Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/May 2008

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:35, 30 May 2008 [1].

---

[edit] Hubert Walter

Self-nom I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's expanded greatly from where it was when I first started editing, I've worked hard to ensure that only relible scholarly sources are used, and while it still lacks a picture of the man himself or his tomb, it is actually illustrated. All aspects of his life are covered, from his start under Henry II to his coronation of King John. This is a very significant individual in English history, who unfortunately doesn't figure largely in most folks' memory. He's been really fun to write about, though. It's very kindly been copy-edited by Karanacs and Malleus, to remove my weasely academic writing! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Daft comment. Who's going to do the source checking? ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Me? (ducks) No clue. Not my department. Boy was it nice to put up something I didn't have to source check too.... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I'm not sure about the MOS on this, but isn't generally "circa" abbreviated to "c." and then linked to circa?

I have no clue. I don't generally stay up on MOS issues like that. I honestly figured that circa would work better because it's not an abbreviation. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Both American and British spelling are present in the article.

That's because the main author is a Yank. It should be British spelling, and Malleus attempted to find most of them, but a pointer to the glaring ones would be greatly appreciated by this Yank. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Aren't centuries supposed to be linked when they're relevant? They seem to be relevant here.

Can do. I generally try to avoid overlinking. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• "Walter served King Henry II of England in many different ways, not only in financial administration." - should that be a semicolon? As usual, I'm not sure, and too cowardly to be bold.

Someone else know? I barely squeaked through grammar in school, the various uses of the various parts fail me at times. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• "Walter accompanied King Richard on the Third Crusade and was one of the principal persons involved in raising Richard's ransom after the king had been captured in Germany while returning home." - "had been" sounds awkward. Maybe "was" instead?

Will do. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• "He also served as Richard's justiciar until 1198, in which role he was responsible for raising the money Richard needed to prosecute his wars in France." - "in which role" -> "a role in which"?

works. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, changed "in which role" to "where" which is more concise. That work? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I only checked the lead - that especially should be spotless of awkward/incorrect grammar since most readers read only the lead. If I'm brave enough to tackle the entire text (read: have an inordinate amount of spare time), I might do that. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 00:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources check (teeheehee)

Everything looks good, actually. According to [2], [3] needs registration. That's allowed, though, so all seems good. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does, but it's also a printed work, so the link is a courtesy link. I'm told that most folks in the UK get free access through their library. I guess I should have put registration required in it too, but I'm not sure the cite encyclopedia has that field. (ponders) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct. I'm in the UK and have a library card. I entered the barcode number, and, voila, it works. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 21:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I put something at the end of the ref (in the edition field) saying that registration/fee would be required. Hopefully that works fine with the MOS mavens! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. I've been bold and addressed my own issues, [4]. Please check that I haven't done anything stupid. Could you make clearer what aspect of Salisbury was deemed to be a reward, (Salisbury was a town), and I didn't like the expression while on crusade, but couldn't think of a better one. An engaging, comprehensive and well-written article, thanks. GrahamColm^Talk 11:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I will gladly expand the Salisbury bit, (it's the diocese in this instance, it's medievalist jargon to just refer to the diocese by shorthand like that. We know by context that a bishopric is meant since he's a cleric.) I'm not too fond of "while on Crusade" either, but "while over in the Holy Land killing infidels" which is how they would have described their activiy isn't exactly a NPOV statement (and rightly so, I might add). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - Great prose, referenced throughout and good layout/usage of suitable photos. Very nice work, Ealdgyth. Keep it up. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 19:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. I conducted a pre-FAC review at Eagldyth's invitation, and all issues I found have been addressed. The article seems extremely comprehensive considering the scarcity of records of the time period. Karanacs (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. As with Karanacs, Ealdgyth invited me to carry out a pre-FAC review. All the issues I raised have been addressed to my satisfaction. I believe that this comprehensive article meets the FA criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support I couldn't resist a few tweaks, please check that you're happy. I'm impressed that Firefox's in-line spell check picked up archepiscopal as a typo! jimfbleak (talk) 07:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Support I have added links etc. Personally I would prefer the lead rearranged into a overall summary para, then the more detailed ones. You read a long way before finding out he was Lord Chancellor. Johnbod (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, better now (see below). Johnbod (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Comments A very interesting article! It was a pleasure to read. I have just a few questions; I was hoping that some further explanations could be added into the article for readers like myself who are largely ignorant of this period in history. Also, a few sections of the article could benefit from some rewriting to make them flow a bit better.

• Hubert Walter (c. 1160–13 July 1205) was chief justiciar of England and archbishop of Canterbury in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. - Should the opening sentence better express his notability? I don't know much about this period in history and I read this sentence as "he was a government functionary". (Note: That I'm American might have something to do with this!)

Hm. I could say "Hubert Walter (c. 1160-13 July 1205) in the late twelfth and early thirteenth century was chief justiciar, one of the principal royal advisors, and archbishop of Canterbury, the highest ecclesiastical office in England." but I'm worried it's getting too long and drawn out that way. I can see not understanding the chief justiciar, but do I need to explain Archbishop? Ealdgyth - Talk 03:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

See my comment above. You certainly need to mention he was Lord Chandellor in the first ?500 words. Much of the stuff in the last para of the lead would be better in the first. Johnbod (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What about something like "Hubert Walter (c. 1160-13 July 1205) was an influential royal adviser in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries in the positions of chief justiciar of England, archbishop of Canterbury, and Lord Chancellor". - or something like that? Awadewit (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to work on revising this a bit per your and Johnbod's comments. Just need to cool off after a very hot morning working with horses! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Reworked it a bit, let me know what you think? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

So much better! Thanks for taking the time! Awadewit (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Walter served King Henry II of England in many different ways, not just in financial administration. - Could we briefly suggest what these ways were?

Done. Inserted "... including diplomatic and judicial efforts." Ealdgyth - Talk 03:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Walter's mother died at West Dereham in Norfolk, probably the location of Walter's birth, some time between 1150 and 1160. - This makes it seem like her death is related to his birth in some way. Is that intended?

It's more that her death place shows the likely spot where he was born. Reworded to "Walter's mother died at West Dereham in Norfolk, some time between 1150 and 1160, and this gives a possible place of Walter's birth." which hopefully expresses this better. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I still don't see why where his mother died should suggest where he was born. Did she die around the time he was born? Did she die during childbirth? I feel like some information is missing here. Awadewit (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The source for that information seems to think it's connected, but I will just take it out. Reworded to "Walter's family was from West Dereham in Norfolk, which is probably where Walter was born." Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is that 12th century women didn't go hopping around as much as their modern equivalents. If she died there, she was highly likely to have lived there for a long time. Johnbod (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• He was appointed Dean of York by order of King Henry II about July 1186.[1] The archbishopric had been vacant since 1181 and would remain so until 1189, so it was Walter's job as dean to administer the archbishopric - The archbishopric of York?

Yes. I suspect this was a casulaty of either my understanding it to be implicit, or of a copyedit pass. Clarified now. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Walter also was an unsuccessful candidate to become Archbishop of York in September 1186 - Do we know why?

We know that the king rejected all five names that were presented to him, but not why the king did so. I can go into detail about that, if you really want, but I purposefully left that amount of detail out. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a footnote? Awadewit (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Added information in a footnote. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• In 1187 Walter, along with Glanvill and King Henry II, attempted to mediate a dispute between the Archbishop of Canterbury, Baldwin of Exeter, and the monks of the cathedral chapter. - a dispute about what?

Again, I can attempt to explain, but at this point, it's probably shorter to leave it out. It was a dispute between the monks of the cathedral chapter and Baldwin over Baldwin's desire to found a non-monastic church staffed by canons which would be in Canterbury itself, and in honor of Saint Thomas Becket. The monks of the cathedral chapter were scared that this was the first step of an attempt to either remove the relics of Thomas from the cathedral to the new foundation, thus depriving the monks of a very large source of income, or an attempt to remove the monks from the cathedral chapter and replace them with canons. Some (about half, including Canterbury) English cathedrals up until the Reformation were uniquely served by monks, and not the canons that were usual on the continent. English monastic cathedral chapters were always scared that they would be replaced by canons and this could lead to some rather heated disputes between the cathedral chapter and its nominal head, the bishop/archbishop. Still want me to include this information? Ealdgyth - Talk 03:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that explaining the dispute is worthwhile, especially since it comes up again in the article. Awadewit (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Urf. Okies. Will try to summarize this briefly. Some may come in footnotes. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, expanded it a bit, let me know what you think. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent summary! Awadewit (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• In the first paragraph of "Justiciar", is there a way to briefly describe the wars? What were they about?

Added "... which began with Philip's attempts to acquire Richard's possessions on the continent." Ealdgyth - Talk 03:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• When John showed no signs of submitting, Walter called an ecclesiastical council at Westminster for the purposes of excommunicating John unless he submitted - What happened with this? Did John submit? I felt like I was left hanging.

Clarified, I hope. DIdn't want to get too far off topic. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• In foreign affairs, Walter negotiated peace with Scotland in 1195 and with the Welsh in 1197. In 1196, Walter quickly suppressed a popular uprising in London led by William Fitz Osbern. - Can this paragraph be expanded? A bit of context added, perhaps? Why did peace need to be negotiated with Scotland and Wales, for example? Why was there a popular uprising? Etc.

Expanded a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This is so helpful! Thanks `Awadewit (talk)

• According to the Life of William Marshal, when word reached William Marshal, one of the richest and most influential barons, that Richard was dead, he consulted with Walter and discussed whom to support as the next king. - Could we add a date for the Life?

added in a date, it was commissioned by the eldest son of WM soon after WMs death, so it's very close in time frame. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• I take it that the diplomatic missions to France in 1201 and 1204 were unsuccessful? Perhaps this could be made a bit more explicit?

Made it explicit. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• The last paragraph of the "Death and legacy" section sort of trails off. I wasn't really sure what the relevance of the authorship debate was.

Attempted to explain that. Sorry, I forget that most folks don't know what all these obscure tracts are. (I really need to write a wiki article on that tract.. but...) Ealdgyth - Talk 04:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This is better. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• The "Early life" section is a bit choppy. It just seems like a list of facts that are only tangentially related. Could some flow be added to this paragraph? In particular, could the information about the aunt and uncle be narrated a bit more clearly?

I've moved the information on the aunt and uncle to after the fact that Glanvill helped out Theobald and Hubert's career. Hopefully that'll make things flow better. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph is still a bit choppy, but there is so little information, it is hard to make it flow together, isn't it? This version is better. Awadewit (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I moved the bit about the paternal lands up a bit in the paragraph, maybe that'll help. Let me know? There really isn't a lot of information available about him, unless we want to get into OR. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• The paragraphs in both the "Early assignments" and "Under John" sections are a bit disconnected from each other. Is there any way to provide smooth transitions between the paragraphs within these sections?

Hopefully, done, without ticking off my copyeditors. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - this makes for easier reading! Awadewit (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Sometimes Walter is referred to as "Hubert". Is there a reason for this?

Because medievalists usually refer to folks by either name, for a number of reasons. I'll go back an prune them back to Walters. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I got them all now. (Search functions are so nice.) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions are helpful. Awadewit (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit, I'm on the road, so I'll try to hopefully take care of most of these tomorrow night, when (cross your fingers) I'll set up at the client's place. I'll have to take some time on those, since some of the questions need me to dig into the books that are packed into the car. Just wanted you to know I saw it and they look dealable, just need to not be on the road. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Take your time. I'm not one of those people who expect responses within the hour. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Took care of the easy ones, the other three will take a bit more digging into the book boxes, so it'll be tomorrow Ealdgyth - Talk 04:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I've got everything now. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Awadewit (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Support: Just a few comments.

• What does "he disciplined the monks between the death of Henry de Sully and the election of John of Coutances" mean? And what were the "ecclesiastical abuses"?

Clarified a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Is there supposed to be a space in "FitzOsbern"?

Depends on who is writing the word. I left the space in because the article its linked to has a space. You'll see 'Fitz Osbern" 'fitzOsbern" "fitz-Osbern" "Fitz-Osbern" "FitzOsbern" and "Fitzosbern" scholars haven't settled on a standard. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Is there a better way to say, "Walter was the butt of jokes..."?

I wish. I'll try to think of one. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• In the References section, you may want to add OCLC numbers for books printed before ISBN became a standard. To facilitate this, there is an oclc parameter in the {{cite book}} template which will then provide weblinks to the World Cat entry.

I'll try to get to this later, make no promises, it's a busy day here at the ranch. Vets, breeding and farriers! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Another bishop down, how many more to go? :) --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot. Lots and lots. (grins). I think next up is a horse breed though...Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:35, 30 May 2008 [5].

---

[edit] New York State Route 175

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel, although its short, it is a very comprehensive, well-written article. After passing GA, I gave it a complete rewrite, it went through a small A-class review which passed. And now, to complete my FT plans, I have brought it to FAC for hopes that it'll pass. All comments will be useful. ^Mitch32^contribs 00:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment

New_York_State_Route_175#History, By 1947, the New Seneca Turnpike rsection of the route was turned over to Onondaga County and became CR 41. - is rsection a typo? Maxim_(talk) 01:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

For reference; it's been fixed. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I have a new pet peeve, abbreviations in references. Could we possibly spell them out, such as NYDOT?
• Current ref 4 "Kenneth Jennighs Wooster (2002) says it was published in 2002, but in reality it's a copy of an out of print book published in 1896. You really should give the older publication data, not the person who put it up on his page. Here's the google books entry.

Otherwise, sources look good. Links all checked out with the link checking tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Everything you listed is done. Note the ISBN in the cite book template is being impossible, it'l be fixed in a sec.^Mitch32^contribs 09:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Either need a page number on that 1896 book or just a link saying "Available online (here)". (I don't have a problem with the transcription being hosted online, it just needs a bit more for verifiablity). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Did the latter, thanks.^Mitch32^contribs 18:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "U.S. Route 20 (US 20)" - this may be common practice, but it seems weird to almost repeat the route's name, but in brackets. I've no idea what it's indicating. Which is a problem.
• Why is Lee Mulroy Road in italics?
• It's referred to as both "the highway" and "the route"...be consistent?
• "The highway then enters a large forested area, at times surrounded by trees. The highway" - repetition (the highway) makes for poor reading.
• Ref 14; AAA is a dablink.
• The ref 4 issue noted above hasn't been resolved.

dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Everything you listed is done.^Mitch32^contribs 09:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I think the article looks great with the changes you made --ZeWrestler ^Talk 01:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Concise prose, fully referenced and suitable images. Well done. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support, and comment I like the article. Something to add: Gen. Orrin Hutchinson House is a building on the route, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Not sure where to add mention of this to article, so leave to the nominator to add if you like. doncram (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'll insert it in the route description sometime later. Thank you for pointing it out. --Polaron | Talk 11:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Funny, I drive the road often, and we always called it Lee Mulroy Highway, as opposed to road. But, road is the correct title, I've found. I learned something! I thinks it is a nice article. Lvklock (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support with a comment. By 1938, a new designation was assigned over Route 175 from Marcellus to Onondaga, [9] NY 20N, which was a 31 miles (50 km) suffixed spur of U.S. Route 20. is slightly awkward, and could be worded better. Otherwise the prose is good. Well-referenced, seems factually accurite. Another image wouldn't hurt, but the one will do. Good work overall! Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:35, 30 May 2008 [6].

---

[edit] Macintosh Classic

Self-nominator. I re-wrote most of this recently, and initiated a successful peer review and a couple copy-edits. Fully referenced, good prose. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 21:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support - The article is really good, and the links checked out fine. Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 19:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support, the prose looks great and I have not found any additional issues. --Laser brain (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Comment, I don't have much to add because I made my comments at the article peer review. I think the article could stand one more run-through by a different copyeditor to spit shine it a bit. --Laser brain (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Another copy-editor made some edits, but I think most of them were not beneficial. Are there any particular sentences which stick out? If not, I think this is not actionable. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The prose is already very good, but I have consulted AnnaFrance to further 'polish' the prose/quality of writing throughout. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I like. Well done, and leaning to support. One question though: are any sales figures available for the Macintosh classic? How well did it perform compared to it's predecessor and successor units? Would be nice to know, if the info is available. Resolute 20:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• This was asked at the peer review, and the answer is unfortunately no. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Well, Can't ask for what isn't available then. I like that all major points are discussed in such a compact article. Resolute 21:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - To address Laserbrain's concerns, the article has now been copyedited by two editors, User:AnnaFrance and User:Finetooth in addition to original copyedits by User:Leoniana. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Comment - I've done a little copy editing, [7]and [8] please check that I haven't done anything stupid. GrahamColm^Talk 11:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC) and GrahamColm^Talk 17:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:35, 30 May 2008 [9].

---

[edit] Natalee Holloway

previous FAC

Self-nominator along with Wehwalt (talk · contribs) and Kww (talk · contribs). We've worked extensively on this article to meet the GA criteria and have put in a great deal of effort since it's GA promotion to create a featured article; we believe it meets the criteria and look forward to the additional commentary. - auburnpilot talk 00:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• CommentThe article has come a long way since I last saw it. However, the main image is a fair use image. I think this may be O.K. since whe is not living, but can someone who knows fair usage check on this.
• I believe a five paragraph WP:LEAD ia against policy.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Tony, thanks for the quick comments. As for the lead, I believe we could combine the 5th paragraph with the third, to make it meet the 4 paragraph limit from WP:LEAD. This would leave the criticism/boycott paragraph as the final comment in the lead, and may better match up with the order of the article, without neglecting to summarize some of the key points. Thoughts? - auburnpilot talk 00:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There are no policies on leads; only guidelines. User:Elcobbola can be consulted on the image issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy. While I'm not a fair use expert, I do believe such a use would be permitted. I've been claiming fair use for Image:NancyLynn.jpg for quite some time, under similar circumstances, and I can't imagine a free alternative becoming available. - auburnpilot talk 01:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The image provides a valid fair use rationale. Her claim to notability comes from her disappearance and possible death. Given this, it's safe to say that there are probably no freely licensed pictures of the subject available. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 06:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we could combine the fifth and third paragraphs, and will do so if it is needed for FA, but given that it is a guideline, and given that it reads much stronger and more logically if we use the five relatively short paragraphs as at present, I would suggest leaving the lede as it stands. As for the photo issue, no more likely to have a free use available than for any other random American kid at the age of 18.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There are differences between suggestions, guidelines and policies. I recently started venturing into doing more notable biographies. In recent attempts to get Jack Kemp to FA, Jesse Jackson, Jr. to GA and preparing to attack Jon Corzine, I have begun to look closely at some of the leading political biographies that examine some of the most notable subjects on the project. Currently Franklin D. Roosevelt has a five paragraph lead and if it came to WP:FAR my voice would be to take it to four. I have seen several other incredibly notable biographies that have been trimmed to four. I think you should reevaluate this individual's bio and assess whether the bio is so complex and notable that it is best introduced over five paragraphs. It may seem well-written, but I just think that even the most notable biographies on the project should be introduced with four para leads. I am but one voice, but I think anyone who is not a top priority bio should reconsider the need for five paragraphs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've merged the two paragraphs per discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I quickly skimmed through this article, and I have to say that this is fantastic. I never thought that it would be possible to bring Natalee Holloway up to FA, though I'm not really familiar with the subject. Anyways, I love the style of writing, and all the ref templates seem great. I don't really have much negative things to say except that it would be best to get a fair-use image, though I guess it is fine the way it is. Most people recognize her by that image anyways. And another thing: current ref 73 and possibly others need language tags on the ref. (French={{fr}}, Chinese={{zh icon}}, but I'm not entirely sure what Dutch is.)--haha169 (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Haha169. I've added the "|language=Dutch" parameter to the ref, which I believe accomplishes what you're talking about, and will check other references for the same. - auburnpilot talk 02:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. There were four others, and they've been tagged as well. - auburnpilot talk 02:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment "with locals Joran van der Sloot" What does "locals" mean? Aruban citizens? Dutch nationals living in Aruba? "Holloway remains officially missing to this day, although according to Aruban authorities she is most likely dead." "Officially" means what? "to this day" is redundant. BuddingJournalist 15:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed "on this day" as redundant. I believe Van der Sloot and the Kalpoes are described as locals, in order to clarify that they are not tourists, but three men living in Aruba. As for "officially missing" I believe this had to do with the legal standing that she has not been declared dead, and is still listed as missing. - auburnpilot talk 15:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"to clarify that they are not tourists, but three men living in Aruba." Well yes, I understood that, but that wasn't what I was asking. It's unclear what is meant by "locals": Aruban citizens? Dutch nationals living in Aruba? This should be made clear to readers here. "Officially" according to whom? By the way, the "v" in Van der Sloot is not capitalized on first mention. Is there a reason for this? BuddingJournalist 16:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The v should not be capitalized unless simply referring to him by his last name. I don't know much about it, but that's just the proper capitalization of the name (Joran van der Sloot). As for locals, I'll let somebody else address that, as I don't see what's so confusing about the word "local". In my opinion, it wasn't meant to have any deeper meaning. I've removed "officially" until I can find a source. - auburnpilot talk 16:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Locals" is not so much confusing, as just unclear. The reader understands that the three live there from "locals", but they don't get an explicit mention of their nationality; locals may mean Aruban citizens. When I read the lead, their Dutch names and the mentioning of Dutch authorities/military becoming involved led me to suspect that they were perhaps Dutch citizens living in Aruba. If this is the case, it should be made explicit, instead of leaving the reader hanging with "locals". BuddingJournalist 16:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for completely misunderstanding what you were asking. Yes, Joran is a Dutch citizen and was living in Aruba, but the Kalpoe brothers are citizens of Suriname, who were simply living and working in Aruba. - auburnpilot talk 16:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"locals" was meant to sum up the varying status of Joran (a Dutch national entitled to live in Aruba because his parents are employed there) and the Kalpoes (who, judging by the articles after they were first released, are Surinamese nationals entitled to live in Aruba but not entitled to live elsewhere in the Kingdom of the Netherlands). We could change that to "local residents", if it is helpful.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify the residency and citizenship concerns, and cast my vote for "locals". Aruba, being a country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, issues a Dutch passport, just like the Netherlands and the Netherlands Antilles. Anyone that holds that passport is entitled to live anywhere in the kingdom. Van der Sloot is entitled to live in Aruba by virtue of holding that passport. Suriname is a former member of the Kingdom, and became independent about 30 years ago. However, based on the historic ties, there are a lot of Surinamese residents of Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles. The Kalpoes are permanent residents of Aruba, live as Arubans, work as Arubans, and are subject to Aruban law. The specific nationalities aren't particularly important to the story ... if any one of them had been Aruban or Antillean, I don't think it would have made any significant difference. The reason for the heavy Dutch involvement is the simple fact that they are the wealthiest member of the Kingdom, and the only one with a military.Kww (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And to clarify further, the nationality and very basic biographical information on Van der Sloot and the Kalpoe brothers is included in the first body paragraph of the article; "Disappearance". I believe going into further detail within the introduction would be excessive. - auburnpilot talk 14:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: criterion three concerns: Comment:
  • Regarding Image:Natalee Holloway yearbook photo.jpg: the WP:NFCC#1 verbiage of "could be created" (analogous to "could be obtained") may be problematic; I don't think it unreasonable to suspect that the family would be happy to release an image, if only asked. Reasonable people could indeed argue the fair use claim fails. That being said, however, I haven't seen precedent to establish how strictly NFCC#1 is interpreted in these instances, so this is merely food for thought.
  • Image:Nhposteraruba.jpg, however, is problematic. In its component parts, it is a picture of Natalee (NFCC#3A requires minimal use - the article already has a superior image of her), a picture of her mother (not necessary - NFCC#3A - or a significant contribution to our understanding - NFCC#8) and text (which could be included in the article as prose - NFCC#1). I don't see value to the image as a whole, either. What does it tell us about Natalee, search efforts or her disappearance that prose alone could not?
  • Image:NataleeHollowayWall-female.jpg: Freedom of Panorama applies only to buildings in the United States. If the image of Natalee is copyrighted (as is asserted by Image:Natalee Holloway yearbook photo.jpg, the same image), this is a derivative work.
  • Image:Lastnatalee.jpg is purely decorative (fails NFCC#3A and NFCC#8). The boilerplate rationale indicates that either no or inadequate thought was put into this image's inclusion or that its function is redundant.
  • Image:Joranbook.jpg and Image:Nataleebook.jpg: Why are these images necessary (NFCC#3A)? What significant understanding do they impart (NFCC#8)? What does seeing the book covers tell us about Natalee or the literature regarding her circumstance? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Hm. Images and copyright claims aren't my specialty, so I will keep the discussion to the need for the images. The poster image gives us info on the early reward, a photo of Beth (saves us getting a screencap from one of her TV appearances), and, since it apparently is based on an assumption that Natalee may have run away (something which is alluded to in the Amigoe section), speaks to the uncertainty of the early search. Joran's book cover of course not only lets us see Joran's book but also Joran himself. The Natalee at CnC shot I think illustrates the party atmosphere just before her disappearance (which could explain why she got into a car with three men of slight acquaintance), and is not merely decorative but nicely sets off the "Natalee's Behavior" subsection. Does the article otherwise qualify in your view, elcobbola?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I quite disagree that the main image of Holloway fails WP:NFCC. It is highly unreasonable to expect a free image of a missing/deceased person to be obtained, and I personally would never consider contacting the Holloway family in that regard. I also very much disagree with respect to Image:NataleeHollowayWall-female.jpg being a derivative work. If that were true, images such as Image:Missing persons 2 - by Keith Tyler.jpg and Image:Missing persons - by Keith Tyler.jpg would not be free, but very much are. Image:Lastnatalee.jpg is not purely decorative, and meets all aspects of NFCC:
        • No free equivalent: One time occurrence, as the last known image of a missing person, cannot be reproduced.
        • Respect for commercial opportunities: image is low quality, limiting any potential for commercial reproduction, but I doubt any commercial value exists.
        • Previous publication: Image was shown on 48 Hours, a national news program
        • Content: Last known image of a missing person, encyclopedic.
        • Media-specific policy: meets all requirements.
        • Significance:Last known image of a missing person, illustrates concerns over subject's behavior, shows location where she was last seen
        • Restrictions on location: used in only one article
        • Image description page: source, status, tag, and rationale present.
      • The two book images are used in sections where the books are discussed, and both books are used as references within the article. elcobbola, I would appreciate if you would work with us, rather than outright opposing. We are open to making necessary changes. - auburnpilot talk 20:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I side with elcobbola on the book covers: we could make arguments to have them (and in fact, you have), but they are not strong arguments. The real question is Is there anything about the book that the reader would not understand properly without the image?, and the answer to that question is No. We added them because people at the GA review insisted that the article didn't have enough pictures, and I think those two got added on primarily for decorative reasons.Kww (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Of the images mentioned, the book covers are my least concern. I honestly would not object to them being removed. - auburnpilot talk 20:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment on images

• The main image - this issue has arisen before over non-free images of recently deceased people. Technically this image fails NFCC#1 - but in reality, common-sense (and IAR) would suggest that asking the family for a free image isn't in our best interests.
• Image:Nhposteraruba.jpg - agree with Elcobbola above.
• Image:NataleeHollowayWall-female.jpg - USCOC 14 says "a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a new work or must contain a substantial amount of new material" - I don't think the Holloway photo can be said to constitute the main part of the image - the person signing is the central feature - so I don't think this is derivative.
• Image:Lastnatalee.jpg - debatable - I would say it fails WP:NFCC#1, because it doesn't show anything that couldn't be covered in prose.
• The two book covers are clearly decorative and don't add anything to the reader's understanding - nothing on the covers is discussed in the text, so these two quite clearly fail WP:NFCC#8.
• As a side-issue, Image:F-16am.falcon.j061.rnaf.jpg is a free image, but is completely irrelevant to the subject and should be removed.

Black Kite 21:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the images of the book covers, reward poster, and F-16. - auburnpilot talk 21:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I reluctantly concur. I'd have liked to be able to keep them, but it is not to be. I should note that the lastnatalee image does speak to what was going on with the kids in Aruba, as summarized by Dompig, and I don't think that we could cover it in prose.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A sincere question as I honestly don't know. Are we sure of the copyright status of images gathered and released by the Department of Justice as part of these investigations? Information generated by the US Federal Government is public domain. In particular it's not clear to me that copyright for Image:Lastnatalee.jpg, having been discovered and disseminated by the FBI from an unknown person's camera, could now be asserted to actually have been generated by the owner of the camera, in the unlikely event that this person attempted to claim copyright. Perhaps this is a legal gray area, or perhaps it's been settled one way or another, but it's clear that de facto the Department of Justice can supersede copyright in disseminating information related to criminal investigations. --JayHenry (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That is actually something I wondered about previously, as the FBI also released three images of Holloway on their website.[11] Are these images still under the copyright of whoever took them, or are they considered public domain, as they've been released by the FBI? I simply don't know enough about copyright law, but it would be worth finding out. - auburnpilot talk 04:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is something we need to find out within the context of this FAR, but it would be worth finding out for future information. Possibly some research into the Zapruder film would be a start, as I recall there was a court case over that.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: Per the instructions on WP:FAC, please note that we believe we have addressed the concerns regarding the article's images, raised by Elcobbola (talk · contribs) and confirmed by Black Kite (talk · contribs). We've asked Elcobbola to check back with us twice, once 21:22, 5 May 2008 and again 22:20, 9 May 2008. - auburnpilot talk 13:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I've stricken addressed concerns. To clarify: I didn't articulate the concern about Image:NataleeHollowayWall-female.jpg well enough; the FoP comment was meant to be separate from the "photo" comment, but I can see how it could have been interpreted as one thought. The "wall" itself (even without the photo) is sculptural in nature and, thus, subject to copyright in the U.S. That said, however, proving a derivative work for a 3D object is substantially more difficult than with a 2D object (given the role of angles, shadowing, etc), so, not wanting to open that can of worms, I've stricken. My concern regarding Image:Lastnatalee.jpg has not been resolved. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for getting back to us. I don't want to speak for others, but I do not share your concern for Image:Lastnatalee.jpg. I believe a case has been made, Black Kite agrees the image is debatable, and I personally do not intend to remove it. The image clearly identifies the behavior many have spoken about and pointed to as a contributing factor to the disappearance. It shows Holloway on the last night anyone saw her, in the bar where she was last seen. I do not believe the subject of the image can be equally illustrated in words. - auburnpilot talk 14:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks also to Elcobbola for getting back to us. I am inclined to agree with AuburnPilot. It is a matter over which reasonable people can differ, and I think the image should stay. I do not know of any way to describe in prose how Natalee looked and what Natalee and others were doing, perhaps only an hour or less before Natalee was last known to have been seen. For example, her face is red, on discussion boards people have taken that as a sign of intoxication and/or dehydration. I don't offer that as truth, what I say is that people look at that and it helps form their opinions; the reader can look at that photo and ponder what was going on with her at that moment. It is valuable. It should stay.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I've stricken the oppose and left the concern as a comment. I certainly agree that it is a matter over which reasonable people can differ. I also don't disagree that certain aspects would be impossible, or at least overly cumbersome, to replace the image with prose. My concern is, however, whether the image is truly necessary or a significant contribution. Indeed, it's "important" in that it's the last known photo, but does that importance transfer to being truly important for us to understand Natalee or the events? As a still, it doesn't really convey behaviour and meaningfulness of the redness of her face (an aspect that could be covered by prose) is speculative. Again, I leave it as a comment in case others want to chime in. Otherwise, my concern isn't great enough to oppose the FAC. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Thanks again for your comments, Elcobbola. We are always searching for new, free use images, and will continue to do so. Right now, however, there doesn't appear to be a free equivalent that serves the same purpose as Image:Lastnatalee.jpg. Even as a still image, I believe it fairly accurately illustrates the general atmosphere of the trip, and the behavior of the students, in a way that could not be captured by plain text (and thus is important enough to the understanding of the subject). Thanks for striking your oppose, and we'll certainly keep your comments in mind as we move forward. - auburnpilot talk 17:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

(Might not get through everything now, will continue when I get time...)

• In general, newspaper (etc. - see MOS:ITALICS) publishers in references need italics.
• "Holloway and 124 fellow graduates of Mountain Brook High School,[22] located in an upscale suburb of Birmingham, Alabama,[23] were visiting Aruba on a five-day, unofficial senior class graduation trip.[22] - I really fail to see why the first two cites are necessary...they just make readability bad. Move [23] to the end of the sentence if you like.
• "17-year-old Joran van der Sloot" - the V in van der Sloot is later capitalised...consistency?
• "Van der Sloot initially denied knowing who Holloway was, but then Van der Sloot and Deepak Kalpoe" - sounds weird naming him twice...reword

(more later). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! Dutch naming practices is to capitalize the Van if not accompanied by a first name, otherwise it is lower case. We are consistent on that throughout. I have addressed the other concerns and await your other comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

More stuff, done offline.

• "John and Jones were released on 13 June" - shouldn't this be in the previous paragraph?
• "On Friday, 17 June, a fourth person, later identified as disc jockey Steve Gregory Croes, was also arrested." - most of those commas can go...
• "Van der Sloot called Deepak Kalpoe to tell the latter that Van der Sloot was walking home" - would "that he was walking home" work better?
• "In the months following his release..." - this paragraph is annoying with every sentence starting the same way ("Van der Sloot stated..." etc.)
• "because he believed Natalee would soon turn up" - should refer to him by surname
• "Dutch National Police(nl)" - couldn't you just have the text wlink to the nl article rather than the stuff in brackets?
• ""De Zaak Natalee Holloway" ("The Case of Natalee Holloway")" - book titles need italics
  • "Twitty's book "Loving Natalee: A Mother's Testament of Hope and Faith"" - same again
• "The prosecution appealed the Kalpoes' release." - merge this paragraph with the previous? (and perhaps the next?)
• "on Dutch TV on February 3" - wlink date
• Check paragraphs 3 and 6 of De Vries footage and "confession" section for numerous sentence starting with the same phrase
• the Philadelphia Daily News reported" - newspaper needs italics...though I don't really see the point of this paragraph...
• "Members of Holloway's family have denied drug use by Holloway." - reads awkwardly, probably better to change the second Holloway to "her"
• "they have told, and, at least one" - rmv second comma and put a "that" there
• "(which, according to Twitty, may still have been alive)" - you already said this a sentence ago
• "Senator Jeff Sessions, and Congressman Spencer Bachus, Alabama Senator Richard Shelby" - the and should go after Bachus I think (needs copyediting, this section does)

Yeah, that's about it. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the thorough review, DM. I've implemented all of your suggested changes except for the last one. It looks like Wehwalt (talk · contribs) caught that awkward wording earlier today. [12]. Thanks again, - auburnpilot talk 01:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. That's what I get for doing this offline. :) Everything looks good. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Tentative Support The article is exhaustive, diligently sourced, and neutral. Lead and structure are okay. References 81 and 138 look to be missing some info. I read through and gave a mild copy edit. The writing contains a good deal of legalese, but I think given the subject this is unavoidable and should not be held against the article.
• I'm of two minds about the length however. On the one hand, this received a staggering amount of media coverage, and the length of the article merely reflects this coverage. On the other hand, the coverage was mostly cable television news programs that aren't held in particularly high regard. They were desperate for any morsel of the Natalee Holloway story to feed before their ravenous audience and I'm concerned that the article gets lost in minutiae. I'm of two minds because the audience that fueled the programs would likely be grateful for the article's depth, whereas a person (like myself) who found the coverage repugnant, struggles to retain interest at such length. I would be interested to hear the nominators thoughts regarding this. --JayHenry (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, JayHenry, as well as your copy edit. I appreciate your view on this, since you seem to be on the opposite side of me in terms of viewing the subject matter, but I don't believe the length is inordinate. If I remember correctly, the length was briefly discussed at some point in the past, but there was no logical place to break up the article, without creating senselessly small subarticles. According to the readability link at the top of the page, the article contains 40.0 KB of readable prose, which certainly isn't a small article, but I don't believe we could adequately cover the subject in a smaller version. - auburnpilot talk 19:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I've fixed ref 138 and added a second ref to backup reference 81. I don't speak Dutch, so I can't fix the existing reference. Kww (talk · contribs) will have to check that. - auburnpilot talk 20:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused about what needs fixed. The Antilliaans Dagblad is my local paper, and hasn't got a website. The reference includes the name of the paper, the date of publication, and the original Dutch text. What more is needed? I'm happy to do it, but need to understand what needs to be done.Kww (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the only thing missing would be the title of the article, if you can still find it. - auburnpilot talk 22:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, cleaned the windows with that newspaper months ago. If your backup is good enough, maybe we can just go with that.Kww (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It might not be a bad idea to keep both, since one has the direct text of the quote, and the second (the one I just added) confirms the context of the quote. - auburnpilot talk 23:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Please try to locate the title via a library or some other means, so future readers will be able to find the article. Without a title, searching for it in the future will be somewhat difficult. Considering the amount of English-language coverage, why are Dutch sources used? Also, pls use the correct Category:Language icons. Study B with Shepard Smith. ?? It's Studio B (TV series); please make a careful review of citations and wikilinking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm confused, because I let people tell me that there was a problem. The citation reads ::::::*Antilliaans Dagblad May 15, 2007 pg. 12, "Onderzook bij de broers Kalpoe", original Dutch text is "een beter beeld krijgen van de plaats waar, of de omstandigheden waaronder, een delict zou zijn begaan, of waar sporen van betrokkenheid bij een delict kunnen worden vastgesteld" (Dutch).

I see you solved the confusion by correctly templating it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

So, it was published by the Antillians Dagblad on May 15, 2007. The article was titled "Onderzook bij de broers Kalpoe", and the original text was "een beter beeld krijgen van de plaats waar, of de omstandigheden waaronder, een delict zou zijn begaan, of waar sporen van betrokkenheid bij een delict kunnen worden vastgesteld". So, what is the problem?

As for "why do we use Dutch sources?", two reasons: First, because the American sources tend to be quite sloppy on the legal terminology. They refer to crimes and things by American titles. Since every legal system in the Kingdom is in Dutch, English sources wind up appearing to disagree on what is happening when they actually agree: it's just their translators disagree. Second, some of the details of the investigation were never reported in reliable English sources. Once the initial furor wore off, there were events that got picked up in English speaking blogs and similar sites, but never deemed important enough by major English-speaking news outlets to discuss. Actually, there's a third reason : I'd have to fly to Miami to get an English newspaper, and I can pick up Dutch ones at the grocery store. Kww (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just switched the Antillians Dagblad reference to a {{cite news}} template. I'm not sure how JayHenry and I both overlooked the title, as all the necessary information was already provided. As for the language icons, where are we using an incorrect one? - auburnpilot talk 00:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good now, the formatting was causing confusion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(←) Ah, my apologies. I didn't realize that was the title because of its placement in the citation, and thought it was a quote supporting the material. I'm content to support. It's long for my tastes, but well within guidelines, so I can't oppose for that (and I know it'd be like asking you to chop off your arm after you've worked so much on it). --JayHenry (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone. I'm currently travelling so my access is limited. I know that there are a number of things going on on the article talk page, which I just commented on, and also SandyGeorgia made some comments as edit summaries. Can I suggest that if there are unresolved concerns (including the one I just proposed a compromise to over on the article talk page), that we bring everything here?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I change the article per discussion on this and the article talk page, mostly to integrate the material from the behavior section into the article. I hope people are pleased with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Concerns I reviewed only the "Disappearance" section, and the issues I found are rather troubling.
  • "The students were accompanied by seven "chaperones", whose exact function is unclear." Why is chaperones in quotations? If it's according to some source, then the source should be given.
  • "According to Jodi Bearman, who organized the trip (and whom "Vanity Fair" would identify as one of the seven chaperones), "The chaperones were not supposed to keep up with their every move."" Who is this Bearman? A parent? Vanity Fair is a publication and should be italicized. Why the conditional "would"? Most importantly though, the given source does not match this statement. The quote is nowhere to be found, and neither is any mention of Jodi Bearman. Also, where is the source for the Vanity Fair parenthetical?
  • "There is little question but that the students had a good time, up until the final night." This is an odd sentence with the "but".
  • The Disappearance section does not establish the context of the trip. When did the students arrive? Where did they stay? The quote from the Commissioner just seems out of the blue.
  • "Two of Holloway's classmates agreed that the students' drinking was "kind of excessive"." Putting this in quotation marks implies that the classmates said this exact quotation, but this is certainly not the case!
  • "Holloway was last seen by her classmates leaving the vicinity of Carlos’n Charlie’s,[22]" Certainly not what the [22] source says: "The night she disappeared, Holloway went to a beach concert and then ate and danced at Carlos' n Charlie's bar and restaurant." Nothing about her classmates. Nothing about leaving the "vicinity". BuddingJournalist 21:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• I believe I have now addressed your concerns. I removed the quotes from around "chaperones" and added a reference and quote from another chaperone to clarify the section and their role (Jodi organized the trip and chaperoned, Plummer is a Mountain Brook teacher and chaperone). I removed the parenthetical mention of Vanity Fair and made reworded the sentence, adding Vanity Fair as the reference. "There is little question..." sentence removed all together. I added the date they arrived in Aruba, where they stayed, and relocated the Dompig quote later in the article, where we mention his allegation of drug use (more logical, in my opinion). Removed quotes from "kind of excessive", specified who the students were, and reworded. Holloway was last seen outside of Carlos'n Charlies so I've added a source and removed the word "vicinity" (now simply states "leaving Carlos'...". Thanks for your comments. - auburnpilot talk 22:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The only small caveat I have is that I've restored the quotes, but expanded it, so now it is the students "agreed the drinking was kind of excessive". It is in the article. While likely the kids said it, or agreed to it, it no longer creates the confusion that BuddingJournalist spoke out against above.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Incidently, the reason we had "vicinity" in there is that she was seen in the car about a block away by classmates, who may have urged her to get out of the car and gotten the response from her "Woo hoo Aruba!" But perhaps we were being too picky.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether this article is misnamed. Disappearance of Natalee Hollaway seems the appropriate target as the article deals solely with the event and investigation and she is only notable because of it. See Disappearance of Madeleine McCann or Disappearance of Ben Needham. We're no doubt inconsistent on this and I'm wondering what others feel. Marskell (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The topic has come up a few times (and there have been a few bold renamings). Consensus among the three most frequent contributors has always been that the vast majority of links and searches are to Natalee Holloway, so that's what the article should be named. The policies are against having a separate biographical article: if there was a Disappearance of Natalee Holloway article, there should not be a separate Natalee Holloway article that tells you where she went to grade school, her favorite hobbies, and what she named her cat, because she isn't notable in and of herself. The policies do not dictate the title, a decision largely based on this article's name.Kww (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kww. I've always used Joseph Force Crater as my example, but if you look in the category for disappeared people, most are under their own names.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree as well. Like JonBenét Ramsey, Natalee Holloway is the most likely search term, and most links to the article appear to reference Holloway by name. - auburnpilot talk 18:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually argued similarly on McCann and was talked out of it. It would be nice if they were consistent.

Given that you're treating this as we do bios, I think an Early life and family section is necessary. If you think it breaks up the flow having it after the lead then it can be placed as a last section. Marskell (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What is there really to say in what would be an even longer article? She really didn't do anything notable until she vanished. She went to school, etc. She was on the dance team. I hesitate to have such unnotable matters in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Response below. Marskell (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. The article is now comprehensive, and the prose just meets FA standards, in my opinion. Great job on responding to comments. Karanacs (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Comment. I noticed a few instances where a quotation is not directly followed by a citation. While I assume the citation at the end of the paragraph covers the quote as well, per the MOS there should be a cite immediately after the quoted sentence. If you'll fix that I'll support. Karanacs (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think I caught them all.[13] Thanks for getting back to us so quickly. - auburnpilot talk 16:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. While the article certainly appears comprehensive, I don't think the prose is quite up to FA quality. There are repetitive sentence beginnings, redundant text, a mix of overly unwieldy sentences and short choppy sentences and other issues. I've provided a few examples here. I think a really good copyedit but someone who is uninvolved in the text would help.

• How is the chaperone function unclear? It is detailed in the next two sentences.
• "A third chaperone, Paul Lilly" - this wording really makes it sound like these were the only 3 chaperones, but we know there were 7
• If this is a bio of Holloway, why is there nothing on her life before the disappearance? I'd recommend either a small section on her family life or rename the article to Disappearance of Natalee Holloway (with a redirect from this title)
• Might need to add a brief descriptor of Carlos and Charlies for those who are unfamiliar with the chain (maybe wikilink to it also)
• The prose does not seem to flow very well. For example, in the first paragraph of Early investigation section:
  • the interjection "(the two would divorce in April 2007), " seems out of place here.
  • "Within four hours of landing in Aruba, the Twittys and others went to the Aruban police with Van der Sloot's name and address, as the person last known to have been seen with their daughter" - this makes it sound like the TWittys visited the police, and the "others" visited at a different time. There is alos not an agreement between "name and address" and "person".
  • "Accompanied by two Aruban policemen, various other Arubans, as well as by the friends they brought on the plane and other Americans," - this seems unnecessarily detailed and wordy. It almost seems to read that random other Arubans and Americans decided to join the procession.
  • "he explained what he said happened, with which Deepak Kalpoe, who was present, agreed." - very awkward construction
• A lot of the sentences seem short and choppy, which contributes to the prose issues.
• This seems to have no relevance in this article ", an attorney who had been part of the judge in training program, but who had left it prior to the Holloway incident, "
• Why is "the gardener" in quotes? (and "the jogger")
• "While the searches were carried out, neither witness was deemed credible by authorities, and the searches were fruitless" - this makes it sound like the witnesses were not deemed uncredible (incredible?) until the searches had begun - is that the case? This is also needlessly verbose.
• "On April 11, 2006, Dave Holloway published his book, co-authored with two writers" - at this point in the article, we don't know who Dave Holloway was.
• There is an error in the refs - "Cite error: Invalid < ref > tag; no text was provided for refs named FNCThree "

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Karanacs (talk • contribs) 19:30, May 20, 2008

Thanks for the comments, and I hope you will be willing to withdraw the oppose if we address these issues. I only have time to deal with a couple of them right now, but Kww and AuburnPilot will pitch in. I should note that they were called the gardener and jogger because that's how the news media usually referred to them. We never got a name for the jogger, the gardener was named "Carlos" or "Cumpa" but the media rarely called him that. See the Vanity Fair article if you want a fuller explanation. The jogger, for instance was a convicted criminal. Good catch on the Dave Holloway thing, that's a hangover from a former sentence which was taken out a while back.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My comments are almost totally prose-related; once the article has gotten a solid copyedit I'd be happy to change my !vote. Karanacs (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've asked somebody from WP:LCE to give a hand, so hopefully we'll get that independent copy edit soon. In the mean time, I'll try to directly address the concerns noted above. - auburnpilot talk 20:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Weak oppose given the absence of an Early life and family section. Siblings? POB? Details on parents? I'm not especially bothered by the title issue; but the title does indicate a bio and the page needs a brief sketch of her life and family.

Also, I don't like how clauses take multiple refs: "On June 5, Aruban police detained Antonius "Mickey" John and Abraham Jones, former security guards[38] for the nearby Allegro Hotel,[6] which was then closed for renovation,[39] on suspicion of murder and kidnapping.[40]" Is there no way sentences like this can be reduced to one or two refs? It's visually distracting. Marskell (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I would seriously object to the introduction of an Early life or family section. This is not a biography, regardless of the title, and both sections would be out of place. As for references, I don't think removing them just for aesthetics is a good idea. This is a highly contentious subject and the more sources the better. - auburnpilot talk 20:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would you object to background information on the subject of the article? If it's well and truly not a bio then rename it. Marskell (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The name of the article doesn't make it a biography. As we've stated above, there are numerous cases where articles reside at the name of the subject who was murdered, kidnapped, shot... It's the most likely search term, and most articles refer to Holloway by name, as opposed to "the disappearance of Natalee Holloway" or something similar. To say it must have an early life section because of the title isn't true. - auburnpilot talk 20:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the name of the article does in fact imply that this is a biography. In this case, since her family was so involved with the investigation, I believe that a family section is warranted. If it isn't included, then the title should be changed to "Disappearance of" and the Natalee Holloway title should redirect to it. Karanacs (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And, in general, why object to background information on the main subject of the article? Regardless of the title, it is a comprehensiveness concern (the title merely reinforces it). Even with "Disappearance of..." I'd still like to know a little more about Natalee Holloway than the article provides at present. Marskell (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to some basic information being added to the article where it's relevant, but I don't see the need for two sections (Early life and Family). There are two other nominators, and I'm sure they have an opinion too. - auburnpilot talk 20:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to come off as combative, but that's simply not true. If you look through categories like Category:Disappeared people or Category:Murdered American children, the majority of articles reside at the name of the person who is the subject of whatever action the article discusses (whether it be a murder, kidnapping, or disappearance). - auburnpilot talk 20:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

But those articles aren't FAs, Auburnpilot. This is a legitimate comprehensiveness (1b) concern. Leave the title, fine, but at least briefly fill-in the details that people would expect on a bio with a short, dedicated section. Here's how they do it on McCann. Note I am not asking for two sections, just one: Early life and family. Or you could shorten it to, simply, Life. Marskell (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If we are to do it, it should be only a couple of paragraphs containing only undisputed basic vital data.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I would propose the following language, to be added to the article in the "Disappearance" section, to be retitled "Background and Disappearance":

• Natalee Holloway was born October 21, 1986 in Clinton, Mississippi, to Dave Holloway and Elizabeth Ann (Beth) Holloway (nee Reynolds). After her parents divorced, she and her younger brother Matt resided with her mother, who subsequently remarried George "Jug" Twitty, a prominent Alabama businessman. At the time of the disappearance, Dave Holloway was an insurance broker in Meridian, Mississippi, while Beth Twitty was employed by the Mountain Brook school district. In April 2007, the Holloways would divorce."

Assume all that would be properly sourced and wikified, which I think it would be, it is all fairly well known info. Frankly, that should be enough on background. This is a long article already and I'd like to keep it to a minimum.--

Karanacs, I think this would address the remaining specific concerns you expressed (we would delete the existing language about the divorce). We've taken care of all the others, I think.

Marskell, you mentioned the concern about the security guards sentence. That was not put together that way by happenstance. I had to find those pieces of info in different articles, that they were no longer security guards, that the Allegro was closed, etc. I did not find one source that had the whole thing in it, or I would have simplified it. It isn't us, it is the sources. I hope you will, once we settle the issue of the background, withdraw your oppose. Wehwalt (talk) 08:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy with the addition of this new paragraph. Karanacs (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that as well. - auburnpilot talk 13:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I've wikilinked, referenced, and added the paragraph to the article, along with an image of MBHS.(diff) - auburnpilot talk 15:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the para is good; I wasn't asking for much more than that. It does provide some basic info that wasn't there previously.

If my example sentence literally can't be constructed without four sources, so be it. I'll strike the oppose but would like to read again for POV and prose. Marskell (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Marskell. I emailed Blaxthos (talk · contribs) and he has agreed to give us a thorough copy edit, as Karanacs suggested. Hopefully that will further address any prose concerns. - auburnpilot talk 21:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—1a. Here are random samples of problems.

• Where on earth is Aruba? Do we have to meander to the linked article to find out?
• "outside of"—what does "of" add?
• "Van der Sloot was arrested twice on suspicion of involvement in her disappearance, and the Kalpoes were each arrested three times, but the three were released due to lack of evidence." Confusing "three"; remove "the three"? And weren't they released three times? Which time was it for lack of evidence?
• " missing white woman syndrome"—again, I don't want to have to go to the linked article to find out what it is, so a short explanatory phrase after this item is in order (or remove it from the lead).
• "upscale suburb"—upscale??
• Do you really think our readers don't know what "suburb" means? Please delink all of the useless links.
• stated "The chaperones were not supposed to keep up with their every move."—Dot after the final quote-marks (see MOS).
• "Searches for Holloway, or for her body, began soon afterwards."—Is the nested phrase really necessary?
• "but it is unclear whether or not the security cameras at the hotel were working"—Spot the redundant couple of words.

Plus lots more. TONY (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Tony, thanks for your comments. I hope you will work with us to get this article passed, and will either now or after the member of the League of Copyeditors that AuburnPilot has gotten to do a copyedit of this article, revisit this, and inform us of your other concerns, and reconsider your vote.

I have taken care of the specific concerns you mentioned as follows:

• Aruba: We had language stating what and where Aruba was, but it was deleted as (it was perceived) unnecessary during, I believe, the good article review. I've restored it.
• "outside of": Deleted the "of"
• The releases: I've rephrased it so it is clear that each time, they were released for lack of evidence. We had it that way before, actually, but it was changed for one reason or another.
• "upscale": changed to "wealthy". Suburb delinked.
• Chaperones sentence: Period moved.
• "or for her body". Deleted.
• "security cameras". "or not" deleted.

Again, I hope you will work with us to get this article passed by showing us the other concerns your eagle eye has spotted, and review either before or after the copyedit. Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 09:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• I need to spend time working through this cascade after a month's absence from FAC. Please recruit a new collaborator to polish the language. TONY (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

As I stated, we have a member of the League of Copyeditors coming in. Hopefully that will do the trick. I hope you'll look back on us to review and reconsider in due course.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos (talk · contribs) would not be able to copyedit the article for another week, Happy-melon (talk · contribs) ignored my request, Miranda (talk · contribs) is too busy, and my post at Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors‎ has thus far gone unnoticed. Any thought from the FA regulars on how to get an article copyedited when nobody is willing to do it? - auburnpilot talk 21:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Why the unfree picture? It is not fair use by a long stretch. ➪HiDrNick! 23:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This was discussed above, and as an image of a missing, and likely dead person, it is a perfect claim of fair use. It would be exceedingly unreasonable to expect a free use image to become available. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 00:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Just because a free image is unavailable does not mean that we can go all willy-nilly with fair use. This is a portrait photograph taken by a professional photographer, exactly the kind of people notorious for pursuing infrindgement claims. This image is not needed for an encylopedic understanding of the subject; it is decorative. ➪HiDrNick! 00:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I, and others, disagree. Think of it this way: logos of companies, organizations, and sports teams, album covers, book covers, and the like are all seen as adequate fair use within articles which discuss them (rather than direct commentary on the image itself). In this case, not only does the image illustrate the subject, but the there is actual commentary on the image's subject. Holloway's appearance is a major part in the understanding of the missing person case, and has been the subject of much discussion (accusations of missing white woman syndrome). This image is not decorative, and I truly believe it's removal would be detrimental to the understand of Holloway and the case. - auburnpilot talk 00:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
      • And unrelated, I saw you did a bit of copyediting on the lead. If you'd be willing to copyedit the article as a whole, we'd greatly appreciate it. As you can see from my comment directly above your first comment, we've been having a hell of a time finding somebody to copyedit this article. - auburnpilot talk 00:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support, the prose has shaped up nicely. I am satisfied. --Laser brain (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Oppose, 1a (prose) and 2a (lead) pending some treatment of the narrative. The prose is pretty good but it needs a fresh pair of eyes. The narrative left out information in a few places; I've tried to point them out below. There are puzzlers in the lead that don't have corresponding text in the body. The lead should summarize the article and it doesn't seem to do that; given the length of the article, the lead should be fleshed out.
  • "The disappearance became a media sensation in the United States, Aruba, and the Netherlands." Source given does not back up the statement - it doesn't talk about the media in Aruba and the Netherlands. I can't find anything else about this in the body.
  • Can you find a more reliable news source than Court TV for the statement in the lead that she is most likely dead? Again, where is this in the body? Chronologically, it should fall at the end of Rearrests and re-releases but there is nothing there about the Aruban authorities considering her dead.
  • Both times you say she didn't show up for her return flight, it is rather jarring. I think it's because we're hit with it suddenly.. when was it scheduled, etc?
  • We're told that the Twittys arrived and gave the police Van der Sloot's name, but how did they have that information?
  • "Hundreds of volunteers from Aruba and the United States joined the search." The lead tells us "thousands" and then you say it again right after this sentence.
  • "Beth Twitty was provided with free housing..." What about Jug?
  • "On July 4, the Netherlands deployed three F-16 aircraft equipped with infrared sensors to aid in the search, also without initial result." The "also" implies we were just told about a search method that yielded no result.. but we weren't.
  • Little grammatical glitches should be ironed out by an experienced copy-editor, such as "... though searches still continue." (extra word) --Laser brain (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. We avoided how Beth found about JvdS because she has told multiple stories about this. Maid at hotel, stopped and asked some kids, it didnt seem worth going into it.

What is wrong with Court TV?

We dont know where Jug stayed. Presumably with Beth, but that is just an assumption. The focus has been on Beth.

I have made other changes requested--Wehwalt (talk) 08:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you should say in the article that Beth told multiple stories. That was a moment in the article that I thought, "How did she know that?" and we can expect other readers to react that way. On the topic of Court TV: I don't wish to mount a source assault, but my understanding is that Court TV employs mostly "anchors" rather than journalists and, to me, that weakens it as a source. For statements that others may challenge, I would prefer a vetted news source such as a journal or newspaper. --Laser brain (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added a second source (from MSNBC) for the statement that Aruban authorities believe she is most likely dead, and a brief sentence mentioning who gave Van der Sloot's name to Beth Twitty. - auburnpilot talk 15:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have played with the language a bit.

Look, I would like to thank everyone for their concerns. I hope that we have answered everyone`s concerns. I remain committed to this nomination. I hope everyone is generally satisfied with the article, and that we can move ahead as a FA. I see that we are the longest-standing open FAR, and it will no doubt close soon. I think that this is an article to be proud of. This is a controversial topic. People have strong views on Holloway. AuburnPilot, Kww, and myself, who have done the most work on the article, have been vigilent in keeping POV out of it. This is not easy. It would be very easy to write this article as an attack on Joran, or on Beth, or on the Aruban police, or on the media. We have, however, maintained a neutral article, and if you go and read the talk page archives, you will see how difficult this has been at times. From what I gather, we three nominators do not agree as to what happened to Holloway, and we have very different views on the case. Yet we have come together and made a well written, neutral, comprehensive article. I have been personally attacked on a forum for it, even my picture posted. It does not matter. This is an example of Wikipedia at its best. I ask that it be passed as an FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well said. I'll echo the above, in that I sincerely appreciate all the comments we've received so far, but I really hope we can wrap this up soon; I had no idea the process would last so long (25 days thus far). Reading back through the discussion, I don't see any concerns that have been left un-addressed, and Tony appears to be the only one who has not checked back with us (I've asked him to do so). - auburnpilot talk 03:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:14, 28 May 2008 [14].

---

[edit] Cogan House Covered Bridge

Nominator: Cogan House Covered Bridge has had a very helpful peer review, which found no major problems and the suggestions for improvement from it have all been addressed. I believe this article meets all of the Featured Article criteria. This is a self-nomination in that I have made most of the edits to the article, but I have sought feedback from many and have received positive comments. This is a relatively obscure, but quite interesting bridge and I believe the article does it justice. Thanks for any feedback, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The only concern (?) I have is This site, which I'm being told is actually a reformatted scrape of some US governmental data. Since the data isn't exactly contentious, it can probably scrape by (oooh, puns!). It'd be nice if another source could be found for the information, or at least a link to the original data was included in with the nicely formatted link also.
  • Thanks for the suggestion - I have added the original ref to the formatted ref in the article. There is a website here that explains the situation - you can either try to puzzle out the official Federal Highway Administration page, or pay $60 for a company to give you the data in Excel format, or go to Svirsky's website. There are some interactive maps (msnbc.com has one) but they are for the biggest and busiest bridges in the US (10,000 cars a day or more) and the Cogan House Covered Bridge is not on them. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the putting both links in is the best solution, and solves all RS concerns. We have the (ugly) but ultra reliable governement source and the (prettier) but self-published not as reliable source for the same data both listed for folks. It's US government data, so it isn't a copyvio we're linking to on the second site, so all is good.

• That has got to be the longest freaking title link I've ever seen. It can probably be shortened to History of Lycoming County Pennsylvania (grins). Although I do like the perfectionist-ness of the full verbose Victorian title..
  • Respectfully disagree — the full title stays, and it is already in four featured articles (Larrys Creek, White Deer Hole Creek, Plunketts Creek (Loyalsock Creek), and Black Moshannon State Park) as well as three featured lists. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a big worry, but gah, that's a lot of blue! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look good, links checked out fine with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much and thanks too for your helpful comments at Peer Review Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

PS If you want to see the original data from FHA NBI, I dug it out and pasted it into the talk page here Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Support An excellent article about a bridge that you'd have to try really hard to find. Well written, fully referenced and a very enjoyable read, especially the part about the construction of the bridge. Dincher (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, kind words, and helpful peer review comments, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Support I really like the use of maps and pictures to make this a better, and more interesting article. References look good, and use of a geobox is a great touch too.--Kranar drogin (talk) 04:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and kind words, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Nice work. Keep it up. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your support and kind words. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Support for an engaging and well-written article. GrahamColm^Talk 16:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support for a top-notch article, well-written, well-supported, and nicely illustrated. The prose flows and informs. I want to visit this bridge. Finetooth (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support, copyedits, and kind words (it is a great place to visit - very peaceful), Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support:Details, prose, refs, tables all look good to me. (fixed a few dashes and date formats, kingly recheck them) - KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 08:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thnaks for your support, edit and kind words. My understanding was that if a full date was wikilinked no comma is needed as the software puts one in. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Amazing work! Plenty of reliable references and sources that I don't know how you found, well-written, and just an all-around great article. I am always amazed at how much information you can find on minor parks, rivers, towns and such. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much for your support and kind words - there are 7 covered bridges on this NRHP nomination form and this is the one with the most information available by far. There is one other with enough details to make FA perhaps, or at least GA. I am not sure the other 5 have enough available information to even make GA, but I will try. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I look foreward to seeing that one at FAC sometime soon. It might need a bit of expansion, though. :) Once again, good work! 02:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the vote of confidence - it may take me a while, but I'll work on it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support, as a peer reviewer. Who knew I could enjoy reading about a covered bridge so much? --Moni3 (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:14, 28 May 2008 [16].

---

[edit] The Garden of Earthly Delights

c. 1504 triptych by Hieronymus Bosch. Co-nom with Modernist, Kafka Liz and Outriggr. Very helpful PR here. Ceoil (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good. Links checked out okay with the link checker tool. I'll attempt to return at some point and do a fuller review, as I've always loved this artwork. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Leaning towards support An interesting article on an important work of art! Thanks all! Here are my comments and questions:

• Did this work of art influence any other works of art or artists? I was surprised to see no "Legacy" section of some sort.

• This is proving surprisingly difficult. The most I found was a mention that Bruegel may have been influenced by the triptych's right hand wing. Ceoil (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• None of the major sources mention the work's influence on later artists. Maybe you could tie in Bruegel at a push, if only because he also painted panoramic hellscapes, and lived just after. But such a section would be at best cobbled together and sevearly disjointed. Ceoil (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Being talked through on talk. Ceoil (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• I see that work is being done on this and it is proving difficult. I know if anything significant turns up, you all will add it. Awadewit (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• What do the exotic animals in the left panel represent? At one point in the article, the giraffe is tied to the age of exploration and discovery. Anything else?

Now described in the article as a general appeal to contemporaries interested in the drawing of explorers of the time. I wonder though, if the forms of giraffes or elephants were any less astounding to medieval minds than some of the creatures Bosch imagines in the left panel. Ceoil (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• What is the significance of the hairy figures in the central panel?

Liz found quite a technical article on this last night (Dixon), but we found it difficult to summarise. Found secondary sources tonight, reading through themto still. Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added a few lines intended to shed some light on them. Kafka Liz (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• God is shown as younger-looking than on the outer panels, and is likely to represent Christ as the incarnation of the Word of God, as described in John 1:14. - awkward wording

• Reworked. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Fränger distinguished these pieces from the artist's other works, and argued that since they essentially contained anti-cleric polemic, they were yet all, he thought, altarpieces, commissioned for devotional purposes; likely, he concluded, to a mystery cult. - too many phrases separated by commas

• Streamlined with fewer commas. Kafka Liz (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• A late 15th-century engraving by Israhel van Meckenem shows a group of men prancing ecstatically around a female figure (right) - Why does this say "right"?

• Removed. Ceoil (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• The pointing man has variously been described as either the patron of the work (Fränger in 1947), an advocate of Adam in denouncing Eve (Dirk Bax in 1956), or because he is clothed in a brown cloth, Saint John the Baptist in his brown cloak (Isabel Mateo Goméz in 1963). - There is an odd mixing of citation styles here - suddenly we have Harvard.

This comes from Reuterswärd, and though I have the sources he quotes I have different editions, and the pg nos don't match. My versions (except Fränger) are online but difficult to search, so I'm waiding through so I can cite directly from the original books. Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• The "Bibliography" needs to be tidied up - the entries are not listed in a standard form.

• Done, I think. Ceoil (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Some are missing publication locations while some have the locations. Awadewit (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• At times I felt the prose was just the teensiest bit wordy, but it would take a very good copy editor a long time to improve this. I mention it only if someone who comes by feels the urge to polish up what is already very good prose.

I very much enjoyed reading this article. This is one of those times when I could sit back, munch on my breakfast, and learn. Thanks so much! Awadewit (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Awadewit, and as usual with your reviews there is now broad scope for development. I'll let you know when we're done, or at least ready for a final 'judgment' ;). Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. I said at the peer review that I would support this interesting and well-written article for FA, and it has improved since then. Well done, again, to the unflagging Ceoil. qp10qp (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

May thanks for the edits and for the very insightful PR, Qp10qp. Ceoil (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments This looks pretty good overall. I have a few comments/questions:

• the triptych is generally considered to be his best-known...work (intro)

Is there any other Bosch painting that might be better known? I only have a casual interest in this stuff, but I'd assume you could just say that it is his best known work. It seems strange to be hedging your bets like that. Interestingly, the next sentence asserts, without hesitation, "The work finds Bosch at the height of his artistic powers, and in no other painting does he achieve such complexity of meaning or such vivid imagery."

• Agreed, and fixed. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Zagalejo^^^ 17:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• A scene of God presenting Adam with the newly created Eve is at the left of the large central panel, which may be either a moralisation on earthly temptation and sin or a celebration of sexuality; the right panel depicts the torments of damnation. (intro)

I had to read this sentence a couple of times to realize it was talking about all three inner panels. There's too much information crammed into a tight space. It might be better to give each inner panel its own sentence, so that things have room to breathe.

• Ouch. Clarified. Ceoil (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• In that section, it might be better is you simply describe what the second panel looks like, rather than jump in with the debates over its interpretation.

• Agree, and done. Ceoil (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No strike out yet? Jeeze Zagalejo, your as hard as nails ;) Ceoil (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I was going to, but I ended up with an edit conflict. :) Zagalejo^^^ 05:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• It was long thought that the work was intended by Bosch as a didactic warning to the viewer on the perils of life's temptations. (intro)

Isn't this kind of redunant to the first sentence of that paragraph?

Yes. I merged the two sentences. Ceoil (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, now I think that sentence is a tad too long. Sorry. :) Some of that could probably be streamlined. Zagalejo^^^ 22:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha! No pleasing some people ;) Shortened now. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I reworked this a bit to avoid passive voice construction and an apparent contradiction between the paragraph's first and second sentences. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, looks good now. Zagalejo^^^ 05:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Bosch's The Haywain triptych (interior)

Is "The" necessary here? I know Strunk and White recommend dropping the "The" in a title when preceded by a possessive.

• Nice catch. Removed. Ceoil (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Zagalejo^^^ 22:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• There is no perspectival order in the foreground, instead it comprises a series of brief motifs wherein proportion and terrestrial logic are abandoned. (center panel).

Should that be a semicolon, instead of a comma?

• Fixed. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Zagalejo^^^ 17:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• One woman carries a cherry on her head, a common symbol of pride at the time: "Don't eat cherries with great lords - they'll throw pits in your face." (center panel)

Where did that quote originally come from? It doesn't sound like it would be Glum's original phrase.

• Its Lutheran. Ceoil (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Zagalejo^^^ 22:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Dendrochronology dates the oak of the panels to c. 1460–1466, but internal evidence suggests that the painting itself postdates Columbus' voyages to the Americas. (provenance)

Any reason why we don't mention the pineapple in the body of the article?

• I'll see what I can find re pineapple. Ceoil (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• I was having difficulty working it in in a way that didn't make the sentence awkward or discursive. I didn't want it to usurp the entire paragraph. We can certainly try again, though. Kafka Liz (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Now incorporated. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That looks good to me. Zagalejo^^^ 17:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• The enigmatic scenes depicted on the panels of the inner triptych of The Garden of Earthly Delights have been studied by many scholars, who have often come to contradictory interpretations.[57] The complex objects and ideas presented in the work have been analysed in relation to many different symbolic systems, including those of alchemy, astrology, folklore, heresy and the unconscious mind. (interpretation)

This is really nitpicky, but I think these sentences flow poorly. Each has a similar structure (The foo have been...The foo have been.) Would it be possible to recast one of them in the active voice?

• I've rephrased the second as A number of different symbolic systems, including alchemy, astrology, folklore, heresy and the unconscious mind, have been used to analyse he complex objects and ideas presented in the work., which is not perfect either. Somebody else might have a better wording. Ceoil (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• It's getting better. Zagalejo^^^ 22:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• I'm satisfied now. Zagalejo^^^ 05:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• In "Interpretation", two out of three consecutive sentences begin with "Supporters of this view". Zagalejo^^^ 02:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Changed now. Modernist (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Zagalejo^^^ 17:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, all of my specific comments have been addressed. I should read the article another time, since it seems that there have been lots of other changes, but I think this article is on the featured track. Zagalejo^^^ 05:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Support, with enthusiasm

• First, let me apologize profusely for waiting so long after seeing this appear on the FAC page to review it thoroughly. I was thrilled, thrilled I tell you, to see this article here. I've used this painting to give people an idea of what it's like to think too fast in my head.
• Is this a typo? Belting observes than despite the fact that the creatures in the foreground are fantastical imaginings,

• Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• A question: is this not categorized as surrealist? (As per the question of a legacy, Sir John Tenniel's drawings always reminded me of this painting. But that's me.)

• This is being discussed on talk at the moment. Ceoil (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Do you mean that a surrealist cat should be added (no), or that the obvious influence on surrealism should be mentioned (yes)? Ceoil (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Was this a parable of some kind? "Don't eat cherries with great lords - they'll throw pits in your face."

• Its Lutheran saying, still popular today. I never hear it used myself, but Glum says so, which is good enough for me. Ceoil (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• In Interpretations you have a repeated phrase, "Supporters of this view". Can you variate it?

• I changed it a little. Modernist (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I enjoyed this article, and I thank the editors who worked on it. --Moni3 (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support Moni, glad you enjoyed it. Ceoil (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - I was one of the peer reviewers and find it has improved since and is up to FA standards. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This is about my fifth time thanking you, but thanks again ;). I'm still toying with your mouse-over idea from PR, and we not have a large enough img in the article body to accommodate it.

Comments: a great effort, a very nice article, and "The Garden" is one of my favorite paintings. Good to see Wikipedia getting such a well-written article. The problems I noticed:

• About half of the "Interpretation" section is about Fränger's hypothesis. Yet you state that "his conclusions are regarded by many scholars as a hypothesis only, and built on an unstable foundation." Kind of too much emphasis on a scholar whose theories are not particularly highly regarded, hmm? (Indeed, the three books I own on the painting all either condemn Fränger or ignore his theories altogether.)

• You are absolutely correct about weight, though the books I have devote roughly half of their final analysis to him. The thing is, his analysis and descriptions of the paintings are par none, and most of this conslusions are generally accepted, but his final analysis (the heritical sect) is not. And its that final conclusion only that is not highly regarded. Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, it occured to me that this is the case, but by that time I've already posted the comment. Maybe a little clarification is required in the "While commentators accept.." sentence (i.e. "this conclusion" instead of "his thesis"); but then maybe its just me. Jashiin (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Its not just you! I need to tighten this up. Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I see the paragraph is changed now, looks good. Jashiin (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Jashiin, I think this is the major o/s issue. Do you have any recommendations as to which sources might be useful? Ceoil (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC) should

I'm not sure what "o/s" stands for.. I assume you're asking for sources for doubts about Fränger's hypothesis. Unfortunately I am no expert at all and the only sources I can provide are the same Belting book (p. 17: "[Fränger's] interpretation of the painting [...] had to be based on the assumption, as Fränger himself admitted, that it had been commissioned by someone in a heretic sect - an assumption for which there is no basis, given that the identity of the owner is now known.") and the Taschen book on Bosch, by Walter Bosing (p. 8: "Despite the attention which Fraenger's interpretation exerts on modern sensibilities, however, his basic premise is very questionable. We have no historical evidence that Bosch was ever a member of the Adamites or that he painted for them. In fact, the last certain reference to this group in the Netherlands appears at Brussels in 1411."). Jashiin (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[o/s = outstanding]....Ceoil (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Furthermore, I thought Belting's hypothesis - that the central panel depicts the world in which the Fall has never happened - was more or less well known, and thus deserving of more than a passing mention in the article (and surely he must be cited.)

Yes, good point. Working on this. Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess this is covered now. Jashiin (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• The pointing man is described by Belting as a possible autoportrait (which would be in line with the one in The Temptation of St. Anthony) - probably worth a mention?

Page no please (I'm knee deep in books, tired and confused. Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Its p. 57 in my 2007 edition; the last paragraph of "Another World". Jashiin (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• There's a group of people in the lower left corner of the central panel, one of them pointing at Adam and Eve in the left panel - now, I don't remember exactly, I believe Belting took this gesture as a "this is where we come from" sign. I'd say this is definitely notable enough to be included in the article.
• There's also a snake in a tree in the left panel, a probable reference to Biblical snake. Again, see Belting's book.

• Can't include a mention of everything in this incredibly detailed 5 paneled work. I'm at 33 kB "readable prose size" at the moment, and its growing. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm Considering daughter articles. Ceoil (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I just thought these two examples are particularly important (the first links the two panels, adding emphasis on the "temporal and spatial connection", the second provides Biblican context - well, I'm not too sure about the second, might be just a snake :). But by all means its difficult to choose what to include from such a wealth of material; lets say it was just a suggestion, I'll strike it out. It would be nice if you considered it for the daughter articles, though :) Jashiin (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Brief mention of the snake and its symbolic meaning added. Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Finally, I think there's too much overlap between "Interpretation" and the sections on individual panels; it was kind of confusing for me. Then again, I realize that writing about the pictorial content of the panels flows more naturally when you add interpretations to it.. eh.

The idea is that the description discusses specific motifs and symbols, while the Interpretation is a general overview of intention, and what the work as a whole may have been intended to convey. I'm aware of this, working....Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, now that you mention this, it does make sense, and is probably the only way to deal with the problem. So I'm striking this out as well. Jashiin (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I thought some statements were problematic:

• the large central panel, which may be either a moralisation on earthly temptation and sin or a celebration of sexuality (in the lead) - the article offers more versions than these two, no? Perhaps it would be better to simply say that the exact meaning/intent of the central panel is unknown.

• I went for: The intention behind the large central panel is unknown, and theories range from the belief that is was painted as a moralisation on earthly temptation and sin, to the idea that it might represent a celebration of sexuality. Ceoil (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Perfect! Jashiin (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Bosch painted three triptychs in his lifetime, each of which presents distinct yet linked themes addressing the history and faith of humanity. - I read this as "Bosch only painted three triptychs", which is obviously wrong. If you meant "three triptychs on similar themes", the sentence needs to be reworded and a reference for "similar themes" provided.

• Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• in contrast to Bosch's two other great triptychs - I suggest removing "two other great" due to NPOV issues and the fact that there are many more triptychs (and finding a citation that the ones you mention are "similar" would be difficult).

• Removed "two other" at least. Um, do you not think Belting 85 is sufficient . Maybe should be rephrased as "world triptychs". Either way, I'm not fond of this stubby fragment. Ceoil (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I've reread Belting. He draws a line between "true triptychs" and "merely paintings with three wings", which is kind of um.. wrong? I mean, "The Temptation of St. Anthony" surely has a kind of a narrative, and the outer wings of any Bosch triptych also provide one. Anyway, I think what you suggested here, "world triptychs", would be better than the current revision.

• Instead, this panel shows humanity acting with free will but damning itself through sinful deeds, specifically sexual abandon - as there are many interpretations and you can't really say that they are damning themselves, can you?

• Havn't checked the ref, but damning themselves seems fine to me. Suggestion? Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What I meant is that "damning" implies an interpretation of the picture. "Shows humanity acting with free will, engaging in various sexual activities", or something similar (can't think of a better wording, but surely something better must exist :), would just describe it, which is the goal of this particular part of the text, no? Jashiin (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I see now how it could be confusing. I went for "engaging in various ..." as suggested. Ceoil (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• According to a belief common in the Middle Ages, before the fall Adam and Eve would have copulated without lust, solely to reproduce. - citation needed.

• Covered by Gibson 92-93 one statement later. Ceoil (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• The panel shares a common horizon with the left wing, suggesting a temporal and spatial connection between the two scenes. - citation needed.

• Good catch. Now cited to Linfert, 106–108. Ceoil (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• devices implying that she bears a secret. - citation needed.

• See Reuterswärd, 636. Ceoil (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• This has led some commentators to theorise that the panel represents the world if the two had not been driven out "among the thorns and thistles of the world". - this is what I've been talking about, either Belting should be mentioned or this whole viewpoint better represented under "Interpretation".

• I specifficallt attribute Belting here, though its a common enough conclusion. Ceoil (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• The knight's tail curls back to touch the back of his head, which references the common symbol of eternity; the snake biting its own tail. - citation needed.

• Covered by Fränger, 135 later in the para. Ceoil (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Many elements in the panel are faithful to earlier iconographical conventions of depicting hell. Bosch's innovation was in describing his hell scene not in a fantastical space, but in a realistic world with elements of day-to-day human life. - both sentences need citations.

• Drawn from Belting 35 cited later in the para, though Belting does say the garden "represents an extraordinary heightening of iconographical conventions". Thoughts? Ceoil (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Reread that bit from Belting and I guess its fine the way it is. Jashiin (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Musical instruments often carried erotic connotations in works of art of the period, and lust was referred to in moralising sources as the "music of the flesh". - needs a citation; and isn't it more likely that music was considered something that people succumb too easily to?

The short para is covered by Bosing, 60. And both are true (music of the flesh & something that people succumb too easily to). Ceoil (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Jashiin (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Jashiin, many good content related points above. Many thanks, they are very astute. It will take a few days to work through them. Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The bulk of the second half of your comments related to the density of citation; usually (actually) all statements preceding a ref are covered by that ref ie i don't say: statement 1(ref1) statement 2(ref2) statement 3(ref2); if you know what I mean;) Still these things are worth checking, and I'm working through an audit of all you mentioned. Ceoil (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see it now :) It just occured to me that usually the density of citation is a little bit higher; here things were unclear at times. Anyway, if other reviewers are fine with the density (which seems to be the case?), I am fine with it as well, and apologize if I caused some unnecessary researching. Jashiin (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, its really a matter of preference, and it was a good excercise to go back and check the refs considering the article has been so heavily reworked in the last week. Ceoil (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Another, probably silly thing I thought about: would it be completely unjustified to include a "See also" section with a link to Works of Hieronymus Bosch? Jashiin (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, not very fond of "See also"'s myself. Anyway we have Category:Hieronymus Bosch paintings. Ceoil (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Modernist added a link in the article text. Ceoil (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that all the issues I've raised above were addressed, I wholeheartedly support the nomination. This is my first time as a FAC reviewer and it is great to know that my vote goes to such a wonderful article about a fantastic, awe-inspiring painting. Ceoil has reacted extremely well to all suggestions, as did other editors involved; all in all, this a great effort fully deserving of the FA status. --Jashiin (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Request Can reviewers strike comments they feel are resolved. The feedback has been very constructive and helpful so far, but I'm afraid I'll miss something given the volume of suggestions....Ceoil (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Awadewit, Zagalejo and Jashiin all have substantial issues to be resolved. Bear with me. Ceoil (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Comments just getting started.I am a neophyte on the criticisms and commentary but it reads well. (i.e. I trust that the discussion above is leading to a consensus on this tricky area) Well done. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

::The Garden of Earthly Delights (or The Millennium)[1] is a triptych painting by the early Netherlandish master Hieronymus Bosch (c. 1450–1516), now in the Museo del Prado in Madrid. - sounds like painter is in Madrid. I'd reword it to "The Garden of Earthly Delights (or The Millennium)[1] is a triptych painting by the early Netherlandish master Hieronymus Bosch (c. 1450–1516), and is now housed in the Museo del Prado in Madrid." Or, put 'exhibited' for 'housed' and maybe drop the 'and'. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Visual_arts/Art_Manual_of_Style#Museums_and_collections deprecates the housing, locating and residing of works of art, and similar TimeLifery. I don't really think it is ambiguous, but the comma and "now" could be dropped. No doubt it is nearly always on display/exhibited but it is best to avoid this also. If elaboration is needed, which it isn't really, "in the collection of" is best. Johnbod (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as an unhappy side-point, I went to the Palazzo Ducale in Venice last weekend to see his Last Judgement, and the two outer panels were off display, and under restoration. Ceoil (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The word 'Bosch' appears in each of the first four sentences. I know it is hard to do but maybe rewording so at least one can be removed would be prudent. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been expecting you, Mr Casliber, given your (now famous!) interest in mushrooms, and the often psychedelic interpretations of this work ;). Working on your so far points. Thanks so far. Ceoil (talk)

Har, couldn't miss reviewing one of my favourite paintings now could I? heheheCheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments Oh, how I enjoyed this! I've done a string of copyedit fixes, mostly minor punctuation tweaks. Some other issues:

• The caption for the exterior panels image should convey the same uncertainty about the 3rd day issue that is expressed in the article text.

• There is no uncertainty about this. Its the article body that is vague. Must fix, bear with me. Ceoil (talk) 04:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Now reads The exterior panels show the world during creation, probably on the third day, after the addition of plant life but before the appearance of humanity. Ceoil (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• The Exterior section is now in agreement, but the lead needs a little tweaking for this. Maralia (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Done: likely during the third day. Ceoil (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• That same image impinges on the section header below; please move it to the right side.

• This is a brouser issue. I have ie5 and the most recent firefox, and a res of 1152 on windows. And it seems fine. Ceoil (talk) 05:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm also on firefox, but 1440x900 widescreen. Of course not everything can be optimized for widescreen, but I don't see that there would be any sort of aesthetic loss from moving the image to the right in this case. Am I missing something? Maralia (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Done, see below. Ceoil (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• "Because the triptych was publicly displayed in the palace of the House of Nassau, it was visible to many, and Bosch's reputation quickly spread across Europe." - 'reputation' feels imprecise here; aren't you really getting at the spread of his influence?

• Can of worms. See the talk page on efforts to establish his influence. Ceoil (talk) 04:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Went for "reputation and fame". Ceoil (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• "interpretation of his work can be an extremely difficult and dangerous area for academics" - dangerous? :)

Well yes, dangerous. The realm of conjecture is not a safe place to be for academics. Ok for consultants, bad for academics. It destroyed Fränger. Ceoil (talk) 04:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't really come across in the text; you make it clear that Fränger's conclusions are largely rejected, but not until much later in the section, and without any commentary on the impact on his career. No opinion on whether you should elaborate on this, but without a better connection with 'dangerous', it reads as hyperbole (the perils of art criticism!). Maralia (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Took out the word dangerous. Now reads interpretation of his work can be an extremely difficult area for academics as it is largely reliant on conjecture. Ceoil (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• "the left panel shows human beings' initial state of innocence in Eden, the center shows the subsequent corruption of that innocence, and finally in the right panel, their punishment in Hell." - there's a disconnect in syntax here, with verbs being given for the first two but not the last one.

• Dunno what you mean here, as a self confessed semi-literate. Can you look after this yourself, you seem handy with prose :). Ceoil (talk) 04:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've rewritten it; I'm not terribly pleased with my rewrite, but it's better, I think. Maralia (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• "E. H Gombrich drew on a close reading of Genesis and the Gospel According to Saint Matthew to suggest that the central panel is, according to Linfert, "the state of mankind"" - Gombrich suggested something according to Linfert?

On the whole, the prose is very good, the images lovely, and the reference formatting excellent. On a personal note, I'm so very pleased that the article introduces scholars (i.e. "the art historian Ludwig von Baldass"); a 'new' name with no context really disrupts the flow for me. Thanks for a really interesting read. Maralia (talk) 04:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for these. The article will be much tighter after the suggestions are resolved. Ceoil (talk) 05:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

One additional item:

• The Dürer image and its lengthy caption extend more than a paragraph past the subsequent section header for me. If the bulk of the image caption was moved into the main text of the Sources section, it would help solve that issue from two angles. Thoughts?

Make sence. Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Maralia (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Support but I have a few quibbles that I'd like to see addressed.

• Okay, I minored in art history, but what exactly is a "true triptych"? Probably should explain that.

The reference says: A "true triptych", or "world triptych", is generally considered one which addresses the history and fate of humanity. We had a longer, clumsier definition in the text earlier, but this Belting ref seems adequate..Modernist (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is one of the issues I raised above (search for "world triptych"). Belting clearly forces his own POV in the book, that some of triptychs are "true triptychs" and some are "merely paintings with several wing panels". He does mention "art historians" who use the term "world triptychs", so I suggested this should be used instead of "true" to avoid POV and, more importantly, clarify the situation for the reader (because "world", with the subsequent explanation already included, is easier to understand than "true"). Searching books.google.com for instances of either term, by the way, yields practically nothing. Jashiin (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is only referring to Bosch's triptychs - most triptychs just have a Virgin & Child, Crucifixion etc in the centre, and saints, donors etc on the outer wings. If either term is used, explanation is needed. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The definition is more specific now in defining "true triptych". Hopefully more clear. Modernist (talk) 10:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I still see this as a rather POV-ish issue, mainly due to the word "true" (i.e. other triptychs are then, logically, "false", and I'm pretty sure that the line "the three panels in each are necessary and essential to the meaning of the whole" can be disputed (i.e. one may argue that in "The Temptation of St. Anthony" you have to examine all three panels to get the full scope of the narrative), but I guess if Belting and others approve of the term its not that bad. So I withdrew my earlier comment about this. Just wanted to mention the issues that might arise in the future. Jashiin (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, cut so "True triptych" is mentioned in the lead only, accompanied by a footnote. Gone from the lower section, which now reads Bosch painted three large triptychs in which each panel are necessary and essential to the meaning of the whole. Each of these triptychs present distinct yet linked themes addressing the history and faith of humanity. Can I go home now please ;) Ceoil (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Triptych section, last sentence shouldn't that be "altar" not "alter"?

• Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Any reason we're going with Netherlandish and not Dutch?

Most definitely! See Netherlandish - Bosch was much too early for "Dutch", and in fact the area where he spent his whole life, round 's-Hertogenbosch, only joined the Dutch Republic very late, in 1648, essentially by conquest, so that it was not subsequently trusted with provincial self-government, but ruled by the Federal government. Johnbod (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Same section, perhaps "spendid" not "splendorous"?

• Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• MOS issue, shouldn't the quotation from Psalm 33 be in quote marks, not italics?

• Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Left panel, any reason not to use "contemporary" rather than "contemporaneous"?

Actually we are using both. Contemporaneous is used to describe the Europeans of the day and what they saw, which is less ambiguous and more time specific than contemporary, while Contemporary is being used to describe travel literature which in context seems okay. Modernist (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Don't hit me, but perhaps convert the measurements into Imperial units?

Should be both or metric, as even Anglo art historians use metric these days. Johnbod (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was asking for both, with the imperial in ()'s. That's all. I'm too old to learn to think in metric. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Right panel, fifth paragraph, the first sentence is awkward, especially the part "earlier iconographical conventions of depicting hell." I think you want to lose the "of" there.

• Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Sources and context section, fourth paragraph, the last sentence is lacking context for why this is significant. Why is that particular engraving important? Where is this scene reproduced?

The previous sentence gives the context (or one interpretation of it), but evidently not clearly enough. The location in the Bosch should be added. Johnbod (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Same section, last paragraph, the first sentence is very dense. "...actualized and made empirical regions previously only idealised in the imagination..." errr. do you mean that the areas no longer were regions where artists and poets could imagine anything they wished? I'm not sure exactly what is meant by this sentence and it's rather hard to understand.

• Simplified. Ceoil (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

All in all a very nice article on a very strange painting. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Ealdgyth, tending to you remaining suggestions now. Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support from one fortunate enough to have seen the original. I have made some minor edits, [17] GrahamColm^Talk 13:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and ce. Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong Support for an excellent article. JNW (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by nominator For the sake of disclosure, the article has grown from 28 kB readable text since nom'd,[18] to 38 kB, however this has largely been in responce to gaps highlighted by reviewers. A "legacy" section is being sketched here, which will likely add a further 5 kB. Most additions have been commented upon, just remembering B-movie. Ceoil (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Good memory; different situation :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:Raul654 01:36, 27 May 2008 [19].

---

[edit] Preity Zinta

previous FAC

This article, about an Indian actress, is already a WP:GA. It has had a long history on WP. It first achieved GA status, A status thanks to the great help of User:Blofeld of SPECTRE, and after failing its first FAC, was nominated for GA reassessment, delisted and returned to B. However, it marked the beginning of new understandings, collaborative work, and with help from User:Dwaipayanc and User:John Carter, it has improved a lot and came back to the GA position.

Now, after months of hard work, two peer reviews, I think it finally meets the FA criteria. Please leave your comments, and I'll be more than happy to address any of them.

With best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: double-check links; current ref 52 ("Preity Zinta's column for BBC website gets overwhelming response") appears dead. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support -This article in my view has been FA standard since Christmas time at least and on assessment of why it failed FA before I believe this has been improved even further and any outstanding issues have been addressed. Well referenced, informative, well written article, an excellent source of encyclopedic imformation, uses the most reliable sources possible, given that she is an Indian actress not an American. It looks like a solid article all round and given the incredible amount of work and nurturing put into it over the last 9 months is a clear FA for me. Any outstanding issues which caused it to be demoted before I believe have been fully addressed. I think Wikipedia should be proud to have such a developed article on an Indian actress, many editors on here are using the article as a prototype for how an article on an Indian actor or actress should look like and has since seen the development of other articles based on the structure of this one. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 18:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: Significant contributor. Please don't forget WP:FAC instructions: "If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Moni3:

• I strongly suggest you put the article at WP:LOCE right now to have experienced English writers assist with those elements of style that continue to elude even accomplished writers. For instance, the first paragraphs in Personal life have very little variation of beginning. They mostly start with "Zinta..." You're offering a very well-researched article that needs minor (but many) tweaks in the style to make it flow brilliantly.
• Some of Zinta's films seem to have made an impact due to their addressing complex social issues in Indian culture. Those social issues may not be self-explanatory to non-Indians. You may have to include examples of her impact. For example, she played an young single mother in one movie. This would not be a big deal in the US. Can you provide perhaps phrases from critics, or examples of the reaction to these apparently controversial roles?

I wish you luck with this article. --Moni3 (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, and for the encouragement. The article has been listed on WP:LOCE for over half a year now, but results are still pending.

In regard to your second comment, yeh, these roles were quite racy by Indian standards, that is why she has been credited with bringing a change. But these roles are by no means new to Indian cinema. I did add critics' comments for almost every role, but some films miss reviews on the net, and if there are, they're either unreliable or missing details regarding those particular issues. I will try to find something. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - just because she's written a couple of columns (which, in the case of celebrities, are pften ghost written/rewritten by somebody else) doesn't make her a columnist. indopug (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, and I didn't want to write that she's a columnist initially. But the sources you can find in the section, clearly describe her as columnist. Furthermore, in the lead, right after writing that she is a columnist, there's a sentence "having written..." which makes it quite clear why she is described as columnist, giving the reader the space to make his own conclusions. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment — I should have added "She was seen blowing kisses at Yuvraj Singh" :) Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL!!! Well done, I'll add that ASAP! :) Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://ibosnetwork.com/default.aspx
  • http://boxofficeindia.com/index.php
  • http://www.indiafm.com/index.html

All other links worked and checked out fine for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

indiaFM is the leading Bollywood entertainment website in India. All the Bollywood stars make appearances on there, it is one of the best known sites featuring content re Bollywood, reviews, news, interviews. It is also rated always very highly on Alexa's ratings.

boxofficeindia.com is a leading site for box office figures in Bollywood. Their "about us" and "disclaimers" sections are quite clear and detailed about their way of working. Not only Wikipedia, but famous and reputable newspapers like The Times of India, Hindustan Times etc use it as a source of information (see this article for example).

IBOSnetwork.com is also a well-known site for box office figures in India. Again, their sections prove that.

Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave these out for other reviewers to see your answers, since we don't see a lot of Indian films at FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, Lage Raho Munnabhai and Satyajit Ray are the only Indian cinema-related FAs so far. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment In the February WP:GA discussion I stated:
• Here is my problem with the current lead. All award winning actress WP:FA's except Judy Garland state clearly in the first paragraph a summary of her awards in a manner similar to two-time Filmfare Award-winning actress:

  Angelina Jolie - She has received three Golden Globe Awards, two Screen Actors Guild Awards, and an Academy Award.

  Jenna Jameson - By 1996, she had won the three top newcomer awards from pornographic film industry organizations. She has since won more than 20 adult film awards

  Bette Davis - two-time Academy Award-winning American actress of film

  Diane Keaton - Academy Award-winning American film actress,

  Vivien Leigh - She won two Academy Awards

  Miranda Otto - Logie Award-winning Australian actress

  Sharon Tate - Golden Globe-nominated American actress.

  • Miss Zinta still does not make clear the nature of her success in the first paragraph of the lead like the vast majority of other FA actresses. Critical recognition is one of the first things a reader looks for when reading an actor/actress page. Please consider adding the phrase "two-time Filmfare Award-winning actress" to the first paragraph of the lead.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Tony! The reason I don't add this, is a decision taken by editors of Wikiproject:Indian Cinema. If it was a National Film Award, I would have definetely added it, like we mostly do on Indian film related articles. But Filmfare, as it was decided, are not cricket scores, they should not be used to "rank" actresses in terms of awards won.

Another reason is the previous FAC, at which one user said it was POV to start an article like that. And believe me, there is a big difference between Filmfare awards and the Oscars.

Thirdly, the awards are already mentioned a number of times. In the first paragraph it says she won a Filmfare Best Female Debut award; in the second, she won the Best Actress award. Also the infobox provides that.

I'm enormously impressed with your keenness to see this article in better shape. I'm grateful for that. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes remember I added this before but it was removed. I thought it should be more specific to mention it in the intro too ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• From what I gather National Film Award is the top award and Filmfare Award is a lesser award. In the U.S. there are four or five lead worthy awards: Academy Award, Golden Globe Award, Emmy Award, Tony Award, Screen Actors Guild Award. If you have won or been nominated for any of these, the totals go in the lead paragraph. All other awards basically don't make the lead. I am not sure of an in between solution where they belong in the lead, but not summarized in the first paragraph. Thus I am confused. You currently are standing behind having a summary of who she is scattered throughout the lead. If Filmfare is important enough for the lead, it should be in the first para, IMO. It is probably as big as a Logie Award, but I don't know. I don't really buy this argument, but if Filmfare is the equivalent of a lesser US award I would let it slide.
• I absolutely do not buy the argument that saying she is a "two-time Filmfare Award-winning actress" would be POV. It would not. See actresses above.
• Your third argument about standing behind scattering the awards is not so hot. Basically, it seems to be the prevailing standard for important critical acknowledgement, but if it is not an important award, it can slide.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you always compare this article to American actresses' ones. See articles like Cillian Murphy, Eric Bana. I'm doing something which was already decided a long time ago. The Filmfare is an important function, but as many here, I think it's a big POV saying she is award-winning before mentioning her occupation.

Filmfare Awards is definitely a prestigious award ceremony, it is, and one of the oldest and most prominent film events, alongside the NFA.

However, in contrast to the National Film Awards, which are decided by a panel appointed by Indian Government, the Filmfare Awards are voted for by both the public and a committee of experts. Also, National Awards are given to every possible actor in India for his work, in all the regional languages, regardless of what industry he works in, while the Filmfare — only Hindi films (Bollywood).

It was a decision, and as you see, several articles don't introduce awards in the first para, ie Cillian Murphy, who won some Irish award, and received a Golden Globe nomination.

Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

SUPPORT - Despite my continuing unresolved quibble, the article is fantastic. It continues to evolve toward a higher level of quality and refinement.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Why not "In addition to being an actress, Zinta has written columns for BBC News Online South Asia..." since you agree with about her not being a columnist? Please delinks individual years in the filmography table. Didn't she change her name from something like "Preeti Zinta" a while back due to numerology issues? (Hence the weird spelling) Please try to ensure that a word is not repeated many times in close proximity, it reads very poorly--"The film, based on the 1991 film". indopug (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but the sources show otherwise. She was born Preity Zinta, she was never known as Preeti. These are not individual links, they link to list offilms of each mentioned year, but I'll remove it if you want.

As for the latter comment... What do you suggest? Maybe to change it to "movie"? :) Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Yeeah remove those year links, how is a list of films released that year useful? No, I think "movie" is not professional/formal. The Silence of the Lambs (1991) is fine. I don't think we have to go with the sources on the columnist; its not as simple an issue as fact or non-fact. If somebody is of the opinion that somebody else (who is already famous BTW) is a columnist after writing just four columns, then it remains just that—an opinion. The only reason she was given the opportunity to write a column in the first place was because she was already a famous actress. Ask around for other editors' opinions too, maybe we can reach a consensus. indopug (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I'll remove them now. I have asked one editor for his opinion re columns/columnists. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well - rephrased as you suggested, removed links to years. Still waiting for the editor to reply. Thank you. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm the person mentioned above or not. I might change the phrasing of one sentence to "In addition to her work as an film actress, Zinta regularly perfoms on the stage, and has written a series of popular columns for BBC News Online South Asia". I also note that I am probably less than objective about the subject myself, having been involved in the article for some time, but do not see any serious impediments to Supporting the article. And if there are any other specific concerns about phrasing, I ask that anyone specificy them here, so that we can all do what we can to address them. John Carter (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Noting the buried support in the comment above; please refer to WP:FAC instructions when declaring Support or Oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Removed columnist, and rephrased as suggested by John on my talk page. Thanks for the comments, Indopug. Now what are we gonna do with the "Columnist" section? Shouldn't it be renamed? Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Changed to column writing. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - This article seems to have improved tremendously since the last time I saw it. Congratulations to everyone involved for that. However, the question here is whether it is ready for FA-hood. The answer, imo is a firm NO. The improvement of the last few months notwithstanding, the article falls short on many counts. For one, sources - boxofficeindia.com, ibosnetwork, indiantelevision.com etc., are not WP:RS sources for claims as exceptional as box-office figures etc.,. Secondly, though I am not a stickler for "brilliant prose" as long as it flows smoothly, is reasonably well-written and all other more important things like sources, NPOV, UNDUE etc are taken care of, I must still say that this article needs several rounds of cpedit before I can call it even "reasonably well written". More than the prose, the article needs to be checked for content and encyclopedicity. Sentences like --

"Zinta, a self-confessed tomboy in the early stages of her life, was influenced primarily by her father.[10] As a child groomed in an army household, she grew up with values such as discipline and punctuality.[10]"

are not even encyclopedic. It goes without saying that every child is influenced by its parents and "grew up with values such as discipline and punctuality" is just fluff. And all this is sourced, I think (correct me if I am wrong) to an indulgent page 3 interview with a newspaper(?). I am sure, the article has more such instances.

Also, "References" are not the same as "Notes"/"Footnotes" and it would greatly help if the ==References== section listed all the references which the notes source from. Also, I think the footnotes need to be made consistent for style and syntax. And given that the entire article is sourced to websites, it may be a good idea to explore some way of optimising the referencing, so editors dont have to keep tripping over lengthy {{cite web|....}} tags in edit-mode. Sarvagnya 22:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Box Office India the official website for statistics on the Indian Box Office not a valid source???? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, boxofficeindia.com is a leading site for box office figures in Bollywood. Their "about us" and "disclaimers" sections are quite clear and detailed about their way of working. Not only Wikipedia, but famous and reputable newspapers like The Times of India, Hindustan Times etc use it as a source of information (see this article for example). So let's assume we can't use BOI, but we can use Hindustan Times; they use it as their source of information, as you can see in the ref. So what else can you do? It's clearly reliable. And I'm not going to discuss it here, it was already discussed and accepted by User:Spartaz and User:Nichalp who are great contributors, and you are not the one to decide what a WP:RS source is, and what a WP:RS source is not. Your way of presenting your views as obvious facts is IMO wrong, the right way is to ask what the reliability of the source is, in an appropriate manner, as it was done by another editor in this very FAC. We cannot always wander around the same issue. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, disregarding my personal preferences for books and non-tabloid newspapers, which are not available anyway, if someone is used by another as a source of information that doesn't mean the first is reliable, since reporters interview eyewitnesses who are primary sources, but the eyewitness put up their own blog, that doesn't become reliable. Unfortunately the way the world works is that the "reliable news sources" get stuff of random people and turn it into "solid info" - I'd like to get a personal benefit if being used by a reliable source makes one reliable - because the ToI copied my Wikipedia articles - then I could declare myself to be a notable cricket pundit and put my OR on Wikipedia. Unfortunately not, from a pure vanity point of view. :( Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeh I agree, but there must be some guideline for that. Boxofficeindia.com is a very well recognised website, and the info on there is precise and correct. I know that ToI have unreliable sections like cricket.indiatimes, ipl.indiatimes, but the original site newspaper is very reliable, and it uses and mentions boxofficeindia quite a few times. But let's assume we cannot base ourselves on only one source even if it's a newspaper, but we have also Hindustan Times (! the link given). All of them, major newspapers, use the source -- and use means, they say "according to boxofficeindia.com..." Why shouldn't Wikipedia? If they can, I can't see why Wikipedia cannot.

The site iteself looks great in terms of readability and reliability. Everything, their "disclaimer", "about us" sections are detailed. Their way of working is clear, they are very clear about everything. They also often answer questions addressed to them be readers. It's clearly a credible/reliable source. Sarvagnya was the only one to claim that it's unreliable during the first FAC and during this one. If I wasn't sure of this site's reliability, I would certainly have removed that in the time of the very first FAC. The main problem with Indian sites is their lack of international/wide recognition. That's why they're often considered unreliable. Shahid • ^Talk2me 04:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, your point "not even encyclopedic" is not valid unless you write what policy you are basing your claim on. This sentence was copyedited several times, and is now very well balanced and sourced. We say that she was primarily influenced by her father, and it is not an obvious fact. Also, you never know what kind of a family a girl can be grown up in. It can be a poor family or a criminal one. Other FAs about actors/singers also describe the person's childhood. I believe it is encyclopedic. I was quite sure you would oppose when you see this article, but nevertheless, it's your decision. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as Sarvagnya has told, many sentences in this article are based on Zinta's interviews (page 3 or not). However, I don't think this can be a point of objection, since the words are from the horse's mouth. Regarding the syntax of references, the article consistently uses one style (cite web), which is not only ok, but recommended. --Dwaipayan (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding influences on the subject, such content is obviously very relevant when on is writing an encyclopedic biography article. In fact, I have reason to believe that, in at least some encyclopedia articles, it is even expected. I would ask the person who objects to such content to examine that such information is even included in some infoboxes, like Template:Infobox artist and Template:Infobox philosopher. If information on the influences of a person is significant enough to even be included in those infoboxes, I cannot see how similar information is not significant enough to be mentioned in the article itself. John Carter (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment:

Along with Ness Wadia and others, Zinta in 2008 acquired ownership rights for the Mohali Twenty20 cricket team of the Indian Premier League.[104] The group paid $ 76 million to acquire the franchise, and have since renamed the team Kings XI Punjab.[105]

• Shouldn't this be in the ==Other work== section.
• Was it really renamed the team "Kings XI Punjab" or simply named? If the franchise was renamed then what was the previous name?

Side comment: A controversy not mentioned in the article which was telecated by TV channels that some of the players of the team were shabbily treated and asked to move out of the Taj hotel to a less opulent place to accomodate some her guests". KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I changed it to "named" - you're right. But I don't think these two sentences can be shifted to the other work section. There is one - columns, one - Humanitarian work, and one - stage performer. So I don't know where I can add it in. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As the craze and coverage of IPL increases, and Zinta has involved herself in a heavy way with the team, perhaps it was time to create a subsection for her owning the cricket team. The subsection has now been created. Please see if it suffices.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does suffice and the section shall grow as the IPL progresses. BTW I feel the title should be something like "Ownership of IPL team". KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Subsection renamed "Ownership of Indian Premier League team".--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - The article has tremendously improved since its last FAC. Overall, it is well-written, informative, cohesive and most importantly, well-sourced. Great job guys and all the best with this article!! --Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 18:51, 1 May 2008

Oppose—Much improved, although I still had to remove some overlinking. Not at all sufficiently well-written. Needs fresh eyes by a good copy-editor throughout. Here are just a few examples from the lead (you'd think the lead would be better than the rest, actually).

• Now why would I object to the linking of "English language"? Second sentence, too. Makes fools of us.
  • You mean you want the link to be removed? Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• There's flab and a lack of cohesion here, right at the start: "She subsequently displayed her range, taking on a number of roles as characters of a diverse nature, and in doing so, has been credited with bringing a change in the image of Hindi film heroine." "Range" means what? I don't want to have to ponder it in reverse after finishing the sentence. "Roles" and "characters" are hardly worth differentiating here, are they? "characters of a diverse nature"—five words could be just two. Remove comma after "so". "bringing a change in" could be just one word.
  • Done - Changed to "She would subsequently take on a variety of character types, and in doing so has been credited with changing the image of Hindi film heroine." Please tell me if that's OK. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• MOS issues: " the science fiction Koi... Mil Gaya, her biggest commercial success to date"—"science" was hanging at the end of the line for me: hyphenate it here, since it's a double adjective, yes? "To date"—what date? This is worthless in the future, so remove it and just make the statement; someone would have to update it either way.
  • Done - hyphenated and removed "to date". Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• "Cross-border"—Some people may be in on the secret, but to know that it means "India–Pakistan border" is too much. We shouldn't have to hit the link (piped, it turns out) to discover this.
  • Changed to "star-crossed" as per John's below suggestion. Done? Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

TONY (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Tony, and thanks for the comments. Let me please take a glance. Also, I must say, writing the lead is IMO probably the most difficult task in writing a BLP article. :) Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you think about removing the link completely? Cross-border romance doesn't necessarily have to take place in India. It's quite universal. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Not knowing the details of the subject, would calling them "a star-crossed romance of a Indian and a Pakistani" work? John Carter (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess that yes! But is "of a Indian and a Pakistani" necessarily needed in the lead? Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I've begun copyediting this article, and have finished the lead. I'll get to the rest of it soon (probably tomorrow); perhaps folks can have a look at the lead and let me know how they feel so far so I know if I'm on the right track, or if there are other things I need to look for? Thanks. – Scartol • Tok 15:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong Support: Well written, notable and valid. Furthermore, two relatively back to back featured articles on the Main Page, Satyajit Ray and this, would trigger off a large influx of effort towards Indian films. Universal Hero (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support It's a very good article. I see no reason to oppose. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• I just noticed someone changing the first sentence of Early life [20] and was surprised to find the reference [21] didn't support the sentence. It's also geared to kids and was used four times. I've replaced one with a recent Times of India article that supports the line (possibly a self-referential copy from here, though.) The reference for the 1975 year of birth [22] is only a couple paragraphs, and another ref from the same site, also used in this article [23], says 1974. The article should at least cite something like The Tribune [24]. It might be good to check some of the other refs and replace the weak ones with better sources. Gimmetrow 06:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it was a very common mistake before 2004-5 but then started to change. Since 2005, it has changed and even in interviews she indicates she was born in 1975. Now every article clearly states she is 33-year-old. Regarding the source, I confused it with another source in this sction. You can see the old discussions in the talk page archive regarding her age. The Rediff source was added because it is the most recent one. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

So, can we do anything to reduce use of sources geared to kids ("My Fundays")? What indicates that [25] is "not a reliable section in this site"? Just wondering, because many of the Rediff pages don't look very strong. The Tribune link I give above is more recent than the Rediff one used for the year of birth, by the way. Gimmetrow 00:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What is "geared to kids"?

No problem. I'll add the Tribune, the problem is that I didn't find it in the source. BTW, Rediff is very reliable.

As for the site, the sections ipl., cricket., are almost always conducted by who knows who, not the site's principals, and take their info from the net. Note, only these sections. Others no. Shahid • ^Talk2me 04:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the Tribune site does not give us her full date of birth. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually it does, it just has the two parts separated by a couple paragraphs. "Geared to kids" means the "My Fundays" page is written for children; it has "telekids" in the url. It's only being used twice now so it's not so bad. However, the article has lost the definition for ref #28. Gimmetrow 20:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• OT: Scartol has copyedited the article. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Three non-free images that don't appear to improve the reader's understanding of the article and thus fail our non-free image policy WP:NFCC, notably WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Black Kite 17:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

These images provide a critical commentary. Please see WP:FU. Also, please see other FAs like Diane Keaton and Cillian Murphy among others -- all use FU images. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, WP:FU is a guideline on using non-free images; WP:NFCC is the relevant policy. None of the images are discussed in the text, and thus fail WP:NFCC#8 (and probably WP:NFCC#3a as well). Black Kite 20:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well there appears to be a significant misunderstanding in perception of what is acceptable. Many people believe the use of the images is within guidelines as yes the text does discuss these films. Have you not read the article? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledge that the editor resisting the inclusion of the photos may have a point. However, I would ask him to review the two FU pictures in Cillian Murphy. The amount of discussion of the roles and images in both articles seems at least to me to be roughly similar. I acknowledge that Murphy has only two such images, while this has three, and that might be a significant difference. But the amount of direct discussion of the images, and the works from which the images are derived, seem to be roughly similar, and Murphy was only recently promoted to FA. If we were perhaps given clearer indications as to how he perceives the usage to be different, I think that would be very welcome. John Carter (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If I had seen that FAC review I would have argued that the first image fails WP:NFCC as well, to be honest (OK, it shows Murphy as the evil villain, but does it really say anything the text doesn't?). The second one, as I mention below, appears to hit NFCC#8 sufficiently. Black Kite 21:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed regarding the first image. Not entirely sure what the second image actually illustrates though, maybe the "androgynous" part or the fact that he makes a passable female? I'm not trying to be smart or anything, by the way. I hope you realize that. I'm just not sure. John Carter (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

as a trial I'm removed all the copywrighted images and I have to say I think it affects the quality of the article. Two of the images I consider encyclopedia. The larger beatuiful picture of Zinta in KANK, the bottom one however I have to admit was more decoratative but the teenager mother and image of her with Khan in a Filmfar award winning role I think are encyclopedic and help understanding and visualize her role as an actress ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

They don't necessarily all have to be removed if they can be critically discussed in the text. For example, what the lower image in Cillian Murphy shows is clearly discussed in the text next to it, and the image thus improves the reader's understanding of that passage. If the images in this article can be shown to be justified by the increased understanding of the reader, that's fine, but they can't really just be random images of the actress in various films. Black Kite 21:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually the Diane Keaton article has four screenshots. Does this mean it should be demoted? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, yes, it should. Unfortunately the problem of articles passing FAC despite failing NFCC has been going for a long time - I only became aware of it recently whilst doing some NFCC patrol with my sock. Black Kite 21:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you still firm on your oppose? Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that those images have now been removed. Please comment on the actual content of the article thankyou. Many FA's have passed FA with many screenshots across wikipedia. Perhaps its time the site stuck to one policy as double standard is isn't a good look ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree. After all, we do have a policy regarding the use of non-free images and I would have thought that it would be the de facto standard to which all articles should adhere. I do need to make it clear that it is not the use of non-free images per se that is the problem - if they can used in a way that is aligned with WP:NFCC. Obviously I have struck my oppose now the images have been removed, but I will certainly have a look to see if there is a policy-compliant manner that at least some may be used. The problem is that most of images of Zinta uploaded so far are just "here's a picture of one or two people in a film" type images. I tried hi.wiki but their article doesn't help [26] (many other wikis don't allow NF images at all, though).Black Kite 22:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"They don't necessarily all have to be removed if they can be critically discussed in the text." - but all of the images are critically discussed in the article. Kya Kehna was her first major breakthrough, as well as Kal Ho Naa Ho, which won her the Best Actress at the Filmfare. Apart from that. Her role in KANK was appreciated and the film is Bollywood's biggest hit in the overseas market ever. So what are we doing now? I first want you guys to make some rules clear. If it cannot be used here, it cannot be used in other articles including the so nice FAs about Cillian and Diane. as your quote above provides, I'll add as of now two images from the first two films I mentioned. They are clearly and specifically and critically discussed in the article, and the rationale itself, if you see, is perfect. Comments? Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No - critical discussion means that the image itself is discussed, not that the film that it portrays is discussed. As a rule of thumb, the question you need to ask yourself is "if I removed this image, would the article be more difficult for the reader to understand?" Black Kite 19:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, I agree completely. And that was exactly what I felt while adding the images. It took quite some time to do that. The images illustrate the info of the text perfectly. For example the Kal Ho Naa Ho image illustrates the film as being a tearjerker, and the award she won is mentioned as well. It provides a critical commentary on the film and its contents. so does the KANK image, so does the Kya Kehna one. It was a long and hard work writing and composing the rationale, explaining everything in details. Have you seen the rationales? And without the images, it's definitely difficult for the reader to understand more about her and her work in an Indian film industry, especially considering the lack of knowledge people across the globe have about Bollywood and Indian cinema. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support

Much improved, support conditional on sourcing issue below. Oppose, copyediting needed before this is ready. Problems easily spotted - several errors found just in the first paragraph of the lead.

• • I don't care for the phrase "in Bollywood" as that is not a physical location to my knowledge.

Yes, but it is an internationally recognised term, which makes it much easier for the Western reader to understand, who does not really know what Hindi cinema is. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• • "She has appeared in Hindi films produced in Bollywood, as well as Telugu and English-language movies." Grammar.. need parallel structure of phrases.

Changed. Please tell me if it looks better now. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Stylistic but ungrammatical commas - example: "After graduating with a degree in criminal psychology, Zinta made her acting debut in Dil Se in 1998, followed by a role in Soldier the same year."

mmm I really don't know what you mean. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I mean that commas are used where you might "pause" in speech but they are not proper grammar. Generally speaking, you do not use a comma to separate a clause that does not stand on its own as a sentence. In the example above, the clause is "... followed by a role in Soldier the same year."

Thank you for the explanation. I've removed the comma, and I'll try to address this point in other sentences with improper grammar. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you please give some more examples for that? Because I'm not sure. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like most of them have been fixed. I will remove any others I see. --Laser brain (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• • "She would subsequently take on a variety of character types, and in doing so has been credited with changing the image of Hindi film heroine." Grammar.. missing article.

There is no article about Hindi film heroine. What's the grammar problem? Could you please elaborate? Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think he means there should be a "the" before "Hindi film heroine". Or made plural. But this is an exact quote from one of the cited sources. Gimmetrow 22:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I meant. If it's an exact quote, why isn't it in quotes? Anyway, maybe we should rephrase instead of quoting poor English. --Laser brain (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No it is not an exact quote. I thought "the" would be a bit odd as it is not a definite term, so I added "a". What do you say Laser? Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see

(source) "Credited with bringing a change in the image of Hindi film heroine"[27]

(here) "credited with changing the image of Hindi film heroine."

My mistake. Gimmetrow 19:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Many sentences are too long, containing a mess of commas and semicolons and expressing too many ideas. Readability is affected. Example: "Zinta, who describes herself as a tomboy as a child, has emphasised her father's military background as having a lasting impression on how family life was conducted, asserting the importance of discipline and punctuality to the children."

Done - divided into two. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - but the whole article needs attention to this matter. --Laser brain (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh OK no problem, I'll try to figure these out. Do you have some additional examples? Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Another editor has fixed the ones I spotted. --Laser brain (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't understand what you are trying to say here: "Introducing Zinta as Preeti Nair, a middle-class Delhi girl and Khan's fiancee, the film was considered an unusual launch for a newcomer, as her role called for only 20 minutes of screen time." I don't see where your source backs up anything about this being an "unusual launch" for a newcomer.

Oh sorry yeh. The ref comes right after the following sentence. Would you like me to separate the sentences into two? Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I see it now. It is fine. --Laser brain (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

--Laser brain (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments Laser_brain. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think overall this is a quite good article. I've been trying to fact-check the sources. For the most part they do back up the article, but they are sometimes used in odd ways. For instance, this article has all of three sentences on Zinta, but it was referenced four times (now three). This article is largely about her films, but it's used to reference a quote about boarding school. This isn't really wrong, but it would seem more natural to have more cites from the longer, more substantial articles. Finally, about being "credited with changing the image of the Hindi film heroine" - this was cited to the three-sentence one I just mentioned. OK, but it doesn't really explain how. This article, however, is precisely about the redefinition of the Indian heroine, and mentions Zinta. That seems to me more on point. Gimmetrow 22:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeh thanks. I think articles should not be necessarily long to qualify the sourcing. The Indian Express is a reputable newspaper, and it mentions her in particular. I think it's btter than a source from the Hindu which does not discuss this specifically. Good to note that I have cited a book reference about this claim which is a bit important. The other Hindu about the borading school has a perfect friend of her talking about her own life, childhood and loneliness at boarding school. So I guess it's OK. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What I'm trying to get at is this: when I read a sentence, I have certain expectations of the type of statements and sources used to back it up. If a sentence says "she redefined the Hindi film heroine", I generally expect a bit more than a three-sentence blurb in a collection of news shorts with one sentence saying "Credited with bringing a change in the image of Hindi film heroine". A few brief, high-level sources like this are fine, but citing a lot of these can be a let-down to those readers who might read the sources. With some other articles I've used other sources already present in the article to replace cites to such brief blurbs; it helps reduce citation overload. Are you interested in doing something like that here? Gimmetrow 05:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't really think the length of the text in the source is a problem. As long as the source is reliable, I think it's fine. And the specific article (from The Indian Express) we are talking about is a very good article, with many separated sections. On the other hand, the new source from The Hindu does not seem to say anything specific about Zinta at all. So I think The Indian Express is far better, and this one, TheHindu, should be removed. I also have a book reference for this claim.

I'll later add the Tribune source you suggested me to add. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nah, don't. I'll find something better. Gimmetrow 00:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Changes

I've made some significant changes to the article since it was nominated. I must have removed around 15 commas from the article. I hope now that most of the earlier concerns have been addressed. I've also added a different screenshot which I consider more encyclopedic and some other free images of her in the article which I believe enhance its quality.

♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

One sourcing concern while I was re-reading the article. Under the Success heading, you write of the film The Hero: Love Story of a Spy, "It was the most expensive Bollywood film of the year, but failed to recover its production costs at the box office." The source provided does not back up either claim. All it shows is the gross and net for the film. It does not show production costs, but if one assumes that the net was figured by subtracting production costs from the gross, then the claim is false. If a film failed to recover its production costs, the net would be negative (meaning the film lost money). --Laser brain (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted Laser. Strangely the The Hero: Love Story of a Spy article says it was the third highest grossing film of the year. Either it was absurdly expensive and despite being the third highest grossing still didn't win back its costs, or something here is false. Perhaps Shahid could find a source? Also this sentence I feel should be added as it fills in a bit more on what the film was about

"The film, about a spy network involving terrorists and a corrupt Indian army officer starred Zinta as Reshma, a villager who becomes part of this network". ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, it was not only the most expensive film of the year, but the most expensive Bollywood production up until then. As stated by BOI, the film was the third top-grossing film of the year. And it's right. It just that considering its very high costs, it expectedly did not succeed in recovering its production costs at the BOI. So, as you see, it was the third top-grossing buts verdict is "below average" -- meaning -- flopped.

Here are the sources:

• The Tribune: "The Hero, shot at a mind-boggling budget of Rs. 55 crore, sank without a trace."
• Rediff (pre-release): "People have declared it the most expensive Hindi film ever made."
• IBOS - box offcie overciew standard: "Billed as the most expensive film in 2003. Loser for producers, earner for the distributors."

Which one should I add now? Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've fleshed out that bit and added some new sentences. To address the concerns by Laser earlier I've actually added two references ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added one more to backup the claim:) Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I think we can finally say... Done! ;) Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Great job, both of you. Highlighted my support above as I consider the matter resolved. --Laser brain (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - My concerns have not been addressed and my oppose stands. I will be explaining in greater detail soon. Sarvagnya 23:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be useful if you specified which concerns you are speaking of. Your concerns about the "unencyclopedic" nature of influences on the subject of a biography are apparently contraindicated elsewhere, as has been indicated above, and thus may well qualify as simple opinion. The objections to the cite web template seem to run contrary to existing practice. Your other concerns about separating notes and refernces might be reasonable, although other entertainment FAs such as James T. Aubrey, Jr., Kroger Babb, Eric Bana, Rudolph Cartier, Jackie Chan, Emma Watson, and others use basically the same format. Having said that, I think we would be very interested in hearing the specifics, preferably as soon as possible. John Carter (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Sarvagnya -

Serious issues still remain with this article -

1. Non-RS sources - boxofficeindia.com is NOT a WP:RS source. Just because some RS sources quote it here and there, doesnt mean boi itself qualifies as one. For that matter, wikipedia is also sourced by RS sources routinely (often without attribution) and yet wikipedia is not a RS source. A RS source is one which has the credentials to be commenting on the issue. And to boot, the Indian film industry to a large extent is unregulated even today and Indian Box Office figures are notoriously unreliable. As such, box office figures are "exceptional claims" and "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". BOI is a questionable source and far from "exceptional". And when did Microsoft (msn) become a RS for Indian cinema articles? 2. Prose is still way below the average FA standards. The early life section reads like something from a comic book or something ("According to Zinta, she enjoyed schoolwork and received good grades; in her free time she played sports, especially basketball.") 3. John Carter's waving away of my comment about the "influence" sentence with his response stating that the "Influence" is also a field in infoboxes is disingenuous. The "influence" there (in infoboxes) refers to those who have been influences professionally.. ie., if Zinta's acting skills have been influenced by others, it would need to be noted. Did Zinta's father influence her "acting skills"?! 4. And like Gimmetrow (?) notes, most of the sources are used in curious ways. This greatly runs the risk of WP:OR. To quote from WP:NOR, --

“

to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

”

Specifics, please. John Carter (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

In other words, this article is one hell of a quote-mining job. One glaring example is in the bombastic claim made in the lead. It is claimed in the lead that -- "She would subsequently take on a variety of character types, and in doing so has been credited with changing the image of a Hindi film heroine.[2][3]" (!!).

Now, this entire bombast seems to be sourced from a pathetic -- "...Today we have Miss Universe (Sushmita Sen), Miss World (Aishwarya Rai) and any number of Miss Indias. One of our biggest stars, Preity Zinta, was better known as the "Liril" soap girl not so long ago."

If one reads that piece, it is clear that the context is entirely different. In fact, the article only seems to be stating that the yesteryear 'vamps' have been replaced by the mainstream heroines. Whatever it is, it supports nothing of the sort that is being claimed in the lead. This is blatant WP:POV and WP:OR. I am sure there are several such cases throughout the article. More later. And once again, the prose is way below even reasonably acceptable standards. Sarvagnya 01:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, that was actually a cite I added. The one formerly in the lead (#24 now and still used later in the article where the same claim is met), was [28]. It had the line "Credited with bringing a change in the image of Hindi film heroine, the dimpled lady from Himachal is known for her steadfast approach and honesty" and said nothing else. This article, after mentioning those three women, says "The notion of a vamp in Hindi cinema, therefore, became extinct the day this generation arrived in the 1990s", which seemed to me more on point. Gimmetrow 01:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Responses to Sarvagnya (paragraph by paragraph) So you said before. However, that point has not clearly yet been established, and others seem to disagree with you. On that basis, if you were to seek to indicate that it is not reliable enough for the purposes for which it is used, I think that there would need to be some evidence to support that presented. I haven't seen any, barring your own statements to that effect and your attempt at circular reasoning above. We, by the way, aren't an RS because of vandalism. Simple assertion by editors of at best tangential points about how Indian Box office figures (and do you mean the site or just Indian cinema in general - please specify) aren't reliable, without sourcing, are even less reliable than the source they seek to indicate is unreliable. You have to date, that I can see, provided no such sourcing. You haven't demonstrated they are "exceptional claims", so there is no need for "exceptional sourcing". You should note by the way that boxofficeindia is currently seemingly used as a source in roughly 250 articles as per here, and I can't find any official complaints regarding its quality in any of the pages listed. On that basis, I would have to assume that what you are saying here is simply your own unverified opinion. And msn, whether you knew it or not, is now linked to NBC, one of the more generally reliable sources for most of the material it discusses. John Carter (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC) One sentence can be adjusted. If you have other concerns, please list them. John Carter (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

And you seem to have waved away the point I was making by attempting to misrepresent it. My contention is that, in any instance when an individual has themselves expressly stated the influences that shaped their lives, it is reasonable to mention them, particularly when those influences can be seen as being reasonably relevant to whatever the subject of the article is best known for. For a person of the few years this subject has had, it actually is rather likely that the influence of her father impacted her work ethic, memory ability, ways of expressing herself, etc., all of which are, actually, relative to acting skills. Also, for someone who has been, if I remember correctly, called the "only man in Bollywood" or some such thing for the courageous stance she took regarding attempted extortion, and who also took a degree in criminal psychology, which I don't think is generally considered a particularly "feminine" occupation, she has displayed a degree of courage and inteegrity which is not only remarkable, but also seemingly a significant factor in her current notability. That would make the influence of her father even more directly relevant to her biography. John Carter (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Try to control your language, please. If the citations make that claim, are you really in a position to counter them, with no evidence presented by you yet to the contrary yourself? If you have other sources to add, please feel free to add them. Until and unless you can yourself verify that your claims are indicated by other sources at least as reliable and verifiable as those used, WP:AGF would indicate that we accept the only real evidence which has been presented to date, which, to date, has not been by you. John Carter (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with John. Sarvagnya, I must say, you're working too hard.

• You say, "boxofficeindia.com is NOT a WP:RS source" - Interesting, and who are you to determine that? You are just one of million of users here. I think you mean "in your opinion" it is not, even if all the other factors contradict your opinion, no? What you said, should be said in a different way: Sarvagnya is not the one who gives the final verdict about what a RS is, and what a RS is not. I'm not even going to explain again why it's an RS, I've had enough. You are the only user who has problems with this site, while editors like User:Nichalp and User:Spartaz supported me with this source back in time. Interesting, none of all those great users here has had problems with it no? ToI and Hindustan Times, and here have a Rediff use it as a source of information. Isn't it enough for you? So take western sites, like Times Online for example. What else can you do?
  I repeat, your way of presenting your views as obvious facts is wrong, the right way is to ask what the reliability of the source is, in an appropriate manner, as it was done by another editor in this very FAC.
• The 'vamp' source was not added by me. It's happened during the FAC, I've now removed it. BTW, to support this, as you say, "bombastic" claim, I even added a book source (24) back in time. If you haven't seen that, it means you did not even pay attention to details.
• The early life section was thoroughly copyedited by User:Scartol. As one of the greatest copyeditors on here, he did not have any problem with this. Again, Tony and Laser above have not had any issue with that info either. Angelina Jolie, see her early life section to get some knowledge and familiarise yourself with how an "Early life" section in a BLP actor FA should look.
• Shahid • ^Talk2me 06:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that at one time there was a problem with Box Office India as a reference because the website for some time had a dead link for a home page. This HOWEVER was sorted out months ago and it now has a home page. Box Office India is the OFFICIAL SITE FOR INDIAN FILM STATISTICS and I wouldn't expect an encyclopedia like wikipedia to disregard an offical source which is strongly encouraged across all subjects. There are no other film statistics sites that could be considered more reliable than this for Indian film. It is an official source. Strong evidenc eof this is top Indian sources in themselves like ToI and Hindustan Times use it as a source of information themsevles very regularly. Other than this Sarvangya's argument that it is poorly written is complete nonsense. Notice how he quotes the same lines from Zinta's childhood to make the whole article seem like it is written like a comic. Your're case Sarvagnya is a very weak one it has to be said. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment. While I appreciate the generous title which has been bestowed upon me, I must note that my copyedit of this article was hurried and shouldn't be referred to as thorough. I would also point out that several of the changes I made were later reverted to the original wording.

That said, I fail to see what is wrong with the following sentence (which I revised, and which was not changed later on): "According to Zinta, she enjoyed schoolwork and received good grades; in her free time she played sports, especially basketball." The "According to Zinta" part is a bit awkward, but (since I didn't have – and still don't – time to go to sources) I assume it's a fair attribution, and seems necessary (since we're not hearing this from a third-party biography). Maybe we could compromise by using "Zinta told NAME OF MAGAZINE that she enjoyed schoolwork...". If we're unimpressed with what she recalls about her childhood, that's not really an issue of prose style. Balzac read a lot of books as a child, and used this detail later when writing his novels. Hopefully that doesn't make the article about him sound like something out of a comic book? – Scartol • Tok 15:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Scartol, please accept my apologies if you felt hurt. Also please note that my comments were in no way about your work.. not in the least. In that sentence I quoted, the problem is not so much with the prose as with encyclopedicity. I've already stated above that much of the article reads unencyclopedic and here, I was just alluding to that. I posted that message in some hurry last night, so looks like I might have got something wrong. Please note that my comment is not about your work. There is only so much that a copyeditor can do with quote-mined screed. Having said that, it is still my opinion that the prose (and content) of this article is way below FA standards. That however, has nothing to do with you. Thanks. Sarvagnya 16:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I must say, Honoré de Balzac is a damn good article! :)

Well now I think what you said is a direct evidence to the above editor that there is nothing unencylopedic (or a comic book huh!) in adding information about her background and early life. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I just went through and did some copy-editing. I have to say, I find the article awfully uninspiring. It's basically a whole series of sentences saying "and then she did this" "and then she did that" "and then she did the other." It's practically a list: List of things done by Preity Zinta. This is a WP disease, of course, but one would hope that featured articles tried to break the mould. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Just out of question. How on earth would you expect an encyclopedia article on an actress to read any differently?? If the article covers her life and career of course events of films are going to be following this she went on to ... etc. Are you not familiar with biographies on actors on wikipedia? Given that there isn't any information as in other topics on wikipedia where the article content would be completely different and be able to cover different aspects of something. The Zinta article is supposed to inform the reader what she has done in her career and life and it does this very well. You;re missing the point of it ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 08:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I am missing the point. And I am familiar with biographies of actors on Wikipedia. Indeed, I mentioned precisely that this was a common trait. There are various ways in which featured articles could try to break that mould, however, perhaps by taking a leaf from some of the articles about writers, which are in general less tied to chronology. I admit that this will be more difficult with an actor who is currently active (as is the case with Zinta), and so for whom there are fewer secondary sources, if any, that attempt a broader overview. NB, as I said, I think that this is a challenge for FA writers; in most cases, it would require a radical structural revision between GA and FA, which understandably few editors are willing to take on. WP works by accretion, and seldom by radical revision. NB also that I'm not opposing the nomination on these grounds. But I think it's worth a mention. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

And as for an example, perhaps Jackie Chan might be one. (Or even, perhaps strangely enough, Jenna Jameson.) Again, however, I recognize that it may well be difficult to write such an article about a figure such as Zinta. No harm trying, though. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Jbmurray! Thanks for copyediting the article! I think you have full right expressing your opinions fairly like you do. Thanks again, Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed Jbmurray, also thanks with any edits you did. Writing an article on a contemporary actor or actress is an extremely difficult to write a decent encyclopedia article on, particularly a non-english world actress. I've said it many times that being able to write a full, informative but thriving article on a current actor with a completely neutral tone and balance is really not an easy task and in all the subjects I've come across on wiki has to be one of the hardest to write. Even with film direcotrs there is more room for further angles to add to articles such as examining their techniques of filming, use of camera angles, cinematic style etc which would make it seem more "inspiring" but with actors aside from old icons such as Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee etc this isn't really possible in this case. It isn't a fault of the actual article itself its just the subject in hand which is different from many traditional style articles. I think the Zinta article has other qualities in that it covers some of her controversies which to me are very interesting, and other aspects of her life an career. Many other articles on actors wouldn't even venture much into this. I think its pretty near the most informative and best article that could be written for her. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 13:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment on sources. With regard to the disagreements on the use of boxofficeindia.com, it maybe worth recalling that the unit of currency of wikipedia is not The Truth^TM; instead our modus operandi is attribution. That is, Wikipedia does not itself assert facts, it reports what the sources state. In the argument that "Indian box office figures are notoriously unreliable", the word "unreliable" is not being used in the technical WP:RS sense, but is a point of view on the accuracy of the figures: as John Carter points out, without attribution, this point of view is original research. The solution, when there is uncertainty as to the accuracy of a source is to attribute the information clearly. The ultimate answer to the question "Who decides whether a source is reliable?" is simple: the reader. With this in mind, I suggest that the first couple of times that boxofficeindia.com is used to support a precise figure, a phrase such as "according to Box Office India" is added to the sentence. The reader is then alerted to the possibility that the figures might not be accurate. On the other hand, many of the citations to boxofficeindia.com are supporting relative statements such as "the third highest grossing film of the year". These less precise claims probably don't need such a caveat.

Perhaps the only person who knows the true earnings of a film is the producer's or film company's accountant: this person, despite knowing the truth more accurately than any other source, is actually not a reliable source per WP:RS :-) Similar issues apply to biographical information sourced to interviews with Zinta. As long as readers know that these "facts" come from Zinta, they are free to use their own judgement on the size of the pinch of salt with which they take the claim. Geometry guy 17:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

WOW, that's an amazing analysis -- I agree with you Geometry guy!! Thank you very much for the comments. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes Geometry guy I am also highly impressed by your understanding of this. You said it exactly. According to Box Office India.... - this would report the statistics given but does not immediately assume that this is the "actual". Wikipedia is all about such fact reporting from other sources and given that Box Office India is considered the leading site for film statistics and the second largest in the world it leaves most normal editors as to conclude whether this is a pretty accurate fact or a completely wrong one. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I look forward to the addition of suitable "according to" phrases to the article. Geometry guy 18:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Geometry Guy, your "analysis" is fascinating but unfortunately, it is completely at odds with policy and as such, doesnt fly. The reader most certainly does not dictate what sources we should use. WP:RS and WP:SPS (in this case) do that. Unless it can be demonstrated that the site measures up to the said policies, it simply does not belong on wikipedia. Period. Adding "according to.." is no solution at all. "According to..." is used when you are quoting an expert. And we have not seen any evidence so far that BOI even remotely qualifies as an "expert". Sarvagnya 00:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't fly, period? I'd be interested to hear what is the precise definition of "expert" according to WP:NPOV. We provide the best sources we can. There's a minimum standard, but the main point is that there is no original research: we attribute, and let the reader decide. There is nothing fascinating here, it is common sense. Guidelines do not dictate what we do: the goal is improving the encyclopedia and guidelines are a (valuable) means to that end. Geometry guy 20:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well now the article only uses BOI twice. 2 references out of 110 odd isn't a major cause for concern any more. I really don't think it would affect the article if the remaining two were simply taken out. As has been said the article is extremely well referenced anyway. It doesn't have to be big issue if people act maturely in response to this ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 13:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't want to vote or make a final comment on this yet (I've read most it once now, excepting a couple of parts I skipped - I need to read it again after an interval of day or 2 or so to be more clear in my mind about any concerns I have). Any concerns I did have on my first read did not correspond to those mentioned by the only oppose on this FAC. But I'll look at it again later to be sure. Anyway, I am commenting so that my first impression is known to those who worked on it - I found the article insightful, very informative, and I was impressed by some parts of it too. Of course, my emphasis is on whether it is comprehensive and prose aspects. To produce this sort of reaction from me, particularly on a first read in WP, is not just rare, but also means that the contributors have put in a lot of work, and should be proud of their effort, particularly in these areas. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, thank you very much for the comment. Looking forward to your comments. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Purely on prose, for a film article that is a biography of a living person, I'm reasonably satisfied with the entire article (except with some parts of the early career and early background sections). May make the necessary revisions soon, so that I can add my support vote too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Just curious.. where is it mentioned that we have different prose requirements for BLP articles? Sarvagnya 00:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support (moderate contributor). Satisfies the criteria.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Well-written, incredibly well-sourced - but most of all well-organized and good structure, which leads to overall good flow through the article. Great work. Cirt (talk) 10:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - the second screenshot (Image:KHNHLS.jpg) still clearly fails WP:NFCC#1 (replaceable by text) and WP:NFCC#8 (doesn't add to understanding). I don't see why it's necessary, to be honest - it's just a random screenshot; at least the first screenshot shows some of the look and feel of the film. Black Kite 10:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

remember I did replace it initially with the image that showed her face which I believed was more encyclopedic. I can understabd Shahid's view though that the image depicts the drama and content of the film and the New York location. Would anybody object to restoring the Image:KHNH23.jpg which in my view reveals more about her acting? Would you also think this image is inadequate Black Kite? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless a non-free image increases the reader's understanding of the text of the article then it shouldn't be used. If the image is doing that, it shouldn't be there. For example, there's no need to have an image to show that the film is set in New York, because you can merely have text saying that. If an image "shows the drama and content of the film" then it needs to reflect the text. Incidentally, I Support as the article currently stands.Black Kite 15:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't an image is there to also illustrate what the text says? The matter is, Black Kite, that this image IMO does add. For example, the fact that the film is a tearjerker is illusrated very well. The location - New York (not said, and cannot be added), Indian-American - well you would still be able to imagine her wearing a Sari, and look very traditional, but the screenshot shows the opposite and in addition to that it shows more than everything else her acting skills. She cries with her lover who is going to die.:) What do you think? Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you've just described it without an image, which sort of proves my point. Why couldn't the fact that the location is New York be added, btw? Black Kite 16:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

haha:) Yeh, but I also said "well you would still be able to imagine her wearing a Sari, and look very traditional, but the screenshot shows the opposite" which cannot be written... New York is a production note, which someone back in time considered irrelevant here. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

remember also that we are waiting for two or three free images to clear in the commons which help improve the article visually also. These will be readded asap ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeh but I want the career section to be clear visually more than anything else. She is first of all an actor. I really agree with Black Kite that an image should provide an understanding of the matter. I'll later look for such images. But I believe the KHNH image is very relevant here. Apart from the fact that the film is a milestone in her career, it adds a lot to the understanding, something the text cannot replace. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

NB on the use of film stills, the SCMS has tried to argue forcefully that they are fair use. Here's more or less their position: "that the use of stills to illustrate serious works of film scholarship constitutes 'fair use' within the meaning of section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976." But this is ЭLСОВВОLД's territory much more than mine, and no doubt this argument has been discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia. I suppose that one issue might be whether Wikipedia is a "serious work of film scholarship." --16:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not so much an issue of copyright law on fair use as it is a matter of Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia aims to be free content and for this reason our fair use guidelines are stricter than the law requires. This is something I fully support. However, there are many shades of opinion as to how much stricter our fair use guidelines should be. There are those who want to make this a science, whereas in my view, it is an art, requiring judgement, not wikilawyering. I am discouraged when I see editors bowing to the authority of other editor's territory. The ultimate rule is WP:IAR: if an image is legal under fair use, as almost all of the images which have been used in this article are, then the key question about whether to include an image or not is "does this improve the encyclopedia?". All editors can contribute to such a discussion. Much as I respect those who regularly contribute their advice on image copyright issues, this advice can be wrong sometimes: one such editor has misunderstood international copyright law recently, another has misunderstood guidelines on album covers. No one is a fount of all wisdom. I find the image being discussed here a particularly compelling demonstration of Zinta's range as an actress beyond the typical Bollywood cliche. But don't believe me: argue the case and reach consensus. Don't settle for "fails NFCC#8", which isn't consensus at all. Geometry guy 21:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Policies automatically have consensus - if they don't, they get changed. "Fails WP:NFCC#8" is a policy statement. If you wish to dispute it, the correct place is WT:NFCC, where there currently is a discussion about WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 (though that discussion isn't really relevant to the image above). In the past, editors that use WP:IAR as an excuse to override policy usually find themselves realising that it's not a very good idea. Yes, there are images that fall on the borderlines of fair use policy, and to be honest, in those cases I usually err on the side of keeping them, even though we probably shouldn't. But where images clearly don't coincide with the policy, then it would be wrong of me not to point that out. Oh, and incidentally, since you're referring to me, your opinion that I have misunderstood the guidelines on album covers doesn't make it a fact, it merely makes it your opinion (and one which has consistently been rejected in the past). Black Kite 22:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No they don't: nothing automatically has consensus. Policy and guidelines reflect consensus, they do not determine it. It is not possible for every wikipedian to watchlist every policy and guideline talk page. Instead we rely upon the fact that we have a common goal: improving the encyclopedia. And I am pleased to see you show some flexibility yourself in this respect. Everything is a matter of opinion: my opinion of your fallibility (we are all fallible) is based on this, this, and this. Geometry guy 23:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely that is just semantics though - I'm quite happy to refactor "policies have consensus" to "policies reflect consensus" if you wish. Regarding the album covers, this isn't the place - see your talk. Black Kite 01:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Gguy, thanks for this. I didn't particularly want to debate this particular image, so much as suggest a source for discussion about such images in general and ask for feedback. (NB in saying this is ЭLСОВВОLД's territory, I mean more that he's much more familiar with the debates and has thought about them a lot; I have been willing to disagree with him in the past, and will no doubt be willing to do so in the future, too  ;) ). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note from Sarvagnya (talk · contribs): posts to AN, RSN, Village pump, and various editors, [29], [30], [31], [32] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Prose still needs work. Also the sources do not look the best. I note that at least one of the sources seems to be not WP:RS. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 01:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If you think "one of the sources seems to be not WP:RS", you should say which one, or the nominator has no reasonable way to address your complaint. Likewise, merely saying "prose still needs work" doesn't give the nominator anything to work with. Gimmetrow 02:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • This oppose is not actionable IMO. I'll ask Sandy. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. The prose has quite a few quotes. Can some of the generic quotes be removed? For instance in the media section: "I felt humiliated as it spoiled my reputation and character in public." Does this say anthing that just having "she felt..." wouldn't say? At the end of the personal life section: "Thereafter, the controversy came to an end.96" This is an abrupt statement and I can't figure out what it has to do with the source. Gimmetrow 02:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you suggest to remove "Thereafter, the controversy came to an end."? Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• There is flexibility (such as has been shown in the first screenshot), and then there is ignoring a policy completely. Since the New York image is back in the article, I change to Oppose again. I don't see how we can promote an article that doesn't follow a policy. I've thought about all the ways to back this image compliant, but it adds nothing to the article that couldn't be written in prose, its content isn't referenced in the text at all and so I can only assume it is decorative. Black Kite 07:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say that it's OK, because it's your right. But because I respect you, I must say that it's IMO very unfair to oppose a nomination only because of one image, especially considering other FAs like Diane Keaton and Cillian Murphy, which have four and two images respectively. I believe it adds to the understanding, you don't - so it's mostly a matter of POV here. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If you think it adds to the understanding, you should demonstrate how and also why the same cannot be said in words. If it is there to simply show that it was in New York, then it doesnt add any value to the article at all. New York as the city where it is set is not critical to the movie at all. It could have been set in Timbuktu and it wouldnt have made a difference to the storyline or the melodrama. Sarvagnya 16:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Black Kite, as I said the film features Zinta as a young American woman. In contrast to the Kya Kehna image, you can see her here in a more modern look, which is not an obvious fact. Also the first image shows her smiling and dancing while this one - crying on the bridge of New York. There is a very new aspect in this image, which breaks from the mood in the previous one. We see her acting skilld im more dramatic scenes. What do you say? Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears to do with her acting, the different roles, etc. The first photo is from a film that earned her first nomination for Best Actress at Filmfare, but the second photo was from the film where she actually won. The content is referenced in the text. Changing a vote to an oppose solely for that 1 bit is questionable, but I'm not sure if the caption has been changed between now and when you changed your vote. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I really don't like to do it (the rest of the article is fine) but I'm just worried that if we "let this one go" it'll set a precedent for future FACs. Black Kite 19:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern. Don't you agree with my explanation above? Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the problem is that none of what you've just said is mentioned in the text (or in the image caption). Even an attempt at explaining why the image is important would give the image a chance. Black Kite 19:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused at this Black Kite. The image clearly states that it shows Zinta in a Filmfare award winning role and the text discusses it is a tearjerker. The image demonstrates this and shows her in the role accordingly in a dramatic and key scene and helps to understand the atmosphere of what that film was like. I really can't see what it is further you are looking for. It meets exactly the same criteria as the first image does. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Me too. I don't think the oppose is valid as of now, unless/until any further issues are specified. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to be absolutely on the nail as regards to policy, then the first image probably struggles to pass NFCC as well. However, there is at least some discussion of her appearance in the film in the text. I see that you feel the oppose is invalid; however, in that case, you need to change a policy, namely WP:NFCC. The talk page for proposing changes to policy can be found at WT:NFCC. There are already too many Featured Articles that drive a coach and horses through our non-free image policy, and I am really loath to see another one do it. But since you ask for specifics (as if I mentioned this enough times above) then how does that image help you understand the atmosphere of the film? What would be lost if it was removed? (WP:NFCC#8). The fact that the film is a tearjerker and the image shows that is fine, but what is there that couldn't be mentioned in prose? (WP:NFCC#1) It's two people hugging each other in New York; that's all it is; unless it's actually referenced in the text with why the image is important, it's really not needed. This is a really well-written article, it's clearly a good candidate for FA, but I'm really at a loss to see why such a well-written article needs that particular image, except for decoration, and no-one's answered that yet. Black Kite 22:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning. The image could be seen as just showing that the movie is about an unhappy romance set in NYC, which could be said in the text, making it effectively redundant. Would I be justified in thinking that, for instance, an images of Fred Astaire in Royal Wedding, with significant textual descriptions of the importance of the images and their importance, would be more in line of what you're thinking would be called for by policy? John Carter (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good example of "adding to understanding", where an image can make clear what a large block of text probably couldn't (or would certainly be unwieldy). The relevant policy statement is WP:NFCC#8 (there's currently a discussion on the second clause, but it's the first one that's important anyway). Black Kite 22:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your oppose makes more sense now, but, criterion 8 of NFCC is written in such a way that indicates there is no need for any NFCC images in the article because of the other 2 images. So if enforcing the very poorly thought-out and expressed criterion 8, they'd both have to go. I, like several editors, would've supported getting rid of the second line of the criterion, but what I don't understand is why 1 extra image is causing this much of a headache for you - it's not going to make the same difference in the same way if prose and comprehensiveness is altered. I'd totally agree with you and also oppose if it was several images, but when it's 2 (and clearly different as a role, scene, happy vs sad, apparent age, etc. etc.) I really at am a loss why you're so keen to enforce it against 1 measly image. Again, if it was several images, then it would be a different story. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I could argue that I don't see why it's so important to include it, of course. The reason is; it's very difficult for non-free image editors to try and explain to people what is and isn't acceptable when they can turn round and say "But that article does it, and it's a featured article! It must be OK!" You only have to look at Today's Featured Article to see yet another FA that violates WP:NFCC, but I'm sure you can guess what would happen if I tried to delete the offending images now... which is why I'm trying to do it at FAC stage. Black Kite 06:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, as one of the editors insisting prose and comprehensiveness particularly need to be at a high standard prior to FAs passing (so that standards don't drop), I can understand what you're saying. But enforcing FA criterion 3 is quite a lot easier than copy-editing every FA that is/was below par (just getting copyeditors for FACs is difficult enough). Images either meet or don't meet NFCC, and those that don't can form an actionable oppose if you bring it to FAR, and editors are compelled to remove them accordingly (and they most probably can be deleted by you after). As it's one of those criteria that can be more easily and efficiently enforced on older FAs, I'm encouraging you to take this concern further, even if it's today's featured article, rather than confining it to some new FACs. There will be less eyebrows raised this way, too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If you examine the text discussion in the article the text which accompanies the second image is actually a lot more detailed than the first. In terms of article discussion and then illustration in my experience the second image has more validity than the first image particularly as it illustrates the drama and atmopshere of the film and the role which won her her first Filmfare. The first image is useful but it actually doesn't do as much to support the text in the article which describes her role as a pregnant teenager dealing with the hardships of society, not exactly depicted in the image. Sure you can dismiss the second as two people hugging each other in New York big deal, but anybody who knows the film, Zinta's career and Hindi cinema would agree that it is a symbolic one. I understand you are concerned that one article with images which passes can be used as a weapon to justify non free images in other FA articles in the future but please think about THIS article and its content only. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I must say if this image was in better conditions I would add it, or this one in which you can see her playing a 50-year-old woman (from Veer Zaara), I would. Black Kite, please tell me, what should I do now to make this image relevant? Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Black Kite, you are dead on when you say -- "..they can turn round and say "But that article does it, and it's a featured article! It must be OK!". It was months ago that I'd myself raised the same NFCC issues you've raised now. And believe me, the argument used then to try and shut me up was to point me to Angelina Jolie and Cillian Murphy .. - "Look! they use it.. AJ is FA.. they use it.. so can we!". For the record, I also hereby include NFCC vio as one of the reasons for my oppose in addition to the other issues I've already mentioned. Sarvagnya 16:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes and from what I recall I clearly stated that either we permit fair use images or we don't. All I want is consistency in articles and I wouldn't expect a decent encyclopedia to retract from this. Either we permit them all across wikipedia or we don't. However the agreement on whether to use fair use images or whether limited screenshots are acceptable in that they cannot be replaced by free content in discussing film material was split entirely down the middle. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Note - Sarvagnya, the reason for which you always opposed to have FU images was completely different from Black Kite's one, and you had never cited the policies he has. Also, the point that other FAs use it is very relevant, because they editors should also work to remove them first if they think its incorrect usage. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Black Kite, please tell me, what should I do now to make this image relevant? Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Either: reference it in the text, in a way that explains why the image is relevant and improves the reader's knowledge; or remove it. Unfortunately, there's no middle ground. Black Kite 18:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to abstain as I won't have enough time for this. But, when I am back, and if this is still here, then I will make my vote. Good luck guys! Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ncmvocalist. Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. It is comprehensive and well-written. Axl (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• With reference to the reliability of the sources on box office numbers, please see my rather comprehensive investigation at the RS noticeboard, summarised in this diff. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose (since I'm going on Wikibreak and cannot participate any longer. I still do believe this article goes into unnecessary details, that hasn't changed.): The article goes into a lot of trivial details in the Other work and In the media sections, which can be drastically cut down.

• Column writing: We've already determined that she's not a columnist and that celebrities writing columns ain't a big deal, so we do we need a discussion of each one of her columns? Cut down to about 2-3 sentences please (I would suggest removing from the lead too).
• Stage performances: Anil Kapoor, Aamir Khan, Aishwarya Rai and Gracy Singh.; Amitabh Bachchan, Aamir Khan, Shahrukh Khan and Aishwarya Rai;(Shahrukh Khan, Rani Mukerji, Saif Ali Khan, Arjun Rampal, and Priyanka Chopra); Akshay Kumar, Saif Ali Khan, Sushmita Sen and Celina Jaitley. - Ok I get it, she performed with a number of top stars. But do we need any of these names? Just make the first sentence "Zinta has taken part in several stage shows and world tours since 2001 along with many Bollywood co-stars." and all the meeaning you want to convey is done, without the pointless lists of names.
• "Zinta attended a blood donation camp..." How is that even remotely notable? And that quote too ... reads more like a magazine article than an encyclopedia.
• Does the Suchitra Krishnamurthy accusation really need such detailed coverage? Rather than just a mention?
• "Zinta made three appearances on the Indian talk show Koffee with Karan" - everybody has made appearances on KWK. I don't know of a single Bollywood star who hasn't been on that show!

These are just examples, there is still much further scope for cutting down to bring down her non-film work to appropriate sizes. I'd even recommend merging the three section into one concise one that discusses her public image and personal life (which seem really intertwined by the way). This would also cut down many of the repetitions such as the the Bharat Shah case being mentioned again. indopug (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you in that those topics you mentioned are trivial to her life. Thats just your opinion. I'm not sure all those names have to be mentioned in the stage performances section but the article doesn't cover anything which is really that trivial like "Ooh Zinta is a size 5 shoe and her favorite food is custard cream pie" She loves horses". It highlights the most important events and committments she has in her life. Visiting a blood donar camp in other work is of note I believe. I am always keen to avoid repetition and perhaps some of the other work sections could be merged but its not a major flaw is it. Also many are likely to never heard of Koffee with Karan on here, and three times is worthy of mentioning in her tv appearances. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Response to Indopug - Sorry but I do not find any of your concerns valid.

• We have discussed only one thing re her columns, and concluded only one thing - she is not a columnist. It does not mean that we have to cut down the entire section - especially when it has such a huge coverage on the net and she was recognised for her work.
• If we describe a stage show, isn't it important to mention with whom she performed? It's exactly what comprehensiveness means.
• Blood donation is trivial? It's part of her humanitarian work. She supported the cause and encouraged other people to donate blood. So why is that trivial?
• KWK - Well not everybody takes part on the show -- Salman Khan, Aamir Khan have not. And this is not related whatsoever. The info is relevant for her regardless of what others have to do.
• Also good to note that you have not cited any policy or guideline which can support your points. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, but I want to know what others' think, if you don't mind. I'm going to cite WP:WIAFA #4 "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." Shahid, I do find your definiton of "compehensive" funny; why don't you list every co-cast member (not just major ones) whenever you discuss any of her movies? That adheres to your definiton of "comprehensive" doesn't it :D. What I mean is that so many actors have come on that show, for example: you wouldn't cite the number of times Brad Pitt has been on Oprah/Jay Leno/Larry King will you? indopug (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you please give me a quote that either says or implies mentioning cocast members is bad/unacceptable/discouraged. But I think it is very important to note who she is working with, because it's part of the idea. Saying "She did that and that there and there in that and that and that year" is not a good prose either.

The matter is not that; the matter is that your oppose is based on your POV. If we describe her actions, we do not go into unnecessary detail. Unnecessary detail is if we say: "she has played the lead in a film directed by Yash Chopra, one of the greatest filmmakers in India who has been in the industry for almost 50 years" - that's unnecessary detail.

I can somehow agree with KWK, because I find it as a valid point. But that's not the matter. The matter is the general comment I cannot understand. If you think that her supporting blood donation is unnecessary detail, so I don't know what necessary detail is. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstood my sarcasm (regarding the cast-members) but lets ignore that. While I agree maybe mentioning a few co-stars of her movies is useful sometimes, I don't think mentioning who she went on tour with has any point. Ask yourself this: what exactly is the reader supposed to gain by knowing the names of the people she did a tour with? Don't you think that listing out "Anil Kapoor, Aamir Khan, Aishwarya Rai and Gracy Singh" makes the article move away from the concentrating on its subject (Priety Zinta) and rather focus on auxillary details regarding on one of her tours? As an analogy, we do not name of the assistant director and make-up artist of every movie she acted in do we (in the prose of this article)? Why, because its just detail; and adds nothing to the reader's understanding of Priety Zinta but rather just makes the prose long-winded. Not naming the asst. director here does not imply non-comprehensiveness, does it? Same goes for her touring co-stars. I'll defend the rest of my points later. indopug (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Defend? I don't know what "defending" has to do with this FAC. Our goal is to see another FA (although it's clear this FAC won't pass). Just like we mention her co-stars in films because it's part of the film detail which is important, we mention her co-"performers". It's very simple. We give detail about her world tours, and it includes giving the costars. I can't see what the problem is, and can't see how an asst. is related at all.

Furthermore, I'd like to tell you something regarding columns. You say, "We've already determined that she's not a columnist and that celebrities writing columns ain't a big deal" - it's not precise. We've determined that she cannot be called columnist, but we have not determined "that celebrities writing columns ain't a big deal". It actually is a big deal, considering that we're talking about BBC, and her joining a lineup of South Asia's most renowned commentators. The fact that an Indian young female actor was appointed for that is important, regardless of her being a popular or famous one. And don't forget that, above-all, we are talking about popular columns.

Also, merging all the subsections would be a real mess, considering she has supported humanitarian causes, has written columns, has performed on stage and has gone into business as well. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

By "defend" I mean that once you've dismissed all my points as invalid, and I would like to prove that they are indeed not invalid. I believe that by following my points we will reach the goal of another FA; since you disagree, I must put forth a defence of my points. Coming back to the article you've said "We give detail about her world tours"; that's precisely what I don't want you to give, because this article is about her not her world tours. While a brief critical discussion of her movies is very important in this article (mentioning the premise of the movie, her role and her co-stars), a critical discussion of each of her world tours is not being done. So do the names need mention? No. As an exercise delete the lists of names from the Stage performances sub-section and then read it (in the preview); you will find that the your understanding of the Priety Zinta article will not have reduced even a little. And that those lists of names really never added value to the section. Also do you think it is interesting in any way to read "Anil Kapoor, Aamir Khan, Aishwarya Rai and Gracy Singh." and then soon after "Amitabh Bachchan, Aamir Khan, Shahrukh Khan and Aishwarya Rai"? Of course not his eyes will automatically skip over the items and ocntinue reading. I would like this concern of mine addressed first, either by acting upon my suggestion or giving a good reason better than "It's very simple". I have given about 3-4 solid reasons in favour of removing the names while you've none supporting its inclusion. (Even Blofield is iffy on the inclusion of the names, if you've noticed) indopug (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You misinterpret something here; we are not warring so what Blofeld or this or this editor thinks. We are trying to make this article better. World tours and stage shows are by all means a part of her career as an actor, a performer. As you said, the article "is about her not her world tours"; you can say it "is about her not her films". Do you thing that in doing so you would invalidate the mention of costars as well? I think it's wrong. Her world tours are as important. She is an actor in the first place yeh, but she is also a regular stage performer and has now signed another stage show with the Bachchans. I think it's important detail who she is working with. I don't really know what policy/guideline/whatever you can use to validate your point. I'm sure that it's a matter of common sense, and anything else. And though I respect you and find your previous comments very valid here I tend to differ from you. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Prose comments from the lead only:

• "She has appeared in the Hindi films of Bollywood," Why the Hindi films? Why not just "appeared in Bollywood Hindi films?

Removed the. "Hindi films" is needed because that's not the end of the sentence and other languages are mentioned. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• "She would subsequently take on a variety of character types, and in doing so has been credited" Tension between tenses (conditional and perfect).

Is that critical? What do you suggest? Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not critical, but it's just a bit wordy and awkward. You could try separating it into two sentences, so that the tension disappears. You could try shortening the idea ("Her subsequent portrayals of diverse female characters has been credited with..."). BuddingJournalist 13:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Separating it into two would make it too much, because the less sentences we have describing something, the better. The second strikes me as a bit odd. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't agree with your first point; it all depends on the situation. Although in this particular case, shortening and eliminating redundancies is the better route, in my opinion. What is "odd" about that? BuddingJournalist 14:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit ambiguous, and the "Her portrayals have been credited..." is not correct, because we are talking about her. What do you think about changing it to "she subsequently took on a variety..."? Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That takes care of the tension. "took on a variety of character types, and in doing so" is still a bit wordy in my opinion. BuddingJournalist 14:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't find it wordy. The fact is that there must be two parts in the sentence, which also somehow connects itself with the previous one. She subsequently - makes the tie with the previous sentence. And then there are two parts - "She did something" --> "result" - it's too short to be separated or shortened. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• "publicly speaking her mind and openly expressing her opinions" I don't see the difference between these two.

I don't see a diffrence between speaking one's mind, and expressing one's opinions. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What is the difference? To me, "speaking one's mind" is just a phrase meaning expressing one's opinions. BuddingJournalist 13:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to consult someone. Hope you don't mind. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

BuddingJournalist 13:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What I find frustrating about this nomination is that despite several peer reviews nobody addressed the "problems" it had at the time. It was precisely the reason that was conducted to avoid such problems when it came to be reproposed. Why was Giro or whoever not asked to identify its flaws at the time? This is an FA nomination yet it AGAIN has turned out like a peer review and a request for criticism page. Shahid has worked magnificently at trying to attend to the whims of all here, yet people keep throwing problems in his face and each time he tries to address something somebody else comes up with 6 more "problems". People have turned seemingly trivial "issues" it has way out of proportion into an argument as to why it doesn't quality for an FA. If you look at the main picture it is an overall very good article and covers everything that should be covered about her in a well written and informative way. Still nobody has come up with a strong single reason as to why it shouldn't be an FA. Anything anybody has identified is either based on their own individual views or a single sentence or word or quote or image which automatically is a reason to fail it?? I find it astounding that articles like Emma Watson never had this degree of fuss and this article in my view is more informative and of a higher standard than that. The fact is this article has twice the number of references and details (being on an Indian actress too) when the availability of information on Emma Watson must be huge. This article is in no way inferior to this in the way it is written either, yet one has been passed as an FA but this one still waits and waits and wait and waits..... The question is will everybody ever be happy with it? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Two points - 1) FACs should not be brought to nomination if strong issues preclude them from being featured - the whole idea of the process is to polish off articles which are practically there, and therefore viable candidates usually should only have smaller, more nitpicky issues. 2) Unlike GAN, FAC is not a rubber-stamp-type process - it is intended to be rigorous and nominators are expected to want to hear a thorough critique for the purposes of making their article stronger, tighter, and more exemplary, and thus the most effective FAC nominators tend to aggressively attend to the vast majority of comments, concerns, and objections as swiftly as possible. Comparing one nomination to another is somewhat fruitless, because the circumstances are always completely different with regards to the pre-nom state of the article, the quality of the available sources, who comments on the nomination, etc. No two are ever much alike. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, it ensures that the article is at a high standard - this is good for both the encyclopedia (including the WikiProjects the article falls under) and for those involved, even if it does take some time to get there. Addressing valid concerns (including Girolamo's), and gaining approval of the wide community ensures that the nom is going in the right direction - which it is. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No your're misundertanding what I'm saying. Of course you expect to see light criticism at an FA and the writers of the article working hard to attend to it, believe me I think FAC's including this one should be discussed between far more people than this. Whether the concerns are valid or not all I am saying is that there has been more to deal with than I anticipated. That isn't to say that anybody who opposes is wrong to do so, I apprecaite as much input as possible and want the article to be as sound as anyone, what I am saying is that I wish more of these points had been brought up earlier given that it has gone through much discussion and peer review to get here. Now it seems much progress has made thanks to the hard work of everyone involved. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 09:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support, this won't be the best FA (prose could still use some work, sources aren't the best but that is largely the nature of the subject being covered) but it surely won't be the worst. I think it is comprehensive (maybe could use a little more about her roles in some of the films) and I disagree about some of the calls to cut down on certain sections. I think FA's need to be good and meet criteria--not be perfect--and I hope this improves even as an FA. gren グレン 22:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Over-reliance on quote mining.Bakaman 21:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Girolamo Savonarola (consolidated by user)

Oppose - several issues, mainly with referencing:

• The second reference appears superfluous to the third one, and is probably too weak on its own to support the claim.

It's not that weak. It says that has played diverse roles. Also, the more references we have, the better. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Do most actors not play in a variety of roles? I don't think that alone is notable enough to require a ref. Quantity of references is not important - quality of references are. See Ramón Emeterio Betances, which I picked at random from the FAs - it only relies on two primary references for the most part. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it supports the fact that she played diverse roles and the third ref backs up the second part of the sentence only, although it's better sourced in the career section. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I ask because I am not familiar with Bollywood - is it common for actors not to play a variety of roles? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• In the lead: "India's top-grossing film in the overseas market that year" - delete; this information is superfluous to the lead and is not as directly relevant as the award.

Right. Removed. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Did she actually graduate with a degree in criminal psychology? The source is unclear - she says "Yes, I actually did English honors and then I did an advanced program in criminal psychology." It's unclear to me if she graduated with an English degree with honors and also did a criminal psychology program as something like a minor, or if they were dual degrees, or what have you. The language is too ambiguous to indicate whether or not English was discarded or not, or whether the "advanced program" was perhaps a graduate-level study.

Well, almost every source in the article describes her as a "criminal psychology" graduate. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough, although it would be nice to hear it from the horse's mouth. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the video link you provided, she clearly says that she "graduated with English honors and then I went ahead and did criminal psychology", so it's clear that she got an English degree; whether or not the criminal psychology was simply a minor, a program, a degree, a graduate program, or something else remains unclear. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm sure The English Honours is the minor here. She doesn't say she earned a degree. It is not necessarily her graduation from university. I must say she was not that clear about that in the video interview. Criminal psychology is the degree here, and she is mostly known for her criminal psychology degree. As I said, every possible source describes her as a "criminal psychology graduate".[33][34][35][36]. Oh and this one makes some things clear... What do you say? Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're misreading - the ToI article makes it clear that criminal psychology was a master's degree. Which would make the English Honors her undergrad degree, just as she said herself in the video. It's also unclear if she graduated from the masters program, as per the video interview. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

She was not clear about that in the video, and I provided not only ToI, but Tribune, Rediff and Sify as well. She has always been described, everywhere as a criminal psy. graduate. Psychology was a postgraduate degree. What do you suggest to do now? Shahid • ^Talk2me 03:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

We go on the quality of the source, not the quantity - her interview trumps massively repeated incorrect information. From looking at some of her other interviews, she usually glosses over it, which leads the ambiguity which would allow something like this to occur. However, in the video interview, her exact words are "I graduated with English Honors and then I went ahead to do criminal psychology". The graduated with English Honors is completely umambiguous. As for the criminal psychology part, it is mentioned in several interviews as a "program", not a degree, and the ToI reference I mentioned specifically calls it a Masters program. If you have some evidence on the part of the press that Zinta was fabricating any of this, then her own testimony can be dismissed, but otherwise the video interview source has priority. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The quality of all the sources is fine, and the quantity only supports the matter. The video interview and the sources do not contradict each other. As she said and as the quote states, she went on to do criminal psychology. She did English honours, nobody claims otherwise. Didn't she say she had done criminal psychology after all? As mentioned in the sources, criminal psychology was a postgraduate degree, which only makes her words in the video clearer. She has always said she had graduated with criminal psychology in her interviews. See for example her CNN interview:

The interviewer asks: "Now you went to school and graduated with criminal psychology, correct?"

And Zinta answers: "Yes, I actually did English honors and then I did an advanced program in criminal psychology."

It means that she was graduated with criminal psy. which was, as supported by the sources, a postgraduate degree. I also remember her interview on Simi Garewal's show, where she describes her psychology studies and what particularly she liked about it. Unfortunately I can't find this video on the net - it's been removed from youtube.com. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Read that again - I actually did English honors and then I did an advanced program in... - English is the Bachelor's degree; crim psy is the Master's. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hehe! That's exactly what I'm saying - it was a postgraduate degree. So what's the problem now? Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the article text doesn't support what we (or she) are saying - "initially majored" implies that she switched majors, which she didn't. She went onto a graduate degree in crim psy after gaining an undergrad in English honors. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• When did she graduate from these programs?

1998. She got the offer of Kapur while doing her last exams at uni. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, can you source it? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? I don't mention it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This is generally considered a notable detail which should be included in a biography. Can you add it (with appropriate sourcing, of course)? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't find a source for that. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be very valuable if you could keep digging... Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No source could be found for her graduating years. Since the year(s) are not mentioned the article, IMO, Giro can reevaluate the requirement of the inclusion of these years.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there no chance that the institutions she attended would have publicized the fact? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• IBOS is a questionable source, and its own disclaimers indicates that its stats are derived from better sources anyway. (keeping this on my stet docket...)
• Birth details don't appear to be sourced.

Now they are. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Information on brothers is not in its reference.

Has this been addressed? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

IMO resolved Yes, this has now been addressed. A reference from an article in Washington Post has been added, saying her brothers' occupation. Unfortunately, the article is not available free. Registration/purchase is required (and that has been mentioned in the reference). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Info on the Perk commercial is unsourced - neither the commercial nor the year can be sourced to the refs provided.

It is sourced; please see the Rediff source. The year is from an interview I'd seen. I did not find a net ref for that. If you want, I'll remove the year. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, your attestation that you saw it would not be a reliable source, so no, I'd need the reference for the year. The info is still unsourced as far as I can tell - there's nothing in the ref discussing a birthday party where she met a director or anything to that effect. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't find a ref that's why I said that I would remove the year if you want. The birthday party comes from the CNN interview. That is a kind of info I would never add without a net source. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Where? I don't get any results in the article when searching for "party" "birthday" or "1996". Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

My bad - it's ToI. Added. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• First paragraph of "Early career" is almost entirely unsourced; ref does not provide the information.

It is, the CNN interview covers it. The only thing not mentioned is the name of the film, which is in the Rediff interview. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Where? I don't see anything at all mentioning Kapur or the film. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you'll have to look with some more observation. She describes her first meeting with Kapur. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll elaborate, the part where the interviewer asked her how she had become an actress. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And there's another one. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Soldier's delay is unsourced and appears to contradict Ref 15.

Well I actually heard that in an interview. Both KK and Soldier had been delayed. Soldier's delay was very short though. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that will need a source, not your assertion that you saw it in an interview. The reference seems to imply that Soldier was not in the running to be her first film. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added a source. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ref 16 (Jyoti Mahajan) is too weak and spurious - better sources exist to prove commercial success.

What sources? Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if that's the best source you have to show that the film was a commercial success, then I'd say it's unacceptable for that use. Surely you can find something more germane rather than a passing reference with no box office figures whatsoever? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Added, now you have two back to back refs. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I accept the second one; the Mahajan one is better dropped. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Similarity to Silence of the Lambs may be construed as OR without sources.

OK, will add sources later. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Have added a source in the film article. Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Done? Well the source in the Sangharsh article (if that is what you meant) states the exact opposite of what you claim in the article. In that interview, the interviewer suggests that the movie is "lifted" from Silence of the lambs and the interviewee disagrees saying that resemblances, if any, are just superficial! How does that translate to "The film, based on The Silence of the Lambs (1991),.." ? Sarvagnya 01:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no interest to write that. It was what I've read several times. First of all, there is a difference between "remade" and "based". And here are the refs.[37][38] Shahid • ^Talk2me 04:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see anything in the only provided source which even mentions Silence of the Lambs. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added a source in the film article. If it does not suffice, tell me and I'll add one of the above links. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it needs to be in this article, too. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this very minor detail has to be sourced in the article, not here. The article is the source. Unless there is some exceptional claim. Shahid • ^Talk2me 04:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No, all claims in this article need to be sourced in this article. This is currently an unreferenced assertion, and without any appropriate sourcing, is an OR/POV issue. "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources", but all claims require sources. As per WP:BURDEN, I am challenging you to either add an RS ref or remove it. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You can say the same about Jolie, and ask for sources to prove that her film Gia was indeed based on the life famous model Gia. It is a detail that has to be sourced in the film article. The fact that Zinta's role in Lakshya was modelled after journalist Barkha Dutt does need referencing here, but a film being based on another film is mentioned and referenced in the film article itself. It's a film detail which has even nothing to do with Zinta herself, and I don't find it exceptional at all, as long as the film article has that sourced. I can't see what the problem is, after all you have seen the source. I don't make up stories. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I am challenging the information as OR - the burden is on you to show otherwise. This is a critical issue, and I absolutely will not drop my oppose without this being dealt with. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I disagree with that. If it was the standard, every possible film detail would require a source. I agree, the burden of proof is on me. You challenged the info, and I provided reliable sources on the film article (where it actually belongs). And if you're still challenging the info, I can easily prove that by referring you to the film article. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved I've provided a Times of India reference that tells Sangharsh was based on Silence of the Lambs.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem really is "based on", which implies that the rights were bought and that the filmmakers publicly recognized it as an adaptation. It needs to be rewritten to reflect that it is unauthorized, then - it neither had the rights, nor has it formally acknowledged the basis, and the original ref Shahid brought up actually shows the director to be denying the matter. Perhaps "with a plot considered to be lifted from" would be a better phrase. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That only takes us up to "Breakthrough", but in the interests of keeping both reviewer and editors from being overwhelmed, I'll continue when these concerns have been addressed. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to start looking at the following sections, but if my remaining concerns can be taken care of in the meantime, it would be greatly appreciated. Keep up the good work. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Further Oppose comments:

• First ref in Breakthrough section does not actually backup claims of unexpected success.

Done It does. The source says that it was a surprise hit. Many other sources support the claim. If you want I can provide. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

My fault - didn't catch it on the first go-around. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's OK :) Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• All Filmfare Awards noms and wins need sourcing.

DoneIt is sourced in the article of her awards. Shahid • ^Talk2me 04:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again, assertions made in this article require sourcing in this article. (To be perfectly clear, all information across all articles require the appropriate sources within the articles - redundancy is to be expected therefore.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well but that's why the awards article exists. We cannot source any such thing - it's too much. If there wasn't a daughter article, I would source it, but the awards article is actually a part of this very article. And good to note that the award categories themselves do have Wiki articles. You certainly wouldn't ask to source that Meryl Streep won an Oscar for Sophie's Choice. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

All article information needs to be referenced within this article. There aren't exceptions which state that it's fine to omit references where the information is duplicated on other articles. Are you implying that you can't find references for this? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Done Not only can I find sources, I also have prepared footnotes with reliable sources on the awards page. As I said, the award page is just a daughter page, and is by all means a part of this very article. The article links to it as "further information". I really can't see what the problem is. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Done IMO Resolved In the "Filmography" section, all Filmfare nominations and wards have now been sourced. These, however, have not always been sourced in the text. Reasons: one, they are sourced in the Filmography section; two, for the sake of easy readability of the text (which already has large number of inline citations). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've removed the sources as of now. The awards article is part of this article. It is linked only in this article. I can't see how it matters. I'll see what Sandy has to say. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

explanation No, List of Preity Zinta's awards and nominations is not considered a part of Preity Zinta article. That's an independent article which the reader may or may not chose to read while/after reading Preity Zinta. That article may be considered as a "daughter" article or "supporting" article. Having a daughter article is not a must for an FA, neither it precludes the main article have references.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Dwaipayanc. If they remain sourced in the filmography, then that is fine. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• The quote in the last sentence of the first Breakthrough paragraph should be dropped - it comes across as peacock, and doesn't even apply solely to Zinta. India Today can also be dropped from the sentence - the ref identifies the source. Something simpler like - "she became identified as a part of a new generation of..." would be much more to the point.

Done It was added during this FAC as to address another comment. I have removed the quote, but India Today gives some credibility. What do you think? Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Good enough.

• Mission Kashmir plot needs to be tighter. Instead of "through the eyes of Aaltaf", something like "through the eyes of a _____", with the blank identifying what Aaltaf is that makes his POV so different. (e.g., a local farmer or a politician). Furthermore, the Hindu review is a poor choice for "generally well-received", with tepidly faint praise at best.

I don't know how to describe him in one phrase. As for the review, I thought that generally well received xonstituted exactly a faint review. I like the review because it's simple. Maybe removing the "generally well-received" would help? Shahid • ^Talk2me 04:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"Generally well-received" doesn't seem faint - "decently received" does. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"Decently received" -- mmm do you want me to write that? Maybe its better to remove the description and leave the quote only? Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

One or the other, I suppose. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What is better according to you? Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Done IMO resolved "generally well received" removed. Only retained the quotation from the review in The Hindu.

The film narrates the story of altaf and others. It does not have Altaf as the story-teller/narrator. So, the film is not built from the viewpoint of Altaf (or anybody else). So, removed the phrase "through the eyes of...".--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Which brings up a far larger point - has Zinta (or her films) received any bad reviews? If so, why are they not represented? To argue that there are none, frankly, stretches credulity and gives a strong impression of cherry-picking.

First of all, during this time and even later in the 2000s Zinta received mostly positive reviews. The reviews you see on the article are representative and they represent the majority view of critics. We can do nothing if this is a fact. The only really "bad" reviews she received were for Lakshya (she was not criticised, but mostly described as "just adequate"), Jaanemann (where she was criticised for playing a small role) and Jhoom Barabar Jhoom. We have already discussed that with another editor back in time. But the conclusion was clear because we cannot fight critics, and after all maybe that's the reason behind her popularity? Shahid • ^Talk2me 04:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It does help to address criticism concerns to occasionally pepper in the odd contrarian review, simply to show that there were other minority views. Also, mentioning those bad reviews of the three films above, even if Zinta avoided the criticism, would help - I only see the last one mentioned as having bad reviews within the article. It is important to show that she has acted in films that have fared poorly as well, and as would be expected from any prolific actor. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't ommit any such details, everything is presented. In the Lakshya quote you can see the critic saying "she was good without being spectacular. This was actually the general reception, although there were many positive reviews for this film, but I thought this one represented the majority view. In the Jaanemann case, all critics agreed that she acted well, only some criticised her for taking such a small characters. One critic said that she was an "ornament thorughout", and that's mentioned. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• The "(see below)" link fails MOS - it would be better to simply link the words "the trial of Bharat Shah" to the section.

Done I linked "the trial". Is that OK? Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If you made the entire phrase "the trial of Bharat Shah" into the link, it might be clearer - linking "the trial" gives the impression that perhaps the word trial is linked. Shah can still be linked when the trial is discussed below. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. Done Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• "taboo issue of surrogate..." - neither link shows any evidence of something as strong as taboo. Controversial would be more appropriate, given the references.

Done Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• The MSN India reference, I say again, is a poor choice when plenty of stronger ones exist. These are exceptional claims, and therefore require exceptionally stronger sources.

Do you think it can be removed without replacement? Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• The last sentence in the second-to-last paragraph of Breakthrough seems to imply that all of the honors and recognition was a direct result of CCCC. Is that really the case, or are you trying to say that all of the recognition began to come in starting after her work in that film. The meanings are completely different. Furthermore, the sentence (or at least the sources) probably are better placed in the lead, to support similar claims made there.

As mentioned in the article, she was recognised not only for CCCC, but for her range of roles (which are quite different from typical roles), including the previous Sangharsh, Kya Kehna. The recognition was not a direct result of CCCC. It was the time when people started considering her as an actress of substance who plays diverse roles. What do you think? Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it needs some copy-editing to make it clearer, then, that this was not all the result of one film. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you have an idea to rewrite "after the release of this film"? Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It might be easier just to rewrite that sentence from scratch. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well the sentence itself is IMO fine - the first clause is misleading here. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully resolved. Rewrote the sentence as follows, "Following the portrayal of a wide range of characters in Kya Kehna, Sangharsh and Chori Chori Chupke Chupke, Zinta was recognised for her versatility as an actress, and credited with establishing a new image for leading actresses in Bollywood". This sentence clarifies that the recognition of the versatility and he credit is not the consequence of the film Chori Chori Chupke Chupke alone, but her portrayal of a wide range of characters in several gilms. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's Breakthrough. If these comments, as well as the remaining previous ones, can be addressed first, I'd be happy to continue. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Part 3 -

• I see that there's been some reversion regarding adding her cricket team ownership to the lead. I would have to agree that owning a major sports team is notable enough for inclusion, especially as she apparently is the only female owner in the league, and certainly far more notable than having had four newspaper columns published by virtue of her fame. The ownership certainly has occupied a more substantial portion of her life and responsibilities, for one.

• What exactly is meant by "a patriotic drama"? Patriotic by whose standards?

• The Hero reference is insufficient to back up the claims made by it - it is essentially a promotional press release, and the bombastic and exceptional claims should presumably have better sourcing than a BBC Shropshire preview blurb if they are true.

• Why isn't Armaan's unexpected box office failure (as discussed in the Tribune ref) noted, when several other films' are? I can see it did well critically, but the article seems to imply that no one anticipated anything but success for it.

• "(according to boxofficeindia.com)" needs to be deleted; the reference already exists in the article.

• The "Success" section is rather long; it may be prudent to split it into two or three shorter sections. (At the moment it takes up two whole screen-heights on my monitor.)

• "received a significant reception worldwide" - what is a significant reception? Something like "had a strong international release, including a screening at the Berlin Film Festival" might be more appropriate.

• The reference to Yash Raj as one of the largest production houses doesn't seem to directly cite that fact. While I don't doubt that it's true, I'm also sure that there are numerous exceptionally better sources to show this.

• "The film was another Yash Raj big-budget film" - this needs some polishing with a copy edit.

• Salaam Namaste claims to have garnered her with several nominations. Can this be sourced within the article? I can see the ref for the Filmfare nom in the filmography, but that's only one award nom.

• Why is the rest of the NYT's fairly negative review of Salaam Namaste overlooked?

• The "As of April 2008" paragraph needs references.

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 15:26, 26 May 2008 [39].

---

[edit] Louis Lambert (novel)

I'm self-nominating this article because I have spent many long weeks toiling over it, poring over many books by and about Honoré de Balzac. Many thanks to Outriggr and Awadewit, who provided helpful (and kind) feedback at the peer review. Thanks in advance for having a look. – Scartol • Tok 01:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support—participated in peer review. It's pristine! –Outriggr § 03:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Sources look fine, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support As a recent peer reviewer, I already found few improvements to suggest. A wonderfully engaging article that is well-researched. Thanks for all your hard work on improving Balzac-related articles, Scartol! Should we start calling you are our French literature expert? :) Awadewit (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• No, you should call me our English language expert, because I know the difference between "our" and "are", and I proofread! (Ooh boy, I am gonna get it for this one.) Seriously, though, thanks again for your careful reviews, the both of ya. – Scartol • Tok 15:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Too funny! My students' writing is infiltrating my own! Ah! Awadewit (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support as the GA reviewer who recommended it be taken here, I have no concerns and fully believe the article meets FA criteria. --Kakofonous (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support: I missed the PR lovefest due to lack of time, but I doubt I would have had anything constructive to say. This is another jewel from Scartol. Balzac still goes right over my head, but I'm nonetheless impressed with the time and energy put into his articles. Well written, correct formatting, exemplary sources, etc, etc. Great work, as always. María (habla conmigo) 15:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 15:26, 26 May 2008 [40].

---

[edit] Thomas Cranmer

previous FAC

Self-nominator. In reference to the previous FAC, I have completely rewritten and expanded the article and I believe all previously mentioned criticisms have been addressed. It is now based on modern secondary sources (no old sources, tertiary sources, or private websites). --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - in the notes you can delete the link to the book in a second time (ex. ^ Pinco pallino p 9 ^ Pinco pallino p 12), but the article seems ok :) --Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 15:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Technically according to our MoS, that is correct. I use Template:Harvnb for formatting the citations and it is not clever enough to not provide a link after the first link. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I take that back. One can use the Ref=none parameter. However, the major problem with this is if the first cite is edited out for some reason, the next cite is not automatically linked and will probably remain missing. I would rather make certain that the cites are linked to the references. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• This is my first set of comments; more later. Feel free to ignore them. Also feel free to reformat their presentation on this page, if it aids clarity. here we go: —This is part of a comment by Ling.Nut (of 15:56, 19 May 2008), which was interrupted by the following:

Thanks for your comments. I will address these individually. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• However, he succeeded in publishing the first officially authorised vernacular service, the Exhortation and Litany.

  I presume a vernacular service is one in English instead of Latin? That term is not particularly transparent. Plus the link to Exhortation and Litany is a link to a stub. Would a footnote be preferable? I really do not know.

I linked "vernacular" to wiktionary. The link is a stub, but it can either be expanded in the future or merged with another article with a new redirect. In either case, I think the link remains useful. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• It took him a surprisingly long eight years to reach his Bachelor of Arts degree during which he began to collect medieval scholastic books, which he preserved faithfully throughout his life.

  During a surprisingly long eight-year period spent reaching his Bachelor of Arts degree, Cranmer began to collect medieval scholastic books, which he preserved faithfully throughout his life.

• Cranmer’s first contact with a Continental reformer was the humanist based in Basel, Switzerland, Simon Grynaeus, a follower of the Swiss reformers, Huldrych Zwingli and Johannes Oecolampadius. In the summer of 1531, Grynaeus took an extended...

  Cranmer’s first contact with a Continental reformer was with the humanist Simon Grynaeus. A follower of the Swiss reformers Huldrych Zwingli and Johannes Oecolampadius, Grynaeus was based in Basel, Switzerland. In the summer of 1531 [No comma!] Grynaeus took an extended...

• This was all the more remarkable given that he set aside his priestly vow of celibacy.

  This was all the more remarkable given that the marriage required him to set aside his priestly vow of celibacy.

Changed to your formulation. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• He did not take her as his mistress as was the prevailing custom with priests for whom celibacy was too rigorous.

  Priests usually took mistresses? Good place for a {{fact}} tag, unless that fact is verified in the cite in the sentence immediately below!

For those who found celibacy too difficult. This really was prevailing practice. Depending on how high in office, a priest, bishop, or cardinal would have one or more mistresses and of course the resulting illegitimate children. Depending on the location, this could be openly practised or kept hidden. The sentence can be verified in Basil Hall's article. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Scholars note that Cranmer had moved, however moderately at this stage, into identifying with certain Lutheran principles.[18] This success in his personal life...

  Ambiguous. What was the success: the marriage or the move to Lutheranism? If it's the latter then I catch a faint whiff of POV.

I changed it to "progress". The point being made was that something was happening or moving at least in his private life, but he could not get Charles V to budge (the political life). --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Cranmer opened his court on 10 May inviting Henry and Catherine to appear.

  This was a bit confusing, for a couple of reasons. First: we had been talking about Anne for a while; Catherine was lost in the murky mists of one or two paragraphs ago. [Note my lack of a short-term memory]. Then suddenly Catherine is the one invited to appear... I lost track. This whiplash (for me and my poor memory, at least) can be fixed simply by finding a nice term to describe Catherine and contrast with Anne. I dunno, "first wife" or "she whom henry desired to dump like yesterday's TV dinner" or something. Second, was Henry actually married to two women at the same time' for a brief period? If so, then i think you need to hit this point with a bigger hammer.

I put in Catherine of Aragon. That makes the name unique and should helpfully prod the recall mechanism of the brain. :) Henry was not married to two women because he got the first marriage annulled which retroactively defines the first marriage as never having occurred. Of course, that invites the obvious question of what would happen if he never got the annulment. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• with men who followed the new thinking such as Hugh Latimer.

  with men such as Hugh Latimer who followed the new thinking.

• Under the vice-gerency (1535–1538)

  Vice-regency is a much more familiar synonym. I'm a little afraid you'll have to spend the rest of your life watching for well-meaning people changing "gerency" to "regency" every other month or so...

Unfortunately, they are not synonyms. The vice-regent is a deputy of a regent (to be facetious an example would be Edmund Blackadder) and the vice-gerent is a deputy of a top boss (in this case, the king). There is a hidden comment in that section which should reduce the WP:AGF changes. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• ...which created another set of institutions that gave a clear structure to the supremacy.

  Dude, I'm trying to sound smart here, but really, I'm totally lost. You've short-handed what seems to be a nontrivial political maneuver into a single, opaque phrase. Cheshire cat and all that.

I added "royal". The royal supremacy was rather ill-defined. Who was really at the head of the church, the king or the archbishop? What Cromwell did was to make sure that it was the king at the top and Cromwell created additional institutions in the name of the king. For example, the office of vice-gerent was clearly above the archbishops and Cromwell could also call his own synods. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• outfaced

  .. means what?

Meaning to make someone submit. In this case, to make his clerical opponents to submit. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• A balance was instituted between the conservatives and the reformers and this was seen in the first attempt at defining what Henry’s Church now believed: the Ten Articles. It had a two-part structure.

  Competition between the conservatives and reformers reached a balance, as made clear in the first set of guidelines drawn up regarding the beliefs of the Church of England as it became independent from Rome: the Ten Articles. The document had a two-part structure.

• Ling.Nut (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Okay, so Ayris & Selwyn is a collection of works by other authors? I can see how you did the referencing, but I think I would have listed each article in the references (using a format like this example Duggan, Charles (1965). "From the Conquest to the Death of John". The English Church and the Papacy in the Middle Ages (Reprint edition 1999). Sutton Publishing. p. 63-116. ISBN 0-7509-1947-7. .

Otherwise, sources look good. Links checked out fine. I'll be back later to review fully. (cackles). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I use Template:Harvnb for formatting the cites along with Template:Citation for formatting the references. I like the fact that the two work together in wikilinking. The only problem is that Harvnb does not have many parameters to add article info, so the article info is placed after the cite template. I could make it work to the format you described by listing every article in the book separately in the References section and naming the article author in the Harvnb cite. But then someone might question why every article from one book is listed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is why I use cite, because it has the handy {{cite encyclopedia}} which covers this type of work. (I'm not a fan of the Harvnb system, it makes the whole ref section blue and that's annoying to read to me, but that's a editor choice). I'd just list the articles that you use, not all the articles in the book. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The wikilinks in the Notes section can be removed while using Harvnb (Ref=none parameter). I find the links handy especially if there is a long list of references. I changed it to the format you described. The articles are now listed separately in the References section. I only listed the articles I used, although that turns out that to be nearly all of the articles in the book. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Support I have recently peer reviewed this article and any issues I might have had with the article were dealt with there. Once again, I am delighted with RelHistBuff's attention to detail and care in putting together a biography of an important Reformation figure. The article is sourced to reliable biographies, appears to be comprehensive (I am no expert!), is well-written, and excellently illustrated. Thanks for your dedication to this project, RelHistBuff! Awadewit (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. I also peer reviewed the article, and all issues that I borught up were fixed. This is an excellent article about an important topic. Karanacs (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Greatly improved since I commented on the first FAC. The flow and style are not always great. Some points:

—This is part of a comment by Johnbod (of 01:04, 21 May 2008), which was interrupted by the following:

• "His parents, Thomas and Agnes (née Hatfield) Cranmer, were of modest means and were not members of the nobility. Their oldest son, John, inherited the family estate, while Thomas and his younger brother Edmund were placed on the path to a clerical career." Mixed signals here; no one said they were of the nobility, and people of "modest means" in the late C15th did not have a "family estate", or indeed usually the money to put 2-3 sons through a grammar school. Better before peer review perhaps!

There is not much that could be said about Cranmer's family, but everything written is from the source. They were certainly not members of the nobility, but they were not destitute either. Hence, I used the words "modest means". This is supported by a quote from the source, "Thomas's father, Thomas senior, styled himself esquire in his will, although his wealth was probably dangerously modest to claim such a status". However, in any case Thomas senior had enough possessions to make a will and the heir was John and he made provisions in his will to educate his remaining two sons. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Presumably he farmed/owned land, as no trade or profession is given. Esquire gives context - minor gentry (I notice that is what the BBC external link calls them)? "Modest means" is really entirely in the eye of the beholder, and 'modest wealth' far from being the same - one is income, the other capital. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to "modest wealth". Neither Ridley nor MacCulloch state what was Thomas senior's profession. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No doubt because he didn't have one. What do they say exactly? Both the short BBC article & the EB agree on minor gentry, and I see web-links referring to a manor held. The later family need better coverage too, as others have said. Johnbod (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• DONE "Master’s degree, he took a different course of study..." - from what? Especially as you then say "He began studying theology..." only after becoming a fellow. Is this right?

I missed adding details on the BA curriculum. I added it now. Yes, he began studying theology only after his fellowship was reinstated. It is from the source. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• "Although he was not yet a priest, he was forced to forfeit his fellowship, resulting in the loss of his residence at Jesus College. In order to support himself and his wife, he took a job as a reader at another college. When Joan died during her first childbirth, Jesus College showed its esteem of Cranmer by reinstating his fellowship..." Clunky. All fellows were required to be unmarried until the mid-C19. He lost his job as well as his residence, is it necessary to stipulate "In order to support himself and his wife..." when he takes another? "Regard" or "opinion" would be better than "esteem".

I am not sure if everyone knows that fellows were required to be unmarried at the time (at least I didn't). That is how both sources phrased it. What would you suggest to make it better? I changed "esteem" to "regard", although I believe "esteem" is supported by the source in the quote, "The College authorities seem to have extended an altogether exceptional indulgence to Cranmer, for there is no other record of a Fellowship having been given to a widower during the next two hundred years". --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

How about: "...he married a woman named Joan, forcing him to forfeit his fellowship, which meant he lost both his income and his lodgings at Jesus College. He was able to find a job as a reader at another college." Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• DONE "When Cardinal Wolsey, the king's Lord Chancellor, had selected several Cambridge dons...." "had" is not needed here, and OED gives the first use of "don", as in University don, in 1660 (though Wolsey has the first cite of the Spanish title usage in English in 1523), so I think this is anachronistic - "scholar/s" would do. "In a recent discovery of two of Cranmer’s letters.." - better: "In two recently discovered letters by Cranmer..." - or does that upset the anti-passive fetishists? "Upon Cranmer's return from Spain in June 1527, he was given a personal half-hour long interview with the king. He described the king as "a man who is the kindest of princes."" better: "Upon Cranmer's return from Spain in June 1527, he was given a personal half-hour long interview with the king, who he described as "the kindest of princes."" No?

Agree to your changes. But just to mention that the use of the word "don" is straight from the source: "Lee was a Cambridge don..." --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• DONE "He tasked Cardinal Wolsey with prosecuting his case..." not really encyclopedic style, certainly in UK English.

A copyeditor put that in; I thought "task" was only a noun, but I thought it was a minor issue, so I took no action. I have now returned it to the original text. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• DONE "Two fellow Cambridge associates, Stephen Gardiner and Edward Foxe, joined him..." fellow associates is redundancy.

Removed fellow. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• "This was all the more remarkable given that he set aside his priestly vow of celibacy." I think we mean "broke", don't we?

Hall used "rejected"; MacCulloch used "set aside"; Ridley used "converted to the Lutheran view as regards to". I think "set aside" is best because it is neutral. Depending on one's point-of-view, Cranmer's action can be taken negatively or positively. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"Set aside" seems less neutral, and vaguer, than "broke", which rightly or wrongly is certainly what he did. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The appropriate verb would depend on the context. A polemical account would certainly use "broke". An apologetic account would use "reject" (Hall for example said, "rejection of priestly celibacy as one of the tyrannous laws..."). Neither is appropriate here because the context is about what may have been his first step toward a reformed view. MacCulloch's chose the right verb. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• DONE "This progress in his personal life, however, could not be matched in his political life as he was unable to change the mind of Charles to support Henry's annulment." "Charles' mind" or just "pursuade Charles to" surely? You might mention Catherine was his aunt.

Agreed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• DONE I find Cranmer's meteoric promotion to Archbishop of Canterbury is still underplayed (a big beef last time too); this was surely an extraordinary leap that deserves more emphasis. You also don't mention the minor livings that I think he already had, which you should.

Added sentence on the surprise of his promotion (from Ayris). --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• "Pope Clement VII was furious at this defiance, but he could not take decisive action as he was pressured by other monarchs to avoid an irreparable breach with England." Hiding out in Orvieto (was it?) from the rampaging armies of Catherine's nephew, more like. Or was he back by then? Firmly under the Habsburg thumb anyway.

The source said that he could not take action because the King of France did not want England to break with Rome and the Emperor, Charles, was uncertain just what kind of drastic measures was needed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• "Pope Clement VII was furious at this defiance, but he could not take decisive action as he was pressured by both the Emperor and French king, who could not agree on a course of action, with France wanting to avoid an irreparable breach with England." is clearer then. Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• DONE "He intervened in religious rows..." disputes? controversies?

Changed to disputes. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• DONE, though expansion still desirable, imo. "Hence, in matters regarding the king's spirituality, the archbishop was eclipsed by the Vice-gerent Cromwell.[32" seems a bit imprecise - how either could have much impact on "the king's spirituality" seems unclear, and "eclipsed" seems odd. This is an important point, and an unprecedented move, and could do with expansion and clarification.

A copyeditor changed it "spirituality"; I changed it back to the original which was "spiritual jurisdiction". The verb "eclipse" was used twice by Ayris in this context and I think it is an appropriate one. There are no statements of an explicit hierarchy, but Cromwell had the power to inhibit and augment Cranmer's role. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• DONE/OK "On 29 January 1536, when Anne miscarried a son, the king again had thoughts on the biblical prohibitions that haunted him during his marriage with Catherine" - "with a son" is normal usage I think. "that had haunted him" (although that should maybe be referenced anyway).

I am confused. What would you like changed? I believe "miscarried a son" is correct. I changed to "had haunted" and added a cite. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• DONE "Behind the scenes at the Court, Cromwell had decided to bring an end to Anne." - "bring an end to" is a bit informal, & that it was TC's own idea needs a reference.

I changed it to "turn against" and added a cite. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• "A balance was instituted between the conservatives and the reformers and this was seen in the first attempt at defining what Henry’s Church now believed: the Ten Articles" - awkward end, better rephrased. "by recognising only three sacraments: baptism, eucharist, and penance" add number before - 7. "The second five articles were about the ceremonies used in the Church and reflected the views of the traditionalists" - liturgy, rituals? Icon link in the next sentence is not really right - all about Eastern Orthodoxy. Next sentence "by" not "between".

Rewritten. Removed link to icon until a better one can be found. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Religious image or iconoclasm seem the best. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Those points done, but an external link to the text of the Ten Articles would be useful both here and at 39 Articles - none at present. Johnbod (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I put in an external link to the Thirty-Nine Articles as hosted by the Anglican Communion. Of course this is not the original Elizabethan version. I don't know what has changed between the original and modern versions. I can find online weblinks to other articles about the Ten Articles, but not to the text of the Ten Articles. The text can be found in books (it is a long document). If there is a site that hosts the text of the Ten Articles, then go ahead an put that in the External links section. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Got to stop now, I will try to return soon, but really the prose needs a good check-over. Johnbod (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Many points cleared & marked DONE. Johnbod (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. Excellent article! I am not an expert so I cannot comment on the discussion above, except to say I found no problems with the prose. Well done to all contributors. GrahamColm^Talk 15:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: image licensing issues:
  • Image:JohnHooperBpGloucester.jpg - image is using a deprecated license. Source makes no assertion of date or author of this image. Where is evidence that this is "Non-Contemporary"?
    • Image:JohnHooperBpGloucester.jpg has been fixed and can be restored to the article. Awadewit (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Martin Bucer.jpg - needs verifiable source per WP:IUP
  • Image:Pilgrimage Of Grace.jpg - source quite firmly asserts copyright (follow the link; it's cute). Where is evidence to support the PD claim?
    • Many sites are claiming copyright over this image - namely, any site that reprints it as a poster. Anyone have any idea which History of England is referred to here? Awadewit (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Cromwell,Thomas(1EEssex)01.jpg - needs a verifiable source.
    • Image:Cromwell,Thomas(1EEssex)01.jpg has been fixed and can be retored to the article. Awadewit (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Anneboleyn2.jpg needs a verifiable source (citing image to "Hever Castle, Kent" is like citing prose to "Cook County Library"). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Image:Anneboleyn2.jpg has now been fixed and can be restored to the article. Awadewit (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I deleted the images. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The Hooper should be easy to find in the NPG online database, where it no doubt came from. It is certainly PD-old of whatever they are calling it these days. The Anne Boleyn should be easy enough to find (since Hever castle has a lot fewer paintings than Cook County Library has books). Likewise the Cromwell. The Pilgrimage of Grace is surely PD-old too, but a poor Victorian image & no loss. But a little work will restore the others. The article is light on pictures as it is. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

They are not images that I uploaded, so if someone could tell me what to do to fix them to be legal, I would gladly do so. Otherwise, I will hunt for legal images. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I fixed up three of them - it was not hard to find sources for them. Awadewit (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Those 3 restored, thanks Awa! (my edit summary wrongly says Bucer for Cromwell btw). Johnbod (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Boleyn is still problematic, as the source is a link to the image itself (i.e. there's no support for the 1525 date). Perhaps an alternative image? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not that one! 1525 is wrong, and I have updated it. Johnbod (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Awadewit for fixing these, but I guess I need something for my own edification, at least so I know what to do the next time. I can see what was done in Image:JohnHooperBpGloucester.jpg by looking at the diff from the history, but what was done with Martin Bucer (nothing seems to have changed), Thomas Cromwell, and Anne Boleyn (there is no history?)? --RelHistBuff (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Bucer was just removed from the article. The other images are hosted at the Commons, so you just need to hit the "description page there" link to get to the page with the history. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Perhaps you forgot to click though to Commons for Boleyn and Cromwell? But indeed nothing has been done to Bucer - I'm not sure why he & the Pilgrimage were struck though above. Johnbod (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I struck because they've been removed from the article. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Still on images, I see here and here the shaky "Stephen Gardiner" is considered not be of him at all, which seems right to me. The NPG has 2 later prints, based on apparently the only portrait that might be authentic - not sure where that is. Johnbod (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the tip about clicking on description page of Commons. I think I understand what to do. Concerning Gardiner, if it is from 1510, then it is certainly not Gardiner. I took it down for now and will try to look for another one as well as a Martin Bucer engraving somewhere and upload them later. But at this stage does your oppose still stand, elcobbola? --RelHistBuff (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but only because Boleyn hasn't been fixed. The new NPG source would support this, but not the version currently being used. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 23:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It is Plate 1, and discussed on pp.42ff. of The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn: 'the Most Happy' By Eric William Ives, here. Johnbod (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This page says the date is 1525. Perhaps we should simply say "16th century" for the time being? Awadewit (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The article has never given a date, but comparison with the NPG info on their version and books I can't be faffed to cite here shows 1525 is certainly wrong for the actual painting, & probably too early for the lost original, whatever that was. Even "16th century" is not certain. See above. Johnbod (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I updated the description on Commons for the other Boleyn picture and put the new image in the article. I also found another Bucer engraving which is used in MacCulloch. I used MacCulloch as the source of the metadata in an updated description. I have little experience in the handling of images on Commons so I hope I did this right. Is there some practical instructions on what kind of image metadata is required for FA? WP:IUP reads like legalese and in any case it is not very informative. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

New Boleyn looks fine (and Bucer, too); I've stricken the oppose. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Comments I lean towards support, but have some prose concerns, and would like to at least get something about his family, which was left hanging in exile under Henry VIII. —This is part of a comment by Ealdgyth (of 19:26, 21 May 2008), which was interrupted by the following:

Ouf! Fortunately, I had advance warning of a big batch of comments coming from Ealdgyth. :) I will start on these tomorrow. --RelHistBuff (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Given how large the article is... I think this was rather a small batch myself (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Switched to support. All look resolved! Another great article, now on to Jan Hus!

Generally Support. Because the sources are offline and out of hand I can't really do a proper review of the article, but it is a pleasure to read. The reviewers above are doing a good job finding points to fix, but these are really very small detractions and I see you're addressing them. Wnt (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Support An excellently well-written, well-referenced and well-organized article. In a few places, the density of inline citations felt a bit low, but nothing very troubling. The final few sentences depicting Cranmer's Catholic and Protestant biographers seemed out-of-place, seemingly subjective and sweepingly apodictic; so I softened the wording somewhat — please check that I didn't change your intended meaning! Willow (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I can add citations for specific sentences on request; I try to make sure every paragraph is cited. Your wording definitely improved what I had originally. I just wanted to mention though that Ridley's paragraph on the subject of the various biographers was even harsher and I had to soften his phrasing! Null's description is more scholarly and very detailed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Cranmer mourned Henry’s death and it was later said that he demonstrated his grief by growing a beard. I think this mentions only the least important part of what MacCulloch says about the beard, which was a statement of rejection of the Old Church. Jennifer Loach makes the the same point in her Edward VI. The reason I raise this obscure point is that I was going to add a nice line about the beard to the caption of the white-beard portrait (since the other images have neat descriptive comments), but I didn't want to seem to contradict the article's statement that he grew the beard in mourning. I think the beard is more significant than just that. qp10qp (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I added the point on the rejection of the old Church (both in the text and in the caption). --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

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