wikilinked generally what I think *should* have articles: for the entire province of Tingitania not to have an article is bizarre, and certainly the wikilinked authors are generally professors of history with multiple publications in their name and notable in my book, but then I'm not too clear what wikipedia's notability criteria for authors are! Let me know if this is just a personal preference thing or if I really do need to remove some of the red wikilinks for reasons of official policy and I'll get on it. Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the red is chosen with care - it's meant to irritate people into writing stubs (or more)! As you can see from googling "site:en.wikipedia.org "red link" "featured article"", it is widely regarded desirable. Moreover, if you write stubs, it will go a longer way towards getting people to actually write what you think should be articles (since there are lists of stubs, and people are regularly encouraged to flesh them out). I don't think it's a policy (otherwise, it would have been a reason for a temporary "weak oppose" until fixed), just a matter of how much of a perfectionist you are. As for notability, as per WP:NOTABILITY, "professors of history with multiple publications" probably do not qualify automatically - say, if all that other authors have written about them are brief entries on the university's webpages and one paragraph in "Who's who in Academe". If there is a Festschrift in their name, if their research is described in detail in a book on the development of archaeology, or if there are portraits in nationwide (or even local) newspapers, they would probably qualify. --Markus Poessel 10:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

~~Imperial legions and reformation of the auxilia (27 BC - 75 AD): Why is the second occurence of "Augustus" wikified, not the first? Similarly for Constantine.~~

Pure oversight, fixed now - PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

~~When linking to a subsection, such as Servius_Tullius#Classes, you are meant to leave a brief comment at the target, to prevent other editors from removing it and leaving your link dangling~~

I'm not sure how to add such comments, are you able to do this? Cheers PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. As far as I remember, it simply involves adding an HTML-comment to the section in question, so that's what I did. --Markus Poessel 19:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

In my version of Firefox (quite modern, 2.0.0.3), the boxes in the bibliography aren't displayed correctly (I see other users have remarked upon this as well) - they overlap, which makes the information hard to read. Surely, in the bibliography of what is meant to be a serious article, conveying the information should be so much more important than graphics gimmicks that there can be no question these boxes should be changed?

All in all, nothing major (except perhaps for the annoying bibliography boxes), but a number of things that should be fixed. --Markus Poessel 18:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There was a problem in my code for the biblioboxes, this has been fixed now. I don't like history being made "dry", and don't see why ana rticle shold have to be dully presented in order to be serious. Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree that articles shouldn't be dry and dull. On the other hand, if adding colorful boxes is a key point in your strategy to make an article less dull, you'll be gravely disappointed (just kidding). As long as the choice was between incomprehensible but colorful, or comprehensible and less colorful, I'd say the choice was clear. But in fact, whatever you fixed worked for me (no overlapping boxes any more), so all is well. --Markus Poessel 19:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Markus, no offence taken, I have tried to make the prose as lively as possible too of course to try and bring the article alive a little, to use your phrasing I just think comprehensible and colourful is better than comprehensible and drab - I thought you were suggesting that "colour" by its very nature was unsuitable in a serious article. I'm glad the fixed code renders properly in your browser now, I have tested it on several browsers now including relatively little-used ones such as Epiphany and it seems to work fine on all of them. Thanks for your support of the article. Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Is note alpha necessary? semper fictilis 03:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

~~Strong Oppose per Fair Use issue.~~

I'm very pleased to see the size of this article within WP:SIZE guidelines, but the images in the references really should go. Besides the Fair Use issues, they unnecessarily increase the load time for the article, and just aren't a good trend to further on Wiki.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I am very disappointed int he negaive reaction to the images from several people on fair-use grounds, there seems to be some element of paranoia on wikipedia at the moment of copyright infringement - the use of such tiny thumbails of images would be permitted almost anywhere other than wikipedia, with its harsher-than-required-by-law policies. Images reluctantly removed - PocklingtonDan (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, hyphens are used incorrectly in place of endashes (see WP:DASH on date ranges); I contacted someone who is still testing a script, but he hasn't yet refined it to work on BC dates, so doing the work by hand will take some time, as there are so many that are wrong.If you get the images corrected, I'll be glad to help with the manual work of correcting all the dashes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have had a go correcting some of the hyphens and dashes based on WP:DASH. I have to say its a bit of a minefield - who even knew there were three types of hyphens and dashes?? Anyway I think this should be fixed now - Cheers PocklingtonDan (talk) 06:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

~~Oops, I forgot to mention the most important thing—there's something in the coding in the article that is rendering the Table of Contents unviewable between Sections 6 and 14 in IE 7.~~ question at Village Pump SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have no idea what would be causing this but I have checked it in several other browsers and there is no problem at all. I don't have IE7 on my PC to test this but I'll wait and see what the village pump come back with - PocklingtonDan (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who did what and where, but the TOC is back now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

~~A typo in the refs (?), not sure which is correct:~~

^ Encyclopedia Britannica, Eleventh Edition (1911), The Roman Army
^ Encyclopedia Britannica, Eleventh Edition, 1991, The Roman Army SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I have corrected this now - they should both read 1911, simple typo. Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 06:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There are several capitalization issues in section headings (see WP:MSH), but i don't want to try to fix headings myself since the Table of Contents doesn't render in my browser, so someone will have to find the bigger problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, I believe that I have correct these capitalizatin problems now - PocklingtonDan (talk) 06:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I corrected the footnote placement per WP:FN and set up named refs to shorten the citations list (diff). This is not an Object, but a suggestion for shortening the citation list further. When you have citations like:

^ Santosuosso, Storming the Heavens, p. 174
^ Santosuosso, Storming the Heavens, p. 175

consecutively, you can make your Citations list much more manageable by combining them to:

^ Santosuosso, Storming the Heavens, pp. 174–175

and using a named ref to list them only once. This is just an example; if you did it throughout the article, you could probably cut the size of the citation list in half. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, I always thought the use of "174-175" was to cite a section that started on one page and finished on the next, rather than being used to merge footnotes. I think it is more important to precisely cite a fact to the exact page that the information can be found on rather than it is to reduce the length of the list of footnotes - I mean, I could cut the length of the footnotes even more drastically if I simply listed the chapter, or even just the book, but at each step you are losing information on precisely what you are citing. I would rather leave this as it is unless it is a major issue. Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 06:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem on the combined citations; you're probably right. It looks like you're well on the way; ~~I'll check in tomorrow to see if someone at the Village Pump has figured out the TOC.~~ I know the biblioboxes are pretty, but I sure hate to see them get started, as they slow down load times and increase potential editing headaches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

One other thing to fix: see WP:ITALICS. Quotations aren't normally italicized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Another fix: have a look at WP:UNITS regarding conversions and non-breaking hard spaces. It's strange to see "foot" and "cm" mixed in the same sentence (... each with a 3 foot wooden shaft the diameter of a finger, with a 20–30cm ... ). You can use {{convert}} to easily address this. Also, see WP:DASH#Hyphens regarding punctuation of 3 foot wooden shaft. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. In the Etruscan section, paragraph beginning "The army is traditionally said…". I think the sentence in which n. 18 appears should be excised, since (1) an argumentum ex silentio ("no evidence of…") is not much use for this period and (2) the point is so minor. (This is an interesting point for late Empire, but not for regal period). Much of the next sentence and note beta can also go, in my opinion. semper fictilis 12:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment Very interesting article, but please ditch the Bibliography tables, especially the icons. Just a list really should be sufficient, not everything has to be in tables with colourful icons. Garion96 (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Many of the headings have specific dates, and these seem to correspond with the watershed-marks of Roman history: 509 as end of monarchy, etc. It strikes me as unlikely that the watersheds were exactly the same for military evolution, and the exact dates could lead the unsuspecting astray. I suggest that Etruscan heading be changed to "Etruscan-model hoplites (regal period)", and so forth. semper fictilis 18:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- The earliest ones are equally dubious for the political development; whatever actual event has come down to us as the Expulsion of the Tarquins, it was unlikely to be in 509 BC; the other dates are military events (Marius's first campaign, Trajan's conquests in the East, and so on.) I would prefer c. for the earlier dates anyway; the later ones are as reasonable here as in any account of military evolution. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I have added a {{cn}} for one point (which may well be correct, but is a modern conjecture; it needs a source). I am disquieted by the use of the 1911 Britannica on this subject; anything from a century ago is likely to be dated, especially on a field so dependent on epigraphy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment - this is an absolutely fantastic article, but I have two issues at the moment. Firstly, the bibliography boxes are rather unnecessary now that the book covers have been removed. If the book covers are allowed under fair-use, I would support them, since I think they do add value. But if they're not going to be included, then the bibliography should be made into a simple list. Additionally, the box border stretches beyond the content frame on my 1680 x 1050 monitor (this is not a problem at lower resolutions). Secondly, the title may be somewhat ambiguous. As some user has pointed out before, "structural history" is also a term usually associated with the Annales School; it denotes the view of history in terms of long-term structures rather than immediate causes. Then again, I agree that "structural" is the best adjective to use here. Would there be any way of rephrasing this so that "structural" and "history" are not put together? Ronline ✉ 09:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Consider merging citation with the footnotes, as these are in just about all reference works sorted under the same category. Footnotes are intended to be used for either specifying sources or making comments, so I don't see the need to separate them. And the Greek alphabet-thang really does make it all look a lot more complicated than it actually is... Peter ^Isotalo 12:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Further comment. Unsurprisingly given the nature of the Roman state and its military, the navy gets not a lot of attention here, with a paragraph attached to the end of each chronological period. I wonder whether these paragraphs shouldn't be collected and spun-out into their own article. (This might result in the article needing to be renamed to "… of the Roman army/infantry", which may spoil the symmetry of the article series.) semper fictilis 13:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I would take the Roman navy out of the whole series. The sea battles of the First Carthaginian War were won by the army, fighting as an army, and there are very few other naval battles, aside from Actium. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment The section on early history jumps directly from the archaeology to the traditional Roman history, accepting its dates as accurate. (I just inserted a paragraph break, as a minimum.) It should be made clear that these dates and facts are conjectures, made centuries later, on inadequate data. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Upon consideration, the prehistory of Rome is off topic here, for several reasons; most importantly, we may conjecture something about the weapons of Bronze Age Latium, we know nothing about the stucture of their military. Moved to talk. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Article should be named "history of the structure of..." or "history of the organisation of...". It's not clear to the layperson that "structural history" refers to organisation rather than mechanical structures, and it is also not a very widely used term - the article itself is the fourth Google hit for the topic! And if you need a final straw, there is no Wikipedia entry for "structural history". Spamsara 19:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment. One thing that is missing from this article is the importance of the Italian allies before the second century, which was governed by the formula togatorum (which I've just created a stub for). The importance of the Italian allies (whose dissatisfaction led to the Social War) needs a little more emphasis. (This is, of course, fixable.) semper fictilis 01:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Weak oppose Featured articles should be written in English, not in jargon. I have removed "pro-active"; but several instances of "re-active" and "tasked" remain. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 20:57, 17 July 2007.

[edit] Chad

I've started a radical remake of this article since April, spurred mostly by Amcaja's example, raising Cameroon to a featured article. After completing in May the first draft of the article, I submitted it to a peer review, where I've been much helped by Brian, that apart from carefully peer reviewing the article has much helped me with copyediting. As will be noted, a number of red links are present in the article; I intend to progressively remove them, as part of my ongoing project of expanding covering of Chad-related topics.--Aldux 00:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Very good. Just some notes I made while reading (mostly link suggestions):

"Sahelian" should be linked when first used in the lead rather than linking it further on in the second paragraph.
Wikilink "hegemony" and "subsistence" in the lead.
Wikilink "California".
Wikilink "piracy".
The sentence beginning "Although in the 21st century" seems a bit awkward. Also, isn't the Lake Chad thing quite a big problem? I recall reading somewhere in the news about this. I think a few more details about the lake could be added.
During what part of the year is the wet season?
Wikilink "parastatal".
Wikilink "football" and the other sports in that line. --- RockMFR 01:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the extra linking. I can see "subsistence agriculture" and "parastatal" getting links, but links to things like "California" and "hegemony" just strike me as frivolous. We need to try to only make links that will further the reader's understanding of Chad when they click through; I don't think the California article or article on soccer will do that. — Amcaja (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Brian, we should avoid exceeding with links.--Aldux 21:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment The peer review should not be open.--Rmky87 02:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Mild oppose, mainly on style issues. Content-wise, the article is excellent.
- The sentence "It became clear that behind the apparent return to normality was an air of tension." doesn't add any content to the article not made concrete in the following sentence. I recommend removal.
  - Already removed by Brian.--Aldux 21:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- ~~In the sentence "In 2005, opposition parties and human rights organizations boycotted the constitutional referendum", I don't understand how human rights organizations boycott a referendum.~~
  - The wording is almost exactly that used by Amnesty International in its report; but if you find it awkard we could put, instead of "boycotted", "supported the boycott".--Aldux 21:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- In "analysts such as Michael Weinstein have argued that this new cycle of instability will probably culminate in regime change", there is no explanation of who Weinstein is and why we should believe him. Also, "analysts such as" implies that there are other analysts, but there is only one reference. This is possible weasel wording.
  - I've included this opinion because it has been voiced by quite a number of analysts and observers. But it's not really vital, so I'll just remove it.--Aldux 21:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    
    The option is to add references to the other observers, but removing it also solves the problem. - Banyan Tree 05:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- ~~In the paragraph about the wet and dry seasons, please add the rough months of the seasons, rather than referring to them as "brief" and "longer".~~
  - Unfortunately, as I said during the peer review, this is quite difficult. To make clearer what I mean, I'll quote from Samuel Decalo's Historical dictionary of Chad: "within Chad there are wide climatic variations ... In the wet tropical South ... up to 48 inches of rain fall annually during the May-October wet season; in the Sahelian belt rainfalls rarely exceeded 12 to 31 inches (between June and September)." As for the Saharan zone, rainfall hardly comes at all. So it's hard to put a sole duration; I've placed, as Decalo does, both Sahel and Sudan wet season durations. Is it OK?--Aldux 21:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    
    Yes, that's great. - Banyan Tree 05:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- ~~This is a minor point, but is FGM is confined to particular ethnic groups? If so, I think that would be interesting enough for half a sentence in the relevant paragraph.~~
  - Well, I can't say it's really confined to specific groups, as it involves 45% of female population, but some groups practice it more than others. From the USA country report on human rights practices: "The highest rates of FGM--90 percent or more--were among Arabs, Hadjarai, and Ouaddai. Lower percentages were reported among the Sara (38 percent) and Gorane (2 percent). According to the survey, 70 percent of Muslim females and 30 percent of Christian females were subjected to FGM. The practice was prevalent especially among ethnic groups in the east and south." It's not easy to put it briefly, but if you feel it could be needed, I could put the first sentence: "The highest rates (90 percent or more) were among Arabs, Hadjarai, and Ouaddai. Lower percentages were reported among the Sara (38 percent) and Toubou (2 percent)."--Aldux 21:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    
    I find it relevant, especially at it affects a fourth of Chadians. I would prefer it to be included. Looking at that paragraph again, you may be able to drop "Discrimination against women is widespread." as redundant to the specific examples in the paragraph that illustrate the idea. - Banyan Tree 05:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Followed your suggestions. Do you think it's ok now?--Aldux 13:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I do think that the paragraph is better than it was before. -Banyan Tree 20:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

- In "Due to its great variety of peoples and languages, Chad possesses a rich cultural heritage. For example, the Chadian government have actively promoted Chadian culture and national traditions by opening the Chad National Museum and the Chad Cultural Centre." the second sentence doesn't follow from the first.
  - They aren't connected anymore.--Aldux 22:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- "Chadians enjoy listening to music, both traditional and modern." is too general to be useful. Another awkward sentence is "Specific ethnic groups make use of characteristic instruments". Please reword these.
  - Well, I gave a try at making it less awkard.--Aldux 22:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    
    If one replaced "Chad" with any country in the world, the sentence would still be true. It's largely a filler sentence intended to transition topics and not a big deal, but I'm hoping a more interesting, specific statement can be substituted. - Banyan Tree 05:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed "Chadians enjoy listening to music, both traditional and modern.", because too general.--Aldux 13:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

- In "Fish is popular, especially as salanga, a form of small dried fish, or banda, larger smoked fish," it is somewhat unclear to me if salanga or banda are the names of specific fish (such as Kapenta), as well as types of dish preparation.
  - The Salanga is a specific fish (like Kapenta) of the family of the Alestiidae. To quote from a FAO paper: "About 100 000 tons of fish are caught annually which are prepared either as “salanga” (sun-dried and lightly smoked Alestes and Hydrocynus) or as “banda” (smoked larger fish). “Banda” is mainly sold in Nigeria and “salanga” in Cameroon and Chad."[17] Edited it a bit, hopefully it's ok now.--Aldux 22:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    
    Interesting. I love specifics. - Banyan Tree 05:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- ~~Footnotes to online news articles and reports should include a link to the source article as well as a date of publication.~~
  - I must admit that I miss what you exactly mean here; if you intend that the footnotes should be linked, I have to object, because it would be a useless duplication, as all sources are already in the "references" section, and there they are all linked and provided with the dates.--Aldux 22:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    
    Ah, yes. I missed that as it's not the way I write, but it's not objectionable. - Banyan Tree 05:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- - Banyan Tree 08:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  
  ~~Remaining items not worth objecting to the article as a whole.~~ Nicely done, covering all the topics one would expect, and a few I didn't. Changed to support. - Banyan Tree ~~05:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)~~ 20:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I went ahead and gave the article another light copy edit (I copy edited once already during peer review). I've acted upon those of BanyanTree's concerns that I could, but Aldux will have to address the others. ~~I have a few more comments about where I think the article needs a bit more spit and polish:~~
- The size of Chad is compared to the U.S. state of California and to Niger. Is there a non-African country to which its size is comparable? I'm not sure if there's a rule for this, but it might be more instructive to compare it to, say, Saudi Arabia or Kazakhsatan than to its neighbor to the west.
  - I went ahead and changed the comparison to Peru. — Amcaja (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- ~~The second paragraph under "Demographics" gives some population density figures in metric units; the English equivalents need to follow in parentheses.~~

Done.--Aldux 23:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

- ~~I'm not sure about this one, but I think the "(French)" marker for French-language sources is supposed to come after the reference, not before it.~~

I too may be wrong, but as a rule I've generally seen the language marker placed before; but to tell it all, by a rapid look at the links to the language template both possibilities are widely used.--Aldux 23:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll happily support once these issues are cleared up or explained away. — Amcaja (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Support now. Good work! In full disclosure, I peer reviewed the article and copy edited it, but I have otherwise not been involved. — Amcaja (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Support. Looks good to me. I can't see any major obstacles in the article to FA status.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Just a minor comment, shouldn't the "Notes" section be above "References"? --Victor12 16:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, and sorry for the late awnser. Personally I've seen both way being vastly used, but I must admit preferring the notes at the end, especially since the full name of the sources are in the references section. But this is not very important, really, so if the other editors prefer to change the order I can modify it.--Aldux 00:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, the lead looks unbalanced wiht 2 out of 3 paragraphs devoted entirely to the History of Chad. Thus, it doesn't seem to correctly summarize the entire article. --Victor12 18:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- On the contrary, there's one paragraph on history, and one paragraph on current events. Not at all unbalanced. — Amcaja (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Dropping back into this discussion, my first impression was that the lead was excessively historical (i.e. a recounting of mainly political events) as well, especially in light of Wikipedia:Lead section. As it appears to be a standard way of writing country leads, I didn't object. However, I would also prefer a shorter, less history-focused lead, though I won't object on this basis. - Banyan Tree 23:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Check for instance the lead in Cameroon: 1 paragraph Geography + Linguistics, 1 paragraph History, 1 paragraph Economy + Politics and Government; whereas in Chad we have 1 paragraph Geography + Linguistics, 1 paragraph History (7000BC - 1990) and 1 paragraph History because most of the facts discussed in this third paragraph are detailed in the History section. Thus, the lead seems quite unbalanced. --Victor12 23:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  - I view the leads a bit differently. In Cameroon's lead, we've got 1 paragraph Geography + Linguistics, 1 paragraph History, and 1 paragraph Economy, Politics and Government, and Current Events. (The only difference between my breakdown and yours is the current events in mine). Chad has 1 paragraph Geography and Linguistics, 1 paragraph History, and 1 paragraph Politics and Current Events. The items you are claiming are history in the third paragraph mirror similar elements in the Cameroon lead. Perhaps the Chad lead should be expanded by two sentences, one on culture in the lead paragraph and one on economy in the third? — Amcaja (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, the problem I think is that the lead has too much details about Chad's "History" and "Current Events" (which come from from the History section!). In contrast issues such as Economy, Government and Culture are barely given 1 sentence. Some (even "major") trimming is needed for the History and Current events paragraphs and other topics should be expanded. --Victor12 11:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  - I'm a bit puzzled, especially for the model you propose: I don't have actually to check it, because in making this lead I actually had the Cameroon lead directly under my eye, and modelled the Chad lead directly on Cameroon's. Personally, I tend to agree with BT, and prefer shorter leads. I'll try to rewrite and trim, but I do feel that a paragraph should be bevoted to history, as is generally done with country articles.--Aldux 00:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    - I don't see how do we disagree. I also think there should be one History paragraph as in other countries pages. The problem with this lead is that it had two paragraphs (out of three) mostly devoted to topics covered in the History section. I see that you're working on this issue now. Good luck, --Victor12 01:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
      - Ok, I've trimmed history to the minimum possible (less than that it would risk becoming impossible to understand, I'm afraid), and removed constitution note, but left Darfur (when the press speaks of Chad, it's generally in relation to the Darfur crisis). Expanded economy, and also added a note the Islam is the main religion. What do you think?--Aldux 01:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    - Looks good now. Perhaps the first mention of BC could be wikilinked as well as the word "coups d’etat". --Victor12 02:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Support ~~Fixes needed~~ - structure and prose looks good on first glance, though I'm picking up a few things which I'll highlight below: cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

.. rely on the dregs of the French civil service. - "dregs" I'd argue is a colloquial word I'm finding it hard to justify in an encyclopedic article. It also comes across as a bit POV - by whose definition or reports is this?

- It is harsh, but it reflects the mainstream opinion. See T. Collelo, Chad: A country study: "Although France had put forth considerable effort during the conquest of Chad, the ensuing administration of the territory was halfhearted. Officials in the French colonial service resisted assignments to Chad, so posts often went to novices or to out-of- favor officials. One historian of France's empire has concluded that it was almost impossible to be too demented or depraved to be considered unfit for duty in Chad. Still, major scandals occurred periodically, and many of the posts remained vacant. In 1928, for example, 42 percent of the Chadian subdivisions lacked official administrators." And also see S. Decalo, Historical Dictionary of Chad: "Chad was very much neglected once it was finally conquered, especially since administrative appointments to the AEF in general (and Chad in particular) were the least attractive and/or desirable posings that were frequently assigned either to novice colonial administrators or to derelict officials as a sign of demotion and/or punishment. Many of those posted to the AEF were the dregs of the French colonial civil service". And trust me, especially Decalo is probably the most important reference work on Chad.--Aldux 17:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Habré consolidated his dictatorship through a power system that relied on corruption and violence... - a fairly strong statement (though I'd hazard a guess true) - I'd maybe want a ref for it as well as the one at the end of the para which I guess refers to the whole lot.

- Yes, as you correctly guessed, Nolutshungu's Limits of Anarchy is the source of the passage. I've added a couple of sources; there is no paucity of them on the topic, as the present attempts to bring Habré to justice have restored some notability to him on the press and human rights organizations.--Aldux 22:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

...began in Chad in 2003, bringing with it hopes that Chad would at last know some tranquillity - bolded bit is awkward. rephrasing may help but nothing springs to mind - "chances of peace with prosperity?"

- Done.--Aldux 17:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Chad's greatest outside influence - "Chad's greatest foreign influence" better

- Done.--Aldux 17:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Overall, very nearly there. I was a bit concerned about the use of 'corrupt' in hte lead but it seems justified. I'm wondering whether a little expansion on how it is so corrupt may be warranted next to the finding in the body of the article as it is a pretty bold statement.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per previous comments about the lead. CG 11:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Support, very high quality, featured article recognition would be fitting. Picaroon (Talk) 04:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Support - seems very comprehensive --Hadseys 16:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Support, looks great. —Nightstallion 12:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 20:57, 17 July 2007.

[edit] Ronald Niel Stuart

Nom restarted (old nom) Raul654 16:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. The article is comprehensive and informative, and Jackyd101's latest edits have brought the prose to a higher standard. Karanacs 02:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Oppose. The article does not meet the "compelling prose" criteria. There are numerous misspellings and comma-placement errors, and many cases where sentences are long and convoluted. Overall, the article is comprehensive and informative, but it needs polishing before it is ready to be an FA.
- ~~Per WP:MOSBIO, subsequent references to the subject of the article should use his surname, not his first name. (See second paragraph early life) He should also not be referred to as Lt Stuart.~~

Done

- ~~Is it necessary to include so much information about his parents?~~

Reduced

- I would wikilink barque, First World War, victoria Cross, semaphoring, sloop

Done, although First World War and Victoria Cross were already Wikilinked, did you want them done twice?

I know they are linked in the lead, but I think they should also be linked the first time they are used in the body of the article. Karanacs 02:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

- ~~the Pre-War merchant career paragraph does not read well.~~

Reworded

- red links should be removed

I want to question this one a little. Whilst I am happy to remove them, doesn't this defeat the purpose of a red link. Whereever I could during the creation of this article I created stubs for any redlinks I could find. The four remaining are all first world war detroyers for which I could not find information with which to create even a stub. Nonetheless, they should be linked so that when the articles are created they will link to the right place (otherwise how will the creator of the new article know to link them here?) I will remove them if necessary, but I think its a shame to do so just because the stub required does not exist.

I think they should be removed, but I won't make this the deciding factor in my vote. Karanacs 02:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

All red links delinked.--Jackyd101 21:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

- I've fixed a few misspellings in the article but there are others that need to be corrected. You should also read through the article carefully for comma usage. I saw multiple instances of missing commas and multiple instances of excessive comma usage.

copyedited for commas and spellings.

- ~~There should be a comma after a single year (In 1914,) This is correct in some locations but is not consistent.~~

Done (I think)

- ~~Watch for POV. "he was fotunate"~~

removed

- ~~Need a citation immediately after a direct quote. there is not one for "on the top of the line"~~

Done

- ~~last line of third paragraph in First World War section does not read well.~~

Rephrased

- ~~the 2nd and 3rd paragraph of WWI section deal with the HMS Farnborough, so it would make more sense for them to be included in that subsection.~~

Moved

- ~~"the first year of Q-ship service was frustrating for Stuart and the crew" implies that it was also the crew's first year.~~

Rephrased

- After the first reference to someone else, they should be referred to only by their surname (unless they share the subject's surname). Therefore, you should use "Campbell" instead of "Captain Campbell"

Done

- ~~"took the decision" doesn't make much sense to me~~

Rephrased

- ~~"month-date combinations should be wikilinked (17 February to allow people's date preferences to work correctly. You should also not use the article "the" in front of the date.~~

Done (I think)

- ~~"the submarine, U-83" should either by "a submarie, U-83" or "the submarine u-83"~~

Rephrased

- ~~"Unlike the previous encounter, the damage done was immense." is not good prose. "Unlike the experience of the Famborough, the ship suffered much damage" would be better.~~

Rephrased

- ~~I've never heard the phrase "was holed" before~~

Its a maritime expression for a ship hit by a torpedo or impaled on a rock, literally because a large hole is torn in the hull. I've seen it used in many naval texts. I'll remove it though if you still want me too.

I'll take your word for it.Karanacs 02:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

- ~~Need a citation for the fact that "One petty officer was killed and a number wounded."~~

Done

- ~~"is it "guns crews" or "gun crews"?~~

Corrected

- ~~You mention twice in two sentences that the U-boat got within 50 yds of the Pargoust~~

removed 2nd one

- Need to have the metric conversion for each measurement.

Now all done (I think)--Jackyd101 21:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

- ~~The sentence about Rosenow and his men being killed is very long. This should either be rewritten or broken into 2 sentences~~

Rephrased

- ~~The word "however" is used liberally in the article. Can you cut down on the number of appearances it makes?~~

Reduced

- ~~Need a citation for the date that he was presented his VC by King George V.~~

Done

- "In the same year he met and married his wife Evelyn in Toxteth, with whom he would have three sons and two daughters" If you are going to use with whom, it needs to be right after the name of the person -- he didn't have 5 kids with Toxteth!

rephrased

- ~~Check the article for POV changes in mid-sentence.~~

Done (I think)

- I recommend having a citation directly after this sentence "one of the most significant and important posts in merchant shipping worldwide." It may be covered by a later citation, but this is a sentence that could be contested and thus should be directly cited.

Removed as explaining it would veer too far off topic and there is no direct citation.

- ~~Instead of using the term "currently," say "as of XXXX," because the statement may not be true in 6 months or 2 years.~~

Done

Karanacs 18:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for a very detailed and useful critique of the article, it is very much appreciated. I have been working over the last few days to address the above, and now only have the metric conversions to do. Will get to those soon and will let you know when they are done. Thankyou, --Jackyd101 12:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent job on the changes. It reads much better now. I made a few very minor edits when I was reading through it again. I saw that you've already done some of the conversions (if you haven't already found it, {{convert}} works wonderfully well. Good luck! Karanacs 02:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Have completed all outstanding issues from above (actually, did so a while ago but forgot to note it here).--Jackyd101 21:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Support I don't have any major issues. "Twice during the night the tow broke and twice it was reconnected and the battle to save the ship continued" is a little clumsy, and the quote from the London Gazette is repetitive of the article text. DrKiernan 10:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 20:57, 17 July 2007.

[edit] Zhou Tong (archer)

Self-Nomination - I have built this page from the ground up for the last two years. Nothing more can be done in regard to the breadth of the material. It has two adjoining articles as well. It is listed as GA and A-class among various wiki projects. (Ghostexorcist 12:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

Comments from Universe=atom
- ~~The disambiguation message sounds a little bit strange (He is not to be...). Please fix it.~~
- ~~Why is the word "second" italicized in the the lead?~~
- Even though it is not an FA requirement, perhaps some more "categories" can be added to the article. If none are available, ignore this point.
- ~~Why are there Chinese external links? This is the English Wikipedia and not the Chinese one.~~

I realize that. However, wikipedia is about sharing information. External links are provided so people can look at other information not provided on the page. Several other FA pages include foreign links.(Ghostexorcist 02:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC))

- ~~The beginning of the "References" section is a bit odd and, according to me, is not supposed to be put that way.~~
- Perhaps the "References" section can be merged in with the "Notes" section. The current state is that the complete format of the references is provided in the "References" section and short citations referring to their long counterparts (the counterparts here are the ones in the "References" section) are put in the "Notes" section. What I am suggesting is that the first time a particular source appears in the article, it can be written out fully in the "Notes" section; when they are repeated (with a different page number, for example), they can be just like the current ones in the "Notes" section.
- ~~Perhaps a "See Also" section can also be introduced.~~

Done and done. (Ghostexorcist 07:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC))

- ~~In subsection number 1.2, why does the link Hellmut Wilhelm point to the German Wikipedia instead of the English (and again in subsection 1.3, for that matter)?~~

That was probably because the Hellmut Wilhelm article did not previously exist on the English Wikipedia. I solved that problem by translating it over myself.--Danaman5 23:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

- ~~Grammar mistake: last sentence of the same subsection (there should be a comma after "So").~~
- ~~The previous mistake is repeated several times in the entire article.~~

I have fixed all of the "So" mistakes throughout the article. However, I think the writing still needs work in other areas.--Danaman5 05:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

- More references are needed in subsection 1.2 (in the first half of the first paragraph)
- ~~In the "infobox" in the beginning of the article, why is this person's name mentioned in so many languages?~~

Mainly because his student, Yue Fei, is known in other asian countries. So, I wanted to provided those versions of his name. However, I have erased them since it deals primarily with China.(Ghostexorcist 03:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC))

- ~~The picture in the "infobox" is barely visible in my computer; ignore this if it is visible in other computers of different resolutions.~~

It's a low resolution photo. I've never really had any problems with other editors. It might just be your computer.(Ghostexorcist 02:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC))

- ~~Sub-sub-section 2.4.1 is perhaps too long and can be perhaps trimmed down a bit.~~
- ~~The same goes for subsection 1.3~~

It is impossible to shrink both of these sections as they hold information that is very important. The events after Zhou's death led to Yue joining the army, which is what he is famous for. Zhou's association with the water margin bandits is fictional. However, some people believe he was there actual tutor. The first couple of paragraphs discusses the connection; the second, what skills he supposedly taught them; and three, why the connection is fictional.(Ghostexorcist 02:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC))

- The first sentence of the "History" section goes like this: "On his deathbed, Yue's third son Yue Lin (Chinese: 岳霖, b. 1130)[14] asked his own son, the poet and historian Yue Ke (Chinese: 岳柯, 1183 - post 1240)[15] to complete Yue Fei's memoirs." Who is Yue? Why is there no mention of him before in the section. I know that he is mentioned in the lead, but facts mentioned in the introduction are just supposed to be an overview of the entire article and are thus supposed to be mentioned again in the article.

The Yue in question is mentioned twice in the lead paragraph. He is Yue Fei. But I have written his full name in that first part to avoid confusion.(Ghostexorcist 01:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC))

After these minor points are taken care of, I am sure that this article will have some potential as an FA. It is well written (although I must admit that that is not true of the entire article but most of it), is well referenced, and is within size limits (excluding the references and the images, of course). Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 18:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

An unforeseen event has happened in my personal life that will keep me away from the computer until Monday. I will answer all of your questions by then. Sorry for the inconvenience.(Ghostexorcist 23:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

I am back, but I don't know for how long. I also wanted to note I am striking through each question (~~example~~) once I answer or fix a certain problem, not to be mean. (Ghostexorcist 02:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC))

Comments Why is the lead so heavily footnoted? Unless we're talking about facts that are not found throughout the rest of the article, it's just needless repetition of footnotes. The use of Chinese characters seems excessive at times. In some instances, it's quite reasonable, but not in all instances. Neither should Chinese names of people or places in pinyin be italicized; this should be reserved for titles of literary works and terms like guan (i.e. 冠). And, please remove all those repetitive instances of Chinese-links. I think people get the point after simply reading the lead... Peter ^Isotalo 11:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles) page says "This edition of Wikipedia is in English, so do not use characters or romanized forms excessively, such as for common words, making this a kind of English–Chinese bilingual edition. However, if the term does not have an established translation (that is, has multiple translations or none), feel free to provide the Chinese characters, which will be useful to the content of the article." In addition, they provide Chinese templates for use in Chinese related pages. There is no limitation set on the usage of these templates.(Ghostexorcist 03:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC))

Comment Word to wise: ibid is a bad idea with something like Wikipedia. What might work with something nice and static won't work with something that isn't.--Rmky87 12:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. I fixed it myself.--Rmky87 15:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The main problem that I see with this article is that it seems to be trying to be a research article all on its own. That is not the function of Wikipedia, and several areas need a rewrite because of this fact. Two examples are:

- (end of the first paragraph under the "tutelage" section):"So, Yue’s emulation of martial heroes, love of military stratagem books, learning of military weapons, and avoidance of the scholarly path suggests Zhou was hired to teach the future general archery in a military capacity. And this is exactly what Western Washington University history professor Edward Kaplan believes. He describes him as Yue's "most important military tutor."[26]"

Deciding what the facts suggest is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. It is, however, appropriate for professor Edward Kaplan. I would rewrite it as: "Western Washington University history professor Edward Kaplan believes that Yue’s emulation of martial heroes, love of military stratagem books, learning of military weapons, and avoidance of the scholarly path suggests Zhou was hired to teach the future general archery in a military capacity, and describes him as Yue's "most important military tutor."[26]"

- (end of the second paragraph under the "tutelage" section):"In sum, Yue's following of the military path, the Yue family's poverty, Yao Dewang's charity, and Yue's rapid mastery of the spear suggests Zhou was later hired by Yao to continue Yue's military education."

We do not have the authority to theorize in this manner. Find a secondary source that says this (perhaps the professor again), or remove it. Also check for other examples of this kind of writing.

- Also, Chinese names are not usually italicized on Wikipedia, as far as I know, so you don't need to do that here. Also, I agree with others that frequently giving the Chinese characters can be a bit distracting. If it is a person who has an article on Wikipedia, you don't need to give the characters, because they can just go to the article to get them. For other things, just use your best judgment about whether the importance of the object merits including the characters.--Danaman5 04:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have answered all the questions or corrected all problems voiced above. However, I'm sure there are still tiny things that need to be done. (Ghostexorcist 07:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC))

Support: This article is well-written with adequate references. Therefore, I support this article, but only after the following point is taken care of: Many of the references are in languages other than English; they should be labeled accordingly. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 13:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Support - It seems like the above concerns have been addressed, and so much work has gone into it.--Danaman5 03:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Support I second that, Danaman. Ghostexorcist has definitely poured a lot of work and care into this article.--PericlesofAthens 17:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Some web sources are missing publishers and access dates. The "Zhou in popular culture" section is too stubby. Some citations aren't placed immediately after punctuation. There is some incorrect dash usage. Common terms like "cream-colored" and "young adult" don't need wikilinking. A further copy-edit is needed to remove redundancies from the prose, such as the word "alternate" in "that describe alternate events different from those presented below", and "of" in "Yue Fei ventures inside of the classroom". The phrase "the majority of" is too wordy; it should be replaced by "most". Epbr123 20:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 20:57, 17 July 2007.

[edit] Siege of Malakand

An interesting topic with some wonderfully accessible sources. Very quickly written which left me with a couple of prose and spelling issues but most of these have been fixed. Very well referenced I feel, though the references section is a little complicated as a result. This, and possibly a slight weakness in the aftermath section along with one or two remaining minor issues may still exist, however I hope that this FAC will help iron out these one or two remaining kinks.

Please remember to check back after commenting as I will be continually addressing all your points and queries :) thanks! SGGH ^speak! 12:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The first sentence is quite long to be readable. Generally I don't like the lead as it doesn't have a summarized background, despite of casus belli in the infobox. Also there is an iscription near the Pashtun tribes in the combatants, which doesn't seem to be a Pashtun banner of that time. Should be removed IMHO. --Brand спойт 14:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a Pashtun banner at the time that I could find, so I choose "Pashtun" in their written language, but I can try to find something more suitable. I will also work on the leading sentence, though the Durand line bisecting Pashtun lands is a good summary of what is a fairly simple background story I felt... do you have further suggestions re: that? SGGH ^speak! 17:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have worked on the lead's first few lines, but to be honest I would prefer you put forward your ideas about the lead yourself, as I'm not sure how better to briefly explain the background in a more effective way than what is already in place, without loosing the "briefness" of it. SGGH ^speak! 17:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Moderate support. A quite pleasant stuff as for me. Technically however, it would be much better if there would be any map or diagram. --Brand спойт 21:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll get on it. SGGH ^speak! 22:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Haven't found a map as of yet, but have found a new references format which I spotted on the Tony Blair which I have incorporated. SGGH ^speak! 13:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Support, I really enjoyed the article and I think that meets the criteria of an FA. Tony the Marine 23:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment, I really dislike the scrolling box for notes... this is the first article I've seen it on but I think it's needless, ugly, unhelpful, figured I'd mention that here. gren グレン 03:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- I had never seen it before I found Tony Blair's article. I chose it for practicality to shrink the percentage of the article taken up by notes, I don't actually know what the concensus is on using it, will try to find out! SGGH ^speak! 09:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment Just put them into 3 columns to save space. SeleneFN 22:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That's true, though not everyone's browsers seem to support that. SGGH ^speak! 22:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say it is commonpractice on about a third of all FAs. At any rate, the scroll box is very out-of-place with the typical Wikipedia formatting. SeleneFN 23:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll set it as a columns. SGGH ^speak! 14:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Done SGGH ^speak! 21:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

comment Find a better term for the local people than 'natives' which has got to still carry all all the racist/imperialist connotations that it did during the colonial period. Just because it might be used in old quotations does not mean it needs to be used in current narrative Hmains 02:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to replace the word native, and have one in one or two cases, however 90% of the time the word is part of terms like the "native infantry" or "native casualties" used to refer to Pashtun forces fighting as levies in the ranks of the British garrison. I'm finding this use a little unavoidable without causing great confusion as to what Pashtun peoples I am refering to, and saying "Pashtun forces who fought for the British" every time seems redundant. Do you have any suggestions? The above is me just talking utter crap. It's all sorted now, I replaced the one correct use of the word native with indigenous, and the rest with the correct reference to sepoys or Indian troops in the british army where appropriate. That's just me being half asleep. Thanks Hmains SGGH ^speak! 18:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Support: I passed the article to GA, and found it an easy-to-read and well-referenced article. Alientraveller 16:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

~~*Oppose~~ No Vote ~~The lead is poor. It should be a succinct summary of the whole article. We don’t need to know how much W.C made for his newspaper article. Details like this should not be in the lead!~~ I have tweaked the lead somewhat, what do you think? ~~:It is better if the numbers one through nine are spelled out; use figures for numbers 10 and above.~~

- I think I have fixed most of these, but will keep looking.

~~:There are lots of typos. Sentences without full-stops, unwanted spaces, surplus commas, sentences that don't start with capital letters etc, etc~~

- I have gone through the article and fixed all that I could find, and will continue searching

~~:There are no maps. Something particularly desirable for battle articles aiming for FA status. At least a good quality map of the region so we know where we are.~~

- I will try and find one of the Malakand region or at least of the NWFP, but detailed maps of the immediate surrounding area have been very hard to find.
  - ~~I have included a map of the NWFP but that is all I can get a hold of at the moment...~~ I have made a map. SGGH ^speak! 14:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Needs a thorough check and copyedit throughout ~~eg:~~

:Nowshera was located south of the Kabul River " six hours by rail from Rawal Pindi". ~~:Why is the latter part of this sentence in quotation marks?~~

- Because it is a direct quote from the source.

:Captain Holland and the General were wounded, and the group severely depleted as it failed twice to retake the dump before was successful with a third attempt. ~~:Do you mean 'They were' successful?~~

- Yeah, fixed.

:Major Deane, the British political agent, noted the growing unrest within the Pashtun sepoys,[18] who stationed with the British, during July, and his warnings were officially distributed to British officers on 23 July 1897;

- tweaked to flow better

~~:Needs quite a bit of work and polish for FA but has potential. Raymond Palmer 12:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)~~

I have addressed your comments with bold replies. SGGH ^speak! 14:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

....anyone? SGGH ^speak! 21:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

*Still Oppose I'm afraid. In places the writing is poor and not yet ready - in my opinion - for FA status.

~~Despite further attacks during the night of July 28/29, the British recorded only two killed from the sepoy ranks and the severe wounded of a Lieutenant Ford~~

Blood arrived at Nowshera on July 31 1897 to take command, and on August 1, 1897 he was informed that the Pashtun forces had turned their attention to the nearby British fort of Chakdara, a small, under garrisoned fort with few supplies that had itself been holding out with 200 men since the first attacks in Malakand began, and had recently sent the signal "Help us" to the British forces.

The relief force assembled at 04.30am on August 2 with low morale, however with the use diversionary attacks the force was successful in breaking out of the Pashtun encirclement without loss, creating confusion amongst the Pashtun forces "like ants in a disturbed ant–hill" as observed Blood

The siege of Malakand was Winston Churchill's first experience of actual combat, which he later described in several newspaper columns for which he originally received £5 per column from The Daily Telegraph.[18], and that were eventually compiled into his first published book:

~~Back in Nowshera, the 11th Bengal Lancers were woken by telegrams describing the situation~~

~~There is a mixture of British and US spelling eg: reconnoiter US rumor US centre UK neighbouring UK~~

~~These errors, amongst others, prevent the article reaching FA status, IMO. Raymond Palmer 23:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)~~

I have addressed the above errors and have spellchecked the article with my software set to US rather than UK spelling, and have gone through it by eye as well. SGGH ^speak! 08:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

~~Comment.~~ Support
- ~~Make sure that all measurements are in both standard and metric (1,519 mile border). See WP:Convert~~ fixed quoted example, I think that is the only one)

There are other instances. Do a search for "miles" and "yards" in the text and you'll find them. Karanacs 18:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed all those with distanes over 10, things like three miles or two miles I have left as they are, as supplying the km distance is less important as the differences are less at such shorter distances. SGGH ^speak! 20:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

- ~~The sentence that begins "Commanded by COlonel Shalch" is very long and should be reworded~~ fixed
- ~~Quotations inside other quotations should use single quotes ' ' rather than double " ".~~ fixed instances of this double quotation mark occuring
- ~~Need a citation immediately after the Churchill quotation that describes the camp. I know citation 19 is supposed to cover it, but the quotation should also have its own citation~~ fixed
- ~~After you introduce a person, subsequent references to them should use only their last name, not title and last name. (for example, Major Deane should be referred to as just Deane)~~ I have fixed many of these, i have left a couple in if there is a significant gap between the two mentionings, just to make sure the reader can follow who is who and make things easier
- Section headings should not begin with "The" fixed
- "A Lieutenant Watling" should just be "Lieutenant Watling" fixed
- "Back in Nowshera" should be more formal "In Nowshera" fixed
- ~~Dates in section Relieving Chakdara are not wikilinked~~ I have wikilinked those dates that are not wikilinked in the lines immediatly above

Karanacs 14:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose—Linking and hyphen/dash issues (the requirements for professional formatting and MOS compliance, respectively). 1a, too.
- ~~Please read MOS on hyphens and dashes and fix the whole article.~~ I have read MoS and fixed all the dashes as per my understandinf of the MoS
- ~~If you must link the names of countries, please don't do it more than once (e.g., "Afghanistan"—and "Kabul" isn't even linked!).~~done
- ~~"when relief column"—"a"?~~done
- ~~Remove "own" from the last sentence in the lead?~~ fixed
- Should this be in BrEng? Why "center"? Standard MoS always seems to prefer American English, so I changed it so, I'm British and originaly wrote it in English before changing it for FAC
- Audit the whole article for the use of commas: "~~As the Tsar's troops began to subdue one Khanate after another the British feared that Afghanistan would~~ ...". Comma after "another". And why not avoid commas here: "~~It was with these thoughts in mind that, in 1838, the British launched the First Anglo-Afghan War and attempted to impose~~ ..." --> "~~It was with these thoughts in mind that the British launched the First Anglo-Afghan War in 1838 and attempted to impose~~ ..." fixed those highlighted, working through the rest now

These are just examples of why the whole text needs attention by copy-editors. Tony 14:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I will get on those shortly. It would help if other editors fixed such minor problems when they found them also. Wikipedia is a collective edit, I don't own this article and we should all be working together. SGGH ^speak! 15:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

(1) Do NOT strike through reviewers' text. Read the instructions.
(2) No thanks, I won't edit it for you; it's your nomination, so you find people to work "together", as you say.
(3) These were examples, not the finish of the issue. You need to find people who are interested in this kind of topic (research edit histories of related articles) and who can copy-edit. Tony 11:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough SGGH ^speak! 19:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment, This article is a "featured article" as is. I believe that it the relentless scrutiny going on is ridicules. It is easy to criticize someone else's work instead of helping to improve it as we as members of the Wikipedia community should. The article already passed peer review and that is good enough for me. User:SGGH, keep up your excellent and valued work here. Tony the Marine 19:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tony, it's okay... the other Tony has a point I just got a little stressed. Back to the FAC! SGGH ^speak! 20:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Support as per "Comment" above. Antonio Martin 05:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment a see also section has been added by another user. I personally am not a fan of these for FAs, and neither of my other FA articles had them, and it was recommended that they didn't in their FACs, I was wondering if anyone else will lend their views? SGGH ^speak! 19:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment -This FAC has been on the board for over a month. Could a closing administrator please make a final determination as to the status of this article already? Thank you. Tony the Marine 20:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 20:57, 17 July 2007.

[edit] House with Chimaeras

{self-nom) I have started this article as a stub and have gradually expanded it to Good article status (December 23, 2006). After going through the FA criteria, I feel that the article is Featured article worthy. Hopefully, it is not too short and will proceed to Featured status. I hope you will agree with me too. —dima /talk/ 16:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Nominate and Support as nom. —dima /talk/ 16:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Support - very well done; the entry is on an engaging subject, sourced and properly formatted. It would make a solid contribution to the FA list.--Riurik^(discuss) 04:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Support. The article is well documented and nicely illustrated. I checked online refs to be sure that the article is consistent with them, and indeed it is. Nice piece of work. --Novelbank 07:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Support ~~Oppose~~ ~~for now - some significant~~ prose issues addressed very well: cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

~~:Since 2005 it was used as a.. - tense needs to be "has been".~~

The building is commonly dubbed as "The House With Chimaeras" because it... - sounds repetitive - try "The building derives its popular name from..."

~~Ummm...what are the cite needed tags there for. Looks like someone's vandalised the article~~

the polyclinic (clinic) №1 for - is this an official title - if so needs capitalising. If not, then needs to be rewritten in prose not "No. 1"

On the last floor, the apartment had one less room, but to make up for this, the apartment had a dining room with a connected terrace, providing a magnificent view of the city. - erm, this sentence has 5 clauses - it needs a rewrite. "The apartment on the last (top?) floor had one less room; to make up for this there was a connecting terrace which provided a...."

~~Also, some paragraphs are small and should be merged.~~

It is an interesting read but requires a copyedit by a native english speaker. The grammar is awkward in places of which the above are the most notable examples. It lacks comprehensiveness. Please add some background on the architect rather than juts describing him as the Gaudi of Ukraine. Are there other buildings? Is this the best? etc. These can be addressed in the time and I will support if this happens. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

:I have fixed the grammatical concerns you raised above. I will also try to do a copyedit, but as I'm not a native English speaker, it will be a bit harder to do. I have also added some background information on the architect and minor info on the Art Nouveau style.. Thanks for the suggestions, —dima /talk/ 08:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you want me to have a run-through/copyedit? I'd be happy to help. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure. That'd help me a lot.. Thanks for offering, —dima /talk/ 09:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Note I will be leaving for two weeks (and I don't know how the internet connection will be), so I may not be able to respond and correct problems with the article.. —dima /talk/ 14:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to keep an eye out. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 20:57, 17 July 2007.----

[edit] Bernard Quatermass

Self-nomination. Although this is an article on a fictional character, hopefully it concentrates rather more on the real-life background of the history and influence of the character, rather than being a detailed fictional biography. I've had a look at some of the other FAs on fictional characters, and I think it compares reasonably well. It had a peer review back in May, which didn't seem to bring up any serious problems, indeed the automated response brought back absolutely nothing bar the one category it always gives regardless of anything. Anyway, I am hoping to eventually work towards making the Quatermass articles a featured topic, so I thought I'd put this up and see what happens. Angmering 17:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Support Article is well written and approaches the character from largely an out of universe perspective. LuciferMorgan 23:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Support Great job. I find no objections at all. All of these Quatermass articles have been wonderful to read at FAC and I look forward to seeing this as a Featured Topic in the future. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Support great job on prose and excellent job of writing from an appropriate perspective (as per previous) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 20:57, 17 July 2007.

[edit] Beagle

Substantially rewritten over the past couple of weeks, I think it meets the criteria now. Look at its floppy ears, aaawwwhhh, it wants to be an FA. Yomangani ^talk 11:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Support -I went through this recently for a copyedit and found there was very little to tweak at all...good doggy.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. I was half afraid of having to read through a partisan piece on animal rights, but you've done a very good job. Now just watch for the vandals! Spamsara 10:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Support I was just in the middle of nominating this for GA when I saw the FA nom. This is well-sourced and comprehensive article that avoids the pitfalls of many other dog breed articles. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Support As good as Article as I've ever seen. Dfrg.msc 00:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Support Rlevse 03:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 00:00, 16 July 2007.

[edit] Elizabeth Needham

The most exclusive London brothel-keeper of her day. Little is known about her, but everything that is known is here. Short FAs are a sadly under-represented category, so I hope this can start to redress the balance. Yomangani ^talk 00:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I am not a FA reviewer but I can comment but there are some short FA's including Cape Feare, sometimes it's not about the lenghth of an article but the comprehensive of it. The FA criteria says "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details." and "It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". So article lenghth is always based on the what the article is. SpecialWindler talk 04:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Support: I have done small, small amounts here and there with the article. Bawds and bawdy houses are an increasingly important subject in 18th century literary and historical studies, both with New Historicists and various "identity" studies, as well as, of course, historical feminism. Gathering up the sum of what is known on this figure is difficult. Short of having access to an excellent rare book room, the nominator has gathered up all that was possible. As a primary researcher, I know that more was said and written about her, but absolutely none of that is in print or accessible to a researcher not lucky enough to be at the Bodleian and blessed with oceans of vast eternity to do the digging. As an FA, this may well fire the imaginations of serious researchers and provide in one bad, compact form all that we presently know of the lady. Geogre 20:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, not enough footnotes. Erk, wrong speech. More good work Yomangani. Any estimates on her birth year? And after the 1724 arrest, she got back to work immediately, or is there no info on that (it jumps to '28 suddenly)? Otherwise, I think this as comprehensive as can be expected, if this is all the material that's available. (Would Career be better headlined Character or Personality?) It's 9k prose, incidentally, which isn't quite our shortest; I still think we need some process of encouraging these without necessarily a full FAC, if GA is not to do it. Support. Marskell 12:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the title of "Career" to "Character" as it is probably a better fit since most of her career is mentioned in the next sections. Unfortunately I haven't seen a date of birth or even an estimate. All we know is she wasn't young when she became famous, so a birth date well before 1700 is a good guess, but it would be OR to go any closer than you can infer from the article. Info on the 4 years between 24 and 28 is missing. It doesn't mean nothing of interest happened, just that there are no surviving records in the general literature. Yomangani ^talk 13:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

During the silent years, she was probably back at work. Given that we still don't have solid reports on the underworld, her absence from court records argues that she was merely thriving. However, those years are somewhat interesting, as they see a kicking off of a major morality sweep in London. (Linked, already, with the Society for the Reformation of Manners and Gonson.) Utgard Loki 16:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll guess you won't have this info either, but is there any estimate of how much income she might've taken in, or at least what a john would've paid at the time? The one shilling on top of the pillory is interesting—even for the time, it couldn't have been more than a token fine. Marskell 14:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose.
- Lead
  - ~~should be "an English procuress",/s>~~
  - ~~wikilink either brothel or bawd; someone with limited English skills may not understand the terms, as they are not used as much (in US English at least) anymore.~~
  - Her death date should appear in the lead.
    
    Fixed.
    
    I meant that it needs to be next to her name (Elizabeth Needham (d 3 May 1731)....)Karanacs 16:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    
    Is that some MoS thing? Doesn't really seem necessary and there are already a set of parentheses after her name. Yomangani ^talk 17:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    
    Yes, it is the standard for biographies. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_of_birth_and_death Karanacs 19:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    
    Done now, ugly as is it. Yomangani ^talk 22:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Character section
  - Do you have any estimates of when she might have lived? Middle-aged did not necessarily mean the same age-range 300 years ago as it does today. When life expectancies were shorter, you reached middle age sooner. We need some frame of reference in the first paragraph of the main article to tell us when we think she lived. If you can find any kind of citation as to what middle-aged meant at the time it was being used in connection with her, and then include the year that she was referred to as middle-aged, that would help.
    
    No, see the reply to Marskell above. We are relying on secondary sources, so second-guessing what they mean by middle-aged is OR.
    
    Fact check: life expectancy was lower in aggregate, but not in particular. "Middle aged" meant then what it meant now. There was high infant mortality, and lower class persons had lower average life spans after adolescence because of machinery being introduced, but the life span for a Londoner was generally then what it is now (generally). Furthermore, Londoners had the concept of "middle age" already and were defining it nearly the way we do. I.e. it's just not true that lower life expectancy (when all live births are computed) equals early death for adults. Utgard Loki 16:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Do you have any sources that connect the Fanny Hill plot to Needham? If not, you need to specify that the plot is similar but we don't know where Cleland got his inspiration.
    
    No, and since it doesn't claim that the plot is inspired by Needham's activities (and is even in parentheses), I don't think we need the spoonfeeding disclaimer. By adding it we'd imply a possible connection that isn't implied by the sentence as it stands.
    
    I thought the point of the reference in the article was to show that Needham's methods were famous, not to suggest that a particular person took from her, specifically. In fact, the portrait of the abused girl in Oliver Goldsmith's The Deserted Village (or am I thinking of Gray's Elegy?) shares features broadly. It is the specific innovation of "renting their clothes" that represents Needham's evil genius, and that specific device shows up in Cleland's novel from 1719. It seems like an excellent testimony to infamy. Geogre 18:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    
    I am not very familiar with Fanny Hill and did not know when it was published, so I was confused as to whether the article is meaning to imply that she took the practice from the novel or the novel took it from her. If it is just intending to say that the practice is (in)famous, then I think you still need a tad more explanation. Karanacs 16:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    
    I don't know that Cleland got the idea from Needham or if Needham was the only bawd that practised this particular wheeze. What we do know is that she did it and Fanny Hill falls for the trick in the novel, which is what the article says. Yomangani ^talk 17:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Overall, this section does not fit well in the structure of your article as is. It refers to events that are discussed later in the article. I like that you have quotes from her contemporaries about her, but they also need to be placed in some context instead of just a large paragraph of quotations. See if you can better incorporate them, and also provide the years that these commentaries were written.
    
    I disagree. There is too little in the chronological sections for incorporating the material there to work well. I prefer to have a general overview of her character first and then some specific events. There are already a lot of quotes in the other sections. Adding the dates was a good point and I've fixed that.
    
    I'd never heard of Elizabeth Needham before, and I was confused reading the article that we were talking about her personality before I really understood why I was reading about her in the first place. You could leave the descriptions of her in these early paragraphs because that does help to put her in a historical context (she was middle-aged, she was pock-marked). I think all description of her methods should be somewhere in the career section. Karanacs 16:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    
    I still disagree. The description of her methods and the views of her from others highlight her character just as Hogarth's description highlights her appearance. The opening sentence of that paragraph tells you who she was and why she was known in the 18th century. Having two lines of physical description and then launching into Charteris, Bond and Sally Salisbury before coming back for a little information on her methods seems to me a worse structure. Yomangani ^talk 17:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- You have adequately pointed out that her house had a good reputation, but I don't know that you've proved that "Her house was the most exclusive in London." If you can find an actual quotation for this, that might help. Your quote from the Daily Journal implies that her house was one of the most popular, but not the most exclusive.
  
  That was covered by the citation that followed, but I've duplicated it now to avoid confusion.
- ~~Do you have any more information about Ann Bond and how she was lured by Needham?~~
  
  The rape of Ann Bond is covered in the Charteris article. There are no more details on Needham's interactions with her other than those listed in the article. Detailing her case would, I think, unbalance the article.
  
  I didn't know anything about Ann Bond or Charteris, and since her name wasn't wikilinked I didn't know if I would be able to find more info. I read the section, and I recommend at least adding in details that Charteris was convicted and sentenced to death due to the rape. That is a rare occurrence and explains better why this incident is noteworthy at all. It should at least contain a similar amount of detail as the paragraph that follows has on Sally Salisbury. Karanacs 16:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  - I've added a sentence about the rape case. Yomangani ^talk 17:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that she was raided doesn't seem to me to have much to do with Sally Salisbury stabbing someone. Even if Salisbury had stabbed someone in Needham's place, she wouldn't necessarily have been raided. A better transition would be good here.
  
  The rumours that the stabbing of a toff took place in her house would have been more than enough excuse for her premises to be raided.
  
  It's one of those situations where much of the underworld existed by a system of bribes and "salutory neglect." When a peer, or the relative of a peer, got linked, though, then a whole host of minor officials who were supposed to stop this kind of thing had their livings endangered. From the City under-marshal (such as Charles Hitchen) to the licenser of inns to the justice of the peace -- many people had jurisdiction and were supposed to shut down brothels. No one cared if the wheels were greased, so long as it all went on quietly. N.b. that it is a "riotous" or "notorious" house that could get a place raided, and a famous person getting stabbed would do that, in spades. (We get a fair amount of information about the era, incidentally, from Hitchen's own The Regulator, where he accused Jonathan Wild of doing all the things that Wild (and Hitchen) had done.) Geogre 18:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  
  Again, I think this is an instance where you assume that your readers know a lot more about the norms of the era than they do. Someone who hasn't read extensively on this period of London history may not be so sure. Karanacs 16:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  
  I think this would be the norm for any era. The phrasing of the sentence surely makes clear it would have been a likely excuse for a raid. "Despite" implies the an expectation that the contrary would normally occur. Or perhaps I'm just missing your point. Yomangani ^talk 17:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- ~~Need a citation for the fact that someone died in her house, and that in 1728 several of her girls were arrested.~~
  
  Fixed
  
  still no citation there.Karanacs 16:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Don't know what happened there, I probably hit preview and then wandered off. Fixed now (I've been back and checked). Yomangani ^talk 17:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- ~~citations should go at the end of the sentence instead of in the middle~~
  
  No, they should go after punctuation but in relation to what is being cited.

Karanacs 14:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Yomangani ^talk 16:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. Reads exceptionally well; interesting; well-sourced. FAs need not be long--for some worthy and interesting topics there are only a few good, reliable sources, or only a handful of writeups in peer-reviewed journals, a phenomenon I know well from my own area of expertise (music before 1600). If this article appears on the main page it would be a credit to Wikipedia. Antandrus (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Support per Antandrus. Giano 14:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 00:00, 16 July 2007.

[edit] Bengali Language Movement

I submit to your attention this article, which has been extensively worked upon by Tarif Ezaz, Ragib and myself, to be promoted to featured status. On an important subject and event in Bangladeshi history, this article meets all featured article criteria. Thus, I request your support for its promotion. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 19:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Quick comment: All dates should be wikilinked per WP:DATE. Pepsidrinka 00:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have wikilinked all dates, except - February 21 and February 22 are often repeated, so they are not wikilinked every time (only when accompanied by different years). Also, lone years should not be wikilinked. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 00:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong Support ~~Support~~: Well written article - meets the FA criteria.-Arman Aziz 01:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC); Position updated to strong support in response to commendable improvement of the article as part of FA drive.-Arman Aziz 00:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~. Much improved. Copy-edit required throughout. The first sentence is good, but the second isn't:
- "Discontent against Pakistan's "Urdu-only" policy had led to mass agitations since 1948 and the movement reached its climax after police fired upon and killed student demonstrators on 21 February 1952." Nope, "Discontent with". "Had led"—can't have this tense unless you've already located the current time for the reader (the present in past, as it were—when are we looking back from? It's not 1952, either). Please consider using plain language "on, while, among, to", not "upon, whilst, amongst, in order to".
- "East Pakistan (also East Bengal)"—are these two regions or just two names?
- "living mainly in the East Pakistan"—remove "the".
- "the policy was enshrined into law and reaffirmed by national leaders, including several Bengali politicians"—"enshrined IN law", but that's an ongoing state, so just "passed into law". What do you mean by "reaffirmed by national leaders"?

This is just a few sentences. Needs hours' of work to iron the whole thing out. Tony 05:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Bengal was divided into East and West for couple of times. At present East Bengal have become Bangladesh and West Bengal is a province of India. However the name East Bengal was changed to East Pakistan in 1955. So as we can see most of the happenings of the Language movement have actually occured when the region was officially named as East Bengal. So it's ok to use the name -East Bengal with the things that happened before 1956. But in general, like at the introduction, East Pakistan would be more suitable. But anyway it's the same place. Tarif from Bangladesh 07:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

PS Linking full dates. Oh, and looking above I see a comment about linking dates. You know, I'm happy for them not to be linked, since WikiMedia has consistently FAILED to seperate the autoformatting and linking functions, despite a huge push for it by 75 of us in January without opposition. I don't care what the MOS says. Make them fix up this technical glitch. Tony 05:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Please, get a good copyeditor (like, User:Fowler&fowler) to run through this article. It reads pretty awkward with the high amount of information crammed into the article. It's a bad reading as opposed to the "brilliant prose" an FA requires. It also contains quite a large number of weasel words (like, "many believe", "some hold" etc. - well not exact examples, but you get the idea). I have a few other comments to make:

~~The UN thing should show up in within the first few sentences for an international audience. (may be replace UN with UNESCO to make it more accurate)~~ Done
If possible include something about the importance of the movement in the scheme of world history, there should be something like the first major movement for linguistic rights or the like (I am sure it wasn't chosen as an international day for a specific reason) Not truly done yet, but what's there is kind of okay
~~The second para in the lead section is a good attempt at summarizing the history, but a rambling copy prevents it from being so. In fact the whole lead section needs massive overhaul.~~ Wonderful work
The background section may include some of the scholarly arguments for inclusion of Bengali as a state language, and other published arguments. (I remember one brilliant article by Dr. Muhammad Shahidullah) Done
~~There should be some citing of the number of Urdu and Bengali speakers at the time in the section as well, to make it more complete. (the Umar book should have it)~~
~~It is really unclear about the real killing. How many people died? Can you name them? May be a list of people who died and how would help.~~ Done
~~The final stages section has a awkward heading, and the quote at the end may well do good as footnote as the information it contains is already there.~~ Done, but not sure of it myself
~~In the section on criticism and legacy, the criticism part is really missing. In fact the point in this section seems to be very much missing due to the writing style.~~ Done as part of the re-organization and copyedit
The commemoration section may be renamed as "Artistic and cultural influence" or something like that. And, it should be more detailed to include other films, songs, novels, poems, paintings and sculptures inspired by the movement. I am looking up some now. And, please, include a mention of the brilliant political cartoons that came out then. (I remember a few highly celebrated cartoons by Dopiaza, the most famous East Bengal cartoonist of the time) Renamed as "Legacy", but the cartoons and more novels, poems and plays would be very nice - needs more work
~~I think the first Shahid Minar should show up in the chronologically sequenced part of the article, not in this section.~~ Done
~~This section has nothing on the Ekushey Boi Mela, the biggest book fair in Bangladesh. Have it included.~~ Done
Finally, I don't think the Bashir Al-Helal book can be used as the biggest source here. It is a good book, but leans a bit on the non-neutral side of presentation of things. How about using some from the "Documents of the Liberation War"? The first two volumes should have some really credible documents on the language movement. Withdrawn, though I have got some more references to put in, reading them through now

Well, these were my observations on the first look. I may have more eventually. Aditya Kabir 16:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Bashir Al Helal's book contains references of every information that it used which also includes from Documents of the Liberation War. There is no exact figure about the death tole as different sources came up with different numbers. But the most comprehensive one could be found from The Azad. Thanks Tarif from Bangladesh 18:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If different sources quote different numbers of death, then it would ideal to cite that fact along with the most quoted numbers together with major sources endorsing those numbers. Or, if one source is taken as valid, it may be validated as such. Aditya Kabir 07:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've gathered some numbers from reliable sources in the articles talk page so that it would be possible for anyone to follow anyone of your style. Tarif from Bangladesh 19:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

the names of the martyrs can be found inside the article. And how they died are inside their own article. So a separate list may not be necessary.

The names of the people who died (if you want to call them martyrs, please, state the reason why they should be addressed as such, the term is a bit overloaded) are dispersed in four-five places in the article, along with the circumstances of their death. It's unpleasant reading, and even less pleasant as a quick references. Aditya Kabir 07:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning about Muhammad Shahidullah's article because he was an important person and his writing helped a lot. But don't think it's conclusive enough to quote from him. May be we could take a few words from him, but it(the article of Shahidullah) carries some contradictions.

I'd propose not just Shahidullah, but other scholarly arguments are put in as well, at least the major ones. Currently the article is devoid of any reference to scholarly arguments. You don't need to quote anyone, but you still need to mention some of those. Aditya Kabir 07:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have gathered some major scholary arguments and put it in the talk page of the main article. The argument of Ziauddin Ahmed, Muhammad Shahidullah, Abul Mansur Ahmed, Dr. Enamul Haq, Motahar Hossain Chowdhury and Abdul Haq would be found there. Copy editors can include them into the main article if they want to. Thanks for help. Regards.. Tarif from Bangladesh 08:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

their is no absolute figure about how many people died. But at least eight people are confirmed to be dead, according to Bashir Al Helal's book. Amongst them biography of Rafiq, Salam, Jabbar, Barkat and Sofiur can be found. Their is also an eight year old boy named Ohidullah who's name and description are found.

This particular list of names is much better then the way they feature in the article itself. Can you use this a s template? And, Sofiur's name isn't there in the lead section. Aditya Kabir 07:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Template is a good idea. I was thinking about making template that would include martyrs(?), activists and political leaders who were involved with the movement in different sections. How would it be? Tarif from Bangladesh 07:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sueggestion I have created an infobox somewhat after the fashion of Template:Bir Sreshtho, but it needs more work (could be used on individual pages for the dead as well). Aditya Kabir 06:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Ekushey Book Fair is included.

A number of other issues remain unsolved, though. Especially the copyediting thingy. I have noticed that the copy has improved significantly in parts, but there's still a lot that remains to be done. Cheeres. Aditya Kabir 07:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

copyediting is improving very fast. Dwaipayan and |Aditya is working very well. It will finish before schedule.

Thanks-- Tarif from Bangladesh 06:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Aditya's oppose by Dwaipayan

Some of your concerns have been addressed.

- The UNESCO bit in the lead has not been shifted up in order to maintain the chronologocal flow. Any suggestion on how to materialize your recommendation is welcome.
- Place of the movement in the scheme of world history — not yet done.
- Second para of the lead — changed a bit. Please see.
Scholarly arguments in background section — will be done, shortly.
- Number os language speakers — done.
- People who died — this information is now better spaced, under the subsections of "February 21" and "February 22".
- Final stage section—yet to work on it.
- Criticism and legacy—IMO there is quite a good amount of criticism for a movement generally regarded in a positive light.
- Commemoration—IMO, name is ok, as it does not just have the names of the books, cinema etc.
- First Shaheed minar is now in the chronological part of the article.
- Ekushey boi mela has now been included.
- Bashir Al-Helal book — I have no idea. Tarif has commented on it.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment I have been asking for expert opinion around in Dhaka since I made my observation on the Al Helal book. It seems that only the fact part of the book has been used, and therefore the interpretations carried by the book should not be factor here. I withdraw that part of my opposition. ANd, congratulations on the wonderful work you've done in improving the article. I'm sure that a little more work would get all the objections out of the way. Well, let me dabble a bit into reorganizing stuff at the article, and take a look then. I may be wrong, but I'd still like to give it a try. Finally, I don't belive that chronological structures are the best for an encyclopedia. If we really must have one, then it is better to have a timeline section built into the article. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 14:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments The history section has major shortcomings. If we ignore the lead (which should be a summary of what's already in the article), the history section becomes absolutely cryptic for someone who is not familiar with the region. Where is "Bengal"? How is it related to "Northern India"? Another important lacking is that though the advent of Urdu is discussed with considerable detail, the history of Bengali has only one line to it. Why would people be so agitated about it, specially Bengali Muslims? Bengal Renaissance is ofcourse very important, but Bengali was patronised by Muslim Sultans long before that (see Abdul Hakim)--ppm 13:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply Tried to elucidate the History so that the international audience can grasp the background. British India and early development of Bengali language included. Why people were agitated has been discussed in the second paragraph of history (despite being the language of the majority of people, use of Bengali was being sidelined etc). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Support - It is well sourced and informative about the Bhasha Andolan. It ropvides a good sense of context and is captivating to the reader.Baka man 17:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong Support ~~Support~~ - subject is important, writing is fine, citation is good, copyediting is brilliant. This article have gone through all stages successfully, the only stage that remaines is to be featured. Tarif from Bangladesh 20:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong Support ~~Conditional Support~~ : Article is well-written, but the references need to be cleaned up. For example, reference 7 needs page numbers. "Ekusher Shongkolon'80 Smriticharon, pp 102-103" is missing author/publisher names. Please fix them for this otherwise good article. --Ragib 20:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Changed to Strong support as all the issues raised here have been addressed. --Ragib 19:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Ragib Citations have been fixed. Please have a look.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please remove the scrollbox from the reference section. It is not desirable to have such elements ... as they mess up the printable version. --Ragib 18:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did it myself, and now the citations look ok. If needed, we can use reflist with 3 columns instead of 2 (since most of the references are quite short). --Ragib 19:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Fails criterion 1a. The prose is very hard to follow from the second sentence on. The word "agitate" is used five times in the lede alone. MarkBuckles (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed It still isn't anwhere near "compelling prose", even if we forget "brilliant prose". Aditya Kabir 06:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Position changed to conditional support. due to the tremendous efforts of Rama, Tarif, Deep, Dwaipayan and Riana the article has improved tremendously. But, a few issues still need attention before it becomes an FA. Here goes:

~~The refcites are not aligned to the MoS. They need to be formatted right.~~
There is a lot of vagueness in the article like - "clerks from many institution", "many legislators", "many construed the rejection", "some of the terms and conditions", "some of the treasury bench members", "destroyed within a few days", "a large number of Bengali students", "killing a number of students". Can we make these a bit more quantified or a bit more specific?

I'll try to fix "a few" of this. Tarif from Bangladesh 13:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

~~The infobox needs attention, but it has a good possibility to become a useful navigation temnplate, too. We may work on this to make the number deaths and the list of names clear for quick reference.~~
~~There are too many section headers, I'm not sure if we need them all.~~
~~As far as I know, political cartoons became a mass media tool in Dhaka during the Language Movement. There really has to be something about that.~~

Murtoza Bashir and Dopiaza drawn most of the cartoons. We could include that. Tarif from Bangladesh 13:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

~~The "Criticism" section needs to be firmed up. Most of the criticism put there is not criticism, but rather obvious fall outs of any political movement.~~
~~The "Legacy" section may have a mention of the other languages movements in Sindh and Baluchistan that was part of this article in an earlier version.~~
~~Only a few of the novels, poems, songs, films and plays have been mentioned. There is a lot more to go through. The current list doesn't even scratch the surface.~~
~~A mention of the first "memorial book" on 21 February, edited by Hasan Hafizur Rahman, is missing. It contained the Mambub Alam poem, the Abdul Latif song, and some of the cartoons.~~
~~The part of constitutional reform needs a mention of what was there earlier, like the "Urdu-only" clause or something. (May be a Pakistani editor can help here)~~
~~The Liberation of Bangladesh part is still written sketchily. Copyedit needed.~~

Very good work done, congratulations to all. And, I'm sorry that I haven't been able to help out more. And, oh, please, ask tony to take another look at this. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 06:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply by Dwaipayan

Could not understand your first point ("refcites are not aligned to the MoS"). Please elaborate what is missing.

Check WP:CITET for the style guide for citing references. Aditya Kabir 15:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of the inline citations use one or other of the templates. An exception is all the newspaper citations. Ok, I am converting those soon.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow! That was a neat trick. That linking the notes to references. I must copy that trick. Wow!!! Aditya Kabir 19:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

vagueness—Source material is needed to remove the vagueness. Tariff and others with the source may help more.
Infoox is being worked on.
Curbed section headers in "Early stages of movement". IMO, events of 1952 needs the subsections. We can remove them, but it will become a long section. "Events after 1952" had no subsections initially. Now it has, after some rearrangement of structure. What do you think? Can we get rid of those subsections? For example, "Constitution reform" is a rather short subsection.

Yep, it's a rather short section, looks strange. But, I can't really figure out what to do. It is the winning point of the whole movement, and it doesn't sink with the previous section, though the chronological sequence is right. May be if movements for similar constitutional reforms in Sindh and Baluchistan is included, it may start looking better. And, it should also feature a line or two on what was there in the constitution before the amendment. What was the name of the amendment? How many votes did it get for or against? This important section may still grow. Aditya Kabir 17:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Cartoons etc.—No idea. The main author(s) can help.
"Criticism"—I do not have any source of information. So I request the main author and others with source material to come up with information.
"Legacy"—same as criticism.
Please help mention more literary works etc.
"memorial book"—No idea. Please help.

Hasan Hafizur Rahman's book named Ekushey February was published on February 21, 1953 along with those poems and songs that Aditya already mentioned. This could be included.Tarif from Bangladesh 19:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, constitutional reforms may need some more info. Will try to find out.
Liberation of Bangladesh—will have a look soon. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Further comments. My late entry into the research has turned up some serious issues. Here goes:

~~Apart from those mentioned two other people - Salauddin (died on 21st) and Obaidullah (on 22nd) can surely be verified, and needs to be included.~~ Done
There is nothing in the article about the East Bengal Language Committee formed in 1949 by the East Bengal government. It included Dr. Muhammad Shahidullah, Habibullah Bahar, Dr. Muazzem Hussein. The Committee completed its report on 6 December 1950, but it was published in 1958. The report proposed a compromise between rival parties - writing Bengali in Arabic script. (Report of the East Bengal Language Committee, 1958, Officer on Sepcial Duty (Home Department), East Pakistan Government Press, Dhaka, pp 2, 3, 115) Done
~~It may also be mentioned that the proposal to write Bengali in Arabic script was endorsed by AKM Fazlul Haque (Azad, 24.05.1950)~~ Done
On 22 February 1952, the people didn't just burn down the Jubilee Press (please, capitalize Jubilee Press), but more importantly they burnt down the office and press of Morning News, the leading anti-Bengali newspaper of the time. (Azad, 23.02.1952) Done
~~There is nothing on Maulana Abdur Rashid Tarkabagish in the article.~~
~~Are Ghulam Azam and Golam Azam the same person? Then the former spelling is incorrect.~~ Done
There is nothing on the happenings in Narayanganj. On 25 February 1952 the industrial workers of that town observed a full-day general strike (Azad 26.02.1952). On 29th a big procession came out in the town to face severe police beating. Educationist Mumtaz Begum and elected people's representative Osman Ali was arrested from that procession. (Umar, Purbobanglar Bhasha Andilon o Totkalin Rajneeti, 3rd Volume, pp 417-418) Done

I am working to get through to more stuff. The issue raised by Mark is serious one, and I somewhat am inclined to agree to him. Please, get some help from the copyeditor's league. The two people I know in the league Fowler&fowler and Editor-at-large seem to be busy elsewhere. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 15:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Regarding the point (2) in your "Further comments", this site on Shahidullah says, " East Bengal Language Committee, under the presidentship of Maulana Akram Khan, declared in a report that attempts to introduce the Bengali language in Arabic Script must be slopped for at least next twenty years." If you have the primary source, we have to abide by that though. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The Committee report was a government dictated collabroartion, while the source you cite gives Shahidullah's personal opinions. These two facts are not in contradiction, but, to avoid dispute, we may put in Shahidullah's peronal views together with the position of the Committee. Aditya Kabir 16:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Update on Aditya's further comments
Salauddin (died on 21st) and Obaidullah (on 22nd)—Plesae provide references and add. This is not a problem. I myself somewhere saw the name of Obaidullah (or, Ohidullah?).

I'll need help on this, too. Tarif, where are you? Help. Aditya Kabir 19:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

East Bengal Language Committee—Now included, along with a web reference. However, the proposal of the commitee as noted in the website (which is a PhD thesis report) is not tallying with source you are citing. The website says, "The East Bengal Language Committee, under the presidentship of Maulana Akram Khan, declared in a report that attempts to introduce the Bengali language in Arabic Script must be slopped for at least next twenty years." besides noting Shahidullah's personal views.Please verify. Also, the date of your source seems to be wrong, it cannot be 1946.

Sorry about that. My mistake. That's be 1958.

Fazlul Haque endorsing included.
Jubilee Press and Morning News included.
Maulana Abdur Rashid Tarkabagish—I do not have any idea if his action was very significant. Well, he left the Muslim League and joined Awami, this must have been unique. Have not included it yet.

Tarif, can you step in? The maulana was propably a much more active person than most people mentioned in the article. Aditya Kabir 19:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I can try. I also think he is important. He was in the treasury bench but proactive against the government's policy. I'll try to handle this. Tarif from Bangladesh 19:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

i included Tarkabagish along with the fact that even though he was a treasury bench member, he asked Nurul Amin to adjourn the parliament and visit to the hospital to see the injured people. Besides this he also resigned from the party (On February 23 with his fellow parliamentarian Abul Kalam Shamsuddin (on February 22). Have that included if you feel so. citation from pp.455-458 of Al Helal. Tarif from Bangladesh 23:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Golam Azam spelling done.
Happenings in Narayanganj included.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

the little boy who died on February died on February 22 is named Ohiullah. At some places it is mistakely written as Obaidullah or Ohidullah. But none of them is correct. I myself also made mistake about it before. Anyway it will be Ohiullah O-H-I-U-L-L-A-H. He died on February 22, 1952 near a restaurant at Nawabpur when he was struck in his head with a bullet. The news of his death was mentioned later in weekly Notun Din on Falgun 11, 1362(we have to do some math to convert the date). This information would be found in page.483 of Bashir al helal book.

even though February 22 edition of Azad wrote that a 26 year old M. A. student named 'Mohammad Salauddin died at the spot, it was later proved that no people by that name died. Informations about this fact could be found from page 406-410 of Bashir's book. Both of these facts can be mentioned in the article if necessary. Tarif from Bangladesh 19:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
One more comment Congratulations to Dwaipayan and Tarif (and also Deep, Ragib, Riana, Baka and Arman). I am sure Nirav the Rama's Arrow would have been utterly proud of this gang had he been around. I have run out of all opposition, almost. Please, if possible, work on the copy a bit more. I know Tony and Mark to be very particular about copyedit. And, there's a proposition about the title on the article talk page. Take a look. Aditya Kabir 16:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems issues have a starnge way to pop up. Just when I was thinking there's nothing left but the copy, two more new issues came up:

~~Riana suggests that the title be changed to "The language movement" or "The Language Movement" (I like the former). But, the question is how do we do that. Ragib, you got any idea?~~ Done
Kyoko suggests an incoproration of, ideally in the lead, some clarification about what this "state language" (or would it be "national language" as the constituion calls it?) thing actually implies. The answer should be - use in government work, medium of instruction in mid level studies and use in court documents (also inclsuion on stamps and currency). But, can't find any references for that. Tarif, is there anything in your enormous collection of sources? Done

The copy is getting a very good overhaul, and Editor at large is waiting at the wings to make a host of minor fixes. Things certainly are looking brighter. Aditya Kabir 04:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no idea about references. By the way this was mentioned as the state language in the first ever constitution of Pakistan in 1956. On March 1, 1962 Ayub Khan changed it to National language. But in Bangladesh's first constitution Bengali was again mentioned as Rashtrabhasa or the State language. Language activists have always mentioned about State language not national language. So I think we should call it 'State Language. Regards Tarif from Bangladesh 11:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Aditya Kabir 21:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, despite the fact that I mentioned, I think the current combination of having both State Language and National Language. Because there is not much to differentiate between the meaning of those two and keep saying the same thing may be boring. So its ok. Thanks Tarif from Bangladesh 19:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Question—Why did this change to an article with "The" in the title (see WP:MSH)? Also, the capitalization in the article name doesn't agree with the first line in the article. Also, was WP:GA updated ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Answer - "Language movement" was not being very specific, it could mean any movement about a language. Putting a "The" and capitalization makes it particular, and since it's UN sanctioned, it can be accepted as alright. The GA should reach there by the redirect. Capitalization should be corrected throughout the article. Aditya Kabir 21:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The title was changed per discussion in talk page of the article. Yes, it is rather rare per WP:MSH to have "The" in title. So please advice. Do you suggest "Language Movement"? And Sandy, since you seem to be back, can you just have a quick look of references? I have tried to fix those. Still, I may have missed some. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe the "The" should be there, per WP:MSH (and I noticed that banglapedia has no "The"). I had a quick glance at the refs and they seem generally fine (what is The Azad? more info needed), but See also is incorrect; navigational templates belong at the bottom of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to Sandy "See also&quot; section removed. navigation templates now at the end of the article. Will add more info on Azad soon. (Request to Tariff for adding the publisher's name at least on one occasion, preferable the first occasion The Azad appears in the "Citations").

Regarding the title, Sandy has much more knowledge and experience on WP:MSH than any of us. And it is written there not to include "The" in the title. So I propose to change the title to "Language Movement". If no one comments anything more, the title will be changed soon. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The Azad was a daily newspaper and one of the most famous dailies in the region during the time of the movement. First editor of the daily was [[|Akram Khan (politician)|Maulana Akram Khan]]. Abul Kalam Shamsuddin was the editor of it during the movement. Not sure about the publisher, he himself probably was the publisher at that time. Tarif from Bangladesh 19:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, Abul Kalam Shamsuddin was the editor of The Azad at that time. Dwaipayan has included this information. Tarif from Bangladesh 11:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I find the new title "The Language Movement" a bit awkward, though I am also concerned that if the article were named simply "Language Movement", it might be understood as an article on the movement and spread of a language, until the reader looks beyond the title. I suppose I don't have a strong preference either way. --Kyoko 14:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The title has been changed to "Language Movement".--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Position changed to really strong support, and congratulations to all. Just remove that part of Fazlul Haque's endorsement. I have read through his argument at the parliament in verbatim, and the interpretetion that he supported urdu seems to be a bit of a overstatement. Aditya Kabir 05:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: This article certainly has come a long way with valuable additions from the users. However, the criticism section could still use some re-write. What is the context of the statement "Several Bengali politicians such as Maulana Bhashani, Golam Azam, Motiur Rahman Nizami and Shah Azizur Rahman were alienated from the Awami League and subsequent Bengali nationalist agitations"? Why were they alienated and how is that related to the Language Movement? Also there seems to be sevaral different points on criticism - it is very difficult to separate one from the other.-Arman Aziz 07:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the relative mis-management of this FAC. (Hope you can understand, the nominator is not active now in Wikipedia). I tried to address one of your concerns on Criticism (you commented in tariff's talk page). I'll try to address your concern ASAP. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Some works done on Criticism. How do you feel now? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The info on Golam Azam will require an in-line citation, although it was a very good job done. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 16:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and it is clearer now. I've updated my position to strong support.-Arman Aziz 00:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Support: Well written and referenced article. It must be a FA.Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 12:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Support: Deserves to be a FA. - P.K.Niyogi 13:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Update Following a discussion in the talk page of the article, the article has been moved to "Bengali Language Movement".--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Support The article meets the FA criteria. The one issue that was raised early in the FAC (quality of language and the need of copyedit) has been managed by the League of Copyeditors and also by several other extremely helpful Wikipedians. Thank you everybody :) --Dwaipayan (talk) 05:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 00:00, 16 July 2007.

[edit] Hey Ya!

You should know by know that I just can't stay away from FAC. This time it's not Gwen Stefani-related, but the song's just as schizophrenic as anything she's done. It was at peer review for a week and had one comment but no reply, so I closed the review to bring the article here. Have at. ShadowHalo 09:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

'Support if...' The final section, on cover versions, needs a few refs. Otherwise, this is a superb article. It's well-cited and completely comprehensive, the images are excellent without being superfluous, and it's written near-perfectly. Aside from that one little issue, this is about as good a candidate for Featured status as any. Kicking222 don't mess around 17:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What would you recommend using for references? I was thinking the same thing, but it doesn't look like any of the covers (except Weddle's one) received media coverage; pretty much, they're all "referenced" to the albums on which they're included, the way plot summaries are "referenced" to the films from which they come. ShadowHalo 18:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. If the covers were commercial released, the record itself can be the source as long as you specify which album it was released on. WesleyDodds 09:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, it currently doesn't include the names of the album. I'll try toying around with that section later today to see if there's some arrangement that can include the albums without turning it into a really awkward list. ShadowHalo 17:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Support but The lyrics of "Hey Ya!" open with a description the persona's concerns and doubts about a romantic relationship"....What is "Persona"??

"The song's pop rock origins allowed it some crossover success,"...can't digest the sentence.Can be controversial.

The whole first paragraph of the COVER VERSIONS section seems to be unscourced. User:Luxurious.gaurav

The persona article tells what a persona is. Does the word need to be linked in the article? Would "sound" work better than "origins" there then? ShadowHalo 17:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that "the song being a pop rock genre was the reason it was a hit."Does it mean that all the songs which are pop rock will be hits.Thanks for telling what a persona is.I don't think it should be linked to that page. User:Luxurious.gaurav

In this case, the word crossover refers to crossover (music), which just means that it got listened to by people outside OutKast's usual audience. In this case, the other part of the sentence is "it reached number sixteen on the Modern Rock Tracks" since OutKast is not an alternative rock group. ShadowHalo 14:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I get you point.Complete support on my behalf.User:Luxurious.gaurav

Comment - This is a great article, but is it just me, or does ""Shaking it like a Polaroid picture", a phrase popularized by the song and its music video." need a reference? I mean the CNN thing pretty much covers it, but that seems to be the only thing that shows in any that it has actually become a pop culture phrase. If a ref/refs is/are added, or you point out that there is a ref and I've missed it, or you convince me that one isn't needed because the CNN ref fully covers it, I'll support. Gran² 20:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That's kind of funny, actually. I wrote a paragraph about the song's effect on the Polaroid Corporation as well as how Polaroid marketed it. I'm looking right now at where and how to add the paragraph. ShadowHalo 21:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Support - Okay, as my concern has now been dealt with, I support. Gran² 07:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the "Music and lyrics" section could use some more development - there's no mention of some of the most distinctive parts of the song, e.g. the xylophone in the chorus, the funk-inflected beat, the acoustic strumming underneath. I'm also unsure about the pop-rock origins line - is there really anything much rock-ish about the song? I think the reason it was on the Modern Rock charts is because it is not straight hip-hop in that it feels 70s-ish. Compare to Gnarls Barkley's Crazy, which also made Modern Rock charts without much in the way of rock elements because it is soul-inflected hip-hop song. (Unless you want to say that something by definition has elements of a rock song if it appears on a rock chart, which is defensible but not something I would agree with.) zafiroblue05 | Talk 00:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added what I can to the Music and lyrics part, including the song's chord progression. There's no good way to go about describing the bassline, and though it's obviously funk-inspired, stating so would be original research since there are no sources that analyze the sections. The sheet music does have some of the xylophone-sounding synth part, but it unfortunately overlaps with another part, so the part can't be cited to the sheet music. If it would help, I can add detail about how long each part of the chord progression is used since the odd time signature makes is non-obvious. There is indeed a pop rock side to the song, and the Writing process states that the guitar part was inspired by the Ramones, Buzzcocks, and The Smiths (the song also drew comparison's to various rock bands). ShadowHalo 01:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Support - This article is of exceptional quality. Perspicacite 02:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment – The name of the article is confusing, because from the 'Hey, Ya!' many people won't understand what the article is about. It should be renamed to 'Hey, Ya! (song)'. Ruslik 07:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The "(song)" ending is only used when there is something from which to disambiguate it, and so far as I know, there aren't any other articles with Hey Ya! in the title. The title is supposed to identify, not describe, the subject and if there's any doubt, the fact that the first words are "'Hey Ya!' is a hip hop song" will remedy the issue. ShadowHalo 07:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. I was litterally nominating the article myself when I saw it had already been done. A great piece of work. -Mysekurity 08:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

~~'Object~~—Content and prose. Neutral: not happy that it was nominated prematurely.

This attempt at musical analysis is very odd indeed:

"Hey Ya!" is a hip hop song in the key of G major. Each phrase, or each cadential 6 measure phrase, is constructed using a change of meter on the fourth measure, equaling three measures in 4/4, one in 2/4, and two in 4/4. The song has a fast tempo at 160 beats per minute, delineated by the song's I-IV-V-VI chord progression. Throughout the entire song, G major and D major receive one 4/4 measure and one 2/4 measure respectively, while C major and E major are each two measures long. Harmonically, the dominant D major chord receives the least amount of actual time since it is only played on the 2/4 measures. Although the deceptive cadence on E is not uncommon, its alteration to the major mode is a key feature of the song's sound.

- "six-measure", please; the "6" conflicts with the other numerals here, and needs to be hyphenated. What does it mean by "Each phrase, OR each cadential six-measure phrase"?
- What equals what? The change of metre equals three measures in ..."?
- The fast tempo is delineated by the chord progression?
- "I-IV-V-VI"—no, the hyphens need to be en dashes (see MOS on this).
- "Throughout the entire song, G major and D major receive one 4/4 measure and one 2/4 measure respectively"—I have no idea what it means: "entire"? Are "G major" and "D major" chords or keys? (G major was previously a key). To talk of either chord or key receiving measures is odd; the expression is different in the subsequent clause; why?
- Who cares how long the D major chord lasts for? Why on earth is this bizarre stuff taking up so much space? If it's intended to count as analysis, please save us the trouble of reading it: it helps no one to understand the style of the song, the artists or the genre.
- Deceptive cadence on E is uncommon (but it's common on D?). What does "its alteration to the major mode" refer to? Does a cadence alter to a mode?
- The song's sound—should this be "distinctive style"?

And more at random:

- "The beginning and end of the video blend with that for "The Way You Move""—What does "that" refer to? It's singular, I see.
- It's so heavily linked, most of it necessary, so why silly links such as "piano" and "Internet"? Who doesn't know what "tempo" means? Do we not know what "live television" is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 14:39, July 6, 2007
  
  Oh, phew. I had some of the same concerns that you did about the section. An anon rewrote and expanded the paragraph awhile ago. The revision flirted the line between what can be referenced to the sheet music and what was OR, but I only removed/rewrote the obviously bad parts (e.g. "creating an ambiguous feel") since I was worried that it might have just been be trying to WP:OWN the article rather than improve it. I've redone the paragraph and done some delinking. The info about time signature and chord progression is now contained in three sentences, which seems a good amount to discuss a unique feature of the song. I've also removed citations from consecutive sentences that used the same reference to reduce overreferencing and get rid of some more blue. ShadowHalo 00:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 00:00, 16 July 2007.

[edit] Backmasking

Self-nomination. Comprehensive, sourced, and I hope well-written. 33KB without refs and links. Λυδαcιτγ 00:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Quick point...your skepticism section could use some work in the "Jeff Milner" part. JHMM13 04:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This was fixed, by the way. Λυδαcιτγ 02:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment — I found only a few minor problems with the text, and overall it seems FA-worthy and an interesting read. (The vagarities of human nature never ceases to astonish me.) The citations need to have a litle more consistency, especially regarding the date format (or the lack of a date in many instances.) — RJH (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Most/all of the websites cited have an accessdate... are you referring to the print citations? Λυδαcιτγ 02:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- I meant the "date=" fields. Note #2, for example, gives a last year modified as 2006, for example. Note #7 gives a copyright year of 2001; note #18 has a publication date of March 27, 1983, &c. Also note that #3 is a broken link. — RJH (talk)

Comment, I went through and filled in many missing publishers, and see quite a few personal websites, blogs, and other possibly non-reliable sources among the sources used. Also, many news items are linked to personal websites; did the editor actually view the actual news sources? If not, the websites used are the source, and they aren't typically reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to consider reliability in terms of the information given. For example, I apply a lighter standard for reliability to the documentation of the message in Weird Al's song "I Remember Larry" than to the sources for the information about fundamentalist Christian groups in the 1970s. In the former case the message is easily found with Audacity, but the website shows that this information is not original research. In the latter case, on the other hand, the information is both possibly controversial and not personally verifiable, so a stronger source is needed.
In regards to the news items, are you referring to usage such as this, where an interview used in a magazine is posted on the interviewer's website? Λυδαcιτγ 21:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are examples of some of my concerns:

"In 1877, the phonograph was invented by Thomas Edison, allowing sound to be recorded and reproduced on the gramophone record.[2]" This is referenced to loopers-delight.com. I'm not sure we need to reference that Thomas Edison invented the phonograph, and that it was the first medium that allowed sound to be recorded and reproduced, but if we do need to cite that (I'm not sure if we should consider it common knowledge), we should use the highest quality source for that sort of statement, of which there should be many. Why is Kim a reliable source for this kind of info?
I can't find anything to indicate that http://www.tinfoil.com/default.htm is a reliable source (and last access date is missing).
What makes TOTSE a reliable source?
CitizenArcane — which appaers to be a blog http://www.citizenarcane.com/ — is used to source a statement about a Resolutionn passing in the House; why is a blog a reliable source for that kind of info, which should be available many other places?
IMDb is used as a source
What makes http://www.backmaskonline.com/about.html a reliable source?
I can't determine what makes Jay's Movie and Music Blog reliable; I can't find a link about him, and it looks like there may be some copyvios on that site.
Does http://www.matthew-sweet.com have copyright for all the articles it reproduces?
Does Racer Records have permission to reproduce this news article?
Does lashtal.com have copyright for an article I couldn't view since the unidentified PDF hung my computer (please identify PDFs in sources)
What makes http://www.jeffmilner.com reliable?

There are more; those are samples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed all the links to potential copyright violations, and addressed your reliability concerns, with the exception of sites such as Backmask Online and Milner's site. Again, I argue that as the purpose of these references is to document that the information they follow has been published - i.e., is not original research - a lighter standard should be applied in regards to their reliability. As WP:V says, "Sources should be appropriate to the claims made", and the claims made by most of the references from number 38 to number 68 are not exceptional. Λυδαcιτγ 23:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Support, once SandyGeorgia's concerns are addressed. A well-referenced comprehensive article. I spot a few issues with footnote placement, in particular, some are placed before full-stops rather than after. CloudNine 08:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

If I didn't miss any, these are the two sentences with such placement:

Artists who have been accused of backmasking include Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Electric Light Orchestra, Queen, Styx, AC/DC, Judas Priest, The Eagles,[74] The Rolling Stones,[74] Jefferson Starship,[30] Black Oak Arkansas,[30] Rush,[75] Britney Spears,[76] and Eminem[23].

Cradle of Filth, another band which has employed Satanic imagery, released a song entitled "Dinner at Deviant's Palace", consisting almost entirely of ambient sounds and a reversed reading of the Lord's Prayer[46] (a backwards reading of the Lord's Prayer is reportedly a major part of the Black Mass[20][47]).

In the first case, I put the footnote in front of the period to clarify that it refers only to the accusation of Eminem, not to the entire sentence. In the second, I placed the footnote in front of the parenthetical clause (?) to show that it only applies to the part of the sentence before that clause. Λυδαcιτγ 23:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I was curious as to why it was. I'm sure you can place the Eminem footnote after the full stop though. CloudNine 08:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I did so. Λυδαcιτγ 21:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Support—Well-written. Tony 09:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment. The lead image is unsuitable for the article. It isn't a picture directly related or representative to the subject. I suggest you remove it or put it down in the section that deals whith digital recordings and audio software. CG 15:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say it is directly related - the message is a reference to Satanic backmasking in music - but not representative of the subject as a whole. The problem is that there isn't exactly a representative image. Though the SoX screenshot isn't perfect, I think it's better than no image at all in the top right corner. Λυδαcιτγ 02:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The image is very bad. It represents the concept of "satanic backmasking" but it doesn't illustrate it at all. What I see is just a screen with some text that I can't read. Plus it's not a screenshot of a software ancred in popular culture. I prefer if you remove it and leave the nav box. It's common practice to put a nav box instead of a lead image when no suitable picture is found, especially on abstract subjects. (The same thing happened for the Evolution article). CG 14:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. I moved the image into the Parody messages section, where it originally came from. Λυδαcιτγ 20:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. CG 12:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~ until SandyGeorgia's referencing and copyright concerns are addressed. Epbr123 00:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Epbr123 23:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: on fair use grounds. The image Image:Revolver.jpg is used on the article, and the article mentions this album as being the first to use backmasking. But, the album cover's depiction is irrelevant to this commentary. The image is clearly replaceable by text (and has been inline in the article). An appropriate fair use would be an audio clip with the backmasking in the clip. The album cover does not depict the backmasking and therefore does not contribute in anyway to the article. Image:PMRC.jpg is lacking a fair use rationale for use in this article. It has a fair use rationale, but it is generic and not distinct to this article. This fails WP:NFCC #10(c). Further, this image is not necessary to the article. It's purely a depiction of the founders of that group. This is necessary to the article on the group, but not to this article; it's use here is just decorative. Image:Judas Priest - Stained Class.jpg suffers from the same problem as the Revolver cover. An audio clip of the contested backmasking would be highly relevant. The album cover is irrelevant to the discussion and adds nothing. It's use here is decorative. --Durin 14:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Durin, I think you are right to a certain degree that the images are decorative, but they are also useful as visual identification of the subjects they portray. While no fair use image is absolutely necessary, a picture can be worth a thousand words. I removed the images of Stained Class and the PMRC, but I think Revolver, as the first album with backmasking, is pretty important to the subject, and that the use of Image:Revolver.jpg to highlight the album is fair considering the importance of this album. I updated the rationale accordingly. Do you find this adequate justification? Λυδαcιτγ 02:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your work. No, I don't consider the album cover's use under our fair use policy to be correct. Identification purposes as a defense for fair use have been routinely failing over the last several months. I still believe an audio clip with the purported backmasking would be far more relevant and certainly within our fair use policies. The album cover isn't. --Durin 16:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright paranoia IMO, but not worth fighting over, so the Revolver cover's out. There is an audio clip of "Rain" backwards at the end of the paragraph (Image:Rain backwards.ogg). Λυδαcιτγ 01:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of copyright paranoia. It's a matter of our overall focus and mission, which is very far removed and above fair use law. --Durin 02:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand that we are stricter than we legally have to be. In this case I think we are too strict. Perhaps copyright paranoia is the wrong term; "excessive dislike of copyrighted material" might be more a accurate reflection of how I see it. Λυδαcιτγ 04:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as how we are a free content encyclopedia, I'll take that as a compliment. --Durin 04:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Support -- well written, good coverage and I accept your point on sources. Chensiyuan 07:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Well done! Support with comments:

care of the funny farm, Chalfont - can you explain what a funny farm is, and/or why Chalfont is one?
Shut your f[censored]ing mouth - how exactly did they manage to record the word f[censored]? A bleep? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The "funny farm" is an insane asylum. Chalfont could be one of several places; my guess is that it refers to Chalfont St Peter, the home of Chalfonts & Gerrards Cross Hospital, but it could very well be a different Chalfont. I wikilinked both of them.
If I remember correctly, the end of "fucking" is just cut out, but the empty space is left in. So it sounds like "Shut your f------ mouth about the length of my hair", the dashes being silence. It might be "f---ing", though. I'll find a clip and upload it. Λυδαcιτγ 21:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment — This article should be retitled as "Backward Recording" or perhaps split into 2 different articles. There are two completely different topics under discussion here. My perspective as a recording engineer is that backward recording of instruments is a legitimate form of artistic musical expression. "Backmasking" is a highly controversial subject. Only a few of these spoken or sung messages were recorded backward on purpose. Most of what is called "Backmasking" happened completely by accident and is completely open to the interpretation and the imagination of the listener. Personally I don't think there is really any such thing as "Backmasking" at all. It was a hoax created by a very small number of wacko television evangelists. Most Christians know better. As a Lutheran, I am disgusted by them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoni4316 (talk • contribs)

Backmasking is effectively backwards recording, although the term backmasking is used mostly in reference to spoken messages as opposed to sound effects. Take a look at any of the references and you will see that it is used to refer to real and non-controversial backwards recording. As for the controversial messages, take a look at the accusations section for a discussion of the controversy, which presents both sides of the issue in accordance with Wikipedia's policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Λυδαcιτγ 20:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Weak oppose for now. I just had two concerns while reading the article. The first and primary one is that reactions to Backmasking from outside the US are only mentioned once (an Australian is mentioned once as far as I can remember). Was this topic ever an issue outside of the US? The artists the article deals with were certainly well-known all over the world. The second issue was the references to other sections within the article. One of them even linked a non-existing section. All in all, I find them rather annoying and distracting. I think readers can generally figure when two topics dealt with in the same article relate. Other that, congratulations on a great article. I would love to support if you can deal with these two issues.--Carabinieri 04:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The backmasking controversy was really an American phenomenon. As Robert Plant said, "I found it foul, the whole idea... but it's very American. Nowhere else in the world has anybody ever considered it, or been concerned or bothered at all about that." Another Plant quote (same source): "How could anyone sing backwards? It's complete bunkum--it can't be done. Only Americans would come up with something that ridiculous." Apparently the Canadian legislature considered some kind of legislation similar to the California bill, but it was probably never passed. And I'm sure there are some Christian groups like the Australian Bible Believers in Europe or South America that have made reference to Satanic backmasking. Other than that, I don't think the rest of the world has bothered with this issue.
Your suggestion about the section links is a good one, and I've taken them out. Λυδαcιτγ 04:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you think there's any way of mentioning the fact that this was not an issue outside the US explicitly without it sounding odd? As it is, I think it seems like the article has a US/UK/AU-focus that is typical for English Wikipedia. Such a focus is alright if the topic is just an American/British/Australian issue, as seems to be the case here, but it would be nice to be able to distinguish it from systematically biased articles that just treat issues from this English-speaking point of view as a matter of principle.--Carabinieri 04:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem is that a statement like "Backmasking was only a major issue in the English-speaking world" requires a citation. One option would be to use Plant's quote: Robert Plant argued that backmasking was "very American", pointing out that "Nowhere else in the world has anybody ever considered it, or been concerned or bothered at all about that." It could go after the sentence Government action was also called for in the legislatures of Texas and Canada.. Λυδαcιτγ 23:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Support Well written, well sourced, and comprehensive. Cricket02 14:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 00:00, 16 July 2007.

[edit] Geology of the Lassen volcanic area

Self nom. I've been working on this article off and on since I first visited the area in late 2003. So - what else needs to be done to bring this to FA standards? I'm especially interested to see if I got the balance right. For example, it would have been tempting to add a lot more detail about the 1915 eruption of Lassen Peak or that mountain's geology. However, this article is about all the geology on the lava plateau, which includes dozens of separate volcanoes. Note: I plan to create a separate article on the 1915 eruption and to also bring Lassen Peak to FA standard (with a multi-subsection Geology section itself). --mav 01:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion- ummhhh... the page is attached with well stuff but i think you should have a peer review for the page. Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 06:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- PR is not a prerequisite to FAC. Any feedback generated from a PR can just as easily be done here through Objects with reasons given and through Comments. I am very responsive to all valid feedback. --mav 14:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you maveric149, same was my thinking when i nominated Himachal Pradesh for fac. i also used to thought when wikipedians can pin point the errors why can't they simply edit the page and correct it. glad to know about you. thank god there is somebody like me here on WP. Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 06:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of triggering a diversion, Sushant - there is a huge debate over whether the role of editors, contributors should be kept seperate during FAC voting. I, for one tend to err on the side of caution. The reason why i am giving you a justification is that i believe my comments in the HP article would have caused a lot of grief to you. We can take that discussion outside this page. --Kalyan 22:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Re- suggestion- In the glacial action section replace 1600ft by this template {{convert|1600|ft|m|0|lk=on}}.

it would result into- 1,600 feet (488 m). Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 05:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

no need, i have done it. Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 06:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Support! Looks great: inline citations, pictures. I think the breadth is good. If I were forced to make a suggestion, I would say: more material about the Klamath/Sierra separation. But, it's not necessary for FA, I think. hike395 14:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks - good point about the Lassen Strait issue. More detail needed indeed. I'll look for some good references and see what I can do. --mav 13:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Support - It seems very even and comprehensive to me, too, and I think you are right in not overwhelming this broader article with details of the 1915 eruption. It is nicely interlinked with other articles (e.g., Lassen Peak, Lassen Volcanic National Park) with complimentary and supplementary information. Nice work. Cheers - Geologyguy 21:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you! :) --mav 13:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Support ~~Oppose~~
- The intro needs work. Right now it drops you right into the history of the area. Where and what is the lassen volcanic area? ~~What are it's major features? The "current setting" section is completely missing from the intro.~~
- I would reduce using periods and instead focus more on MYA. Ex: The Pleistocene covers 1.8 MYs can the rise of Mount Tehama be pin-ponted a little more than that? It is also jarring when the text switches between periods and exact dates.
- How are the "Lassen volcanic area" and "Lassen volcanic park" related? Are they the same? Is one a subset of the other?
- Overall it needs to be more specific about things for people unfamilar with the topic
  - Mention it is in North America
  - Cascade Range -> Cascade Mountain Range
  - It refers to "plates" rather than tectonic plates
- "Lassen Volcanic National Park lies at the southern extremity of the Cascade Range, which extends northward some 500 miles (800 km) through Oregon and Washington and into British Columbia." extends northward from where? would a "from blah to blah" be more appropriate.
- ~~"the 16 other major volcanoes of the Cascades" have a link about them?~~
- ~~Image:Cascade_Range-related_plate_tectonics.png should have a caption~~
- Why is the 2nd image crammed into the intro?
- ~~"had undergone " -> "underwent" ?~~
- ~~"the oldest distinctive formation" formation of what?~~

I'll be back with more later -Ravedave 01:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

- Thank you for your detailed feedback. I will address each point after work today. --mav 13:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Thanks, I'll try and finish reviewing the article today. -Ravedave 15:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Fixes enacted - First stab at addressing your concerns is complete. Time for bed. I'll take a look at your below points after work on Thursday. --mav 03:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
~~Also missing from the intro - info about current volcanic activity~~
~~"during the last glacial period of the current ice age." -> did you mean the Wisconsin glaciation?~~
~~The volcanic hazards section I think needs an intro sentence. Something like this maybe? "The volcanic hazards in lassen today are moderate and mostly consist of..."~~
~~The volcanic hazards section is sort of all over the place, what is it trying to convey/accomplish? hazards that have ever existed there? hazards today? it seems like it is repeating stuff from above.~~
~~"The most common volcanic activity in the Lassen volcanic area consists of...." the other text makes it sound dormant, is this referring the the last few hundred years?~~

Done for now, good luck! -Ravedave 21:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixes enacted - Yep, some of the material in the hazards section was misplaced. Moved. I think is better now. Please check. --mav 01:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I have struck through stuff I believe is complete, can you respond to the other stuff?
  - The intro still does not give enough context as to what the heck the "lassen volcanic area" is (Lassen volcanic area doesn't exist...) and the article still does not say how this "volcanic area" relates to the park. This makes the article not able to stand on it's own. See Geology of the Capitol Reef area for a good intro sentance.
  - I didn't mention this earlier but the intro sentence should be a summary of what the article is about. Check out the other "Geology of ..." article at Wikipedia:Featured_articles
  - Can you expand upon the good "The only activity..." area of the intro in the body of the article?
- Oops forgot to sign, also I didnt realize you were the author of the Capitol reef article :P -Ravedave 02:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  - I think I've since addressed the lead image issue, the lack of spatial context issue for the first sentence, stating how the Lassen volcanic area relates to the park, Cascade Range -> Cascade Mountain Range, and a mention that the plates we are talking about are tectonic plates. As for the current activity - I'll have to see what I can get from Geothermal areas in Lassen Volcanic National Park and add a para to the hazards section. --mav 06:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Please recheck - Two paras on current activity added. Now, all your feedback has been incorporated into the article. Please take a look and strike-out those parts of your comments that have been adequately addressed and consider changing your vote. --mav 23:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Support Just read through it and I might do a small word tweak here and there, but this is decently referenced, authoritative and has plenty of images to document the subject matter. I might change the one heading from "Post glacial but pre-20th century activity" to "Post glacial to the end of the 19th century"...having "but" in there doesn't seem right to me.--MONGO 19:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Support with observation: Good article and well written. There are a couple of observations - at some point, this article needs to be revisited for copyedit check. while i am unable to put my finger on a particular thing, sometimes i was lost in the article and had to re-read a couple of times to ensure that i understood it. Also, i think that the references are just about adequate. I am sure that it has be noted that references are mostly to one major book. --Kalyan 22:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- If you had to re-read stuff doesn't that mean its fails 1a?-Ravedave 04:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Under no circumstances should this article as it now stands be promoted to FA. This doesn't really start out strongly. If you're discussing the geology of a mountain, you should start out by putting it in its orogeny--namely the Cascades range. I don't mean first paragraph, sorta, but the first sentence definately. You also have a problem with the first paragraph, far too major for this to be a FA, namely that Cascadia subduction is not 140 million years old, and you've placed this volcanic area that old, in addition to the Klamath Mountains not having existed 140 mya, and the tilting of the Sierra Nevada being only Oligocene in age--you've jumped about 115 million years from the early Cretaceous ot the tilting of the Sierra:
- "The geology of the Lassen volcanic area can be traced as far back as the early Cretaceous some 140 million years ago when the Klamath Mountains broke away from the Sierra Nevada, forming the flooded Lassen Strait. Subsequent tilting of the Sierra Nevada along with extensive volcanism affected the Pacific Northwest region of what is now the United States and Canada. Oceanic plates have plunged below the North American Plate in this region for hundreds of millions of years. This force has compressed that part of North America into various mountain ranges, including the Cascade Range which contains the Lassen volcanic area. Heat from these subducting tectonic plates has fed scores of volcanoes in California, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia over at least the past 70 million years (see plate tectonics)."
Under no circumstances should this article as it now stands be promoted to FA. KP Botany 15:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- First, this is not an article about the geology of a mountain. It is an article about the geology of an entire volcanic area that contains dozens of volcanic peaks and features (that said, other comments aimed at fixing the first para's context - adding a mention that this area is part of the Cascades in the first sentence would be a good idea). Second, the article does not at all say that the Cascadia subduction started 140 million years ago (although there was subduction farther off the coast back then); It only says that that is when the Klamaths broke away from the Sierras and thus left a new space where all the Lassen volcanics could happen. This USGS cite appears to back up the 140 million year age of the start of the breakup between the Klamaths (or more correctly, the Klamath block - 'mountain range' may not be technically correct in this context - better wording needed, I agree) and the Sierra block (look for the Separation section and figure). I was planing on expanding/clarifying that bit anyway per Hike's feedback. Third, the fact that the article jumps from the Klamath/Sierra separation to the tilting of the Sierras is a matter of necessarily focusing on just the part of the regional geology that is most relevant to the Lassen volcanic area. If you could provide the cites you referenced in your critique, then I can check those against the references I used in order to come up with better wording. Until then I will look over that part of the article again to see if I can make any changes later tonight (unfortunately, I'm away from the book references I used). Thank you. --mav 00:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment The problem is you're mixing up the age of the rocks of with the age of the orogenies of the current mountain ranges because you've selectively picked information from various articles written for a general audience. I assure you that you are way far off from an article about the Lassen volcanic area with your opening paragraph--so far off as to seriously warrant a warning about the factual accuracy of the article. If you removed everything from the Mesozoic you might be okay, but because your understanding of the relationships between the existing volcanic area and the ancient Nevadan and Sevier orogenies is so misconstrued you've created a mountain range where the reports are discussing the age of rocks during the plutonic emplacement of the batholith which was uplifted in the Cenozoic to create the mountain range that exists now. This is seriously problematic. This cannot be at this stage a FA. I have pictures of Tehama, it may take me a while to get them out of storage, but I have an extensive collection of geological pictures from field mapping the Modoc Plateau including Lassen. I will see what I can find, even though they're old. KP Botany 04:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    - I'm just a motivated writer with a minor in geology. You appear to have a more advanced understanding of the relationships and technical aspects of this. Could you spend a few minutes trying to clean-up my attempt to address your concerns vs spending that much more time here during the next round? It sure would be better for the encyclopedia if you did. :) --mav 04:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    - Fixes attempted - Mentioned that the rocks that make-up the mountains were broke, not the mountains per se. Other issues worked. Please check and WP:BE BOLD by editing the article directly. --mav 06:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    - It's been a few days - please check. Your objection is the last one but I would like to make sure you are OK with the fixes before this article gets promoted. However, I don't want to wait much longer. --mav 01:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
    - It's been a few weeks - please check. --mav 13:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Support ~~Comment~~, considering the factual accuracy tag on the article, I guess KP Botany is an oppose :-) I went looking for info about Mount Tehama and found this awkward prose: Starting its activity after Mount Yana but before Mount Maidu started its, Tehama reached an elevation of about 11,000 feet (3,400 m)[8] and was 11 to 15 miles (18 to 24 km) wide at its base. I was disappointed not to find any of the images that illustrate what Tehama was in relation to the existing Lassen Peak. The best visual for this is not from pictures taken within the Park, but from the southeast, taken from Route 36 towards Susanville near Lake Almanor, where the former impressive outline can be deduced from the sides that remain. It would be good if you could get your hands on some of those shots; I've searched the internet and can't find any. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah - a profile of Tehama would be nice to have. However, the only images I could find were not free. As for the wording, yeah, that could be improved. I'll fix that. --mav 00:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Run-on awkward sentence split into two hopefully less awkward sentences. --mav 06:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Concerns met, lead issues seems stalemated, but I know Mav will address anything that needs fixing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment No, my concerns have not been met, the tag was simply removed by someone without any discussion, and it has not been returned, although my concerns have not been met. My concern is that articles on the front page should have a minimal level of quality and this article does not meet that. Yes, the issue is stalemated, and certainly Mav will address these issues. In the meantime, should this article be marked as a FA with these issues unmet? No! The geology of the Lassen area is complex, and parts of the article (and edit history, frankly it has a lot to do with the geology of at least 2/3 of Nevada) and the method of research have removed the complexity from the geology without dealing with why. The introductory paragraph is a disaster--it simply is all over the place on a time scale, with no apparent concept of when plate tectonics relating to this area took place, and what the relationships a among the plate tectonics, the continental basement, and the overlying sedimentation and volcanism are in time and space. In other words, it's an article about geology that is missing the geology. This is a result of relying upon limited types of resources for a complex problem--if you're going to write about physical chemistry you have to do math at some point in time. I can't see any way around this without a lot of time put into reviewing at least a couple of major technical papers on the Lassen Volcanic Center, the various formations, anything. And this isn't light reading. Anyway, it's apparent my concerns will be ignored and dismissed. I don't have time to do the level and type of research this article needs to be a decent, accurate, and organized article for the layman on the Geology of the Lassen volcanic area, and it appears that this push for this being a FA is in conflict with its quality as a FA, so I bow out. KP Botany 04:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Is everything resolved now? Can the tag come off? Raul654 16:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not resolved, the introduction still is very difficult, and doesn't reflect the article in its entirety, nor define the subject well. I suggest to Maverick that he use a shorter time frame, but the introduction doesn't do that well--I don't know that it's changed since I last looked. I'm preparing for a show, and simply won't have time to edit anything that requires me to think for the next few weeks. KP Botany 21:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

- I think the lead section has changed since last time you checked. It starts with the uplift and tilting of the Sierras and all mention of the Sierra/Klamath split has been commented out of the article. We don't need you to edit, but to read the three current paragraphs of the article's lead section. Also, to be actionable, you need to state what parts of the article should be reflected in the lead that aren't currently. I can't think of anything significant (per WP:LEAD) that isn't already in the lead. --mav 22:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

- - I'll print it out and look at it again. KP Botany 04:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment—Seems well-written. Tony 14:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

...The article has not been edited in 2 weeks. I'll ask again - can that tag come off? Raul654 16:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been waiting for KP's comments about his reading of the new lead section. I've addressed each of his points but he has not commented on whether or not my fixes are sufficient and what else needs to be done. --mav 13:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with the intro as far as how it summarizes the major points in the article. The points made here seem to have been satisfied, so I see no reason the tag should remain.--MONGO 14:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, i disagree that the lead section is good to go. I want the tag to be retained till the below comments of mine are addressed. --Kalyan 14:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the tag. I think it's good to go. -Ravedave 14:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead section comments from Kalyan

Re-review of the lead section at the request of mav

Please re-format the first sentence as "The geology of the Lassen volcanic area presents the sedimentation and volcanic activity in the region around Lassen Volcanic National Park. The park is located in the southernmost part of the Cascade Mountain Range in the Northwest region of USA."

This needs to be followed by chronological order of events (70 million years ago - " Farallon Plate sliding under the North American plate."; 30 million years ago - "pressure relieved with volcanic activity across the region"; 2-3 million years ago - "Sierra Nevada uplifted and tilted westward."; 600K years ago - "formation of Mount Tehema volcano"; 31,000 years ago - "lassen peak formed"; 19th and 20th century activities). Please note that i have taken this material from the body of the article. Also, remember to date each of the events

I see that the data is presented as i said but lacks date reference in most places

Also, uplifting and tilting of Sierra Nevada took place only 2-3 million years ago. why is this event mentioned before tectonic activities?

avoid generic terms/phrases like "this part of the world"

avoid jumping across dates like "This formation of rocks is not exposed anywhere in park but it is just below the surface in many areas within it" which i believe refers to the current date whereas the data is present in the section refering to events atleast 30 million years old

Please make these corrections and let me know and i shall sign-off on the FAC. --Kalyan 14:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

- Great feedback - I'll get right on implementing your suggestions. --mav 21:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've tried to address your and other concerns with these edits. In addition to your suggestions, I've also taken out mention of the Sierra uplift since that is only indirectly related to the area's geology (being that it is not located on that range). In general, I'm trying to keep the lead as focused as possible on the area's exposed geology and the directly underlying Tuscan Formation; any info about related regional events need to be directly related to that. Please check. --mav 03:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

SUPPORT FA: I think that the lead section is much better now and there were a couple of minor things that caught my eye. I went ahead and made those modifications rather than leaving comments here. --Kalyan 04:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Still STRONGLY OPPOSE FA (Repeat comment:Under no circumstances) I object to the tag being removed, the issues have NOT been settled.

The introduction remains vague, and the tag should stay until the introduction is all that it should be:

"Oceanic tectonic plates have plunged below the North American Plate in this part of North America for hundreds of millions of years. Heat from these subducting plates has fed scores of volcanoes in California, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia over at least the past 30 million years (see Geology of the Pacific Northwest) and is also responsible for activities in the Lassen volcanic area.

Between 2 and 4 million years ago, volcanic-derived mud flows called lahars streamed down several major sources that included nearby but now extinct Mount Yana and Mount Maidu to become the Tuscan Formation."

We have three things going on here right from square one, we have hundreds of millions of years of tectonic plates, then the article discusses the current subduction complex, the Laramide Orogeny and younger events--well, what the heck is this hundreds of millions of years of subduction about, then? You start at the bottom in the intro, then move to the current setting and move back in time in the article, then call the Sierran uplift the "basement rocks?"

No, the introduction is vague, almost entirely unrelated to the article, and the tag should remain as long as this is an issue.

This article still needs major work to be an article about this geology, it's all over the place where it goes, it is not a cohesive description of the geology of the Lassen volcanic area, and the introduction is vague and largely unrelated to the entire article, and the article itself is confusing. KP Botany 21:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You previously suggested removing all info about Cretaceous events. I did so. I also removed mention of the Sierra uplift from the intro because it is not directly related to the geology of this particular volcanic area. Should that go back? Also, what other parts of the geology of this area need to be in the intro? Recall that intros need to be concise encyclopedia articles in their own right. So we can't include everything there; just the most relevant and important info. As for the tag; everybody else who has commented on that issue has agreed that none is needed. I also voluntarily had this article un-FACed in spite of it having more than enough support to pass so I could incorporate your feedback into improving it. That said, I very much want to address your concerns, but that is a bit difficult if more of a specific critique is not forthcoming. In the meantime, I'll search the academic literature for relevant papers and try to find time to visit a nearby university that has the journals. If you have any ideas on papers I should look at, then please provide them. :) --mav 15:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 00:00, 16 July 2007.

[edit] Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident

previous FAC

Respectfully re-submitting this article for FA consideration. Since the last nomination, the article has received copyediting support from WP:JAPAN [18], undergone a peer review with WP:MILHIST [19], and passed an A-class review [20]. CLA 00:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Image:MarineMichaelBrown.jpg is definitely a replaceable fair-use image; we don't need to use non-free images to show living people. The two pictures of his lawyer don't really seem to be particularly historically significant or really discussed in critical commentary, but I can see where those could go either way. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- We need at least one picture of Michael Brown in the article, because he's at the center of this story. The image you specifically mention is most likely a public domain mugshot. Since the source of the image doesn't say that for sure I put the fair use rationale on it. What would you need done with the images in the article in order to change your opposition to the article? CLA 06:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Okay, I removed the fair use images. CLA 03:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    - All concerns addressed, looks good. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose on fair use grounds as above, but extending; Image:MarineMichaelBrown.jpg may or may not be a mugshot and we can not presume public domain just because it is a mugshot (even if it is). The source is copyrighted. Further, there's no fair use rationale for this particular use. Also, as he's living, it's replaceable fair use as noted above. Image:ToshimitsuTakaesu&MichaelGriffith.jpg lacks fair use rationale for this article. I also concur with the general comments regarding depiction of his lawyer. Why? There's nothing in the images that add to the article. The article discusses his lawyers, but a visual depiction of them does not add to the article significant, which is a requirement under our fair use policy. Image:MichaelBrownandToshimitsuTakaesu.jpg lacks fair use rationale for this article as well. --Durin 15:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've removed all three fair use images from the article. CLA 03:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Support~~Weak Oppose~~
- ~~No infobox? I am sure there is one that can be used here.~~
- ~~Lack of inline citations (not following the text you have written). The references in "Web" can probably be used in inline citations. (WP:CITE).~~
- ~~Stubby paragraphs. Combine or remove.~~
- ~~Some very long paragraphs. Reader will get lost.~~
  - ~~If you can explain to me what you mean with the Notes thing (that I think is very odd), I will strike it out. After you have finished, please message me.--trey 03:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)~~
    - Okay, I split some paragraphs and combined some paragraphs ([21], [22], [23], and [24]) and added an infobox: [25]. Instead of spreading the footnotes throughout the text, which I believe interrupts the flow of the article, I combined them all at the end of each paragraph (except in the case of direct quotations). In each citation is the author's name and the title of the article, which the reader can reference in the "Web" section. I've used this footnote style in the last four articles that I've successfully nominated for FA. See Battle of Edson's Ridge, Actions along the Matanikau, 1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash, and Battle of Cape Esperance. Cla68 09:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Support A detailed, well written and well referenced article on an interesting topic. --Nick Dowling 01:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Under the trial section, the last three paragraphs all start with on and then a date, this repetition doesn't seem like professional writing. And for the citations, why aren't the sources inline? You have an inline section under what you call "notes", which are not notes, but just the names and titles of the sources in the web section below. By doing this you force the reader to look at your "notes" and then search the list below for the correct article. This is not necessary. The "notes" should be removed and the web sources and other sources should be done by inline citations. While you may have used this format for citations in previous FA's I think its redundant and should be changed. KnightLago 16:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Since the paragraphs in the trial section are divided by time sequence, I'm finding it hard to think of how the paragraphs should begin. Any suggestions you might have of how you think those paragraphs should begin would be very helpful. Yes, the "notes" section does force the reader to find the full reference below. I've seen it done this way in many history books that I read and in many other articles here in the project. Cla68 20:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  - I have seen it done in books as well, but this is not a book. I think authors do that because they are going to continue to reference the source and don't want to put footnotes on every page. But I think we should be uniform in sources, and not force the reader to search for anything. I also think it would be easier for you as you write to just use inline citations throughout. It would certainly save you time. I tried to work on the sentences I talked about above, but I noticed something else. Paragraphs 2,3,4,5 under the trial section all start the same way. I think this needs to be changed also. KnightLago 14:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    - Thank you for your helpful edits to the article. Cla68 04:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Support, per my comments at previous FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 00:00, 16 July 2007.

[edit] Deinonychus

The latest offering from the team at WP dinosaurs. This article is about as comprehensive as possible. It has been extensively copyedited and I feel the prose is tight It is factually accurate, referenced and laid out in a hierarchical manner. The images were either authored by wikipedians or used under fair use criteria. A few of us are ready to pounce on actionable fixes identified. nominated cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC) though main credits are ArthurWeasley, Dinoguy2, Firsfron , J. Spencer..................cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Needless to say, Support as nominator...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to include one of the Feathered images closer to the first mention of feathers? As is, the images look very random where they are. Circeus 16:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The b/w image is below the text mentioning the feathers. Unfortunately, the other image occupying the space it would go is also relevant to that section (similarity of the two arms). I have moved a subheading out of the way but could also place a (see below) or (pictured below) in the text mentioning the feathers cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Support It might also be a good idea to include a closeup view of the claw which gives this creature its name._Dragon Helm 20:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There is none as is on commons but the colour image next to the text which mentions it has a fairly obvious claw, which I've noted in the description. We could leave as is or magnify and make an inset box with closeup.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Support as co-nominator and co-author. The prose of this article (3097 words) is more than six times as long as the equivalent Britannica article (488 words). It is nearly 30 times the length of the same entry in The Dinosaur Encyclopedia (105 words). It is clear other encyclopedias haven't been nearly as comprehensive when it comes to this genus. Deinonychus is the 12th longest dinosaur article on Wikipedia (on a par with the other Featured dinosaur articles), and the content has been vetted by nearly all the active WP:DINO members. There appear to be no errors in terminology or errors of omission; 32 scientific papers (primary sources) were used as references.

The last major dust-up (concerning a feathered image used in this article) occurred over a year ago, and I'm fairly certain the issue has been settled. Historic, but now discredited views (such as lack of feathers, cold-bloodedness, the "ossified tendons" that turned out to be ribs) are discussed, but not given undue weight. The prose is professionally written but in a way I think is accessible to the average reader. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

~~Tentative oppose~~ Working on a deeper analysis, and the lead alone warrants this. As a preliminary comment, I'm not sure the 7 (!) references there are absolutely necessary, and it fails to give a physical description (and probably to give a good summary). It would probably flow better if it stuck closer to the structure of the article, too. Circeus 19:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Deinonychus/Comments. Have fun. I'll see if i can dig more links/ISBN etc. for the article's refs. Circeus 22:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I realised as removing refs from lead that there was a bit there not in text and vice versa. I might be a bit busy today so feel free to muck in too (I trust you) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~→Now Support - Great work guys on fixing Circeus's reservations - I, however, have a couple of my own. I don't feel that the picture featuring the Jurassic Park Velociraptor should be included in the article; generally articles should steer clear of fair use images in their text unless absolutely needed. In this case I feel a mention & the link to Velociraptor would suffice for the whole issue. My only other comment would be in regard to Circeus's request for a citation in regard to the whole Jurassic Park/Velociraptor is actually meant to be Deinonychus issue in the Pop culture section; I think I remember citing that issue in the Velociraptor article somewhere, maybe you could check there for a citation? It may be gone now though... Anyway, other than those reservations, the article looks top notch, a good length, informative & I'd have no problem supporting it later if those things are fixed (namely image & citations). Cheers, Spawn Man 08:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I must say I am not too fussed if the image goes - on my browser it hangs down in the next section so looks clunky. But I'll wait for the others to see how they feel about keeping or ditching it. I'll hunt around on its little cuz's article page and history. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Just had a look and realised I had the &%(&$#^# book gathering dust on my bookshelf all the time....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the image is unnecessary. JP had a MASSIVE (though its depictions were in several cases inaccurate) impact on the vision of dinosaurs in general, and "Velociraptor" in particular in popular conscience. Circeus 14:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed in the view of "Velociraptor" - that is why we shoudl link to the "Velociraptor" article with the picture, as it is more relavent there. Just because we can have a fairuse picture on every article if we propose rationale doesn't mean that we should. My oppose stands - in general, fair use pictures should be avoided & providing a link to the page it is more relavent on should be suitable. Spawn Man 08:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. Hahaha - good work Cas. Stuff is always in the last place you look & the last place you look is usually right in front of you. :)

Support pretty much all of my concerns have been taken care of, or are in the process of being. Circeus 09:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Support as one of the co-author. This is certainly the most comprehensive article written on the subject available on the web and that could be found in a general encyclopedia (including Encyclopedia Britannica) and certainly the most up-to-date, as relationship with newly discovered dinosaur such as Tsaagan is mentioned, as well as the latest hypothesis on its hunting behavior. ArthurWeasley 19:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Moral support as WP:DINO member and secondary editor; appears comprehensive in terms of topics covered, with clear writing. I'd like to see the last few concerns Circeus raised in the subpage addressed, but they're pretty close to completion.

[copy/paste from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs:]

As for the [Jurassic Park discussion and] picture, I would have supported keeping it in until I reread Velociraptor and the introduction of Raptor Red. I don't know if I've ever seen a source who worked on the movie come right out and say "it's Deinonychus"; in fact, the Raptor Red intro says the opposite, in that the animators were displeased to be animating an oversized "raptor" that didn't exist, and that Utahraptor was coincidentally the right size. The information might be better placed in Dromaeosauridae. J. Spencer 00:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think, JSpencer has a point here. The JP image doesn't add anything to the content of the article anyway so I would have no remorse to let it go. ArthurWeasley 01:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

My point exactly - I'll wait a bit to see if there's any other opposition to the removal & if not, I'll remove the picture. Cheers, Spawn Man 04:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole section is iffy without a ref where somebody 'fesses up to substituting Deinonychus for Velociraptor. The novel velociraptors are explicitly identified as V. mongoliensis, only with scaling closer to Deinonychus. Checking the Dinosaur Mailing List archives just brings up speculation and "everyone knows D = V in Jurassic Park" statements. This is looking more like an urban legend than anything else, which is interesting in itself, but a different story. J. Spencer 04:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Right - given as Bakker reports in his book that Utahraptor actually fits the dimensions best, I agree that the best place for it is the Dromaeosauridae page. If the size is Utahraptor and the name is Velociraptor then the link to Deinonychus is pretty tenuous.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

All my concerns have now been adressed - thanks for the great effort. Now changing to Support↑ above. Cheers, Spawn Man 07:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose for now: there is one run of several sentences across two paragraphs with no references: "Expeditions during the following two summers uncovered more than 1000 bones, among which were at least three individuals. Since the association between the various recovered bones was weak, making the exact number of individual animals represented impossible to determine properly, the type specimen of Deinonychus was restricted to the complete left foot and partial right foot that definitely belonged to the same individual. The remaining specimens were catalogued in fifty separate entries at Yale's Peabody Museum of Natural History. [pbreak] A skeleton of Deinonychus including bones from the original (and most complete) specimen can be seen on display at the American Museum of Natural History, with another specimen on display at the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University. The American Museum and Harvard specimens are from a different locality than the Yale specimens."

You should also make sure that you put references at each mention of a fact that is derived from that reference, not just in the first sentence of a paragraph, because otherwise your article will be literally destroyed by people who come along two years later and decide to refactor. Having a featured article is nice, but we know they don't last (edit creep), and they're by no means set in stone, or necessarily permanently being watched for all eternity. Make it future-proof, please, even if that means making some layout sacrifices. Spamsara 11:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

One of the ways I consider safe-guarding good versions is this process here. For several articles a year on I have gone back to the time they were passed to compare versions to see what's happened. Did you mean the last sentence of a paragraph above as well/instead of? I'll get onto that issue pronto. Are there other unreffed segments you're concerned about? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There are several instances in the article. I don't need to point them out to you - you can find them yourself. My position is that ideally, each sentence will have a reference at the end, unless there is a good reason not to (e.g. the sentence is merely stating something that can be considered common knowledge). Certainly when there are entire paragraphs without a reference, or several consecutive unreferenced sentences at the end of a paragraph, that needs fixing. Regards, Spamsara 04:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What about the last two paragraphs - in the subsection Eggs? Both are clearly conherent ideas from beginning to end with an inline ref at the end. Do you feel this is not clear enough and if not how many inline tags from teh article do you propose we put in there? This article could accrue a quite a number of inlines...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs)

Yes, it would seem prudent to do this for pretty much every sentence, except where stating obvious things, or things that arise trivially from context. You'll find various such places when you comb through the article. Don't be afraid to pepper the article with <ref> tags, as a bug report has been filed for a feature that will allow hiding these. Spamsara 06:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like an intriguing idea - can you show the link to where the request is? Do you have an idea on how long will this be in the pipeline?

PS: So let me get this straight - for a paragraph where all info comes from one particular source, you want every sentence tagged with the ref tag, because until this bug report comes through it will look pretty awkward. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[26] I entered the bug today after previously being under the illusion that it had already been entered. It may be a duplicate of something I saw earlier, and couldn't find again today. As for developers' priorities, I really have no idea. Spamsara 10:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

We generally don't tag each sentence with a citation, Spamsara; as it currently stands, there is one citation for roughly every two sentences in this article. In the past, I have seen articles opposed because of "over-citation". I believe tagging every sentence could be viewed as over-citation. Also, it appears that your request to have repeated citations hidden has been marked with "WONTFIX". Firsfron of Ronchester 10:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ailanthus altissima for the reasoning behind the request. I was expecting it to get tagged WONTFIX. People are lazy. Spamsara 11:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 00:00, 16 July 2007.

[edit] Kingdom Hearts

This article is a self nomination. I've been tidying it up for a few weeks now and I believe that article is worthy of a Featured Article, as with most of the Star Wars films and most of the Final Fantasy video game series. This article has had a peer review by the CVG WikiProject which has a link at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Peer_review/Kingdom_Hearts. Thanks. Greg Jones II 17:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Support - Looks very good, meets the criteria. Judgesurreal777 22:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Support - Good, concise article that follows the four FA criteria and it's already a good article --AutoGyro 23:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Support - Haven't played this yet (only Chain of Memories), but I remember that this article used to be in bad shape, and since it went through such improvement, it's worthy of the FA. And maybe later the Kingdom Hearts games can become an FT. igordebraga ≠ 00:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Conditional Support - It's well-referenced, but I think at least three of the fair-use images are missing their sources. — Blue。 08:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- The images are adequately sourced, for images such as screenshots and cover scans, it is the copyright holder which is important, not whoever pressed print screen. Other editors have sufficient information to be able to verify if the screenshots/scans are accurate.
  - All right. Will change to support once the issue below is resolved. — Blue 。 09:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - It's a Japanese game, where's the Japanese critical reception? (Famitsu) As a minor aside, could you not get some better screenshots? Image:Neo Shadow.jpg seems blurry and of a strange resolution. - hahnch e n 09:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I fixed a link here. Greg Jones II 14:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

- We will get better images ASAP. We also need Japanese reception as well as Japanese voice casts. I will address your objection ASAP. Greg Jones II 13:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Once I address your objection, I will continue this nomination. Greg Jones II 13:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Japanese critical reception has been cited. Greg Jones II 17:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, wait, we need to find a few more sources for Japanese critical receptions before this nomination continues. Greg Jones II 17:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  - ~~Can we find a Famitsu score for this one? Would complement the Japanese critical receptions. — Blue 。 12:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)~~ Found it. — Blue。 16:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    - Dude, you rock, Thank you for finding that. Is the current information on the Japanese reception enough? (Guyinblack25 17:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC))
      - See below comment. — Blue 。 00:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I've added a hidden message to the top of the plot remiding other users not to add unneccessary information. This should stop many other users from doing so. The Japanese critical reception from Famitsu and Dengeki online has now been cited. About the screenshots, we need a better resolution and fair use rationales as well before this nomination can continue. Thanks. Greg Jones II 21:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- All images have a fair use rationale and are web resolution. For the screen captures, is their current state a problem for FA? If so we can try to get other screen shots. (Guyinblack25 02:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC))
  - I am not sure about the Japanese critical reception or the screen captures if there are problems for FA. Greg Jones II 22:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    - Sjones, just flesh out and describe some of the comments on the camera system. The screen capture is fitting as following the recent fairuse policy. — Blue。 22:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
      - Okay, Blue. All of the photos look fine. If there is a current state a problem for FA, as described above by Guyinblack25, we can try to get other screenshots. Otherwise, most of this article looks perfect for an FA. Greg Jones II 23:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment: To anyone who understands Japanese, this sentence needs more fleshing out from the source: "Dengeki Online also complained about the camera." What kind of complain? What is the problem with the camera? What did they suggest? This would better describe the Japanese reception. — Blue 。 00:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, we could use some help on this one before this nomination continues. Greg Jones II 18:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 00:00, 16 July 2007.

[edit] European Parliament

Self-nomination (mostly). I have been working on this for a while and editors have done a lot to it. Since getting GA status it has been improving and I think the quality overall is good enough for FA. If there are any problems I should be able to fix them rapidly. - J Logan ^t/_c: 16:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. Reads well, covers all the bases. Looks great! --Hemlock Martinis 21:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Support, looks very good! —Nightstallion 22:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Support But I think the caption "The seat in Strasbourg is seen as a symbol by some, and as a waste of money by others" can be improved, probably be deleting all but the first four words? BenB4 09:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think it might loose a bit meaning if I did that, I had shortned it to "Strasbourg is seen..." before but was rv. as that would mean the whole city it seems. I have rewritten it though as "The Strasbourg seat is a symbol to some, and a waste of money to others" which brings it down to two lines. That okay? - J Logan ^t/_c: 11:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Well, on just the wording, it's likely that a lot of people see it as both. But what I was trying to get at was the bias and weasel words. The accompanying text explains the situation well. How about "Strasbourg is controversial because of the extra cost for a second seat"? BenB4 11:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    - Okay, how about "The cost of two seats has been a cause of controversy" - J Logan ^t/_c: 12:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
      - Perfect. I added the noun phrase to the caption describing the photo. BenB4 13:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

~~Oppose for now, but looks very doable.~~
- Templates go at the top of each section (see WP:GTL).
- Please get rid of the awful scrolling window on references; that method eliminates from refs from mirrors (of which FAs have many) and printouts (some of us do read the articles from a printed version). {{scroll box}} says not to use it in mainspace, and references this TfD result.
- There are external jumps in the text; Wiki is not a blog. Those jumps should be either converted to references or Wikified text.
- Date parameters are not correctly identified on all sources; for example http://www.ft.com/cms/s/56b6d760-a412-11da-83cc-0000779e2340.html has a full date, which should be entered (there are likely others, since no full dates are specified).
- See WP:MOSNUM, solo years shouldn't be wikilinked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Removed the one template that was below. Removed ref window. Removed all external links. Added all available dates. Not sure what you emant on solo years, but I have removed all links to years without full date. - J Logan ^t/_c: 09:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    - Beautiful, and fast! Striking oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 00:00, 16 July 2007.

[edit] Brownsea Island Scout camp

We've put a lot of work into improving this lately and feel it is ready for a FAC run. Brownsea Island was the site of the first camping trip by Robert Baden-Powell in August 1907. This camping trip ignited the worldwide Scouting movement.Rlevse 14:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Support Especially relevant with the upcoming centenarry. --evrik ^(talk) 19:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Support The article has been greatly improved in recent months, it definately worthy of FA status. LordHarris 00:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment Lead should be longer. The Placebo Effect 03:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the recommendation. We edited the lead to be more in line with the body text, and provide more information. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC).
Oppose: The image Image:Scouting 2007uniform.jpg is a fair use, copyrighted image. It's use here in this article is decorative. It's use is acceptable on Scouting 2007 Centenary, but not here. --Durin 21:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC) Update: Image has been removed. Opposition removed. --Durin 12:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- It illustrates the section in question.Rlevse 21:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Pointlessly, yes. --Durin 21:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    - Sorry, but I agree with Durin on this one; I removed the image he talked about. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- You're opposing because of one image at the bottom of the article? --BigΔT 04:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  - I am not opposing now. Anyways, featured articles need to have images that are either free or acceptable fair use images. That is one of the requirements at WP:WIAFA. Any editor can object to the article becoming FA over image licensing issues. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment There is obvious disagreement on what "acceptable fair use is". NOTE however: from an example at Wikipedia:Non-free content "A sports card image is a legitimate fair use if it is used only to illustrate an article (or article section) on the card itself;", which is what this image does (or now did), it illustrates the section of the article it was in, which was on the subject of the image.Rlevse 10:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment BigDT and Rlevse are correct. This is perfectly acceptable Fair Use. The image illustrated a section that was on the subject of the image, which is allowed per Wikipedia:Non-free content.Sumoeagle179 10:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Support well done.Sumoeagle179 10:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Support page was updated to make the image use acceptable. I would encourage the users here to also look at http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=scouting+centenary&l=commderiv&ss=2&ct=0 and other images on Google. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but those are tagged "some rights reserved".Rlevse 19:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You're free to email the creators for permission, if some events are still going on, you can take pictures of that. The one I linked should be under the Creative Commons license. Anyways, good article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Support As significant contributor to the article, let me express that this is a topclass article now, well balanced in text and illustration, and covering the subject well. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 01:10, 7 July 2007.

[edit] France national rugby union team

"Easily passed" good article criteria and is visibly similar to All Blacks which received FA status. The red links for notable players are in the process of being eliminated.GordyB 10:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Is a foreign language Featured Article (in French - see here) upon which much of the English version is based. - Shudda ^talk 11:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Looks good - a few minor points though:

~~It frequently refers to the All Blacks without any expansion early on for non-rugby readers that this is the New Zealand national team.~~

Added something in the lead. - Shudda ^talk 02:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In the History section - you need a small comment (even if only a half sentence) to explain why professionalism was an expulsion offence. The last paragraph in the history section also needs some major proofreading - there are some non-grammatical constructions in there.

I've hopefully clarified that - let me know if it needs further work. - Shudda ^talk 02:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

~~The Home Grounds section could do with some reorganisation of text and copyediting - the section on former grounds needs a separate paragraph, probably before the 2007 World Cup section.~~

I think this is better; just let me know. - Shudda ^talk 02:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

~~Notable Players: Other than the redlinks, which should be made blue, explanation is needed for the abbreviations in the "Six nations" column of the table.~~

I think I've explained that better. I'll removed the redlinks a soon as I can. - Shudda ^talk 02:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Overall, I can't see much that is missing, though perhaps a paragraph on age-group national sides might be useful. The main concern is that much of it needs copyediting for grammar, punctuation, etc. And that should be easily fixed. Grutness...wha? 01:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I did a copy-edit before GordyB nominated the article. Obviously I've not picked up the things you are mentioning - please let me know specifically where there is a problem. Are you sure it's neccessary to mention the the age-group teams here? I'm not sure much can be said except for the fact they exist. - Shudda ^talk 02:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

At the very least it would be useful to have a link to an article which deals with them - even if, like some of the player articles, it's likely to be a stub. As to the copyediting, there are still a few phrases here and there that seem a bit stilted, and I caught a couple of typos as I was reading through it (which I corrected at the time). If I get time later today I'll go through it and do a small bit of further copyediting, see if I can smooth anything out. The improvements look good, BTW, though I may make a slight tweak there too... the stadium one, still flows a little oddly. Grutness...wha? 03:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What about adding some links to the see also section? Would that do? - Shudda ^talk 03:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That would probably be fine. It's mainly that the Under-19s are mentioned re: the national training centre, so there should be something about them, even if only a link. BTW, I have just finished a fairly comprehensive copyedit - almost all of it very minor tweaks. Grutness...wha? 07:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

~~One more thing - the cost of the National Training Centre is only given in pounds. Some local equivalen (be it Francs or Euros) is also needed.~~ Grutness...wha? 07:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added a conversion (as per manual of style here). The U19 team doesn't have an article. Should I create one? - Shudda ^talk 05:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Reading through the text, I've spotted several issues:

*"since expanded into the Six Nations championship" (from History). You've mentioned this already in the lead, and mention it again later in the text. I think a note of when it expanded in 2000 is sufficient.

"Despite not playing the Home Nations, France created a winning streak which still stands today." Although I understand what the sentence is getting at, it's a little ambigious; it sounds like France have won every game since.
~~A little more information on this winning streak would be welcome. It's a little unclear; who was it against and for how many games did it last?~~
~~A few dash issues throughout the text. If I remember correctly, short dashes shouldn't be used to separate text. Read WP:DASH or replace with commas.~~
~~"was not completed due to fighting". Unclear; where was the fighting (on the field? After the game?) and who was involved?~~
~~I reckon Northern hemisphere is a low-value link; it doesn't add to the reader's understanding of the subject.~~
~~How many points did the French win by in 1959? Might be worth noting, and it'll expand what it a short paragraph.~~
~~"Five nations" should be Five Nations? (third paragraph of History)~~
~~"The 1970s were also a successful for France"; "decade" between successful and for I'm guessing?~~
~~"The 1980s saw another successful era for the French". A little repetitive; the previous paragraph starts with essentially the same construction.~~
~~"The representation of the rooster was first realistic and detailed, later simplified, and is now abstract and stylized." When? This sentence is somewhat vague.~~
~~"French supporters have been known to release roosters on the playing field before games." Needs a citation; I find that hard to believe :)~~
~~"it is a rugby tradition that the home side changes its strip in the event of a colour clash" Also needs a citation. Also, I would move it out of the brackets; it appears to form a separate sentence.~~
~~The "Word cup venues" subsection seems to quite short; there's a one-line and two-line paragraphs present. Could do with some expansion.~~
~~"Italy would later join in 2000"; another mention of the difference. I don't think it's worthy of inclusion here.~~
"The Giuseppe Garibaldi Trophy is also awarded during the Six Nations, to the winner of the match between France and Italy." Needs rephrasing, and the sentence doesn't flow with the rest of the paragraph; upon first reading, I wondered why it was mentioned.
~~"Updated '3 May 2007'". I'm assuming it'll be updated after each Six Nations? If so, the information doesn't really change.~~
~~In the "National Rugby Centre", why not remove (NRC) and change the only mention of the acronym to centre?~~
~~With the references (and external links), put a space between (French) and the links.~~

That should be enough for now. If you don't agree with any of the comments, let me know! CloudNine 12:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've done most of that now. A couple of things though:

I have not been able to find a when for "The representation of the rooster was first realistic and detailed, later simplified, and is now abstract and stylized." I'll keep trying though, the sentence was a translation of that on the French language article. So Ill contact a French contributor for help. If not I'll remove the sentence.
The World Cup venues section was added after Grutness's comments (see above). I'd prefer not to make any more changes there if it's going to have him want to undo them. Any specific problems other then it's too short would be good, then a consensus will be easier to reach.

On re-reading it, it's fine. You don't need to change it.

The sentence on the Giuseppe Garibaldi Trophy has been reworded, yet I have left it where it is. It's contested during the Six Nations so I can't think where else it should be included?

Ok, it looks good now.

I've removed (NRC) but have kept the name the same. That's what it's called in the refs I used.
The updated thing is part of the template. I will add a comment on the templates talk page (it's uesd on other national rugby union team pages) and if theres no objections will remove it.

This has been removed. - Shudda ^talk 01:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully everything else has been addressed. Let me know if there are any further problems. - Shudda ^talk 03:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Have no fears about me wanting to undo the WC venues section - I only felt t needed to be separated from the French home venues - it made more sense to keep the world cup venues in one place separate from France's traditional home venues, especially since France will not be competing at many of this year's World Cup venues. Grutness...wha? 04:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've replied above. CloudNine 16:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. All my outstanding comments have been addressed. CloudNine 08:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments In the lead;

~~Rugby union is a popular sport in France, and the national team are one of the world's best.~~ -- peacock wording, is this sentence necessary
France are the host nation of the upcoming 2007 Rugby World Cup. -- are --> is or will be, link 2007 Rugby World Cup

Also think maybe the lead needs to be reformatted the information jumps around, especially the World cup info which is disjointed and appears to be tacked in

In the History section;

France became the first nation from the northern hemisphere to tour South Africa - rocking the Springboks to win the Test series. The Springboks also visited Paris, though the Test was not completed due to fighting. France also toured New Zealand and Australia - losing both Tests against the All Blacks but defeating Australia's Wallabies. They won their first Five Nations Grand Slam in 1968 by beating all four other competing teams, and won numerous titles in the following years -- question when was the SA tour? when did SA tour France, who was fighting was it the players during the test, the spectators or someting else? when did the NZ and Aus tours occur did they conincide with the SA tour?
fielding an unchanged side throughout the tournament surely they changed their clothes during the tournament ;P presume they played with an unaltered team lineup throughout the torunament.

section Strip;

~~heading Strip vs Uniform~~
there were only two rings because only two continents, America and Europe, participated in the first few Olympics -- every Australian that reads this is going to scream as Australia has competed in every Olympics the article 1896 Summer Olympics also indicates Chile competed. 1900 Summer Olympics also had teams from Asia. I think this sentences needs to be clarified or removed

section Notable Players

Among these notable players, several stand out due to their influence on French rugby. Ten players are selected in the following table, on the basis of the awards they have received and/or their number of caps. this list while I dont doubt they are notable without a source for the choices its appears to be original research.

Overall its it appears to be comprehensive, maybe a couple of images could be added to the sections after Record to fill some the white spacing caused by the lists and tables. There are enough concerns here for me to ~~oppose~~ its promotion at this time Gnan garra 08:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Just comment to say that I am going through the process of addressing your concerns. - Shudda ^talk 03:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Further comment - I suspect the "unchanged team" this is a US/rest of world language difference - "unaltered team" seems horribly stilted, and "unchanged team" far more natural for a team that had no changes in it. Grutness...wha? 04:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think if someone thinks that "unchanged team" means they have not changed their clothes then there is something wrong! - Shudda ^talk 05:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I have addressed most of your concerns. A few things:

I don't think that the we should removed the statement that rugby is popular and France have a good team - no one with any knowledge of international rugby would dispute that. I reworded it so it doesn't sound so peacocky - but it's quite a sensible and non-controversial thing to say about the team.
Hopefully the World Cup sentence is clear.
I've added dates to the history section where you asked, and the info on fighting was expanded yesterday.
Strip vs Uniform - I think it should stay as it is. This article is written in British English, and Strip is the common term. We could use Uniform, Strip, Jersey, Guernsey. I think maybe wiki-linking strip in the first sentence of that section will do?
Removed the Olympics thing. You make a very good point, and that was prob taken from the French language page (the ref is in French).
As for notable players. I'll try and think of another way of doing it. That list was taken directly from the French article. In the All Blacks article we simply had International Rugby Hall of Fame members in the notable players section. Maybe that is best here, please let me know.

Hopefully I've addressed everything (except the notable players thing). Please let me know if there is more I need to do. - Shudda ^talk 00:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

comment the alterations are fine, I copy edited the history section to adress my concern on peacock terms, with the list of 10 it just needs to be attributed to someone, hall of fame would be ideal, but a magazine/newspaper article would suffice. Gnan garra 03:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we should just do what has been done with the All Blacks - hall of fame members. I'll do that in the next few hours. Is that the only thing left you want changed? - Shudda ^talk 04:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

<--- I now Support this articles promotion, Gnan garra 11:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Fix needed. This article has a strange and non-standard usage of emdashes combined with non-breaking hard spaces. Spaced emdashes are generally avoided on Wiki (see WP:DASH and WP:MOS). I started to fix them myself, and then realized that emdashes don't seem to be the correct punctuation in several of the instances where they are used. Needs attention.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have removed the non-breaking space before the mdash. Emdashes should be ok according to WP:DASH as in all instances I don't want to use a comma (which causes a run-on sentence) but don't want to start a new sentence either. The style used is now consistent though. - Shudda ^talk 00:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been away on a short break and missed all of this activity. Will catch up soon.GordyB 14:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've struck out those point that seem to have been dealt with.GordyB 10:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

~~Fixes needed~~ 'Support: ~~I've just started looking and the prose needs some work:~~

~~The first 3 sentences of the lead are repetitive -count how many times "France" and "rugby union" appear. I'd totally rewrite the first paragraph. sorry.~~ France came of age during the 1950s and 1960s,.. - sounds informal and vague - try using "success/dominance" or some other words.

I am not sure how to reword this. They weren't dominant, and they were successful (but thats vague as well). What's trying to be said is that they were now consistently competitive. Previously they had been competitive, but not as consistently. Whats the best way to word this?

France then played irregularly.. - "sporadically"? intermittently?

Don't know whats best. When they joined the Five Nations it became a annual thing, previously it was not.

France was ejected from the Five Nations in 1932, this was mainly due to accusations of professionalism - ungainly try "France was ejected from the Five Nations in 1932 after being accused of professionalism.."

(Having been expelled from the Five Nations and) forced to play - bracketed bit is superfluous
France would not rejoin the Five Nations until 1939 when they were invited back. - why not "France were invited to rejoin the Five Nations in 1939 but did not compete until 1947 due to...."

The 1970s were also successful (for France), and.. redundant - maybe better to rephrase bit.

lost 29 points to 9. - why not just "29-9"?

The French team traditionally played in blue shirts, whites shorts - typo

~~Um, why does the coach list start in 1964?~~

Anyway, not too bad. I was wondering whether there should be more on notable players. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The notable players section is as per All Blacks; having too much info on them other then a sentence or two is prob unnecessary as each has their own article.
I'll deal with your comments soon, but a couple of things - the coach list starts in 1964 because as it says in the first paragraph teams didn't always have coaches, and the role itself varied so much (for example often the captain did the coaching, often senior plays, sometimes selectors or managers etc etc). This is because until 1995 Rugby was a strictly amateur sport, and for a very long time the idea of a coach was frowned upon (especially in the northern hemisphere).
I think the first paragraph looks fine, rugby union is only mentioned three times, twice in the first sentence, and once after that. Surely this is not a big deal, the article's title is "France national rugby union team"!

Anyway will deal with them all soon. - Shudda ^talk 04:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed everything - either struck whats been done or added a comment. Thanks. - Shudda ^talk 01:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry I just removed the 2nd sentence as it ads nothing. Their status as the 3rd ranked team in the world is mentioned a little further on and 'popular sport' is vague and obvious as you read the article. 'irregularly' here sounds like irreglaur fashion rather than time, hence the other two words which apply to time intervals. One each adds variety. All your other points are good and I wasn't aware of tehm. Anyway, it gets a gong now. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure I have addressed all the concerns that have been raised so far. Could people please let me know if more is necessary and if they are happy with my changes. Thanks. - Shudda ^talk 01:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Support, but, please attend to the following:
- ~~MOS says you must use en dashes for sports scores: 2–0, not 2-0. Consider an en dash for "1910 to 1954" --> "1910–54".~~
- ~~"joint top try scorer in 1991 with 6 tries"—apart from being a single-digit number, "six" would avoid the tension with the preceding numerals. Tony 05:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)~~
  - Done. Thanks. - Shudda ^talk 07:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a note to Raul that I have contacted Grutness a couple of times on his talk page. Although he didn't oppose he did have a few comments and I think they have all been addressed but he has not confirmed whether he agrees or not. - Shudda ^talk 02:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 01:10, 7 July 2007.

[edit] Californication (album)

This article has been extensively worked on by WikiProject Red Hot Chili Peppers, including myself, has passed GA and had pretty productive peer review. Kamryn Matika 19:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments and Support - Just want to add in that this is a Self-nom. Furthermore, I give my support, but I am an extremely significant editor to the article. NSR77 ^T_C 00:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Object Audio files do not have non-free content rationales, the rationale for the last image does not explain its significance within the article, and the image from the commons is certain to be deleted so it should be removed. Jay32183 04:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments I added Fair Use rationales to "Around the World" and "Otherside" respectively, removed the soon-to-be deleted image, and changed the description of the remaining image to coincide with the article's text. I believe that's all you've addressed. NSR77 ^T_C 05:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'll add to the audio files: The copyright owners of the songs need to be stated, i.e the record label, or whomever. Also, the descriptions need to be cited within the sample box, and I believe the same text needs to be included in the section where the samples are provided. Cricket02 16:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Several comments:

see 1999 in music. I'd remove this link; I don't think it's of high-value. Y Done
"High School" -> "high school" surely? Y Done
Release and critical recognition doesn't hold together well as a section in my opinion. It talks about what single would be picked for the album to the excessive distortion of Californication. Y Done
You may want to include some of the critics' reaction to the album; what did NME, Rolling Stone, Q et al say? (see Doolittle (album) for an example). Y Done
Ref 21 (about "Summer Time") is a link to trivia on TV.com. Are you sure there's not a more reliable reference?

It's a good article otherwise. If you disagree with any of my comments, let me know! CloudNine 11:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that's all! If anything else still persists, just point it out. NSR77 ^T_C 15:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's nothing I can come up with that can replace reference 21. If you wish, I'll remove it. NSR77 ^T_C 21:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Support well-written and referenced article about a nice album. igordebraga ≠ 14:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Comments
- Albums bought there included new previously unreleased tracks - and the name of these are? Y Done
- song in 2000 - 2000 should not be wikilinked unless it provides context (which it doesn't here) Y Done
- Anthony Kiedis recalled - only refer to their second name after the first mention Y Done
- Some web references are missing date retrieved while others lack a publisher or date (ref 35 has a date) Y Done

looks good otherwise, however Rick Rubin is only mentioned as producer in the credits section, a producer is important to list under some sort of recording/production section. M3tal H3ad 07:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Virtually no words were spoken about Rubin during Californication, even in Kiedis' Scar Tissue (other than a note that he actually was returning). If I come up with anything on it, I'll be sure to include it. Otherwise, I think all the other things you have addressed, so far, has been dealt with. If anything else still strikes you as incorrect, please, point it out! NSR77 ^T_C 21:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, however the image of the band has the caption "John Frusciante's return to the Red Hot Chili Peppers marks a change from their previous album." Could you tell the reader who John is in the picture like John Frusciante's (third from left) return to the. Some references are still missing retrieval dates 9, 30, 31, 32, 35, 37, and 42. References 35 still has no date. The article gets quite listly towards the bottom, might want to consider converting the album's chart position into a paragraph under 'release', as it is not mentioned it hit #3 on the Billboard chart aside from the lead and the table. Also did it debut at number 3? that would be mentioned in the paragraph. M3tal H3ad 08:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed all the references and incorporated the charting into the prose. Should be all done, but if there's anything more, just pick it out. Thanks again, NSR77 ^T_C 02:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments

~~Ref 12 needs to state author and format for consistency with the rest of the references.~~
Over the years Californication has remained popular; in 2003, the album was ranked number 399 on Rolling Stone magazine's list of the 500 greatest albums of all time and, in 2006, the Chili Peppers recorded a five-set playlist for AOL Sessions that included "Californication" and "Scar Tissue".[26][19][27]. A bit of a run-on sentence, maybe split?
Planning to get to the venue one hour before they were set to perform, the band was informed of the hectic situation only minutes before arriving.[36] The situation escalated, however, when the Chili Peppers performed a tribute to Jimi Hendrix's song "Fire", from several casual bonfires to rapes and beatings.[38] Maybe I'm blind, but I was completely lost in this section. What situation? The casual bonfires etc occured because of the song "Fire"? Maybe further clarification or expansion is needed here.
~~Please see WP:MOS regarding quotation marks before or after full stop depending on full sentence or sentence fragmnets.~~
~~I might be wrong here but isn't LastFM more of a spammy type of link? Not sure where its informational.~~

Cricket02 16:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I corrected reference 12, cleaned up the run-on sentence and clarified the Woodstock paragraph. If possible, could you point out a<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">ny specific infringements to WP:MOS? Also, I removed the external link to Last.fm. If anything else still persists please point it out. Thanks! NSR77 ^T_C 21:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I found it easier to fix the minor quote mark fixes than to list them here so that is done. Good job on the clarification. Only thing for me is to list copyright owner of the songs sampled in the file info (Example here) and citing of descriptions within the sample box(comment above). Cricket02 22:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much! NSR77 ^T_C 03:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: features a repeating guitar riff that was deliberately recorded backwards (hence the title "Emit Remmus", "Summer Time" backwards).[21] Do we really need the word 'deliberately' in there? Its not as if he recorded it backwards by accident. Also, someone mentioned earlier that the ref for this sentence isn't very good. Does that matter so much? 'Emit Remmus' is clearly 'Summer Time' backwards - it's not like an external source is needed to confirm this. Milstrom 12:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I see what you were mean, and removed "deliberately" from the sentence. NSR77 ^T_C 13:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Weak oppose with comments:
- ~~List who produced the album and where it was recorded in the lead section.~~Y Done
- The lead in general should be more expansive. It's worth mentioning that the album was a commercial revitalization of the band after their popularity dropped off in the late 90s. Conversely, the fact about the title doesn't seem like it belongs in the lead.Y Done
- Remove "Alternative rock was tangible in tracks like "Easily" and "Emit Remmus"". The source doesn't say that, and it's a silly thing to comment on since technically everything on the album is alternative rock.Y Done
- More detail about the recording process would help. Explain where the album was recorded in the body of the article. Particularly important: Rubin is only mentioned in the Credits section and infobox, but not at all in the prose.Y Done
- The fair use image of the band is unnecessary. Remove it.
- ~~Is is necessary to note that the album was released on the CD format?~~Y Done
- ~~The sentence "Around the world, the album peaked at #5 on the UK Top 40[23], #1 on the Finnish, Austrian, Swedish and New Zealand charts, and #2 on the French Top 40" needs to be restructured.~~Y Done
- ~~Move the paragraph that begins "Over the years, Californication has maintained its popularity." to the Critical Recognition section.~~Y Done
- Can you find more critical commentary? This is the section that suffers the most right now. It needs to be more substantial. Make sure to look for reviews on site like Time.com, EW.com, NME.com, and other major media sources that might have a review.Y Done

Overall the article's ok, but not outstanding. It's mainly the article's lack of comprehensiveness in certain areas that I'm voting a weak oppose. However, the points I've illustrated, when fixed, will improve the article substantially and I'll be glad to strike out my oppose when those points are addressed. Look at featured album pages like Surfer Rosa, Reign in Blood, Kid A as guidelines. The basics of an FA-worthy article are present in this article; it just needs to be built upon. WesleyDodds 06:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have re-tooled the lead to be more appropriate to the article and coincide with the prose, and have added information about Rubin in the prose as well as the lead. The minor cleanups and adjustments you have identified have been addressed. Personally, I believe the image should be kept, as it does show the reader what the Chili Peppers looks like as of 1999, since only two years prior, Navarro was in the band. I've added critical commentary from NME and EW. Time had a pathetic review that isn't worth including, as it gave no indication of being for or against the album. Please, if there is anything else, just contact me. NSR77 ^T_C 15:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I would be fine with the picture if it were free, but it's not. The screenslot further down in the article serves the same purpose somewhat but has a stronger rationale, being from the accompanying tour video. Even then there are a number of free images available featuring Frusciante with the band (not fron the Californication period, granted, but that's not that big of a modifier). It also just clogs up the Music section, which also has two soundclips that are more relevant and necessary to the accompanying text. I feel strongly that the image is unnecessary and replaceable, and should go. WesleyDodds 03:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the picture could be replaced with a fair use one, although it doesn't need to be. The image has, therefore, been removed. NSR77 ^T_C 00:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Additional comment Reading the article again, I really think the prose needs to be spruced up. The article could stand to have some sentences reorganized, and lines like "it became known that he had developed a heroin addiction that left him in poverty and near death" and "And while many critics found the band's new sound refreshing, NME simply wanted the funk to return" are just some examples of text that needs to be rewritten for grammar and tone. I'd advise asking someone who's a very capable writer to go through the article and try to improve on the prose. WesleyDodds 04:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I second this; there are several awkward phrases and redundancies. I edited "Californication was a commercial revitalization in comparison to their previous album, One Hot Minute, which had sold a considerabley fewer amount." as the last part is redundant; a "commercial revitalization" already implies Californication sold more than One Hot Minute. I'll copyedit soon. CloudNine 11:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Support per igordebraga. Cliff smith 00:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Support a very good article for a very good album. Milstrom 21:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 01:10, 7 July 2007.

[edit] Supernature (Goldfrapp album)

This article about Goldfrapp's most recent album is already listed as a good article and has been through two peer reviews. I think that this article is ready now, and I hope you agree. -- Underneath-it-All 23:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Support as nominator -- Underneath-it-All 16:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment Could you please add references for the release dates (under the Format section) and also for the Credits and personnel? Nishkid64 (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added a reference under the credits and personnel section. Reference #30 covers everything contained in the table under formats, including the release dates. -- Underneath-it-All 23:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It does? When I checked that reference out, I could find nothing about release dates there. All I could find was information on the formats. Nishkid64 (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have now added individual citations for each format. These citations cover the month and year of release plus the cat. number and country that it was released in. -- Underneath-it-All 16:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Support - all issues resolved Comment Almost at support level. I just did a copy-edit, but there are some issues with citing critics that I'd like to see resolved first.

Please be very precise when summarizing critical opinion. If you say that a song was well-received "by critics", you should either cite more than one positive review, or cite a single review that also states that other critics liked the album. The easiest way to fix this is to go through the article and re-check each sentence that mentions critical opinion against these criteria. You may also find the site Metacritic to be useful for supporting summaries of critical opinion.
Please double-check that all reviews are from staff writers of their respective publications. At least one cited review—ref name "bbc1"—is from a web-site member on BBC's web page, and shouldn't be used. - Merzbow 05:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have gone through the article and have cited, where needed, multiple reviewers opinions to support claims that songs, etc. were well received. I have also checked the people reviewing the releases and removed the reference "bbc1" and replaced it. -- Underneath-it-All 17:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment The caption for "Satin Chic" should probably be reworded. Songs generally aren't influenced by instruments; they use them. ShadowHalo 03:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed it. -- Underneath-it-All 04:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Support Sorry I forgot to throw in my support at the FAC earlier. All the concerns I had are now resolved. It looks like a nicely-written article. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Underneath-it-All 16:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 01:10, 7 July 2007.

[edit] Mary Martha Sherwood

This is another article in my series on important but often overlooked early British children's writers. I believe that this article is as comprehensive as it can be with the available scholarly material, well-written and well-sourced. Here is a recent peer review. Awadewit | talk 05:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Support My (minor) concerns from the peer review having been addressed, I think this article meets the criteria. Carom 17:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Support Well-writen and comprehensive. Strikes a good balance between bio and analysis. Ceoil 13:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Support A wonderfully encyclopedic article for an interesting woman, covering all significant facets of her life. Well-written with good flow and summary style; I wish that the Fairchilds section were one paragraph shorter, but I don't really see how it could be. The link to the complete List of works by Mary Martha Sherwood is a nice touch. Willow 21:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someday I will write an entire article on The Fairchild Family. Then I can cut this article down. Awadewit | talk 09:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: This is a good and interesting page, ~~and I would like to support.~~ I think the info box is unnecessary - but that is just a personal gripe which won't stop me supporting. I have given parts a copyedit.~~. but there are still too many "for example"s and "even"s please consider removing some of them for alternative words.~~ I think the text could be tighter there are too many small words used when one word would do. I see a lot of the copyedits I made have been reverted - before even an opportunity to run spell check. Fine. However, please do consider giving it a thorough copy-edit. ~~The prose is not brilliant~~ Giano 11:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you had finished editing (it looked like an hour had gone by, but perhaps I misinterpreted the time stamp). I only reverted what didn't make sense or what removed/changed the meaning of the sentence. Awadewit | talk 12:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I can remove the infobox if you want - I am not wedded to it. Awadewit | talk 12:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed all extraneous information from the infobox. I would like to keep it because I am slowly working on an "Eighteenth-century children's literature" featured topic. Apparently it is recommended to have consistent infoboxes across the series of articles. If you still want it removed, I will do so. Awadewit | talk 21:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There is now only one "for example" and "even" per section (except for the "Legacy" section which as two "even's" and they are justified. Awadewit | talk 12:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I will give the article another copy edit tomorrow. I have never claimed to be able to write "brilliant prose" (I've never seen a wikipedia article with brilliant prose, frankly), but I do not feel that the prose in this article is substandard for an FA. Awadewit | talk 12:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[27] 3 minutes. and [28] and 8 minutes. You conflicted me running the spell and typo check. No matter. I look forward to sseing the article improved.

Sorry, I was looking at my computer clock, not wikitime. I have given the article a good once-over in the copy editing department. Let me know if I am fixing the problems you saw. I will do another pass either later today or tomorrow. Awadewit | talk 22:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have given the article a second copy edit. Please let me know if you still think that it needs attention. Awadewit | talk 08:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

~~Do you have a source for why marriage between cousins was any more common before the 20th century? </ref>~~

Fauve-Chamoux, Antoinette. "Marriage, Widowhood, and Divorce." Family Life in Early Modern Times: 1500-1789. Eds. David I. Kertzer and Marzio Barbagli. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001. Awadewit | talk 20:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well cite it in e the page then not here. Giano 21:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I was going to do that - hadn't gotten around to it yet. I thought you might be interested in reading it, so I put it here as well. Awadewit | talk 21:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

~~"Following the death of her son, Henry (not Henry Martyn), Sherwood ..." was the son named after Henry Martyn was he he born before or after she became taken with Henry Martyn.~~

After. She named Henry Martyn Sherwood after Henry Martyn. Awadewit | talk 20:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Mentioned in article now. Awadewit | talk 22:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"Sherwood's life became more painful" I read nothing that is particularly painful, although I would like an explanation of the "stocks" - what is all that about?

Well, I am following what the autobiography says; since there are so few biographical sources on Sherwood and the ones that do exist seem to rely on her autobiography anyway, I included this idea. Your idea of pain may be different from Sherwood's. Her years in India, for example, are described as one long trial. Awadewit | talk 20:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

See here for a description of the "stocks." Awadewit | talk 20:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You talk a lot about the Victorian era, yet two of the books listed as most famous were published before the Victorian era began, in fact in an altogether more morally lax period. In fact one could say the ear of Victorian morality period did not truly begin until Victoria was producing her own children in the 1840s and 50s are you saying that Sherwood pioneered the Victorian era and its morality. I think there is a lot more that could be written here about her influence and the times in which she was writing.

The early nineteenth century was not a morally lax period for everyone (such generalizations almost always turn out to be wrong for some group, as you know). See Lawrence Stone, The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500-1800. Chapter 9. Awadewit | talk 20:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that much more could be written about Sherwood's influence. Find me the published work on it and I will add it in. I believe that I have read almost everything (if not everything) published on Sherwood. There is very little material and I am therefore restricted to the information in those articles. When I publish my article on Sherwood from my dissertation, I will add more. :) Awadewit | talk 20:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

~~I'd be interested to know with all her moralising etc how her own children turned out. Giano 12:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)~~

I have not seen anything of real interest published on this. Awadewit | talk 20:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral: I am very undecided on this, the prose could still be tightened, strengthened and tidied considerably so I'm hovering between "nothing" and "support". The info box still looks, to me, plain daft, especially as the information therein is (as it should be) right next to it in the lead. Loose the info-box and my hovering will be easier. Giano 18:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the infobox just for you. I'm afraid that I don't see the problems that you see with the text. Please give me some examples so that I can improve it still further. Awadewit | talk 21:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Support: Giano 13:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment: The four images on the article are all public domain. Move to commons, delete locally. --Durin 13:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the three that I uploaded and requested their speedy deletion on wikipedia. I feel less comfortable moving someone else's image, especially when there is no artist listed. Let me know what you think about the ethics and copyright issues involved in that. Awadewit | talk 21:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong support ~~, with comments. (Will probably support even if you don't fix all the below, but it would be nice.)~~ Well done!
- Three red links for books in the header - if they're individually famous, make at least one of them blue, even as a stub with all info copy/pasting from this article. I do believe that red links encourage article creation, but if at least one of them is blue, it will be a good model for the others.
  - I have created a page for The History of the Fairchild Family. I will work on it a bit more today and try to condense the information in this article as Willow suggested. Awadewit | talk 20:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    - I have condensed the material on the Sherwood page. More could probably be done, but waiting until the newly created article is more complete might be wise. Awadewit | talk 08:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- "She even makes the best of the "stocks" that she was forced to stand in while she did her lessons." - My God! This is so unassuming, I could have missed it without Giano's comment. Don't gloss this over like this, surely even for that time this was extreme, and I don't doubt it strongly influenced her life. I suggest rephrasing for emphasis, something like: "She was forced to stand in iron stocks while doing her lessons, but ..." The Wikilink is crucial, underscoring that yes, you do mean real stocks, not some kind of figure of speech. Wow. In what way did she make the best of it? Make light of it, joke? Appreciate that it focused her mind? Accept her mother's failings, and best intentions?
  - I thought that emphasizing the stocks bit might be considered sensationalizing. I have added Sherwood's own description of the stocks. I do not think that wikilinking is appropriate since the stocks that Sherwood describes sound slightly different from the kind of public stocks described in the article. Let me know what you think after seeing the quotation. Awadewit | talk 19:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    - The quote covers it better than a few words could, thank you. But now I notice "Sherwood's childhood was uneventful, although she recalled it as the happiest part of her life." from the header. I'd change "uneventful" to "difficult" or "strict" or whatever. My gosh. No wonder she ran away for half an hour every time she was released from the stocks. By the way, I'd never read about this writer before, but notice [29] also supports the idea that locking her in stocks regularly just might have had a bit of an influence on her outlook. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
      - This is precisely why I did not want to include that quotation - it leads to incorrect conclusions on the part of the reader. If you read the whole of the autobiography, you will discover that Sherwood did not consider her childhood difficult or strict at all (that is why I had that sentence at the end of the "Earl life" section emphasizing that point). Moreover, as such teaching practices were common in the early nineteenth century, they would not have appeared particularly strict at the time - they only appear so to our eyes. (By the way, that site does not seem to be very scholarly - note its use of an exclamation mark. It suggests that Sherwood's evangelical stories are "macabre" because of her experience in the stocks. This is a highly questionable conclusion for many reasons. One of the most obvious is that there is a lot of evangelical literature written in exactly this style, from the seventeenth century onwards; were all of the authors forced to stand in stocks? We need to know that before we could make the association between stocks and death-filled literature. To me, it seems far more likely that Sherwood is continuing a literary tradition of "macabre" evangelical literature.) Awadewit | talk 21:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
        
        Accepted.
- Sherwood's life became more painful as she matured. - Strike the sentence, let the facts that she was tall, ungainly, and hid in the woods speak for themselves. Otherwise my immediate reaction was that while nearly everybody is shy during puberty, it's highly debatable whether moral turmoil can be considered more painful than regular confinement in stocks.
  - I like having these generalizations; it is a courtesy to the reader. Moreover, readers are strikingly unable to draw conclusions, in my experience. (Teaching freshmen composition for several years now has probably jaded me.) But, I have removed it anyway. Awadewit | talk 20:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- ~~She admits in her autobiography - just writes, or if that's too weak for the personal issue, relates or discloses. Admits implies it's something she was accused of.~~
  - I thought "admit" here connoted "saying something she may not have wanted to reveal." Anyway, I have changed it to "writes." Awadewit | talk 20:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- ~~school at Reading Abbey - needs wikilink. We have Reading Abbey, Reading School, I'll let you choose whether you want one, both, or something completely different.~~
  - After reviewing the articles, both pages seem incorrect links to me. Do you have some reason to believe that Reading School ever educated girls? Awadewit | talk 19:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    - ~~Jane Austen links to Reading Abbey, if they're the same school...~~
      - So? The Jane Austen page is terrible. Who's to say they have it right? Like I said, I read both pages you suggested, but I am not convinced that either of them is the correct link. I would rather err on the side of caution here so that readers aren't given incorrect information. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
        
        Accepted.
- It is evident from Sherwood's memories that her childhood was the happiest part of her life; over half of her autobiography is devoted to nostalgically reflecting on those years. - needs a citation to a reviewer of the autobiography saying that, otherwise it's drawing a conclusion, original research.
  - This is no big leap. In fact, I would say it is pretty much a fact, based as it is on countable pages. The actual rules for citation on wikipedia state that "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article" (emphasis in original). This statement is hardly likely to be challenged. Awadewit | talk 20:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    - While I won't oppose over this, I do believe it is drawing a conclusion from primary sources, one of the classic marks of Wikipedia:original research. Just rephrase to something like "Over half of her autobiography..." and that should be a sufficient implication without crossing that line.
      - Please let me know if the rephrase is an improvement. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
        
        Excellent, thank you.
- had six children in India, but only four survived infancy; death of her son Henry (not Henry Martyn), - rather than that awkward parenthetical, just name the two who died earlier. It'll give more information (birth order, etc.), and clear up the awkwardness. Make the second "death of her first son" (or second, third, whatever)
  - See what you think now. Awadewit | talk 20:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    - Much better, thank you!
- ~~The deaths of the two infants and of some of her young children - even more children died? Who and when? Give the names and dates, this is important.~~
  - I have listed what information I could quickly find. Awadewit | talk 20:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- ~~Henry Martyn (for whom she named her son Henry Martyn) - I think (for whom she named her son) is clear enough, or (for whom she named her second son).~~
  - See if you like the new way it is worded. Awadewit | talk 08:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- too much medicinal gin - explain and/or specify the specific problem, possibly just by giving a wikilink to the article: fetal alcohol syndrome? alcohol dementia? If the sources don't specify, at least Effects_of_alcohol_on_the_body#Excessive_doses
  - I think it would be inappropriate to link to modern medical conditions since I know only what I put in the article. Awadewit | talk 20:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- ~~and in 1808 she rescued a malnourished two-year-old Sally Pownal - did she adopt her? If so, say so. If not, why single out Sally, among the many she gave over to others?~~
  - I thought that it was clear she adopted Sally (I didn't want to use the word "adopt" three times in that little paragraph). I have altered the sentence so hopefully it is now more explicit that she adopted both. Awadewit | talk 20:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- ~~By the 1830s, the Sherwoods had become more prosperous - due mainly to her writing, or other causes?~~
  - I don't know. Awadewit | talk 20:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- ~~[[|Jean-Jacques Rousseau|Rousseauvian]] - fix by removing the first |~~
  - Fixed. Awadewit | talk 20:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- ~~1 Timothy - wikilink (yes, just like that 1 Timothy)~~
  - Wikilinked. Awadewit | talk 20:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- ~~literati - wikilink uncommon term~~
  - Wikilinked. Awadewit | talk 20:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    - I disagree. I know full well what "literati" means; and so, I venture to suggest, do the overwhelming majority of likely readers of an article such as this. Now, if the word "literati" were to pop up in an article on this or that celebrity, it might need a link; but here it contributes to making WP look a bit of a joke; it's rather an insult to the readers' literacy. -- Hoary 06:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
      - I tend to agree with that statement, but I usually just wikilink terms that others identify as "difficult" or "unfamiliar" in order to avoid spats over tiny issues. You guys can fight it out. :) Awadewit | talk 06:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
        
        Thanks. For the love of Pete, this is an article about a writer of children's stories, not Kant. Surely it is not completely out of the question that actual children might be interested (not Brittany Spears fans, but still). I'm not asking the term be taken out, merely linked.
- General note - many quotes have a [] in them, indicating rephrasing to fit the context of this article; isn't there any way to minimize their number? For example, "the gusto with which [Sherwood] dwells on new dolls", and "though [Sherwood's] books are no longer widely read," - I don't know what the original was, but if they were "she" or "the writer" or "her", I would think they would be understandable without needing a [].
  - I only found one that could be changed. The others require the brackets for sense or grammar. Awadewit | talk 20:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Selected works - is there a reason why the books that have been reprinted (apparently mostly by Kessinger 2004-2007) are generally the ones not on this list? I would have thought that the more important ones would be reprinted... Barnes & Noble, Amazon
  - That company reprints books that consumers ask them to reprint, so their publications are not representative of the fame or importance of an author's oeuvre. I have not seen any references to several of those texts in the scholarship on Sherwood. Awadewit | talk 20:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- ~~by mrs. Sherwood - Capital M, surely~~
  - Fixed typo. Awadewit | talk 20:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- There is no good biography of Sherwood. - Ahem, cough, cough, cough. If you must, "there is no stand-alone, complete biography" or something, but not just "good", please, otherwise it's too much like one biographer taking a blatant shot at all his rivals and peers. In fact, since there do seem to be several books dedicated to her biography, consider leaving this sentence out even if you can rephrase it to be less blatant.
  - Changed to "no complete scholarly biography." Awadewit | talk 20:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- The life of Mrs Sherwood - the Google books link needs a comment that this is a Google books link, and probably whether it's complete or to a limited number of pages; the target capitalizes Life, so the link probably should too.
  - Added "Available full-text from Google Books" and fixed typo. Awadewit | talk 20:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

** Consider combining the Selected works and Online full-text resources sections, with a leading (with links to online versions at Google books where available) section comment. It makes for less text, and a more useful Selected works section. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

- - I am not comfortable doing this for any of the texts except the first editions (there is no extant copy of the first edition of The Infant's Progress, so I have linked to the second edition). I don't know what changes may have been made for later editions. Awadewit | talk 20:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    - I think you addressed everything, thank you! --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Grievously underinformed question: The article tells us in the introduction: a different style of children's literature came into fashion during the late nineteenth century, one exemplified by Lewis Carroll's playful and nonsensical Alice in Wonderland. To me, it seems the reverse of nonsensical; it's logic gone mad, or askew: not nonsensical but absurd. (To me, "playful and nonsensical" suggests Lear rather than Carroll.) Do you perhaps mean to say something about fantasy worlds (whether nonsensical, absurd, or somewhere in between)? -- Hoary 06:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- I understand your point (the mad tea party has its own rules of logic, for example), but other parts of the book are truly nonsensical, such as the Duchess' baby turning into a pig or the Cheshire cat. Also, I was specifically trying to avoid a debate over the style of Alice (a debate which has filled many pages of many books) and instead use the terms that most people think of when they think of Alice. It is a foil which means that, inevitably, it is going to be misrepresented to some extent. The word I really want to avoid, though, is "imaginative." There is a false assumption among some critics and many readers that children's literature before Alice wasn't "imaginative." The best word to use would probably be "absurdist," but I think that would have to be wikinked and I wanted to avoid that - I wanted readers to understand something about the difference without reading another page. Let me know what you think. Awadewit | talk 06:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose—Criterion 2 (MOS). En dashes required for chronological ranges. Except here: "(1810–c.1830)", where it would be nicer to use "to about". For interruption, the MOS says that "Em dashes are normally unspaced"; it's inconsistent in the article, anyway. "(1823-9)"—most people use a minimum of two digits in the closing unit. Try unspaced, or, if you must, spaced en dashes.

Heh. Tony opposes over dashes -- because it's a MOS issue -- after rejection of datelinks in another review :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I rejected not date links, but the linking of simple years. No autoformatting function, so why on earth do it? MOS dates and numbers lends some support to this. Tony 14:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

- I fixed the dates. The sources all say (1810–c.1830), so I'm not going to change that. In literary studies no one says "to about," they almost always write "c." Awadewit | talk 21:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

MOS says space the en dash if either unit has an internal space. the c. 1839 should have a space between the dot and the 1. Tony 14:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There was only one missing the space. It is now fixed. Awadewit | talk 21:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

- I don't see any unspaced m-dashes. Where did you see them? Awadewit | talk 21:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

- I have added a second number to the dates you requested. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

- Return to death?
  - Suggestion: join the first 3 sections as subsections of an overriding "Biography" or "Life" section. That would parallel the way "Literary analysis" is laid out, and it would be more clear that the end of that would naturally end with, well, death. Then you could remove "death" from the title of the third subsection without losing anything. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    - I do not think that the title "Return to Britain and death" is unclear; I think that it is good to mention where in the article the "death" happens. It is a good reference point. I have joined the first three sections as suggested. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Again: Return to death? It's a poorly structured phrase. At the very least, a comma is required after "Britain". Or make it "Return and death". What is there now doesn't work. Tony 14:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It may be technically ungrammatical, but very few readers know that (you and I are among those few). The meaning of "Returning to Britain" and "Dying" is much more clearly expressed this way than "Return and death" (return to where?) or "Return to Britain, and death" (odd comma for a heading). It is not all about grammar in headings - it is partially about readability. Awadewit | talk 21:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

- "37" but "nineteenth"? Spell out if one digit, normally, unless starting a sentence, where numbers are always spelt out.
  - Tony, Tony, Tony. You know better than that! Good writers do not rigidly adhere to rules, they create useful pattern. I have used Arabic numerals where I want to emphasize a large quantity (400 books, 37 editions) and I have spelled out the numbers in other cases. I never write 19th century because it is so unprofessional. Please do not ask me to do so. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"19th century" is unprofessional? Hello? I think your "useful" rationale will be lost on the readers; it just looks plain inconsistent. Tony 14:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Funny how very wrong and unprofessional that is. Perhaps because both the MLA (6th edition) (Section 3.5.5) and Chicago (6th edition) (Section 2.53) state unequivocally to spell out numbered centuries. Awadewit | talk 22:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about entirely different Chicagoes, your copy is an antique, or there's been a typo. -- Hoary 22:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"References to particular centuries should be spelled out, in lower. Hyphenate references only when they serve as adjectives". Here are some of the examples they give: "seventeenth-century literature" and "the eighteenth century." The MLA, which is from 2003, says exactly the same thing. I believe that I am on very firm ground here in addition to the fact that my article is consistent, which is usually wikipedia's default position since they have not instituted a real style manual. Awadewit | talk 23:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

- - - I think I've read that the latest edition of Chicago recommends "19th century" (which if true may suggest that Chicago is going to pot), so you might be fighting a losing battle here. -- Hoary 08:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
      - Actually, there have been several reviews of the latest Chicago manual of style claiming just that. Again, I would emphasize consistency. Unfortunately, I think there is no hope for a wikipedia-wide consensus on this issue unless Jimbo just says "We are using MLA" or "We are using Chicago." Awadewit | talk 08:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite well written. Tony 05:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

For interruption, the MOS says that "Em dashes are normally unspaced" Pfft. In dead-trees typography, I believe that em dashes are usually surrounded by very thin (or, according to taste, not so very thin) spaces. In principle, Unicode and UTF-8 allow for thin spaces; in practice, fonts in common use do not (resulting in boxes, question marks, or other horrors). If there's no space at all, the result is arguably ugly even within the line, and none of the browsers that I use knows that one can break a line before or after an em dash, resulting in some extremely ragged right margins. -- Hoary 07:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Where were you when this was discussed at MOS? You have the choice of spaced en dashes in place of unspaced em dashes. Not good enough? Tony 14:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I must have been somewhere else. A very short answer to the simple question: spaced en dashes are fine with me. And if we're going to discuss this further, perhaps we should do so elsewhere. -- Hoary 16:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

- If you want to change all of the m-dashes and fight it out with Tony that is fine with me. I do not want another of my FACs to descend into a dash discussion. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: bizarre footnotes. For example, Fauve-Chamoux, Antoinette. "Marriage, Widowhood, and Divorce." Family Life in Early Modern Times: 1500-1789. Eds. David I. Kertzer and Marzio Barbagli. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001. I'd instead write Antoinette Fauve-Chamoux, "Marriage, Widowhood, and Divorce", in Family Life in Early Modern Times: 1500–1789, ed. David I. Kertzer and Marzio Barbagli (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001). (Or similar: let's not quibble over "Chicago" vs whatever.) Any reason for the name-reversal, etc.? -- Hoary 10:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with you that using the last name first is totally bizarre in a footnote, but the copy editors for the very first article I worked on for wikipedia insisted on that style, so I just kept using it. I have not had any problems until now. See if you will accept the revision. I am aiming for some sort of consistency across the articles I edit, by the way. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  - But as you will have realized, some self-appointed copyeditors of others' articles are pretty clueless, though dismayingly confident of the rightness of their "improvements". And what I read now is Chaney, Lois E. "Pip and the Fairchild Family." Dickensian 79.3 (1983): 162-3.: doesn't look like a footnote to me. -- Hoary 01:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    - Well, the copy editors who helped me out on Mary Wollstonecraft, namely Kaldari, were not clueless at all. Look, I don't really care which style is used. I once tried to argue on a policy page somewhere that wikipedia should have a uniform citation style - that way debates like this would never erupt. I was almost immediately shot down. Therefore, as wikipedia does not in fact have an in-house citation style, I have tried to use a consistent citation style throughout all of the articles I have written. The Chaney is a totally legitimate footnote - it has all of the necessary information and the citation style is consistent across the article (all two notes not covered by the bibliography). Let's not haggle over something so insignificant, shall we? Awadewit | talk 01:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
      - I don't mean to haggle, and you'll have noticed that I haven't written "oppose". (Indeed, it never occurred to me to oppose.) I've nothing against Kaldari, and my characterization of "some" copyeditors may apply to myself. The bibliographic information is all there, which as you say is the important thing. I'm just surprised that you think using the last name first is totally bizarre in a footnote but stand for this anyway. -- Hoary 08:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps because I feel that the footnote style is not as important as having consistent footnotes in the first place. Besides, I have other battles to fight, such as making the sure the "List of works" guidelines aren't ravaged. :) Awadewit | talk 08:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. -- Hoary 14:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC) ....... PS now with added enthusiasm. -- Hoary 21:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment This FAC has convinced me to stop submitting FACs for a while. There is no reason to spend inordinate amounts of my time on dashes, dates and spaces. I have far better things to do. Awadewit | talk 23:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I wonder whether it's worth suggesting that some kind of 'stylistic task force' is set up - Writers can then go about their business, you know writing, and then submit their articles to the (naturally retentive) task force who will put citations immediately after full stops without spaces and use the correct type of dash etc. Past a certain level of professionalism - spelling grammar etc, objecting on the basis of 'style' always seemed odd to me, but so much easier than having to consider content. My condolences Awadewit. --Joopercoopers 12:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There is one. It's called Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors, and it's always looking for members. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know the LoCE doesn't concentrate on MOS issues like that - they concentrate on prose. I did suggest an "FAC style task force" specifically for articles heading for FAC just in the manner Joopercoopers outlined, but, like I said above, that idea was rejected at the time. Awadewit | talk 23:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I've suggested it here. Sit back and watch it die on its feet.

Support literature isn't my field, but this is a lucid and interesting article, which kept me interested. --Joopercoopers 13:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 01:10, 7 July 2007.

[edit] Agatha Christie: Murder on the Orient Express

This article has brilliant prose, is comprehensive, is out-of-universe for the majority, has citations, is in many categories, and is thouroughly deserving of FA-status.Paaerduag 12:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Support - nominator has obviously poured a lot of time into this series of adventure games; well-written and thorough, as well as nice formatting. Therefore support. --Tjkirk 07:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Support — well-referenced, well-expanded and deserving article. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 11:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The plot ... is extremely similar to that of Agatha Christie's novel of the same name. Who says? Isn't it original research to claim that they are the same? hbdragon88 18:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's a statement in the intro which is thoroughly explained and sourced in the main body. I don't think there is a problem here at all. Wrad 19:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
That is a lot of footnotes. Many are unnecessary, see Wikipedia:When to cite. You can combine some, like the 11 footnotes (all to reference 8) in the "Plot" paragraph can be made into one footnote at the end of the paragraph. It will be taken to mean that the entire paragraph is sourced to Same with the 6 footnotes (all to reference 2) in the fourth "Development" paragraph. That is my only complaint. This is really well done. So I support. --maclean 04:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:MOE box.jpg missing fair use rationale for use in this article. --Durin 18:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

changed it to fit article.Paaerduag 08:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Support Written, structured and sourced to a high standard. Comprehensive but focussed. You've done a great job, Paaerduag. Rossrs 13:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 01:10, 7 July 2007.

[edit] Ocean sunfish

After working for the past couple of months on this article, I confidently self-nominate it, as I believe that it has grown to the point where it both merits FA status and meets all criteria. I am particularly satisfied with the referencing and citation, which provides a source for every fact and multiple sources for some. I think the subject is treated fully, answering just about every question a person could have on the topic, and explicitly stating "research is underway" or "XXX is unknown" in the case that questions are left open. The article has interesting, informative images, as well as useful external links, and I feel that anyone reading it would come away informed on the topic and with the impression that the article was distinctly well-written. PaladinWhite 01:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Support: The article has undergone dramatic improvement in the past few months. It is informative and very interesting. It has proper references. I believe it deserves its place in FA-dom. Fred Hsu 02:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have been shuffling and rewriting sentences slowly. I started at the beginning of the article and have worked my way to Life Cycle section, so far. I'll address some of the fact-questions as I work on the corresponding sections. I think this article can be made a FA-worthy one. Fred Hsu 12:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Fixes needed - sorry, a few tweaks needed which I'll list below
Support - vast improvement. Well done. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

- First up, LEAD needs to be 2-3 paras and summarize the salient points of the article.
  - Y Done by Metamagician3000

- Headings need to be succinct as per MOS. For the cumbersome Skin, body, and size, why not Description? Try Feeding for Diet and feeding habits, Life cycle for Lifespan, growth, and reproduction
  - Y Done I also added one image and moved other images to proper sections. Fred Hsu 03:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

- The stubby name section at the bottom, could be renamed Taxonomy and include more info on classification and go in the first section after the LEAD, like in many biology FAs, like Fin Whale and Common Raven etc.
  - I renamed and moved the section, but have not enhanced its content. Fred Hsu 03:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Y Done Expanded the Taxonomy section with more text and inline citations. Fred Hsu 02:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- The prose looks ok from first glance, though I'm not inclined to examine too closely until the article is more comprehensive (by including more classification notes) - but Despite this frequent confusion, the two species can be easily... - species is wrong as there are more than one shark species, try "animals" or "sea creatures" or something else.
  - Y Done Yeah, I rewrote parts of the fins section. Fred Hsu 02:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

- ..must consume a large bulk of food.. - eek, replace "large bulk" - amount?
  - Y Done Fixed. Fred Hsu 02:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- IN Lifespan, growth, and reproduction section I wouldn't use italicized genus in the plural. Also, need the tags between the units.

- Despite its size, the docile ocean sunfish poses no threat to human divers,[12] and is a popular target for sport dives, becoming "familiar with divers in some locations" -several fixes - singular to plural subject (fix please), several clauses makes for ungainly sentence anyway and odd thing quoted which should be rewritten without being directly quoted.
  - Y Done Fixed. Fred Hsu 16:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- If the body does indeed contain toxins, then the marketing and sale of ocean sunfish meat is forbidden in the European Economic Community according to Council Directive.. - huh?? Is it suspected of containing aforesaid toxins. If not I don't understand why this is here.
  - Y Done Yeah, removed. Fred Hsu 16:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Through the mid-1900s, sunfish... - ? mid 20th century?
  - Y Done Fixed. I removed the speculation on dates. Fred Hsu 16:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Overall, interesting read and good info but definitely needs some work. Feasible it can be done which is why I'm not opposing for now.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The first thing I saw was that a proper lead needed to be written. Rather than opposing, I've been having a go at it myself. I'll be grateful for help. Getting this article to clear FA quality looks very do-able, thanks to all the nominator's efforts and good scholarship. Metamagician3000 12:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have just enhanced the lead section (and the description section) as well. No article on sunfish can be deemed complete without a word on the fact that it looks like a fish head without tail ;) Fred Hsu 04:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Support I made a pass, I edit conflicted and will work in my changes shortly. Here are some other suggestions:

References in the article should go after punctuation for easier reading.
- Y Done Fixed during previous edits. Fred Hsu 16:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Should "regionally-specific" be "region-specific"?
- Y Done Yeah. Fred Hsu 16:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
The article switches between Metric (Standard) and Standard (Metric), shouldn't one be used through-out?

I formatted all the conversions with the original (source's) figure first, and the converted figure second, as it is a "derived" figure. PaladinWhite 06:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Generally it should be on then the other. [30] -Ravedave 04:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"They spend most of their time in water warmer than 10 °C (50 °F),[16] and prolonged periods spent in water at temperatures of 53 °F (12 °C) or lower can lead to disorientation and eventual death." - should "and" be "though"?
- Y Done Fixed. Fred Hsu 16:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
The text doesn't describe what the "larva" stage is, or when it happens. Also more info about the larva spines might be good.
- Y Done Apparently a lot of people use fry and larva interchangeably. Some of cited webpages apparently mean 'fry' when they talk about 'larvae'. I rephrased sentences in this paragraph to make it slightly more clear. Fred Hsu 17:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Mention that its habit of sunning itself is what causes it to be a boating hazard?

I can only assume that the fish's habit of swimming at or near the surface, as described in the fins section, also presents a hazard. PaladinWhite 06:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

-Ravedave 05:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

~~Also, where did the conservation status of "Secure" come from. Natureserve [31] only lists one ranking and that is for Quebec and it rates it as a 3. -Ravedave 05:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)~~

Can't find anything to support any global status. -Ravedave 04:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

And one more thing, menton that the skeleton is 80% cartielge, [32], even though it is in the "bony fish" family?-Ravedave 05:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Good Ideas. Thanks for copyediting. I am slowing going over every section and reorganizing sentences. I don't want to step on your toes as it is apparent that you are still editing. I'll resume tomorrow. Fred Hsu 05:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Done Cartilage issue addressed. Fred Hsu 18:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. I believe the cited reports of breaching 10 feet out of the water are a fluke that originated with Wikipedia, and now Wikipedia cites these sources circularly. I attempted to contact these publications for verification of their sources but none responded. It seems unverifiable as a fact, but at least it's verifiable that the behavior is reported somewhere, and the article rightfully reports it correctly as a claim from other sources. =Axlq 07:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- I sent Tierney Thys from some of the references an email asking about breaching and telling her about the page, she said it looks very good and will have a look this weekend and update. Stefan 04:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Thanks, I look forward to seeing an update. The bit about leaping 10 feet out of the water is the only thing that seems contradictory, in this article about a weak-swimming, non-hydrodynamic, rather sluggish fish — in spite of sources claiming it happens (and I suspect those sources saw the Wikipedia article back when the claim was uncited). Again, I stress that the article handles the claim correctly, so its presence doesn't detract from this article's candidacy for FA status. =Axlq 15:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    - Well basking shark can breach so you never know. Stefan 22:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. ~~In principle support, but will read more later and confirm,~~ what I can see that is missing is a range map, although it is not a requirement for FA status from my side just a nice thing to have. Stefan 04:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- OK, had a closer look, very good seams to cover most everything, 1 more comment: I think there should be a section describing the conservation status, even if it is unknown??? Stefan 15:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Yeah, a range map would be nice. The conservation status really is unknown. Even though I have not lived in Taiwan for the past 20 years, I was born in Taiwan and I still keep myself updated with local events. Ocean sunfish has apparently generated widespread interest in the past 5 years. That is, people used to catch them, remove their intestines (a delicacy) and throw away the fish. But in recent years, all parts of the fish is consumed due to the new craze. But it seems there is not yet a shortage of the fish. And the public is waking up to the need for responsible harvesting of ocean sunfish in order not to drive it to extinction. But most of stuff I read about this is in Chinese. Fred Hsu 01:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 01:10, 7 July 2007.

[edit] Erie, Pennsylvania

Self nom Recently passed a very tough GA, I can not find any flaws to fix, I think this article is FA material. Satisfies WP:WIAFA. --trey 02:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Support as nom and significant editor. --trey 02:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
support I feel as if the quality of this article is high enough to be a featured article.--†Sir James Paul† 02:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Object—Image:Erie bay.jpg has a bad license tag. Image:Erie flag.jpg has no justification for why it is public domain. Image:Erie seal.JPG has no fair use rationale. Image:662006erie-1922.jpg needs a better source, and preferably the date of first publication. I stopped checking images at this point, there's quite a few. Please go through all images and verify their status. Pagra shtak 16:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

~~Image issues have been taken care of. ~~Still waiting for uploader to sign off on the changes.~~--trey 17:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)~~

No, they haven't. You can't just change an image's license to public domain and think you've solved the problem. Image:Erie flag.jpg still has nothing to convince me that it's public domain. Since the first two images still have problems, I'm not checking the rest. Pagra shtak 16:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

First off assume good faith. I am not image expert. The people at Media Copyright Questions seem to think the skyline picture is ok.See here. Secondly, a user created that flag, and released it into the public domain. I am working on the ERI sticker right now. --trey 20:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

When have I not assumed good faith? That's insulting. I didn't say you changed the license in bad faith. If so, I would have accused you of vandalism—I didn't.

I don't go around deleting GFDL-presumed images, and I normally wouldn't have a problem with the skyline picture in the article. However, you're asking for featured status. Criterion three of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria states that images must have acceptable copyright status. You're asking us to hold this article to a higher standard, and it is unacceptable for a featured article to have a GFDL-presumed image. As for the flag, can you point me to something that shows that the government of Erie does not claim copyright? Pagra shtak 20:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Skyline picutre changed, sorry if I offended you a little, but is sounded like you were being a little mean to me. The new skyline picture is GFDL, so you can go ahead and delete the old one. Thanks, still working on some other images, --trey 01:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

~~I think, (almost positive, still the flag might not be right?), that all images issues have been fixed.--trey 03:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)~~

You're correct about the flag. You need to find out if it's copyrighted or not. Image:JerryUht.jpg has an incorrect license. I believe the uploader was confused: "dedicating information to the public domain while retaining all legal rights" doesn't make sense. This image is a replaceable copyrighted image. I see no reason why Image:Lecom.gif cannot be replaced. I don't think there's a need for Image:Erie Times-News front page.jpg in this article. It doesn't add much more than the text. Put en dashes on page rages and any other places that need them. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) . Pagra shtak 15:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

~~Users are in the process of replacing copyrighted photos with free ones taken by them.--trey 02:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)~~

~~Dashes have been implemented, still working on getting free photos.--trey 04:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)~~

~~Flag fixed, LECOM photo replaced, working on Jerry Uht, but most image related problems have been fixed.--trey 04:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)~~

All images fixed or replaced by free ones. Also, dashes used. Just waiting for you to strike your oppose.--trey

Per Raul's suggestions, The opposing user is absent and un-able to strike out object.--trey 17:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Just too busy for Wikipedia lately. I apologize. Pagra shtak 15:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Weak oppose seems to be some minor grammar problems that can easily be fixed. (→zel zany - fish) 17:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Please elaborate. --trey 17:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments from Universe=atom

Why is the second image in the "History" section placed in a part of the text talking about the early 1800s when the image itself portrays the 1920s. more information about the 1900's added, image moved down a bit, but I still want to space them out.--trey 01:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

~~The last sentence in the lead needs a citation.~~

The third sentence of the "Geography and Climate" section has the following grammar mistakes: 56.9 should be written out because it begins a sentence; and there is a spacing mistake between the second pair of parantheses.
*In the first paragraph of the "Demographics and religion" section, why are there slashes in the km squared and mi squared units?
- Grammar mistake: Third sentence of "Demographics and religion" section: 33.4% of all households were made up of individuals and 13.3% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The percent 33.4% should be written out because it begins a sentence.
- ~~Grammar: Since the mid-1990's,... ("Geography and climate" section) No hyphen needed and no apostrophe needed. and its in Demographics and religion =)~~
- Grammar: ...9,936 sq miles... (same section) - why not mi²
- ~~There are only three internal links in the entire "Economy" section. Perhaps some others (e.g. Industrial Revolution) can be wikilinked.~~
- ~~There is a red link in the "Recreation" section.~~
- ~~There are absolutely no internal links in the "Government" section. Perhaps some (e.g. the several people mentioned there) can be wikilinked.~~
- ~~Grammar: ...which is to do short-term (4 year) and long-term (20+ year) transportation... perhaps four years and 20+ years.~~
- ~~Although not an FA requirement, perhaps some other links can be introduced in the "See also" section.~~

This has some potential as an FA. However, before it can achieve that status, these (and other) points should be taken care of. On a good note, this article is well-referenced, well-written, and within size limits. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 19:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

- Those were the comments I were going to post here to elaborate, had I not gone to lunch break. (→zel zany - fish) 20:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Will work hard on the article tonight, seems as tho I have no plans. --trey 20:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  - ~~One thing that Universe=atom forgot to mention—times, according to WP:DATE, have to be formatted i.e. 2:00 p.m. (→zel zany - fish) 01:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)~~
Support now that the problems are fixed. (→zel zany - fish) 01:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Support nice job, a superb article. It's well-written and well sourced, and has plently of good images to pass. I like the way that 1912 panorama image was done, very creative to improve the article's quality. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 04:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Support Now that the comments that I raised are taken care of, it is an excellent geographical article. It surely deserves FA status in my opinion. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 10:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The article looks good, but in the transportation section, the airport logo Image:ERI sticker.png worries me. Isn't this a trademarked logo, even though someone has used a graphics program to create it? I feel that this is a fair use image (and should be tagged as a logo), whose use can be justified in the article on the airport, but hardly in the article about the city. (I am not a lawyer, and I may have betrayed my complete lack of insight in the field of course.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The Photo it is based off, doesn't seem to have and copyright or trademark notes on it. (you can click "zoom" and get a closer look). I am not an expert with copyrights either, but the sticker isn't really a logo, see that on Erie International Airport. Advice, anyone? --trey 15:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Photo has been removed and replaced by one I took myself. --trey 02:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, support featured status. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

~~Oppose for now, some fixes needed:~~

~~The WP:LEAD does not provide a compelling, stand-alone summary of the entire article, and appears instead to focus on tourist-y aspects.~~
~~No crime ?~~

~~working on it --trey 04:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC~~

~~pls ping me when you're done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)~~

Cite templates are employed incorrectly. Publishers should be provided for all sources so reliability of sources can be identified. Not all sources have publishers, and most have publishers listed incorrectly under the Last parameter (which is intended for last name of an author). Author and publication date should be given when available.

~~There are still many missing publishers (see WP:CITE/ES). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)~~

~~One-sentence paragraphs; stubby prose. Please merge them into paragraphs or expand.~~

~~I may have missed a few, please point out.--trey 04:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)~~

~~Please see WP:CONTEXT regarding wikilinking of low-value and common words like tourism.~~

~~You say too many, universe=atom says too few. Compromise? I've un-linked some generic words (aerospace, tourism, ect.) Is this ok? I am willing to please you =) --trey 04:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)~~

Universe=atom also comments on almost every FA that links should be added to See also, which is incorrect. See WP:LAYOUT; minimal to no See also is desirable, as valuable links should be worked into the text. High-value terms should be linked; common words should not. Please ping me when the article is ready for a new look (and I hope you didn't follow the advice above and add something to See also just for the sake of it). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

~~You still need to unlink common words like creek and 1970, per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSNUM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)~~

~~Too much detail for encyclopedia, and subject to change: An Amtrak train calls on the city twice daily (at 1:36 a.m. for the westbound train and 8:30 a.m. for the eastbound one) at ...~~
~~Please see WP:MOSBOLD: Erie International Airport (IATA: ERI; IACO: KERI), located ...~~
~~Unformatted refs: Volunteer Match [2]~~
~~Words like "recently" and "currently" become outdated, time frames need to be specified: The 19th Street tracks were recently removed.~~

~~There are still occurrences of recently; pls add a date or say as of. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)<~~

~~The above list is samples only; pls audit the entire article for similar. This looks very doable; pls ping me for another look when done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)~~

~~Also, I changed the weather table to get rid of the pesky white space :P --trey 04:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)~~

Struck some as done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I did some sample ref cleanup edits to show the extent of the problem; there are missing authors, incorrect titles, missing dates, and missing publishers. HTH, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

~~Comments~~
- In the "History" section, it starts off with rough statements (the Iroquois were there, the French built a fort, the French word for peninsula is Presque-isle, the French left) that can be made into one pre-British narrative paragraph.

~~Combined.--trey 03:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)~~

- "~~and in general did everything imaginable to thwart standardization." and "several extremely valuable acres of property " hyperbole is not professional.~~

~~Fixed.--trey 03:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)~~

- ~~Why is the Erie Downtown Improvement District paragraph in the "History" section? Has anything actually been built?~~

~~They are renovating historical building, see more in article that I added.--trey 03:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)~~

- ~~The "History" section of this article is larger than History of Erie, Pennsylvania. Summary Style can be used~~

~~Some info removed.--trey 03:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)~~

- ~~In the "Geography" section. a normal low of 20 °F (−7 °C) is "bitterly cold"?~~

~~Just put "cold" instead, although temperatures have been know to stay below zero for days at a time.--trey 03:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)~~

- ~~In Demographics, the racial make-up list goes on a little too long, is "0.04% Pacific Islander" necessary? and who is forecasting that "Erie is expected to have gained people by 2010."~~

~~Fixed racial make-up and removed un-sourced info.--trey 03:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)~~

- ~~In "Demographics", why say "a vibrant Jewish community"? The last three paragraph (all on religion seem like they could make one good paragraph.~~

~~Removed and combined.--trey 03:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)~~

- ~~In "Education", the library has "facing financial woes over the past few years" - are libraries suppose to generate profits?~~

~~They get money thru the budget. Budget cuts=financial woes, I clarified in article.~~

- ~~In "Transportation", "in light of Amtrak's perpetual budget woes, this will likely not take place in the near future." seems speculative.~~

~~Removed speculation.~~

--maclean 11:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

All your issues have been fixed.--trey 01:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I don't know why these pesky green checkmarks are again working their way back into FAC, cluttering the pages. Comments are done when reviewers strike their objection and say they're done. I've removed those done marks from my comments so that I can review and strike as I consider them done, per WP:FAC instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment All issues have been fixed, even though editors have yet to come back and check.--trey 01:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Object
- ~~I still don't see the point of the Erie Downtown Improvement District in the History section. To me 'plans to' & 'calls for' = nothing happened, which does not equal history (perhap Economy?)~~
- In History please specify that the "recent local newspaper poll" consisted of only 208 votes, and if possible, how the poll was conducted (from the reference it seems to be just an online opinion poll).
- ~~The Geography and climate section is dominated with climate and area stats but little on its geographic setting, landscape, or the built environment (see Providence, Rhode Island#Cityscape)~~
- ~~Naming a few services in the Government section that the City of Eire provides its residents would help.~~
- Prose and language: a lot of lists of census data in the "Demographics" (would be easier to read if some was in a table and compared to PA). "The region is also the 3rd largest grape crop in the country, resulting as Erie producing the 3rd largest amount of wine in the United States." (awkwardly phrased). the last two paragraphs in "Government and crime" cover the same ground (best to merge them). Why so specific on what services the Lord Corporation offers? Unprofessional language: "boasts numerous public beaches", "good fishing locations" "..become a popular home because of the beautiful beaches, revitalized downtown, and a suburban feel, even though Erie's population is over 100,000." "is the city's premier art gallery," (is there a reason it is the best or is this an editorial), "Erie's unique location along the shores of Lake Erie" (lots of cities along Lake Eire, what makes this city so unique?).
- Comments (not objections):
  - 40,938 households and 44,971 housing units is a significant gap, add a vacancy rate if you find one.
  - The government and crime topics in the same section? I know it's about law and order but seems like it's implying (without stating) a connection...is there one, eh? eh? say no more.
- Overall, this is good and most of my points are minor fixes but I would like to see a more descriptive geography section. --maclean 06:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I've added a section on cityscape and geography. I separated climate and expanded the geo. Still working on other fixes, but semi-busy in real life.--trey 14:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I am going to leave crime with Law section. There really is no where else to put it. Also, (not like this has anything to do with it) the former mayor (flippi) was indited for insider trading or something. ( I don't really remember). Also, I am just about done.--trey 15:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Done--trey

Those were some good fixes. Further points: the Economy section is using footnotes as an excuse to place external links to certain businesses ~~and the Reference "Weather Statistics. Action News 24. Retrieved on 21 May 2007." has moved (link went dead).~~ Future points for improvement include replacing some of those references with more reliable sources (Flagship Niagara League?), write a more balanced history (really drops off in 20th-century). --maclean 06:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Are these objections right now? Also, the Niagara League is the organization that maintains and sails the ship (reliable) and, when a link goes dead, it can still be used, but I will just get the new one (the channel got a new website).--trey 13:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Dead ref replaced.--trey 17:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Final Comment: As my available time is about to be reduced I can no longer provide consistent full evaluations, so here is my final analysis:
- The prose is fine except for the Demographic section which devolves into a regurgitation of census data (ethnic groups) in a one-sentence paragraph.
- There is an abuse of footnotes and reference in the Economy section (advertisements masquerading as footnotes/references).
- Needs a map of the city (roads, landmarks, etc.)
- The History section should provide more narrative on the 20th century.
I leave it up to the proponent, Raul654, and other reviewers to determine if these points are (a) relevant to the criteria, and/or, (b) satisfactorily addressed. --maclean 19:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- I can probably provide a map that is self-made, or get one from USGS (public domain). (→zel zany - fish) 19:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  
  Fixed demographics, also; I am not sure images (maps) are required for featured status; but I will try to have one made through vish.--trey 19:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  
  Removed the references to companies.--trey 19:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  
  There are two good paragraphs covering the 20th century. One of your comments was on taking downtown improvement (history-ish I think) and moving it out.--trey 20:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  
  There's still refs for Lord Corporation & the biofuel plant. Should they be just removed or should they be replaced with something better? --Dtbohrer^{talk•contribs} 20:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  
  The lord one is on its history, citing it was founded in Erie. The biofuel one verifies the 45 million gallon statement.--trey 20:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  
  I'm going to try to find a news article to replace the biofuel ref anyways. --Dtbohrer^{talk•contribs} 20:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  
  Replaced it. --Dtbohrer^{talk•contribs} 20:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  
  Ding! Let me know if Image:Erie, Pennsylvania map.png is sufficient. Cheers, (→zel zany - fish) 23:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool!! Thanks! --Dtbohrer^{talk•contribs} 23:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Y Done--trey

The article was promoted 01:10, 7 July 2007.

[edit] Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery

Not a self-nom. I'm nominating Giano's last completed article. This beautiful page is by far the most comprehensive biography of Lady Rosebery, political hostess and schemer, on the Internet or anywhere else. Bishonen | talk 18:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC).

An excellent article, overall, but there are a few minor points I'd like to see addressed:

~~I think the quotes needn't be italicized at all; but, if they are, this should be done consistently. As it is, some are in italics while others are not.~~
~~When the Cheddington School is being discussed, is the intended word "cypher", or is "cyper" an actual term that I'm unfamiliar with?~~
The citation of letters in the notes seems to have been condensed to an overly brief form; I'd suggest expanding, say, "a letter from Gladstone to Lord Grenville 13 September 1880" to "a letter from Gladstone to Lord Grenville dated 13 September 1880". Is there some reason why the dates aren't linked in those cases?
Remarks such as "The present chairman of Sotheby's is Lady Rosebery's great grandson Harry Dalmeny" are likely to become outdated rather rapidly; if they're to be retained at all, I suggest making the date explicit ("As of 2007, the chairman...").

Kirill 18:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Addressed, except the citation of letters, which seems purely a matter of taste. Bishonen | talk 21:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC).

I still think the current form is so clumsy as to verge on the incorrect—at the least, there should be a comma before the date—but it may well be a matter of taste. In any case, I think I can comfortably support this now. Kirill 15:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Kirill. Giano 15:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Could do with a prose read - will try to oblige. Also, ref 14 (the exchange convertor) is already out of date. The Land 19:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The exchange converter has gone! - I have a run through the prose - please see what you think now. Giano 12:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Support - still not 100% convinced about the way some of the paragraphs work, but I think that's a matter of taste. I quite liked the exchange convertor! There is an updated version of that site somwhere. The Land 20:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

~~Looks promising, but~~ I support, but typos and unnecessarily flowery language in many spots; issues from the trivial to the not-so-trivial. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- ~~leaving her husband to achieve the political destiny which she had plotted alone. - leaving her husband alone to ..., surely. Otherwise it seems that she had plotted alone.~~
  
  From the research, I rather think she did plot alone. His biographers suggest he was idle and aloof and not much interested. Giano 06:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  
  Er... this very article says it was originally his idea. "his three ambitions: to marry an heiress, win the Epsom Derby, and become Prime Minister". Please look again at changing it to "leaving her husband alone", that does seem to be more in the vein of the whole article. I feel silly to argue with the guy who wrote the article about what he meant, but in this case, this really does seem to be the point.
  
  To be honest, having read all his biographies from beginning to end I think he was far too lazy, egocentric and neurotic to seriously want to be Prime Minister, and I personally doubt that legend of his ambitions, I suspect they came about much later, Which is why I have full referenced and explained them and left the reader to draw their own conclusions. I originally researched to do a page on him, but found him objectionable and his little researched wife more interesting. I can't say that in the page, nor I hope is their any of my opinions or POV. The page toes the officially accepted line that he was a great man, however, the more one learns about her and his treatment of her the less great he becomes. I hope one day some author really does do a great biography of her, I suspect her diaries atc and some real own research would shed a very different light on her "great" husband. So, I do prefer the phrasing as it is for that reason. Giano 16:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  
  Accepting.
- ~~Meyer's infant daughter, Hannah, laid the foundation stone aged just six months - surely not! A 6 month old child laid a foundation stone? The future Arnold Schwarzenneger, perhaps...~~
  
  She was indeed 6 months old! Precocious and irritating what rich parents do with their kids. As when ERII lays a foundation stone today, she only touches it with a trowel, she does not manually mix the cement. Giano 06:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  
  Can you rephrase a bit so it says that, then? "participated in laying" or "attended the laying of" or something? Frankly, at 6 months old, it's hard to believe she could even intentionally touch a trowel to cement.
  
  It now has a footnote reffing the fact that she was 6 months old, otherwise I expect people will keep challenging the fact and an assumption from me that she was not physically brick laying. Giano 16:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- ~~She was indulged by both parents[5] and her formal education was neglected[6] in favour of music - move the refs to the end of the sentence~~
  
  Done Giano 06:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- ~~A cousin who seems to have disliked her claims - commas before who and after her, please~~
  
  Done Giano 07:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- an income of £30,000 a year. (In 2005 this would be worth £1,794,456. - that doesn't sound like he was a pauper himself. If the point is supposed to be that she was far richer, please give numbers for her estate/dowry as well.
  
  The Rothschilds do not disclose their finances, there is only ever speculation. I have read wildly differing figures given. All agree she was one of the richest (some say the richest) so I think we can assume she was richer than him. Incidentally I have seen written that some Dukes at that time had an income of £70,000 a year. I think we just have to agree he was rich, but not as rich as her. I think I will remove the calculator, as I'm not that happy with the figures it gives anyway Giano 06:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  
  Any figures about the size of her part? Even an estimate with some actual numbers it would be useful. I won't oppose over this, but it would seem to be important to the article, considering it was possibly the most important reason for her marriage, which was clearly the most important event in her life.

I have found some figures with a rekiable ref. [33] and inserted them. Giano 07:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

- ~~"including a third one not mentioned by the Jewish chronicle" - if they didn't mention it, why is it in this article?~~
  
  Removed phrase, I'm not sure why it was there either. Giano 06:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  
  ~~No, you didn't. Neither the third phrase, or the phrase about the third phrase.~~
  
  Ref to third phrase now gone - it can't have save d properly first time Giano 16:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  
  Maybe I was unclear. The Jewish Chronicle wrote two lines from the Talmud, and you quote those. Fine. Then you give a basically equivalent translation, with only slight differences? Why, what's the point of giving almost but not quite the same text twice? And of three lines instead of two; why add in the third? Thanks!
- "such was the prominence of her bridegroom that no male member of the de Rothschild family attended the ceremonies" - needs clarification. Did they stay away to demonstrate disapproval of her marrying a non-jew? If so, what does his prominence have to do with it? "You must marry a Jew ... unless he's a nobody, then it would be all right."? Did they stay away to avoid compromising him before his peers (the Peers)? "Oh God, he's marrying a Jew ... but since her family didn't show up at the wedding it must be all right."? What was the point here?
  
  I think the point is explained in the text, I have just emphasised it further, He was prominent - publicity - the fact he was a non-jew would make the headlines - they had to be seen to disapprove - it could not be swept under the carpet, as had happened when members of the family had married less prominent men. Giano 06:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  
  Better, but can you add something like "... in order to publically show their disapproval"? Sorry, I'm not as good as reading between the lines as most people who read about Victorian society probably are, and I would prefer things to be spelled out even more.
  
  Made even more obvious that they were showing dissaproval. Giano 17:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- ~~the Prince of Wales - a wikilink to the specific PoW would not be amiss here.~~
  
  He is already linked to twice, I think 3x would be excessive. Giano 11:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  
  Accepted.
- ~~nervous breakdown[46]) - move ref behind parentheses~~
  
  Done. Giano 09:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- ~~"I could never be nervous at his making a speech the audience show him great affection." - ungrammatical; are you sure this is the exact quote?~~
  
  Yep, she was not particularly well educated as the article says - I'll add (sic). Giano 07:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- was to become her raison d'être[30] - needs. a. full. stop.
- ~~"lady Rosebery" - L~~
  
  Fixed Giano 07:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- ~~Disrali - e~~
  
  Fixed Giano 07:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- ~~Lord Hartington, the immensely influential - please wikilink here, the earlier one is far away and in a different context~~
  
  Now linked. Giano 07:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- ~~Involvement in a divorce at all was in the 19th century social suicide - Overly complex. Suggest: Any involvement in a divorce was social suicide ...~~
  
  I think it it needs the date reference to keep it in context. It is not social suicide today. Giano 07:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  
  Accepted
- ~~giving such lurid details that the seemingly puritanical society of the day was shocked to its roots. - shorten. ... giving lurid details.~~
- ~~more shockingly still, - leave out the editorial comments, the facts are lurid enough~~
  
  Fixed Giano 09:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- ~~In his futile quest to exonerate himself he levelled the charge... - Suggest: He charged... Same info, much shorter.~~
  
  Phrase now altered, see below. Giano 11:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- ~~How did he charge? In a letter to the Times, in a speech to the House of Lords, how?~~
  
  Now explained and reffed Giano 10:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- This was London "drawing room" gossip at the time. - meaning that it was gossip before he formally charged, or only after his charge? In fact, it might be worth while dumping this whole sentence; a lurid charge against a candidate for prime minister is clearly a notable major political scandal, it doesn't need to be specified that it was drawing room gossip rather than bar room gossip or <other location> gossip.
  
  re-phrased and explained it was a whispering campaigne. Giano 10:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  
  Much better, but this sentence is now hard to understand: "An outraged Rosebery denied all on his wife's behalf,[72] while in December 1885 Lady Rosebery's only response on being told of Virginia Crawford's confessions was:"
  
  Oh I think that says far more than I ever could! Giano 16:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- ~~to care for their, often large, families - unnecessary, commas,~~
  
  Fixed Giano 10:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- causing charges of anti-Semitism to be levelled against him - by whom? The charities involved, his political enemies, uninvolved parties? Where? In Jewish newspapers, mainstream newspapers, speeches to the House?
  
  Clarified in footnote and reference. Giano 11:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  
  Much better, thanks.
- the Oral Instruction of the Deaf and Dumb. - this paragraph then describes schools for children. Were they specifically or solely for deaf and dumb children?
  
  No idea, there is no reference book or complete bio published anywhere on this woman. The only reference to her charity work is in the Jewish Encyclopedia, and that is all the information it contains. I don't think the word school is mentioned anywhere. Presumably it was a teaching method to a group whose education before had been largely ignored. I'm not prepared to speculate without a reference to back me up Giano 09:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  
  It looks like the Cheddington school at least is for ordinary children,[34] so I suspect our implication that these were schools for deaf and dumb children is incorrect. Especially since the Jewish Encyclopedia doesn't mention the schools. We should rephrase so we don't imply this.
  
  No I don't think it is implying schools. Giano 16:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- ~~cyper - what? [35] [36]~~
  
  That was a simple typo for cypher. Giano 09:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Some short quotations are in italics: "There is nothing I can give him," "visiting them", "thoughtful.", some not: "she had cut her spurs.", "disliked hard work". Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Italics says not.
  
  Is this the same as Kyril's point? Which is fixed - or are you saying none of them should be in italics? Giano 07:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  
  Yes, on both counts, I'm afraid. Or, if you can provide a style reference that says that quotations should be in quotes and italics, then I'll ignore what our MOS says. I'm not much of a style expert myself, I have to go by guides.
- ~~Of Hannah, Countess of Rosebery's, fabulous houses, - awkward. Rephrase, or just strike those words, and start with "The lease on ..."~~
  
  Removed fabulous _ I think the paragraph dealing with the houses needs to be introduced as such Giano 07:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- ~~Ironically the following year the year - department of redundancy department~~
  
  Fixed. Giano 10:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- ~~Personally cataloging the collection, and prophetically writing in the preface "...." - Make into a complete sentence, please~~
  
  Fixed Giano 11:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  
  ~~"She personally catalogued and prophetically written" ? wrote, I think.~~
  
  Oh, heck. It's faster to do it myself.
- ~~"Save Mentmore" group ... Sotheby's - needs a citation. [98] is a footnote, but isn't a citation.~~
  
  Fixed Giano 10:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  
  ~~Sorry, I still don't see a citation.~~
  
  What do you want to be proved that the group existed? Giano 16:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  
  ~~... Well, yes. That there was such a group, that there was such an auction, etc.~~
  
  Ref now to the book by the group about the group. I think the sale catalogue which references the sale is about as good as proof as is obtainable. Sotheby's are quite a well known firm in Britain. Giano 16:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- ~~You cite Jewish Encyclopedia as a reference. That's a rather large reference. Can you be a bit more specific as to the article(s) involved?~~
  
  I don't understand your point, the reference clearly states it is her entry under "ROSEBERY, HANNAH, COUNTESS OF" Giano 09:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  
  ~~I'm referring to the reference under the References section. :-) That just says Jewish Encyclopedia. Can it say "Rosebery, Hannah, Countess of" in the Jewish Encyclopedia?~~
  
  It now links directly to her page at the Encycopedia and the foot note refers to the link in the reference. Giano 16:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- ~~accessed 20th October 2006 (and similar notes) - please format and wikilink per WP:DATE~~
  
  Not sure you are correct there - don't only important and very relevant dates have to be linked Giano 11:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  
  No. It's an unfortunate abuse of wikilinks, but currently the only way we can get user's date format preferences to work, is to wikilink all dates including a month and a day. And leave off the th's. It's a hack, but it's a hack enshrined in our official style guide. :-)
  
  Oh, heck. I did it myself. You owe me a plugged nickel. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Philanthropy section - first, it seems awkwardly stuck in between two chronological sections (Politics and Death and legacy) that would otherwise flow nicely (the last sentence of Politics is a direct reference to her death). Second, there's barely a single date in the section! When was she President of Scottish Home Industries, when did Queen Vic appoint her, when did she found the Club, etc?
  
  This is because there is nothing at all written anywhere other than that which is listed in her entry at the Jewish encyclopedia - and that information is now incorporated here. I'm afraid there are no dates, I have looked and researched for them, and they are not there. That is in fact the reason this page took so long to complete. To leave out the philanthropy section would be to omit an important part of her life - to include demonstrates how little information has been published concerning her. Giano 09:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- ~~Death and legacy section - repeat the wikilinks to the children, the earlier ones are far away~~
  
  I have re-linked - though I thought they were only supposed to be linked once Giano 10:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  
  Once per section or screenful. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)
- ~~by no less a person than Queen Victoria - by Queen Victoria~~
  
  "No less" removed Giano 10:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- ~~while one could be ... one did not become too close, and one certainly did not marry them - sentence could come from a Wilde play. Rephrase please.~~
  
  Done Giano 08:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- They considered themselves the equals of royalty,[4]. Regardless of whether this was strictly true or not - first, remove the comma, and move the ref after the period. Second, we're either saying it is true, and we should remove the "Regardless...or not bit" or we're saying it's not necessarily true, and should rephrase the first sentence so it doesn't claim so outright (and probably remove the second bit anyway).
  
  I don't really get what you are saying here, can you fix it yourself. On the "regardless" matter. They are firmly referenced as "considering themselves the equivalent of Royalty" I personally think "they" is a huge amount of people - and doubt they all did, which is why I have inserted the "regardless". If you choose to take the "regardless of whether they did" out - I won't quibble - but that is why I put it in Giano 07:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  
  Someone fixed so it makes sense now: "Ferguson states X. Whether or not X was true, ..." It used to say: "X (was true). Whether or not X was true, ..."
- ~~an unremarkable term of office marred by problems and difficulties. - if it was unremarkable, how was it marred by problems?~~
  
  The problem here is how far to go into Lord Rosebery - (he does have his own page) there is quite a lot of info given about his ministries, but it should be remembered all this happened after the subject's death. It would be wrong though not to mention that his premiership was beset by problems - I think one has to leave some things to be researched which are off subject. I will remove unremarkableGiano 07:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- ~~His final years were marred by illhealth - there's marred again, can we find a different word? Also, space between ill and health.~~
  
  Done Giano 07:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  
  Marred is changed to blighted. Giano 07:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- ~~Roseberry's article refers to this one by saying: "A fuller assesment of their relationship can be found by clicking here." I guess that's not technically a flaw in this article...~~
  
  That page is nothing to do with me, and seems to have been written after this article using information taken from this page but without the references. Si I don't think I had better comment on it. Giano 07:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- ~~I see I've repeated several of Kirill's points. Sorry, not intentional. Put it down to great reviewers nitpicking alike or something... :-)~~ --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  
  No problem. I have addressed many of your points, can you strike out any you are now happy with, as it is getting a little hard to see what is addressed and what is not. Thanks Giano 07:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- You got most (though a few you claimed to get, but didn't!). Assuming you'll fix most of the remainder, changing opinion to I support, but. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Not wild about "such standing that he almost eclipsed royalty", which strikes me as unencyclopedic and a little off-topic. (This is about her, not her father.) semper fictilis 03:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you may have misread, it refers to her husband not her father. Regarding the term - the family are well quoted and referenced as almost eclipsing Royalty. That is not said about many people, so that this daughter of a "noveau" Jewish family (both adjectives were enought to banish a person from the highest echelons of European high society) was married to such a man is I think is very important indeed. Giano 07:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: A splendid article, which I think could be improved by some tweaks. But what's this with (just to take one example) "Crewe, Marquess of (1931). Lord Rosebery. London: John Murray. ISBN N/A." (underline added)? It's not a matter of the availability of the ISBN for this book: SBNs let alone ISBNs hadn't even been dreamt of back then, as any fule kno. First I thought that this was an insignificant slip; later I noticed more. Is this some sort of private joke? -- Hoary 12:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Hoary - I always understood that N/A stood for "not applicable". I was just filling in the citing book format template. Shall I remove it completely? As for the tweaks you will have to give me at least a hint. Giano 13:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, right, not applicable. But of course it's not applicable. And even where the non-applicability isn't a matter of course, there's no reason to tell people that the ISBN isn't applicable: just don't provide it. Meanwhile, the tweaks: I'm making them, gradually; feel free to revert them! -- Hoary 15:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you put the {{inuse} template on then as their seem to be a lot of people popping in and out of there Giano 15:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I made all the tweaks, so my earlier minigripes have evaporated. -- Hoary 01:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Linking of dates. Mouse, why are you insisting that a beautiful article such as this be spattered with blue dates? Because of the failure of the WikiMedia techs to fix the glitch that has conflated the autoformatting and linking processes, I'm now advising people not to link even full dates. Make them fix it. 73 of us in a signed petition attempted to have it fixed late last year, without opposition, but it was like trying to push the moon out of orbit. Giano and Bishonen, nicely done here. Could do with a final run-through to spot the few remaining little things, that's all. I support. Tony 12:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony. I wish I could take some of the credit, but I'm only the nominator and fiddler-about with dots and dabs. This is Giano's work. Bishonen | talk 13:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC).

Thanks Tony. I always especially appreciate a support from you, can you give me a clue as to "few remaining little things" I have read it through so often my eyes are seeing only what they want to see. Giano 12:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll run through it in a few days' time (lots of work pressure right now). I'm sure I won't find much. Tony 12:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia:Featured article criteria #2 starts with "It complies with the manual of style". WP:DATE is part of the manual of style. There are not many unambiguous items in the featured article criteria, this is one of the few. You'll notice I was one of the 73 signing that petition, but the developers didn't do it. We can't just pretend they did. You're arguing that it shouldn't be done because of your personal aesthetics should override a widely agreed upon guideline, and the only way to implement a useful feature. "The rules don't apply to me" is hardly what should serve as an example of the best the project can do. All the other FAs do it, there hasn't been any argument why this one is so different. Similarly, the article is spattered with blue words, why don't you mind those so much? Seems to be your personal taste. Get the developers to change the feature, get consensus to change the Wikipedia:Manual of style, or put in the blue dates. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh heck. This is a good article and deserves passing. Not to mention that Giano has been regularly roasted by the community in other contexts, and needs to be basted so he doesn't burn. :-) Most of the dates were wikilinked already (though I notice Tony didn't object to those!), I wikilinked the twenty or so that weren't myself. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support Mouse. I am though completely with Tony on this and just don't see the point or relevance to the article. However neither the time not the place. I just wish she would get some more supports :-( Giano 16:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Support an enjoyable read and impeccable choice of quotes as usual. I found the start of second to last paragraph (on the disposal of the houses) a little tough going and notice somebody else left a question hidden in the comments. Who is the them there, and how did surrendering the lease help? Yomangani ^talk 21:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Yomangani. You are right, I have altered the phrasing there slightly [37]. I wrote that section because I always like to know what happened afterwards and complete the story, and always assume others do too - sort of "après moi le déluge" and brings the history up to date. Giano 21:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Perfect. Yomangani ^talk 22:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments. Two footnotes are uncompleted: current note 9. ^ McKinstry, page number wanting; current note 87. ^ Ferguson (direct quote, missing page number). Publishers are missing on some of the final sources listed under References. Also, see WP:MOS#Italics regarding "Quotations in italics". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Also, considering the recent fuss about Fair Use, you might need to re-evaluate Image:Mentmore towers from below.jpg. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  - I was going to support last night, but to mention that I agreed that image should be removed, as it seemed to be decorative and not essential to our understanding of the subject of our article. I see it has now been replaced by a free image. ElinorD (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Support -- a really nice page Giano -- well done. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Grapes - it's about time we had another FA from you! Giano 07:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Question: One section is titled "Controversy and betrothal". I suppose it was a controversy, but for me the WP section title "controversy" is degraded by gossipmongering editors' lipsmacking chrestomathies of innuendo and allegations of this or that starlet's alleged sexual dalliances and the like. What's the controversy here about? If her social standing, then how about "Social standing and betrothal"? -- Hoary 01:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Her betrothal was contraversial, especially among the elders of the Jewish faith, we can change it just to betrothal if you like, but if you think about it - the Jewish papers were publishing articles condemning the marriage so I suppose it was a true controversy. Especially by the standards of the day when the press was usually quite psychophantic to these people. Giano 06:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, OK, but if the controversy was just about the betrothal, why indeed not title this simply "Betrothal"? (Mm, and "psychophantic": I suspect that this was just a slip of the digits, but it's a fine word for the psychopathological sycophancy of certain strata of British society and one I shall find useful.) -- Hoary 07:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

All right then! -- Hoary 07:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Support this bodacious bio. -- Hoary 07:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Hoary!:-) Giano 07:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, well-written and judicious in its use of detail. A few quibbles. Niall Ferguson's book is fine to cite in support of the Rothschild's status, but the claim is uncontroversial and I wouldn't bother referring to him by name in the main article (better used for a specific theory or controversial belief linked to someone). This phrase from the intro, Bewildered and without her support, his premiership of Great Britain was shambolic dangles, does it not? I agree with Tony that there are a couple of other little copy-edits that might be advisable; since he notes he will pass through it, that's enough for me: Support. Eusebeus 10:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oops. Sorry, I think I must have been too mesmerized by "shambolic" to spot the dangling modifier. Fixed. Bishonen | talk 11:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC).
  - Hmmm, isn't the phrase "Aged 17, her Rothschild relations noted her poise and competence when hosting a large house party at Mentmore for the Prince of Wales" a bit dangly as well? Who was seventeen? Hannah, or her relations? Personally, I'd get rid of every single use of "aged 22", "aged 27", "aged 34", etc., replacing the dangly one(s) with "when she was", and replacing the others with "at the age of". Somehow, the constant (or even infrequent) use of "aged" sounds just not quite right to me. I also think (and this is just nitpicking) that 17 should be seventeen. ElinorD (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. The fair use image is gone, and I'm sure Giano or Bishonen (where's Bishzilla?) will remove the word "aged", which is slightly irritating me. (See how easily I'm irritated!) Even if they don't, I couldn't possibly oppose over something like that. Fantastic article. Well done! ElinorD (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Elinor, try this [38]. The photograph of Mentmore is there because I want to illustrate the wealth and almost unreal life that she lead as a child, that a family could throw up up a house like that as recently as 1851 is pretty amazing, and then live in it surrounded by one of Britain's greatest art collections all assembled just to furnish it, I think is phenomenal. Funnily enough there is a reference to its dispersal in this morning's Times saying what a huge loss to the nation it was and how it must never be allowed to happen again. Giano 12:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I will gladly support this article now that all outstanding issues have been addressed. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to get OCD on you for a second, but is there any reason that all the quotations – inline, English-language quotations – are in italics? In addition, could you translate the quote "Le Jew est fait, rien ne vas plus" in parentheses in the article? zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I did it this way because there are a great many quotes, and I wanted it to be very easily differentiated between my text and quotes. I believe that contemporary quotes give a better insight into a person than any modern text - basically I merely collect quotes and place them within context to make a biography. Don't forget that Wikipedia does not allow us as authors to draw anything but the most obvious conclusions, therefore the placing of quotes can lead a reader to a conclusion that we can not, thus it is imperative that the quotes are very obvious indeed so that the reader can see he is not being led or misled. Giano 06:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I still think the French quote should be translated in the article. Not everyone speaks French. Other than that, I support: comprehensive and well-written. zafiroblue05 | Talk 20:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. You are correct it should be translated, and perhaps it can be. The reason I am hesitant (I deliberately tried to ignore your question) to do it myself is that, I think, it is not only idiomatic but also combined with sarcasm, so I suspect any one persons translation could be challenged. To leave the quote out of the article would be criminal - to translate it, as I think Lord Rosebery meant it would be dangerously misleading. My personal view is that it was a very anti-Semitic remark indeed, but I could be wrong, and it was just mildly anti-Semitic. I speak passable French but I'm not Jewish I don't want top be the one to put the wiki-definite interpretation on it. It should be there so students researching are aware of it, and can make of it what they will. Giano 20:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I did a footnote at the phrase, see if it works for you, please, zafiroblue05. Bishonen | talk 22:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC).

Yep, it makes sense to me now. :-) The footnote is all that's needed. zafiroblue05 | Talk 22:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. This is a most obvious FA if ever I saw one. Rebecca 04:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are all of the images terrible looking? commons:Image:Dalmenyhouse.jpg was turned into Image:Dalmenyhouselightened.gif. 1995 called, it wants its gifs back. Several of the images are also crooked and have shadows where they were not scanned flat, which is generally fixable but working from low quality gifs is not my idea of a good use of time. It would also be preferrable to have the source of the images, even if they are all PD and fall under Bridgeman.

Look fine to me. Giano 18:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

They seriously look fine to you? An image with 75631 unique colours out of a possible 2^24 colours was changed to a gif that only supports a 256 colour pallete and is only using 63 colours. Even the thumbnail looks ugly and it is marked as public domain when you derived it from a cc-by-sa/gfdl image. GIF should not be used for photographic works and it does not even do greyscale well. Kotepho 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

As pointed out in your image caption: your eample is a small detail from a larger picture, at the resolution required for the article the lightened version is better because we can at least see what the house looks like which is slightly more important than the sky which most people know is blue! and the pixels at the resolurton required for the page are not visible. This is about education not winning a photographic competition. Giano 21:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It is trivial to make the image more bright (although I do not think it needs it) without converting it to such an inferior image format. It is especially important to keep images at the best quality possible as with some formats as many changes to the image will require to be be recompressed and are likely to introduce more artefacts. Further, the dithering and loss of quality if noticable even in the thumbnail as I said earlier. Surely you would object if someone took your carefully written prose and riddled it with misspellings and other errors; this is no different.

If you are not interested in my advice or help just say so and I will go away. There are certainly far worse articles that are featured than this one. Kotepho 22:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the back handed complement. I am not disinterested in your advice but I feel you are nit-picking on prose which is perfectly clear. It may not be clean and sterile prose but the meaning is clear. My aim is to get over as many facts as possible without doing so in a robotic clinical way. My goal is to relate the subjects history in an informative but interesting and readable fashion. I am aware we have many younger readers and people who have little real interest in such subjects, hence I want to make it interesting and colourful perhaps even a little fun to read - hence the "toothache caption" and the "3 in a bed" caption - there is a fine tightrope between encyclopedic and non-encyclopedic and I like to think I tread it quite well. My style of writing is obviously very dissimilar to yours and that is what makes Wikipedia more interesting every page is different. I cannot completely alter my style of prose nor do I wish too. If that means you objecting to this page then so be it. Where possible I have addressed your concerns, the remainder I just do not agree with. Sorry. Giano 08:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

~~In the 3rd sentence, punctuation outside of quotation marks while the dominating style seem to be inside in this article (27 to 1).~~

Please explain more clearly what you mean. Giano 18:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- He means this is the one place in the article where you had "quote". rather than "quote." I took the liberty of fixing it. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

~~footnote 55 does not have an ending quotation mark~~

Why should it? Giano 18:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The number changed in the mean time, it is the sentence starting with "Rosebery's secretary Thomas Gilmour noted..." I'll fix it myself if AnonEMouse didn't get it already. Kotepho 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

~~image caption on RoseBeryMillais.gif, syntax error, unmatched "~~

So what? Giano 18:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- He means you had a single hanging " mark somewhere. Liberty fixed likewise. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks fixed. It was "Quote"^[1]" but "quote2"^[2]Kotepho 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

~~"The Durdans" is in quotes and not italicized, The Zenaide is italicized and not in quotes... pick a way already~~

Fixed. Giano 18:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"The Durdans" is still not consistent. "The Durdans" once and then later The Durdans", I would just fix it but I don't know which you prefer, but it really isn't important. Kotepho 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I prefer "The Durdans" I thought that was how it was, if you can see another that is missed please fix it, if I see I will. Giano 08:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Under Marriage, the paragraph about where they lived at various times is unclear. In between all of the peroids? only some of them? where were they on the in between days where they were not at the Durdans? In the previous paragraph it was said they stayed in London and now they stay in various places with no shift in time or context? The last sentence describes one of the houses, not where they lived. Gainsboroughs wikilinks to a dab page, probably means Thomas Gainsborough... the footnote says the source attributes the quote to someone... what quote? If it isn't a quote, "just a few paintings by Gainsborough and Watteau." would be clearer without having to rely on the wikilinks to show what you mean. Could all of this be better organized with a paragraph about each of the houses or locations they stayed at? I have no idea what beau monde is and it is a red link. It at least sounds French, shouldn't it be in italics? Does it carry a meaning that is not adequately phrased as "the elite" or "high society"?

Fixed. Giano 18:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Gainsborough still linked to a dab page until I just changed it. James's description still seems like a quote without being a quote and I think it could be better organized, but there is not much to work with and it is minor anyways. Kotepho 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The footnote about the French pun, double opening quotation marks and the French should be italicized throughout. The same article is linked twice and the thus explained in the article article is less than ideal

That is because it is, and was meant to be "double entendre" It would be POV to even attempt further explanation. While it is clear Rosebery was being derogatory the "double entendre" and ambiguity was part of his wit and sarcasm which as I explain "must have been disconcerting for the child's very Jewish mother". I could hazzard a very good guess at what he meantm but I am certainly not going to. People must make their own conclusions, the guidance is given. Giano 18:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Took one last liberty to address double link by shortening without, I hope, removing content. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It used to say An untranslatable bilingual pun on the French [[Trente et Quarante|Rouge et Noir]] phrase ""Le jeu est fait, rien ne va plus"; literally, "the game [or in this case, the Jew] has been made, nothing more can be done." The use of the gaming phrase is explained thus in the [[Trente et Quarante]] article: "The dealer ... invites the players to stake with the formula, 'Messieurs, faites vos jeux!' After a pause he exclaims 'Le jeu est fait, rien ne va plus!' after which no stake can be made." The same article was linked twice in the same footnote, the phrase ""Le jeu instead of the phrase "Le jeu, and none of the French is in italics per WP:MOS#Foreign_terms and style guides I am familiar with, and it was also self-referential (explained thus in the Trente et Quarante article). It fixed except for the French in italics, but if you think it is better not to have foreign language words and phrases not in italics but quotes in quotation marks and italics, fine. Kotepho 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

In the lead, "Yet his..." I find it odd to refer to the subject of the article as someone's wife. Also, it seems to say "the majority of historians say X" and then "this is how it really is". To me this looks like either asserting a minority opinion of historians as the correct view or your opinion--both of these are problematic. The parenthetical comment suffers much of the same problem as it looks largely editorial.

No it is pointing pout the subject is little known. We don't want he a candidate for deletion do we? Giano 18:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The "Yet his Jewish wife..." is odd to me, but the rest of this comment was much more important. You say she is largely ignored by historians and often regarded as only being a bag of money. The next sentence says that they are all wrong. Who asserts this? Kotepho 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The whole page is devoted to explaining why. Giano 08:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"Having firmly assisted and supported her husband on the path to political greatness, she suddenly died in 1890, aged 39, leaving her husband to achieve, bewildered and without her support, the political destiny which she had plotted alone." There is much good to be said about writing in ways where ideas are not constantly interrupted by clauses. "She firmly assisted and supported her husband on a path to political greatness until she suddenly died/died suddenly in 1890 at the age of 39/, aged 39. Then, he went on to achieve the political destiny which she alone had plotted." The formulation of this sentence in my mind is more apt for "Having been raised on a farm, she was used to getting up at the crack of dawn." or such where there is a clear connection. If it wasn't his idea to be Prime Minister, why is she 'assisting' and 'supporting'? Was it her plan that he should reach office, or that he should reach office and fail (his ultimate destiny)? "he wandered directionless and exceedingly eccentric" he wandered (directionlessly and eccentricly) or he (wandered without direction) and (became/grew exceedingly eccentric)?

The passage is perfectly clear. Giano 18:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It may be clear, but it is cumbersome to me and can be read multiple ways. It only becomes clear what is meant by reading the rest of the article, but the lead should largely be able to stand on its own. Kotepho 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The lead can stand on its own, but it is also meant to introduce the tone and content of the whole page - which it does. Giano 08:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

~~"As an only child growing up in what were, in all but name, palaces, her childhood appears to have been quite lonely." - inappropriate tone~~

I don't agree

I'm not even sure what I meant. I either copy/pasted wrong or thought the last word was lovely... maybe I shouldn't do this before caffiene in the morning. Kotepho 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

buy an espresso machine, it's fast and the rush is quick. Giano 08:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"claims that Hannah was so protected that "the poor" was just a meaningless euphemism for her." can be either read as "the poor" was a euphemism used to describe her or that she does not understand that people could be poor, suggest "to her"

The passage is perfectly clear. Giano 18:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, but it isn't important. Kotepho 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"This is likely to be an exaggeration, ..." "Foo says bar. It really is baz." is too assertive. In any case, she could have been so protected that she did not understand what it was to be poor and then later find out and start working to help the poor. When did the cousin say it, later in life? Had they had contact later in life? Was he just describing her childhood?

The passage is perfectly clear. Giano 18:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"X, who didn't like her, said Y. Y is wrong because." is biased even if it is true. Kotepho 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Biased, true or a downright lie, it was said abd recorded and is referenced. If peole wish to know more or check the fact that is why the reference is there. Giano 08:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

party at Mentmore for the Prince of Wales, who was the Prince of Wales at the time?

There was only one Prince of Wales for the greater part of the 19th century and he is already linked twice, people should have grasped that by the time they reach that section. Giano 18:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the end of the first section. He has never been mentioned before this, unless I am blind. Kotepho 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

In the betrothal section, Archibald is introduced as just the Earl of Rosebery, later you learn his first name is Archibald and then later again you finally mention Primrose. Why not just call him Archibald Primrose, Earl of Rosebery in the first place?

Because it all needs to be explained and I feel it read better that way. Giano 18:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If you say so. Kotepho 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

~~She made herself the link between the world and her "thin skinned and neurotic" husband. - who is being quoted?~~

Please click the cite Giano 18:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It just says McKinstry and a page number, but I would rather not have to click footnotes to know who a quote is from. Kotepho 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a legitimate way of citing on Wikipedia - otherwise very alternate sentance would be "according to X" or "Y said". Giano 08:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not to say she was a bad mother: in an era of plentiful nannies, wet nurses, nurserymaids and governesses in the upper classes, her lack of attention to her children was not unusual or even remarkable. - I would suggest that it does make her a bad mother, leaving a newly born daughter in the hands of the help while she went off for three months...but it is largely editorial. Drop the bad mother part.

It is necessary as it is a piece of social history that needs to be explained. Giano 18:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree with Kotepho - yes, it does need to be explained, but you can explain without editorializing by writing "In an era ... or even remarkable." and dropping the first 10 words. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've had a look at that section and made some changes. I'm afraid Kotepho's "dead" and "stupid" coments below when he knew perfectly well what was meant have made me want to dismiss him and his comments somewhat at contemptible. Giano 21:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

~~He was an idealist who disliked the rancour of politics, in fact "his innate dislike of politics was something Lady Rosebery always fought against." unclear who is being quoted~~

Please click the cite Giano 18:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

As above. Kotepho 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

~~This first became evident in the great campaign to re-elect Gladstone. wikilink Gladstone, the only one anywhere around is in the image caption~~

That would be enough for some people, however, I have linked another Giano 18:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You never know if the reader even sees the images and the image captions are likely to be swept away along with the image, was my point. Kotepho 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a risk with anything on Wikipedia that is unavoidable. Giano 08:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

~~Irish Home Rule or Irish home rule, later Home Rule for Ireland pick one~~

Fixed. Giano 18:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Oral Instruction of the Dead and Dumb - why is this capitalized? Dumb is a dab page that lists either stupid or mute.

To refer to the deaf and dumb as the dead and stupid may seem amusing to you, to many it is not. However, the problem is fixed. Giano 18:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Still not sure why it is capitalized. If it is a proper noun is it an association, a school, a technique, or what? Dumb still links to a disambiguation page that lists both muteness and stupidity as possible targets. Either target is plausible. Both mute people and stupid people are likely to need special instruction. Leading readers to disambiguation pages makes them guess what what you possibly meant when they might have already been confused as to what you meant and clicked on the link for clarification. Kotepho 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not think it was capitalised any more - I will look again and make it lowercase if it stil is. Giano 08:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

~~The Durdans, without quotation marks or italics in the Death section~~

Fixed. Giano 18:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It is still "The Durdans" in the Marriage section and The Durdans in the Death section. Kotepho 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly an interesting story. Kotepho 14:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the page, I have addressed your points individually above. I'm afraid I don't agree with many of your comments, but have addressed those which I can. Giano 18:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

One thing I missed earlier - can you get a page number for note number 90 (the Churchill quote in Ferguson)? zafiroblue05 | Talk 23:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As soon as I can get my hands on the copy again. Giano 06:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 01:10, 7 July 2007.

[edit] Bobcat

Not quite done with cats. With this one brought to FA status, we’ll have a good featured topic on U.S. felines. I’d like this to be considered a co-nom with User:Chroniclev. While not editing a lot, s/he has added the most significant amount of material to this topic and has been responsive to fact requests and general questions. Basically, I’ve supplemented Chronic’s book sources with abstracts, and I think we now have a complete page. Thanks also to User:Casliber for buzzing about with tweaks, and (as always) User:UtherSRG for looking at the taxonomy section. Because this has been edited by multiple people, there’s likely still some clunky sentences. Any suggestions welcome. Marskell 11:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Minor notes. I found this one with caps, and have left it as such. I also un-bluelinked place names larger than state/province; see the talk. Marskell 12:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Support - A well-written article, with adequate references. It is also within size limits. As an extra good note, I could not even find one grammar mistake. However, I did notice a few other minor points, which I think can be easily fixed.
- There are red links in sections 2.1 and 3.1
- Perhaps the lead can be lengthened by just a bit.
- Perhaps some more important internal links can be added to the body of the article, although I think that the current amount will also suffice if none can be added.

Other than that, I think that the article is all fine. Cheers. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 13:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I added a small para on hunting and myth to the lead, which was indeed a little slim. Redlinks are not disallowed on FAs; they are there to encourage editors to add articles. I do plan to bluelink "direct register" at some point. In general, I've gone easy on links with this one, and Chroniclev wasn't heavily adding them either. I'm coming around to the opinion that less is more. Thanks for your comments. Marskell 13:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually the red link in three was an error of mine; I upper cased where I shouldn't have. Marskell 13:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Support as minor contributor and sideline commentator. I think the prose is fine and it is comprehensive.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Support The first half/three-quarters is excellent, but it tails off towards the end: the hunting section is poor and uncited, and the mythology section is vague in places and I guess rather more about lynx in general than Bobcats in particular. The units are all over the shop in the Behavior section. I also noticed domesticated dogs were listed as potential prey species in one section and predators in another. While this is entirely possible given the range in sizes, some clarification would be useful. Not far off a support though. (Oh, and don't remove redlinks or I'll come after you with a big stick with a nail through it). Yomangani ^talk 15:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added the little two² consistently (I think) in the Home range section and used U.S. units first, as it's broadly a U.S. cat and I found the page that way.
I had noticed dog as a predator but didn't get around to asking about it; it was there when I started editing. (I wouldn't leave a Bobcat alone with a German Shepard, but I doubt domesticates go hunting for it). Removed pending clarification.
The trail off problem will wait for tomorrow. You're right—it's a problem I often have on these pages and should have paid more attention to in this case. Marskell 20:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Also note about the mythology that for the most part only one species of Lynx, today and historically, inhabits the locations referenced by the sources. This is mentioned in the article as a footnote. --Chroniclev 07:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt to drop that into the main text in this section, but I won't break down if you disagree. My main quibble on the Mythology section is this:

In the Nez Percé tale, for instance, the Lynx and the Coyote represent opposed, antithetical beings. However, another version represents them with equality and identicality.

Another version from where? Not the Nez Percé I guess. As it stands it sounds weaselly, as if we don't know where the other version comes from. There is too much commentary on the two different versions in that section for it to remain unattributed. Yomangani ^talk 22:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hard to say specifically with the sources I was using, but was mostly meant to represent a larger trend rather than a shift in a specific culture. The Nez Perce story actually is just given as one example of a larger theme. --Chroniclev 00:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I've rephrased it slightly to try and make that clear, and since that was my last remaining objection I'm now supporting it for FA. Yomangani ^talk 13:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment very nice page and I only have a couple of points to bring up.

The map and text refer to the midwestern US gap in Bobcat distribution - has there been any research into why that would be? If nobody seems to know, that should probably also be noted, though I realize it's tough to cite a negative like that.

I've added more on that. --Chroniclev 07:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a citation flag in the hunting/trapping section and that whole (small) paragraph needs to probably be re-written and properly cited. I'm not a hunter, but it seems odd to me to use a decoy for a territorial species; my understanding is that a "decoy" (we don't really have a page) is usually of the same species as the hunted animal in an attempt to lure gregarious animals (usually waterfowl) into range. I could understand using bait, but decoy doesn't seem right. I could be wrong, but either way it needs to be specified and cited.
It won't affect my vote, but for my money, this[39] is a nicer image than the one currently at the top of the page.
Under predators and mortality, it cites some survival rates ("survival rates averaged 0.62, in-line with other research suggesting 0.56 to 0.67"), but I have no idea what those numbers mean. A sentence of explanation would be great.

Perhaps, although it's actually "yearly survival rates." --Chroniclev 07:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The mythology section needs some expansion. The last line, 'in the United States it "rests prominently in the anthology of our national folklore."' needs some kind of explanation. The reference cited may also have some stuff you could use to beef up this section.

Added a more specific story. I've tried to keep it broad and stay away from anything too esoteric. --Chroniclev 07:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

When I checked the cite above[40], it mentions 'I would lie awake at night listening for that other-worldly wailing, the caterwauling that Thackeray described as "a shriek and a yell like the devils of hell."'. Sounds like we should mention something on the vocalizations; if it's there, I missed it. If it's really that other-worldly, an audio clip would be really cool.

It's mentioned in the reproduction section. Also there is an external link to an audio clip. --Chroniclev 07:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll give it a further look later on. To end on a positive note, thank you for not using the taxidermy pics we have on the commons... yecch. Matt Deres 23:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~ pending the cleanup and referencing of the hunting and trapping section. The rest of the article is EASILY FA quality, but that section has an unresolved "fact" tag, and suffers from substandard writing. The section needs expansion and better referencing as a whole. Fix that and I would easily support this article's promotion. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Quick comment: The article could use a few more good-quality pictures. Photos are the best way to inspire readers to learn more, and the current set isn't very inspiring, I'm afraid. Kla'quot (talk | contribs) 06:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The myth and conservation sections have been expanded by Chronic. I added the pic suggested above—it's absolutely beautiful. On the hunting section, I have problem where I'm sitting because searches only turn up commercial hunting operations, which are not good sources. A trapping book (which I'm not sitting on) might take care of it.

But then I wonder if we actually need a description of how to hunt Bobcats... Perhaps it's a subtle anti-hunting POV, but I'm not particularly bothered if it's not there at all. Any opinions? Marskell 21:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If it does skew the mortality figures it probably should be included, but you are in a bit of a catch-22 situation there: without any sources to back up the claim that it skews the figures you don't know whether you need to find sources to back up the claim... Yomangani ^talk 21:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ignore that, brain was broken. I don't think you need the unverified hunting practices paragraph. Yomangani ^talk 21:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the skewed in winter is actually sourced, so I was wondering. I have removed the little bit that was left. If someone wants to argue that descriptions of hunting an animal are necessary in describing an animal, we can consider it. I'm not entirely convinced—when I encounter paras of that sort I find them an odd example of "how-to." Marskell 22:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Support I struck through my prior vote. The human hunting and trapping section looks much better. I was looking for expansion if possible, but this looks like a "less is more" case. Article is now consistantly good. I have no more objections. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Support - See history for lengthy Discussion -Ravedave 16:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- I moved it to the talk, so it can still be read. Cheers, Marskell 08:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Support promotion. I just ran this through spell checker and it was clean of any errors. Details are comprehensive and easily outlined. I wish we had a few more higher resolution images, but those are tough to come by. I have only seen two bobcats in all my years of hiking and backpacking, so I know taking pictures of these elusive animals is not easy. I can't see what else can be done to make the article better. Excellent work.--MONGO 06:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Support promotion, per MONGO. Excellent article. ElinorD (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 01:10, 7 July 2007.

[edit] Joshua A. Norton

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture

See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Joshua A. Norton

This article was a former featured article (promoted January 19, 2004) that appeared on Main Page on April 3, 2004. It was sent to WP:FAR and on October 7, 2006, the consensus was to demote the article. The problems addressed at FAR were the lack of in-line citations, prose issues, and an excess of trivia (there's now an entire article: Emperor Norton in popular culture). I think my work and the work done by Paul.h (talk · contribs) back in September 2006 have addressed the concerns of the FAR, and I think it's back to FA standards. I thank all users in advance for whatever comments they may have at this FAC. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Reminder: if featured, re-categorize to re-promoted at bottom of the WP:FFA page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the heads-up, SandyGeorgia. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Support - I loved this article when I first read it a few years ago and love it even more now. Kudos. --mav 12:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to see maybe a bit more of the stuff in the pop culture article explained in the main one. The "Posthumous recognition" section hints at his popularity in literature in the 19th century and mentions the bridge thing, but there's an overall lack of information about any 20th century popularity. Are readers going to come away with the notion that he is anything more than an old dead guy? Will they understand his modern-day importance, if any? For example, is the Principia Discordia possibly noteworthy here? --- RockMFR 00:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- There was a mention about Jose Sarria, but it was removed by another editor who thought it was irrelevant to the section. I'll add it back. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Okay, I have added some more. Tell me what you think of it now. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    - I've cut this edit way back to include just a bit more on popular culture. Remember this article was demoted because "It degenerates into a list and trivia by the end of the article, including a ridiculous section on the dead Norton posting to Usenet via a spiritual medium!" Personally, I think the amount of trivia was fine in the current article, but I'm willing to experiment with the short paragraph I just added. --Paul 19:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
      - Yes, but when the article was delisted, it was because we had this. I really don't think the section I had was too problematic. It mentioned some 20th and 21st century works and Jose Sarria (who basically revitalized the interest in Emperor Norton). Nishkid64 (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- I still think it might be good to list a few more specifics. Calling him "an inspiration to eccentrics everywhere" seems even worse than what was there before - this is far too generic to be of any use, especially considering that it is probably not true. --- RockMFR 18:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  - "...an inspiration to eccentrics everywhere" has been changed per your suggestion. Also, Discordianism is now included and linked as suggested above, plus the same paragraph has a link to the Emperor Norton in popular culture article. I disagree about adding more than this, as most of the stuff in the popular culture article has very little or nothing to do with Norton and is mostly quite obscure with nothing rising to the level of notoriety of Mark Twain's or Robert Louis Stevenson's use of Norton as an inspiration. Finally, there is the clear example of how lists of trivia took over the article when lists of trivia were included. Starting a new list now, after they have all been removed is just an invitation to a maintenance headache. No information has been lost, it is all in the popular culture article.--Paul 16:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
~~Neutral~~Support - The article is well-referenced and well written, ~~but there are two details I think should be cited. I have added two citation requests~~.--Bryson 19:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- I am satisfied with the referencing of the article.--Bryson 20:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- First citation request complete; second one removed because it is already addressed in reference #18. I didn't want to over-reference the lead, so I tried not to source every itsy-bitsy detail there. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Support - you've made a nice job of cleaning it up. The caption for the bridge photo could be a little more imaginative though, and some explanation of how his banknotes came to be printed would be good (they are rather too official looking to have been produced with a printing set in his room). Yomangani ^talk 00:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Support - much improved and well referenced. I agree some peripheral detail would be nice but there's plenty of flesh on the bones! Malla nox 00:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Support quality stuff. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't have the time to meticulously review it, but a careful glance reveals that this is well-written, nicely balanced and quality article. Support. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 17:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment I think footnote #2 (There are a number of disputed claims regarding Norton's date of birth. Many scholarly sources pinpoint Norton being born sometime in 1819, while a few sources stating that he was born on 4 February 1819.) is inadequate. It needs to mention the sources specifically. Also, the note gives no clue as to why we think the 1819 date is the preferred one, used in the lead and info box.--Paul 22:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[41] might help (it's a scanned version of the article with the 4 Feb 1819 date). And 1819 is given on his headstone for what it is worth. Yomangani ^talk 23:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually the birth date uncertainty is covered in the opening "Early life" section (including the ref I gave above), so you could just drop that footnote from the lead. This suggests 1818 for what it is worth, but it seems to be self-certifying so I wouldn't put too much faith in it. Yomangani ^talk 23:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I basically repeated some of the stuff I had in the "Early life" section when I just expanded on Ref #2. I think it's a bit more explanatory now. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This is much more clear now. Thanks for the additions.--Paul 23:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Support. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Support. Looks good to me. Rebecca 05:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Support Like Phoenix from the ashes, this appears to have risen again as a featured-quality article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Support Fun and well-written article Dinojerm 17:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Support Nicely referenced, well-written, and all around good article. Cbrown1023 talk 17:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Support. Great work, guys! --Hemlock Martinis 21:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 01:10, 7 July 2007.

[edit] Ceawlin of Wessex

Passed GA; I hope this is now ready for FAC. Some other Anglo-Saxon royalty FAs, for comparison, if useful: Ælle of Sussex, Penda of Mercia, Æthelberht of Kent. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Support I did the GA review of this article, and it is easily up to FA standards. Great job as usual. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how much I should comment on this article, since I created the earlier version mumble years ago of this article which stood until this extensive -- & very readible -- rewriting. I will note a couple of things. First, I am pleasantly surprised that (I'm guessing here) Mike Christie referenced a number of sources which I had in mind, but did not mention in that earlier version. However, I am a little puzzled about the style used for sources: to me it seems that the entries are duplicated at length, once in the notes then again in the references. Could this be condensed? lastly, there are a few other sources & points that I feel could be added -- but I'd rather discuss these with Mike offline, rather than suggest that these must be added for the article to obtain FA status. -- llywrch 18:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the references and notes; I am not sure what the MOS really wants here. I have always used the full form of the sources in the notes, since I figured that subsequent edits might detach other mentions of those sources from the article. However, I know there is also a style where the "references" section shows full source details, and the "notes" section just uses summary style: "Kirby 1991, p. 42", or something similar. I don't mind switching if MOS requires it; I was just being conservative about keeping all the data in each location. For the other points, Llywrch, please post on the article talk page and I'll follow up there -- I look forward to seeing your comments. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally (and this is just my opinion), I would think that as long as it is unambiguous, there is no need to convert all references to one style or another. In fact, several guidelines, policies, and ArbCom decisions recommend against it. References should be complete, be cited to reliable sources, and used unambiguously so everyone can easily see where each fact comes from. This article does that in spades. Other Featured Articles use different formats and do it equally as well. Different is not always better. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Support—mostly well-written. But I notice this bit, which needs fixing in a number of places:

The sources are also inconsistent on the length of Ceawlin’s reign. The Chronicle gives it as thirty-two years, from 560 to 592; but the Regnal Lists disagree: different versions give it as seven or seventeen years. A recent detailed study of the Regnal List dates the arrival of the West Saxons in England to 538, and favours seven as the most likely length of Ceawlin's reign, with dates of 581–588 proposed.[10][15] However, the sources do agree that Ceawlin is the son of Cynric, and he is usually named as the father of Cuthwine.[16] There is one discrepancy to be noted in this case, too: the entry for 685 in the [A] version of the Chronicle assigns Ceawlin a son, Cutha; in the 855 entry in the same manuscript, Cutha is listed as the son of Cuthwine. Cutha is also named as Ceawlin’s brother in the [E] and [F] versions of the Chronicle, in the 571 and 568 entries, respectively.[17]

Whether Ceawlin is a descendant of Cerdic is a matter of debate, however. Subgroupings of different West Saxon lineages give the impression of separate groups, of which Ceawlin's line is one. It has been suggested that some of the problems in the Wessex genealogies came about because of efforts to integrate Ceawlin's line with the other lineages: it was very important to the West Saxons to be able to trace their ancestors back to Cerdic.[18]

Present tense is odd. Colon after semicolon is awkward. "Seven years", not a length of seven. Remove "to be noted". Lots of however, but and also. Explicit references to sources ("it has been suggested that ... [18}"; smoother to say "Some of the ... may have come about ... [18]". So perhaps fresh eyes need to run through the whole thing; most of it looks pretty good, though. Tony 05:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I've done a copyedit pass and I hope have dealt with most of these points. I left the present tense in place; I hesitate on this usage but ultimately I think the sense can be justified. The documents were written in the past, but are present now for us to cite as sources in historical debates, so in that sense the Chronicle "says". The writer of the Chronicle "said" something in 890, but the Chronicle itself still says it today. If there's a consensus that this is not a style we want to see in WP, I can change it, but I thought I'd explain my reasoning. Mike Christie (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. Well written article and of FA quality. Kyriakos 21:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 01:10, 7 July 2007.

[edit] Kuiper belt

Nominating for FA as per GA listing. Serendipodous 05:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the empty listing at peer review; see the instructions at both WP:PR and WP:FAC, articles shouldn't be listed at both places. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Support: I was the GA reviewer of the article and found the article a good read. There are a few comments though -
- redlinks: either create atleast stub wikipages or remove wikilink - "1993 SC", "Steven H Pravdo", "Michael D Hicks", "Anne S Descour" check
- lead section, para 2 - "at least one dwarf planet." - either wikilink to the dwarf planet or modify it as "at least one dwarf planet (Pluto)". check
- if possible, can you add the list of comets known to originate from kuiper belt. --Kalyan 06:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be one heck of a list. Still, I can add it to external links Serendipodous 07:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

SupportFixes needed -ok, the lead is big enough, but surely the info could be streamlined into 3 paras rather than 6 segments? More to come. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

In 1977, Charles Kowal, using a blink comparator, the same device that had allowed Clyde Tombaugh to discover Pluto nearly 50 years before, discovered 2060 Chiron, an icy planetoid with an orbit between Saturn and Uranus. - 5 commas, ouch! Try "In 1977 Charles Kowal discovered an icy planetoid in an orbit between Saturn and Uranus which he named 2060 Chiron; he used a blink comparator, the same device that had allowed Clyde Tombaugh to discover Pluto nearly 50 years before." - or something like it.

This led many astronomers to conclude that, much like Ceres before it, which was considered a planet before the discovery of its fellow asteroids, Pluto should be reclassified as a Kuiper belt object - change tense to "should have been reclassified" as it relates to next para. Also, streamlining th clauses would be good here too, though not as bad as previous one.

In terms of stubby sections, I was wondering whether more of the speculation (up till ref 9) could go before Hypotheses subsection to destubbify preceding Hisotry bit.

Also, is the See Also bit necessary if all are mentioned in text?

Overall a good read and the prose is good given the complexities of the discussion. Fix these and yer in...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed most issues; only bit I have niggles with is "should be" vs. "should have been" ("should have been" implies that it wasn't reclassified, when it was). I shifted the paras up to "History" but I'm not sure it works. Serendipodous 22:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment – The majority of sizes and albedos listed in the table are speculative (assumed albedo) and should be replaced with the values from Table 4 of ref[48]. Ruslik 07:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've subbed the diameters, but the table uses a different value for albedo, and I'm not sure how to translate it. Serendipodous 08:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You should use values from the Table 4 of [48] for albedos and don't forget to change the last column of the table (I mean 'assumed albedo' to 'thermal'). In addition the geometric size determination for Quaoar can be listed together with thermal since the cause of their difference is not known.

Also Encke is not a Jupiter family comet. It is decoupled from Jupiter (aphelion ~ 4.1 a.u.). It is better to write short-period comet. Ruslik 10:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The albedo list on table 4 is in figures a hundred times larger than the figures in the article's table. Therefore it must be using different units. I don't know how to translate those units so I can't write them in. Serendipodous 10:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't understand what you meant the last time, but I think they use %, don't they? You can read through the article to find this. Ruslik 10:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

OK done; I'm assuming that Pluto's albedo of 0.6 and Charon's albedo of 0.4 translate into 60 and 40 percent reflectivity. Serendipodous 11:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

One other thing; if Encke isn't a Jupiter family comet and it isn't a Halley family comet, then what is it? Is there another family of comets that derived from the Kuiper belt? And if so, does the "Comets" section need to be rewritten? Serendipodous 12:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No need to rewrite anything. Encke is only such a comet known. It was probably scattered by Earth or some other inner planet and decoupled from Jupiter. It can be considered as a rare exception. Ruslik 13:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Support – This is a well written, rather a comprehensive article, which cites a large number of sources. While I support its nomination, there are a few issue I want to highlight (in addition to my comments above):

~~I think the image illustrating power law is too trivial and can be removed;~~

~~The table of the brightest KBOs misses two objects: 2003MW12 (classical) and 2002TC302 (5:2);~~

~~The section about the largest KBOs should be merged with the list of the brightest KBOs, because they consider the same objects;~~

~~The last technical issue. As I can see the last image disturbes the table. So either the image should be moved or the table.~~

Ruslik 11:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

How's that? Also, where in the table would those two go? Serendipodous 11:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you moved the table into a separate article. I agree that it is probably the best solution. By a technical issue I meant that the table was narrowed by the figure on the left. After you got rid of the table the figure interfered with the list of references. So I moved the figure. Ruslik 12:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really belong in that section, so I trimmed it and expanded the final paragraph. I can't see any interference on my browser, so I don't know if it worked or not. Serendipodous 12:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It worked. Ruslik 13:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose for now. Good-looking article, from what I've seen (I haven't read it all), but there are several redirects going to this article, including Edgeworth-Kuiper belt, EKB, etc., but this is not mentioned in the opening, leading potential readers to be confused as to why they've been directed to the "wrong" article. I've also seen this belt referred to as the "Leonard-Whipple belt",[42] which is not discussed in this article. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The Kuiper belt is not and has never been called the "Leonard Whipple belt". That's just an idea thrown out by that one article. It is occasionally called the Edgeworth Kuiper belt, and perhaps that can be mentioned in the lead, though it is already mentioned in the section Name. Serendipodous 06:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting 20 google hits for "Whipple belt"+"Kuiper"; aside from the above link, this, and this, so it doesn't seem to be limited to "one article". However, as you've now given some weight to the Edgeworth name in the lead, I can no longer object. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of those hits are mirrors of the same old Wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serendipodous (talk • contribs)

Yes, and that is why I am no longer objecting. But it's not just the one article, either. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted 01:10, 7 July 2007.

[edit] Victoria Cross

Self nomination. I have been rewriting and updating this article for a while. It has been through a peer review and has recently passed an A-Class review on the MilHist project. I now believe that it meets the criteria for FA. Thankyou Woodym555 15:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an article which I would very much like to see as an FA. I've had it on my radar for a while, though I've yet to make any substantial edits, but I've been impressed with what you have brought to it. (Incidentally, you may find that WP:ODM is another forum worth discussing this article in).

However I'm sorry to say that I think that the article still needs further development, primarily in the area of the medal's historical origins and development. I find this to be fairly sketchy at the moment; certainly some attempt has been made to address it, but a little more context re. (for example) pre 1854 methods of rewarding gallantry, the practice of other European nations, who was the prime instigator for the institution of the medal and their motivations, etc. This is one aspect which I think needs development, on the other hand there are notable omissions - eg the whole area of awards by ballot is not even touched upon. There are also one or two dubious assertions, such as the section dealing with the discontinuation of the 'naval' VC - to the best of my knowledge, the 'red' of the army ribbon is exactly the same as the 'crimson' post 1918. This was simply a case of the navy ribbon being discontinued in favour of the army one - there was no change in the army shade to reflect the RN and RAF as the article seems to suggest.

One thing strikes me about the references - there are very few direct references to the medal's constituting Warrant. This must surely be a key source? Tracing the amendments to the Warrant over the years would be an important element of any history section.

These are just a few of my thoughts. WP:SOFIXIT would probably be a justifiable response - I'll certainly try to in the weeks ahead - but as it stands, I don't think that this can pass as FA.

Xdamr^talk 16:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for your comments. I certainly agree that the subject warrants a FA.

~~I am adding more historical background with refs placed to the orignal clauses in warrants in the coming days, as will a new subsection on the ballots.~~
There is a picture here [[43]] that shows a red ribbon clearly different to the crimson seen today. In this article it suggests that it was changed to crimson. The RN blue ribbon was stopped because of the Raf being formed, as to why the ribbon is now crimson is not known. Most sources such as Ashcroft say it evolved. The army warrants state red. Woodym555 18:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have now added in some more background information specifically relating to Victoria and Albert and some little bits of information surrounding medal structure at the time(order of the bath). The article has been suplemented by the original warrants and clauses have been referenced. Any further comments would be welcome. Woodym555 19:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick reply for now. Re. the ribbon and your IWM picture; I agree that there is certainly a difference between that ribbon and the current one, however, to my eye at least, this is because the IWM picture (for whatever reason) has a heavy red tint. I've seen a few pre and post 1918 VCs and there is no particular difference between them. I think the Warrant's use of 'red' can be put down to mid-Victorian imprecision, nothing else. I have one or two of the standard works on British decorations so I'll try and lend a hand in fleshing out one or two of these areas.

Xdamr^talk 20:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Other than the ribbon, is there anything else that prevents this from reaching FA, any other problems or qualms? Thankyou for your work so far. Woodym555 21:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Not as far as I can see - Karanacs pointed out most of the other problems that I would have suggested work on. Good job, this article is certainly at the very least now up to GA, and I think that once the points rased here have been addressed an FA is deserved. As I say, I'll take a look over the content and see if I can supplement it, but otherwise it seems a good treatment of the subject.

Xdamr^talk 13:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Support Oppose This is a very interesting article, but I can't support it for FA as is. The punctuation needs serious attention and several areas are missing citations.
- ~~In the lead there is a sentence that either needs a comma instead of a period or needs proper capitalization~~
  - Done
- ~~Should Gun really be capitalized in the lead?~~
  - Done, no it should not have been
- ~~Should Non Commissioned Officers be capitalized? In the article non-commissioned officer it is not. (I also recommend adding the wikilink)~~
  - Done, i have changed it and wikilinked it
- ~~"The medal structure of the time only rewarded officers...Yet there was no such..." You don't need "Yet,"~~
  - Done, removed yet
- ~~Lots of comma issues. Here are a few examples, but I recommend you read through the whole article to see if there are any others.~~
  - ~~The sentence that begins "In other European countries" is a run-on sentence as it is currently punctuated. You can either substitute a semi-colon or a period for the comma after rank and be fine.~~
  - ~~You do not need a comma after 29 January 1856,~~
  - ~~Need a comma after "under the guidance of Prince Albert,"~~
  - ~~Need a comma after a single year (In 1898,)~~
  - ~~Do not need a comma after New Zealander,~~
    - Done, gone through the article and fixed the plethora of comma problems that afflicted the article
- ~~Citations should come after punctuation~~
  - Done, during the copyedit i couldn't find examples where they weren't, other than inline citations
- ~~You should combine the two sentences about Chinese guns.~~
  - Done, combined the sentence
- ~~I think it should be "is stored ina vault guarded by 15 Regiment..."~~
  - Done, put maintained instead as it is part of a system of logistical warehouses and stores in Donnington, guarded by RMP(Royal Military Police), i believe.
- ~~No period to end the sentence that is marked by citation 13. ("inscription FOR VALOR.")~~
  - Done, removed period
- ~~Should not be a period after "Australia, Canada, and New Zealand[25]"~~
  - Done, removed period
- ~~"As at January 2005" should be "As of January 2005"~~
  - Done, changed to of
- ~~In one place gunmetal is listed as one word, in others it is two words~~
  - Done, wikilinked first instance and changed to gunmetal everywhere else
- ~~Why are there [ ] around QROs?, and why is the period inside it?~~
  - Done, i have fixed the wikilink and deleted the abbreviation
- ~~Need a citation for this sentence: "In January 2006 the amount was $A3,230 per year which is indexed annually in line with Australian Consumer Price Index increases."~~
  - Done, added two citations that were clauses from the Australian Government
- ~~Three sententences in a row begin with "The largest number..." Would it be possible to mix this up?~~
  - Done, changed paragraph structure and merged one sentence, changed the remaining one
- ~~The sentence about Surgeon General Manley is a little unwieldy. Perhaps you could list the two crosses and then list the actions that he received them for.~~
  - Done, changed into two sentences
- ~~Need a citation for the number of surviving VC holders.~~
  - Done, added in new sentence about service that highlights the remaining survivors
- Need citations for the paragraph that discusses Manley, Trigg and Roope.
  - Done, added individual citations
- ~~Need citation for "The change reflected the increasing difficulty in attaining the award."~~
  - Deleted the line as it is mere speculation, no verifiable source (i.e book) mentions it, it was really about making sure that acts of bravery could never be taken away from an individual no matter what else they may have done.
- ~~Need a citation for Richard Spooner section~~
  - Deleted the section as there was no verifiable references other than his wiki page
- ~~A lot of the information on Lummis seems misplaced in this article. It is not all about the VC, and it may not belong in this article.,/s>~~
  - ~~Done, this was in the article due to a deletion dispute which resulted in a merger. The article has since been reinstated and so i have removed much of the information related to him.~~
    - This is much better, but I'd still remove the birth and death dates for Lummis and also remove the last sentence. He is important to this article solely because he had a large archive that resulted in a book. Karanacs 14:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
      - ~~Done, cut down to recommended levels~~
- ~~Instead of "as yet unissued," need to have "as of XXXX, unissued"~~
  - Done, changed sentences
- ~~For articles that have an author, you must include the author name in the citation (see cite 3).~~
  - Done, changed some to cite news template and amended accordingly
- ~~All citations must have a publisher (see 4, 12, etc)~~
  - Done, added publisher
- ~~Is there any way to trim the list of external links? There are a lot listed here.~~
  - Done, I have cut down the links and have created an Archives subsection

Karanacs 01:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

My first replies are in bold, i will rectify the citations and commas in a thorough copyedit. Woodym555 11:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

All replies are in bold and i have now done the copyedit, i hope all your objections have been rectified. Thanks Woodym555 16:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You've done a good job so far. I went throught it one more time to check out the citations, though, and I added fact tags in other places where the citations appear to be missing. It may be that those facts are cited by articles already listed, but I did not find them in the citation that was closest to the fact. Karanacs 17:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think i got all of your fact tags, a slight sense of overkill, (the sky is blue ^{[citation needed]}) but i do understand the need for a completely referenced encyclopedia, just hard sometimes finding obscure data on annuitys! especially when Hansard seems to be down. I now hope that your objections have been met, thankyou for your thoroughness. Woodym555 19:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and great work! I am especially impressed that you've already included the information about the NZ VC being awarded today. Good luck! Karanacs 01:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Support I have previously edited this article when the Alfred Shout VC was sold. The effort of editors since to get to this standard is commendable. Gnan garra 01:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Support Now that the concerns have been pretty well addressed, I have no hesitation in commending this as a top-notch bit of work. --Xdamr^talk 01:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Support probs to the article have been fixed, I believe it now meets FA Brian | (Talk) 07:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Support I made some minor changes to the article, but I feel this is FA material. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] July 2007

[edit] E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial

[edit] CM Punk

[edit] Night of the Long Knives

[edit] Postage stamps of Ireland

[edit] You Only Move Twice

[edit] Kaziranga National Park

[edit] Georg Cantor

[edit] Parasaurolophus

[edit] Banksia ericifolia

[edit] Sophie Blanchard

[edit] Be Here Now

[edit] Shaw and Crompton

[edit] Roy Welensky

[edit] John Mayer

[edit] Walter Model

[edit] By the Way

[edit] Hippopotamus

[edit] Love. Angel. Music. Baby.

[edit] Io (moon)

[edit] Rock Springs massacre

[edit] Sheerness

[edit] William Bruce (architect)

[edit] Constitution of Belarus

[edit] Super Nintendo Entertainment System

[edit] Battle of Arras (1917)

[edit] Karnataka

[edit] Cardinal-nephew

[edit] Dookie

[edit] Grand Forks, North Dakota

[edit] Mackinac Island

[edit] Sargon of Akkad

[edit] Plug-in hybrid

[edit] Technology of the Song Dynasty

[edit] Aston Villa F.C.

[edit] Comments from The Rambling Man

[edit] Comments from Cas Liber (and page break for ease of adding)

[edit] Australian Defence Force

[edit] Introduction to general relativity

[edit] Ailanthus altissima (Tree of heaven)

[edit] Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision

[edit] Soviet invasion of Poland (1939)

[edit] Structural history of the Roman military

[edit] Chad

[edit] Ronald Niel Stuart

[edit] Zhou Tong (archer)

[edit] Siege of Malakand

[edit] House with Chimaeras

[edit] Bernard Quatermass

[edit] Beagle

[edit] Elizabeth Needham

[edit] Bengali Language Movement

[edit] Hey Ya!

[edit] Backmasking

[edit] Geology of the Lassen volcanic area

[edit] Lead section comments from Kalyan

[edit] Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident

[edit] Deinonychus

[edit] Kingdom Hearts

[edit] European Parliament

[edit] Brownsea Island Scout camp

[edit] France national rugby union team

[edit] Californication (album)

[edit] Supernature (Goldfrapp album)

[edit] Mary Martha Sherwood

[edit] Agatha Christie: Murder on the Orient Express

[edit] Ocean sunfish

[edit] Erie, Pennsylvania

[edit] Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery

[edit] Bobcat

[edit] Joshua A. Norton

[edit] Ceawlin of Wessex

[edit] Kuiper belt

[edit] Victoria Cross

Views

Navigation

Interaction