Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. Users should not add a second FA nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. Please do not split FA candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings). The FA director, Raul654—or his delegate, SandyGeorgia—determines the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the director or his delegate determines whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate: actionable objections have not been resolved; or consensus for promotion has not been reached; or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived. Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of Contents

Shortcut: WP:FAC Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured pictures Featured lists Featured portals Featured topics Featured sounds Featured article tools: Featured article criteria Featured article candidates Featured article review Today's featured article This month's queue Main page requests Featured article log Featured article statistics Former featured articles Toolbox Dead links (Updates daily)

Nomination procedure Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. Place {{fac}} on the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. From the FAC template, click on the "initiate the nomination" link (for first nominations) or the "leave comments" link (for subsequent nominations). If there was a previous nomination, you will see a link to "previous FAC"; leave that link as it is. If you encounter an unarchived, older nomination at this page, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance in moving and archiving the previous nomination. Below the preloaded title, write Nominator (or Self-nominator if you are the sole or a major contributor to the article). A reason for nominating, and a declaration of "Support" are not necessary. Sign with ~~~~ and save the page. Copy this text:{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article}}, and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. Supporting and opposing Please read a nominated article fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination. To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by the reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternately, reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template which includes a signature in the header. If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider. Graphics are discouraged (for example, Y Done or N Not done), as they slow down the page load time. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.

Contents 1 Nominations 1.1 Battle of Lissa (1811) 1.2 Curtis (50 Cent album) 1.3 Lince (tank) 1.4 The Trial of a Time Lord 1.5 1947 Sydney hailstorm 1.6 Hare coursing 1.7 Talyllyn Railway 1.8 Edward Wright (mathematician) 1.9 Gothic metal 1.10 Indigenous people of the Everglades region 1.11 Cold War 1.12 Dutch Empire 1.13 Michael Gomez 1.14 Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) 1.15 Go (board game) 1.16 Zhang Heng 1.17 Art Houtteman 1.18 Year Zero (album) 1.19 Eric Brewer (ice hockey) 1.20 Worlds End State Park 1.21 Verdeja (tank) 1.22 Assata Shakur 1.23 2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra 1.24 Creatures of Impulse 1.25 Nathaniel Parker Willis 1.26 Alleyway 1.27 Battle of Verrières Ridge 1.28 Ant 1.29 Under the Bridge 1.30 Iloilo International Airport 1.31 The Greencards 1.32 New York State Route 28 1.33 New York State Route 32 1.34 Roman Catholic Church 1.35 Emmy Noether 1.36 Halo (series) 1.37 LSWR N15 class 1.38 1926 World Series 1.39 Germany Schulz 1.40 Rongorongo 1.41 American Airlines Flight 11 1.42 SummerSlam (1988) 1.43 SummerSlam (2007) 1.44 Strapping Young Lad 1.45 Brian Horrocks

[edit] Nominations

[edit] Battle of Lissa (1811)

Self-nomination. An article on a little known naval action from 1811, I believe this is adequately sourced, well written and conforms to all other FAC criteria. It has passed for GA and undergone a Wikiproject peer review which generated a lot of comments. Any and all actionable suggestions welcome.Jackyd101 (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Alphabetize References section per WP:CITE
• "The French invasion force under Bernard Dubourdieu was met by Captain William Hoste and his four ships based on the island and in the following battle Hoste sank the French flagship, captured two others and scattered the remainder of the Franco-Venetian squadron." → "The French invasion force under Bernard Dubourdieu was met by Captain William Hoste and his four ships based on the island. In the following battle, Hoste sank the French flagship, captured two others, and scattered the remainder of the Franco-Venetian squadron."?

Gary King (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on the splitting of the sentence in the lead, so have made the change. Adacore (talk) 03:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments - probably should mention that the Oxford dictionary of National biography is a subscription database, not everyone has access to it online (this doesn't mean you can't use it as a reference, just that you need to say that "subscription required" or something like that in the reference). Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• In background a sentence or two with broader scope than is given may be useful - the fact that this was in the context of the Napoleonic Wars, for example, is only explicitly mentioned in the lead and the infobox. I'm not sure where or how this should be integrated though.
• There seems to be a very minor formatting problem with the table listing Captain Hoste's squadron. The entry for the Ship HMS Volage has a slight offset in the divider between the ship and rate columns for me.
• Total crew numbers for the ships would be useful for putting the casualties in context, if they're known, but I'd guess they're probably not. Both in the tables and in the Aftermath section.
• Given it has a name, I'd say "...the xebec Eugenio..." rather than "...a xebec Eugenio..."
• The phrase "...the cannon's discharge instantly swept the bow of Favorite clear of the French and Italian boarding party." seems a little unencyclopaedic to me. Is this a direct quote from the source and/or could it be rephrased?
• Similarly "...becoming a total wreck." seems a bit colloquial, however I suppose it may be appropriate in the case of a shipwreck?
• In Conclusion, "...not without the death of five men and several more seriously burnt when the blazing mainmast collapsed." - Were the deaths and the burns both caused by the mainmast collapse?
• In the first sentence of the final paragraph of Aftermath, I'd start with "Following the battle..." or similar, and mention that the numerical superiority was of naval vessels (is it?), to put it in context.
• And in the final sentence of "Aftermath", it's unclear which action "The action..." refers to - the Battle of Lissa, or the action of 29 November 1811?
• It might be beneficial to include the subtitle of the reference book "The Frigates" (An Account of the Lighter Warships of the Napoleonic Wars). Similarly with "The Victory of Seapower" (Winning the Napoleonic War 1806-1814).

Adacore (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Curtis (50 Cent album)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it meets the featured article criteria. Shadyaftrmathgunit (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Indefinitive prose, poor referencing methods used, some other factors which are quite detremental to the quality of this article. I'd suggest bringing through a rigourous peer review to get up to FA. Rudget (Help?) 20:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• At least a dozen unformatted references. Format like the examples at WP:CITE/ES

Gary King (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title.
• One reference is giving a cite error note.
• Link checker tool is reporting a number of dead links or timeouts.

When the references are formatted consistently, I'll try to return to evaluate reliablity of sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

This article could use considerable improvement, generally and requires quite a bit of work to bring it up to FA standard. A rigorous peer review as suggested by Rudget would certainly be useful.

• The singles chart position table is very long, I'd suggest formatting it like the one on Hybrid Theory, with different columns for each chart.
• The prose could do with quite a bit of work throughout. For example, from the concept section:
  • Stating that the album title was changed twice is a bit misleading, and the explanation of the change could be compressed. For example, "The album title, originally just "Curtis", was changed to "Curtis S.S.K." and back."
  • Did SSK stand for SoundScan Killer; SouthSide King; or Shoot, Stab, Kill (the latter being unreferenced)? If more than one, the section should probably be rewritten to incorporate all these into one more structured sentence. This sentence should probably mention the source of any meaning behind the name (the stated intention to "show the pressure 50 Cent felt to succeed") - did 50 Cent himself say this, or was it a commentary from someone else?
  • In the final paragraph of the section, "He also stated that..." could be changed to simply "and that..."
  • The paragraphs in the Concept section are quite short, and with the above suggested revisions would become even shorter, so combining the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs might be a good idea.
• There's some repetition of information. For example the sales figures are given in Curtis vs Graduation, then again under Sales.
• Also, the reception section seems to have the same view repeated by more critics than I'd consider necessary.
• Is it really necessary to list the performer of every chorus and verse in the track listings, especially if the entire song is performed by 50 Cent, such as "I Get Money" or "Amusement Park"? I'd consider just listing the performers on each track, without the chorus/verse references, but certainly drop those references for tracks with only 50 Cent. Probably also cut for sections of songs performed by 50 Cent, leaving only the guest artist references, for example "All of Me" - Chorus: Mary J. Blige. From the history it looks like this information was only added in the last few hours, so possibly isn't stable yet and could use some editing.
• There are quite a few referencing problems, unformatted references and the like. And #53 is showing a cite error warning.

Adacore (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lince (tank)

Self-nominator JonCatalan (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Why are there two headers as of this revision?-Wafulz (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed! JonCatalan (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I grouped all references with the same title (if an online news article) or the same page number (if published on paper). I also expanded the dates, and replaced dashes with en dashes. JonCatalan (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Image:Lince.jpg does not specify the author/copyright holder of the image per WP:NFCC#10a. Kelly ^hi! 18:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It specifies where I got the image from. I don't know who the copyright holder is. JonCatalan (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ugh - I'm afraid if this can't be found the image will have to go. Can it be replaced? Kelly ^hi! 19:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the image is irreplaceable; I was surprised that someone found it, in the first place! JonCatalan (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I hate situations like this...if the image doesn't specify the copyright holder, it doesn't satisfy WP:NFCC#10a. I certainly agree that the image can't be replaced with a free one since the tank was not actually built. (I presume the mockup was destroyed as well?) Does an image with a verifiable copyright source exist in any of the dead-tree sources - Jane's, perhaps? Kelly ^hi! 19:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I don't have it with me, I have Janes' Tank Recognition Guide and it doesn't mention the Lince. The Lince is pretty unknown, even inside Spain - not that many people interested in the subject. I'd like to know where that Czech site even got its information from (even though I can't understand it) - unfortunately, his email doesn't work. I am asking on tank-net, but that's not guaranteed to get any hits. I would contact the actual Spanish Ministry of Defense to see if this an archival photograph, but they are not likely to respond (I have tried in the past, concerning other issues). JonCatalan (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Couldn't "bidding for the Lince" be changed to just "bidding"?
• Non-breaking space between unit and measurement.
• Link decades in the lead - they do provide context.
• "To achieve this, the Lince would use Rheinmetall's 120 mm L/44 tank-gun and German composite armor from the Leopard 2A4." - why the future tense?
• "The Spanish government decided to upgrade its AMX-30Es in the late 1980s, which distracted attention from the program. It was eventually cancelled in 1990 when Spain adopted a large number of North American M60 Patton tanks retired from Europe in accordance with the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. " - it's unclear what the pronoun "it" is referring to. Consider rephrasing.

Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

1. Changed.
2. Any measurement in particular? The only one I could find was in the infobox.
3. Done!
4. Changed to past tense.
5. Changed 'it' to The Lince.

JonCatalan (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Is the Maquinas de Guerra ref Spanish language? Same for Candil Antonio Carros de Combate?
• Current ref 23 is lacking a publisher (La Familia de tanques Patton) and should specifiy the language is Spanish. (I see it's listed at the bottom as Susorail ... is that the author or publisher? Probably should be listed in the footnote as Susorail...)

I wasn't able to evaluate the Spanish language sources. Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing here indicates reliability, a self-published site with collaborator input, no indication of fact-checking or oversight: http://www.militar.org.ua/militar/foro-militar-colaborar.html I can't find any indication that militar.org.ua would be a reliable source for any purpose. It should be replaced, particularly since it's being used to source hard data and gov't statements.

El País is fine, but it's a newspaper, hence should be italicized; it might also be linked.

I can't tell what this is, book? author? Is Planeta-Agostini a book publisher, magazine, what? (1984) Maquinas de Guerra: Carros de Combate Modernos. Planeta-Agostini.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Trial of a Time Lord

previous FAC (00:57, 28 April 2008)

This is my second nomination of this article for FA status. The previous nomination failed only for lack of activity; no supports, no opposes, but comments in the FAC suggest it is of a decent enough quality to merit the FA status. Thanks, Sceptre ^(talk) 12:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments I will preface my comments by saying, for what it's worth, I know nothing about Dr. Who
  • In the lead section:
    • The show was weekly but there were "four distinct sections"? Some explanation is needed about what the comprised the four sections (I see them listed below, but it needs clarification in the lead.)
    • Is the information about Melanie Bush and the next season relevant, especially in the lead?
    • What does "who withdrew his completion of the Holmes' final serial" mean? Who is (or are) Holmes? (I know from reading on, but the lead should summarize, not mystify.)
    • I think the lead would benefit from a broad plot synopsis of the entire serial. Something along the lines of "Dr. Who is accused of … and is tried by … for …"
      • Done. When the word "segment" is used, it should mean "block of four/two episodes" - tell me if there are any slipups. The rest are done. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
        • That all looks good. The plot synopsis in the lead is great. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In the "Production" section:
    • (1st para.) Why is trial in quotes?
    • (2nd para.) In the first sentence of the lead segment referred to what aired weekly, right? Here, it's used to refer to the "distinct sections", right? Being from the US (with differing television unit naming), I don't know what word to suggest, but consistency of usage, at least within this article, is necessary.
    • (same) "fourteenth and last episode" Is this just one episode? It sounds like two to me.
    • (3rd para.) Pip and Jane Baker linked twice in this segment.
    • (4th para.) there are extra spaces around the em dash in one of the date ranges in the final sentence.
      • Done. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In the "Serials" section:
    • The alternate titles for Nos. 146 and 147 should be explained, perhaps in the "Production" section. It's especially confusing since the alternate for 146 and the main for 147 are the same.
    • It looks like from The Ultimate Foe that either Time Inc. or Time Incorporated is acceptable, but I think it would be better for consistency to use one or the other (rather than both) in this article
    • What is the source of the information about the four segments/sections described? They are completely un-cited.
      • The issue of whether plot summaries must be cited or not, and how is a difficult one; some people don't cite them as the episode serves as a reference, some people use {{cite episode}}, and some people use external summaries. I'll see if I can do both of the latter options.
  • In the "Reception" section:
    • ("Ratings and figures") The Audience Appreciation was higher, yet lower than previous seasons(?) I'm confused. I see now. It was two metrics being discussed.
      • I think the wording was already fine: the approval rating was higher than season 22, but the viewer share was lower. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • ("Doctor Who: The Television Companion", 2nd para) Perhaps a link to The Caves of Androzani would be appropriate?
      • Done. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Are there no relevant images at all for the article? A DVD box cover? Any of the writers or actors?
    • • Free images exist for Baker and Langford. The DVD, on the other hand, isn't released until this Autumn. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Did the serial win any awards?
    • • I don't think so. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• — Bellhalla (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

---

I have a number of problems with the article that I'd like to share:

1) While the historical notes in the lead are interesting, they seem secondary. This is an article about the episodes themselves, and I think it should concentrate on that. I believe this would be improved by moving the 4th para up to the 2nd.

2) Really bad prose:

"Throughout the trial, the Doctor becomes suspicious about evidence being censored and his TARDIS being bugged. The evidence shows the Doctor and Glitz deactivating the robot: the former because the robot's power supply is unstable; the latter to gain access to the secrets. The secrets are destroyed, and all parties are able to leave Ravalox positively, with the exception of the Doctor; he is still inquisitive on why Earth was moved several million light years. "

I really don't know what this is trying to say. I simply can't see the connection between the first and second sentences, although there seems to be one implied.

Are there two pieces of evidence being presented, one showing the Doctor deactivating the robot and another showing Glitz doing it? Or is this trying to say that the Doctor and Glitz worked together, for different reasons?

And what does "able to leave Ravalox positively" mean? How does one "leave positively"? Do you mean "in good spirits" or something similar. And as it is worded now, it seems to be suggesting that the Doctor did not leave the planet.

3) Unclear statement:

"The Doctor arrives while a scientist, Crozier is experimenting brain surgery before performing on Kiv"

What does "is experimenting brain surgery" mean? And who is he experimenting on? And why should we care? Is this an important plot point?

4) Unfinished statement:

"The Doctor, Mel, and Lasky succeed in preventing the Vervoids."

preventing the Vervoids from WHAT? Do you mean "frustrating the Vervoids plans"?

5) More odd prose:

"The Doctor's suspicions are furthered by the evidence shown being different from that he reviewed."

Reading this sentence makes my brain hurt. Please reword.

6) What?

"In response to the Doctor's allegations the Matrix has been altered, the Keeper (James Bree) is called, seconds before the Master (Anthony Ainley) appears to prove the Doctor's point. "

Do you mean "appears" as in "appears to do a good job", or "appears" as in "appears in a flash of light"? Why did the Master appear in either case? Who is the Keeper and why was he called? And there's a missing "that"; allegations that the Matrix...

7) More...

"The Doctor's attempts to prevent the Valeyard from killing the High Council are marred by the Master's machinations"

So does this mean the High Council are all killed? Are some of them killed? None? If it's none, what exactly was marred?

8) More...

"The Doctor prevents the Valeyard by causing the destruction of the Matrix archive."

The Doctor prevents the Valeyard from doing what? Do you mean "thwarts" instead of "prevents"? And how does destroying the Matrix prevent the Valeyard from doing whatever it is he was doing?

And I'm still utterly baffled by the Master's role. Did he come into the episodes offering to help the Doctor? Is the Valeyard his puppet, as the text implies? If so, why did the Master "appear" at all? Logic would dictate that he simply wait to see the verdict, and then act if need be.

I'm sorry, but this article really needs work IMHO.

Maury (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• The Master doesn't help the Doctor per se, he just doesn't want a rival in the Valeyard. Most of the rest, I've tried to make it clear. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, at least for now. I think this is overall a good work, but could definately use some polishing before it's ready to pass as a FA. I would highly recommend a good peer review and passing it through GA before resubmitting it to this process.

• 1a: The lead is somewhat difficult to follow. In the second paragraph, you appear to be summarizing individual sub-serials, but that's not clear from the text. The lead is supposed to be a summary, but it's bewildering as it's written. It makes sense when you know what the "Valeyard" is and what those titles are, but it's a bit much for a new reader. Here's my take on an alternate version, just to give you an idea what I mean:

In the serial, the Doctor is put on trial by the High Council of the Time Lords for allegedly interfering with outside worlds. In the first two segments, titled The Mysterious Planet and Mindwarp, the prosecutor (a mysterious figure known only as the Valeyard) uses events from the Doctor's past to prove his guilt. In the third segment, the Terror of the Vervoids, the Doctor defends himself by showing future events. In the final segment, The Ultimate Foe, the Doctor's trial is abruptly stopped by accusations of subterfuge; the Doctor faces off with the Valeyard and his long-time rival, the Master, to clear his name and to save the High Council.

• "In the serial," ; "The serial," ; "The serial," Try to vary your word choice some more.
• "which prompted a more creative format." - What does that mean?
• "but was appreciated more by the audience" - By what measure? Citation please!
• If production on Doctor Who was suspended, why was the series proposed? There looks to be a false cause-and-effect here.
• The second paragraph in the "Production" section needs work. It's a little twisted and hard to follow. (Too many semicolons?)
• I can't figure out what happens in the third paragraph. Obviously with the death and the many writers all working in parallel, this was a complex process, but the writing should do a little more to make it clear.
• "Production block 7C"... this is the first time you mention production blocks. I don't know what a "production block 7c" means... was it the third plot arc in the seventh season? No. So, I really don't know what it is. :)
• "all parties are able to leave with a positive attitude" - what does this mean?
• Earth was moved several million light years? Maybe you should explain more in the description of this serial.
• Speaking of which, you use "serial" to mean both the whole series as well as the individual arcs. I believe this is because the BBC itself uses the term for both, but it's confusing. I think in the cases above, you always used a different term.
• "but the ship is being sabotaged while people begin to perish" - reword?
• I've now noticed that you aren't consistent even within the article with the title of the fourth serial. Sometimes it;s the Ultimate Foe, sometimes Time Inc. You list both titles, but don't explain why it has two (that I saw) and you should stick with one to reduce confusion.
• "He is offered the Time Lord Presidency". Who? The Doctor? The Inquisitor?
• Consider merging the short paragraphs in the Reception section?
• I notice that you have a Doctor Who season infobox. If you are classifying this as a serial, it may be better to have the serial one? (And note that the bottom infobox also uses "serial" in the other sense.)
• 1b: You discuss the production and the reception with a little bit of plot outline, but for completeness you might want to pass on (at least briefly) some of the in-universe trivia. The appearance of Mel as the companion here is commonly remarked on by Doctor Who resources (which I admit, are not necessarily reliable) because it means that she effectively never meets the doctor for the first time.
• Any idea why Peri was fired from the series?
• Any fallout between seasons that should be remarked on? Obviously, there's a new doctor in Season 24 and if that came as a direct result of this series, devoting more time to it might help.
• 1cde: seems factually accurate, neutral, and stable to me.
• 2c: You list a lot of items in your References section which never have corresponding footnotes, and you sometimes use the same source over and over again in any given paragraph. (In which case you may not need to cite it multiple times or you should make clearer that intervening sentences are separately cited.)
• Of greater concern is that most of your footnotes are from exclusively web sources. I will give you that the BBC here is reputable, but fansites should be used sparingly. (Even if they are as excellent as these! It's just not a good habit when you can avoid it. You have a lot more written references and it would be nice if you could use those instead of the fansite.)
• 3: Absolutely no images. Are there any fair-use or free images which we could use here? None?

I don't mean to nitpick. I know you've worked very hard on this. But there is a good amount of work ahead to make it featured, but I think it will be worth it. This is a fascinating and very important moment in the history of Doctor Who. For all intents and purposes, Doctor Who was on trial. It's a good start. JRP (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments Agree with JRP that it's a bit odd to have all those references listed but never used. Otherwise sourcs look good, and the links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1947 Sydney hailstorm

I appreciate that, on the face of it, this may look too brief to be a featured article and therefore considered 'Wikipedia's best work'. However, as I said in the GA review here, the fact that this storm occured over half a century ago has meant that finding information on it has been very difficult, which I found surprising given how serious it was.

Given this, I believe the article is comprehensive as I am of the opinion I have included all encyclopedic-worthy material on the subject at my disposal, and hence I believe it is not ineligable for FA on length grounds. That doesn't necessary mean that there isn't other problems with it, and I would like to thank all those who offer constructive and actionable suggestions to help improve this article, hopefully up to FA standard.

Cheers, Daniel (talk) 03:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King (talk) 03:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I realise this was discussed above, but I'm not sure about the use of three two letter currency abbreviations in one sentence. Might it not be better to write one of them out, for example "...equal to 45 million Australian dollars in modern figures." I know, it's not proper style, so you probably want to ignore this.
• In Conditions and Climatology, the second paragraph should probably begin "Hailstones have a history..." or "Hailstones have had a history...", right?
  • Indeed fixed. Thanks for that. Daniel (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• The storms that appear on the 'top ten list of most insured damages' - are these lists just for Australia, or worldwide? If specific to Australia, suggest adding "...in the country." or similar to the end of the sentence.
  • Just AU, fixed. Daniel (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• The figure for number of people requiring hospitalisation or other medical attention is only in the lead, it's not mentioned in the "Aftermath" section, which seems strange to me.
  • Indeed it was - I mentioned the 1000 injuries but forgot the 200-350 hospitalisations. Fixed. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• I noticed a few phrases and passages I thought were a little clunky, the article could maybe do with a more thorough copyedit, I may look at this later, but no significant improvements spring to mind immediately. Adacore (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm trying to slap some people I know into running their eyes over it, which will hopefully result in a copyedit or two over the weekend period. Cheers, and thanks for your suggestions, Daniel (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Good work overall, but I have a few comments.
• Maybe change the first sentence to specify what kind of natural disaster it was?
  • I considered doing this initially, but saying "The 1947 Sydney hailstorm was a hailstorm which struck..." just seemed, well, a tad odd :) Does the bolded "hailstorm" do the job sufficiently? Daniel (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Cut down on the references in the lead.
  • Any reason for this? I was under the impression that the lead can either be referenced not at all or to the same standard as the rest of the article, and the current version falls into the second category. Daniel (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Add non-breaking spaces.
  • I think I got everything that needed this; if I missed anything, please let me know. Thanks for bringing this up. Daniel (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• The day was hot and humid, with the top temperature recorded during the day being 32.7 °C (90.9 °F) and humidity reaching 73%. "the top temperature" would be better as "the high temperature".
  • Maximum sound OK? Daniel (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Is "Sydneysiders" a word? Maybe give a Wikitionary link?
  • It wasn't in Wiktionary. It is, however, included in the first paragraph of Sydney as well as in the Demographics section, but (strangely) not in Demographics of Sydney. Google hits also. Daniel (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• The conditions and climatology section could use a copyedit to improve prose flow.
  • Hopefully will come with the copyedits (see above) :) Daniel (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That's all from me. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Daniel (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Kelly ^hi! 14:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• The quote in the first para of "Progression of the storm" contains some meteorological terms that could do with explanation and/or linking - for example, "curtained" and "mammilated".
• As a drawing, Image:1947 Baro Map.JPG should be in SVG format per WP:IUP#Format.
• Image:Pitt St Tram cropped.jpg has no details on authorship or date of creation/publication, aside from a statement that it came from the National Archives of Australia. The same is true of the image this was derived from, Image:Pitt St Tram.jpg.

Oppose. This is an interesting contribution but there are many problems with the prose. Here are some examples:

• The storm cell developed in the morning of New Years' Day, a public holiday in Australia, over the Blue Mountains before hitting Sydney and dissipating east of Bondi in the mid-afternoon. I think on the morning would be better, and we already know it was New Years' Day because we were told this in the first sentence. Before hitting is too colloquial this should be simply and hit.
• The strength of the storm was put down to the high humidity - this is non-encyclopedic language.
• Damages associated with the storm were estimated at the time to be approximately .. - Estimated and approximately have the same meaning here, this is tautology and it should be The cost of damages
• many people had no cover or shelter. - more tautology here.
• It moved directly over Liverpool at 2:25 pm, heading in a north-west direction before slowly bending its path to be travelling almost due west, - why to be and not simply and?
• The vast majority of the approximately 1000 injuries were caused by the hailstones directly striking people or flying debris, - Did the hailstones cause injuries by directly striking flying debris or did the debris cause injuries outright? This is not clear. And, why the vast majority instead of plain English more?

The article needs tidying-up; the prose does not meet the required FA standard. GrahamColm^Talk 18:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Sources look good. Links seem to work with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hare coursing

Self-nomination: I've been working on this for a while, was delighted that the Good Article review process was able to prompt improvements in the article. I now have more time on my hands, and hope to work with comments made to ensure that the article can be assessed at/helped to reach FA standard. MikeHobday (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Some of the references are broken ({{cite web|url=http://www.lurecoursing.org.uk/lurecoursing/index.html|title=Lure Coursing Explained|publisher=British Sighthound Field Association|date=2008|accessdate=2008-04-12)))
• Format the dates in the references, so "2008-02-10" becomes "2008-02-10" and "2000-2" (which hardly anyone reads like that) becomes "February 2000".
• Use en dashes for page ranges in the references per WP:DASH
• Some references are placed incorrectly, such as "coursing [25] where", which has an extra space before it; remove extra space. Also, "coursing' [25]," – the reference goes after punctuation. This is all per WP:FOOTNOTE. Ensure the other references are placed properly because several are not.

Gary King (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, tried to do these, though I'm not really expert on the dashes. MikeHobday (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Starts out awkward: "Hare coursing is the coursing of hares" - I Palindrome I?
• Perhaps a little more context in the opening, to explain exactly what it is without turning to the links
• Lead also needs another paragraph, to fulfill the requirements. Maybe something about its history, and then transition to the sport today?

Interesting read, I'll continue to add more comments as I see them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Tried to cover this, could you look to see how the new version looks? Thanks. MikeHobday (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Your website references, a large number of them are missing publishers. They give authors, but no publishers.
• One dead link is showing up on the link checker tool. Another says it's timing out.
• What makes http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/index.html a reliable source?
• The Arrian ref, is lacking either a page number or a book/paragraph reference.
• What makes http://www.agreyhoundswish.org/hist_greece.htm a reliable source?
• You're linking to a lot of books that are previews on Google Books. Unfortunately, they often don't link to the page you want, due to the vagaries of the preview system. (At least twice this happened checking out refs on this article) Page numbers would be nice. Also, I worry about using google books as a reference like that, because you're not usually getting the full book, so it's hard to be sure you're getting the full nuances of the author's writing.
• What makes http://www.dogshome.org/rehome/choosing_a_pet/which_breed/lurcher.html a reliable source?
• Current ref 18 Mirriam O'Reilly - is this a TV show? Does it have a title? Also, should be author last name first to fit with the rest of the footnotes.
• What makes http://www.gulfcoastgreyhounds.org/hist-0-indx.html#Time a reliable source?
• What makes http://www.heliosgreyhounds.com/ a reliable source? Looks like a commercial site to me.
• http://www.animalplace.org/blood.html this site (current ref 28) it seems disjointed, I'm not sure exactly what they are against, it's not made plain on the site. Also, what makes them reliable?
• What makes http://www.scoobymedina.com/ancient_history_en.htm a reliable site?
• Same for http://www.ifca.unican.es/~camacho/dogs/breeds/spain/ge-std-e.html?
• What does HMSO stand for?
• You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.

Otherwise sources look okay. Links (except mentions above) checked out okay. I wasn't able to evaluate the foreign language sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, started on these, will continue over the weekend. MikeHobday (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Kelly ^hi! 19:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Image:NI coursing leaflet.jpg is non-free and has some problems. It seems to be used in a decorative way in the article. The text of the article doesn't discuss this poster at all. The image description say the purpose of this is to demonstrate coursing by muzzled greyhounds - since this type of coursing still takes place today, the image is replaceable in this role per WP:NFCC#1. There is a brief explanation that it would be difficult to replace this image - I'm afraid this isn't normally accepted at Wikipedia as a reason except in exceptional circumstances. After all, the League Against Cruel Sports was able to obtain a photo; we should be able to as well. (Perhaps we can get a photo from them?)
• Image:Hare5.jpg claims a public domain release by the League Against Cruel Sports, but there's no evidence of the release (i.e. an OTRS ticket or a link to a copyleft statement).

The use is not intended to be decorative, but to do what the caption says. Regrettably, just because an activity takes place, does not mean that its organisers permit photography. In fact, they do not. I would dearly have loved a straight forward photo, but these are just not available. Hence I hope that the use of the leaflet image is considered exceptional here. With regard to Image:Hare5.jpg, the evidence is that, for seven years from 2001 to 2007, I was verifiably a senior manager at the League Against Cruel Sports([1] and hence able to authorise public domain release. MikeHobday (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

On the leaflet image, I'm sorry, but the objection stands. I guess the obvious question I would ask would be how the LACS obtained a photo if it was unobtainable. On the second image, are you the copyright holder? Kelly ^hi! 23:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talyllyn Railway

previous FAC (00:11, 14 April 2008)

I just stumbled across this article after visiting the railway on holiday with my son, who's a big steam fan, and taking a picture which I thought could be added to WP. When I saw the quality of the article (and the existing pictures, which were much better than mine!) and that it had narrowly missed out on FA once before, I thought I'd give it a helping hand so have gone through and given it a pretty ruthless copy edit, which I think now brings it up to FA standard. I await your comments...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Co-nominators: User:Tivedshambo and User:Gwernol.

Articlestats:

Gwernol 359

Tivedshambo 201

Jotel 52

ChrisTheDude 36

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "The line in fiction" → "In fiction" perhaps?

Gary King (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

done —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 22:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• All the images are right-aligned, to prevent cramming it might be best to prune a few and align some to the left. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Have moved some of the images about, hopefully it now looks more aesthetically pleasing ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 85 Matthew Hawkins Cultural Perceptions.. is lacking a last access date.

otherwise sources look good. Link checker tool says all the websites work. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 05:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edward Wright (mathematician)

— Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC) (nominator; article created by Jheald and expanded by both of us)

Comments

Gary King (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - prose is generally excellent, some things below:

• Non-breaking space between unit and measurement in the Surveying section, not a hyphen or space, please.
  • Fixed. — JackLee, 01:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• In the same section, since the measurements are in the main text, the units should be spelled out, not abbreviated.
  • Fixed. — JackLee, 01:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Same British/American thing as Gary King - change "organise" to "organize".
  • Comment: see Jheald's response to Gary King above. — JackLee, 01:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redundancy: "Wright was prompted to publish the book after two incidents of his text, which had been prepared some years earlier"
  • Meaning would be different. "Some years earlier" correctly implies, say, 4-5 years earlier; "years earlier" suggests much more than this. Jheald (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Same as above: "Apart from a number of other books and pamphlets [...]"
• Same as above: "it corrected a number of errors in the earlier work"
  • Same as above: "a number of" correctly conveys that the number is relatively small. Jheald (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• "The stoppage has been attributed to a number of factors, including Myddelton facing difficulties in raising fund" -> "The stoppage has been attributed to factors such as...."
  • Fixed. — JackLee, 01:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• The first sentence is a fragment.
  • Comment: if you're referring to the first sentence of the "Surveying" section, it follows from the previous section. — JackLee, 01:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • No, I mean the first sentence of the lead. Read the whole thing carefully. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Possibly it might be rewritten; but I don't see a fragment there (main verb: was; relative clause which ... 75°, describing the book). What are you identifying as the fragment? Jheald (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• "Apart from other books and pamphlets, Wright translated into English John Napier's 1614 Latin work which introduced the idea of logarithms." - awkward. Suggest rephrasing as "Apart from other books and pamphlets, Wright translated John Napier's 1614 work on logarithms from Latin to English."
  • But that loses the important point about 1614 work - before the book introduced them in 1614, nobody imagined logarithms might exist; it was a revolutionary step forward. Jheald (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • How about "Apart from other books and pamphlets, Wright translated John Napier's 1614 pioneer work on logarithms from Latin to English." Or you could substitute "revolutionary" for pioneer. I highly disliked the current wording. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 18:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - the images are beautifully sourced, licensed, and described - nice work! There is only one exception - Image:John Napier.JPG has no information on its source or authorship, with the exception of a statement that it came from the German Wikipedia. Kelly ^hi! 19:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • FIXED. Jheald (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.
  • Fixed. — JackLee, 01:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• What makes http://www.cai.cam.ac.uk/students/study/engineering/engineer01/cepirate.htm a reliable source?
  • Comment: The Caius Engineer is an occasional magazine or newsletter providing information about engineering at Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge: see http://www.cai.cam.ac.uk/students/study/engineering/caiusengineer.php. The author of the article, Derek Ingram, M.A., F.I.E.E., C.Eng, is a life fellow of Caius. The following information about him can be retrieved at http://www.cai.cam.ac.uk/fellows/whoswho.php: "Tutor 1977-1985. Director of Studies in Engineering 1989-1993. British Telecoms Teaching Fellow, Dept of Engineering 1974-1989. Co-author of Digital Transmission Systems (1976). Fellow, Institution of Electrical Engineers. Author of some 36 papers on Telecommunications topics. Named inventor in 14 patents." — JackLee, 01:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look okay. Links all checked out with the link checker tool. (Is there REALLY a book called Trigonometric Delights???? Gah... I hated hated hated trigonometry... delights is NOT the word i'd use to describe it!) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think I was quite good at trigonometry when I did it at A-levels – but not having touched it for about 20 years I can't remember any of it! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 23:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gothic metal

Self-nominator here: Bardin (talk). I have been somewhat hesitant to nominate this article for FA status even though I do believe it meet the requirements. There are some people who apparently feel rather strongly about whether some bands are really gothic metal or not. I suppose that's not really unusual among heavy metal genres though. I actually expect there to be some opposition to this article's FAC on such a basis: i.e. "so-and-so is not not gothic metal! this article is not accurate!". I seek solace though in wikipedia's policy of verifiability, not truth.

This was the original version of the article before I came along. There were so much problems with the article that I felt a fresh rewrite would be more appropriate so that is what I did.

References There are 239 citations (!) in the article at present. Some of these citations are used more than once too. Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources states that articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ... The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, which is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment. I believe all the sources are reliable but that might not be apparent to everyone so here's an explanation of the sources used.

• Books There are 12 different books and one academic essay listed in the references section. I trust that there will not be any question of the reliability of these materials published in print.
• News There are a few news report used in the article, mostly to support claims of commercial success and chart placement. With one exception, these news report are all from Blabbermouth.net. The exception is from CBS News and I do not think any explanation about the reliability of CBS is necessary here. Blabbermouth is a website that should be familiar to most online fans of heavy metal music but it is probably not something that you would come across otherwise since it only provides news concerning heavy metal music. It has a solid reputation and I reckon that it is probably the most reliable website that one can use for any heavy metal related article here on wikipedia. It has been used as a source for many other news media and even published books. It would be rather ridiculous if members of the academia and other news media find Blabbermouth to be reliable while wikipedia does not.
• Biographies The overview of the genre's history in the article provides some biographical details regarding the more significant and/or prominent bands that are associated with the genre. Aside from the books, the biographical details are mostly sourced from the two databases Allmusic and Rockdetector. Both sites have their share of online detractors. I believe this is mostly due to disagreement about the choice of genre labels that are tagged to some bands. Those tags are not used as references in this article, btw. Both sites have also released numerous books in print: Allmusic and Rockdetector. These are not self-published books. As far as I know, these books provide biographies on bands similar to what can be found on their website so I think it would be downright silly if we can accept these books as reliable sources but not the websites from which they are derived from. For the record though, both sites have been used a reference by other non-related books: Allmusic far more than Rockdetector.
• Reviews Pt. 1 These are mostly album reviews and a few concert reviews. The article only make use of professional reviews. No fan submitted stuff. A large proportion of the reviews come from the three mainstream publications Allmusic, PopMatters and About.com. About.com is another database site like Allmusic and Rockdetector only its scope extend to many other areas beyond music. Like Allmusic and Rockdetector, it too has released published books and it has also been used as a reference for other books: link. All the material used from About.com in this article are from Chad Bowar, an experienced journalist in heavy metal music who has conducted some newsworthy interviews as reported on Blabbermouth: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. PopMatters is closer to the rest of the sources used in the article in that it is a webzine or online magazine devoted to music. Like Blabbermouth, it has been used as a reference for other news media and published books. There is also just the one single review from musicOMH.com used as a source in this article: the website is fairly mainstream with an editorial oversight and it has also been used as a reference in books. The only other review from a mainstream publication comes from the Rolling Stone. Need I say more about that famous magazine?
• Reviews Pt. 2 The other reviews used in this article come from webzines that specialise in heavy metal music. These are not sites that have a mainstream presence in the news or in books although Chronicles of Chaos have been used as a reference in one book so I do not think I need to explain the reliability of that site any further. A large proportion of the reviews used in the article come from The Metal Observer, "one of the world's longest-running metal web sites" and "one of the top international online metal resources" as identified by Blabbermouth here and here. Lordsofmetal.nl, Soniccathedral.com, Tartareandesire.com and Live-metal.net are the other metal specialist webzines whose reviews are used as sources in this article. I believe all of these sites have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as evident by the occasional report of their content as news on Blabbermouth. Here are some examples (two for each site): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Granted, none of these news report concern album or concert reviews since such reviews are generally not newsworthy but using some common sense here, I feel that if the content of these sites are deemed reliable enough for blabbermouth, then they should be reliable enough for wikipedia. Live-metal.net and lordsofmetal.nl also turn up a few hits on google news here and here. Bear in mind that the google news search is only for the past month and hence, the result will eventually disappear.
• Interviews Pt. 1 By far the most diverse and numerous collection of sources in this article. They only represent a small proportion of the sources in this article though since each interview source are generally used only once or twice while the aforementioned review sites are used more frequently. Some of those review sites also have interviews used in this article as sources: Chronicles of Chaos, soniccathedral.com, tartareandesire and lordsofmetal. The other websites used are mostly music webzines as well. One exception is Gathering.nl which is the official website of the band The Gathering. The interview is used to provide information on a non-controversial biographical detail: namely, that their first album includes supporting vocals by Marike Groot. For some reason, this piece of info is not found on the band's biography on Allmusic or Rockdetector. I feel that the info is rather noteworthy in the context of the use of female vocals in the genre. Another exception is Suicidegirls.com. That's the website for Suicide Girls and I think that's pretty mainstream so I don't really feel I need to justify its reliability. Moving on. Releasemagazine.net has appeared as a reference in one book while Antimusic.com has appeared as a reference in several books.
• Interviews Pt. 2 Metal-rules.com is a rather well-known heavy metal webzine. It has been identified by Blabbermouth as "one of the world's largest and longest-running heavy metal webzines" here and as the provider of "top-notch metal news, views, reviews and interviews" here. Its content are occasionally used as a source for news on Blabbermouth as are the content of Rockeyez.com, Fourteeng.net, Blistering.com, Metal-realm.net, Getreadytorock.com, Thegauntlet.com, Hallofmetal.com, Musictap.net, Metalstorm.ee, Metalmonk.co.uk, Rockezine.com/net, Metal-temple.com, Dprp.net and Musicaldiscoveries.com. Examples here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28. Phew! I think it would be rather odd if the original source for these interviews cannot be considered reliable by wikipedia's standards but the news report of these interviews on Blabbermouth can.
• Interviews Pt. 3 That leaves just three sites: Metalcrypt.com, Stormbringerwebzine.co.uk and Ssmt-reviews.com. A single interview from each of these site is used on the article as a reference. None of these interviews are being used to support anything remotely contentious or controversial. They are all harmless in my view. I highly doubt that any of the person being interviewed would take issues with the points that these interviews are being used to support.
  • Metalcrypt.com is used for one interview with Christofer Johnsson of Therion wherein he credits Celtic Frost as playing a key role in the development of both gothic metal and symphonic metal. He pretty much says the same thing in other interviews such as this one on thegrimoire.com, a website that is reliable enough for a published book. Yes, I can switch the reference but I prefer the way that Christofer Johnsson expresses the viewpoint on the metalcrypt.com interview over the other. It makes for a nice quote in my view.
  • Stormbringerwebzine.co.uk is used for one interview with Moonspell vocalist Fernando Ribiero. The webzine is not well known but the interview is conducted by one Vinnie Apicella, a journalist with a fairly decent resume. Personally, I think it would be rather odd if his interview on one webzine is not deemed reliable but his work on other sites like KNAC would be.
  • Ssmt-reviews.com is used for one interview with Jeroen van Veen of Within Temptation for support on the band's early influence. I feel this interview is useful in drawing a connection between the early pioneers of the gothic metal genre and the later, more commercially successful bands. This webzine has been around for over ten years now and for what it's worth, the site does have an editor.
• Articles The article also makes use of a few general articles as references. One of them is from Grammy.com, the website for the Grammy Award. The others are on Allmusic, About.com and The Metal Observer. 'Nuff said.

That's all the references explained. Unless I've missed out on something, of course.

Photos There are 12 photos used in the article which seems about right for its length. All the photos are free from wiki commons except for the Black Sabbath album cover which can be used for this article per Wikipedia:FAIR#Images: Cover art can be used for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item. The block quote next to the image provides that commentary. I think it is quite important to have the cover art next to the block quote since such descriptions as a "spectral-looking girl" and "shot through a sickly pale ochre filter" are not readily apparent or understood without the accompanying image, i.e. "Oh, that's what pale ochre filter means."

Sound samples There are ten sound samples divided into five groups of two samples each. Five groups for five sections. All of the samples have a specific purpose in the article as indicated in the accompanying captions. They all in Ogg Vorbis format with quality reduced to zero (64 kbit/s). None of them are longer than 30 seconds or 10% of the original, whichever is lower.

Phew! That's it. Bardin (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - OK, so you have the references covered, and they do look very good indeed, but there are problems with the prose:

• "Formed in 1968, the English band from Birmingham started with the name of Polka Tulk before first changing it into Earth and then later into Black Sabbath" - Hmm? Weirdly organized sentence to start a paragraph... Try instead: "English band Polka Tulk was formed in Birmingham in 1968 before changing its name to Earth and later Black Sabbath." - Much shorter, and much easier to read.
• "The name was derived from the 1969 Boris Karloff horror film Black Sabbath." - You should clarify which name, so try: "The latter name was derived from the 1969 Boris Karloff horror film Black Sabbath."
• ..."As one of the first exponent of the genre, Black Sabbath has had a massive influence on heavy metal music" - I believe 'exponent' is the incorrect word to use here, unless I'm wrong. But in any case, it certainly isn't needed and just making the reading harder. Try instead: "As one of the first gothic metal bands, Black Sabbath has heavily influenced the genre." - Please avoid words like "massively".
• ..."and hasthey have been credited in particular as the pioneers of the doom metal subgenre." - More dodgy wording. And what exactly on earth is "doom metal" ?
• I could go on, but the prose isn't up to the required standards, and thus this fails criterion 1a for "brilliant" prose.
• I recommend a full copyedit by an editor new to the text. Please see both Peer review/volunteers and LOCE/Members for lists of people who can help. Do not hesitate to contact a few people on their Talk pages!

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 14:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• I feel that the prose is fine but if others agree with your sentiments, I'll do as you suggest and make a request for a copyedit. I've made some changes as per your suggestions.
  • I've split the first sentence into two. It's supposed to be a continuation of the opening block quote and I do feel that it would be rather odd to jump from Black Sabbath to Polka Tulk without any preceding explanation so now the article uses the name Black Sabbath one more time. That's five time in the one paragraph. Something that I was trying to avoid but I digress.
  • I think it's quite obvious that the name referred to in this second (now third) sentence is the very same name that ends the previous sentence. If that's not enough, there's also the name repeated again as the title of the film in this sentence. Nonetheless, I've added the word latter as per your suggestion.
  • Massive is the word used in the reference cited. It's now in quotation marks. I was not aware that exponent is a difficult word to read but I've change it.
  • Doom metal is a subgenre as indicated in the sentence. It was wikilink in the lead section and I guess it should be wikilinked again here. I do not see a need to strike out "in particular" since that's what the sentence is stating: that they are being credited as pioneers of one subgenre in particular and not all the others. I've moved the expression to the end of the sentence though. --Bardin (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It is common for articles to be copyedited several times before coming to FA in preparation. A good example are two of my last FACs, which were both quickly nominated to FA status because they had been copyedited several times already by editors new to the text. Indeed, what you see as OK, others might not - the main reason is probably because you wrote most of the text, and so it will naturally look fine to yourself. As for whether or not others agree, I'm not sure if you're suggesting that my concern alone isn't enough for you? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay, I understand now. No worries. --Bardin (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Not half-bad. I'm ready to copy-edit this if you want in a couple of days (after major content/sourcing issues, if any, have been dealt with; copy-editing is really the last step). One thing I really dislike though: could you delete those ginormous quotes at the beginning of the Sabbath and Peaceville three sections?? Such large text copying could be construed as copy-vio (not sure), big blockquotes are not supposed to be at the beginning of sections, they are not being said by anybody famous (to spark interest in a reader) and, lastly, there's nothing special or unique about what is being said to warrant inclusion in blockquote form. Just incorporate the text in the quotes into Wikipedia text-form, and it'll vastly improve readability. indopug (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Done and please feel free to copy-edit this when you can. --Bardin (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Don't use a scrollbar for Notes
• Place Notes before References per WP:LAYOUT
• Use en dashes for page ranges in references per WP:DASH

Gary King (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Done. --Bardin (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments You've done all my work for me, justifying all your sources for other reviewers to read and decide on their own. The only problem is you've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates. That's it! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Done. --Bardin (talk) 09:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not sure I'll oppose on this point alone, but I certainly won't support - the block quotes at the beginning of sections should be removed, with any relevant bits placed into the article text normally. As an example of why, the quote in the "Peaceville Three" section effectively replaces Wikipedia's neutral point of view on the origins of Gothic metal with the viewpoint of a particular author. Whether that viewpoint is controversial or not, it is inappropriate to use his words instead of Wikipedia's neutral, encyclopedic tone. Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This is a valid point. I believe it's simply bad practice to start a section with a blockquote. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 21:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. --Bardin (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Cut down on the detail given to Black Sabbath. All we need in the article is that gothic metal bands draw specific influence from the band. We don't need to go into detail about how the band helped create heavy metal as a whole (that's what Black Sabbath and Heavy metal music are for). You might want to move the musical characteristics section before the History. I've found this works very well in establishing a genre in the reader's minds and setting up the rest of the article. Compare to the FA Grunge music, which is the current model for articles on subgenres of larger rock subgenres (grunge as a form of alternative rock, compared to gothic metal as a form of heavy metal). Also, given this is an genre article, you don't need to talk about every gothic metal band. The grunge article barely mentions Alice in Chains, and doesn't mention Hole at all in the prose, because there's really no need to when the main topic is the genre as a whole. Keep focused on the major points. You could definitely shift a lot of the detail to the band articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I've made some changes to the Black Sabbath paragraph. They are not actually in the article because of any influence they might have on gothic metal bands - I'm not aware of any such influence, quite frankly. They are there as a precursor rather than a point of origin, i.e. the relationship between goth and metal before goth metal existed. Nobody as far as I know has provided a historical overview of gothic metal the way that one can find about heavy metal music, grunge or punk rock. There are no books - at least, not in English - that is specifically on gothic metal and only gothic metal while there are plenty of books devoted to those three other genres. In the absence of such sources, I adopted the approach of highlighting the main bands in the genre. There are six bands discussed in the origins section; I can't dismissed any one of them otherwise the article would be in breach of a neutral point of view. Two bands are each highlighted in the subsequent sections followed by three bands in the final section. I just wanted to give the article some balance otherwise one might question why this band and not that one. If I remove the band details from the article, the historical overview would probably be shrunk to just two or three paragraphs and I don't think that would be right. The characteristic section is similarly short because of the lack of sources that are directly or specifically concerned about the subject; it's a common problem for heavy metal genres that have not attracted the attention of the English writing academics. After all, this is a genre that's big in Europe but little known in the US or UK. Anyhow, I reckon the article is better off starting with the historical overview and leaving the characteristic section to fill the blanks. I feel the lead should already help to set up what the genre more or less is in the mind of the reader. --Bardin (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You should probably remove discussion of Black Sabbath from the article entirely, then. The article is pretty sizable (110 kb) and there are no subarticles that can help rationalize that size, so you're going to need to take a logn hard look at the article and figure out what needs to go. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indigenous people of the Everglades region

This is the first of five articles regarding the Everglades I hope to bring to FA. It has had an extensive peer review and has passed GA. I created this and three other articles to complement the main Everglades article, which will be the last to come here. This is the shortest, and actually....feels rather nekkid, compared to my other tomes. I hope you may find that a relief. I'll do what needs to be done to get it featured. Thank you for reading it. Article creator. Moni3 (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King (talk) 04:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments: A nice article on an interesting topic. First off, I confess that it left me wishing for more information on the Calusa and the Tequesta. I understand that this is just an introductory article, but still.. a little bit more information on their way of life and culture wouldn't hurt. The way things are now - I'm sorry if I'm being harsh here - the Calusa and the Tequesta lived in Florida, were skilled travelers in canoes, and hunted small game; the only difference between them was that the Calusa had human sacrifices. Anyway, maybe other reviewers will feel differently about the content. Style-wise, I'm no expert, but I believe it needs at least some copy-editing - there are instances of words and names repeated a bit too many times, some redundancy-related issues, and sometimes the text doesn't really flow. A few examples:

• Section "Calusa", second paragraph: "In 1545 a 13-year-old boy was the only survivor of a shipwreck off the coast of Florida." - there's no mention of this boy in the next sentence, so its a little bit difficult to understand that Fontaneda was that boy (was he? I'm still not sure!); maybe some context wouldn't hurt (i.e. along the lines of "Much of the information on Calusa was provided by Hernando de Escalante Fontaneda, who [...]"
• "Smaller tribes of Ais and Jaega, lived to the east of Lake Okeechobee, and they paid regular tributes to Carlos." - "they" is not required here.
• "The main village of the Calusa, and home of Carlos" - sorry, you lost me here. Throughout the section, you use two words for the chief - "Carlos" and "cacique", and to confuse matters further, Carlos is actually another name for the Calusa. And then there's "the leadership of cacique Carlos" in the last paragraph. Ouch!
• "Building shell mounds.." - you were talking about human sacrifices, and then suddenly switch to this; maybe it'd flow slightly better if you added something basic like "Another important tradition was.." to the beginning of the sentence.

etc.; more experienced editors will no doubt provide more examples.

I also have a small issue with the sentence "Each year a Christian was required to be sacrificed to appease a Calusa idol." - I feel this needs some clarifiation. Clearly the custom couldn't have existed before the Europeans came to the Americas, was there a reason for the Calusa to start doing this? Who did they sacrifice before the Europeans came? Etc. Of course, this is of minor importance, I just thought it was weird, especially stated flat-out like that.

Finally, perhaps wikifying some of the geographical places wouldn't hurt - I realize you're going for one link per article thing, but I feel the reader might need a link to Lake Okeechobee while reading about the Calusa, etc. --Jashiin (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You're not being harsh, however I have to point out that there is not a lot of material that exists about these people. I would like to know more about their ways of life as well. I'll do my best to hunt down more information if you could be more specific about what it is you would like to see: more about religion? food? society? I can't promise anything, but I will search.

Basically, I thought some of the information from the articles Calusa and Tequesta could be incorporated (these articles don't have too many inline citations, but some references are provided - possibly helpful?); the stratified society of the Calusa (and there you have a mention of multiple chiefs, which would help to partly eliminate the confusion we discussed) and their belief in reincarnation, the complete lack of agriculture in Tequesta life, the mention of Miami Circle, possible human sacrifices in Tequesta culture, etc. --Jashiin (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I fixed most of the issues you mentioned. As for the last about the Christian sacrifice, the sentence preceding that one says that Fontaneda is describing the sacrifice of Christians. I can't really state what Fontaneda did not, and since he wasn't present before Europeans were there, he didn't state that that practice was a new one.

I see, thanks for clearing this up. --Jashiin (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I admit that the Spanish references to the tribe as Carlos and then naming their chief Carlos is confusing, but it is anthropologically accurate.

But don't you think some clarification is needed? For instance, exactly who is a "cacique Carlos" - one of the chiefs or a particularly important chief? The Ais and the Jaega paid regular tributes to a/the chief, or to the Calusa? Or "home of Carlos" - this probably refers to _the_ main chief, but the reader has to guess. Perhaps after you explain the term "cacique" in the second paragraph, you could make a notice for the reader that, to avoid confusion, "Carlos" will only refer to a chief in this particular article. And edit the article accordingly, where needed. Hmm? --Jashiin (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the time you took to put into the review. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. --Moni3 (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

On inclusion of information on the Miami Circle: I'm more than a little bit embarrassed here. I don't live in South Florida, but this, among a few other reasons, may persuade me to subscribe to the Miami Herald. I didn't know about the Miami Circle until yesterday. All my sources refer to information prior to 1998, of course. However, I did some searching and reading. I can include the following information, but I am concerned that it may have WP:UNDUE weight due to recent discoveries. I am also concerned because the site is still not fully understood:

Because little was recorded about the Tequesta in Spanish histories, much of the details about their lives is unknown. However, more evidence of their society became uncovered when in 1998, a high-rise apartment complex in Miami was torn down. During the excavation, a formation was discovered that indicated the site to be archeologically significanct: a circle 38 feet (12 m) in diameter composed of 24 shallow basins surrounded by more than 600 postholes.^[1] It became known as the Miami Circle, and initial analysis was controversial as ownership of the 2.2 acres (0.0089 km²) parcel was contested. The Miami Circle is located at the mouth of the Miami River near Biscayne Bay in prime real estate territory. Initial reports disagreed as to whether it represented an ancient site, or a modern byproduct of the nearby apartment complexes' septic tank drainage. However, a report completed by the National Park Service concluded the site was more than 2,000 years old and suggested "(t)he site may have been used for ceremonial purposes, and this use may have spanned the period from when the Miami Circle was built to a later period of habitation".^[2]

--Moni3 (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Generally this seems a well written, informative and well researched article. I only have some minor comments:

• In the lead, "The Calusa were more powerful in number and political structure." - does this mean their internal politics were more developed and powerful, or does it mean they were the politically stronger of the tribes when it came to interactions between them? Could this be clarified?

• Also lead, "The last mention of the Tequesta was their transport to Havana." - what transport? When? I guess this lack of detail might be intended to draw one into reading the article, but it left me confused.

• In Prehistoric Peoples, "The large game that were adapted for desert conditions..." - I'd say "adapted to".

• In Prehistoric Peoples, "They were highly adaptable to shifting climate and..." - perhaps "They were able to adapt to the shifting climate and..." or "They were able to rapidly adapt to shifts in climate and..." (Yes, I know, a split infinitive). Not a big thing, obviously, but the way it's written now just doesn't scan for me. Feel free to implement any of the suggestions or not.

• Minor quibble, but the "Cultural Periods in Prehistoric South Florida" includes the Historic period which is, by definition, not Prehistoric. I can't think of any way to improve this though, unless you extend it further up to the present day (with a 'Modern' or 'Recent' period, whatever the correct term would be) then remove "Prehistoric" from the title.

• The image "Indigenous people of Everglades map" has both Ais and Jaega with the same colour in the key. Is this correct, or is one of them meant to be the brown colour seen around "Charlotte Harbour" to the north of the map? I can't tell for certain from the text.

• In Tequesta, why say "They were skilled travellers in canoes..." rather than just "They were skilled canoeists..." which seems to be more relevant in context as well?

• Also in Tequesta, "After Menéndez visited, there are few records of the Tequesta; a reference to them in 1673, and further Spanish contact to convert them." - this seems to be left hanging. Perhaps finish the sentences with "...are the only known reports." Or something similar (if this is true).

• In Seminole, "...Creeks invaded the Florida peninsula and conquered and assimilated..." I don't like the repeated "and", perhaps change to "invaded the Florida peninsula, conquering and assimilating...".

• In Seminole, Timucuan should link to Timucua_language, not Timucuan?

• Does the term "Indian agent" have a specific meaning? It doesn't really seem to fit to me, but I may just not know the terminology.

• The articles on Arawak and Taino are tribes from a similar region, but as far as I can see didn't have any direct impact on the Everglades indigenous people. Are they relevant enough to be linked in the "see also" section? A quick search on their pages doesn't reveal any mention of Everglades, Seminole, Calusa or Tequesta.

As Jashiin said, the page could perhaps do with a more thorough copyedit, but I don't think it's got any major problems. A very interesting read, I learnt a lot - nice work! Adacore (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

To Jashiin and Adacore: I'll work on more detail without taking too much from the main Calusa and Tequesta articles, focusing on society. Give me a couple days to read up and do that. I'll also try to make it clear that the Spanish not only referred to the tribe as Carlos, but the most powerful cacique as Carlos. Adacore, I made most of the changes you requested. The table with Prehistoric and Historic is verbatim from the source. I'm not going to change it. Thank you both for reading it and for your reviews. I'll leave a note here when I think I've addressed the detail you requested. --Moni3 (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Support None of my concerns were showstoppers, and most have been addressed now anyway. All in all a good, well written, well referenced article covering the intended scope. Adacore (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments Sources look good. The two whole links checked out fine with the link checker tool. Full disclosure, I passed this article for GA a while ago. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• I suppose the first question is "people" or "peoples"? Not that there's a right or wrong answer, I'm just curious why you picked one over the other.

Lead

• Opening sentence - wouldn't "about 15,000 years ago" read better than "approximately 15,000 years ago"?
• Second sentence: I wouldn't open with "There,"; could use it after "landscape", but I think the sentence would read better without it
• Third sentence: "Climate changes" or "Climate change"?
• Same sentence: "and the Paleo-Indians slowly adapted to the new conditions" - is the introduction of the rate of adaptation supported by sources, or is it just based on the assumption that adaptation is slow? In addition, isn't it implicit in the fact that they survived?
• Fifth sentence: "They were better suited for environmental changes than their ancestors"; this bothers me. Is there evidence that supports this assertion? The prehistoric peoples section suggests otherwise ("the population decreased overall on the peninsula").
• Sixth sentence: "Approximately 5,000 years ago, the climate shifted again to cause the regular flooding from Lake Okeechobee that became the Everglades ecosystems"; apart from my dislike for "approximately" when "about" would work, was the climate change abrupt? This seems to imply that it was?

• Second para, second sentence: "Descriptions of these peoples were given by the first Spanish explorers" - something more along the lines of "The earliest written descriptions...come from Spanish explorers who sought to..." would read better.
• Fourth sentence: "The Calusa were more powerful in number and political structure" - I don't think that "powerful" is really the best adjective to describe either "number" or "political structre". Maybe "The Calusa were more numerous and had a more sophisticated political structure"?
• Fifth sentence: "but extended" or "and extended"? I.e., do you intend to contrast the extent of their territory with their power base at Ft. Myers?
• Seventh sentence: "Both societies were well adapted to live in the various ecosystems of the Everglades regions, and often traveled through the heart of the Everglades, though they rarely lived within it"; again, I am not so sure if "adapted" is the best term, but more importantly this sentence has too many distinct ideas. (I would split it at the "and").
• Eighth sentence: "After more than 200 years of relations with the Spanish, both societies lost cohesiveness"; is this something that happened after 200 years, or over the course of 200 years?

Calusa

• First sentence: "What is known of the inhabitants of Florida after 1566 was recorded by European explorers and settlers"; I think this is a little out of place here. It isn't the best opening sentence, and it's out of sequence.
• Third sentence is too long and the final thought (where he found at least one of them fluent in Spanish) is a little awkward tacked onto the end.
• Fifth sentence: "and the tribe gained a reputation for violence enough to cause future explorers to avoid them" - "enough" feels wrong. Maybe "that caused"?
• Sixth sentence: "they were successfully able" - either "successful" or (better, IMO) "able" is sufficient.
• Second para, first sentence: "The Calusa were referred to as Carlos by the Spanish, which may have sounded like Calos, a variation of the Muskogean word kalo meaning "black" or "powerful"" - I don't follow this sentence. Carlos may have sounded like Calos, or Calos may have sounded like Carlos?
• Fourth sentence: "For seventeen years he lived with the Calusa"; better "He lived among the Calusa for 17 years".
• Fifth sentence: "Menéndez took Fontaneda to Spain where he wrote about his observations" - "recorded his observations" or "wrote about his experiences", I think.
• Seventh sentence: "between the Spanish and the Calusa" - isn't this implied in the previous sentence?
• Third para, first sentence: "Fontaneda explained" or "recounted"?
• Fourth sentence: "Fontaneda described that human sacrifice" - no, not "described that"
• Sixth sentence: "Also of spiritual significance to the Calusa was the building shell mounds of varying sizes and shapes" - "the construction of shell mounds"? (I would move "also of spiritual significance" to the end of the sentence).
• Fourth para: the first sentence doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the para - it might be better off moved to the prev. para.
• Fifth para, first sentence: "Calusa villages were sometimes populated by more than 200 inhabitants" - "sometimes had more than"
• Sixth para: "The Spanish found Carlos uncontrollable, as priests and Calusa fought almost constantly. Carlos was killed when a Spanish soldier shot him with a crossbow." Did the Calusa fight with the priests, or with the Spanish?
• Third sentence: "Following the leadership of cacique Carlos, leadership of the society passed to two caciques" - "After the death of..."?

Tequesta

• First para, fourth sentence: "They, too, rarely lived within the Everglades" - I think we've gotten too far from the statement about the Calusa not living in the Everglades to say "they, too". Maybe "like the Calusa"?
• Same sentence: "but found the coastal prairies and pine rocklands to the east...habitable"; having said earlier that these people were "adapted" to the Everglades, I think "found...habitable" is problematic language, since it implies that they found other areas (the Everglades) uninhabitable.
• Seventh sentence: "marks where a village once stood" or "marks a village site"?
• Second para, first sentence: depictions or descriptions? (Depiction tends to be used more for illustrations).
• Fourth sentence: changing ", but were probably manatees," to "(probably manatees)" would improve readability. Also I think it would be pretty safe to link to West Indian manatee rather than just manatee.
• Third para, second sentence: "he left them to make contact with the Calusa" implies that the Tequesta were "left to make" contact with the Calusa.
• Fifth sentence: I think you should use a colon instead of a semi-colon there.
• Sixth sentence: "The last reference to the Tequesta during their existence"; "last contemporary reference"?
• seventh sentence: "use only" or "only use"?

Seminole

• First para, fifth sentence: Muskogean and Creek? Isn't the Creek lang (Muscogee) a Muskogean language?
• Second para, sixth sentence: "They hunted for what they ate" - doesn't this contradict the prev. sentence, which says that they farmed and raised domestic animals?
• Second para - overall this seems a little disorganised.
• Third para, second sentence - this should be broken into 2 sentences
• Fourth sentence: "Those who did not flee into the Everglades were relocated to Oklahoma Indian territory" - calling Indian Territory Oklahoma at this period in time is a bit of an anachronism.
• Sixth sentence: "At the end of the third conflict, 20 Seminoles were killed..." - at the end, or over the course? (ie, is this distinct from casualties during the war?)
• Fourth para, fourth sentence: "a road that spans from Tampa to Miami"? Runs from? Connects?
• Fifth sentence: "hunters who plundered wildlife" - "plundered" is probably not encyclopaedic language.
• Same sentence: "impacting" or "which impacted" (or "which made it difficult to sustain themselves through subsistence hunting")
• Sixth sentence: "They instead began to work in local farms, ranches, and souvenir stands" I don't like "they instead", especially at the start of the sentence, but I think this might be better combined with the idea that subsistence hunting was not longer able to sustain their livelihoods.

Black seminoles

• Should there be at least mention of the Black Seminoles?

Guettarda (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is what I get for writing a short article. I made the changes that I agreed would improve the aritcle. There are some requests that would change accuracy, and some that compromise requests from other editors. There are a few issues I clarified, some I deleted, and some I have to work on when I get my sources. Black Seminoles, I understand, were a subculture within the Seminoles. They did not live in the Everlgades - more in central and north Florida. Thank you for reading the article and for the thorough review. --Moni3 (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I still think that Indian Territory would be a better link than Oklahoma and "spans from" hurts the part of my brain that hears when I read things (or at least when I read in a careful, nitpicky manner) :) But, I'd say you have an FA. Guettarda (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Guettarda (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I had a couple of issues with regard to clarity which have been resolved on the article's talk page. This is a beautifully written , interesting and well researched article. GrahamColm^Talk 14:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cold War

Self-nominator: I'm nominating this article for featured article because i've been working on it quite a lot and hope it meets all FA criteria currently. The article successfully undergone an A-class review in January. However, after the A-class review i've made some major improvements especially in the referencing and supporting materials sectors. The promotion of this important article would be a benefit for Wikipedia and the Military history WikiProject, as it is rated nr. 10 on WP:MHSP. -- Eurocopter (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments Some of your website references are lacking all bibliographical information. At the very least you need publisher, title and last access date. Author and other information are good to have if known. If you're using a work as a source, it shouldn't be listed in the further reading section, you'd list it in "Sources" or "Bibliography", which is a separate section from further reading. When the websites are formatted better, I'll come back and look over the sources for reliablity. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Done --Eurocopter (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Use "p." only for references with a single page, and "pp." for references with page ranges, so your references are uniform.
• Format the references according to WP:CITE/ES – the web references are missing important information including publisher and accessdate
• "Further reading" references should be in alphabetical order by last name
• Pay attention to where references are placed. "use it." [13] One" – remove the extra space before the reference
• "communists. [4]" – remove extra space
• There are a few more references that have extra spaces before them. Remove those spaces per WP:FOOTNOTE.
• Use en dashes for page ranges in the references per WP:DASH
• There is American mixed with British spelling. Ensure you only use one type. "defense" is American; "defence" is British.

Gary King (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Done --Eurocopter (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Section headers generally shouldn't repeat the title of the article. "Pre-Cold War" -> "Background," "End of the Cold War" -> "End".
• Also, section headers shouldn't begin with articles, i.e. "The 'Second Cold War'" -> "'Second Cold War'"
• Link decades in the lead - they provide context.
• "Throughout this period, the rivalry between the two superpowers unfolded in multiple arenas: military coalitions; ideology, psychology, and espionage; sports; military, industrial, and technological developments, including the space race; costly defence spending; a massive conventional and nuclear arms race; and many proxy wars." - the prose list is.... awkward, at best. Consider rephrasing.
• You state that there were proxy wars twice in the lead. Avoid redundancy, please.
• Use en dashes for year ranges.
• "notably" (in the lead) -> "most notably"? The superlative seems to clarify it to me.
• "The Cold War drew to a close in the late 1980s following Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev's summit conferences with United States President Ronald Reagan, as well as Gorbachev's launching of reform programs: perestroika and glasnost." - consider rephrasing the last part to get rid of the colon; it interrupts the flow of the text.

Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Done, with the exception of the "End of the Cold War" section header, of which I could not find another appropiate name, as renaming it to a simple "End" would be quite dull. --Eurocopter (talk) 08:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Support - All right, I don't really have a problem with that. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 17:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent Article. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Although the US and the Soviet Union had been allied against Nazi Germany... I think that should be against the "Axis powers". I know the SU was only involved in the war against Japan just before it ended, but I believe it was an important factor in their being able to gain territory and influence in East Asia, leading to things like the Korean War.
• As per MOS:IMAGES, you should avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other.

Otherwise, looks quite good. Oberiko (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Done. Images were relocated where possible (with small exceptions, where layout didn't permit relocation of images). --Eurocopter (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick comment: The third paragraph of the lead is only a single sentence - it's probably worth expanding to at least three. Also, under "Origin of the term", another source would help ensure verifiability, and you should probably have a footnote directly after the quote, just so it can be attributed properly. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Done --Eurocopter (talk) 08:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch Empire

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that it is finished, and it is good enough to become a featured atricle. Red4tribe (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• En dashes for year ranges per WP:DASH
  • Done. --Kakofonous (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Space for page numbers, so it's "p. 10" not "p.10"
  • Done. Someone needs to check out ref#45 and 46, however. -Señor Lelandro 04:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Remove spaces before references like in "war. [9] The "

Gary King (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• There is no requirement in any guideline that I'm aware of for a space between the page and number; many editors (depends on the country, I suspect?) do not use a space. WP:WIAFA calls for consistently formatted citations; as long as the space or lack of space are consistent, that's fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: That is a terrible picture of the declaration of Indonesian independence. Can't we do better? Rmhermen (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Nearly all your non-print references are unformatted. Ref #45 looks odd.
• Section headers shouldn't start with articles and shouldn't repeat the title of the article unless absolutely necessary.
• Uncited weasel word - "arguably" - in "Dutch language" section"
• Both American and British spelling are present in the article: i.e. recognise, defence, neighbor, colonise.
• Plenty of redundancy:
  • "There are still some archaeological remains of Fort Goede Hoop (modern Hartford, Connecticut) and Fort Orange (modern Albany, New York)"
• "The success of these voyages led to the founding of a number of companies competing for the trade."
• "During the Franco-Dutch War, which saw the Republic be invaded by France, the Dutch seized a number of French possessions in the Caribbean and South America, including Tobago and French Guiana"
• Per User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a#Misplaced_formality, "in order to" should probably be replaced with just plain "to".
• Not all footnotes are placed directly after punctuation.
• Centuries should probably be linked in the lead - they give context.
• "Dutch merchants and sailors also participated in the surge of exploration that unfolded in the 16th and 17th centuries, though the vast new territories revealed by Willem Barents, Henry Hudson, Willem Janszoon and Abel Tasman in the Arctic and in Australasia/Oceania did not generally become permanent Dutch colonies."
• "With Dutch naval power rising rapidly as a major force from the late 16th century," - awkward phrasing, recommend replacing the word "from" in particular.
• "reigned supreme at sea"? You don't need to source the lead, but I'd like to see a reference (provided here) for such an extravagant claim.
• "The restored portions of the Dutch empire, notably the Dutch East Indies and Suriname remained under the Netherlands' control until the decline of traditional imperialism following World War II." - you're missing a comma
• Many short paragraphs that need to be merged

I probably barely scratched the surface here - you're going to need a full copyedit, preferably more than one, before this article is up to par. Recommend withdrawal. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 00:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments your website references are lacking all bibliographical information. At the very least you need publisher, title and last access date. Author and other information are good to have if known. Some of the website sources are just plain urls, they need titles as well as all the other information. The link checker tool is showing a dead link. When the references are formatted consistently, I'll try to recheck for reliablity. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for now:

• The prose problems are mentioned by others. Needs a good copy-edit.
• Pictures - the maps are good, but the only image with people is a poor photo of the declaration of Indonesian independence. Not a single ship, of all the Dutch ship paintings! Nothing by Frans Post, the earliest significant painter to paint scenes in the colonies of any European country. The page of illegible writing that is the "formal declaration of independence of the Dutch provinces from the Spanish king, Philip II." adds little here, and the stumpy monument is not much better. There is plenty of room for better images.
• The more colonial nature of the Cape colony should be mentioned earlier - it only appears in "Legacy". Did the North American colonies also involve a population settling; one would guess so from the numbers staying behind after the English takeover?
• There is no real explanation of the process by which small forts and "factories" are turned into significant territories. Wars with other European powers are covered, but were there none with indigenous rulers or peoples? Did the VOC have an army, like the East India Company? No mention of the role of planters, or how that system worked, or even the crops grown. Who owned plantations in the East Indies?
• The legacy section has no mention of post-colonial immigration into the Netherlands, and the issues, including terrorism, that has produced.

Johnbod (talk) 12:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Gomez

Self-nominator : I'm nominating this article for featured article because I've been working on this article for a couple of years now and feel that it meets all featured article criteria. It is well written, complete with images, and very well cited. Hopefully you all agree and we can add another FA to the lot! Its my first ever FA nom so User:Risker has been steering it through the riggers of the FA challenge, especially with respect to getting the referencing up to the required level. I am hoping to have it the FA on 21st of June which is Michael's birthday and the date of his next and probably last ever fight. thanks--Vintagekits (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Because I wasn't terribly familiar with what would be considered a reliable source for an article on a boxer, I asked Ealdgyth to do a pre-FAC check. The results of her review are on the article's talk page. There are "reliability" rationales written up for most of the sites she queried; a few have been eliminated as a result of the copy-edit and her check, and a few more mainstream media sources added. Risker (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "in knockouts.[1][3]His" – a space is missing
• "round. [3]" – remove extra space
• Why is "Family and youth" made up of small, stubby paragraphs?
• "head.[13][6][14]" – place refs in ascending order
• "Year". [2][16][18]" – remove extra space
• There are actually a few times when there are spaces before references. Remove those spaces per WP:FOOTNOTE.

Gary King (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• All addressed, I believe, including some rearranging of the "Family and youth" section. Thanks, Gary. Risker (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• There is no requirement in any guideline for citations to be placed in ascending order; some editors may choose to place the citations in the order of the most relevant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I queried http://www.britishboxing.net/ and got a reply of "is owned by Boxing Media Ltd. Writers are credited, and the site has a policy to address questions of accuracy." Who is Boxing Media Ltd? Do they publish other stuff? I don't recognize the company right off the bat.
• http://www.secondsout.com/UK/news.cfm?ccs=228&cs=17005 appears to be a doubled up reference, is it needed? Looks borderline reliable.

Otherwise sources look okay. Links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Both websites are listed by a Daily Telegraph journalist as being in the top ten websites for boxing information, here. --Vintagekits (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks borderline acceptable to me. I'll leave this out for others to see (since a lot of folks aren't boxing fans and won't know the sites that well). Like Risker said, I checked over the sites before it was nominated, and the replies are on the talk page. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Not a bad article by any means, but with serious prose and structural problems that undermine it. I have laid these out below, but be aware that there are only representative problems and the whole article needs to be thoroughly reviewed against these suggestions. Once done, I would be happy to review again.

• The lead is difficult to read because it is broken into a number of very short paragraphs. Try merging these paragraphs together to reduce their number to three or four at the most and then copyedit it to reduce the information to the most important facts. Don't try to tell his life story in the lead, just give an overview of the article accessible to a reader with no background information. For this reason, it is not necessary (although I personally don't object one way or another) to have sources in the lead as anything stated there should be presented in greater detail below and thus will be sourced in the body of the article.
• Prose has major problems. I have listed some of them below, but be aware that these are representative problems rather than a complete listing, and if you miss some other reviewers will swoop on them. Go over the article thoroughly to make sure these are dealt with throughout and look at User:Tony1 for his excellent essays on how to improve prose.

• "and continues to live in that city." - This is an example of redundancy - you don't need to say "in that city" as this is clearly only to avoid saying Manchester twice in one sentence. Try simplifying the prose, such as "He moved to Manchester, England with his family at age nine, where he still lives."
• "and was the first Irish boxer" - missing word, should be "and he was"
• "The first cracks in Gomez's career" - Unless cracks is a technical boxing term, this is a cliche which should be avoided at all costs.
• "On 21 June 2008, Gomez is due to fight in what is seen as possibly his last" - his last what? I know it means fight/bout/match etc. but it should say so explicitly for clarity's sake.
• "From birth, his upbringing was both turbulent and uncertain." - Cliche and doesn't gel with surrounding sentences. This might be as simple as the insertion of a semi-colon.
• "Gomez had hit one of the men," - "the men" doesn't read right, because you haven't explicitly mentioned any men. Try "an assailant" or similar instead.
• "After an initially shaky beginning in the professional ranks" - Redundancy, "initially" and "beginning" mean the same thing in this context.
• "then went on a" - too simplistic, think of a better way to say it. (i.e. "then began a")
• "Gomez handled Jickells" - handled has more than one meaning and is a little colloquial, try using defeated instead.
• "crushing left hook" - unless crushing is a technical term (in which case link it), lose it as it is opinion.
• "John Munroe, who was sitting ringside, was called over by Ian Darke, at Gomez's request to verify his theory. This turned in to a war of words" - war of words is bad cliche, but the problem here is that the uninitiated have no idea who Munroe (or later Warren) are. Introduce them with their job title (i.e. coach John Munroe) and link them if possible. In fact, that whole sentence is so confusing I can't work out what it is trying to say.
• "Although Bognar was shaken Gomez was unable to make his power count." - Short simplistic sentence crying out for a second clause.
• "Gomez wanted to rematch against Bognar, and five months later in July 2001, the pair had a rematch" - rematch twice in one sentence?
• "in what turned out to be a short and explosive encounter" - Prose is clumsy, and there's that word explosive again.
• "to put Bognar down" - like a dog? If its not a technical term, avoid it.
• link KO the first time it is used.
• "Lear inflicted damage to the nose of Gomez, whose nose began to bleed heavily from the sixth round" - many things wrong here.
• "At the end of the eight round" - eighth? check spellings throughout.
• "and the manner in which the fight ended," - having asked for more clauses, here there are too many. Try incorporating the first two.
• "In what was becoming a predictable pattern in Gomez's career" - unecessary opinion.
• "A war of words" - again, unless its a technical term, this is a cliche.
• "Behind the scenes, however, all was not well in the Arthur camp." - cliche

• I'm going to stop the prose review here. There are plenty of other serious prose problems both before and after the cut off point, but this illustrates the biggest problems ou should watch out for when copyediting and gives you pointers right through the text.

• "has often been involved in controversial and explosive fights, with 16 of his 17 fights between February 2001 and March 2008 ending in knockouts." - I don't know a huge amount about boxing, but this sentence seems to indicate that any fight which ends in a knockout is therefore controversial and explosive, which I'm pretty sure isn't true. I think I know what the article is trying to say, but the sentences needs to be revised for clarity.
• The whole third paragraph of the lead seems to be something of a prose list, i.e. a disconnected listing of interesting things, rather than a coherent narrative that connects key facts and events. This is one of the issues that I think needs addressing per my first comment above.
• The fifth, sixth and seventh paragraphs of the lead go into surprising detail about specific fights. This should be reserved for lower down the article, keeping the lead a brief summary.
• "The Armstrong family - Linking to Armstrong has no value unless it is a specific link to that particular family (i.e. like Kennedy family).
• If his name was Armstrong, why is he now Gomez? This has to be explained much earlier, and Armstrong used when referring to him before the date he became Gomez.
• "His mother had taught him to shoplift as a child and he was involved in petty crime throughout his youth in Manchester." - This is probably sourced by the refs at the end of the paragraph, but just to avoid any BLP problems about a potentially controversial claim, I would give this its own citation.
• "Gomez lives with his childhood sweetheart Alison and their three children in Manchester.[10]" - This is in the wrong place. In fact, throughout the article discussions of his family life and ring persona etc. are rather randomly interspersed with his biography. The article needs reorganisation to give the biographical parts better narrative flow. I suggest moving the other discussions to sections of their own. In addition, there should be no parargraphs this small. Paragraphs should be as long as they need to be, but are rarely less than three sentences. Small paragraphs break flow and look very untidy.
• Unless his ring persona was devised in 1995 (in which case you should say so), that section is in the wrong place.
• "all-out action style" - Is this a technical term? If so, link it, if not, find something that it can link to to explain what it means exactly.
• "In 2007, a film of his life entitled The Michael Gomez Story" - why is this in Background? It belong much, much further down the page.
• "Jody Latham, who also plays Lip Gallagher on Shameless and the part of Gomez's best friend and fellow boxer Michael Jennings is played by Emmerdale's Kelvin Fletcher" - Unless the characters they play on those shows has anything to do with their roles in the 2007 film, they should not be mentioned. Simply give the actors names and leave it at that.
• Don't begin a section with "Soon after, Gomez relinquished" - Sections should grammatically stand alone, so say soon after what, or just remove the first two words.
• "However, others pointed to his well publicised troubles out of the ring." - Who, how and why just for starters.
• "Reports also circulated that Gomez was having trouble in his private life and that he had been stabbed in a street fight" - Is this a different stabbing to the one above?
• "perceived as having been through" - by who; name them or their publications.
• "The match was turning into a" - tense slips out of alignment here.
• "Joe Calzaghe pulled out of his arranged fight" - so what? He isn't mentioned earlier as being involved.
• "After the McDonagh fight Gomez had retired from boxing" - tense
• "Following two comeback fights against journeyman opposition" - overlinking, this is at least the fourth time you've linked journeyman.
• "threatened to steamroller" - is this a technical term?
• "Soon after referee Mickey Vann stopped the fight" - In whose favour?

• In this case you need to say to whom the fight was awarded.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This extensive list of problems does not, I'm afraid, come close to dealing with all of the article's problems, which are rooted in its prose and unclear structure. I suggest at least three thorough copyedits by three seperate editors and a restructuring to ensure that the first half of the article has a clear narrative. I think the sourcing is good and I like the images, and with some work this article could come a lot closer to FA standard.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it, if you want I can give the article a thorough copyedit myself later this week. I'll have to take an axe to certain parts, and I don't know much about boxing so someone will have to check I've not messed up any technical stuff, but if you're interested I'd be willing later in the week (a bit busy the next couple of days). I don't know if he's still around, but I know you were friends with User:One Night In Hackney who is an excellent prose writer, so if he is still here see if you can get him to take a look as well.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Jackyd101. I agree with much of what you are saying, particularly with respect to the flow and organization. I'll point out that one of the reasons the article is well sourced is that pretty well every descriptive statement comes right out of a reference source; hence, explosive punches and fights, and crushing left hooks and threatened steamrollering. "He threw an explosive punch" is much better prose than "His punch was described as explosive by Joe Blogg, boxing expert." The second sentence tells us more about the reporter than the subject. Referees stop fights, but not in favour of one boxer or the other; that is the decision of the judges. Gomez has been with his childhood sweetheart for about as long as he has been boxing, and they had their first two children before he started his professional career so, chronologically, that sentence is probably in the right place. The article is a BLP of a person who has lived a life full of extraordinary situations (both negative and positive), and my initial focus was on ensuring the claims were thoroughly but not excessively sourced (I reduced the references by about 40%); by the time I'd done that, I suspect my eyes had glazed over and I missed many of the points you have made. I am all in favour of other eyes and copy editors working on this article; as with all articles, however, it must remain true to its reference material, which in the case of this particular sport, tends to be quite descriptive and to use terminology that might otherwise appear hyperbolic. I don't think ONiH is around any longer (at least not officially), but perhaps Vintagekits has a way to inquire directly. I do encourage you to take a crack at it, and I'll give it another pass tonight or tomorrow as well. Risker (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point about this article sounding like the references it comes from, but Wikipedia is not part of the sports press and as a result Wikipedia articles need to phrase things differently based on encyclopedic prose. This means that subjective adjectives such as "crushing" should only be used when part of a direct quote or when crushing is a technical term - this does not mean that the article should be boring, such is the fine line on which brilliant prose rests. If you plan to keep the whole article chronological (which is fine), then you have to better integrate details of his personal life into the article. At the moment they seem tacked on. The only BLP I saw as potentially being a problem was that thing about his mother teaching him to shoplift - thats pretty controversial and so should be directly sourced.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll have to delay my proposed copyedit to the article, I'm going to be much busier than expected this week. If its still under review here in a weeks time I might be more able to help. I will continue to monitor the article however and if it improves I will be happy to strike through comments and reconsider my !vote. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments - I will not nitpick that much, however there are a few things that might need tweaking:

• In the "Ring persona" subsection there is this statement: "a reference to his Mexican-sounding chosen name", this should be changed to "a reference to his Hispanic-sounding chosen name"; Gomez is actually a very common surname, it is seen throughout Latin America and Spain, it is not more "Mexican-sounding" than "Rodriguez" or "Rivera".
• I get a felling that the article may overuse the term "belt", this seems particulary notable in the "Early professional career" section, remember that boxers actually fight for the championship that the belt represents, not the belt itself.
• As far as the references go, I would like more newspaper footnotes but most of the pages used are familiar to me, so I'm not going to push that.

That should do it for now, I may provide further comments once these are attended. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I have watched this article grow over a long time; it is the result of long and laborious hard work. It now meets all FA criteria. Probably, the most complete biography of the subject available in print or on the internet. Wikipedia is fortunate to have it. If I have one minor quibble - it's that I would like to see a concluding paragraph outlining his achievements, contributions to the sport and hopes for the future. In my opinion the page does not need further copy editing; I look forward to seeing it on the main page. Giano (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Giano's going to be mad at me, but I don't believe this is ready. I second Jackyd31's concerns about the lead and prose, and add these.

• Background, Family and youth: Are links for wheel and lamp post necessary? And why is youth linked?
• North Manchester link goes to North Manchester, Indiana.
• Trouble outside of the ring: Why is pavement linked? Don't even get me started on heart.
• Early professional career: Gomez as a single name doesn't need a link. Jackyd31 complained about an Armstrong link, and this is another example of that.
• Move to super featherweight: "walking away with the title on a points victory over 12 rounds." Try mentioned what type of decision it was. These little details are important for any quality article.
• In the next sentence, it says that Gomez was undefeated. Clarify that it was during that year, because you don't want confusion with his early-career defeats.
• "and a successful defence" is incorrect grammar, since three opponents are named.
• Intercontinental or Inter-Continental? Both are used.
• Bognar fights: "suffering from flu" Should a or the be added?
• Does Wikipedia have a seperate link for flash knockdown? Jargon such as this should be linked if possible, although I don't see a page here.

I also noticed some peacock and POV words, so this is far from a full list. The most important thing is to get some writing help, hopefully in time to benefit this candidacy. Giants2008 (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is a very thorough description of an interesting structure. I think the article is intriguing enough to present an opportunity for an interesting building under construction to appear at WP:TFA, should it succeed here. Skyscraper construction is a topic that should get its opportunity at TFA. I am not sure if that would be a first, but it would be interesting. While I am awaiting the completion of WP:PR and WP:GAC for articles at WP:CHIFTD, this is a good candidate.

I note that for a building under construction this is an interesting of before, during, and after (current) photography. Those who are interested in skyscrapers and architecture are likely to be able to glean information from the extensive images included and that is why they are WP:PRESERVEd. The images are laid out to use only 360px of width and the majority of viewers use either 1024 or or 1280 width. Anyone complaining about squeezing should probably just press their full screen button. I see no WP:WIAFA criterion that suggest we should not WP:PRESERVE photographic information. In this regard I would view moving to commons as similar to forking and unnecessary for the reader looking to learn about skyscraper construction.

Issues of stability have been hashed out extensively at WP:GAR and it has been resolved that a slowly evolving article that would not likely miss editorial attention if it were ignored for a few weeks is not a stability criterion violation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Tony! That's this first reference? Just a link? Needs publisher and last access date.
  • I switched to a better ref.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• What makes http://www.emporis.com/en/ a reliable source?
  • This is one of the many cases where a ref for an article targetted for WP:GA becomes a problem at WP:FAC. I am winnowing out the emporis, but whereas certain types of outrageous facts may be questioned, is a groundbreaking date a fact for which emporis is not a reliable source.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The remaining emporis cites are from emporis news. They may be WP:RS. Most problems with emporis are with the trivia. Feedback appreciated about emporis News.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Link me to emporis news main page? (i'm REALLY lazy today, been busy day at work) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • Here is the first alternative I have found for the construction start date.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

L/F emporis news.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am unable to find a main news page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to find the date that they started drilling in both the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times to no avail. What do you think of the alternate source for the first drilling date? I am going to add it and hope it satisfies you.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Make sure all your newspapers are italicised. (Current ref 13 Janega, the Chicago Tribune is in plain text, also current ref 18 Leo, Jen as well as others..)
  • I got a whole bunch. Let me know if you think I missed any.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see any glaring at me, but I might have missed some. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• http://www.chicagomarathon.com/CMS400Min/Chicago_Marathon/runner_information/index.aspx?id=2450 what makes this a reliable source for the Location paragraph?
  • The official Chicago Marathon page is a WP:RS for tourist information.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it reliable for tourist information, for that I'd want to go to a tourist site. It'd be reliable for marathon information. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I added a second reference.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 24 Trum Organization project overview has a bald url in it, that should be formatted.
  • fixed
• What makes http://www.internationalspeakers.com/speakers/ISBB-5YJK6J/Bill_Rancic/ a reliable source?
  • They are experts on celebrity speakers.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect they get their blurbs from the speakers themselves, that's why I'm questioning it. Surely there is a news source for this? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that if there are other well sourced article that document his contract his contract was renewed for a third year, we should not really be questioning a decent source that says it was renewed for a second year.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look good. Links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - There are now less images, which is good, but I think the stability issue will remain until the building is completed. However, I'm going to let others decide how important this is and whether or not it means this shouldn't be an FA. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 14:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Wikipedia is not a photo gallery, but rather an encyclopedia. Way too many images. Is there any reason you have numerous photos of the same thing? Also, I agree with above comments that it may be unstable. Prose could use some brushing up, as well. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The article is intriguing for its skyscraper construction content. Thus, construction progress is relevant. The photos are not of the same thing any more than kindergarten, elementary school, junior high school, high school and college photos would be a picture of the same thing. Unstable in what sense. If I left the article unedited between now and July 4th, it is likely to still be considered complete. It is not changing any more rapidly than a typical living person. I am here for any feedback you may have to offer on prose, but if you are unwilling to give it there is not much I can do. I would hope you would be willing to explain problems you see with the prose.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • So you are telling me these four pictures:

• • • are not the same things? I cannot go into specific detail until the larger issues are addressed. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I am saying they are no more the same thing than a kindergarten, elementary school, junior high school, high school and college photos of your kid are a picture of the same thing. Suppose in a Donald Trump article you could find a picture of him in the same identical pose in Kindergarten, fifth grade, eight grade, twelfth grade and college. Would you describe them as a picture of the same thing?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't understand that analogy. Three of those pictures are all but identical, and other one is slightly different. This issue occurrs numerous times throughout the article. If a person wanted to see images, they could go to Commons. There is good content, and the prose isn't too bad. It's just one issue, which if you don't address, I'm afraid could affect the entire FAC. And even if they slightly differ from other images, why not just pick the best one and add it? Cheers, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
          • The analogy is fairly exact. Do you understand why I feel pictures of a person in the same pose at different stages of growth are different pictures? Look at the dates underneath each image. Look at the construction progress of each picture. The pictures may show the building at approximately 20, 40, 60 and 80 floors high. They are different. The sequence that you chose is probably the worst of the various sequences due to image quality. The example is better with the other sequences.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
            • Are you objecting to image quality. Would you prefer if I eliminated some of the lower quality images even if they depict something interesting?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
              • I'm afraid I don't quite understand, and somehow I don't think the average reader is going to pay much attention to the exact level of construction a building is at; I think they will be just as happy with one shot. The prose can explain the exact detail of the construction timeline. I am not objecting based on image quality, I am objecting image quantity. As I said before, Wikipedia is for articles, and if you have extra images, they should go in Commons. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
                • I am having a hard time debating with you because I feel like I am unable to communicate with you. My point is that an objection based on quantity (especially while the building is still under construction) seems to one suggesting removal of what is the current interest of the readers. People looking for this article right now want to assess how far along it is and how fast it is progressing. For this purpose a sequence of photos is necessary. In 4 or 5 years people might say we don't care about how fast the building was progressing, but right now that is what a reader wants to know. If you were to say "I object based on quality. Images X Y and Z are so poor as to distract the reader from the quality information and to detract from that information, I would remove images." However, I think right now readers want to know how fast it is progressing. That is what is contained in the photographic information. It is stated more clearly photographically than any prose I could possibly write.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if you feel you unable to communicate with me. I am simply stating my thoughts and opinion on the article. If you wish to keep it as it is, that is your choice. Good luck, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• TonyTheTiger, you're not making any sense at all. The article has too many images. People don't like thumbnail galleries, for obvious reasons. End of story. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 21:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• For the most part, this is not a gallery alghouth a half dozen gallery images remain. Galleries are discouraged in large part for their destructive effect on the flow of reading an article as one has to repeatedly page up and page down. Reduced size images are common on WP except they are by default 50-100% larger than the images included here.

Ask yourself what is the reader looking for about this building right now. Many want to know "How far along is it?" or "How fast is it progressing?" and some want to know "Is it starting to look like what they promised?" The middle question is the one that the numerous photographs are required for. Think about how many people look for this page to figure out how fast the building is progressing. could you answer that without these series of photos as well as you could with them?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons is where visitors will find picture galleries, not Wikipedia. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 21:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you are trying to make some sort of point about galleries. This article has a small gallery and many multiple image inclusions. If you are objecting to both you may not be reading my arguements because by the way you ignore them it seems you have.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Saw this tower over the weekend, looks amazing, and the article is generally good, but I just think it's poor form to feature an article on a subject that is still undergoing construction. (note that this doesn't apply to something like that church that's been under construction for 500 years, but as long as it's under active construction like this, I think we should wait.) Secondly, I agree, there are too many in-progress pictures. I am a huge skyscraper geek, but there are limits. We need maybe, what, 3 or so under-construction photos of a tower? We have one of the World Trade Center (I wouldn't mind more), and sadly zero of Sears and Hancock. I want three or so, yes. But this article has, minus the establishing shot of the tower at the top, 25 under-construction images. Do you really think we need or want to keep these once it's complete? This is recentism of the highest order, and a lot of them need to be pruned. We don't need photo sets from four different angles at four different times to establish the construction of the tower. And I don't think we need more than a single photo of the offending kiosk. So yes, I'm opposing mainly because of the overuse of images (commons exists for a reason), which reeks of recentism (in 5 years, this article will have no more than 5 photos of its construction, I guarantee), and because the building is still under construction. A single set of progress shots is sufficient for now and in the near future, I'm not saying get rid of them, but we don't need them from a half dozen angles. --Golbez (talk)
  • This will sound a bit snarky, but I am a bit unfamiliar with the poor form criteria at WP:WIAFA. Can you point out a particular criterion where this fails and Barack Obama (which has had 3 FARs since his candidacy) passes. I have already said that the article will look different in five years when people aren't looking for the progress of the building. Since a lot of the images are of lower quality, I will winnow some of those out and seek another response. This is terribly annoying that all respondents are refusing to give suggestions to improve the article other than take out photos. What is going on?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Can't recall ever voting on a Barack Obama FAC/R. Not only that, but last I checked, while he was from Chicago, he was not a skyscraper, so the issues are not completely parallel. As for 'looking for the progress of the building', that is easily possible with fewer than 25 in-progress images. Do any of our skyscraper FAs even have 25 images total? (probably...) And perhaps taking out photos would be the best thing you could do to improve the article. --Golbez (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • TonyTheTiger, as you have seen by now, many editors have opposed on the same grounds, so obviously we are trying to tell you how to improve the article. Right now, the biggest favor you could do for the article is to remove some of the dozens of images as we have suggested. If you don't like our comments, why don't you do as we suggest, and then we could focus on prose? Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • New comments:
    • The kiosk. Do we need three photos of it? At the very least, get rid of the middle one; the one on the right shows its location at the Wrigley Building, and the one on the left shows the reverse side, but the one in the middle adds nothing at all.
      • I just did that.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The phrase "ex-post 1999" doesn't seem to make sense to me, please clarify it.
      • done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Is it possible to get a render of the completed tower? I understand if all of them are copyrighted, I just wanted to make sure this had been investigated.
      • The people at WP:SKY know about this, but very early in the development of this building such an image was deleted. It seems to be common now to get fair use renderings, but I do not know whether this is truly allowable. However, as a main image for a FA, I think it would be considered wrong even if it is allowable in other cases.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Oh, definitely, at this point in the construction, especially considering the building is already active, the current image works much better as the main image; any render we have would go further down. --Golbez (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • "Trump's use of zebra wood in the lobby is among the architectural foibles of the hotel lobby." This sentence seems out of place and appears to be a quote, but is presented as a statement from the encyclopedia. Either move it up to the other comments by the reviewer, or clarify the parts of the statement that are opinion. --Golbez (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • The exact quote would be "marvelously tasteless zebra wood". I have rearranged.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Minor, but do we really need to know what time the hotel opened for business? Especially since you only have the time for the partial opening but not the total. I say remove the 11:00AM altogether.
      • done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • "The Chicago Spire, however, is set to break the record of tallest all-residential building upon completion in 2011." Do we need this? It has nothing to do with the subject of the article, since it's talking about a record that this building isn't even vying for. When Q1 is no longer the tallest all-residential tower, then maybe we can switch to Chicago Spire (or remove the reference altogether, since the disambiguation will no longer be required), but til then I see no point in mentioning the record fight.
      • I think it will break both records. So I revised the text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Heh, good point, hadn't thought of that. --Golbez (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • "Radler had negotiated the joint venture purchase of the property for the purpose of building the skyscraper and is noted for having testified as a government witness against Conrad Black." Do we really need the second half of this sentence, about Black? You've already established that he was the former editor of the Sun-Times, and that he negotiated the purchase; what does adding his relationship with the Black scandal add?
      • Some reviewers remind me to say who everyone is and not rely on the links. It sounds like here you are saying only explain what is really relevant for him. For consistency we are putting him in context. Look at people like the architect or the construction firms. We talk about all of their unrelated efforts that make them notable. Here I am just saying why the guy is notable.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Right, but isn't he notable for being a former editor of the Sun-Times, and that he negotiated the purchase? Adding the bit about Black - who had, so far as I can tell, zero to do with Chicago property and architecture and even less to do specifically with this building - seems superfluous. His notability for this article is easily established using the relevant facts of being involved in the purchase and being a former editor; the Conrad Black thing seems very irrelevant. --Golbez (talk) 05:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
          • I had been using a secondary source that described him in that way. However, his WP article does not really mention it although his article needs some work. Thus I have removed it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • "It is, Local 1 of UNITE HERE, the same union he uses for three Atlantic City, New Jersey and one New York City hotel." I'm guessing that comma is superfluous but just noting here the sentence needs repair either way. Furthermore, is a small union hiccup at the opening really needed information?
      • It's a story from the Chicago Tribune. If they run it we selectively include it. At the level of detail that the construction of the building is at, I would say it is not an unusual inclusion. When everything is up and running smoothly, it might get cut, but there isn't really a reason to now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Fair enough, but the comma still looks like it needs to go, yes? :) --Golbez (talk) 05:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
          • I revised it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • "Friends and family" "friends and family" "Friends and family discount" The phrases occur with different capitalization and sometimes with an added word; this phrase needs to be standardized.
      • fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure if you need the first half of the paragraph about the cranes and the inspections; the fact that there were fatal incidents elsewhere doesn't really add to the paragraph - inspections are going to happen either way. Now, if the fatal incidents had happened with this company, or on this site, that would certainly matter, but as it is, it seems extraneous.
      • The article was written the day after because of the accidents not because regular inspections are interesting. I will rewrite this section so that it is not as dependent on the recent events.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • "Build it Bigger" and/or "High Risk Tower" need to be italicized or quoted, I'm not sure which, but I know TV shows and probably episodes simply don't stand alone as plain text.
      • done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Just a general comment, but it seems weird that the largest section in "Design", by far, is the restaurant, which, combined with the bar section, is larger than all the other design sections combined. I'm thinking either the food area sections are too large, or more detail can be supplied in the other sections.
      • I would anticipate that future subsections of this building would include architectural reviews of the completed building, reviews of the riverwalk park and reviews of the outdoor patio. This section should be dominated by reviews of completed features. I anticipate that they will be uncontentious sections and in terms of stability they imply no more instability that an article on a celebrity who has anticipated movies or albums on the horizon. I should probably dig up some hotel reviews and make a section for that, but the most important hotel reviews are the annual five star ratings. Maybe I should wait for the more important reviews. Any thoughts on the hotel review?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I added a section for the spa, moved the hotel section and sectioned off all the features. The restaurant and bar seem to have a lot of notable reviews. The hotel reviews are not generally WP:RS. We will have to wait.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Speaking of which, in the text it says the second setback is aligned with Marina City, but in the image, even accounting for perspective, Marina City is clearly taller than the second setback. Is it possible to clarify this?
      • I see what you are saying, but I notice no WP:RS that we can use to clarify.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The table caption has the plural "Michigan Avenue Kiosks" but the text of the article only mentions one; is there one or more than one?
      • fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • See what constructive criticisms I can find when I'm not distracted by two dozen extra images? :) --Golbez (talk) 04:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I have just learned how to use www.flickr.com over the last month or so. I wish I had been using flickr when I first joined WP. There are thousands and thousands of pictures of this building on flickr. I sort of have the feeling, if I had a couple of really high quality collages, or multiple image templates they might have been more well received. I just wonder why an article like Construction of the World Trade Center has no construction photos. I appreciate your attention.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment If you want to include a number of images of the same view while under construction, then it might be better to do them as a collage, since it allows you to adjust the alignment etc of the images. A bit of photoshopping comes up with the following examples – I'm sure that someone else could do better:

• • What kind of software did you use to make the collage?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Adobe Photoshop Elements 5 Bluap (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• REPLY TO ALL COMPLANANTS ABOUT THE NUMBER OF PHOTOS I have reduced the construction photos from 25 to 11.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick Comment - The citation for the recent New York City crane collapse is an Associated Press story via Google. I recommend changing this reference because Google AP links don't last long. There are enough pay-per-view links already, and it should be easy to find a replacement. Giants2008 (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments: I have not read or looked in-detail at any part of the article. I did a quick glance of it and saw a few things which I believe might need changing.

• First of all, is it possible to move the map that shows the location of the tower below the image? I personally believe that the image of the tower is more important than the map and it should be on top. If you have a special reasoning for having the map on top, please let me know. And, is it possible to make the red X more pronounced and easier to see?
  • The infobox is not set up for two image captioning. Thus if you put the image on the top, its caption is below the map. Alternatively, you could use the thumb image command, within the image box which has been frowned upon in the past. The third option is to move the map out of the infobox. Fourth option would be to remove the map. The fifth option would be to leave it like it is. That is what I did. I will fix the x.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Now, I do not consider myself to be an expert on any Wikipedia policies, so this next comment may be void; is the lead too long? I thought that the lead is meant to be a quick overview of the topic and not meant to include specific data that is present in other areas of the article. Some examples include the heights (with and without the spire) and the history which both have their own sections and do not require as much information as is currently in the lead.
  • There are no set rules on WP:LEAD. Anything less than four paragraphs is withing reason. I generally try to look at the lead and the infobox and say would a causual reader be satisfied just reading the lead and the infobox because that is what I do with a lot of articles. Thus, I think we should look and see is the article well summarized and does the lead cover anything left out of the subsequent article. I don't think most building should include height in the lead, but I think a casual reader wants to know about the height of this building with both measures shown. I don't think that is true for most buildings. I will shorten if people feel that is the way to go, but I don't think there is anything the casual reader wouldn't care about except maybe the construction company. Hwoever, they are pretty high profile so I think even they should be in the lead.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• The third issue, as you may have quessed, is the images. I agree with Juliancolton, Wackymacs and Golbez about the amount of images in this article. I cannot provide you with a definite reason for why I believe this, but the article just looks overwhelmed with too many images (yes, even after you recently removed several images). Tony, I myself have had near to 20 images on stub articles before and believed it to provide substantial amounts of information to the article. After a few editors pointed out that there were too many images and that they did not give any information whatsoever, I realized that I had been wrong. I understand why you feel so strongly for keeping the images, but you have to see this issue from a different perspective. I hope I can propose a solution to this issue. Instead of using {{Multiple image}}, I think it would be better to have one image for every {{Multiple image}} that is in the article. This would remove the clutter and make it easier to see the images. If someone wants to see the progression of construction, they can go to Commons:Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) where the gallery (and hence construction progress) is easily available to view. But, if you really want to keep one of the {{Multiple image}}s, you should place it in the Construction section where it is more appropriate.
  • The article now has about the same text to image ratio as my other FAs and most modern FAs that I see. I personally think it looks worse with 11 construction image than it did with 25 images. Comparing this to South Side (Chicago), or Campbell's Soup Cans (two of my earlier FAs) and I would say we are in the same ballpark) and this is now in the same ballpark. It is also in the same ballpark as Prairie Avenue and Chicago Board of Trade Building were when they wer promoted. As far as commons goes. I may get to adding the 15 removed images to commons and I may not. I am not that big on transfering images to commons. If someone wants to transfer them the following were the removed images.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• I would also recommend the removal of certain images because I do not see any point for them. It is hard to see the construction in Image:Michigan Ave Bridge 060415.jpg and hence should not be included. Also, as I am someone that does not know Chicago, Image:20080514 Foot of Rush from across Chicago River.JPG does not show me anything. I do not know what I am looking at and the caption "The 1.2 acre Riverfront Park & Riverwalk will be between Wrigley Building and the hotel" does not help any bit (where is the Wrigley Building and where is the hotel). Also, only one kiosk image is needed as the text is more important than the images, and two images of the images are almost exactly the same.
  • I concede the Michigan Avenue Bridge is not so important to this article and removed it. The space I am talking about between the building is kind of important to the article. I will revisit the text and see if I can make its relevance important. I think a certain amount of editorial content should be determined by people familiar with Chicago. I moved one kiosk image to Ivanka Trump.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• To respond to your arguments that people want to see at what status the tower is, I agree. I usually like to see a recent image of buildings that are under construction and I am usually disappointed when the article does not provide one. It is great that you have so many images documenting the construction of a building that will be one of the tallest in the world. But I believe that only one image is needed for this, and the image in the infobox can satisfy that requirement. Just make sure that you update the article frequently with the most recent image.

I hope all this provides good feedback and improves the article in some way. If you need clarification or would like to discuss anything I wrote here, please let me know. Good luck! Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 03:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: current FAs,

• 7 World Trade Center (Art and architecture at WP:FA)
• Construction of the World Trade Center (Engineering and technology at WP:FA)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Reply I suppose you are pointing out FAs for me to emulate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And Chicago Board of Trade Building. Alaskan assassin (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• The Trump International Hotel and Tower is expected to be 415 meters (1,362 feet w/Spire - 1,170 feet (360 m) w/o Spire) tall and contain 92 floors for various uses. Wouldn't the "w/" and "w/o" be better as "with" and "without", respectively?
  • yes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Despite ongoing difficulties, construction is proceeding. This sentence seems out of place. You should move it to the end of the paragraphs, IMO.
• Add non-breaking spaces
• Upon completion in 2009, according to the current design, it will be the second tallest building in Chicago behind the Sears Tower, rising above the current second and third-tallest, Aon Center and the Hancock Center respectively, as well as the second tallest building in the United States rising above the Empire State Building and the Bank of America Tower. Split this into two sentences.
• The setbacks and rounded edges of the building will combat vortex formation. Does "vortex" refer to storms?
• Floors three through twelve will be used for lobbies, retail, and parking 3–12. MoS breach.
• In the area surrounded by the hotel to the west, the Chicago River to the south, Rush Street and the Wrigley Building to the east and McDonald's and River Plaza to the north Trump will design a 1.2-acre (4,856.2 m²) Riverfront Park & Riverwalk along a space that is 500 feet (152.4 m). Link Rush Street.
• Since the Trump Tower has both hotel condominiums (originally planned as office space) and residential condominiums, it will not contest the record held by the 80-story Q1 Tower in Gold Coast, Australia as the tallest all-residential building. Should be "Because the Trump Tower..."
• The hotel had originally planned to do a "soft" open of three of its floors on December 3, 2007 with a later grand opening to follow,[32] Unlink 2007 per MoS. Same with any other year links.
• Of course, the main part of the procession is the dining room, which has a West African wood dome-shaped ceiling that incorporates mirrors so that all diners can experience the view. Is "Of course" really needed? Also, you might want to get rid of "that".

That should be good for now. Let me know when you get those done and I'll give you some more comments. Very interesting article. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Go (board game)

FAR, has been on main page.

Nominator HermanHiddema (talk) 09:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Serious problems with the references, among other issues:

• It seems the history section is meant to be in chronological order, but fails at doing this. 2008 is mentioned before 1996 at the end of the section. Please reorganize.

done. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Unreferenced paragraph: "Generally, it is not allowed to play a stone in such a way that one of your own chains is left without liberties. Such a move is dubbed suicide. An exception to this rule occurs if doing so captures one or more of the opponent's stones. In this case, the opponent's stones are captured first, leaving the newly played stone at least one liberty."

Will reference this, but need to determine the status of sensei's library first.HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Referenced. HermanHiddema (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• No reference for "Go was introduced to the West at the end of the 19th century, when German scientist Oskar Korschelt wrote the first Western treatise on the game."

this is referenced in the reference at the end of the next sentence. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You could add another ref tag, just to avoid any confusion in the future. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Will do, but since this reference is of questionable reliability anyway, I will wait until I have a better one. HermanHiddema (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Referenced. HermanHiddema (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Important consequences" section is unreferenced entirely except for one sentence.

The single reference supports this whole section. I can add named ref tags a few times if required. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A ref tag at the end of each paragraph would be good. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. HermanHiddema (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• "There are two basic ways to count the score at the end of the game." - end of the game, or end of a game? (Not sure)

I am not sure what the difference is, can you explain? HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Prose could be better: "The oldest counting method of these is called territory scoring and which is used in Japan, Korea and most Western nations countries."

done. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Some of the refs seem to be misplaced. And you've got an odd period: "...standardized set of international rules.[34]."

Can you be more specific? HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's really personal taste, so it's not mandatory - but I prefer it when ref tags come at the end of a sentence instead of in-between after commas. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, I have only placed references in the middle of sentences if there is more than one reference or if the reference very specifically supports only part of the sentence. I will look in to this though, but will give other issues priority for now. HermanHiddema (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is mostly fixed now, where appropriate. HermanHiddema (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Some of the book refs do not have page numbers.

I will look in to this. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Quite a lot of the web refs are missing access dates.

Will look in to this too. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. HermanHiddema (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• What makes the following sources reliable?
  • Sensei's Library - this reference is used for many of the footnotes, but the site itself doesn't seem to be reliable?

This is an important issue. If Sensei's Library is not accepted as a reliable source, we may as well scratch this FAC for now. I have created space for discussion on this below HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Replaced. HermanHiddema (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.gogod.co.uk/NewInGo/C&IP.htm

Written by John Fairbairn, well known expert in the field that has published on it. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• • http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/advant.html

Written by Robert Jasiek, well known expert on rules, member of the EGF rules committee. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Google brings up 8,820 results for Robert Jasiek, but I'm not seeing any notable publications. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The publishing market for Go is rather small, especially in the rules arcana area, so I would guess that most of Jasieks work is either publiched in eg Go World or is only distributed to other specialists in the field. The EGF lists Jasiek as a rules commission member, and he is usually present at IGF rules meetings, eg this report lists him as the EGF representative and also notes that "In between the 5th and the 6th meetings, some documents were circulated by email". I do not think Jasiek has published in any peer-reviewed magazines. HermanHiddema (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.leipzig-go.de/fruehgeschichte_e.php - This certainly is not a good source to use for the history - use reliable books instead.

I will try to find a better source. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Replaced with a better source. HermanHiddema (talk) 07:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.samarkand.net/Web_store/web_store.cgi?page=10D.html - Commercial website, an order form?

I will try to find a better source. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Replaced. HermanHiddema (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.european-go.org/archives/filmography.htm

Publication of the European Go Federation, but I may be able find a different reference. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Converted to footnote. HermanHiddema (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.msoworld.com/mindzine/news/front.html - What makes this ezine reliable?

The articles on Go here were written either by John Fairbairn or by Charles Matthews, both well knows experts on the subject that have published. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.godiscussions.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3353 - A forum? Not a good source.

Agree, I hadn't seen that one when going over it, will find a replacement. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Replaced. HermanHiddema (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please use the language parameter of the Cite/Citation templates to identify non-English sources.

Ok, will work on that. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't spot any non-english sources. HermanHiddema (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Variants and related games" section seems like an afterthought, only one paragraph long - consider expanding or merging with another section?

I will discuss this with fellow editors. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed, merged into See Also. HermanHiddema (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Most of the sections are full of short paragraphs which do not flow together. I recommend a reshuffle.
• I recommend a full copyedit by an editor new to the text. Please see both Peer review/volunteers and LOCE/Members for lists of people who can help. Do not hesitate to contact a few people on their Talk pages!

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Issue: Acceptability of Sensei's Library as a reliable source

Sensei's Library is used many times to reference basic go terms, tactics and rules. If this is not acceptable for WP, then there is no reason to go through with this FAC at this time, as it will take some time to find other sources for this. Sensei's Library is a wiki, and as such is self-published, it is an active wiki, which gets anywhere from 10 to 50 edits per day. A significant part of the editors are experts, and it is recognized as a very valuable resource within the Go community. The referenced articles are generally long-time stable articles which deal with very basic "common knowledge" kinds of subjects. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Correct, I personally believe it's not a reliable source, as it is a self-published wiki which does not cite its sources. We'll see what Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) thinks when they get around to reviewing the sources. You should get some books on the tactics to replace the Sensei's Library footnotes, in my opinion. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Not only is Sensei's library a wiki, which pretty much means it fails the reliability test, there are a number of references that are websites that don't give publisher or last access date. Also a problem would be http://www.nihonkiin.or.jp/lesson/knowledge-e/ this site, or http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/advant.html. I strongly suggest cleaning up the references, replacing the Sensei's library with published strategy guides, and then dropping me a note on my talk page when the website references are giving publisher, last access date and title of the page at hte very least. I'm sorry that I just don't have the time to go through every single website when it's pretty clear that they are going to change radically shortly. I'm not sure if it would be best to withdraw this nomination or try to work on it some more, that's up to you. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have replace most Sensei's Library references on rules, strategy and tactics with a new reference to a stategy guide. Will do the rest later, right now I'm gonna watch the Dutch play in Euro 2008 ;-) HermanHiddema (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A wiki can't be reliable? Is that supposed to be a joke?--ZincBelief (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

On the reliability scale, a wiki is not reliable because anyone can add any information, reliable or not. The same applies to Wikipedia, except we try to use reliable sources in the form of footnotes here, so at least readers know what our material is based on. Technically, an encyclopedia in itself is not a good source (for example, I would not cite Britannica or Wikipedia for a term paper because it's just bad practice). — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes...Anyway, the criteria is: factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate; Wiki websites can of course be vandalised, but the evidence suggests that they are infact accurately maintained sources of reliable information. See wikipedia for an example of this. This argument is slightly veering toward the ridiculous, isn't it? Anyway, the question is whether Senseis Library is a reliable source. As a Go player I would answer yes, ask any other Go player the same question and I bet they'd say yes too. However glorious regulations prevent this reputation for reliability being allowed to stand here, I can have some sympathy for this. There are things I cannot have sympathy for. The practice of citations on wikipedia is, in my estimation, done in a pedantic and braindead fashion, and I have no idea why it has been allowed to develop in this fashion. Why should we demand featured articles are not referenced properly? Instead of referencing several sources for complex points, one source must be given to satisfy each and every blindingly obvious point that didn't need to be cited in the first place. Yet whole viewpoints are not touched because that would require the reviewer to consider something deeper that visual representation of text. Personally, I would suggest that Senseis Library is a perfectly valid reference when used in combination with other sources. Paticularly where we are citing for trivial claims that might as well be supplied with http://www.mysearchengineofchoice.com. Please excuse my rant, but I really find the attitude toward citations so completely ridiculous that I can no longer bring myself to even attempt to reference an article toward some degree of divine status--ZincBelief (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Typically a reliable source is one which has a widespread reputation, its own peer review process, or some other way we can be sure of accuracy. The wiki in question does not cite its sources, so it's simply out of the question to use it instead of a published book. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The point is that Senseis Library actually has a widespread reputation amongst the Go Community. I think the American Go Association cited it in the Top 10 most useful Go websites. One software developer even made a product which uses it alone as a reference source for Go terms. If you research on your own free time (a chore I know) you will find it a consistently reliable source of information. --ZincBelief (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you don't agree with Wacky and I's take on this, you're welcome to post a question over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard about it, and see what others think also. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Would that really help do you think? Senseis Library has a reputation for accuracy. Its editors ensure articles there are kept informative and up to date. This is a living peer review process as it where. When pages are deemed broken, there is the wiki-master-edit process on Senseis Library. The material on the wiki is also non contentious (in the main), an important adjective in the field of Wikipedia Reliable Sources. To describe use of Senseis Library as out of the question is perverse to my mind. I mean I could live with forcing somebody to link to a page version, but just claiming that the whole library cannot be used seems barking to me. A library used on a day to day basis to provide accessible and educational material to beginner Go players cannot be used as a reliable source? Is that really a sensible claim? No it is not really a senseible claim. I don't need to ask on another page to convince myself of that. It stands to reason that a library of information maintained by the Go playing community can be used to explain basic concepts. If Featured Article Status forbids logical arguments like this then it is entirely without merit. To denigrate information and knowledge on an arbitrary basis is not the job of Wikipedia.

I realise though that I have begun to rant again. Sorry. --ZincBelief (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is that the WP:V and WP:RS both specify "third-party sources with a reputation for fact checking". The general consensus is that wiki's don't qualify, but I really urge you to go to the Noticeboard if you want third or fourth opinions. It isn't the FAC process that demands RS, it's a WP policy. FAC just requires that articles meet WP policies. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that if you can produce an reliable source (preferably more than one) that states that Senseis Library has a reputation for accuracy, then the Library would acceptable as a source for this article. In some ways, it is analogous to our policy on self-published works – normally disallowed, but we'd be prepared to make exceptions. Bluap (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The internet is full of hotlinks which recommend Senseis Library as a useful source of information. I take it these wouldn't be acceptable though. I wonder what would suffice. Can we have certified Go players bizarrely laying down some speel recognizing Senseis Library as a reliable source of information on non contentious issues? Charles Matthews, certified third dan, third biggest contributor to wikipedia, and one time most profilic author on senseis library, would he do? Or would there be some doubt that he had just mistaken it for uncyclopedia?--ZincBelief (talk) 09:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard will help if you ask there. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "# Shirakawa Masayoshi (2005). A Journey In Search of the Origins of Go. ISBN 1889554987. " – author should be last name, first name and then sort References section alphabetically. There are a few more references that need last name, first name format.

Done. HermanHiddema (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Many references are missing publishers. Format them per WP:CITE/ES

Done. HermanHiddema (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Use en dashes for page ranges in references.

Done. HermanHiddema (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• That's it for now. As others have stated above, there are many more issues with this article, even after disregarding MOS issues, which there are many.

Can you tell me what these are? HermanHiddema (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Gary King (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Mainly 1c, but also some other issues. In addition to the reliable source problems above, the Strategy section is unreferenced. There are scattered paragraphs without citations in other sections as well. "Go is not easy to play well. With each new level (rank) comes a deeper appreciation for the subtlety and nuances involved and for the insight of stronger players" is POV, among other sentences in Strategy. In Origin in China, three references are inside parentheses; these should be moved out. I also see one in Software players. This article is a long way from FA. Giants2008 (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

References fixed All the Sensei's Library references have been replaced, as have other references questioned here. References now also include publisher, accessdate, etc where appropriate. HermanHiddema (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Nope:
  • Book refs 3,4,5,6,7,8, 50, 51, 62, 71, 73, 74 need page numbers.

Mostly these are short essays without page numbers, will fix the rest.

• • Ref 2 and 84 are Sensei's Library.

THese are footnotes, not citations, meant to provide extra info, not to verify.

• • Online refs 15, 32, 77, 78, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 94, 95 need access dates.

I'll check these

• • Ref 60 and 91 access dates are not linked, but the rest are.

I'll go check why :-) Ok, 60 is fixed, used "accessmonth"/"accessyear" instead of "accessdate". 91 is still not linked, because it uses the "citation" instead of the "cite web" template. But as this is now a web citation, that doesn't seem proper to use. It is published in Bozulich 2001, the url is a bonus.

• • Ref 89 is broken.

fixed.

By me. :-) — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Ref 90 and 92 need page numbers, ISBN information.

will look that up.

• • Ref 93 needs 'pp.' before the page numbers.

fixed

• • I have tried to best to catch all problems with the citations, please check through all of them properly.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 19:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have actually noticed another problem with the citations. You're mixing up {{Citation}} and {{Cite web}} /{{Cite book}}/{{Cite news}} templates. Please use either Citation on its own, or the others, per WP:CITE. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I was not aware of that. That'll take some time to fix :-( HermanHiddema (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, careful use of good ol' Find and Replace has done it for me in the past! Just copy and paste the wikipedia syntax into a text document, then, once done, paste it back into wikipedia and save the changes. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

My text editor doesn't like the Kanji and other strange characters used in the page :-( HermanHiddema (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 15 "AGA 1995 Historical Book is lacking a last access date

Fixed.

• Same for current ref 16 "Bozulich, Richard The Magic of Go...

This one is no longer available, but is available through the web archive. What is the proper way to fix that?

• What's the GoGD (Farbairn & Hall) note refering to? I can't find it in the references.

See below.

• Current ref 30 John Fairbairn, probably should list it Fairbairn, John to match the rest of the references

Fixed.

• I take it http://www.gogod.co.uk/ is put out by two well known Go players and that's why it's reliable?

See below.

• Current ref 32 Hansen, Fred is lacking a last access date.
• http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/AGA.commentary.html what makes this reliable? Current ref 32.

Written by the Rules Committee of the American Go Association

You should actually be using the latest AGA rules text (from the usgo website) in combination with a link from the French and UK websites (I don't know how to format links to foreign websites). John Fairbairn wrote an article about AGA rules on the GoGod website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZincBelief (talk • contribs) 09:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This document is an appendix, and is not included in either the "conciserules" or "completerules" PDF documents on the AGA website. Instead, the AGA website links to the url used above from their rules section as being a Commentary/Clarification. HermanHiddema (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/index.html looks like a personal site? what makes it a reliable source.

Jasiek is a member of the European Go Federation Rules Commission and the International Go Rules Forum (IGRF), and is generally considered one of the foremost experts on rules arcana.

• What makes current ref 47 an FAQ from a usenet group reliable?

This is basically subject specific common knowledge, a newsgroup FAQ gathers a lot of that kind of information.

• Current ref 48 http://gemma.ujf.cas.cz/~cieply/GO/gor.html Cieply Ales who is the publisher? What makes it reliable?

Ales Cieply is the ratings commisioner of the European Go Federation, and the site in question is the official EGF ratings page. I guess publisher would be EGF?

• What makes http://www.msoworld.com/ a reliable source?

MSO World articles are written by either John Fairbairn or Charles Matthews, both go writers with published work.

• What makes http://gobase.org/information/ a reliable source?
• Current ref 60 Charles Matthews, probably should put last name first to match the rest of the notes

Fixed.

• Current ref 71 Nakayama noriyuki "Memories of Kitani" is lacking a page number

Fixed.

• Current ref 79 Keene, Raymond & Levy, David "How to beat your chess computer" is lacking a publisher
• Is current ref 85 Trevanian as quotedin McDonald, Brian "Go in Western Literature" a newsletter, journal, book? Needs more bibliographical information and a last access date
• Current ref 89 is borked somehow.

Fixed.

• Current ref 92 Gobet F ... is lacking publication date
• Current ref 94 Chen et. al. is lacking a page number
• Current ref 95 Verghese et al is lacking a page number

One dead link with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

About GoGoD

GoGoD is short for Games of Go on Disk, and is a commercial product which includes essays on many topics, as well as records of high level games. The articles are written by John Fairbairn, the games entered by T Mark Hall. Fairbairn is well published on Go.

[edit] Zhang Heng

This article was granted GA status back in April of 2007, and has seen slow but monumental improvement since then. The article is stable, the images are sourced, the subject (the ancient Chinese scientist Zhang Heng) is thoroughly detailed and laid out in several sections, and as of now the article boasts 90 inline citations from 30 different reference sources.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - Looks very good, but there's a few things: (permission to nitpick?)
• "Zhang had extensive knowledge of mechanics and gears, applying this knowledge to several of his known inventions." - Knowledge twice in a row in the same sentence, can we avoid this?
• "According to historian Joseph Needham, Zhang Heng was noted in his day for being able to "make three wheels rotate as if they were one".[1]" - Why exactly is this in the lead?
• "When the official Dan Song proposed that the Chinese calendar should be reformed in 123 to adopt certain apocryphal teachings," - Slight signs of redundancy, but nothing major.
• "Meanwhile, officials Liu Zhen and Liu Taotu, who were members..." - Is 'Meanwhile' the best word to use here? In a novel, it would be fine - but it just doesn't sound right in this particular case.
• "However, Zhang was barred from this due to because of his controversial views on apocrypha as well and his view that Emperor Gengshi (r. 23–25)..." - 1) What is 'this'? Since you've started a new sentence, it's best to reinstate what was being said to avoid confusion. 2) I think my proposed wording change is beneficial to the readability.
• "However, his intensive astronomical work was rewarded only with the rank and salary of 600 bushels, or shi, of grain (also commuted to cash); to place this number in context, in a hierarchy of twenty official ranks, the lowest-paid official earned the rank and salary of 100 bushels and the highest-paid official earned 10,000 bushels during the Han." - 1) Why is 'however' being used? I don't see a contradiction to the previous sentence. 2) This sentence is very long, can we break it up a bit to improve readability?
• "However, Zhang's official status at court saw considerable improvement." - I'm not entirely sure 'however' should be used here, either.
• Split your References section into References and Further reading sections, since not all of those books have been used for the footnotes.
• I'm sure there's similar little things throughout the article, but I won't continue because the article is long and so my comments could also get very lengthly.
• I don't think a prose polish would hurt, so I recommend a full copyedit by an editor new to the text. Please see both Peer review/volunteers and LOCE/Members for lists of people who can help. Do not hesitate to contact a few people on their Talk pages!

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wackymacs. I have amended the article according to your suggestions, except for the further reading one, since I couldn't find the reference which you were talking about that was not already cited in the article. As for copyediting, I have contacted User:Scartol on this issue. Thanks for commenting!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you contact someone other than Scartol? As stated on their Talk page, they're busy at the moment! Thanks. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops! My mistake. I've contacted User:AndonicO instead.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. One thing, the graphical curly pull quotes are frowned on by the MOS, I believe. Double check, but I am pretty sure that's the case. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I checked WP:MOS and I could not find anything in the section on quotations that said curly quotes were prohibited or frowned upon; I didn't use them necessarily for regular blockquotes, only for quoted lines of poetry.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's at Wikipedia:MOS#Quotations under "Block quotations": "Block quotes are not enclosed in quotation marks (especially including decorative ones such as those provided by the {{cquote}} template, used only for pull quotes)." Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, I'll get rid of them. One question though, if they are not to be used, why do they exist in the first place?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Your guess is as good as mine, I don't have the foggiest idea. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

{{cquote}} is (according to its instructions) intended for pull quotes instead of block quotes. I haven't seen many pull quotes in articles (they are a staple of journalism). In-text block quotes are far more common in Wikipedia articles. BuddingJournalist 22:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Could a caption be provided for the image in the infobox? BuddingJournalist 13:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The picture is temporarily removed due to a bogus copyright issue, but this will soon be resolved by an administrator over at Commons, as the person who tagged the image (who doesn't even have an account) is almost certainly there for troublemaking, as the license is already fully described and the image, made by the PRC, was made in 1955 with a fifty-year copyright status.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments

• "instrument [73]" – missing a period
• Use en dashes for page ranges in the references per WP:DASH
• Consider adding {{persondata}} to the article
• When you are doing conversions, "500 km (310 miles)" → "500 kilometers (310 mi)". Ensure the entire article uses this method, per MOS:CONVERSIONS
• Use either American or British spelling, but not both. You have "behavior" and "behaviour", for instance. Recheck the entire article.

Gary King (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gary, I fixed the missing period, the en dashes in the reference section, the unit conversions, and that instance of British spelling of "behaviour". I am an American and the prime editor of this article (no British fellows contributing to it as far as I know), so I think that one case you found was a minor slip-up of mine. As for the person data, there is already an infobox for this in the lead; is there additional person data you would like to see in the article?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, some prose issues, like "in order to" → "to" Gary King (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, I have fixed two instances where there was the phrase "in order to" into just "to".--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Wow! Check out the article now, I've added a significant amount of new material and pictures just today, including a nifty marble carving of the Greek scientist Ptolemy. Why him, you ask? Well go read the article and find out! Lol. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Art Houtteman

previous FAC (04:36, 22 January 2008)

After having the article pass GA and having it looked at by several people, I believe I solved any problems from the last FAC, and am trying my hand at making this an FA again. Comments really appriciated, of course :) Wizardman 00:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• • done Wizardman 21:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support All my concerns have been addressed. Very well-written, plenty of good info and well-referenced. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Okay, I don't lean towards unreliable on http://bioproj.sabr.org/ but some more information about how it's percieved in the media would help with other reviewers.
• Can we get the titles of publications in italics?
• What makes http://baseball-almanac.com/index.shtml a reliable source?

Otherwise sources look good. Links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'm unsure about Baseball LibraryAlmanac, so I recommend Retrosheet as a replacement. SABR is a well-known organization in the baseball world, so it should be possible to prove that their people are experts in the field. Since I'm watching the NBA Finals tonight, I'll look for media stories tomorrow. Giants2008 (talk) 01:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

While I'm here, some printed sources lack page numbers, which are needed for verification purposes. Giants2008 (talk) 01:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• The baseball almanac ref I can move to retrosheet, as it's the same information anyway. As for the page numbers, I'm fairly sure that the ones that don't have them don't have them only because I couldn't find them anywhere. I can look through them again, but I put in whatever information I could find. Wizardman 00:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I found an editors page on the SABR site here and it appears discouraging. While it includes several book authors, it doesn't seem that they are all experts, and the Chief Editor's credentials in particular are uninspiring. This is crucial because the FAC is in deep trouble without this source. This is the page of Houtteman's bio author. It does say he is the editor of a trade publication in Washington, but nothing on what publication. Giants2008 (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

On the positive side, the biography does list its sources. Giants2008 (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "He finished the season with a 7–2 record, a 3.42 ERA, seven complete games, two shutouts, and a batting average of .300.[2]" His batting average or opponents batting average? Just wanted to make sure since it would appear Pitching stat, Pitching stat, Pitching stat, batting stat. (If it is his batting average ignore this).
• "in which he had to drive in the winning run himself" would sound better as "In which he drove in the winning run himself"
• "He had originally been classified 4-F, or medically ineligible for the draft.." Why was he allowed to enter if he was 4-F?

Overall, it's well written. Blackngold29 00:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I fixed the first two comments, as for the last one I'm not sure of the answer. I'll ask someone who's more knowledgeable regarding military matters how that works to see if I can figure it out. Wizardman 21:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I thought maybe the war had reached the point where they relaxed the rules to allow more people in (that's just a random guess though)? The sources said nothing about this? Blackngold29 22:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Nope. Granted, he was classified as 4-F for World War II, but served in the Korean War. Maybe something happened i between there. In either case, can't seem to find anything on this yet. Wizardman 22:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• For the win-loss record, that's not a range, so I'm fairly sure it should just be a hyphen, not an en dash.
  • No, win-loss record requires an en dash. 7–9 not 7-9. See WP:DASH. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• "He was called up to the majors into a pitching staff that lost players due to injuries and being called up to fight in WWII." - awkward, rephrase.
• In the link "All-Star appearance," I think only "All Star" should be linked - put "appearance" after the link.
• "He played three more seasons with the Tigers, then he was traded to Cleveland, where he pitched for the pennant-winning Indians of 1954."
• "he finished his career in the minor leagues for a couple seasons, then Houtteman retired and became a sales executive in Detroit before his death in 2003." - erm, capital letter at the beginnning of the sentence? ;) Also, you first refer to Houtteman by a pronoun and then by his last name, which sounds awkward. One last thing - his death probably deserves a separate sentence, and it sounds awkward squashed into this one.

Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Inconsistent number usage in the second paragraph of the lead. We have "age of 17" and "fifteen games". If the choice was mine, I would change the first of these to avoid having a number end a sentence, but it's up to you.
• Capitalization error: "he finished his career".
• Early life: Link 1927 since it is a full date and the remainder is linked.
• Detroit Tigers, Hard Luck Houtteman: We don't need his first name again here.
• Redundancy: "yet suffered an extra inning 2–0 loss despite this." Yet and despite this.
• "Houtteman pitched 13 games as a relief pitcher" Try "Houtteman appeared in 13 games as a relief pitcher".
• And before "an earned run average".
• "At the end of the season, Houtteman was declared by six of the eight minor league managers as the top minor league pitching prospect in the International League." Reword to: "At the end of the season, Houtteman was declared by six of the eight International League managers as the top pitching prospect in the league." Also remove being from the next sentence.
• Capitalize Hall of Famer.
• In fact, his first victory".
• "He then lost eight more" Needs to say games.
• "when tragedy nearly struck". Be very careful with phrases like this, as they can easily be seen as POV.

Not too bad for the most part. If I get time, I'll perform some cleanup myself in the next few days. Giants2008 (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Year Zero (album)

previous FAC
previous FAC (00:57, 28 April 2008)

Third time's the charm? Since failing back-to-back FACs, I brought the article to Peer Review and it has since been tweaked here and there since. As far as I can tell, I have addressed all concerns from both previous FACs and the Peer review. So, I welcome any further comments and suggestions. Thanks! Drewcifer (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes http://www.gigwise.com/ a reliable source?

• Took it out: it was a duplicate citation anyways, so it wasn't really necessary.

Still in the article at current ref 33 Jason Gregory and current ref 35 Jason Gregory

Wow, can't believe I missed that. Rearranged/redid the citations again: no more gigwise. Drewcifer (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• http://blogs.courant.com/eric_danton_sound_check/2007/04/year_zero.html deadlinks with both clicking the link and the link checker

• Found and added an archived version.

• Current ref 58 http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?id=1008&name=Nine+Inch+Nails what makes this a reliable source? It is also lacking a publisher

• It's from Robert Christgau, a much-discussed rock critic. It has not publisher because it's the same as the author (Robert Christgau).

• Need to watch the all capitals in the references, they probably shouldn't be capitalized.

• I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean in the titles?

Yes, I did but it looks like you got it. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help as always. Drewcifer (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment
  • Reznor also speculated that he would release the next Nine Inch Nails album online in a similar fashion to The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of NiggyTardust!, which he produced - this should explain what that fashion is
  • I realize it could veer into OR if there's no sources clarifying it, but I'd like more of an explanation of what makes this a concept album. The spots where the term "concept album" is used only refer to the lyrics criticizing the US government as a recurring theme (which, though it may be a theme technically speaking, is not itself the kind of thing the term "concept album" is commonly used for). But if I had to guess based on the rest of the article, I'd think the "theme" would be the dystopian futurism. So... I'm not sure what exactly my point is, but there you go...
• Tuf-Kat (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• In the lead, "Year Zero... Year Zero" → "Year Zero... It"?

• Rearranged a little bit, but some of the sentences didn't really benefit from swapped Year Zero with it, for one reason or another. Hopefully it's a little more readable now though.

• For the first three paragraphs, "Year Zero... The album... The album" → "Year Zero... The album... Year Zero"? Lots of "The album... The album" going on, at least in the lead.

• See above. Drewcifer (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: As i said in the previous FAC, if the Performance tour is merged with the Promotion and release section, the flow would be a lot better and you can avoid redundancy by not having to mention the USBs twice. You can get a bigger album cover too (300 x 300)indopug (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed both! Drewcifer (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I can't really support or oppose this as it stands now, though I would lean towards oppose. I see the prose and sourcing as a major weaknesses.

• A number of the paragraphs throughout are stubby and could use fleshing out. (For example, the "Artwork" section.) Also, as another editor pointed out, there are few cases (especially in the lead) where there are repeated phrases and terms.

• I combined the two short paragraphs in the Artwork section. As for the reptition in the lead, I think I addressed the concerns mentioned above, but if you have any more specific concerns, please let me know.

• I'm also somewhat concerned about your sources' inherent neutrality (WP:NPOV). 23 of 78 (30%) references in the article are to Reznor, Nine Inch Nails, or an affiliated site. That percentage is worse when you exclude the references only used for chart positions and in the reviews section. You also allow Reznor to be the only speaker used for a good portion of the article. While I agree that those are fine sources, to have so much of the research devoted to them could be problematic. In the "Disputes" section, Reznor's point of view is given exclusively (saying that the music label didn't comment), but surely there were some secondary sources which gave a criticized him or at least provide an alternate perspective? Your passion for NIN comes out in the work, but possibly to the detriment of a neutral point of view.

• Good points. I've done a bit of work to hopefully address this issue. As it now stands only 8 sources are directly from NIN/Reznor (out of 79 total, which makes it 6.32%). If you're looking at individual in-line citations, then there's 11 from NIN (out of an even 100, which makes it 11%). As far as "Affiliated" sites, the only "Affiliated" sources are UMG (Citation #39) and Internet Archive (#32). I presume you were referring to TheNINHotline, which isn't connected to NIN at all: they're an independent news-site which just happens to focus exclusively on NIN. They've been mentioned as sources of information in numerous other 3rd party reports, so are therefore for considered "reliable".

• Just did a bunch more work on the pov stuff. The new count is 77 sources, only 6 of which are from NIN. (4.62% for those counting) In-line citation wise, there are 9 in-lines from NIN out of 103 (9.27%). And most of those are direct quotes or super specific facts (like the exact day it was finished being mixed). Does that seem a little more reasonable? Drewcifer (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• To the same point as above, does using band-published material move them into primary sources, rather than secondary sources?

• I'm not completely sure what you meant here. Who's "them"?

That's a start anyway, I'll take another look at it later. JRP (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• I agree with above comments about the neutrality issues with the sources.

• Please see me comments since (above).

• Also check out my more recent comments above. Drewcifer (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• This source still (I've seen it in other FACs) concerns me as being non-reliable.

• I believe blabbermouth.net has been shown to be reliable in the past. I don't know when or where such a discussion took place, so I guess I'll have to do it again. A quick look at the Blabbermouth.net page leads one to this article from Decibel magazine.

• Update on the Blabbermouth thing: I just ran across the Strapping Young Lad FAC (which you seem to have participated in already, so I suppose this is old news to you). Bardin did a pretty good job of defending the site, certainly a better job then I could, so please see his arguments. Drewcifer (talk) 06:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Add non-breaking spaces throughout.

• I have no idea what you mean here. Where should an nbsp be where there isn't currently one?

• In May 2007, Reznor made a post on the official Nine Inch Nails website condemning Universal Music Group — the parent company of the band's record label, Interscope Records — for their pricing and distribution plans for Year Zero. Per MoS, em dashes should not be spaced.
• Please be consistent with keeping the period either inside or outside the quotation marks. I see several inconsistencies.

• Ugh, the logical quotation punctuation. The bane of my existence. If there's one WP policy I dispise more then anything, it's that one. But it's fixed anyways! =) All the periods should now come after the end quotation mark. Drewcifer (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• The final paragraph of the Music section needs a reference.
• Prose could use some brushing up. Try getting a new copyeditor.

Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• WesleyDodds went through the article and copyedited pretty thoroughly. Please let me know if there's anything else you notice. Drewcifer (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Again, should halo numbers (in lead) have italics?

• Sigh, well I feel silly. Fixed.

• "while touring for With Teeth." - context. What's With Teeth?

• Fixed.

• Wouldn't [2] be a derivative of a copyrighted work?

• Actually, it's derivative of a trademarked work, not a copyrighted one. Good catch, though. I've updated the image page to reflect this.

• So the entire poster design is trademarked, not copyrighted? giggy _(:O) 08:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yea. Basically, you can't copyright stuff that's basic geometry/text. Hence why a photo like this is also trademarked (just a random example I found from this category). I learned this just recently myself, which is why the NIN image's page didn't reflect that yet. Drewcifer (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'm aware of those rules, just wasn't sure in this case if that could be considered textonly. But it's cool. giggy _(:O) 08:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• "— the parent company of the band's record label, Interscope Records —" - spaced em dashes. Oh noes! (WP:DASH)

• Huh, I thought it was the other way around. Fixed.

• Reception section is really short...

giggy _(:O) 04:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Really? Ok, I'll work on this. Drewcifer (talk) 08:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Expanded the section a bit. Drewcifer (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support, giggy _(:O) 07:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help and support. Drewcifer (talk) 08:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments Some issues I've run into while copyediting the article:

• There's nothing about chart positions, sales, or even the proper release of the album in the Release section.

• It's now in the renamed "Reception" section.

• That quote by Reznor in the lead is unnecessary. Might be worth working into the article body.

• Moved it.

• The article mentions where the album ranked on Rolling Stone's year-end list, but the magazine's review of the record is not used in the prose.

• Made a mention of the review in the Reception section.

• Reznor is a huge gearhead who likes experimenting. Seems like there'd be more sources available about the recording process. Can more information be included in the Recording section? WesleyDodds (talk) 04:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think the relative lack of tons of information is due to the fact that the vast majority of the album was made by one person on a laptop, thus limiting people to say stuff about it, and, I guess, stuff to say in the first place other then "I made it on a laptop". Nonetheless I added a little bit more to it, but seriously I think I'm at my rope's end with that stuff. Drewcifer (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Brewer (ice hockey)

I've been working on this article on and off for quite a while now and feel that it meets all featured article criteria. It is well written, complete with images, and very well cited. Hopefully you all agree and we can add another FA to the lot! – Nurmsook! (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Support - Looks good to me. Blackngold29 06:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes IMDb a reliable source for his (I presume) middle name?
• Would be nice if the publications, like the newspapers, were italicised.

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• For my taste, there are too many wikilinks in the article. For example, when there are four separate wikilinks in a row that is too many.
• Also, I would like to remove Charitable contributions as a subsection under Personal history. Could that not be includes without being a separate section? Its removal would reduce choppiness.
• I am changing a few things about the writing style (e.g. too much wordiness, some punctuation issues) which you can feel free to change back to the way you have it. –Mattisse (Talk) 22:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. What happened at the end of his career that he did not suit up for three years? What is the state of his career now? I am not quite clear. –Mattisse (Talk) 22:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick Comment - Since the article is being worked on as I type this, I won't provide a full review yet. I do want to point out one early concern of mine. None of the newspaper citations have page numbers for verification purposes. Is it possible to add these? Giants2008 (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to point out, I removed the IMDb ref on his name, since that's not a reliable source. Plus one's name doesn't need sourcing. Wizardman 23:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

< Content moved to talk page> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• User:Nishkid64, though not the general factotum, quotes the opposite point of view (the old, displace one regarding n-dashes) in his comments under Zhang Heng. (I realize you are removing this discussion to the talk page so that it will not be clarified in public.)

To quote

"*For the win-loss record, that's not a range, so I'm fairly sure it should just be a hyphen, not an en dash.

No, win-loss record requires an en dash. 7–9 not 7-9. See WP:DASH. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify for all of us. –Mattisse (Talk) 03:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As correctly stated by Nishkid, scores require endashes. They do not require html endashes; the hard-coded endashes that this article used were fine. It is not necessary to change a direct endash to an html endash. Further discussion on the talk page please, or please see WP:DASH or Dash to understand an html endash in relation to other completely acceptable ways of entering an endash. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That link is not helpful for those of us who do not know html as it does not discuss the difference between "html" endashes and others. It just discusses when dashes in general are used. Perhaps you can recommend some more explanatory links. –Mattisse (Talk) 20:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

On a quick glance, I believe the hyphens and endashes are correct now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "and he was inducted into the BC Sports Hall of Fame with his fellow British Columbians from the 2002 Canadian Olympic Men's Ice Hockey team in 2003 for this accomplishment." In 2003 should probably be moved to the end of this sentence. I'm not a fan of ending sentences with numbers, but it flows better that way. This also seems quite long; see if it can be chopped a bit.
• Personal life: "program, a program" Redundant. "find and develop both players and coaches".
• Remove second Kamloops link in section.
• Playing career, Prince George Cougars: "his final season with his minor league hockey team" Again, a pair of identical words close together, in this case his. Perhaps change the second to the team's nickname.
• The first paragraph of this section has all sorts of number issues. The general rule is to spell only numbers lower than 10, although some editors like to spell all numerals.
• "with an improbable playoff run with his Cougars teammates." More redundancy. Try to audit this throughout. In this case, try something like "by helping the Cougars go on an improbable playoff run."
• "Brewer finished this run with six points in the 15 Cougars games." How about "the Cougars' 15 games."
• What was his injury in 1998?
• Do we need another WHL link here? There is a lot of overlinking in general.

I'm not happy with what I've seen so far. There are some other rough patches in the first few sections, but these should get you started. Please attempt to procure the services of a quality copy-editor, who can help smooth out the entire text. Giants2008 (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Worlds End State Park

Co-nominators Ruhrfisch and Dincher

We are nominating this article for featured article because we believe that is represents some of the best work that wikipedia has to offer regarding state parks. It follows the model of Black Moshannon State Park which is a featured article. It has undergone an extensive peer review (thanks to Jackyd, VerruckteDan, Ben MacDui, Dtbohrer and Ealdgyth) which is archived on the talk page. Ruhrfisch and Dincher (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment "The "Twenty Must-See Pennsylvania State Parks" list first appeared in early 2004. See "Search Results for Jan 01, 1996 - Nov 14, 2007". Internet Archive Wayback Machine. Retrieved on May 12, 2008." Are we sure about this statement? Archive.org isn't exactly the most reliable source for this. Do we know for sure that the list has only ever existed in online form? But is this note truly necessary? BuddingJournalist 13:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy edits and the comment. I removed the reference in question. Dincher (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I also removed the 2004 date in the text since that was based solely on the removed reference. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support The article seems comprehensive and well-written. However, in places in seems over-linked, with lots of non-valuable wiki-links. Bluap (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I will try and cut out the extras and least valuable links over the next few days. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Yes, comprehensive and well-written. Minor, about footnote format: for footnote 22, which is the Pennsylvania Historic Resource Survey form, should it include as author John Milner Associates, the preparer? Current footnote displays:
  

"Worlds End State Park: Family Cabin District" (PDF). Pennsylvania's Historic Architecture and Archaeology. Retrieved on 10 May 2008.

I think i would prefer to see also preparer name, preparation date, and that this is a Pennsylvania Historic Resource Survey form submission, so it would display:

John Milner Associates (October, 1986), "Pennsylvania Historic Resource Survey: Worlds End State Park: Family Cabin District" (PDF 32 KB). Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission. Retrieved on 10 May 2008.

To get something like that i would adapt the suggested footnote for NRHP documents covered in draft WP:NRHPMOS. FYI, i don't see mention of "Pennsylvania's Historic Architecture and Archaeology" in the document. doncram (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I added Millner as the author. Thanks again. Dincher (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I updated the ref and used the same format that was used in the recent FA Cogan House Covered Bridge which gives both a link to the Pennsylvania's Historic Architecture and Archaeology site (which is searchable and has some information not on the NRHP form) and to the NRHP form itself. I hope this is OK, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Sources look good. I did review them at PR, but I double checked them again here. Links all checked out with the link checker tool. Looks good! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking them twice! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Accessdates are a bit old aren't they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dispenser (talk • contribs) 13:40, June 8, 2008

Thanks to Dispenser for updating the link accessdates (they all still worked before), Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "in Montoursville. [7]" — extra space per WP:FOOTNOTE
• "pages 295-297" — use en dash per WP:DASH, and use "pp."
• "until 1895, when" — unlink year per MOS:UNLINKYEARS

Gary King (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching these, I believe they have all been fixed now, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Disambiguation links: neutralize, warblers, and railroad. Why not put the disambiguation page link at the top instead of the See also section. — Dispenser 13:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dispenser, I fixed all three links, but I am still not sure I have the correct warblers linked and I moved the disambiguation link to the top per your suggestion. Dincher (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Well-written, very interesting, and I find no major objections from a read through. I would like to see use of double references consolidated, but that's not a big deal. Well done. JRP (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks JRP, I will work on consolidating references when I prune the links, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear JRP, I have carefully re-read the references and so has Dincher. While some of the refs are superficially similar, we did not find any that are actually duplicates. Could you please point out the specific double references you saw? Thanks in advance, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support A great article, lots of detail and well referenced. VerruckteDan (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words and support, Dan! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dan! Dincher (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Can you petition the State of Pennsylvania to change the name of the designation of Important Bird Area? I can't read it without thinking of Sam the Eagle announcing it so seriously, imagining many famous and important birds congregated in a dark wood paneled study, drinked aged Scotch. Good article - very well done. You're making Wikipedia lopsided with protected areas in Pennsylvania.--Moni3 (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sam the Eagle scared me when I was a kid! Thanks for the support! Dincher (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and a great mental image. My understanding is that IBAs in the USA are designated by the Audubon Society (not the states). It is a goofy name though, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note Please see WP:MOS#Quotations on block quotes and cquote. There are some logical puncutation issues, see WP:PUNC. Words as words should use italics, not quotes (see WP:ITALICS); why are so many names, words, and terms in quotes? There are quote marks everywhere I look. Inconsistency in footnotes, some say p. and others say page. Epbr123 (talk · contribs) may be able to help finish this one up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks Sandy - I will check these asap. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I believe all of these issues have been addressed. "Twenty Must-See Pennsylvania State Parks" is a direct quote from the PA DCNR, as is "[v]irtually in a class by itself, this wild, rugged and rustic area seems almost untamed."[4] They are both from this web site [3] and although the second is not grammatically a complete sentence, it is punctuated as if it were on the web site, so I left the period in as it is part of the original quote. The remainder of the items in quotations are all direct quotes and not words as words. I believe all of the page issues have been resolved too. Thanks for your careful eye and all you do here. I will ask Epbr123 to double check the article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Verdeja (tank)

Self-Nominator; the Verdeja article has been peer-reviewed, was promoted to Good Article and has just been promoted to an A-class article within the Military History WikiProject. I believe it meets featured article criteria and, if not, I am willing to spend as much time as necessary to edit it until it does. JonCatalan (talk) 09:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Comments

• There should be a non-breaking space between measurement and unit.
• I'm pretty sure units should be spelled out in text (i.e. km versus kilometer/kilometre).
• A few refs are misplaced - either a space between the punctuation and the ref or the ref before the punctuation.
• "The Verdeja was a series of light tanks developed in Spain between 1938 and 1954, in an attempt to replace German Panzer I and Soviet T-26 tanks in Spanish service." - why the comma?
• "The Verdeja was designed as an advanced light tank and was one of the first development programs which took into account survivability, as opposed to protection." - why the comma again? Also, it's not clear what is meant by "survivability".
• Three consecutive sentences in the lead begin with "The Verdeja" and four sentences total (out of five) in the first paragraph write it out in full - use pronouns more often!
• "Interest in the vehicle's development waned after the end of the Second World War and, despite attempts to fit a new engine in the Verdeja 2 and convert the Verdeja 1 into a self-propelled artillery piece, ultimately the program was unofficially canceled in favor of adopting the US M47 Patton Tank in 1954." - run-on sentence.
• "A prototype of the 75 mm self-propelled howitzer,[4] and of the Verdeja 2 remain, and are currently on display.[5]" - why the comma?

Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

1. All units should already have a non-breaking space between them and the measurement.
2. Is there somewhere on the Manual of Style that this is mentioned? Neither the T-26 article (which I was the main contributor to when it was getting featured status) nor the T-34 article (not written by me) spelt out units completely in the text.
3. All the refs are after the punctuation, as I was told to do per MoS in the T-26 article. I will add a non-breaking space, however. EDIT: I took it out as per Wikipedia:Footnotes#How to use#Ref tags and punctuation.
4. Comma removed.
5. Comma removed. I changed the sentence to - The Verdeja was designed as an advanced light tank and was one of the first development programs which took into account survivability of the crew as opposed to the protection of the tank.
6. I took out some of the Verdejas, and replaced them with pronouns.
7. This sentence was split into two sentences.
8. Comma removed!

JonCatalan (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• For #2, I'll look it up. For #3, you misunderstood me - I meant that one of the existing refs had a space between it and the period before I made my comment and was asking you to get rid of it. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 20:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

For #3 it has been changed, my mistake. For #2 the MoS is not very clear. It says abbreviations for units should be used in tables and infoboxes, but does not specify in the text. Ah, found it - In the main text, give the main units as words and use unit symbols or abbreviations for conversions in parentheses; - I will change. JonCatalan (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - good prose in lead, no MOS issues. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Support
Meets all WP:FACR criteria. Octane ^{[improve me?]} 08.06.08 2129 (UTC)

• Support I do have a question though: is there so reason why survivability is italisized int he intro? If there isn't, I would suggest unitalisizing it. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I will unitalisize it. JonCatalan (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Comment: Is there any particular reason why this article isn't called Verdeja (tank)? The current name doesn't seem particularly transparent to me. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you're right. At least, Verdeja should disambiguate between Felix Verdeja and the tank. The issue is that I don't really know how to change article names. But, I'll do something similar to the Lince article and have a link that goes to Felix Verdeja at the top. JonCatalan (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I moved this to Verdeja (tank) and updated all the FAC, PR and ACR links :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thank you! JonCatalan (talk) 07:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Notes: I found more MoS errors than expected (WP:MSH, WP:MOSNUM, WP:MOSDATE, WP:MOSBOLD), so I recommend asking Epbr123 (talk · contribs) to run through after the undoubtedly unreliable source jedsite.com is removed. (Pairing it with another source doesn't justify inclusion of any information from a contributor self-published site; better would be to stick to the book source information and remove the individual contributor homepages.) I also suspect that attention is needed to wikilinking, and will be looking at that more closely on my next pass. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assata Shakur

previous FAC (17:48, 22 May 2008)

Self-Nomination. This is an neutral, extremely thorough, and well-referenced biography of a living and controversial person. I can now say with a very high level of confidence (having read every single proquest and lexis hit for each of her names) that there is very little notable and source-able information that could be added to this article. In my opinion, the two late-breaking objections from the previous nomination have been resolved: the six other trials/dismissals (though only tersely remarked upon outside of contemporary news sources) have been comprehensively covered and the turnpike trial section has been beefed up to reflect the entirity of the case presented against Shakur. Exhaustive comments have also since been fielded on Talk:Assata Shakur. I hope that you will join me in supporting this nomination. Savidan 21:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. It would appear that the above have been resolved. Savidan 23:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment, some of the images could use a more standardized fair use rationale. gren グレン 09:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I have added {Non-free use rationale} to each fair use image. Savidan 15:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I was probably the most vociferous objector during the first review; the article has been greatly expanded meeting my, and others', objections. It's quite thorough, and presents many sides of the story of this interesting and important person. --GRuban (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments regarding images -

If each of the points below is answered with either action or rebuttal, you may take it that I support. Thanks.

• "her medical care during this period is generally alleged"—the one reference given may be written from what some might call a radical African-American perspective. So, "generally" may not be applicable here.
  • I have added three more refs and changed the qualifier to "often". Savidan 14:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Is the quote from Rodriguez (ref.93) accurate or should those i's be I's?
  • The current text is accurate. Savidan 14:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Three times the article says "see below", this is indicative of some structural problems. Information should ideally be presented with an intact logical flow.
  • I believe that these are justified. Basically, all of the information that was presented at her trial needs to be presented in the article in the form that it would have been apparent to jurors and those following the trial. However, there is also information that is relevant to the turnpike shooting that was not available in her trial (e.g. Harper's testimony at Acoli's trial after the cases were severed; state police statements that were not from witnesses of the event; etc.). Also, within the trial, there is certain information that is not reported in immediately contemporary news sources; thus, while it is possible to ascertain that such information was presented at her trial, it is not possible to present it within the chronological structure that works best for most of the information. Please let me know if this does not address your concern. Savidan 14:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Similarly, with regard to the pregnancy, after reading that she was arrested in May 1973 and incarcerated, we are then told she was pregnant in April 1974. The reader is left wondering, "Huh? How is that possible?". I would prefer the explanation of such a bizarre situation to come earlier.
  • I have moved the paternity information to a footnote and added it after each mention of Shakur's pregnancy. Savidan 14:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• I'm not entirely convinced with the references claiming that Trooper Harper lied. Ref.121 is written by a defense lawyer who is also Shakur's aunt, and ref.95 is from the New York Times "Soapbox" section, which is a section for editorialising not accurate reportage. I admit, I don't have access to refs.45 or 123. Is it possible to use the actual record of the cross-examination to check that he admitted to lying?
  • One of the references is to an investigative reporter who went back and interviewed several eye witnesses to the trial; another is to a university professor; the follow up sentence with the details is just for good measure. The actual transcript of the trial is not publicly available (interestlingly, Williams writes in her autobiography that she had trouble getting it even for the planned appeal). Being as there is no source that specifically contradicts this account, I think that this is substantiated enough. This descirption is also compatible with Williams' description of the trial, but I have decided that an additional ref to her would not signficantly add to the other sources. Savidan 14:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• It is not clear to me from ref.159 that the "7 international jurists" which included Shakur in "a class of victims of FBI misconduct" are officially associated with the United Nations. I am not entirely certain that they are "representing" the UN rather than merely sending an independent report to it (which anyone can do). Please check the printed sources. It should also be made clear in this paragraph that "A 1979 special UN investigation" and "An international panel of jurists representing the United Nations" is the same source and not two separate ones.
  • The two were indeed one in the same. I believe the latter description of their relationship to the UN ot be more accurate for obvious reasons. "representing the UNCHR" is how it is described in the source, which is reliable. I believe this has been remedied. Savidan 14:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Is "adduce" used correctly?
  • It wasn't. I have changed it to "ascertain". Savidan 14:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• While not entirely happy with the use of vaguely dubious sources (All Hip Hop News, Chronic Magazine, Langston University Gazette [this is a student blog not an academic journal], Revolutionary Worker, Covert Action Quarterly, Final Call News, Talking Drum and Shakur and her supporters themselves), I can accept that these are sufficiently balanced by independent sources, or are not used to justify particularly contentious points. Whenever possible, in the future, sources such as these should be replaced. However, action on this final point is not necessary, in my view, at this time. DrKiernan (talk) 08:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think student university newspaper would be a more accurate description of the Langston Gazette. I have made every effort possible to cite contemporary news articles or published books. Information from other sources was used only when it was not contradicted by or in some other way inconsistent with a source in the former category, or another source of comparable credibility to the source cited, and when excluding it would do undo damage to the comprehensiveness of the article. As more is published on this in the future, it may become possible to replace them. Savidan 14:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it covers the matter wholesomely. It has been peer reviewed which has been archived here. A failed WP:GAN; the actionable objections raised in its not-so convincing review have been dealt with to the best of my capacity. I know the failed nom is a major setback for the article but by nominating it at FAC I wish to garner a wider opinion on its worth. Your suggestions and criticism are welcome and deemed priceless. I hope I can address them satisfactorily. Thanks, (Self nomination) - KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• http://www.ptinews.com/pti/ptisite.nsf/$all/BFD529130A0CF82F652573EF001D37C3 deadlinks with both the tool and by direct clicking
• Current ref 46 "Mumbai taxis go on flash strike after attack..." is lacking a publisher

Done

• What makes http://www.topnews.in/ a reliable source?

Replaced with The Indian Express

• Likewise http://www.sify.com/?

Sify.com is web portal that publishes news from established news agency sources like Press Trust of India, Associated Press, IANS, UNI etc. These agency sources are mentioned on their pages (top-left corner)

Leave this out for other reviewers, mainly because we're not all familiar with Indian sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

To make matters easy I have replaced all the Sify refs with citations from The Hindu, Financial Express and The Economic Times. Lets bid farewell to Sify. Thanks, KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 103 Kiran Tare "Raj promises more of the same" is lacking a publisher

Done

• http://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/India/20080305/901551.html (current ref 107) will not load for me at all.

Replaced with Bihar Times

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out (except for the one above) with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ealdgyth, for checking the sources. Kindly re-check the new links after the above mentioned changes. Are they fine? – KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Should use million/hundred thousands (or the whole numeric figure) alongside lakhs.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I have a query (posted on your talk page) KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments on images:

• Image:MNS flag.png should be in SVG format per WP:IUP#Format.
• Image:Mumbai violence 20080205.jpg comes from the Press Trust of India, a news agency. I'm afraid this makes the image unacceptable per WP:NFCC#2. The same applies toImage:Mumbai 20080212.jpg.
• Image:Raj Thackeray as Hitler.jpg needs a little stronger rationale to satisfy WP:NFCC#8. Right now the rationale just says "(s)how the reader the magazine which caused a controversy" - this needs to be expanded to explain why the image would significantly increase a reader's understanding beyond the text.

Kelly ^hi! 02:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kelly for your comments regarding the rationale and copyright issues. I have requested the uploader of Image:MNS flag.png to convert it into svg format. The rationale of Image:Raj Thackeray as Hitler.jpg has also been revised. I have now nominated Image:Mumbai violence 20080205.jpg for speedy deletion using {{db-author}} I need some more time for resolving (if at all they can be)the issues regarding Image:Mumbai 20080212.jpg. Will keep you updated. Thanks, KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 05:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Well-written and well-referenced article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

comment

All dates need to be formatted in the international date format: ([[1 January]] [[2008]]). indopug (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Creatures of Impulse

While a fairly minor play by Gilbert, Creatures of Impulse is, nonetheless, a quite interesting play, and remained popular for a good sixty years or so, and is still occasionally performed today. A great deal of work has gone into this article, including Peer reviews by Maria (for GA), User:Awadewit, and User:Ealdgyth (Peer review It has been carefully copyedited by User:Finetooth. There is a limited amount of commentary on this short story and play; most of it appears in this article in some form. Perhaps if I get published we can say more, but until now, that's OR. =). Eh, It's late and I ramble, and none of you care what I have to say: It's the article that matters - so have a look and see what you think! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Co-nomination – This play pre-dates Gilbert's famous collaboration with Arthur Sullivan and demonstrates the early development of Gilbert's famous "Topsy-Turvy" humor, where an absurd premise is followed to its logical conclusion. Gilbert later used this unique style of humor and satire in the highly successful series of Savoy operas. It also shows Gilbert's lifelong interest in supernatural transformations, a theme which he included in a few of the Savoy operas. I agree that all known sources of significant information about this play have been consulted in writing the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please close and archive the peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no excuse now, after a template was added to the nomination preview page that instructed to do this ;) Gary King (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Did it myself so I wouldn't have to keep checking back (open peer reviews stall the FAC closing bot). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Some web references are missing publishers. Gary King (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Why not link to the Randegger biography directly on Allmusic.com? indopug (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments As mentioned, I checked the sources at PR. My concerns were addressed, things look pretty good. Links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The "synopsis" notes should really be footnotes - there's nothing wrong in mixing citations with footnotes.

• I'm going to have to at least partially disagree - the play is at least equally important as the short story, so moving the differences between the two to references (which noone reads) would give too little weight to important information. I suppose that the footnotes could instead be converted to prose, if you like? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redundant redundancy is bad when it's bad redundancy and redundant:
  • Is this referring to anything in particular? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• "The play also gives three numbered villagers some dialogue in its opening scene." - pretty self-explanatory

• Done. -- Ssilvers (talk)

• "The short story makes explicit some elements only hinted at in the play:" - pretty self-explanatory

• Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Italian-born Alberto Randegger was better known as a conductor than as a composer, although he produced a number of works in England in the 1860s and 1870s." - obviously he produced a number of them; in fact, not only that, but he produced a number in the subset of complex numbers known as the positive integers.

• Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• "It originally included six songs, but this was eventually reduced to three, and some productions dispensed with the music entirely." - arguable, but I believe "this" contributes nothing to the sentence.

• Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• If you're sourcing the lead, you need to source everything, not just some things.

• I agree and have removed the cites from the LEAD. The same cites are all given below in the fuller discussion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Shouldn't "composer-conductor" be "composer/conductor"?
  • I think the former reads a little better. Slashes are distracting =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm unsure whether "Gilbert, who had..." should be "Gilbert, whom had...".

• I don't think so - it's subjective case, not objective. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• "While the lyrics survive, the music was never published and is now lost." - change of tenses in the middle of the sentence. The present tense makes no sense with the second part, so I suggest changing "survive" to "survived" - it still makes perfect sense that way.
  • Wouldn't that put it in conflict with the "is" in is lost, or force us to say "was lost", which... seems a little odd phrasing, given its loss was a passive process. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• "criticised for the lack of a significant plot or superstructure behind the fun." - behind "the fun"? I'm really unsure about that wording.

• Fixed. Thanks for the comments. Please let us know if you have further questions about any of my replies above or feel that any of these items should be revisited. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 00:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - I'm fine with the things you disagree with - the redundancy comment was referring to the examples of redundancy I provided below it. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 21:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from — MusicMaker5376.

• Marie Litton produced premières of other Gilbert's plays... I'm not sure if that's correct. That whole sentence is a little sprawling. Perhaps breaking it into two would help?

• See if it's clearer now. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• It's definitely clearer, though still a little sprawling. Breaking the last part into its own sentence would allow a little explanation as to why 222 perfs was a success de scandale. A modern reader might consider 222 perfs a flop. -- MM

• Good idea. As you know from the musical theatre article, 222 perfs was an unusually long run at that time, but this sentence is about a very minor point, and we should not distract the reader with a history lesson, so I tried to simplify the issue. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Also, I have to question the wisdom in using the short story synopsis. The bulk of the article is about the play; wouldn't it make more sense to use the play's synopsis and notate the differences between it and the short story?
• Otherwise, good article! — MusicMaker5376 15:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I've converted over. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I do think that works a little better. It seems more active. You may want to give it a good copy edit; I found a couple of errors, and there may be more that I missed. However, "As you may remember..." in reference to the old woman in the synopsis seems like an unnecessary and abrupt breaking of the fourth wall. The synopsis isn't that long, and that's such a strange character trait that it will most likely stick in people's minds. Perhaps: "The strange old lady's dietary habits had foiled a previous attempt...." — MusicMaker5376 17:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Support. Great article. — MusicMaker5376 22:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Comments - Every time I read this article, it has improved! I just have a couple of questions and suggestions. —This is part of a comment by Awadewit (of 15:30, June 10, 2008 ), which was interrupted by the following:

• I assume since there is no "Style and themes" section, there is not enough published information to add such a section? (You know I have to ask!)
  • Not really. Gilbert wrote around seventy to a hundred plays (I don't really feel like counting), which means that the biographies and critical notes on Gilbert tend to prioritise the lesser works downwards a bit, giving them only a page or so. We can expand this using contemporary sources, but not so far as a "style and themes" section. Indeed, at the moment, I believe the unpublished critical version I'm working on is probably the most detailed analysis of this to date, but I can't really cite that, now can I? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • That's what I thought! Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Is this a reliable source? It may be, but I am not sure.

• Short answer: Possibly not. As I can't find any information that leads me to believe the author of Randegger's biography is notable, I'll re-source to a more reliable source. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• I read the discussion that you link, but it seems to support the idea that the All Music site IS reliable for classical music. In the linked discussion, an editor claims that *although it is reliable for most music* it is not reliable for heavy metal. The All Music site routinely prepares short biographies like this. Of course, it would be great to add ANOTHER reliable source, but All Music bios are referred to all over Wikipedia. You don't need to be notable to be a staff writer for a reliable source. Also, the fact that Randegger is long dead makes it unlikely that this little bio would display some kind of bias. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• The linked discussion suggests that allmusic is reliable. Note, however, that it is not reliable because it is used "all over Wikipedia". It is reliable because it is fact-checked, etc. Awadewit (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• I promised Shoe I would check Grove Online. Grove says this: "But his greatest influence was as a singing teacher: he helped to raise standards at the RAM and RCM, and his textbook Singing (London, 1893), one of Novello’s Music Primer’s, was widely used in English-speaking countries". Grove discusses his conducting and composing about equally and then ends with this statement. If you want, I can email the entire entry to someone. Awadewit (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks! Why don't you email it to Shoe and to me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Done! Awadewit (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Is every page on the G&S archive as reliable as every other? For example, the Crowther pages are clearly reliable under our policies since he has published on G&S, but what about something like this?
  • That's not part of the Gilbert and Sullivan archive; however, Simon Moss is a respected dealer, so I'd say that that page is about as reliable as an auction catalogue, which, given it's only used to cite that a production happened, and the image of the programme is in support of this, should presumably be sufficient reliability. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, sorry. I got confused by the "GSarchive" in the web address, but that answers my question, thanks. Awadewit (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Mistress Dorothy is being courted by the miser Verditter. This is convenient because staying at the inn is a strange old lady, a mischievous fairy, who refuses to pay or to leave. - I don't think the "convenience" is made entirely clear to the reader.

• When I changed over to the play synopsis, this disappeared anyway. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Verditter tries bribery and is forced to keep handing out coins to everyone. - I wonder if highlighting the irony of these fairy punishments somewhere would be a good idea - a miser handing out money, etc. The synopsis hints at this irony, but never makes it explicit.

• I've tried to do so a bit, using some of the quotes. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, this helps - thanks. Awadewit (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This article looks good and I anticipate being able to support soon. Awadewit (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments on images:

• Image:WSGyounger.jpg has a source, but no details on authorship or date/place of publication.
• Just as an aside, I absolutely cannot figure out why the lead image, Image:Ben Greet as Boomblehardt.jpg, is displaying with a black border around the image when the image itself has no border. It is doing this in both FireFox and Internet Explorer. Is it just me?

• Apparently a caching issue. The black border has now been cropped from the image. Kelly ^hi! 14:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelly ^hi! 01:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for fixing that! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Notes: inconsistency in footnotes, some have page numbers as p. others as page. "Sums it up best"? Best according to whom, or is this original research/POV/editorializing? The review in Bell's Life in London and Sporting Chronicle perhaps summed it up best: ... Why does the chart in Characters and original cast use emdashes rather than endashes? The synopsis notes 1 and 2 don't have live links, are very hard to find, and the 1 and 2 can be confused with footnotes. I suggest a different note system, numbering them a and b, and making them live. See Gettysburg Address. Why is there italicized text in Synopsis? See WP:ITALICS on when they should be used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• I addressed the first two of Sandy's comments. Shoe, can you take care of the Synopsis notes and italics comments? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nathaniel Parker Willis

Self-nomination I'm giving it a shot. Willis is today completely forgotten but was, for a period in his life, the number one celebrity writer of the country. I'm partially concerned about breadth but curious to hear what other editors think of the article. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Can you include the publication year in every reference, per WP:CITE?
• I would prefer that every page number be preceded with p. or pp., but I don't know if that's mandatory.
• Fill out title, url, publisher, and accessdate for all web references.
• "in New England about 1630 and" — unlink year per MOS:UNLINKYEARS
• Consider adding Template:Persondata
• What currency is used in the article? Don't just leave it be implied, per WP:CURRENCY.
• "both ways... the two" → "both ways [...] the two" if text was removed

Gary King (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Gary! I addressed some of your concerns. As far as adding publication years to footnotes, I'm not sure it's necessary and I'm afraid it might be a bit clunky. As far as I know, there is no set requirement for citation style, so long as the article is consistent. I'd say the same regarding the use of "p." or "pp." but I'm willing to hear what other editors suggest! --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Citation style looks fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments Sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Good to go. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support with comments: I reviewed the article for GAC and just now performed a minor copy-edit. I believe the article fulfills the FA-criteria, although I'll warrant that the prose may need a sprucing from someone with a more technical eye than myself. :)

I have a slight lingering issue with the third paragraph in the lead, which begins "Willis had boosted his popularity thanks to his good nature..." in that I'm not sure it's as explanatory as it should be. The full meaning is made clear when one reads the rest of the article, but this sentence is still somewhat vague, I feel. Who noted him for being "effeminate and Europeanized"? Why does that differ from his "good nature"? The following sentence could be more explicit, as well: "As a publisher, he tried to appeal to the taste of the readers (which was?) while supporting new talent (like who/what kind?)." A little more detail would help greatly.

Also, I added a {{fact}} tag in the section devoted to Willis' relationship with Stephen Bishop; the entire paragraph is uncited and needs verification. Other than that, I think this is a fine article about an interesting, unsung hero. Great work! María (habla conmigo) 15:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, María. I haven't been able to verify the Stephen Bishop material anywhere so I've removed it. I also reworked that third paragraph a bit so I think it clearly addresses what's most important. Thanks again! --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alleyway

Self-nominator I'm nominating this article because I feel it to have gone as far as it can, and it discusses the full detail of the subject matter as informatively as possible for every reader to understand. Please be as detailed as possible with any issues you have with the article so I may tackle them as efficiently as I can.Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Use {{cite web}} for web citations so they are uniform. Title, publisher, URL, and accessdate are needed at the minimum, and some are missing those.
• Page ranges such as "pg 4-5. Nintendo." need en dash per WP:DASH
• "Alleyway is good -- but" — use an em dash per WP:DASH
• "in Japan in 1989,[3] and was " → unlink the year per MOS:UNLINKYEARS

Gary King (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The use of cite web is not required, although it is required that citations be in a uniform format. Karanacs (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I know, but it is easier for me to ask that {{cite web}} be used in most cases because it does all the work for you. I've sometimes asked that all references simply be uniform but have had to revisit the article several times because a few things were still missing. Gary King (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Since cite templates are not required on featured articles (or any articles), and since some of us hate them, you'd be better to refer nominators to WP:CITE/ES. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 2 is lacking a publisher Video Game Rebirth ...
• Same for current ref 5 Nintendo Database Alleyway...
• What makes the following sites reliable:
  • http://www.vgrebirth.org/

Database site being used to verify release dates and version codes for the different versions of the cartridge, on par with Gamefaqs's means of gathering release date information. German version release information correlates with review dates from German magazines and version codes shown on auctioned cartridges on eBay.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but WHY is it a reliable source for this information? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As I couldn't find a means to guarantee quality control and because it just relies on submitted material, I ended up removing this as a reference. It's only importance really was to confirm the 1990 germany release date, but that ended up in retrospect being too much detail. The version numbers didn't need a citation due to nintendo's standardizing of them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.n-sider.com/index.php

N-Sider was created by an IGN Entertainment editor, and the staff have contributed articles to IGN, with a merger discussed at one point that became a partnership between the two for some time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Iffy, and borderline in my mind. I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Is current ref 25 a book? If so, it's missing a lot of blibliographical information including page number (Super Game Boy Nintendo Stragey Guide)

The ISBN number doesn't work for that book. I can't find a title by that name at Google either, to correct the ISBN. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that wasn't a ISBN number listed, but a ASIN number, verifyable by Amazon.com here. From digging around, the book and several SNES strategy guides from Nintendo did not seem to have a ISBN (this one in particular was bundled with the Super Game Boy itself). Will that suffice?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fine to go with the ASIN number. Main reason I clicked on it was I'd never seen an ISBN number formatted that way, I was curious! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 26 Game Rankings page on Alleyway is lacking publisher
• Current ref 27 Gamespot Otherreviews page is lacking publisher information
• Current ref 28 MobyGames page is lacking publisher
• Current ref 29 http://www.kultpower.de/powerplay_testbericht_extern.php3?im=alleway.jpg what makes it reliable, and do they have permission to repost that review?

Game Rankings was the one to link to the scan of the review and used the excerpt mentioned in the article. Beyond that for the site itself I don't know other than it serves as an archive. Should I add a reference to the Game Rankings cited excerpt alongside it?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm. No clue, honestly. I'm not THAT up on copyright law, especially German. Anyone else? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well altered the reference to cite the magazine itself, and pointed the reference at the except on MobyGames (it wasn't Game Rankings in the end, mistake on my part). That should clear that one up...I hope.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 30, is that a journal article? Can we get more bibliographical data perhaps?

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out (except for the one above) with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I managed to fix all the errors thus far mentioned at this time, and corrected the citations as needed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• New Concern - http://www.atarihq.com/tsr/index.html what makes this site reliable? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Site owner's information is based upon information covered in book authors (which he lists), and interviews he's conducted. I've changed the reference to a more direct one with ex-Tengen/Atari employee Ed Logg which states the same cited material more directly, and added a book reference that also makes mention of it (Game Over). Will that work?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Quite a few issues to fix before I can support:

• Why does the lead focus on the release dates/locations so much? A lead is meant to summarize an article, and as such the lead should mention the gameplay, and reception. It is a general rule of thumb to make sure every heading is covered in the lead in summary form. See WP:LEAD.

The release dates as mentioned further in the article played an important role with reception, notably due to the fact that in Japan it didn't compete with Tetris right out of the gate, but in the US and international releases, the two were put side by side.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

And? The lead still does not include enough information about gameplay (levels, ball behavior) and you probably should mention some part of Development in the lead too. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• "...much like the game Breakout" - Why not: "similar to Breakout"

Fixed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Paddle speed can be made faster or slower by holding either B or A while moving," - Alright, let's assume the reader is an average joe who doesn't play video games. What is B or A. You might try: ""Paddle speed can be made faster or slower by holding either B or A buttons on the controller while moving," instead.

Fixed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• "...When released, the ball will always start off at a downward 45º" - Why not begin instead of start off?

Fixed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• The prose is good throughout, but video game jargon needs weeding out.
• I recommend a full copyedit by an editor new to the text. Please see both Peer review/volunteers and LOCE/Members for lists of people who can help. Do not hesitate to contact a few people on their Talk pages!
• Your page numbers are inconsistent. Sometimes you use "pg." but sometimes only the page number. Please use p. and pp. to precede page number(s).

I should have all of these corrected at this time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Check refs 8, 17 (page number in title instead of page parameter), 22, 23, 24, and 30. I might have missed some, so please go over all of them. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• In current ref 24. "Nintendo Magazinet" - I think you mean Magazine, not Magazinet. Please check all refs for mistakes like this.

That actually is not a typo. It's actually a Swedish magazine.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Unreliable sources mentioned by Ealdgyth need resolving.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Languages should be indicated for the non-English references (use the relevant parameter in the citation templates). Kariteh (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Added to each one. Should be fixed now.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Maybe it's just me, but I really have no clue what the game is like after reading the lead. More needs to be said on gameplay, I think.
• the screenshots (at least the first one) need better FURs. User:Giggy/FURs may help.

Fixed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Also the first one needs a much better description/caption.

Fixed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• "until the player has over 10000 points" - does the game end at this stage?

"An additional paddle is granted for each one thousand points scored, until the player has over 10000 points." I'm a little confused how that sentence could be misunderstood...every thousand you get an added paddle is awarded until you get over 10000. How could that be taken any other way?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• ""this variant doesn't have much more to offer than the original."" - maybe it's just me, but what original?

Added alluded term within brackets.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Electronic Gaming Monthly also reviewed the game, giving it mostly moderate scores of 6/10, 6/10, 5/10 and 3/10." - what do each of these numbers mean?

Confused how that could possibly be taken wrong: you have a 3 scores that are midway out of 10 (thus moderate) and one that's below the middle.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• "The two reviewers that gave the highest scores did state they felt the design was perfect for the Game Boy, one adding "It's also a very good game that combines some new features...with the original Break-Out theme" and closing with "...Alleyway is good—but a bit long."" - but who were these people?

Unknown. I can present you with a scan of the article, but it was a single column that never showed who the writers were.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

giggy _(:O) 07:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments regarding images:

• As Giggy mentioned above, the rationales on the non-free images are very weak. They basically just say "being used for illustrative purposes". The rationales need to address WP:NFCC#8 by stating why they significantly contribute to a reader's understanding.
• Image:Alleyway-balls.PNG should be cleaned up by having the "moment of contact" text edited out - it is unreadable at the image's rendered size in the article, and should be removed anyway per WP:PIFU#Replace captions in the image with text. Another concern for this image is that it's sourced to Nintendo but has a GFDL license.
• Image:Alleyway-bonus.gif should be in PNG instead of GIF format per WP:IUP#Format. (It also has two rationales for some reason.)

Kelly ^hi! 19:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Verrières Ridge

Self-Nomination If you're outside of Canada, you probably have very little recognition of this battle. In fact, many major D-Day Historians (Carlo D'Este, Dan Van-Der-Vat), go into very little detail concerning this conflict. That said, this article has been in the works since April of 2007. It passed its GA in April 2008, underwent a Peer-Review shortly after, passed its A-Class Review on May 24, & has undergone significant copyediting, both for MoS & for Prose. Having spent the last 14 months working on this article, I feel that it is finally sufficient for the title & rating of Featured Article. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The Canada at War reference is lacking a publisher.

I'll see if I can find that. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• What exactly is "Juno Beach Centre" referencing? Is it the museum? The exhibits? I'm unclear on this.

The Juno Beach Centre is a Canadian-run museum in Courseulles-sur-Mer (Normandy) along the Normandy beaches. It has extensive exhibits pertaining to both Canada's involvement in the Battle of Normandy, as well as the drives through Belgium & Holland. I took a lot of notes from the exhibits when I was there in July 2007, then used some of that in citing some of the information within the article. Hope that clarifies. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Urf. Generally we want published information that's reasonably easily accessible. This one, I've never run into it, honestly. I'm inclined to think it's probably not a reliable source, as wikipedia defines it. I'm not saying that the museum isn't reliable, it's that we're relying on your notes (which are unpublished) from the site, do you see the difference? I'm willing to let others decide on this one though. Any suggestions? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I know for a fact that the Juno Beach Centre has an excellent website with tons of information on all of their exhibits (I've used it for several other articles). If I am able to locate the URL of the site with this specific exhibit on it, would I be able to us that? Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Or.....I can just remove the refs. Both of them were double-cited, I don't see lack of verifiability being a huge issue (considering I've double-cited & triple-cited everything that could be challenged) Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Why double and triple citing instead of citing the most authoritative reliable source? Why not leave off the non-reliable sources, and source only the best sources? Double and triple citing to cover non-reliable sources isn't good sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.wwii.ca/index.php a reliable site?

Similarly to the MLU refs (as mentioned below), most of the WWII.ca cites have been double-cited. One of them is cited alongside Pg. 222 of Bercuson. As for the other one, I can easily add in a ref from several of my other sources (I should have known that 109 refs weren't nearly enough). Hope that's sufficient. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and double ref. Can't hurt! (Is there an award for the most refs per kb of prose?) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Likewise http://www.mapleleafup.org/intro.html?

Ah. Now, that came up in a previous review, when we (we being Eyeserene & I in June 2007) debated the suitability of the MLU source. We both noticed a substantial amount of bias within the page itself. You'll also notice that only casualty statistics are cited using that source. In addition, all usages of that source have been double or triple-cited with other references (Ref A is double-cited with Terry Copp 1999a, while Ref B is triple-cited with the BBC-site & pg. 223 of Bercuson). If you wish, I can easily remove the MLU cite, as I have already cited both those figures with other sources. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you remove the two iffy sites, and link them as external links, which gives folks more information, without having to use dodgy refs. Both sites seem to be non-commercial, or at least as non-commercial as museums get. But if others object to that idea... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out (except for the one above) with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Support

I've just expanded the lead a bit and done various other minor CE tweaks. Good article, describing the little-known battle itself and the ensuing recriminations. (Disclosure: I copy-edited this a couple of weeks back so I'm not entirely neutral.) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Support I am Canadian and I do remember this...And so far I've seen nothing out of place yet. I'll post any comments if I find any faults. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Still looks as good as it did when I read it last. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Gives a full account of the battle and the controversy that surrounds it. Sourcing seems good, and it reads well. Disclosure: I've been working on and off with Cam on this article for a while, and I passed its GA review back in April. EyeSerene^talk 18:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments regarding images

• Image:Verrieres-under-fire.jpg (the lead photo) seems low-quality for the lead photo in a featured article. Is there any possibility it can be replaced, or barring that, cleaned up? This is some distracting discoloration along the right-hand edge and, to a lesser degree, in the upper left corner.

EyeSerene has dealt with this one. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Geography of Verrieres-1.5.jpg - is this a scan, or was it made by the uploader from scratch? It appears to be a scan, based on the artifacts in the upper left and the fact that it is slightly misaligned. If a scan, the map needs a source and its copyright status specified. That aside, the misalignment needs to be fixed, and the image should be in PNG or SVG format per WP:IUP#Format and WP:PIFU. The white area surrounding the the map, and the caption "South of Caen" should also be cropped out per WP:PIFU#Replace captions in the image with text.
• Image:Operation Spring.png is a beautiful user-created battle map - I notice EyeSerene is commenting here - would it be possible to have a version of this map without the caption in the upper left per WP:PIFU#Replace captions in the image with text? Not only does this satisfy the image guideline, but it will facilitate use of the map in other languages' Wikipedia articles about this battle.

I'll contact EyeSerene on this one. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelly ^hi! 18:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Notes: I left some inline queries and edit summaries about cleanup needs. Sample prose reveals repetitive phrasing:

• The accepted toll for Operation Atlantic is put at 1,349 total casualties.^[3] Of these approximately 300 were fatal.^[4] However, the number of soldiers wounded and captured was significantly higher.^[4] The casualty figures for Operation Spring are also commonly accepted to be within the vicinity of 500 killed and 1000 wounded or captured.^[5][6] Of these, some 315 casualties out of 325 soldiers were taken by the Royal Highland Regiment of Canada, the heaviest Canadian casualty rates of the entire Normandy conflict.^[7] If the casualty figures for Atlantic and Spring are taken to be correct, the total casualties for Canadian forces amount to approximately 2,800 casualties. Of these, 800 were fatal.^[8] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I'll get to work on that (thanks for pointing it out). I also fixed the image issue in Historiography that you outlined in the edit summary. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That was only a sample; has someone looked at all of the prose? Also, please update the FAC on resolution of the image issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Quick Comment I don't like the use of "Over the years" in the third paragraph of the lead. It doesn't sound encyclopedic, and is not precise. KnightLago (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 23:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "More recently" is any better, it has the same problems. Maybe reword the sentence some how? KnightLago (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Does "since the end of World War II, the attack has become one of the most contentious & controversial events in Canadian Military History" sound any better? Cheers! Cam (Chat) 02:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go at pulling this round a bit too. I've made the link between cause (first sentence of third lead par: questionable decisions, high casualty rates) and effect (second sentence of last lead par: debate and controversy) more explicit. This, I think, makes the logical connection between the two sentences stronger and sidesteps the issues raised by "more recently" and "over the years". Does this work for you? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 02:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That is somewhat better than what was there before. KnightLago (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

• Somewhere in the beginning you need to put France with Caen, not everybody knows where it is.

You'd think that'd be obvious.....Oh well. Done. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added a specific WL reference to France in the opening sentence to locate all the places mentioned.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Royal Highland Regiment (Black Watch) of Canada, is this the actual name of the group? Maybe remove the Black Watch if it is not and just use their name in the lead and then if you want do Royal Highland Regiment (Black Watch) later in the article. After that you could then just refer to Black Watch.
• "After the D-Day landings, the Allies were stopped short of the city of Caen, a major Operation Overlord objective,[8] and positional warfare ensued until the first week of July." This sentence is kind of labored, maybe reword?

Fixed. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• On July 11, I don't think day and month alone should be wiki linked.

Point of information, days/months should be wikilinked so that they display either as July 4 or 4 July according to user setting in preferences. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Added the year as well. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Elements of the British Second Army reached the foot of Verrières ridge and secured part of the adjacent Bourguebus ridge but Verrières itself had yet to be taken, and this was assigned to the newly arrived II Canadian Corps.[11]" The "and this..." part needs to be split off or the sentence reworded. It seems to be hanging off the end of the sentence.

Fixed. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• 51st (Highland) Division links to a disambiguation page.

Relinked. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• "All of the attacking forces were under the command of Lieutenant-General Guy Simonds, the overall commander of II Canadian Corps and of the offensives aimed at taking Verrières Ridge." Is offensives the best word here, maybe allied forces, or something else.

Yeah, since that's exactly what they were: Offensives. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• "and from "the factory" area south of St Martin" What is the factory area?

Clarified. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• "held the ridge with hundreds of guns" How many exactly? This is not very encyclopedic.
• "270 divisions" in late 1943. Not explained.

Fixed. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• You put Point 67 (on the northern edge of the ridge) at the second use of P67, why not the first.
• "By that point," Which point exactly?

Fixed. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• "In order to exploit the foothold made on the ridge (both by the Calgary Highlanders and by the British during Operation Goodwood), General Simonds, commander of II Canadian Corps, rapidly prepared an offensive to take the eastern side of the Orne and the main slopes of Verrières Ridge,[6] scheduled to begin on July 20, 1944.[18]" The scheduled part again seems to just have been tacked onto the end of another sentence.

Fixed (I think). Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• "accurate German counterattacks" How were they accurate? Was this artillery fire, or an infantry attack?

Fixed. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• "The South Saskatchewan Regiment itself moved directly up the slopes of Verrières Ridge." Remove itself, then put this into context.

Fixed. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• However, the attack ran into torrential rain, rendering the air and armoured support useless, and the infantry began to falter in the mud. Only the infantry faltered, or did the armored support falter as well? Armor and mud do not mix.

Clarified. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Who are the South Sasks?

Oopsies. I have this habit of referring to Canadian Regiments in their short form after their first usage (Royal Canadian Regiment becomes RCR etc.) Clarified. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Simultaneously in the American sector, General Omar Bradley, Commander of the US forces, was planning his own breakout—Operation Cobra.[27] Guy Simonds began planning his offensive, codenamed Operation Spring. Why is there a dash between breakout and Operation?

Because MoS guidelines suggest doing so. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Originally, Spring Why is Spring italicized?

Fixed. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• The original plan called for the attack to take place on July 23, but "inclement weather" postponed the operation for forty eight hours. Why is inclement weather is " "s? This is usually done when words are not being used in their usual sense. I don't see that here.

Fixed. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ultra received reports of this, and sent them to Simonds's HQ. I know what Ultra is, but it needs to be explained when mentioned in the article.

Done. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• They were to attack at approximately 05:30 from their assembly area at St Martin. Where is St Martin, it needs to be linked is possible.

Unfortunately, there is no article concerning the St. Martin in Normandy. I've added a "distance from Caen" figure for a bit more specification there. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• (in broad daylight, walking in a straight line) needs to be made into a sentence. This is not encyclopedic.

Done. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• "When they moved up the ridge at 09:30 (in broad daylight, walking in a straight line), they were easy targets for well entrenched German defenders, who were equipped with tanks, 88mm anti tank guns, Nebelwerfer rocket artillery, machine gun nests and dozens of mortar pits." Maybe break this into two sentences? There is a lot here.
• On the reverse slope, they were subject to even heavier bombardment, as they ran into the counterattacking forces of the 272nd Infantry Division, as well as the 9th SS's Battle Group Sterz. I don't think there should be a comma after bombardment nor do I think the Battle group should be italicized.

Fixed. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• All senior commanders of the Black Watch were killed, and two entire companies virtually annihilated. Don't you basically say the say the "and two..." part in the previous sentence?

Oh yeah...thanks for catching that. Fixed. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• The Black Watch had to be reformed after Verrières ridge—the casualty rates they had sustained were the highest in any Canadian infantry battalion for the remainder of the war. What is "ridge—the"?

MoS. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Bretteville should be Bretteville-sur-Laize Canadian War Cemetery in its first use.
• (Verrières Village) should be worked into the sentence.

Fixed. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• "from the ridge in their attempt to keep Bradley's Americans boxed in." Bradley's Americans doesn't sound good. Bradley was an American. Maybe reword.

Fixed. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• (each of which were subject to their own varying degrees of investigation and variation) should be worked into a sentence and not used in parenthesis.

Fixed. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• The accepted toll for Operation Atlantic is put at 1,349 total casualties,[6] with approximately 300 fatalities.[13] However, the number of soldiers wounded and captured was significantly higher. This needs to be explained better as these appear to contradict themselves.
• First use of POW needs to be the fill words and not an abbreviation.
• German history does not place any particular significance on the battle of Verrières Ridge. Is there a source for this hugely broad statement?

I also think there are flow problems. Some of the wording seems strange to me. It may be English differences, though I tried to take that into account. To remedy this I suggest asking the WP:LoCE to go over the article. They do good work. KnightLago (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've had five copyedits done on this thing over the last month & a half (one by Eyeserene, one by JbMurray, one by Blnguyen, two by Roger). I'll get to work on fixing this stuff immediately (You can cross it off as you think I've addressed it). Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

See WP:FAC instructions, pls don't strike reviewer comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just realized that. Already fixed my error. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Additional notes: There are also unspaced emdashes mixed with spaced emdashes (see WP:DASH); it might be wise to ask User:Epbr123 to check the article for other MoS issues. Also, here's another sample of the rough going with the prose:

If the casualty figures for Atlantic and Spring are taken to be correct, the total casualties for Canadian forces amount to approximately 2,800 casualties, 800 of which were fatalities.

Repetitive: If the casualty ... total casualties ... amount to 2,800 casualties ... lots of redundant wording there to ("amount to", etc.)

Unclear, sounds ORish, don't know what it means: ... if ... taken to be correct

That's only a sample: I'm struggling with the prose, and I'm not a prose guru, but I'm often stumbling over sentences. Also, informal prose, is the ampersand intended here: German infantry & armoured counterattacks ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've put in a request with the MilHist Logistics Department copyediting team, since they seem slightly faster at getting back on stuff than the LoCE (I didn't think an article could go through this many copyedits & still have this many issues. I stand corrected). Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ant

I'm nominating this article for featured article because of its GA status for a while, current stability in spite of high traffic and meeting the FAC criteria. Many people have helped this article and it has developed over a much longer time span than many other major animal group articles. This article has had a lot of editing for factual accuracy and style by a number of other editors notably Doug Yanega, User:Stemonitis and more recently User:GameKeeper. Shyamal (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• There are unformatted references. Ensure all references using URLs have title, URL, publisher, and accessdate fields filled out.
  • Done
• A ton of page ranges need en dashes per WP:DASH, including "549-563", "p23-24" (which should actually be "pp. 23-24"), and "10977-10979"
  • Done
• American and British spelling mixed together; examples: "behaviour", "metre", "travelled"
  • Fixed
• There are a number of short paragraphs, and some are even uncited.
• Redundancies abound; words that are common in this article include "many" and "some", which are used sometimes in a "Many... Some... Many..." pattern.

Gary King (talk) 06:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Have fixed the ndash issues and the URL cites. Some broken external links need fixing as well. The last issue of "many-some-many" repetition is perhaps unavoidable in the summarization of a large insect group. But maybe others will be able to fix some of these issues. Shyamal (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Support I've gone through and corrected a few remaining infelicities. "exarate" needs explanation. An interesting and comprehensive read jimfbleak (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Exarate - jargon removed.

Comment. I don't think you need to list all the places ants aren't found in the lead; it seems an inappropriate level of detail. Also, "they may constitute up to 15–25%" is phrased overly cautiously to the point where it loses meaning. The lead could probably be expanded: it's a decent-length article and there's plenty that could be said. Trebor (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Modified the bit on absence, new section on distribution covers it. Can someone volunteer for the lead improvement ? Shyamal (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Expand the lead to fully summarize the article, per WP:LEAD. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - the article lacks a taxonomy section. I would make one, with the evolution bit a subsection of it. Within it, it needs to have approx number of species and notable subfamiles/genera/maybe some very notable spp. not mentioned elsewhere. I would also place diversity section into it as well. Also, did we decide to do brit or US english? More to come. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the last GA upgrade was done with a BrE leaning with User:Stemonitis and me. Thanks for the suggestions, will try and add some bits on the family wise diversity. Shyamal (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Needs etymology of ant. Also some orign of formicidae in taxonomy.
  • Done

• Ants in culture needs some refs.
  • Some seem problematic - especially the computer games and cartoon movies - in one sense they seem to be references in themselves

Will help out more later. I can't add much on taxonomy as not my area but will try to do what I can. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 2 "Oster, GF & Wilson E O "Caste and Ecology in the Social Insects" is lacking a page number. Also, either use periods between the initials or don't, but don't mix the styles.
  • Done (specific page not cited by editor)

A reason we aren't citing a page number here? If the book is pretty big, for WP:V we need to be able to easily find the specific information you're citing. Page numbers help a lot with that. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added the pages for this ref. GameKeeper (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 11 Philip Thomas Pest Ants in Hawaii is lacking a last access date.
  • Done
• Current ref 14 D. Agosti, J. D. Majer, L. E. Alonso is lacking a page number
  • whole book covers matter of ants as indicators
• Current ref 13 Donat Agosti "Antbase" is lacking last access date, and publisher
  • Done
• Current ref 15 Hymenoptera name server is lacking last access date
  • Done
• Current ref 54 Taylor R. W. The Australian workerless inquiline ant ... has a formatting glitch with the url.
  • Done
• Current ref 80 David R. Downes and Sarah A. Laird Innovative mechanisms for ... is lacking publisher and last access date
  • Done

Still missing last access date. Yes, I know it's a journal, but given that you're giving a convience link, it is nice to give a last access date in case the link goes dead, so folks can attempt to replace the link with something from an archive. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Done - also found a better ref but one that is available only to Springer subscribers. Shyamal (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 81 Hormigas culonas is lacking a publisher
  • Replaced with a better ref
• Current ref 83 is lacking a last access date
  • Done - actually a journal reference

Hm, the numbering has changed on these, I can't find it now. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 84 Gene R. De Foliart The Human Use of Insects as a Food ... is lacking a publisher
  • Replaced ref
• Current ref 86 Oklahoma state university Tow Step method for fire ant control, you've listed the publisher in the title link, please put it separate

• -Fixed, jimfbleak (talk) 05:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 87 Kennedy C. H. Myrmecological technique has no title for the link, is lackign a last access date and publisher
  • fixed
• Surely the fact that ants are mentioned in religious texts is kind of assumed and really not the level of detail needed in an encyclopedia article.
  • Perhaps good to keep, since these keep creeping in anyway
• Your last three references are lacking last access dates and publisher information, as well as any other bibliographical information.
• What make http://www.boyhoodstudies.com/encyclopaideia.htm a reliable source?
  • good point - replaced with a WP:RS
• http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/socl/customsetiquettefolklore/Kwaidan/toc.html looks like an online copy of a book? If so, it should be formatted as a book reference.
  • Done

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out (except for the one above) with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Oppose Considering support

The article is much improved. GrahamColm^Talk 16:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have made a few small edits,[5]. GrahamColm^Talk 09:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Gary's British/American spelling and redundancy comments are far from addressed. Additionally, section headers should not restate the title of the article unless it's impossible not to without being extremely awkward, which isn't at all the case here. Furthermore, measurements need to have a non-breaking space between the measurement and the unit, not a normal space or a hyphen or an en dash or em dash. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 00:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the headers except two where it seemed awkward to do otherwise. jimfbleak (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

And changed remaining US spellings jimfbleak (talk) 05:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my oppose stands - neighbour and meter are both present in the article at just a cursory glance. There's also cosy, and definitely others that I missed. Also, redundancy isn't fixed. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 21:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm missing something here, or they've been fixed. "Neighbour" only occurs as "neighbouring" (UK eng) "cosy" doesn't occur at all, and is UK anyway, "meter" only as "pedometer" (UK eng too) jimfbleak (talk) 05:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was probably looking at an old version of the article - I left the computer for a while and didn't refresh. There is, however, "organized" and "colonized" in the lead, as well as "polarization," "colonization," "optimization," and "specialization" later in the article. The redundancy comment still stands. Also, I think that there's still no non-breaking space between some measurements and units - i.e. 14 litres (3 gallons). Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Fixed

Not yet supporting—Mostly a beautiful article; much of the writing is good; however, my colleagues' queries should be addressed, and I found more micro-issues myself at random, which indicate the need for a general sift-through by a skilled copy-editor to polish the prose. These glitches were from just one five-line section:

• "They continually collect leaves which they cut into tiny pieces for the fungus to grow on." Possible comma before "which"? (Unsure) Or: "They continually collect leaves and cut them into tiny pieces on which the fungus can grow."?
• "There are different sized workers specially suited to the increasingly finer tasks of cutting, chewing leaves and tending the garden."—"There are" always flags to me that the sentence should be scrutinised: "Workers of different size specialise in the increasingly finer tasks of cutting, chewing leaves and tending the garden." You do mean that tending the garden is the most specialised, I assume. And in the current sentence and my alternative, it's still unclear whether the specialisations are each carried out by classes/types of ant that are different size, or whether different-sized ants perform all of those specialisations. I'm being picky, but we need to be precise.
• "Leaf cutter ants are sensitive enough to recognise the fungi's reaction to different plant material, apparently detecting chemical signals from the fungus." I wonder whether the causality is this: "Leaf-cutter ants are apparently sensitive enough to the chemical signals from the fungus to recognise its reaction to different plant material." Tsk tsk, I've changed the logic a little: I guess we've observed that they know, but merely assume that it's on the basis of that sensitivity to chemical signals. Maybe that's a problem in my suggestion. Hyphenate "leaf-cutter ants" so it's easier for us non-experts? "Apparently" is a hedge-word, drawing back from utter certainty; I guess you've weighed that up from your assessment of Ref 48.

You are correct with your assumption, we don't yet have the ability to tell why the ants know, but it is odds on that it is a chemical signal. Is a hedge-word OK in that context? There is another apparently in the text which relates to amber from the early Miocene, this is because the reference is not certain that the possible age of this amber is entirely within early Miocene.^{GameKeeper (talk)}

• Ungainly passive: "The fungi grown by the ants produce special structures called gongylidia that are fed on by the ants." ... that the ants feed on. Or ... on which the ants feed.

And issues with images and captions:

• On my browser, the two images in "Taxonomy and evolution" are messing with the text (A single word lay between the two, and other oddities arose when I widened and narrowed the window). Can both be to the right?
• "A few ants in Baltic Amber"—Um ... "Ants captured ..." or something like that?
• I was about to suggest that you nominate the fertilised queen ant image for featured-image status when I saw that it's already a FI. There are other beauties in the article, especially the images of the honeypot and jumping ants. Wonderful.
• First meat-ant caption: en dash, not hyphen; second one: "Meat ant tending a common leafhopper nymph"—Start with "A"? A few captions are real sentences ("Weaver ants are used as a biological control for citrus cultivation in southern China" is one) and thus require a final period. I see pharoah and weaver ants captions in that camp. "Ant's eggs being sold for consumption in Isaan, Thailand"—You need plural possessive for the first word; and they're not actually "being sold" as claimed, but merely on display for sale as human food. En dash in range, bottom caption. TONY (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted to handle these issues except the 1st. I agree with you about images. We have been spoilt for choice with exceptional ant images, if anything it is hard to know which to leave out. Unfortuately the jumping ant image is too low resolution to be considered for FI. It is a very fine image, especially when you know the full details. The image shows an newly mated Harpegnathos saltator queen being killed by another Harpegnathos saltator worker. GameKeeper (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment', or more accurately point of order. Other vertebrates that have specialised as ant predators include the South American antpittas. This is not really true. While some members of the family do indeed eat ants, it is generally one of a range of diet options (the small black and crawly eating niche as it were). The family account of the family on Handbook of the Birds of the World certainly doesn't mention any ant specialists, let alone that the family are them. I am not aware of any bird that is a complete specialist in eating ants, but you might want to mention the specialised birds that follow army ants to eat the insects they flush. The section of the antbird article Antbird#Ant-followers, and Antbird#Ecology have a number of references which could help, particularly talking about the effect it has on birds (like antbirds, woodcreepers and Habia tanagers) and even the kleptoparasitic effect it has on the ants itself. If you like I could add the info? I'll let the authors decide. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. Removed the statement and added a bit on antbirds. Do take a look and feel free to make alterations as you see fit. No ownership hassles here. Shyamal (talk) 04:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't ownership I'm worried about, it's unbalancing a long article with semi-relevant info. Having dragged a number of epic length articles to FA I know the premium placed on not adding too much at this stage. I'll do some additions tomorrow. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments.

1) 120–170 million years ago is hardly a "mid-Cretaceous period". Cretaceous began only 145 million years ago. 170 million years corresponds to mid-Jurassic.

• Done - the figures in the reference cited gives 110-130MYA. Shyamal (talk) 08:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

2) In the first section I found "in the Cretaceous and Eocene eras". However neither Cretaceous nor Eocene is an era. The former is a geological period, and the latter is a geological epoch. Cretaceous is called era twice in the same section.

3) In the lead the article says 'Ants dominate most ecosystems, forming 15–20% of the terrestrial animal biomass'. However the numbers in 'Distribution and diversity' are different—15-25%.

• Done - it is 15-20% on average and up to 25% in the tropics Shyamal (talk) 08:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

4) The word 'eusociality' should explained or removed from the lead.

• Removed usage but link to social - is for eusociality which is an insect specific term. Shyamal (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ruslik (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Notes: a lot of basic cleanup needs. See WP:MOS#Images regarding punctuation of image captions, sentence fragments and complete sentences. I saw a random parenthetical insert, not compelling prose: (See also Kin selection) and (See also Langton's ant and ant colony optimisation.) If those See alsos are significant, they can be worked seamlessly into the text or included as hatnotes at the top of the section. Per 2c, consistent citation style, there is no consistency in citation of author names; please pick one style for last name first name and punctuation. HTML doesn't have to be indicated in citations (it's the default). Some DOIs are linked; others are not. Some journal article titles are in quotes; others are not. There are consistency issues throughout the citations (perhaps they were added by different editors who used different styles?) After doing some of the basic cleanup there, it might be helpful to ask Epbr123 to run through the article, looking for MoS issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Have moved reference formatting from the template:Cite journal to template:Citation and split all the authors and now relying on the template code to provide consistent format. DOI links fixed some were id=doi:.... now made to doi=... .The remaining issue to resolve is the citation of pages from the Holldobler & Wilson book. The full book citation itself is only present in the General references section and so the other citations to the book currently follow harvard (ie Hölldobler & Wilson (1990), pp. 23–24). Please advise. Shyamal (talk) 03:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't necessary to change citation methods; you now have a new problem with mixed citations (see WP:CITE#Citation style, cite templates shouldn't be mixed with the citation template). Cite journal was fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Partly undone. I hope someone else can fix this problem. Thanks. Shyamal (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced the The Ants citations with a templated {{CiteTheAnts}}, this can quickly be changed back to another style by changing the template at Template:CiteTheAnts. But I have now seen Wikipedia:Footnotes#Style_recommendations recommends keeping a separate section for frequently cited sources which I think means I should undo this change. Like you a bit confused by this. GameKeeper (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

My interpretation of Wikipedia:FACR 2c) consistent citations means to either use footnotes or use harvard citations (not that the citations themselves must all be one style). The whole of Ants uses footnotes which I assume is what this criteria wants. The actual footnote formatting of names is mixed. The majority being The Chicago Manual of Style but some being in different styles. I have been using Bird as a kind of reference as it is a very good FA about another organism. Its citations are in mixed format (some Chicago, some APA style etc). Note the in The Chicago Manual of Style [6] multiple authors are listed - LastName1, FirstName1, FirstName2 LastName2 & FirstName3 LastName3. which mixes up the order of lastname & firstname within the reference. GameKeeper (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I see in Wikipedia:CITE#Citation_styles it specifically says Any style or system is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as articles are internally consistent with reference to a list of styles. GameKeeper (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Correct; please re-read my original post. The citations are not consistently formatted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Under the Bridge

"Under the Bridge" is an immensely popular 1991 song by Red Hot Chili Peppers that helped shape the alternative rock movement. It is the highest charting alt rock song on the Billboard Hot 100, reaching number two. The article has been a GA since early May, and some copyedits have been performed, albeit minor ones. It is extremely comprehensive, covering every aspect of the song's writing, construction, release, acclaim and aftermath. Please do not hesitate to identify any flaws or problems you can find; all comments, questions, and concerns will be addressed as soon as possible. NSR77 ^T_C 21:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Looks well written and referenced. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC))

• Comment. Still needs some work, I think, definitely on the prose and some other minor points. A few full dates in the refs missing wikilinks (#31 and #33 for instance). I'm dubious as to whether specific quotations from reviewers should be included in the lead, and certainly choosing to use the Tampa Tribune seems bizarre given they aren't really an authoritative voice on the music scene. I think a general overview of the legacy of the song is fine. Prose isn't great throughout, a few examples:

• The first sentence is misleading - I read it as the album which was released on that date.
• "The lyrics were originally written as a means for vocalist Anthony Kiedis to express a feeling of loneliness and despondency, and as a reflection on narcotics and how it impacted his life." - "originally" is redundant; should it be "his feelings" rather than "a feeling"; narcotics is plural so how "they" influenced his life. The whole sentence would probably be stronger as "Anthony Kiedis wrote the lyrics...".
• "Under the Bridge" became both a critical and commercial success" - "both" is redundant
• "In 1992 the song peaked at number two on the Billboard Hot 100 and was eventually certified platinum by the RIAA" - was it certified platinum in 1992? Not sure the year is necessary at all since it's probably assumed it peaked in the year it was released rather than any other.
• "The single's success was only widened with the release of its accompanying music video, which was put into heavy rotation on music television channels." - "only" and "accompanying" aren't necessary, and possibly the first "music" isn't either (I think it's implied but maybe not).
• Viewers choice needs an apostrophe
• The "however" at the end of the second paragraph isn't contradicting anything and the whole sentence is pretty stilted with so many commas.

This suggests it needs a pretty thorough copyedit throughout before it should be passed. But the information in the article is good, and the references look pretty good, so just needs a bit of work on polishing it up. Trebor (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards removing the Tampa Tribune quote, but the main reason I had included it in the first place was to give the reader an understanding of the single's popularity at the time. Despite this, Tampa Tribune isn't, as you pointed out, a notable music publication. Prose-wise, most of your comments are aimed at extraneous wording; I'll have a look at the rest later, when I have some more time. NSR77 ^T_C 01:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• No dead links (good)
• Paragraphs are good sizes
• Put 'References' after 'Notes'
  • Done NSR77 ^T_C 01:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Link the dates in the references
  • Done NSR77 ^T_C 01:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Ensure references are in ascending order when in a row, such as "this'."[4][1][5] Kiedis" needs to be "this'."[1][4][5] Kiedis"
  • Done NSR77 ^T_C 01:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments regarding criterion three:
  • Image:Red Hot Chili Peppers - Under the Bridge.ogg is not low bit rate (WP:NFCC#3B); 139kbps is even superior to CD quality.
    • I don't have access to Audacity (this file was uploaded by another editor), though I can hopefully find some other method of fixing this issue. Please be patient. NSR77 ^T_C 01:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Do you want me to upload a new version of that one (a la Image:RHCP-UnderTheBridgeLiveHydePark-31s.ogg, which I presume is OK with elcobbla)? giggy _(:O) 07:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
        • They say 192kbps is "CD equivalent" and even that's not losless from a CD... I don't see why this isn't reduced... I think it's fair use paranoia. gren グレン 09:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Please provide a diff where I indicated concern of litigation that would constitute "paranoia". The requirement for low resolution/fidelity is Policy; featured articles are expected to be in full compliance, even if it is a "minor" tweak. 128 kbps is generally considered CD-quality. 192 kbps indeed losses some additional artifacts, but the difference is not generally distinguishable in the general populace. Exact kbps is moot; if 60 kbps is good enough for the other clip in the article, why is 139 kbps needed for this clip? Giggy, thank you for responding in a helpful manner; it would be great if you could do that. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:FruscianteUTB.jpg is not low resolution (also NFCC#3B). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Reduced. NSR77 ^T_C 01:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support: Well Written --'Andrea 93 (msg) 04:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment There's no need to devote four sentences to "Give it Away". Par it down to the pertinent details. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Trimmed. NSR77 ^T_C 22:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• About the YouTube videos, are we linking to copyright violations? I'm on a slow enough connection, I'd rather not open the videos up.
• What makes www.everyhit.com a reliable site?
• Probably don't need the four sources on the sentence in the third paragraph of Live performances. A bit of overkill.

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out fine with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

None of the videos are of copyrighted material as far as I can tell. The Everyhit reference has been replaced. NSR77 ^T_C 22:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Could you merge the first two sentences? They're short and stubby at the moment.

Fixed. NSR77 ^T_C 17:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• "The success of "Under the Bridge" led in part to the departure of guitarist John Frusciante, who was instrumental in its composition." - this would be awkward to someone who didn't know why he left... might wanna clarify that.
  • Done. NSR77 ^T_C 17:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• "Driving home after rehearsal the same day" - you haven't specified a day (else I didn't notice), so "the same day" is awkward.
  • Done. NSR77 ^T_C 17:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• "I don't ever want to feel/Like I did that day/Take me to the place I love" - last lyrics quote ("In the city I live in/The City of Angels/Lonely as I am/Together we cry") was four lines, I think it'd be better if you did the same here (so include "take me all the way").
  • I'm not quite sure I understand what you're asking... NSR77 ^T_C 17:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Meh, don't worry about it. giggy _(:O) 02:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• ""Under the Bridge", as such, was selected to be Blood Sugar Sex Magik's second single." - does this really need to be said (considering the context)?
  • It is a good sentence transition. NSR77 ^T_C 17:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• "Pause and Play included the song in their unordered list of the "10 Songs of the 90's";" - I don't see it here?
  • It's somewhere in there. NSR77 ^T_C 17:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't see it; I did a Ctrl+F for the song title, the band name, the album title, and got nothing every time. giggy _(:O) 02:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• "The video ranked eighth in a poll dictated by the readers of the Chicago Tribune called "The Best and Worst of '92"" - 8th best or 8th worst?
  • Fixed. NSR77 ^T_C 17:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• "Recently, however, Kiedis has..." - recentism. When does "recently" refer to?
  • Fixed. NSR77 ^T_C 17:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Overall, nicely done. giggy _(:O) 07:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• the allmusic review was written years after the song was out. A comment like ""become an integral part of the 1990s alterna-landscape," could have only been made in retrospect, so it shouldn't be alongside the ocntemporary reviews
• "Due to the success of "Give it Away", the band did not foresee "Under the Bridge" as being equally viable."--the causality is kinda lost on me.
• ""Under the Bridge" is not interpreted in a different manner than what is on the record—the track is largely performed...the same as it was recorded." Note the redundancy and repetition.
• "Released as the band's fist live album, it became the highest-grossing concert at a single venue in history, with a total revenue of $17.1 million." The sentence is very awkward: are you saying an album became the highest-grossing single-venue concert in history?
• Play.com is a commercial website, what makes it reliable?
• "Gym Class Heroes continued to play "Under the Bridge" during their upcoming tour" huh? The tour is upcoming right?
• The whole Live performances needs a ce I think. A few details could be trimmed and its a little too hard on Anthony. ""Under the Bridge" is also performed on the Chili Peppers' concert video Off the Map released in 2001, and their exclusive iTunes Originals set-list in 2006.", for one, can go.
• Music video has variations of "superimposed" appearing in four adjacent sentences.
• By "highly-rated" TV program, you mean that it has high TRP ratings right? I think critical acclaim instead comes off by using that phrase.
• I'm not comfortable with the use of fan-recorded live YouTube videos as sources. While it does feature band members themselves, there isn't a publisher we can attribute the reference to. Further, while the present case might seem okay, the practice does give scope for OR. For example: if a famous musician was a buddy of yours; you could interview him, record it, put the video on YouTube and then cite it on Wikipedia. Since there isn't anything like a publisher or fact-checking involved, we don't know the accuracy of the interview (you could have doctored the tape, he might have been joking etc). So I don't think the YouTube videos you're citing could be considered reliable sources. indopug (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm busy at the moment and will consider the rest of your comments tomorrow, but in terms of the YouTube video, it is merely his opinion. There are no facts being relayed- it is simply the singer's thoughts on a certain topic. If you can find me a particular guideline that I can not argue against, fine, but I don't agree with you at the moment. You're essentially saying anything anyone says or thinks is wrong unless conducted in an edited interview. If he was joking, why would his band play the song on tour or a tribute album? While your thoughts could theoretically be the case, I don't see any reason we can't believe the vocalist. NSR77 ^T_C 00:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say just get rid of the video, mainly because it's talking about live covers, and there's probably a number of bands that have covered this song live. Imagine how insane the covers section at "Smells Like Teen Spirit" would be if live covers were included (which used to be in the article, so go through the history to see what a mess that was before they were all removed). The band covering the song on record is enough. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Not just the Gym Class Heroes video, even the Frusciante video where he compares it to "Andy Warhol" and "Rip-Off" has same problem of no publisher. indopug (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Wesley, there's only a minor reference to the live version. NSR77 ^T_C 20:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• The writing is mostly good, except for when I hit the "Composition" section, which I've had a partial go at. Did another editor do this bit? Still at issue:
  • "who had spent most of his career singing very fast, largely due to his limited ability to reach high notes."—I don't see the causality here (the "due to").
    • Reworded it to change emphasis. NSR77 ^T_C 20:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "E major seven chord progression"—E major seven ... "E-major 7th chord" (E–G#–B–D#) might be understood by a larger proportion of readers (unsure; would you use the standard popular-music abbreviation here?). "Seven" alone is odd, and it's usually a figure. There's another further down. But the conceptual issue is that it's a chord, not a progression. The latter involves more than one chord, so you'd have to explicate where it moves to.
    • I'm not exactly sure how one would present this on Wikipedia, though I imagine 70+ per cent of the readers do not know how to play guitar, therefore using what you suggested may be confusing (correct me if I'm wrong). The word "progression" snuck in there. It is not a progression, the song halts for a few seconds after the chord is played. NSR77 ^T_C 20:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "struck at a moderately fast tempo to provide a beat"—No, "struck at a moderately fast beat".
    • Fixed. NSR77 ^T_C 20:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "jumps back into a verse that once again uses an E major seven chord prior to commencing the chorus"—euuw; a verse comences a chorus? Grammar. Back ... once again? Unsure how to fix this; unsure of the intended meaning.
    • Reworded this, though it is a bit tricky of a sentence to phrase. NSR77 ^T_C 20:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "In between" what?
    • Clarified. NSR77 ^T_C 20:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "As the choir, Kiedis and drums drop off" ... a cliff?
    • Reworked. NSR77 ^T_C 20:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Then:

• • Can we drop the "in order" in "in order to", or I'll do a Hitler salute.
    • Where exactly is that? NSR77 ^T_C 20:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you let me know where people get the "Summary" text from in the audio-clip info pages? I want to copy-edit the source. TONY (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been copyediting the article for NSR77 since the GA nom, but haven't done too much work on the Composition section. I'll clean it up. As for for Summary text, there's endless variations on it, so if you want to edit it yourself, I see no problem with that. I'm not sure if that template is provided anywhere in particular. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I was the only editor working on the article; I agree with you the "Composition" section is by far the weakest, though. Not sure why. NSR77 ^T_C 20:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Update the article? indopug (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As an expansive Frusciante fan, I've never heard that. When I read it I was surprised; especially since Frusciante has never mentioned he even listens to Joe Jackson in the thousands of interviews he's given. Furthermore, I'm led to believe Rolling Stone made a connection themselves, rather than asking Frusciante. NSR77 ^T_C 11:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The article just came out, and the paragraphs for each song entry are rather insubstantial. I don't see the list worth mentioning right now. Maybe down the line. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Iloilo International Airport

Self-nomination. After over a year of work on this article (and the peer review), I believe it has been expanded well enough to merit FA status in time for the airport's first anniversary on June 14, 2008. Any comments, of course, are greatly appreciated. Thanks! --Sky Harbor 01:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Comments

Several major issues exist in this article, including but not limited to:

• Improperly formatted references. Use {{cite web}} and include title, url, publisher, and accessdate at the very minimum.
• Structure-wise, the beginning is pretty good, then later on it starts to fall apart and there are many stubby paragraphs.
• Two dead links
• "($148 million)" needs to specify US$ because US dollars is not the 'default' currency of Wikipedia.
• Stuff like "in March of 2007" can just do "March 2007"
• "nine billion pesos" — I think when talking about money, it's best to stick with numbers even if it's less than 10
• "the New Iloilo Airport Development Project, or NIADP." — No need to italicize.
• "The final opening date was finally set for June 13, 2007,[25] with commercial services commencing on June 14, 2007." — "The final opening date was set for June 13, 2007, with commercial services commencing the next day." might be better?
• There are more prose issues, too, so please do a thorough copyedit of the article.

Gary King (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Points 4-8 have been fixed. The reference format that I used is the same on the other two FAs which I have initiated (the Manila LRT and the Manila MRT), and the vast majority of them are newspaper articles, but I suppose I can fix them as well. I would also need the dead links so I can fix them. --Sky Harbor 02:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have a URL, then at the very least you need an accessdate. Dead links are found by clicking 'External links' in the toolbox in the top-right corner of this FAC. Periodicals need their publishers italicized. A lot of references are using blogspot, and that is a huge no-no; I don't think they are considered reliable. Gary King (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The Blogspot references in question are actual newspaper articles. Articles leading to the Panay News can only use their respective Blogspot entries because the Panay News website was taken down. One which leads to The Daily Guardian, a major newspaper in the area, does not have a direct link to the article (I will look for it). Yahoo! News articles are never saved for some reason, so I will replace them with their respective archived versions from the Internet Archive, if available, or I will replace them with other articles. References are likewise being fixed. --Sky Harbor 02:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Points 1 and 3 have been fixed. Save for the Explore Iloilo/SSC refs, all other refs have been fixed. I will fix those remaining refs soon. --Sky Harbor 05:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: All refs have (finally) been fixed. --Sky Harbor 13:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Some more:

• "via a three-kilometer long, thirty-meter wide access road linking" — provide conversion to feet
• "See also" section goes before References

Gary King (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Both done. --Sky Harbor 00:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• There are stubby sentences and sections and paragraphs.
• The references are not well formatted. For instance, the date the source was retrieved are not specified.

--Efe (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops! The same concetn by Gary. Anyway, these stuffs will be the concerns of the reviewers, at most. --Efe (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am fixing the refs. Once I finish those, I will move to the paragraphs. Which paragraphs are stubby? --Sky Harbor 02:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

In the terminal subsection. There's a one line para there as well as the following section. ACtually, the first half is balanced in terms of paragraph size. The next half breaks the prose. --Efe (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll merge the info about the amenities of the terminal. The last sentence stays because it's about the cargo terminal, not the passenger terminal. --Sky Harbor 03:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Cargo terminal information has been expanded and the terminals subsection has been divided. --Sky Harbor 05:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I can't tell if the dates wikilinked in the references are the access dates or the publication dates?
• Please give authors when available, and any other bibliographic data.
• What makes http://www.exploreiloilo.com/about-us a reliable source?
• Likewise http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=12143674&postcount=283? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Per previous comments, I am fixing ALL refs as these comments come in. To prove that I am fixing them, I will save the intial work that I have done. Per the last two points, here's something that I can vouch for:

• Explore Iloilo is widely regarded among Ilonggos, both resident in Iloilo, Negros Occidental and outside the Philippines even, as one of the most comprehensive websites about the province of Iloilo. Authors from Explore Iloilo, like the one who wrote the article on Iloilo International Airport, have even had their work published in Philippine publications.
• Some information on IIA was taken from SkyscraperCity. Not everything about the airport is indeed written, so pictures are used to describe that. In fact, once I find suitable sources for that, I intend to remove that source.

Hope that answers your query. --Sky Harbor 03:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: SSC ref removed, Explore Iloilo refs retained. --Sky Harbor 13:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm leaving the bit about Explore Iloilo out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If there is consensus that the references are objectionable, then I can replace them. However, it will be hard to search for new references. --Sky Harbor 02:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, too many prose issues in the lead alone.

• If you're going to abbreviate miles as mi, kilometres should be abbreviated as km. Consistency! Also, hectare -> ha. I'm not sure if there's an abbreviation for acre. All measurements now use {{Convert}}. Since I presume this template is based on the MoS, there's nothing I can do about it.
• There should be a non-breaking space between measurement and unit, not a normal one nor a hyphen. Same as the first bullet
• Short paragraphs should probably be merged. Some sentences have been merged.
• "Iloilo International Airport (Filipino: Paliparang Pandaigdig ng Iloilo, Hiligaynon: Internasyonal nga Hulugpaan sang Iloilo) (IATA: ILO, ICAO: RPVI) is an international airport in the Philippines designed to serve the general area of Iloilo City, which is the capital city of the province of Iloilo and the regional center of the Western Visayas region as well." Rewritten
• "The airport is a replacement for the old Mandurriao Airport located in Iloilo City proper and opened its doors to commercial traffic on June 14, 2007." - awkward sentence, it should probably be split into two sentences. Also, is the "old" really necessary? Rewritten
• "With the closure of Mandurriao Airport, Iloilo International Airport inherited its IATA and ICAO airport codes from the former, as well as its position as the fourth-busiest airport in the Philippines.[1]" Done
• "The airport is located 19 kilometers (12 mi) northwest of Iloilo City on a 188-hectare (465-acre) site between the municipalities of Cabatuan and Santa Barbara,[2] with the main entrance and airport access road in Santa Barbara and the rest of the airport infrastructure in Cabatuan." - I'm not sure if that comma should be there. Additionally, there's a list with two occurences of "and," which I'm fairly sure is grammatically incorrect. Rewritten. The comma is valid in that location per the conventions of Philippine English, so it was kept.
• Sometimes you use the leading comma (i.e. "1, 2, and 3") and sometimes not (i.e. "1, 2 and 3"). Be consistent. Fixed
• "Iloilo International Airport is designated as a secondary international airport by the Air Transportation Office, a body of the Department of Transportation and Communications that is responsible for the operations of not only this airport but also of all other airports in the Philippines except the major international airports." - "airports" is written out in full many times (I can't count); it feels awkward to read it. Perhaps the last occurrence can be changed to "ones" instead. Rewritten

Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Completed items are struck out and comments are bolded. I also intend to give the article a good copy-edit, which I am doing per section. --Sky Harbor 02:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't quite support the prose, but if the lead is spotless, then that's good, so I withdraw my oppose. Anyways, a word of advice: Generally you shouldn't strike out others' comments. I'm not personally bothered by it, but it's etiquette to let them strike it out or otherwise indicate that it's no longer an issue themselves. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I do apologize if I unintentionally sent the wrong message by means of striking out comments for my own convenience. Typing is such hard work! But, of course, thanks so much for the comments. I'll keep the advice in mind. --Sky Harbor 02:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment on images

• Image:Iloilo Airport Exterior.jpg, Image:Iloilo Airport Interior.jpg, and Image:Iloilo Airport Access Road.jpg needs a linkable source and/or evidence for the Attribution license, such as an OTRS ticket or a link to page providing permission. Kelly ^hi! 05:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Permission was granted via a message posted on the SkyscraperCity forum where I asked for these pictures. That would involve this message. I was free to choose the license for the pictures, so I used said license instead. The link will be posted on the summaries of the pictures. --Sky Harbor 09:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Link posting done. --Sky Harbor 09:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Sky Harbor, I'm sorry but I'm afraid the permission is not adequate - there is no license specified, and the permission seems to be for Wikipedia only. Unless this can be improved I fear the images will likely have to be deleted under WP:CSD#I3. See WP:COPYREQ#For images for what is required in an image license permission. Kelly ^hi! 12:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I have written to the owner of the pictures regarding this issue (he is an inactive Wikipedian, as far as I know). I hope I can extract like an e-mail (or something) from him and post the results here. Frankly, I don't even know how to file an OTRS ticket. Updates will be posted as they come. --Sky Harbor 13:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
          • It's pretty simple - once you get the license, forward it to "permissions-en AT wikmedia.org" including a link to the image pages. A volunteer will put the OTRS ticket # on the image pages. WP:COPYREQ has the details. Kelly ^hi! 13:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
            • The creator of the pictures has given (clarified) permission to release the pictures under said license. See this and this. He will likewise prepare a formal letter for forwarding to the OTRS system. (On a side note, I will really need to move my schedule for this article given that this will probably not reach FA and Main Page display by Saturday, as I hoped.) --Sky Harbor 12:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Greencards

I began this article back in August 2006 but unfortunately wasn't able to work on it again until recently. I've significantly expanded and rewritten it in the past few days, and wanted to put it up for a possible Featured Article. If it matters, almost all the development was here in my sandbox. Self-nom. rootology (T) 04:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Not every reference needs the publisher to be italicized—only the ones that are publications.
• The prose is pretty good, so now, the main problem is comprehensiveness. Specifically, most, if not all, musician FAs have sections such as 'Musical influences', 'Style', 'Reception', etc. depending on the artist. There is no analysis of this musician, there is no reception, no analysis of their music, etc.

Gary King (talk) 04:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I can adjust the italicizing. The analysis and reception of their music is interspersed throughout the text under each album section--it's all chronological, with the responses and analysis mixed in to the corresponding time period of each album, as the responses changed as their music did each album. For example,

"were said to bring a global sound to bluegrass and by drawing on influences such as Bob Dylan and The Beatles, were pushing the genre's boundaries,"[7] "Young's voice was noted for it's "dreamy, haunting quality," [8] "was seen as a deliberate move from the jam-style of their debut album Movin' On to instead focus on Americana-focused music,"[9] "was described as a "Pogues-like romp'",[10] "compared to Nickel Creek and Alison Krauss & Union Station's own musical work to expand bluegrass,"[11] and "traditional bluegrass core, with a worldly flavor."[12]

Is just the ones I picked up with a quick re-read (sourced to the section its found in). It seemed like a better idea to make it proper prose instead of a bunch of smaller little sections? rootology (T) 04:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

A recently promoted musical artist article, with Musical style and Reception sections: The Wiggles. Please take a look. Gary King (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll start to break it up thus. I found an additional 10+ sources, which at a glance seemed solid, so it should grow further into that format. rootology (T) 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Done and done, in the form of The_Greencards#Musical style and The Greencards#Reception, with summaries of whats in the existing sections in the flowing prose, and I've also got another large batch of reviews and material to go through now, so it will expand a bit more beyond that. I've adjusted all the reference italicizing as well. rootology (T) 16:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Many many many of the articles at the bottom have authors given, you should list those when known.

• I'll retool all the citations to include more of the fields. rootology (T) 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• The authors are all included where listed now. rootology (T) 16:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Authors should be entered with parameters like ... | last = Payne-Hertz | first = Shirley | ... so they are listed last-name first (except with um... I don't know... Chinese names I guess) with the option to link to an article if | authorlink = is provided. Also anything that vaguely resembles of a newspaper should probably use the "cite news" format (I think all the parameters you have used are compatible with both templates, so relatively easy to fix and I will do it if I get bored enough but it's just something to remember if you are adding 17-odd more sources). — CharlotteWebb 14:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Also the refs should show the exact publication date of the source if the source is kind enough to provide it. — CharlotteWebb 15:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• All set, all the references are formatted with all specific publication dates and that standard name format! rootology (T) 05:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 4 Greencards drawn to American roots music ... the publisher is Deseret News, not Desert News.

• Sorry, I'll fix the typo. rootology (T) 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• No worries, I've just spent enough time in Salt Lake City to have that jump at me. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• I got this one. :) rootology (T) 16:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• http://blog.cmt.com/author/mcloughlin/ is a blog. Yes, it's on Country Music Television's web site, but why is he himself reliable?

• That's Eamon McLoughlin, one of the three band members.[13] He's a reliable source about the band. rootology (T) 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Just remember the caveats about self-published sources, and their bias. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, I thought about that... its pretty uncontroversial information, so self-published is fine there, for info about the band. rootology (T) 16:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.americanahomeplace.com/index.htm a reliable source?

• Its one of the larger radio shows for that niche genre of music (Bluegrass, and specifically the forms that this band plays, aren't big market--the fact this band got a Grammy and the press it is has is monstrous). It looks like a smaller site, but thats like comparing a smaller-town newspaper to CNN, if you're comparing this scale of the music industry to MTV News. rootology (T) 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought it looked like a radio show site, but wanted to double check my understanding, thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Likewise http://georgegraham.com/reviews/greencrd.html?

• He is a radio producer, on-air host, authority with 30 or so years of experience.[14][15][16] rootology (T) 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• And http://www.glidemagazine.com/about.php?

• A fairly well-known music magazine that is cited by a fairly wide array of other news sources.[17]. rootology (T) 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thankee. I'm not really a music person. Except classical. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• And http://www.jambase.com/About/?

• Another fairly well-known music magazine.[18] Note the Forbes coverage. rootology (T) 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• And http://www.countrystarsonline.com/?

• Another smaller online magazine, but dedicated to a smaller audience. Going through the coverage of them, and the reporting they've done, they're a reliable source, but they're no Country Music Television or Rolling Stone (but not everything needs to be to the A-list standard, or else we'd be cutting off all sorts of small press as valid sources). rootology (T) 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Links checked out okay. Sources seemed okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks... any other feedback? I'm going to go through based on all feedback mid week when I have time to clean up. rootology (T) 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I didn't read the prose, and we're just waiting on the other bibliographical information! Thanks for the replies, they are very helpful. Will you be planning on bringing more bluegrass/country articles to FAC? If so, I'll make sure to archive these sites so I don't necessarily question them again (although there are times when my brain cells don't fire and I forget to check.. so I make no promises to never ever question, just try to not question) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help and feedback, I meant to get to this tonight and tomorrow, but can't--gotta run out now and I got a bluegrass show tomorrow for The Paperboys, hopefully I may meet the band to get more info (they apparently have a stash of hard copies of lots of good sources)! And yeah, I want to get a bunch to FA. The Greencards, The Paperboys, and Bluegrass music itself are at the top of the list. :) rootology (T) 01:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments. Songs should be in quotes, not italics. Albums should be in italics, not quotes. Some stuff is in italics and quotes. Also, the infobox needs to be filled out with label and associated acts. Finally, are you sure it's not Kim Richey who produced the albums? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Mostly done with that. I formatted the song titles accordingly (did I miss any?). Please be sure that Dualtone Records is linked, and verify whether or not it was actually Kim Richey who produced the album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'll run through it Saturday--I'll have several hours then. Thanks! rootology (T) 01:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, all set--I fixed the weird indenting/italicizing and you're right, it was Kim Richey, I got stuck on a typo and confirmed on the liner notes and other sources, and expanded out the associated acts. rootology (T) 17:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I've expanded the article still more, and I've got a large number of sources to pore through that I found via http://thegreencards.com/reviews.html#, which were not appearing for the most part from other searches I was doing. I will expand it even further this week from these. What else does this need immediately for fixing? rootology (T) 18:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Looks great, Joe. The only suggestion I do have is moving the album cover images into (newly created) articles about each album rather than using the "preemptive merge" format. I might be able to help with that tomorrow or the next day. A belated welcome back, by the way! — CharlotteWebb 03:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. :) I was thinking about the eventual forking... I've got yet another 17 sources to go through, I think, and once the album pages would be forked there would be more material for each in the existing sources already in place. How much would reasonably trimmed from this one, for those? I did forks back before but nothing on that scale. rootology (T) 03:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• I guess the best approach would depend on what information can be gleaned from these yet-untapped sources. If they primarily focus on the albums, then the album articles will be expanded and the "recording history" section of the main article may need to be fine-tuned to more fairly summarize the content of the album articles. If they primarily focus on the band itself, the information would be added elsewhere in the main article and the album-specific information could be trimmed (to avoid exactly duplicating the album articles). Have to play it by ear I think. — CharlotteWebb 14:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Image issue; those album covers are unnecessary fair use. There's no real justification to keep them in this article. No harm in creating a few album stubs to house them. :) giggy _(:O) 05:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Already done yesterday, I just didn't have a chance to remove the FU images from the main article till just now (I updated all the FURs yesterday, about an hour (?) before you posted. :) See... [19][20][21] rootology (T) 13:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Semantics issue: Apparently "progressive bluegrass" and "newgrass" refer to the same genre (one is a redirect to the other) so it would be best avoid implying a distinction between the two, unless of course there is one, in which case we should have a separate article. I'm sure you know more than me about this. — CharlotteWebb 14:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• It's messy, since the descriptions are interchangeably used in different sources for the Greencards, probably leaning a fair bit more over towards progressive. Someone redirected newgrass there since nothing else really fits it until someone (probably me :P) writes Newgrass as a separate article. It's honestly pretty accurate to describe the Greencards as they are based on the sourcing and interchanging language depending on who's speaking about them, since sources label them both ways, and to WP:OR it they do bounce back and forth from song to song I'd say. rootology (T) 05:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Recommended reading; Not a personal jab, but sincere advice (at least on my part, can't speak for...) — CharlotteWebb 14:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• It's on my reading list. :) rootology (T) 05:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - image sourcing and copyright all looks good. Nice work. Kelly ^hi! 05:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks! rootology (T) 05:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New York State Route 28

previous FAC (23:15, 30 April 2008)

I am nominating this article on behalf of WP:NYSR, who did a great job on this. After some copyediting and several tweaks, I feel this article meets all the criteria. Comments are welcome. Thanks, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments - I remain a bit concerned about this source: http://www.gribblenation.net/nyroutes/images/photos/routes/087i/087i-09975n.jpg, but given the not exactly earthshaking nature of the sourced information, it's not a big priority. Otherwise, sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Since it's just an image, I don't know how unreliable it can be. I'll try to find another source. Good to hear the rest of the links are good. :) Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much that that picture itself wouldn't be considered a reliable source, but the bald link to a picture without any text surrounding it, it's hard to be sure that this is a picture of the exit in question. Did that explain it a bit better? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I understand. That little tab on the top-right of the sign shows the exit number, but I don't know if that makes a difference. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but It's still not clear that the picture is of that particular interstate, although nothing says it's incorrect either. Like I said, it's not a big big deal, but something that might be bettered. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Even though the information isn't amazingly informative, I think we should take it down until we have a better source. Not much is lost but respectability is gained! :) Awadewit (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Alrigt, source removed. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Leaning towards support The article has a very detailed description of the route that is relatively easy to follow. Since I don't usually review road articles, I have a few questions:

• I think there should be a caption under the map indicating that NY 28 is the red line. Currently, you have to click on the map to see the legend.

• Esopus Creek turns south here; however, it continues northwest along Birch Creek to the former village (now hamlet) of Pine Hill. - This is confusing. The creek turns both south and northwest?

• These images are not very inspiring, I must say. Is there any way to obtain images of significant places along the route, such as where it first leaves a waterway, Cooperstown, the only part not maintained by NYSDOT, a view of the Adirondack Mountains, or perhaps the terminus?

• Have there been any major construction projects or improvements to this road during its history other than what is listed in the "Realignments"? It would seem that such information would be important for the article.

Thanks for taking the time to painstakingly detail these local roads! Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the comments. Unfortunately, there's not much I can do about the map. I fixed that senetence about the creek. While the images aren't very good, they're image, and I don't think I'll be able to get better ones for several months. About the history, state rioads generally don't have a lot of information about constructions projects, so alignmtents and realignments are propbably the best we can do. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why you can't add a caption to the map. What is restricting that function?
• It would be nice to obtain better images in the future, but I understand that is hard to do.
• I wonder if state budgets and government hearings would have information on construction projects? That seems like the kind of source you would have to go to for that. Awadewit (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't have the computer programing (nor the knowledge of where to get it) to create, update or adjust maps. WP:USRD/MTF is where maps a made, so I'll reguest a new one right away. When I get a chance, I'll look into trying to find more info on history. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• You should not have to adjust the map itself, only the caption, which can be changed in the infobox. Awadewit (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, I see. Alright, I tried to add a caption to the map. Let me know if it's any better. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Julian left a note on my talk page indicating that the sources are too thin to add more on the history, so I am now supporting. Thanks for checking! `Awadewit (talk)

Support Has some minor wording issues in my opinion, but nothing besides that is restrictive in terms of FAC. TheNobleSith (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the first and third comment. If I reworded that sentence, it would change the meaning, as the turnpike went east of the river as well. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments on images

• The source on Image:NY 28 at US 209 interchange in Catskills.jpg is a dead link...I see there is a link to here as a claim for the GPL license[22] but there's no way to confirm the GPL applies to this image without a better source. Also, the terms on the mryamamoto.com site specifically don't allow derivative works ("Permission is granted to freely use any of my content, as long as it is not modified...") which unfortunately isn't "free" so far as Wikipedia is concerned. The same applies to Image:NY 28 at NY 5S west.jpg.
• Image:Kingston, New York 1955 Yellow Book.jpg should be converted to SVG format per WP:IUP#Format.

Kelly ^hi! 04:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That last image is a scanned image, and per WP:IUP#Format should be a JPEG, if I'm understanding correctly. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually since it's a map/drawing (especially in black/white) it should be a vector image - "Drawings, icons, political maps, flags and other such images are preferably uploaded in SVG format as vector images.". Kelly ^hi! 04:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I should have linked to WP:PIFU, which contains a lot more detail on image formats. Kelly ^hi! 12:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Images aren't my strong point, so I'll try to figure this out. To my knowledge, those first two images were not modified, but are exactly the same as they are on the website. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand, this can be a confusing issue. Basically to be considered free content, images have to meet the Four Freedoms, the last one of which is the freedom to make derivative works. Licenses which don't allow derivative works fall under this criteria for deletion. Kelly ^hi! 13:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Thanks for explaining that to me. The pictures in question have been removed, so it should be good now. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New York State Route 32

I'm nominating this article for featured article because after working for some time, I feel that its a strong enough article to take a beating at FAC. Any & all comments are welcome, thanks! ^Mitch32^contribs 12:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to consider myself a conominator, as I wrote most of the original route description and took most of the photos currently in use. Daniel Case (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• These two sites dead link:
  • http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/topo/250k/txu-pclmaps-topo-us-glens-falls-1948.jpg
  • http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/topo/250k/txu-pclmaps-topo-us-glens-falls-1956.jpg

Otherwise, sources look good. Links all checked with the link checker tool. Full disclosure, I checked the sourcing on the Peer Review, but I double checked them again for the FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, they could not be fixed, so I removed the link. Its a map, so it is a RS.^Mitch32^contribs 13:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't worry they weren't RS's, just that they were dead. Works! All done! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments generally looks good, just some minor stuff to work on.

• "its starting terminus is at NY 17 near Harriman, and its ending terminus is at NY 196" - more active tone... "it starts at... and ends at..." would sound better IMO.
• "At Broadway, Newburgh's main street, also NY 17K, Route 32 turns east." - I found this sentence difficult to read, it's pretty choppy.
• You refer to it as Route 32, NY 32, and "32"... be consistent.
  • That applies to other roads (eg. "While 32 officially remains concurrent with 299")
    • What about Route 32 vs. NY 32? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm following project standards, which say to use NY 32 outside 32 and Route 32 (Route 32 redundantly would look horrible).^Mitch32^contribs 10:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
        • As the person responsible for the route description, I've long insisted on being less monotonous and mixing that sort of thing up (also with "the road" and "the highway"). I don't see how switching back and forth between "NY 32" and "Route 32" causes confusion — the article is about NY Route 32, after all. I also think (and I'm in the minority here, I know) that occasionally using just "32" on third running reference, like most people do in casual conversation when giving directions, is OK and easier on the reader. It is very easy to write a boring description of a highway's route, particularly when you're not trying not to. Mixing up your main noun as long as it remains clear is one way to avoid it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• "Soon after which, it passes Kingston-Ulster Airport" - remove the "which", or merge that with the previous sentence... that phrase doesn't work in a new sentence...
• "One hundred and seventy-four years after its creation" - why not just use 174?

And that's all I found; it mostly looks good to me (but then, reviewing isn't my strong suit...). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 04:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Done - If there's anything else, just tell me.^Mitch32^contribs 10:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(delayed) Support. giggy _(:O) 07:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments regarding images:
  • Image:787 at Route 32 in Albany, NY.jpg, Image:Routes 9 and 32 in Glens Falls.jpg and Image:Old alignment of NY 32.jpg have discrepancies in that they assert photos by Steve Alpert are public domain (a claim I didn't see on the website, by the way), but the license used is CC-by-sa 3.0. Where is support for the PD claim? Where is support for the CC claim? Which one, if any, is the actual license?
    • Here is the link for the attribution: [23]. I believe I read it correctly.^Mitch32^contribs 22:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't see the words "public domain" or "creative commons" on that page? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 22:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, do you know the correct license? Images are not my cup of tea. This can easily be solved with a fixed license.^Mitch32^contribs 22:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • See MOS:FLAG#Help_the_reader_rather_than_decorate: Why are all of the shields in the infobox and "Major intersections" section necessary? Why, for example, do we need the redundancy of a 17 shield next to text of "NY 17"? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    • As part of this, it follows US Roads standards. If you want to comment, bring it at WT:USRD.^Mitch32^contribs 22:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
      • This article is at FAC. I've brought the issue up here. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 22:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Only reason is that its done in every road article.^Mitch32^contribs 22:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Which is true, it is. But no one mentioned this when New York State Route 174, nor Interstate 355 got promoted. It hasn't been an issue with British highways like A500 road, a GA, or M62 motorway (also featured). My take: We do this because a) the road shields are all PD and b) it's helpful when you're parsing text. The different shape of the NY state highway shield and the US highway shield register faster to some readers' brains than the corresponding text does. Is FAC really the right place to bring up what one project has adopted as a policy for itself as long as it doesn't contradict WP policy as a whole?

          Honestly, I don't find them redundant. If we just had shields, non-US readers would be confused as to the different shapes; if we just had text, nobody would read the junction list. My take. Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

          • And you can't link the image to the article. Not yet, anyway. Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Update: I have added two very recent images to the article, one of replaces one of the two images in any event. Daniel Case (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "Catskill Point, in 1820, built a short causeway to an island named Bomptjes Hoeck.[9]" — Perhaps "In 1820, Catskill Point built a short causeway to an island named Bomptjes Hoeck.[9]"

Gary King (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Done - All done, man. Thanks!^Mitch32^contribs 10:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Is that little images in the infobox helpful? It is redundant. --Efe (talk) 10:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And in the columns Roads intersected and Notes under Major intersections? --Efe (talk) 10:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

They're put there for a reason. The reason is to give a better idea of what the road intersects. This is done in every single road article on Wiki, and if this gets changed, the whole project will be in havoc figuring out what to do. Also, I completely concur with Daniel Case. Why didn't these come up at my prior FAC's and USRD's 8 prior ones? ^Mitch32^contribs 10:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

For example is this: I-87/Thruway. The words already explained what is intended. No use at all. --Efe (talk) 10:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That one, where it says to I-87/Thruway has actually been removed because it does not prove a real specific point.^Mitch32^contribs 10:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Really, I still don't see any importance of those little images. Like writing prose, those correspond flowery words. --Efe (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need to worry about flowery prose or anything like that in the infobox. This has project wide consensus and I concur with Mitch and Daniel's reasoning above. I don't find them redundant; rather, quite useful. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Having the shields assists readers who would recognize the shield more than the text. In any event, this isn't the place to argue about it, as it's irrelevant to the quality of the article. As I've said before, FAC is a discussion to determine if an article meets the FA criterion, not about personal preference. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

My take is that this is a non-issue. Nothing about the shield usage impacts upon FA criteria. It's a settled practice in the US, UK and Canadian roads articles. In showing the NY 32 article to a coworker and asking her opinion about the issue, her thought was that it gives information visually. To paraphrase her, "that way you know if it's a US Highway or an Interstate or whatever." Several recent FACs have promoted USRD articles recently without mention of the shields in the infobox (I-355, Chickasaw Turnpike, NY 174, I-70, I-15, M-35, NY 175) so for what it's worth, past precedent and project consensus sides with retaining them. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, no worries. Maybe its just me who see it very unnecessary. --Efe (talk) 01:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - What a joy it is to read a well-written article on a road that I frequent. (Perhaps keep that in mind when counting my support) I also never thought that this much could be written about what amounts to a local road, and not a major interstate highway. Just a few minor suggestions.

• Harriman to Newburgh: I am quite familiar with the five-lane intersection in Vails Gate, known as the Five Corners. It is complicated, but if I had to choose a word to describe it I would say congested. Here's a link for you.[24] The Five Corners name may be worth a mention, but that's your call.

I have had the experience of driving through this intersection on the way to work in the morning too. I guess we can call it congested, although most of the article would be better material for the main Vails Gate article. Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• New Paltz to Kingston: "1930 New York Times article detailing the 1930 renumbering" Two 1930s here. Try to adjust one of them.
• "From Rosendale, NY 32 climbs up out of the Rondout valley" I'm not certain about this, but I believe valley should be capitalized.

I guess we could do that ... I got about 28,500 Ghits starting with the school district, so it does have some currency. Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Designation: A block of references [3][16] is not after punctuation.
• Suffixed routes: Refs here aren't after punctuation, although this may be intentional. Giants2008 (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Very good article, compliments to the writers :) Mojska ^{all you want} 19:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Catholic Church

previous FAC (00:01, 18 March 2008)

Nominator NancyHeise (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nom restarted, old nom SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Well-written --Andrea 93 12:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note, User:Andrea 93 self-identifies on userpage as only an intermediate speaker of English. Karanacs (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Andrea may be an intermediate speaker of English and an expert on the article subject. I do not think that we should be placing notes like this under people's votes. NancyHeise (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Good! Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 18:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support as per previous nom. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Awesome article, beautifully written, meets all the criteria of an excellent article and everything we want in a featured article. Let's make this happen. Magnetawan (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Gary King (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. NancyHeise (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support To reiterate: In my estimation, this article is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, and neutral. While I am not a fan of 'officially known as' in the lead, I have few stylistic concerns; the article is appropriately structured, and I like the distribution of the Nicene creed throughout -- that is a good solution to what had been an ongoing discussion. The length seems appropriate. An intelligent reader coming with no knowledge of the RCC would gain a good brodd overview from reading this entry, and would be guided to appropriate places for more research. Of course there is much that is left out, but this seems to be a feature of summary style, and not something that should stand in the way of FA status. The.helping.people.tick (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support - excellent prose; just one thing: "Because of this diversity, some variations exist in the liturgical practices of administering the sacraments within the different rites yet all hold the same beliefs". Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 21:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I eliminated "some" - good comment. NancyHeise (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support - well-written. Good explanation of a complex topic. One of the best documented articles I have seen in Wikipedia! Student7 (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support This article has gone through a lot, and come out of it every time better and stronger. It is now the best it has ever been, and I think that it is even more deserving of my support vote than in past noms. From my point of view, it meets all of the criteria, which is amazing since it covers such a large subject. Props to Nancy and all of the other devoted editors who have brought this so far. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 00:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment/question for Sandy' (It would be better if Sandy handles this): hey sandy can we move the bottom section of the prior version to here? Just everything after the part where you asked people to summarize their opposes, and then some folks replied. Just a thought. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• A restart was necessary because the FAC was 330KB and opposes were becoming obscured and were being argued rather than being addressed. I'm hoping this will provide a new chance for nominators to address Opposes if they are restated. Opposers can copy forward their own relevant comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Or, much more likely, will give up and go away. If RAul cares, he can read my myriad comments in the archives. If I see that they're addressed, will state that. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support per my previous comments. There's room for improvement, particularly concerning the article's sources. However, it currently meets FA criteria. Majoreditor (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support on a fresh read-through today. I did not find any prose problems worth complaining about. I'm still not of the opinion that the prose is "brilliant" but it is certainly professional and representative of the best work we will achieve on this subject. --Laser brain (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comments. Just to be positive about good referencing, I'd like a cite at the end of the following paragraphs; first and last paragraphs in "Beliefs", last paragraph in "Ordained members and Holy Orders", last paragraph in "Lay members, Marriage" (but before "Members of religious orders"), and end of "Roman Empire". Also, in regards to the last paragraph of "Ordained members and Holy Orders", it says "Throughout history women have held prominent roles within the Church as abbesses, missionaries, and Doctors of the Church." The sentence feels a bit out of place, as much of the entire section is about men, and the last paragraph deals briefly about women in the church. I didn't read the whole article, so I'm wondering if that statement needs expanding, or if there is a place elsewhere that deals with women in the church. I'm not sure if the layout has been discussed, but is there a reason the history section is not first? I notice that many articles have the history section first. All in all, looks good. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, I am working on it today but I have to go out for a while at present. I responded to your comment about organization below Squash Racket's comment that follows here. NancyHeise (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

OK Hurricane, I have addressed your comments regarding references and had to make some changes in text to match some refs. Women in the church, yes, I included text in the Holy Orders to finish the para explaining that only men can be ordained and I have a para in History section under Vatican II and beyond explaining the existence of controversy over the subject and the Church's response. NancyHeise (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Probably a bit late with that, but I think it would help future stability of the article if we would make a comparison with the respective article in Britannica regarding structure and references. Squash Racket (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Hurricanehink and Squash Racket, a FAC reviewer responded to this same comment on the previous nomination page and I agree with it. [25] Also, this article was organized following the example of the FA Islam. "Ample precedent" exists on Wikipedia to support current organization. Thanks for your comments. NancyHeise (talk) 11:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I pointed to the structure of the Britannica article because it repeatedly proved to be insufficient to cite another Wikipedia FA in reaching concensus. I also mentioned the references of Britannica because I don't think anybody will question the reliability and neutrality of a reference if Britannica accepts it. Squash Racket (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You might note, to give a full account of that exchange, that that was in response to my comment, and that I further commented here, as follows:

Interesting. I'm not surprised. This is, of course, how Wikipedia is different from other encyclopedias, in that its contributors are self-selecting, and so its content is generally written by fans and/or adherents. (Sometimes by detractors, but that's no better.) NB this does not necessarily mean that fans or adherents (or even detractors) cannot write good articles; but they face certain rather particular obstacles. Again, I'm not necessarily suggesting that history should be put before doctrine; but it is symptomatic that in fact the order is the other way around, in this article as in other similar ones on Wikipedia.

So this is certainly still an open issue, as far as I'm concerned, though personally I'm not sure I would insist on the revision at this point, as it would obviously require major reorganization. On the other hand, there is a degree of oddity, as the "Origins" section is separated from "History." If putting doctrine before history (like other WP articles, but unlike Britannica) is symptomatic, that stranded bit of history is symptom of the symptom. Something needs to be done about it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Jbmurray's comment here suggesting the possibility of moving Origins section: This was brought up by Karanacs in the last peer review and I responded here [26] by placing a note on the main article talk page to find out if there was consensus for such a change. The resulting responses supported elimination of the full quote of the Creed but there was no consensus for reorganizing Origins. I would be in violation of Wikipedia policy if I were to make such a change after having sought consensus and not getting it. NancyHeise (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have not suggested moving the Origins section. Please stop misrepresenting my comments. I have merely pointed to a problem. There are no doubt various possible solutions. Moving the entire section might be one; it's not necessarily the one that I would recommend, which is why I did not make that suggestion. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. It seems to me that, if this protracted FAC process leads to the nomination passing, it will be in significant part due to the article editors' policy of wearing down critical reviewers and choosing to disdain their comments and upbraid their efforts in what is a shocking failure of good faith. See not only previous FACs, but also the series of comments first on my talk page, then on NancyHeise's, and also Karanacs's, and now again here. I do have other comments on this article, but am hardly encouraged to present them here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree with this reviewers assessment of his comments. I felt he was provocative in his comments and went off topic as well as asking us to eliminate a top source that is representative of a significant point of view. I do not feel that this oppose is actionable and am not completely convinced that it is made in good faith. NancyHeise (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't have to convince you of my good faith; you should be assuming it. Meanwhile, you continue to misrepresent my comments. Please stop. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Jb, a lot of people think you misunderstood the use being made of Norman in the passage you objected to. He was being used to demonstrate ONE strand of opinion, not to present a consensus. Further remarks you made about Professor Norman were irrelevant and I believe unfounded. The main thrust of your other objections was vague and non-specific, and despite requests for clarifications and usable suggestions for improvement to deal with your concerns, we got only one solid suggestion for change, which was acted upon. Xandar (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There's an (over-)long discussion of that particular comment on my talk page. (This article's defenders seem to like bringing up issues on reviewers' talk pages.) I do there offer a solid suggestion, which was flatly rejected with the words "I see no problem with the article text as it stands." There is another series of comments on structure, and particularly on this article's weakest section, in my view, further down the talk page. --16:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and my further comments on Norman are absolutely relevant when this member of the Peterhouse group is used as a source on liberation theology! Extraordinary stuff. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You had apparently never heard of Norman until he came up here. As a historian whose early specialisation was the religious history of Ireland in the 19th century, also heavily intermixed with politics, and later the author of "Christianity in the Southern Hemisphere (1981)", he is very well placed to comment on Liberation theology, though he clearly has a more sceptical view of it than some enthusiastic writers. Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I hadn't heard of Norman. However, I'm learning a little about him. And I note that in this paragraph he's the source for the following statement: "the Church considers [liberation theology] 'a return to the pre-modern notion of establishing a Christian society through the coercive machinery of political management.'" That goes beyond being "more sceptical"; it is extremely tendentious, and yet it is being presented as fact. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, those interested may note that rather than use this clearly tendentious quotation, I preferred to quote what the Latin American bishops thought they were about. This is just in case anyone still thinks that I'm against quoting Catholics, for goodness sake. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ach, and it's been added back in, with the rather surprising summary that this was "adding the Church's point of view. Thus tendentiousness is added to tendentiousness, and NPOV flies out of the window. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, the section on the Latin American church was very poor. (NB also the article is riddled with typos and grammatical errors.) No doubt the poverty of its courage is owing in part to its continued reliance on our friend Norman. I've added more information, better sources--simply what I have to hand, however--a "citation needed" tag for a rather dubious assertion, as well as removing Norman's tendentious editorializing. More work still required, however. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Nominator comment FAC reviewer Jbmurray, the only oppose vote on this page, has rewritten the paragraph on Liberation Theology, eliminating our referenced and consensus(ed) work that is being voted upon right now - he has replaced it with a version that none of us has discussed or peer reviewed or agreed upon. I think that this change at this point in the FAC process is unhelpful to the FAC process and I ask for guidance on how to deal with this at this point. Should I withdraw the nomination? NancyHeise (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• The previous version of the paragraph was inaccurate, NPOV, poorly sourced, and flawed by typos. I encourage reviewers to judge for themselves if they think the relevant section has been improved or not. Frankly, the entire article requires such revision. I only have the sources to hand to work on this paragraph. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• (ec) I don't know of any article that has made it through FAC without any changes. It is not uncommon for reviewers to fix issues themselves, especially early in the nomination process (and, since this nom was restarted, this is early in the process). The alternative is for the reviewer to leave a comment on this page and ask the nominator to fix the issue (either way, ideally, the issue is fixed). If there are particular issues with the changes he has made, you might take those up on the article talk page. Karanacs (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed with Karanacs here. Good faith discussion is the best way to proceed here - everyone involved is clearly here to improve the article and ensure the FA process proceeds correctly and reaches the right outcome - i.e. the promotion of the article in its best possible state. Sometimes consensus can unfortunately lead to inferior decisions being made, not through any fault of the contributors, but just because of whoever (or whichever viewpoints) were represented at the time it was formed. Especially on controversial topics, consensus is useful in establishing scope but not always on content - I know of articles which jump from glorifying to bashing the subject quite randomly in an attempt to satisfy NPOV which everybody is equally unhappy with. Sometimes it's necessary to go back to core principles (NPOV/UNDUE, V, RS, OR/SYN, etc) to get it right - especially important when we want to say an article is one of the best Wikipedia has to offer. Orderinchaos 17:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• I am restoring the paragraph to its consensus'd version that has been peer reviewed and gone through two FACs. If FAC reviewer Jb murray would like to place comments on this page under his Oppose vote, I would be happy to address them. NancyHeise (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think that's a bad idea. Jbmurray is making good faith edits that appear to be improving the prose and sourcing. You don't have the right to revert his changes based only on the fact that you want the article to be the same as when the nomination started. --Laser brain (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Unless there is something wrong with jbmurray's edits, then you should not revert his content. His comments are fully referenced, and he has as much right as any editor to fix issues he sees in the page. Saying that you will not accept his edits but will make any changes yourself is a little close to violating WP:OWN. Again, I recommend that if you see any issues with his edits, bring them up on the RCC talk page and decide from there what to keep and what (if any) to remove. Karanacs (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think he was wrong to eliminate our fully referenced material that had consensus to be brought to FAC. His edits were not mere copyediting but a whole rewrite that is inappropriate at this stage of voting. NancyHeise (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree. It is not uncommon for entire parts of an article to be rewritten or reworded while its at FAC. And we should always assume good faith. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Diff added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ha. OK. Well, more reasons to oppose. (I had figured I might as well do something to improve the article while I was at it. I take it you'll also want to remove three reliable sources I added to the bibliography?) Anyhow, as I say, the paragraph in the state that NancyHeise seems to want it is grossly inaccurate, NPOV, poorly sourced, and flawed by typos. Rather than go through all the errors, it's probably easiest just to compare the two versions:

A. In the 1960's, a growing sympathy for working-class movements in Latin American cities gave birth to liberation theology. Chiefly promoted by Gustavo Gutiérrez, this new movement used a radical interpretation of the Gospel to redefine the mission of the Church. It's purpose was meant to achieve revolutionary political change to improve the lot of the poor.[308] Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI susequently denounced the movement as "dangerous" and the Church considers it "a return to the pre-modern notion of establishing a Christian society through the coercive machinery of political management".[308] The movement is still alive in Latin America today although somewhat diminished in popularity.[309]

B. In the 1960s, growing social awareness and politicization in the Latin American Church gave birth to liberation theology, and Peruvian priest, Gustavo Gutiérrez, became one of the movement's better-known scholars. Following a meeting of Latin American bishops in Medellín, Colombia, in 1968, to adopt the principles of Vatican II, the new movement was increasingly influential in re-interpreting the Gospel in radical ways that redefined the Church's mission. In 1979 the bishops' conference, in Puebla, Mexico, officially declared the Latin American Church's "preferential option for the poor".[308] The following year, the Salvadoran Archbishop Óscar Romero became the most famous contemporary martyr to state violence, when he was murdered while saying mass in San Salvador.[309] Despite opposition from Pope John Paul II and the Vatican, and the silencing of theologians such as the Brazilian Leonardo Boff in 1985,[310] the movement is still alive in Latin America today. although the Church now faces the challenge of Pentecostal revival in many parts of the continent.[311]

I was still working on this when NancyHeise reverted. NB my suspicion is that similar flaws litter the rest of the article. I could only really do anything with the one paragraph where I had reliable sources here to hand. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think the new edits are fatal, but they should really have been discussed. I have gone through them to trim, and correct some grammar and copyedit errors. But I will be rechecking the facts a bit later, and may amend, if necessary.Xandar (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Of course the new edits aren't "fatal." They're a marked improvement. But I appreciated Xandar's copy-editing, though I was also still working on it at the time. The only real issue I had with his or her changes, I raised on the talk page. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to respectfully ask FAC reviewer Jbmurray to not rewrite whole sections of the article as he did with the Liberation Theology section just now. I am trying to answer other reviewers comments who have followed a peaceful procedure of posting any comments in bullet point format on this FAC page so I can address them as nominator. If Jbmurray has a problem with the Liberation Theology paragraph, it might help if he could point out these problems in bullet point - as other FAC reviewers are doing and have done throughout the FAC processes in the past. I am one nominator dealing with many FAC reviewers and I politely ask for your kind consideration in this matter. I would also like to not be accused of WP:OWN as Karanacs has just done. Thank you. NancyHeise (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Here you have it in bullet points:

• inaccurate
• NPOV
• poorly sourced
• flawed by typos

I really had no desire to make a fuss about this paragraph on the FAC. I thought my improvements were entirely obvious and uncontroversial. But if you want to make a fuss, go ahead. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• This is why reviewers often help address their own concerns, so that the burden of making changes does not fall solely on the nominator. jbmurray has the right to make edits to the article, period. (and I did not say that you violated WP:OWN, just that your comments were close to the line) Karanacs (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• My position has been vastly overruled. The page has been restored to JBmurray's version. OK, but I ask that the ref's that he has just installed be put in proper format, they are inconsistent with the rest of the article and have statements in front of them. NancyHeise (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Jbmurray is using the footnotes in a slightly different way (as a bit of a see also as well as a citation), and I believe it is acceptable to have this mixed in with the other references. Karanacs (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, thanks Karanacs. I think I now understand what NH sees as the problem. Obviously, I didn't want to put undue weight on this paragraph, and tried to be concise as possible. One way to be concise as well as informative, and to increase the number of reliable sources to which the reader can refer, is to use the footnotes more discursively. If NH wants to strip the notes of the two (very) reliable sources I added, she's welcome to do so. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) *Egads. The paragraph has been restored to a version that I wrote with Xander's help in copy-editing, following pretty closely the structure that already existed. meanwhile, I'm not sure what's meant by the fact that the references "have statements in front of them." Is that what we call quotations? Seriously I'm puzzled. Anyhow, you're welcome to go in, of course, and fix any problems you see. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, I appreciate your edits and the other reviewers help in resolving the matter. I am OK with the refs format if all the FAC reviewers are OK and it seems they are. I added the church's point of view that had been deleted which I think is necessary to make the article NPOV. NancyHeise (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• The church's point of view was already represented in that paragraph. I've left a note on the article talk page for clarification on exactly who is being quoted in the restored text; let's have the rest of the discussion on this paragraph there, please, so this FAC doesn't follow the last one in readability terms. Karanacs (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) As far as I can see, you added Edward Norman's point of view, which I find remarkably tendentious, and not NPOV at all. That paragraph already, in fact, has the Church's point of view, in so far as it has the famous phrase that came out of the Puebla conference of Latin American bishops. Of course, this is complex. If you want to add the Vatican's point of view (which seems fair enough), can I suggest you seek out a direct quotation? Many thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Liberation theology was always controversial within the Church, and the words from Norman, which may well be a quote or paraphrase from a Vatican statement, seem an unexceptional statement of the hostile view, however much you may dislike it. Here, as elsewhere, you seem to have made up your mind as to what Catholics ought to think or believe and react with rhetorical violence to any statement contradicting these views. In this connection, it might be worth mentioning the ban on clergy holding political office, introduced as a response to the Liberation theology movement, and the Berrigans etc. Johnbod (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm fully aware that Liberation theology is and was controversial within the Church. This indeed is the point I am making when saying that Norman's quotation does not represent the Church. It represents, as you say, at the very least "the hostile view." I have no opinions on what Catholics ought to believe or think. I have not the foggiest idea where you are getting that from. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Jbmurray, I dont hope to win your support for the article since you have claimed that it is in need of a rewrite but both of us have made changes to the liberation theology paragraph and I think we may be in agreement now. All comments are fully referenced and include your changes as well as mine. I believe all points of view are covered here. NancyHeise (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I made a couple of tweaks for accuracy, in line with some discussion on the talk page, but I can live with that paragraph now (even with Norman!) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

What I did was a brief copy-edit to smooth the prose a little. I didn't say I approved of what was in the new addition. I said that I was going to check references and see whether what was added was balanced and relevant. We can't just chuck out relevant referenced material, but we have to see whether it is appropriately balanced and weighted. As a general rule though, please don't add major new strands of material to the article at this time without some consultation on the Talk Page. Xandar (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I've noted one more Latin America-related concern on the talk page. There are another couple of sentences that are really wrong, and I note that it's our friend Norman who's the source again. I don't know whether this is a misinterpretation of Norman, or whether the error (or perhaps, very bizarre bias in seeming to claim that there were Marxist regimes in Latin America from 1860 on) is Norman's own. Anyhow, this is something else that really has to be fixed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Dealt with on the talk page. Johnbod (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually no; please don't misrepresent me, Johnbod. As per the long discussion here, I find it hard to believe that Johnbod has much interest in improving this article, or indeed reading it with much attention. And given the hoo-ha that arose when I tried to fix another paragraph, I hardly feel encouraged to go out of the way to help myself any more, I'm afraid. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This talk page comment has been resolved by adding a word to the text, please see talk page. NancyHeise (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been dealt with, and was not "really wrong" in the first place. It is clear from jbmurray's comments on the talk page that he was wholly unaware of the secularising legislation of 1859 on under La Reforma, so fortunately this is not an area where vastly complicated historical developments need to be summarized in a phrase able to keep everyone happy. Johnbod (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Comment/Question Do Opposes and Supports from the immediately prior archived version still stand? If not, is someone gonna notify all those !voters of the restart? Ling.Nut (talk) 09:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No, in a restart comments from the archived version are not considered (we're really starting over). Generally, the nominator notifies all previous reviewers, but anyone can do that, as long as they notify both supporters and opposers and use a neutral message. Karanacs (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Is WP:AWB spam socially acceptable? Ling.Nut (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• In which case, Support as before. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Support I've followed all the previous FACs on this as well as the extensive talk discussions and the multiple other by-ways this has nom lead to. But I never had the courage to speak up. I have to say I find the article impressive on a number of criteria, not least that it gives a balanced overview for non experts. I consider it engaging, informative, and unbiased, and overall a fine resource. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support - per previous nomination. Extensive research and discussion has clearly paid off here, as evident in the excellent prose. Good job. Rudget (Help?) 17:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• I am totally unsure what the procedure here is. I have written pages and pages in the previous nom expressing my concerns about the quality of sourcing, the selection of data from those sources, provided specific examples of those problems, and so on. Those remain unaddressed. Am I supposed to repeat it all, and possibly engage in the same discussion over again? --Relata refero (disp.) 18:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• A restart functions the same as an entirely new FAC nomination. Any objections that you still hold and would like to see addressed should be restated here. The hope is that this doesn't come down to the same arguments as before, or at least that we can more succinctly discuss the issues as they relate to WP:WIAFA. Karanacs (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well. If the same issues are raised, and met with the same obduracy that occurred in the previous two noms, to expect that it won't come down to the same arguments is perhaps unrealistic. Or perhaps not, as it will lead to reviewer exhaustion. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments.
  • In the opening paragraph of the lead, both "Western" and "Latin Rite" link to the article Latin Rite. That seems unnecessary. —This is part of a comment by Angr (of 21:13, 2 June 2008 ), which was interrupted by the following:

    Yes, I agree, I eliminated the Western one since the actual link is to "Latin Rite". NancyHeise (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • The link http://www.jknirp.com/miss2.htm gets a "404 - Not Found" message.

    I repaired it. NancyHeise (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Why not link to One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (or to Four Marks of the Church, where it redirects to) when that phrase is mentioned in the lead and the main body of the text?

    Linked. NancyHeise (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

  • What translation is being used for the Bible quotes?

    I have not chosen the Bible quotes, they are linked to a page where reader may make the choice of Bible from which to read the quote and are in the same format without access dates as on the FA Islam which we have used as a guide. If I add access dates as a previous FAC reviewer on this page asks of me, I am afraid that I will then have to choose which Bible which will lead to POV wars - are you in favor of the current method or would you rather see me make a choice of Bible and use the cite web citation format so I can put access dates? Please elaborate on what you would rather see. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

    OK, now I see that Gimmetrow has answered my question regarding this, we do not put in cite web format, we leave them as they are so the reader will be able to choose the Bible. NancyHeise (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

    I'm not talking about the refs, though, I'm talking about the quotes actually used in the article itself. Of the many translations available on the page the refs link to, which one is actually used in the article? —Angr 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

    I would guess it's the New American Bible.[28] Gimmetrow 06:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Words like "baptism" and "penance" shouldn't be capitalized. I fixed a few, but there are more.
  • Perhaps a link to Saint Dismas on the words "good thief" at the end of the section "Final judgment and afterlife"?

    I added a wikilink but since that is a quote, I can't put the wikilink inside of a quote so I placed it after it. NancyHeise (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

    You can't put wikilinks inside quotes? —Angr 06:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

    That's a particularly silly recommendation in the MoS that I for one regularly ignore. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

    There is a guideline to that effect, but it's not absolute even as a guideline. Gimmetrow 06:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • In the sentence "Although it was superseded by the vernacular as the primary form of the Mass, it was never forbidden after the reforms of the Second Vatican Council;" it isn't immediately clear that "it" refers back to the Tridentine Mass, rather than one of the other nouns in the previous sentence.

    Ok, reworded making this clear. NancyHeise (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

  • "Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance and Anointing of the Sick to Protestants if they freely ask for them." What about the other way round? Are there circumstances under which Catholics may receive the Eucharist from a Protestant minister (or at least a validly ordained non-RC priest in Apostolic Succession, like an Anglican, Old Catholic, etc.)?

    This produces a whole can of worms, which we can't really go into in the article. Catholics are not allowed to receive protestant communion, and for this purpose Anglicans count as Protestants since their orders were declared invalid for various reasons. Catholics are allowed to take Orthodox communion, but I don't think the Orthodox officially allow it, except in extremis. Xandar (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

    I understand the article can't go into great detail on the issue, but since it brings up the issue of non-Catholics receiving Catholic Communion, it should really at least briefly summarize the issue of Catholics receiving non-Catholic Communion. —Angr 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

    Isn't that covered by "intercommunion with the Eastern Orthodox ... is possible"? Relevant rule is canon 844 §2, which in case of "necessity" (for example, danger of death) and "it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister", a Catholic may receive "penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid". Gimmetrow 07:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I added text to cover this issue with reference to Catechism para 1400. Good comment Angr, thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• • "Christmas follows, beginning on the night of 24 December, Christmas Eve, and ending with the feast of the baptism of Jesus on 13 January." This contradicts Baptism of the Lord (which should be linked to), which says the feast was fixed on 13 January before Vatican II, but now is on whatever day between 7 January and 13 January inclusive is a Sunday. The sentence is also unsourced, and contradicts what I was always taught (in an Episcopal church, to be sure, but I thought we shared this with Catholics), namely that Christmas ends at Epiphany, but that the Christmas greenery may remain up in the church until the feast of the Presentation on 2 February.

    Christmas for Catholics ends on the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord per my Nihil Obstat source and I refd the entire paragraph for you too. I eliminated the date of January 13 since my source did not give an actual date and I wikilinked Baptism of the Lord. NancyHeise (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

    Epiphany is included under the season of christmas in Catholic Churches, even though the traditional "12 days" of Christmas end on Epiphany. So the season of Christmas ends on the 13th january, after Epiphany week. However the old tradition of keeping christmas decorations up until Candlemas, 2nd of February, persists in part of Europe. Xandar (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Also unsourced is "Lent is the 40–day period of purification and penance that begins on Ash Wednesday and ends on Holy Thursday" which again contradicts what I learned, namely that Lent ends on Holy Saturday (the 40 days are the weekdays and Saturdays from Ash Wednesday to Holy Saturday).

    Referenced. Actually, the entire paragraph comes from the source refd at the end of the paragraph, I wasn't originally sure if I had to put a ref at the end of each sentence or not. NancyHeise (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

    Oh, I didn't see the ref at the end of the paragraph. Sorry about that! Indeed, if the whole paragraph comes from the same source it's not necessary to ref every single sentence. —Angr 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Grouping "Lay members, Marriage" under a single heading seems a little odd. Marriage should be lower case, too.

We arent going to change this grouping because it is consistent with the structure in the rest of the Beleifs section where we discuss the relevant sacrament in the section that precipitates its use. Capitalization issue has been discussed at length and was resolved in favor of capping when used as proper noun. NancyHeise (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• • "Some parts of Europe, Ireland and the United States have experienced..." - Ireland is in Europe.

    Good point, eliminated mention of Ireland. NancyHeise (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

  • "Among those who have been excommunicated or incurred excommunication..." - what's the difference between being excommunicated and incurring excommunication?

    The first sentence of that same paragraph explains that a person may excommunicate themselves or be excommunicated. Incurring excommunication is when you excommunicate yourself. Would you like some more explanation added to the sentence? NancyHeise (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

    Yes, please. It still seems, at least grammatically, that "incurring excommunication" would be a cover term for both cases, i.e. you have incurred excommunication regardless of whether you did it yourself or someone did it to you. —Angr 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying now, yes, you're correct, and I changed wording in the text to reflect your comment here. NancyHeise (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• All for now, maybe more comments later. —Angr 21:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Angr, I am not sure about your question regarding Catholics receiving communion from other churches, I'll have to do a little research to answer that one. Also, I am not sure about capitalization of sacraments. We have had a fair amount of MoS gurus go through the page and I think it was decided that they should be capped. I will do some research on that too or ask DanK to come give us some input there. We are also awaiting a decision from the MoS folks on whether to capitalize "Church" throughout the article when it referred to the RCC as opposed to being used in a generic way. Wikipedia policy was vague on that and the Mos people were hashing it out for us. NancyHeise (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) states "Doctrinal topics or canonical religious ideas that may be traditionally capitalized within a faith are given in lower case in Wikipedia, such as virgin birth, original sin or transubstantiation." This seems fairly open to interpretation as to whether it includes the sacraments. My instinct would be to capitalize Church, Marriage, Eucharist, etc. when used as proper nouns just as you would capitalize Bible or God in the context of Christianity. --Laser brain (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a while since I left school, so my understanding of English grammar may possibly be out of date. Is it not the case that proper nouns are capitalised, whereas improper nouns are not? Does it not therefore seem consistent that "Marriage", when used as a proper noun referring to name of one of the sacraments, ought to be capitalised? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Fatuarum (talk • contribs) 23:33, June 2, 2008

I could agree with capitalization in phrases like "the Sacrament of Marriage" and "the Sacrament of Baptism", but not every time marriage or baptism is mentioned alone. —Angr 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to take this opportunity to remind everyone of WP:CIVIL. These vitriolic, sarcastic comments from both sides are not helping anyone. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 23:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion moved to talk page SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Comment: I must confess that his debate may have passed me by. I had no problems Opposing the earlier versions. In many respects, the current version seems to skirt just barely under the WIAFA requirements, in my opinion. As I said before, I think any problems with the writing could be cleaned up. Major problems have been addressed. You might think, then, that "a little bit acceptable is still acceptable". Perhaps there's no such thing as being a little bit FA-worthy, like there's no such things as being a little bit pregnant. Well, the one fear I have stems from others' concerns that the article presents Catholicism through the worldview of Catholics. Unfortunately, you could take everything I know about the history of the Roman Catholic Church and fit it in a thimble, with room left over for three caraway seeds and the sympathy of a steely-eyed deletionist. I feel unable to Oppose and unable to Support. Will think further. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support, I find the article exceptionally well referenced, informative, and it sets a good example for all other religion articles to follow. The amount of effort that has gone in to pleasing such a diverse range of editors is akin to the task of Sisyphus. Religious topics seem to bring a higher degree of scrutiny, but that also makes for better articles. Also, perfection is impossible on Wikipedia; articles change by the minute. This is an exemplary article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose—1a. And I'm disappointed to see a resistant approach by the nominator towards critical reviewers. Please read the instructions. The "Support" immediately above does not, to me, reflect critical scrutiny, and the fact of continuous and open editing has nothing to do with our task here. Some of those one-word "Supports" don't hold much water, either; nor do the extravagent yet empty one-liners such as—

"Awesome article, beautifully written, meets all the criteria of an excellent article and everything we want in a featured article. Let's make this happen."

More like intra-club support, given the Latin in the user's signature.

I looked at just one section, "Origin and mission", which—right at the top—you'd expect to have been trawled over to the point of shine; but shine it doesn't, so I really wonder whether the drive-bys are based on any more than a quick glance.

• "Scholars such as Edward Norman, agree that the Church was founded by Jesus and believe the historical record reveals that it was considered a Christian doctrinal authority from the beginning." What is the comma doing there? —This is part of a comment by Tony1 (of 05:21, 3 June 2008 ), which was interrupted by the following:

Thank you for pointing out that stray comma, it was left over from answering another FAC reviewers comment to remove a section of the sentence that described Edward Norman' credentials as a respected historian.NancyHeise (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Scholars such as Edward Norman, agree that the Church was founded by Jesus and believe the historical record reveals that it was considered a Christian doctrinal authority from the beginning.[14] Others, like Eamon Duffy, caution that the insufficient number of clear written records surviving from the early years of Christianity make such precision difficult to confirm." Um ... where's this precision that may be hard to confirm?

This is now reworded and specified with help from other editors, thanks guys. NancyHeise (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• "He dismisses a letter from Pope Clement I (c. 95) that other historians cite as evidence of a presiding cleric,...". What's your angle here? That evdence from a presiding cleric is unreliable? Unclear.

Please see the paragraph again. NancyHeise (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Pope Benedict XVI summarized ..." and then "He states". Which tense is it to be?
• "He states that these duties presuppose each other and are inseparable.[9] The Church therefore administers social programs throughout the world." Run that causal logic past me again.
• "corporal"; my dictionary suggests that "corporeal" is more appropriate in this context.

Now, given that these issues occur in just one small part of a very large article, the best thing to do would be to withdraw the nomination and come back when the article has had time to brew: several months, not several weeks, I'd say, for proper NPOV consideration. TONY (talk) 05:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

< Personal commentary unrelated to FAC or WIAFA removed to talk page.> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

These "issues" are merely your opinions. Your opinions are certainly interesting, but they do not carry the weight of law as you seem to believe. My opinion is that it would be better to let this restarted FAC take its course, hopefully with reviewers taking a more positive stance in fixing the odd misplaced comma or two and focusing instead on whether or not this article meets the FA criteria. Not the imaginary FA criteria for articles about controversial topics. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you expand on that, please? The snark is entertaining, but not precisely loaded with clarity. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comma use needs cleaning up, that's for sure. Gimmetrow 06:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Tony. you produced a few points which you have quibbles with, largely minor, however, you also appear, without good reason, to be failing to assume good faith among other editors, and in fact make unwarranted allegations against them. You also insist on making unhelpful blanket accusation of POV, without providing any specifics to discuss or be dealt with. And you repeat the desire that "someone else" (unnamed) rewrite the article, and that preferably it "go away" for a period of months (or years?) The article has been through several complete copyedits at different hands, and has also been up before the league of Copyeditors. However in an article which is large, of interest to many people, edited by many hands, and is being tweaked up to 50 times a day to respond to FAC comments and to revert vandalism, you are always going to come up with points of imperfection. With rspect to your actionable objections, which, to avoid breaking up your post, I have numbered for convenience:

1. Comma. Already dealt with by Gimmetrow.

2. I have (subsequent to Gimmetrow) further clarified this point.

3. Clarified

4. He can do both since one statement is written and therefore continuing. But these sentences have been made consistent.

5. The logic is quite simple. Pope Benedict expresses the centrality of charity. Church social programmes logically follow.

6. A matter of preference. Agree with Gimmetrow. Corporal means bodily. Corporeal is more old-fashioned, slightly less likely to be understood.

(No. 6: OK TONY (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC))

If you have any further specific actionable points, please bring them forward. If they're important enough to prevent FA status, they should be easy to identify. Xandar (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE: No, you're totally misconstruing the function of my examples: they're random examples of why the whole text falls below our requirement of "professional"-standard prose. Characterising them as "quibbles", "largely minor", and "merely [my] opinions" is an old trick here that we just don't buy. (BTW, everything that drops from my lips is my opinion.) You'd be the first to complain if a film contained little editing glitches; professional-standard writing does not have micro-errors for the reader to trip over; here, they occur throughout the article, and I'm not copy-editing it in its entirety for you—it's your nomination, not mine.

In this small window, some of the examples covered logic and clarity, which are by no means "minor". The logic of "He states that these duties presuppose each other and are inseparable.[9] The Church therefore administers social programs throughout the world" is still beyond me, despite your insistence. Duties that presuppose each other? Huh? And such presupposition and inseparability logically lead to the Church's administration of social programs throughout the world? What's the causal connection? Your response read in some implicit connection you came up with, but it needs to be explicit.

And finally, the barrage of personal abuse I've received over my review is unacceptable. I've been labelled as seeming to believe that my opinions carry the weight of law; and over the page, of having a "poor manner of speaking to people", of being "very mean and disrespectful", and there's the reference to "the sniffy attitude of those like you who reject our contributions in total after months of collaboration and consensus building".

Well, this sniffy, mean, disrespectful rewiever is moving to "Strong oppose": this article simply has too many problems. TONY (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not consider this an actionable oppose. Tony has not considered that Xandar has addressed his concerns since this posting. I am fine with Xandars changes to the text to remove any possible appearance of POV that were recently done in response to another reviewers comments. Extensive attention has been paid to the POV comments including additions of new text and rewordings. We have followed Tony's recommendations for writing an FA. We have responded to FAC comments positively as evidenced by the edit history. Tony's comments here are indicative of his offense at my efforts to help him see how his review comments offended all the other supporters of the page. Perhaps I should have politely asked him to reread the rules under WP:Civil instead of calling him disrespecful and sniffy, I apologize, I do request his apology to the many supporters of the page one of whom I know is an editor of a journal and possibly an academic, who has an email address from a prominent US university. He too performed a thorough edit of the article before posting his support - twice. I have qualifications too which I do not choose to post on my user page - its too puffy. I just thought that my obvious brilliance would be apparent without having to post my credentials. I guess I have not impressed the superior Tony. NancyHeise (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per my 200 KB of concerns in the previous noms that are still un-addressed. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• A brief summary of outstanding issues is needed for this to be an actionable oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Written in a non-neutral style, facts not selected per their importance in the field of study; poor sourcing, relies on the fact-selection and details from parochial sources, or theologians writing on history; specific objections to the Reformation section outlined two FACs ago, and to the absurd writing of the Latin American section ("some people") outlined in the last FAC. I am taking this off my watchlist now, per jbmurray's comments elsewhere on this page. A restart was patently un-necessary. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not know how to act upon this oppose, there is no mention of which source is unacceptable or how it fails to meet WP:RS or WP:Reliable source examples. Which sources does he consider parochial? The Bokenkotter book, written by a priest and university professor has been a standard text in University classrooms for decades. The other priest author, Vidmar, does not have any citations that are cited only to himself but serves as a double or triple to other authors whose books are written by non-priests, considered to be critics and/or published by university presses. Are there any factual inaccuracies? Have we omitted a notable event or criticism? Regarding non-neutral style, I have just eliminated mention of the 5000 priests who were killed in Nazi death camps because another reviewer felt this was POV. There is no mention in the article about the laws and discrimination of Catholics in the US for many decades and other similar issues explained in depth by editor Xandar here [29] in response to Karanacs comments. I think we have been very NPOV. While I complied with the request to remove mention of the 5000 priest killed by Nazis (and many more imprisoned), I don't see how reader is helped to know about the RCC when we fail to mention facts like these for (POV reasons) but I am trying to find common ground with reviewers.NancyHeise (talk) 10:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• I will respond to only one of the above arguments; most of them, other than the last couple, I have already discussed elsewhere. Indeed, I have twice made the point that I am about to make again: that the narratives of history are formed by which "facts" are left in and which taken out; that points cited to Vidmar are also backed up by alternative sources does not change the fact that the history section broadly follows Vidmar's outline, and thus we are left with a non-neutral narrative. The action required to correct this is to revise the section and the choice of "facts" as well as the implied weightage of those facts after looking closely at the structure of other articles or historical surveys of the church. Normally I would have done this myself. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please specify which notable facts of history have been omitted from the article otherwise I do not consider this an actionable oppose.NancyHeise (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Its been done at length in the last FAC. No action was taken. Claiming it is not actionable just because I haven't repeated them is a little absurd. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Your objections are not actionable if you cannot specify them and back them up. Your claims at the last FAC that the catholic church somehow instituted slavery were not backed up by any facts despite repeated requests for you to do so. Your claims of a "consensus opinion" on this matter which did not need any facts to back it up were proven erroneous, and you withdrew from the discussion. Ample proof was given from a multitude of sources that Catholic priests and bishops were indeed the main defenders of indigenous rights. You ignored this. In spite of this you were offered a sentence reflecting your point of view in the section - as what it is - a point of view. You refused this, and walked away, wanting your opinion to be the view of the article. That is not acceptable when it is contrary to the validated facts. Xandar (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

They're extensively specified in the archives, and outlined above. The fact that you choose to misrepresent one of them grossly by claiming that I said "the catholic church instituted slavery" is precisely why going through the whole rigmarole again is pointless. The Latin American Church benefited from forced labor, I presented dozens of unimpeachable references stating that it did so, and that it provided local justification and theological support for it at various times, that it was considered extremely problematic. Instead, that large section of the history of the Latin American church is dismissed with a focus on largely theoretical papal bulls and a claim that the near-universal statement that the Church had this record in reliable sources is merely an "opinion", but bulls are "facts", so the second must be prioritised, and the first reduced to a statement that "some scholars disagree with these obvious facts" or the like. This displays not only basic ignorance of historiography, and what constitutes a "fact" in history, but is the sort of attitude that is endemic throughout the history section. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Relata's desire to include something about the Church supporting slavery in the article text. The facts do not support Relata's argument. I researched this subject previously and answered Relata in depth on the previous nom page but I will do it again here. The Catholic Church official position is stated in the article text via wikilinked papal bulls. There were some bad priests here and there who did not obey those pronouncements but their actions were not sanctioned by the Church. Just as we have omitted mention of them, we have NPOV omitted mention of the great number of saints who worked to free and care for the slaves. Slavery is mentioned with appropriate wikilinks to the papal bulls and to the Laws of Burgos affair - the most notable events. Your position, Relata, is that you want to single out the Catholic Church as a particular bad guy on the slavery issue. Maybe you dont know that per my sources, slavery was an institution all over the world in practically every place except Christian Europe. My Edward Norman book goes into the horrors of Muslim slavery when they ruled parts of Spain (page 67). I have a book called "Bird Woman Speaks" about Sacajawea that describes in detail the North American Indian's practice of killing another tribes adults and taking the children as slaves (she was a slave, forced against her will eventually to be the wife (sex slave) of Charboneu). Slavery was also an institution among the Indians of central and Latin America as well as Africa before the Europeans got there. My Justo Gonzalez book describes how the Catholic Church in Brazil operated independently of the rest of the Catholic Church and that some missionaries "used slave labor to generate the income necessary to support their mission , schools, and other activities." This same book later describes how Methodists, Baptists, and mainly Presbyterians moved to Brazil from the US so they could keep their slaves - Gonzalez then states that the southern branches of these Churches were sympathetic to these slave holders and provided them with material and spiritual support. (p 199-200). Earlier in the book, (p152) he describes how slaves in Cuba were required to learn "the principles of the Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion" as required by the code of 1842. He then goes on to tell that this was a code enacted upon the slaves by the crown in an attempt to regulate the relationship between master and slave. In defiance, the Bishop sent Franciscan monks to educate the slaves because he was concerned about the high number of suicides - the Queen ruled against the bishop and left the education of slaves in the hands of slaveholders. Everything here shows that slavery was a fact of life supported by the government and often fought by the Church. Your arguments now and previously were dismissed because they do not improve the article but insert POV when the fact is that slavery was everywhere and the only voice for a long time raised against it was the Church. The controversy that some people think the Church did not do enough to end slavery is also a referenced fact in the text. NancyHeise (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Relata, I don't think I misrepresnted your arguments at all. On the issue of the Indians, it was clear that even the books you quoted admitted that the Church was their only defender. You then fell back on the issue of slavery. And here, one of the quotes you made was : "The State and the Church were essentially inseparable from each other in establishing the institution of African slavery in Portugal and its overseas colonies." Another was: "The Catholic Church was complicit in this system, either by justifying it in religious terms or through its own inquisitorial violence and extraction of revenues." However when we asked for verifiable facts to back up these startling assertions, you could provide none. In fact the one concrete figure you produced, Antonio Vieria, whose sermon, it was alleged, helped to create, "a general climate of agreement in favour of slavery." in fact virtually condemned slaveholders to perdition. You did produce some opinions from a number of academics which were condemnatory of the Church, but still no facts to back up these opinions. You argued that these opinions were somehow the "academic consensus", and should be the basis of the article. However it was demonstrated that numerous academics hold a contrary view - and one backed up by facts, such as papal pronouncements and priests identified or executed for assisting slave revolts. Articles on the church like the Britannica do not carry your view either. In view of this the most we could offer was to place the opinions you identified in the article as a school of opinion. You refused this, wanting your views to dominate. I am afraid we could not agree to this in violation of balance, accuracy and WP policies. Xandar (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Some content still focuses on the Western perspective. "Lent is the 40–day period of purification..." This section is identified as the Latin rite calendar, but still, how is it 40 days from Ash Wednesday to Holy Thursday? Might it be better to just say "Lent is a period of preparation for Easter", which would cover both Eastern and Western practices? Also, "The couple desiring marriage are themselves the ministers of the sacrament" is a Western view. It would also be nice to write a conclusion for the article. Gimmetrow 09:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I made changes to reflect your comment here - no conclusion though per following comment by Xandar. NancyHeise (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

An article conclusion would be very problematic. It's a big article about an ongoing institution. It would either be very bland and say "The church goes on into an incident-filled future..." or it would become a source of arguments about POV. Is it positive, negative etc? The article is long enough, and i don't see a useful purpose being served. Xandar (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support. The article is: well written; comprehensive; factually accurate (emphatically per WP:V and WP:RS); neutral (per extensive talk page slug-fests); stable; has a strong structure, lead, and consistent citations; contains many appropriate images. It is lengthy, but this is justifiable due to its 2000 year history and social importance. These are all of the criteia in WP:FACR. My only quibble is the article title, which has been hashed out again and again--apparently, I'm 'wrong' that it's actually the Catholic Church instead of Roman Catholic Church, but what's an expert's knowledge worth? Lwnf360 (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: be forewarned that there will be hundreds if not thousands of similar comments from users that the article title and first sentance are inacurate when this becomes a FA. Suggest either correcting, or putting a note at the top of the talk page saying that this has been extensivly discussed, and the current version is a comprimise. Lwnf360 (talk) 10:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Yes, I agree with you on the name but per Wikipedia policy WP:NC, "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. This is justified by the following principle: The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." Based on that policy, the article was named "Roman Catholic Church" with the redirect for "Catholic Church" coming to this page as well as offering the reader the fact that the Catholic Church officially calls itself the "Catholic Church". NancyHeise (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment the History section has 4993 words "readable prose size". The article History of the Roman Catholic Church has 850 words "readable prose size," and is essentially a mammoth time-line. I have been trying to look at this article with fresh eyes. I had an epiphany, but unfortunately it was a deeply discouraging one. After the previous FAC, I mentioned to Nancy that I was almost sure the "next FAC" (i.e., this one) would pass. I was looking at the organization of the article at that time, and projecting the amount of time until the prose could be brought up to speed. I now wonder if it needs major restructuring. i wonder if the History section should be farmed out to History of the Roman Catholic Church, the time-line from History of the Roman Catholic Church farmed out to Timeline of the Roman Catholic Church, and much material from Role of Catholic Church in Civilization (that was moved out of this article because it was too long!!) moved back. It is depressing. I also wonder... shouldn't South and central America get more verbiage? And I like the suggestion of a conclusion as per Gimmetrow, too... I am also seeing the prose as being more flawed than I had earlier thought (see the demographics section) . Ling.Nut (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Lingnut, some more for you to consider - Your restructuring would completely change the entire article which has been built by review and consensus for the past five months. You can't just all of a sudden decide on your own that the entire article gets tossed and a new one replaced. I too like the idea of a conclusion and I will perhaps offer one on my talk page later asking for comments and consensus to add it. NancyHeise (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment to FAC reviewers - Wackymacs and others have made some diparaging comments about "resistance" to reviewers comments by editors. I believe they are confusing editors of the RCC page (who have not voted on this FAC because we have substantially contributed to the page) and other FAC reviewers who are answering their comments. Just to clarify something here, Malleus Fatuorum and Johnbod are not editors of the RCC page but FAC reviewers who have cast support votes on this page and who have been extremely helpful to the editors in expressing our difficulties faced in answering many of the FAC reviewers comments that are outside of the FAC criteria. Please try to have more respect for your fellow FAC reviewers who are doing everything they can to help get this top page for Wikiproject Catholicism to FA. I personally appreciate their help very much and I dont think their comments have been anything but proper to the conversation. NancyHeise (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Now is not the time for a major restructure of the article, causing massive instability. As per the Britannica article, details of which have been posted below, History makes up a significant, and necessary part of both treatments. Even if the material were transferred, this article would still need a smaller History section, and deciding what went in that and at what weight would be horrendous. (Witness the six months of discussion here and on the Talk pages at RCC). the current length of the History section has been determined, not by the editors so much as by the need to deal with certain subjects in sufficient detail to present necessary viewpoints, and to balance events by importance and Due Weight considerations. Indeed, the History of the Church Article COULD be rewritten in prose style, but that is a mammoth undertaking and would need more detail than we currently have in the RCC article. I ams ure someone could take the current RCC text and expand on it, but that is another (quite large) project. When that is done might be the time to start thinking whether history content in the main article could be trimmed. Xandar (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments: NancyHeise left a message on my talk page concerning the restart; many thanks. On 30 May, NancyHeise responded to Ling.Nut and added other citations to text that were cited only to Vidmar. I had asked for replacement than just additions, but what was done is definitely a step in the right direction. It would be better if the text were supported on the solid sources alone. The facts that I stated concerning the book’s reliability still stand. There are potential pitfalls with this source: as I mentioned, one reason is that an erroneous statement could be supported. More importantly, another reason is the source could be used to subtly push a POV which violates criterion 1d. The latter reason was mentioned by Ling.Nut and Refero. So in summary, WIAFA concerns: 1c and 1d, Action: at least add solid sources to the text that cite only Vidmar, which may require some modification of the text. Some more comments and questions: —This is part of a comment by RelHistBuff (of 11:52, 3 June 2008), which was interrupted by the following:

• The final paragraph of the "Modern era" section concerns the Church’s relationship with the Jews during World War II, a rather controversial subject, therefore it should stand on a bedrock of scholarship. Unfortunately, only a part is cited to solid scholars. The clause "because even though no Church teachings promote the killing of Jews" (cited to a NYT article) should be removed. The clause may be truthful, but I couldn't find that statement in the source.

I eliminated the clause and left the rest of the sentence. NancyHeise (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• The mention of prominent members of the Jewish community and the use of their quotes is simply sourced to a book of quotations. This makes it appear that cherry-picking was done which might bring out claims of WP:OR. The sentence should be supported by a solid source or removed.

I added Bokenkotter as a source and provided the quote to support the current text. NancyHeise (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is a statement about "prominent Jews" (we are not told who made this statement) and the appearance of the cherry-picking of quotes. Bokenkotter’s text said that it was David G. Dalin who made the observation. He said four persons "would likely have been shocked" and he gave only quotes made by Einstein and Herzog. To correctly paraphrase Bokenkotter’s text, it should say something like "An American rabbi, David G. Dalin, states that Einstein and Herzog praised the actions of Pius...". The cite to the quotations book is not needed, otherwise it is cherry-picking quotes thus violating neutrality. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• The two final sentences in the paragraph (only cited to Vidmar), appear as if they were statements from an apologist; quoting a single Israeli consul making a unsupported claim may not be a direct example of a POV, but it is a POV by proxy. The previous clause quoting Dalin (cited to Bokenkotter) is sufficient. The sentence giving the number of priests killed by the Nazis is unrelated to Pius' and the Church's relations with the Jews and just appears defensive. The two sentences should be dropped as what is left in the paragraph is enough.

While I disagree that I can't use Vidmar, especially when the preceeding sentence supports the next one, I have eliminated these last two sentences in compromise with you. NancyHeise (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• On the subject of Mary I, who were the "Catholic spiritual advisor and others" mentioned?

Mary I was married to a Spanish Catholic who asked his chaplain to preach against the burnings, I was only able to find this fact in Vidmar and one other source but it was not a university press or a university professor so I did not use it as a back up. I eliminated the phrase "Catholic spiritual advisor" and replaced with "Spanish ambassador" as supported by the quote by Haigh.NancyHeise (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• On the subject of the Huguenots, ending a paragraph with the Edict of Nantes is misleading giving the impression that France became a tolerant nation. Surely, the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes and its rather devastating after effects should be mentioned as well?

After looking into this extensively through all my sources and online, I dont think that it deserves mention since my scholarly sources do not go into it, probably because it was not an action of the Catholic Church but a secular ruler. If you don't mind, I would like for the text to not stray too far off topic, there are a number of tangents we could follow in all areas of history but we have to have some kind of limit for size reasons. NancyHeise (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The Edict of Nantes was also emitted by a secular ruler. So the Revocation could also be included as well. Ending the paragraph like that would seriously misrepresent the history of the Church in France. The history of the religious decisions of secular rulers (e.g., Charles V of the HRE, Henry VIII, Mary I, and Elizabeth I of England, and Henry IV and Louis XIV of France) are tied to the history of the Church at that time. Adding a sentence on Louis XIV and the Revocation and its impact completes the story leaving France as a largely Catholic nation. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have inserted text with wikilink to Revocation of Edict of Nantes but it is in the French Revolution area listed as a reason for the anticlericalism that preceeded the French Revolution. Since the article is about the Roman Catholic Church, not France or the Huguenots, I think this is the best presentation. Readers who want to know what the Revocation did can find it through the link provided and this treatment is consistent throughout with other issues. NancyHeise (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said previously, I find this seriously misleading and I am concerned about 1d. The paragraph ends by mentioning the Edict of Nantes that declares tolerance in France. Then later in the article, it is mentioned that the persecution of priests developed after the Revocation of the Edict. This leaves a rather obvious lacuna in the history of the Church in France. The actual Revocation and its effects which were to either force the conversion of the Huguenots to Catholicism or to expel them appears as an attempt to hide some uncomfortable facts. A sentence on the Revocation and the effects on the Huguenots should be added at the end of the paragraph. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

--RelHistBuff (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

We have provided the relevant facts for the history of the Church, we are not writing the history of all of Europe and we dont have the space to do so. The Church did not sanction the Revocation or its effects on the Huguenots. We are trying very hard not to confuse the actions of secular rulers with the actions of the Church. I think there is room to mention what you are asking for and I have posted on the talk page for suggestions and invited one editor to come and contribute. I posted your concerns on the talk page too. For purposes of FA nomination, this article does not omit any important fact or controversy in Catholic Church history including the Revocation of Edict of Nantes. I have made changes in the text to try to resolve your concerns and I continue to try via my postings on the talk page. I do not feel that your oppose is any more actionable as there are no FAC criteria being violated. NancyHeise (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I have not asked for a history of all of Europe to be written. I am asking for adherence to criterion 1d. Currently, the article mention a Catholic ruler who allowed for some toleration of a minority (Henry and the Edict) and secular attacks on Catholic clerics (after the Revocation). And yet there is no mention of the Revocation itself, i.e. the period in between, about a Catholic ruler (Louis XIV) who forced conversions to the Catholic faith and forced expulsion of hundreds of thousands of a minority leaving France almost wholly Catholic. This is an integral part of the history of the Church. Despite the danger of reusing a metaphor, I submit that this is "cherry-picking" bits of history in order to portray the Church and its supporting rulers in a positive light and dropping other bits that are inconvenient using the excuse that the actions were done by a "secular ruler". Both Henry and Louis XIV were secular rulers. Mentioning only one secular ruler but not the other is not only a violation of NPOV, it is a refusal to give the complete picture, thus violating comprehensiveness. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there are ample scholarly sources to back up the WWII material in the article. Since this is about the Church and the Nazis, I think reference to numbers of priests killed is relevant. I will look up further references. Xandar (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sure there are sources to back it up. I was just stating that it is out-of-place in the context of Pius and the Jews. It looks like it was put there to defend the Church against charges of anti-Semitism, but in fact they are separate issues. The number would be fine in another paragraph on the Nazis interaction with the Church. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

FAC criteria 1(c) requires the text to be "factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;"

To meet this criteria, we used an equal balance of both apologist and critic sources in the text. Our main sources are from Edward Norman and Eamon Duffy who are introduced in the article in the Origins and Mission section in a way that helps the reader to understand that there are different scholarly viewpoints on Catholic Church history. Duffy and other authors who take the critical viewpoint are more than equally represented in the text than those like Norman who represent the apologist viewpoint. Sensitive areas of the article like Inquisitions, Crusades, Reformation, and Sexual Abuse were created using both critic and apologist sources and quotations from all of these sources were included to reader could see all the various viewpoints for themselves. The book RelHistBuf does not like, The Catholic Church Throughout the Ages by John Vidmar(2005) Paulist Press, is one of our apologist sources. It meets WP:RS criteria and qualifies as a top source per WP:Reliable source examples. Elimination of this book would leave a huge imbalance in the article balance of both points of view. Further, every Vidmar citation in the article text except for one point no one cares about is a double to another reference that no one has a problem with, in most cases the other ref has a quote included so you can see that the sentence is not "built" around Vidmar. Although wikipedia policies allow me to have some citations in the article text referenced only to Vidmar, I have conceeded to FAC reviewers comments and doubled all of his references. Vidmar's book was peer reviewed by critical historian Thomas Bokenkotter in the academic journal Catholic Historical Review which has been published since 1915, there is another peer review by a professor of Theology (theology departments teach Church history) at Graduate Theological Union, Berkley, and another on Googlebooks. None of these reveiws state that the book has any factual errors or radical POV and all of them recommend the book at the end of the review. Thus, there is no Wikipedia policy violated in using Vidmar and I have gone beyond the mere policies to satisfy RelHistBuf but I think it would violate policy completely to remove use of this book. In addition, there is neither any FAC criteria violated unless I do remove him. I will be answering all of RelHistBuf's other comments shortly just underneath his bulletpoints and I very much appreciate the fine way he has framed his comments and review here. I think his is a perfect example of polite opposition and organized review. Thanks RelHistBuf. NancyHeise (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but, yes, I remain in the opposition. I, like many of our other colleagues here on Wiki, would really like to see this article reach FA, but do not feel that it has quite satisfied WIAFA. Concerning your points, I have to question your definition of the split of apologist and critical sources. I get the impression that you are setting your own "goalpost" of what is acceptable or not. I have pointed out the reasons why the source is not reliable (the author's background, the publisher, the mistakes, the review) and they have not been refuted. Your criterion that a review has to state that it has factual errors or a radical POV in order to be rejected is an arbitrary one. The review speaks for itself: Bokenkotter disagrees with several points in the book and he calls the style "breezy". If there are no other scholarly reviews of the book, then that in itself is equally damning as the book is not even considered decent enough to show up on the journal review radar. However, as long there are other cites along with Vidmar, then 1c appears to be satisfied. I will start looking more in detail concerning WIAFA criterion 1d. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have answered all of RelHistBuf's concerns point by point making concessions to his desires except to remove use of Vidmar which I am not required to do per any Wikipedia policy as he meets specified requirements of WP:RS and WP:Reliable source examples. I do not consider this an actionable oppose. NancyHeise (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I thank you again for leaving a note on my talk page. I am sorry, but not all of my points were addressed. Concerning the sources, I repeat, the artificial division of "apologist" and "critical" sources is an imaginary creation and simply moves a "goalpost" so as to justify the use of a very poor quality source which I have shown is not reliable (1c violation). I also opposed due to 1d. I have found neutrality problems as mentioned above. But these are just examples; I am afraid that this may just be the tip of the iceberg. Other reviewers (e.g., Awadewit and jbmurray) have already noted other POV problems, thus confirming my suspicions. The oppose is clearly actionable as I have given the criterion violated, the reasons why (none of which have been refuted), and the suggested possible solutions. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Rel HisBuff The specific concerns that you raised have been addressed. On Vidmar, you may disagree with the use of his book, but it breaks no FA rules, and his his use is backed with citations from other scholars. editors have net over backward to deal with your "neutrality concerns", but now you say these were "just examples", yet refuse to state WHICH other passages you have concerns about. If you cannot specify precisely what you are continuing to claim are POV concerns, then your oppose cannot be actionable. Editors cannot mind-read your concerns, and refusing to specify them or to engage in the process, makes them impossible to address. Therefore unless you do specify your precise concerns in an addressable manner, your continued oppose must be seen as non-actionable. 92.40.196.30 (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

One neutrality concern (1d), I "specified precisely", the Edict being included and the Revocation of the Edict being excluded, has not been addressed. I disagree with your claim that I refused to specify them. There is no need to "mind-read"; I repeat again, all my statements are actionable as I stated the criteria violated and suggested potential solutions. On the issue of Pius and the Jews, I suggested a formulation using a paraphrase of Bokenkotter without sourcing to a book of quotations which appears as cherry-picking (1d). Note also that on the article talk page, Qp10qp suggested a formulation to correct an error on the statement that Pope Clement VIII supported King Henry IV's edict when in fact Clement was dismayed by it (in my opinion, another 1d concern). Concerning Vidmar, your doubling of cites is a step in the right direction and partially solves 1c. But this point is not a matter of personal disagreement as you claim; the source is poor quality and biased. I gave the reasons why it is a poor source in detail (credentials with a Doctorate in Sacred Theology, works at a small Catholic college that does not do Ph.D level research, he is a member of the Paulists and published by the Paulists hence it is effectively self-published by a missionary organisation, gives a Catholic POV, errors in the book, one weak review with certain criticisms found in a Catholic journal). It is the use of that source that may contribute to the NPOV problems (1d). --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

RelHistBuff's oppose is unreasonable for these reasons:

• Edict of Nantes is completely covered the third paragraph of Late Medieval and Renaissance where the sentence states that it was supported by Pope Clement III - a fact. Editor Qp10qp wanted to add text that said the Pope was dismayed by it but the Duffy quote says that he agreed with it after a "long hesitation" - it is very POV to assume that he was dismayed - perhaps he was putting the matter to prayer and after coming to know God's will in the matter, supported it. It is not unusual for a Catholic person to not know exactly the correct thing to do at the momment but to wait on a decision after putting the matter up to God in prayer. It is offensive to Catholics and very POV to then assume that a pope's hesitation over a big decision constitutes "dismay". Duffy is our most respected source in the article and his quote does not support use of the word "dismay".

The "perhaps" says it all. Qp10qp provided a source that supported the use of "dismay". Duffy does not say that the pope "supported" the Edict. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Revocation of Edict of Nantes is covered in first paragraph of Enlightenment section. This is the actual sentence " In 1685 King Louis XIV of France issued the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, ending a century-long experiment in religious toleration. However, the religious conflicts of the Reformation era had provoked a backlash against Christianity. " Three editors have agreed to this placement as we have gone through the article making prose corrections. It was placed there by myself and edited by Ceoil and Xandar. It exists in its most logical place in the article text at a point that is discussing the buildup to the French Revolution. The Revocation was part of that buildup. RelHistBuf's opposition to the article because of no mention of Revocation of Edict of Nantes is made in error.

The change was made by Xandar yesterday (see [30]), I assume to address my comment, but no mention was made of it here until now. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• RelHistBuf wanted me to eliminate a source contributed by another editor that is a book of quotes stating that it appears as if we were cherry picking those quotes. I supplemented the source with Bokenkotter who named those same quoted people and more and I added the actual quote from Bokenkotter in the reference to prove there was no cherry picking as he has improperly alleged. I do not see how the article should be denied FA because we have two sources instead of one supporting a controversial section. We want more not less sources in areas like that.
• RelHistBuf opposes because he wants me to eliminate use of the book "The Catholic Church Through the Ages" by John Vidmar whose book is peer reviewed by Thomas Bokenkotter in the academic journal Catholic Historical Review. Bokenkotter calls the book "breezy" and points out some contentious statements made by Vidmar on issues not even covered by our article text. He never states the book is incorrect or radical and ends the review by recommending it to the reader. All cites to the Vidmar book serve as doubles to another reference and his book provides a valuable asset to the page by giving reader the perspective of a Catholic apologist in sensitive areas like Inquisitions, Crusades, Reformation, etc. where we included refs and quotes from a variety of authors from various perspectives. RelHistBuf's request to eliminate Vidmar is unreasonable and is not based on any Wikipedia policy and would make the article less informative and eliminate one of the sources used to satisfy FAC criteria 1c " accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge".
• For these reasons, I do not consider RelHistBuf's an actionable oppose. NancyHeise (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No wonder people just give up commenting. A poor quality source is continually defended by wikilawyering. Wikipedia has no chance of improving with this kind of attitude. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• On the Edict of Nantes, I think Qp10p's references established that the Pope publicly supported the Edict, but privately was "dismayed" - or something very similar. The current text is not in "error", as Carlaude dogmatically puts it, but would be improved by the insertion of, for example, "reluctantly" at the relevant point. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

But does Duffy support the assertion that the pope "supported" the Edict? --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to fail FA over the use of one word, I do not have a problem with its insertion but I do not see how "a long hesitation" translates absolutely into "dismayed" or "relucatantly" when we are not in a position to know why he hesitated. It seems to be more POV and incorrect to make that assumption rather than to just leave the text as is - a plain factual statement minus any speculation over why he took his time. NancyHeise (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I just added "hesitantly accepted" and removed "supported" from the Edict of Nantes sentence. The new words directly reflect Duffy's message in his quote that I provided on the talk page discussion over this issue. NancyHeise (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - someone asked me to compare with the Encyclopedia Britannica entry (Roman Catholicism." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Library Edition). The EB entry is at "Roman Catholicism", is 121 pages long, and has the following structure:

Structure of Encyclopedia Britannica article on Roman Catholicism
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Introduction History of Roman Catholicism The emergence of Catholic Christianity The emergence of Roman Catholicism Internal factors External factors The early medieval papacy The church of the early Middle Ages The concept of Christendom A period of decadence Popular Christianity 1000 The church of the High Middle Ages Gregorian Reform The reign of Gregory VII The Investiture Controversy: Gregory VII to Calixtus II The Crusades The papacy at its height: the 12th and 13th centuries The renaissance of the 12th century The apostolic life Religious orders: canons and monks The mendicant orders The rise of heresy Religious life in the 13th century The golden age of Scholasticism The persecuting society From the late Middle Ages to the Reformation The “Babylonian Captivity” Late medieval reform: the Great Schism and conciliarism Jan Hus Efforts to heal the East-West Schism Roman Catholicism on the eve of the Reformation The decline of Scholastic theology Expressions of spirituality and folk piety Roman Catholicism and Renaissance humanism Roman Catholicism and the emergence of national consciousness The age of Reformation and Counter-Reformation Roman Catholicism and the Protestant Reformation The Roman Catholic Reformation The Council of Trent New religious orders The Counter-Reformation Post-Reformation conditions Developments in France The Gallican problem Jansenism Quietism Controversies involving the Jesuits The Chinese rites controversy Suppression of the Jesuits Religious life in the 17th and 18th centuries The church in the modern period Catholicism in Revolutionary France Napoleon I and the restoration Pius IX Leo XIII The period of the World Wars The Second Vatican Council Aftermath of the council Roman Catholicism outside Europe The New World: Spanish and Portuguese empires Colonial period After independence Spanish and French missions in North America Roman Catholicism in the United States and Canada United States Canada Roman Catholicism in Africa and Asia Missions in Africa Missions in Asia Structure of the church Doctrinal basis The nature of the church Apostolic succession The papacy The papal office Ancient and medieval views of papal authority Early-modern and modern views of papal authority Historical conceptions of the relationship of the papacy to the world Contemporary teaching on papal authority The offices of the clergy The Roman Curia and the College of Cardinals The college of bishops Ecumenical councils The priesthood Religious communities Hermits and monks Mendicant friars and clerks regular Nuns and brothers The laity Canon law Beliefs and practices Faith Concepts of faith Preambles and motivation of faith Heresy Revelation The concept of revelation The content of revelation Tradition and Scripture The magisterium The concept of teaching authority Organs of teaching authority Object and response Major dogmas and doctrines Sacraments General characteristics Baptism Confirmation The Eucharist Reconciliation Anointing of the sick Marriage Holy orders Liturgy The mass The divine office The liturgical year Paraliturgical devotions Eucharistic devotions Cult of the saints Mysticism The order of the mass The introductory rites The liturgy of the Word The liturgy of the Eucharist The communion rite The concluding rite The role of the church in society Missions Education Charitable activities Church and state relations Economic views and practice The family The church since Vatican II Additional Reading General Works History Belief and practice The Latin church from antiquity to the late Middle Ages Reformation and Counter-Reformation Roman Catholicism in modern times The papacy

References are lengthy:

References used for the EB article on Roman Catholicism
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
History: Large-scale works are Hubert Jedin and John Patrick Dolan (eds.), History of the Church, 10 vol. (1986–89). John McManners (ed.), The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity (1990, reissued 2001), is useful. Roland H. Bainton, The Horizon History of Christianity (1964, reissued as Christianity, 2000), is a well-written, beautifully illustrated, comprehensive introduction to Western Christianity through the centuries and includes references to modern Catholicism worldwide. Belief and practice: Reference works include Robert C. Broderick (ed.), The Catholic Encyclopedia, rev. and updated ed. (1987); Thomas Carson and Joann Cerrito (eds.), New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd ed., 15 vol. (2003), which treats all phases of Roman Catholicism; Karl Rahner et al. (eds.), Sacramentum Mundi: An Encyclopedia of Theology, 6 vol. (1968–70), which deals with Catholic doctrine and theological thought; and F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone (eds.), The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. (1997), with informative articles on Roman Catholic subjects and helpful bibliographies. An excellent brief compendium of doctrine is A New Catechism: Catholic Faith for Adults, trans. by Kevin Smyth (1967, reissued 1982; originally published in Dutch, 1966). Also valuable is Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (later elected as Pope Benedict XVI) and Christopher Schönborn (one of the contributors to the church's new catechism), Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994). Roman Catholic theology of the church is discussed by Hans Küng, The Church (1967, reissued 1976; originally published in German, 1967); and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Called to Communion: Understanding the Church Today, trans. by Adrian Walker (1996; originally published in German, 1991). The contemporary Roman Catholic Church is surveyed by John L. McKenzie, The Roman Catholic Church (1969, reissued 1971). A balanced and comprehensive introduction is Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism, completely rev. and updated (1994). See also Barrie Ruth Straus, The Catholic Church (1987, reissued 1992). Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, 5 vol. (1971–91), opens with the apostolic Fathers and closes with the Second Vatican Council. Jaroslav Pelikan, Credo: Historical and Theological Guide to Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, 4 vol. (2003), is a comprehensive collection of statements of faith and includes a volume of commentary on the creeds. Rosemary Ruether and Eleanor McLaughlin (eds.), Women of Spirit: Female Leadership in the Jewish and Christian Traditions (1979, reissued 1998), is a step toward redressing the imbalance in most scholarship. An important starting point for developments in Roman Catholic theology after the Second Vatican Council is Hans Küng, On Being a Christian, trans. by Edward Quinn (1976, reissued 1984; originally published in German, 1974). On developments in Roman Catholic feminist theology, see Mary Jo Weaver, New Catholic Women: A Contemporary Challenge to Traditional Religious Authority (1985, reissued 1995). The Latin church from antiquity to the late Middle Ages Perceptive introductions to the medieval church are Bernard Hamilton, Religion in the Medieval West (1986); and R.W. Southern, Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages (1970, reprinted 1990). A useful survey of the history of the early church is Peter Brown, The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity, AD 200–1000, 2nd ed. (2003). Important studies of the church in late antiquity and the early Middle Ages are Peter Brown, The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity (1983); R.A. Markus, The End of Ancient Christianity (1998); Richard E. Sullivan, Christian Missionary Activity in the Early Middle Ages (1994); and J.M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Frankish Church (1983). Étienne Gilson, History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages (1955, reissued 1980), is a masterly summary with a full bibliography. Heiko A. Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism, rev. ed. (2000), looks at the theology of the late Middle Ages in its entirety, with special emphasis on nominalism. C.H. Lawrence, Medieval Monasticism: Forms of Religious Life in Western Europe in the Middle Ages, 3rd ed. (2001); and C.H. Lawrence, The Friars: The Impact of the Early Mendicant Movement on Western Society (1994), are accessible surveys of the medieval religious orders. The profound changes in spirituality and church organization that occurred in the 11th and 12th centuries are studied in Uta-Renate Blumenthal, The Investiture Controversy: Church and Monarchy from the Ninth to the Twelfth Century (1988, reissued 1991); Michael Frassetto (ed.), Medieval Purity and Piety: Essays on Medieval Clerical Celibacy and Religious Reform (1998); Rachel Fulton, From Judgment to Passion: Devotion to Christ and the Virgin Mary, 800–1200 (2002); Gerd Tellenbach, The Church in Western Europe from the Tenth to the Early Twelfth Century (1993); and Caroline Walker Bynum, Jesus as Mother: Studies in the Spirituality of the High Middle Ages (1982). Henry Charles Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages: Its Organization and Operation (1954, reissued 1993), remains the essential, but sectarian, introduction to the topic. Bernard Hamilton, The Medieval Inquisition (1981); and Edward Peters, Inquisition (1988), offer a more balanced view; and Henry Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision, 2nd ed. (1997, reissued 2000), is the best introduction to the institution in Spain. The history of medieval heresy is best examined in Malcom Lambert, Medieval Heresy: Popular Movements from the Gregorian Reform to the Reformation, 3rd ed. (2002); and R.I. Moore, The Origins of European Dissent (1977, reissued 1994). A useful introduction to the Crusades is Thomas F. Madden, A Concise History of the Crusades (1999). Francis Oakley, The Western Church in the Later Middle Ages (1979, reissued 1985); and Steven Ozment, The Age of Reform, 1250–1550: An Intellectual and Religious History of Late Medieval and Reformation Europe (1980), cover the late Middle Ages with sound judgment. W.A. Pantin, The English Church in the Fourteenth Century (1955, reissued 1980), is a good introduction to late medieval English developments; and Lawrence G. Duggan, Bishop and Chapter: The Governance of the Bishopric of Speyer to 1552 (1978), an important study of the institutional church in Germany. Reformation and Counter-Reformation: The period is surveyed thoroughly in two reference works: Thomas A. Brady, Heiko A. Oberman, and James D. Tracy (eds.), Handbook of European History, 1400–1600: Late Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Reformation, 2 vol. (1994–96); and Hans J. Hillerbrand (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, 4 vol. (1996). An important introduction is G.R. Elton (ed.), The Reformation, 1520–1559, 2nd ed., vol. 2 (1990) of The New Cambridge Modern History, 14 vol. (1957–77, reissued 1975–99). Other useful introductions to the period are John Bossy, Christianity in the West, 1400–1700 (1985); Euan Cameron, The European Reformation (1991); Heiko A. Oberman, The Dawn of the Reformation: Essays in Late Medieval and Early Reformation Thought (1986, reissued 1992); and Lewis W. Spitz, The Protestant Reformation, 1517–1559 (1985). Jaroslav Pelikan, Obedient Rebels: Catholic Substance and Protestant Principle in Luther's Reformation (1964), is an investigation of Luther's thought; and Roland H. Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (1950, reissued 1995), remains the best introduction to Luther's life. Developments in England are considered in Eamon duffy, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England, 1400–1580 (1992). George Huntston Williams, The Radical Reformation, 3rd ed. (2000), is a synoptic presentation of the “left wing” of the Reformation. Reform in the Roman Catholic Church is treated best in Robert Bireley, The Refashioning of Catholicism, 1450–1700 (1999); Michael A. Mullett, The Catholic Reformation (1999); and R. Po-chia Hsia, The World of Catholic Renewal 1540–1770 (1998). Roman Catholicism in modern times: An extensive and valuable study is Kenneth Scott Latourette, Christianity in a Revolutionary Age: A History of Christianity in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, 5 vol. (1958–62, reissued 1973); vol. 1, 3, and 5 concentrate on Roman Catholic themes. E.E.Y. Hales, The Catholic Church in the Modern World: A Survey from the French Revolution to the Present, new rev. ed. (1960), concentrates on Europe and America. Two works that make aspects of the American Catholic experience readily available to readers are John Tracy Ellis, American Catholicism, 2nd ed. rev. (1969); and Jay P. Dolan, The American Catholic Experience: A History from Colonial Times to the Present (1985, reissued 2001), an essential study. Stephen Neill, Colonialism and Christian Missions (1966), and A History of Christian Missions, 2nd ed. rev. by Owen Chadwick (1986, reissued 1990), provide brief and generally fair comments on Catholic ventures. Gustavo Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation, trans. and ed. by Caridad Inda and John Eagleson, rev. ed. (2001; originally published in Spanish, 1972), is a provocative introduction to Roman Catholicism in the developing world. Another essential study is Anthony Gill, Rendering unto Caesar: The Catholic Church and the State in Latin America (1998). Adrian Hastings, The Church in Africa, 1450–1950 (1994), is a valuable introduction. Lester R. Kurtz, The Politics of Heresy: The Modernist Crisis in Roman Catholicism (1986), provides an introduction to the debate over Modernism. Austin Flannery (ed.), Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Documents, new rev. ed. (1996), is a useful collection of documents from the council; and Adrian Hastings (ed.), Modern Catholicism: Vatican II and After (1991), is a valuable consideration of the postconciliar Roman Catholic Church. The papacy: Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes, 2nd ed. (2002), is a comprehensive and lively study of the papacy. An excellent brief introduction to papal history up to the Reformation is Geoffrey Barraclough, The Medieval Papacy (1968, reissued 1979). Essential studies for the development of medieval papal claims are W. Ullmann, The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages: A Study in the Ideological Relation of Clerical to Lay Power, 3rd ed. (1970); and Brian Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility, 1150–1350: A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty, and Tradition in the Middle Ages (1972, reissued 1988). Other valuable studies of the medieval papacy are Peter Llewellyn, Rome in the Dark Ages (1971, reissued 1996); Colin Morris, The Papal Monarchy: The Western Church from 1050 to 1250 (1989); Guillaume Mollat, The Popes at Avignon, 1305–1378 , trans. by Janet Love (1963; originally published in French, 9th ed. 1949); and Francis Oakley, Council over Pope? Towards a Provisional Ecclesiology (1969). Good studies of the papacy from the Renaissance to modern times include John A.F. Thomson, Popes and Princes, 1417–1517: Politics and Polity in the Late Medieval Church (1980); A.D. Wright, The Early Modern Papacy: From the Council of Trent to the French Revolution, 1564–1789 (2000); Owen Chadwick, The Popes and European Revolution (1981); and Frank J. Coppa, The Modern Papacy Since 1789 (1998). Edward Cuthbert Butler, The Vatican Council, 1869–1870: Based on Bishop Ullathorne's Letters, ed. by Christopher Butler (1930, reissued 1962), is a history of the First Vatican Council. Walter M. Abbott (ed.), The Documents of Vatican II (1966, reissued 1989), is an introduction to the achievement of the Second Vatican Council. Garry Wills, Papal Sin: Structures of Deceit (2000), is a controversial and highly critical commentary on the modern papacy. Works on the papacy from theological perspectives include Paul C. Empie and T. Austin Murphy (eds.), Papal Primacy and the Universal Church (1974), an ecumenical dialogue; and Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Church in the New Testament (1965, reissued 1974; originally published in German, 1961), which presents the results of 20th-century Roman Catholic biblical scholarship. Raymond E. Brown, Karl P. Donfried, and John Reumann (eds.), Peter in the New Testament: A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars (1973, reissued 2002), considers the biblical problems in the Petrine question. Karl Rahner and Joseph Ratzinger, The Episcopate and the Primacy, trans. by Kenneth Barker (1962; originally published in German, 1961), is an analysis of the pope-bishop relationship; and Hans Küng, Infallible? An Unresolved Enquiry, new expanded ed. (1994; originally published in German, 1970), and Structures of the Church, trans. by Salvator Attanasio (1964, reissued 1982; originally published in German, 1962), are basic to an understanding of contemporary “liberal” Roman Catholic thinking on the papacy. Francis Dvornik, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy, trans. by Edwin A. Quain (1966, reprinted 1979; originally published in French, 1964); and John Meyendorff et al., The Primacy of Peter, 2nd ed. (1973, reissued 1992; originally published in French, 1960), are useful studies of Eastern Orthodox views on papal primacy.

Hope that's useful. If someone wants a copy of the article, drop me an email. Neıl 龱 13:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. But you must remember the EB article is far larger than ours, and has the advantage in terms that you can flip to whichever section you want by turning the page, rather than reading through long stretches of text as you tend to on a one-page article. That's why History, being the longest section, but not necessarily the one people will want to read first, has been placed where it is. Xandar (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I have not read this article since its last FAC and I hoped to be able to support it this time around. In the meantime, actually, I read several books on church history to be able to better comment on the article. However, I find that I am not able to support the article, most unfortunately. I know that a lot of work has gone into it, but I feel that the article fails 1b, 1c, and 1d. —This is part of a comment by Awadewit (of 15:00, 3 June 2008), which was interrupted by the following:

• The "History" section has a slight Catholic POV. I know that the editors have worked very hard to avoid this, so I am sure this is unintentional. However, the way some of the sentences are constructed and perhaps even the choice of sources have resulted in a Catholic POV. For example, the editors have made a good effort to begin several sentences "the Catholic Church believes...", however it is not clear where this distinction stops in a paragraph - what is believed only by the Catholic Church and what is not? The waters become muddied. Also, the omission of particular details creates a feeling that the section is a Catholic view of history. Let me give some examples of what I mean:

• In the 16th century, partly in response to the Protestant Reformation, the Church engaged in a substantial process of reform and renewal, known as the Counter-Reformation. - A reflection of this problem occurs in the lead, actually. Considering that the Counter-Reformation also includes events such as the Spanish Inquisition, I feel that this sentence is a bit of a whitewash.

• No. Spanish Inquisition began a good 60 years before the counter-reformation, and was no part of that process. It is dealt with in the High Middle Ages section Xandar (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• As the Spanish Inquisition page itself delineates, part of it had to do with with Counter-Reformation, since it lasted for hundreds of years. Anyway, this individual example is not really the point. The more important point is that the Counter-Reformation itself is misrepresented in the lead. Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• The Spanish Inquisition was created by a secular King and was an arm of a secular government. If we have omitted the Spanish Inquisition from the text, I would consider your comment but the fact is that we have quite a lot of text on the inquisitions with many refs with quotes from many different sources to support the text. While we have certainly not covered every detail of history in our short summary of the 2000 year history of the Church, I know we have not omitted any main facts. I think that your insistence on requiring more commentary will not help the aritcle's summary style. The text provides a vast number of wikilinks including Spanish Inquisition and Counter Reformation that will help reader to discover all the missing facts we had to exclude for size considerations. NancyHeise (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please reread my objection. I only used the Spanish Inquisition as an example. My main objection is to the misrepresentation of the Counter-Reformation in the lead. It is represented as an innocuous "reform" - it was not. Awadewit (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Many important reforms came out of the Counter reformation that are discussed in the article text. These are referenced to scholary sources. It appears to me that the scholars would disagree with you that this was "innocuos". NancyHeise (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that many important reforms came out of the Counter-reformation, but so did some unpleasant events. That the lead only represents the positives is what makes the statement POV. It is uncontroversial statement that the Counter-Reformation produced some positives and negatives and that will appear in all of your sources. There is no reliable source that says the entire Counter-Reformation was all roses. There is no need to debate this. The sentence needs to be fixed. I have now explained this several times and I see no reason to explain it yet again. Awadewit (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• IF the Spanish Inquisition were a doing of the Catholic Church and not a secular ruler we might be able to include this fact. The pope protested to the King about its abuses, this was not sanctioned by the Church and you need to provide some sources to back up your statements since we have ours already referenced in the text. NancyHeise (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• You allege that the article "misrepresents" the Counter-reformation, and that the CR was not innocuous. Yet apart from the misplaced mention of the Spanish Inquisition, you have come up with no evidence for this. As already stated the Spanish Inquisition was not a part of the counter-reformation process. It existed in Spanish territory, but was already past its peak by the time the counter-reformation got going. You will find that most church histories consider the counter-reformation to have been based on a reform of church practice, a renewal of liturgy, stronger action against abuses, and the formation of new better-educated preaching orders. Yes, there were wars and other events in this period, but they have largely been mentioned under the reformation section. Xandar (talk) 09:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please read the objection. You are not responding to it at all. Awadewit (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• The Catholic Church considers Pentecost to be its moment of origin because this was the day when the apostles first emerged from hiding to publicly preach the message of Jesus after his death - This is mixing theology with history. This belief was already stated in the "Origins" section, anyway, and this theological belief, which is not endorsed by historians, does not need to be included in a "History" section.

Another FAC reviewer endorsed the current text as an important lead and suggested that it was a necessary duplication. I am in agreement with that presentation. Reader needs to know what the Church considers to be its own historical beginning and Wikipedia policy requires us to present all significant viewpoints in the article text. NancyHeise (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course the reader needs to know the Catholic Church's version of its history - I have already suggested a way that could be done. However, the reader also needs to know that historians do not necessarily endorse all of the parts of the Church's official history. Right now, the mix of official Church history and scholarly history is confusing - including a theological belief such as Pentecost in the "History" section is particularly confusing. Awadewit (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy requires us to present all viewpoints. The history section is not exempt from this requirement. The Catholic viewpoint is a significant point of view that needs to be included in order to satisfy written policy. I would be in violation of this rule if I were to submit to your request. NancyHeise (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you would not. I am asking that the Catholic POV be distinguished from other points of view so that readers are not confused. I am not asking you to eliminate the Catholic POV at all. I have already suggested one way in which to do this: create a section explaining the Church's own history of itself. The article already has the start of such a section: "Origins and mission". Expanding this a bit and removing the theology from the "History" section would be a perfectly satisfactory resolution to this problem. I feel no need to repeat myself on this point any further. Awadewit (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The sentence itself tells the reader that it is the Catholic POV, there isnt any more qualification required. NancyHeise (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

We have now specifically reinforced the elements that are based on Church Tradition and/or scripture in the Roman Empire Section. That is quite sufficient for any reader to have no serious chance of possible confusion. For reasons of coherence this information needs to be there, at least in overview form at the beginning of the Church History section, and secular historians did not start keeping records about the Church until much later. In addition Pentecost, as used here is a day when a particular important event is said to have occurred. It is not being used here, or defined in a theological manner. If the day this happened had beeen Caesar's birthday it would have been just the same.Xandar (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Since Pentecost is a church holiday which cannot be demonstrated in historical records (it is a mystical event), this is an excellent example of the article's slight Catholic POV. Awadewit (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• From the first century onward, the Church of Rome was respected as a doctrinal authority because the Apostles Peter and Paul had led the Church there - This is a Catholic view of history. The book Lost Christianities by the religious scholar Bart Ehrman, for example, explains that Rome was not the center of orthodoxy until the fourth century and that the orthodox actually developed this story about Rome being the center, emphasizing the role of Peter, in retrospect to solidify their authority. In fact, he even goes into detail regarding the academic reliability of various explanations of the emergence of orthodox Christianity, carefully explaining what academics support and what they do not. It is a very useful and accessible book.

• Ehrman's view is just that - a view - and a rather extreme one. I'm sure you will find a satisfactory discussion of opposing views in the Origins and Mission section at the head of the article. This sentence in History, could be tweaked, however. Xandar (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ehrman's view is not an extreme view. One reason I took so long to comment on this FAC was because I was reading books so that I could be fully informed. If you would like a full bibliography backing up this position, I can certainly provide you with one. I simply offered what I thought was the most accessible book on the subject. Moreover, just because the article explains the various views in one place does not mean it is off the hook in others. This suggests some reorganization needs to take place - if one section is NPOV and one place is POV to avoid repetition, perhaps some revision can be done, as you suggest.Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• The text specifically does not say that the Church of Rome was the center of authority but that it was respected as a doctrinal authority because... and it is refd to three scholars, two falling into the critic categories and the refs have the actual quotes to support the text. NancyHeise (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• My point is exactly is that Rome was not the center of doctrinal authority. I also see that two of these references are to some of the sources that are in dispute. If you want, I can provide you with even more sources documenting the position I have outlined here. Awadewit (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

None of the sources are in dispute. All meet top standards for Wikipedia policy and that has already been proven. If I have a third source as well, why even bring this up, it is a referenced fact. The text does not say that the Church was the doctrinal authority, it says it was respected as one. The refs even have quotes. NancyHeise (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

For added measure, I referenced these sentences to Bokenkotter's book and provide the quote. Bokenkotter's book is a standard fare used in University classrooms for decades. Apparently representative of a majority view. One of the other books is the National Geographic Society compiled work of over 10 University professors, "Geography of Religion", also representative of a majority view and the other reference is to Vidmar, representative of the Catholic view. I have enough scholarly works and opinions to prove that the text is factual. NancyHeise (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the sources are in dispute by other editors - I've read the FAC. I am going out of town tomorrow, but when I return I will place a bibliography, quotations, etc. on the article's talk page to demonstrate just how mainstream this view is. Awadewit (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This has been resolved. No person on this FAC, even though they have tried, has been able to prove that any of my sources violate WP:RS or not representative of the top sources described in WP:Reliable source examples. Please provide any bad reviews of my sources before you make such a false accusation please. NancyHeise (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the article doesn't say that early Rome was THE doctrinal authority, but A doctrinal authority. I would say that this is beyond dispute. Apart from the attested Roman origin of the letters of Paul and possibly Peter, there was unchallenged belief in the time (ref: Irenaeus and others) that they had led the Church from there, and left their seal of doctrinal purity there. There is the letter of (Pope) Clement of 85 AD, already referred to in the text in which he sorts out problems in the Corinthian church, and early and most renowned Christian apologists, such as Justin Martyr were based in Rome. Mainstream histories such as Collins and Duffy all acknowledge the position of Rome. Any claim that there was no centrality at Rome before the 4th century is well beyond the mainstream, and seems to edge into Dan Brown territory. Xandar (talk) 09:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of relying on fictional sources when I have already provided you with a reliable source. Moreover, the overall tone of the paragraph is that Rome is where doctrinal authority emerged - quickly and because of Peter. The paragraph does not explain the sects and were stamped out. The problem here is also the tone and what is left out - the omissions. This is another good example of the slightly Catholic POV of the article. Awadewit (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Although competing forms of Christianity emerged early and persisted into the fifth century, the Roman Church retained the practice of meeting in ecumenical councils to ensure that any doctrinal differences were quickly resolved - This is a Catholic view of history - see again Lost Christianities which delineates the debates between these competing forms. It explains how some forms of Christianity were labeled "heresies", such as Gnosticism, and deliberately stamped out by an eventual victor, what we label the "proto-orthodox". This now seems inevitable, but it was not at the time. None of this would be considered "resolving doctrinal differences" - it was basically sect against sect.

• I have clarified this point in the article. It wasn't meant to indicate councils were held with Gnostics etc. Xandar (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• You seem to misunderstand my point. I am pointing out that there was no established church in the way the article now suggests. It now says "within the Church itself", but histories of Christianity argue that there was no centralized, established church before the fourth or fifth century, so such a statement cannot be made. Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• This is a very radical POV comment. All of my sources, including the ones considered critics do not hold the view offered by Awadewit here. There was a Roman Church, with a pope, beginning with either ST. Peter, according to Norman or someone earlier than Anicetus in the year 150 per Duffy. Oxford History of Christianity states:"Towards the latter part of the first century, Rome's presiding cleric named Clement wrote on behalf of his church to remonstrate with the Corinthian Christians ... Clement apologized not for intervening but for not having acted sooner. Moreover, during the second century the Roman community's leadership was evident in its generous alms to poorer churches. About 165 they erected monuments to their martyred apostles ... Roman bishops were already conscious of being custodians of the authentic tradition or true interpretation of the apostolic writings. In the conflict with Gnosticism Rome played a decisive role, and likewise in the deep division in Asia Minor created by the claims of the Montanist prophets to be the organs of the Holy Spirit's direct utterances." page 36. NancyHeise (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Wasn't it more that there was a (pretty loosely) centralized, established church in this period, but it contained a wider range of doctrinal views, and every so often one group or another split off? I do agree with Awa that the Pentecost bit, and maybe the whoole first two paras, may be better in "Origins", starting the history at a period when there is more material for historians to work with. Johnbod (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Johnbod (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no scholarly source justification to remove the early history of the Catholic Church from the history section and present it as if it were a POV separate from the main body of historians whose books support the article text. Why do we have to comment on the whole of Christianity in the Roman Catholic Church article? We have right now, the history of the Roman Catholic Church in the history section, just because it overlaps with other Christian sects (which are mentioned) does not mean we have to eliminate that section of history from its logical position in the article. NancyHeise (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, I gave you a scholarly source for this view - Ehrman. He explains how orthodoxy did not really coalesce until the fourth century. If you want, I can give you many more sources explaining this view. This is actually a very widely held view among religious studies scholars. I realize that it is not a widely held view among Catholic theologians or Catholic historians, however. I suggested one solution to this problem - a short section on the Catholic Church's view of its history, but Johnbod's solution is another good one. That would not solve the POV problems in the rest of the "History" section, but it would be a good start. Awadewit (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If orthodoxy did not coalesce until the fourth century does that mean that we remove the early history of the Church? The early history of the Church does not cease to exist just because the Church evolved over time and this fact is apparent in all of my sources. Ehrman is not suggesting that the Church did not exist prior to the 4th century and we have Duffy telling us that there were popes at least as far back as the year 150, National Geographic Society puts it at St. Peter. Peter was writing his letters from the Church of Rome. The Roman Catholic Church, as this article is named, has a history before the 4th century and we would be factually incorrect to exclude that from our article. NancyHeise (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a straw man, actually. I'm very dubious that most "Catholic theologians or Catholic historians" would take general issue with a view that "orthodoxy did not really coalesce until the fourth century" - or maybe they would like it a lttle earlier. There's no doubt many big issues were still open for widely ranging views. This is what the quote from the article immediately below is talkling about, surely? Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think a lot of confusion is creeping in here. Of course there was no "established church" before the 4th century. Christianity was not legalised, and was often under bitter persecution. These are not conditions in which an established church develops. However the sources are quite clear that there was a Christian Church at this time that was organised, considered itself one spiritual body, was organised under bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and insisted on doctrinal orthodoxy in line with the scriptural writings and apostolic tradition. The fact that things like the Nicene Creed were not formall adopted until later does not mean that the Church was not secure in its teaching before this point. This church even called itself the Catholic Church. The article says that there were competing brands of Christianity at this time, and I can't really see any justification for adding much more. Yes there were gnostics, marcionites, and all sorts of other groups, but they were outside the official catholic church, and the church shunned interaction with them. Most of its writings at the time were to preserve orthodoxy from attacks by these groups. So the idea that there was amish-mash of widely differing beliefs within the Church, is a false one, even though it has been popularised by the likes of Dan brown. heresies like Arianism and Nestorianism could rise out of the Church, when individuals were influenced by outside groups, but actuion was always taken against them. The Arian controversy is already mentioned with respect to the Nicene creed. perhaps a sentence could be added to that, but I don't think much more is needed on these topics. Xandar (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit says she is going to provide us with quotes from actual historians who agree with her statements but I think she is going to be left dry on that. We can't change the text to suit her desires when it goes against the top WP:Reliable source examples we have referencing the content right now. NancyHeise (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. This is from Christianity Through the Centuries. by Earle E Cairns. 1996..

p112. During the period between 100 and 313, the church was forced to give consideration to how it could best meet the external persecution from the Roman state and the internal problem of heretical teaching and consequent schism. It sought to close its ranks by the development of a canon of the New Testament, which gave it an authoritative Book for faith and practice; by the creation of a creed, which gace it an authoritative statement of belief; and by obedience to the monarchical bishops, among whom the Roman bishop took a place of leadership. The last gave it a bond of unity in the constitution of the church. Polemicists wrote books in controversy with heretics. Around 170 the church was calling itself the "catholic" or universal, church, a term first used by Ignatius in his Epistle to Smyrna (chap. 8). Xandar (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• In the first few centuries of its existence, the Church defined and formed its teachings and traditions into a systematic whole under the influence of theological apologists such as Pope Clement I, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Augustine of Hippo. - In my opinion, this is tilted towards a Catholic view, because it implies that the doctrine developed at this time was "systematic" when really it was a response to all of the various versions of Christianity at the time. Some of the doctrinal additions at the time don't make much sense in combination with each other. See Ehrman's discussion of the development of the Nicene Creed in chapter 9 of Lost Christianities, for example.

• Hmmm. I'd have to look further into this. Xandar (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree that this is tilted towards the Catholic view, our text is referenced to peer reviewed scholarly sources from scholars of all viewpoints. NancyHeise (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• It is not just about referencing, Nancy - it is about how it is written. Please read my objection carefully. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I can not write something that is not in my references. Wikipedia policy specifically prohibits us from inserting opinion unless it is framed as opinion and requires facts. We have referenced facts in the article. All particulary sensitive sections have references to a variety of critic or apologist or neutral sources with quotes so reader can make the decision for themselves. NancyHeise (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The question is about "systemic" - a choice of wording here. Again, I would find it surprising if your reliable sources actually argued that the doctrine developed at this time was coherent. That would make the sources very questionable, actually, as it is abundantly clear that the doctrine is anything but a coherent system. Again, when I will return, I will add quotations, etc. to the talk page demonstrating this. Awadewit (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the objection is to "systematic", since doctrine did develop towards a systematic whole. The main issues were the precise nature of Christ and the Incarnation, and the purest sources of teaching authority. The Church fathers built on the established teachings and were very systematic. In fact they have been accused of being slaves to Greek philosophy! But how would you prefer the sentence to read? Xandar (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

They are not systematic - they do not go together as a coherent whole. It is frustrating that you are not reading the sources I provide that demonstrate this. You prefer to argue. Awadewit (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Matters grew still worse with the violent anti-clericalism of the French Revolution. The Church was outlawed, all monasteries destroyed, 30,000 priests were exiled and hundreds more were killed.[278] When Pope Pius VI took sides against the revolution in the First Coalition, Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Italy. The pope was imprisoned by French troops the following year and died after six weeks of captivity. After a change of heart, Napoleon then re-established the Catholic Church in France with the signing of the Concordat of 1801.[279] All over Europe, the end of the Napoleonic wars signaled by the Congress of Vienna, brought Catholic revival, renewed enthusiasm, and new respect for the papacy following the depredations of the previous era - This is also a rather one-sided perspective of the French Revolution. It does not acknowledge that any of the complaints against the clergy at the time might have had merit. In fact, it doesn't explain why any of this violence took place. See Sutherland's France 1789-1815, for a good one-volume history of the French Revolution on this point. There is a helpful index, which will guide you to the relevant sections on the "clergy".

• There may have been complaints against the clergy, but I'm not sure such complaints are any justification for what happened. Compare Russian revolution, or complaints against Jews prior to pogroms. Xandar (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• But the reader cannot decide for themselves - you do not offer the people's perspective. In fact, the reader does not even understand why these acts took place. Right now, it just seems like random violence, but it was not - there were reasons for it. Whether or not you feel those reasons justify it is irrelevant - we should explain those reasons to the reader. The reader needs to know why people in eighteenth-century France thought it was accepted to exile and kill priests, etc. Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• But that is like asking the Holocaust article to go into detail why the Nazi's wanted to kill them, it is assuming that some crime was being committed by the population of people who are being killed. In the Holocaust it was Jews, in the French Revolution it was priests. I think it is POV to insist that whoever is being wiped out at the time must have done something to deserve it in the first place. NancyHeise (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• The Holocaust article should (and does) explain very briefly the reasons why different things happened. That does not mean the victims are at fault and that the Germans are right. NPOV means includes the facts; the fact is that in France people thought XXX and used that for their justification for exiling or killing priests. The article is not meant to derive a conclusion on whether or not they were correct in thinking those thoughts or doing those deeds. Karanacs (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I added a sentence with wikilinks to lead into the French Revolution. Sources say that the cause of the French Revolution is a disputed point among historians, we have French Revolution wikilinked where the cause is discussed in detail. NancyHeise (talk) 00:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

We are not talking about the causes of the French Revolution. We are talking about one aspect of the French Revolution - the clerical controversy. Only one side of that controversy has been presented. Returning to the Nazi analogy, I would be shocked, actually, if the Holocaust article did not explain why the Nazis killed the Jews - if the article did not explain Anti-Semitism, White Supremacy, etc. Readers deserve to know what reasons the French people gave for killing and exiling their priests. In no way does this justify what they did, however. Awadewit (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I added more info to the section to address your comment here. NancyHeise (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this could be explained more clearly, but this is much better. Awadewit (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

One way of solving this POV problem, I think, would be to have a section dedicated to the story the Catholic Church tells about its own origin and history - just a few paragraphs. This can include the information about Jesus, Peter, etc. However, the "History" section should be much more NPOV. I worry that we are going to have to "Histories of the church" sections on many different pages, such as Reformation, Lutheran Church, etc. that all present the history of the Christian church from a particular point of view and they will all sound different. This will be confusing to readers. All of these histories should sound similar - they should not sound Lutheran on one page and Catholic on another page, for example. That is why I would suggest dedicating one section to the Church's view of its own history.

• I think this would risk fictionalising the church take on its history, and factualising opposition viewpoints. Best, I think, to try to do the best with scholarly material as it exists. Xandar (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• The problem is that historians do in fact say that the Church's view is unhistorical. Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• The history section is created using peer reviewed scholarly sources that support the article text with sensitive areas and other areas showing quotes from scholars of all viewpoints. NancyHeise (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think the bigger question is whether the sources currently used represent the overall opinion of historians in the appropriate balance. Karanacs (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• we don't seem to link to anti-clericalism, which should really be worked in somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone else linked this, I just saw it when I made an edit to French Revolution in response to comment above. NancyHeise (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• I am also concerned that the article presents Catholic belief as a unified whole with very few or no dissenters. Catholic beliefs are interpreted different by liberal theologians, conservative theologians, different orders of monks, different national churches, etc. It is hard to see what those debates are here (there is one brief discussion of liberation theology, but that is about all). This choice could also be viewed as POV - the Catholic Church wants its followers to believe that it has a unified set of doctrines, when in fact those doctrines are not uniformly followed. A section dedicated to "Disputes over Catholic theology" or some such could help remedy this. I understand that it would be hard to sprinkle them through the entire article at this point.

• This is a point. However there are not so many differences as some may think. Womens ordination has been mentioned, and Liberation Theology. There are Liberal views and Traditionalist views, which perhaps also deserve a brief mention. Xandar (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Brief is all I think can be done, anyway. Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• We have mentioned in the Demographics section the fact that the number of practicing Catholics is not reliably known. Disputes over Catholic Theology are already discussed throughout the history section in a manner suggested by Jimbo Wales. Women's ordination, birth control, liberation theology and all the past disputes over Catholic theology like Arianism are talked about and wikilinked for the reader who wants to know more. NancyHeise (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• These are all very brief mentions and these are not the current, core disputes in Catholic theology. Awadewit (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit, what current core dispute in Catholic Theology exists that we have not mentioned? NancyHeise (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I can name two right off the bat: Christology and reproductive ethics. Both have resulted in not only intense internal but also external debate. They have been covered by both Catholic and non-Catholic media due to their results. The publication of several near-heretical books by Catholic theologians on Christology caused quite a stir a while back when the authors were investigated, for example, and the set of choices the Catholic Church has made regarding contraception has had a huge impact on its aid programs in Africa, particularly with regards to AIDS, and the way other countries and groups interact with those programs. Both of these topics are quite controversial and are very visible - for obvious reasons. Awadewit (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Reproduction and use of condoms is covered in the History section under Vatican II and we provide the fact that it is something the Church is criticized about especially in the instance of AIDS. Christology is not notable, no Church documents have changed, no wars, no mass exodus of Catholics over the issue. There are other things that people disagree with the Church about - throughout history - we mention the notable ones, others are covered in the article on Roman Catholic theology which is listed as a link in See Also section. Also throughout history, we mention the notable dissenting theologians whose works are notable, meaning they resulted in some significant event or change in Church doctrine. All notable facts are included. NancyHeise (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, I was referring to a much wider discussion of reproductive issues - condoms are only one part of it. This section of the article is underdeveloped. Moreover, Christology has seen debate amongst theologians of the Church. I specifically gave an example of a larger political issue and a more specific theological issue. Awadewit (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your examples are covered in proper detail except Christology which is not a notable issue. Liberation Theology is notable because there has been quite a lot of bloodshed and politics surrounding this. Christology is an issue only discussed among some academics and ordinary Catholics do not even know what it is. If you can not name a notable issue that I have omitted, then I can't answer your question. NancyHeise (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added a short section to cover Liberal and traditionalist dissenters in the postVaticanII section. Other dissenting topics are, as Nancy says, not notable enough for coverage in a broad article such as this. A book here and there on Christology is of little note even to a church like the Anglicans or the Baptists, and the issue of Christology is touched upon in the mention of Kung. Xandar (talk) 12:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that the most important theological disputes of the Catholic Church are all political, actually, and that is the focus of these dissents. That is why it is clear to me there are gaps in the article. Awadewit (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• There is very little in the article on the Catholic Church's missions. This is a large and very significant section of the Church. I mentioned this problem in the last FAC. Brief mentions of charities do not explain the huge networks of schools, hospitals, etc. that the Catholic church builds and runs throughout the world. The article focuses too much on doctrine and history at this point. It does not really explain what the Church does.

• Would take a lot of space, is my first thought. esecond is that this might be considered puffing of the Church. What do others think? Xandar (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Since it is one of the main missions of the Church, I think it is crucial to discuss. If done correctly, it is not puffing. Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• The article does not omit the fact that the church has schools hospitals etc now or throughout history, this fact is throughout the article. I did some research after the last FAC and considered a section on the current work of the church throughout the world, possibly even listing all of the hospitals, schools, and missions but even after an extensive search, I could not find all that data in one place, I would have had to compile it myself via going to each country in the world's bishop's conference data and we are not allowed to do that on Wikipedia. What could be done is to have a separate wikipedia page on that subject that could link to this page when it is completed. NancyHeise (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I would anticipate that an entire page could be written on this topic and then summarized in this article. However, that does not mean that currently the article does an adequate job of covering this topic. It mentions but does not explain the Catholic Church's charity missions - one of its core functions as an institution. This a very serious omission. Awadewit (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to suggest ways to fix the issues I have raised, so I hope these were helpful suggestions. I am sorry that I could not support at this time. I actually spent several days thinking about this oppose. I can see how hard this FAC has been and I wanted to make sure that I was opposing for very substantial reasons. These are not issues that I believe I could easily fix myself or that I believe could be fixed in a day. I believe that some thoughtful and careful revision needs to take place and some additions need to be made before the article should become an FA. However, I have no doubt that these changes can eventually be made. Awadewit (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have done my best to outline what I feel are the major problems with this article - its slight Catholic POV (of which I gave examples, but there are many more, some of which have been pointed out by other editors), and its omissions. I am leaving town for a few days. When I return, I will do my best to add helpful quotations and resources to the article's talk page. Awadewit (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)\]

Awadewit makes statements about Roman Catholic Church history that are not accurate. She needs to provide some refs and quotes to back up her assertions because we can not comply with several of her wishes here on the simple basis as they are incorrect. She does not point out any factual inaccuracies in the article text and can not provide any notable events we have omitted. She has called our presentation of history POV but does not provide any sources or quotes to reflect some other version. The source she did provide never states that the Roman Church did not exist before the 4th century, that is completely opposed to all historical evidence. It has often happened when dealing with Karanacs and Awadewit that I have been asked to add more info in a certain section to supposedly reveal some very bad side of the Church, yet when I have gone about my research to comply with their wishes, I find that the compendium of historical evidence in my top sources does not match their hoped for version. It is impossible for me to build a history except on the facts, as much as I have tried to make them happy, especially Karanacs through literally hundreds of her comments beginning in January. NancyHeise (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

My statements are correct. I have provided sources - that you have not checked them to verify my statements is the problem. These sources actually do agree with historical evidence. When I return from my trip, I will place all of the relevant quotations on the article's talk page. I have pointed out many POV problems with the article. I have been very patient in this FAC, but my patience is wearing thin at this point. I actually did a lot of research before commenting on this FAC to make sure that every statement I made at this FAC would be correct. What this research revealed to me was that the editors themselves have only scratched the surface of the research available - they are using very few sources and select sources at that. This has been pointed out numerous times in this FAC and the previous FAC. Anyone who doubts these statements is free to investigate this at the article's talk page in about a week's time, after I return from my trip and spend the hours it takes to type up all of the necessary references and quotations. Awadewit (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just on the references issue at this point: Anyone who looks at the list of citations in the article, will see just how many different authorities there are here. Because some people have tried to make a fuss at some books actually written by catholic scholars being used, doesn't mean these books are poor sources. And no-one has pointed out any errors or falsities in the subject matter used. If you have other information. okay, but it has to be judged like the rest. Xandar (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I took you up on your offer to look at the list of citations, and I have to say I am unimpressed. Aside from the books, most of the sourcing is to official Vatican sources or otherwise presenting a Catholic opinion (which is fine, to a degree). I don't have the expertise to evaluate the books that are used, but I'll note that they are cited almost exclusively for the History section, and that four or five books predominate to a large degree. I'm not saying I agree with Awadewit's concerns, as I don't really have the knowledge to understand them, but looking through the citations does not convince me his arguments are invalid. Tuf-Kat (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit's comments have all been addressed. We have made changes to text where appropriate, provided valid reasons where we could not. I do not consider this an actionable oppose.NancyHeise (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been asked on my talk page whether my objection still stands and indeed it does. Nancy, "inacationable opposes" are those unrelated to the FAC criteria - all of my objections are related to the FAC critera. An "inactionable oppose" is something like "add an infobox", which is unrelated to the FAC criteria. It is now up to the FAC directors whether or not the oppose is sufficient. Let me explain why I am still opposing. 1) I gave examples of why the "History" section of the article has a slightly Catholic POV. Rather than try to fix these problems, the editors disputed the examples endlessly on the FAC page. Some of the problems I have pointed out have still not been fixed because the editors have either not understood my objections or for some other reason. Moreover, I did not list every example of POV. I listed the kinds of problems inherent in the page based on the periods I am most familiar with. Other editors, such as RelHistBuff, Jbmurray, and Durova, have listed the same kinds of problems from periods they are most familiar with. 2) I have described omissions from the article. Again, the editors have disputed the omissions rather than try to fix them. I would like to emphasize once again that I did not make this opposition lightly and I only did so after reading more books (I apologize I have not been able to add my sources to the talk page yet, but I will when I return from my trip - at this point I will have to rest on my reputation as a good researcher). I know that this article was difficult to write and to research, but I do not believe that it is FA quality yet. Awadewit (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to point out that it was not only editors responsible for the article who disputed your objections here (not all of them in my case, but several, not all commented on). If all the suggestions by those you mention above had been followed, I for one would be likely switch my position to strong oppose until balance had been restored. Likewise for Mike's objections below (is it?). Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you have written here, Johnbod. Awadewit (talk) 12:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems clear enough to me - not all suggestions of objectors (generally)) would improve articles, and there are many here that would not. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Please make it clear which you feel would improve the article and which would not - thanks. Awadewit (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Further to Awadewit's objections, which need clarifying:

1. Many statements not prefaced with The Church believes: ADDRESSED in text rewording.

2. The Spanish Inquisition was an essential part of the Countereformation: Point of view REFUTED. Major Historians and the britannica do not take this view.

3. The counter-reformation was not an innocuous reform - Again the majority of history sources including EB present it as mainly a reform process. Your view appears to be a small minority one at best.

4. The Church's view of its origin should be placed in a separate section from Church History. We could not agree, since this is not the method used by most historians and would be POV by implying the Church position on its origin is not historical. However we adopted the solution at 5 below.

5. It is hard to tell which part of early history is Church tradition and which is historically verified. ADDRESSED. History section specifically changed to specify which events are church tradition and which are verified history.

6. pentecost is a mystical event, it should not be mentioned in History section. EXPLAINED that Pentecost is used as a day when an important Church event happened. It would be unreasonable not to mention it.

7. Objected to position of article that Rome became a doctrinal centre from early centuries. COULD NOT ACCEPT this objection as it is not proven. Most mainstream historians accept this position along with the Encyclopedia Britannica. The only support adduced for the position of the objector was a book from Bart Ehrman, a POV fringe historian who has written books connected with Da Vinci Code. His position is minority and cannot be the one of the article. alternative views are already mentioned in the Origins section, and the history section already states that competing forms of Christianity existed. That is enough.

8. Not enough information on reasons for French revolution attack on Church. ADDRESSED. Further background added.

9. Too little mention of alternative Catholic views. ADRESSED sections on Traditionalists, Liberals added as well as Liberation Theology section expanded as per other review. And, as stated there are mentions of AIDS, Arianism, Womens ordination and other controversies throughout the article.

Basically the editors have attempted to address all comments from Awadewit. Some we could not accede to since they would mean changing the article to reflect a small minority POV in the face of the consensus of academic opinion. Xandar (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am adding this to the end of the FAC; this is unrelated to Awadewit's comments directly before this post. After several talk page and article talk page reminders throughout these FACs, I am formally and directly requesting that personalization of this FAC cease. I will remove further personal commentary, not directly related to the WP:FAC instructions or WP:WIAFA to the talk page. If someone simply must comment on an editor and not the content, pls do so elsewhere, or preferably, not at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've been reading and rereading the article, and the comments that others have offered about the article, since this was restarted to evaluate whether I am indeed holding this to a higher standard than other articles I review. I think that if I am, it is simply because I am much more familiar with the content in this article (at least the history) than other articles I review and can thus more easily see some potential issues. This is definitely a good article, and it has improved dramatially in the last few weeks. However, to fully meet the featured article criteria, I still think it needs more work. Following are a few suggestions (some are new, because I tried to read some of the sections I hadn't previously counted on). I think the easiest way to get over that last little hump would be to invite experts in some of these historical areas to help identify issues that they see in how things have been summarized to ensure that it is fully accurate and NPOV; identifying these on-wiki experts and getting them to help, though, could be difficult.
  • Is there any information on the true demographics of the church? Perhaps percentages by gender or age? It might also be useful to have a few sentences about the way the demographics of the church have changed over time; very broadly, this could mention any changes since countries stopped mandating Catholicism as the national religion (I think in much of Latin America this happened in the 20th century?), and especially demographic changes over the last 50 - 100 years. —This is part of a comment by Karanacs (of 18:00, 3 June 2008), which was interrupted by the following:

• No percentages on gender or age but I added text reflecting what the worldwide population was in 1970, the earliest figures anyone has on that. NancyHeise (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe the splits of bishops by continent would be easier to find, and give an idea? Johnbod (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• But she's not asking us for that and we already summarize that where Church growth is occuring in demographics section. NancyHeise (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• A table with that information (RC population by continent or bishops by continent) might be really useful in the demographics section. I just did a Google Scholar search on demographics and Roman Catholic Church. Did you know that there is a journal called Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion? It is not one I am familiar with, but I wonder if it would have demographic info? Karanacs (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have searched for Catholic Church statistical info and that info has to be compiled which constitutes original research per Wikipedia policies. I answered a FAC comment of Awadewit's that a separate article could be made on Church missionary work which could also include this information that could then be linked to this article. I do not think that our failure to add this info right now should prevent the article from becoming FA.

What about this link? This gives the percentage of Catholics by continent.[31] Karanacs (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It gives figures for 2004. I think that is too old. I plan to do the separate article discussed with Awadewit and I believe I will have that info after intense future research. I dont think this has to fail FAC because it does not have this specific info, this article is a summary. NancyHeise (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I think the article has a European/American focus.(Please note that the links provided are not sources I'm recommending you use, just a starting point so you can see what I am talking about)
    • There is only minimal mention in the article of the Church in Africa. As this is now one of the fastest-growing places for the church, it seems as if this merits a bit more discussion. From what I understand of the continent's history, Catholic churches were established in Africa very early, then languished, then a renewed missionary period in the late 15th century, then locals adapted the religion to look nothing like Catholicism, and missionaries started over in the early 17th century.

• This is answered after the next comment below. NancyHeise (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm answering here for clarity. The African church gets three mentions, in passing, and in conjunction with other areas of the world. These are those pieces: membership is growing, particularly in Africa and Asia, The apostles traveled to various areas in northern Africa, Asia Minor, Arabia, Greece, and Rome forming the first Christian communities, Through the late 15th and early 16th centuries European missionaries and explorers spread Catholicism to the Americas, Asia, Africa and Oceania. That's it. I would expect the fastest-growing area of the world in terms of Catholic population to have more coverage than that. Karanacs (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have added a paragraph in Modern Era because that is when the Church really took off. I included the reasons for this effect which are really the only notable mentions needed for this effect. It explains for reader why the Church in Africa grew so quickly. NancyHeise (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • Also, it might be worth mentioning in the paragraph on more modern challenges the more specific challenges of the church in Africa. This would include witchcraft[32] and the fact that many of the church practices that Europeans/North Americans take for granted are not practiced as regularly there.[33]

• Yes, without going into too much detail, the article text mentions the establishement of the Church in Africa in the Roman Empire section of History. Then article text mentions the missionary efforts going into Africa in the 15th century. The article text also includes mention of Africa in the demographics where it is noted that it is an area of population growth for the Church. I think this is sufficient mention of Africa. I just finished reading a biography on Michael Tansi, an African priest and there is much about the witchcraft problems that the priests had to deal with in helping the converts leave behind old superstitions - but this is a quality that is not limited to African converts. All missionary efforts had to deal with the indiginous practices of the people they converted. We dont go into this kind of detail in the aritcle and I disagree that we need to do so. NancyHeise (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• These are current issues facing the church, though, and I think they ought to be covered. Perhaps the article could place it in the context of missionary efforts as a whole, but as it is a current issue facing an area that is rapidly increasing in Catholic population, it is important to mention. Karanacs (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the article needs mention of this - it is not a notable historical fact, it is a pastoral concern for missionaries that has existed not just in our time but in all ages of the Church. Mentioning it would single out Africans which would present a POV problem. We have added a whole paragraph per your comments here and that is enough.NancyHeise (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • The article mentions the different rites and that they do have different liturgical practices. It does not mention any examples of how the rites differ, which would be useful to someone like me who isn't sure. It also isn't clear from the article whether any of the practices listed in the article are specific to the Latin Rite or not. This maybe ought to be more clear.

• The article Beleifs section introducing reader to these different rites says this "Different liturgical traditions or rites exist throughout the worldwide Church that reflect "particular expressions characterized by the culture".[49] These are the Latin rite (most commonly used), the Byzantine rite, the Alexandrian or Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, and Chaldean rites. Because of this diversity, variations exist in the liturgical practices of administering the sacraments within the different rites yet all hold the same beliefs.[49]". This text makes clear that the Latin rite is the most commonly used and provides Wikilinks to the other rites for the reader who wants to know more. In addition, the article text explaining the sacraments mentions specifically when a certain rite differs from the one being discussed. The section on the Mass tells reader that it is describing the Latin rite and tell them the Mass in Eastern Church's is called Divine Liturgy providing the wikilink for the reader who wants to know more. I disagree that more description of each of the rites will improve the article. We have omitted no relevant or significant facts. Also, this is English Wikipedia, in the English speaking world, the almost completely universal rite used is the Latin rite. NancyHeise (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I still felt like I didn't quite understand what the differences were, and since I am unfamiliar with the other rites I'm not sure how to fix this. Perhaps someone else has a suggestion? Karanacs (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The other rites (more appropriately, other churches in communion with the Roman Pontiff) constitute about 2% of the Catholic Church. Perhaps it deserves a brief sub-section in the Organization and Membership section, with a hat trick to the main article (Eastern Catholic Churches) and a one or two paragraph summary. More than that would be overkill for this article. Majoreditor (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

But they are already mentioned in the Beliefs section and wikilinked. All a reader has to do is click on the wikilink to know more and I dont think more mention is necessary. It is already mentioned in the Lead, Beliefs opening paragraph, certain areas in the different Beliefs sections and again in History. NancyHeise (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Everything is the same for all rites unless specifically identified in the article text. Places where differences in rites is discussed are: third para in Beliefs opening para, last sentence of Holy Spirit and Confirmation,second para of Eucharist with a wikilink after explanation (Because there are numerous rites and many differences in the liturgy for the Eucharist I do not advise addressing this in the article because it would be too lengthy, best to let the reader click on the wikilink and see the different rites). NancyHeise (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I'm still not happy with this sentence The five solas were one attempt to express these differences.. Perhaps if we switch it from passive to active voice this would help? Which organization attemped to codify these differences and when? Something like, "During the Protestant Reformation in XXXX, so-and-so wrote the five solas to attempt to express the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism." That would give more context and help the sentence fit in place better.

• Added your wording, I like it better too. NancyHeise (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• • In reading over the article as a result of some of jbmurray's concerns, I found that I was interpreting some of the stuff in the article potentially differently than was intended. For example, there are quotations sprinkled through the article. I assumed that most of those were quotes from Church publications that were then quoted in the source used, but in one sentence with two quotations, one was quoting Cardinal Ratzinger and the other was quoting the author of the book. The article needs to be able to differentiate who is being quote, and I don't think it is 100% there yet.

• I can't answer this comment unless you have a particular error in the text you want to point out. I have already gone through all quotes in the entire article, it took me two days, checking to match each citation and quotes. NancyHeise (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• As I don't have the sources, I have no idea what these quotations are actually quoting. Would it be easier if I left a list of quotations on the article talk page? Karanacs (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes please make a list and I'll go through them all, I dont think there are very many anyway. NancyHeise (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The quotations have been checked. NancyHeise (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I'd like to reiterate (but not argue over) statements I've made previously that I think the history section is subtly pro-Catholic POV. Using a critic's source for 50% of the citations and a pro-Catholic source for 50% of the citations absolutely does not mean the article is NPOV. It depends on how much information is taken from each source, and whether the information is appropriately balanced with opposing viewpoints on that particular issue. (relata has also brought this up.) I'd prefer that the article use neutral sources so we don't have to worry about pro-Catholic and anti-Catholic (surely there are historians who present no opinion one way or the other??). As an example, I feel that undue space is given to persecutions of Catholics while persecutions by Catholics are glossed over. Furthermore, this article's coverage of the missions is definitely pro-Catholic. When I've brought this up before, I was told that the coverage is this way because it was not officially Church policy to persecute non-Catholics or to cause bad things to happen in the missions. In my belief, though, if this was widespread practice, regardless of whether an official policy was issues, it should have mention here.

• (ec) "apologist" and "critical", which I thought already something of a false dichotomy for the likes of Norman, Duffy and Le Goff, is now turning into "pro-Catholic" and "anti-Catholic", which is certainly excessive, though not in the case of Vidmar, who is unapologetically apologist. Critics of the balance have not done too well on citing some individual cases here in the past (or the passages have been changed), though Awa has another go just above. I don't say the balance is perfect, but this is the history of the RC Church, not the effect of the Church on the world, which would be a rather different topic. Which persecutions by Catholics do you think are glossed over? Johnbod (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Johnbod -what persecutions that the Church sanctioned are not mentioned in the article text? This article is about the Church, not what Catholics have done throughout history. That is off topic material. NancyHeise (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding use of our sources, Wikipedia policy requires us to consider all significant viewpoints, the Catholic viewpoint of history is a significant viewpoint and the three sources to Vidmar, Norman and Woods provide us with that specific viewpoint. All other sources can not be classified in that category and some specifically fall into the critic category, also a significant point of view. These views become apparent in certain sensitive sections of the aritcle that NPOV considerations required us to provide refs to all viewpoints with added quotes so reader could see for themselves what various theologians have to say about the issue. While an equal 30% of sources are considered critic and 30% are considered apologist, the rest of the 40% do not fall into either category. I think what makes this article particulary FA is the high quality and varity of the particular sources used. NancyHeise (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• It is not that x% of the sources are of this type of source, it is how the sources are used and whether the percentage of information from each viewpoint is appropriately balanced. If only a few scholars put forth an explanation, and the vast majority of other scholars have differing interpretations, the vast majority should get the vast majority of the text, even if the minority espouse the RCC viewpoint. It does not mean the minority viewpoint gets equal weight with the majority. (I am not saying that this is necessarily the case in this issue, just trying to make the point clear.) As an example, just look at the difference in phrasing between the persecutions of Henry VIII (which were politicialy motivated and not due to religion) and Elizabeth I (again, primarily politically motivated) compared to that of Mary I. If we are not to include acts that were not officially sanctioned by the Vatican, perhaps we should not include things that affected Catholics but did not strike directly at the Vatican? Karanacs (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel this particular strand of criticism is misconceived. Firstly, getting a completely "neutral" source about history, especially on a subject like this is virtually impossible. All historians have their viewpoints and favoured theories. That is why a range of sources is best. Secondly, you have produced no evidence that persecutions of others by the Catholic Church are glossed over in the article, or treated differently from the persecutions mounted against Catholics. I would actually say that the way the English reformation section is written bends over backwards to accommodate and portray the Protestant view. For example the article possibly over-emphasizes the political nature of Henry's transformation of the Church, and only records the death of Thomas More. The article does not mention the hanging, disembowelling and quarterings of monks, priests and abbots, the massacres of English Catholics following the Pilgrimage of Grace, the Prayer Book Rebellion, and other attempts by them to follow their old faith, or the massacres undertaken in Ireland. And that is only a fraction of what is not mentioned in the article on the Catholic side. Producing a balanced account does not mean listing all the misdeeds that ever took place. As another example, at the last FAC, someone stated that we should cover the Spanish Civil War. We didn't, but if we had, we could list literally thousands of blameless priests, monks and nuns systematically murdered by Anarchist and Communist militias. Against my advice, nancy has also removed reference to the thousands of priests executed by the Nazis in WW2, which I would consider deserve mention as a counterbalance to allegations of Church collaboration. Xandar (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you know of an authoritative source that determines which viewpoint is the majority view? My sources meet Wikipedia guidelines as top sources per WP:Reliable source examples, the authors are very respected and the book reviews are good. None are radical POV's that Wikipedia does not allow us to use, even though some FAC reviewers have searched for bad reviews, none have found any, only good reviews. NancyHeise (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying the persecutions of Henry and Elizabeth were not religiously motivated, but those of Mary were? I find that a very dubious proposition; most rulers, and much public opinion, at the time regarded religious dissent as a political matter, and it is barely meaningful to attempt a distinction. Johnbod (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, Johnbod's comment just above is not a response to my comment, he is responding to Karanacs. NancyHeise (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I can not act on this comment. It does not specify any source that is unacceptable per WP:RS. Karanacs. Pro-Catholic, you mean apologist sources are three books out of a huge list. All Vidmar cites are doubled with Bokenkotter, a critic or Duffy, also a critic. There are now many more critic cites than apologist. My original analysis noted a 30% critic, 29% apologist split with the other 40% indeterminable as to critic or apologist viewpoint. That has now changed with excessive addition of citations to Duffy and Bokenkotter. NancyHeise (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• • This caption Early Christians were martyred as entertainment in the Colosseum in Rome, a short distance from Vatican City. Jean-Léon Gérôme, 1883. makes it seem as if Vatican City was already in existance at the time that Christians were killed in the Colosseum.

• Changed. Johnbod (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• • The vast majority of the images are right-aligned. Perhaps some of these could be left-aligned instead?

• Moved 3; it's difficult with so many sub-headings, below which right alignment is needed. Johnbod (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well, none of this ever came up at peer review or the last two FAC's but I'll try to answer each comment after some research, this may take me into tomorrow. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry about that; I've been concentrating on different sections of the article each time I review. Karanacs (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs comments have all been addressed. We have made changes where appropriate, provided valid reasons where not. I do not consider this an actionable oppose. NancyHeise (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Criterion 1D: neutrality. Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to advocate one school of scholarly thought over another, yet this article does, and does so editorially and repeatedly. I'll quote one passage as an example:

Historians note that for centuries Protestant propaganda and popular literature exaggerated the horrors of the inquisitions. According to Edward Norman, this propaganda "identified the entire Catholic Church ... with [the] occasional excesses" wrought by secular rulers. While one percent of those tried in the inquisitions received death penalties, Norman states that in the 16th century "the Inquisitions were regarded as far more enlightened than secular courts", which did not grant more lenient sentences for those who repented their crimes.

Twice, this discussion labels Protestant criticism of the inquisition as propaganda--using this highly pejorative term not as quote but as editorial assertion--then follows up with a quote and a paraphrase from a pro-Catholic scholar without any comparable attention to the criticism itself. In justice to the nominator, this is a difficult and nuanced area where--having familiarity with the subject myself--I agree that the inquisition was exaggerated in the Protestant world and exaggerations were used for propagandistic aims. Yet to make that element the central focus of a discussion on the inquisition itself results in a POV defense of Catholicism, by overlooking the actual abuses that did occur. The presentation's chronology is also confusing, even to a reader already grounded in the subject: this passage discusses late fifteenth and sixteenth century events in a section ostensibly dedicated to the High Middle Ages, then the following paragraph introduces the fourteenth century. Then the following section Late Medieval and Renaissance discusses the Protestant reformation without a hint of interplay between the Inqusition and the Protestants.

With gratitude and respect toward the person who obviously put a lot of effort into bringing the page this far, there are deep structural issues that stand between the present version and featured article quality. I do not believe that the issues at hand are cosmetic or can be addressed within the time frame of an FAC. It would require considerable additional research to achieve scholarly balance, and would require basic reworking to achieve adequate chronological or thematic structure (it ought to have one or the other and presently has neither). The inquisition, for example, had its roots in the Albigensian Crusade of the high middle ages but existed in its most objectionable form during the Renaissance--which receives scant mention. Long as this oppose is, it focuses on one fraction of a single paragraph to give a representative illustration of comprehensive problems. This is a difficult and ambitious subject. I applaud the nominator for choosing an important topic and for bringing it this far. I also, unambiguously, urge the withdrawal of this FAC and advise obtaining a collaborator in bringing the page to the next level. Based upon the previous FAC and responses to comments at this one, it really appears that this editor has done all that he or she can alone. Assistance is needed, and I offer my best wishes for a successful bid on the next try. Durova^Charge! 00:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. In our efforts to satisfy Wikipedia's requirement to provide all significant viewpoints, we used several sources to reference each of the sensitive areas of Church History like Inquisitions. If you will click on the actual references you will see that they all mention the issue of Protestant propaganda and these sources are not just Catholic, but others as well - the most respected scholars some might say - on the subject of Church history. Wikipedia requires us to have facts in the article and that is what has been presented. These are not opinions of Catholic history but actual events - we have not omitted notable controversies or criticisms. If I were to eliminate the statement from Edward Norman, I would be eliminating a substantial point of view. NancyHeise (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment and point of view. I understand there are many different structural ways that a person could present the information in this article. For over five months, we have labored over this article with many editors and reviewers through the GA process, two separate peer reviews and FAC's as well as pages and pages of talk page discussion to arrive at the present format and presentation. It is a reflection of much consensus building. I do not feel that I can change it based on the review of one person who has not been involved in the process until now. I appreciate your advice but I do not feel that I can act on this oppose for these reasons. NancyHeise (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point of view you impute; I'm the editor who raised Joan of Arc to FA--certainly no anti-Catholic bias. I agree; since it appears you have reached the limit of your own abilities, and the article still falls short, a collaborator would be the best solution here. Best wishes. Durova^Charge! 05:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this counts as an "I'm going to make a controversial comment and then announce that there is no possible solution or discussion," oppose. Particularly with frankly insulting remarks to one of the main editors who has spent literally hundreds of hours opf her time on this project. The suggestion that "someone else" (unnamed) redo the article before it can be worthy of FA is NOT an FA criterion. Your comments on the inquisition are misplaced, since you yourself admit that much propaganda has been poured out relevant to the inquisition. This IS a fact. As for time periods, you should realize that many historical events run across necessarily artificial time-divisions. Events are dealt with largely in the PRINCIPAL era of their origin or effect. The Inquisitions were largely medieval in origin. It would be risible to introduce sections labelled Inquisition in the 16th century, Inquisition in the 17th century etc. If you refuse to discuss ways of resolving your objections, or even to state them in an addressable manner, your objection is not actionable. Xandar (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The notion that the Inquisition was principally Medieval is a popular myth. Its most active century was the sixteenth, it remained a potent force during the seventeenth, and it did not formally end until the eighteenth. If anything is risible it would be the uneven treatment that delves into its origins but fails to address either its peak or its conclusion, hence perpetuating the myth. I offered repeated and explicit thanks to the article's principal editor, yet that gets construed as insult. So I'll be more explicit: this article and its two FACs give the strong appearance of having been done by people who are hardworking and dedicated and who lack adequate grounding in the fundamentals of historiography. Others before me have attempted to articulate concerns about priority of sources and textual criticism, and the responses do not recognize what these concepts are or why they matter. How do I state that problem in an addressable manner? I identify it as criterion 1d, parse one brief example out of many in some depth, and suggest an additional collaborator--because really what this article must have is a contributor who distinguishes between theology and historical method. Without that it will probably remain more appropriate for the Catholic Encyclopedia than here. FA is not a thank-you for hard work; that is why we have barnstars. Durova^Charge! 14:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

OK everybody be nice please. I appreciate your comments Durova but the only discussion we need to be having here is which FAC criteria you think is not being met. Just because I am a person who does not want to fill my user page with my credentials does not mean that I fail to posess them. Please have a bit of faith in me. You have indicated that the article is not NPOV enough to meet to your satisfaction and I would like to correct that. Please tell me what you think should be removed and with what do we replace it? Do you have suggestions for appropriate texts? We faced textual criticism on this FAC because some people did not realize that all of our sources meet the top criteria required by WP:Reliable source examples. No one has been able to offer any wikipedia criteria failure nor any lack of or bad peer review of any of our sources. The authors are notable, respected, and highly recognizable authors representing the "representative" body of historical research on the Catholic Church. The actual text in the article identifying the height and duration of the inquisitions is here: "Abuses committed during the crusade caused Innocent III to informally institute the first papal inquisition to prevent future abuses and to root out the remaining Cathars.[220][221] Formalized under Gregory IX, this Medieval inquisition executed an average of three people per year for heresy at its height.[221][222] Over time, other inquisitions were launched by the Church or secular rulers to prosecute heretics, to respond to the threat of Moorish invasion or for political purposes.[223] The accused were encouraged to recant their heresy and those who did not could be punished by penance, fines, imprisonment, torture or execution by burning.[224][223] In the 14th century, King Philip IV of France created an inquisition for his suppression of the Knights Templar.[222] King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella formed an inquisition in 1480, originally to deal with distrusted ex-Jewish and ex-Muslim converts.[225] Over a 350-year period, the Spanish Inquisition executed between 3,000 and 4,000 people,[226] representing around two percent of those accused.[227" Can you identify for me any factual errors or omissions of notable fact? The following section containing Norman's quote is referenced to three different sources that verify the fact that this was eventually used as a propaganda against the Church, a notable fact we can not omit - agreed by a variety of scholars including John McManners Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity a book that is the consolidated work of 18 top university professors. If you would like to see another top source saying the same thing, please see [34]. This University of California Press book, by History professor Edward Peters, also uses the term Protestant Propaganda to describe the way the Inquisitions were reflected in English literature. It was very easy to find a multitude of sources saying the same thing by going to GoogleBooks and typing in Protestant Propaganda, Inquisition. So it appears to me that this is not some sort of POV but an important fact that had serious adverse repurcutions for the Catholic Church for centuries and is a notable fact. NancyHeise (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The point is, Durova, that this is meant to be a positive and constructive process. Objections should be made order to point out what specific things need to be done to improve the article with a view to it attaining FA status. It is not a matter of picking one sentence out of its context and then saying in so many words: the entire article is rubbish, the writers know nothing and "someone better" needs to redo it. The article has gained GA status and has has a lot of very positive support at its various FACs, including support for dealing with a very large, controversial and complex subject in a clear and informative way. The editors are always ready to deal with specific problems raised and to consider wordings that will help to improve the article and satisfy objections. Passages on subjects like the Inquisition have already been through much refining, agreement and compromise over the past six months. Arriving at a very late stage in the process, you may not realize this. However please make raise specific problems you may find in the text and be prepared to discuss them with the editors with a view to finding solutions. Xandar (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

On the issue of "the Inquisition", strictly there was no such thing. There was a Medieval inquisition which was virtually defunct by the end of the 15th century. There was a Roman Inquisition, which was under the control of the Pope, but ran under the supervision of local rulers in other Italian states, and is considered by far the mildest of the Inquisitions. The other two, the Spanish and the Portuguese were run by their respective governments with no "interference" permitted from the Vatican. I'm not sure which inquisition you claim peaked at the time of the Counter-reformation, but unless you can provide some proof of the claim that the Inquisition was a major part of the Counter-reformation movement, we will have to stick with the academic sources that say differently. Xandar (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Please refrain from imputing motives or paraphrasing my statements; it does not reflect well on either of us. The four lines I selected as an example are a striking case of WP:UNDUE: a lengthy in-article rebuttal of a notable position whose parameters are available only via the footnotes. The Google test is a poor metric for the editorial use of propaganda. Some people in the world seriously contend that the World Trade Center never existed and 9/11 is American propaganda. I get 241 Google Books returns for "World Trade Center 9/11 propaganda".[35] Of course it would be difficult to find a reputable scholar who argues the latter, yet the salient points remain: historiography isn't about stacking up two piles of books and counting which is taller than the other. Even if the Google test were a reasonable metric here, it's a flawed assumption to suppose that all uses of propaganda refer to Protestant exaggerations rather than Catholic defenses; the latter also has propagandistic elements. WP:NPOV is about presenting all notable points of view according to the relative weight those views carry among leading experts, thus empowering the reader to reach his or her own conclusions. A thoughtful reader could reasonably infer from the present text that early Protestants were so sympathetic to Islam and Judaism that they employed propaganda in defense of those other religions, because if the Inquisition had nothing to do with the Counter-Reformation then it leaves unanswered what all those Protestants were complaining about. This is one of the starker examples and in several kilobytes of discussion I see no movement at all. A few other instances, briefly:

• No mention of a Protestant viewpoint on whether Peter was the first pope.
• Pope Alexander VI appears only in relation to the Inter caetera bull. The name Borgia and its significance would shed light on the Renaissance.
• The coverage of the California mission system gives a low figure for the decline in the indigenous population and attributes it to disease, not mentioning other factors.

Without intending any disrespect toward the Cathoic Church itself or toward the volunteers whose efforts have improved this article, these examples tend in a particular direction because the present text tends in the opposite direction. Explaining that one's sources are reputable scholars doesn't mean it's appropriate to promote an FAC that advocates one school of thought editorially. Durova^Charge! 19:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Durova has very eloquently expressed the same issues in the history section that I and several other opposing reviewers have been trying to point out for several FACs. I strongly endorse her description of the issues in the history section. Karanacs (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs was an editor for this article and it was she herself who provided us with the source and quote that was eventually used to build the paragraph in the California missions, the one you are claiming now is evidence of Catholic POV. I would like to ask that if you are stating we have a factual inaccuraccy in the text regarding the figure for the decline in the indigenous population, it would help us to bring this article to FA for you to maybe provide us with a source that you are certain says differently. Perhaps then we could include an estimated range with a sentence that states "historians differ as to the actual number of indians ...." I thank you for your directly addressed points regarding the protestant viewpoint on Peter and Pope Alexander, I will try to address those issues. To my knowledge though, I believe we have already addressed the Peter issue with our presentation of the different scholarly positions in the Origins and Missions section. We make this clear to reader that not everyone agrees that Peter was the first pope and I dont think anyone could accuse us of POV in that section regarding that issue. I think that maybe you havent read that section? Im not sure and I dont want to assume but it seems to me that a lot of text has been devoted just to the first pope issue already. NancyHeise (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I just did a bit of research and added a sentence to address your comment with "Because the simony and nepotism practiced in the Church of the 15th and early 16th centuries prevented any kind of papal reform, rich and powerful families like the Borgia's were able to control the papal office and seated their own worldly candidates like Alexander VI in (1492).[253] " The section contains several other sentences about this corruption so please read the whole section. I think this is what you wanted to see. Please let me know. Thanks, and that was a very good comment by the way. NancyHeise (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the attention. I may be a little slow in following up. This discussion has taken more time than I anticipated and I have a featured content drive of my own to work on--a photographic restoration. This kind of work is largely invisible because I pick up maybe a dozen edits onsite for the whole FPC, but spend so many days and hours in Photoshop that I dream in colloidon glass prints. Regards, Durova^Charge! 22:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, it seems from your comment about books on 9/11 that you doubt what I have said about the Protestant Propaganda. There are two scholarly sources in the article text supporting this fact and I just provided you with another example above to the Cambridge University Press source. I hope you understand that I can not eliminate these highly referenced facts, because they are notable and important in the history of the Catholic Church. Elimination would be against Wikipedia policy and would make the article POV. NancyHeise (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite a few points here. 1. Durova. You haven't proved your point re the Inquisition being a major part of the Counter-reformation process. Most histories do not take this view. Just looking at Chadwick's "The Reformation", a quite authoritative treatment, I find 70 pages devoted to the Counter-reformation, of which just half a page refers in any way to inquisitions. That's the level of weight a major, unbiased historian gives it. 2. There is ample discussion of the origin of the papacy, which actually gives the "anti" view more space than the Catholic one. There is no additional requirement for a "Protestant" or even a Muslim viewpoint on Peter's status. 3. Nancy has put something in about Mr Borgia. 4. The mexican missions section was discussed at previous FAC and agreed. In fact I think it already goes past NPOV by implying that the missions were responsible for the large fall in the indian population when this occurred everywhere that Old World contact occurred, because of Indian susceptability to disease. It's probably unfair to connect this to the Church because the first contacts were friars rather than gold prospectors or cattlemen! But that is the agreed wording. Xandar (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, on the issue of your claim that the article is fatally unbalanced because the Inquisition is not mentioned again with respect to the Counter-Reformation. I have just looked at the Roman Catholicism article at Encyclopaedia Britannica. The article is many times larger than ours. It has ten times as much space on the Counter Reformation. However in that treatment, the Inquisition, and its alleged central role are not mentioned once. Unless you are alleging that Britannica is twisting history in aid of the Catholic Church, I think that is a pretty authoritative back-up for the article as it stands. Xandar (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Further to comments about the use of the term Protestant Propaganda with regard to the inquisitions, it is indeed common in respected histories. here is an additional example:

Armstrong, The European Reformation, Heinemann, (2002), p103, quote: "Contrary to subsequent Protestant propaganda the procedure followed by the (Papal) Inquisition was careful and respectful with regard to legal rights. Clear proof was required, along with two witnesses, and rarely was torture used to extract confessions. Anonymous denunciations were illegal, while a defence lawyer was guaranteed for the suspect. Punishments were generally lenient and designed to bring the guilty party back into the fold. The public abjuration of protestantism before a congregation might suffice, for example." Xandar (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Durova's comments have been addressed in full including changes to the text as indicated above. I do not consider this an actionable oppose. NancyHeise (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Others, like Eamon Duffy, caution that the insufficient number of clear written records surviving from the early years of Christianity make precision about the early status of Rome difficult." What does this sentence mean? Gimmetrow 00:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what happened to that paragraph, maybe it was a mistake - please see the paragraph again. NancyHeise (talk) 03:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose on copyediting and neutrality grounds. (Later note: Consider my oppose strong, for whatever that's worth. It's apparent that my concerns are being dismissed, and that no attempt has been made to even understand my points, much less respond to them reasonably)

• "God the Father, original sin, and Baptism": It's usually bad form to begin a section (or even a paragraph most of the time) with a direct quote. The beginning should describe the subject of the section. —This is part of a comment by Tuf-Kat (of 01:12, 4 June 2008), which was interrupted by the following:

Thank you for your comments. While I agree that there are numerous ways we could have presented this material, editors of the page, through consensus, decided upon the present format. The Nicene Creed is the central statement of Catholic belief so certain sections begin with a certain quote from the Creed that pertains to the section being discussed. This treatment was met with great approval from many reviewers, even some opposers on this page. The section title describes the contents being discussed in each section. The seven Church sacraments are discussed in each section of Beliefs that pertains to that specific sacrament - thus Baptism is in the same paragraph that describes original sin. NancyHeise (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not acceptable to start with a quote from the Nicene Creed, then explain what the section is about and why that quote is important. For more, see below. Tuf-Kat (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I changed the arrangment of the sentences to comply with your comment here. The quote has been moved. NancyHeise (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• According to the Church, the Holy Spirit reveals God's truth through Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. - is an excellent example of why I have neutrality concerns. This takes a statement that the Church might well have said precisely, and attempts to satisfy NPOV by slapping a "According to the Church" at the beginning. The "Holy Spirit" should be defined in that paragraph, and something better than "reveals" is needed. The meaning of "God's truth" is not clear. (They are vehicles through which God's grace is said to flow into all those who receive them with the proper disposition. is another example: adding "is said" to does not make a sentence neutral) A more neutral wording might be something like "The Church claims that its beliefs are inspired by one of the manifestations of God, the Holy Spirit, who is said to communicate God's will through a collection of sacred books, church traditions and the body of official pronouncements known as the Magisterium". (I'm not sure if that's really an accurate rewording, but that's because the original isn't clear either. I don't see any reason to use the terms "Sacred Scripture" or "Sacred Tradition".

Thank you. I added some wording to help the reader know who is the Holy Spirit, good comment. Holy Spirit is also wikilinked at the beginning of the Beliefs section. We have to use the phrases "According to the Church" etc in order to be able to concisely present Church belief. Size has been a consideration and it is not against Wikipedia policy or any violation of NPOV to frame these sentences as we have. Since all of this wording is in a section called Beliefs and we use "According to the Church" and "The Church believes" or " the Church teaches", etc, I doubt that anyone is going to think that we are presenting these items as facts rather than as Beliefs. Please see the FA Islam which incorporates similar language - I think it is just a factor of being able to explain a section without having to overqualify each sentence when it is clear from the heading alone that the section is not being presented as a statement of fact held by all people. NancyHeise (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You're missing my point. You can not take a sentence that presents the church's viewpoint, slap "According to the Church" on it and call it neutral. That is simply not a method of producing neutral prose. I'm not concerned about Islam and won't look at it now, as it's not relevant. It is possible to use phrases like "According to X" in a neutral manner, but you haven't done that in this article. Better prose (both better written and more neutral) would probably be smaller than the current length. Tuf-Kat (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nancy here. The section is about explaining the Church's beliefs. There is no other way to do it other than saying "The Church believes X" or some similar formulation. This is simply a section for exposition of the Church's core beliefs. It isn't a section for debating whether those beliefs are right or wrong. This is factual material. To add to every belief something like: "The church believes it is guided by the Holy Spirit, but some Protestants don't believe this, since they think the Holy Spirit doesn't guide churches, but only people as they read the Bible," is just impracticable and confusing. And where would you stop? Why should only Protestant views of catholic beliefs be presented? You'd have to add "and Muslims don't believe the Holy Spirit is divine; while atheists don't believe in a Holy Spirit, or anything much, at all..." We do not need to put next to every belief that someone else doesn't believe it as well. 92.40.93.200 (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. My suggested version of the sentence did not present any points of view besides the Church's. The Church claims that its beliefs are inspired by one of the manifestations of God, the Holy Spirit, who is said to communicate God's will through a collection of sacred books, church traditions and the body of official pronouncements known as the Magisterium Statements like vehicles through which God's grace is said to flow into all those who receive them with the proper disposition and the Holy Spirit reveals God's truth are effectively religious jargon, as if you're not already familiar with Christian theology, terminology and imagery, it doesn't make sense. Tuf-Kat (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see that suggestion. It gets hard spotting everything in a long, changeable mass of text like this. I think, however, that your version tends toward POV in the other direction by being rather arch about things like the "collection of sacred books". (It sounds more like someone's Marilyn Monroe collection!) And saying that the Church's beliefs are "inspired by one of the manifestations of God" is still jargon, and doesn't explain that the church believes it is preserved from doctrinal error by the HS - which is extremely important to Catholicism. I think some religious jargon is unavoidable in an article like this, since (as with science or medicine) there are some concepts that ordinary language cannot properly convey. Feel free to suggest alternative wording for phrases that concern you, or provide a list of stuff you think is too impenetrable, and we'll take a look at it. Xandar (talk) 02:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

How about something like "The Church claims that its beliefs are inspired by one of the manifestations of God, the Holy Spirit, who communicates God's will inerrantly through a collection of sacred scripture (the Bible), church traditions and the body of official pronouncements known as the Magisterium". (I still don't like the repetition of "God" within just a few words, and I like infallibly better than inerrantly but I know the former word has special meaning in this article). Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The wording you suggest fails the test of precision. The Holy Spirit does not, according to catholics communicate God's will simply through sacred scripture. And the Magisterium is far more than a body of official pronouncements. However, i take your point about this section, and as I have said in response to your comment below, I will look into how this passage can be simplified and somewhat de-jargonized. Xandar (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This is better, but I'm still not entirely satisfied on this point. Tuf-Kat (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• to condemn false interpretations of scripture or define truths. - should be "to condemn alternative interpretations...", as it otherwise implicitly accepts the Church's pov.

But the beliefs section is supposed to explain the Church's pov and using this wording actually explains it. If it existed in any other section but Beliefs, I think your comment would be valid but not in this situation. NancyHeise (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because it's in the Beliefs section doesn't mean it can implicitly support the Church's position. You can explain Church viewpoints without imparting their truth to the reader. Tuf-Kat (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You have more of a point here. But replacing the phrase with "condemn alternative interpretations of scripture" would be inaccurate, since all alternative interpretations of scripture are not necessarily condemnable. However the sentence can be amended simply to something like "..to condemn interpretations of scripture believed to be false..." Xandar (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"alternative" is not exclusive (e.g. it doesn't imply that all possible alternatives are included), but anyway my first thought was "condemn particular interpretations of scripture", but I thought that would be rejected. I think "believed to be false" is wordier than necessary. Tuf-Kat (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

the college of bishops acting in union with the pope to define truths or to condemn interpretations of scripture believed to be false - I can't support this wording, as it is longer than needed and begs the question "believed by whom?" Also, since they did both, it should be and instead of or right? Tuf-Kat (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This comment has been addressed by changes made in the text.NancyHeise (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• The beliefs of other Christian denominations differ from those of Catholics in varying degrees - this sentence has little informational utility.

The sentence right after this one explains what those differences are. We have to consider prose and not hit the reader with so many facts one right after the other without some nice transition. This sentence provides transition. NancyHeise (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. It's bad form to have sentences that don't really mean anything. You could replace "Christian demoninations" and "Catholics" with pretty much any combination of similar nouns, and it would be just as true, and just as meaningless. All people of every kind everywhere have beliefs that differ from each other in varying degrees. If a sentence doesn't itself communicate something useful, it's needless verbiage. If you mean for it to communicate something useful, it needs to be reworded. "Transition sentences" are not a part of proper formal writing, as high quality prose does not need them. Tuf-Kat (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. The sentence has gone. Xandar (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• The Church believes that this savior was Jesus, whom John the Baptist called "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world". - what does the John the Baptist quote add? What does the Nicene Creed quote afterward add?

I changed the text a bit to make this clear. This comment is being written after the comments that follow so this comment has been addressed. NancyHeise (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It's still not clear why the quote, or those two sentences at all, are here. 1/8 of the paragraph that constitutes the entirety of this article's coverage of Jesus' theological importance is devoted to this quote - If it's really so important for some reason, it needs more elaboration on why. Tuf-Kat (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

These are all explanations about Church belief. The Nicene Creed, the central statement of Catholic faith, is sprinkled throughout in each area that explains that particular section of the Creed. This was a much liked arrangement agreed upon by many editors and reviewers in this and previous FACs and on our talk page.

Since you presumably know the significance of those quotes, I'm sure you do see their value. My point is that the reader (who is presumably reading this article because he doesn't know much about it) has no way of understanding why these quotes are important. I think it's already been established that Catholics believe Jesus "takes away the sin of the world", so why give this particular quote about it, with no explanation of what this quote is intended to illustrate to the reader. I'm fine with giving all or a portion of the Nicene Creed in this article. But it's not proper to start a section with a quote, because that doesn't communicate to the reader what the section is about. Nobody will understand why the Nicene Creed is relevant until they read the subsequent sentence. Tuf-Kat (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

TufKat, the Nicene Creed quotes sprinkled throughout the Beleifs section was an arrangement that was agreed upon by many editors after a lot of back and forth discussion, in the last FAC, peer review and even into this FAC. We used to have the entire Nicene Creed quoted in a box in the opening paragraph in Beliefs. Its presentation first was central to helping reader understand what was being discussed in each of the sections that followed. That was not acceptable to many FAC reviewers so we compromised and eliminated the entire quote, mentioned its importance in the Beliefs opening para and sprinkled it throughout the sections that discuss each part of it. This arrangement met with wide acceptance among our reviewers - everybody loved it. I do not understand how, after all of this, you are asking me to do something that sounds like what we had before. Please understand that we sometimes can not please everyone and we have to go with what will please the most. NancyHeise (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with nancy that the John the Baptist quote is quite necessary where it is. It provides a concise way of explaining that Jesus's role as saviour is to take away the sins of the world. The quote adds colour to the text, which a more prosaic eplanation of this point would not. I think this is a stylistic point. As far as the use of the Nicene Creed goes. The fact that the Creed is the core statement of Catholic belief has already been explained in the lead and again in the main body of text. Its use in this manner is the result of a consensus decision taken after a lengthy debate over the past two FACs on the article, so we do not want to breach that consensus. Xandar (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've looked over the last two FACs, and I don't see any consensus, or discussion at all, that each section must begin with a quote from the Creed. I don't have any opinion on whether the Creed should be quoted at all, and I have only a vague idea of what the Creed is. It doesn't matter. Starting with a quote is always inappropriate because the first sentence explains what the topic is. Thus, the quote inherently replaces Wikipedia's neutral point of view explanation of the section's scope with another source's explanation, and/or, the quote simply doesn't provide

• I'm not sure about the sectioning. If you have a section entitled "Eucharist and liturgical year", it needs to begin by stating what a eucharist and liturgical year are, then probably go into why it's important and where it comes from. I don't think that section ever really explains what a liturgical year is.

This has been moved, please see all the changes we have made in the text to comply with all of TufKat's comments. NancyHeise (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Liturgical year is the last paragraph in that section. Eucharist is the first part of the section. please see my explanation of sectio arrangement after your first comment. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the last paragraph is about the liturgical year. I've read it a number of times now, and I still don't know what exactly a "liturgical year" is, but I see that there is a paragraph about it. And aside from some vague hand-waving about consensus among those editing this article, I don't see how you've responded to my concerns about sectioning. I haven't even told you what they are, and you've already dismissed them. Tuf-Kat (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your right, I improved the first two sentences to make that clear and I think this was a good comment, Im sorry I did not answer it right away, I have been very busy today. NancyHeise (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Tuf-Kat (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The centrality of the Nicene Creed is discussed in the opening para on Beliefs, its presentation in the subsequent paras is based on its importance and proper introduction to the subject matter. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Thanks for your comments. I can not change the things you want me to change and I do not feel there is a need to especially when you are the only reviewer to bring this up in Beliefs. The consensus of opinion regarding wording supports present text if we consider the past five or more months of FAC reviews and Peer reviews and MoS edits. I am sorry I can not comply here. NancyHeise (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

A better introduction to the Liturgical Year paragraph is under construction. Re Nicene Creed, see my note above. Xandar (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Tuf Kat, another editor, Xandar, is going through and addressing some of your comments here. I am fine with whatever he decides in this matter. NancyHeise (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the Nicene Creed is being quoted because it is itself worthy of special notice, not because it is informative. As a compromise, would you consider putting it in a box, such as using Template:Quotebox? (See Batman_(1989_film) for an example in action.)

The most recent discussion of a related topic in the archives appears to be Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church/Archive_16, The talk in the previous FAC and the most recent talk archive is both about the presence of the Creed reproduced in full, apparently as the full content of the "Beliefs" section (maybe). In any case, I don't see any discussion on including quotes from the Creed at the beginning of each section. Tuf-Kat (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The quotebox was actually used for the Creed up to the recent change. I actually preferred the quotebox, but the consensus of editors were against me on that. The decision to use the creed as the basis of the beliefs section won approval from reviewers. On sections, it might be more logical to include Liturgical Year with Liturgy of the Hours rather than Eucharist. But other than that, we do not want to start a major revamp of sections now. What do others think of the Liturgical year suggestion? Xandar (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

My understanding from the previous discussion was that the Creed was reproduced in full in one box, (maybe as the entirety of the beliefs section?) which is not what I'm proposing (each piece of the Creed in a box next to the section in question). In any case, my real suggestion is just to not start each section with a quote, and I still don't see where there's been any discussion at all on that point. Please point me to it. Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I am very happy with Xandars edits to respond to TufKats FAC comments. I think the article is improved because of these changes. Regarding the liturgical year going into Liturgy of the Hours - definitely it is fine with me and is not a major change. If you want to make the edit, Xandar go ahead. Regarding the Creed quote going back in - there is no way we can possibly even consider doing that - it has been thoroughly and almost heatedly discussed over and over in depth, the current version is the result of MUCH discussion and consensus - please see where consensus was asked for and reached both on the talk page (after the second peer review and during this FAC process) and on the first page of this third FAC process. We have three separate sections representing consensus for current presentation of the Nicene Creed - we would be in violation of this well documented agreement by deciding now to change it between just the three of us. Please, lets respect other editors opinions on this matter. NancyHeise (talk) 02:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Please point me to the previous discussion on the matter. I see a lot of discussion on presenting the Nicene Creed in a single box, but I don't see any mention of why each section must begin with an out-of-context quote from the Creed. Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Tuf-Kat. I note that you have added a note to your "oppose", changing it to "strong oppose" and accused editors of not interacting with your comments. This, despite all of the clear attempts made by editors to discuss them above. Editors have been very reasonable in discussing all your points, and several changes have been made to the article in line with some of your comments. However your response is entirely negative. Discussion of an objection does NOT mean accepting all of an objector's ideas and notions without debate, especially when style and aricle-arrangement issues are involved. If changes you prefer have not been made, the reasons for this have been explained. We cannot ignore consensus decisions taken on matters under discussion long before you came to the article in order to accept one individual's views. The reasonableness of objectors and objections is a matter for consideration in this process, and I would therefore repeat that editors are here and willing to discuss genuine concerns, but there has to be give and take, and demands must be reasonable. Insisting on describing the bible as the "collection of sacred books", or speaking of the Church being "inspired by one of the manifestations of God" and similar round-about phrases, is unreasonable imo. I did ask you to bring any phrases forward you thought were too jargon-ridden, for consideration. So far you have not done this. If an objector refuses to take up the offers to participate in the FAC process, the validity of such an objection will come into question. Xandar (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You have recently begun making serious attempts at meeting my objections (or at least, it seems that way, I don't have time to check now) - at the time I wrote that, Nancy had responded very cursorily to my comments, such as by dismissing my concerns about sectioning when I had only vaguely alluded to them, so she didn't even know what my concerns were. For the record, by nominating the article here, all prior consensus decisions are inherently reopened for discussion (they're never really closed, even outside of FAC, but especially not here) - the whole point of FAC is that reviewers are double-checking everything, and you can not dismiss objections just by invoking prior discussion. If you think the prior discussion is relevant, point directly to it and explain why and how.

I've already pointing to two sentences I'm concerned about, and that I don't think you've changed (could be wrong). I did not insist on discussing the bible as a "collection of sacred books". I offered an alternative phrasing for one sentence that uses that phrase. In any case, I frankly don't know the best, neutral formulation. I don't mean to be rude, but it's not my job to come up with one.

To clarify then, I'm objecting on the basis that this article uses Catholic terminology without sufficient context or clarification. This amounts to poor writing, breaches the manual of style and effectively presents the Church's views in a biased manner. Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

On use of Catholic terminology without sufficient context or clarification. To some extent the use of catholic terminology is unavoidable. This is the same with all articles that cover specialised subjects, faiths, sciences etc. See your own Featured article; Timeline of prehistoric Scotland, which unavoidably makes use of specialist terminology, with terms such as "neanderthal", "interglacial", and "pleistocene", unclarified in the run of text. So there does exist necessary flexibility with regard to this. However, I can recognize that in the subsection "Beliefs" there may be places where presentation and explanation can be improved, and I will have a look into the prospect of simplifying and clarifying the text over the coming 24 hours Xandar (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

TufKat's comments have all been addressed including changes to the text as indicated above. I do not consider this an actionable oppose. NancyHeise (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "neanderthal" and "interglacial" are really too specialized, and they are, at least, much more easily defined and explained through linking than religious terminology. In any case, I think you've much improved the article. Tuf-Kat (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose This article is very bias and one sided. I think there should be a criticism section. The actions and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church have been criticized by many secular thinkers. I think some criticism of the Roman Catholic Church should be included in the article. Masterpiece2000 04:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

- :Thank you for your comment, per Jimbo Wales recommendation, we placed all criticism throughout the article instead of having it in a separate section called Criticism because he says these tend to become "troll nets". Which items in the text do you consider biased? Are there any factual inaccuracies that you can point out for us? Any ommissions of notable events? NancyHeise (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I will show you some examples. Masterpiece2000 04:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think the views of secular thinkers about the Roman Catholic Church should be included in the article? Masterpiece2000 04:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you propose? Please give us your ideas. NancyHeise (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not include the views of secular thinkers such as Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins? Dawkins is critical of Roman Catholic attitudes to family planning and population control. He states that leaders who forbid contraception, and "express a preference for 'natural' methods of population limitation" will get just such a method in the form of starvation. The article says nothing about the Galileo affair, in which Galileo Galilei came into conflict with the Catholic Church over his support of Copernican astronomy. The article says nothing about Catholic Church's support for creationism. The article is one-sided. Masterpiece2000 05:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Umm, I'm not sure of this at all. In particular, the RCC is far from explicitly supporting creationism. See theistic evolution, George Coyne and the main article Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Relata refero, the RCC may not explicitly support creationism, but, they do support creationism/ID. Make no mistake about it. Masterpiece2000 (Talk) 14:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The RCC does not support intelligent design in the way most people take the term to mean (God/gods directing the development of the world instead of letting natural selection run its course). The Church will of course say that God is the ultimate creator of the world. But in terms of how the species came to be as they are today, it absolutely does not oppose evolution by natural selection. 72.205.14.47 (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This would be going way off-topic. Dawkins etc. have a beef with all religion and any form of organized Christianity. Starting a discussion on rationalism versus religion and spirituality is not the purpose of this page. Maybe it might find a place under Christianity or rationalist versus deistic viewpoints, but it is not relevant to a specific article on the Roman Catholic Church.

As for Galileo. It may deserve a mention, but it would need to be set in context of the many Catholics who were important scientists. Galileo is often used to argue thst the Church has been anti-science. But the affair was more complex than often presented, and was a pretty isolated event. Xandar (talk) 09:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I used to have Gallileo in the article but after going through talk page discussion and GA there was consensus (from both Catholic and non) to remove mention of him for many reasons including Xandar's stated above. There is an article discussing in detail the many different arguments against Church doctrine, see Roman Catholic theology. In this RCC article, we make mention of the fact of the criticism, and provide both Church response and wikilink for reader who wants to know more. In the case of Galileo, he is discussed in the wikilink to Inquisition which is listed in the article text where we discuss the issue. The Theology wikipage is listed in the See Also section. NancyHeise (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a tough decision. I will make my final decision tomorrow. Masterpiece2000 (Talk) 14:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Relata refero, the RCC may not explicitly support creationism, but, they do support creationism/ID. Make no mistake about it. You have got to be kidding me. The RCC officially supports "creatianism" not "creationism". There is a difference you know. And the ID movement is basically a stalking horse for biblical literalism, which the RCC has categorically rejected for centuries. Except for one letter in the NYT that turned out to be ghostwritten by the Discovery Institute that was signed by a member of the RCC hierarchy, there has been no support for ID from the RCC and in fact several well-publicized articles and letters from others highly placed in the church explicitly rejecting ID. There are of course small lay organizations inside the church that unofficially lobby for creationism and ID and our article Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church lists a few of these that I dug up (I am sure there are more, but I did not want to spend too much time on it). Where on earth are you getting this from?--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  Fill, are you suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church doesn't support creationism? You have got to be kidding me. I can show you several reports from several Humanist organisations that suggest that the Roman Catholic Church supports creationism. Masterpiece2000 (Talk) 03:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  Fill, actually, you are right. The RCC officially supports creatianism not creationism. I did some research and I found that the RCC is not known for its support for creationism/ID. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  Exactly; there are thousands of Catholic schools in the UK and elsewhere and as far as I know none teach creationism or have any problem teaching evolutionary theory. Much to the surprise of Darwin, and the disgust of the rabidly anti-Catholic Thomas Huxley, even in the 19th century Catholic opposition to evolution was the dog that didn't bark. Nearly all the opposition came from evangelical Protestants like Bishop Samuel Wilberforce. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  Of the various political categories in that debate, the Catholic Church officially (per Pius XII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI) would probably best fit with theistic evolution. Gimmetrow 06:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  I now see we have a rather patchy & indigestible Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church, which however makes the main point that the Church (rather surprisingly perhaps) noticably never came out against evolution. Johnbod (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  I did actually link it above... --Relata refero (disp.) 21:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it very hard to swallow the claim that over half of all Christians belong to the RCC.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that on the article talk page someone once said that this number counts all people who have been baptized Catholic; it does not take into consideration those who later leave the church. Karanacs (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well you better get some sources for all this. The numbers I am familiar with are so far away from this as to be laughable.--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The sources are the United States Government CIA world factbook and Zenit News Agency, it is also in the book Saints and Sinners by Eamon Duffy and was recently mentioned in all worldwide news services when the Vatican announced the the religion Islam now has more members than the Roman Catholic Church. In our Demographics section we also have it referenced to this USA Today article [36]. It is not just compiled from Catholic Church baptismal records, it is confirmed through census' of various countries and compiled by research centers like the one used for the USA today article. NancyHeise (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, is there any specific description in the sources of how those numbers are compiled? A brief mention of what exactly this is measuring might help address this concern. Karanacs (talk) 02:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs, the CIA world Factbook has its own very nice Wikipage that gives this info here The World Factbook and the Center for Applied Research is a function of Georgetown University. What do you think of having a sentence that just says "according to the [[[The World Factbook]] and the Center for Applied Research (ref) the Catholic population is...." The person who wants to know the off topic information of how the info was compiled can then click on the World Factbook site. NancyHeise (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

On further consideration, this is really off topic for our article. All anyone has to do is click on the reference and see them. NancyHeise (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The description of the relationship between the Western and Eastern Church(es) I find highly doubtful. I do not think the Eastern Orthodox Church considers itself to be an Eastern Catholic Church, if that is what is being implied here; it was not clear to me.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The Eastern Orthodox Church is not the Eastern Catholic Churches, it is a separate entity, not in communion with the pope of Rome, they are led by a patriarch. I'll see if we can word this to make it clear, we dont want people to be confused - I guess the use of the word "Eastern" is confusing to some. NancyHeise (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I know that. But the article is not written very clearly.--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your right, I made an edit to make this more clear. Thanks for your good comment. NancyHeise (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support I have decided to support this FA nomination. The article provides comprehensive details about the Roman Catholic Church. Filll is right. The RCC is not known for its support for creationism or Intelligent Design. Overall, it is very good article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• <Discussion moved to the talk page so that this page can stay focused on resolving the actionable opposes per WP:WIAFA.> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I fully understand that it's not my place to suggest any course of action to the nominators, but I will do so nevertheless. This was always going to be a difficult gig, for all sorts of reasons. Even though I still support the article's promotion, it's also clear that the attempts to bring everyone on-side have fractured the prose and the flow somewhat. I'm reluctantly of the opinion that a period of consolidation away from the glare of the FA spotlight may be what's needed now. Just my 2p worth. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Flow is a relatively minor thing to address and adjust, I am reading through the article now. I will make any changes needed. No removal from FA spotlight is necessary. Thanks though, I appreciate all of your help through this FAC process very much. NancyHeise (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes have been made to the text per discussions with opposing reviewers (see article edit history). For comments that we are not able to address, we have posted our valid reasons why. As of this writing, all comments on this page have been addressed. NancyHeise (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the elephant in the corner is shouting Strong oppose. Try looking for another FAC that passed after a similar strong opposition. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Tuf-Kat's point has not been addressed, in my opinion. Quite a few terms are used vaguely. For instance: "They are vehicles through which God's grace is said to flow into all those who receive them with the proper disposition.[47] The Church encourages individuals to engage in adequate preparation before receiving certain sacraments.[48]" "Vehicles of grace" is not specific enough to explain what a sacrament is, and how it's different from, say, an icon or a relic. "Engage in adequate preparation" and "proper disposition" don't explain much, either. Gimmetrow 01:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

See my latest response to Tuf-Kat. These matters are being looked into, but it will take up to a day to produce something. Xandar (talk) 01:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I am answering TufKat's question regarding where the consensus for removal of the Creed was discussed. Please see the conversation that begins with the second comment from the top of this page here [37] and on the RCC talk page here [38], also in the second peer review as one of Karanacs comments that another editor agreed with her on here [39]. I responded to her comment by stating that I was going to put the discussion on the article talk page, which I did and there were several responses in favor of removing it. Xandar and I were intensly against removal of the Creed blockquote and argued against it to the exasperation of the others. We would be very happy to put the whole quote back in the block and remove the sprinkling of the Creed throughout. How can we do that after all this discussion that reveals so much consensus? If there is some higher authority who can make a final decision on this, we are willing to comply with TufKat's recommendation. NancyHeise (talk) 03:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I was not referring to the issue with the Creed, but to the use of religious language. "Proper disposition" is a codeword that means something to Catholics; if it's important to say it should be explained or linked. Alluding to some aspect of doctrine without a pointer to its meaning doesn't seem very informative. Gimmetrow 03:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I would really appreciate if you would help Xandar and I in our efforts to comply with this FAC comment and a list of the words in the text that we need to redefine would really help us. It is not necessary but it might help us understand what non-Catholics find confusing. NancyHeise (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have also reworded the "proper disposition" item. NancyHeise (talk) 03:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[40] I guess it's my fault, but this is not what I'm getting at. I think some parts of the Beliefs section try to allude to too many things. If the sacraments are important, then it's a given there will be some preparation for them. I was thinking more about focus on the key points: "Sacraments are visible rites which Catholics see as providing God's grace ex opere operato, and are thus central to most individual Catholics' approach to God." Gimmetrow 04:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I used your version a little without removing my ability to still use the ref at the end of the sentence. Rereading your comment above again, are you suggesting we eliminate mention of "engage in adequate preparation" or do you think we should explain it? NancyHeise (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

None of those discussions are relevant here. I suggested moving the Nicene Creed out of the first sentence of each section. The prior consensus is that the Nicene Creed should not be reproduced entirely, but there does not appear to be any consensus, or indeed discussion at all, that the quotes must be in the first sentence of each section. Tuf-Kat (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

TufKat, I have just gone through again and made changes to the areas of concern to you that I think will meet to your satisfaction. Xandar has also addressed a couple of points and Gimmetrow has been a tremendous help here as well. Please take another look at the particular areas of concern you have listed because we have made changes to each area you tagged in your comments. Thanks for your comments, I apologize if we were a little slow and reluctant to make changes, our fault. NancyHeise (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

<Commentary moved to talk page> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note from Nominator - The opposes on this page have been addressed in depth with many changes to the text and concessions to reviewers wishes. Some of those wishes were not conceeded based on valid reasons which were provided. At this point, I consider all of them unactionable. Things are pretty quiet around here now. NancyHeise (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Strong Oppose The article is too unweildy, while I understand what it is attempting to cover, it is doing so in a slipshod manner, not giving enough attention to certain areas and dwelling too much on insignificant ones. (I guess I'm the only one appalled that excommunicants and heretics get more mention than Saints and Doctors of the Church, itself). None of the Post Vatican 2 Controversy is dealt with. There are NPOV issues with regard to the Novus Ordo Missae and no mention at all in the Eucharist section on how the modern Mass' translation of the Consecration is a corruption of the words of Christ. There is no mention how after Vatican 2, mass attendance by Catholics plummeted to abysmally low levels due to modernizing the Mass and watering down dogma. There is no mention of why Vatican 2 was needed or how it was a continuation of the First Vatican Council. There is scant mention of the Bureacracy within the Church, how Latin is the Official Language, or the Church's impact beyond the middle ages. There are also numerous sourcing problems and I fail to see how summary works are used to source such a rich and diverse topic. It's not like there are not sources critical of the Church out there. I say this as a practicing Catholic...who attends Mass several times a week and one who graduated from the Seminary. The article has made vast improvements, but it is not ready for Featured Status, yet. The prose is weak in most places; it needs more polish, to promote it in its current state would be a huge disservice to the Church, itself.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• (I guess I'm the only one appalled that excommunicants and heretics get more mention than Saints and Doctors of the Church, itself).

We can add Saints and Doctors, which ones do you suggest? NancyHeise (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Francis of Asissi, Thomas Aquinas, John of the Cross, and Theresa of Avilla for starters.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Added. Please see the section for Thomas Aquinas in first para of High Middle Ages and others in the Counter Reformation section of Late Medieval and Renaissance. NancyHeise (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• None of the Post Vatican 2 Controversy is dealt with.

Please see the history section under Vatican II and Beyond. NancyHeise (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• There are NPOV issues with regard to the Novus Ordo Missae and no mention at all in the Eucharist section on how the modern Mass' translation of the Consecration is a corruption of the words of Christ.

That is an issue that is dealt with under the wikilink Traditionalist in the Vatican II section of history. "corruption of the words of Christ", a Traditionalist POV, is not a notable controversy. NancyHeise (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[41] I guess if someone is ignorant of Faith, Language, and Tradition they could make that point.

That is your POV, per your source, "“Indeed,” the cardinal continued, “the formula ‘for all’ would undoubtedly correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord’s intention expressed in the text. It is a dogma of faith that Christ died on the Cross for all men and women (cf. John 11:52; 2 Corinthians 5,14-15; Titus 2,11; 1 John 2,2).” Nonetheless, while “for all” is, “an explanation of the sort that belongs properly to catechesis,” Arinze said, “’for many’ is a faithful translation of ‘pro multis.’” " Mike, this argument is no not noteworthy to include in this summary article of the RCC. This is a quibble, not a war and I will argue with you based on what your own source says that the words used in the Mass are fine. NancyHeise (talk) 04:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• • But still not the words in the Bible as said by Christ.
• There is no mention how after Vatican 2, mass attendance by Catholics plummeted to abysmally low levels due to modernizing the Mass and watering down dogma.

The Vatican II controversy discusses these issues in history section. I added more per your comments here. NancyHeise (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• There is no mention of why Vatican 2 was needed or how it was a continuation of the First Vatican Council.

Added. NancyHeise (talk) 05:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• There is scant mention of the Bureacracy within the Church, how Latin is the Official Language, or the Church's impact beyond the middle ages.

All of this is already in the first para of Church organization and community including Latin as official language. NancyHeise (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• • You lumped all of what you call "traditionalists" into one group? Not only is that factually inaccurate and misleading, it borders on slander and calumny.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Mike, I didn't lump them, we have a wikipage on them. The article provides the wikilink and the reader goes there to learn more. Would you like some sort of elaboraton on Traditionalists? NancyHeise (talk) 04:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an article that covers 2000 years of history and much else besides. Traditionalists and Liberals are given DUE WEIGHT in this summary account. There are wikilinks elsewhere for people interested in that aspect of Catholic controversy. I know these things are of greater importance to those involved, but there is not a way that we can cut something else out in order to detail various traditionalist and Liberal groups, man of which are very small. This is not the article to do that. Xandar (talk) 10:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• There are also numerous sourcing problems and I fail to see how summary works are used to source such a rich and diverse topic. It's not like there are not sources critical of the Church out there.

What sources do you suggest are not OK? Are you saying we dont have critic sources? We do, Duffy and Bokenkotter are considered critics. NancyHeise (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• I say this as a practicing Catholic...who attends Mass several times a week and one who graduated from the Seminary. The article has made vast improvements, but it is not ready for Featured Status, yet. It needs more polish, to promote it in its current state would be a huge disservice to the Church, itself.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we can polish it right now with FAC comments. That is why we have brought it to FAC, to make a decent article. We thought we were there after our second peer review - we followed all protocol before bringing this up again. Mike, as a Traditionalist Catholic, you have a certain POV that you want to have presented in the article but that POV is already mentioned and I might add that it is an extremely minority POV. There are not a lot of Traditionalist Catholics, they are a schismatic group, a radical group with an agenda to push. We can't use the RCC article to do that. I will address your valid points. Thanks for offering them. NancyHeise (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I am not a schismatic and will not tolerate such personal attacks. I am not SSPV or SSPX or pushing any POV. Read your Bible and tell me in which Gospel Jesus said "For All" and not "For Many". Christ's words are retained in the Tridentine Rite, they are absent from the Novus Ordo, but you'll never include that in this article because of your blatant POV pushing.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Just noting that while some of your points are valid, you're pushing a POV supporting the Tridentine Mass and the pre-Vatican II church. Please note WP:NPOV. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

How is that when the subject is not even broached in the article? Where have I made any such POV edit pushing? Do you see what I mean?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Er, he's the only reviewer here with a POV?? Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what they say when they're open minded and I'm just a stupid jerk  :) --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Your word choice lends itself to a POV, whether it was inadvertent or not. Again, you do have valid points, and yes, naturally we do all have a POV. I'm not criticizing you, I'm just noting that some may construe your complaint as a POV-push. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have answered all of Mikes comments making additions in the text per his very good commments. No offense is intended by my comments about Traditionalist groups that are schismatic. It is just a fact that this exists. I did not know to which group you belonged but I am happy it is not the schismatic one! Peace. NancyHeise (talk) 05:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, again. I don't know what you are talking about. The only "group" I belong to is in Communion with Rome. It is just called the Roman Catholic Church...what this article is about.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, many traditionalists are in groups. I have some sympathy with some traditionalist points. However this is not the article for arguments on the precise wording of the mass etc. On sourcing, there are not actually a huge number of over-all histories of the Catholic Church that cover the whole course of events in depth. You will find that even the Encyclopedia Britannica article uses some of the books that we use, including Duffy and the Oxford illustrated History, as sources. There is nothing wrong with these sources. Xandar (talk) 10:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that is a mischaracterization. There are some "extremists" in certain "societies", but that's the exception and not the rule, it does not exclude personal attacks and slander by insinuating that because someone has a love for the Latin Mass that they are a schismatic. There are plenty of over-all histories of the Church. Richard Mc Brien's Catholicism comes to mind, but it was excluded from the article because the nominator did not like the author(a liberal Roman Catholic Priest). It may not have a Nihil Obstat, because it was never sanctioned by a Bishop, however it is used as a textbook in many seminaries.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article to link Traditionalists and schismatics, although there are one or two fringe groups have broken away. The section on Tradionalist Catholics links to a detailed article on that subject. As for your suggested History text. if you read through this FAC page and the previous ones, you will find most of the reviewers who object to some of the books used a sosurces, are objecting to the use of books written by Catholics. To have a source such as Fr Mc Brien, which is used as a textbook in catholic seminaries would not help with this problem. Xandar (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No those vile repugnant comments and innuendos were made by the nominator on this very talk page and a while back (maybe the first FAC) before I stopped trying to fix this article. The article contains a gross misrepresentation of the facts when it comes to that and to be honest, it's just laughable the way it is written. As for your other point...they seem to object to nonscholarly works(as do I). McBrien is a priest, true, but a very liberal one. Despite his personal views (he's everything "traditionalists" like me hate but the modern church embraces: pro women priests, pro married clergy, hold hands during the Our Father, altar girls, liturgical dancers, etc) his book is spot on dogmatically and even his harshest critics mention this. I think this type of author, one who has been critical of the church and criticized by the church is precisely the type of balance that is needed. I would never receive the sacraments from him or go to one of his Masses, but his book is 100% dead-nuts accurate with regard to history and dogma(but then again, even satan can quote scripture).--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The book of which you speak is not a history, but rather very much a Theology work, viewing from a particular perspective. There is a brief historical section, but the work is certainly not suitable as a historical reference. Xandar (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note: Further threats and abuse on my talk page concerning this nomination will be removed immediately. TONY (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Further unwarranted allegations by yourself. There have been no threats and abuse on your talk page, merely a request that you apologise for your earlier allegations against editors and reviewers that have been proven to be false.Xandar (talk) 09:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Could future reviewers and those still holding objections please look at Featured Article Candidate London on this page. There you will see an example, (one among many,) of the most useful way to make objections to an article. Most objections are itemized, are specific for clarity, are bulletpointed and refer to specific sentences or paragraphs complained about. Following this format will make objections easier to see, identify, quickly address and acknowledge. Thank you. Xandar (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I dislike the use of Church euphemism in the article. "...married persons are expected to be open to new life in their sexual relations"; "They usually live in community"; and the deferential "...led Pope John Paul II to issue two documents to explain Church teaching." I think it is crazy that defensive statements are present in the paragraph about sexual abuse of minors. The defensive statements about the Spanish Inquisition also are defensive and out of place. Tempshill (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how these sentences make the article Non-FA. But please bring forward your suggestions for amendments. On so-called "defensive" statements I'm afraid BOTH sides of an argument or debate have to be presented in Wikipedia articles. Not just one side. Xandar (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The church euphemisms you identify in your oppose are in sections describing Church belief, practices or community. These sections are stating the Church belief or teaching on particular issues. The wording in each of your cases pointed out here is factually correct. The statement "led Pope John Paul II..." is not deferential, it is a fact that is referenced to Bokenkotter and the actual Mulierus. Sexual abuse and Inquisitions provide all points of view as required by NPOV. NancyHeise (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Note The following three opposes are restatements of earlier opposes at the top of the page (they are not new opposes). I asked all opposes to please come back and strike their comments that we have addressed. These are their responses to that request. NancyHeise (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Continued Oppose. (Note, I have added "continued" oppose in response to repeated attempts to change my comments on this page, plus comments on my talk page of which I think rather poorly from one of this article's latest defenders: I've made my view about this clear here. It's sad that, just as the nominator was, in my view, doing rather better at working with reviewers, as I commented here, other supporters should rather undo her good work. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)) I have been trying more or less to keep away from this FAC, and certainly from the article. Prompted (most appropriately) by NancyHeise to revisit it, I decided that I would take a paragraph almost at random--I say almost, because I decided I wouldn't take a paragraph from the "History" section, with which I know I have problems, and which I know has raised much controversy. I looked at the TOC, clicked on Church organizatoin and community, and found myself with the following:

The spiritual head and leader of the Catholic Church on earth is the pope. He governs from Vatican City in Rome, a sovereign state of which he is also the Head of State.[125] He is elected by the College of Cardinals, composed of bishops or priests who have been granted special status by the pope to serve as his advisors.[126] The cardinals may select any male member of the Church to be pope, but that person must be ordained as a bishop before taking office. The Church community is governed according to the Code of Canon Law. The Roman Curia assists the pope in the administration of the Church. Although the official language of the Church is Latin, Italian is the working language.[127]

There are numerous problems with the above.

• The words "on earth" need to be explained. I presume the point is that the Church considers God (or Jesus?) to be its absolute head; but without that explanation, the insertion of "on earth" is confusing and distracting.

I added some wording to clarify for you.

• Vatican City or "the Vatican City"? (I may be wrong here, as elsewhere, of course.)

Vatican City is correct. In Italian, they use "del" in front of Vatican but not so in English. NancyHeise (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• The third sentence is illogical, as it seems to suggest that the pope is elected by people whom he himself has already chosen.

Added clarifying language, thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• In the fourth sentence, "by the pope" is redundant." Probably so is "as a."

eliminated, thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Simply stating that "The Church community is governed according to the Code of Canon Law" is unhelpful without at least the briefest of explanations of what is meant. (I know that this is a long article and editors are undoubtedly loathe to add more content, but there are plenty of redundancies, as I've just suggested, and other opportunities for further concision.)

Code of Canon Law is wikilinked for reader who wants to know more. For summary style considerations we have to limit what we decide to expand upon and make use of the many wikilinks available to us. Stating that a world community is governed by a certain law, providing a link to that law is enough. NancyHeise (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. there's not really very much you can say about Canon Law other than that it is a list of regulations, which already seems explicit in the words "Code of Law".Xandar (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• As a whole, the paragraph simply does not flow. Connectors are missing, and so for instance its last three sentences are short non sequiturs. At best, therefore, the prose is clunky.
• The sources are not really appropriate. I would have thought that all the above could and should be sourced by statements from the Vatican itself, as they detail its internal organization and functioning. This is not an instance where third-party sources are needed or even especially desirable. And yet we have a BBC Country profile, a Catholic News Service article, and an NYT article. I'd have thought that if wanted to know (e.g.) how the pope is elected, I would look first for some Vatican statement on the matter.

The Beliefs, prayer and worship and community sections are heavily referenced to self published sources like Code of Canon Law, Catechism and Vatican statements. Other references used are three third party books written by university professors whose books have Nihil obstat and Imprimatur declarations from the Church. Karanacs wanted to see some more third party sources so we have included newspapers as well. The references sourcing all of these sections meet WP:RS as top sources per WP:Reliable source examples. NancyHeise (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• The principle of citation is also rather random. I'm not necessarily one of those who demands a footnote after each paragraph, but here I can't see why some statements have notes (e.g. the issue of the Church's official language), but others (e.g. the role of Canon Law) don't. There's no consistency here.

WP:Cite Does not require us to cite something that is an obvious and generally undisputed fact. NancyHeise (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This paragraph is not egregiously bad. It could fairly easily be fixed. But I would want a paragraph chosen at random (indeed, chosen to avoid picking a very controversial paragraph) from a Featured Article to be much better.

Overall, I continue to think that the POV in this article is problematic: at best, it is written in quotation marks; at worst, it reflects a very particular view of the Church, which is especially conservative, and which confuses the Church (as a global sociological phenomenon) with the way in which the Church officially sees itself.

I can not act on this comment, it is too inspecific. NancyHeise (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I also think that there are problems with structure, and that the "Demographics" section is particularly weak, not least because it contains a misplaced sub-section on the technical criteria for membership.

I disagree that the membership section is misplaced, it is a vital piece of information to help reader know what makes a person a member, part of the discussion on Demographics. NancyHeise (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

And all this is without even touching on the way in which this FAC has been conducted. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - I am sorry for any imperfections in my ability to conduct an FAC. I appreciate the help of the helpful editors out there who have been working with me to meet all opposing reviewers demands. I appreciate your bullet point summary here, JB. Peace. NancyHeise (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Still opposing—However, it is not a legitimate part of the process to require reviewers to restate their opposition: that opposition remains as the default until it has been shown to have been resolved. The continual refrain from nominators that resolution has occurred is most unconvincing. In addition, I'd like to echo JBMurray's conclusion that the article is written from the narrow POV of a certain establishment part of the RCC. The treatment of certain issues contains subtle angles that many catholics and non-catholics would disagree with. Again, I must ask nominators here not to post aggressive statements on my talk page in response to this. They don't intimidate me; they're just a nuisance to have to deal with. And if you want to impugn my character or behaviour, please do it on the assigned page overleaf, not here. TONY (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)+

Actionable opposes need to be capable of being addressed. Vague implications of "POV" even if posted by more than one editor, do not therefore qualify without specific indication of the sentences and paragraphs at fault, and what should in the view of the objector be done to correct the perceived fault. Some people seem to be forgetting that the purpose of this process is to help articles forward to FA status, not to be an excuse to try to apply a personal veto hrough unresolvable objections. The POV of the article is similar to that of Britannica and most other encyclopedia coverage. It may not take radical off-centre viewpoints, but that is not its purpose. Xandar (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Xandar. We have worked extensively to eliminate any POV. What we have left are bare notable facts. We can not act on opposes that do not specify anything in particular. Prose is a point of personal taste, a minority of FAC reviewers here have a problem with the prose even though it has been extensively reworked by experienced editors. This should not prevent FA. NancyHeise (talk) 03:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Nominator message to FA Director I posted a note on the talk pages of each opposing voter [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50] asking them to please come see our responses to their comments, almost all of which have been answered by making changes to the article text. Afterward, Awadewit summarized her oppose by making statments that the editors of the article have not addressed all of her points, that we have a pro Catholic POV tone in the article and that other opposing editors share her view. Johnbod, another FA reviewer and article supporter (not an editor of this article) wrote this to respond to Awadewit:

"Just to point out that it was not only editors responsible for the article who disputed your objections here (not all of them in my case, but several, not all commented on). If all the suggestions by those you mention above had been followed, I for one would be likely switch my position to strong oppose until balance had been restored. Likewise for Mike's objections below (is it?). Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you have written here, Johnbod. Awadewit (talk) 12:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems clear enough to me - not all suggestions of objectors (generally)) would improve articles, and there are many here that would not. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)"

Further, Mike's oppose accuses us of not being Catholic enough in our POV. We editors have been constantly accused of POV violations of one sort or another even as we have constantly sought to eliminate any perception of POV. Gimmetrow was helpful with this. Tempshill states that he thinks its crazy that we have defensive statements in sexual abuse paragraph and inquisitions para. We are required by WP:NPOV to include these facts. We have dealt with many reviewers on this article, some have knowledge of RCC but many do not. All have contributed valuable comments and almost all have contributed comments that, if we were to act upon, would result in grave violations of Wikipedia policies or factual inaccuracies. We have not been breezing by everyone's comments, blithly ingnoring valuable perspective. We have had to distinguish between what would bring the article up and what would destroy it. When we have decided against incorporating someone's comments, we have then been accused of being unresponsive or combative. In addition, Tony's oppose just above, accuses us of posting personal threats on his talk page. Wackymacs makes the same accusation. Please see his talk page, we have not posted any such thing. NancyHeise (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've never said any POV, much less yours, was not Catholic. Stop putting words in peoples' mouths. I said certain elements had POV issues. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Mike, I answered all your comments by adding text (except your instance on the words in Mass controversy which I gave a valid reason for not changing). You have not even seen my changes to cross off your comments. You crossed off Thomas Aquinas. I added a lot of text on saints to comply with your wish - remember you stated that you had a problem with an article that talked more about heretics than saints? Please see Late Medieval and Renaissance toward the bottom in the Counter Reformation section. All of the textual additions are pointed out to you in my answers to your comments. All you have to do is go to the article and see them. Also, I can not act on an oppose that states a POV issue but does not specify or identify an sentence that is POV. WP:FAC requires opposers to be specific. NancyHeise (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick rejoinder to your claim about one of my several objections: Tempshill states that he thinks its crazy that we have defensive statements in sexual abuse paragraph and inquisitions para. We are required by WP:NPOV to include these facts. This is a misreading of NPOV. In an article about a person accused of murder, it is not necessary under NPOV to point out that several hundred thousand other people have also been accused of murder. Stating that the Church was accused of X, found guilty of Y, and paid Z does not at all need to be balanced with any other statement. I must assume that the reason you have the statement in there is to defend the Church, not to satisfy NPOV. Perhaps I'm wrong and you're honestly trying to be NPOV, but from the general tone of the article, I doubt I'm wrong. Tempshill (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, if you state precisely wording objected to, it helps a lot, rather than having editors have to guess or mind-read what your objection is. It appears now that your specific objection is the sentence relating to percentage sex-abusers in the Catholic Church and the percentage among US teachers. I happen to think the information sets the issues in context, and I do not see why you would object to readers having this referenced information. However there is certainly room for discussion on the wording.Xandar (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

All of the news reports about the Public School abuse, including the Washington Post article reference we used, made the comparison between the sex abuse in the schools and the Catholic Church. This is a notable fact that give significant context to the priest abuse scandal in the US, especially when the institutions dealt with it in exactly the same manner. It is NPOV to include the whole story. This is an important part of what makes this article particularly FA and is why it is a useful piece of information. NancyHeise (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thought I'd revisit the article. Spot-checked one small portion of text. Eeuuuw, didn't like this:
  • "Church, works of mercy, and Anointing of the Sick". Why the alphabet soup? See MOS on caps in titles. Why not the anointing, since "the" wouldn't be the first word of the title?

"the" would be improper use. Catholics dont call the sacrament "the Anointing of the Sick" but "Anointing of the Sick" like "Baptism" is not called "the Baptism" but unlike "the Eucharist" which is used. Also, Anointing of the Sick is one of the seven church sacraments. MoS requires us to cap when referring to a proper noun, thus all the sacraments and the word Church, when referring to the Catholic Church are capped. We had quite an extensive discussion on this. We offered to lower case if MoS folks decided they wanted it the other way - we dont care. NancyHeise (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• • "Catholic social teaching is based on the word of Jesus ...". Bit of a stretch, that, when the word of the man has been filtered through linguistic, cultural, historical, and institutional veils, and not just thin veils. To use WP to assert that the hardest-line doctrines, such as the bans on abortion and homosexuality, hark back to what he said or thought, is on the extreme end of POV. I can't countenance an article on the RCC that seeks to make such universal, black-and-white statements that cannot be proven; this article needs to be carefully expressed in terms that are clearly not in-universe.

Thank you for pointing that out, I added words of clarification and expanded a bit on what that social teaching is. The controversy over abortion is discussed in the history section under Vatican II. The Church does not ban homosexuality. It is considered adultery and the church does not distinguish between heterosexial adultery and homosexual adultery, it is all adultery in their eyes, equally sinful for homosexuals and heterosexuals, no discrimination there. I would like to add that before any other church organization was ordaining homosexual men, the Catholic Church opened its arms to them, especially in the US until the latest church crisis which is a great shame for the many homosexual men who never violated their vows and lived very holy lives. NancyHeise (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• • "Catholic social teaching ... commits Catholics to the welfare of others." Well, it may commit catholics to what it sees is the welfare of others—or to what some people in positions of power in the institution see as this. I certainly know that the sect of nuns up the road don't view it quite the way the Vatican does, and were roundly told by Rome to shut up and back off about four years ago WRT one particular issue; again, it's an in-universe statement masquerading as a universal truth. This is unacceptable in a WP article, which must minimise the risk that readers will dismiss it as conveying POV. At stake is the credibility of the whole project when it comes to ideological matters. TONY (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the nuns: yes, there is disagreement within the church and that is discussed in the history section under Vatican II, a manner of dealing with controversy expressly recommended by Jimbo Wales. Regarding Catholic social teaching, I changed the sentence to reflect your comment and expanded to include how the Church defines that teaching. Here's the new sentences: "Catholic social teaching is based on Church interpretation of the life and work of Jesus and commits Catholics to the welfare of others.[12] The seven main themes in this teaching are to encourage respect for human life and the dignity of each person, to strengthen and encourage the family unit, to encourage respect for the rights and responsibilities of each person, to care for the poor, to promote the rights and dignity of the worker, and to encourage the solidarity of all humans as one family.[12] " I dont think that WP is going to be considered a reliable encyclopedia if it prohibits all religion articles beliefs sections from actually stating those beliefs. Even Encyclopedia Brittanica has a section on beliefs. If we have to get shut out just because FAC reviewers have personal negative opinions about the religion, that will really make WP look ridiculous and unprofessional. The purpose of the article is to provide a definition of the church, it is not a blog or commentary. We provide the facts of what the church is, what it believes, who comprises the community, what their prayers and practices are and what they have done (history), all notable controversies are covered - completely scientific and professionally done. NancyHeise (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. This page purposely, frequently, and without apology calls the Roman Catholic Church the Catholic Church, which is totally POV and tantamount to calling the Roman Catholic Church the one & only church. Please fix this.--Carlaude (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. While other church organizations in the world call themselves "catholic", no other church organization in the world offically calls itself the "Catholic Church" except for the Catholic Church (which does not call itself the Roman Catholic Church except in discussions with other Christian denominations to be polite). The official name of Catholic Church is a referenced fact in the very first sentence. One of the refs gives a very good explanation of this situation. It would be factually incorrect and against Wikipedia policy for us to remove our referenced fact in response to this oppose. NancyHeise (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, Nancy, Carlaude has a point: you have to be very careful in avoid in-universe POV when using WP as a mouthpiece. one and only needs to be clearly marked as a dogmatic phrase that has a stylised reference point. I'm not at all convinced by your response to my two POV objections above, which were mere examples (taken at random) of a broad problem in the article. For instance, saying that such and such is "discussed elsewhere in the article" does not prevent the POV angle from coming across there and then, towards the top of the article. TONY (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

? The phrase "one and only" does not appear in the article; what is "a stylised reference point" anyway? I fail to see how using the name of an organization amounts to "in-universe POV when using WP as a mouthpiece". Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this alluding to the name Catholic Church, Use of the name the Church calls itself by, and has done for 1800 years, cannot really be POV. And of course all examples of alleged POV may be entered below... Xandar (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The term "one and only" does not appear in the article text. No action can be taken regarding that comment because it is a comment made in error. Tony, the Beliefs section makes clear to reader right away in the title that it is a Beliefs section, not a Universal Truth section as you seem to allege. Almost every single sentence in that Beliefs section begins with or includes the phrase "Catholics believe" or the "Church teaches.." or "The Catechism states...", etc. More than that would make the whole section ridiculous and unreadable. We can not assume that the reader is so unintelligent that they don't understand that these are a compilation of Catholic Church beliefs. You are asking us to do a severe "dumbing down" of the article to address what you call POV that is clearly not framed as POV but as the beliefs of this particular church. I made the change you suggested to the sentence you identified. I am willing to make any more changes that are reasonable. Our criticisms are addressed in exactly the manner suggested by Jimbo Wales, if you have a better idea then maybe you can write an instructive article too. I have made use of the instructions currently recommended by the WP community and followed their advice. NancyHeise (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

1. I would ask that every new Roman Catholic idea presented begins "Catholics believe" or the "Church teaches.." or "The Catechism states..." (not almost every).

(Under "Jesus, sin, and Penance" that article states "Since Baptism can only be received once..." as a known fact.. which it is not. It is POV.)

AND...

2. I would ask that every paragraght with a Roman Catholic ideas presented begins "Roman Catholics believe" or the "Roman Catholics Church teaches.." in the first sentence.--Carlaude (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Note well--

Apart from anything else, there are many official documents where the Roman Church does use the term Roman Catholic Church of itself, eg ARCIC, several dioceses in England and Wales use the term on their websites and so on. (Quote of David Underdown)

Together this indicates that the RCC is apt to use the the "Catholic" name in documents to it those within and the "Roman Catholic" to those outside-- such as on ARCIC and websites. Which form do you think Wikipedia should take?--Carlaude (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Note also-- The phrase "one and only" does not have to appear in the article-- it is the constant use of "Catholic" in the article that is objected to. This is an "in-universe POV" because RCC use that name for themselves, but no mater how consistently this is done it is still POV.

Note also-- the Roman Catholic Church can not be said to call itself the Catholic Church for 1800 years (not that this would make it NPOV) because 1800 years ago the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Western Catholic Church were the same church. They both-- however-- did call themselves the catholic church 1800 years ago-- and both still do.

I am copy and pasting this from the article talk page since your discussion was posted there and also here. These are two responses to your demands.NancyHeise (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Many don't feel that referring to it as the "Catholic Church" implies Wikipedia's belief that it is the only legitimate church on Earth. I suppose a better example than Macedonia would be the article we have on the Eastern Orthodox Church. After the title and introduction, that article repeatedly refers to the "Orthodox" church and the beliefs of "Orthodox Christians", yet we readers understand that not everyone believes the church in question is the most correct or truthful. Or even the United Church of Christ. Examples of churches whose names claim exclusion are near infinite, but we still use their names. -BaronGrackle (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The article provides references to support the article content stating that the official name of the Church is the Catholic Church. While other churches claim to be "catholic", no other church in the world calls itself the Catholic Church. I agree with BaronGrackle and there is ample consensus on this talk page to support current wording. I do not understand the POV charge when we are simply calling the church what it calls itself. Also, the Church uses the term Roman Catholic when discussing issues with other Christian denominations in an effort to be polite (as with ARCIC). It does not sign its official documents Roman Catholic Church unless it is an document signed in conjunction with another Christian denomination. There are many legal documents around the world that use the term Roman Catholic (only in English speaking world) but in the US all legal assets of a diocese are owned in the name of the presiding bishop - yet the name of the Church is not the name of the bishop - so we cant go by legal documents of English speaking countries! Please read the references before making any more claims of POV [51] and [52]. Also, please provide references to refute our presentation if you continue to pursue this issue, so far you have provided nothing to prove that our text is incorrect while we have referenced facts and talk page consensus. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of posting "Roman Catholics believe" in front of every sentence, please see my responses to Tony above. The Belief section is clearly marked as a "Belief" section. It is thus not a violation of NPOV to state the Church's beliefs under such a heading without a constant "Roman Catholics believe" even though we have sprinkled this phrase liberally throughout, it would be bad form, ridiculous logic and poor prose to have it there any more than we do. In regards to your comment about Baptism only being received once - all Christians who hold the Nicene Creed as their basic statement of faith (which is almost all Christians regardless of denomination) believe that you only recieve Baptism once. As a person baptized in the Episcopalian Church, I did not need to get re-baptized when I converted to the Catholic Church, they accept one baptism no matter where that baptism took place. NancyHeise (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

NancyHeise, you are just making this stuff up, re: "posting 'Roman Catholics believe' in front of every sentence" Re: Nicene Creed and Baptism, I do not see Baptism even mentioned on the version on the Nicene Creed page... maybe you are thinking of a later creed... in any case not every church is going to interpet the phase "there is one baptism" the same way as you.

The Anglican church and all churches who use Nicene Creed to not require converts from other churches to get re-Baptised (Im not making that up!). NancyHeise (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(and vice versa). NancyHeise (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Additional note, the Catholic Church considers the Eastern Orthodox Church the Catholic Church too, the long lost sister with whom they are desperately trying to reunite. This has been a great desire of the Church ever since the split. NancyHeise (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I have a website and a church published source as references to support "official name", for added measure I have also included a reference to a book written by a university professor and originally published by Harvard University to support current text that states that the official name of the Church is the Catholic Church. I included the quote in my ref but you can see it directly from the book here [53]. Thus, I do not consider Carlaude's an actionable oppose since compliance would require insertion of factual inaccuracies and violation of Wikipedia policies. NancyHeise (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh?--Carlaude (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the one-sided quotes and comments above I provide these...--Carlaude (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• ...I guess I just don't understand how a self-identifying term such as this that enjoys such wide usage is any more POV than using, say, "Macedonia" to describe the name of that country. Do we need more information stating that the Church is more prone to use the term "Roman Catholic" when speaking to people living in England? As for your other points (using "Catholics believe" or "the Church teaches"), I can't really say, other than hoping the article doesn't become halting or redundant. -BaronGrackle (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

...

A claim that one church body is "orthodox" does not say that others are not orthodox, but a claim that one church body is "universal" does say that others are part of the universal church.

The United Church of Christ has never made any claims to universality, nor has any other church. What is more we do not confuse "united" with "universal." No one ever claimed or confused the United Kingdom with a sort of universal kingdom-- nor confused the United States of America with all states of America.--Carlaude (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to ewtn.com

• 1. it begins with reference to the Creed that

"speaks of one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. As everybody knows, however, the Church referred to in this Creed is more commonly called just the Catholic Church."

So right off the bat it admits that the pushing the term "Catholic Church" is part of the claim to be seen as the only church -- the only and true church referred to in the creed. You cannot deny this.

• 2. It spends most of the text claiming the name "Catholic Church" for the Roman Church.

• 3. Again at the end of the document written by Mr. Whiteheadit shows again his point of view of the true church being the Roman Church all along by stating:

"By the time of the first ecumenical council of the Church, held at Nicaea in Asia Minor in the year 325 A.D., the bishops of that council were legislating quite naturally in the name of the universal body they called in the Council of Nicaea's official documents "the Catholic Church." ...And it is the same name which is to be found in all 16 documents of the twenty-first ecumenical council of the Church, Vatican Council II.... for the name of the true Church of Christ has in no way been changed. It was inevitable that the Catechism of the Catholic Church would adopt the same name today that the Church has had throughout the whole of her very long history."

Of course this shows the term "Catholic Church" is used to claim that the Eastern Church split from the true Western church (and not the other way around, or split from each other with equal legitimacy.) All clearing showing the POV of the "Catholic Church."

The Rolling Stones call themselves The Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World but it would be POV for Wikipedia to use it of the band in that way.--Carlaude (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The article provides references to support the article content stating that the official name of the Church is the Catholic Church.... NancyHeise (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It does not really matter how "official" it considers the name now. I am not claiming that "RCC" is more official, but that RCC is NPOV. It does matter that:

• The name "Catholic Church" is highly POV (as we can see from the Roman Catholic ewtn.com link), and used to support there view of church history and theology.
• Using "Roman Catholic" once a paragraph does not destroy the readability.
• We can see that the Roman Catholic Church does not repudiate the label, (like say the way Oriental Orthodoxy does the label Monophysite, in favor of Miaphysite.) --Carlaude (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

We are not violating WP:NPOV by using the official name of the Church in an article about the Church, especially when that name is also recognized popularly by the average person on the street. When people talk about the Catholic Church in conversation, no one assumes it means the Methodist or Baptist or Anglican or any other Church. I used to be Episcopalian and no one refers to that church as the "Catholic Church" in casual conversation. However, it would be considered by Catholics as a POV statement to use RCC throughout the article since it has, in the past, been used by Protestants in an effort to make a POV statement about Catholics as revealed in two of the three references used in the text to support use of the word "official name". These references are a Catholic source here [54] and a Protestant source here [55]. Thus, it would be considered more of a violation of WP:NPOV to adhere to Carlaude's suggestion than what we currently have in the article text. I would also like to point out that I have provide WP:RS references to support my position here and Carlaude has provided none to support his position. NancyHeise (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• It is certainly not POV to use the name that the Church calls itself in the article. This is akin to saying that "United States" is POV (in lieu of "United States of America") because there are other states that are united in some way. This is absurd. In fact, a much stronger argument can be made that the article should be titled "Catholic Church" instead of "Roman Catholic Church" as the Catholic Church is composed of both a Latin/Roman rite (a particular church) and 23 Eastern rites (independent particular churches, who are part of the Catholic Church, but independent of the Latin/Roman rite.). Carlaude's objection to this is not only absurd, but also, erroneous, and irrelevant. Move to strike. Lwnf360 (talk) 07:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• The section title "Beliefs" doesn't absolve the text of the responsibility to present every statement, at the time (not later), in a NPOV way.
• In other sections, it may be OK to ascribe official beliefs to "the Church", or to say that "The Church teaches that ...", where there's little or no disharmony within the Church, but I see beliefs ascribed in some places to "catholics", that is, individual people. For example, "Catholics believe that God is the source and creator of nature and all that exists." I think one might allow individual Catholics a little leeway to see it their own way; and on a different matter, don't all christian churches teach this point? The statement can't help but imply that catholics are distinctive in this teaching. I think this is assuming one monolithic, ideological homogenous fact; but you readily agreed that it's not that kind of organisation in reality, in response to my example of the nuns (the laudable Sisters of Charity, who've battled church officialdom, including entrenched sexism, for almost 150 years to do good among the poor, drug addicts and the like). It's an irksome fact that you'll have to face up to that some people who call themselves catholics—among them, priests—don't privately believe in a god, or in papal infallibility. WP shouldn't take on the role of nailing their personal ideology by framing belief as monolithic. TONY (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I made changes in the text to address all of these comments. Please see and let me know if you are satisfied. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I see the one fundamental problem with most of the comments I've read is that the article attempts to present what would be called a global perspective. When dealing with an organization which counts one-sixth of the global population as members, there are unavoidably going to be serious disagreements within the group itself, particularly given the different social and economic conditions which are found today. While those differences are certainly notable, I think most parties would agree that it is all but impossible to expect one single, comparatively short article, to convey all that information. This is particularly important considering that the church as a whole contains within it several smaller groups which are free to interpret the phrasing of the official policy in almost unlimited ways. Although I can see how many of these differences are encyclopedic, I also see that it would be functionally impossible to have "although groups of Catholics disagree", added after virtually every statement of general RC belief. John Carter (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all the editors of the page are in agreement on this issue. What we have done is make mention of notable controversies and provide wikilinks to their own pages for the reader who wants to learn more. At present, we have a whole paragraph in the history section under Vatican II that describes the two polarized groups of liberal Catholics (with wikilink) and conservative or Traditional Catholics, (also with wikilink). They get the same treatment as all other controversies throughout the article. Thanks for your commment. NancyHeise (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Image:Das Schwarze Korps Eugenio Pacelli Judenfreund Feind des Nationalsozialismus.jpg: is not low resolution (WP:NFCC#3B) and does not appear to be necessary. What is this image's significant contribution to our understanding of RCC or the RCC's "modern era" (NFCC#8)? This is not an article on Pius XII. Why is prose insufficient to understand that there were issues between Pius XII and the NS-Regime?

I have answered this below next comment. Thanks NancyHeise (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Phrasing of "Although the historical record reveals his words and efforts were clearly against the Nazis, his actions continue to be a source of debate" appears contradictory. Use of "clearly" is editorializing and, given the presence of continuing debate, does not appear to be true (i.e. the record is, indeed, not clear). The interaction between Pius XII and the NS-Regime was controversial and reasonable people on both sides can disagree. Generally this section addresses the issue well, but this sentence does not seem to properly acknowledge that several "words and efforts" were, at best, ambiguous. Removing "clearly" and rephrasing of, for example (although not necessarily optimal), "Although aspects of the historical record reveal...", would resolve what I perceive to be a neutrality issue. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the word "clearly" even though the reference itself uses the word "decisively" in conveying this message. Regarding use of the image - it is significant to illustrate that Pius XII was not considered a friend to the Nazi's even by the Nazi's. This cartoon was one of many but existed in a newspaper no longer in existence. Because we have omitted a significant amount of material on WWII due to summary style considerations and the conflict over Pius XII is so notable, this image is particularly important to this article that deals specifically with that issue. It is particularly important per WP:NFCC "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." - this image does exactly this - it is a picture worth more than a thousand words and is the subject of the material in the article. I dont know how to make the picture use less of the image which I think would suffice if you would rather, I would appreciate your help in this matter, thanks.NancyHeise (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Replaced the cartoon with a low-res version. indopug (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! The low-res, high-res issue is still a foggy issue to me. Thanks for stepping in and taking care of that. NancyHeise (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I would ask that the FA director and other editors take note that:

a) this is the article's 4th FA nomination

And? I've seen articles which have been at FAC more than 4 times. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: incorrect, third nomination. The third item that was added to articlehistory was a restart of this same nomination. Also, do not alter other editors' declarations. Comments can be added below other editors' posts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

To clarify my implied thesis: this article will never achieve FA status if vague objections from individuals pushing POV against Catholicism or religion in general are considered. This article does exemplify Wikipedia's best work, and it is being held to an unfair high standard by individuals who would likely prefer there be no neutral or positive article about the Church. I freely admit that I have a pro-catholic POV. However, I have not pushed for true statements like "the Church believes that all protestants are heretics whom stand little chance at salvation," to be included in the article. That would be over-the-top POV. Statements in the article being opposed here on POV grounds about the beliefs section such as "the Church believes that baptism can only be conferred once" (I paraphrase) are POV agenda pushing. Stating what the church beliefs about baptism under the beliefs section of the RCC article does not introduce POV--it is a statement of fact. It is my belief that certain individuals in the community wish to blackball this article from becoming featured. As I said, the article is not perfect--but take any featured article on any day and prove to me with specific concrete examples and logical argument that it meets FACR better than this article. Lwnf360 (talk) 11:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This is conspiracy theorizing. I see little if any evidence that people are opposing on anti-Catholic, still less anti-religious, grounds. Meanwhile, you seem to have difficulty identifying POV. The problem with the statement you give ("the Church believes that all protestants are heritics whom stand little chance at salvation"), beyond its obvious grammar and spelling issues, is not that it's "over-the-top POV"; rather, it is that it is unsourced. Should you have a source that verifies this "true" statement, then it could quite happily go in the article. As it happens, however, the article at present states instead that "the Church acknowledges that the Holy Spirit is active in diverse Christian churches and communities, and that Catholics are called to work for unity among all Christians." The reference given for this statement seems impeccable. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

b) the majority of the opposition is coming from individuals who either admit to being, or exemplify the position of:

-Anti-theists (those deeply opposed to all religion)

-Atheists (those indifferent to religion)

-Protestants (those groups who have been in schism for centuries)

-Schismatics (those who have been declared or are de facto in schism)

-Traditional Catholics (many of whom are borderline schismatic)

-Progressive Catholics (many of whom are borderline to de facto heretics)

Perhaps you might make it clear, for everyone's benefit, which opposes you align with each of these particular groups? I'd be particularly keen to learn where I fit in, in your judgement. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to make it obvious, either by your comments themselves, like several traditionalist Catholics here, or by a userbox, as others have, or like TONY, who has a clear statement on his user page: "Pet hates: Supernatural religion". I don't think there is anything wrong with editors of any views contributing here, but reviewer POV has clearly become an issue. Johnbod (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting that the article has such a spectrum of critics--all of whom have inherent POV bias. It shows in their vague objections. An article that upsets such a range of critics must have something going for it.

This is not to say that I do not have POV bias either--I am a devout catholic with extensive knowledge of this subject. I want to see the Church portrayed in an accurate and unbiased i.e. neutral light. E.g. rambling on about the priestly abuse scandal without noting that the abuse rate among priests is roughly half that of the general population, introduces a biased slant against the Church.

It is my view that this article is being held to an unfair higher standard compared to other FAs. Pick any FA on any day--prove to me how that article is beyond the WP:FACR when compared to this one. I submit that you can't. Because this article--though imperfect--meets or exceeds the FACR. I apologize for editorializing in this forum, but these points should be noted with respect to this nomination, given the history. Feel free to agree or disagree with me below. Best regards. Lwnf360 (talk) 08:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I have struck my oppose, but I am not supporting this. Xandar themselves said thousands of edits have been made to this over the past six months. Hundreds have probably been made since this FAC nom started. I think both of these facts show that the wrong approach is being taken. Please discuss here. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Lwnf (I wish you had an easier username): I'd like to see a reliable reference for your claim of half, and with it the knowledge of which "general population" priestly sexual abuse is compared with. And supposing it were the case; the main point is that priests are in a position of significant power over their flock, perhaps more than even doctors or school teachers. Sexual abuse is at its most damaging where there's a disparity in power between victim and perpetrator. In addition, priests are representing a moral system that stands against such abuse. Indeed, it's at the heart of their raison d'etre, whereas doctors and school teachers have a much less explicit and powerful role in the upholding of a system of morality. So half the rate of the general population, whatever that means exactly, is frankly appalling. TONY (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, I disagree with Tony here. And, indeed, with Lwnf. Both are, essentially, engaging in what WP calls original research. The point, rather, is to document the scandal (which is clearly an important one) and the church's reaction, which should in turn be given due weight. In fact, I think that the article at present leans towards OR in this paragraph: at least, it gives that impression, albeit that a look through the footnotes suggests that it could be fixed fairly easily. I'll take this to the article talk page. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

  On the talk page, I have suggested a partial re-write of this paragraph that deals with OR issues, as well as grammar, readability, and attribution problems. It is still probably over-referenced, but there we go. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Spot check on prose and MOS. I took the shortish lead to one section and found a high density of problems. While these might easily be fixed, the point I'm making is that I shouldn't be able to randomly pick small portions of text at this stage and find them wanting. (Aside: the POV issues do seem to have been addressed in the parts I complained about earlier.)
  • " Each pope is elected for life by the College of Cardinals: a body composed of bishops and priests who have been granted the status of Cardinal by previous popes." Ah, comma instead, please.

added. NancyHeise (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• • "Head of State"—lower case, according to MOS.

done. NancyHeise (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• • "The cardinals, who also serve as papal advisors, may select any male member of the Church to reign as pope, but that person must be ordained bishop before taking office." Seems contradictory: why make a claim and then show it's false. "Any male member" seems redundant.

What's the problem here? What false claim? "Any male member" is far from redundant, as most people think only cardinals, bishops or at least priests can be elected, though I suppose that popes have to be male is well-known. Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

not sure what is being shown as false. If cardinals pick an abbot of a monastery (which has happened in the past) canon law requires them to ordain him a bishop before they can then make him pope. The sentence is factual. I am willing to make it more clear if you like. Let me think about it first. NancyHeise (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• • "The basic administrative unit of the Catholic Church is the diocese each of which is led by a bishop. Each diocese is further divided into individual communities called parishes, which are usually staffed by at least one priest"
    • A comma is required after "the diocese".

done.NancyHeise (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • I think the grammar's wrong, anyway (singular/plural clash); why not remove "each of which is"?

changed. NancyHeise (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • Why "further"? Have we already been told about how diocese are divided?

done. NancyHeise (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • "Usually"—I thought more than half of the diocese were not staffed by a priest, because of a worldwide shortage.

I expect you thought wrong then. Is this a prose or MOS problem? Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Tony, you are incorrect in your assumption. The sentence is factual and the priest shortage is addressed in the Demographics section. If there is no priest to staff a parish, there is no parish. There may not be a resident priest living there but it is always staffed by a priest since only priests can perform certain sacraments. About 25% of parishes do not have a resident priest living there but all parishes have priests staffing them. NancyHeise (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• • "The official language of the Church is Latin, however Italian is the working language of the Vatican administration." This statement is like a shag on a rock, here. Doesn't seem to belong to either para. Any ideas on where it might be better located? TONY (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not have a better idea. The working language of the church is referring to the Vatican administration which is the subject of the paragraph in which that sentence is located. NancyHeise (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment from flag of Mexico a featured article:

“While similar to the national flag that is used today, the eagle in these arms is not holding a serpent in his talons and a crown has been affixed to the head of the eagle to signify the Empire. Variants of this flag that appeared in this period also included a naval flag that had the tricolor pattern, but only contained the eagle with the crown above its head. The military also used a similar, square, flag, but the eagle was larger than on the national flag. The national flag was officially decreed by Agustín de Iturbide in November 1821 and first officially used in July 1822. This flag was no longer used upon the abolishment of the empire.”

• ” While similar to the national flag that is used today, the eagle in these arms is not holding a serpent in his [its] talons and a crown has been affixed to the [its] head of the eagle to signify the Empire”

• “Variants of this flag that appeared in this period also included a naval flag that had the tricolor pattern, but only contained the eagle with the crown above its head.” The pronoun/antecedent issues are so bad that I would rewrite it:

”A naval variant of this tricolor flag also appeared in this period, but it only contained the eagle with the crown above its head” – Even then, the meaning of this sentence is confused. This sentence describes the exact same thing that the previous one does, but it seems to be here to indicate that the naval variant was somehow different. This isn’t merely a poor prose issue—it is a meaning issue.

• ” The military also used a similar, square, flag, but the eagle was larger than on the national flag.” –Confused meaning. Is the national flag also square, or is it rectangular and the military flag is instead square? Also contains comma errors.

• “The national flag was officially decreed by Agustín de Iturbide in November 1821 and first officially used in July 1822.” –How can flags be “decreed?” I would rewrite it:

”This design was decreed to be the national flag by Agustin de Iturbide in November 1821, and was first officially used in July 1822.”

• ” This flag was no longer used upon the abolishment of the empire.” Awkward and I believe improper use of “upon.” Better as:

”This flag fell into disuse after the empire was abolished.” or some other such construction.

There you have it TONY: a random paragraph from a random featured article which has grammatical errors in every sentence. I am confidant that I could extend this exercise across all other featured articles. But I think I have made my point: unfair high standard. Lwnf360 (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Flag of Mexico became an FA in 2006, when the FA standards were lower. As you can see, yes, the standards have risen considerably—for the better. As such, new FAs need to meet the current 2008 standard, not the 2006 standard. Lwnf, if you are concerned about other FAs, there's always WP:FAR where they can eventually be delisted. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 12:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, needs to be FAR/Ced, although a whole-article assessment would be necessary before doing that, and an attempt to get the article's guardians in there improving it, which probably wouldn't happen without the incentive of FAR/C, damn it. Lwnf, are you going to hang around this room and review nominations? We'd love you to do that: there's a shortage of reviewers and it's a large, continuous task. TONY (talk) 12:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A sub-point of mine, which you seem to repeatedly fail to grasp--I thought at this point I was being blunt enough--is that the word "perfection" or any such synonym does not exist in WP:FACR. I did not want to name names, as it is impolite and in poor taste, but you, TONY, are one of the several individuals who by your own admission are opposed to organized religion. Lo and behold you are nit-picking grammar issues that are minor and beyond the standard in FACR, in an attempt to keep this excellent article from becoming FA. Lwnf360 (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Tony, FAC people like you need to consider that article builders do not have forever to spend bringing an article up to FA (We have spent six months on this). If you want to fail this FAC because of some errors in punctuation then you risk eliminating the article builders. If you really wanted to help Wikipedia bring an important article like this to FA (which you have stated that you don't) then you might consider taking about five minutes to go through and actually read the entire article making a list or correcting yourself the (few) errors of punctuation that you see. If this article fails FA because you can not spend any time to help it get there, and I have to go through someone like you to bring up another FA - I will not waste my time doing so ever again. I think that the comments of Lwnf360 are right on target. This article is being held to standards that are currently unwritten in the FAC criteria. If Wikipedia wants to help article builders, it needs to update FAC criteria or provide some helpful editor at the top of the process who will help with prose - you don't seem to want to be that person. NancyHeise (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is asking you to do all the work. I still don't see why you haven't consulted the help of a few external editors to copyedit this. There are lists of copyeditors at both Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Members (Don't submit to LOCE, just contact a few individual editors). — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 13:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I have consulted - the article was reveiwed by the editor of a journal who has a yale.edu email address, who is also a former seminarian with a graduate level degree in Theology (which means he knows a lot about church history). I know his name but I do not have permission to give it here. He supported the article. In addition, before bringing the article to FA this time, it went through a second peer review and we posted a message on the article talk page and at LOCE inviting editors to come and go through. Several did come and made changes directly or posted messages on the talk page not on the tag. NancyHeise (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I also would like to point out that Johnbod and Lwnf are not editors of this RCC article in the sense that Xandar and I are. They are FAC reviewers who have supported the article. I respect their opinions and I appreciate their support and help. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Addressing Tony's comments, I went through the article again to check for any punctuation, MoS, or errors in prose - now completed. NancyHeise (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment From my point of view, the article has still following issues:

• It looks "overreferenced" - I know that it is an unintended result of edit wars, but it means on some places that it is hardly readable and perhaps goes into very deep details

This is not a FAC criteria. There is no violation of Wikipeida policy for having more rather than less references and we have good reason for having more as there are various points of view to consider we must have these references to meet FAC criteria 1c "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge,". We have eliminated useless references all others are necessary and some added in response to FAC reviewers comments on this page. NancyHeise (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• On the other side, many of the references are not exact enough. For example the 3rd sentence "The Church looks to the Pope, currently Pope Benedict XVI, as its highest human authority in matters of faith, morality and Church governance." is backed by a long Constitution without saying where exactly (= a page or a paragraph) is the theme described. (Moreover, the wording is not exact: In fact, the "highest human authority" is/should be Jesus, the same as in all other Christian churches; they probably mean the pope as the highest purely human authority.)

The wording is factually correct and encyclopedic. The Church belief that Jesus is its highest authority is covered in the section on "Church" and first paragraph in "Community". NancyHeise (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Some of the sources are not of highest quality/authority. For example Duffy, Saints and Sinners is a book intended for general public, not a scientific/theological study. There are better sources that can be used instead of it. Especially it is not good to use it as a source for dogmatical things (eg. the role of the Pope), because it is about history.

Duffy's Saints and Sinners is one of the most highly respected sources in the world. It is listed as a reference for the Encyclopedia Brittanica article (see above). NancyHeise (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Intro: "From at least the 4th century, the Church has played a prominent role in the history of Western civilization." - Should be mentioned, that it was the old unified church, containing roots of both today's RC and Orthodox churches, and not the RCC as defined above in the article.

The "Western" covers this I think; the unified church contained more than "roots" of the RCC. Johnbod (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Johnbod, the lead makes no secret about the split - it is enough. NancyHeise (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The history of the Western civilization was written also in Asia, Africa and East Europe in the time. But even if we stay in West Europe, the Church was still one, without the Roman/Orthodox distinction. Which is not as it is understood in the most of the article.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The schism is clearly discussed - I disagree that more clarification is needed here. Regarding the history of Western civilization part, this sentence is referenced. NancyHeise (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Intro: the Great Schism "largely over disagreements regarding papal primacy" seems oversimplified; it was also a cultural, political, liturgical and theological (Filioque!) schism.

The lead can not be required to discuss all details. The Great Schism sentence uses clarifying language "largely over disagreements..." - reader can know all the details by reading the history section. The purpose of the lead is to lead the reader into the article which is what we have done. NancyHeise (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Intro: "the Church engaged in a substantial process of reform and renewal, known as the Counter-Reformation." Too soft wording from a Middle-European perspective - in my country, the Counter-Reformation was also a mass expulsion of Protestants, wars and uprisings, executions and forced Re-catholisation.

This is all discussed in the history section. No notable events have been eliminated or glossed over. The Counter Reformation regarding the Church organization is properly presented in the lead. The article is about the organization Roman Catholic Church, too often, FAC reviewers have expected us to cover all of European and world history without remembering that we are trying to give reader a definition of the RCC. NancyHeise (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Without wishing to minimize the Czech experience at all, it was provioked by a political/dynastic struggle, and began many decades after the start of the counter-reformation, when it was winding down in much of Western Europe. But some mention of the Thirty Years War should be made. Johnbod (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but both Reformation and Counter-Reformation were very heavily influenced by politics since their beginning. And it is not only about Czech Kingdom, but also about other countries - France, the Nederlands... The point is that the Counter-Reformation was not only a spiritual renewal, as mentioned in the article, but also a bold political (and consequently military) move. RCC played an important political role, both on its own and as a part of the politics of the European Powers.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

All of this is extensively covered in the history section. We can not adhere to FAC criteria if we are to be expected to go into historical details in the lead. NancyHeise (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the idea of the Counter-reformation. The counter-reformation was a movement in the Church which was principally a reforming process. This is how you will see it described in most history texts and in other Encyclopedia articles such as Britannica. Wars occurred during the 16th and 17th centuries in which religion was one factor - but the wars were not a part of the counter-reformation process. They arose from dynastic and other considerations, and often found Catholic nations such as france and Austria on opposite sides. The thirty years war is specifically referred to in the text. The main war the Catholic Church was specifically involved in at the time was the defence of the West from the Turks, re the battles of Lepanto and Vienna - which we have not had space to include. Xandar (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Intro: "The Church teaches that it is called by the Holy Spirit to work for unity among all Christians—a movement known as ecumenism" - sounds a bit strange - in fact the modern ecumenism originated in Protestant churches and RCC is not even a full member of the World Council of Churches. It sounds as if the RCC were the main originator and sponsor of the ecumenic movement.

The sentence is factually correct. We are giving reader a definition of RCC. It is very POV to say that RCC is not a main originator and sponsor of ecumenical movement. Catholics might disagree with you on that. NancyHeise (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Intro: "opposition to its pro-life stance" - should be more clear that there is also a strong internal opposition of the pro-life stance - that is, a better wording would be something like "conflicts about its pro-life stance".

"Opposition to its pro-life stance" correctly includes both internal and external opposition without needed to state both. Also, this is expanded upon in the history section under "Vatican II and beyond". NancyHeise (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Chapter Origin and mission: The Origin is worth to be singled out as a separate chapter. From the historical/theological point of view, almost no mention about the different meanings of the word ecclesia (church) in the early Christian literature and about the evolving structures of the early Chriatian community is given here. - Moreover, there is a lot of duplicity with the starting section of History below.

Disagree that there is any duplicity - the only thing that comes close to an overlap is mention of Pentacost as origin of Church. Also, mention of early Church history including evolution of Church structure is covered in History section. NancyHeise (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Chapter Origin and mission: It looks like an undue weight on the side of charity. But RCC is a church, not a charity, and the aspects of Word and Sacrament should be stressed more.

Other FAC reviewers thought we did not have enough to say about charity and wanted more. We could not provide more even though charity work is a major part of Church life. We are going to do a separate page and wikilink it in the future because present Wikipedia policy does not allow us to compile our own or translate statistics and this is what we would have to do in order to create a section like this for this article. NancyHeise (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Beliefs: The starting sentence "The Catholic Church's beliefs are detailed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church." is not well placed. It souds like if someone would start the definition of democracy with the statement "The rules of democracy are detailed in the Robert's Rules of Order." The Catechism is not the original or full/comprehensive source, but a contemporary try to summarize the most important beliefs in an authoritative way. It should be mentioned very early, that the two main sources of beliefs are Bible & Tradition, plus Magisterium to explain it, and define them.

Disagree. The article is an encyclopedia article and takes an encyclopedic approach to this issue. The reader who wants to know about RCC beliefs is directed right away to the most important book that compiles these beliefs. Thereafter, the article discusses what those beliefs are comprised of including extensive mentions of Bible, Tradition and Magisterium. NancyHeise (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The catechism is the current authoritative manual of catholic belief. This section is not concerned with the history or origins of belief, which are dealt with later. it simply states where authority on present day belief can be found. Xandar (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• "the New Testament writings found in the Codex Vaticanus..." As far as I know, the Codex Vaticanus has no special place in the RC definition of the New Testament.

This sentence is referenced to Dr. Alan Schreck's "The Essential Catholic Catechism" a Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur declared third party source written by a professor of Theology at Franciscan University of Steubenville. The reference provides reader with the exact quote which includes mention of Codex Vaticanus. NancyHeise (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Sacred Tradition consists of those beliefs handed down through the Church since the time of the Apostles." In fact, it consist of those beliefs believed to be handed through the Church since the time of the Apostles. There are very few sources from the time of the Apostles other than NT. Therefore it is impossible to prove that the said beliefs really come from the time.

Added clarifying language to make this clear. NancyHeise (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• "The Magisterium includes infallible pronouncements of the pope..." Seems like a misleading wording; as far as I know, the Magisterium includes both "infallible" and "normal" pronouncements of popes and other bishops.

Again, this is a referenced fact to Dr. Shreck's Nihil obstat book.

NancyHeise (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Not every pronouncement of a Pope or bishop are part of the Magisterium. Some bishops were heretics. Xandar (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is alluding to the "extraordinary magisterium" and the "infallible ordinary magisterium". I don't think this article needs to deal with such a subtle point of doctrine. Gimmetrow 03:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• "According to the Catechism, Jesus instituted seven sacraments" - a strange statement, the Catechism has no special place in the development of the teaching about sacraments, it only repeates a stable teaching. The number 7 is far earlier, it comes from the Middle Ages.

This is a referenced fact coming directly from the Catechism. If you click on the reference it takes you directly to the Cathechism and gives you paragraph number so you can read it for yourself. I just checked it and the article text is correct. NancyHeise (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Again you seem to be confusing an overview of CURRENT belief with a historical treatment of how such beliefs came to be. The main purpose of the beliefs section is to state what the Church believes and teaches - not how beliefs arose, or theories about the same.Xandar (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Others are the Byzantine rite, the Alexandrian or Coptic rite,..." Should be indicated, that the list of rites in the sentence is not complete (eg. there is a Mozarabic rite, an early form of the Latin rite not mentioned there).

This sentence comes from the Catechism - it is referenced and if you go there you will see that all releveant rites are mentioned. It would be factully incorrect for us to include Mozarabic if it is not even mentioned in the Catechism as one of the those in communion with Rome. NancyHeise (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Mozarabic rite, like the Use of Sarum in England, the Gallican rite, and other early liturgical variations was liturgical within the Roman Catholic Church; it did not have it's own bishops/patriarchs as the Eastern rites do. The Celtic Church is a different story, but I don't think the article can cover everything. Johnbod (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, but the sentence should not look like a full list.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a full list of the groupings among the current Eastern Catholic Churches, is it not? Johnbod (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a referenced fact that is factually correct and complete and comes directly from the Catechism. NancyHeise (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• God the Father, original sin, and Baptism: The title sounds strange - God the Father is not responsible for the original sin in the Catholic belief.

The title is not saying that - it gives a list of what is discussed in each section as evidenced by the comma between each item. NancyHeise (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• God the Father, original sin, and Baptism: The content of the paragraph should give less weight on the biblical story of Adam & Eve ("figurative language" even according to the Catechism) and explain more the sense of baptism - it is deeply connected with the Jesus' death and resurrection, which is not mentioned here.

Jesus death and resurrection is directly connected to original sin - we tell the story from the beginning. NancyHeise (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Jesus, sin, and Penance: Again a strange title - per Catholic teaching, Jesus was without sin.

Remember the comma separating each item. NancyHeise (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• It sounds not very logical to describe the crucifixion before John the Baptist

We organized each section of Beliefs according to the sacraments since the sacraments are very identifying marks of the RCC. NancyHeise (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Why there are no mentions of the Jesus' key concept Kingdom of God, understood as the basis for the life of the Church? The whole paragraph looks too much concentrated on sins and not on other important concepts (Salvation, Resurrection...).

:Again, we organized by sacraments please also see discussions of Communion of saints and Body of Christ which also wikilink and cover Kingdom of God. NancyHeise (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this comment and after doing some research I added a couple of sentences to Jesus, sin, Penance section to address this. I think this is a good point and I am glad you brought this up, it really rounds out that section well. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• "and the priest administers absolution, formally forgiving the person of his sins." - According to RCC, it is God who forgives here, not the priest.

I did some research on this and added some text to the Jesus sin and penance section. According to my nihil obstat source, Jesus conferred special authority to forgive sins in God's name upon the apostles. I added wording to this effect and the reference. NancyHeise (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"Ego te absolvo.." is (was) I think the phrase - "administers" and "formally" carry the meaning here, but perhaps too obscurely. Johnbod (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

As an interesting tidbit, the first-person form of absolution is attributed to Thomas Aquinas. (Can dig up a ref if desired). Gimmetrow 03:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Penance helps prepare Catholics before they can licitly receive the sacraments of Confirmation and the Eucharist." Of course, but is it really so important? It can help to other sacraments as well and on the other side, it is not its principal purpose to support other sacraments.

Penance is a major part of the preparation process in the Catholic Church for those preparing for Confirmation and First Holy Communion. It is very appropriate for us to mention this here. NancyHeise (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• The penance is described in the "modern" (=post-Middle Ages) version; it should be perhaps a bit more general.

No, this section is not the history section, it is intended to give reader a current view of Catholic beliefs and practices, not a history of. Reader has the wikilink to penance if he or she wants more info. NancyHeise (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Holy Spirit and Confirmation: "Through the sacrament of Confirmation, Catholics ask for and receive the Holy Spirit." Is should be more clear that they believe that they receive the Holy Spirit. It is a matter of belief, not a matter of empirical science.

I added clarifying language to this sentence to respond to your comment here. NancyHeise (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I will try to read further, sorry for my bad English.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with most of the points, but have put some quibbles above. Maybe more later, but I keep getting edit conflicts.Johnbod (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Dweller

This page is suffering a very bad case of WP:TLDR, so it could be I'm raising points already mentioned above. However, if I am, it's because they're still outstanding, so...

Object based on:

• Article cites one scholar as suggesting the Catholic church was founded by Jesus. Now, I'm now religious expert, but I'm sure there are fairly hefty ("notable") opinions that disagree. Fine to include this one, but needs to be balanced. The balancing opinion doesn't need to be lovingly dissected (or rebutted) but omitting it means POV

The article provides the best scholars opinions on all views of the foundation of the Church. Norman, McManners and Duffy are the most respected scholars of various viewpoints - omission of Norman would make the article POV as he represents a significant point of view. The balancing opinion is factually portrayed. McManners is not a church apologist and his view supplements Duffy's lengthy piece. NancyHeise (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I must have missed the opposing view. I'll review. --Dweller (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Fall of Man / fall of man?

Per WP:MoS we are supposed to capitalize certain religious events like the Exodus or the Great Flood - the Fall of Man falls into that religious major event category thus we capped it. NancyHeise (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• The messianic texts of the Tanakh make up a small minority of the Christian Old Testament, as a matter of fact, given that the vast bulk of the Tanakh is made up of texts irrelevant to the issue and even in the few arguable texts like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel etc, the messiah is not overtly mentioned and is alluded to occasionally only in the Hebrew text.

You are incorrect on this point. The article text is correct. The Tanakh comprises all the books of Moses, the propets and more - this is the majority of the Christian Old Testament. The sentence does not state that the Tanakh "is" the Old Testament and the clarifying language allows us to use the actual wording. NancyHeise (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• In that supposed bulk of the OT, the article claims that "God promises to send his people a savior." The claim is referenced, but some verses should be cited. I for one would like to be educated on this point. Again, I think you'll find that this interpretation of a handful of verses is disputed. Describing it as "much of" the OT and and implying no conflict is POV.

  FWIW, I disagree with this point, and hence with Nancy's recent revision. The sentences could perhaps be re-worded, but the point is that messianism is also a Jewish belief: it's not simply Christians who claim that God promises a savior in (um) the messianic texts of the Old Testament. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I added a wikilink to a very nice wikipage that will help educate anyone who wants to know more. For our article I think it is sufficient to state what Christians believe and not try to add language about what other religions believe. Why? Because we are going to attract a lot of hate mail if we try to make observations about what all the different types of Jews believe in the RCC article - not a good idea! :)NancyHeise (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• The Penance section could do with a link to an article about Confession. No mention made of the Confessional box.

No mention is made because in many churches they don't use a confessional "box". A priest can hear a confession anywhere, no box required. NancyHeise (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if not universal, is it not a notable element in the Catholic approach to Penance? --Dweller (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No because in many churches the priest just sits in a pew and people will come up to him for confession. There are more churches without them in the world (Africa, Asia, remote Latin American churches and those in very poor countries) than with them - you guys watch too many movies. NancyHeise (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ensure citations follow punctuation - an example at current number 95
• This article implies Eucharist and Mass are not the same thing. The Mass article implies they are. Can you help?

The Mass is composed of the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The Eucharist part of the Mass. The Mass article needs to be changed not ours. I will be happy to work on it after we get through this one. NancyHeise (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Struck. --Dweller (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have great concerns re WP:SIZE. This article crashed my browser. Long articles are excusable (I'm about to nominate one myself) but this is massive and needs a careful but effectual prune, most particularly of the overly long history section. Yeah, it's a long and important history, but summarise it and point people to the daughter article(s) Credit where it's due - I think the authors of the article have handled a number of negative issues sensitively and NPOV in the History section.

The article would be worthless if it gets chopped - no one wants to see that happen. We tried it once already in the last FAC. NancyHeise (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That's hyperbole. Are you seriously suggesting that not a single sentence could be cut without rendering the article "worthless"? I have to disagree. Strongly. --Dweller (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that each sentence has been argued over for months - yes I think it would not go over too well with the rest of the community. NancyHeise (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I do agree on the WP:size point. This article is massive. I feel that its size, or rather breadth of content, is justified. However, any change that reduces length without substantially short-changing content should be pursued. Lwnf360 (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

On size. the article was far shorter before the FACs. You will find, reading the above, that most editors want matter adding. That is why the History section in particular is so large. In order to maintain Balance and DUE WEIGHT, we have to give each historical period and each important event a fair amount of coverage. So if people want extra sections on Latin America, the Reformation, Inquisitions, Liberal and Traditionalist movements, these must be added without reducing the Due Weight given to other notable events. Material is added as concisely as possible, in keeping with fair coverage of the issues. However on many issues there are controversies that require significant detail and which would quickly gather objections if we attempted to gloss over them or redirect to another article. So there is extremely little that could be cut without removing important information or unbalancing the article. Things such as missions, monasticism and architecture may not be as sexy as the Crusades, but they are every bit as important to the history of the Church. Xandar (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Why are those particular titles selected for further reading? Erm... is the bibliography too short?!?

I did not add the titles to the Bibliography but I kept them out of respect for the non-Catholic editor who added them since I felt that maybe these books helped them in some way.NancyHeise (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Would it be easier if I deleted them for you? --Dweller (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In short, this is a terrific piece of work. Huge, impressive and... not FA quality yet. I may well have made some errors above, especially where my lack of erudition comes in, but, I suspect I've hit at least some bullseyes. --Dweller (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment (cont. by Ioannes)

• Holy Spirit and Confirmation: "To be licitly confirmed, Catholics must be in a state of grace, in that they cannot be conscious of having committed a mortal sin. They must also have prepared spiritually for the sacrament, chosen a sponsor or godparent for spiritual support, and selected a saint to be their special patron and intercessor." - As far as I know, only the first sentence holds. As the following sentence states, in some rites it is possible to be licitly confirmed as a smyll child without spiritual preparation. Moreover the first sentence is too narrow: not only Confirmation, but all other sacraments except Baptism and Penance should be accepted in a state of grace in RCC. I would drop both cited sentences.

I disagree that your suggestions would make the aritcle more factually correct. The article expressly states the differences between Eastern rites and Latin rite in each section of the article. Small children in Eastern rites have their sponsor or godparent and patron saint chosen for them. They are assumed to be in a state of grace already as small children dont often commit mortal sins. This section is just below the description on Latin rite so there's no confusion. NancyHeise (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your comment about all sacraments requiring state of grace (except Baptism and Penance), this is discussed in Beliefs opening paragraph with a wikilink to help reader understand what this means. We have mentioned this expressly for Confirmation and Eucharist for purposes of emphasis (because the Church itself emphasizes this) and gentle reader reminder. NancyHeise (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Infant baptism in the Eastern rites is immediately followed by the reception of Confirmation and the Eucharist." In fact, it is each and every baptism in the Eastern rite, regardless of the age. With exception of emergency baptisms, as in all rites.

I clarified this in the text by making this clear. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Church, works of mercy, and Anointing of the Sick: "In its apostolic constitution, the Church acknowledges..." There are many apostolic constitutions, should be cited by name.

It now reads "its apostolic constitution Lumen Gentium..." - thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• The part about the Catholic social teaching sounds too general and without detailed information. It should be shortly mentioned, who started it, when and why and how it developed.

Those facts are addressed in the history section. The Beliefs section is a summary of Catholic beliefs. Catholic Social teaching is part of those beliefs and is wikilinked for reader to learn more right away - all history is in the history section. Please see additional text added per your next comment. NancyHeise (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• "the Church is known for its staunch opposition to ... capital punishment": The Church State itself administered capital punishments till 19th century, not to speak about the so called Catholic countries. Should be written in a historical perspective. A similar case is the environment, mentioned at the end of the sentence: Only too recently they (and most of us "civilized people") started to think about it in this way. Even the importance of abortion & euthanasia in the RCC propaganda is very recent, it is hard to find these words in the 100+ years old Catholic books .

The sentences are factually correct. They are connected to the discussion about Catholic Social Teaching which is not only wikilinked so reader can learn more right away, it is also discussed in the history section so there is no confusion about when this teaching emerged. I will consider adding a date of foundation in the beliefs section - working on wording. NancyHeise (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

::I added wording to clarify that this teaching emerged in 1891 as a result of Pope Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum and provide wikilinks for reader. Also, the article text states "Modern application of Catholic social teaching ..." before going into abortion opposition etc. the text does not hide the fact that it is recent so I dont think the second half of your comment here recognizes that. Regarding Catholic Church administering capital punishments till 19th century - please read the history section. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The last paragraph in [56]] doesn't seem right. Rerum Novarum is mostly known for the "living wage" philosophy, and its related support for private property and guilds. Notions about the dignity of each person and solidarity of all humans as one family are rather more developments of Pope John Paul II. Opposition to capital punishment grew considerably during his pontificate, too. Gimmetrow 00:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Per your comment Gimmetrow, I elimiated my last edit, it is too problematic and off topic to explain the history of Catholic Social Teaching in the beliefs section. If we have explained it in history section, I dont see the need to do it again in Beliefs, especially when it is wikilinked and we state "Modern application of this teaching ....". NancyHeise (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[57] That's better. It was reading as if Rerum Novarum laid out seven themes. Does the article say anywhere that contemporary Catholic opposition to capital punishment is largely based on John Paul II's theology? [58] Gimmetrow 02:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I added two new sentences to the second to the last para in Vatican II and beyond to address your comment here. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 03:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, enough for today, good night from Europe.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emmy Noether

This article has been intensively rewritten, refined, and revised for the past two months by myself (mostly the bio) and WillowW, with some extraordinary assistance from the kind folks at WikiProject Mathematics – particularly Geometry guy and R.e.b.. It has also received two peer reviews, from JayHenry and Karanacs.

There are some minor tweaks still coming on her contributions to invariant theory and elimination theory, but we feel that it is stable, polished, and ready to be Featured. – Scartol • Tok 15:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(My input was very minor. R.e.b. contributed much of the mathematics; I just tidied. I hope to help out with this review. Geometry guy 22:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC))

Comment You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates. Otherwise, sources look good, links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

:Yeah, this was the work of other folks; I usually don't use citation templates. sigh.. I'll try to get it all sorted. Thanks. – Scartol • Tok 17:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I only found one – a cite book – and changed it to a non-template citation (since it only appears once). Please let me know if I missed others. – Scartol • Tok 17:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You got it. The cheaters method of checking is to hit the "edit this page" tab and scroll to the bottom where the templates used on the page are listed. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• A suggestion: use {{persondata}}
• The section "1932" is rather... oddly titled. Could it be changed to something more descriptive?
• "is/are considered" in the lead - by whom?
• I found a contraction - there might be more, watch out for those.

I'll check the lead's prose later. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 22:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for these. I feel (and others I've worked with on the article agree) that infoboxes often distract from more than they add to an article. This is such a case, I feel.

I agree that "1932" is an unusual section title, but it was a year of turning points, and while I'm not opposed to changing it, I wonder if others agree that it should be changed. I'll scan for contractions and unattributed passive voice as you've mentioned. Thanks again! – Scartol • Tok 22:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the section title to "Recognition", since I realized – after being stubborn here earlier, heh – that the events of '32 all have to do with her finally receiving some recognition. – Scartol • Tok 12:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, {{persondata}} isn't an infobox - read the template. I'm fine with the other things, though. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. I'll add it tomorrow. Thanks! – Scartol • Tok 03:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Added. – Scartol • Tok 12:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support - this is an excellent article. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 20:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment What a fascinating subject! The personality section, though, seems a bit out of place. I'll probably get around to finishing the article and giving a full review later. BuddingJournalist 22:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone else said this in another spot, and I wonder where you might suggest moving it. (The other editor never responded.) Maybe before "Expulsion"? – Scartol • Tok 22:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've moved "Personality" to above "Moscow", to provide a transition between the main part about Göttingen and the more detailed sections on Moscow, Recognition, etc. Hopefully this is more suitable? – Scartol • Tok 12:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Comments An article on a female mathematician! Yeah! Overall, I thought it was quite good. I can't pretend to understand the mathematics sections - I tried very hard and read very slowly, but some things escaped me anyway. I think that these "maths" are just too far beyond my meager abilities. I have a few questions and suggestions:

• Often described as the most important woman mathematician of all time - Is there any way to make this sound better? It sort of sounds like "dude, she was the best ever", if you see what I mean.

• I do. Changed to: "Often described as the most important woman in the history of mathematics..." – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• So much less Beavis and Butthead. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Emmy began using her middle name at a young age. - Is this significant enough for the lead?

• No, it's not. I had changed it to this from something else which was not really accurate, and tried to cobble something together. I've rewritten the first part of that paragraph to make it all work and be relevant. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• she was a primary source for the second volume of his 1931 text Moderne Algebra - Sounds like she is a book

• Heh, it does, doesn't it? Revised to "...her work served as the foundation for the second volume...". – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Definitely better. Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• The following year, Germany's Nazi government fired her from Göttingen - "fired her" or "had her fired from"?

• The latter. Changed. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Should we translate the names of her papers? Also, shouldn't the papers be in quotes rather than italicized?

• In the Brewer & Smith book (the most recent source I used – can't speak for maths people), they're all italicized. I'll see what I can do about translations. (I'll need help from the maths people.) – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• I guess math papers are more important than papers in other fields. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Heh. I'm recruiting someone to translate these. – Scartol • Tok 16:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• With the help of Jakob.scholbach, I've added English translations of all of her works mentioned in the article text. If they need to be added to the References section, I have no idea how to do so, since the {{Citation}} template doesn't have a "translation" field. I'm open to ideas and/or guidance. – Scartol • Tok 18:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think the titles need to be translated in the references. Awadewit (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Near-sighted and talking during childhood with a minor lisp - awkward since adjectival verbs don't match

• Agreed. I reversed the order of the sentence: "Known for being clever and friendly, Emmy was near-sighted and talked during childhood with a minor lisp." – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• The third paragraph of "Biography" oddly splits up the information on Fritz. Since there is so little, why not group it together?

• Agreed. Rearranged and reworded. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• For the next seven years she taught at the University of Erlangen's Mathematical Institute, without pay. - Why? Because she was a woman?

• Presumably, although both the Dick bio and the Kimberling chapter indicate that it may have been a confluence of issues (Jewish heritage, gender, perhaps even personality). I worry that being too definite risks being inaccurate or suggesting certainty where there isn't any. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Never mind, then! Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• During her first years at Göttingen, she worked in an unpaid and undefined role - Could the problems with her gender be made more explicit here?

• See above. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Again, never mind! Damn my quest for certainty in an uncertain world. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• In 1920 Noether collaborated with a colleague named W. Schmeidler on a paper about the theory of ideals. Their work was the first to define left and right ideals. The following year she published a landmark paper called Idealtheorie in Ringbereichen, which analyzed ascending chain conditions with regard to ideals. Canadian mathematician Irving Kaplansky called this work "revolutionary",[17] and its importance is seen in the use of the term "Noetherian ring" to describe a ring that satisfies an ascending chain condition on its ideals. - This paragraph seems a bit wordy or repetitive.

• Agreed. Edited for concision. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• In other instances she allowed her colleagues and students to receive credit for her ideas, helping them develop their careers rather than demanding tribute - This suggests that she did demand acknowledgement from van der Waerden - is that true?

• No, it's meant to indicate that she prioritized helping others over what she could have done (ie, demand tribute). I've reworded it to: "...helping them develop their careers at the expense of her own career." – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• The phrase "in other instances" suggests that somehow the algebra textbook incident was different - it doesn't seem that different, though. Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Changed to "She sometimes allowed...". – Scartol • Tok 16:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• I've never really been a fan of "Personality" sections, mostly because I don't think people have static personalities throughout their entire lives. It seems to me like this material might be better integrated into a description of her teaching. The broad statements at the beginning of the section seem a bit too broad to be of any value. Could you describe yourself in a sentence like that?

• Since this keeps coming up, I'll try to weave it into the fabric of the article. I'm not sure how to do it, but I'll give it a shot. (I like it as a separate section myself, but as Mayor Quimby once said: "If that's the way the winds are blowing, let no one say I don't also blow!") – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, I've integrated "Personality" into "University of Göttingen". Hopefully it's more seamless. (Less seamful? More seemly? heh) – Scartol • Tok

• I think this works better. Awadewit (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• She showed an acute propensity for abstract thought, which allowed her to approach problems of mathematics in fresh and original ways - This doesn't seem to describe Noether in any specific way - all mathematics is abstract.

• But apparently some mathematics is more abstract than others. Although I know absolutely nothing about it, the books I've read indicate that – just as some forms of literary theory exist at quite a distance from the texts they discuss (as you know) – Noether's work was very abstract and hard for some people to connect back to the numbers themselves. Perpahs WillowW can more effectively explain this. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• It would be nice to try and explain this to the lay person somehow. Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. :) As a foretaste, it's true that all math is an abstraction. But imagine an anstraction of an abstraction, and an abstraction of that, and yet another abstraction beyond even that. You might think that such super-abstract theories would not allow for many truths to be derived about them, since they have so few properties and offer few features or "handles" for the mind to grasp on. Noether's genius lay in deriving many essential truths for such systems; and they, being so general, instantly applied to all the less generalized mathematical systems, making them very powerful theorems indeed. Willow (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Would it help to use the Einstein-relativity example at this point? There is a quote from Einstein saying he is surprised things can be understood in such a "general way". Awadewit (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That is a great quote, but Noether's theorems, as astonishing and general and influential as they are, are not representative of what people mean by Noether's gifts for abstract thought, at least from my initial reading. The tools for deriving them were already there, most notably Lie groups and the [calculus of variations]]. It's her later work, after 1920, that is more representative of her "abstract thought", her unique approach to begriffliche Mathematik to which she gradually converted other mathematicians and where she made the tools herself, by choosing to define novel mathematical objects in tasteful, productive ways. I'm going to try to capture that in a new section, but it may take a few days. Willow (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Her mathematical horizons broadened, and her work became more general and abstract, as she became acquainted with the work of David Hilbert - Again, I don't think the words "general" and "abstract" are specific enough.

• I agree that "general" could probably go, but I'd argue for keeping "abstract" – again, just as some scientific work focuses on specific life forms or climate systems, others try to conceptualize abstractly what the underlying rules are behind it all (like the grand unification theory). It seems to me that her work became focused on a mathematics form of the latter. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Could we somehow describe the abstractness of it for people like myself? Is that even possible? Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the smallest doubt that we can do it together. :) Willow (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• research turned to determining the properties of ever-more-abstract systems defined by ever-more-primitive rules - I think the average reader will interpret "primitive" in the wrong way!

• Agreed. Changed to "universal". – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I wrote that, so of course I have no idea what you mean? :P "Primitive" here was trying to convey the idea of "basic" or "generalized", of stripping away ancillary details of a system to arrive at a core concept, sort of like Plato's ideals. For example, many things can be represented or described by a group; by inheritance, all those things partake of the properties of their group, and conversely, properties of the group must be found in every instance of it. Does that make any sense, or am I speaking mystically as usual? ;) Willow (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and in my opinion "universal" does nicely here. Would you rather use "generalized", W? – Scartol • Tok 18:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• I've added some "citation needed" tags for a few statements that should probably have cites.

• The maths people will have to take care of this, and the following three items. We're working on 'em. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• These have all been remedied. Huzzah! – Scartol • Tok 22:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• The "Invariant theory and elimination theory" section does not explain what Noether's contribution was; it just describes what invariant theory and elimination theory are.

• While the maths sections are still being expanded (from what I can tell), I believe this problem has been addressed through reorganization (it's been retitled as "Algebraic invariant theory") and the addition of info. – Scartol • Tok 02:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Do folks still think this needs work? It looks remedied from where I sit. – Scartol • Tok 22:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Looks much better to me. Awadewit (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• This single work had a profound impact on the development of modern algebra - What was that profound impact?

That's almost exactly what the source says, the History of Algebra by B L. van der Waerden. He doesn't explain how himself, and, honestly, I don't think I'm going to really understand that before the FAC closes. I'm having a hard enough time catching up on pre-Noether mathematics, without having to understand the consequences of Noether's math for late 20th century mathematics. :P Maybe one of our mathematician friends can help out? Willow (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• In the "Non-commutative algebra" section, can the two paragraphs be joined together? If not, can the first paragraph be expanded to explain central simple algebra a bit more?

On it; but please be patient until tomorrow. Willow (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Footnote 59 is not formatted like the rest, with the appropriate link.

• Good catch. Remedied. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Should the German sources in the "References" list be marked as "German"?

• Sure, why not? The {{Citation}} template doesn't have a "language" field, so I had to stick it in at the end of the line; I hope this is okay. (I assume you're referring to the hypertext links, not all of the German-language entries.) – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, I was referring to all of the German articles. I thought there was a MOS rule somewhere that all foreign-language references had to be marked with the appropriate language. Maybe that has changed, though. Ah! I can't keep up! Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Done. – Scartol • Tok 16:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks as always for your eagle eyes. I look forward to having your support. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You're my inspiration. I wish I had your eyes, and the brain behind them. :) 'Til later, Willow (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely forgot I hadn't supported yet! My major concerns have been met and I know the editors will continue to work on the accessibility issues. Awadewit (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I truly like the article. I'm not into FAC and standards, so I can't decide whether support or not. Just one comment: I strongly suggest that you supply the urls of the historical papers. (See my comment at the article's talk page). http://digizeitschriften.de has practically all historical papers available, for example "Rationale Funktionenkörper". Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this resource, but I can't seem to make it work with the {{Citation}} template. I believe it's due to the fact that the URLs contain [brackets], which interfere with the MediaWiki software's processing of the code. For example, the URL for the actual article "Rationale Funktionenkörper" is:

http://www.digizeitschriften.de/index.php?id=loader&tx_jkDigiTools_pi1[IDDOC]=514934

If anyone has any ideas on how to overcome this, I'm all ears. – Scartol • Tok 22:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

On it, boss. :) Willow (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

...done! :) Willow (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Danke, WillowW. Your Fahrvernugen is sehr gut. I don't know how to speak German. – Scartol • Tok 23:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Na, das war ja nett, Jakob! :) Sei mir so gut, und werf einen flüchtigen Blick auf den Artikel, List of publications of Emmy Noether; ist alles richtig übersetzt und alle mögliche Links gemacht? (Ich bin keine Deutsche, das geb' ich von vorn herein zu, aber ich schlag mich so durch, wenn's sein muß — oder ich versuch's zumindest. ;) Wenn alles richtig ist, dann werd' ich das alles übertragen. Jede Korrektur ist höchst willkommen, und wenn wir noch was machen können, um Deinen Support zu gewinnen, das tun wir ja gerne. Schönen Dank im voraus! :) Willow (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No idea what the preceding text says, so unless someone tells me differently, I will interpret it as a significant contributor support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Struck per translation of the German from Dr pda. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Couple of further comments (already present at the article talk)

• "Galois theory is related to invariant theory". Please explain this. Galois theory is concerned with associating groups to field extensions, whereas invariant theory is about groups occuring in geometric transformations etc. So the relation, if any, is very rough, in my view. I would just eliminate the "is related to i.th."
• "a finitely generated domain A over a field k has a transcendence basis x1,...xn such that A is integral over k[x1,...xn]." I'm not sure whether the term transcendence basis is the usual term. (It may be so). As far as I know, tr.b. refers to a field extension K over k. Perhaps you just say that A has some elements x1,...,xn such that...
• In the non-commutative algebra, I could imagine a word about the Brauer group would be a plus. Such a remark would show how modern the stuff they did still is. Perhaps just a footnote. (The Brauer group classifies division algebras).
• As for references: in addition to the refs you already have, I propose to add a ref to a contemporary math textbook whenever a particular theorem is talked about (for example Noether normalization lemma, also give a link to Eisenbud, Commutative Algebra or something similar. This way a reader interested in the mathematics (less in history) will have the opportunity to learn the theorem (the historical refs are of less value in this respect, because the mathematical language has completely changed). If you want, I can help out with these. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I reviewed this article in depth previously and just had the chance to re-read. It's very well-written. I believe it's neutral and stable. Conforms to MOS items as far as I know. I'm not qualified to comment on the mathematics, so the fitness of this section should be attested to by someone other than myself. --JayHenry (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support, issues resolved. --Laser brain (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Comments - Not far off, but some fixes needed.

• Comment: Image:Noether.jpg needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ooof. Since it was a photo of a younger E. Noether, I assumed it was in the public domain. But of course that's not enough – and I have no idea how to find out the copyright status. I'm out of ideas here, except to remove it – and that would be such a shame. No picture of her at all? =( Ideas, anyone? – Scartol • Tok 22:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• It is in the public domain - you just needed a source. I have found one and updated the image page. Took five seconds - easy! Awadewit (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Smashing. Thanks, A. – Scartol • Tok 02:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support, although a template or two at the bottom would be nice. Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 01:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you mean. Are you referring to the sort of collapsed boxes at the bottom of Isaac Newton, for instance? If so, what do you have in mind? (There aren't any "University of Göttingen" boxes, heh.) – Scartol • Tok 02:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - This is great, but I am wondering why the lead is six paragraphs long? It doesn't seem to summarize the article very well. Please consider reorganizing and condensing to make it concise. I recommend three paragraphs for an article of this length. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 12:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Originally it was four, but the fourth was very long (and we agreed that it needed all of its info), so the fourth was divided into three separate paragraphs. I actually feel that the lead – long though it is – does a good job of summarizing the article. The page is divided into two major sections: biography and mathematics/physics contributions. I feel that the lead encapsulates these, but of course I'm open to ideas from others on how to proceed here. – Scartol • Tok 13:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think that the lead is an excellent summary of the article. The last three paragraphs work either split up or as one paragraph, in my opinion. However, Wackymacs, perhaps you could indicate what areas of the article are under- or overrepresented in the lead? Awadewit (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - The lead has been copyedited, but nothing else since June 7th. Prose still needs improvement throughout, not just the lead. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 06:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Any chance we could get some specifics on what's wrong with the prose? LaraLove just did a copyedit. (I asked her to watch for redundant prose and overlinking especially.) What needs fixing? – Scartol • Tok 14:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• If you actually look at that link, you'll notice no textual changes were made outside of the lead. The only prose changes were ones in the lead, from what I can see. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, you said that already. But you didn't answer the question. Any chance we could get a list of specific non-lede changes that you feel are still needed? —David Eppstein (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• My understanding is that when a person does a copyedit and doesn't change a sentence or paragraph, it means that the copyeditor believes the sentence or paragraph to be of high quality and doesn't need revision. This is what I usually do; perhaps others work differently? I assumed this was the case with LaraLove's copyedit. – Scartol • Tok 17:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—Requirement for professional formatting. Otherwise good.

• It's way too overlinked; I've removed some from the top of the article. Generally, avoid repeated links and obvious things like "English". It's not a dictionary, and we're supposed to know what "piano" means. Please weed out the trivial bright-blue splashes throughout, so that you focus the readers on the high-value links (of which there are plenty). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 08:46, June 4, 2008

• I've reviewed each link in an attempt to fix this. Please let me know if I've missed any that should be removed. – Scartol • Tok 17:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment

I wanted to comment to honor the apparent hard work of the editors involved in the article. I read it through, though I am unable to support because I do not understand the concepts described in the article that are vital importance to its overall cohesiveness. But I am unlikely to do that due to my own failings. I must leave it up to someone else to determine if they are sufficiently explained. However, I found her biography engaging and interesting. I would like to have had lunch with her. That would have been fun. Best of luck. --Moni3 (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Amendment: I pointed my partner to this article because she has a math minor and an affinity for this sort of thing. For the comprehensiveness of the mathematical concepts, she said it was as well-written and sufficiently explained as could be since there is no language available to break it down any simpler than it already is, in any concise manner. However, she did think that the Third Epoch was considerably less detailed than the previous two, as if the editor(s) had run out of steam at the end, or didn't understand it. Hope that, uh, helps. --Moni3 (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. My eyesight is so good I could count the number of acne on a forehead. Gary King (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing (pop). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. ElCobbola raised the issue of Image:Noether.jpg above. Unfortunately images from the early twentieth century are something of a twilight zone as regards copyright issues. I think we can accept that this photograph was taken between 1900 and 1910, but the photographer could have been aged 25 at the time, or lived a long life: another 40 years would suffice, as 1940 is less than 70 years ago. To establish that this is in the public domain in the US (which is what matters), what you really need is evidence that the image was published before 1923 (in the US) or before 1909 (outside the US). Otherwise, we have to wait until about 2025 before we can use it... :-) Geometry guy 00:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oof. Well, as I said before, I've tried without success to find a picture of Dr. Noether which is certified PD. Can we apply for fair use if we don't know the copyright status? – Scartol • Tok 20:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

    For fair use you really need to know the copyright holder, unfortunately. It's a royal pita. The only thing I can suggest is to check the books you cite for pictures: it is possible that some of them give image credits. If you can find any hints of publication of a photograph before the dates above, you may have a public domain image. Otherwise, you may at least have a known copyright holder. Geometry guy 23:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

    • But of course I just took the books back to the library. =P I'll see what I can do. – Scartol • Tok 01:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The image from Moscow State University is of the main building, a postwar example of Stalinist architecture. It was completed in 1953. It seems incongruous to have an image of building which did not then exist representing her tenure there in 1928–29. Kablammo (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. Will try to find a different pic. – Scartol • Tok 20:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Replaced with Image:Staruniversity.jpg. – Scartol • Tok 20:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: While doing a minor copy-edit, I saw that the lead is, in my opinion, more detailed than necessary. I removed the titles of her papers, as it seemed unnecessary and distracting to list them in the lead. I recommend removing any quotes, as well as any insignificant details that are explained in the body, i.e. her students were sometimes called the "Noether boys". Lara❤Love 18:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you in advance for your copyedit, Lara, especially on such short notice. However, the question of the lead has been laboriously discussed, refined, debated, and analyzed, as you will see in the resolved items under Talk:Emmy_Noether#Comments_from_Randomblue. While I really appreciate your attention to detail, I'm afraid this is exactly why I balked at the idea of another copyedit when Wackymacs first suggested it above. (This is nothing against you, Lara, please understand – the comments are coming from about 700 different directions. I apologize, LL, for not explaining this beforehand – it would be hard for you to have predicted this.)

Now, how should we proceed? I've made it clear elsewhere that I preferred the lead as it was. Awadewit said on the talk page:

These papers are clearly some of Noether's most important works; ergo, I think we should mention them. I would also endorse keeping "Noetherian rings" - how many people have a mathematical concept named after them? Very few. To a reader like myself who doesn't know anything about the math, a detail like this indicates how important Noether is.

Ozob concurred:

Noetherian rings are one of the most important concepts ever introduced in abstract algebra, probably only second to the basic definitions of rings, modules, and so on. They absolutely need to be included in lead; I think they deserve a hundred-point type sign saying "THESE ARE REALLY IMPORTANT!!!!!"

I don't want to be stubborn, but it seems like a case of "We decided it ain't broke..." to me. – Scartol • Tok 19:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been through the process, I appreciate your frustrations! :) As someone who doesn't know the math, I found the article very interesting. However, when reading the lead and making my suggestions on it, it was about readability. While the papers may be important, for someone reading the lead to get an idea of what the article is about, the titles are not significant. It's similar to a sorority article I reviewed several months ago which listed the names of all the original members. Yes, they were important, but for readability, no one wants to read a list of names. I agree that the mention of the rings is important, and a big deal. The mention of boys however, not so much. So, for me, it's a matter of deciding what's most important and significant and including it in the lead in a way that flows best for the reader.

Also, I believe going into specifics in the lead should be avoided. The point of the lead it not only to summarize the article, but to draw the reader in... to make the want to read the entire page. Summarizing by giving only the key information, and touching briefly on each topic, gives the reader the basic information while leaving them with a hunger for the details. That is what brilliant prose in a well-constructed lead is to me. Lara❤Love 19:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Randomblue (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Specifics should be included in the lead. We don't say "Charles Dickens was a famous novelist" and then neglect to mention his famous novels and we don't say "Albert Einstein was a famous scientist" and fail to mention what he discovered. Without the details, the reader just gets a vague of sense of Noether as a famous mathematician - that is not enough. What was she famous for in mathematics is the key question. Awadewit (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, we need to be specific! Adding not-so-specific titles like "Proof of a main theorem in the theory of algebras" takes up a lot of space in the lead and isn't interesting. The lead should focus on, for example, the content and impact" of these papers; that is the engaging material.Randomblue (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting the lead should be vague. There's a difference between summarizing with the basics and being vague. ...her students were sometimes called the "Noether boys", is interesting, but not particularly important, for example. It's also not mentioned in the body. It should be moved there. I removed the list of titles and Willow has improved the prose, so it reads much better now. Lara❤Love 17:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Not sure if this has been discussed before, but "Often described as the most important woman in the history of mathematics" seems contentious to me. Surely Ada Lovelace and Maria Agnesi are, at the least, more well-heard of than her? indopug (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Your comment here could easily lead to an argument about who is most important, whether "well heard of" and "important" are equivalent, and whether Lovelace's contributions were primarily to mathematics, but I think that misses the point. What we should be discussing here is not whether she really is the most important but rather whether it is factual to say that she is often so described. Do you think this claim is insufficiently sourced? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Attribution would be nice; "According to X, 'Noether is the most important...'" Since Einstein seems to have believed it, why not attribute it to him? Since he is so popular, his statement regarding her importance would carry weight with a lay reader, while at the same time disassociating her supreme importance from being "fact". indopug (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the whole question of "Greatest. Mathematician. Ever." is a little silly, but it is part of the historical dialog about Noether, so we pretty much have to cover it. It does help readers appreciate the importance of her work, and fire their enthusiasm for learning about her. :) My own feeling is that no attribution is needed in the lead, especially not having seen any contention in the published literature. Although we all have our personal favourites (e.g., your examples, Hypatia, Sophie Germain, Sofia Kovalevskaya, etc., etc.), the present consensus of mathematicians and mathematical encyclopedias seems to be for Noether, as you can see from the "Assessment" section. I appreciate the advantages of citing Einstein, but that wouldn't reflect that consensus; also, despite the New York Times headline, Einstein was not a mathematician and "did not pretend to be", according to Pais' biography. Willow (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

OK no worries; I honestly hadn't seen the Assessment until now. FWIW, having read that section, it looks a little silly having seven almost-consecutive sentences (incl. the two blockquotes) that are just variations of "Greatest. Mathematician. Ever.", besides revealing little additional information. While sentenes such as "In a 1964 World's Fair exhibit entitled "Men of Modern Mathematics"..." and "In his obituary, fellow algebraist B. L. van der Waerden says..." are interesting, the others are "consistently ranked as one of the greatest mathematicians", "greatest woman mathematician in recorded history", "greatest woman mathematician", "greatest woman ever to work in the field", "greatest woman mathematician up to her time", "best woman mathematician of all time", and "greatest mathematicians (male or female)". Is it possible to trim that section and remove a few of those sentences? Maybe cut down on the use of the G word? It just seems redundant and repetitive to the point where the reader goes "oh ok already she's the best-ever, lets move on". indopug (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You're totally right; the last thing the article needs is a section written by Comic Book Guy! ;) Hoping that you like the condensation, Willow (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Better. Link the first instance of Einstein in the article. I'll review the rest tomorrow. indopug (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments on images:

• I think it was mentioned above, but Image:Noether.jpg needs more details to support a public domain claim. {Country and date of first publication, as well as the date of death of the author if that is the basis for the PD claim.)
• Image:Erlangen 1916.jpg may not be in the public domain in Germany (if that's where it was published), which uses life+70 as the copyright rule. It is at risk of deletion there. Recommend moving back to en Wikipedia and licensing as {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}.
• Image:Paul Albert Gordan.jpg, same as above, if published in Germany. Also needs details on authorship and publication.
• Image:Zuerich vier Kirchen.jpg could use an English description if it's being used in an English article, but not a big deal.

Kelly ^hi! 00:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm going to work on these tomorrow. Thanks for your patience, everybody! – Scartol • Tok 20:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Halo (series)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because...Nominator...The members of The Halo WikiProject have put a great deal of effort into it. I am nominating on their behalf as we all feel that the article passes the Featured Article Criteria. Thank you. Blackngold29 16:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Great start! I started out enthusiastic about this one because a lot of effort clearly went into the preparation. However, I got bogged down in issues quickly and stopped reading after "Common elements". Examples below illustrate problems with MoS, jargon, and organization. I also stumbled into some basic grammatical problems ("amount" vs. "number") that show a solid copy-edit is still needed. Get a non-gamer and kill the jargon issue at the same time.
  • Needs copy-editing by an MoS stickler. Lots of little problems (ex. "including the upcoming real time strategy game"; should be "real-time")
    • Done I fixed the ones that you addresed and all others that I could find. Blackngold29 05:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You're dousing the reader in game jargon starting in the lead. Imagine you know nothing about video games but you're reading this because it's featured on the main page. "First-person shooter"? "Console game?"
    • Internal links do not suffice? Blackngold29 15:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    • What I think Black is saying is that we do have internal links, and it kind of breaks up any flow to say "Halo is a first person shooter. First person shooters are games where stuff takes place through the eyes of a character and you blow stuff up." --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Why hyphenate "technologically-advanced" and not "cybernetically enhanced"?
    • Fixed. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "The strong sales of the game series have led to a massive Halo franchise." "Massive" sounds a bit POV; would help to have a citation or even a quote of an authoritative source calling it massive.
    • Reworded Blackngold29 05:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "The main trilogy featured first person shooter gameplay, along with third person vehicular gameplay." Why "featured" when a sentence before you wrote "features"? Also, "main trilogy" has no prior context. You write about Halo 1, 2, and 3 in the lead, but you don't ever call it a "trilogy". In fact, you haven't yet delineated what games comprise the series, which would seem to be required for the lead. I see further down you introduce the main trilogy..
  • "There is also the option to fight ..." Messy.
    • Done Blackngold29 05:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "Players can carry a certain number of grenades, which can disrupt masses of enemies or flush out entrenched foes; together, this "weapons-grenades-melee" format forms the "Golden Triangle of Halo" gameplay ..." Imagine your grandma reading this.
    • Done Blackngold29 05:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

--Laser brain (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments: As one of the more recent contributors to the article, I don't feel the article is ready for FAC and as Laser brain has pointed there are multiple MoS issues. David and I were working on it in April and had put it up for peer review, but we both got bogged down with other things. I know my time on Wikipedia lately has been sparse and erratic, and I don't really have the time for an FAC of an article that is not ready. Also, I'd hate to see excess strain on already strained reviewers. If David or one of the other major contributors has the time to address issues for FAC, I'll certainly make an effort to do the same. If not, then I'd like to ask for a withdrawal. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC))

I've got my own FAC right now, but I'll try and help out as much as I can. I think we prolly shoulda done a copyedit before the FAC, but whatever, it's here now. I'll ask around for some outside editors to help, since they'll be able to note more jargon and stuff. Either way it'll wait until tomorrow for me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That's cool. I'll make an effort to address issues as well. Thanks for helping out David. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC))

• Reply to Guyinblack25:

I have not worked on the article much, but I would be willing to help you address any issues raised. Perhaps some fresh blood will be good for the article. Blackngold29 18:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • tiedtheleader.com

Have to plead the "interview" card again... it's an audio interview with a voice actor which was conducted by the site, I can't talk about their reliability as they are a gamer's blog with no special credentials. I mean, unless they were got someone to fake the voice of a well-known disc jockey... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I'm not convinced, but it might pass muster with others. Leaving this one out for others to decide on their own. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• • http://games.kikizo.com

Also an interview; the site's about page is here, I've sent them an email like gamecritics below. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The site's founder responded to my queries (since it's pretty much the same as below, I guess leave for others to check?) ..."Hi David, Kikizo has been active since 1998, formerly under the name GamerWeb and operating as Kikizo since 2003. [...] all information is fact-checked and mistakes are always corrected - major updates and/or corrections to stories/features will be posted as additional updates, rather than rewriting the original piece, and in such cases this is clearly stated." --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely been doing this too long with David starts predicting my replies before I make them... Yep, leaving it out for others to decide. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.gamecritics.com/feature/preview/halo_xbox/page01.php

They are independent, but they appear reliable: I've sent them an email with queries regarding their content review and editing process, hopefully that will help clear up this one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

From email correspondence with site owner Chi Kong Lui: "...For our reviews and feature articles, [we do fact-check]. We expected our writers to fact-check and content is reviewed by two [other] editors before publication. [...] absolutely, we would post corrections and retractions if errors are found." --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Leave this out for other reviewers to decide on their own. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Another comment - You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Still mixed! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, all uses of Template:Citation have been removed. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 06:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC))

Comments

• Most of the other issues have been caught by reviewers already, so I'll focus on one: redundancy.
  • "Some aspects of the SPARTAN Project"
  • "IGN listed it as the number two top Xbox game of all time"
  • "Several spin-off games have also been announced"
  • "He and a few other SPARTAN-II's"

There's definitely others that I missed. You'll probably disagree with at least some of these - that's fine, as long as you can tell me why the words add anything to the sentence. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 20:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through and removed all the instances except one I felt was needed for some clarity. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• References do not need to specify that they are in English.
• For page numbers in references, prepend with "p." (or "pp.") when it does not appear automatically.
• "The three main games in Halo series focus on the adventures of the main character, Master Chief." The three main games are mentioned in the lead before this, so they should be reiterated again in the body somewhere before this text.
• "set centuries into" Unlink common words like this one.
• "Evolved[32] Ensemble" Missing a period?
• "'new trilogy' " Use double quotes.

These are a small sample of the issues. Gary King (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary, the issues you mentioned above have been addressed except for the "p." in the references. I believe citation style guidelines do not require it unless using Harvard referencing. Any other issues you see? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC))

I'll strike out for now. Gary King (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Watched this article for a long time, and it has grown to a formidable article covering every aspect of the Halo franchise. It also meets the requirements and has improved while it has been at FAC. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Further comments - I did another read-through this morning and I'm still not happy with the prose quality and jargon. I didn't have to go far to build a decent list of representative issues. I don't think it's within reach for this nomination period—recommend withdrawing to work on issues. I still maintain that it needs a solid copy-edit by a non-gamer who would likely catch the same issues I am seeing.
  • "In this science fiction setting, the term "Halo" refers to Halo megastructures, large orbital constructions, similar to those first popularized by the 1970 novel Ringworld by Larry Niven, though smaller in scale." Here, you are making a comparison that is quite complex for the reader to understand. They have to go to the Ringworld article, find the information about the "large orbital constructions", then imagine something smaller. Seems like a lot of work.. why not just describe them as they appear in Halo?
  • First-person shooter and game console are not wikilinked in the lead. Non-gamers will be lost.
    • Done Blackngold29 17:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The "with <noun> being" construction found in "... with Halo being the Microsoft Xbox's "killer app" and other places is poor grammar; these need to be revised. First paragraph of the body has "with the player experiencing"; check throughout.
  • The lead still does not clarify that there is a "main trilogy" until the reader stumbles on "... and soundtracks have been released for the three main games." It should be clear without clicking links that Halo: Combat Evolved is the first game of the trilogy.
    • Done Blackngold29 17:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "In Halo: Combat Evolved, the player's health is measured in both hit points and a shield which can continually recharge." What is the word "both" doing? More jargon... to most people, a "shield" is a physical device, in which case how does it "regenerate"?
  • "Later games exclusively featured the recharging shield and removed the health bar." Health bar? Isn't that where you buy diet frozen yogurt? Please don't force the reader to click away to find basic context. You haven't even mentioned a health bar yet and you can't take for granted that the reader will associate "hit points" with it.
  • "Rather than creating entirely new maps and geometry ..." What's the difference between "entirely new" and just "new"?
  • "Players can save their games as films and watch these saved films from all angles." I think "video" is a more apt term than "film", perhaps? --Laser brain (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I've addressed all your concerns, Laser. I still think it's important to mention Niven's ringworlds, but I shortened the tangent to him and increased the discription. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Question. Should this article be moved to Halo series? It seems more natural to me (I'm not aware of any naming conventions regarding this, though). · AndonicO ^Engage. 01:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah there's a naming convention (See point 6 of this). Although I too would prefer the title "Halo series" there isn't consensus for that. James086^{Talk | Email} 02:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I believe the rationale behind it is that series are generally referred by just the name. "Do you play Halo?" Though "the Halo series" is used too, but I can't say which one is more common. Several other video game series use the same convention. Kingdom Hearts (series), Crazy Taxi (series), Mana (series), etc. Others, like Age of Empires and Final Fantasy, drop the "(series)" part because they are more well-known than the game that started the series. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 02:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC))
      • Okay then, thanks. · AndonicO ^Engage. 12:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Still finding issues, pursuant to my opposition above. Whenever I dive into a random section (these are all from "Main trilogy") I find lots of issues. Please, this needs to be withdrawn and given proper attention.
  • "The standard Halo 2 edition has traditional Xbox packaging, and comprised of a single disc, which contained both the single and multiplayer components." Grammar—mixed tenses and ambiguous use of "comprised"
  • "It holds the record for the longest streak as the number one game on Xbox Live, retaining the top spot for two years, after which Gears of War replaced it as the most-played multiplayer game." The term "longest streak" is too informal, and "number one game" is not defined until later. Don't make the reader skip ahead to discover the meaning. The transition of the subject of the sentence from Halo to Gears of War is awkward. The whole sentence needs reworking.
  • "A PC port for the Windows Vista operating system was later released by an internal team, dubbed "Hired Gun", which was composed of both Microsoft Game Studios and Bungie Studios personnel." What was dubbed Hired Gun, the PC port or the internal team? Internal to what? Again, readers have to skip ahead to discover the meaning of what's written.
  • Why "Halo: Combat Evolved was the first Halo video game ..." and then "Halo 3 is the third game and final game ..." Also, please: "third and final game". --Laser brain (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I believe all issues have been addressed. Blackngold29 22:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I sincerely mean no offence, but some of your changes (particularly "The game remained in the top game ...") are introducing more errors. --Laser brain (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I think I kind of rushed it. I re-wrote some. I will look over the article later and try to eliminate the "main trilogy" confusion. Blackngold29 22:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LSWR N15 class

Nominator I'm nominating this article for featured article because this class of locomotive represented an important link in the lineage of the SR Lord Nelson Class, which had provided inspiration for both the LMS Royal Scot Class and the Maunsell SR Schools Class. Bulleid Pacific (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment -- where the footnotes refer to the same book, it might be neater to remove the book title from the reference, leaving just author and page number. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC) (article contributor)

• Comment -- food for thought. I'll experiment. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC) (article contributor)

Support Oppose for now. An interesting and well-researched article; issues resolved. GrahamColm^Talk 18:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment -- OK, found a few bits wrong, altered them, now over to you, Pete! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I'm trying to see how this information is "One example, 30777 Sir Lamiel," is sourced at this link http://www.earlybritishkingdoms.com/arthur/malorys_knights.html
• What makes http://www.semgonline.com/index1.html a reliable source? Also, the actual ref using this link is a bald url with no title formatting.

Got rid of source.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 10:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't understand what you mean here. What is a 'bald url'? The articles on SEMG are fairly run-of-the mill stuff for the Southern Railway, with most of the source material being common knowledge, and therefore the site provides a good general overview of various topics. It is quite verifiable.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A bald url is something like either [60] or http://www.google.com, where there is no formatting like Google Home Page. As for the source itself, I'm not seeing any sources given for the information, nor any authority claimed for the author. It looks like a personal or fan site, albeit a nice one. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, resolved the issue by using another source. I think the URL is fine now, being only in the external links section. Is there anything else that needs doing? --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources look good. Links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for prose (see Graham). Mojska ^{all you want} 14:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Please remember that this is not a vote but an attempt to achieve consensus. My opinions may change in the light of discussions taking place on this page. GrahamColm^Talk 17:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment -- Personally, I can't see much else wrong with this article, and using the tools provided, the average 18-year old can understand the prose. However, it would help greatly if other editors could actually shed light on any further lapses in prose.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Wow, can you maybe use {{harvnb}} instead of the current referencing method of including the book title in every reference? It makes the references long and hard to read.
• "Arthur class [1]" — remove extra space
• In "Locomotive weight", the dashes should be en dashes per WP:DASH

Gary King (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, references have been simplified for the benefit of the reader. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - image copyrights look good. Kelly ^hi! 20:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1926 World Series

I'm nominating this article for featured article status because I believe it meets the FA criteria. I enjoyed writing this article, and I hope you enjoy reading it! Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• "They rebounded from their 1926 loss by winning the title in 1927 and 1928." poor wording. Also replace "their" with "this".
• I think the Summary section should be at the bottom.
  • It's a convenience to readers who want to quickly access the scores of each game. I've seen this format in other World Series articles as well. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Isn't that what the infobox is for? Buc (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, the infobox does not have parameters to include data for all 1926 WS games. That's why a separate section is needed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Background section seems to be mostly about the two team rout to the series.
  • What would you like it to be about? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    • What the players and coaches were saying to the media etc. Buc (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I have included that to some degree. I have full NYT access, so I'll dig through some of the October 1926 sports articles. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• "Furthermore, he pitched a complete game" why "Furthermore"?
  • It means "in addition to". It's an appropriate transition from the previous sentence. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Reads oddly to me. Buc (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• What is the "Babe Ruth and Johnny Sylvester" section for and why does it come after game 4?
  • It's famous 1926 World Series lore. It doesn't make sense to have it before the game, since I reveal Ruth's Game 4 heroics. It's appropriate to have this after Game 4, since this was when the story was first publicized. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Make it a sub-section and explain this then.
      • A sub-section of "Matchups"? I clarified why Johnny Sylvester story is important. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Surly the Aftermath section could be exspanded?
  • What other information belongs in this section? I wasn't entirely sure. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Impressive though for an event from over 80 years ago. Buc (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • Expand on what is already there for a start. If you don't think you can expand it much though, remove it, it's not worth having a section that short. Buc (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
      • If a section is too short, we shouldn't have it? I'll see what I can do, but I don't think removing the section is appropriate. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
        • There isn't anything mentioned in it at the moment that really has anything to do with the 1926 World Series. Buc (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
          • It's an "Aftermath" section. It's supposed to cover the team and its players after the WS. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• I just noticed that Art Reinhart is an external jump in the Game 4 box score. Red links are not evil. If someone comes to this page and sees it, they can create an article themselves. That's how Wikipedia grows.
• Game 7: The writing implies that Lazzeri's long fly ball didn't reach the stands. It did, but of course it went foul.
• Another reviewer mentioned this earlier, but Aftermath could easily be expanded. The Yankees fielded the famous Murderers' Row team the following year, and the Cardinals became the dominant team in the National League for the next 20 years. There is much that can be written about this.
• Barry Levinson's book is listed in Further reading. This should be removed since it is used as a reference, per WP:CITE.

There were a couple other things I saw, but I can't remember them now. I also fixed a few things myself. If I had to vote on this one, I would be Neutral. It is well-referenced and fairly comprehensive, but the game recaps aren't compelling to me. There are some awkward passages at times. like these two from game 7: "Les Bell just barely made it to first base after shortstop Mark Koenig accidentally kicked the ball while trying to field it." Just barely? "and it appeared Haines had run into some problems." The bases were loaded and his finger was bleeding from a popped blister, so it goes without saying that he had "some problems". Perhaps this is from reading a lot of newspaper recaps, but I don't feel comfortable supporting this. I do wish you luck, as I always like to see sport-related articles succeed here. Giants2008 (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well, game recaps in newspapers are supposed to be captivating and exciting. Sports articles written like newspaper recaps would be marked with {{tone}}, {{unencyclopedic}}, {{pov}}, {{weasel}}, among other things. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand the need to keep an article encyclopedic, but I still think this can be improved. I previously left more comments above, and here are a few more.

• Game 1: "behind Johnny Mostil winner George Burns." Should be "behind winner George Burns and Johnny Mostil."
• Game 2: Unneeded Babe Ruth link.
• Game 3: Cardinals doesn't need a link.
• "future Baseball Hall of Famer right-handed knuckleball pitcher Jesse Haines" First part of this is very awkward.
• "but the Cardinals added to their lead by picking a run" Do you mean picking up?

For a good example of what I consider a quality game recap, see 2005 ACC Championship Game, a recently promoted FA. One more piece of advice I will give you is to try obtaining newspaper stories on the games, as well as those in The Sporting News or similar publications. Fresh information from these could be helpful. Giants2008 (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Sources look good. Links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support All my concerns assessed, seems to meet all criteria. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 15:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "Further reading" section goes after "Notes"
  • Done. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Use en dashes for scores, etc. per WP:DASH, such as in "Game 1" at "WP: Herb Pennock (1-0) LP: Bill Sherdel (0-1) "
  • Oof! Done. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Unlink dates that are not full dates, such as "back to 1923." and "by September 22, but", per MOS:UNLINKYEARS
  • Wrong link? And when was this change made to the MoS? At one point, it said to link years, then it said not to, later it said to link individual month-days, and now we're not supposed to? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the link. Only years have to be unlinked, if they are not used with a month and day. Gary King (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I felt the links were relevant (they were only linked when associated with a particular World Series). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support just did a read through and I'm not seeing anything to cause concern. giggy _(:O) 09:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Germany Schulz

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been stable as a WP:GA for some time and is extensive enough and interesting enough to be a WP:FA. This is one of many Michigan Wolverines football bio articles that I worked on with User:Cbl62. He did most of the research on this one and my contributions were more organizational. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments regarding images:
  • Image:Germany Schulz.jpg: source does not assert a date of first publication. How can we verify the PD-US claim? Why is a purportedly PD image using a non-free rationale for the James B. Craig article?
    • Given his year of birth, it seems extremely likely that this publicity photo is from before 1923 when he would have been almost 40 years old. I think it would be pretty reasonable to let this PD claim fly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
      • No. Verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia. Also, merely existing is not the same as being published. Proof is needed that this was first published before 1.1.1923. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 02:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Ferry.gif: source site indicates this is from a 1924 Wisconsin game and credits the image to "BHL, Ath. Dept.". This contradicts the PD-US license's assertion of first being published before 1.1.1923. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't think we can justify fair use here, but we should be able to claim fair use at Ferry Field. I will write up the claim.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I found a free image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Replacement is also problematic. source has date of 1923. As the criterion is publication before 1.1.1923, an image published/created in 1923 does not meet PD-US. Source, additionally, asserts "This image may be protected by copyright law." ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 02:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 1 "Schulz to play center" is lacking where it was publsihed?
• Same for ref 21. "Schultz Played Star Game against Penn..."
• Current ref 51 is lacking a publisher ( Glamourless Gridirons..) Deadlinked for me too.
• Current ref 60 is lacking where it was published (Mrs Sophia Schulz is dead...)

Sources look good. Links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I am handicapped by the source being from a newservice that a co-author used. I can not recover any further detail. He is unsubscribed now to my knowledge. He is not becoming active in this discussion, so what you see is what you get.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Weak Support - I'm not happy about a couple of the reference issues I described above, but it does seem comprehensive considering the time period. Overall, gets one thumb up from me. Giants2008 (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Looks like Image:Ferry field derived from Aerial University of Michigan image.JPG is possibly pending deletion due to copyright concerns.
  • Image:Germany Schulz.jpg has no/vague source information. A PD claim requires information on date and place of publication.

Kelly ^hi! 19:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rongorongo

previous FAC (19:02, 9 April 2008), earlier FAC

Self-nominator: All previous issues have been addressed. The main remaining problem had been the unresolved copyright status of the images, under the mistaken impression that this depends on whether an object is 2D or 3D. (A coin lit up and framed in an original way is not PD; the same coin copied on a scanner is PD. The 2D thing is a rule of thumb, not a legal principle.) Although nearly all the photos were ineligible for copyright (original copyright long expired, no original work in their reproduction), this takes months to resolve at Commons, so I have removed the numerous thumbs and moved two of the images to Wiki-en with Fair Use tags (they are actually Template:PD-ineligible). Another objection had been the length of the article; it has now been split in two. —kwami (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Serious lack of footnotes to most paragraphs throughout. In the past FAC, Ealdgyth said: "I do note that large sections of the article are lacking inline citations, at least to page numbers of the various sources." - This has not changed. Fails criteria 1c of the FA criteria. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 12:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Isn't the lack of footnotes due to the use of author-date referencing? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In that case, footnotes should not be used. It's either Harvard referencing, or footnotes - not both. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_cite_sources. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 14:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The footnotes are being used as actual footnotes (i.e. for commentary), not as a referencing system. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
      • OK, You've got me now. I'm more used to the footnote system being used for references, since I've come across very few articles on Wikipedia using Harvard referencing. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 14:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
        • They're a dying breed ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. All I can say is: Wow! I tried using this article months ago for a story I wrote about the Rapanui, and it was all but worthless. This is better than anything that can be found in most libraries! I'll say support, but I don't regularly participate in FAC discussions and am not terribly familiar with the criteria, so feel free to disregard. It's definitely a fine piece of work. Fishal (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose until image problems are resolved. Images such as Image:Rongorongo Qr3-7 color.jpg and Image:Anaokeke.jpg are clearly 3D and eligible for copyright. If you want to use something like this, trace the script to make it into a PNG/SVG and get rid of all the lighting/surface irregularities. Mangostar (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The response on Commons to your earlier complaint of Anaokeke was "Looks two-dimensional to me!". Under your interpretation, all of the photos of paintings on Wikipedia would have to be deleted, since they all have lighting, and they're all three dimensional (they all have texture, if only from the canvas). Do we need to make a PNG tracing of The Last Supper? (Look, I can see a crack in the plaster—that makes the object 3D, so it's copyrighted!) The legal principle is not whether the object is 3D (that's only a rule of thumb), but: Did the photographer frame and light the object in such a way as to add originality to the photo? A photograph of a two-dimensional surface, with only the lighting necessary to expose the film, does not qualify for copyright. (The Last Supper is painted on a building, so it is also clearly a 3D object, but it's common sense that the photo is of one approximately 2D surface of that object. And in the Qr3-7 photo the lighting is that of the display case in the museum, and not a contribution by the photographer.) Neither, for that matter, does a scan of a fully 3D object qualify for copyright. Commons suggests that we crop images of paintings of their frame, to avoid the possibility of a problem. The Qr3-7 photo follows this advice and is cropped of all its edges. (I've noticed that in addition to claiming that surfaces are three dimensional, you believe that pre-World War I photos are ineligible for PD because they're "recent".) If we followed your advice, we'd have to strip a large number of articles of their FA status. kwami (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Also, why is Image:Roro-I01frottis.gif marked GFDL? Did the uploader actually make the rubbing? If not, it's either copyrighted or PD - an uploader can't make a PD image GFDL... Mangostar (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The uploader works with the archives the image came from, but you're right. As a rubbing, it's ineligible for copyright regardless. Tag changed. kwami (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Last thought: the 2D reproduction is a legal principle, in that it was specifically established in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. in at least one US district court, and hasn't been departed from since. Mike Godwin has specifically advised Wikipedia users not to claim that photos of coins are PD, without specifying that distinctions should be drawn between the two types you cite. (I could dig this up if you want.) The threshold of originality required for copyright protection in the US is extremely low. The merger doctrine comes into play where an idea simply cannot be separated from an expression, but here it is inapplicable--for example, this problem could be solved by vectorizing the text alone, as I have suggested. Mangostar (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict] On Commons they specifically state that a coin imaged with a scanner is not eligible for copyright. It's not the dimensionality of the object, but originality. It's simply assumed that there is insufficient originality in a photograph of a painting to qualify for copyright.

Also, a tracing is not a viable option. Since the script is undeciphered, no-one can know what they're supposed to be tracing, and there is therefore a concern that any tracing would miss essential details, or introduce errors. This is a serious issue with attempts at decipherment. An illustration of what the script looks like needs to be a photo, not a tracing. As I said above, the edges have been cropped, and the lighting is environmental, so this is simply a photo of a 2D surface. kwami (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If you insist, I can certainly make a case for Fair Use. kwami (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

PS. Reading the court case, under US law, the issue is originality. The only time "two dimensional" appears is in a report of MOMA admitting that a photo of a 2-D PD work of art "might not qualify" for copyright. That isn't the court's wording. They also make the point that a cast of a 3-D object does not qualify for copyright, even with minor variations from the original. They "must be original, that is, the author's tangible expression of his ideas". When the "point of the exercise was to reproduce the underlying works with absolute fidelity [c]opyright is not available". Posing a statue and giving it dramatic lighting is copyrightable, but photographing the artist's signature on the statue is not. kwami (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments Sources look good. Links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments Very interesting article. But should you not have footnote citations to specifically source material? Or am I wrong that this is preferred? Also, I don't like the colon in the lead and will change it. Revert if you like. I will look through article more as it seems very good. –Mattisse (Talk) 20:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

O.K. It's a little confusing at first but I see what you have done reference-wise. –Mattisse (Talk) 20:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally find it disruptive when footnotes are used both for notes and for references. I always want to read the notes, but flipping down to the footnotes just to find it's a page reference is really annoying. Thanks for your corrections. kwami (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problem I am having now is that the article does not seem to be well sourced. Phrases like "tradition has it" are not sourced. There are so many "is said to have" (see my comment on talk page) that even though a source is given, it does not clarify. –Mattisse (Talk) 22:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've checked all instances of those wordings, and they're all supported by the following citations. kwami (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I thought this should have succeeded last time around, and don't have any remaining comments that were not taken care of in the previous FAC. Now that more parts have been split out into subarticles, one could almost nominate the whole collection. Anyways, per Fishal above this painstakingly researched and well-written article provides the best encyclopaedic treatment of the topic you're likely to come across anywhere. Nice work, kwami & co. --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

OpposeComments

• Use {{harvnb}} for references instead of the way you are doing now
• Really large image in "Published corpus" — needs something done about that. Perhaps a thumbnail and center it?
• "References" looks really strange, at least to me, because of {{Aut}} usage and no bullets before each item

Gary King (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You oppose because I've followed Wikipedia formatting conventions? Are you serious?

Anyway, your citation template is ungainly, the normal-sized image is part of the text, which would be disrupted if it were a thumbnail, and the "really strange" reference format is found throughout Wikipedia. Since when do references need bullets? kwami (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen inline references like what is used in this article. Please point me to where it says in the Manual of Style that this is appropriate. Gary King (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to strike out my oppose because this is just beyond what I've seen. It's such a mysterious way of doing it... Gary King (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The MoS directs the reader to Author-date referencing for how this is done. That gives "(Smith 2008:1)" in its first example. kwami (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support - A very interesting, thorough, well organized article that is clearly written. There are some idiosyncratic aspects to the style, but nothing that interferes with the pleasure of reading it. (I fixed aspects that bothered me the most.) –Mattisse (Talk) 20:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—1a. Disappointed after all this time to see poor writing in the lead:

• 1. figures or words for two-digit numbers? In any case, read MOS, which insists on one type for centuries. The infobox hints at more precise chronological info than a whole century. And see further down in the article.
  2. "Although some calendrical and perhaps genealogical information have been identified"—Perhaps? What is the uncertainty? It's unclear.
  3. ", even these inscriptions cannot actually be read."—Remove "actually", unless you're contrasting with the fictional, maybe? Even what inscriptions? Unclear connection with the foregoing statement.
  4. "some ... some". Then a tiny sentence. After that, ungrammatical.
  5. "There are a few very short petroglyphs which may also be rongorongo."—There are? Fuzzy.

Look, this is not FA material. Sorry; please have a good copy-editor lift it to professional standard first.

And at random further down:

• 1. "Due to its scarcity"—two very similar wordings.
  2. "The fact that the islanders were reduced to inscribing driftwood, and were extremely economical in their use of wood, may have had consequences for the structure of the script (Fischer 1997:383)."—Can you briefly explain what effect this might have had on the script?
  3. Snake: "German ethnologist Thomas Barthel believed that carving on wood was a secondary development in the evolution of the script based on an earlier stage of incising banana leaves or the sheaths of the banana trunk with a bone stylus, and that the medium of leaves was retained not only for lessons but to plan and compose the texts of the wooden tablets (Barthel 1971:1168)." Split into two?
  4. The left-side image is messing with the formatting of the text and the lower image.
  5. "Other glyphs look like sea turtles, fish, crayfish, grubs, and so on."—Last three words: MOS discourages such usage as far too informal. Try "such creatures as ...".

Needs a good copy-editor. TONY (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I hesitate to ask a question here, but I do not understand all your comments above. Here is an example: "Figures or words for two-digit numbers? In any case, read MOS, which insists on one type for centuries." I just read MoS and it said (seemed to say) either 20th century or 20th century was correct. Am I misunderstanding? –Mattisse (Talk) 14:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Tony, some good points, but the lead is an introduction. It is not the place to explain things in detail. If comments are "fuzzy", they are explained in the text. The centuries have been spelled out as you suggest (I prefer that as well). "Actually" contrast reading with interpreting, though it is not necessary here. [No, I take that back. It is required here. We're saying the contents of some texts can be identified, which most people would assume means they can be read.] This takes care of objections (1), (2), (5). The word "these" makes (3) perfectly clear in context. As for (4), I agree that "some ... some" is awkward, and it's been changed. However, there is nothing wrong with the occasional tiny sentence, especially when its contrasting length has a contrasting function, as here. Following that, I fail to see what is ungrammatical.

Second set: (1) Which are two very similar wordings? (2) I was afraid that would be OR, but it can be read between the lines of the refs. Done. (3) Splitting would require adding "he also believed that", which would be unnecessarily repetitive. The sentence is fine as it stands. (4) No matter how you arrange the images, they will cause formatting problems on some browsers at some screen resolutions. I've done the best I can with a variety of browsers. [Actually, that image was moved where it currently is by another editor, who objected to its previous location. I'll put it back.] (5) Done.

I think that covers everything where it's clear what you object to. kwami (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Image:Rongorongo Qr3-7 color.jpg seems to be a photo of a 3D object, as mentioned above. There is definitely a problem in that the source/photographer are not identified.
  • Image:Rongorongo G-r Small Santiago (raw).jpg does not identify the source or copyright holder of the image (aside from a wikilink to the CEIPP article per WP:NFCC#10a. A similar problem exists with Image:Rongorongo K-v London (edge).jpg.
  • Image:Rongo-rongo script.jpg has only a base URL for a source and no author identified.
  • Image:Rongorongo B-v Aruku-Kurenga (end).jpg - I don't understand the licensing here. The source is given as a 1935 French book, but the licensing is CC-BY-SA-3.0/GFDL.
  • Image:Anaokeke.jpg has three-dimensional elements and is likely copyrightable.
  • Image:Barthel code.png should probably be licensed as "PD-ineligible" as opposed to "PD-old".
  • Image:Santiago-Staff-Compare-I12.jpg has no image description.
  • Licenses on the glyph symbol images (such as Image:RR 34.png) should be "PD-ineligible" as opposed to "PD-old".

Kelly ^hi! 18:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kelly. People keep bringing up the 3D thing, but as far as I can tell, that's not the point. Copyright law does not appear to hinge on an object being 2D, but only on whether there is sufficient originality. For example, the The Last Supper is painted on a 3D object (a church) and has 3D elements (cracks in the surface, a doorway arch cut through the bottom), yet the photo we have of it has been tagged on Commons as PD-art for 3½ years, and even as a featured picture candidate, no-one objected that being 3D invalidated it from being public domain. They only objected that the resolution wasn't good enough.

As far as Image:Rongorongo B-v Aruku-Kurenga (end).jpg, the copyright holder of the book gave permission to use the images. They even emailed me higher resolution images in case these weren't good enough. (They are actually PD-old, but people have raised such a fuss about that that it's not worth bringing it up, and I don't see the harm in attributing the people who are making them available to the public.) Specifically discussed was GDFL, but I've since read that GDFL is not an appropriate license for Commons, and so added the second tag, which also fits the usage permission. I've asked Commons what to do with this info, but as usual, there's no response. (It was a mistake to upload anything to Commons, but I'll know better next time.) Meanwhile, there's a link to the copyright holders of the book, in case anyone wants to verify.

With the two fair-use images where the source is given as the CEIPP, that's because the source is the CEIPP. I don't understand the objection.

Sources are sometimes only given as a museum, and the photographer is not known. Again, with the Last Supper, no source information was given at all. That wasn't a problem for featured picture status, so I don't understand the problem here. kwami (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Kwamikagami - yes, the debate on the 3D thing can go either way. You probably haven't heard the end of it yet. I don't think that particular issue should keep the article from featured status. On Image:Rongorongo B-v Aruku-Kurenga (end).jpg, if the copyright holder e-mailed you the license, please forward that e-mail to "permissions AT wikimedia.org" with a link to the photo page(s), and they will add an OTRS ticket to the image(s). GFDL is just fine as a Commons license; you may have just read that it's not the best license for content re-users, because they have to print the text of the license with the photo. But that doesn't affect us here at Wikipedia.

On the CEIPP images, the reason that not adequate as a source is that it's not verifiable. Did a CEIPP employee take the photos? How did we get the photos? Is there an online source? Kelly ^hi! 20:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I got them from the website of a member of the CEIPP who has worked on this article. I've just checked and have found what appear to be the original sources. kwami (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] American Airlines Flight 11

Self-nominator: This article has been significantly improved in the last few days, doubling the amount of verifiable sources and increasing the reader's knowledge of the subject. Now, the article flows well and is ready for review. -- VegitaU (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - You may have to change the CNN photo to the image with the description page, because currently a fair use rationale/copyright isn't shown to the viewer, making it clear it isn't free use. Hello32020 (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Response: I have taken care of it. It now links to the image page itself. -- VegitaU (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have requested help with copyediting from User:PTR. He has helped me with previous featured articles. --Aude (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed the obvious problems listed. -- VegitaU (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, two users have come and copyedited the article. -- VegitaU (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks better now that it has been copyedited and the lead has been expanded. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 14:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 33 "Inside 9/11" is there a date of publication etc that can be added to the bibliographic information?

Sources look good. Links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Response: Alrighty, I've changed ref 33 to reflect the original U.S. airdate per IMDB. -- VegitaU (talk) 03:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I know it was picky, but... anyway, all done! Ealdgyth - Talk 03:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments, am leaning toward support

• Is this a edit blip? On board, two flight attendants board contacted American Airlines,
• The Hijacking section, with an image, quote box, and 2 media files looks crowded.
• Is this a verbatim quote? All of a sudden, boom he disappear into the Trade Center. I'm pretty strict with using original punctuation and grammar in the quotes I use, but I just wanted to make sure that's accurate.
• Who suggested this? It is possible that al-Suqami killed Lewin after he attempted to stop the hijacking
• This sentence: The nine minutes of advanced notification about the hijacking of Flight 11 was the most that NORAD received out of the four hijacked aircraft on 9/11. does it mean the time between notifying the military and impact was the longest of all 4 hijacked flights? I don't quite understand this.
• It appears that you have researched the article well. I think it is well-written, but perhaps as a testimony to its writing - I can't read it without being upset. I would like to read it several more times to make a better decision. --Moni3 (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

We have tried addressing each point. The first point was indeed a typo - my fault. Regarding the quote, it is verbatim. --Aude (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I found a better source for the quote. For some reason, the one cited wasn't coming up on my computer. -- VegitaU (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I've read the article about five times now. It doesn't get any easier, but I was concerned that there were content areas not covered, but I can't think of anything else that deals with this flight only. I still don't quite get that sentence about NORAD's advanced notification, but the rest of the article is well-written and apparently well-researched. Well done. --Moni3 (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to word it clearer, but NEADS/NORAD (the military) was notified about Flight 11 at 8:37 a.m. (nine minutes before the crash), which is the amount of time available to them to respond to the situation. They were notified about United Airlines Flight 175 at 9:03 a.m. (same time it crashed into the South Tower). They were notified about American Airlines Flight 77 three minutes before it crashed into the Pentagon. NORAD/the military was notified about United Airlines Flight 93 at 10:07 a.m. (four minutes after it crashed in Pennsylvania). People may wonder why the military wasn't able to respond in time, but in reality, they had little or no advanced notice about the hijackings. The nine minutes (inadequate as it may be) with Flight 11 was the most time they had to do something in response. --Aude (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments Generally the article is looking good, although the 24 hour times threw me off a bit because I'm so used to 12 hour clocks. Gary King (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This article should mention that Seth MacFarlane was supposed to be a passenger on the flight, but got to the airport late and missed the flight. Raul654 (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Response: To be honest, that little factoid was on the article, but I removed it during its overhaul as it seemed trivial. And, honestly, in light of the generally serious, factual mood of the article, I'm not really sure where or why I'd put it in. It's already mentioned on his article. The article doesn't include any other famous people affected by the flight. -- VegitaU (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If there were any other celebs affected by the crash - I don't know of any myself - IMO they should be mentioned too. Other air-crash articles mention famous people killed in them. See /Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007#Flight_and_passenger_information Raul654 (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that Korean Air article goes overboard with trivia. It's fine to mention notable people who were passengers (which I just added), and thus victims on the flight. I think adding people who were "affected" but not on the flight goes a bit too far with trivia. --Aude (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Flight 007 isn't even a good article to reference from. And I love Family Guy as much as anyone, but MacFarlane isn't notable because he almost set foot on the flight, he's notable because of his work in the entertainment industry. -- VegitaU (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Image:Atta in airport.jpg has been nominated for deletion at Commons. If you want to use it, you will probably have to upload it here at en Wikipedia with a non-free copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
• Image:Firstplane.jpg needs more specific source and copyright holder information.
• Recommend a {{Commoncat}} sisterlink to the Commons category associated with this article.

Kelly ^hi! 18:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I will address these issues. It may take me a little bit of time. -- VegitaU (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I was able to deal with these. The Mohamed Atta security footage image is now on enwiki, though discussion is ongoing on the Commons deletion request page. --Aude (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

An issue with the Atta security frame - a separate rationale is needed for each usage of the image, and a little better reason is needed than simply "to illustrate Mohamed Atta on 9/11" - in other words, you need to address WP:NFCC#8 in some fashion by providing a reason why the image is significant. Image:Firstplane.jpg looks fine now. Kelly ^hi! 19:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I tried updating the rationales to stress the fact that this is a major historical event and major piece of evidence successfully used against Zacarias Moussaoui. It is a visual record that he was there. Coupled with everything else (ticket records, flight personnel testimony, manifests) it proves his presence and action toward the attacks. -- VegitaU (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Rationales look good now, nice work! Kelly ^hi! 22:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, a good start but work still needed. I caught and fixed numerous errors—why no peer review? At any rate, my opposition is on criterion 1b (comprehensiveness). The narrative leaves several questions unanswered, and there are some other misc prose issues, as follows:
  • "At 06:52, another hijacker made a call from a pay phone in Logan Airport to Atta's cell phone." Why have we been told the hijackers' names up to this point, but not this one?
  • "Satam al-Suqami, Wail al-Shehri, and Waleed al-Shehri also checked in for the flight in Boston." Why is al-Suqami's first name used again after he's already been introduced?
  • "At 08:26, approximately over Voorheesville, New York, the plane made a 100-degree turn to the south toward New York City." I don't understand how this information is known if the plane's transponder was not transmitting and the flight recorder was never found.
  • "NEADS called on two F-15 fighter jets at Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Massachusetts, to scramble, intending to intercept. Flight 11 made a final turn towards Manhattan at 08:43. The F-15 fighters were scrambled from Otis at 08:46, but did not become airborne until 08:53." First, I'm not certain many readers will know what "scramble" means, considering that in the second sentence you demonstrate that it doesn't actually mean to take off. Second, why "become airborne" and not "take off"? Third, is this all the information that is known? The obvious question is why the planes did not take off and we need to at least indicate that the reason is not known if it's not.
  • "By that time, American Airlines Flight 11 had already crashed into the World Trade Center." You give the detail of which tower in the lead—why not here?
  • It's not necessary to supply the acronym "FDNY" because you don't use it again.
  • "Although the impact itself caused extensive structural damage, the long-lasting fire ignited by jet fuel was blamed for the structural failure of the tower." I think you need to clarify that the official report blames the fire. Are there reliable sources that blame other things?
  • "Rescue workers at Ground Zero ..." How will unfamiliar readers know what "Ground Zero" is? --Laser brain (talk) 06:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Response: I've fixed every point except the NEADS passage as I'm still finalizing research on this. Honestly, I haven't had good experiences trying peer reviews, so I decided to opt out of it this time through. If you have trouble understanding something, please tell me what it is; I'll go through and clean it up.

Anyways, about the collapse, I am absolutely not compromising on this: the fires and lack of fireproofing, coupled with the structural damage, led to the tower's collapse. I want to be as emphatic as I can on this point. There is no reliable evidence linking anything else to this. And writing "the official story..." makes it sound like there could be something else. Like saying "the official story says Timothy McVeigh bombed the Murrah Building"; "the official story says Pearl Harbor was surprised-attacked by the Japanese"; "the official story says Apollo 11 landed Armstrong on the moon". -- VegitaU (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoa there, cowboy. I was just asking. If serious research has been published in reliable sources, you need to talk about it. If not, don't. I can tell you're accustomed to fighting off 9/11 conspiracy theorists, but have a bourbon and chill. --Laser brain (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, that's cool. I wasn't trying to be snotty, but there is nothing beyond CT regarding the collapse. My bad. -- VegitaU (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: Okay, I've added some info to the NEADS passage. Officials spent some time trying to get authorization to issue the scramble order. Once it was finally issued, the pilots went out, mounted and started the jets, and took off. The whole process took about 15 minutes. -- VegitaU (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: You have a borked citation. --Moni3 (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Fixed. It was a problem I overlooked during my last edits. -- VegitaU (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SummerSlam (1988)

Self-nominator: I believe this article meets all the FA criteria. It had a successful peer review, was copy edited by several people, and had a very helpful pre-FA review. Because this is an older pay-per-view, there are books and magazines available to source the information, so it doesn't have the problem of reliable sources that a lot of wrestling articles have. All comments are welcome, and if opposing, please leave suggestions I can use to further improve the article. Many thanks! Nikki311 04:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Lulu.com is a self-publishing site, correct? What makes Ian Hamilton's book reliable then?
• Please format the references with last name first, and in alphabetical order in the references section, makes it much easier to find the repeatedly used sources
• Books and videos not used in the notes section should go into a "Further reading" section, not the references section.

Sources look good. Links all checked out fine with the link checking tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Thanks for the feedback. I added a different print source to back up Hamilton's claim. For the "references with the last names first", are you referring just to the References section, or does this apply to the Notes section as well? GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is a review of Hamilton's book by SLAM! Wrestling, where they praise the "extensive" research. [62] According to its official site, it was in the top 10 (6th) of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter's (WON) book awards. [63] Lastly, here are some reviews from people associated with SLAM! and WON. [64] Nikki311 18:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Last name first in both sections works best, honestly. It's just how these things are usually done in the humanities. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

All completed. Nikki311 00:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments - This is looking good, and I am close to supporting. This is all I could find during a read-through.

• Comma after Madison Square Garden?
• Development: At first use of World Championship Wrestling, provide an abbreviation as well. You can then use that abbreviation in the next paragraph, where a WCW mention or two would be useful.
• "Those four events, along with the King of the Ring, are also known as the "Classic Five." Remove also.
• Report, Background: Hyphen for most watched?
• Link WWF Championship here.
• Event: "The following contest was a rematch between Dino Bravo and Don Muraco of their WrestleMania IV match-up." Awkward wording. Try "The following contest was a re-match from WrestleMania IV between Dino Bravo and Don Muraco."
• Link Frenchy Martin.
• Slick is linked a second time here. I don't think it's needed.
• The last match of the night was the main event match-up" Do we need match-up here? We already have match and main event here.
• Aftermath: "in a match over for Savage's WWF Championship.
• Hyphen for record breaking? Giants2008 (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I addressed all of these except the Bravo-Muraco line. I agree that it could be improved, and your suggestion might be the best phrasing. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed the line. Nikki311 18:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Very fast response. Since I have no more objections, I declare my Support, and wish you good luck with the rest of this FAC. Giants2008 (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - According to the Results, it says: "Brother Love Show with guest Jim Duggan", yet nothing is mentioned in the main body. Did nothing whatsoever happen worth to note? D.M.N. (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've never read anything more than "it happened". It wasn't substantial or relevant to any storyline. Nikki311 23:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment regarding Image:SS88poster.jpg and Image:Miss elizabeth2.JPG: neither is low resolution (WP:NFCC#3B) and both are missing certain necessary rationale components (NFCC#10C and WP:RAT). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• I believe I have fixed everything. Are they alright now? Nikki311 05:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes indeed. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 13:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason for using both "WWF Tag Team Championship" and "World Tag Team Championship"? --13 of Diamonds (talk) 08:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think both are exactly the same, but I believe "WWF Tag Team Championship" was used as the name back then. It should probably be made consistent. D.M.N. (talk) 08:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Good catch! I can't believe I didn't notice that. Actually, the title was referred to as the WWF World Tag Team Championship from the late 1970s until the 90s, and that's when it became known as just the WWF Tag Team Championship. I've made it consistent in the article. Nikki311 17:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Generally looks good. Gary King (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, some basic problems:
  • Criterion 1a (prose): Almost entirely written from an in-universe perspective. Unfamiliar readers will not understand that this even involves writers and entertainers and is not real.
  • Criterion 1b (comprehensiveness): No information about writing, production, or critical reception.
  • Criterion 3 (images): The fair use rationale for the image of Miss Elizabeth is very weak. Fair use requires critical commentary. I don't see any critical commentary about Miss Elizabeth in the article. --Laser brain (talk) 05:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Replies:

• 1a: There are mentions of writers and storylines in the text.
• 1b: Information about writing and production is rarely released because the company at the time was operating under kayfabe, or tat they wanted everything to seem real. Releasing that info would be in opposition to that, but I'll see if I can find anything more.
• 3: I wasn't aware of that requirement. Is there a policy page that I can look at that would explain further what exactly is meant (or what constitutes) "critical commentary"?

Nikki311 18:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Here and there, but not sufficient. Most of the article describes was various wrestlers did, but it is not framed as a fictional event. Imagine an article about a television show episode where you only described what happened in the episode. Readers would not get that it is a show with a plot, production, etc.
• Tricky indeed. Did you do a library search of prominent magazines and other books? Might have to dig in a bit to get all the information, but the article is definitely not comprehensive without it. As above, an article about a television show would never become featured without all the context, business, and production information.
• Check out Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, item #8, but I'm actually striking that item because you do talk about what is depicted in the image. --Laser brain (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• It isn't exactly like a TV show, so I think it is unfair to compare it to that, but I will do my best to find what I can. Nikki311 22:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support per Gary King (talk). (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 08:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC))

  This is not a vote. Have you carefully reviewed the article against the featured article criteria? What about the issues I just raised? --Laser brain (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - images and rationales look good. There were some revisions in their histories that were probably a little too high-res for non-free images (so I tagged with {{non-free reduced}}) but the current versions are OK. Kelly ^hi! 17:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• I took care of it. Thanks! Nikki311 19:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SummerSlam (2007)

previous FAC (00:11, 14 April 2008)

Self-nominator – The article failed its previous nomination mainly because of the reliability of WrestleView, see here. Since then, an RFC and numerous discussions on whether or not WrestleView and CompleteWWE are reliable have taken place. During the most recent discussion, User:GaryColemanFan pointed out some interesting facts which, IMO, proves WrestleView reliable. As for CompleteWWE, there is only one source currently in the article. It is backed up with other reliable sources, however, and can be removed if not proven reliable. Thanks, –LAX 20:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment To make things easier, I'll move my comments about WrestleView here. I have always avoided using WrestleView as a source because I didn't consider it reliable. I have recently changed my mind, however, after objectively looking at the facts. I believe that a few factors combine to make it a reliable source: (1) it is well established, as it has been around for ten years, (2) per this, they do not publish unsolicited articles, and they have an established staff that has gone through an application process, and (3) during a recent professional wrestling FAC, Sandy Georgia stated that sources may be considered reliable if well established sources claim that they are credible. I believe that the mention in the Toronto Sun and Ottawa Sun (see here) and the fact that a SLAM! Wrestling reporter is appearing on a radio show with a WrestleView reporter (see here) indicate that SLAM! Wrestling, an unquestionably reliable source, accepts WrestleView as a reliable source. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Reliability of a source isn't black and white and depends on the text being sourced: can you please give an indication of where you obtained the 3) paraphrase of my wording above for context and exact wording? I'm not the Reliable Source God :-) Also, I'm not sure how 1) is related to WP:V, your link to 2) the Toronto Sun and Ottawa Sun are dead, and I'm unclear what the final link demonstrates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that reliability is (not always) black and white. When a source like WrestleView is used to support information that is hardly controversial (eg. moves used in a wrestling match), it should obviously be given more credence than if it was to claim that Vince McMahon is smuggling drugs to Morocco. I think the text sourced with WrestleView could potentially even be given a blanket source from the original broadcast, since the facts can be verified by watching the event itself. With that said, I understand that longevity isn't necessarily a criterion for reliability, but I do note that WP:RS states that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." While longevity doesn't fully satisfy this, I believe that it helps demonstrate a positive reputation for the site. As for #2, the link works for me most of the time. It might help to check http://www.wrestleview.com/historyofwv.shtml and click on the link directly, which is found in the January 12, 2003 update. Again, while I understand that the final link (the radio show) certainly does not establish reliability on its own, I note that the vast majority of reliable reporters would hardly be willing to do a broadcast with a complete hack. To an extent, it puts them on the same level. I believe the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" is demonstrated by the application process required of potential writers. It shows editorial oversight and a requirement for writers to live up to certain standards, which I think are key aspects of any reliable source. Finally, I am still looking for the statement I attributed to you. The discussion was taking place in at least 3 or 4 locations, so I haven't been able to find it. I apologize if I found the statement somewhere else and have mistakenly claimed that it came from you. I wouldn't have made the claim unless I was certain, but I'll admit that I'm starting to doubt myself. I know I read it around April 6, so I'll continue my search. Thanks for your reply and input, GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Comments - This is the first wrestling article I've reviewed so far, and I must say it's looking pretty good. Still a few minor issues, though.

• "Khali got himself intentionally disqualified." Picky, but I would say, "Khali intentionally disqualified himself." --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Report, Background: "due to the high media attention of the Chris Benoit double murder and suicide." Something tells me those boys wouldn't have minded media attention, unless it was negative.
  • I believe that is beside the point. That is the reason why they dropped out, and I don't see why that should be justified. –Cheers, LAX 19:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm assuming that the reviewer is saying that "media attention" is kind of vague. I changed it to "negative media attention", which adds some clarification (ie. they weren't afraid of publicity, but they didn't want to be associated with the company right after the murders). GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Do we need John Cena's and Randy Orton's first names repeated here? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• "as the new number one contender to the WWE Championship" Should this be "for the championship", or is this standard?
  • The thing is, there are currently eight championships in WWE; and by just saying "championship," one could say "Which championship?" –Cheers, LAX 19:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• The bolded version of Smackdown! should be in italics.
  • Bolded version? –Cheers, LAX 19:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Linked version. My bad here. "The main feud on the SmackDown! brand" is the one I meant to refer to. Giants2008 (talk) 01:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Nope. Only when referring to the show, and not the brand, does it get italicized. –Cheers, LAX 01:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• We have a bunch of World Heavyweight Championship usages here. Could a couple of these be shortened to champion?
  • But the thing is, there are currently eight championships in WWE; and by just saying "champion," one could say "He was the champion for which title?" –Cheers, LAX 19:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• "Punk defeated Morrison in the 15 Minutes of Fame match he had earned the previous week." You just told us in the last sentence that he earned the match; it doesn't need to be stated again. I would stick to describing how Punk won the match here. –Cheers, LAX 19:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I still don't like the repetition. Try "The following week, on ECW, Punk defeated Morrison in a 15 Minutes of Fame match by pinfall after executing a GTS (Go To Sleep)." Giants2008 (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Got it. –Cheers, LAX 23:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Change "and hit Mysterio with a steel chair" to "by hitting Mysterio with a steel chair". --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• "off of a guard rail" Off and of back-to-back looks weird somehow. Perhaps remove of? –Cheers, LAX 19:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Event: "pinning him after for the win." How about "afterwards"? Giants2008 (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • –Cheers, LAX 19:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

One more thing. I noticed current ref 71 has a spelling error (SumerSlam 2007 DVD Review). Giants2008 (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Got it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm back for more. I left you a note above, so make sure you get that. Also, I think the lead could use information from the Background section. Here are the rest of my problems with the article.

• Still in Event: Is there a a link for crossbody anywhere in the article? If not, place one in the third paragraph.

• –Cheers, LAX 23:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Two "then elimated"s in consecutive sentences in the next paragraph. There are only so many ways to phrase things, so I don't envy you here. Mixing up the order could be the best remedy. Now that I'm paying attention, there are a ton of eliminates in general here.

• I did as best I could. –Cheers, LAX 23:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• "Easily eliminated" sets off my POV alarm. I'd stick to describing how she was knocked out.

• –Cheers, LAX 23:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Should Steve Austin have Stone Cold before his name?

• –Cheers, LAX 23:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• "which led to Triple H pinning him for the win." Triple H is the last wrestler you mention, so I would reverse this to "which led to him pinning Booker for the win."

• –Cheers, LAX 23:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• I see later that Khali hit Batista with a steel chair. Mention it in the match recap.

• –Cheers, LAX 23:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• "After Orton controlled the match for several minutes, Cena gained control..." Two controls. How about "gained the upper hand"?

• --SRX 23:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Aftermath: "With 537,000 ordering the event" People or households?

• –Cheers, LAX 01:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• "until Batista made the save". Seems a little casual for me. I'm sure this can be phrased differently.

• –Cheers, LAX 01:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Results: Isn't Stunner supposed to be Stone Cold Stunner?

• --SRX 23:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That's all from me. Giants2008 (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

One quick note: I don't like "until Batista came out and attacked him." There is already an "attacked" earlier in the sentence. Normally I would fix one minor issue myself, but I'm having trouble coming up with a good phrase, so I'm leaving it up to you. That's all. Giants2008 (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Further comment: I think that whole sentence needs a rewrite. (After the match, The Great Khali attacked Mysterio until Batista came out and attacked him.). Did Batista come out and attack Khali or Mysterio? Nikki311 22:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed it. –Cheers, LAX 22:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - I have no more complaints, so it gets my support. For what it's worth, I think this is better than the 1988 SummerSlam article, which I supported recently. Giants2008 (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—It could be saved by a good copy-edit. Here are issues I noticed at random at the top, indicating that a thorough massage is required.

• On the edition? "In".

• Why "In"? Raw, SmackDown!, and ECW are TV shows; shouldn't it be "On"? –Cheers, LAX 13:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• "number one contender"—hyphen needed (more than one occurrence).

• –Cheers, LAX 13:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• "World Wrestling Entertainment had originally planned an angle between the cast of the Jackass TV series and Umaga, with the feud concluding in a match at SummerSlam." Nope, another "noun plus -ing" problem. See here for ways of fixing it. In any case, what does "planned an angle" mean?

• I've fixed it. –Cheers, LAX 13:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• The "with ... [noun plus -ing]" ugly ducking occurs in other places and needs to be fixed. Take this, in the same para: "with the two battling over", and then "which led to Orton giving Cena an RKO through a steel chair". Please audit the whole text for this. TONY (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• I believe I've fixed all mention; please correct me if I'm wrong. –Cheers, LAX 13:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Simply clicking on the "angle" wikilink provides a clear enough definition of the term's meaning in this context. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

While there's no rule or policy about forcing people to hit a link to find out what on earth it means, I think that common sense says it should be explained on the spot. Slow connections make this kind of process clumsy, and most readers won't bother to find out the intended meaning. I still haven't bothered.

Now, this is a very in article—clearly pitched at those who know. I find several aspects hard as a normal reader. Why, for example, does a "storyline" come into boxing at all? Why, suddenly, are we told about a TV series? Can you see what I mean? TONY (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I can understand what you mean, but honestly I think you're reading too much into things. Like the thing on the TV series, the sentence I found mentioning it is "World Wrestling Entertainment had originally planned an angle between the cast of the Jackass TV series and Umaga, with the conclusion of the feud in a match at SummerSlam." (this is a copy and paste so wikilinks aren't here) You said "Why, suddenly, are we told about a TV series?".. well if you read the sentence it tells you that the cast from that TV series called Jackass was going to be part of SummerSlam. That is pretty self-explainatory. I can make style edits like to add the short definition of a professional wrestling angle in the article but this is an encyclopedia, not a "For Dummies" book. — Κaiba 21:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is well-written, and Tony striking his opposition is a testament to that. However, I have some other basic troubles with the article:
  • 1a – almost the entire article is written "in-universe" without any context of the business and entertainers involved. One could easily read through this without understanding it is all setup by writers, i.e. a fictional event.
  • 1b – no sections on critical reception, business context, etc. What writers were involved in constructing the story-line? Where is the production information?
  • 1c – heavily sourced to primary sources.
  • Random: "With 537,000 buys, the general reaction to the pay-per-view was positive." Suggests the number of buys correlates to the "general reaction" which just isn't true. The number of buys should be sourced to a secondary source. --Laser brain (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support per Giants2008. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 08:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC))

  This is not a vote. Have you carefully reviewed the article against the featured article criteria? What about the issues I just raised? --Laser brain (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  Wait, so your saying that the article has too many sources? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, he is saying like the article has to many references from WWE, a primary source.SRX^--LatinoHeat 01:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment* It is generally a complete unknown which writers wrote what in wrestling. Though we know what writers as signed to WWE, they or anyone never really release info like "Michael Hayes wrote this storyline and Dave Kapoor wrote this one." Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Why does the reference "SummerSlam 2007 [DVD], (2007), ', WWE Home Video, Stamford, Connecticut: WWE94600', (2007)." have bold and has ", (" at the end? It looks like it has very broken formatting.

Gary King (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is something with Template:Cite DVD-notes. I looked at the template itself and tried to fix it, but I could not find anything. –LAX 21:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the citation to Template:Cite_video which has removed the bold, but if this isn't correct feel free to revert. --Apsouthern (talk) 10:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Image:Kane Entrance.jpg practically burns out my monitor, but I understand there's likely no free alternative.
• The above image, and Image:SummerSlam 2007 Set.png, are free and could be hosted at Commons, and a category about this event set up there with a link from this article. That's just my opinion, though, not an FA criteria. Kelly ^hi! 16:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Strapping Young Lad

previous FAC (18:14, 29 April 2008)

Self-nominator Well, here goes nothing. I did my best to find all the necessary references, and improve the article as a whole. Gocsa (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Moderate oppose for now. I havn't read through the prose yet, but I'm still seeing plenty of non-reliable sources. For example, what makes this, this or this—on top of dozens of others—reliable? Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Blabbermouth.net is definitely a reliable source, and the best one out there for metal articles. Many other metal FAs use Blabbermouth.net, just check it. As for the others, read the previous FAC, it is impossible to take heavy metal (or more precisely, extreme metal) articles even up to GA status without these interviews. There are no books, or essays written about the topic, or even mainstream magazine articles, like Rolling Stone, etc. Gocsa (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not questioning you, but I have still yet to be convinced it is in fact a reliable source. Blabbermouth.net aside, there are plenty of other questionable sources. We can't have FAs with even the slightest doubt that information in the article is not one-hundred percent accurite. Also, I'm starting to take a look at the prose, and it could still use some fine-tuning. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And what makes other sites' or magazines' interviews accurate or more reliable? I can't change the fact that a band is so underground, basically only webzines, and fanzines are interested in their activities and in interviewing them. Maybe we should e-mail all those sites' editors or the interviewers to prove they actually interviewed the band or a band member? Cause if that's needed, I'll gladly do it. Gocsa (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Because the more notable ones are known to be accurite and reliable. I have no doubt that they interviewed them, but I am concerned as to how accurite the facts are and if they are worthy of an encyclopedia. I think it might be a good idea to get some emails out to the sources to determine if they're reliable. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm sorry, but it doesn't appear that you addressed all the concerns that caused this to fail last time. At the bare minimum:
  • We need a reliable source (something in print) that refers to blabbermouth as a reliable source.
  • There is still(!) a WP:BLP violation in the article. --Laser brain (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think somebody has already offered help with blabbermouth, although I don't understand your problem, it is the most uncontroversial reference used, I've already told you people to check out other metal FAs, probably the blabbermouth issue was alreasy cleared up at those FACs, or maybe I'll ask one of the editors of those articles (like Slayer, Opeth, or Metallica). And what is the WP:BLP violation in the article? Gocsa (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

See below for my comment about blabbermouth. The BLP violation is saying the guy has bi-polor disorder. Such claims need to be backed up by extraordinarily reliable sources. You source for that statement doesn't even work. --Laser brain (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The link works now, sorry, it worked when I added it. The bipolar thing is also backed up by another ref, ref42, a Zero Tolerance magazine article. Gocsa (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Laser brain (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Blabbermouth.net is absolutely a reliable source. It is the news source for heavy (and especially extreme) metal, and, as Gocsa rightly says, it is used throughout the high quality heavy metal articles on Wikipedia. There are a large number of decent magazines about metal (including online ones- Decibel Magazine for instance) but none of them update on the level of Blabbermouth, meaning they cannot match it in terms of a news source. On top of this, it is hosted by (though independent of) Roadrunner Records; one of the most commercially successful labels that deals in a lot of heavy metal. In what way is it unreliable? J Milburn (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Once again, we can't "take your word for it" on blabbermouth. We need proof from an outside, neutral, reliable source that it is reliable. An article in a print journal, for example, stating that blabbermouth is an authoritative and, more important, accurate source would be great. That other metal articles use it is irrelevant; if I would have seen their FACs, I would have opposed there too. You simply can't take for granted that web sites are reliable without some proof or documentation. --Laser brain (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Yes, I know this is an obscure area. No, showing us previous FAs that use these sources doesn't work. If anything, those FAs may need to go to FAR if their sources can't be shown to be RS.

By the way, I do understand the need for reliable sources, and I do support reliable sources, and I'm not trying to lower the standards here on Wikipedia or anything like that. But I still don't understand it, and I still don't agree with you, as I used interviews for God's sakes, none of these 'questionable' references are news articles, or reviews, or any other type of articles, they are interviews with one or more band members, so obviously not submitted by users. Even if any of these sites allow user-submitted news or album reviews, interviews are never submitted by users, it isn't even allowed. Yes, the listed sites are 98% webzines, so they are run by enthusiastic heavy metal fans, and I do understand you have to be a professional, well-known author (or at least be an author at a respected mag, like Rolling Stone) to write album reviews, and articles, so I only used reviews and articles from reliable sites, and magazines/journals, like All Music Guide, Metal Hammer, Revolver, Kerrang, Cleveland Scene, Zero Tolerance, Houston Press, etc. But you definitely don't have to be a professional at all to do an interview. And the only way to find information about such underground bands as SYL is reading interviews, and while mainstream bands like Metallica are interviewed by mainstream mags, like Rolling Stone, the smaller, underground bands on independent labels are interviewed by underground webzines, fanzines, about 90% of the time. Gocsa (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

the problem is, in my eyes, if they are fan sites, even if you use an interview, how do we know the interview was reported/transcribed/etc correctly. I'm not saying they are making things up, it's more the little details that may or may not have gotten taken care of correctly. The band members are living people, and because of BLP concerns, we must make sure that the information reported is the very best possible, and the most acurate. Look at the printed sources and see what sort of statements they make about these sites. See what links they report. Surely someone has done a "Best of the web" awards program/article for metal sites? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.axs.com.au/~vk3aaw/index.html#menu looks like a fan site.

I know, it is a fan site, but I only used it for two one refs, these are excerpts of radio interviews. I don't know what's Wikipedia's policy on this kind of stuff.

• • http://www.ChroniclesOfChaos.com/
  • http://www.stylusmagazine.com/index.php Yes, it has a wikipedia article. However, it seems to have gone out of business?

And why is it a problem that they have gone out of business?

I'll note that the google books search below for Stylus mixes this magazine up with another one, but the ones that refer to this one are enough. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.seaoftranquility.org/index.php
  • http://www.metalstorm.ee/home/index.php
  • http://www.comomusic.com/
  • http://www.metaleagle.com/
  • http://www.metal-rules.com/

I guess we can strike this one out as well. It's a site that's been up since 1995, they also work as an indie record company, the site gets several million visits a month, you can read more here. They also published quotes there from record companies, their opinions about the site, such as Roadrunner, Century Media, Nuclear Blast, Earache, etc. Blabbermouth.net also used one of their interviews here, and Metal Hammer here

• • http://www.rockeyez.com/index.html
  • http://www.metal-observer.com/home.php?lid=1
  • http://www.chaindlk.com/
  • http://www.geocities.com/loudster/
  • http://www.inmusicwetrust.com/frontpage3/index2.php
  • http://www.laloud.com/iv_strappingyounglad.htm

Los Angeles Loud is a management company that does booking, production, promotion. The interviews are here: http://www.laloud.com/press.htm, I think the site is reliable. Gocsa (talk) 09:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.tartareandesire.com/index4.html
  • http://www.blistering.com/fastpage/fpengine.php/templateid/1

One of the notes given below where Blabbermouth uses information from blistering.com is an announcment that blistering.com is offering merchandise. The other two do show usage of blistering though for news or interviews. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.metaleater.com/

I know you say this was addressed, but I can't find where it was. Please be kind to an old lady and let me know where? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Here and here. Gocsa (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.revelationz.net/index.asp?ID=1760
  • http://members.aol.com/enslain/index.html
  • http://www.metal-realm.net/
  • http://www.metal-temple.com/default.asp
  • http://sickdrummer.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=538
  • http://grindkhaos.tripod.com/interviews3.html
  • http://www.alternative-zine.com/index.php?lang=en
  • http://www.themegalith.com/
  • http://www.portlandmusicians.com/crave/2005/03/index.shtml

You can read here that it is a quarterly printed magazine. "It's estimated that each printed issue of Crave Magazine reaches over 50,000 readers and over 20,000 online. Currently, Crave Magazine is distributed in over 20 states. Crave is based in Portland, Or/Vancouver, WA." Gocsa (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• • http://dropd.com/
  • http://www.teufelstomb.com/

I will check the sites' 'About us' sections and stuff, but I have limited time, so please be patient. Gocsa (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• It looks like Blabbermouth.net is part of roadrunner records, is this one of the big names in extreme metal?

Yes, as J Milburn have said: "it is hosted by (though independent of) Roadrunner Records", and it is one of the biggest, or maybe the biggest name in extreme/more or less underground metal. Gocsa (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if it's independent of the record company's oversight, what makes it reliable? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It is recognised as a quality source by Roadrunner, yet not doctored by it. This is exactly what you were looking for- recognition from a major publication or group. J Milburn (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 55 from Terrorizer mag is lacking a title for the article
• Current ref 59 "Why No more Strapping Young Lad has a formatting error with the publisher

Done Gocsa (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 74 Copper, Bob Interview with Devin Townsend of Strapping Young Lad Crave magazine has a formatting error.

Can someone help me with this one? I couldn't find the mistake. Gocsa (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I fixed it right. Double check it? There was a return-keystroke in the middle of the title which was making the linking formatting break. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Links checked out okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Gocsa kindly asked me to return to my comments and re-evaluate. I'm utterly lost at what is being addressed and which statement about reliablity relates to what site. Probably my own fault, since I spent most of the day out in the sun dealing with broodmares, but could someone please integrate/summarize/etc which sites in the above list the nominators/editors feel they have reasons for feeling are reliable and what they are? I'll be upfront and say I'm not entirely convinced by "Blabbermouth uses it so it's reliable" since blabbermouth is probably a marginally reliable source to begin with. Because of the nature of the sources for this niche music, I'm not sure it's best to strike out a lot of the sources above and say "reliable", it's probably better to leave everything up for other reviewers to evaluate on their own. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's basically Bardin's comment, if you scroll down, starting with the sentence "I've been asked to address the sources some more.", and I also added some other stuff as well below that.

The reliable sources are:

• Blabbermouth.net
• Chronicles of Chaos
• Stylus Magazine
• Metal-rules.com
• Metal-observer.com
• Tartareandesire.com
• Metaleater.com
• Metal-realm.net
• Metal-temple.com
• Sickdrummer.com
• Blistering.com
• Revelationz.net
• Alternative-zine.com
• Seaoftranquility.org
• Metalstorm.ee
• Themegalith.com
• Rockeyez.com
• laloud.com - I've addressed this one at your list
• http://www.portlandmusicians.com/crave/2005/03/index.shtml - I've addressed this one at your list

Gocsa (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It seems to me that there are two distinct interpretations on reliable sources. On the one hand, we have editors who question each and every source that they are not familiar with, demanding proof of some kind that these sources are reliable. On the other hand, we have editors who would treat each source as reliable until some contrary indication emerged. The burden of proof differs in either case: one feels that sources are guilty until proven innocence while the other feels that sources are innocent until proven guilty. All I see on wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources is a rather broad and vague statement that articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ... The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, which is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment. There is nothing here that indicates that "proof from an outside, neutral, reliable source" is necessary for any other source to be deemed reliable. There is an explicit restriction on some type of sources such as extremist and fringe theories as well as self-published sources but there is no such restriction on webzines and online news media. The guideline explicitly states that this is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment. We are not in a court of law so why this legalistic approach that demands proof and casts aspersions of guilt? I will have to go through this article in more detail myself when I have the time but I can safely say that Blabbermouth.net and Chronicles of Chaos are acceptable sources. Both have a sound reputation. Blabbermouth in particular has been used as a source for many other news media and even published books. Chronicles of Chaos has also been used as a source for a published book. It would be rather ridiculous if members of the academia and other news media find these sources to be reliable while wikipedia does not. --Bardin (talk) 05:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry folks are upset that I question sources. I'm really not that unreasonable about things, you'll notice that I don't support or oppose based on my questions. Articles can and do get promoted with questions about their sources. As for this particular article, the links given above satisfy me about Blabbermouth and chronicles of chaos. For me, being used by a news site or just quoted as being a notable place to go for reliable coverage is enough to show it's reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I have not gone through the entire article in detail but I have already encountered some problems. Some of the statements made in the article are not actually being supported by the sources cited. Two examples:

• the album achieved popularity among heavy metal fans in later years has two citations but neither support this claim of popularity among metal fans in later year. Perhaps I'm missing something but all I see on the two sources concerning this album is that it was being re-released and that it was unpopular upon its original release.

Well, the re-release was advertised as the "rebirth of a genre-defying classic", and it's in the interview, and I used comomusic.com because a heavy metal fan wrote the review, and how the hell can I support a statement like "the album achieved popularity among heavy metal fans in later years" other than that? But I have to admit, you're right, but there's no other way, so maybe I should delete this part? Although the record company's advertising slogan stuff can stay I guess. Gocsa (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If you cannot support a statement like that with reliable sources, then it is pretty much original research and should be removed. --Bardin (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Done I have deleted this part, deleted the comomusic.com reference, and rewrote the sentence. I also added a new review, a Metal Hammer one, I think it's much better. Gocsa (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Although well-received, critics agreed the album was inferior to City is supported by two citations, both of which are individual reviews that do not speak for other critics. The sentence should be changed to something more appropriate: eg. the album was well-received by critics like so-and-so and so-and-so but these critics also felt that the album was inferior to City.

I'll rephrase it, just give me some time.Gocsa (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Done Gocsa (talk) 08:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Also some stuff do not appear to have any citations for verifiability. Two examples:

• The band embarked on a world tour in 1997 to promote the album, which included dates in Europe, the US and Australia has no citations. A world tour is a pretty strong claim to make and while I do not doubt that they did do so, there should be a citation to support this. A link to the official tourography on the band's website should suffice if they have one.
• Although Strapping Young Lad was officially on hiatus, they gave occasional live performances, including an appearance on the Foot In Mouth Tour in 2001 with Fear Factory also has no citations. Perhaps this is common knowledge among fans but bear in mind that you're writing for people who might know the band well (like me). If they were "officially" on hiatus, then a source should be provided to support this. Likewise the occassional performances.

I used this fan site for the tour dates, there are no tour dates on their official site, but I don't know if we can use this site as a source for the tour information. Gocsa (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not gone through all the sources either but www.comomusic.com is definitely not a reliable source since it apparently is a site based on user submissions like the metal archives. --Bardin (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support, took another look and, as I did last time, I think it's FA quality. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I've been asked to address the sources some more. I do not really have any inclination to go through the entire list above but I'll addressed some here. Like Blabbermouth and Chronicles of Chaos, Stylus magazine has been used as a reference in published books. Metal-observer.com is "one of the world's longest-running metal web sites" and "one of the top international online metal resources" as identified by Blabbermouth.net here and here. Metal-rules.com is also identified by Blabbermouth as "one of the world's largest and longest-running heavy metal webzines" here and as the provider of "top-notch metal news, views, reviews and interviews" here. These are two very well known websites. The former is large enough to organise a heavy metal festival and the latter is large enough to set up its own record label. How many other webzines can boast that? Both metal-observer.com and metal-rules.com have been used as a news source for Blabbermouth, for instance here, here, here, here and here. Tartareandesire.com, metaleater.com, metal-realm.net, metal-temple.com, sickdrummer.com, blistering.com and revelationz.net might not be as large or established as the observer and rules but these are all reliable publications that have been used by Blabbermouth as news source, mostly but not always in the form of interviews where the subject being questioned has revealed something newsworthy. Examples here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc. It would be a bit absurd if, for instance, this interview from metal-realm.com with the Strapping Young Lad guitarist is not considered reliable but the news report of the same interview on Blabbermouth is. I also doubt that such a big name as Tony Iommi, for instance, would bother granting an interview to a site like metaleater.com if he did not felt it to be reliable. In comparison, you will not find comomusic.com or metal-archives.com as news sources for Blabbermouth.net and that is because those sites are not reliable. Please remove the comomusic.com reference from this article. --Bardin (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your work. Also, I think alternative-zine.com is reliable as well, Blabbermouth.net published the first interview with Reverend (the band formed in 1989, by David Wayne, after Metal Church broke up) guitarist Davey Lee since vocalist David Wayne's death, conducted by Alternative-Zine.com here. Gocsa (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

seaoftranquility.org was also used by Blabbermouth.net here, it has a FAQ page here, it's been up since 1995, it was also published in print between 1998 and 2001 - I don't know if that matters for reliability. Gocsa (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted http://www.teufelstomb.com, it was useless anyway. Gocsa (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Metalstorm.ee was used by Blabbermouth.net here Gocsa (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Themegalith.com was used by Blabbermouth.net here and here. Rockeyez.com was used by them here and here. Gocsa (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support I still think this is a very well written article. Burningclean _[speak] 21:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support per dihydrogen monoxide and Burningclean. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC))

• Support per all the other supporters. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 17:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• This is not a vote. You don't support "per someone", you support because you have carefully vetted the article against the featured article criteria. --Laser brain (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Is there a source in the article for "The band's musical direction was mainly determined by Townsend, who suffered from bipolar disorder, and was noted for his dark sense of humor, as well as his eccentric appearance and on-stage behaviour." in the lead? I can't find one currently. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There's this part in the Lyrical themes section: "Townsend was the band's primary songwriter. While the first two albums were solely his work, subsequent albums featured a minority of "riffs, lyrical ideas, and song titles" by his bandmates." His bipolar disorder is mentioned more than once, the humor is mentioned in the Lyrical themes, as well as the Live performances sections, his eccentric appearance and on-stage behaviour is mentioned in the Live performances section. The statements are sourced everywhere in the article. Gocsa (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Do you think mentioning that in the lead might not be the best thing? I know if I was reading an article about myself, I wouldn't want one of the first things a reader sees is that I have a disorder and a bad on-stage behavior. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know really. He always talked about it openly, and it's a really important and unique thing about the band, basically the main reason and inspiration for their truly unique and one of a kind music and it's also the main reason for their unique and one of a kind live performances as well. At the previous FAC the lead's shortness was mentioned as a problem, so I've expanded it with some more important information. Gocsa (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have reworked this part of the lead a bit, how's it now? Gocsa (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yea, it looks better. Just one more point: the image caption says Townsend's unique "Skullet" hairstyle and aggressive stage persona have made him one of the most recognizable musicians in the metal community.[78], but the source says it makes Townsend one of the most "memorable", which IMO is slightly different, and may be OR. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You think I should quote that "memorable" part from the article instead? Gocsa (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Either way it seems POVish, but it's your call. I think, where it can seem POVish, it's better to use the wording in the source. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, done. Gocsa (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support I'm still concerned about the sources, but they appear to suffice. Other than that, everything looks good. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose anew. I didn't have time to fully review this when it was posted, but it still needs work.
  • 1a – fit and finish is missing, lots of small errors need attention from a copy-editor. Examples representative of problems throughout:
    • "The band started as a one-man studio project with Townsend playing most of the instruments on the 1995 debut album, Heavy as a Really Heavy Thing, but he recruited a permanent lineup by 1997." Unwieldly and reads like "he" is "the band".
    • "The band's musical direction was mainly determined by Townsend, whose battle with bipolar disorder, and dark sense of humor was a major influence on his songwriting." What is the comma after "disorder" doing?
    • "The band gained critical success, and a growing underground fan base from their 1997 album City." Ditto after "success".
      • Commas fixed.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • "Strapping Young Lad began in 1995 as a solo project by ..." Try "of" instead of "by".
      • Done.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The first section of the History loses me. You outline his rejection by different labels but that only seems like part of the story. Was his shopping his music? As is, it sounds like labels were just randomly approaching him and then rejecting him.
      • I rewrote this passage in an attempt to clarify.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • "Although Townsend played most of the instruments on the record himself—using a drum machine for the drum tracks—there were also songs that featured local session musicians, including Townsend's future band mate, guitarist Jed Simon." What is the word "himself" doing? The use of em dashes here is grammatically incorrect.
      • Okay, I rewrote it. How this?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • 1b – not satisfied with the sourcing at all. Not satisfied with the reliability of Enslain Magazine, which is someone's personal web site on AOL, Crave Magazine, Grind Khaos, or LOUD Magazine. --Laser brain (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That is actually an interview with Gene Hoglan, so I do not feel your 1b assertion has any basis whatsoever. This isn't the Beatles, so you won't see books about Strapping Young Lad any time soon. To be fair, the absolute diatribe Gocsa has had to put up with as concerns sources in this FAC I've found rather saddening, not to mention pathetic. When it comes to an interview, you don't need a top flight journalist at the helm. Throughout this FAC, Gocsa has proved this more than enough. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolute diatribe.. saddening.. pathetic.. check. Nice to meet you too. I've listed sources that don't meet WP:RS by a long shot. If you have any useful rebuttal, I'd be glad to discuss it. --Laser brain (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd gladly send out e-mails to these magazines, if you could tell me what to write, how can they prove that they are reliable, that they actually interviewed the band member and transcribed the interview right? Gocsa (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It's not really a matter of they themselves saying they are reliable. I could register "StrappingYoungLadfacts.com" and write whatever I want. If you emailed me and I responded, "Sure, it's exactly accurate" does that make it so? They just don't meet WP:RS: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The sources I listed are either personal fan sites or, in the case of Crave, sites without any apparant editorial process or submission guidelines. I'm sorry but if you're hosting stuff on AOL, Geocities, or Tripod, there's no way you're a serious, reliable source that can be used for an encyclopedia article. --Laser brain (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so you systematically rule out everything that's hosted on AOl, etc.? Actually yes, you could make a webpage, a fanzine that is, and interview metal bands (no, they do not write whatever they want, they write what the interviewee says, it's called an interview you know). (I don't use news, or reviews or anything like that.) Don't you see it's the subject matter that's REALLY different from anything mainstream? With metal bands, not just the underground ones, even some more 'mainstream' ones, it's like that, their interviews are 90% metal fanzines, and about 10% mainstream magazines. I could also try and ask Townsend himself (or I think his manager would answer, who is also his wife) or Hoglan himself if they ever did these interviews and said these things, if that would satisfy you. Gocsa (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Overall, I'm extremely skeptical of fanzines, especially ones where the author hasn't even bothered to register a domain name. If the information is not verifiable to reliable sources, it should not be in the article. That's not even an FA thing, that's a WP policy. If a topic is obscure to where it can't be comprehensively written about using reliable sources, then it can't be a featured article. --Laser brain (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that deleting those 3 references (I have already deleted the Crave magazine one, because the Metal-rules can be used there as well) would affect comprehensiveness so much, but I won't delete them anyway. If that'll be the only reason why this article cannot be featured, than I'll be quite dissapointed in Wikipedia. Gocsa (talk) 09:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Gocsa, I am trying to understand your point of view here but you are basically saying that you don't think unreliable sources should be a reason for an article not to be featured? That is a feature article criterion, and it's not flexible. Also, I'm still opposing per 1a as I wrote above. Have you made any progress toward finding a copy-editor? --Laser brain (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Tony1 that the prose isn't "inspiring", but it's adequate. If you're able to pinpoint some more awkwardly constructed or confusing sentences, list them, and I can rewrite them. I don't claim to be the elusive, top-tier copyeditor that would make or break the article's FA status, but I'm the only one who seems interested. A wholesale rewrite is unnecessary, in my opinion; it just needs a bit more polish.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I do think a featured article should use reliable sources, it's just that you (and maybe some other editors) and I (and some other editors) have a different definition of reliable sources. I still find it ridiculous to question the so-called 'reliability' of an interview. I also think reliability CAN differ with different subject matters, pop culture in general is not as serious, or strict area as science, math, biology, etc. Yes, I have requested a copyedit from the League of Copyeditors more than a month ago, but they don't do jack, I could be waiting a whole year, and I don't know who else is interested in the topic of this article and good at copyediting as well.. Gocsa (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I replaced the Loud! magazine ref with one from MetalReview.com, which is I think reliable, based on this, this, or this. Gocsa (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment would this book be reliable? It has affiliations with RockDetector.com, so I'm wary. Anyway, there's a two-page write-up on Townsend there. This shows Townsend mentioning Master of Puppets (you know, by that overrated metal band) as an influence. "Weird Al" needs qualifying (who he is: singer, dancer whatever). indopug (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's carried by a distributor, which is a step in the right direction, but the publisher only has four books out. I'd suggest checking on the WP:RSN. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Weird Al is a singer, musician, actor, satirist, parodist, songwriter, accordionist, and television producer, pick one:D Do Phil Spector and Frank Zappa also need qualifying? Gocsa (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ha! If I could define what he does succinctly, I'd have changed it myself. Its probably alright anyway indopug (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I really don't know what to make of this FAC; support on top of a long list of questionable sources, unexplained, above, that include personal, free self-published websites such as geocities.com, tripod.com and members.aol.com SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just want to say: the one hosted on geocities was deleted and replaced. Gocsa (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I do believe that we (Bardin, LuciferMorgan, J Milburn, and I) did our best to prove/explain that the 'questionable sources' are reliable. Some of the supporters and opposers still don't agree, it seems. If we left out all the sources questioned by some of you from the article, there would be very little left, and I still don't agree that just on this basis an article can't be featured, especially when it is not even a controversial topic, it's just a pop culture article, albeit a topic with a narrow, underground audience/fan base. The way I see it: An interview doesn't reflect the opinion of a site, the interviewer, as opposed to a review, an article of any kind, an essay, a book, etc., and it has nothing to do with the fact checking process of the site, as it is not a news report. Of course, I agree with you in a way, I would HIGHLy doubt a fanzine's interview with, for example, Madonna, I'd doubt its genuineness and accuracy, but extreme metal bands do give interviews to fanzines, in fact, their interviews mostly consist of these 'underground' magazines (well, they're only underground compared to mainstream ones, and they're of course not underground among members of the subculture, that is heavy metal fans). I would oppose too if this article was about Madonna, or anything more mainstream, but I think it is time to change a bit here on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, and adjust the strict rules just a little to the topic. It's saddening if a whole bunch of articles about death metal, black metal, or any other extreme metal related topic couldn't be featured, just because the topic does not receive media attention, and there are less than a half dozen books written about it. Gocsa (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—NFC policy, refs.

• The prose is pretty uninspiring, but it's hard to pinpoint obvious flaws the way I usually do in reviews, so I suppose I grudgingly don't object on that basis.
• Audio-clips: there are THREE, yet the specific reason that each "is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" WP:NFCC#8 is neither explicit nor implied. It would help if the musical or lyrical qualities were alluded to in the main text for this purpose. Convince me that WP:NFCC#3 is satisfied (minimal usage).

Three is that many? You're kidding. Just look at some other band articles, many of them have more, and some of them are less significant than the ones in this article. But let's see: 1. the first one has a caption, it demonstrates the eclectic style of the band, more precisely the sound of the first album, it has a quote that sums it up, and the album's style and reception is discussed in the main text. 2. the second is the band's most well-known song, leaving out this one is like leaving out Sunday, Bloody Sunday from the U2 article, it also has a caption with a quote from AMG which describes the song's "chorused harmonies", so I sampled the discussed part of the song. 3. the third is discussed in more detail in the Live performances section ("The band's humorous approach was also evidenced by a song frequently performed live from 1997, entitled "Far Beyond Metal", a parody of classic heavy metal."), but as the photo is there, it was put in the Lyrical themes section, where the band's tongue-in-cheek humor and self-parody is also discussed in great detail. "Far Beyond Metal" exemplifies this humor the most, and it's one of the most important songs of the band as it was performed at almost every concert between 1997 and 2006, recorded on a live album two times, and recorded on a studio album once. So, I do not think three is a lot, and neither of them are unnecessary. Gocsa (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I agree wirh Gocsa on this one, 3 samples is not too much and they are well-used here. One thing though I think the caption of the Far beyond sample should be "a parody of classic heavy metal. It became a live staple and a fan favorite, with lyrics changing practically every performance". indopug (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• I support Laser brain's points above about some of those ref. sites. And, for example, I spot-checked Ref 83 and found it to be a rather positive review, but on a commercial site owned by a "shop" (see bottom). Tell me why this is NPOV/reliable? I think the refs need a proper audit.

I don't even use that review as a 'review', I don't think it matters if it is owned by a shop (by the way, I don't think it's owned by backstreet-merch), since I only used it to support the fact that the band used the South Park song as intro. No opinion is reflected in this statement, who cares if the review is positive or negative? Gocsa (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

TONY (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment about sources, pursuant to my opposition above. I would be a little more sympathetic about a lack of quality sources if I thought every avenue had been exhausted in seeking reliable sources. However, five minutes spent on the International Index to Music Periodicals shows that a lot of reliable sources are available that you just haven't used. This means the article has not been thoroughly or properly researched—a few hours in a library that has access to this database will work wonders. A few examples of what I found:
  • Granger, Rob (October 2005). "Buzz: Strapping Young Lad". Guitar Player 39 (10). 
  • Tolleson, Robin (August 2005). "Gene Hoglan: Haulin' with Strapping Young Lad". Modern Drummer 29 (8). 
  • Jones, Deirdre (December 2006). "Masters of Menace—Strapping Young Lad is the new Raging Bull". Guitar Player 40 (12). 
  • Smith, George (May 7, 2003). "Jump on the grenade". The Village Voice 48 (19). 

--Laser brain (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, for your information, I HAVE read the first three of these, but found nothing useful in the first two. And the third one is USED in the article as a ref, just so you know. I 'like' how you're nitpicking without even checking the article itself first, it's just a simple search you know, CTRL+F. Gocsa (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I believe that database is not free, so if you have access, you could have just offered some help earlier. Although I think I did my best to find online and offline sources, and I used not just one or two offline one, but it's true, my sources aren't unlimited. Gocsa (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I searched for "Menace" because that's the title given in the database and didn't see that you had used it. Those are just representative of the first page of results; there are lots of reliable sources available. Like I said, the database is available through any academic or public library. I don't have a problem helping people find sources, but FAC is not the place to research an article. Additionally, the way you and LuciferMorgan have treated me in this FAC makes the prospect of working with you pretty unpleasant. --Laser brain (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As I have found the fourth one here, it also says nothing, it's just a paragraph about the band. I know FAC is not the place for this, but as you're opposing you could help. You could copy the list of articles to my talk page for example, as many of them might be available online. Gocsa (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to offend you during this FAC, so sorry. It's just that you could see by the length of this FAC (and the previous one too) that I've pretty much had it with this. I thought this was going to be hard, but never expected this hard. The prose is now OK, as many have said before, not the best, but The Fat Man Who Never Came Back offered his help, which I greatly appreciate. I have said, and did everything I could about the references, yes, some more sources could be used, but as far as I my knowledge goes with this band (and I know them pretty well), everything is in the article, even if some of you call those refs 'questionable'. If an article is featured, that doesn't mean it can't be improved after, just look at Audioslave now and at the time it got featured, I have improved it greatly. Gocsa (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I've been reviewing your sources, per a suggestion above. I think that it's up to the other reviewers to say whether there's a certain tipping point where an article composed of many somewhat reliable sources becomes unreliable, but I'm not going to push my opinion here. In addition to the comments above, I have these several notes.

• #2 - Does 3RRR FM have this transcript up? Otherwise, it's just a fan-transcript of a radio interview which could easily have been faked, modified, or misheard. Not a reliable source.

Yeah, it's been mentioned before, I agree this can be questioned. But it's a really good one and used 3-4 times, so I have sent an e-mail to 3RRR FM radio, cause they have a (not so large) archive on their page, and it is stated there that everybody can request a programme/interview/etc. to be put up. So I did that, I'll wait a couple of days, maybe a week, after that I'll rephrase some sentences, and delete some stuff, and the reference will go. Gocsa (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• #5 - Promotional material, not a reliable source.

The album's liner notes by the band's frontman, Devin Townsend is promotional material??? You're absolutely wrong. Gocsa (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• #21 - Promotional source.

It can be considered promotional, and I think it is, but it is only used to support the fact that Townsend produced other artists' albums, and did two solo records by 1998. I could change this to other, more separate refs, like news articles, but what's the point? It even seems pointless to reference his solo and producer work, as the albums themselves act as refs, but nevertheless I inserted this reference. Gocsa (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• #86 - Promotional source.

It can be considered promotional, and I think it is, but it is only used to support the fact that SYL played Townsend's solo material live in the beginning, as he had no separate Devin Townsend Band until 2003. Gocsa (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• In fact, I worry about interview transcripts themselves since those would appear to be to me an almost-primary source, rather than a secondary one. We need the reporter/journalist to interject his evaluation of the material for us to know that it's true. Especially because interviews also tend to be a marketing tool which may be trying to advance a POV ("buy this album!") instead of being a factual account. A journalist's reporting on an interview may expose these biases. (Or not, but let's pretend for a moment that they do.)
• 19/88 (21.5%) of citations are to Blabbermouth, a website.
• 6/88 (6.8%) to metal-rules.com, a website
• 4/88 (4.5%) to chronicles of chaos, a webzine.
• 3/88 (3.4%) to all music guide, a website.
• 2/88 (2.2%) to metaleagle, a webzine
• A handful more one-offs. (45% of sources in total from websites or other questionable sources).

Now, does this tip the article over? I don't know. I really enjoy the text and think that the prose is much improved. JRP (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The interviews are only used to backup factual events, like when the recording started, etc., or for listing the band members' influences, so I don't think there's any promotion involved in the quotes, or in the way the refs are used. You mention promotion/marketing more than once, but there's no promotion in the article at all, Devin's not known for promoting his music, there are numerous interviews where he even states he doesn't care if you like the music or not:) Talking about having bipolar disorder and stuff doesn't sell albums either:) Gocsa (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "1998)[22], contributed" — move the reference to after punctuation marks per WP:FOOTNOTE

Gary King (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Gocsa (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: Can you show me where you got "Townsend also liked to joke about the band's Canadian heritage during live performances" from? The 2 refs (metal-rules, blistering) only mention their performance of "Blame Canada"; expanding upon this to say that he liked making fun of their Candian heritage is OR. indopug (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I couldn't find more sources, although Townsend did tell jokes about Canadians and stuff at some concerts:) I've changed it, maybe it's better now. Gocsa (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Horrocks

Self nomination. This has recently passed a WP:MILHIST A-Class review. The subject is a general who commanded corps in a few of the key battles of World War II. Leithp 08:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 92 to an article on the IMDb dead links. Also, it needs to have a title, not just a tinsy little link.
• Current ref 93 needs a title on the link.

Otherwise sources look good. Other links all checked out fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That should be both links fixed. Leithp 13:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

All done! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• support - seems ok. --Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 15:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Has continued to improve since I reviewed it for GAN. Absolutely no objections from here! Cheers! Cam (Chat) 02:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. However I have some recommendations which I hope will be addressed - apologies for not reviewing at earlier stages when I could've brought them up:

• I think the intro can be improved a bit. Currently we have:

Lieutenant-General Sir Brian Gwynne Horrocks KCB, KBE, DSO, MC, (September 7, 1895 - January 4, 1985) was a British military officer. He is chiefly remembered as the commander of XXX Corps in Operation Market Garden and other operations during the Second World War. Later in life he gained further fame as a television presenter and as Black Rod in the House of Lords.

Horrocks had an eventful life in which he served in both World Wars and the Russian Civil War, was a prisoner of war twice, competed in the 1924 Paris Olympics and presented a television programme. In 1940 he commanded a battalion during the Battle of France and it was then that he first served under Bernard Montgomery, the most prominent British general of the war. [...]

• I find "had an eventful life" a bit trite, the reader can discern this from the info provided. Also the first sentence of the second para partly summarises what's been said in the first, like a summary of a summary (e.g. about both wars and the TV show). I suggest the following combination might work better:

Lieutenant-General Sir Brian Gwynne Horrocks KCB, KBE, DSO, MC, (September 7, 1895 - January 4, 1985) was a British military officer. He is chiefly remembered as the commander of XXX Corps in Operation Market Garden and other operations during the Second World War. He also served in the First World War and the Russian Civil War, was a prisoner of war twice, and competed in the 1924 Paris Olympics. Later in life he gained further fame as a television presenter and as Black Rod in the House of Lords.

In 1940 Horrocks commanded a battalion during the Battle of France and it was then that he first served under Bernard Montgomery, the most prominent British general of the war. [...]

• I always prefer to see Featured Articles sans red links. The only one in there is Sir William Horrocks. If he really deserves an article perhaps a stub would suffice for now, otherwise I think we could just lose the link.
• The article should have a WP:Persondata template at the end.
• There are one or two cosmetic tweaks I would like to make that will take less time to execute than to discuss.
• In any case, looks very good - well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

On Horrock's father he had a 30 year military career of his own and was appointed CB and KCMG [67], so he's just about notable in my book. Something very stubby could be put together iwth gazette refs if nothing else, but they don't really give much context to his service. David Underdown (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have the barest details of William Horrocks' life from the autobiography and biography of Brian, no dates of birth or death etc. I didn't really like to start something that bare and wasn't able to pick anything else up in my search. Harlsbottom had expressed some interest in starting an article on William Horrocks a couple of months ago, he may have some sources. Leithp 16:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Harlsbottom has done a superb job in creating a well referenced article on William Horrocks. I think that addresses all the points listed above. Leithp 20:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, talk about 'ask and ye shall receive' - request a stub and get a new article that's pretty well B-class straight off. Great (and fast) work, guys! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose—1a. Took a sample way down that showed a high degree of gobbledygook civil-service-ese.
  • "Upon arriving, Horrocks was ..."—arriving where? You can't rely on the section title for that information.
  • "implementing the defence of"—can you think of one word to replace these four?
  • "Montgomery, mindful of the need to prevent casualties prior to the planned Second Battle of El Alamein, instructed Horrocks that he repel Rommel ...". I mean, why not: "to prevent casualties prior to the planned Second Battle of El Alamein, Montgomery instructed Horrocks to repel Rommel ..."? Straighter line, five words removed.
  • "came to attack"—why not just "attacked"?

Most sentences present easy ways to implement Plain English. Please fine someone else to strip it back to plain, elegant English. The whole article. (The lead suffers less from this disease, though.) TONY (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed your specific points. I'm at a loss about what to do about your more general criticism, though. Leithp 13:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have made a number of changes to the article. I don't know if it now meets your standards but I'd appreciate any further comments. Leithp 08:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: His platoon command guarding the ammo going to Omsk. A platoon with 14 officers is incredibly high. Is this 14 soldiers? Or were there additional attached officers because of the special nature of the task? If that is the case, it might be good to explain that, otherwise it looks quite odd. Buckshot06(prof) 21:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have changed the sentence to simply give the size of the party. Leithp 21:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Spot-check on one small part-paragraph. My oppose remains, I'm afraid.
  • "substantive lieutenant-colonel"—not actionable, but for my benefit, what does "substantive" mean? As opposed to what?
  • Caption: "Major-General Horrocks, then GOC of 9th Armoured Division, in his Covenanter command tank during an exercise, 18 July 1942." No period, since it's just a nominal group, not a full sentence. See MOS.
  • "After assisting in organising the new short course for officers,..."—Do we know already about this course? Why "the"? And surely "new" is an epithet (normal adjective), but "short" is a classifier (can't be a very short course, since short-course is a genre of course; thus, a hyphen is required to make it clear).
  • Not good:

"British doctrine of the time did not have heavy machine guns as an organic part of lower formations and instead kept them under the direct command of the corps or, in this case, division."

Maybe "at the time"? And is "doctrine" the right word?

"British policy was not to use heavy machine guns as an organic part of lower formations, but to keep them under the direct command of the corps or, in this case, the division."

• • May I suggest that you go through and add commas after most of the sentence-inital adverbial and prepositional phrases? This optional comma is more likely in longer sentences and more formal prose. For example: "After commanding the battalion for only seventeen days, he had impressed his superiors sufficiently for him to be given the temporary rank of brigadier and the command of 11th Brigade." More redundancy; why "11th" but "seventeenth"? Check whether "the" belongs before the title of the brigade. TONY (talk) 05:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Doctrine" is, I believe, the term used in the military for that kind of operational guidelines. 11th is because it is the form the British Army used to refer to its brigades. It would only use the form "Eleventh" for an Army. I have no idea why. Substantive is a form of temporary rank, I believe. I'll try and clarify that. I don't believe that "the" is appropriate in front of brigade numbers. It doesn't seem to be used in my sources, anyway. I'll try to address your other comments. Thanks for the feedback. Leithp 06:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• I got it the wrong way round. "Substantive" is the officer's permanent rank, i.e. when the war ends and the Army is de-mobilised, the officer would return to that rank. "Acting" or "Brevet" are temporary appointments due to local circumstances or a shortage of officers of the required rank. It was not uncommon to hear of officers being reduced from acting lieutenant-colonel or brigadier to captain at the end of the First World War, for example. Leithp 06:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

We do have an article on military doctrine, would it help to link that? On rank, British Army use has distinguished at different times (in order of "permanence") between "local", "acting", "temporary", "war substantive" "brevet" (though this seems to have fallen into disuse), and "substantive" (at some periods this might be referred to as regimental rank). I have been thinking that we could do with an article on this topic, but I don't really have the sources or knowledge to do it justice. David Underdown (talk) 08:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

An article sounds useful. I'm damned if I can work out what all those terms mean. Leithp 14:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have asked an outside editor to copyedit. Hopefully it now meets your standards, Tony. Thanks. Leithp 15:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I returned wanting to be generous, but found too many deficiencies in my spot-check, too easily. Like ...

• "one hundred and sixty-seven successful applicants for cadetships, even including 200 bonus points"—figures or spelt out: which? I suggest figures.
• "which rather embarrassed Horrocks"—"Rather" is normally avoided in this register (it's what we call "interpersonal", grammatically).
• "He was also interviewed extensively for"—Have you told us already about interviews? No. "Also" is redundant.
• Caption fluff: "Horrocks carried the map board with him when visiting troops in order to provide front-line soldiers with an overview of the situation." Remove the hated "in order" (makes me do a Hitler salute). "Horrocks carried the map board with him when visiting front-line soldiers to provide them with an overview of the situation." Better?
• "and was knighted with his appointment as a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire"—can it avoid the repeated word?

Not happy. It really needs a good hour or more by a a thorough copy-editor. TONY (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed your specific points and will try and find a fresh copyeditor. Leithp 17:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I'm having to read too many sentences twice before I understand them. Here is but one example of many:

By mid-September, XXX Corps had been diverted to the east, while the First Canadian Army would be tasked with clearing the strengthened German defensive line stretching from Antwerp down both banks of the Scheldt River to the North Sea in the month-long, costly Battle of the Scheldt.

There are others like this where too many thoughts are being squashed into one sentence. It's hard work rather than a pleasure to read. GrahamColm^Talk 14:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments DONE Lead should be reworded to include his books and jounalism, and to remove the implausible claim that he gained "further fame" or whatever as Black Rod - who can ever name the current Black Rod, unless they are already famous, as Horrocks was? If anything he made the job more famous. The lead should also mention his two periods as a POW. The military terminology does get a bit congested at times for a general reader like myself, but I see others are addressing this. Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have made a slight change to the opening paragraph, to address the point you made about his writing and Black Rod. The lead does say "was a prisoner of war twice" and I feel it might overwhelm the lead if I expand on that. Do you agree? Leithp 19:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I have marked my specific comments done, and expect to support when some (not all) of the phrasing points of others are addressed - I seem to feel about 50% should be adjusted, others are not needed. Johnbod (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Since I have a military history article also winding through FAC, I'm not unbiased enough to support this. However, I want to say that you do an excellent job here with the material that you are given. Military biographies are tough! A few suggestions:

• Can you expand on his time as the Black Rod any? That seems notable, but it is given only the most passing of glances. If it's just ceremonial, that makes sense, but were there any particularly notable ceremonies that he was involved in that could be mentioned? Certainly not as important as a war record, but something interesting must have happened in 14 years?
• Should you add a "Works" section for the book(s) that he's written and the other things that he participated in? I don't know if this is in the MOS anymore, but it may be a good idea.
• You tend to end sections with one or two-sentence paragraphs. Can these be merged into the above paragraphs?
• Your abbreviations in references are distracting, especially when you take it to the extreme with #37.
• You cite what his nickname means, but no citations to support your interpretation or that show that was his nickname.
• Take another look at the lead. The third paragraph reads funnily in context and there are other elements of his life that may deserve mention. POW, for example?

All in all, an enjoyable history. JRP (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Taking your comments in order:

• I have added a couple of anecdotes from his time as Black Rod, to expand on that a little. Let me know what you think.
• He authored two books, both listed in the "references" section, and edited a number of regimental histories. I'm not convinced that there is a benefit in listing the regimental histories, as he only wrote forewords for them.
• I have expanded one of the short paragraphs and will likely look at doing that to the others, rather than combine them with preceding paragraphs. Although I agree that all are a bit too brief, they all mark a change in subject to the preceding content.
• I have changed ref #37, as suggested. As regards the other abbreviations, I had thought that it was clear which book was referred to and that further expansion was unnecessary. This is particularly the case with clumsy titles such as the Neillands and Warner books.
• I have added a ref for the nickname. I must have missed that.
• I was rather fond of that third paragraph! Do you think I should combine it with the second? I'm not certain that his sojourns as a POW are important enough to be expanded on in the lead, compared to his Second World War actions.

Thanks for your kind words regarding the article and best of luck with your own FAC. I agree with you about military biographies, the terminology is a killer and it's hard to get beyond the "date-action, promotion, date-action, promotion" format. Horrocks' autobiography (a good read, by the way) manages this by using anecdotes extensively, something I was trying not to do too much. Leithp 20:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Generally looks good to me. Gary King (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments

• Oppose, the prose is not very compelling, but my main issue was just getting stuck in the unclear narrative with too many questions whose answers do not lie in the text. Examples:
  • "Horrocks attributed this rapport to the "respect for each other" of front-line troops." Grammar.
  • "Despite his capture, he was promoted to lieutenant on December 18, 1914." Double meaning, can't determine which it is.
  • "While imprisoned, he tried to escape, and he once came within 500 yards (460 m) of the Dutch border before capture." I thought he lost the use of his legs?
  • "To prevent further escape attempts, his captors placed him in a compound for Russian officers." I don't understand how this prevented escape attempts. Were the Russian officers prisoners? Why was their compound more secure?
  • "Horrocks used the time to learn their language." Why pipe this link and make the reader click it to discover what their language was?
  • "Horrocks had trouble adapting to peace-time on his return and spent four years of back-pay in six weeks, indulging in pleasure trips to London." Sounds like what every sailor I've ever known does every time we had shore leave. How is this having trouble adapting to peace-time?

These are all just from one section. A lot of fit and finish needed, plus work on the narrative. --Laser brain (talk) 05:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Laser's last point is another example of the throwing into a single sentence of ideas with dubious logical connection, joined by "and". TONY (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Minor question, could you clarify this statement: "The battle ended with the Germans in control of Himeihat hill, at a high cost, and the Allied forces unwilling to try to re-take it after a failed attack by the 2nd New Zealand Division on the withdrawing Germans" The end of this statement implies the Germans abandoned the hill, but the start of the statement says they were left in control of it. Can you clarify this? Maury (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)