Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/May 2007

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

The article was promoted 17:31, 25 May 2007.

[edit] The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind

Thanks to a helpful review from what was formerly the Computer and Video Games Wikiproject and useful comments from visitors to the talk page, I am ready to submit The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind for featured article candidacy. I have hoped to be as comprehensive and bring in as many relevant sources as possible, following the recommendations of that first CVG peer review. I have also aimed to keep the style of the article up to code, although this is an area in which I am of unsure footing, and of limited expertise. I had hoped that the standard peer review would have helped me on this point, but no kindly copy-editor thought to drop by. That said, I will be glad to receive your stylistic and compositional criticisms, as well as any other criticisms you would seek to submit in regards to this article. Many thanks for your time! Geuiwogbil 23:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support - One of the best computer games articles I have seen for a long time to appear on FAC, and one of the few that I'm going to support. Incredibly comprehensive and uses a wide range of sources. I have a few suggestions to make though:
  • It could do with some more "non free" media. I know some guys don't like it, but frankly those guys just bore me. It could do well by having a screenshot of first person combat in game, as well as the inventory screen showing all the attributes etc.
  • The soundtrack was rubbish in that there were only like 5 tracks and the Cliff Racers always set one of them off. But the theme is pretty iconic and is used again in later games. A 30 second snippet of the theme would be useful to have in the article.
  • A bit too much seems to be made of Lynda Carter's contribution to the voice cast. I don't really think it matters when Bethesda announced they had hired her.
  • You cite a few reviews from publications such as Computer Gaming World and GamePro, fairly major publications which could also do with the score in the reviews box.
    • hahnchen 00:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the support Hahnchen! I hope I was able to address your suggestions. I've added two screenshots: one of the first person combat, and another of the windowed interface. (I actually have a fuller description of the game's interface in the Morrowind subsection of the "Gameplay" subpage") I added an audio sample of the title theme. (It's my first, so I wasn't really sure where to cut it. It's quite a heady experience, creating audio samples! ;) ) The Lynda Carter miscellany has been trimmed, and GamePro's score has been added to the review box. I'm afraid I wasn't able to find CGW's score, since the only version of the article I read was the one uploaded to "Find Articles", and that version doesn't have a score. Sorry. :(

Thanks for taking the time to comment, and another thanks for supporting! Geuiwogbil 02:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You found the CGW score on the Game Rankings page! Sorry for missing that. Geuiwogbil 02:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support - this article's material is done as well as possible. Few things it could use would be related to slight gradual expansion, however it already has all that's necessary. The article is also written with a serious approach, extensively discussing not just the game from a player's viewpoint, but giving a good overview of the game's reception, influence and position in gamedev field. It has a concise and summarizing plot section, while giving much attention to actual information not found in the game, and sections on gameplay detail put them into perspective of the overall game development and progress. This is the kind of article one would expect to find in a printed general encyclopedia, reviewing the game in full context, making it interesting by itself, as a report on a piece of game history, and not just as guide. Lots of detail go into history and achievements, providing detailed and well referenced analysis and overview. So it might serve as an example of how a serious game article should look like. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 02:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support and kind comments, CP\M. Geuiwogbil 02:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support - A very excellent article, you've really taken it to the top in the last few weeks! I wish I had the time to make the Oblivion article look half as good. --PresN 06:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support PresN. If it hadn't been for your GA nomination of the page, I would never have taken the time to be here! You've done good work on the Oblivion article, and it's much cleaner now than it was before you started. Thanks, again, for your prior comments and current support. Geuiwogbil 02:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 17:31, 25 May 2007.

[edit] Surface weather analysis

Since there have been positive comments on the talk page since it earned GA, and no reported problems so far, I have nominated this article for FA, which would be the first FA for one of the core meteorology project articles. It appears stable. Thegreatdr 15:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - inadequate sourcing. Addhoc 16:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Where specifically do you think additional sourcing is needed? Thegreatdr 16:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • For example - the first three citations link to a non-functioning website and the publisher of this site isn't mentioned. Addhoc 17:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Replaced the dead links with a primary source. Thegreatdr 17:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Thanks, Addhoc 09:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Found a random cite book ref and changed it to fit the ref format used in the remainder of the article. Thegreatdr 21:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment; you mention the use of SWA in aviation in the lede, but the article never goes on to discuss this subject; perhaps a short section is in order. Also, in the first section, you cite the time standardisation info as (W.S.R.), but you never state what this refers to. This cite should be converted to a ref format. Laïka 21:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Fixed the reference to standard time. Thanks for catching that problem with aviation being missed in the body of the article...will add that shortly. Thegreatdr 05:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    • A section has been added for aviation. Thegreatdr 05:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support; ideally this image should be an SVG, but it's very tricky to make a copy of the image, given that the symbols used by the NOAA really are that pixellated, and the images themselves aren't really a reason to oppose an FA so long as they add to it, which this one does. Laïka 11:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Its a good article, but I have just one question before I support, why is Dry Line bolded in the article? Darthgriz⁹⁸ 17:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Other than it being also in the title of the section, there was no good reason. That part of the structure preexisted my upgrade of the article some months back. Since only fronts was bolded in such a manner, I have removed both bolded words/phrases. Thegreatdr 22:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I would like to see a few more citations, some of the sections have none at all like the front section. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 01:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
      • It should be more thoroughly referenced now. Let me know if you see any spots where additional references would be helpful. Thegreatdr 01:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional Support looks fine. I did not give this article as well of a look over as I should have, if you can get this copy-edited I will remove the conditional. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 20:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The article has come a long way since being placed up for FAC. DarthGriz98 00:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose; not at all ready for FAC. Inadquate WP:LEAD, numerous short stubby sections, headings use special character (/) (see WP:MSH), large chunks of uncited text in history, inconsistent wikilinking (first occurrences should be linked), numerous terms introduced for which red links should be created or articles should already exist, WP:MOSNUM issues on temperature ranges, multiple See also templates at head of section which should be combined. I suggest an extended stint at WP:PR to prepare the article for FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Fixed the problems with the wikilinks, special character, and the one spot where I saw multiple seealsos in the same section. I believe I fixed the problem with the one temperature range listed. More references have been added to the history section, as requested. I combined a couple of the stubby sections into other related sections. Worked on the lead some as well. Which links/articles that are not linked to you think should be created? Is there anything left that is problematic with the lead? I need more than inadequate to go on. Thegreatdr 16:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Why is the heading Synoptic Scale Features all in caps (see WP:MSH — and why are those terms not defined until a later section? Reference formatting is not consistent at all; I can't discern which style is used. Please see WP:CITE/ES. Some retrieval dates are wikilinked; others not. Solo years should not be wikilinked. Short, stubby sections have now been replaced by some massive paragraphs; for example, the middle of the Fronts section. Does it make sense that no terms used in "Plotted symbols on weather maps" or "Pressure centers" are wiki-linked? There are also a lot of terms in "Fronts" that aren't linked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
      • The various fronts have now been wikilinked. All dates within refs are now wikilinked. The massive paragraphs and lead section have been restructured per specific comments in the peer review page. The subheading is also fixed. Thegreatdr 14:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. 1a, 1c and 2a. The lead, inadequate in scope and length, provides ample evidence that the whole text needs thorough copy-editing, preferably by someone with fresh eyes.
  • "Specific", not "specified", I think.
  • "The first weather maps in the 19th century were drawn in order to devise a theory on storm systems.[2]" A number of problems. So there were weather maps in the 18th century, but they weren't drawn for this purpose? (Needs proper use of commas to convey the intended meaning.) "In order to" is my pet hate. Why use three words when just "to" will do? Are you sure the maps were drawn for the purpose of devising a theory? Reference 2 doesn't" say that at all.
  • "such as atmospheric pressure, temperature, cloud cover, and others"—Why two subset terms: one at the start and one at the end?
  • "The data are measurements"—No, they're the result of measurements.
  • "the map's domain"—no, just "the area".

That's the first half of the para. Tony 09:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Tony. A bad reference was mistakenly left in during the reorganization of the lead yesterday. That problem was easily fixed. If you know of weather maps drawn in the 18th century (1701-1800), please let me know and provide an appropriate citation. The small word problems you noted have been fixed. Thegreatdr 14:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with Tony, this article could use a good copy-edit by somebody not familiar with the article. I won't withdraw my support because I think it can be done, but it still needs editing work before it can be FA. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 15:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • But you lodged a Support of the article above ?? 1a (compelling prose) is a requirement for FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I did not give the text as well as a look over as I had thought in addition to the comments I had about citations. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 02:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I am starting to give the text a look over tonight, but I would suggest enlisting the help of the League of Copyeditors. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 02:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Comments made at this articles recently started peer review. Leave any responses there please.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• This article has come a long way since peer review started. Check out the changes and see what you think. Thegreatdr 18:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Further comment—It's not hard to find problems in the prose, still. Take this one: "Organized areas of thunderstorm activity not only reinforce pre-existing frontal zones, but they can outrun cold fronts in a pattern where the upper level jet splits into two streams, with the resultant mesoscale convective system (MCS) forming at the point of the upper level split in the wind pattern running southeast into the warm sector parallel to low-level thickness lines." Hyphen problems (three, I think); far too long; redundant words. Tony 03:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Parsed the run-on sentence and slightly reworded to make it sound more encyclopedaic. Thegreatdr 01:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Support All of my suggested improvements have been made during peer review. I see no reason not to support this article as a Featured Article anymore.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 17:31, 25 May 2007.

[edit] William Goebel

Self-nomination: I finally have the images to take this from good to featured status. I believe it meets all the criteria, and would appreciate your support. Acdixon 03:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• I thought that images were not required for GA or FA. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 03:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • They aren't, but they help. Acdixon 13:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• And shouldn't the citations list the specfic pages in the book? I don't know the exact rules for this, but it might be needed. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 03:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • In order to cut down on the length of the References section, I just included the book itself in the cite. If you find a policy that says it is required, I suppose I'll have to withdraw this nom until I can check the books out from the library again. Acdixon 13:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I realize it's a pain to do at this point, but see FA's like Daniel Boone, the citation to the page number really helps should anyone want to fact check or get more information. It's really not a strict requirement for FA status, it's ultimately up to the participants in a given FAC to deem whether the citations are good enough. --W.marsh 01:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
      • It is indeed a big pain but it's most definitely preferable. Pascal.Tesson 16:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I have provided chapter names for all book references except Klotter and Woodson. Most of those chapters are a page or less, with none of them being more than 10 pages. I will be on business for the next couple of weeks and won't be able to get back to the library to get the Klotter and Woodson books. Since this is not a strict requirement for FA, would you all consider supporting this nom in spite of the page numbering issue? Acdixon 12:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Well referenced, well researched, well written, a credit to wikipedia that satisfies all the criteria. --Wingsandsword 17:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Changing to Support. Lots of reasons. It's a mess.
  • Let's start with the lead. What's he notable for? Being controversial, being assassinated. Great that's in the first sentence - but that's it! Can't we have at least something more on that in the lead, rather than his voice and his sex life, or rather, lack of it, which is not mentioned anywhere else in the article body? I'd dump the entire second paragraph, and replace with a bit more on, oh, the duel, the election law, the assassination and aftermath, his actual politics ... you know, the stuff the rest of the article is about, per WP:LEAD.
    • I have attempted to improve the lead, but this is admittedly my weakest Wikipedia skill. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Par 1: Born Wilhelm how did he become William? Spoke German ... meaning only German?
    • Clarified. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Par 2: "Goebel's father moved the family to Covington, Kentucky, on his return from military service in 1863. He attended school in Covington, and became an apprentice to a jeweler in Cincinnati, Ohio." - the meaning of "He" changes in two consecutive sentences!
    • Clarified. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • How did he study law under Stevenson? In college, in law school, private tutoring, on-the-job training? Was Stevenson a teacher after being a governor? Our article on him doesn't say. Aha ... "rejoined Stevenson's practice" - when did he join it the first time?
    • Clarified as much as possible with the sources I have available. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Hmm. William Goebel: The Politics of Wrath By James C. Klotter, page 7 on Google Books implies strongly that page 6, which it doesn't present, is what you want here. Do you have the actual work, or just Google Books?
        • I had the actual book. I returned it to the library, but will try to obtain it again when I return from the business trip I am currently on. Acdixon 21:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I am presently sitting in the library with the book in my lap. I have clarified the text as much as I am able from what Klotter has written. Acdixon 21:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Political career - "However, while Goebel had to stick close to his allies in the Democratic party, the Union Labor party courted the vote of Republicans, and made the election close" - why was this a problem? Normally, when you run as the candidate of party A, and a third party siphons off votes from party B, that's not a bad thing for you, that's a good thing!
    • Clarified. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • In fact, we sorely need the sentence "He was a Democrat" somewhere prominent in the article, besides the infobox. That's kind of important in an article on a politician.
    • Added to lead. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • James W. Bryan, John Lawrence Sanford, Wat Hardin, William Stone - so many names without wikilinks?
    • I will wikilink them if redlinks are preferable to no links. I'm sorry no one has taken the time to write articles on these men. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Presumably you're at least somewhat knowledgeable about them. Use your judgment as to which would make good articles. For those, yes, red links would be preferable to no links. If all someone is known for is as an unsuccessful political candidate, probably not. If they did something else, probably yes. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
        • The only one of the group that is listed in The Kentucky Encyclopedia (a 984 page tome of most important people, places, and concepts related to Kentucky) is Wat Hardin, and the highest office to which he was elected was Attorney General of Kentucky. Acdixon 21:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "This system, however, proved to be just as manipulable" - Why the "however"? - since it passed by sharp party lines, it seems clear it was intended to be manipulated, only by the Dems instead of by the Reps.
    • Not sure I agree with this assessment, but it doesn't damage the sentence to remove the word. Done. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "When the plan was exposed," what does "exposed" mean? Written about in a newspaper?
    • Clarified, I hope. With that many delegates talking about it, word was going to get out. It is possible that spreading the word was deliberate to entice Hardin to drop out, but none of my sources confirm or deny that speculation. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "Stone had been stabbed in the back" - overly colorful language in an article involving a couple of actual shootings
    • Corrected.
  • Why did "three hand-picked Goebel Democrats, ruled 2–1 in favor of Taylor"? needs explanation
    • No kidding. I said it was a surprise decision. None of the authors I have found even offered speculation as to why. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Wow. I guess if you say so...
      • I have provided the official explanation given by the board, per Klotter. This still doesn't explain it for me, since the questionable tactics used throughout the campaign suggest that the Board was able to do whatever it pleased. Still, perhaps this will add some closure for you and any other concerned reviewers. Acdixon 21:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "For several days, the state hovered on the brink of civil war." Surely not. Each side seriously considered raising troops and fighting it out on the field of battle, for the governorship of 1900 Kentucky? Where would the US Army be during all this? Just a bit of overstatement there.
    • This is the language invoked by James Klotter and Lowell Harrison, two extremely prominent Kentucky historians. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "In a final act of defiance, the governor's body was carried" - whose final act? Goebel directed this? If so, say so. In what way was it defiant anyway?
    • Goebel spent his career fighting against the Louisville and Nashville railroad, which is mentioned in the political career section. Goebel's body was carried on the rival railroad's line. Klotter does not mention who orchestrated this. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "The idea of Beckham as governor" - who? What? This is first mention of Beckham in the text! If he became governor, surely he deserves a Wikipedia article and wikilink.
    • Clarified. An oversight. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Augustus E. Willson is wikilinked twice in the same section, and the first time he is mentioned it is not clear if he was governor of KY or IN.
    • Not sure why the governor of Indiana would have the ability to pardon someone from charges made in Kentucky, but clarified, nonetheless. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Youtsey turned state's evidence - so what did he say? What was his evidence?
    • None of the sources I have access to says what his evidence was, only that he turned state's evidence. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
      • There seems to be a lot on Rootsweb.com: [1] [2] [3] probably more ... goes into "fits" Youtsey was subject to, and his recanting, which should probably be mentioned given the importance of his testimony. See this: [4] "It was Youtsey's confession about the alleged conspiracy to kill Goebel that led to the conviction of the others."
        • Thanks for these links; I'll try to read up on them and clarify in the next few days. Acdixon 21:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • General question - why was the KY governorship of 1900 so important that it led to so much gunplay, anyway? Remaining civil war issues? Surely not just a bit of corruption over a railroad?
    • This is the same place where the Hatfield-McCoy feud had just ended. That was over a land boundary. Remember, dueling was so prominent that it is still in the state's constitution that participants in a duel are barred from public office. People have been killed for less. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Many things improved. A few more issues
  • PBS in http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/1900/maps/maps_mwusa.html says "With the state assembly charged with deciding the winner, Taylor barricaded himself in the State House, protected by an armed militia. Attempting to confront the militia, Goebel was shot." That's a fairly important difference from an assassination plot. Can you clarify or work both views in somehow?
    • It is true that Taylor barricaded himself in the State House, but Goebel was only "confronting" them in the sense that he was attempting to enter the next-door Old State Capitol (also barred by militiamen) to carry out the business of the General Assembly. There was no physical contact, as Goebel was shot several feet from the entrance of either building. (I have a picture of myself standing on the spot where he fell if you would like to see it for reference.) All accounts I have read have the shot coming from the state house, but which floor of the building remains in dispute. Acdixon 21:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "Goebel was never known as a particularly genial person in public, nor as a gifted public speaker" - Can you rephrase that to be a positive statement? That Google Book says things like "cold, secluded, taciturn, deep harsh words"...
    • I can try. I suppose I was trying to avoid sounding too POV. Klotter remarks "critics would portray him as a cold, power-hungry man... Allies, however, presented Goebel as ... a caring man who dared attack the old guard and the old ways." Harrison says "Goebel was denounced by some as a ruthless, heartless demagogue and hailed by others as a compassionate, dedicated reformer." In the interest of not taking sides, I crafted the somewhat ambiguous statement above. Acdixon 21:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Issues addressed ... not completely, but let's say as well as possible. Supporting. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose—Poorly written. Here are examples just from the lead that indicate that a complete and thorough copy-edit is required. Please don't just fix these examples; fresh eyes are required.
  • • What would you suggest, then? I've already sent it to peer review once. In a month, all I got was one automated bot review. Now I bring it here and you basically tell me it's beyond my ability to fix ("fresh eyes are required.") As seen above and below, I've actively attempted to correct any and all concerns brought to my attention, and will continue to do so. What more can I do? Acdixon 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Research the edit-history pages of FAs on related topics. From the edit summaries and comparisons, identify the good copy-editors. Familiarise yourself with their work, and when you ask them for a favour, show them that you've done so (it’s a form of flattery). This is a valuable investment in a collaborative framework that will serve you well in your future development of FA nominations. Tony 01:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I have recruited several editors I respect at WikiProject Louisville to look this over. They collectively brought Louisville, Kentucky to FA status almost two years ago, and many continue to participate in FARs and FA development. I may also post an all-call on relevant WikiProject talk pages. Acdixon 13:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• • "to die in office from assassination"—When does assassination not result in death?
    • • As I understand it, assassination is when the attempt is made, regardless of whether or not it results in death. This phraseology sounded weird to me too; I took it from one of my sources. Acdixon 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

WP adds value if possible to the sources it draw on; your critical eye might have seen this error. Dictionary says: verb (often be assassinated) murder (an important person) in a surprise attack for political or religious reasons.

No problem here with changing to a simplified wording. Done. Acdixon 13:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• • "His tendency to utilize the state's political machinery earned him, at various times, the nicknames"—"Utilize" is an ugly equivalent of "use", but neither is suitable here. They beg the question of how he used the machinery. Remove "at various times" as redundant.
    • The deal-brokering and deal-breaking described in the article is how he used the machinery. Acdixon 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it begs the question in the lead, which should prepare the reader for the greater detail in the body of the text. Just be more specific here: "... use the state's political machinery for his ... purposes earned him ....".

Hopefully corrected. Acdixon 13:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Why is "the common man's" in quotes?
    • I thought it appropriate, as it's a bit of an ill-defined term, but I have no problem removing it. Done. Acdixon 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "Goebel's abrasive personality made him many political enemies, but his championing of "the common man's" causes, like railroad regulation, won him just as many friends. This schism came to a head ..." "Just as many friends"? What, exactly the same number as his enemies? Who's counting? This is what I call a false equivalent. What schism?
    • I consider the reference to "just as many" a figure of speech. I have reworded to hopefully correct this issue. Acdixon 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "having elected the party's first governor four years previous." Ungrammatical ... ly.
    • Easy enough to fix. Done. Acdixon 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The lead finishes with a major statement that is unreferenced: "The resulting political maneuvering brought tempers to a boil, and resulted in Goebel's assassination." Yet trivial information such as his nicknames is referenced in the lead. Tony 11:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It seems to me that the article itself supports this assertion.

That's circular. Since it's the lead, the requirement for referencing is looser; but "brought tempers to a boil" is highly subjective and attitudinal, so I suggest that you remove that bit and deal with it in the body of the article, where it can be comfortably referenced.

If that phrase is the issue, it is removed easily enough. Done. Acdixon 13:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Acdixon 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

My interpolations are above. Now what about the rest of the text? Please locate some good copy-editors who've worked on similar FAs. Tony 01:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I've done some recruiting, and hopefully, they will be able to help me clean up the prose. In my (meager) defense, much of the lead was re-composed at the prompting of AnonEMouse above, so it is the most recent part of the article (read: has had the least time to be reviewed.) I hope the rest of the article is better, but you seem to indicate that it isn't. I will continue to try and fix issues as you or other editors bring them to light, which I hope you will continue to do. (Specific instances are easier to fix.) I still hold out hope that this can become an FA, and that right soon. Acdixon 13:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Heh. Tell you what, point Tony at the lead before AnonEMouse got to it, and see what he says. :-)... --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support: The article has been improved from one that was in poor condition to one that is well referenced throughout, well supported with verified sources, and is also well written. You can't expect much more from that. If this does not pass, let me say that you did a fine job Acdixon on improvements! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• I was asked to look over this article and provide suggestions for improvement. Here are my comments. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Assessment: All in all, the article is great. Well referenced, and the prose is excellent. In particular, the sections 2 and 2.1 were good enough that I had to check your sources for plagiarism. It's already probably FA-worthy, and if my suggestions below are dealt with, it will be unambiguously an article that "exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation"
  • References suggestions: Always check Google Books for your sources. One of your primary sources, "William Goebel: The Politics of Wrath", is (partially) available online at http://books.google.com/books?id=cw-1wFeQoIgC. Also, page numbers would help. The best way to do this is to have separate References and Notes sections, with the Reference section listing the books in alphabetical order by author (including publisher data, etc.), and the footnoted Notes section citing the references above in an abbreviated fashion with page numbers. Example: "Klotter, William Goebel, pp. 301-305." Also, the full name of "The First New Dealer" is apparently "The first new dealer, William Goebel: His origin, ambitions, achievements, his assassination, loss to the state and nation; the story of a great crime", according to Amazon.
  • Organizational suggestions: The article is lacking a section on Goebel's personal characteristics. The lead section mentions his personality, as does the last paragraph of "Early Life", but it would be better as its own section. (After all, the fact that he never married isn't really a part of his early life.) Also, the Goebel Election Law section seems to need a concluding sentence, in my opinion. Also, in the "Assassination and aftermath" section, you state he was hit in the chest, and the reader wonders "Is he dead? What happened to him?", but the text veers off into discussing political disagreements before confirming he was not killed (immediately). It would be better to say something right after saying he was shot, like "Goebel survived, but was seriously injured, and pandemonium broke out", or something.
  • Suggestions for clarity: In the "Gubernatorial election of 1900" section, was the maneuvering illegal? I can't tell. Was it widely considered unethical? Also, I assume Hardin dropped out because he realized he couldn't win against Goebel's and Stone's agreement, and I assume that he reentered when he believed he had a chance again, but both should be stated explicitly. Later in that section, you say the Board of Election "ruled 2-1 in favor of Taylor", but you never say what the case was or what they were ruling on. (Presumably they were asked to review individual county results?) What does "go behind" mean in "go behind the official county results"? Reword this. Finally, it says "the Republican minority was incensed", and I assume this means the minority in the Generally Assembly, but this should also be explicit. In the "Assassination and aftermath" section, the last sentence should be reworded. (Split it up, and make it clear that "the company" refers to the railroad.) And the article's very last sentence should say "conclusively identified" instead.
  • Rewording suggestions: In the lead, "common man's causes" would be better as "populist causes" so as to be NPOV. The last sentence in the lead suggests that the assassination was a natural result; it should instead say "Goebel was assassinated amid his controversial political maneuvering" or something. I don't think "Perhaps because of his stern demeanor" makes sense in explaining his lack of romance; plenty of stern people marry. Anyway, it's speculative. In the Goebel Election Law section, replace "much opposition in the politics of Kentucky" with "much Republican opposition in Kentucky"; it's clearer, and lets the reader know what kind of opposition it got right up front. Immediately afterwards, "after the passing" should be "after the passage". In the "Resolution of the election" section, the phrase "cooler heads prevailed" sounds too casual to me - reword. In the first sentence of Trials and Investigations, the "but" is a bad idea -- he didn't flee despite suspicion, he fled because of it. I would say, as a separate sentence, "Seeing an indictment looming, he fled to Indianapolis to avoid having to testify."
    • Thanks for taking the time to leave some great feedback. I've addressed the "easy ones" tonight, but I'm headed to bed following a long day with the wife at Holiday World. I'll try to get to the rest of them in the morning. Of course, if any of my corrections don't adequately address your concerns, please let me know. Thanks again. Acdixon 02:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I think I have now addressed all of the concerns above, with the exception of page numbers which a) will take a while and b) are not strict requirements for FA. Please review my changes (summarized below) and comment if the new prose can be improved. Acdixon 14:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
      • (link to Google Books) Done. Thanks for the tip regarding Google Books. I didn't know this was common practice.
      • (long title of Woodson's book) Done. I used the short title for convenience, but I suppose the long version is more appropriate.
      • (personal characteristics) Done. I've added a section to address this aspect of Goebel's life. I hope this is what you were looking for.
      • (hit in the chest) Clarified.
      • (political maneuvering) I can't find anything that says it was illegal, but Klotter seems to believe it didn't win him any friends, especially in his own party. I've made this more explicit in the prose.
      • (Board of Elections) Clarified.
      • (the company) Reworded.
      • (Goebel Election Law) Actually, the law was unpopular with voters from both parties, but was driven by the Democratic political machine in the state. I've tried to clarify this.
      • Where simple wording changes were suggested, I generally took them verbatim.
• Support. All my suggestions (except page numbers, sadly) have been dealt with. The new "Personal characteristics" section is absolutely great, by the way. Congrats on your accomplishment. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 17:31, 25 May 2007.

[edit] Alfred Russel Wallace

previous FAC

This article was nominated about a month ago by another editor. The nomination was premature, but as a result of the process a lot of valuable input was gathered that significantly improved the article. Since then I and a couple of other editors have made many more improvements, and a noted Wallece expert was kind enough to make some edits and leave some comments on the talk page. I was able to solicit reviews and comments from some other editors, and I believe the article is now ready for FAC.Rusty Cashman 02:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support Tomer T 13:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Please combine identical footnotes. For example, I see three footnotes in a row that read "Slotten pp. 422-436". Why do I see "pp. 4" instead of "p. 4"? Lose the confusing second external jump in web references. Pagrashtak 14:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I did a sample edit to show the work needed per Pagrashtak. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC) PS: there are numerous WP:MOS issues. Have a look, for starters, at WP:MOSNUM and WP:DASH. Why are some solo years wikilinked? See WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSNUM. Has this article had a peer review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • References are alphabetical by last name of author, but Further reading uses a completely different style. Further reading should follow the same format as References. SandyGeorgia[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 18:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This has been taken care of now. Rusty Cashman 05:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Per numerous referencing styles, (see WP:CITE and WP:CITET) pp. is completely acceptable, if not preferred, over a single p. --Phoenix (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I hope I'm not being dense, but I don't see a single example on either of those pages where pp. is used when referencing a single page. Pagrashtak 13:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think all the issues raised by the preceding comments have now been adequately addressed. I kept the 2nd links in the web cites but I made sure there was non link text in between to make it less confusing. Incidentally, I think this is a weakness in the web cite template and I have left a comment to that affect on the template talk page. While the article was not peer reviewed, in preparation for this nomination I did ask several editors to review the article as well as solicit input from an outside expert. Some of the feedback that resulted can be seen in the talk page. I am not quite certain I understood everything SandyGeorgia was commenting on so I am not completely sure all those comments have been addressed. I am not sure this is relevent or not but there is one quote with a wiki-link in it. I think that in this particular case that is appropriate per the exceptions mentioned in the policy Rusty Cashman 21:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

If one of the comments to which you replied was mine, I'd just like to point out that I'm in favour of said stylistic issue, that being the citation template. Sandy will probably see your message and may better explain his comments. I'd like to also have a closer look, and will do so in the next 24 hours. --Phoenix (talk) 05:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Rusty, having multiple external jumps in a web reference is confusing to the reader. I don't want to have to decide which one I think will lead me to the reference. Publisher and other similar information should link to the Wikipedia article or be left as plain text. For example, link to Western Kentucky University, not WKU's home page. Pagrashtak 13:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I am going to concede on this point. I have already fixed the p. vs pp. issue for cites of a single page, and I will fix the extra external link problem within the next 24 hours. Hopefully, that will resolve all the issues over ctitation format.Rusty Cashman 05:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok all the external links to publishers in the web cites are gone and I managed to combine a couple of them. I am really hopeful that the format issues with the citations are behind us. Rusty Cashman 05:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. It should be made clear that Wallace developed his theory of natural selection during his Malay Archipelago exploration. I don't like the organization of the article, though I think it can be made to work. However, as I read through, I often come across places where I think: "wait, shouldn't there be something here about X" only to find X mentioned in another section. I'll try to pinpoint some of the other places where this is an issue.--ragesoss 20:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a couple of edits I just made should address the issue of clearly drawing the connection between Wallace's Malay archipelago expedition and his ideas on evolution. I don't think there is a big structural problem with the article. It just took a little text to make the connection.Rusty Cashman 21:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• 'Comment from nominator A few days ago I received a marked up hardcopy of an old version of the article from a leading Wallace scholar with numerous hand written comments. I have just finished a series of edits inspired by those comments, as well as some comments that appeared on the talk page. At the same time 2 other editors (rageoss and dave souza) have been making some significant improvements to specific parts of the article. My belief/hope is that the article should now be reasonably stable once again.Rusty Cashman 08:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support per a couple of thorough nitpicking reviews. 1 2 :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I still feel a little uncomfortable with the organization, but it covers all the important issues, is well-referenced, and each section reads well.--ragesoss 22:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Object While this article is clearly well-researched, I feel that its prose and organization is just not quite good enough for FA. Also, perhaps oddly, I feel that it is not quite comprehensive enough for FA.
• Should not what Wallace is "best known" for be mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead rather than the second?
• The "Early life" section jumps around quite a bit - can you work on making the sentences flow into each other better?

• This is still a problem. The paragraphs just list facts about Wallace rather than narrate his "early life." They give the feeling of "and then this happened and then this and then this and this..." Awadewit ^Talk 09:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Still a problem.

• I would argue that the article should be structured differently as well. Why not tell the story of his life alongside the story of his developing scientific ideas? Once I read the "Exploration" section, I thought, "that's it on natural selection"? It's rather odd. I would relay parallel the information which is in "early evolutionary thinking" with what is in "exploration" in regards to his early explorations, for example.

• Related: I feel like the headings don't take the reader along through Wallace's life. Even more importantly (and this is probably a result of the organization of the page), there is not much information on Wallace's life here. Obviously Wallace was important because of his science, but the biography part of this page seems to have been completely lost after the first section or so. Readers are interested in Wallace's life as well as his ideas. This impression may just be a result of the poor organization, though. When I finished reading the page, I felt that I had learned a lot about Wallace's ideas but not about Wallace.
• Related: I feel that the page lacks chronology. It is hard the follow the story of Wallace's life. So, sections like "Other controversies" or "cybernetics" are just stuck in and it is difficult for the reader who is not already familiar with Wallace to figure out what is going on in Wallace's life - what is happening simultaneously?

I think I understand your points. There is a lack of biographical context after he returns from Indonesia, and I agree this needs to be addressed. I also suspect that the lack of chronological order you mention is at the root of some of rageoss's reservations over organization. After I read your comments I spent some time reviewing other articles (especially other FA articles) on leading scientists, mathematicians and philosophers. I think I see 2 ways of handling this problem. One is the way the Charles Darwin article handles things which is, to a large extent, to interleave the biographical detail with the detailed discussion of his works and ideas all organized chronologically (which is what I believe you are recommending). The 2nd approach is the one used by Galileo Galilei where there is a single biographical section that outlines, in chronological order the significant events of the subject's entire life with only relatively brief allusions to their work at appropriate points. The biographical section is then followed by other sections that treat the subject's work in detail in a more thematic manner. I suspect this second approach would probably fit Wallace better and would do less violence to the current organization of the article. Although there would still have to be significant shifting of material. Would such an approach meet your concerns? Rusty Cashman 09:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not just biographies on scientists that wrestle with this problem. I myself primarily write biogrpahies on authors and the same issue arises there. I have done both styles - interweaving life with works/ideas (Sarah Trimmer) and separating life from works/ideas (Mary Wollstonecraft). I think that the root of the problem is that the page doesn't choose one of these strategies. I would be fine with either one, so go ahead and separate the life from the work and see what happens. As you say, the subject determines the structure. Right now, it is just hard to get a handle on all of the information because of the lack of structure. Awadewit ^Talk 09:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• There are too many subsections that are too small, I think, such as "Wallace effect" and "Defence of Origin of Species."

The "Defence" and "Differences" sections still seem small - why not integrate them into a section on the "Origin" and evolution? Awadewit ^Talk 09:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have combined the cybernetics section with the difference subsection and made the result a subsection of Natural selection and Darwin. I have eliminated the defence subsectionm altogehter and just moved the text into Natural selection and DarwinRusty Cashman 16:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that it works to have the cybernetics section in there like that - why not put that in the "Legacy" section? To me, it just totally interrupts the flow of the page.

I think I understand the problem here. The text did not make it clear that Bateson had noted another significant difference between Wallace and Darwin's thinking, namely that Wallace appeared to envision natural selection as a kind of negative feedback mechanism that kept populations in sync with their environment. I believe it is more clear now. Rusty Cashman 08:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The contextualization works much better. Awadewit ^Talk 08:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• The "social and political views" section was sparse and largely uninformative, unless one knows those figures and one's history. I think that such information can be worked into the biography if it is important.
• In general, I would say that the first part of the article needs a copyedit for the following reasons: use of imprecise diction such as "get" and "a lot"; typos; repetitive diction; and some overly long sentences.

• I would still like more copyediting - there are some typos and many of the sentences snake around quite a bit. Maybe you could list it at the League of Copyeditors. Awadewit ^Talk 09:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reworked the Early life section and I think it no longer reads like each sentence was written by a different editor. Rusty Cashman 16:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Minor quibble: Aesthetically, it is awkward to have the majority of the pictures on the right-hand side of the page. Awadewit ^Talk 05:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that your objections have been addressed by a recent series of edits to the article, which have included a significant reorganization of the material along the lines discussed here. Rusty Cashman 03:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• The "Cybernetics" section is out of place - why is it in the middle of the discussion regarding evolution? It is kind of a footnote to history. It should not interrupt the main discussion of evolution and Darwin.

I have combined the cybernetics section with the difference subsection and made the result a subsection of Natural selection and Darwin.Rusty Cashman 16:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• There are also quite a few block quotes - I think some of these should be taken out. Which ones are the most essential?

I am sorry but I think the block quotes convey ideas effectively and add impact. I don't see how eliminating any of them would improve the article.Rusty Cashman 16:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I won't object on this basis alone.

For me, the last remaining thing is the "Early life" section - it still has absolutely no flow. It just moves from one thing to the next without any connection at all. Awadewit ^Talk 08:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have just finished some edits that I hope address this issue. Rusty Cashman 20:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Support This is a well-researched, well-written and (seemingly - I am no Wallace expert) comprehensive article on Wallace. I appreciate the revision that the editors have done to make it easier to navigate and follow. Awadewit ^Talk 04:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 17:31, 25 May 2007.

[edit] Dominik Hašek

After undergoing a peer review and obtaining good article status, this article has undergone several changes to enhance the prose, the references and the overall content. It is a very comprehensive article that is structured similarly to FA-status Martin Brodeur, and I feel that it is ready for an FA-review.

• Support Per nom. Sportskido8 08:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I've been working on this article for a long time, and I believe it meets criteria at this point. --Wafulz 16:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• All dates should be wikilinked per WP:DATE. Also, either use Hasek, or use Hašek, but don't use both throughout the article. Pepsidrinka 17:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • No, not all dates are wikilinked. Solo years should not be wikilinked unless they provide WP:CONTEXT. *Full dates* and month-day combos are wikilinked so date prefernces will work. Month-year and solo years are not wikilinked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    • No, all "Full dates" are not wikilinked. Look at the entire Transactions section. None of them are wikilinked. Also, Image:0222 hockey2.jpg is a cropped image of a picture that has no source. Pepsidrinka 17:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree about the date wikilinking. However, a transactions section is one place in particular that I think can do without them. The Wayne Gretzky article doesn't link them either. And I fixed the name consistency issue. Sportskido8 17:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Question? The only time "Hasek" is used is in the references section, for the sake of being technically correct by listing the "real" title. Should this be changed for consistency? --Wafulz 19:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
        • No. Someone fixed the "Hasek"s throughout the article, but the reference titles should be exactly how they are in the source. My contention with the dates in the transactions section is for formatting purposes. Let the user decide how they want to format the date. Dates aren't wikilinked for any reason other than for the formatting. If formatting wasn't an issue, then there would be no practical purpose to do so. Is there a reason why, just in that section, dates shouldn't be formatted? Pepsidrinka 16:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
          • I formatted all the transaction dates, as requested. Sportskido8 23:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Question? Why do we roll along just fine with formatted references, and find the last four footnotes unformatted blue links? Why do most footnotes include publisher, and then the Willoughby note suddenly has none? Please review for consistency. I also corrected an ndash as a sample of work still needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Will do. Just curious, what specifically needs an ndash? Is it only game scores, or do I need to put it for something like "6-year old"? Sportskido8 17:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    • 6-year old is hyphenated; ndash separates date ranges and number ranges (see WP:DASH). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support been using this and the Brodeur articles as tools to improve the Sakic article. Both the Hasek and Brodeur articles are of similar qualities, and one of them is already FA. Kaiser matias 01:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Object Nice article with lots of references but the writing is well below the FA standards. The lead was full of peacock terms. There are still a number of one-sentence paragraphs and flow certainly could be improved. I recommend asking the League of Copyeditors to go through it since I don't think there are too many objections on other grounds. But as it stands, the article should not be promoted. Pascal.Tesson 16:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I will check for more of these writing issues but I'm not sure it's quite as bad as you're saying it is. There are a few two or three sentence paragraphs but they are infrequent and have a reason to be short. As for the flow, can you give me an example of what you would like fixed? Thanks. Sportskido8 18:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • No offense but although the article is pretty well written, it falls short of the standards. I suggest you take a look at the excellent User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a on how to improve the writing dramatically. Here are some specific examples:
      • Change sentences of the form "It would be several months before Hašek would find out that he was even drafted."
      • condense "who wrote a column that night that appeared in the following day's newspaper."Y Done
      • "After the Senators were eliminated in the second round, they opted not to re-sign Hašek, despite claiming he would take a pay cut." Who's claiming?Y Done
      • "His play made him one of the most popular figures in the Czech Republic, with popularity status comparable to that of the country's president Václav Havel". The sentence is awful but more importantly it is completely unsupported by the reference! (The reference is to an interview with Hasek where he tells of Havel jokingly saying that Hasek is going to steal his job). By the way, I found that the sentence "He is extraordinarily flexible — at one point in his childhood, doctors in his native country marveled at how he could contort himself to make saves." is also unsupported by the corresponding reference. (Sure, Hasek tells a story of that sort but for one thing the sentence makes it sound as though all Czech doctors were intently studying this kid with good flexibility and secondly we should not be constructing a featured article from vague tales the subject tells about himself) I suggest that all references should be double-checked very carefully.
        • Question? The exact quote is Doctors were always amazing at young Hasek because of the amazing things this double-jointed boy could do with his body. The flexibility helped him make saves the other goaltenders didn't - or couldn't. Is there any way you'd prefer the sentence be rewritten? --Wafulz 16:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Answer! Indeed this is the quote in the article. First, the broken grammar says a lot about the quality of the reporting. Secondly, it's clear from the context that these are either Hasek's words or a rephrasing of them and so this should be treated with suspicion. Not that Hasek has any sort of reputation for making stories up but the whole story seems pretty far-fetched. Sure, maybe he recalls that a doctor once told him "hey kid, you're incredibly flexible" but the context of the Wikipedia article makes it sound as though he was a major object of amazement for Czech doctors. Frankly, I think the whole sentence needs to go. Actually, I've been bold and made the change. The whole paragraph reads more smoothly and is less fanboyish. Pascal.Tesson 04:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
      • "Hašek and his wife Alena have two children: a son named Michal (born 1989) and a daughter named Dominika (born 1994)." as Tony would say, spot the redundancy.Y Done
      • Too much blue. For instance, teams need only be linked once.
        • I think I've gotten most of the links, but I'm new to the "too few/too many" links problem. --Wafulz 20:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I really think the league of copyeditors would find many many ways of improving the article dramatically. Pascal.Tesson 05:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I fixed the sentence in the International section with the "popularity status". I think it makes more sense now. Sportskido8 18:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Object Support I would like some more citations: (for starters first round game against the Ottawa Senators box score please). When did he make his NHL debut, first start? Can these be found easily for hockey? I haven't looked lately. I have faced heat on citation objections. I have just gotten Chris Young (baseball pitcher) up to my own standards though his minor league career. No one is going to contest the annual awards he has won but citing each sentence of such a claim would be nice. I will add some more particulars later this week. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps instead of a box score maybe an article that claims he thought he was injured? I know how crazy you are about box scores Tony, and let me tell ya, box scores don't say anything more than numbers. So I will try and find relevant articles. Sportskido8 23:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, now that I look at it, there are more than enough sources there with the Ottawa sentence. A box score could not possibly add any more benefit to that area. Sportskido8 08:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The part of the story I am interested in has no reference. The reference two sentences later is surely medically related. I am interested whether he was replaced before the game started, after the first period, or what have you. I need a box score to see this.TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
      • In a perfect world there would be box score archives for many years past, but after searching high and low for this game I could not find it. While a box score would be helpful here, I dont think it's lack of existence is worthy enough for an objection. Sportskido8 05:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Here is the syntax to find box scores for most pro sports (including minor league baseball and hockey), as well as college football, basketball and hockey between mid 1995 and the end of 1999: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/scoresYY/YYDDD/YYDDD.htm where YY is 95, 96, 97, 98 or 99 and DDD is between 001 and 365 (366 in a leap year). E.G., Here are the April 20, 1997 box scores: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/scores97/97110/97110.htm. Note the syntax changes to http://www.usatoday.com/sports/scoresYYY/YYYDDD/YYYDDD.htm with 2000 equal to 100 and 2007 equal to 107. Of course, many 21st century box scores can be found from more complete reporting services. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Ah, ok. I added the box score from the Senators game. Sportskido8 17:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    • How about a box score for the game with the most important goal in Sabres history. ("the decisive sixth game being one of the longest Stanley Cup playoff games in NHL history. Hašek and Ed Belfour made 50 and 53 saves, respectively, in a sudden-death triple-overtime duel that only ended when Brett Hull scored a controversial Cup-winning goal with his foot in the crease.") This would be an interesting one. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Added (with game recap as well). Sportskido8 06:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    • This whole section is uncited: "Final years with Buffalo (1999–2001)". (admittedly only 2 short paragraphs)TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Added two credible references to this section. Sportskido8 06:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I must say I am really enjoying reading about my favorite hockey player of the last 15 years (I grew up in Buffalo). Each of the aforementioned citation request is associated with curiosities that your article has stimulated. Here is another one. Is it possible to determine who the "future considerations" in the 2001 trade were. For example, if it became a 2003 2nd round draft pick who was the pick used for. I am not sure how easy future consideration are to track down, but if you can find out it would be nice. It might be more comforting to me as a Hasek fan if I can say we got someone for him.
    • There is another uncited paragraph in Detroit and Ottawa (2001–present) (the 2nd one)
      • Is there anything here that could be challenged (Or that somebody would challenge)? Sportskido8 06:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Everything is credible to a sports fan. However, not all readers are sports fans. This could easily be a WP:TFA candidate in the future. Also, it is already listed as topical to several WPs that are not sports focussed. In my experience at WP:FAC (Campbell's Soup Cans) and WP:FLC (List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry), I have been told that every paragraph should have a citation in order to be WP:FC, unless you choose the uncited lead format (where every contestable fact in the lead is cited within the main body). Several things could be easily cited. A citation after "15 losses" should be easy to produce. A box score after "Yzerman" would make me most happy.TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Added both of the box score references you requested. Sportskido8 02:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Can you find a citation for the 2006 Olympics stuff.Y Done
    • In the style of play section. I would change the language to read stick hand and glove hand. That is the language I am familiar with and I grew up watching both American broadcasts and Hockey Night in Canada. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Y Done
• Oppose Neutral The prose needs work throughout and there are some MoS errors. Here are a few (not all) examples:
  • "For his third stint in Detroit, he lost a considerable amount of weight between May and September of 2006 to increase his flexibility." should be "between May and September 2006", there also might need to be a mention that the weight loss was before the season; assume that at least some of your readers know nothing about hockey.
    • Y Done
  • "His strong play is credited for bringing European goaltenders into a league where the position was once widely dominated by North Americans." Awkward "Is credited with establishing European goaltenders in a league..." might be better see here about using into btw.
    • Y Done
  • "He is extraordinarily flexible, so much that at one point in his childhood, doctors in his native country were marvelling at how he could contort himself to make saves." I think someone meant to say "so much so that" either way, that's not the best way to word the sentence. A semicolon could just eliminate the need for extra words "He is extraordinarily flexible; at one point in his childhood,"
    • Y Done
  • "at one point in his childhood, doctors in his native country were marvelling at how he could contort himself to make saves." Clunky, "doctors marveled at how he could" is better.
    • Y Done
  • "Because of his flexibility, Hašek manages to make saves that other goalies would consider very difficult" weak prose. WOuld consider very difficult is particularly weak, find a source that says he makes saves others cannot and just strengthen the wording, perhaps using a quote to avoid someone potentially perceiving it as bias.
    • Y Done
  • "Hašek presents one of the most unorthodox styles of goaltending in hockey." He presents? Who does he present it to? Just say "has" it's tighter and more direct.
    • Y Done
  • Ref #10 needs formatting, ref #2 needs pub info. Also publishers should only be wikified the first time they appear in the reference section to avoid huge swathes of blue text. For instance, refs 14–16 all have The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel linked.
    • Question? What information would you like from the A-Z Encyclopedia? I don't think it has an official "publisher", but it has a list of credits with contacts, over 5 million hits, and a couple of awards for accuracy and comprehensiveness. --Wafulz 19:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Add WP:PDATA.
    • Y Done
  • Abbreviation formatting is incorrect the first time abbreviations appear, see WP:ABB.
  • an opposing coach once referred to them as "miracle saves." Needs a cite (which coach?).
    • Comment. It's cited, but the source only refers to him as "an opposing coach". --Wafulz 16:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm gonna stop now I'll come back and see if they were addressed before going on. If I have time I'll help out tomorrow or the day after. Quadzilla99 09:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I believe I addressed all of your referencing inquiries. They are very consistent now. Sportskido8 20:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Nice work addressing those, here are some more, they mostly relate to tightening the prose:
  • "In 2002, Hašek became the first European starting goaltender to win the Stanley Cup when he led the Red Wings to a championship, setting a record for shutouts in a playoff year in the process" You could eliminate some extra words here. Saying Stanley Cup and then saying championship again seven words later is unnecessary. How about "While with the Red Wings in 2002, Hašek became the first European starting goaltender to win the Stanley Cup. In those playoffs, he set a record for shutouts in a playoff year."Y Done
  • "Hašek is considered a very unorthodox goaltender, with a distinct play style that has labeled him as a "flopper."" Shouldn't this be playing style?
    • A huge part of his career has been being labeled a "flopper" --Wafulz 16:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
      • No what I'm saying is it should be "Hašek is considered a very unorthodox goaltender, with a distinct playing style that has labeled him as a "flopper.""
        • I see the whole playing thing has been removed, that's even better. I changed to neutral, as all of the points I raised have been addressed, I 'll look it over later and see how it looks. Quadzilla99 01:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "He is best known for his concentration, foot speed and flexibility. He is also known for his unusual habit of dropping his stick to grab a loose puck with his blocker hand rather than using the conventional trapper." Starting two sentences in a row with "he is known" is probably not the best way to go.Y Done
  • "Hašek has one of the most unorthodox styles of goaltending in hockey." Still needs a little tweaking, how about:"Hašek has one of the most unorthodox goaltending styles in hockey."Y Done
  • "Hašek started playing hockey at a very young age in his native Czechoslovakia. His competitive goaltending career began at the age of six, as he explains" This two sentences should be combined, they're taking a bunch of words to say he started playing when he was 6.Y Done
  • "At the age of 16, Hašek made the move to the top level of Czech hockey" how about "At the age of 16, Hašek moved to the top level of Czech hockey"? Tighter wording.Y Done
  • "He was drafted by the Chicago Blackhawks in 1983, and despite being a very talented player, he was selected in the 10th round, 199th overall." See which part of the sentence seems like an OR personal summary or weasel words. You could just say he was drafted relatively low or low in the draft. Best wording would be: "he was the xxth goalie drafted." Would also be interesting if he's one of the handful of greatest goalies ever and he was the 32nd goalie drafted in his draft or whatever.Y Done
    • He was the 17th goalie. Interestingly, Vladislav Tretiak was drafted the same year, and he was a pretty deep pick too (130 something)
  • "It would be several months before Hašek would find out that he was even drafted." extra words here too could be "Hasek did not even know he drafted until several months later." or something even tighter.Y Done
  • There's a lot of use of "would record" or "would go on", I used to do that until I got blasted for it on a FAC, just use recorded and went etc.Y Done
  • "Hašek continued his success with the Sabres in the 1996-97 season, but was overshadowed by a conflict between Hašek and then-head coach Ted Nolan, leading to a clique-like atmosphere and a lot of tension in the franchise." extra words. How about "Hašek's continued success in the 1996-97 season was overshadowed by a conflict with then-head coach Ted Nolan. The conflict led to a clique-like atmosphere and a lot of tension in the franchise."Y Done
    • That's all for now I'll check back later. In general try to see for any way you can eliminate superfluous words. Quadzilla99 18:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, the "Inline hockey game incident" should be rewritten a little. It's not mentioned where it happened and what he was playing (although it's in the linked source). Also, names of the prosecutor, his lawyer or even the guy he supposedly attacked should not be there IMO.--Svetovid 18:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the name of the supposedly attacked player should definitely stay. I am not so sure about the names of the other people, but their names were cited in the media writing about the incident, so they might stay here as well. If the names are there, it is easier to understand, who said or decided what. Jan.Kamenicek 17:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Tentative support. It's basically well-written, but needs a copy-edit throughout. Here are examples of why (don't fix just them).
  • In AmEng, hyphens are used less, but some US editors would still prefer them in "second-oldest active player", "eight-season span", and especially "European starting-goaltender" (I see that "15-season NHL career" is hyphenated, as is "league-best goals".) These are just from the lead. Later "top tier goaltender" and others.
    • I think it's important to not overuse hyphens. "Second oldest" doesn't seem like the kind of phrase that needs one, but I'll try and spot other places that do need them. Sportskido8 04:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Good use of piped simple year links.
  • "From that point up until 1990"—Spot the redundant word.
  • "He was named the top ice hockey player in Czechoslovakia in 1987, 1989, and 1990, along with being namedand Czechoslovak Goaltender of the Year from 1986 through 1990."
  • "and only played 25 games over two seasons"—Place "only" as late as possible in a clause. "and played only 25 games over two seasons".
  • "in a 5-3 performance over the Buffalo Sabres, and on 9 January 1992, he recorded his first shutout in a 2-0 win". En dashes for relational numbers, such as scores: "5–3", "2–0", "1–1 tie", etc. Much easier to read. Just why we have "Buffalo (1996–1998)" as a title (although I'd prefer just "1996–98"), and straight after "1996-97" is a mystery. Tony 00:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I believe all the EnDashes are taken care of now. I fixed a few other things from the list too, and will try and spot other problems of the same nature. Sportskido8 07:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I was asked to revisit my opinion based on recent copyediting. I feel that the article as improved but I've been copyediting the beginning of the article and I think there's still quite a bit to do. In fact, it's an ominous sign that I'm able to do so much copy-editing myself since I don't think I'm that good at fixing little details in the prose. So I still object to the promotion for now but as I said earlier, the article clearly has the potential to reach FA status after a thorough copyedit. Pascal.Tesson 20:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Once again, Sportskido brings us an FA quality hockey article. Good citation, nice use of photos, I don't see many problems with the prose (maybe here & there as others have stated, but I'm not overly picky). Nice job!Anthony Hit me up... 17:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support It's very good overall but there are still one or two issues. I went through and fixed the prose stuff I saw, the prose is OK now but not great. These are the last of what I can see though so fix these and I'll change to full support:
  • The opening sentence of the lead and the first sentence of the early life section need to be re-written per WP:DATE specifically here.
  • As a corollary to that, the opening sentences in the early life should probably begin something like "Dominik Hasek was the middle of three sons born to Yuri and Natasha Hasek in xxx. His father worked as an engineer, while his mother worked part-time at a local grocery store." Or whatever the information is. As it is now the article just barrels into his hockey career, he is a person too. The general reader finds this sort of information interesting. There is some info in the Off-The-Ice section but it should be moved to the Early Life section and expanded.
  • "However, Hašek claimed his knee was still injured and did not play in the five-game loss in the following series against the Philadelphia Flyers." This sentence needs a source. Also, why are we saying "Hasek claimed" here? Did the team doctor pronounce him fit to play and he still stated he couldn't? Or did the doctor not clear him to play?
  • "This upset many fans, who blamed Nolan's departure on Hašek's alleged attempt to rid him." This needs work "to rid him" is clunky, could be "to get rid of him" which is still informal or "drive him off" which is also informal". I can't think of anything else right now.
  • This Image:VezinaHasek.jpg needs a fair use rational.
  • The lead shouldn't be so heavily cited, as a matter of fact the lead doesn't need any citations at all as it is a summary of the article. Also the lead appears to have citations that are not repeated. This means that either the information appears in the text but is cited in the lead and not the text, which is backwards or the information doesn't appear in the text, which means the article introduces information in the lead which it doesn't cover in the text. Either way is incorrect.
  • I'd recommend that any stats or hard data have references. This shouldn't be hard just create a career stats ref and repeat it after after each mention of his stats.:"Hašek played 58 games with a league-best 1.95 Goals against average (GAA), seven shutouts, and a .930 save percentage."
  • "He missed forty games and failed to win a major NHL award for the first time in several years." Make this specific, "first time since 19xx-xx."
  • This is a run-on sentence:"During the conference finals against Colorado, he became the first goalie to be awarded an assist on an overtime game-winning goal in the post-season after passing the puck to Wings captain Steve Yzerman,[25] who then assisted Fredrik Olausson in scoring the final goal of the third game of that series"
  • "Throughout his long career, Hašek has been represented by agent Rich Winter." This just kind of pops up of nowhere, is the agent or their relationship notable? Try to put it in some kind of context, as it stands now its just random information and hence trivia. If you can't put it in context just axe it Quadzilla99 23:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The "Inline hockey game incident" could probably use summarizing. Just mention he was in a fight but later cleared of the charges in 2-3 sentences, we don't need all the particulars. It probably doesn't need its own section either.
  • If I had to nitpick one other thing, I'd like to see more mention of the team's records in his career section. It shows the progression of the teams he playing on and puts things in perspective. Also, for stars like Hasek their teams records are often largely reflective of their performance and it gives the reader. One of the reasons Michael Jordan is regarded as the best B-Ball player of all time is because his teams won six championships and he led them to 72, 69, and 67 win seasons. I'm not syaing give him credit for their record just say "the Sabres won 56 games and..." Of course this is a personal preference, a lot of people like to keep that info the team articles. Quadzilla99 23:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 17:31, 25 May 2007.

[edit] The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages

previous FAC

Self-nomination. I recently put this up for FAC, but the discussion over whether this should be one or two articles stalled the nomination. After the nomination was removed, discussion took place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Zelda Oracle merge discussion and was strongly in favor of the merge, so I'm resubmitting. Pagrashtak 12:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to co-nominate this one as a helper and someone who participated in the previous debate. — Deckiller 12:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support The article is well sourced and comprehensive in its coverage. It is well written, and non-free images have appropriate rationales. Jay32183 17:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Good development section? Yes. Good plot section? Yes. Good lead? Yes. Good reception section? Yes. But it discusses absolutely nothing about the sound, the visuals, who created them, nothing. On top of that, the gameplay section is not developed enough. It still lacks any explanation on the mechanics - it implies that the sword was not on the same level, but then it says it is. The first sentence almost describes ALttP - "sword is the primary weapon, and everything else is lesser". - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • To say "absolutely nothing" is a great exaggeration. The article states that graphics and sounds were copied from Link's Awakening, and the reception section covers graphics and sound as well. The development section gives a clear picture of who created the game, even mentioning display difficulties. As for the gameplay section, I don't understand your complaint. It states that the sword is the primary weapon, but is not permanently equipped. This is an accurate description. If you feel something is missing, please say what. Pagrashtak 19:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The article tells us how good the sound and visuals are, and where they originated from. That's definitely not enough. And the statement that Link uses the sword as his primary weapon implies that it's always assigned, and then you state that it isn't and that you don't have to equip it. Saying that it's the primary weapon is not necessary and is potentially confusing. And it still doesn't explain the mechanics - it states that you can remove the sword and shield, but not that you can equip two things at once. Also, the fact that this never went through the Peer review shows that this FAC is far too preemptive. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
      • First you said "it discusses absolutely nothing about the sound, the visuals, who created them", now you said "The article tells us how good the sound and visuals are, and where they originated from." You also state that discussing the primary weapon of an action-adventure game is unnecessary, but then claim that the gameplay section is not comprehensive. This did go through peer review, as I stated in the previous FAC, and I would have been more than happy to respond to these comments if they had been raised then. Right now, I'm having a hard time even telling what you want. Pagrashtak 19:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I told you what I want - more indepth coverage of the gameplay. It describes the mechanics as if they're a passing note. And who cares what I said before? Do you claim that the coverage of the game's sound and visuals is comprehensive enough? And the fact that no one replied is not a good excuse - that just means that the article was never properly assessed. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Just read the "Gameplay" section, and it seems to me that any further in-depth, and it will border on a GameFAQs guide. I think the level of detail there now is perfectly fine. The fact that Link can or cannot unequip a sword is minutia that has no place here. — Brian (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
            • The fact that this is a part of the gameplay mechanic - which is barely covered - has a very big place. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The article's coverage of audio is optimal; I'm sure if Pagra could find more, he would have found it. If there is a ceiling to the amount of information available as a topic, meeting that ceiling is comprehensive in relation to the subject at hand. As for the gameplay, this article covers gameplay in the level of depth generally seen in video game FAs; therefore, it is fine when compared to the current interpretation of the FA criteria by the vast majority of editors. Also, did we get a spell checker all of a sudden? I'm noticing red underlines below misspelled words. (edit) It was just the version of FireFox. — Deckiller 21:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • How hard is it to find who composed the music? Or anyone who worked on either graphics or sound? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Is that the only problem you have with the audio then? If that's the case, now that we have something hard to go by, I'll go ahead and fix that. — Deckiller 23:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Support- I was initially worried about a lack of graphics/audio sections, but development is well-researched and exhaustive. Couldn't see any grammar issues, but I can barely read, so don't go by my eyes. ;) I still wish they were seperate, but what'cha gonna do. ;) Good job Pagra. David Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 23:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Clean up the lead. 2x2 renditions of the Japanese titles is not in the least interesting to anyone other than aficionados. Hide it in a footnote. Squirrel it away further down in the article. Remove it altogether... Anything would be better than assaulting the reader with all that namingcruft in the very first sentence of the article. Peter ^Isotalo 20:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. It's sort of a standard to include the Japanese names in the first sentence for video games, but I agree that it's rather cumbersome in this situation. Pagrashtak 13:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Why is the lead so heavily cited? This is not a controversial subject, in fact the lead shouldn't require any citations as it is a summary of the article. Quadzilla99 18:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • All except two of the first eleven references are used somewhere else, and it doesn't hurt to have references in the lead. The Placebo Effect 22:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. If there's no point in having the extra footnotes they should be removed. It just adds dinkiness. Peter ^Isotalo 20:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
      • There's really no reason for the heavy citing in the lead, the most baffling one is the citing of the title of the article. I've never seen an article cite its title, I'm not even sure what that means. Are we citing the fact that we got the spelling correct? Am I missing something? Quadzilla99 02:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm removing the majority of them, I see what the first footnote is for now. Still awkward having a citation on the title, maybe all that can be mentioned in the body of the text somewhere. Quadzilla99 02:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Okay, it's done. Looks a lot better, one problem though. This sentence "The games were released for use on the Nintendo Game Boy Color, but special features, such as additional items, are available when played on a Nintendo Game Boy Advance.[3]" contains a ref that's not repeated. That means either a) it's mentioned in the article, but cited in the lead and not the text which is backwards or b) it's not mentioned in the text and the lead introduces information that's not covered elsewhere. Either way it's wrong. I don't have enough interest in the subject to give this article a thorough review but it does look a lot better now, of course it would look great with zero citations in the lead. Quadzilla99 02:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment What can be shown to say that Seasons should come before Ages? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Probably because the Manga puts them in that order and the IGN review says that is the best order to play them through. The Placebo Effect
  • A good point! What the manga goes with is beside the point; while a licensed work, it's written in a language with completely different rules and traditions. In English, paired words are generally listed in the order that has the most pleasing sound (e.g. you don't say "women and men" or "gentlemen and ladies") and/or flows alphabetically, even if it contradicts the order of other pairings by doing so; while this isn't as cut-and-dried as "Jack and Jill" vs. "Jill and Jack", Google hits (despite being a questionable test) indicate a preference for "Ages and Seasons". Indeed, right now we have List of characters in The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages and Seasons; regardless of which is chosen, both articles must match. Garrett^Talk 00:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you asking why Seasons comes before Ages in the article title? I chose that order because Tale of Power, which was adapted into Seasons, was the first game of the Triforce Trilogy. Pagrashtak 00:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. It reads well and has references for almost everything, which is no easy task for games with such a confusing development history. Putting the Japanese names in a footnote wasn't ideal, but it does reduce the clutter in the lead. One thing the article doesn't cover that I think it could very briefly brush over is how each game has its own particular items (e.g. the seed shooter vs. the slingshot) which has an impact on gameplay (the slingshot cannot fire diagonally, but the seed shooter can) and further differentiates the gameplay of the two. But that's a very minor niggle, and one I only know about because I have played both games. Overall this article sets a good standard for video game articles. Most game articles don't have as confusing a history as this let alone attempt to cover two games on one page, and I think this article has definitely succeeded. Garrett^Talk 00:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support per above, I'm happy with the progression of the merged articles. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 16:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support igordebraga ≠ 22:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• It still doesn't cover the fact that most of the equipment is present in both games, although some equipment is exclusive to only one game. Also, it lacks the lead composer of the game's music. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I've clarified this, using the seed shooter and magnetic gloves as examples of game-specific equipment. In addition, I mentioned that there are two item slots available. As for the composer, I haven't seen anything to indicate that there was a lead composer. The sound is attributed to a company (Pure Sound Inc.), not a person; the article mentions the company as being responsible for the sound. If you find any evidence that one person is primarily responsible, as opposed to the collective group, I'd be more than happy to include that in the article. Pagrashtak 13:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I must have glazed over that. However, all games have a most-important composer - I mean, look at TP and you see Kondo as being far more important than everyone else. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
      • As far as I'm aware, the only involvement Koji Kondo has with these games are songs that were reused. Not every game has a lead composer. Pagrashtak 19:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support I was a big supporter last time, and there's absolutely no reason for me to change my mind. This is still a superb article. -- Kicking's back!... for this one edit. 22:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 17:31, 25 May 2007.

[edit] Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion

Usually considered the first mature painting by the artist Francis Bacon. Very helpfull peer review here. Ceoil 23:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Urgent need for collaborators who can copy-edit. Lead: Glaring spelling mistake at the top. I don't like "The work represents a summary of themes explored in Bacon's previous paintings", and I don't Bacon would; can it be reworded? "as well as and his interpretations" ... Huh? "When first exhibited in 1945, the triptych caused a sensation, and helped establish Bacon's reputation as one of England’s foremost post-war painters." Remove the second comma. "Helped establish Baon as one of" is better. Russell quote—can you give us the year in the main sentence? The lead says nothing of the stylistic features of the work, either in relation to his other work or that of his fellow artists.

Research the edit-history pages of FAs on related topics. From the edit summaries and comparisons, identify the good copy-editors. Familiarise yourself with their work, and when you ask them for a favour, show them that you've done so (it’s a form of flattery). This is a valuable investment in a collaborative framework that will serve you well in your future development of FA nominations. It's a fascinating topic, and the contributor(s) has so much valuable knowledge. Let's not waste it. Tony 08:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a classic case of being too close to an article. I'll ask around for a fresh set of eyes to give it a once over. Thanks for the other suggestions, the lead is now much improved. Ceoil 13:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: In just two edits, User:Outriggr has ce'd half the article. Ceoil 19:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Outriggr § has completed an extensive copyedit, and a very fine job he did too. The prose are greatly improved. Ceoil 18:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I am happy that Outriggr has dealt with the copy issues, but your comment re the absence of an examination of the stylistic features in the opening is also valid. I think this would warrant expanding the lead to three paras, and I'll work on that. Ceoil 20:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments from Universe=atom

• The title should be in bold and italics (bold because it is the name of the article; italics because it is the name of a painting)

I disagree. Ceoil 20:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Universe=atom is right. For example, see Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers). I'm surprise I never noticed that it wasn't italicized before. I'll fix it right now. WesleyDodds 20:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a small matter, but fair enough. Ceoil 20:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Throughout most of the article (except the lead and a short strip in the middle) there are hardly any internal links. (wikilinks).

And the article is all the stronger for it. Ceoil 20:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Internal linking is only meant to link to articles that are relevant, and the article conforms to this. LuciferMorgan 02:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed: rationing the links ensures that the high-value ones aren't diluted, and adds to the overall appearance. Tony 12:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles should not overlinked; see WP:CONTEXT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• There is no "See Also" section, which, combined with the lack of wikilinks, literally isolates the article from the rest of Wikipedia.

See also what? I created a FB Category:Francis Bacon (painter) category specifically because I think "see also" sections are weak. If the links are not mentioned in the body text, they do not deserve inclusion. Ceoil 20:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Having a "See Also" section isn't an FA requirement. LuciferMorgan 02:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

See also is not required and should be minimized; See WP:GTL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• There are only three links in the "External Links" section. Perhaps some more should be put; be sure, though, not to overdo it.

The external links point only towards relevant articles. I see no reason to populate them with tangently related pages. Ceoil 20:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Having an "External links" section isn't an FA requirement. LuciferMorgan 02:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

External links should be minimized; See WP:EL and WP:NOT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• There is absolutely no picture in the "Second Version of 'Triptych 1944' (1988)" section, which fails to give an illustration of the second version.

The "Second Version" is illustrated in the linked main article. It's a triptych, and would not align within a short paragraph. Ceoil 20:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Pictures aren't an FA requirement. LuciferMorgan 02:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps the lead can be elongated by a small factor.

What would you think is missing. The lead, in my opinion, is a concise summary of a relatively short article. Ceoil 20:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Goodness, these comments should be disregarded. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering these points, my vote is OPPOSE. Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 19:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

1. I think you are objecting on very minor points, and I get the feeling you did not read the article. Ceoil 20:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
2. I think the person who objected should read the featured article criteria, and his objection discounted on the grounds that most of his complaints fail to conform to the criteria. LuciferMorgan 02:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
3. This oppose should be disregarded; I also suggest the reviewer needs to become more familiar with WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Invalid oppose. — Deckiller 16:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments from others

• Support Meets all the FA criteria in my opinion, and I found it to be a rather interesting read. LuciferMorgan 02:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional support—once the copy-editing has been completed. — Deckiller 16:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The copyediting has gone a long way in addressing some issues I was about to post about. My few remaining concerns:

1. "While these early works may be aesthetically pleasing," sounds too weasel-y to me.

2. "Bacon's critical faculties often frustrated his creative spontaneity during this period". Simplify language.

3. "He continued to incorporate the spatial device he was to use many times throughout his career—three lines radiating from the central figure of Crucifixion, 1933." This is somewhat confusing. Do you mean Crucifixion, 1933 was the first example of Bacon's use of this device?

4. Is there a particular reason to as "the Second World War"? Just Wikilinking it to World War II would be more direct (and the term needs to be wikilinked eariler in the article; it's currently linked after the term's already been mentioned.)

That's about it. Once that's all fixed I'll be happy to support the nomination. WesleyDodds 00:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Have fixed 1, 2 & 3; not so sure about 4 - to me "Though the triptych may be informed by World War II; the art critic Ziva Amishai-Maisseles has observed that.." - seems not quite right. Ceoil 20:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support. It's nice to see a detailed treatment of an artwork, and this is in very fine shape. (Coeil asked me to copyedit this, and I have done so.) The following could be improved:
  • The Tate Gallery's essay gets into the psychodynamics of the artist. This is absent here.
  • Reference formatting: "Baldassari (2005), p.134" and the like -> "Baldassari (2005), p. 134."
  • The reference to "Grünewald's Christ Carrying the Cross" seems wrong - the title would appear to be Mocking of Christ, which is also referred to in the article, leading the reader to believe you're talking about two paintings.
  • The quote that has "mind shut snap" I'm assuming should be "mind snap shut". –Outriggr § 06:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Outriggr, thanks for all the help; I've fixed the errors you noted, and yes a para or two on the psychodynamics is needed - they were very complex indeed. There is suggestion in other sources that the triptych was inspired by the sence of liberty allowed him through his father's death, as well as the chaos of WWII; both of which allowed him to feel free enough to make this breakthrough. Sutherland was a father figure and his mentor until this point, as soon as the triptych was a sucess he cut the older painter off. The Popes of the 1950s were erotic representations of father figures, plain and simple. Go figure. That's an article all of its own, right there. Ceoil 20:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support The prose has been drastically improved, and everything else was solid to begin with. Great article. WesleyDodds 21:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support as a complete novice I very much enjoyed the prose, the article is well illustrated and well referenced. Good work. The Rambling Man 12:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Ceoil asked me to copyedit, but I was too late to the party. A good read on an interesting painting. Yomangani^talk 14:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 17:31, 25 May 2007.

[edit] Anglo-Saxon Chronicle

Passed GA; I think this is ready to try for FA. It may be of interest (if only for comparison purposes) that Peterborough Chronicle is already an FA. Mike Christie (talk) 11:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support. A very clearly-written and informative article. I was a bit concerned by the amount to which it relies on one book (Swanton), but on reflection I don't believe that this is a problem. (On another note, while Peterborough Chronicle is also a well-written article, it really needs some footnotes. Anyone up for the job?) MLilburne 16:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Well done on a fascinating article and interesting graphics/maps etc. I have a few comments and suggestions but am very close to support! I realize that many of these will have obvious answers to you: I know little about this subject so am easily confused and am going to give you the benefit of some of the causes of my confusion etc!!

• Lead: Are "as late as" and "some time in" necessary? They grate somehow. For an uninformed reader "Having been created in Wessex, the Chronicle is not unbiased" needs some clarification and historical context. What does the "In many places" phrase mean? I think you could expand the lead to include information about how the Chronicles are important sources about the development of English.

*Composition section mainly, but in other places too: It would be good to have a source indicated for each paragraph at least, even if it is always the same one.

*Section headings A2/G. Should it include W? And also mention the G in the text somehow

*"the biases of the scribes who created them" This gets mentioned a couple of times: this section might benefit from some reworking or rewording to avoid repetition of this sort.

Good luck and I hope this is helpful --Slp1 13:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the lead is now fixed -- I removed some of the grating language; I also took out the note about "Having been created in Wessex", since that's explained further down, and in fact the biases are not only West Saxon, so it was slightly misleading. "In many places" was changed. As for the development of English, there is already a sentence there -- is that enough?

I have cleaned up the sources on the composition section.

A² and G -- my understanding is that A² is the usual way to refer to this manuscript (it's not one of the main ones so it doesn't get that many mentions anyway). I added the G simply to make it clearer why it occupies the place it does in the list. I think the W is now quite outdated; Wheloc's edition is nearly four hundred years old, so that's just of historical interest and I don't think needs to be mentioned in the listing here.

Biases -- I've reworded this a little; the intent was to contrast, on the one hand, biases identifiable by comparing the chronicle with other historical information, with, on the other hand, biases revealed by comparing different versions of the chronicle with each other. Let me know if it doesn't say that well enough.

Thanks for the helpful comments -- I hope these changes address your concerns. Mike Christie (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support. An interesting article, which largely does a lucid job of explaining an exceptionally complex document in a short article.

A few points:

• I found it hard to follow the early account of when the chronicle was first written and what the first manuscripts that survive consisted of. Having reread it, I think the problem is that a piece of essential information is omitteed early on: that the chronicles described events dating from 60BC and way back, and some included material from Bede, etc. The article at first made it seem, to this reader at least, that the chronicles might have only been describing events from Alfred's reign onwards. The phrase "up to 891" therefore was unclear to me, as it stood, particularly as it seemed to clash with "early 890s". I was also unsure whether the earlier, lost manuscripts were themselves retrospective surveys of history or were, at least partly, contemporary accounts: in other words, did Anglo-Saxons start chronicling before Alfred's reign, or was the whole thing written retrospectively then? These questions were partly cleared up for me later in the article; but I do think an explanatory sentence or two is needed earlier on to help the readers get their bearings.

• "It is known that the Winchester manuscript is at least two removes from the original of the Chronicle." At that point I wanted to know how that is known, if this is the earliest surviving manuscript. Later there is some explanation of all the interlinkings, but I needed more information at that point.

• The business of the Peterborough chronicle containing some of the earliest Middle English text known, is repeated rather too often, in my opinion.

• Sometimes the article talks of the English language, sometimes of Anglo-Saxon or Old English. I'm not comfortable with the word "English" in this context and would rather the article stuck to calling the language Anglo-Saxon or Old English, so as not to muddy the waters.

• When I've had to look something up in the ASC, I've often found the dating to be well out: perhaps an explanation of the vagaries of the dating might be added. The chronicle seems to be set out by year; how often did the monks update them? Did they write the entry for one year all in one go? Sometimes it appears that they filled several years in at once: if so, that could be a cause of the inaccuracies.

• If it is known, I'd be interested to know why the chronicles petered out when they did. Were they suppressed by the Normans? Were the monks becoming culturally French? Were the chronicles replaced by Latin equivalents? I've no idea; but I'd be interested to read about that.

Anyway, congratulations on a well-written article. qp10qp 01:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

These are very helpful questions -- thank you. I'll be dealing with some of these questions and copying the rest to the talk page for further research (I don't know the answers to all of them). Mike Christie (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I've made some updates to address some of the points. The two I can't answer are the one about the Winchester manuscript being at least two removes from the original, and the query about the reason the chronicles ceased being updated. I'd be interested in the answers but have no sources for them. I've recorded these questions on the article talk page as points to be researched. Thanks again. Mike Christie (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support, but could do with fine scrutiny of the wording. I see redundant "alsos" and "thens". The joining of ideas into sentences is uncomfortable in a few places. Good work overall. Tony 13:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed copy-edit; I appreciate it. I'll look at the wording again and see if I can clean it up any further. Mike Christie (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 17:31, 25 May 2007.

[edit] Common Raven

This article is the first collaboration of wikiproject birds. I feel it fulfils all criteria and is about as comprehensive as one can get before getting into real trivia. The sources are cited and reliable and the article has not been the subject of any edit wars. it has hierarchical headings and has been copyedited by at least 3 of us (and we'll try to address concerns FA reviewers may have!). cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 03:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support - as a sometime contributor to the article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support (needless to say) as nominator Cas Liber | talk | contribs 04:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

*Support as another contributor Kla'quot 04:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Changing to Conditional Support. The article is in excellent shape. However, Circeus brought up some things which I think still need to be addressed:
  • "The neck and breast are distinctly brownish but obscured by glossy black when the plumage is very fresh." - needs to be clarified. Y Done hope that's okcheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 08:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pied Raven paragraph is unsourced. (Partly done. One reference but it predates its extinction so needless to say cannot refer to the whole paragraph)cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 01:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "However, the male may 'cover' the young without brooding them as such." - needs to be more explicit Y Donecheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 23:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Conservation and management section fails to cover properly the ways in which the species is controlled when it becomes a pest.

Kla'quot 19:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Got one for 3 ways in Mojave. Gotta run but there should be some others for elsewhere in the world. Got another for Finland though it is historical ncheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I am bothered by the fact that some paragraphs end without a reference. Even if the last sentence is actually covered by a reference in the next paragraph, it appears unreferenced. Some examples include the first paragraph of "evolutionary history", the first of "description", the third of "distribution and habitat", and the first and second of "breeding". Please make it clear where the information in these paragraphs is coming from.--Danaman5 05:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I was a little worried about the article appearing over-referenced with a zillion inline thingies but will see what can be done.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 13:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That appears to only be of concern if dozens of sentences cite repeatedly cite the same source. I don't see that being an issue here. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 16:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

OK no problem, working on it. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 04:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for every sentence to be supported by an inline citation... Christopher Parham (talk) 05:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Question? Do I have the right bird, or is it only the American Crow? Crows in our area were wiped out by West Nile Virus — we don't have them anymore. Does West Nile affect the Common Raven, and should that be mentioned? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • American Crows are the species hardest-hit by the West Nile Virus. Infected Common Ravens have been found, but according to this source by the National Audubon Society apparently it is not one of the more commonly infected species. Kla'quot 16:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Comprehensive and nicely written. Axl 20:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Thorough coverage with an appropriate level of detail. A good read. I feel the "Cultural references" section is a little choppy but not strongly enough to object. Yomangani^talk 01:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, when you say "choppy" do you mean too many brief examples and should be expanded? It was tricky but I tried formatting the paras so that there was a theme to each (ancient, celtic-medieval-british, modern...) cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I really only have a problem with the last paragraph. I've edited out some of the awkward redundant phrasing but there are some remaining:

• The Common Raven's appearances in literature mirror those of traditional mythology and folklore In what way? tweaked
• perhaps most famously Yes, perhaps, or arguably, or perhaps arguably or perhaps, some would say, arguably, legend has it.
• Modern literature too has seen ravens in the works of Charles Dickens and Stephen King, among others I think you need a bit more of a list here or I start to think "I bet they can't find any others", or maybe you want to say something like "in works by authors as diverse as Charles Dickens and Stephen King" (although you are then into the "how diverse are they?" argument). Y Done
• ...in Bhutan, (how?) the Yukon territory,(how?) and on the Isle of Man (how?) Y Done
• Finally it has been adopted by a sporting entity Finally? (were we waiting for it to happen?), adopted? (do they have a little cage for it?), sporting entity? (is that a team?). Y Done

Like I said, nothing that ruins an overall good piece, but it is a shame to finish with a paragraph full of clunky phrasing and weasel words. Yomangani^talk 16:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support As a lover of corvids and minor contributor. Corvus coronoides Contributions_{MGo Blue} 15:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 16:58, 22 May 2007.

[edit] Paulo (Lost)

Hi there, I have worked on this article about the most hated secondary character from the television series Lost, getting rid of the in-universe perspective from this to the current version. See the short, archived peer review here. Almost every sentence has a reference. I kept the recent peer review and featured article candidacy of the Desperate Housewives' supporting character Andrew Van De Kamp in mind when writing this article. Self-nominate. --thedemonhog talk contributions 22:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• weak oppose - I haven't reviewed it entirely (though I did like seeing what appears to be real world content), but the most immediate thing that caught my eye was "fan response...". Fan reaction to anything is extremely hard to measure. But in the sentence, you say "fan response was mostly negative, one journalist..." Are you calling the journalist a fan, or are you attributing fan response as a separate entity? If you are using it from the journalist's words, "I hate Nikki and Paulo sentiment that I hear from fans", then it should be made clear that the journalist feels the fans don't like him. He/she doesn't give any kind of empirical measure as to how they know fans don't like him, they just say it's something they hear. It should be written to reflect that they think fans don't like Paulo, since we cannot accurately measure something like that. With 12 million viewers, it would take a really good randomized poll to even begin to assume what fans truly think.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. How is the change I made from "Fan reaction was mostly negative" to "Reaction to the character was more negative than for other Lost characters?" --thedemonhog talk contributions 22:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say that you should see about finding a professional reaction to the other characters, but by the same people that deemed his character in a negative light. We need to verify that the other characters received generally positive opinions, and I'm going to assume that this is the only LOST character article that is even close to fulfilling FA requirements. Otherwise, I would just say "Reaction to the character was generally negative." Then, I would provide 2 or so citations just for that sentence alone. Next, I'd have an equal number of positive and negative reviews of the character, because you have to keep a neutral eye. Putting the extra citations at the end of the first sentence (in my opinion) shows that they did tend to len more to the negative, but for writing purposes, we have to keep it neutral. Right now, the entire section is biased to the negative. Also, there is more "fan" talk within the section. If reliable sources are claiming this about fans, make sure it's known that it was THEM they said it. Otherwise, it could come off as original research, even if it has a source.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Paulo is a pretty minor character. He was only in seven episodes and had only ~two lines each in six of them. I do not think there is much else on the Internet about him than what has already been cited. --thedemonhog talk contributions 23:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The episode in which he played a major role was called a good episode by quite a few "professional" columnists, however Paulo was never specifically called a good character. Where would I cite reaction to the other characters? And you are correct in that none of the other character articles are close to FA; they are all just extremely long plot summaries. I changed the word "fan" to "viewer" in the article, as well. --thedemonhog talk contributions 23:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

There aren't even sources for people that "loved to hate him"? Sometimes people don't like the character, but not because of anything specific of the actor or how the writers make him, but because they are into the show and they don't like what he does. I don't know, it just bugs me to have a really biased reaction section to the character. It rather violates WP:NPOV, but I understand when it comes to limited viewings. I have Aquaman (TV program) up for FAC, and I have a problem with the reviews, because it was never picked up for television, so any reviews are limited and not very professional. So, I'm kind of in the same boat you are in. Anyway, I'll try and go through the article more detailed and look for specific things (like necessary copy editing, or something).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are some more things that should be easier to address:

• "History" - Since he isn't "real", and that section isn't detailing the history of the character's development (i.e. how the writers came about creating him), it should probably be titled "Appearances". "Appearances" give off more of an impression that you are talking about when he appears in the show, instead of looking like a biography of the character. I would also probably reword it to be more out-of-universe. For example, in the first sentence, I'd say (and I may episodes mixed up, so you can substitute the right one) "'Further Instructions' introduced Paulo as a Brazilian con artist..." Kind of like that, but throughout that section. You don't have to repeat the same episode, but write it so its clear that it's in the show, and not in reality.
• I don't see how flashbacks centering on the character were meant to make him "unlikeable". That seems out of place in the sentence. Is there a better way to word, or clarify what that means?
• A lot of the characteristics information is written as "in-universe". It should be rewritten to be "out-of-universe". Since you are using the episode to show his characteristics (even though you should be finding outside sources that explain these characters, because it could easily be seen as original research), you should write it so that it's clear "In episode X, Paul shows little concern about the heroic efforts of the other survivors...".
• Is this: "but he is a well experienced actor in his home country, having won many awards" - part of the quote that precedes it, or a separate statement? It's written to contradict the previous statement, but that isn't what it should do. I think I understand how it's being used, to say that he may be unfamiliar in the States, but he's won several awards back home. It would probably be best to keep it as its own sentence, and clarify that although he is unfamiliar to American audiences, he is an accomplished actor in his [give actual hometown].
• There is also a plague of run-on sentences thoroughout the article. Here is the worst: "Reaction to the character was more negative than for other Lost characters, one journalist even giving Paulo the nickname, "Paulo Poops-a-Lot," referencing a gag scene where Paulo emerges from the Pearl station bathroom and says, "the toilet still works," to Locke, Nikki, Sayid Jarrah and Desmond Hume who are attempting to communicate with the Others." - it's the first sentence in the reception section.

These are a few things that I saw while going through.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I edited the article to address many of your opinions. In regard to the (now) "Appearances" section: the show is told in a non-linear fashion. Each episode features flashbacks from a character's past, which is why I cannot write that "'Further Instructions' introduced Paulo as a Brazilian con artist..." I could write "Further Instructions" introduced Paulo as a survivor as Oceanic Flight 815, but this would be lower on the page, causing it to seem out of place (and redundant because it is said in the lead). The featured article Andrew Van De Kamp, as well as the television series guidelines (if I'm not mistaken), say not to say "In the episode x, Paulo.." Instead, it says to cite the episode. Again, thanks for your help. --thedemonhog talk contributions 05:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to say "introduced", you could say "explained" for episodes that used flashbacks, if the flashbacks occurred out of order with the fictional timelines. Keep the information in the order in which it aired, just explain that this episode expanded on his background in this way, and that episode expanded on his background in that way. The lead summarizes the entire article, there shouldn't be anything in the lead that isn't in the body of the article, so don't worry about redundancy in that aspect. But, if Project TV tells you to do it one way, you gotta meet their requirements first. I just looked at the Andrew article, and I can't see how that made it to FA status. 3/4's of the article is entirely in-universe information. LOL, I can fit all of the out-of-universe information onto my screen at the same time. Ah..it cites episodes by the second. That's seems more like fluff citations. Oh...anyway, I'll read through it again later and see how it looks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: The only problem I see is the citation of a Wiki (see WP:V). I'd happily support if this is fixed. Matthew 23:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason I have that is because they count how many episodes he has appeared in. I couldn't find any other sites that listed his appearances other than ABC Medianet, but then I would have to cite each press release. Would you still like it changed? --thedemonhog talk contributions 23:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You could essentially cite IMDb for where he appears, as "credits" are the only thing that actually get from the shows themselves. Also, if he only appears in 7 episodes, it wouldn't be bad to use the ABC press releases, although IMDb (even though I hate to use them for anything) can be used as 1 source for all appearances.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, for some reason IMDb never crossed my mind for that. I will cite that instead. --thedemonhog talk contributions 05:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak support - glanicing, it appears to fulfill all of the FA criteria, but it's a bit short (however, if that's all that can be done, so be it - length=/=quality, and I think it's a good article.) Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 01:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Not sure if I support yet, but I have to say that this is an awesome improvement of the article. This is that real-world / out of universe direction that all fictional character/ element articles should take. If it's not at FA yet, then it's not far from it. -- Ned Scott 04:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support, concise, well-referenced and written straight-forwardly. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Any reason this article and Nikki Fernandez are not merged into one article? The articles should be virtually identical, and I can see little reason to keep them apart. — Brian (talk) 09:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because they are two characters. --thedemonhog talk • edits • count 17:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It could be beneficial, since this article is only 16kb (which means the readable prose is probably like 10-12kb) and Nikki's is 6kb (making her readable prose less than half of his). It might be something to consider to help the stability of the article. Both characters had short lives in the series, and they appeared together, not to mention they are bf/gf.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It could be beneficial, but Nikki and Paulo did have different experiences. Paulo was not an actress and Nikki did not hide the diamonds in the Pearl station. The reception section should be pretty similar. A lot more is known about Rodrigo Santoro for the casting section than is known about Kiele Sanchez. The characteristics section would be a mess because Paulo is worried that he will lose Nikki and Nikki only cares about Paulo for the diamonds. Just as Rose Henderson and Bernard Nadler are not one article, I do not think that Nikki and Paulo should be either. --thedemonhog talk • edits • count 17:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Just write another paragraph or two under "Characteristics" about Nikki. Rose and Bernard should probably be one article, too. In fact, arguably, all minor characters on Lost should be merged into a single Characters of Lost article, modeled after Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. Separating them is a violation of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), which states:

Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless it becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice.

Merging Nikki and Paolo though, that should be a no-brainer. — Brian (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support per my above comment, the issue is now fixed. Looks brilliant! Matthew 17:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• weak support - My real concern now is the fact that it's only 7kb large (of readable prose), which is really small. This is something to keep in the back of your mind for the future of the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support: Seems to meet WP:WAF and other criteria very well. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 17:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. It is a little short for a FA, but the quality of the content is FA status. -- Wikipedical 18:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• I like the idea of merging Nikki Fernandez with Paulo (Lost), since in many ways their pairing is a character (you can't have one without the other). I think it would be great to attempt this, even if only in a sandbox. That would make the article truly perfect in my mind. That being said, even alone this article should be an example to other such articles, and I support featured status. -- Ned Scott 23:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Changing to weak-support, since I don't really have an objection, but I think a Nikki merge would make it truly perfect. -- Ned Scott 07:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support: Well written and well referenced, I can't think of any way I would improve this article beyond how it is. Tphi 00:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support: Well written and considering that Paulo is dead, this article can't get much better. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 01:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak support: Well written, but as others have mentioned this is a relatively short article for FA status. I'm not sure there's much more to add, though. Lumaga 07:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support: I think it's pretty much been revamped to the highest possible quality. The page is thorough, accurate, and unbiased, so I don't see why not. Jwebby91 19:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 16:58, 22 May 2007.

[edit] Eris (dwarf planet)

former fac

Nominating for FA status as per peer review. Serendipodous 14:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Support: The article looks well written and there are a few minor points.
(1) The one information lacking is the day-period on the planet. if the data doesn't exist, the same needs to be mentioned.
2. I would suggest that the earlier term - 2003 UB313 be added to the lead para.
3. Also in the references, there are a few names of professors who don't have wiki pages. i would suggest that the wiki link be removed for these people or pages created. Kalyan 15:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the article does mention Eris's day, but it refers to it as its "sidereal rotation period." Trying to change it just screws with the template, so it's best to leave well alone. Where they got that 8 hours figure though I have no idea, as I have yet to find a source that confirms it. Serendipodous 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh i see, it is in the template while i was looking in the article. Do you see any value in adding a sentence in the artice?. Atleast it will make it very explicit. Kalyan 17:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Points addressed has been stricken. Kalyan 17:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. I haven't found any sources that explicitly mention the length of Eris's day, so I wouldn't want to make any claims. I think the best thing to do is just delete the line from the template. Serendipodous 18:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. just leave it un-touched. Kalyan 19:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support Looks well written and precise. c'mon, we've fished a good one.Kfc1864Cuba Libre! 08:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support: I think that this has some potential as an FA. It is within size limits, is well referenced, has good grammar, is well written, has a standard amount of wikilinks, and is well-structured (in a sense). The only two things that I think can be improved are that perhaps the images can be given more of a balance and that perhaps the "See Also" section can be given a few more links. Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 16:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support — Good work, with only a few minor issues that I could see:
  • A reference would be good for the sentence: "Due to its orbit, surface temperatures vary between about −232 and −248 degrees Celsius."
  • The "3000⁺²⁷⁰₋₁₀₀ km" (3000{{±|270|100}} km) notation is not displaying the values properly on my browser. Should it be 3000^+270 -100 km? If so, perhaps that also needs to be explained to the reader?

The article left me a little hungry for information that would explain Eris' high eccentricity and inclination, but I could understand that might not be available. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The inclination and eccentricity are explained (somewhat) in the "Classification" section. Perhaps they could be elaborated upon? Serendipodous 10:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Good 'nuf. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support, well done. Is the section "Size, Mass and Density" not in sentence case for some reason? -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 19:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support fulfils criteria. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 08:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Looks a good article, I've not checked everything but from reading the text here's a couple of points

• consistent use of either celsius or kelvin might make sense
• 'the surface ices' is mentioned too early. At this point there hasn't been anything about the composition of Eris.
• 'various ices' - again this is mentioned without any explanation. Could we have something more about what we might expect these ices to consist of? Clathrate hydrate & Methane clathrate seem to be articles to link to. JMiall 08:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Also Brown's approval of the dwarf planet tag is in the wrong place. The lead should not be introducing information that isn't mentioned in the rest of the article + I'm not sure that this important enough to put in the lead anyway, can it just be moved? JMiall 09:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 16:58, 22 May 2007.

[edit] Making Waves

I've worked on this article about a short-lived TV series for a month and based much of the structure on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Television programs guidelines as well as on other FA TV articles, particularly The Wire. A comprehensive history of the series is provided, the image has a FUR, it has been copyedited by other users and a peer review is ongoing here. WindsorFan 15:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Articles aren't supposed to be listed at peer review and FAC at the same time; see the instructions at PR. Why don't you finish the peer review and then approach FAC? Otherwise, you'll need to remove it from peer review, which is a shame. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, the only thing I overlooked. I've closed the PR; I doubt one more week will elicit a response.WindsorFan 08:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment In "Episodes" section, the summary of episodes are pretty large. Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Television programs suggests "one- or two-sentence summary" and appropriate daughter article creation for episodes, if needed. I understand that since this is a short-lived series, individual episodes may not be noteworthy enough to create articles. Still, a daughter article discussing all the episodes can be created, and summary of episodes can be further summarized. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've cut down the summaries to three lines describing the major storylines of the particular episode. I'm hesitant to split it off into a "List of episodes" article because there were only six episodes made and they're not particularly notable for separation.WindsorFan 11:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Have not read the whole article yet. However, it seems perfect. Hope to comment later.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Please see "Acronyms and abbreviations" section in WP:MOS. Accordingly explain and/or wikilink things like XO, CCMEA, LMEA, Lt Cdr, OM etc.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Expanded/linked where appropriate. WindsorFan 08:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Seems to meet the criteria.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I had a look at a few windows of prose, such as these sentences. The lead is good, but the rest could do with fresh eyes to spruce it up, but it's on the good end of the spectrum here. "Alex Ferns arrived two days earlier than the rest of the cast in order to settle in and also made a trip to Yeovilton to meet Harrier pilots while Emily Hamilton prepared for her role by shadowing Vanessa Spiller, XO of HMS Kent." better as "Alex Ferns arrived two days earlier than the rest of the cast to settle in, and made a trip to Yeovilton to meet Harrier pilots, while Emily Hamilton prepared for her role by shadowing Vanessa Spiller, XO of HMS Kent." Yes? For one thing, there's "also-itis" in evidence. Tony 23:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional support—please polish the article per Tony's suggestions. Might want to audit for commas: "In August 2002<comma needed> the Royal Navy...". There's also a one sentence para in the reception section. — Deckiller 02:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Just one minor issue: the linking. It seems to me the following deserve to be linked: Richard Maher (is linked in the infobox, but I don't think that really counts) and Portsmouth. Good work.--Carabinieri 22:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. WindsorFan 16:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 16:58, 22 May 2007.

[edit] B-52 aircraft crash at Fairchild Air Force Base

Respectfully self-nominate this article about a military aircraft accident as a featured article candidate. The article has been through a peer review and A-class review with WikiProject Military history. Cla68 01:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• This article needs copy-editing. Some examples from the lead:

• "occured".
• "aircrewmembers"? Even if allowable in someone's jargon, it's awkward.
• "Mishap", I think, is a word reserved for less serious accidents than four people dying in an airplane crash.

If I may butt in, no it isn't. Every accident in the USAF that is recorded is refered to as a mishap. Example: a class A mishap is one that causes the loss of an airframe, more than $1 million in damage, or the loss of a life.

• "...the chain of events leading to the accident was primarily attributable to..."—this can be worded in a much more direct way.
• "...USAF leader's reactions to it..." Apostrophe problems: more than one leader, I assume? If not, "the USAF leader's reactions".
• "Today, the mishap is used in both military and civilian aviation environments as a training aid in teaching crew resource management and still often used by USAF during safety training as an example of the importance of compliance with safety regulations and correcting the behavior of anyone that violates safety procedures"—many problems, the least of which is no period. :)

You could check with the League of Copyeditors. –Outriggr § 07:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the constructive comments. Somehow, I always seem to do a poorer job with copyediting the intro than I do the rest of the article. I corrected "occured", "leader's", and the last sentence. "Aircrewmembers is the word used by most of the article's sources, so I'll stick with that as the appropriate wording. Also, most of the sources for aircraft accidents that I've encountered use the word "mishap" for any type of accident, no matter how severe. Plus, they usually describe each mishap as being at the end of a "chain of events". Thus, I feel that that's the appropriate phrase to use. Cla68 07:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Albeit as a minor contributor (and reference) to this article - Well-written, researched, and documented. Check-Six 19:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Wandalstouring 21:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose until copy-edit is performed per above. — Deckiller 18:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. Cla68 13:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Still 1a issues as above:

• in the mishap - I agree that mishap is a fairly weak word to use (and could possibly be considered POV). Used again more than once in the article.
• Today, the mishap is used in both military and civilian aviation environments as a training aid in teaching crew resource management. - the fact that you're talking about "today" is implied, I think. It's a very vague term anyway. "Both" is redundant.
• correcting the behavior of anyone that violates safety procedures. - probably should be "anyone who".
• Degree is sometimes hyphenated with the number, and sometimes not.
• I think metric conversions are needed for things like 1,000 feet.

Nothing major really, but a careful check through would be good. Trebor 16:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"Mishap" is a perfectly acceptable (and IMHO, a preferred) word for use to describle the type of event this was... I refer you to the USAF's website, where the word is used 14 times to describe their work. Check-Six 05:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I made the corrections for everything you suggest except the word "mishap" and metric conversions. Mishap is the best word for this type of incident, because using the word "accident" is problematic since it can be argued that willful violation of safety regulations resulting in a crash might not be considered as an "accident." As far as metric measures go, as long as all of the measures in the article are standardized, either metric or English, then it's ok. Cla68 05:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

But that was my problem with mishap. It's defined as "an unfortunate accident", which seems even worse than just "accident" ("unfortunate" implying that luck played a part). While USAF may consider it a "mishap", I think it would be more objective to use something else. WP:UNITS says conversions should generally be included. Trebor 12:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I looked it up in Merriam Webster [5] and you're right, "mishap" means "unfortunate accident." What word do you think is more appropriate? I still believe that "accident" has its own problems, and I can't think of another word to use except for "crash." Cla68 13:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't think of one which really fits either (which is why I can't oppose for this). Hopefully someone else will have an idea. Trebor 15:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and replaced all occurrences of "mishap" and "accident" with "crash." That appears to be the most neutral word. Cla68 23:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• With respect, can we please change 'aircrewmembers' to 'aircrew members?' Simply because the USAF sometimes mangles the English language in its use of jargon doesn't mean we always have to stick to their terms. Buckshot06 18:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed them all to "crew members." Cla68 05:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support One of the few articles that was actually a pleasure to read. — MichaelLinnear 05:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose first: well-written overall. Very compelling. Second: the bad news. A few copy-edit errors: "and executed a "wing over,". The...", "...the attention of three Fairchild USAF leaders. One, Lieutenant Colonel Bullock, the current..." what is trying to be said here? It makes me question what else I'm missing. The references are atrocious. For starters it appears that there are only two references used over and over. On top of that it seems that the ref name= function is never used, so the references keep piling up, but no new source has been added, nor page numbers within the references. Check-six.com, for reference [25], doesn't have a specific page linked and the reference would be hard to find otherwise. While these are still probably pretty accurate, I'm not sure that it meets FA article status. Taking this through a Good Article review would probably catch most of these problems. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I corrected the two syntax/grammatical errors you pointed out. I count three, not two, references used over and over, with a few others used to a smaller extent. I believe three main sources are adequate and all three are credible sources. I didn't use the ref name= function because all of the citations are at the end of the paragraphs, which means that if any of the information in any of the paragraphs is changed or a new source becomes available, then the footnotes will have to be changed and it's easier to change a regular footnote than a "ref name" footnote. I clicked on the Check-Six link in the references section and it took me directly to the sourced page, so I'm not sure what you mean by your comment about it. The article has been through a peer review and A-class review with the Military History Project. Cla68 13:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, three references. My point is that you don't need a new reference with each cited use.^[1] Now that you have cited it,^[1] you can use it over and over without having to retype the information.^[1] It also renumbers automatically for you if you change the citations.^[2] It also minimizes the size of the page and the references section. If the info changes and you want to change a link, then you simply insert the new citation.^[1] Basically, you can cut down the bibliography from 25 lines. Some of the references are combinations of refs; please make separate references for each.^[1][2] Also missing page numbers in references. Also missing link in #25, not the video clip. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I combined the footnotes and added page numbers as requested. Cla68 07:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Much better, but I think the combination of citations is unnecessary. For example, reference 2 (Piper, Chain of Events, p. 136, Kern, Darker Shades of Blue, and USAF, AFR 110-14, p. 2-3.) is actually 3 references with little information about each book or website or whatever it is. Each one should have its own reference, like this.^[1][2][3] It would also be useful (but not required) to use citation templates to make sure all relevant information is available so someone else can look up the given information and to make sure book names are italicized or bolded or whatever.

One new thing I just noticed was the images. IAW WP:MoS images should not be sized, so the sizings have to go. In addition, the captions need to be full sentences with periods or sentence fragments without periods.

Make these references more accessible and clear and fix the images and you have my blessing! Great Job! — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not trying to be an ass, but featured articles should be pretty damn good and meet all of wikipedia guidelines. If you think I'm being a pain, check out the University of Oklahoma section. Of course, that article wasn't written nearly as well as this one... — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I appreciate the constructive feedback. In this case, however, I'm afraid that I'm going to disagree with you on the rest of your proposed changes to the article. I believe it's fine to combine citations. In fact, I did that in an article that passed FA candidacy just a couple of months ago- Actions along the Matanikau. In our peer reviews in the MilHist project, we encourage other editors to combine their citations. All of the references in the article do use citation templates. I'm usually very strict about using citation templates in the articles I edit. I tried taking all the image sizing out, but when I previewed the article, the images showed up with wildly different sizes. The guidelines say it isn't recommended to use image sizing, but doesn't prohibit it. I use image sizing to make the images appear more or less the same size throughout the article. Aren't all of the image captions in the article full sentences with periods? Cla68 23:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Image sizing. Then the images are probably not all thumbnails if they are not showing up as the same size. As for the combination of references, I am not that familiar with references other than to make sure they are verifiable with WP guidelines. As such, they are fine, but I still think they should be individual citations for each reference. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 16:58, 22 May 2007.

[edit] Islam

(Self-nomination). Countless hours have been spent by many editors getting this article to GA status, and now (hopefully) to FA quality. All suggestions for improvement will be promptly and seriously considered. (Old nom.). - Merzbow 02:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong support. Thank you Merzbow for your hard work. A university professor from outside has reviewed this article [6]. He described the writing as "clinical and straightforward, but not boring."--Aminz 02:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

And likewise for your hard word. And the article has improved vastly even since the version the professor reviewed. - Merzbow 02:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support I think we have ironed out all the POV and citation problems, and now this seems to be a very good and encyclopediac article on wikipedia.--Sefringle 04:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, I will have to to through this, but at first glance I notice two problems.
  • For the second paragraph of criticism of Islam you have "law and practice.[142][143][144][145]" which uses 4 different references in 4 different footnotes. With "Montgomery Watt and Norman Daniel dismiss [...] while Carl Ernst writes that Islamophobia has played a part.[146]" you have two references in one footnotes. I much prefer the second method; although, I know users have disagreed before. Whichever your preference this should be standardized throughout the article.
  • "Responses to the critics have come from many corners." comes off as weasley to me. I think there is a better way to integrate that into the sentence.
  • This is off of the top of my head but... "shahādatān" and then "Zakat. How we deal with long vowels should be uniform. I prefer marking them, but I don't see why we whould not do zakāt when we do it on the other. gren グレン 07:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'll try to clean up the weasely sentence. And good catch in regards to "shahādatān"; I think it's better just to change it to Shahadah, which seems to be the common English rendering. In regards to the footnotes... right now I've stuck to the practice of combining simple references like "Esposito (2002b), p.1" together in one footnote with semicolons, but have avoid smushing together larger references (like cite templates) because they are harder to distinguish with just semicolons to delineate them. I admit this seems kind of arbitrary. Would you prefer we always combine adjacent footnotes? - Merzbow 08:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would argue shahadah, salah, zakat, are not English and therefore should use diacritics. Islam, jihad, etc. have made their way into English and therefore shouldn't use diacritics. But, even though I have my preference I think we should at least be consistent.

As for the footnotes, that seems arbitrary and I doubt that any referencing style manual (that uses footnotes) would accept that. Then again, I don't know of any manual that allows multiple footnotes next to each other, but I still think consistency is the biggest issue. So, I would prefer we always combine because [141][142][143][144] makes the text less readable. Footnotes are not meant to be read like prose so they do not need to be as flowing. But with the body it at least looks a lot nicer to have one note rather than three or four. gren グレン 20:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the five pillars words, all but sawm and shahadah are in M-W's unabridged, so I think that qualifies them for anglicization. As for those two, I think the desire to keep them in parallel form with the others comes down on the side of keeping out the diacritics. As for the refs, I'll see what I can do. - Merzbow 20:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

As an experiment I tried separating multiple refs in one footnote with bullet characters, this seems to work far better than a semicolon. See references 108 and 137 as an example. I also put them on separate lines with line breaks. I think they are easy to read now. - Merzbow 22:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Refs are merged now using a scheme we devised on Talk. I think it looks pretty good. - Merzbow 07:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per POV. Before getting to that: it moves at nice pace with a rational TOC to help the reader; prose is good—short, declarative sentences; I'll leave the micro-formatting issues to greater minds, but it all seems OK; LEAD is fine, but Sunni and Shi'a need a mention there; length is fine and might even use a slight expansion. So, on to 1d:

• "'The Qur'an insists, Muslims believe, and historians affirm[!] that Muhammad and his followers worship the same God as the Jews. The Quran's Allah is the same Creator God who covenanted with Abraham.'" This can mean two things: a) in broad anthropological terms the God of Islam shares the same root as the Judeo-Christian God—OK; b) Abraham was a Muslim. Insofar as the second is intended, it must at least be observed that Jews would vigorously deny it. (Thus "historians affirm" really threw me—which historians and from which angle?)
• "He is viewed not as the founder of a new religion, but as the last and the greatest in a series of prophets — the restorer of the original, uncorrupted monotheistic faith of Adam, Abraham and others." For the purposes of this encyclopedia, I'd suggest he is the founder of a new religion and should be described as such. Even if only in a clause, secular terms should come first (e.g. Brittanica: "founder of the religion of Islam, accepted by Muslims throughout the world as the last of the prophets of God").
• In the Jihad section, theory and practice need to be more sharply defined. "The primary aim of jihad is not the conversion of non-Muslims to Islam by force, but rather the expansion and defense of the Islamic state." Well, OK. Were Janissaries converted by force or in the name of the "expansion and defense of the Islamic state"? Oh, wait a minute—what exactly is the difference between "by force" and "expansion and defense"? I'm sorry, but you read this and you have no inkling that Islam is a (sometimes violently) proselytizing faith. While on that subject, and while I know it's fraught, some reader or other is going to come along and expect information on contemporary terrorism in the name of jihad.
• The criticisms section is a strawman. It's good the one sentence mentioned above was removed, but it still reads to me as a "yes, but" that gives no real time to textual criticism. "...questions the authenticity and morality of the Qu'ran..." First, I wouldn't wrap those two nouns together as they denote distinct issues. More importantly, this is the only hint of secular (rather than intra-Muslim) dispute anywhere in the piece. The article mentions disagreement over X or Y idea here and there, but never challenges to doctrines per se—polygamy and purported antisemetism come to mind. And no, we don't need polemics from answeringjihad.org; a much better section can be constructed with good sources. Marskell 12:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Re point #1. Peters says:"The Qur'an insists, Muslims believe, and historians affirm that Muhammad and his followers worship the same God as the Jews (29:46). The Quran's Allah is the same Creator God who covenanted with Abraham".

Peters states that the Qur'an portrays Allah as both more powerful and more remote than Yahweh, and as a universal deity, unlike Yahweh who closely follows Israelites." --Aminz 18:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I've addressed the first concern and second concern, and will work on the third. However, I'm not clear on your objections to the contents of the Criticism section. There isn't enough space in such a small section to go into much detail about specific criticisms, it's there to give a very broad overview of the debate. Are you saying we should disband it and intersperse the criticism throughout the article? - Merzbow 19:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• the first two points have been addressed i believe. concerning the Jihad section, the passage you cite makes clear (IMO) that it refers to Jihad in principle. the difference between 'conversion by force' and 'expansion of the state' is that with the latter, you are instituting a new legal system and administration, and not forcing the population to accept Islam - as they still have the choice to abide by their religion in return for the jizya (as elaborated in the 'other religions' section). this is the precise point Rudolph Peters makes ("The primary aim of the jihad is not, as it was often supposed in the older European literature, the conversion by force of unbelievers, but the expansion - and also defence - of the Islamic state. Unbelievers who were brought under Islamic rule in this manner were given a choice. Either they were allowed, in return for the payment of a special tax, to abide by their own religion, or they could become converts to Islam, in which case they acquired full civil rights."). as for the criticism section, much of the modern criticism today is in the form of criticising Islamic law, the life of Muhammad, as well as the primary texts (cf. Robert Spencer, Ibn Warraq). are polygyny and purported antisemitism comparitively prominent? i'm not so sure (if you have any sources i could consult then that would be v. helpful). thanks. ITAQALLAH 19:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact, in the first century of Islam conversion was discouraged for several reasons. I just saw the Rudolph Peters's quote. I have already rewritten it using Esposito.--Aminz 22:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I've made further changes to the Jihad section that hopefully address the points raised here. It now explains how expansion of the Islamic state does not necessary entail aggressive warfare (as Itaq points out), and mentions how jihad has been used to justify modern terrorism. - Merzbow 01:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have scratched one and two, and part of three (though I'm still not entirely convinced—the "although" risks another strawman). This leaves the last. Do I really need to source that purported antisemitism is a prominent criticism? Google "Jews pigs" and see what comes up first. Unfortunately, where I am sources will be censored on this (e.g. most anything from Israel) and there's no good library around. For some bizarre reason Robert Spencer isn't censored, but I suppose we don't want him in the article. I could probably dig up something in back issues of Foreign Affairs or whatnot; there was a good article on Islamic feminism a year-and-a-half ago that could be used on criticism of plural marriage. Two other notes:

• Again, Sunni and Shi'a, their numbers, and a brief mention of doctrinal difference, belong in the LEAD; in fact, I don't think their numbers are mentioned anywhere at present. It's just the sort of info a reader will turn to the article for.
• No mention of Wahhabism in Modern Times? Marskell 08:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Marskell, we have one small overview section on criticism of islam. Once we mention more specific points, we need to balance it out with specific answers and the section becomes bloated.

Wahabism is already covered as part of the fundamentalist movements. --Aminz 08:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added a mention of Wahhabism to the "Modern times" section, and put Sunni/Shia in the lead (with the 85/15 split there and also in the Demo section). We'll think further about how to better clarify that portion of the Jihad section and about how to address your concerns about the underrepresentation of certain criticisms. - Merzbow 08:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a matter of a balancing current reader expectation while avoiding "recentism". I'm not asking for three paragraphs on polygyny and the status of women—three sentences will do. It's something a reader would expect to find here because it's much discussed. Part of the problem with the section is that the "Other criticism..." sentence is generic, while the reply to it is specified and mentions authors—it's a rebuttal of criticism where the criticism is never properly stated. Marskell 08:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, when I'm home I could probably add my own sentences. Thinking about it, the status of women arguably deserves its own section, though we don't want to wander from summary style. Marskell 08:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am afraid a section on status of women would become too detailed. It should cover change in the status of women by the advent of Islam. Then the works of later jurists and addition of cultural elements to the regulations.. then we come to the modern time and its movements. it is too detailed and i am not sure if such section is relevant to this article. --Aminz 08:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Karl is suggesting below a section in Community about "family life". This seem reasonable; we can also add the mentions that Marskell is requesting to that section. - Merzbow 17:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we've addressed all your remaining points now... I pulled in Bernard Lewis to help clarify the Jihad section some more; added a mention of the antisemitism criticism to the Criticism section (along with other tweaks), and added sentences about the rights of women to the new "Family life" section. - Merzbow 02:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have struck my oppose for now. I'll need to read it again. Marskell 10:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support. I think that the additions to the history section make the article sufficiently comprehensive and balanced to achieve FA status. Do not refrain from adding more crucial non-political elements in the section (if more exist). They are at least as important as the political elements. My sincere compliments to the editors.Sijo Ripa 11:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC) *Oppose. The history section is tremendously biased in favour of wars, conquests and empires. I would expect that an article about a religion would deal in the history section with the history of the religion, not solely with politics. I do not say that the politics cannot be relevant (for instance they are necessary to explain the spread of Islam), but the section should be about the history of Islam, not about the history of Muslim empires. What religion-related important events happened? For instance: the founding of the different branches, theological and philosophical discussions, new interpretations, notable influental imams on the religion, did the relationship with science and art change? when?, etc. PS: Some references can and should be merged.Sijo Ripa 12:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - i think that most texts available on the history of Islam go into discussion primarily about the history of the spread of Islam (cf. "Cambridge History of Islam", CU Press; "A Brief History of Islam", Blackwell publishing). that might be because there wasn't much in terms of significant theological codification of the religion post-Muhammad, and the fact that there isn't/wasn't an official, centralised clergy. the fundamental beliefs and practices had already been defined. other historical aspects of Islam are covered in their respective sections: the development of legal practice is covered in the Law section for example, while the history of sectarian formation could perhaps afford more mention in the denominations section if it's not already sufficient. ITAQALLAH 14:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I find it hard to believe that there aren't significant religious (local or global) changes during about 1500 years of history that can be mentioned in the history section. I doubt that there aren't reliable books or articles about this. The history section could for instance tell when and how Sufism came into existence. Sijo Ripa 17:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
      • There might be some books but these are not hard facts. If we just wish to write how sufism start etc while keeping WP:NPOV then we need to give many different opinions. One can write a new article about all of those opinions and even then that article will have a tag similar to one exist on Sufism always. We just wish to touch major facts like defining Shia, Sunni and other major sects and leaving other details on those individual articles. Please ask something which is possible at least.--- A. L. M. 17:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I know little of Islam. Can you explain why there isn't any reliable information about the history of Islam? There must at least be some reliable estimates (a century and a region?) when and where a certain denomination started, or am I wrong? There must be at least some information about new interpretations and relationships made. I mean, there were many scholars in the Muslim world, there are many academics studying the subject now, we're speaking of about 1500 years... I really doubt that only POV material is published. Sijo Ripa 17:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
          • History books usually contains similar information as described in a very excellent way in History section of article. That is about Rightly Guided Caliphs, Umayyad, Abbasid, Ottomans, Mughal etc. Friend you must understand that unlike other religions, Muslim generally do not follow some Imams/pope strictly but follow Quran/Sunnah. Hence history that you are asking for is not important in Islam. We usually look at the arguments given by a person (using Quran and Sunnah) and if the arguments are good then they follow it otherwise not. Hence, we have mentioned different school of thoughts names and some other information briefly (see Denominations). I suggest we leave details in those articles because neither they are important nor very well defined. --- A. L. M. 18:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
            • any relevant information pertaining to Sufism would likely be mentioned in its own section in the article. i will try to introduce more information concerning possible dates the main sects emerged. i interpret from what you have written that the main issue of concern is that the History section says nothing about the development of sects. but as i'm seeing it, any appropriate information concerning sects and their history would be more pertinent in their relevant sub-section in the Denominations section. what do you think? ITAQALLAH 18:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
              • The concern here is about duplicating too much material discussed elsewhere in the article. However, we can certainly intersperse small mentions of important non-political developments in the History section, with the expectation that the reader who wants to know more will look to the dedicated sections in the rest of the article. Does that sound OK? (I'm also looking for guidance on the clearest way to combine references - any suggestions here - I'm feeling uneasy about just smushing together large cite templates with semicolons because it makes them hard to distinguish). - Merzbow 19:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
                • When first looking over this I saw no reference to Fazlur Rahman's Islam (and of less importance Islam and Modernity). These are relevant to this complaint because they do give a much clearer intellectual history. I need to reread the article, but if anyone is curious where to look to maybe address the intellectual rather than political history of Islam that is a good starting place. gren グレン 20:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
                  • I don't know whether you have access to the books mentioned by Grenavitar, but it sounds like what I meant. I think that there is plenty of crucial information regarding the intellectual history that isn't present in the article yet. Furthermore, the history section can deal with the circumstances (when, why, where, the reaction of other Muslims, etc.) a certain denomination was founded, while the "Denominations" section can explain what the characteristics of the denomination are and how this denomination is different from other denominations.Sijo Ripa 14:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
                    • ok, i have incorporated a few things such as the origin of the sunni/shi'a split, the Abbasid mihna, and the presence of theological dispute in the area of philosophical discourse. also, the information about modern movements in Islam has been incorporated into the history section. what do you think? ITAQALLAH 15:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
                      • We still should add a bit about the origins/development of Sufism (the three stages, one in each of the first three sections), and about development of Islamic law. - Merzbow 16:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
                        • OK a lot has been added to the history section on a variety of topics aside from the political/military... we've consulted a number of sources to determine the most notable events in areas such as theology and Islamic law. Please take a look. - Merzbow 06:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• support. an excellent example of how controversy can be the driving force to arrive at brilliant articles. I consider the two "oppose" votes above somewhat disingenious, since they basically translate to "forget it, this article will never be granted FA status". dab (𒁳) 15:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith, Dab. I will support the FA status once my concerns are addressed. Sijo Ripa 17:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes please, AGF. The above opposes are cogent and specific; of course this can become an FA. Marskell 17:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

*Oppose. The article lack information regarding several important issues. One obvious example is that the "Other religions" sections doesn't mention anything about Islams relations with non-monotheist religions, and only discuss the status of Christians and Jews within the Islamic state. -- Karl Meier 10:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? While I do not contribute to the article, I can imagine that it would be helpful to give a list of the important issues and what specifically lacks.Sijo Ripa 14:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a list would be helpful. Regarding this specific objection, it should be easy enough to add information about Islam's relationship with religions other than Christianity/Judaism. I'm not sure what else we can say on Christianity/Judaism and Islam, that seems comprehensively covered. - Merzbow 16:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What I mentioned was that the section with the title "other religions" need to include information regarding Islams relations with other religions other than just the Christian and the Jewish religion. Islams view on polytheists should as a minimum also be discussed. As for the Jewish and the Christian religion, I haven't suggested that we should include more information regarding Islam's relations with these religions, as I agree that these issues are sufficiently covered. Other things, however, that are also missing is something about Islam's relations with not just other religions but also atheists and agnostics. A section that is discussing Islam's view on family, marriage and gender roles is also missing, and would properly be very suitable as a subsection to the "community" section. -- Karl Meier 16:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. - Merzbow 17:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Islam have had most of its contact with Christians, Zoroastrian (and Jews). When Muslims conquered India, they extended the Dhimmi laws to Hinduis, Buddists and others... --Aminz 18:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a fact that Islam also came in contact with a lot of polytheists right from its most early days. -- Karl Meier 20:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That's true of course. --Aminz 23:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The section on "other religions" now includes information regarding Islam's relations with other religions other than Christianity and Judiasm. --Aminz 07:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I also added a bit about relations with atheists/agnostics; I think that section is complete now. The family life section will be added by us over the next few days. - Merzbow 08:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The "Family life" section is done, take a look when you can. - Merzbow 02:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I am impressed with the latest additions to the article, and they include everything that I thought was missing regarding these issues. I have been reading the whole article again though, and I still believe there is one remaining issue that will have to be discussed in the article, if it is to be complete: Islams relations with the state. If a section that adequately discuss these issues is added to the article, I will change my vote to support. -- Karl Meier 12:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll make that a small sub-section of "Law", since Islamic law defines the nature of such relations (i.e. the essential lack of church/state separation). - Merzbow 16:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been added now. - Merzbow 21:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I would have supported the nomination as your original version of that section sufficiently discussed the topic and was clear, neutral and straight to the point. Unfortunately though, Aminz latest editing which distort the history and facts regarding especially Islam's early relations with the state has turned the section into that is not suitable for a featured article. -- Karl Meier 23:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Karl please mind WP:CIVIL. --Aminz 23:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop wasting my time with your "Please mind WP:Whatever", and remain WP:Civil yourself. Thank you. I have made valid comments about your editing of that specific section, and mentioned that your version of the article is not suitable for a featured article. You might wish that policy said something else, but fact is that criticizing your editing is not against against WP:Civility or any other policy. -- Karl Meier 23:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop refering to my edits as distorting facts and history. --Aminz 23:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

We are allowed to discuss your specific edits and to criticizing them. What makes you believe otherwise? -- Karl Meier 23:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You are free to do that using a civil language. --Aminz 23:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You are free to stop your attempts to derail the discussions here with your false and pointless accusations. -- Karl Meier 00:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the section to include some of the information in a footnote. The way it's worded now is plausible I believe. - Merzbow 00:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I highly disagree with that edit. EoQ is quite clear that according to some "the qurʾānic message is not political but moral". This section further fails to mention Shia Islam that traditionally separated politics from religion holding that only Muhammad and his descendents can be the head of government. We are not supposed to write what people *like* to hear.--Aminz 00:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's continue the discussion about the specifics of this section on the article talk page. - Merzbow 00:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

As I believe that all my concerns has now been addressed, I have changed my vote to support. -- Karl Meier 07:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support. The article seem to be very comprehensive and detailed. However, i think it may be a bit too big...Bless sins 04:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the amount of material to cover it's unlikely to ever be below 80k. I hope to keep it under 85k though; just a month ago it used to be almost 115k, but we trimmed as much as seemed feasible. - Merzbow 06:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

We could reduce it right now by removing the "Arts and Sciences" and "Criticism" sections. As discussed on talk, the first is mostly irrelevant and misleading - domes, for example, are no more Islamic than are arches, courtyards, etc. - while the Criticism section is almost jarring in the awkwardness of its appendage to an article which is otherwise (with a few unfortunate exceptions) blessedly free of argument; it reads like a concession and I imagine that it probably was, from a time when the article was far less disinterested in tone than it is today (thanks also to Karl Meier's insistence on the presentation of several potentially controversial topics.)Proabivouac 22:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• No vote It seems I was wrong. It seems there are a couple of POV issues that need to be sorted out first.--Sefringle 00:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Anything else aside from the one sentence you edited? - Merzbow 00:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment No one has yet replied to my suggestion above, and my talk page comments have not been credibly addressed. Rather than try to hold the status of this article hostage to these complaints - to be fair, most Wikipedia articles fall short of my standards in these respects, and it is indeed a very good article as they go - but these comments about domes and gunpowder are entirely irrelevant to the subject of Islam, and should be removed even if and though they don't bother any POV camp.

Since this is not a vote, my comments can be interpreted for what they are; neither a protest that this article might achieve featured status in its current state, nor an acceptance of the presence of these unnecessary components. Ideally both Arts and Sciences and Criticism sections will be removed, bringing us to exactly the recommended size. Barring this, at least we should remove the most obviously off-topic sentences.Proabivouac 07:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

While I thank you for not lodging an oppose based on this, I'll have to strongly disagree with your reasoning. We have a section called "History" of which 70% discusses political and military events in the Islamic World. This content has nothing to do with religion directly, yet you aren't arguing against it. Historical accomplishments by Muslims in areas of art and science are in no way qualitatively different than their military and political exploits. I would suggest that for consistency, if you want art, science, and philosophy to go, you also need to argue that all of this history be excised as well. My position is that all sufficiently notable events in the Muslim world are within the scope of Islam (and the content of every single introductory book on Islam I've ever read, from Esposito to Lewis to Britannica, validates this observation). As for the criticism section, if you want to make concrete proposals to address specific criticisms elsewhere in the article that you think are being marginalized here, then go ahead... as above we've already done a bit of this. - Merzbow 07:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment The history just attained the minimum level of religious history to let me drop my oppose, but I still think that the section should more be about religious history, not politics. I think that most people add political history, arts and science, etc. in their books, is because there is no difference for the name for the civilization (Islamic civilization) and the religion (Islam), as opposed to Western civilization (politics, military, arts, science, ...) and (Western) Christianity. This confusion should however be no argument to confuse the two in an encyclopedic article. Arts and science should perhaps be limited to religion-related art, science and literature only. I mean: gunpowder, paper, medicine, etc should be removed, art and literature dedicated or related to the worshipping of Allah should stay. Sijo Ripa 12:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we can take cues from Encyclopedia Britannica Online; the article on Islam deals exclusively with the religious history, philosophy and theology, whereas the political history is dealt with in the article "Islamic world". --Bluerain ^talk 14:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should limit it to religious history (since, political expansion is important to who = adherents and what ideas they bring to the development of religious thought) but I think we should tightly integrate the two... They aren't integrated and the history of religious thoughts often seems like mere asides with dislike ideas paired in the same sentences (see second paragraph of Golden Age). Also about that paragraph al-Shafi'i is important for codifying Usul al-fiqh... its affect on usage of hadith is important but it's not "he made it second", but he attempted to standardize usage. Also, we mention neopolatonism in Arab philosophy but not Aristotelian thought? I am not well read on Islamic philosophy but I'd like to be assured that the choice is not merely arbitrary? You also have disjuncts like §Modern times (1878–present) // In the aftermath of World War I losses. If the section starts at 1878 then so should the text. I think the modern time section is misleading because it talks about "Liberal Islam" as a means to "reconcile religious tradition with modern norms of secular governance and human rights"? Using that language would make it seems that progressive-ish Muslims are more important than the reformist movements like the Ikhwan and Jamaat-e-Islami but instead we lump these in with "fundamentalist" groups. It's especially misleading since MB and JI were very modern groups that while religious were not traditional at all (and often opposed the ulema). So, we should downplay the liberal groups but focus on the modern ones and not use Islamism as a pejorative (which we are when we call it fundamentalist). And Islamism isn't a movment. It's a label given by Western scholars. The Muslims Brotherhood is a movement. This has gotten away from my original purpose but I think a lot of it is sloppy and anecdotal. Oh, and the ending sentence "There are Muslim and non-Muslim scholars who have spoken out against it stating that the basic texts of Islam texts do not sanction these activities." just doesn't fit and looks like it was tacked on to make it look better. gren グレン 15:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Many of these are good points, and the article will be improved accordingly. - Merzbow 21:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose While I appreciate all the hard work that Merzbow has invested into this article, it's not of a featured quality yet. Some points:
• What is the Persian spelling of the word doing in this article?

Taken out, only the Arabic is necessary. - Merzbow 22:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• The number of 1.4 billion Muslims is the probably the highest estimate I've ever seen; it is particularly suspicious because it comes from a source of dubious quality. Just some more figures: Islam by country gives the total of 1.3 billion, so does [adherents.com http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html]. Because the number of Muslims cannot be determined precisely, there should be at least several reliable sources giving their estimates.

Took out numbers from the lead, changed the upper estimate in the Demo section to 1.3 billion. - Merzbow 22:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• The sentences "The word is given a number of meanings in the Qur'an. In some verses (ayat), the quality of Islam as an internal conviction is stressed:..." are unreferenced and sound like original research.

All material in this paragraph is supported by EoI Islam, which is the trailing footnote. - Merzbow 22:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• "Judaism and Christianity are seen as kindred faiths because of a shared prophetic tradition..." Exceptionally POV. Who of the Muslim scholars sees Judaism and Christianity as "kindred faiths"?

Reworded this paragraph. - Merzbow 22:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• The section on the Qur'an is mostly devoted to textual issues, and important points are not even touched. For example, in Islam, the Qur'an is not merely the literal word of God, but also eternal and uncreated.

These attributes of the Qur'an are now mentioned (I only think a brief mention is warranted here). - Merzbow 03:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• The sentence "The Qur'an contains over a hundred chapters of verse on topics such as theology, morality, and matters of law." is completely unsatisfactory. First, the fact that the Qur'an is divided into suras and these into ayats is strangely missing. Secodnly, the Qur'an is in no way divided topically, though the sentence leaves the reader with precisely such an impression.

Addressed with more precise and accurate language. - Merzbow 03:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• "It occupies a status of primacy in Islamic jurisprudence, and Muslims consider it a definitive source of guidance." Nope. The Qur'an requires commentary and commentators may differ. On the other hand, when there is a clear tradition from Muhammad, it prevails over commentary in the matters of jurisprudence.

Addressed. - Merzbow 03:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• "To interpret the Qu'ran, Muslims use a form of exegesis known as tafsir." The sentence makes no sense: tafsir is the Islamic exegesis!

To be specific, it's the science/practice of Qur'anic exegesis. Addressed. - Merzbow 03:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• "Despite his exalted status in Muslim thought, Muslims believe that Muhammad was merely human." Yes, but he was also the perfect man.

Reshuffled words and made this clear. - Merzbow 01:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Not all Muslim believe that he was perfect man. -- A. L. M. 01:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Britannica says Muslims believe this unconditionally, or at least it's held widely enough that the minority viewpoint isn't notable. I'm awaiting other sources on the talk page. - Merzbow 02:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• "By 629 Muhammad was victorious in the nearly bloodless Conquest of Mecca..." In the meantime, there was the execution of prisoners of war after the Battle of Badr, the bloody butchery of the Banu Qurayza, another slaughter during the Battle of Khaybar, and lots of other battles, assassinations and smaller raids. The realty of Muhammad's career was the opposite of the peaceful rise painted in the article, so much so that the earliest biogrpahies of Muhammad known as maghazi were devoted solely to his campaigns.

I've added two sentences that go into the specifics of Muhammad's military exploits. This will be undoubtedly be controversial to some, so keep an eye on it and see how it evolves. - Merzbow 06:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• "The authentic hadith are considered to be an authoritative source of revelation..." No, the hadith are not revelations, only reports by humans of what they saw and heard.

That sentence was redundant in context; I removed it. - Merzbow 22:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I could go on, but my comments could take the whole page. Beit Or 19:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are appreciated, but please note all issues underlying your oppose so that they can be acted upon. If you intend to provide more after we address these, then that's fine. - Merzbow 20:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Also because of the number of comments I'll be putting responses in-line. - Merzbow 22:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've addressed all of your existing issues above. When you get a chance, please also comment on the rest of the article (but there's no rush, I'm out travelling until next week). - Merzbow 06:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I will support, conditional on continuing response to Beit Or's review for as long as this FAC remains open. Beit Or has several FA's under his belt, and speaks with authority in this field; Merzbow is perhaps the fairest and most neutral writer I've seen in this space; their product I trust without reservation. I also encourage Itaqallah to remain engaged.Proabivouac 10:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• oppose until fix the "Beliefs" section and the "Duties and practices" are Sunni centric, they iterate the Sunni doctrines under the general term "islam". This is not accurate, since Shi'a have other views. --Striver - talk 02:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly that's a fair point in principle. If you share specifics, we can address them.Proabivouac 02:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

if you consult any basic primer or introductory texts on Islam, such as the work of Caeser Farah (in Islam: Beliefs and Observances (2003) Chapter: The fundamentals of Islam: Beliefs p. 109) who says: "The principal elements of worship in Islam entail belief in God, His angels, scriptures revealed to the believers in Him, the messengers, destiny (qadar), and the Day of Judgement", Esposito etc., then that is what you will find. ITAQALLAH 02:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried to make this part more complete and NPOV by adding bliefs of Mutazilis and Shias. I also put a comment about divine decree in the talk page of the artcile.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I added more info about how the Shi'a concept of "divine justice" (Adalah) differs from the Sunni conception of pre-ordainment (Qadr). The doctrine of Imamah is the other major difference in Shi'a belief according to the best source I have, but it only needs a quick mention in the Beliefs section, because it's explored in detail in the Denominations section. I think this covers it. - Merzbow 06:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Striver might be interested in this link to moniter changes made accoring to his suggestion [7]. --- A. L. M. 12:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Updated diff is here: [8]. - Merzbow 17:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

To tell the truth, i have only limited intrest in wikipedia now compared to previous. I made my point, and im sure people understood me, i leave the implementation or the lack of it in the hands of those more intrested - To be clear: this and this are the shi'a positions, while this and this are the Sunni positions. The most NPOV way is to either just present what both agree on are noteworth enough to mention, mention all of them in just one text named "Theology" and "Practices" were differences in denominations can be explained and some minor details be... whatever, you know the drill.--Striver - talk 18:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Basically each sub-section in Beliefs is now common to the two sects (renamed if necessary). Within each section, any differences between the Sunni/Shi'a views are made explicit. (I should note that there seem to be major inaccuracies in some of your linked articles, especially "Practices", which is unsourced - the Yale University Press book on Shi'a practices lists only eight.) From my point the only remaining thing to do here is make explicit the remaining Shi'a differences in regards to the Five Pillars (some are already noted). - Merzbow 00:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think now it has represented Shia better.[9]--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Continuing the review:

• The "Day of Resurrection" (yawm al-Qiyāmah), the "Day of Judgment" (yawm ad-dīn), and "the Last Hour" (as-sā`a) are not the same thing, but a sequence of events. First, all or most living beings are destroyed, then comes the resurrection, upon which the whole mankind will be gathered in one place, then the Day of Judgment.
• Why mention some Islamic scholars who wrote about the qiyamah? Many more than just those three covered that subject.

fixed. ITAQALLAH 20:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• "...(although some interpret this symbolically)." Who are these some? If these are Avicenna and some other philosophers influenced by the Greeks, then these were demolished and denounced as infidels by Ghazali in the twelfth century, and the philosophy in Islam quickly disappeared. Anyway, here we enter the sphere of complicated and antiquated arguments that are hardly relevant to what Muslims believe nowadays.

removed. ITAQALLAH 20:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• It is better to split the second paragraph of the section on resurrection and judgment into another section on afterlife.
• "The Qur'an list several sins that can condemn a person to hell, such as dishonesty and the exploitation of others." First and foremost, non-Muslims are condemned to hell. Then, why choose just two sins out of many?

have attempted to address this. naming a few sins as examples seems appropriate. ITAQALLAH 20:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• "Muslims view paradise as a place of joy and bliss, but despite the Qur'an's descriptions of the physical pleasures to come, there are clear references to a greater joy—acceptance by God (ridwān). There is also a strong mystical tradition in Islam that places these heavenly delights in the context of an ecstatic awareness of God, stressing an allegorical interpretation of the Qur'anic verses describing heaven." These two sentences are clearly designed to play down the naturalism of Muslim paradise. This is unfair. The Qur'an abounds in graphic descriptions of the joys of paradise, including wine, beautiful women, and handsome boys. In addition, please specify what this "mystical tradition" is, why it's "strong", and how it interprets the Qur'an "allegorically".

have attempted to address this. the Encyclopedia of Islam expresses the superiority of ridwan, and more specifically the vision of God. ITAQALLAH 20:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• The Muslim belief in the divine predestination is not called qadr (which means "power"), but al-qada wa'l-qadar). Beit Or 19:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

corrected. the other issues i intend to address soon. ITAQALLAH 20:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

All good points. The damnation of non-Muslims is key, and the apologetics regarding sex in heaven need to go. Arrow740 20:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good points. Thanks for tackling these Itaqallah, I assume you're working on the two remaining issues above (making explicit that sequence of events, new section on afterlife - also, for Afterlife to be large enough for its own section it should be expanded a bit). - Merzbow 00:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Itaqallah said on Talk:Islam: "...as with a number of Beit Or's concerns, i find the one concerning this section to be unreasonable."[10] With this kind of attitude, it is naturally a waste of my effort to continue reviewing this article. For the record, I must state that most my "unreasonable" concerns remain unaddressed; obviously, I retain my "oppose" vote and invite others to vote "oppose" as well. Beit Or 20:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That concern most certainly has been addressed by us - two sentences have been added that discuss exactly what you asked for. I disagreed with Itaqallah and made the change, and he seems OK with it now. Two sentences on Muhammad's warfare in a half-dozen-odd sentence paragraph on his entire life is more than reasonable. I would politely ask you to retract your statement here; if not, I would exhort the FAC coordinator, Raul654, to strike this oppose vote as being in bad-faith and unactionable. - Merzbow 20:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"this oppose vote as being in bad-faith and unactionable." I'm afraid you've crossed the line. Beit Or 20:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I will allow the attitude expressed by Beit Or above towards the editors who have put in countless hours addressing his objections (including Itaqallah) stand for itself. - Merzbow 20:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I find this turn of conversation most depressing. All three of you are hard-working and good-faith editors, it makes no sense to come to blows. It is perfectly alright that there are differences in opinion about the weight that should accorded to different events.

Beit Or, I deeply appreciate your review of this article; you'd identified many unexamined shortcomings, and most have been addressed to at least some degree.

I strongly disagree that Beit Or's !vote should be struck; there can be no question that it honestly reflects his informed opinion. At the same time, I choose to support, and have done so below.Proabivouac 07:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support I think the article has become better after the editions during last week. Now it's more correct, clear, complete and NPOV. Thanks for all of wikipedians who have worked on it.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 01:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support This article, which was once such an embarrassment, is now one of the best to be found in Islam-related space. I thank and congratulate all who who worked so hard to make it so, and all those who have taken the time to review it.Proabivouac 07:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 16:58, 22 May 2007.

[edit] Bill O'Reilly (cricketer)

This article has undergone significant copyediting, it's now well and accurately referenced and nicely illustrated. A peer review has also been conducted during which all comments have been addressed. Predominantly a collaboration between myself and User:Dweller, please support this article's promotion to featured status, and feel free to add comments below. The Rambling Man 11:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Was a part of the peer review process and my concerns were addressed then. AllynJ 12:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. A minor point or two in the "Conflict with Bradman" section; one could add a Bradman image, and you refer to Fingleton as a "trained journalist" who wasn't invited to the meeting between the Board and O'Reilly, Fleetwood-Smith et al, and then, a few lines later, state that Fingleton later became a journalist. Besides this minor quibble, I see this as an excellent article worthy of Featured Article status. --Roisterer 12:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  Great, thanks for pointing that out, I'll get onto this chronological misdemeanour! The Rambling Man 12:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  I've rephrased that part of the section, hope it makes sense, and I've also added a Bradman image. Thanks! The Rambling Man 12:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Minor comment - The legacy section seems rather short, and isn't really about his legacy. Would be best to merge it with the above Later life section. Andrew nixon 12:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  A very reasonable point, I'll get onto it. The Rambling Man 12:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  Done, thanks. The Rambling Man 12:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

*Weak Support: A few points -
1. In the opening para, it says "In 1935, wisden ..." and the following sentence says "four years later". I checked Cricinfo and found no reference to aussie tour of england in 1939. here are the links - 1938-39 season, 1939 season, [1939-1940 season. please check the date of the tour.

Interesting. I've checked cricket archive here and found the 1938 Ashes series. The Wisden would have been published the following year, so I think the article, as it stands, is correct. Perhaps Cricinfo is missing something?! The Rambling Man 13:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I've found it at Cricinfo too! The Rambling Man 13:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

2. Para 2 in 'Youth and early career' states: "When he was three, the O'Reilly family moved to Murringo. Murringo, O'Reilly said in his autobiography "... remove the double mention or i could do it.
:Duplication removed The Rambling Man 13:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

3. In the 'Test regular' section, the first 2 paras detail the bodyline series. it is best to merge them and make into one para.

Para's merged The Rambling Man 13:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

4. i think it is best to leave out domestic performances out of the "internatinal career" section. para 3 of the 'Test regular section' talks about sheffield shield. best to make a section - domestic career and move it there. throughout the international career section, i find references to domestic results. i think we need to move it out to a seperate section.

This was discussed with no real consensus on the talk page. I'll attempt to rephrase to suit all parties, but for the moment it may just need the section being re-title rather than two chronologically parallel sections, which may be even more difficult to read. The Rambling Man 13:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've renamed the section "First-class career" and renamed teh subsections accordingly. This way the domestic and international careers are nicely merged without having the two parallel sections. Plus the heading more accurately represents the section following it. Hurrah. The Rambling Man 16:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

5. Is the potrait of Clarrie Grimmett and Don Bradman essential to the article? i think we can leave them out.
:I've removed Grimmett because he's not as significant. Bradman played such an important part in O'Reilly's career I don't see too much harm in keeping his image there. The Rambling Man 13:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

6. section Career rankings and ratings needs formating.
:Yes, fixed, thank you. The Rambling Man 13:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

i think that the contents of "notes" and "references" section are interchanged. can you please correct it?
:Swapped as requested. The Rambling Man 13:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

i think most of the comments (& corrections) are minor except the addition of a new section for domestic season. apologize for not participating in the peer review. will do it the next time around. once these comments are addressed, i shall remove the conditionality in the support. Kalyan 12:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks for your many good and in-depth comments, I'll address them individually and let you know when I'm done so you can see if you find my amendments satisfactory The Rambling Man 12:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• SUPPORT: The only comment left on the table is that of a section on domestic season needs to be added. but that is only to ensure that all data on that front is collected in one location. it doesn't affect the FA candidature. i remove the conditionality. I have a minor point that i shall send to the author directly. Kalyan 14:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

See above, I've attended to your final issue I think. Your minor point has been addressed, thank you for your time. The Rambling Man 16:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support: Was part of the original authorship and believe that the article has been substantially improved through the editing process. Johnlp 18:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support I've been <ahem> slightly distracted while at Wikipedia the last few days, so can take less credit for this than TRM implies. He's done a great job. Especially with tidying up the mess I leave. --Dweller 22:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Excellently researched and referenced article on an important figure in the sport. Nick mallory 04:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support (and I have done a very light copyedit) but it really could do with a review by a few editors outside the cricketing fraternity. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support, and some comments - The article is excellent and seems FA-worthy as it stands, but I'm completely cricket-ignorant. What does "lower-order" mean? (There's no link, or article, and perhaps it should be piped and linked to Batting order (cricket)).

Superb - done. --Dweller 16:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I may be wrong, but shouldn't the following items have references?:

• • "one of the greatest cricketers of all time"

It's cited, with a quote, just a few lines below. We've usually adopted a more laissez-faire attitude to citing in the LEAD, but this one's got quite a few. Is it OK? --Dweller 16:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• • "O'Reilly was a competent left-handed lower-order batsman"

Doing...That one's worrying - we need to do something about his batting. --Dweller 16:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

O'Reilly's citation as a Wisden Cricketer of the Year 1935 has the following sentence: "He had no pretensions to grace of style or any particular merit, but he could hit tremendously hard and was always a menace to tired bowlers." Johnlp 20:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The article mentions that he didn't have time to "attend coaching". This seems like it lacks context. In the U.S., us yanks have this thing called Little league in which kids play (and are coached in) baseball competitively. "Attending coaching" seems like it refers to one-on-one coaching, like piano lessons or personal gymnastics training, rather than team practice. In what context are kids coached in cricket? Is there a British Commonwealth or Aussie counterpart to little league? Here, we'd say "couldn't participate in little league" or "couldn't attend baseball practice like other kids his age".

Doing... Unsure, but he wasn't British, lol. Nonetheless, your point's well made. --Dweller 16:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The Wisden citation says he "owed little or nothing to any special coaching". It also says that he was advised to alter his grip "but decided not to do so and now this is exactly the same as it always was–the first two fingers round the ball and the others folded on to the palm of his hand." Johnlp 20:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In the same paragraph, there's a comment questioning the inclusion of two bats. Were they both bats, or was one a ball? If they were both bats, then to avoid it reading like a run-on sentence, it should refer to the two bats initially. "He learned to play with his brothers, playing with two bats - one a "gum-wood bat and a piece of banksia root chiselled down to make a bat, and the other...". (and so on).

The second one should be "ball" and I've altered it now. Johnlp 20:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Just some thoughts, possibly to make the article easier to read for us yanks. The Transhumanist    16:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Zleitzen's oppose

• Oppose Some poor writing. Though given the project support above, and the fact that much of the support seems to come from people who have actually worked on the article, it'll probably make little difference.

  There's no intention from the people who worked on this to rush it through as a blanket support, hopefully we can deal with your comments and gain your support. The Rambling Man 17:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

  • "When O'Reilly died, Sir Donald Bradman said he was the greatest bowler he had ever faced or watched." Floating quote not attributed to anyone

    Attributed The Rambling Man 17:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

  • indeed "he was asked to make up the numbers” Floating quote not attributed to anyone again

    Attributed The Rambling Man 17:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

  • “O'Reilly was selected for the New South Wales practice squad, based on his performance in a single match for North Sydney, he made his debut in the 1927–28 season, playing in three matches and taking seven wickets.” Rambling sentence. In fact much of that section reads poorly.

    Okay, the sentence in question has been rephrased thus: "O'Reilly was selected for the New South Wales practice squad based on his performance in a single match for North Sydney. He made his debut in the 1927–28 season, playing in three matches and taking seven wickets."

    I'll copyedit the remainder of the section, although our resident copyeditor has already done a job that would be infinitely superior to me, so I'm not sure what I can add. Still, I'll give it a go. The Rambling Man 18:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

  • “ Also opening the bowling in both Adelaide and Brisbane, and by a falling-off in the performance of Grimmett” …by a falling off? What?

    Yeah, in all honesty I've tried re-writing that a few times and seem to have hit writer's block each time. Anyway, I rephrased it thus: "...and by a decline in the form of Grimmett." The Rambling Man 18:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

  • “On the debit side, his figures at The Oval, where England posted the then-record Test score of 903 for seven wickets were three for 178 off 85 overs,” Sentence needs breaking down with correct punctuation.

    Rephrased & re-punc'ed The Rambling Man 18:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

-- Zleitzen^(talk) 17:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The Rambling Man has done a good job dealing with these comment.

• The quotes complained of as "floating" both had inline citations already, as far as I can see (the second one had two citations), but there was no explicit recognition of who was being quoted in the text (now both fixed - Engel twice).
• The rambling "practise squad" paragraph (should that be "practice"?) was edited after my copyediting run through (it used to say "Selected for ..., based on ..., he made his debut ...") but a new section heading was added and it acquired the opening "O'Reilly was". But it reads better broken down anyway.
• The odd "falling off" sentence did need dealing with. And an extra comma was needed in the "903 for seven" sentence. Both mea culpa, mea culpa. Sorry. Now fixed, I hope.

Are these just examples, or are there other issues? As The Rambling Man says, there is no intention to ram this through - any reasonable objection or comment will be dealt with. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Michaelas' support

• YA RLY (erm.. I mean support).

• First sentence ("...was one of the greatest cricketers of all time") sounds straightforward POV to me. Him being declared so by the press is already mentioned in the subsequent paragraph.

• Fixed The Rambling Man 03:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think that someone regarded as one of the greatest of all time should have that recorded in the opening sentence. I'll review. It's not POV as it's sourced... and, as previously discussed, there's some latitude with citing in the Lead. --Dweller 10:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• We may only use NPOV sources when purely declaring claim a fact. However, as the source isn't NPOV here, it must be mentioned and quoted (e.g. Wisden reflected on Bill O'Reilly's successful 1938 Ashes tour of England: "He is emphatically one of the greatest bowlers of all time."). Please see WP:NPOV#Characterizing opinions of people's work. Michaelas¹⁰ 10:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• "Tiger O'Reilly"/"Bill O'Reilly"/"Don Bradman" aren't descriptive image captions; where was he pictured? How old he was? Where is the picture from?

• Fair point, I'll have to defer to someone else on this... The Rambling Man 03:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• All now descriptive. --Dweller 10:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• 'O'Reilly's later years were troubled with poor health, including the loss of a leg" - Why did he loose a leg?

• This is from his Wisden obituary, which doesn't specify. I'm not sure it would add too much. Presumably, if it was because of a noteworthy incident (like Fred Titmus's toes) it would have been recorded. --Dweller 10:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• "He died in hospital in Sutherland in Sydney" - Remove "in Sydney", redundant.

• Done The Rambling Man 03:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• "...quietly read" > "...read quietly".

• Done The Rambling Man 03:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Michaelas¹⁰ 19:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support Good work I think. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 16:58, 22 May 2007.

[edit] Harriet Arbuthnot

The Giano featured article factory has taken this demurely-dressed country cousin of an article and, in a week, performed some alchemy to reinvent her as a perfectly formed lady of society, clad in diaphanous silks and gauzes.

She is one of the more notable of the Arbuthnot family, who have been making rather regular appearances at WP:AFD of late. A diarist in Georgian England, and a Tory political hostess, she has been decribed was the "closest woman friend" of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. I have given the article a brief copyedit, but I wish I had Giano's writing talent. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Is she not written about much? Just curious if there is more information available to add, or if this article satisfies comprehensiveness - not knowing the subject I couldn't answer this. LuciferMorgan 22:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes it is short for an FAC and the subject not the most notable. A great deal that has been written about her seems to be chiefly concerned with "did she or did'nt she sleep with Wellington" and draw no definite conclusions. As no-one knows the truth I don't see that having more of that subject here is encyclopedic - An encyclopedia enjoys the luxury of being slightly different to a biography that has to put a new sensational slant on Wellington in order to sell. I wanted this biography here to be about her but there is not much more to say without repetition - she wrote a diary, was Wellington's great friend and died young. Remember a few weeks ago she had a non-notable tag stuck on her [11]. Well I think I have proved notability, but even if this page passes FAC she will never be the most notable person on the encyclopedia, but if someone wants to know: Who was Mrs Arbithnot? This page will tell them the known facts, and that the unproven speculation is entirely that, unproven. Giano 06:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• That's fair enough - I was just curious whether the article covered all aspects of its subject (1b) that's all. It isn't a question I would've asked if I was familiar with this person. I had a recent FA which was slightly shorter than this one (and wasn't the most notable either), but when an article meets comprehensiveness this doesn't apply. LuciferMorgan 09:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• To amplify Giano's comments (he wrote this so he should know), I am not aware of a biography being published of her on her own, as opposed to her appearing as a bit-player in the biographies of others (principally Wellington, of course). She is more of a footnote in history than a main player. The references include a published Wellington biography (Longford), and a published account of the Arbuthnots' relationship with him (Smith). I would be surprised if any "major facts and details" (as WP:WIAFA 1(b) says) are not already included. If you are aware of any sources which could enhance this article, please let us know. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If these sources were out there, I think Giano would have a better chance finding them than me. I'm unaware of any sources, and am unfamiliar with the subject. Sounds like 1b is fine (anyone disagree feel free to comment). LuciferMorgan 11:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak oppose I have looked over the article, and made some changes to reflect what the terms discussed were (including a link to her nationality and the country where this takes places, which are obligatory under the MoS guidelines). I must say part of the prose is overtly familiar, in contrast to what is expected from an encyclopedia article - they should either be turned into quotes (if that is what they were) and thus attibuted, or rephrased entirely. Examples include, from what I have seen:
• Thus, with her country-loving parents, she and her brothers and sisters enjoyed a comfortable and reasonably affluent country childhood.
• However, as the debate and wrangling over her dowry proved, money was tight.
• When remarking in her diaries on other women who shared their affections with great men of the day, Arbuthnot displayed a biting wit and sarcasm.
• Amongst those sampling the almost frenetic rounds of entertainment, in this Becky Sharpish environment, were the newly married Arbuthnots.
• In fact, due to a bizarre series of events,...
• Therefore it appears the presence of Arbuthnot protected the Duke from other female attention.

The editors must ask themselves: "who made these judgments"? Either quote someone making them or change to an impersonal tone. Dahn 10:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Changed my vote to support - all my previous objections have been addressed. All in all, a well-written article, clearly up to FA standards. Dahn 06:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and contributions, but "obligatory" under the MOS? Are you sure? It was a guideline last time I looked.

You seem to be objecting to logical deductions from the known facts. For example, it is clear that her mother had a strained financial situation, and her fiancé is even known to have complained about it. Money was tight.

Finally, you find the prose overtly (overly?) familiar; I find it warm and compelling. If you are going to require Giano to change his tone into something stony and impersonal, I will have to withdraw this nomination. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Dahn: Some of these have been edited a bit, so it may be worth another look, if you have the time. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the ambiguous links that I had not spotted. I don't think there are any statements or conclusions that are not substantiated by the references nor do I think the tone of the prose is overtly familiar - I hope it is easily readable modern standard English. I try to immagine I am writing for a intelligent readership of 14 years old and above. Giano 12:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support the beautifully chosen quotes make it for me and I see nothing wrong with the tone of the writing. One odd sentence that I can't make out: Her political observations are often biased as seen from her own viewpoint - either the second part of the sentence is redundant or I've just missed the point. Ref 17 seems out of place and is a near-duplicate of 13, a straggler from an earlier draft?. Yomangani^talk 17:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks Yomangani - I've addressed your points I kept looking at that repetition and thinking I was having deja vu but could not see it for looking! Glad you like the quotes it was difficult to know which one's to choose, one of the ironies of life is that the waspish comments about people are always more fun to read than nice ones! Giano 18:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment To elaborate on my earlier answer: there is nothing wrong with the quality of the prose, but, as I have said, there are several things I consider wrong in using an editor's evaluation of events for a fact. Expressions such as "bizarre", "Becky Sharpish", "almost frenetic", "biting wit", "country-loving parents", etc., as long as they are not quoted from someone using them, are best rephrased - otherwise, we have an intermediate writer giving us an assessment, making a deduction, comparing, and drawing his or her own conclusions. It is eloquent perhaps, but it borders on WP:OR. And if, incidentally, wikipedia does encourage "cold" writing instead of essays, the issue I raised was about attributing opinions about the facts (the only alternative to that is not reporting opinions at all). I will add that there are currently entire paragraphs without a single reference. Dahn 18:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I had not noticed ALoan's comment about changes, so take my earlier comment in the light of that. I'll look over the article again. Dahn 18:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC) I'm afraid most of what I had objected to is still in the text. Dahn 18:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

And there we have the nub of the issue: to what extent should the writer of an encyclopedia article synthesise the existing materials to produce a coherent and engaging account? Clearly some editorial judgement is required in writing an encyclopedia article, otherwise we might as well just quote (or provide links to) the original materials for the reader to read for themselves. You seem to be suggesting that Giano has used the wrong sort of adjectives.

As for refereces, are you suggesting that Giano is making any of this up out of his own head? Or that any of it is not supported by the cited references? (And in relation to "paragraphs without a single reference", if we are counting footnotes as some sort of proxy for the quality of the referencing, I count one paragraph with no inline citations - the one in the middle summarising Charles Arbuthnot's life up to his marriage to Harriet.) -- ALoan (Talk) 19:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What I am actually saying is that parts of the article can be voiced without metaphors and comparisons that were not produced by sources and quoted from them. Basically, the reader currently finds out that Giano considers some events bizarre, an atmosphere to be reminiscent of a certain novel (written AFAIK, when the subject of this article was dead), some parties to be almost frenetic, her prose to be biting etc. If I were to write about, say, Victor Hugo's prose and tell you that it is "wonderful" or "reminiscent of some other guy", the information would have to be and would be erased - if I want it in there, I would have to quote a source saying it; if not, I could rephrase to something neutral and, yes, cold.

You are right about the references - while I will not object to the paragraph remaining unsourced in this FAC, I will point out that, as Giano himself commented on another entry (btw, I thank him for his comments there), unsourced portions of text, as small as they me, can turn out to be huge problems. But do please address the other issue. Dahn 19:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I should have realised that the on-going discussion at "another place" (here presumably?) was relevant to this FAC.

(Gosh! A Napoleonic general! How exciting! I must read the article.) -- ALoan (Talk) 20:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was not related in any way other than me noticing this FAC while I was answering there, and Giano intervening there after I answered here. In fact, I feel a tad guilty that I am opposing this article while Giano is endorsing that one, but I really believe the problems I pointed here are real ones (just as I believe that the sentences in question can be easily rephrased - hopefully without losing their quality). Dahn 20:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Please don't feel guilty valid points I can deal with - people who rejoice in saying pages are insufficiently referenced on FARC and then come here saying just the opposite! Such as is happening to your page.... perhaps I should keep my feelings to myself - but next year those same people will nominate your page for being insufficiently referenced - so you are in trouble basically for jumping the gun.

Anyway lets keep to the matter on hand here. Regarding your points.

1. "bizarre": - I think it is a fair and natural adjective to describe a successful 19th century man marrying a woman he last saw ten years before as bizarre. One could have said "unusual" butthat would be to week a term.
2. "Becky Sharpish": well that character and her exploits in France at that time (yes I know it was written later) exactly describe Paris at the time the Arbuthnot's were there. Anyone who has ever read that book (and quite few have) will immediately understand the scenario the Arbuthnots found themselves in.
3. "almost frenetic": Well again that period in Paris was frenetic, we could lose the "almost" but that would give frenetic its literal meaning which again would be too strong.
4. "country-loving parents": There is a reference in the page somewhere before that is mentioned confirming that her father was criticised for "preferring to spend his time in the country" so to say "country-loving" is a naturally drawn inference (anyhow I think someone has already changed that.
5. "biting wit": Yes, I could concede on that one although describing one's rival for Wellington's attentions as a "femme gallante".... well anyway I'll change it - scathing I won't give on - describing a Duke as a "common swindler" is a pretty scathing comment. Giano 07:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV: "Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts [...]. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It is important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe..." formulation popular in political debates. The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name (with the clear implication that the named individual should be a recognized authority)."

Here are my suggestions:

1. if it is that obviously bizarre that he had not seen his bride-to-be for 10 years, then the "bizarre" is not needed (I wouldn't, for example, need to write "bizarrely, X was born with fourteen arms and five legs"). I am not sure the adjective refers to that, though, because it stresses not that the situation was bizarre, but that the events were - meaning that the detail is superfluous here (the events are not discussed in this article, so establishing whether they were or not bizarre is of minimal importance). If Arbuthnot herself mentions the events, you could quote an adjective that is used by her in relation to them, if you feel like it. I would also like to add that, while marrying a person you hadn't seen for ten years was uncommon, it was not that uncommon (some of my ancestors married as young adults after only seeing each other as toddlers or not ever seeing each other - it is the logic of an arranged marriage, and arranged marriages were the norm in Europe back in the day).
2. well, as exact as such adjectives may seem, they still are literary devices, not neutral reporting (I use "neutral" in the most neutral of its meanings). Just below that notion, you have the ample description of a scandal, and it is one which speaks for itself. Aside from that, there are several who will disagree that, in the history of Paris, the Restoration was especially animated (though it was certainly more so than Napoleon's day, and though it wasn't all Cossacks and White Terror). The description serves no purpose, and it is your own assessment (right or wrong as you may be in making it).
3. as above (though this adjective is not that problematic - if you address all other issues but leave this one as is, I will change my vote).
4. I still consider "country-loving" a superfluous belles-lettres interference between the facts and the reader, but, as per the previous point, I will remove this from among my objections.
5. thanks Dahn 05:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

OK Becky has departed and most of the other points have been addressed. I will just point out though that Wellington'e marriage was not arranged - but all of that belongs on his page not this one so I won't digress on HA's page. I hope you now feel you can change to support. Giano 06:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thank you again. Dahn 06:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - good luck with Sébastiani. Giano 07:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Support qp10qp 01:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments Thank you, Giano, for rescuing this article from AfD (more "presentism" at work on wikipedia, I fear). I am very close to supporting this article. I have a few quibbles with language (not related to the intense discussion above which I do not want to enter into) and a few suggestions for expansion.

• In the lead you suggest that her diary is only used for biographies, but then in the article you write that "However, her detailed description of the rivalry for power between the Tories and Liberals which took place between 1822 and 1830 is one of the most authoritative accounts of this struggle." - Perhaps the lead could be broadened to reflect the fact that her diary is used to describe politics and society as well as people?

addressed Giano 16:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• The young Harriet Fane spent much of her childhood at the family home at Fulbeck Hall in Lincolnshire, which had been given to Thomas Fane by his father. Fulbeck Hall, sited high on the limestone hills above Grantham, was a not over-large modern mansion at the time of Arbuthnot's childhood, having been rebuilt following a fire in 1733. - the clauses just keep going here, don't they? could you revise?

addressed Giano 17:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thus, she and her brothers and sisters enjoyed a comfortable and reasonably affluent rural childhood. - I'm not sure that the "thus" follows from the sentence about the house.

addressed Giano 17:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Could you explain how the marriage settlement was resolved in the first paragraph of the "Marriage" section?

I'm not sure of the answer to that one, and can find no information. It may have to be put on hold. Giano 17:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Married to a politician, she was fascinated by politics and enjoyed success as a political hostess while exerting her energies to promote Tory causes. - might you mention what some of those Tory causes were for the reader not familiar with the intricacies of early nineteenth-century politics?
• While Arbuthnot's impressions may have been less than candid, and her views of the Duchess's character and mothering skills not shared by some members of the establishment, including Wellington himself,[14] had Arbuthnot's own character been judged as less than respectable, an audience with the infant princess would not have been permitted. - This sentence can be made clearer - there are too many dependent clauses.

addressed Giano 17:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Her political observations are often biased, clearly written from her own Tory viewpoint. - I would leave out the "biased" part and simply state that the diary is written from a Tory viewpoint.

addresed Giano 17:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thus it seems, most likely, that in addition to assisting Wellington with his social life, Arbuthnot also acted as his door-keeper. - perhaps a more precise word than "door-keeper" could be chosen

addressed Giano 17:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• According to the Dictionary of National Biography, Arbuthnot's diary covers the Cato Street Conspiracy, Queen Caroline's trial, Catholic emancipation, and parliamentary reform quite a bit in the diary. Might you introduce a section on political events and discuss some of these? One reason I suggest this is that I was hoping for more quotations from the diary, since that is what she is known for. Awadewit ^Talk 00:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have addresed sveral of your pints above, the other will obviously take a little longer, I will endevour to do some research over the next couple of days. I don't want to have toom any quotes as I want the page to be about the person rather than her sayings. Giano 17:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to do a separate page on the diary? If not, it would really be nice to have more quotes here since that is what makes her "notable." Awadewit ^Talk 20:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support, a stylish and enjoyable page. IMO it is now amply sourced. Bishonen | talk 13:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC).
• Support. It's hard to believe that mere two months ago we had no article on this important subject, and just a fortnight ago it was a pitiful stub!

As for Dahn's objections, I believe it involves the difference between Anglo-Saxon encyclopaedias and those of continental Europe. In Germany, for instance, they think it superfluous for an encyclopaedia contributor to express his own opinion on the subject and present his own point of view. But a certain tinge of subjectivism is intergral to the British encyclopaedic tradition. The current edition of the Britannica has a large section "assessment" appended to every significant bio-article. The author is free to express his own view on the subject. I recall one Britannica article referring to Russian imperial administration as "unqualified fools". While an occasional descriptive epithet thrown into the text is most refreshing and welcome, Britannica "assessment" sections are sometimes really objectionable, and still nobody would impeach the Britannica as invalid on account of its excessive subjectivism. We should not become slaves to footnotes. We are not writing a monograph here. No other encyclopaedia employs a more complex system of referencing than our featured articles do. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, it's important to recognize that complete objectivity will never be possible. Every article will have some ideological leanings. Awadewit ^Talk 19:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 16:58, 22 May 2007.

[edit] Building of the World Trade Center

This article is a subarticle of the main World Trade Center article, and one of a series of articles (see my user page for a list) on the topic that I'd like to reach FA status. The article has been at peer review, with very helpful feedback. Changes and improvements have been made to the article to the point that I think it's ready for FAC. --Aude (talk) 12:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

*Oppose: This article has a couple of red links. It has some grammar mistakes (which sometimes affect the sentence structure). It has too few external links (according to me, at least). The see also links can be improved, including putting some more relevant links. The images are not balanced. Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 14:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Support:Well, on second thought, after the changes made, this article has some potential as an FA. Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 17:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• • No longer any red links. Some external links added though we need not overdo it and let Wikipedia become a link directory. A navigation box is there now to tie this article with other "see also" articles. Other edits done to address grammar. There aren't as many construction images as I'd like, due to copyright problems, but have adjusted placement of what's there.--Aude (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment "Building the World Trade Center" sounds like the title of some work of fiction, not an article about the construction of a building. Peter ^Isotalo 21:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• "Construction of the World Trade Center" might be a better title. In either case, it needs to be disambiguated given new construction there. —Cuiviénen 00:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "Construction" encompasses planning and design. "Building" encompasses all phases, including real estate development, planning, design, and construction. That said, I'm open to other suggestions for the title, but don't think "construction" is the best one. --Aude (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

How about Building of the World Trade Center? It has the advantage of being ambiguous: if the the word building is understood as a verb, it encompasses the meanings mentioned by Aude; if as a noun (i.e. 'the building of the WTC' as another way of phrasing 'the WTC building'), it would work for article which is partly about giving an architectural description of the building. Ham 12:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestion sounds good. --Aude (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If someone asks what we'll say call the new construction now underway, it can be titled "Rebuilding the World Trade Center"....I have to agree with the current title.--MONGO 06:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support Wow, that is an incredible article. Wrad 04:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Easily one of the best articles we have. --- RockMFR 16:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. A good read, better than the main WTC article. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 01:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Great article, well written, cited and seems to fit all the FA criteria. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 21:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, does anyone else think that it should be split up into References and Notes? Having complete citations repeated so many times is a waste of space. I think it would be better to split it and make the notes 2 or 3 columns wide. gren グレン 21:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

  That's a good idea I think.--MONGO 21:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Rather than doing that, combining the repeated refs with a <ref name => format style might be better, unless I am misunderstanding. Also, the lead probably needs citations, I just noticed. Wrad 22:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Pontiac's Rebellion (a recent successful FAC) splits up refs and notes, but draws from a far smaller number of unique sources than this article. In this article, there are a couple books, and sections of the NIST report that are repeated as sources. However, there are numerous other newspaper articles and other sources cited just once. I don't those would be separated out of the "notes" section? Do you know of another FA example that could be followed? As for using <ref name =>, we already do that. It may appear that some sources are repeated in the refs section, but the page numbers are different. Where the page numbers are the same, or only the chapters are specified, then that format is used to reduce repetition. --Aude (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • For the lead, I could be wrong, but don't think the cites are needed since it's merely a summary of what's in the article and cited later. See Pontiac's Rebellion as an example of what they did. But, if you think something specific should be cited in the lead, it could be done. --Aude (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
      • On reviewing both, I see no difference between the two article's leads, so I guess no references are needed in this lead. Wrad 15:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Promote I think the article is comprehensive, well written and well referenced. No reason to to not promote it as far as I am concerned.--MONGO 15:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Fixes needed
• WP:UNITS (some missing nbsp)
• Wikilinking needs a lot of attention per WP:CONTEXT; common words should not be linked.
• Some of your URLs are missing last access date — they may be convenience links only (not sure), but it doesn't hurt to go ahead and provide them. (Also, you haven't identified PDFs, but I'll fix those.)

Does Outriggr (talk · contribs) know you misspelled his name? <grin> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Which URLs do you think need last access dates? Do URLs that link to publications or articles with specific publish dates (e.g. the NIST report published in September 2005) really need access dates? The NIST report is something you can order hard copies or copies of on CD-ROM. Same with articles, such as the New Yorker article... you can probably find an old hard copy of this at a library. If you still think access dates should be there, it can be done. --Aude (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Tried to reduce number of wikilinks, and non-breaking spaces have been added. --Aude (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 16:58, 22 May 2007.

[edit] Kid A

This article has been accepted as a GA, and since then, full copy-editing has taken place and the readability has improved. I think it may now be good enough for FA. - Alex valavanis 11:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I like the ample background and production sections, they are so critical for album articles.--Danaman5 16:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Great article. Very nice work. Nat91 18:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Improve. I don't think this article really qualifies as a Good article yet, despite being awared the status. It needs a lot of its replication taken out, an improvement in its use of language, punctuation and generally a lot of eyes passing over it before being granted such an accolade. Until this article improves a great deal, I'm firmly against its being made a feature article. Don't take my opinion here in the wrong way. I'm for the album's status being raised and becoming a feature article, but certainly not until it reaches a level of quality first. Let's put the horse before the cart. I'm doing bits and pieces here and there to improve it, but at a very brief glance, there's just too much wrong with it to be made feature before even being considered for FA. --linca^linca 10:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks for your comments, but can you be any more specific or at least give examples of what can be improved? Which criteria does it fail to meet? I think it compares quite favourably with Surfer Rosa and Doolittle (album), both of which are featured. - Alex valavanis 11:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

  Another couple of editors have now been through the text and extensively reviewed the quality and accuracy. Is it better now? - Alex valavanis 10:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Very extensive, much informations and good research imho. --SoWhy ^Talk 14:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm going to do a more thorough rereading of this article later (having met this article previous at Peer Review). On first glance, I'd suggest trying an tighten up the lead a little bit. Mention some basic detail like who produced it and where (I'm thinking possibly as the second sentence in the article). Is the Thom Yorke quote all that necessary for the lead? Most importantly, mention the album's estimated total sales; this can be done in the lead or somewhere else in the article. WesleyDodds 14:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

  Production and sales added to lead. - Alex valavanis 15:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

  Quote is now indirect. Is this better? - Alex valavanis 15:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks better. Also, you should reformat the album credits to conform to the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Credits. WesleyDodds 17:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Done, although I've added some sub-headings as the list is rather long. - Alex valavanis 18:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Way, way too many blue links. From the lead: "single", "video", "marketing", "guitar", "Grammy", "2003".

  Removed excessive links per WP:CONTEXT. Better now? - Alex valavanis 10:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The prose needs work in areas. Examples from the first section:

• "particularly for singer Thom Yorke.[13] Yorke's sense of global dislocation and speed.." The word "York" is repeated in sucession. "Speed" is unexplained and unclear; was he taking amphetamines?
• "Yorke's sense of global dislocation and speed, which inspired songs on OK Computer,[14] had intensified on the 1997-1998 "Running From Demons" world tour,[15] documented in the 1999 film Meeting People Is Easy.[8]" - This seems bolted and clunky.

  Reworded sentence and removed ambiguous words. - Alex valavanis 10:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• "fridge buzz" or innocuous background noise. - What does this mean?

  It's a quote from Thom Yorke. I've rearranged the sentence to make it clearer - Alex valavanis 10:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• "suffered depression as he struggled to write new music" - Dangling modifier.
• "feeling that "all the sounds you made, that made you happy..." - and felt that.

  Done - Alex valavanis 10:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• "After the tour, the band came close to splitting up for good" - To informal.

  Made more formal - Alex valavanis 10:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is very well researched and detailed, a little work on the copy and I thinks it's there. Good work so far. Ceoil 07:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

These were examples only; the entire text needs an audit for similar issues. Ceoil 20:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, there are several editors working on copy-editing at the moment, so hopefully we'll be there very soon. Thanks for helping out btw. - Alex valavanis 00:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support I only caught two very minor errors while reading it, both of which I fixed myself rather than be a bother. This is excellent work; very comprehensive. --Brandt Luke Zorn 23:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Exaustive and well sourced. Frédérick Lacasse (talk • contribs) 17:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The article has seen dramatic improvement since my last minor edit to it. Quite stunning. Just64helpin 17:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 16:58, 22 May 2007.

[edit] Jay Chou

Comments for the previous FA nomination can be found here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jay Chou/archive1

Reason for nomination: since February 2007, I proceeded with a major rewrite of this article (the previous FA nomination had nothing to do with me). To the best of my knowledge, the article adheres to guidelines for NPOV, style, and credibility. The article now appears to be ready for FA nomination. SeleneFN 01:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The lead needs to be lengthened to two or three paragraphs for an article of this size.--Danaman5 17:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Thank you for reading. The leading paragraph has now been lengthened and split into two paragraphs. Please let me know if you feel it should be even longer. SeleneFN 18:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, changing to support.--Danaman5 02:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support The article is much improved since the first FA nomination. It is very well written, fully referenced, contains all the major facts and details about the celebrity plus extra info. NPOV is maintained throughout the article, and there have been no revert wars other than vandals and minor issues concerning punctuation(mostly the m-dash etc). It has very clear headings and the table of contents is of the right size. It adheres to the Wiki Manual of Style on every level. It has appropriate images throughout the page and the article length is perfect. The overall feel of the article is neat and professional. LG-犬夜叉~ 06:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support (Comments) - Just a couple things I noticed, might be wrong about them. I don't think his quote next to note 35 should be italicized. Under "Acting", I'm also pretty sure "Xiào" should be given with Chinese and pinyin, or simply "Xiao" without tone. "Grandeur de D Major" should be either italicized or under quotes, I think it's the former. I'm not sure why Image:Jaychou novemberschopin.jpg is listed under GFDL. In fact, none of the images save those from the movie have fair use rationales, or are tagged correctly. The Discography section should format its dates. A couple sound samples couldn't hurt, but some still feel this oversteps Fair Use boundaries. ALTON .ıl 02:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  Additionally, should something be said about his neologism "屌" diǎo (ref)? ALTON .ıl 02:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Comments. Thank you for your review and very helpful comments. I have addressed each of your concerns below:

• quote next to note 35 - there is no quoted phrase next to note 35, so I will assume you mean note 36. The quotation marks have been removed.
• "Xiao" is now written without tone
• "Grandeur de D Major" has now been italized
• All images now have correct licenses and fair use rationales
• dates in the Discography have been formatted
• Sound samples: I have not added any to avoid overstepping Fair Use boundaries. Please let me know if you feel strongly that sound clips should be present
• a comment about Chou's neologism "diao" has been added to the Public Image section of the article

SeleneFN 04:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent! I fully support this nomination. Images are handled superiorly, and I like how there is a separate 'notes' section (they don't work for me, but possibly it's just Safari). Thank you for responding so quickly, and so completely. ALTON .ıl 05:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support This is an outstanding article that fully deserves to be featured. Well done! Zeus1234 04:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support The Jay Chou article is an extremely informative resource. Chou is a very successful and well-known figure in Asian pop culture, but he seems to be gaining recognition in other areas of the world as well. Chou's appearances in the realms of music, fashion, and cinema are sure to increase as different nations and groups share their cultures. By this article being recognized as a FA, it is a great chance for Wikipedia's visitors, especially those who may not be familiar with his work, to learn more about him.--bakuyaku 20:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support This article covers the subject very comprehensively. It maintains a NPOV throughout the article, is well referenced, and overall is an oustanding article. --Psychless ^{Type words or read things!} 19:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I think the notice {{ChineseText}} is needed in this article somewhere, I'm just not sure where. Except for that minor detail I am in support. HHermans 23:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• The {{ChineseText}} notice has now been added. I placed it at the top of the article, following the style of several other Chinese-heavy articles (e.g. China). SeleneFN 16:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 16:58, 22 May 2007.

[edit] Verbascum thapsus (Common Mullein)

previous FAC

The original nomination had little input, but I still feel that the article is amongst our best plant work, and would like to nominate it again. I have managed to find some extra material to add since the previous nomination, too, and fixed some other elements.Circeus 03:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Don't you think that the "Agricultural impacts and control" has way too many red links? Maybe you should fix them. - Hairchrm 04:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • As far as I know, for an article that length, it's not exactly an inordinate amount of redlinks, although I readily admit the way they cluster in that section makes it seem so. A couple of these I can probably stubify, but my forte is not entomology...Circeus 04:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I've removed 4 links the article could do without, which already looks somewhat better. I'll look in having a few of the others stubified.Circeus 04:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The article needs a taxonomy section. Taxonomy section should:
  1. State that it was published by Carolus Linnaeus in his 1753 Species Plantarum.
  2. Specify type material; Linnaeus's type specification was simply Habitat in Europae..., but resumably someone has published a lectotype since then?
  3. Why "thapsus"? I had a quick look and found a reference suggesting that it might be after the Greek island.
  4. Is there no nomenclatural history to speak of? No taxa later declared synonyms of this species? No specimens initially ascribed to this species but later broken out into a separate species? IPNI suggests to me that there is at least some history there: I see entries for V. t. f. candicans, V. t. subsp. langei, V. t. subsp. litigiosum, V. t. subsp. martinezii and V. t. subsp. valentinum.
  5. The information on subspecies currently in the morphology section belongs in the taxonomy section. But who published the subspecies, when, and on the basis of what type specimens? Have they always had subspecific rank? Have any subspecies been published and later abandoned or promoted?
  6. Where is it placed within Verbascum? What are its closest relatives? Is there not an infrageneric classification of Verbascum in which this species may be placed? Maybe Benedi and Montserrat (1985) has something. Have there been any cladistic analyses of the genus, either morphological or molecular?
  7. The information on hybrids currently in the morphology section also belongs in the taxonomy section. IPNI makes mention that it is a parent of Verbascum x sybillinum, which isn't mentioned here.

Hesperian 12:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason it lacks a taxonomy/nomenclature section is my stupidity, because I didn't think of moving information about hybrids and subspecies there when I created the "Names" section (which was the latest to go up, with material that was in the intro)

• 2) is covered under "names"
• 4-5) I tried, oh how hard I tried to get taxo-nomenclatural background, but didn't uncover anything useful I could actually use. The best I have is a synonymized checklist with references.
• 6) It seems the genus lack any monographic treatment I could find, and most cladistic studies I could find were at the family level. I can look into the Bendete and Montserrat (although Catalan is not exactly easy for me to decypher...), but my library doesn't have Collectanea botánica access. I'm not sure if I can get it via interlibrary loan.
• 7) V. thapsus is a parent to at least a good dozen hybrids (which are listed under Flora Europae). For the most part, it didn't seem useful to list them all, although it can be done.

Circeus 15:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, there seems to be a monographic treatment, but it's from 1933 in German (or Swedish, I can,t tell)... Circeus 16:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I can get a few more refs and, with any luck, expand this section into a proper taxo-nomenclature section (and I just had a great idea for listing the hybrids too!). Any other suggestions? Circeus 18:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think failure to cite a Catalan or German or Swedish text should hold this back from achieving FA, so don't worry about that. But I do think it needs a taxonomy section, even if it is short. I imagine that it wouldn't be too hard to find out who published the three current subspecies, and when. I think when you said "2)", you meant "3)"? Regarding 2), the Linnaean Plant Name Typification Project can help you - a lectotype was specified in 1971 by Huber-Morath. There's also a nice photo of the lectotype, which I would contend is public domain in the U.S. per Bridgeman v Corel. I had a quick look for information on the systematics of the genus, but all I found was "Systematic consideration of microcharacters of fruits and seeds in the genus Verbascum", which doesn't seem to have gone far enough to be useful. :-( Hesperian 00:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not working on it right now because I need to look up stuff in books at my Uni's library, but will work on it tomorrow. I had actually tracked a few more stuff for synonymy and another lectotypification ([12]). Do you know what "Prop. Brit.Bot." is an abbreviation of? Maybe I can locate that (possible through JSTOR if it's a journal). Being French and having had 7 years of Spanish, I wouldn't be surprised if I could understand more of the Catalan article than you'd expect, but I'm unable to access it anyway. And thanks a heap for the link to the typification project! Circeus 01:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[13] Hesperian 01:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

*slaps forehead* How did I forget about IPNI? Circeus 01:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Support; my comments above have been addressed in draft form. Hesperian 00:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The statement that this species is "not an agricultural weed" which is mentioned three times in the article is contradicted by the information in the text and references that it is listed under the Colorado Noxious Weeds Act (Colorado Department of Agriculture), the "List of plant species designated as noxious weeds" (Hawaii Department of Agriculture), and is regionally controlled/prohibited by the Department of Primary Industries (Victoria).--Melburnian 04:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a very complicated thing to address. Basically, most reference to it as an agricultural weeds refer to overgrazed pasture, and it's not aggressive enough to represent a problem in any other type of culture. When it is designated as a weed, it is for concern about natural ecosystems (in Hawaii and California, dry mountainlands, for example). The "contradiction" is only apparent. Circeus 16:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's a weed on overgrazed pasture, it is an agricultural weed in that particular situation, by using the phrase "not an agricultural weed" (x3) it excludes that it is a problem in any agricultural situation (albeit one which can be overcome with better land management practices). --Melburnian 00:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Some syntax issues need cleaning up:

2nd para - Its small, yellow flowers - I'd write The small yellow flowers as it sounds less ambiguous and removes an unnecessary comma.

Common Mullein is a weedy, but rarely invasive species is an odd sentence with two seemingly contrasting meanings. What is meant by weedy here? I guess it is adaptable and a coloniser of broken ground but so far has little invasive potential (?). Extremely difficult to rule out invasive potential as many weeds are sleepers. Maybe replace with something like - ...is adaptable and a coloniser with invasive potential..(?)

• I've added "aggressive", since this is what the species lack, compared to e.g. Lythrum salicaria, Helodea canadensis or Hawkweeds.Circeus 16:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

While it is not very competitive, and thus not a problem for most cultures, it hosts many insects, such as the tarnished plant bug, that can be harmful to other plants - ungainly sentence - why not Though not competitive per se, it may host many insects which may be harmful to other plants.

• Changed already.Circeus 16:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

stem-less - stemless ?

• No idea as to the proper spelling. changed.Circeus 16:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

:In Morphology section - sentence 1 - "only" is redundant. Sentence 2 - dm (?) should be cm (?)

*Second sentence (and all instances of "dm") was added by User:Hardyplants yesterday. Seems t be fixed now.Circeus 16:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

: In Taxonomy and nomenclature section - this clause ..., which has long been known,.. is redundant and makes the sentence unwieldy. Optionally, you could preface the section with' The Common mullein has been known since antiquity or something similar.

• I actually wanted to refer to the name, but I guess I should drop that reference altogether. It's better covered in "uses" anyway. Circeus 16:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

:Over the years, the species has accumulated a complex set of synonyms. - do you mean a large number only? In which case maybe just say 'alot' rather than a 'complex set'

• changed.Circeus 16:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

More to come. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 04:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In the Life cycle subsection, I'd begin the first sentence The Common mullein..... Also produce less seeds should be produce fewer seeds

• No. Seeds is used a non-count noun here. (not to mention the entire rule is simply silly.) Circeus 16:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well blow me down...interesting...cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In the Medical uses subsection, I think ..Common Mullein (especially the flowers) contains... can be expressed better; maybe just ..the flowers of the Common Mullein... It is tricky but I don't like the parentheses, even commas I think'd be better here.

• Added a line after: "These compounds are concentrated in the flowers." Circeus 16:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Good thinking. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be nitpicky as I feel the article fulfils all other criteria. These are all readily fixable and I'll happily support once addressed. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 05:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I know nitpicky: I'm usually the nitpicky one, and It's nice to get the same treatment .Circeus 16:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

OK then, Support. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm so super close to supporting that I'm going to, but I have just some tiny niggles.

In ecological aspects The species is considered a noxious weed in Colorado (Class C),[41] Hawaii[42] and Victoria, Australia (regionally prohibited in the West Gippsland region, and regionally controlled in several others).[43] feels like it belongs in Agricultural impacts and control.

Agricultural impacts and control has multiple short paragraphs, can some of these be merged? Useful insects are also hosted by Common Mullein.... and The plant's ability to host both pests and beneficials makes... look like they could.

The others are European.[20] in subspecies, can this be added to the last senetence?

The seeds contain several compounds (saponins, glycosides, coumarin, rotenone) that cause breathing problems in fish, and have been widely used for fishing.[1][65] An explanation of how respiratory difficulties aids fishing would be helpful, I'm somewhat at a loss. Is an asthmatic fish easier to pull in?

• None of these bother me enough not to support, but I'd like to see them at least addressed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• I chose to place them under ecology because these have more to do with the species being considered an ecological threat than an agricultural weed.
• Funny you should say that. It was User:AshLin that split that paragraph lol. I've undone it.
• Done. That wording was infelicitous anyway.
• They basically act as suffocative poisons. I added a mention of piscicide there.

Thanks for the comments!Circeus 23:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I chose to place them under ecology because these have more to do with the species being considered an ecological threat than an agricultural weed. Perhaps that point could be made in the text. Otherwise, excellent work! Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not familiar with how the FA reviews work, and I just happened on this article, to which I made two tiny improvements. At first I thought the article looked like a railway timetable, since it was so dense with information, but after I had fun pursuing several trails, I realize it's a useful article. There are three areas where my curiosity was not satisfied:

1. Is there a wider taxonomy somewhere in Wikipedia where you can see all the cousins and aunts of this plant?
2. There is a 'Mexican mullein' that it is sometimes confused with, Gnaphalium spp.. Are there any theories as to whether the Mexican plant also came from Europe, or is there any other idea about a common origin?
3. A cited article (ref. 68, last item in the reference list) mentions that some settlers cultivated the plant 'in dooryards' for use as a piscicide. If so, does anyone still cultivate the plant? I mention this because the whole article reads like an entry in the farmer's almanac, and is very practically oriented. There is a lot of mention of the chemicals you can extract from it; it would be interesting to know if anyone grows mulllein deliberately to harvest anything useful from it. I don't want to send anyone off on a week's worth of research; I was hoping that whoever created the article might already know this. If not, I'm certainly happy to have it become a featured article as is. EdJohnston 00:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

1. I am afraid not, but if something is to be created, it will be at Verbascum (closest species) and Scrophulariaceae (related genera). I intend to write on the closest species with the help of User:Djlayton4 when he gets his hand on an elusive reference.
2. The species is native, and the transfer of Gordolobo to it is due to similar medicinal uses. They are otherwise completely unrelated.
3. Mullein is still grown deliberately, but this occurs only rarely (I'd assume mostly for herbal uses) AFAIK. Related species, such as V. blattaria and V. olympicum, are more commonly grown as ornamental plants, though. Circeus 00:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 16:58, 22 May 2007.

[edit] Robert Garran

(I am the main contributor so far to this article.)

In my opinion this article is a comprehensive and accurate treatment of the subject, an important "behind-the-scenes" figure in Australian politics for forty years or so around the turn of the 20th century. I believe that it meets all of the criteria; it is extensively cited, stable, and well-organised. The article only includes public domain images available on the Commons.

See also this archived peer review, and this archived WikiProject Biography peer review. --bainer (talk) 04:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. --bainer (talk) 04:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Simply a pleasure to read, which could be due to such an interesting man, the proficient prose, or both! michael ^talk 04:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support an interesting and well written article. I suspect that some of the wording could be simplified a bit though, but this isn't a major issue. --Nick Dowling 07:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support fulfls all criteria. I am impressed with the prose. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 22:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Wonderfully and warmly written. I have a few minor suggestions for the format of the references section. On my browser (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/2007040315 Firefox/2.0.0.3 (Ubuntu-feisty)) the references come out in 3 columns (too narrow) due to the Wikimedia Commons box getting its own column; to fix this, you can change the references to single-column, or move the box. Page ranges should use endashes rather than hyphens (e.g., 420–422 rather than 420-422). The many references to Prosper the Commonwealth could be coalesced into references with a short title as per Wikipedia:Footnotes#Style recommendations (see Johannes Kepler for an example). Eubulides 03:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support brilliantly written work on a very significant fellow. Well done.--cj | talk 14:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - the article itself is excellent and I have no problems with it. There are some minor points, however, that need addressing. I would like the redlinks cleaned up, though, if possible - there are far too many for a Featured Article. Some of these could be removed (like Garran's sons - are they notable or am I just ignorant?; and does every Act of Parliament need a Wikipedia page?); some can be expanded upon; Secondly, the bibliography needs cleaning up with a "notes and references" section, or two separate "notes" and "References" sections, then an "external links" section as is desirable in Wikipedia. Great work though; these are just minor nitpicking points that I would like to see addressed as they will make the article even better. JRG 23:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• I've put the footnotes into a "notes" section and given a bibliography type list of sources in a "references" section, as you suggest. This also happens to solve the problem with the {{Commons}} box. As to redlinks, I must say that I don't see what the problem is with having them. --bainer (talk) 02:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Support - all fixed. JRG 13:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose until properly copy-edited, preferably by fresh eyes. Here are examples, just from the lead, of why the whole text needs loving attention: "Garran was also an important figure in the development of the city of Canberra"—If "also" is used, merge the paragraphs. Otherwise, just remove "also". "German language poetry"—pipe it as "German poetry". "Several" appears twice in quick succession in the second para; make the second one "at least [number]" if you really don't know how many books he wrote. "Providing" would be more formal, and nicer, than "giving". "the first employee of the Government of Australia and the first Solicitor-General of Australia"—rationalise and pipe as "the first employee of the Government of Australia and its first Solicitor-General". "ten different Prime Ministers (from Barton to Lyons)" ... the ten of them would hardly be the same, so remove "different" as redundant; consider a comma after "Ministers" rather than the parentheses. Tony 00:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well Tony, you raise a number of issues there:

the ten of them would hardly be the same: in the period shortly after Federation several PMs had multiple terms; Garran served under sixteen governments, but ten individual PMs. The sentence is speaking about the people he worked with. I can mention in addition that he served under sixteen governments if that would clarify things.

So we've had four PMs over the past 11 years, then? Tony 12:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

pipe it as "German poetry": I've said "German language poetry" because although Heine and Schumann were German nationals, Schubert was Austrian, writing in the German language.

Oh, I think this is splitting hairs. GLP just seems cumbersome. At least hyphenate the double epithet, then, to make it smoother to read.

the first Solicitor-General of Australia—rationalise and pipe: I think it's important to include the full job title unpiped in the lede, even if that means that the wording becomes less than perfect.

Why is "its first Solicitor-General" not clear and formal enough?

"Providing" would be more formal, and nicer, than "giving": I agree, that sounds better.

If "also" is used, merge the paragraphs: That has become a little unwieldy as the result of earlier changes suggested at peer review. I've clarified that the first paragraph is discussing his professional career while the second is about his community and other work.

So remove "also". Tony 12:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

--bainer (talk) 02:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support, the prose reads fine in my eyes. Seems to meet all five of the FA criteria. Daniel 03:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 16:58, 22 May 2007.

[edit] 3rd Battalion 3rd Marines

I've been working on this article on and off for over five months now and I think it's ready for prime time. It has undergone both a general and a military history peer review and been rated a "Good Article". In addition, it was the featured article on the Marine Corps Portal for the month of March. While there are still a few small bugs here and there, I don't see anything major standing in the way of a proper FA review. Side note: I'm preparing for a deployment to OIF sometime in the near future, so I may not be able to respond to your comments right away. My apologies. Palm_Dogg 07:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There's some misunderstanding; GA is not conferred by MilHist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support Comment — A nice piece of work. The only issues that really stood out are the inconsistent date formats (either "1942-06-01" or "June 1, 1974" formats used) and some excessively long paragraphs. (For example, the "1951–1965" section is one long paragraph.) With some judicious paragraph breaks (in those long paragraphs) I think the article would read more easily. Also I'd like to suggest inserting a chronological table of the unit's commanding officers, if that is available. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Tried to fix the date formats and broke the paragraphs up. There have been something like thirty commanders of 3/3 over the last few decades and I think that would totally mess up the flow of the article. As it is, I've tried to include the more interesting ones. Palm_Dogg 16:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It looks better, and that makes sense regarding the commanders. The other issue you will likely get dinged on is the format of some of the citations: notes 11, 22, 37 and 38 are just vanilla links. It would be a good idea to replace those with cite templates so you get a consistent look. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Changed to Support after most issues addressed. It is a nice piece of work, but in places it does seem to be written from a pro-Marine point of view (not too surprising, since I gather the main author is a Marine, but still). When you're writing about an active military unit, still involved in Iraq, that's a big deal. There are also a number of less important nitpicks. Fix all or almost all of these, and will support.
  • Lead says it is now based in HI, was reformed in CA, but not where it was originally formed. (NC, I gather from later.) Probably should for consistency.
  • Do we have an article that explains this process of activating/deactivating? We could use a prominent link to it. Is there any continuity from the former units besides the name? For example, are many (or any) of the same people in it, is there a continuous unit history, memorabilia, symbol etc.? When did the company motto show up? How about continuity from when it was the 5th Training Battalion?
  • "800 Marines and Sailors" - is it common to count Sailors in a Marine battalion? The United States Marine Corps article says the Navy carries the Marines around, but implies they are counted separately. Explain in a sentence or two somewhere in the article body, or wikilink to an article that has an explanation.
    • Thanks, that helps. I think you want corpsmen, the plural.
  • Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii - wikilink, we've got a perfectly fine article on it
  • Lebanon ... civil war - wikilink, we must have an article
  • Haditha Triad seems to link to the article on Haditha. That article doesn't use the word Triad, or say anything about the 3/3 Marines that I could find.
  • "The rest of India Company managed to clear the village and route the VC. However, during the fighting Captain Bruce Webb was killed when a supposedly-dead VC threw a grenade into the India Company command group. India then had to fight its way back to the rest of the battalion." - If the VC were routed, what did India have to fight its way through, and why did it have to retreat anyway?
    • A little bit better, but I wouldn't say it's completely explained yet.
  • Enemy death figures like "During the night, the Viet Cong retreated after suffering 600 casualties, versus 52 American dead." tend to give the article a pro-Marine slant, since presumably they are from only one side's reports. Unless they are highly reliable (from reports by both sides, or from a neutral source, for example), I would avoid them, as they don't add that much. Citing how many 3/3 Marines died is relevant, and reliable, same for how many 3/3 got awards, but Vietnam War officially reported enemy death figures were notoriously unreliable.
  • "during the Vietnam Years" - lower case Y, or rephrase to "during the Vietnam War".
  • 1610 days in country - explain, rephrase, or wikilink "in country", not obvious what that means. In Vietnam, perhaps?
  • IED - wikilink
  • machine guns and Forward air controllers from - lowercase F
  • "to deter further Soviet expansionism" - POV statement. Just remove those words, and the rest of the sentence should do.
  • Nintendo war - explain or wikilink
  • reconaissance -> reconnaissance
  • Our article on Khafji makes a big deal of friendly fire casualties. Any effect on 3/3?
  • February 27 - WP:DATE
  • "the enviable record of none killed and none wounded by enemy action" - that's leading the question: so how many were killed or wounded by friendly fire?
  • "first Marine serving in the Vietnam War be awarded" - to be awarded
  • "and Howard V. Lee (1959–1960) would" - comma before would
  • "Hero of the Bridge at Dong Ha" - lower case Hero and Bridge, it's not a formal title
  • Item CO; L Company; Lima Company; Company K; Kilo - be consistent in the way you refer to companies.
  • In fact, how about giving a list of constituent companies? Our article Battallion says "two to six companies" so it should be useful and not overwhelming information. Did 3/3 always have the same companies?
    • Well done! "three rifles companies" should probably be "three rifle companies" though
  • ""America's Battalion" originated in the mid-Eighties" - I'd specify 1980s. Not a big deal if you disagree.
  • "Interestingly, 3rd Battalion is only one of two " - remove Interestingly and only, just give the fact, let the reader decide if it's interesting or not. I personally think the earlier sentence about how it got the name is more interesting. :-)
  • Forward Operating Base - lowercase, perhaps?
  • "the War on Terrorism" - not an official name, and highly POV. How about Operation Enduring Freedom (Not that that's much better in terms of POV, but at least it's the official name of our article)? War in Afghanistan (2001–present) is possibly even better - less specific, but less slanted name.
  • Are the training exercises 1951-1965 that important?
  • "Luther Skaggs, Jr., was critically wounded in the leg" - what does "critically" mean here? Did he eventually die of it? Was he unable to walk?
  • "for this gallantry" - strike gallantry. The fact should speak for itself.
  • Many of the footnotes are bare links, for example "37 ^ http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54880", "38 ^ http://www.duprel.com/usmcgeocitiespaid/franktejeda.html", and "35 # ^ MARADMIN 074/07 AWARDS UPDATE" isn't much better. Please expand them. "33 Sgt. Roe F. Seigle. "'America's Battalion' wraps up six-month Iraq deployment", Marine Corps News, October 6, 2006. Retrieved on April 28, 2007." is much more what they should all look like.
    • Better, but MARADMIN could still be expanded. Presumably it's some kind of Marine Administration notice about awards? Say that in English, add date of event, and a date retrieved.
  • What's the difference between the References subsection and the External links subsection? I'd combine.

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • How's that look? I tried to take most of your suggestions (which were EXTREMELY helpful). Calling my article POV cut to the bone, but I suppose it's a natural concern. If you think I'm omitting some sources, please direct me to them. Palm_Dogg 06:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Much better. You got most. Opposition struck, will support when you get a few more. :-) I won't insist on all, but I do think you can get a few more of these points. I'm still slightly worried that there isn't much that could be considered critical of the US armed forces, except a single off-hand mention that they once accidentally shot at the commanding officer of a fellow battalion (whoops). No negative incidents in 60 years of service in 3+ major wars? How about more on that friendly fire bit - any info on how many were wounded, if none killed? Do we have an article on what it means when a unit is disbanded & reformed? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I know there was some bad karma that went down in Vietnam and am trying to find some references on it. For Khafji, those friendly fire incidents happened way up on the Kuwaiti border, while 3/3 played only a supporting role in the battle. Regarding Iraq, even the Jihadi websites I went to didn't talk about atrocities. All they did was inflate the number of Marines killed. If there are some sources you know of, let me know and I'll try to include them. I'm trying to be as fair as I can, but there are only a limited number of resources available at my disposal. Palm_Dogg 04:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Good enough. Supporting. --13:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, attention is needed to the footnotes. Examples: An AOL personal website is not a reliable source (Otto Lehrack. 3/3/History. Retrieved on November 26, 2006), and this source is not correctly identified: Richard Duprel (1998). Frank M. Tejeda. 3/3 Web page. Retrieved on April 25, 2006. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm working on getting a better source for Vietnam, so I will try to replace those with something more authoritative. Palm_Dogg 04:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support, but get someone else to run through it and polish the prose. Here are examples I picked up at the top.
  • Why are Marines and Sailors with initial caps?
  • Overlinked. Why not remove the state and country links (Lebanon is linked on second appearance rather than first, I see), so that it's less spattered with blue and the valuable ones are not diluted. Keep "Camp Lejeune", for example, but delink "North Carolina". Keep "Vietnam War" but not "Vietnam".
  • "3rd Battalion deployed off the coast"—insert "was", here and subsequently?
  • "It deployed again in 1990 as part of Operation Desert Shield and saw action at the Battle of Khafji and again during"—Remove the second "again", and the same word in the next sentence. Heck, it gets laboured.
  • "over twenty Navy Cross winners"—Don't you know exactly how many? Suggest "more than 20", anyway.
    • I thought I did, but apparently I forgot corpsmen. I'm have to go through the historical records again for Navy personnel. Palm_Dogg 04:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Unreferenced quote at the end of the lead. It must be on a website somewhere.
  • "Prior to 1956"—Why not "before"? Tony 23:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 18:43, 15 May 2007.

[edit] Taiwanese aborigines

Taiwanese aborigines is one of the most in-depth, comprehensive and thoroughly researched articles in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups. It is currently a very strong GA. Self-nomination. Co-nomination by Maowang and Ling.Nut 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

• Comment by co-nominator: Not quite sure how to respond to the removal of two images [14] & [15] by FAC reviewer User:Ideogram. I believe this detracts significantly from the overall quality of the article. Thanks! --Ling.Nut 16:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

In general I don't think many images are necessary for an encyclopaedia article. People are supposed to read them, not look at the pretty pictures. In this specific case the images were longer than the sections they belonged to, always a bad sign. That said, if you decide to put them back I won't argue with you. --Ideogram 16:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I will reinsert them. I also anticipated that many/all of the images in the article would be resized, but they seem a bit too small. Difficult to see any details. I'll have to look at the size of the imgs on some other FAs for comparison... Thanks! Ling.Nut 16:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The MediaWiki software automatically sizes images when you don't set the size explicitly. For logged-in users, it uses the size set in your preferences, you should go and set that if you feel they are too small. And for anonymous users, it sets the size according to the resolution of their screen, which is a lot better than one fixed size for all users. --Ideogram 18:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Thanks, I didn't. :-) I was looking into all the ins and outs of images. Samsara resized the map. In fact, the map was precisely what I had in mind when I was commenting earlier about the reduced size of the images. I personally dislike the small image size on other pictures as well, but it seems to be standard practice... As Samsara noted in the relevant edit summary, the text of the map is actually important to the article (far more important than the details of the photos). -- Ling.Nut 19:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Support I reviewed this article several times on its way to getting its GA; it has been a pleasure to watch the article grow and expand and get better. The article is compelling, well referenced, uses appropriate images, is stable, and is worthy of the FA star probably more than almost any other article currently nominated. I fully support its promotion.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments. I won't support or oppose because I'm not completely familiar with FA guidelines, but I have a few comments.

1. Decide whether certain words need to be capitalized: Aborigines, Plains, Mountains, Tribal, and Peoples. Be consistent throughout.
2. Spell check. I noticed a few typos.
3. Add a citation (or two) to the 3rd paragraph of the intro.
4. The phrase "take heads" appears before that concept is explained. This was pretty jarring.
5. The "Surnames and identity" section starts by talking about assimilation. But what do the aborigines name themselves? What are some examples of traditional names? What are their own customs regarding naming?
6. This is a very comprehensive article. The history section is quite long. Have you considered breaking it off into a "History of Taiwanese aborigines"?

Overall--very good job! I found the article informative and well sourced. Cheers! --Fang Aili ^talk 13:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I fixed two typos and some grammar, commas...etc. I'll look into the names without adding an entire paragraph. Each group was different and held different naming systems. Thank you for your comments, you have a real good eye for copy editing :-)Maowang 02:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• "Taiwan's Austronesian speakers were traditionally distributed over much of the island's rugged central mountain range and concentrated in villages along the alluvial plains." -- hard to understand.
• "The issue of an ethnic identity unconnected to the Asian mainland has become one thread in the discourse regarding the political identity of Taiwan." Surely you can say this in fewer words.
• "The taxonomies colonizing forces imposed upon Taiwan's Aborigines through the centuries have become reified ..." I know what reified means, but I wouldn't assume my readers do.

Object I find this article hard to read. The language is unnecessarily complex. The best writing uses simple words and sentences. I do not believe this article is a good example of "brilliant prose". --Calde 02:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment by co-nominator:

  It should be noted this reviewer above has only been a member of Wikipedia for only one full day.

• Regarding the reviewer's concerns:

  The writing in this article is congruent with any reliable book on the topic and completely suitable for the topic. The language is specifically deliberate to ensure Taiwanese Aborigines, as a people, are given the appropriate amount of dignity and respect to their experience as humans. Another aim of this project was to decolonize the information from the traditional colonizing tropes, with regard to colonized writing as being potentially very POV. A lot of thought has gone into how to provide the best information, while being sensitive to the problem faced by many indigenous peoples of being colonized and defined by people, writers and researchers who are not indigenous. Many of the terms are specific to the decolonizing methodologies of indigenous people's writing and research, and any change in those terms may result in an unintended POV (Smith 1999).

  • Smith, Linda Tuhiwai (1999). Decolonizing Methodologies:Research and Indigenous Peoples. New York, NY: University of Otogo Press. Maowang 03:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Please cite specific examples of phrases that you object to. Kusma (talk) 07:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have given three specific examples of difficult prose. That should be enough. I have noted a tendency for FAC to favor heavy referencing over brilliant prose; certainly the FAC community and the FAC director are within their rights to do so, but I wish to make my objections known, for what they are worth. --Calde 20:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see them; the way you formatted your objections made the examples look like they belong to the previous comment. Kusma (talk) 06:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Overall, a highly commendable article, with impressive attention to research and referencing. There are a couple of instances where the language and complexity of the sentence structures could be simplified and made more accessible. Some that caught my eye:

1. The Taiwanese Aborigines are Austronesian peoples closely related to the people of the Philippines and possibly Melanesia (from lead). What is the nature of the relationship proposed- cultural, linguistic, genetic? Also, given the Philippines has its own diversity and not all groups there are 'Austranesian', might need to qualify.
2. ...shaping in part, today's political discourse within the framework of the Republic of China (ROC). I take this and the preceding passage to mean something akin to "the [arbitrary] division(s) into named subgroups [made by colonising forces] are a de facto reality nowadays; a reality which continues to influence modern political (territorial?) discussions". Is that interpretation correct, and if so, the nature of that influence is not all that clear, neither is the 'framework of ROC' part.
3. The history of the Aboriginal tribes on Taiwan has often been dominated by the views and biases of foreign powers since the seventeenth century, although intertribal competition and conflict existed long before contact with non-Austronesian speakers. The 'although' conjunct does not seem to be connected with its leading proposition. It seems to me that the opening "the history of..." is trying to make the point that the documenting of the history of these peoples has been from the POV of the colonising parties, whereas the second part states just that conflict had existed before the colonisers arrived.
4. Although each of Taiwan's successive colonizers participated in violent conflict and economic interaction with both the Plains and Mountain tribal groups, the impact on the groups changed over time.... A little difficult to parse, maybe should be broken up.
5. The Mountain tribes were not entirely governed by these colonizing forces until the latter half of the Japanese colonial era, though the highland groups played a significant role in shaping successive colonial policies. How or what is the 'significant role in shaping...policies'? "Successive" is ambiguous here- does it mean "after the Japanese colonial era", or is it referring to the sequence of colonial powers in general?
6. Also- perhaps there should be more on the island's precolonial/prehistory- for example, what do archaeological studies indicate took place in the millenia preceding the 17thC? Evidence of earlier occupation, modes of subsistence, that type of thing. It doesn't have to be extensive, but I think it would provide useful context.

Still, a very credible work, will probably look to support once I give it a little more of a read.--cjllw ʘ TALK 07:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

(Reply) Thanks for your excellent comments/critique. I took the liberty of reformatting your remarks so that I could collect my replies here below yours rather than sprinkling them in between (which always confuses me)...

1. I have altered the "closely related" wording in the lede. I know that the new wording, "seem to be.." is sort of weasel-ish. However, the science itself is unclear on the subject. There is a footnote which explains this, and offers a good starting reference to those who are interested.
2. "shaping in part, today's political discourse" I have reworded that pair of sentences as per your comments.... hope it is more clear now...
3. - 5. It seems that the introductory/summary section titled "History of the Aboriginal Peoples" was a locus of problems in your reading. I have retailored it as a result of your comments; please let me know if it satisfies the points you raised.

6. I'll try to research the prehistoric aspect more and insert a bit of info... Thanks! Ling.Nut 15:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Reply:

I think a Pre-history section is a related, but different topic that should only be lightly discussed on this page. This page mainly deals with the post-contact period, when "Taiwanese Aborigines" were first conceived by the people who write about them and the changes since contact. The subject of Pre-history would be another large article dealing more with anthropological-archaeological and historical linguistic theories than discuss the different cultures, which nolonger exist on Taiwan (Chipen, Beinan, Tapenkeng, Nanwang...etc.

We mention the colonial POV so we can continue to discuss the topic with the baggage out on the table. Thanks again for the attention to this article, really thoughtful comments. Much appreciatedMaowang 00:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I added 1 paragraph about prehistory.. didn't have time to smooth out the transition 'cause I got called away by real life... previously we had never considered a prehistory section for the reasons Maowang gave above (we've had a long series of email exchanges)... so I don't know whether to leave in what I just added or not.. I'll smooth it out & we can discuss... Ling.Nut 02:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I believe those changes and some subsequent others took care of the main points. I agree that prehistory only needs a light coverage here, but it seemed necessary to 'round out' the picture to give the unfamiliar reader some background on origins and antecedants. What's there now should do fine.

I'd made a couple of other, mainly stylistic changes. Importantly, the content and scope is excellent and informative, and the verifiability at a high standard. The prose is largely there, perhaps a couple more tweaks to tighten in some places. I may have one or two more content clarifications to ask when I've finished looking, but in case I don't get back to this in time I'd be happy for my comments to be taken as being in support of this nomination, as I see all major, and many minor, bases and topics covered and cited.--cjllw ʘ TALK 08:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The exact meaning of the last part of the sentence "Although the KMT continued to hold the reins of power for another decade under President Lee Teng-hui, they did so as an elected government rather than a ruling power that had supported many of the bills that had been promoted by Aboriginal groups." is not clear to me. Does it mean that the KMT supported bills by the aboriginal groups back when it was a ruling power? or that it did so as an elected government? I suspect that it is the latter, but that is definately not what it currently says. Rusty Cashman 01:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Classic run-on sentance. With so many nested clasues, it is hard to follow. I still support this article, but maybe rephrasing the sentance into 2 or 3, like:
  • The KMT continued to hold the reins of power for another decade under President Lee Teng-hui. However, they did so as an elected government, rather than as a ruling power. This elected KMT government supported many of the bills that had been promoted by Aboriginal groups..
• ...is appropriate. In general, a sentance should only try to express one idea. When you nest ideas inside of other ideas inside of yet more ideas, it is hard to parse the sentance for its real meaning. If a sentance has more than one connecting phrase like "that" or "which" or "rather than" it is VERY hard to figure out the relationship between the clauses. Also, if the antecedant of a pronoun is not immediately preceding the pronoun, it is best to use the proper noun rather than the pronoun.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Support - Although I would like to see consistent use of <ref> tags. I would like to help out on it, and will ask for the nominator's opinion. User:AQu01rius 01:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the sentenceLing.Nut 01:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: The standard (or convention) here on Wikipedia seems to prefer footnotes ("ref" tags) over Harvard referencing system. I am strongly in favor of footnoting references. --Jiang 13:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Reply Harvard is equally viable as per WP:CITE. Thanks for your suggestion, although I regret that it will be declined. Ling.Nut 15:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support - This is one of the more comprehensive and informative articles I have ever come accross. It is rather long but it is well organized enough that it is still easy to find what you are looking for. It could be broken into two parts (contemporary and historical), but I think right now both these areas are well enought integrated and mutually supportive enough that that might not be the best thing to do. One more comment. Several comments have suggested switching to footnote references. In general I prefer them too, but this is one of the few articles that makes good use of informational footnotes, and I think mixing a few good informational footnotes with dozens of footnotes that are nothing more than citations would be a bad idea. Rusty Cashman 20:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support - This article is informative and accurate as there are lots of sources. I think it meets the FA criteria.--Jerrypp772000 00:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose—Criterion 1a. Please weed out the redundant wording throughout. Here are examples from the top.
  • "The Taiwanese Aborigines are Austronesian peoples, with linguistic and genetic ties to other Austronesian groups such as peoples of the Philippines, and possibly alsoto some Melanesian groups.
  • "Today, the bulk of the contemporary Taiwanese Aborigine population reside ..."
  • "The total population of Aborigines on Taiwan is around 458,000 as of January 2006, (CIP 2006) which is approximately 2% of Taiwan's population."
  • "at least ten are extinct, another five are moribund (Zeitoun & Yu 2005:167) and several others are to some degree endangered"

There's a tendency to omit repetitions of key grammatical words that appear early in a sentence, and that readers would find easier if included, as with "to" above. "Taiwan's Austronesian speakers were formerly distributed over much of the island's rugged central mountain range and were concentrated in villages along the alluvial plains."

• • Ungainly repetition: "As a result of these intercultural dynamics, as well as more dispassionate economic processes, many of these tribes have been linguistically and culturally assimilated. The result has been".

And more. Fresh eyes required. Tony 01:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony1,

I have made some changes per your comments.Thanks!Maowang 08:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I also made more than a few wording changes to clarify the text in early sections of the article. I believe the earlier sections had more of the sort of problems that Tony1 described, because they were more of a summary nature. Later sections seem more straightforward. We would of course appreciate any extra eyes or further instances of redundant wording and lack of clarity. I'll continue to look... Thanks for your contributions... Ling.Nut 21:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Further comment—The writing hasn't been improved sufficiently to meet the "professional" requirement.
• "Plains, Mountains and Tribal definitions"—MoS says don't use title case. There are other instances, not only in titles (Barbarian Big Rent).

For this subject, most scholars prefer title case to put these groups on par with Dutch, Mainlanders, Han, Hakka etc. See comments in Talk:(Raw and Cooked).

• Why is the text cluttered with full references that spatter blue everywhere (without, BTW, en dashes for page ranges)? For example, "The "displacement scenario" is more likely rooted in the older customs of many plains groups to withdraw into the foothills during headhunting season or when threatened by a neighboring village as observed by the Dutch during their punitive campaign of Mattou in 1636 when the bulk of the village retreated to Tevoraan (Blusse & Everts 2000:11-12; Shepherd 1993:1-6; Shepherd 1995:66-72)." It's too long a sentence anyway. And are the quotes really necessary around "displacement scenario" and similar terms?

Many of the multiple citations act in a sentence with multiple sources for stability, or for a sentence which compounds information from multiple sources into a single sentence.

• "During the European period (1623-1662) soldiers and traders representing ...". Try this: "During the European period (1623–62) soldiers and traders representing ...". Is that easier to read?
• "a custom of sexual division of labor"—Bit awkward grammatically. How about "a custom allocating labor on the basis of sex"?

Using terms familiar for the topic.

• "The plains people hunted herds of spotted deer and muntjak as well as conducted light millet farming." Ungrammatical ("conducting" is required). But why not just "and conducted"?

It's a good article, and thus worth polishing. Can someone go through the whole article? Tony 03:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 18:43, 15 May 2007.

[edit] Princess Alice of Battenberg

Mother of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Wife of Prince Andrew of Greece. Sister of Queen Louise of Sweden and Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma.

• Support Self-nominated. Peer-reviewed good article. DrKiernan 10:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Object - A couple of minor issues that I'm sure you can clean up quickly enough, followed by a bigger concern.
  • Needs a couple more references. The "Marriage" section in particular is unsourced. I'm sure all those names and dates are in the public record, but you need to cite that record, so that researchers can track down where we got the info.
    • Amended. DrKiernan 07:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • There's awkward prose. In "Married Life", "In 1913 George V awarded her the Royal Red Cross. But..." is not only unsourced (and I've tagged it), but a really stubby sentence, followed by another sentence beginning with "But", which is occasionally acceptable prose, but not here. At any rate, I'd recommend you go through the article, possibly reading it aloud to yourself, to find any more such little bits that don't flow very well or elegantly.
    • Gone through as best I can. DrKiernan 07:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Now, my major issue. This is a historical public figure, and we only have two sources cited? Yeah, most facts are cited, but all those cites come from the same two books. I'm concerned that relying so exclusively on just two sources could lead to potential unintentional bias, leaking in from the sources cited. Different historians have different takes on issues, after all. Could we get some more sources?
    • See below. DrKiernan 07:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • As a continuation of the above, as a historical public figure, is this really all there is to note about her? It may be the case, but it still seems a bit sparse on events and details of significance. Perhaps she was just boring, aside from her mental breakdown? But I don't know. I'd like more assurance that this article really is comprehensive, and the best way to do that would be to find other sources than the two currently used, and see what they have to say.
    • Expanded first half. DrKiernan 07:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Expanded second half and added further notes. DrKiernan 07:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Other than these points, the article seems pretty good to my inexpert eyes. Fieari 19:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Object per: Support

• Titles section is short, makes a list of two items, and has no references.
  • The titles section is standard on royalty and nobility biographies. References added. DrKiernan 07:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Four sources is too few, and they're all from the UK, and three are from London, and two are by the same author.
  • See below. In addition, Vickers biography was also published elsewhere (New York edition by St. Martin's Press). DrKiernan 07:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Merrh... still biased.
      • I've added about another a dozen. DrKiernan 14:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Marriage section has no citations.
  • Fixed. DrKiernan 07:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Lede is disproportionately long, see WP:LEAD. First paragraph focuses more on other people than on Alice herself.
  • Shortened. DrKiernan 07:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• First and fifth paragraphs of Married life are missing citations.
  • Fixed. DrKiernan 07:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• World War II ends with a one-sentence paragraph.
  • I did that deliberately for dramatic effect! DrKiernan 07:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Tee hee. World War II has three paragraphs, each of totally different sizes from one another. One-sentence paragraphs, though dramatic, are inappropriate.
      • Expanded! DrKiernan 14:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Months and dates should not be linked, see WP:MOS.
  • Fixed. DrKiernan 07:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Not quite. See Marriage section.
      • I can't find any other wikilinked years that lack dates. DrKiernan 11:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Second paragraph of Widowed life has no citations.
  • Fixed. DrKiernan 07:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• "In 1930 she was diagnosed as schizophrenic and for the next six or seven years lived largely separated from her family." (from the lead) is a sucky sentence. Is it six years or is it seven? "Largely separated" is not encyclopedic. The sentence needs commas.
• "wearing a version of her nun's habit" which version?
  • Re-phrased. DrKiernan 07:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• "and later, after her engagement, she learned Greek" Did she learn to lip-read it as with English and German, or did she to learn to speak it...?
  • From the top of my head, I think she did actually speak it, but with an extremely bad accent! I'd have to read through Vickers to check again. DrKiernan 16:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC) It does actually say on page 71 of Vickers "spoke it fluently", which I find hard to believe. DrKiernan 11:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

--Cryptic C62 · Talk

I knew my run of good luck with FA nominations couldn't hold. I'm not sure how addressable these criticisms are - even the Official Web-site of the British Monarchy copies directly from Vickers. Anyway, I shall have to see what I can do. DrKiernan 09:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about finding more sources as much, but addressing the other concerns first. LuciferMorgan 14:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• I did a quick search and I could find no real sources for Alice. Vickers only cites himself and some archives in the DNB article as well. I would just put a little note in the references section about how few references are available. See an example here. Hopefully that will stave off future problems. I will try to review the entire article in a few days (dissertation woes at the moment - anyone know a Locke expert?) Awadewit 08:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comments. Unfortunately I am abroad now (in the German province!), and I have no access to my Greek sources. I think we can enrich it with some of these, but this will be possible from May 6 and on, after I return to Athens. The article is definitely well-written, but some more sources would definitely help. Let's give this FAC, DrKiernan, some more time and hope! I believe we can make i through! I think Christos Zampounis (an obsessed with the formal Greek royal amily guy!) has also written a book in Greek about her. I will tr to find it. My two Greek encyclopedias (Helios and Papyros-Larousse-Briannica) definitely have articles about her. Anyway! Now, some more remarks after giving the article quick look:
• "By June 1917, the King's neutrality policy had become so unpopular and untenable that she and other members of the Greek royal family were forced into exile." Not historically accurate. Unpopular among whom? The Greek population? Not exactly. Maybe in the beginning, and until Venizelos' resignation and the creation of the Thessaloniki government, but after the Entente troops arrived in Piraeus, and imposed sanctions and military pressure on the Greek government, the sentiment of the population started to change. The public discontent towards the foreign forces had already made the King more popular. As a matter of fact, the population's reactions (or at least some of the population's reactions), as described by Karolidis, the day the King left were very emotional. Constantine was forced to leave by the English-French pressure, and not by the "dissatisfaction" of the population towards the King's policy.
  • Hmmmn. I think your points are fair, but Venizelos did win the election after all, and set up a rival government in Salonika after the King refused to support his policy. I do appreciate that my sentence is over-simplistic in summarising the entirety of Greek history in World War I, but I would prefer the emphasis of the article to be on Alice not on the political turmoil. That should be in other articles. I have removed "unpopular" but am not prepared to undertake a more extensive revision myself. (Of course, whether you do is up to you!) DrKiernan 16:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Sometimes, you over wikify. You link, e.g., King Constantine I at least 3 times.
  • There were two links each to Constantine I and II. I have removed one of the links to Constantine I, but prefer to keep both to Constantine II because one is at the beginning of the article and the other at the end. DrKiernan 11:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• "Alice's husband Prince Andrew, who had served as commander of the Second Army Corps during the war, was arrested." I am not sure about that. I want to check it.
• "Several former ministers and generals arrested at the same time were shot, and British diplomats assumed that Prince Andrew was also in mortal danger." Not only former ministers. Prime minister as well!
  • Yes, I agree that could be included. DrKiernan 16:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• "King Constantine II of the Hellenes and Queen Anne-Marie voluntarily went into exile that December after a failed royalist counter-coup." Typically "voluntarily", but I am not sure if this adverb fits to the situation. After the failed counter-coup, the King had no other alternative but to flee.
  • Yes, I see. I shall remove "voluntarily". DrKiernan 16:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

In general, it looks to me as a very nice article. I'll work on it in accord to my comments above within the next days.--Yannismarou 09:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments This article, as usual from DrKiernan, is quite good. I have just a few quibbles before I support.

• The first paragraph of the lead needs to be spiced up. It reads too much like a family tree.

• I still think that the first lead of the paragraph could have more punch, but I am not going to withhold my support on this alone. Awadewit ^Talk 06:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Is there nothing more that you can include in the "Early life" section? It seems a bit short on information.

• I still wish there were more information here. Awadewit ^Talk 06:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Whilst Prince Andrew continued his career in the military, she became involved in charity work. - I think "whilst" sounds a bit overly formal and there are two in a row.
• On their return to Greece, Prince and Princess Andrew found the political situation worsening, a group of dissatisfied officers formed a Military League that eventually led to Andrew's resignation from the army and the rise to power of Eleftherios Venizelos. - could you explain in a little more detail, please?
• I think that the second paragraph in "Successive life crises" needs some sort of topic sentence to unite the disparate facts there - something about revolution and war affecting her larger family.
• There are some repetitious links (Constantine, for example) which adds to the illusion of an overlinked page. Many of these links are probably necessary but once you link them, don't link them again - it makes the page hard to read, in my opinion.
• That winter, she translated her husband's defence of his actions during the Greco-Turkish War into English.[20][21] However, she then began claiming that she was receiving divine messages, and that she had healing powers. - I'm not sure that the "however" logically follows.
• Another patient there at the time was Vaslav Nijinsky. - explain why the reader would be interested to know this
• She organised two refuges for orphaned and stray children, and a nursing circuit for the poor neighbourhoods. - "refuges" seemed like odd diction here
• As one of Alice's sons-in-law, Christoph von Hessen, was a member of the NSDAP and the Waffen-SS, and another, Berthold von Baden, had been invalided out of the German army in 1940 after an injury in France, the occuping forces presumably assumed Alice would be pro-German. - sentence is hard to follow
• I do think you should put in a note about why you are following one source so closely. Awadewit ^Talk 06:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Article amended. DrKiernan 09:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Support This is a well-written, well-researched article. I cannot speak to its comprehensiveness, but it serves as a fine introduction to this particular royal. Awadewit ^Talk 06:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Mild Object There are two references by Vickers, but you don't disambiguate them in the citations. I presume that Citation 4 is the only one from the DNB, and all of the other citations refer to the full biography, but I feel that it is worth making this explicit. E.g. changing all citations to Vickers, to Vickers (2000) Bluap 16:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I've tried several variations, and selected my favourite - removing Vickers, 2004 from the "References" section and just including it in the "Notes". Other options, adding years, etc. look untidy to me. DrKiernan 17:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Looks good! Bluap 18:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• No it doesn't: it's half blue, giving a very untidy appearance that's harder to read. A lot of the links are good, so why are words such as "English" blued out? And "Tegel, Berlin"—Just link "Tegel", please. Same for "Switzerland" (where the first occurrence is not linked ...). Needs a link audit to satisfy the requirement for "professional" formatting. Some of the sentences are very long, like: "During Princess Andrew's long convalescence, she and Prince Andrew drifted apart, her daughters all married German noblemen between 1930 and 1931 (she did not attend any of the weddings), and Prince Philip went to England to stay with his uncles, Lord Louis Mountbatten and George Mountbatten, 2nd Marquess of Milford Haven, and his grandmother, the Dowager Marchioness of Milford Haven.[28]". Commas need attention: shift the one after "army" to after "Wars" in "With the advent of the Balkan Wars Prince Andrew was reinstated to the army, and Princess Andrew acted as a nurse, assisting at operations and setting up field hospitals, for which work George V awarded her the Royal Red Cross in 1913.[4]". Tony 03:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The formatting of the citation is determined by the editors of the citation templates. "Berlin" only occurs once in the article, and that occurrence is linked. I have corrected the Switzerland link, and re-arranged the others. I have moved the comma. DrKiernan 07:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 18:43, 15 May 2007.

[edit] Iridion 3D

Yes, its a short article about a game that wasn't really a hit, but that doesn't mean it can't be FA! Frankly there isn't much out there about the game and it had no real plot, so this is about as comprehensive as it will ever be. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 13:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Sure, it does have some chance of passing, length isn't a defining factor. But each of the sections could surely be expanded (example: under Enemies it says The player encounters more than fifteen enemies over the course of the game, not counting the level bosses. One could go into detail, couldn't they?), and new ones could be added (are there Easter eggs? game released for other platforms? why wasn't it successful?). Other than that - seems nicely referenced, a definite GA, but if more than that - can't tell. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 15:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the reception would demonstrate why it wasn't successful; I added a little for enemies; and there aren't any easter eggs, it was never released for another platform. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 16:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Right you are. I'll take a look later, right now I'm somewhat reluctant to support, pending other comments. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 06:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

After a quick run-through I'm inclined to support it weakly. I'm sorry my comment is not long, but I've got a bunch of other things on my mind. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 08:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comments For the most part, it looks good. A few issues cropped up in the pass through I did of the article:
  • What was the game rated by the ESRB? How about PEGI and the Australian OFCL?
  • Graphics should probably be rolled into an section on the game's development, though I don't know how easily you could find stuff. Most FA-class articles for games include a development section. A cursory look revealed a preview on Gamespot which indicated there were some high hopes for the game... you might want to include that as well.
  • The Plot section seems a little thin. I know this is a shooter, but surely it should get more than four sentences. Have you covered each of the levels the player visits from a plot perspective in the plot summary?
• Assuming those three items are handled, this has my support. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 17:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Expanded the plot, added the rating. Unfortunately there isn't much for development- just not that an important game to garner pre-release attention. I already have the gamespot preview under 'Reception'. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 19:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, then. This FA has my support. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 20:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Object

• Needs copy editing — Without diving into the actual structure of the prose, I see "Iridion 3D", "Iridion 3d", and "Iridion 3-D". Also, "Game Boy Advance" and "Gameboy Advance", as well as inconsistent "3D" and "3-D" usage.

• I believe I've standardized the usage. I agree it needs a copyedit however. CloudNine 19:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Multiple bad links — There's a link that leads to a disambiguation page, links to the plural instead of singular form of a word, and links to incorrect articles. For example, you have 2-D with a plain link, which redirects to Dimension. Instead, you should point to 2D computer graphics. You also link to Starfox, the Marvel superhero, when I believe you mean to link to Star Fox (video game). Basic errors like these first two points indicate that the article needs to go to peer review.

• Fixed all wikilinks. CloudNine 19:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• The article starts "Iridion 3D is a 3D shooter game...", but the Graphics section says "Iridion 3d uses solely 2-D graphics...".

• Clarified. CloudNine 19:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Insufficient lead.

I added a litte, but I think its perfectly fine. It explains what it is, the reception, what its about, etc. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 15:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think this article warrants a two paragraph lead. The lead should also mention the release dates. Pagrashtak 23:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Is there really nothing to be found for a Development section? This is a major part of video game articles.

You can look yourself. I went scrounging and came up with a few lines, but if you'll look at most *portable* video game articles, you'll find that not much is said for development. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 15:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I did a little searching and found out that Shin'en was working on an Iridion title for the Game Boy Color, but canceled it to focus on the GBA game. I also found some technical information and early plot information for the canceled game. I think there's definitely some material to be added under Development. Pagrashtak 23:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Throw me a bone and give me the link? ;) Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 00:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Never mind, I found what you were talking about, and added it in, as well as expanding the lead somewhat. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 00:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Pagrashtak 20:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that you've been putting work into this. I've skimmed it and it looks better, so I'm striking my objection for now. The user-written FAQ needs to be removed as a reference; it's not a reliable source. The lead could use a little more referencing, such as "While praised for its intensive graphics and rich sound, the game was panned by critics and gamers alike for repetitive gameplay." This most likely involves copying a reference from the article body, although the "gamer" comment may not be covered. I'll try to give it a proper read tomorrow. Pagrashtak 03:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - The reception section could do with better sources. In terms of influence and readership, 2001 was not the year of Gamespot or All Game Guide. It's like a pop music article ignoring NME and Rolling Stone over the likes of All Music Guide. You'll be able to source some reviews through WP:CVG/M. User:X201 should have the Edge review from Issue 100 (it scored 6/10). Game Rankings suggests that the EGM review was published in 2003, which is weird, but User:Thunderbrand has all the EGM issues from 2001 - 2003 either, so that can't be hard to source if they did indeed review it. - hahnchen 22:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Kay, I'll look at adding more (prominent) sources. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 16:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, getting the EGM review is out of the question as TB is gone, but I added in the Edge review. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 22:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you just tidy the reception section up a bit, and give it some more flow. It just reads like a list of quotes, I don't know why for example, it's been split into two paragraphs when their tone, pacing and subject are largely the same. It might be worth emailing Thunderbrand for EGM, it's not like you're going to lose anything. - hahnchen 17:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh and it'd be good to get some indication of sales figures. It's a relatively unknown game and it didn't get great reviews, but you never know, they might be floating around. - hahnchen 17:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You can check the reception section now. I removed most of the scores and put them to the side, reorganized/condensed the comments, and added some more stuff. As for the sales figures, I'm hitting brick walls. I'll continue looking, but finding individual game's sales are harder then I thought. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 23:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Image captions including, but not limited to, "In-game screenshot of Iridion 3d", suggest that the images are being used solely for decorative purposes and not for critical commentary. Are the particular game screenshots notable in any way? What commentary, previously published in reliable sources, can be made about them? In general, what strong reason suggests that we need to use these image? --Iamunknown 08:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I can't say I'm exactly an expert at video game articles (or what they should be, anyhow) but this one looks solid, if rather short. The only considerations I had looked to have already been addressed. Drew's Friend 21:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Object—1a. The top provides ample evidence that a copy-edit of the whole text is required to reach a "professional" standard of writing. Don't just correct these examples.
  • "the game was panned by critics and gamers alike"—"Panned" is a colloquial reference to the pan, as in the toilet. Replace with something encyclopedic. "Alike" is a tired cliche; remove it.
  • "its release was highly anticipated for a handheld title"—no, "keenly anticipated". This clause is ambiguous, anyway.
  • "Iridion was released in North America on 29 May 2001, and subsequently in Europe on 21 September 2001."—Which word is redundant?
  • " The game ultimately performed disappointingly." What, initially it performed well, and somehow performed poorly after months?
  • Next para is good. Then "Iridion 3D allows the player to boost their weapon power"—why not pluralise to match the grammatical number: "allows players".
  • "If the player's ship is destroyed, the power level of the weapon is reduced by one, but you cannot be forced back to a previous weapon." Sudden change to second person.
  • "Each weapon has its own advantages and disadvantages." Remove the two redundant words. Tony 01:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I've given the article an extensive copyedit and I believe I've handled most of the awkwardly phrased sentences. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 15:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Issues regarding 1a:
  • Influenced by the Commodore 64 game Uridium, Iridion features a single starship which waging war against the alien Iridion. Sentence is grammatically incorrect.
  • Iridion was released in North America on May 29, 2001 and in Europe on September 21, 2001 and performed disappointingly. Don't include more than one "and". Consider splitting the sentence, e.g. The game received mixed reviews. While reviewers praised... (don't actually use my example in the article). This would also solve my second problem with this sentence: the use of disappointingly.
  • The player encounters more than fifteen enemies... Try replacing "more than" with "over".
  • <ost bosses have weapons... <ost? I'm assuming you meant "most".
  • ...and level environments feature interesting changes... The use of "interesting" seems icky to me. How do you define "interesting". I don't find the changes from day to night interesting.
  • The developers made the levels look 3D by looping the background textures, making it a fairly graphically intensive game for the Game Boy Advance. "levels look 3d" sounds crude to me. Also, "fairly" seems like a letdown.
  • ...utilize the GAX Sound Engine,[16] which allowed realtime... You mean it doesn't allow it now?
  • Iridion 3D was recieved poorly by critics... One of, I think, the most common mistakes, "recieved" should be spelt "received".

Contrary to your statement above, I've found a few instances where the sentences don't convey the intended meaning. Might I suggest, if you haven't done so already, that you read Tony's (if I may say) excellent guides to improvement of writing and editing. The links at the bottom of the featured article criteria page are also invaluable, not only for prospective nominators, but also for anyone who wants to improve their skills in general. Harryboyles 14:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I've gone through and given the article a copyedit, reordered for flow, and combined a couple of redundant parts. Tony and Harryboyles, I'd appreciate it if you'd take another look. There's probably some more work to do, but it should be a lot better. Pagrashtak 16:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Will the objectors please reassess? Pagrashtak 20:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• I've withdrawn my oppose. It's not perfect yet, though—a quick run-through and I had to make a few edits. In particular, generic male pronouns were used for players. I corrected a few, and hope there are no others. Pluralise "player", or use "his/her" or even "s/he", or reword to avoid. Tony 22:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 18:43, 15 May 2007.

[edit] System Shock

Self-nomination. I rewrote and heavily added to this article, which is currently classified as a good article. Prior to this nomination, the article was subject to a peer review by WikiProject Video games, the suggestions of which I integrated into the article. I find the article to be worthy of featured status, but will endeavor to correct any issues that may be found over the course of this nomination. JimmyBlackwing 00:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support per work done with nominator on Peer Review. I took one last look through, and all I see is maybe wikilink 3D in the lead.--Clyde (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. JimmyBlackwing 00:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support All points seem to have been attended in the peer review. -凶 01:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose—prose looks good based on the lead. However, I noticed a few minor issues in the first section:
  • Some of the references aren't entirely formatted; namely, the magazine articles need authors and other relevant information.
  • Watch out for redundancies and misplaced formality. Generally, it's best to avoid "prior to" and say "before" instead (as Tony says, we use too much Latin as it is).
  • This sentence needs work: "The game begins as the protagonist awakens from his coma, finding that the station has been taken over by the now insane SHODAN, with all robots aboard the station reprogrammed for hostility, and the crew transformed into cyborgs and mutants." It's a snake, and doesn't flow correctly. Try "The game begins as the protagonist awakens from his coma, finding that the station has been taken over by an insane SHODAN; all robots aboard have been reprogrammed for hostility, and the crew have been transformed into cyborgs and mutants" or something along those lines.
  • "The player character is soon contacted by Rebecca Lansing, a TriOptimum counter-terrorism consultant, who claims that Citadel Station's mining laser is being charged for a strike against Earth." "Player character" should be "playable character", and you can probably remove "soon".
• These are just a few examples. Try to give the prose a double check to remove redundancies and other issues. I recommend checking it against User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. Normally, I'd do this myself, but I've been trying to take Tony's approach by pointing out examples instead (plus, I've been really pressed for time). That way, the editors learn by doing. — Deckiller 06:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I corrected the examples you gave, and will locate copyeditors to help me out with the rest of the prose. On the subject of your other point, not all of the references are capable of being entirely formatted; the Next Generation Magazine review does not, in fact, name its author. I'm not sure about the PC Gamer and Computer Gaming World articles, so I'll check them out. JimmyBlackwing 07:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • If you can't find the references again, don't worry about it; if you have them, please double check. Articles are often slammed for not filling out references properly. — Deckiller 07:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I have a scan of the Next Generation Magazine article, courtesy of User:Mitaphane. On the scanned page, there is no listing of the author. I'm not an avid magazine reader, so I'm not sure if the author would be listed elsewhere in the issue. I do not currently have access to the other two articles, but I will attempt to find the information if it exists. It's going to take me awhile (possibly over a week), though. In the meantime, I will attend to requesting the assistance of a copyeditor. JimmyBlackwing 08:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment as far as I can tell: "System Shock sold 170,000 copies,[28] being outsold by its contemporaries.[5][2]" is a problem neither ref 2 nor ref 5 talk about sales figures. Side note, starting a clause with 'being' never makes a good sentence. The 3D content is not 'true' It's still a flat screen. Mention 3D modelling or something. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Ref 2 states:

In 1993, id followed up Wolfenstein with Doom, signaling the age of first-person shooters. Though well-made, Doom and its knock-offs were relatively primitive; they were designed on a single plane, involved little actual environmental interaction, and weren't even really 3D. Building on Underworld, Looking Glass responded with its own "anti-FPS" of sorts, a first-person adventure game called System Shock. Unlike Doom, the player could pick up and throw items, or store them in a massive inventory. Since the game involved real 3D space, the player could look around, climb, duck, jump, and even lean to the side. The flip side of all this control is that the game was confusing as hell to get into. And again, you needed a monster machine to run it. Result: even fewer people really noticed the game.

• • Ref 5 states:

Van Gogh's sad tale is not unlike that of Looking Glass Studios' System Shock, which is without a doubt one of the most original, playable, and immersive computer games ever created. The trouble is, at the time of its release, no one (myself included) could be bothered to notice. System Shock came and went whilst everyone was busy killing each other in Doom II, and the title slipped off the radars of all but the most ardent gamers. But those lucky few were in for a treat -- they had unexpectedly stumbled upon what was to be the best computer game of 1994. Sure, that's a bit of a bold statement, but read on to find out why System Shock deserves nearly every accolade we can think of, and then some.

• • I do not see how these do not work as references for that statement. Both of them discuss sales. And yes, the game featured true 3D environments. As in, "not 2 and 1/2D", like Wolfenstein 3D and Doom had been. JimmyBlackwing 20:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Ok, it took me even longer than expected, but I have filled out the magazine information. With that done, the only remaining objection is prose-based. I'll put in a request with the League of Copyeditors. JimmyBlackwing 18:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Doesn't seem to have any problems and is well written. Though one magazine reference doesn't have any page numbers. Medvedenko 15:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose—Improved prose. Tony 02:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 1a. Random examples such as these suggest that more precise copy-editing is required throughout.
  • "The game received critical praise,[3][4] later being hailed as a major innovator in its genre,[5] and placing on multiple hall of fame lists.[5][6][7]"—Get rid of "later being" --> "and was". It's not the innovator (a human was that) --> "innovation". The grammar of "and placing" is unclear --> "and was placed"? Why is Reference 5 cited twice in one sentence, and heavens, again in the subsequent senetence? Why does "critical praise" appear again in the very next sentence?
  • "Before the game's beginning". No, "Before the beginning of the game".
  • "a six-month long controlled healing coma"—spot the redundant word.
  • "Citadel Station's mining laser is being charged for a strike against Earth"—Does this involve a payment, or do you mean "prepared", or even "charged up"? Tony 01:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I put in a request with the League of Copyeditors on April 27. I can't copyedit the article any further than I already have, so I'm forced to wait. I have attempted to fix the issues you cited, however. JimmyBlackwing 03:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Finding collaborators. Go to the list of FAs. There must be 20 games ones. I looked at the first one (3D thingo), and saw copy-editing by User:BACbKA. That took 90 seconds. You might spend longer identifying a priority list of the most likely to ask. Tony 21:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 18:43, 15 May 2007.

[edit] Jihad (song)

I wish to nominate current Good Article "Jihad (song)" as a Featured Article Candidate, which is an album track by Californian heavy metal act Slayer. Editors suggestions have helped improve the article (can any of those contributors who wish to comment on this FAC and / or vote please make the fact clear they've been contributors to the article when commenting / voting?.. thanks), while copyedits from Wikipedians such as Tony have smoothened the article's prose. While the article seems short somewhat, I feel it's comprehensive in that it draws upon all the information currently available on the topic. The song is relatively unknown to heavy metal music audiences, and was never issued in single format. All feedback is welcomed and thanked for in advance. I hope the article proves to be a good read. LuciferMorgan 00:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The text (describing Mumbai's CSF's reaction and aftermath) with the music sample is unneeded. Rather, a text describing the music sample would be better (a la Angel of Death).--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to comment. I have followed your recommendation and amended the description accordingly. LuciferMorgan 10:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support. I had a pretty rough time searching for nitpicks after all this polishing.

• Not all reviews were so negative - I don't like "so". The entire sentence appears a bit unnecessary to me, since "received mixed reviews" is already explained earlier in the section.

The word "so" has been removed, though I kept the sentence since I feel it nicely introduces the fact there were negative reviews, and always the opportunity to explore this. LuciferMorgan 22:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• "MusicOMH.com's Ian Robinson also received complaints" - He didn't receive complaints.

I can't believe I added that. That's been fixed. LuciferMorgan 22:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• I prefer words such as "to" and "is" outside quotations.

Could you provide an example please? Thanks.

...remarked that the song "is predictably.... Michaelas¹⁰ 23:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Any other instances you spot feel free to point out. LuciferMorgan 23:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Use the full name of the September 11, 2001 attacks before the shortcut, not after it. Also choose whether you would like to use "9/11" or "September 11" in the rest of the article. Michaelas¹⁰ 22:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've opted for 9/11 in the rest of the article. I think that's now been addressed. LuciferMorgan 22:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to read the article, and your vote of support. If you have any other suggestions for improvement, feel free to get in touch. I'd like it noted that Michaelas10 is a Slayer WikiProject member as I am though so that nobody feels foul play is occurring here. LuciferMorgan 22:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Support —Disclaimer as a Slayer wiki project member—
  • I'd like to see the lead expanded; eg the opening para currently of comprises three entirely unrelated statements. Maybe add text to develope the second sentence.

I've added text to develop the second sentence, though please copyedit it as it may be awkward at present. LuciferMorgan 02:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• • The third sentence in the lead and the first in the "Origins" section are near verbatim repeats. The second instance needs to be developed (is it unusual for Hanneman to be the primary author, does Araya often write lyrics etc).

I've now developed upon the sentence and added more context to the "Origins" section. LuciferMorgan 14:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• • As the article is realtively short (not a criticism), the block quotes seem to dominate the structure. For example the ""Angel of Death" comparisons" section comprises two paras cut by a block quote. The quote is near twice the length of either para. Ceoil 21:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your statement 110%, but I do not know how to address this. Do you have any suggestions? Any advice is greatly appreciated. LuciferMorgan 02:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll get onto these shortly in the coming days. Thanks for your comments. LuciferMorgan 00:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

On the last point, that's fair enough, it's a relatively obscure topic you've chosen to write about, and there are few sources to draw from. Nevertheless, you did a good job; there are a few minor ce issues left, but all easily fixed. Have switched to support. Ceoil 19:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, which is greatly appreciated. Your help and improvements to the article are also appreciated. The fact it's relatively obscure and there are few sources to draw upon is also a major problem with heavy metal music related articles, which is a shame really. If more sources come to light regarding this song in the future though, I fully intend to add their information to the article. LuciferMorgan 18:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the block quote is not properly formatted. It uses the {{cquotetxt}} template which is supposed to be used for pull-quotes. What you might want to do, and what may help keep the quote from dominating the section would be to only use a small part of the quote in the article text. Then, use the entire quote in a pull-quote; I tried this out at Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song), and it seems to have worked okay. ShadowHalo 18:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion - I've tried it, and I feel the section looks better given your advice. Should you have any other improvement suggestions, never hesitate to get in touch. LuciferMorgan 19:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 18:43, 15 May 2007.

[edit] Jurassic Park (film)

There was no consensus either way the last time this was nominated. There were many objections, but I think most of them had been addressed, so I'm going to restart it. (old nom) Raul654 01:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support - My concerns were addressed and satisfied in the previous FAC, as it is now, it gets my full support.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment—I believe the only remaining problem is that the copy-edit needs to be finished. — Deckiller 14:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There's been a lot of copyediting courtesy of Bignole and Firsfron, and I've tried my hand. None of the objectors ever bothered to list their prose problems anyway. Alientraveller 15:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I am a terrible copyeditor; the only things I fixed were technical problems (like the plural forms of various dinosaur genera), and I'm possibly a poor judge of what is well-written prose. Please, for the sake of your FAC, do not rely on me to tighten up prose! Also, for the record, many of the listed prose problems weren't even from the correct article, which must have been incredibly frustrating for the nominator. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok pal, I'm just thankful that you corrected dinosaur information. Alientraveller 17:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support the article is in a good shape, well cited, written and illustrated, though there are things in "Release" that I usually see in separate sections (such as home video and other medias). igordebraga ≠ 17:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that was done because there wasn't that much information to warrant subsections for the individual releases. At least, that's the way it appears.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support This article seems to be in top condition, and I believe that this article would make a good adition to the FA colection here. Chickyfuzz14^{(user talk)} 17:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Like I wrote in the first discussion, the "Reaction" section is US/UK-centric as it only mentions reviews from those two countries. Therefore it is not as "comprehensive" as it could be. A Wikipedia article is supposed to cover the topic from a global standpoint and should not give any country-specific aspects any priority. I understand the problem that the main editor of the article only speaks English, but I'm sure there is some newspaper article or another source giving an survey of how Jurassic Park was reviewed around the world waiting to be found. Like I also wrote in that first FAC discussion, I'll be doing my part to try to find it in the next couple of days, but until such information is included the article just doesn't satisfy the FA criteria. I certainly hope this can be corrected. Besides this aspect, everything seems to match the FA criteria (although I'm no good at copyediting and can't really judge the prose), which I would like to commend its author for, but I won't support until this issue is taken care of. --Carabinieri 22:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know if that's a very fair comment; I haven't seen any fiction FAs with reviews in other languages. — Deckiller 22:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Could you provide some FA film articles that do this, because I haven't seen any that provide this "global" review that you are requesting. The first problem with this is that how do you distinguish what is more "foreign" that it would satisfy your opposition? We don't include release dates for films in countries that are not primarily english speaking, unless there is some notable reason for doing so (e.g. if a film series has never been released in a particular country, but for the third film it is). Second, how do you propose we translate these reviews? When does it stop? Are we to provide a review for every country a film was released in? Spider-Man 3 was released in 107 countries (the most ever), I think that may create a problem in a criticism section. Even more so, we are supposed to follow style guidelines, which tell us to use Rotten Tomatoes, and professional/well known critics; last time I checked, RT doesn't have anyone listed abroad in its "Cream of the Crop" list of most well known critics. How are to distinguish who is "well known" and most "professional" in a country whose language we cannot even translate?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Just to add my voice to the chorus: This seems like an unfair requirement. Jurassic Park was an American film created for an American audience, so certainly the reaction of American critics is more germane than that of German or French or Indian or Sudanese critics. — Brian (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
      • You're putting words in my mouth. I never even indicated that the article was supposed "to provide a review for every country a film was released in". And Jurassic Park was not "created for an American audience". According to Box Office Mojo 61% of its gross came from abroad, so the reception in these countries is just as important. I called for the article to give an overview of how the film was received - from a global standpoint. I don't believe that's an unfair requiremnt, but rather an FA level. Like I pointed out in my comment, I'm sure English-language sources have analyzed the reception in non-English-speaking countries, so knowledge of a foreign language wouldn't be required in order to write about this reception. I'm aware of the fact that most FA's currently do not reach this standard, but "two wrongs don't make a right", let's get it right here and give a true global overview before passing this. one.--Carabinieri 23:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Most don't? I can't think of any that do, at least not off the top of my head. The best you could probably hope for is that someone mentioned if it was generally well received in another country. Most news articles don't go into depth about foreign reviews, just general reaction. I've seen the ones for Spider-Man 3, when it was released in Japan, and they don't generally include actual critic names. Also, I didn't say you said that, I said that what you are asking is vague. I asked you what you thought was "global" enough for inclusion. What you are asking is for someone to find news about foreign reviews. And what if no one wrote anything about the foreign reception beyond how much money it made? Are you saying you can never support an article that couldn't possibly satisfy your request? A request that actually doesn't follow the rest of the FA articles for films. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be done, because if it was possible to be done I think it can only help the article. But, I believe that the article doesn't hinder itself by not having these "global" reviews.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
          • You're right, most news articles don't go into depth about the reception abroad, that's why it's important to find the ones that do. No said finding the appropriate sources was going to be that easy. I highly doubt that the reception outside the English-speaking world hasn't been the topic of an English-language news article or some other piece of writing. I can't claim an article that has a major section which doesn't completely cover its topic meets FA criteria and therefore cannot support, even if there is plenty of precedent for such articles being passed.--Carabinieri 21:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I find that sad that you would hold something that has yet to be done by any other article (i don't see any FA articles up for review on that requirement of yours), and not even brought up on the WikiProject films style guidelines themselves. There is such a thing as "not existing", even on the internet. If it does exist, you still run the risk of the source you finding being reliable itself. Most importantly, we do not know the professional status of foreign (non-english speaking) critics. They don't show up on Rotten Tomatoes (which is the site that the WP Films guidelines says to use), or other sites. If you believe that they exist, then please help the article out. You don't have to, but apparently others have tried and failed. But, that's your opinion about the situation, and I don't believe that it will hinder the article (speaking of the lack of foreign reviews, not about your personal opinion as everyone's opinion is valued IMO).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Speaking as someone who has put together a comprehensive article on a recent film (The Devil Wears Prada, which will be split sometime soon per its tag), I wholeheartedly agree that this is a ridiculous request for a film article. At least one on the English Wikipedia. The international film press rarely covers foreign-language critical reaction unless it's significantly different from what gets said in the English-speaking world (the only instance where it should be covered in a Wikipedia film article). I agree with the globalization sentiment but consider the implications: good film articles inevitably tend to become overly long (as mine did). We would probably need to split off daughter articles for rather crufty lists of (probably badly-translated) quotes.

        IMO, foreign-language criticism should be included if there's some national connection to the film in question. For example, The Departed discusses Hong Kong critics' reactions to the film since it was a remake of Infernal Affairs. I would also add as an aside that, when overseas, I haven't seen critical reaction used to sell the film the way it is in the English-speaking world (i.e., no quotes on posters).

        Really, this discussion should be moved to WT:FILM. An FA nom of an article that was merely trying to follow its project criteria is not the place to force changes to those standards. Daniel Case 02:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

        • What I am demanding isn't anything new and shouldn't be controversial at all. I'm just asking a potential FA to represent a worldwide view! Currently there are several reviews mentioned in the article and it struck my that all but one were from American media, the other one being from the United Kingdom, this is what is generally known as systematic bias. If I were really obtrusive and fussy, I could slap that section with a {{Globalize/Eng}} template. I'm not expecting anyone to look through foreign-language newspapers and translate movie reviews, I don't think it's necessary to quote them directly at all. I do, however, feel that since 61% of the audience of the film seems to be from outside the US (and I'm pretty sure that's not all UK), the coverage the reaction from the critics of these countries gets should be proportionate to this. I can honestly care less about the WP:FILM standards. This is FAC, not a page of some project, so I'm just trying to apply FA and general Wikipedia standards - along with some common sense.--Carabinieri 22:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
          • • Well, you seem to be alone in your standards. Secondly, part of FA criteria is to meet your personal WikiProject's guidelines. The fact that you don't care about what WP:FILM says is irrelevant, because this article IS a film article, and thus must meet those requirements as well. Regardless, show us some "global" reviews. Show us it can be easily accomplished short of having to translate a review. Or, show where Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias applies to film articles (American films at that), and how it proposes we accomplish this the "unbias" you claim the article lacks. I would think that I would be seeing a lot of FA film articles up for review, with that template added to them. This seems more like something you should bring to the WikiProject Film community. Most aritles always try and follow previous FAs, because they know that a community of people agreed that those articles were great articles. You're asking this article to do something entirely new, instead of taking it to the WP:FILM, so that they can address the concerns and then make appropriate actions to all FA film articles (if necessary). As no two articles are exactly alike, how you handle each can be different as well. I've checked the "Countering" Project, and the only thing it says do is look for news websites in other countries that have an english version, and the sites they mention are Canadian and UK.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comments as I go...
  • Are "Gerald R. Molen", "B. D. Wong" and "Dean Cundey" really that important to include in the character listings? These characters had very minor roles.
  • "trimmed much of the exposition via Spielberg's idea of a cartoon" I can't figure out what this means exactly... can this be made more clear?
    • Done. Alientraveller 15:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The "Dinosaurs on screen" is great, a wonderful idea to cover a film in an encyclopedic way by explaining some of the technical/scientific information in the movie and relating it to Wikipedia articles for further reading. But it seems a bit awkward in between the related "production" and "reception" sections, perhaps the dinosaurs section should be put closer to the plot and character sections for pacing?

I think "Dinosaurs on screen" serves to supplement production: the most important thing about this film, was that it was the most realistic (at the time) depiction of dinosaurs to date. Alientraveller 15:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• But really, this is a great film article that just needs some minor polishing here and there. Weak support because it still needs some tweaking, which I'm sure will occur eventually. --W.marsh 14:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support I think the article meets all criteria. In addition I dont see a need to expand the reviews section.LordHarris 15:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I don't edit Jurassic Park much but I think this article needs some copyediting and removal of redundancies in accordance to the FA critera, but I am going to support this. I will copyedit this ASAP. Sjones23 19:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support It is well written, well sourced, and is comprehensive and stable - • The Giant Puffin • 14:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Well-written, pleasant reading. Pasi 12:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• SUPPORT! Outstanding article, excellent research, detailed, informative. Everything I would like to see on the front page of Wikipedia. MrPrada 16:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I did some copy-editing to fix punctuation issues with quotes, but otherwise, the article is in terrific shape. I've reviewed the featured article criteria, and Jurassic Park, I'm happy to say, meets all of them. Definitely a fine article of a fine film! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 00:11, 12 May 2007.

[edit] Mendip Hills

This article was a previous FAC nomination & recieved some useful comments - which have all been addressed, however it didn't receive enough support within the time allowed. It remains a comprehensive and stable article supported but appropriate citations, which I believe meets the FA criteria.— Rod ^talk 22:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Comment Nice work Rodw. I think those pictures could be slightly larger, and alternated left and right within their sections. There are also still a few seemingly unsourced statements dotted around as well, it would be wise to add inline citations to those. (Beautiful part of the

world by the way.)-- Zleitzen^(talk) 02:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• The images are autothumbed, which is recommended by the WP:MoS. You can set the thumbnail size in special:preferences =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  Nevertheless, that map is very small on default mode, an aspect covered in the MoS. And the MoS also recommends alternating the formation of pics somewhat. Of the unsourced statements, the info in the Demographics section could do with sourcing, the info on Wookey Hole seems unsourced and the Walking section lacks citations. Given that the Monarch's Way article gives a different distance to that section for the route, it could do with being sorted out with WP:RS. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  Response I have rearranged the images, checked & changed the length of the Monarchs way & added citations where requested.— Rod ^talk 21:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Comment I leave it to you whether you follow my suggestion: as you say, it may not be necessary as there are only 3 books. Congratulations on producing & maintaining an excellent article. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be neater, and certainly more convenient for the reader, to split the References into two parts, as is increasingly the practice on WP:

1. Notes: the footnotes proper; and
2. References: alphabetical bibliography

The Notes can then refer succinctly to the bibliography whenever necessary, giving page numbers (eg "Barrington and Stanton (1977):35"). In every other respect this is a first-class article: it reads well, and it's both comprehensive and attractively presented. Rod has dealt with all my editorial comments patiently, courteously and efficiently. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 16:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Response I don't quite understand your comment. All of the references are used in the article & cited with numbers as they appear. There is no seperate bibliography of other sources. Could you point me to an example or something from WP:MOS or other guidelines so that I could make the changes suggested? Otherwise thanks for the supportive comments.— Rod ^talk 17:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I was being a bit cryptic! Have a look at this section of the article on footnotes (the para beginning "Consider maintaining ..."). That section in turn refers to Wikipedia:Citing sources, in which you might pay particular attention to this.

A good example of how this works in practice is the FA Johannes Kepler. Thankfully, you don't have nearly so many sources; but the same principle applies—and it makes it much easier for the reader to find the sources at a glance. But when all's said & done this isn't mandatory: it's more a question of personal taste. It's really more a matter of formatting than of substance. If you're happy with the referencing as it is, that's fine. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

PS My remarks may have only limited relevance to this article, because the majority of the sources are online. However, three of the books referred to (Barrington, Toulson & Coysh) are referenced twice: using the system I've described you could give specific page numbers for each separate (NB spelling!) reference. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Response OK I see what you mean now. I'm not sure how useful this would be for the 3 books cited in this article, but I will be returning to the library this weekend & will try to get the relevant books again & add the page numbering as suggested. I note that in the guidelines this is generally put as "It can be helpful" & similar words rather than being a requirement.— Rod ^talk 14:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Footnotes are not formatted to a full and consistent biblio style. Sources need to specify publisher, author and publication date where available, and last access date on all websource. See WP:CITE/ES or use the cite templates. Also, there is every possible form of mistaken use of WP:DASH. External links should be pruned per WP:NOT (not a tour guide). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Response Sandy thanks for your comments. Could you give an example of where you feel the footnotes do not include a "full and consistent biblio style" as I have tried hard to use the appropriate templates and include as much information as possible. I will check the WP:DASH as these have been changed 3 or 4 times during the peer review process. I will also look at the external links (most of which have been added by others) to prevent it being a tour guide.— Rod ^talk 15:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Let me know when you're finished, and I can doublecheck the dashes. I will do a few sample edits now on the footnotes, so you can see the missing info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Dashes and External links look good now. Let me know when you're finished with footnotes; I left sample edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Response Wow thank you for all your work on this. I see what you mean now. I think part of the problem was "cite web" which uses "work" rather than "publisher". You seem to have done all the format ones for me but is there a similar "format" for word documents? I've gone through & added dates of publication where they are included on the pdfs (many don't have them). I can't find ISBNs for Gough, J.W. & Johnson, Peter - both are from 1967 & there is no ISBN on the book or on Amazon. If there is anything else you feel is needed let me know & I've now realised I need to go back to some of the other articles I've written & do the same process! — Rod ^talk 08:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Looks pretty good; I'm striking my oppose. I did still see some instances of the "work" parameter used in place of "publisher", which causes the publisher to italicize. In most standard citation formats, book names, encyclopedia names, and newspaper names are italicized, but other publishers are not, so perhaps you can review those for consistency. Also, the text is squished between the infobox and the first image (in Geology) on my browser; maybe you can find a better way to place those images to avoid the text squeeze? If you have downloadable word docs, I think the parameter to use in the cite templates is format = doc. Thanks for the fast work ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Support A deserving candidate for FA status. SP-KP 08:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional support:
  • The infobox gives its length and width as 30km by 10km, which I guess means the Yeo/Chew valley is considered the northern boundary. I didn't see any mention of the valley as being the northern boundary, though, and there doesn't seem to be a reference for a definition of the area -- the AONB is officially defined, but is there any authoritative definition of the hills as a whole?
  • Following on from the first point, the Mendips are hard to define because they don't stand on their own, there are additional nearly contigious limestone hills going north: Dundry, Bristol (Avon Gorge, etc) and the Cotsworlds. Is it worth briefly mentioning these in the geology section, and saying whether they are part of the same formation, or of different ages/composition? This is just a suggestion, I'm not going to fail the article over this.
  • Infobox -> Location -> Coordinates: 1:10,000 doesn't seem an appropriate scale for an area of this size. I'd change it myself, but I'm not familiar with the template parameters. 1:100,000 is probably more like it.

Fixed. The Geobox sets the scale to 1:1,000 by default. It can easily be changed by adding an (unfortunatelly undocumented yet) additional parameter coordinates_type which can accept any parameter from Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Parameters. I chnged it to the suggested 1:100,000. – Caroig (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• • There are a few very short paragraphs, which could perhaps be merged. The demographics section, for example, doesn't appear to need a paragraph break in the middle of it. Again, just a suggestion, I don't think it's a big enough issue for failing.
• Thanks, Joe D (t) 09:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • • Response Thanks for the comments. I agree it is hard to define as it doesn't follow local authority boundaries etc & the proposal (mentioned in the article) to expand the AONB doesn't make it clear either. I have asked User:Geologyguy to comment on the limetstone hills to the north & the relationship. I have asked User:Caroig about the scale in the "geobox" as he created them & knows how to fiddle with the parameters. I have combined the short paras in the demographics section.— Rod ^talk 10:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support an article I have read repeatedly and learned from. My only comment is the use of compass directions without a space e.g. southwest rather than south west, which I personally do not like. Whatever style is chosen its use should be consistent. --Cheesy Mike 09:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Response Thanks I have changed the southwest to south west (where I can spot them) & removed "-" to make it consistent but I can't find anything on this in the manual of style.— Rod ^talk 10:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. A readable and informative article, with just about the right weighting given to each section. I had a quick edit of the Geology section (the only one I'm qualified to comment on...) just to tidy up the chronology of events, reduce the degree of assumed knowlege, and eradicate a touch of repetition. Pyrope 10:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Object—1a. Needs fresh eyes to copy-edit the whole text, not just to correct these random examples from the top.
  • "The Mendip Hills (commonly called The Mendips) are a range of limestone hills (karst) situated to the south of Bristol and Bath in north Somerset, England." Remove the redundant word for a much nicer opening.
  • "The hills run east to west between Weston-super-Mare and Frome, and overlook the Somerset Levels to the south, and the Avon valley to the north." Better as this, to avoid three ands and a comma: "Running east to west between Weston-super-Mare and Frome, the Hills overlook the Somerset Levels to the south and the Avon valley to the north."
  • When I read a humdinger like this at the top, I lose interest. "The hills are largely carboniferous limestone, which is quarried at several sites. The higher western part of the Mendip Hills, have been designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), measuring approximately 200 km² (80 mi²):, which gives the area the same level of protection as a national park." Why the familiar "The hills" first, and the fully rendered "the Mendip Hills" later? Remove "approximately" (see MoS on this). Fix the punctuation glitch, oh dear. Better "... (AONB); the area is 200 km² (80 mi²), which gives it the same level of protection as a national park." Tony 01:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Response thanks for your comments, which I have acted on. I may have become too close to see the wood for the trees and would welcome any further copyediting, but I wouldn't have described the problems you identified as a "humdinger". If you culd help with your "fresh eyes" that would be great.— Rod ^talk 07:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support.Excellent article, should definitely be a featured article Mick Knapton 06:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Rejoinder—sorry, I don't copy-edit FACs. The task is to locate other people to collaborate; this is one of the most important aspects of contributing to WP. Start with the edit-history pages of similar articles, especially FAs. Identify those who've made major copy-editing contributions (by reading the edit summaries and using the compare edits function). Show them you're familiar with their work, and ask for help with this one. You need to network in this way, and expect to be asked to help on other articles if they do you a favour. Tony 09:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 00:11, 12 May 2007.

[edit] Tulsa, Oklahoma

Self nomination. This article has undergone radical improvement over the last few months, and editors have worked to fit it to all the Featured Article criteria, along with quality standards set by current featured city articles. Tulsa is an important American city and of top importance in Wikiproject Oklahoma, and due special attention has dramatically improved the article's factual viability, prose, and comprehensiveness. Therefore, it is being nominated for FA status. Okiefromokla 21:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Fixes needed:
  • Middle paragraph of "Law and Government" needs serious copyedit.
    • Multiple capitalization errors.
    • First sentance needs works. Mayor isn't appointed, which implies that a superior picks the person to fill the position. The mayor is elected. The whole paragraph could use a copyedit for clarity.
  • Caption in Green Country map has a typo: It reads "Green County".
  • Sentance in history section has spelling errors and needs copyedit for a more encyclopedic tone: Econoimic prosperity took a break in 1982, when a national recession greatly effected the oil industry in Tulsa.
  • Image issues:
    • The 1921 Riot picture has a liscencing tag that is only valid in the U.S. Wikipedia is a multinational effort, and as such it probably needs a more inclusive licencing tag. I am not sure this tag is even used anymore. There is another licencing tag that is more universal, for images whose creator or author has been dead for more than 70 years. It may apply here. Also, the source of the image isn't specified.
    • I am still uneasy about the BOK image liscencing tag. I read the talk page, and it still feels a bit sketchy.****I agree, and I'm the uploader. I've learned a lot since then. I see if I can get another email from the city that specifically releases it under a public license as opposed to just saying that it can be used.↔NMajdan•talk 02:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

*That's all I found right now. Fix these and I'll give it another read through.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I fixed all the problems you listed except the race riot and BOK picture licences, and I will try to look into those shortly, or at least track down the licencing issue of the Race Riot picture (or just get another picture).Okiefromokla 02:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, looking much better. On a second readthrough, I caught a few more issues:

• "sleepy little town" in the history section. Ugh. Say "small town"
• Same paragraph, a bit higher up: "...which led to the present day usage of the name Tulsa." Unneccessarily obfuscatory. Try "which later changed to Tulsa." Same idea, less words, easier to read.
• Same paragraph, next sentance after that one: "However" implies a difference from prior sentance, but BOTH sentances deal with the same issue, oil discovery...
• Same paragraph: Overuse of the word "boom" ... Oil boom, building boom. Try Mr. Roget...
• Next paragraph: Two sentances start with "Known as...". Try a little variety here as well. Also, it should be noted that MANY cities, not only Tulsa, had a "Black Wall Street". Durham, NC had one as well. Probably doesn't need mentioning here, but a DAB is probably needed to explain the difference. Plus, there appears to be a double redirect here too...
• Next paragraph: Overuse of "During..." Again, variety...:::Sorry to dig up a whole new batch of stuff. I hate to sound all nit-picky here, but "brilliant prose" is the standard we are aiming for. When the above and the images issues are fixed, you can expect my support.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I fixed the problems you mentioned, including the picture issues (both mentioned pictures are now gone). Again, the input is appreciated. Okiefromokla 22:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment- Oklahoma is celebrating its centennial on 2007-11-16 and it would be great to have an Oklahoma-related article, such as this, on the Main Page on that day.↔NMajdan•talk 02:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Lovely, then there's still a bit of time to get something featured. --Phoenix (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support All fixes are done, I have no more reservations. Great job!--Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support, looks fine. --Phoenix (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Object. Lots of polish needed; has this article been to peer review? Please read WP:MSH and fix throughout. Also, please read WP:LEAD; the lead is not at all a compelling summary of the article. Please read WP:MOSNUM; full dates should be wikilinked. Prose: the "city" witnessed murders ? See WP:LAYOUT for correct placement of templates at top of section headings. Footnotes are cluttered with the (web) parameter, which is the default and should be left out. Why is a visittulsa source identified as CNN Money ? Publications dates (example, [16]) should be given when available on sources (author as well, if one is available). Why are the Work and Publisher parameters repeated in the cite templates? The correct parameter for most of these instances is Publisher; no need to repeat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::These problems have now been fixed.Okiefromokla•talk 06:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No. I just went through and made a large number of sample edits to show you the work still needed; please review the sample edits to understand the work needed throughout. My edits are samples only. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Please also see my edit. The pages parameter should not be used for web refs with a single page. It is intended for citing specific pages of a multiple-page work. The date field of web refs should not be guessed at. If there is no indication of the date on the page, do not put the current year in the field (which seems to be what was done in the section I edited). Cite sources directly. You cited a web page with an article that was clearly labeled as a copy from the Tulsa World. It was a simple matter to go to the paper's web site, find the article in the archives, and reference that instead. I'm also concerned that this article may have too great a reliance on primary sources. I haven't done a thorough check, but the section I edited definitely needs more secondary sources.

I'd love to see this article reach featured status. I'm willing to help you out with the ref work and formatting if you can tackle the bulk of it. Feel free to ask if you have any questions. Pagrashtak 15:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You should also go through and make sure stats are dated so that future editors will know what needs to be updated; example — things like population and ... is ranked among the best 123 Western Colleges by the Princeton Review, ... Pls ping me when you're ready for another look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, solo years should not be wikilinked (see WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSNUM). And, Pagrashtak left a reply to your query on my talk page about the problem with primary sources, that should be reviewed throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: All these problems are being worked on and will probably be close to done very very soon.Okiefromokla•talk 23:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dsmdgold's Comments

• Comments What has been done so far is very good but a few places need some work. Note, I am a native Tulsan and many of my comments are based on my sometimes faulty memory.
  • The American's prominence seems to be excessive, given that a ground breaking has yet to be announced and the thing may ever be built. It is mentioned in the lead and at least twice in the article.
  • The Race Riot needs to be mentioned in the lead. After the discovery of oil, it is the most important event in Tulsa history. fixed.
  • Although I have no sources at hand, it is my understanding that the reason Tulsa became the big city, rather than Glenpool or Sapulpa is that the citizens of Tulsa managed to construct a bridge over the Arkansas (it considered economically impossible given the sand bottom of the river), and that Tulsa banned drilling for oil within the city limits. Most of the oil fields were on the other side of the river, and Tulsa was more pleasant place to build homes for the oil barons.
  • The Race Riot needs a fuller discussion.
  • The, still unfinished BOK center has six mentions, more that any other structure in the article. This is excessive. Much toned down, thank you
  • It is my memory that the present form of government was adopted in part under the threat of lawsuit by Civil Right groups on the the theory that the previous City Commission diluted minority votes, since all seats were elected at large. not easily sourceable.
  • The Tulsa Flood plan was developed response to a specific flood in. I believe, 1984.
  • Mention should be made of some of the specific building of architectural significance. These might include, the Mayo Hotel, the Adams Hotel, the Ambassador Hotel, the Philtower, the Tulsa Fire Alarm Building, Holy Family Cathedral, Boston Avenue Methodist Church, Westhope (Frank Lloyd Wright house), the IPE building, and the "Jetson's" architecture of ORU. Done
  • The article states "The initiative (Vision 2025) has led to a significant economic development and investment surge" and points to a reference. That reference, although it does indicate that an investment surge is happening, does not seem to support the idea that the surge is tied to the initiative. Fixed
  • The number of High Schools in Tulsa Public Schools should be mentioned.
  • The Schusterman center offers undergraduate course work, and is not therefore a "graduate campus"
  • I think that Spartan School of Aeronautics deserves some mention.
  • Vocational education in general is not discussed.
  • Gilcrease Museum has, at its core, the collection of Thomas Gilcrease. He should be mentioned, like Waite Phillips is in conjunction with Philbrook.
  • The statement "Today, Tulsa contains several permanent dance, theater, and concert groups, including ballets, an orchestra, a chorus and opera company, and several large acting guilds." should be expanded upon, mentioning the specific groups. (The ballet and opera companies are mentioned in the lead, but not specifically discusses in the article.) Both orchestras should be mentioned. The major theater groups should be mentioned.
  • The various performance venues around town should be discussed. These include the PAC, the Brady, the Convention Center, the Fairgrounds Pavilion, the Mabee Center, the PACE, the Union PAC, the River Parks amphitheater, and some of the smaller venues.
  • Mohawk park contains the Oxley Nature Center.
  • I don't think that a not finished arena should lead off the sports section.
  • Is gambling a sport? Move the casinos to entertainment.
  • The box with th Tulsa minor league teams should be converted to text. Some historical perspective would be nice as in the past Tulsa has hosted pro Soccer and Basketball.
  • Mention should be made of the now defunct Tulsa Tribune
  • Did Garth Brooks start his career in Tulsa. He lives in the area now, but I thought he started performing in Stillwater. On a similiar note, although Brooks and Dunn's first video was filmed in Tulsa, I think they started their careers together elsewhere. I don't think that Carrie Underwood has ever lived in Tulsa. She of course got her start on American Idol.
  • Leon Russell and the GAP Band did start in Tulsa.
  • Paul Harvey started his radio career in Tulsa.
  • Shouldn't the refineries be mentioned in the economy section as well as the neighborhood section?
  • Shouldn't the infrastructure section discuss rail transport?
  • Tulsa's water supply should be discussed in the infrastructure and the history section.
  • In general, this article suffers from a "presentism" bias. For example almost half of the article's history section discussed events since the 1980's. A third of that discussion is on structures that have yet to be completed. Dsmdgold 16:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Two more thoughts. There should be a section on Religion in Tulsa (done) and a discussion of the health care infrastructure in Tulsa. Dsmdgold 18:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - OkiefromOkla has responded to these suggestions on Dsmdgold's talk page.↔NMajdan•talk 18:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

OkiefromOkla's response from Dsmdgold's talk page:

Thanks for your input, but I have many reservations about your requests, and while some of them I agree with, such as religion, etc, I must disagree with most of them, since many of your requests are more suited for this article's daughter pages and there shouldnt be any need to make the article excessively long with every detail - it isn't a cityguide. Respectfully, I'll go point by point and say why:

• The article is already pretty long - Most of your requests deal with adding very specific details. Since this article is an encylopedia overview, I don't think people want to read of every venue, person, or place in Tulsa, as this would be excessive. The article is meant to convey the "gist" of things, not a list of specific places or things. There should, however, be just a few examples to illustrate the "gist," but not a comprehensive listing of everything in Tulsa. Once again, it would be excessive.
• The American's prominence is not overstated; if you take a look at the recent news coverage that is cited in the article, (dated in april 2007) the developer has recently announced that the project will break ground in 2007 and that it is definently going to be built.
• Of the tulsa history sources cited, there is no mention of the reason Tulsa became a big city is because of the bridge, but in my opinion, we don't need to go that detailed in the history section (the history section is already the size of the other FA cities). However, it could be mentioned in the main Tulsa history article.
• The Tulsa Race Riot has its own article which is linked to within the history section, so a more fuller discussion I do not think is required - the significance of the event is mentioned, again, I don't think the article need be overly long.
• The BOK Center is mentioned in history to show the significance of Vision 2025; it's mentioned in architecture because it's intended to be a culmination of all architecture styles in tulsa (this is cited in the article); its mentioned in sports because its a huge development in Tulsa sporting capabilities, and will be the biggest sports venue; its mentioned in performing arts in that it will be the cities largest performing arts venue - I believe all these are neccissary and important in the article.
• The information on the history of Tulsa's government is taken directly from the Tulsa City Council website as a source - I ave never heard about the civil rights lawsuit nor can I find it anywhere to use it as a source.
• I don't think there is a reason to get specific with the actual flood that made the Tulsa city flood plan go into action - it isn't mentioned in any of the sources Ive seen, but I don't think its neccisary to get that specific, do you? You are talking about it being mentioned in climate - the section already says Tulsa was prone to flooding.
• Art Deco architecture: Tulsa has one of the largest concentrations in the nation; if we started mentioning specific examples too much - well, there is a LOT. That sounds like it should be a daughter page called "Art Deco of Tulsa, Oklahoma". I can, however, mention a few that already have articles on wikipedia, like the philtower, etc.
• The Schusterman center doesn't offer undergraduate course work.
• The Spartan School of Aeronautics is mentioned. (look towards end of the education section).
• Tulsa Tech is mentioned - it's a vocational school and the largest in the state. No FA City article goes very deep into the subject anyway, as it is an encyclopedia article and not a cityguide to mention every single vocational school in Tulsa would be way too excessive.
• Gambiling is very arguably a sport, and it fits in the section with the sports betting at the race tracks. SInce there is no entertainment section and an entertainment section would overlap with other sections in culture, I think gambiling should stay in sports.
• The sports box is a common thing, and is present in almost all city articles that are FA status - it violates no wikipedia standard.
• Garth Brooks was born in Yukon but moved to Tulsa at a very young age and lived here most of his life. It is cited in the article (in the popular media section) that those musicians are from or got their start in Tulsa, and they were all taken directly from the source.
• The History section's last two paragraphs are from 1982 and on and they both cover significant events - the oil bust was very important in Tulsa's history. In other words, it is not "almost half" of the history section - its about 2/10 of the history section - but remember, Tulsa was incorporated only 100 years ago - its a very young city and therfore the history is going to be less far back as most other cities.

I will work on some of the things you have stated, such as healthcare, religion, and certain other things you've mentioned that I haven't included on my list of reservations. Pending further discussion, I do not think the article should be a cityguide, but rather an encycopedic article on Tulsa giving the "gist" of things with few examples.Okiefromokla•talk 19:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.234.97.244 (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC). (sorry, I forgot to sign it and I wasn't logged in - the previous comment was by me, Okiefromokla•talk 18:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC))

PS: I agree with the religion, I will include religion information and healthcare and some of yoru requests - but for the most part, I frankly feel that your requests are unneccisary for the article's quality or to meet wikipedia standards. I don't mean to offend you or to discourage you from your suggestions,as they are welcome, but I would ask you to please look at Boston, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Lexington, Kentucky, San Jose, California, Houston, Texas, Seattle, and San Francisco, as these are all Featured city articles to make sure your requests meet with the content of these articles, as many of your requests for detail should be included in Tulsa's daughter articles, and maybe not the main article.Okiefromokla•talk 18:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In response

• We disagree on the amount of detail needed. I haven't requested a comprehensive listing of everything in Tulsa, just the highlights.
• We may disagree, but I still think that a statue that hasn't been built and may never been built is not material for the article, much less the lead. Once construction is underway then, perhaps, it should be discussed. (I've read the source, I read the longer article in the World when it came out, and it basically says, No really, we are working on it. When the statue was first proposed it was supposed to finished by now.)
• For a first shot at documenting the brige look here, here, here,and here. I found these through a google search (Tulsa History Bridge Oil). More definitive sources could be found. It is important to the history because without the bridge, there would have been no easy conection between Tulsa and the oil fields. (Even the Red Fork well was on the west side of Tulsa). Without a bridge, Tulsa would have been in the position of a modern town by-passed by the interstate.
• I think all I was looking for on the Race Riot is mention of the sparking incident. Also nobody now believes the 39 killed number, mention should be made of the much larger estimates.
• If the article is too long to mention more detail, due we need to be told that the BOK center will have 18000 seats 4 times? Seriously, it may be intended to be a "culmination of all architecture styles in Tulsa", but it isn't yet. Let's let the thing be built, and the report the critical opinion of it. Yes it will be a major venue, but it only needs to be discussed once.
• I will conceed that the my major source for the City Government is my own faulty memory. However, I do remember reading editorials leading up to the vote that said we should do this before we forced to do it. Of course the current city government wouldn't mention something like this on the web. Short of going to the library and looking at twenty year old newspapers, this probably can't be sourced, so never mind.
• The only reason to mention the specific flood is because it is true. Wihtout the city wide flood, the support would not have been there for the flood plan which includes (or did) a waste water management fee on every water bill.
• I don't think that every Art Deco building should be mentioned, or every historic building. Just some of the highlights. An Art Deco of Tulsa, or Architecture of Tulsa would a great article though. Soem of the architecture I mentioned is not Art Deco.
• Among other undergraduate degrees the Schusterman center offers a BSN. see here
• Neither I, nor my browser search feature, can find mention of Spartan or Tulsa Tech in the current version of the article. Were they in an earlier version and got dropped by accident?
• Gambling is not a sport, although horse racing is. My mistake on the entertainment section. I was thinking of the pop culture section, which would not be a good place for them. Perhaps the casinos should be in the economy section then.
• The sports box doesn't violate a wikipedia standard, it just is ugly and confusing.
• From Garth Brooks "Later that year, Brooks began his professional singing career, singing and playing guitar in Oklahoma clubs and bars, particularly the Tumbleweed in Stillwater. After a failed 1985 twenty-four hour trip to Nashville to gain a record contract, Brooks returned to Oklahoma and in 1986 married Sandy Mahl of Owasso, Oklahoma, whom he had met while working as a bouncer at the Tumbleweed. The following year, the couple moved to Nashville, and Brooks was able to begin making contacts in the music industry." No mention of Tulsa. The source for this is a page from the Tulsa City Library of musicians from Tulsa. He is from Tulsa, now, not when he started. (BTW this is 0-2 for cited sources actually backing up statements in the article. That is troubling.)
• You are correct, the modern section is not half it is 329 words out of 1007, or 32%. I agree that the oil bust of the 80's was very important to Tulsa's history, and its coverage is apropriate. However there 221 words (about 20% of the history section) on recent (since 2003) events. This is disproportianate. I am aware that Tulsa has a short history. I mentioned above that the water sources should be mentioned in the history section. I would like to reiterate that again. Without the tapping of Spavina, Tulsa would not have had the growth it has had. It was a vitally important part of the history.
• In addition to the Water supply, perhaps the other major utilities should be mentioned, as they are in the Ann Arbor article. I also note that the Lexington article doesn't have a sports box. Dsmdgold 23:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC

In Response:

• As you say, I must still disagree about the statue. What the article says is correct based on the news articles cited: tulsa is the selected site for the largest freestanding statue in the world and that it is anticipated by developers to be a national icon. The developers hold strong to the fact that it will be built (as said in the sources) and that it is being developed to break ground this year. I think the largest statue in the world that would be bigger than the statue of liberty is important enough to be in the lead, since something so important would be what Tulsa will be known for, since a national icon will certainly be an icon for the city was well - and, I say again, it is still promised to be completed. Anyone who thinks that the world's largest statue - a national icon - isn't important enough to be mentioned in the lead of this article should think again. If you take a look in the history section, the previous finish date of 2007 and the delayed building is explained in accordance with the sources.
• I am willing to compromise on the bridge issue - if we can both compromise on certain things, such as the sports box.
• About the race riot - im sorry, you were just a little vauge about expanding it in your first suggestion. I'll put a mention of the triggering event and the estimations that more like 300 people died, no problem.
• I can also include the "18,000 seat" information about the BOK Center in only one of the mentions. About the "culmination of all architecture styles in Tulsa" - that isn't made up, it's what the city told the developer to make it. Literally, it was designed to be an architectural icon; the developer built it with that purpose, it isn't simply an evaluation of the arena. I'll double check and make sure the source reflects that. I can also shorten its mention in some parts but I have to admit I don't quite understand your opposition to it being mentioned, at least not in performing arts and sports, as it is important to those sections. I'll go through and see if I can limit it, but it absolutely has to be in those two sections hands down, as the BOK Center makes Tulsa eligable for large scale concerts and large scale sporting events such as the Big 12 tournament and events Tulsa would not be eligable for otherwise. Its very important in those regards.
• I still don't think we have to go into specific events about the flooding issue under the climate section - I do think this is sufficient to get the jist of it across: "Due to frequent flooding in past decades, Tulsa now has one of the most extensive flood control systems in the nation. In 2000, FEMA honored Tulsa as leading the nation in flood plain management." It wasn't one specific flood that would promp such an extensive system, but the source implies that it was because of frequent flooding.
• I'll put ORU's architecture in the cityscape section, but there are two pictures of examples of art deco architecture right besides that section - Boston Avenue Methodist Church and the Philtower - if you still want more examples I will compromise on that and add some mentions.
• I stand corrected about OU-Tulsa
• I also stand corrected about Tulsa Tech and Spartan. They were there, but the only thing I can think of is I accidentily deleted them when I changed the subheadings in the section a while back - I agree they should be mentioned and I will put them back, no problem.
• Mmmm I have some friends who gamble and they consider it a sport, I also have friends who would argue NASCAR isn't a sport. I still think the best place to mention gambiling is in sports, as I really dont think it makes sense in any other section. I don't think they are that important to the economy - at least, not more so than any other sport ot entertainment would be, so I dont think economy is the right place to put it. I don't see any alternative from the sports section but if you still feel that strongly that it shouldn't be in sports, then we need another place to put them. Like I said, sports just makes the most sense.
• "Popular music has been shaped considerably by musicians from Tulsa or people and groups that started their musical careers in Tulsa, including Garth Brooks ..etc..." Garth Brooks qualifies as "From Tulsa": [17] according to Garth brook's wikipedia article, as well as this website, He was Born in Tulsa. Therefore, the source that says he is from Tulsa (published by the Tulsa Library) is not wrong, and then the article is not wrong, as he is indeed from Tulsa.
• About the water source - every major city needs a big reliable source of water to grow. This is not anything unique about Tulsa that should be specifically mentioned in its history section.
• P.S. Ive already made revisions to the demographics section to include religion, and ive added a mention of the race riot in the lead.Okiefromokla•talk 02:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to the response

• The statue will be important once it starts to build. I may be a bit cynical, but I see the recent press as an attempt to drum up support for flagging project. I may be wrong, but to emphasize the statue before it is started seems to smack of the Crystal Ball. (Don't get me wrong I, truly hope that it gets built, am excited by the idea and like the proto-types I've seen pictures of. But I will believe it will happen when it happens.)
• Since the bridge was important to the history of Tulsa and when you get down to it, the sports box is a stylistic issue I won't press the matter on the box, other than to say once again, I don't like it. There now I feel better.
• I was vague about the race riot, and I apologize.
• Limiting the mentions of the 18,000 seats would be a good thing. The "culmination of all architecture styles in Tulsa" may be what they asked for, but according to the pictures I've seen, it ain't what they got. It will be a striking building, and may become the architectural icon for Tulsa (but only if the big Indian doesn't get built), but it bears no resembalance anything else in town. I suppose a mention in the sports and arts section would be alright.
• The problem with "Due to frequent flooding in past decades, Tulsa now has one of the most extensive flood control systems in the nation." is that it is wrong. Without the 1984 flood, the extensive flood control system would not have been implemented. It was the worst flood in Tulsa's history and overnight created a consensus that something had to be done. The city of Tulsa agrees with this assesment. (See here
• ORU is a good addition. As for the others, people use articles in different ways. I am often text oriented and don't "see" the pictures on a first reading, so anything included in the images captions (and tables) is missed by me, so I really would like to see acouple of the more prominent Art Deco monuments included in the text. (I'll make a deal, any building you mention that doesn't have an article, I will write at least a stub article for, and if it ever stops raining get down to Tulsa and get a picture of it. I really like the Fire Alarm Building). I can let the others slide, although I really like Westhope.
• Gambling, sad to say, needs to be mentioned, and I guess it fits just as well in sports as anywhere else, although it is not sport. (I feel better now, again)
• Since you bring it to my attention I was misreading the opening statement on musicians. I only saw the "started their career portion" and not the "from" portion. Mea Culpa. Garth is "from" Tulsa. On Brooks and Dunn, Dunn is evidently from Tulsa, but not Brooks, so can we change it to "Ronnie Dunn of Brooks and Dunn"? Carrie Underwood is from Checotah and went to college in Tahlequah, neither of which is in the Tulsa Metroplitan Area.
• Every city needs a water source, and Tulsa didn't have one. Without the building of the Spavinaw Reservoir and pipeline in the 1920s, Tulsa would not have grown. It was one of the most ambitious public work projects of its day and deserves mention. (See here and here.)
• I have noted your revisions and struck the apropriate parts of my comments. Thank you. Dsmdgold 04:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

My stance on some of the issues: 1) I'll agree that the mentions of The American should be removed until they actually break ground. According to one of the sources in the article, they aren't expecting to break ground until Feb 08 (at the earliest). I think it could be left out until the construction is a reality. 2) I think the sports table should stay. Gives a lot of information is a concise way. 3) I have no problem with the mentioning of the new arena in several parts of the article but lets try to keep a long description of it in one place and leave the other mentions to just that, a mention. Do any other reviewers have a comment?↔NMajdan•talk 15:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll comment. I am still keeping my support vote, as I am entirely on the fence WRT the imaginary giant statue issue. However, it should be noted that several other reviewers have objected to its inclusion with valid reason, and it would be a shame to hold up featured status on that one issue. When it becomes a reality in any sense (i.e. contruction begins) it can be put back in. This is still a great article with or without it.

I am going to keep this brief since an edit conflict destroyed my list...

• I deleted the statue from the lead - but kept it in history (but revised that paragraph so as not to mention it "Will" be built. There at least should be some mention of the plans of it in the article.
• No offense meant at all, but I don't think you are qualified as an architectural expert to judge if the arena really incorporates those arcitectural styles. The newspaper article says it does, so that's all I know.
• I went ahead and put the 1984 flood in climate, as well as the spavinaw dam in history.
• lastly, the sentence says "people or groups from tulsa"... thats why I included Brooks&Dunn and not Ronnie Brooks and etc.. Because generally they come as a group. Its not really a big deal im not going to hang on it, we can seperate them if you want.
• Ill finish the other issues weve agreed on too. Okiefromokla•talk 17:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)I have struck all of preceding comments so as to consolidate the remaining discussion here.

• The impact of the early bridges still needs to be discussed.
• Spartan still isn't mentioned, but Tulsa Tech is. This isn't vital. However, Spartan brings students from all over the world and was important in the development of Tulsa's aerospace industry, it would be nice to mention it.
• The new Tulsa Symphony and the Signature Symphony might be mentioned, although I am uncertain if either is full-time. (I know the TS aspires to be, but I don't know if they are there yet.) If I can find sources I will add these. Again not vital.
• It would be good to mention the now defunct pro Soccer and Basketball teams. Again not vital.
• Since the article does mention the Tulsa Sound, it probably should mention Leon Russell and J.J. Cale, who were vital to its development. The GAP Band can probably slide.
• The infrastructure section still needs to discuss rail transport through Tulsa. This is a serious gap.
• Without mentioning KVOO, I haven't thought of a way of smoothly integrating Paul Harvey into the article. Since no other specific electronic media outlet is mentioned, KVOO shouldn't be brought up. So although Harvey is probably one of the most important broadcasters in radio history, he probably can't be worked into the article. (The only opening I can see is that I believe that KVOO is oldest still operating station (early 1920's) in Tulsa, but I have been unable to confirm this.)

Two new issues have come up though:

• The otherwise good paragraph on health care states that there are .921 hospital beds per capita. This works out to over 350K hospital beds. I am not sure what is meant, but as stated this is wrong.
• The article also now states that "Telephone service is provided in large part by Cox Communications." Cox provides cable service and cable telephone service. Surely AT&T (formerly SWB), the traditional land line supplier is still larger. Dsmdgold 14:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

::I am happy to announce that (I believe) all the above concnerns have now been met, as well as all the changes that have been agreed upon.

• Just one note here: I added a passing mention of the bridge in the history section, but I really don't think anything more specific on it needs to be added. That is material for the main History of Tulsa, Oklahoma article. It's there for a reason: so it can be more detailed and comprehensive than the history section on the Tulsa article... Okiefromokla•talk 19:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Just about everything, I see that the lack of passenger rail service is mentioned now, but there is a lot freight going by rail through Tulsa. I guess I was thinking of that huge railyard on the west side of town when I mentioned rail infrastrucure. Dsmdgold 22:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about that rail center. But the major freight rail lines running through tulsa are in the article now, and I got that from a map, which I can put as a source if its felt needed. Otherwise, I wouldn't know what else to put about freight rails.Okiefromokla•talk 23:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

All of my concerns have been addressed or negotiated. Support Dsmdgold 23:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support, with a note. The current readable prose size is 50KB, which is the edge of the limit I'm comfortable with. If the article grows over time, you may need to spin a section like History into its own article, using summary style. Thanks for the fast work and attention to bringing the article to standard ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 00:11, 12 May 2007.

[edit] Ben Gurion International Airport

• Support - The article has gone under a lot of recent work to bring the quality up, and a group of editors worked to meet featured criteria. --יהושועEric 19:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Likewise, I feel that the article meets the featured article criteria. A large amount of time and effort has been put into this article. Flymeoutofhere 20:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support - My concerns have been addressed. Good job! Zeus1234 23:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The last paragraph in the terminal one section is not referenced.

Added reference--יהושועEric 22:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• • The terminal three section is a bit of a mess at the moment and has far too many paragraphs. The short paragraphs should be combined with the big ones, and each paragraph needs at least one reference, preferably at the end of the paragraph.

Fixed up terminal 3 section. --יהושועEric 20:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• • The security sections has two references, but it is unclear if the bullet points belong in those footnotes. Are they unreferenced, or are they a part of footnote 20 or 21? It is not clear at the moment. A footnote should be place at the end of the section to clarify this

I don't know what you mean by a section footnote. I added one source, and I think that the section sources at the top cover most of the claims through the bullet points. --יהושועEric 22:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Generally footnotes apply to everything written before the footnote. In the security section, there is no footnote at the bottom of the section. Because of this, it looks like the entire section is unreferenced except for the first line. Therefore, you should add a reference at the bottom of the section (even if it is the same as the one at the top).User:Zeus1234|Zeus1234]] 22:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Done- added a new reference to end of paragraph, although it now look as if the ref belongs to the last bulleted item Derwig 23:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it does look a bit silly. I think that it would be better if you put the same reference at the end of each bullet point, but use the single reference method, so as not to clutter up the footnote section. Zeus1234 02:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• • No reference in the Short Runway Section

Done --יהושועEric 22:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Paragraph one of the rail section needs a reference.
    • Done Derwig 22:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • The second line in this section also needs a reference. Where do you get the figure of 1 million passengers? Zeus1234 22:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Found relevant source for section. --יהושועEric 22:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• • There needs to be at least one reference for the destination section. Hopefully the airport website has a page that lists all the destinations.
    • Done Derwig 22:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The lead does not mention anything about the transportation options (rail, train, etc.), the runways, or the security situation. As these are important parts ofthe article, they should be mentioned in the lead. Zeus1234 20:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The lead has been expanded to address these concerns. --יהושועEric 22:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think we covered all of your issues Zeus. Care to change your mind? --יהושועEric 20:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support - a very nice, informative article that's great for a world traveler. --GHcool 21:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comments 1) Source for Airlines and destinations section?2) I think there should be a more visually interesting way to have that section's info than a very long list. 3) I question the use of level 3 headlines for very short sections. I am sure any objections on this page can be overcome, though, and will be excited when this article reaches FA status. nadav 23:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC) I'm also surprised that with all the pictures, there is no picture of the arrival area, which has all those interesting ancient looking decorations. nadav 23:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I have had a look at other airports articles, all use the same list. Also look at WP:AIRPORT, this seems to be the convention, and there are guidelines for that list. Derwig 23:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The problem is that according to the project, only one airport is FA, and it is up for review. Also the airport guideline is somewhat incomplete. The item on airline lists doesn't discuss the visual presentation, only the content. BTW, citation for the Ben gurion airline list isn't there. nadav 00:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
      • The airline and destination list is sourced at the top. Zeus1234 01:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
        • The list of airlines is sourced, but not the destinations. I see now some people are adding more destination cities to the airline list without adding any more refs. Are the sources for the destinations the individual sites of each of the companies? If so, there should be some sort of note that points to the right place for verification. nadav 19:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, just two things:

1. Under the runways section, I'm not a fan of (Direction 12) and (Direction 21). To people that are unfamiliar with aviation, that means absolutely nothing. The former could be changed to something like "southeasterly" departures, and something similar with the latter. Same thing under the "Quiet runway" section. If it remains, it has to be explained.
2. There's an image of the duty-free down below (regrettably in a gallery section), so one probably isn't needed in the lead. It looks ugly lef-aligned, but I suppose it has to be because of the infobox. --Phoenix (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

1. The direction is a runway's name, and in an encyclopedia the name should appear. However, in every one of the 3 runways there is a mention of a direction (e.g Main- from West to East), and even a reader with no aviation knowledge can figure out that the other direction of a runway is the exact opposite. To address your concerns, I have wikified the word "runway" where it is first mentioned, the runway article contains an explanation of the naming conventions.
   • My point was that "Direction 12", though the orientation of the runway is mentioned, doesn't indicate which direction said event takes place. I just happen to be a plane nut and know that 12 is 120 degrees or to the southeast, but that probably eludes most people. Forgive my nitpicking, forget that. --Phoenix (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Which image in the gallery do you mean? The image in the lead is of the main duty free hall , the most impressive hall in the departure area. The other 2 images I see are of a different shopping area immediately adjacent to the departure gates (1 row, Rt), and another of the duty free dining area (2 row). Those are different areas of the departure hall, and I dont see a problem with that. Derwig 17:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
   • It's fine now, thanks. Support. --Phoenix (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• In the lead: "It is the largest international airport in Israel, operated by the Israeli Airports Authority, a government-owned corporation that manages all public airports and border crossings in the State of Israel." Apart from the fact I can't find a reference for this in the lead, or further down in the article, the sentence is ambiguous. Is it the largest international aiport which happens to be operated by the IAA, or is it the largest aiport operated by the IAA (but there may be larger ones not handled by them). I think the largest bit should be put further up in the lead and the IAA part should be made into its own sentence to avoid confusion as to which parts of the sentence belong together. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Done--Flymeoutofhere 15:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC), reference added Derwig 20:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The reference doesn't back up the claim. It doesn't say the airport is the largest in the country. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I updated the reference. --יהושועEric 13:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 00:11, 12 May 2007.

[edit] Guinea pig

Reached GA status a few weeks ago. Almost completely rewritten/sourced/expanded by a team of dedicated editors, who transformed it from a pet owner's list of do's and dont's into its current form, including much better coverage of the animal's place in science and medicine and its use in the culture of the Andes. Self-nom. Chubbles 03:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

With, I might add, 117 inline citations from reliable published sources. VanTucky 03:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Need a source for the entire business of "Because the guinea pig has a stout, compact body, the animal more easily tolerates excessive cold than excessive heat ... " Last month, when my niece accused me of murdering her darling pig, I, of course, went first to Wikipedia to find temperature info. Your information disagrees with everything she stuck in my face, as she accused me of freezing her rat to death (60 degrees, power outage, snowstorm - my fault?). The pet store, and every book and website we checked agreed with her. Please clarify and provide a source. They ALL said the rodent froze at 60 degrees. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Wikipedia ref is correct in my understanding. Mine (who is not unique in any fashion, i.e. size) has been in my room when the heat was at least 10-15 degrees below 60 many times and was completely fine. Of course, cold temps can be much more serious for very young/small guinea pigs. Think of it logically as well...not only did they come from the Andean region they were first imported to Western Europe (Netherlands, England) where it isnt exactly tropical. VanTucky 04:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is a quote from The Biology of the Guinea Pig (Academic Press, 1976): "The compact body of the guinea pig conserves heat well but dissipates it poorly. Thus the guinea pig is more likely to tolerate cold than heat." The temp ranges cited in the article then follow. I've added an inline cite directly to the sentence questioned above; I can add this quotation to the footnote, if that is desired. Chubbles 04:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, 11-yo wiz-kid got on the internet to make me feel bad, and found a lot of 65-75 info, like [18], [19], and [20], so it would be good for your article to address the whole issue of temperature changes, drafts, etc. The pet store told her any change (I made her take it out of the room where I was sleeping, *and* then we lost power in an ice storm) or draft could have killed it, and she found several books at the pet store that said same. I'd love for your article to let me off the rat-killer hook :-) Several sources said they don't tolerate change or drafts. Otherwise, the article looks quite sound, and is greatly improved since my murderous days last month. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

But you might keep in mind that resources for pet owners (especially those with a financial interest) tend to play it safe when it comes to that sort of advice. They sometimes advise more conseratively than is supported by evidence. That is one of the reasons one or our goals in improving the article was shying away from using websites by/for pet owners for citations. VanTucky 04:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, but do you have any well-sourced info on temperature changes or drafts, since that was the direction other sources took? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

A sentence has been added on this. Chubbles 04:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Everything looks good structurally. I'll be a support after some of the animal folks have been through (you might check with KPBotany, Joelr31, PDH, or Yomangani). Nice work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support, structure and prose look good, and none of the Wiki "animal experts" have weighed in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support—nice. There are a few (mostly subjective) microissues remaining, but not enough to oppose. Some examples include hyphens: I think there are a few instances where they are unnecessary, based on what I've seen from other copy-editors (hyphens aren't really my forte). Not a big issue. I left a couple random queries, but again, nothing to oppose over. Please write more featured articles. — Deckiller 20:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support The sourcing is to be admired. the_undertow ^talk 21:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Thorough, well written and sourced. Better than most of the crappy books I got from the pet store when I had a GP. -Ravedave 21:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - I'm sorry I didn't notice this nomination a week ago but I have some issues. On its own I would give this article a support, though I think it is borderline on 2 (b) Hierarchical headings. However there are quite a few Featured animals whose headings and heading order/hierarchy differ substantially to this one. Obviously there are different emphases in each case but I still get an overall sense you can see the origins of this article from a 'pet' view. I get a sense the subject material is not well categorised, eg material on domestication is spread thourgh several sections from history, domestic habitat onwards.

I would recommend:

Rename Name, Taxonomy (plus/minus name) as per the FA whale articles.

Move History and place under a domestication section as a subsection.

Remove Traits and environment' as a section - para one should be beginning of a Description section (which I can't actually find and seems to be a necessary part of many bio articles)

Para 2 of Traits and environment' should go into taxonomy

Breeding and Diet go as subesctions under Behaviour

Domestic habitat goes under Domestication as a subesction.

GP as pets froms intro to Domestication section, GP as food is subsection.

To sum up, I really believe you've done a great job with the article so far, but I do like to see some sort of order or conformity in the bio articles. You've got strong support so far and I'll alert some other wiki-animal buffs. They may all disagree with me. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 23:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree most emphatically on one point: the name section should more technically be Etymology and Taxonomy. The history of the colloquial name Guinea pig is of vital importance to the article (even more so than taxonomy in my opinion) and is a distinct subject from simple scientific categorization. Otherwise, absolutely. We've been muddling over sectioning work for quite some time. so thanks! VanTucky 23:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, how about a name' section (for common name and variants) that has a taxonomy subsection and this to go under the lead..cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 23:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: I have left some messages on a few other wiki-biology buffs in the hope that they will weigh in. I might be a bit busy later this weekend but will get back when I get the chance. Good luckcheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 23:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Hi, a , uh, wiki-biology buff here, recruited by Cas to come have a look. The layout Casliber suggested is perhaps desirable but not to my mind required, particularly as this is about the domesticated species only, not the domesticated species and the wild ancestor. I do agree that some work needs to be done on the hierarchies though - you could have a Human uses section with pets, science and food as subheadings, for example. I am also puzzled that the wild ancestor is not known, given its importance to science this is in fact mystifying. I am also really really concerned by the line Wild cavies are found on grassy plains and occupy an ecological niche similar to that of the cow. I very much doubt that an animal you can fit in the hand and one that weighs more than several grown men occupy anything like similar niches. They might both graze on grass but that isn't the same as saying they have the same niche. As for the rest of the article at first glance it looks good and I'll review it later. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I definitely understand the nervousness about that statement, but here's a couple points of clarification: Remember it's referring to wild cavy species, and only is included to put in context what is surmised about the animal according to study of it's domestic social interaction and dietary/behaviorial similarity to wild cousins. It may sound a little silly to the reader at first, but it's not suggesting there are feral herds of domestic guinea pigs roving the pampas like mini cows. It's just a good comparison for context. You're right that the niche involves more than just diet, but just dismissing it bc of size comparison (however funny) is a little hasty. They are both herd-forming, grazing species that naturally inhabit similar environments and have a similar impact on that environment. Of course, the measurable amount of that impact is vastly different, and there are differences related to size (erosion for example). If to be in the ecological niche requires a comparable impact/importance as far as vegetation and predation goes, then feel free to edit away. But if only what the animals do is considered, then in my opinion they are without a doubt in the same niche. On the whole however they are extremely similar in terms of the ecological role they play. As far as the sectioning goes, that seems just perfect Cas. I'm not nit-picky about how it's structured, but ignoring that etymology is the central subject (or at least the more debated one) seemed odd. VanTucky 00:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment—article has been promoted. Just figured I'd save everyone time :) — Deckiller 00:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

D'oh! cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 00:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted 00:11, 12 May 2007.

[edit] Toronto Raptors

Per Sandy's suggestion, I've restarted this nom. (old nom) Raul654 04:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support Chensiyuan 04:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Manderiko 04:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 04:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support, as before. --Phoenix (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support, I'm confident any remaining issues will be dealt with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support, as on previous page :) --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  13:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support Prose still needs a little work. If this passes, which looks likely, I'd keep it on the LOCE list and move it from the FAR/FAC section to the section for proofreading. Quadzilla99 13:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support igordebraga ≠ 17:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Ô 17:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support -凶 19:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support; Just needs some copyediting, which is relatively minor. Zodiiak 21:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support --Random ^{Say it here!} 23:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Tomer T 13:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Looks fantastic. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 23:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Looks great now, and recentiism is also a non-issue now because the Raps have been eliminated from the playoffs :X. Prose is not perfect yet, but a sure FA imho. Onomatopoeia 07:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Without wanting to be a stick in the mud amid all these supports, the List of TV commentators seems trivial. Plus, I would have thought many NBA games are shown internationally, presumably with different commentators. Oldelpaso 12:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • They are included presumably because they represent the official commentators for the Raptors franchise. If one lives in Canada for e.g., Swirsky does the commentary for the Raptors games shown on the Raptors network. Whereas someone like Martin Tyler for e.g. in the soccer context is more associated with a tv network than a football club. That's what I think at least. Chensiyuan 15:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I would assume that anyone who simply supported here did so at the old nom, or at least had a look at it to see if anything they saw as important was addressed. --Phoenix (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support already supported the first time. Kaiser matias 03:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Not concise. The history section is longer than the one for the Chicago Bears (FA), even though that franchise has been around 75 years longer (I'm not necessarily saying that article length should be proportional to age; I'm saying that this article goes into unnecessary detail). Recentism still abounds. The writing quality is still poor in many places. The article confusingly alternates between Raptors and Toronto. I am troubled that all of the references are websites—with a strong emphasis towards nba.com—especially when Amazon says there are a few books available on the subject. Punctured Bicycle 02:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I don’t think the history section isn’t concise. The Chicago Bears article’s section is shorter because it lacks detail, not because it is concise. It also has its own history article, History of the Chicago Bears, which is actually longer than the Raptors article. If you see recentism in the article, can you please point out where you found it? Having books as references is nice, but I prefer Internet references because they are instantly verifiable and viewable. I’d think there’s a strong emphasis towards nba.com because it is the official league’s site, and therefore it is the most credible and preferable. —LOL 03:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not mainly concerned with the question "would this article be better if it used books instead of websites?" I'm concerned with the question "has someone taken the time to research the subject properly?" I am very troubled, for example, that the article used to say "The team was named as a result of a nationwide 'Name Game' contest instituted to name the team and develop their colours and logo" when NBA.com says "It instituted a nationwide 'Name Game' contest to name the team and develop team colors and a logo." It looks like the article is just regurgitating what NBA.com says, and in this case not even making the effort to reword it (plagiarism). I am skeptical of this article's integrity. Punctured Bicycle 20:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
      • "plagiarism is concerned with the issue of false attribution" - my opinion is that it's clear that the history section heavily attributes the information to nba.com/raptors via the footnotes. Chensiyuan 23:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Footnotes attribute the source of the information; quotation marks attribute the source of the language. Failure to use quotation marks when duplicating the words of others—closely or exactly—is plagiarism. Punctured Bicycle 21:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
      • i entered "Toronto Raptors" into the amazon.com search field and none of the books that came up looked very likely to add value to this article. And yes, I would read the book if I could get my hands on it but I live in Asia, so help me there (that is why if a website is credible, using it a thousand times does not dilute its credibility. What is fundamentally creditable can't possibly lose its credibility for no good reason. In any event, this article does not simply use nba.com, nor does it use it a thousand times.) Chensiyuan 23:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Official does not automatically equate to credible (bias can play role for example). But there's also the issue of information breadth. The article is limited in perspective when it mostly just summarizes what nba.com felt was important to say; what Toronto newspapers, sports magazines, books, etc. felt was important to say is largely ignored. A more diverse survey of sources would increase the depth of the information and allow more flexibility in writing. Punctured Bicycle 21:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
          • But it is clear the article uses more than nba.com. It simply uses nba.com a lot, but newspapers and electronic sports magazines are in the mix. Chensiyuan 22:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • To address your last point, alternating between the Raptors and Toronto is a way of avoiding repetitive noun use. If every sentence talked about the raptors, the prose would be bad. Given the title of this article, I find it *HIGHLY* unlikely that anyone is going to be confused by it. Raul654 17:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I disagree. See elegant variation. Punctured Bicycle 20:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I just googled for the raptors and guess what? The first two articles I came by - [21][22] - do exactly what you are objecting to. With sports teams, it's *quite* common (in fact, almost expected) to use the team and name city interchangeably. Raul654 20:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Sports journalists don't write for an international audience in the clear, formal quality expected of an encyclopedia. Punctured Bicycle 20:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Riiiight. The NY times does it. [23] The Washingotn Post does. [24]I guess they're not professional enough or international enough, right? This objection is patently ridiculous. Raul654 01:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Your snippy attitude is what's ridiculous. Punctured Bicycle 01:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)