Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/May 2014

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 01:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC) [1].

---

Wisp (Sonic)

Participation Guide
Support
Tezero (nominator), Prototime, TheTimesAreAChanging, Shane Cyrus, Jaguar, Supernerd11
Comments/No vote
Sergecross73, Masem, CalvinK
Oppose
hahnchen, indopug

Nominator(s): Tezero (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This is one of the most obscure subjects for an FAC you're likely to have seen lately: Wisps are aliens that function as power-ups in three Sonic the Hedgehog games – and, in the second, just as a throwback to the first. However, critics have given copious opinions on these critters, and they're only going to get more relevant with time (if Takashi Iizuka can be trusted), so I began building the article from nothing late this March. I've been creating and working solidly on Sonic character articles lately – it's nice that we actually have articles now on some characters whose introductions I'm old enough to remember.

The article passed its GAN while it was on the front page with a DYK, and I've realized that if it passes FAC, I'll be in the running for a Four Award. (Awards aren't a big deal to me, but this one'd be nice to have.) I've addressed comments made at PR and done a few more edits for readability, and I now feel that this fits the FA criteria. Moreover, Pokémon Channel has been promoted so I'm now eligible to nominate. With that out of the way, I'm gonna reach for the star tonight! Tezero (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - I've not properly reviewed the article, but the table is walkthrough level minutiae, and WP:GAMEGUIDE level material. It is a table of in-game power ups, what they do, and in which games they can be found. I can't see how knowing the Violet Void power up which "scales up Sonic's density to black hole-like levels" and is exclusive to the DS game is of any value whatsoever. I'm not sure that Sonic collapses into a singularity, but I've never played the game. - hahnchen 14:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Please try to be actionable. What should I do instead? Collapse? Reduce how much is stated for each Wisp type? Or merge it into the text entirely? (If so, how, given that numerous Wisps are referenced by name elsewhere?) Tezero (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

There might be an intermediate solution but realistically per GAMEGUIDE Hannchen is right. For the purposes of the non-video game playing reader, there are three things to take away: 1) Wisps provide various powerups to Sonic, such as X, Y, or Z (you can give examples), 2) They have unique designs and color-coded to help identify what does what, and 3) they - in subsets or in whole - have appears in this list of Sonic games. That all can be said in about a single paragraph. But as said, this is the worst case scenario. There may be a middle ground for this. --MASEM (t) 05:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm against the chart as well. I think it would be better to convert to prose, and/or scale back the chart some. (For example, less emphasis on wisps that aren't available in the games - less of all of those red x's. Sergecross73 msg me 10:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Still opposing based on notability concerns which have been brought up by other editors below. While the table was the most egregious example of crufty fan-service, it wasn't the only one. Wisps have only appeared in Sonic Colors and Sonic Lost World, articles where they're already covered. The wisps are not the subject of any reliable source, and the article is made up of passing mentions from sources discussing parent subjects. The Kotaku review doesn't even mention the wisps by name, merely calling them power-ups. Given that each game uses the power-ups differently, I'm not sure there's any real coherence to the reception. So the reception to Colors-wisps may be completely different to LostWorld-wisps, which suggests they are better covered in the respective game articles. And the reception itself is just a collection of trivia, Tim Turi's favourite wisp? Steve Thomason's favourite wisp? What about his favourite car from Sonic & All-Stars Racing Transformed? Or favourite gun in Counter-Strike? - hahnchen 13:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The Destructoid article ("eagle powers") is all about them, as is probably at least a full page in the Nintendo Power review. I recall there was at least one other as well that I removed because it only bolstered information in the table, but I can bring that back. Being used differently in the games is a stretch; it's really just that they're more essential in Colors. (There's plenty of overlap between the Wisps anyway.) Moreover, there are comments unrelated to the Wisps' gameplay (e.g. cuteness), and they're going to be in more Sonic games... Tezero (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Going back over it, the article I was thinking of, by Famitsu, is still there. Also, the IGN preview has about 4 paragraphs just on the Wisps (about half its length), this has 4-5 paragraphs (about 2/3), and this is mostly about the Wisps and even references them in the title (though it's unusually stingy with opinions about them). And this one is a full-length article about the Wisps. I didn't even add it because it was redundant to Famitsu; that's how well-documented these critters are. And that's not even counting the sources I just added talking about the Wisps' visual appearance (which is not necessarily tied to specific games and thus couldn't as easily be merged) and gameplay, or the ones I mentioned in the previous paragraph... The fact is, there are now three solid paragraphs of real reception, with additional sources to spare; countless game character articles exist and pass GAN (some even FAC) with less than this, and they should. To FAC coordinators, I hope you'll consider this case for the Wisps' notability and note that hahnchen's other concerns have been addressed. Tezero (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: This candidate has two remaining oppose votes, but neither of their posters seems interested in coming back, one I think has long been fully fixed through other comments, and one that isn't related to quality I also feel I've addressed. It also has five supports, but three came about in a very short time and without any comments to back them. In other words, this article's in a weird position and I'm wondering what you'd recommend I do now. Tezero (talk) 05:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Most of this article is cited to the games themselves (such as Sonic Colors). Games are primary sources and to interpret them directly without a reliable secondary source is original research.—indopug (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources are used all the time, including in plenty of FAs. The "cite video game" template allows for simply citing levels, as it's sometimes used here, and I know the article Sonic Adventure does that (yes, it was demoted from GA, but not for that reason). Regardless, if consensus determines that the table has got to go, period, then this citation style will no longer exist in the article. Tezero (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The table is less worrying for me than the Design section, where the Wisps' personalities and other attributes are gleaned from dialogue from the game. It's like writing the character section of the Juliet article based on your interpretations of the original Romeo and Juliet text!—indopug (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The personalities are taken from the manual, which directly states them. I agree that original synthesis of primary-sourced information is OR and not appropriate for Wikipedia, but that's not what this is. Tezero (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The manual is also a primary source. To make myself clear, I wouldn't mind if you quoted just a dialogue or two directly from the game. The issue here is that over two-thirds of the article is based on primary sources such as the games, their manuals, comic books and fans "who don't consider themselves video game journalists". Below you cited Cortana as a precedent for doing so, but that article passed FAC nearly seven years ago. Enforcement of our sourcing and synthesis rules has become significantly stricter since then.—indopug (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The over-two-thirds bit is misleading; only the first paragraph of Creation and characteristics and part of the second, one sentence in Types, and most of Appearances are cited to primary sources. It's that over two-thirds of the sources used are primary, which is because you can generally get more out of an article by IGN or GameSpot than out of one quote from the game. As for SegaNerds, that's an interview; sources for interviews have significantly lower standards for reliability as they consist of the actual words of a related individual rather than paraphrasing. (Can someone in WP:VG back me up on this? I'm sure we have a policy written on it somewhere; I know I heard it in the GAN for Don't Starve.) As for Cortana being old, Arbiter (2009), Flood (2008), and MissingNo. (2009)—the most recent game character articles promoted to FA status—all use game quotes. And there are numerous FAs for comics characters that cite entire issues (e.g. Batman, Anarky). The thing with primary sources is that, while they're not ideal, they're useful for filling in information that's essential to an understanding of a character but that a secondary source isn't likely to think is worth mentioning. (And this isn't necessarily because they think it's insignificant; they may think it's too obvious or it may just not relate to their points.) Tezero (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

(←) "they're useful for filling in information ... that a secondary source isn't likely to think is worth mentioning"—I'm not sure I agree with such a liberal interpretation of WP:NOR et al, but even so, surely "filling-in information" doesn't mean you can base "the first paragraph of Creation and characteristics and part of the second, one sentence in Types, and most of Appearances", i.e. quite a chunk of the article, on your interpretation of primary sources?

And yes, it is interpretation. For eg: "antagonist Doctor Eggman builds an amusement park spanning the planets the Wisps live on,[27] under the pretense of making up for past transgressions"—the bolded bit is a highly subjective claim, one that should be backed up by an independent reliable source. Even so, not even any of the quoted dialogues back this "making up for past transgressions" claim either.—indopug (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Found a quote that pretty much directly states it: "This amusement park has been constructed entirely out of a sense of remorse for my past." Please detail any further information you think is original research. Tezero (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• This is just a suggestion, but I feel the "Reception" section might be more informative if it was cleanly divided by game. Colors and to a slightly lesser extent the 3DS version of Lost World were clearly designed around the Wisps, while the Wii U version of Lost World incorporates the Wisps as almost completely optional and sparsely used minigames, as Iizuka has directly stated. These design choices have influenced their mixed reception; for example, Chris Plante of Polygon opined that the Wisps "worked great" in Colors but "generally meant frustration or death" in Lost World Wii U. In general, the Wisps were well-received in Colors and poorly received in Lost World, although of course both games garnered varying degrees of praise and criticism. Finally, the Kotaku review only "praised" the 3DS version of Lost World, and it doesn't offer any positive or negative commentary on the Wisps in particular.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'll see how that looks when I'm done merging Wisp information into the text. I realize that this FAC is probably going to fail even if every complaint here is addressed, just because of the atmosphere around, but I'd like to get everyone's concerns taken care of anyway. Tezero (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Note: To all concerned about the chart: It has been massively eaten away and now only consists of a list of all of the Wisps by name; I've converted information about a few of the types to prose, ditched the rest, and moved a bit in from Appearances for consistency. How do you feel now? (There's also a strange quirk with the text leaning into the table's personal bubble, but I don't know how to fix that.) @Hahnchen: @Sergecross73: @Masem: @TheTimesAreAChanging: Tezero (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • That's a fair middle ground.You might want to add a {{-}} (an HTML clear) before the section with the picture; this might add white space but it will clear the table from the picture. --MASEM (t) 00:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Done. Tezero (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

From Singora RE: "There's also a strange quirk with the text leaning into the table's personal bubble, but I don't know how to fix that." I've fixed the CSS for you. The table needed a left margin to create space between it and the text. I've used 25px, but you could reduce this to 20px if you want. Singora (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I figured it was the margins, but I couldn't look up any documentation as it's not a template. Tezero (talk) 05:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

From CalvinK - Just some points to consider based on above comments.

• The appearances section doesn't need references, if it is obvious from the game. It might be worthwhile seeing how Grand Theft Auto V has had its plot section written, as I feel this would apply to the "Appearances" section. It may also give you a bit of an insight as to how to write it as I'm a little unsure whether the correct tense is used through that section. Only use references where you have used sources outside of the game to analyse the meaning of text in the game. Calvin (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• This is more in line with the recommendations for articles on actual games, although those too are allowed to cite quotes if they adhere fairly closely to exactly what the quotes say without original analysis. If you look at FAs for game characters (admittedly there are only a few) like Cortana, you'll notice a number of quote citations for plot information. Tezero (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair point, I'd not come across that before. Calvin (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'll look into the tense issue. Tezero (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• I actually don't see any inconsistencies in the tenses. How it's laid out now is that the present tense is used for what occurs during the game; the past tense is used for events that took place before the story, as well as real-life information concerning releases of various media. That said, perhaps I'm overlooking something. Tezero (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I still disgree that we need to cite every single sentence in the first paragraph of the Creation section.

Types section - "while Violet Void, which scales up Sonic's density to black hole-like levels and causes him to absorb enemies, obstacles, and rings" - that could be described without needing to use the manual's description.

I don't get it; it doesn't use the manual's description. There's a secondary source attached. Tezero (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Ignore me! It just sounded like something that would be described as such in a manual! Calvin (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Appearances section - I would treat this as I would a plot section in a video game article. If it is not going to be contentious information, then I do not see the need to cite the source. WP:V clearly states "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. A lot of information is unlikely to be challenged and to my knowledge has not been challenged yet. Should there be any challenges, you already have a source (albeit a primary source).

This isn't the case in the video game character FAs I've mentioned here, nor is it much of a standard in game character GAs. I prefer to cite plots so that readers can look at where we get the information and view the events in the context of the game, rather than just take our word as law. However, this has been brought up at my FACs and GANs before (although never to an extent such that the citations ended up gone), and I'd like to actually form more of a project consensus on this. I'm taking this to WT:VG now. (No attack on you, of course; I genuinely want to know what the community thinks.) Tezero (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Appreciate what you're saying, I have little involvement with WP:VG to be fair. I'm only going by my interpretation of WP:V which states it very clearly. It might be worthwhile seeing what the Wiki Project's opinion is of it - it may end up being something that might need to be discussed further as the policy is pretty clear as to what should be cited. If a plot is fairly linear (like in this case about where the Wisps come from, or the citation for Mother Wisp's name) then there is unlikely to be any challenges to it. If there are, then the user can be directed to the source and if necessary a citation then added. I doubt that would be the case though. We do need to reach some consensus on this though, but I do believe it would be common sense to not require all those citations. Calvin (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

e: An addedndum, really. I've looked at other FA to see how they have done their citations. A close article (in terms of them being minor characters with a featured article is Nikki and Paulo. Just something to bear in mind as Cortana is arguably a major character in the Halo series - especially now Microsoft plan to name their assistant Cortana too. While the Nikki and Paulo article was promoted in 2007, I see no reason as to why it shouldn't remain a featured article. If the rules regarding WP:V are being more heavily scrutinised, I'd quite like to read the discussion where this took place. Calvin (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Yo, @Indopug:/@Hahnchen: have I improved on your oppose-level concerns? Can I go on to striking some of the quote citations per WP:WISP and then getting on to TheTimesAreAChanging's suggestions? Tezero (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I've been holding off on this review because I'm not sure whether this article topic meets the notability criteria, and I wanted to see what others thought. (Sorry for bringing this up so late—I didn't know it would go from DYK to FAC so fast...) Shaving off the first-party sources leaves Sonic game reviews mentions, but no dedicated coverage, no articles solely about the topic. The article would be mostly unsourced, and the existing sourcing would be thin and cursory. (It would leave us in a situation like Bulbasaur, who is similarly mentioned a bunch of times but has no dedicated coverage.) I'm not as familiar with how notability conversations go for fictional characters, and you know I'm a fan of your work, Tezero, but I'm curious where the line is drawn on what Sonic characters have WP notability for their own articles before they cross into WT:VG/Archive_103#Espio the Chameleon and Blaze the Cat territory. czar ♔ 01:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• You've mentioned that before, but IIRC you backed off after I brought up that not a lot of fictional character articles do contain sources that are solely about the topic. (Well, the interview is basically all about Wisps, and the Nintendo Power article's gotta have a good page just on them, but otherwise no.) I mean, really, which Sonic characters would, other than Sonic himself? Perhaps it's the criterion Wikipedia should require, but "other stuff exists" would be a massive understatement at present. Rather, I think this topic's notability is established through frequent significant mentions (though not at the level of the subject of an article) in numerous secondary sources. (I don't mean to sound gruff or to belittle your thoughts; I just wasn't expecting a response of this kind.) Tezero (talk) 02:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
• I agree that this article's notability is dodgy. WP:GNG is clear, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". Further it states that " 'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content", which contradicts Tezero's above defence of using primary sources to "fill in information" not covered by reliable sources.

• As stated above, I found a quote that verifies it. Tezero (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Further, the FA-worthiness of an article depends solely on its meeting the WP:FA? criteria, which in turn points to everything under WP:CONPOL. So older, poor-quality FAs that may have passed FAC because of lax reviewing, or have degraded in quality since passing FAC, cannot be used as precedent. See also: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.—indopug (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Please be more direct about what you want me to do. Tezero (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Sigh... Is there anything I can do to get anyone to support this? Tezero (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comments from Prototime: According to WP:PRIMARY, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." I believe many of this article's use of primary sources support text falling into the "descriptive" category as opposed to the "interpretative" category; many of them are used to support material that is roughly analogous a novel plot summary. But there are some instances where primary sources may start to be interpreted. My concerns include:
  • In Creation and characteristics, first paragraph, second sentence: The descriptor "giant" is subjective; it's best left to the reader to decide whether Mother Wisp is big enough to be considered "giant". I suggest replacing it with "larger", because descriptively, the Mother Wisp is unquestionably larger than the other wisps.
    • Done. Tezero (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • In Creation and characteristics, first paragraph, last sentence: I don't recall how phonetic or non-phonetic Tails' translation is, but unless it's blatantly obvious that it's entirely non-phonetic, I'd drop the word "non-phonetic."
    • Done per later comments. Tezero (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, saying that "most" characters in the game refer to Wisps as aliens is a bit interpretive, because it's a decision to discount Wisps themselves as characters. If Wisps are included as characters, they clearly outnumber all others. Whether each individual Wisp should count as a character isn't something Wikipedia should decide, so to make the sentence descriptive, I suggest dropping the word "most". As an aside, it's not entirely clear in that sentence who "other" is being compared to (Tails?), and "the game" isn't defined so it's ambiguous what game is being referred to (though I presume it's Sonic Colors, given the reference.)
    • "Other" is being compared to the Wisps, not Tails; they don't call themselves aliens. I don't really like using "other" alone, but in this case I suppose it works alright, so I've just stricken "most". Tezero (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • In Types, last sentence: Saying that Wisps "have general personalities that match their powers" is an original interpretation of the Sonic Colors Manual. The manual somewhat implies that such a match exists, but it doesn't state so directly, and if a primary source is to be used, the sentence should be reworded to drop the personality-to-power connection.
    • A quick skim of the sources and relevant Google search turns up nothing secondary about the Wisps' personalities. How would you recommend I rephrase this to escape the dangerous generalization? Tezero (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Generally following the manual's structure should work; the manual describes the personality traits of individual wisps and then their powers together, and I think you could do the same without saying explicitly that the Wisps "have general personalities that match their powers." So maybe something like this (doesn't need to be exact): "The various types of Wisps have different personalities and powers. For example, Cyan Laser Wisps are energetic and scatterbrained, and they allow Sonic to bounce off surfaces." This better describes what the manual says without interpreting it, and it allows readers to decide whether they think the Wisps' personalities and powers match. The only concern this approach may pose is close paraphrasing, because the adjectives describing the Wisps' powers/personalities and the structure of the sentences would be quite similar to the Sonic Color manual's phrasing and structure. To remedy that concern (per WP:INTEXT), I'd tack on the words "According to the Sonic Colors Manual..." near the beginning of the first sentence that begins to describes the Wisps' powers and personalities. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
      • One other point: I noticed that the Sonic Colors Manual describes the Wisps' names as "Cyan Wisp" and "Orange Wisp", not as "Cyan Laser Wisp" or "Orange Rocket Wisp". I wouldn't change their names from what is cited in the Manual; instead, I'd recommend that when describing these Wisps' powers, it be mentioned that they transform Sonic into a laser or rocket. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 15:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
        • • It's a weird situation: the Wisps are typically referred to by just their colors (though not always, per the Red Burst quote), while their abilities are often written out longhand. I've combed through the entire article and made changes accordingly. Tezero (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Putting this all together, the text would look something this (doesn't need to be exact): "The various types of Wisps have different personalities and powers. For example, according to the Sonic Colors Manual, Cyan Wisps are energetic and scatterbrained, and they allow Sonic transform into a laser that bounces off surfaces. In contrast, Orange Wisps have fluctuating and explosive emotions, and they allow Sonic to transform into a rocket and rapidly blast into the air." –Prototime (talk · contribs) 15:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Reworded similarly. Tezero (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• • Also, as an aside, here's a link to the Sonic Colors Wii Manual from the Sega website to include in the source citation: https://help.sega.com/entries/20893367-Sonic-Colors-Manual-Wii
    • Done. Tezero (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • In Appearances, first sentence: The text says that the amusement park "span[s] the planets the Wisps live on" and cites to a Doctor Eggman quote from Sonic Colors. But the citation does not support this part of the sentence, and in fact, I had a different interpretation of Sonic Colors entirely: that the Wisps lived only on Planet Wisp, and only through Doctor Eggman were they transported to other places. I'm not sure which interpretation is correct, but either way it's an interpretation, and it should be cited to a secondary source (or dropped).
    • This quote from Mother Wisp (through Tails) is used later on: "I was so worried when our planets were pulled apart from one another." Should I cite that earlier as well? Tezero (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Hm... "our planets" a bit ambiguous, but I think that Mother Wisp's comment in context is clear enough to mostly support the sentence. To make it more descriptive though, I suggest rewriting it to say "spanning the Wisps' planets". I would definitely cite to the Mother Wisp quote to support the sentence. Also, as an aside, I believe that grammatically there shouldn't be comma in the middle of the sentence. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Done all of that. Tezero (talk) 04:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • In Appearances, fourth sentence: None of the sources cited describe the mind-controlled Wisps using the term "Nega-Wisps", and I'd include one that does.
    • Actually, I didn't remember hearing them called that in the game; I added it because they're referred to that way in various places on the Internet and I figured I'd missed something. Looking over it, though, I can't find any cutscenes that refer to them that way, so I've reworded all of that. (There are no other such cases.) Tezero (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Some of the sources cited in the Appearances section are pieces of character dialogue that don't describe any of what the article says occurs on screen (for example, the whole bit about the black hole is supported by Sonic saying "This might not end well.") Can you cite to a scene in the game directly, as opposed to the associated character dialogue?
    • How can I? I guess I could link to a YouTube video, but that could constitute a copyright violation. Tezero (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the idea is to reference a scene by its "name", not necessarily to link the reference to the timecode czar ♔ 19:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

What kind of name? Tezero (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Does Sonic Colors have a scene selection feature? If so, I'd go with which number in the sequence the scene in question appears as (unless the scene has an actual name). If there is no such feature, I'd suggest clearly describing the scene in relation to its timing in the game--e.g., "Opening cutscene to level [level name/number]". –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

There's no such feature as far as I know, and I'm not sure I trust myself to count them accurately. I'll just describe it qualitatively, since it doesn't tie into a specific level. Tezero (talk) 04:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I think you should add scene citations where the dialogue doesn't describe onscreen events that are being described in the article text; where the dialogue does sufficiently support the article text, dialogue citations are fine. (Though come to think of it, it'd be helpful if each dialogue citation had the associated scene mentioned in the citation too, so that readers know which scene the dialogue occurred in. I don't think that's necessary for FA, but it couldn't hurt!) –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I've done it for the scenes where the events weren't totally clear from the quotes. Tezero (talk) 04:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Great. There are a couple additional sentences that could benefit from scene citations:

• "Suspicious, Sonic and Tails investigate and rescue two Wisps from Eggman's henchmen Orbot and Cubot." - The cited dialogue doesn't describe the rescue.

• No dialogue in the game really does. I'm still planning to cull citations that are uncontroversial, per WP:WISP (a conglomeration of opinions from WT:VG), once I'm done with everything else, but this seems controversial to you and I don't know what to put. Tezero (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Yacker frees the remaining Wisps, reverts them from their corrupted form," - These two phrases aren't supported by the cited dialogue.

• Same as above. Tezero (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Right, I understand that there isn't any dialogue to support these two phrases; to be clear, I'm suggesting a citation to the scene itself without a dialogue citation.

As for culling citations... I wouldn't recommend it. You're completely correct that not everything requires a citation, but where statements in the article are supported by one or more primary sources, those statements are likely to be challenged in the future on the basis of WP:OR; indeed, many people have already challenged a good number of statements in this review on that basis. By providing a higher number of citations, you can demonstrate more convincingly that the text is descriptive of the primary source rather than interpretive and thus ward off such challenges. (Additionally, the citations are already there, and it looks better to go above and beyond the bare minimum of WP:MINREF anyway.) –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that they ought to be used. This is not the general consensus of WP:VG, though, so I'm not sure what to think. Nevertheless, I've added locations to both of those you mentioned, as the game has no scene numbering or selecting system or, as far as I know, ways to identify them beyond their locations. Tezero (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I just glanced at the discussion on WT:VG, and I must say that I'm dismayed that a couple of the editors believe there is utility in removing source citations, especially primary source citations--which aren't just likely to be challenged, they are virtually guaranteed to be challenged, and many already have been challenged. WP:PRIMARY SOURCE itself says "an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot" -- not "an article about a novel need not cite passages to describe the plot, because the book's plot is so darn obvious that citations are unnecessary". You've put in a lot of hard work in this article, and I appreciate that you seem to be stuck between a rock and a hard place: some editors think that practically any reliance on primary sources isn't appropriate under WP:V, and others think that reliance on primary sources is so uncontroversial that citations aren't required and in fact shouldn't be included. I don't see how either of those interpretations square with WP:V and WP:PRIMARY, but one thing that is absolutely, positively crystal clear that no policy encourages, much less requires, someone to remove citations, even if the citations aren't required by WP:MINREF. I'll post something to this effect on WT:VG in a bit. Thanks for addressing the scene citation issue. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, this may be just me, but I think simply saying "Area:" instead of "Area/level:" in the citation allows for greater precision. For instance, when you cite to a cutscene, it would read "Area: Cutscene [description]", and if you cite to a level itself instead of a cutscene, the citation would read "Area: Level [level #]" or "Area: [level name] level". –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

"Area/level" is what's in the citation template. I'm not sure I agree either, although I might be able to get around it by, say, setting the quote to something like this:

(quoted text) ". Area: "Tropical Resort.

That way it'd treat the area as a quoted name. I'm not sure this much is really necessary, though; it seems like a minor stylistic issue best taken up with the template maintainers. Tezero (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, not a big deal. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

With these comments in mind, I want to say that overall, it's clear you've put in great effort into making this article work given the available sources, and your effort is certainly appreciated! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to get to these tomorrow, as I'm going to bed soon. "Non-phonetic" stuck out to me among them. In the game, Yacker quips something that sounds nothing like "Wisps"; all of the Wisps' speech sounds like typical alien garble. I'm not sure if that's enough justification. Tezero (talk) 05:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that depends on the context; was Tails attempting to translate what Yacker said into English, or was Tails attempting to pronounce the name in the Wisps' own language and butchering it? If it's the latter scenario, and the game makes that scenario crystal clear, "non-phonetic" probably should work. But if there's any doubt, I'd err on the side of caution. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Uh... the first one, I guess. Actually, I'll just get rid of the word. Tezero (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• • Tezero, I took a stab at copyediting the article; the prose was mostly fine already, but there were a couple instances where a comma inappropriately preceded a dependent clause, and a couple places where I trimmed a word or two. Feel free to disagree with the edits. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Feel free to disagree, huh? That wouldn't change much. Ha! No, it looks much better this way. Tezero (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Well, I just was trying to convey that my edits aren't law :p Glad you agree with them though. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 22:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - The article is well-written and comprehensive without including unnecessary gamecruft. The parts of it supported by primary sources are descriptive of those sources, not interpretive, and thus their use satisfies WP:PRIMARY. Great work Tezero, and thanks for so diligently responding to the feedback in this FAC! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

(Please note that my support is based on the current thoroughly-cited version of the article; as I have explained more thoroughly above, if primary source citations are removed like some editors have suggested, I fear the article would violate WP:V because the parts of the article currently supported by those sources are highly likely to be challenged in the future on the basis that they interpret, rather than describe, those sources. Having the source citations allows future editors to see the descriptive nature of the article text.) –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Although I might have organized "Reception" a bit differently, I can certainly appreciate Tezero's approach, particularly as the Wisps are likely to make future appearances (not that that won't complicate things anyway, but let's cross that bridge when we come to it). As things now stand, Tezero and Prototime have worked diligently to address all complaints, and I believe this article is about as well-sourced and comprehensive as it could possibly be.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: @Hahnchen: the table's been cut for a while now, and a bit trimming has been done of overly specific material while I addressed other comments. Likewise, @Indopug: per Prototime's comments (which led to his support), mainly those involving specificity with citing scenes, I believe the possible OR aspects have been addressed. Does this information change either of your minds? Tezero (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Replied above. - hahnchen 13:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support, The prose looks convincing. The lede also looks fine and the writing can be a good example for others. Good work, Tezero! Shane Cyrus (talk) 07:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)#

• Support - Maybe it would be a waste of time for me to go on about the prose, as everything remains excellent ever since I reviewed the GAN. The article is very comprehensive as it is and every reference is in a suitable place. From a copy editor's view I can't see any problems, well done Tezero! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support: Far as I can tell, this article covers the subjects as best as it can, and with plenty of reliable sources and no excessive cruft or anything else like that. It's shorter than most FA's, but I don't think that's a problem given the relatively minor subject matter here. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 19:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Note: There is currently a merge discussion at Talk:List of Sonic the Hedgehog video game characters#Merger proposal involving this article, among other characters from the Sonic series. Mz7 (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Note: The above linked merger proposal has closed in favor of merging this article into the list of Sonic characters. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Leaving aside the outstanding opposition to promotion, if the article under review is to be merged into another then this FAC is nullified and will be archived. A new nomination (at FLC, not here) would be required if someone wants to try and get the list of characters to Featured Status. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 01:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC) [2].

---

American football

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 02:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is about American football or, as we call it in America, football. This is an introductory article on the sport, so it includes all the basics as well as more in-depth coverage. This article includes:

• A history section, with extensive detail going into the formative days of the sport and its evolution into the top American sport. For comparison to other FA sports articles, this is longer than the history section in the Association football article, and shorter than the one in the Baseball article. The short length relative to the baseball article is primarily due to the broader coverage in the History of American football article, a featured article.
• An etymology section, which explains why the sport is unambiguously called 'football' in American despite relatively little use of the foot. It also gives common names for the sport in other countries besides the US.
• A teams and position section, which gives a basic overview of substitution rules, the division of teams into units, and the specialized roles of each player.
• A rules section, which gives a basic overview of the fundamentals of the game: scoring, field dimensions, timekeeping, advancing the ball, kicking, and officiating.
• A leagues and tournaments section, which covers the major American leagues, minor American leagues, and international competition. It also gives an overview of the sport's Olympic history and the main obstacles to Olympic entry (namely, lack of international participation and large team sizes).
• A safety section, covering common health risks and protective measures that have been made to try and combat them.
• A section on variations (such as Arena football and amateur play) and related sports (namely, Canadian football).

Overall, it provides a basic but comprehensive overview of the sport. I think it meets all criteria, and is of similar or better quality than our other FA sports articles. Toa Nidhiki05 02:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I would expect to find information about the impact of football on U.S. culture and society, just like in baseball#Popularity and cultural impact. Granted that it's not on the same "apple pie"-level as baseball as a cultural icon, but it's still pretty darned American. Just the hullabaloo surrounding the Super Bowl seems like it would deserve its own paragraph. Peter ^Isotalo 15:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I've begun work on this section now. Toa Nidhiki05 18:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement. It's rather strictly focused on audience statistics, how it compares to other sports, etc. Are you sure there's nothing to say about actual cultural aspects? For example, what's the perception of football in the US? High school football seems like something that is a minor field of study of it's own. For example, the archetypal jock always seems to be a football player (preferably a quarterback).

Any chance we'll be seeing anything on football and gender roles, btw? I'll admit that there's a gender perspective on just about anything, but I can hardly think of anything that could be considered more masculine in the US than football. Here's a good source with some references to further studies on the subject.[3]

Peter ^Isotalo 00:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm still working on the section, it's not complete yet. :) Toa Nidhiki05 17:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I've added more on US perception of football and masculinity in the sport. Toa Nidhiki05 17:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Now that's what I call improvement. Good work! I'd recommend adding a tad more on the critical aspects of masculinity. I think the quote from USA Today is a great illustration, but its openly disparaging view of non-masculine male behavior could use a little bit of balancing. I might even help you to add a sentence or two based on Smith (2009). The information about popularity and playing outside of North America is very good, but it would be very good to provide some indication about how it actually compares to other sports, especially association football.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Understood, I'll see what I can find. As to comparative popularity to soccer, I'm not sure exactly what you mean - are you wanting a comparison within American or a worldwide comparison? The latter might be fairly difficult as no sports really compare to soccer in popularity, and football is often regarded as just an American sport. Toa Nidhiki05 02:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking something like how 45,000 registered German amateur players could be contrasted with the equivalent number of soccer players. You know, stating the obvious about its relative lack of popularity outside of North America. People often know of it, but very few actually play it locally, or watch local teams.

Peter ^Isotalo 04:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero

Oppose at this time per concerns about completeness, source reliability, neutrality, and cleanliness. These issues can be fixed, in which case I'll give my support if nothing else arises, but it won't be too easy and I really would not feel comfortable with the article passing as is.

• Elaborate a little on what rugby is like and its ancestral similarities to American football.

• Done. Toa Nidhiki05 19:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• "Teams and positions" contains an awfully high number of subheaders. I'd merge the level-4 headers into the level-3 ones, considering how short they are.

• In fact, I think you could probably stick them all under the simple level-2 header, if you wanted, and bullet each of them as is done in "Offices and fouls". Either way, pick something as it looks cluttered as is.

• For the time being, I have simply removed the level-4 headers. I'll see if I can do anything else. Toa Nidhiki05 19:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Is For Dummies a reliable source for the rules of football?
  • I would assume so - even if you don't regard For Dummies as reliable, its co-authors are both reliable sources for football; Howie Long is a prominent football analyst and member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame, and John Czarnecki is the editorial consultant of FOX NFL Sunday and one of the selectors for the Hall of Fame. Toa Nidhiki05 19:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, that's fine. Tezero (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Likewise, Merriam-Webster is probably not a reliable source for information about those sub-strains of the game. I'd replace it with an exhaustive source about the history of the game, so that another complaint of mine about the coverage of these versions of football can be addressed:
  • Removed. Toa Nidhiki05 00:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
• It's too brief.

• How so? I'll note that the baseball article hardly mentions any variant sports like softball, and soccer only devotes a few paragraphs to it. Aside from Canadian football (which has a rather large section), variants like arena football and indoor football are basically the same game with a smaller playing field (and a few rule changes to fit that), and casual variants have rules that are different from person to person. Toa Nidhiki05 19:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Alright, that's fair. Tezero (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Other sources whose contextual reliability/appropriateness I question:

• Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary

• How is this unreliable, especially for the only thing it is used to cite (the shape of the ball)? Toa Nidhiki05 19:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Surely you can find a better alternative if it's so obvious? And why isn't the shape or structure of the ball mentioned anywhere else in the article? Tezero (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Done. Toa Nidhiki05 18:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oxford Dictionaries Online

• Changed source to NPR. Toa Nidhiki05 19:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Encyclopedia Britannica Online

• I've changed this to now only cite that American and Canadian football are both considered to be forms of gridiron football. Toa Nidhiki05 19:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Sports Know How

• Not sure how that got there, removed. Toa Nidhiki05 19:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
• Removed. Toa Nidhiki05 19:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• LiveStrong.com

• Removed; the bit of information is obvious and has been removed, and for some reason the website - despite having the right url - is linking to an entirely different page now. Toa Nidhiki05 19:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Section ordering is a little weird; Safety should probably go between Rules and Leagues and tournaments.

• Done. Toa Nidhiki05 23:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• In Popularity and cultural impact, I'd mention something about football, despite its massive popularity, never having made it to the Olympics besides its "demonstration", whatever that means.

• Technically, this information is already mentioned in a prior section - leagues and tournaments - where it has a whole paragraph elaborating on this in-depth. Should I just move that to the popularity section? Toa Nidhiki05 23:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• "American football is by far the most popular sport" - Debatable. By which metrics is it the most popular sport? If none are given in the source, frame it as the author's opinion.

• Done. Toa Nidhiki05 17:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Similarly: "is among the biggest club sporting events in the world" - How so?

• TV viewership; noted now. Toa Nidhiki05 23:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• "professional and college football were the first and third most popular sports" - What was second?

• Baseball. Toa Nidhiki05 23:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Switch the ordering of the UK/other European countries in "Popularity and cultural impact"; it creates a strange contrast to go right from the stigma in the UK to "The sport is also played in..."
  • Is it good now? Toa Nidhiki05 23:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• That whole section should be expanded with information about the sport's evolving popularity in the US over time. The US should definitely have its own paragraph (if not 2+), moreover.
  • It has been expanded to two paragraphs now. Toa Nidhiki05 17:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• Expound on American football's popularity in Japan. I didn't even realize it was a professional sport there; surely there's more to say.

• Done. Toa Nidhiki05 18:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll keep this FAC on my watchlist. Tezero (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose, suggest withdrawal due to poor sourcing. A third of the cites are to the official rules themselves (violating WP:NOR), another bunch to the poor-quality For Dummies website, and the rest to the popular press. Barely any scholarly peer-reviewed works feature (a children's book does though). Compare this with the Baseball FA's sources.—indopug (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• How is citing factual assertions about the rules of a sport to the definitive source of rules (namely, rulebooks) original research? I would think they would be the most reliable sources to use, as they are ones declaring the facts on the matter. The baseball article does this with many of its citations.

• Because they are primary sources, and we shouldn't citing/interpreting them directly if we can help it. And looking at the scholarly Nelson book, we clearly can—why not cite that instead? I'm also curious why uncontroversial statements such as "A football game is played between two teams of 11 players each" requires three citations.—indopug (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• The For Dummies books were written by not just one, but two highly credible sources (namely, a football analyst who was a Hall of Fame player and an editor for a football program that is a Hall of Fame voter), and the "children's book" was written by John Madden, a Hall of Fame coach and football analyst. You might not like the publisher or format, but the writers themselves are more than qualified on hte subject matter.
• How is citing factual assertions to reliable third-party media outlets a bad thing? Are the BBC, ESPN, USA Today, the New York Times, Popular Mechanics, Time Magazine, The Economist, the International Business Times, and Sports Illustrated not reliable enough sources? WP:SOURCES makes it clear that it is perfectly fine to cite to reputed, non-academic publications.
• Why exactly does an article need to overload itself with scholarly sources when reliable third-parties more than suffice? The featured article critera makes no such requirement - instead, it says it simply needs to be "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate". And to the contrary, this article does cite from academia when needed - citations 10, 51, and 101 are cited directly to academic sources.

That all aside, I don't really understand how I can make fixes if you don't give direct concerns. Which media outlets I am using are unreliable? What individual media claims should instead be given to academia? Toa Nidhiki05 23:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

But I have listed my direct concern—that this article doesn't nearly present "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". (How can it when you admit to not perusing any of the books written on the subject?)

And you've not given me any examples of media outlets I am using that are unreliable for the content cited. And I have read books on the subject - David M. Nelson's fantastic book The Anatomy of a Game is sourced here. Toa Nidhiki05 14:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

And thus you can make fixes—by withdrawing this article from FAC, and rewriting it using scholarly sources. As you've read in WP:SOURCE, "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources". You may also want to read this.

That is not helpful at all. You have not given a reason why any of the 153 internal citations in this article are unreliable, save for a few I have proven are in fact reliable. Toa Nidhiki05 14:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Further, even the sources that exist in the article should be checked whether they are used correctly. For eg, "Concussions are particularly concerning" is cited to a repository of NYT reporting on head injuries. The very strong claim that concussions in American football are a "particular concern" is not backed anywhere (the medical article at the end of the sentence doesn't mention football). And this is just the first thing I happened to check.

See, this is helpful. Giving me a specific source that isn't good allows me to fix it. Just taking a short look at the article and saying "This is crap because it doesn't use as many scholarly sources as I want" doesn't help me improve this at all. Toa Nidhiki05 14:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Lastly, looking at the lead, it's clear that the writing isn't up to par. A most likely reader of this article is somebody who doesn't have a clue about the game. But he is told that "They must advance it at least ten yards in four downs to receive a new set of four downs" without "downs" ever being defined. And then there is tautology (American football evolved in the United States), another unexplained term (snap), easter-egg linking (November 6, 1869) and an acronym out of nowhere (NFL).

Once again, this is more helpful. The terms 'down' and 'snap' are linked - per WP:UNDERLINK, this is an acceptable way to explain technical terms. At the same time I'd be more than willing to define it. Toa Nidhiki05 14:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It's clear there's simply far too much to be done than is possible within the scope of an FAC.—indopug (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so certain. I'm pretty much always available to fix these sort of issues. If you'd be willing to do a more thorough source check I'd be more than willing to work to correct them. Toa Nidhiki05 14:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm siding with Toa Nidhiki05 here. indopug, if you don't have the time to actually detail what you want changed, that's not Toa's problem. Tezero (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Indopug is absolutely right about the children's book, though. It has to go, even if it's Madden. The type of sources I'd expect for an FA-level article should cover facts so basic that they've made it into a children's book. So why use the children's book at all? Or is the fact itself dubious? It's a completely unnecessary source of doubt.

And regarding the comparison to baseball, a work like he Meaning of Sports: Why Americans Watch Baseball, Football, and Basketball and What They See When They Do would seem like exactly what this article needs. It's a perfect example of what looks to be a critical, comparative study that could explain the basics of what makes football attractive and how it interacts with US society.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The lone fact cited by the Madden book (Walter Camp being the "Father of American football") is minor, but I've now replaced it with two other sources currently in the article (NFL.com and PFRA). Toa Nidhiki05 17:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• The intro is surprisingly easy to read, but honestly I would prefer to have some figures there too (such as how many athletes are registered, how much revenue it generates, how many people watch the Super Bowl). And please, before promoting this clarify or mention or say something about having a game called football but not being played with the feet 99%+ of the time. Nergaal (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! I'm not sure I can get full registration information for the entire world, because to my knowledge no single source keep track of that number, but would just US numbers suffice? I'd expect to encounter similar problems with revenue (I'd likely have to rely solely on American leagues), but I can get the worldwide Super Bowl viewership numbers fairly easily. As to the last (no foot in football), I'm sure I can find a way to sneak that in. There is already an explanation for the name in the 'etymology' section, I'm sure I can find something to talk about the 'foot' issue. :) Toa Nidhiki05 22:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Update: I've added the 'foot' thing to the etymology section, where it explains why the sport has the name it now has. More to come. Toa Nidhiki05 22:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, US figures are fine, since the game is mostly played in the US. The figures are more for people who live outside of US to get a better grasp of the phenomenon there. As for the foot think, I am sure I am not the first person who thought a game named football would be at least non-negligibly played with the feet (like if association football were to be called handball because the keeper can use his hands). Nergaal (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright, good, I'll see if I can find those numbers. It appears my edit adding elaboration on the 'foot' bit was reverted though, so I may have to bring that up with the editor who reverted it. Toa Nidhiki05 23:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've added the numbers for amateur (college and high school) athletes as well as the NFL's average revenue. Toa Nidhiki05 03:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Quick comment – The Bennett and Vancil cites lack an associated book in the reference list. I think they're used in the history article as well, so the same information applies here. Giants2008 (Talk) 11:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 01:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Note: It looks like I have only one comment that you haven't yet addressed. I wouldn't say I still oppose this candidacy, but if you fix it I'll take another run-through and, if reasonable, support it. Tezero (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• I think I'll support; everything looks up to par and my complaints have all been addressed. Nice work! Tezero (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Toa Nidhiki05 00:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- sorry, but with no comments for two weeks and no consensus to promote, this review has stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 01:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 22:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC) [4].

---

History of KFC

Nominator(s): Farrtj (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the history of the KFC restaurant chain. This article was nominated once before and was listed for four months before being failed. It received four Supports and one Oppose. Farrtj (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments

I'm surprised this wasn't promoted the last time. I'm leaning towards supporting this well-written history, and just have a couple of minor comments:

• Is the infobox necessary? It's identical (and hence redundant) to the one in the parent KFC article. Besides, most of its info—current leadership, finances, products etc—isn't relevant to this history article.

I've followed the model of the Burger King sequence of pages. I like it because it links all of the KFC-related pages under a common banner, and provides a very brief but quick sketch of the company. But I'd be willing to debate the issue. Farrtj (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

That's so for all groups of articles (for eg: the albums/songs/members of a band), but usually the common banner is the template at the bottom. And I understand that it provides an overview, but it is simply not a relevant overview.

If you still prefer to have an infobox, you should make it summarise this article—history of ownership, various firsts, landmarks in turnover/profits/number of stores etc.—indopug (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm fond of the infobox. Tom (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• The article's content is quite interesting, but it is under-served by the dull section headers. Try to come up with less-formulaic (they're just the owners KFC) and more descriptive titles, that are sort of like teasers for their contents. If necessary reorganise the sections according to themes in that period of history, such as rising sales, international growth etc. (By this I don't mean rewrite anything, just fiddle around with the section headers around to see if there's a more optimal way to organise the article)

I have reworked some of the titles: let me know what you think. Farrtj (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Much better.—indopug (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

More photographs wouldn't hurt. There's plenty to choose from—nuggets, tower burgers, the chicken pot pie, the double down and Crispy Strips. This image too.—indopug (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I have added the boycott photo. Will look into adding more food related photos. Farrtj (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Have added a Double Down photo. Farrtj (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support Excellent article that should've been promoted the last time. It can serve as a model for corporate-history articles.—indopug (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I enjoyed this article. I copyedited it and am just taking one last look before I can support. Good work. --John (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks John. I appreciate your edits. Farrtj (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support --John (talk) 06:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support I agree with the support comment above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: Issues were found with spotchecks on the previous review, and I suggested a thorough check was needed; I am disappointed to see that this appears not to have been done. Examples of further problems:

"brought order and efficiency to a chaotic management structure" is quite close to "bringing order and efficiency to a ramshackle management structure"

Done. Tom (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

"prevent possible bickering among Sanders' family and franchisees by offering a continuity of leadership and a firm central control" is quite close to "avoid possible bickering among Sanders' family and franchisees by offering a continuity of leadership and a firm central control"

Done. Tom (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

"specialized operations proved easier to sell to potential franchisees" is quite close to "specialized operations proved easier to sell to would-be franchisees"

Done. Tom (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

"Criticised as an unhealthy product" is not supported by the given source. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. Tom (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, if you have any further specific complaints I'd be glad to address them. It would just be a shame to see this article fail its FA nomination again just because nobody volunteers to spotcheck the references. Tom (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support as I did in the previous FAC. Article reads well and is very comprehensive. I did not spot check the references, but I trust the review above will address them. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support – (Comments moved to talk) I see no other issues and I'm happy to support the articles promotion to FA. The nominator's perseverance is something to admire. Cassianto^talk 08:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Note I need to see more spotchecks before I can consider promotion. Graham Colm (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Further spotchecks and continued issues

• "sold well but caused "tremendous" operating problems" - I appreciate that you've quoted one word, but actually the whole phrase is identical to the source

Have altered the text to ensure differentiation. Tom (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• "allowing Sanders' restaurant venture to go forward as "Claudia Sanders Dinner House" and continued his role as goodwill ambassador" is quite close to "continued his salary as goodwill ambassador and allowed the new venture to go forward as "Claudia Sanders Dinner House"

Sorted. Tom (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• "PepsiCo switched 1,650 company owned stores to their own soft drinks" - source says 1850

Where did you access the source? I need to check it but I can't remember where I found it (given that I have been working on KFC for two years). Tom (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't find the original Giges source to doublecheck, but the NYT states 1,800 company owned outlets at the time, so I'll go along with that. Tom (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• "It proved to be a costly failure: a $100 million investment in marketing and equipment was undermined by faulty ovens" does not appear to be supported by the given source at all

Have fixed this now. Tom (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

This still needs a thorough reworking, and my oppose still stands. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 15:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC) [5].

---

Larry Doby

Nominator(s): Zepppep, Wizardman 22:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Even those who aren't baseball fans know the story of Jackie Robinson, the saga of the first African-American to play in the major leagues. This article is on the second African-American to play in the major leagues, one who had to endure the same hardships as Robinson, yet has largely been forgotten, unfairly so given that both players were Hall of Famers. Larry Doby's career was one of perseverance and determination, not to mention a good number of home runs.

As for why I'm nomming it, after it became a GA, I did multiple top-to bottom rewrites on it in an attempt to bring it here and get it on the main page one day. I believe now it's as good as it will like ever be, and it now meets all FA criteria. Wizardman 22:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Wizardman. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Reference 1 automatically jumps to around page 50. You should probably remove that. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixed that one, looking through the rest of the article since there may be more instances like that. Wizardman 00:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Image review - All images are used appropriately, and the first two (the baseball cards) are in the public domain per the Library of Congress, as the copyright was not renewed. The last image is a self-created image by User:Silent Wind of Doom, and is appropriately licensed. Check an image review off the list. Go Phightins! 19:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments: Looking good generally. I've read down to the end of "Early life", and it is very readable so far. Just a little prose polish needed here and there. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Lead:

• "He helped the Indians win a franchise-record 111 wins and the AL pennant in 1954 and finished second in the AL Most Valuable Player (MVP) award voting as the season's RBI leader and home run champion for the second time in three seasons. “: “win … wins", “and…and…and"
• "the first black player to integrate the American League" and later “the first African-American players to win a World Series championship": Not a big deal, but is there any particular reason why we use first black, then African-American? Or is it just for variety?
• And on this subject, should something about being a pioneering black player be mentioned in the first paragraph? Otherwise, we wait until the second paragraph to make a fairly major point.

Early life:

• "Doby was born in Camden, South Carolina to David and Etta.": I think it is better if we give their surnames here as well.
• "He died at the age of 37 from a drowning accident in New York state": A drowning accident? We don’t need all of this here: what about “He drowned in an accident in New York state, aged 37"?
• Obvious question: why did he not go with his mother?
• "The first opportunity he had to play organized baseball was while a student at Browning Home-Mather Academy": Perhaps better as “organized baseball came as a student…"?
• "Richard Dubose, known in local African-American circles for his baseball expertise": Locally, or nationally?
• "including how he and play mates": Should play mates be one word?
• "including how he and play mates would use worn down broom handles for bats": I don’t think we really need “would" here; it may be better as “play mates used worn down broom handles".
• "although he would be living full-time with a friend of his mother's and visit his mother once per week": Again, I’m not a huge fan of the “would" construction here.
• "Doby lettered in track and was an all-state athlete in baseball": This is pretty meaningless outside North America, so some links, notes or further explanation may be needed.
• "the team voted in support of Doby to forgo the trip.": Is this better as “the team voted to forgo the trip as a gesture of support for Doby"?
• "He also enjoyed a brief stint with the Harlem Renaissance": Do we know he enjoyed it? If this is just a synonym for “had", perhaps a more neutral word is needed. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

  Lead and early life done so far. Issues fixed sans the question of why he didn't stay with his mom. After double-checking a few of the book sources none of them gave a reason as to why he didn't live with her. My guess is the divorce had something to do with it, or there was pressure for her not to be a single mother, but that's entirely speculation on my part. Wizardman 21:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Negro leagues’’’:

• "A Negro league umpire, Henry Moore, advised Newark Eagles' owners Abe and Effa Manley to give Doby a tryout at Hinchliffe Stadium in Paterson. The tryout was successful, and Doby joined the Eagles in 1942 at the age of 17 for $300.": Can we combine these sentences in some way to avoid repeating “tryout"?
• "Of the games Doby played in, 26 box scores have been found and concluded his batting average was .391.": As written, this states that the box scores worked out his average.
• "Before serving in the Pacific Theater of World War II, Doby would spend time at Navy sites in Ogden, Utah and San Diego, California" and “While in Hawaii, Doby would meet fellow Navy man and future teammate Mickey Vernon": Again, it is better to avoid the “would" construction.
• "For one year he was stationed on Ulithi in the Pacific Ocean in 1945": Redundancy?
• "Doby saw real hope in being a professional baseball player instead of his aspirations to be a teacher and coach.": Something does not quite work here. Instead of his aspirations?
• "He made the All-Star roster and batted .360 (fourth in the NNL), hit five home runs (fifth) and led the NNL in triples (six).": And…and Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Integration of American League’’’:

• For the benefit of anyone who may be unfamiliar with this sorry tale, could we briefly explain why the league was not integrated already?
• "Veeck had already undertaken efforts in hopes of locating a young, talented player from the Negro leagues": Efforts to do what?
• "The reporter suggested Doby, of whom Veeck had seen play at the Great Lakes Naval Training School."
• "Unlike Rickey, who declined to pay for the purchasing rights of Robinson with the Kansas City Monarchs": Lost me here…
• "It would be the only game Doby would start for the remainder of the season. Doby finished the game 1-for-4, recording his first major league hit and RBI in a 5–1 Indians win": Can we explain these numbers?
• "Said noted former player Rogers Hornsby, after watching Doby play one time in 1947:": I think it is better as “Noted former player Rogers Hornsby said, after watching…"
• "Doby roomed alone his rookie year, and in some cities, namely Chicago and St. Louis, was not allowed to stay in the same hotels as his white teammates.": This is almost repeating what the earlier long quote says. Do we need both, or can they be combined?
• I think this section may need a bit more on Jackie Robinson, to give a little more context and for comparison. As your intro here says, Doby was the second black player, but we do not say so in this section, where it would make most sense. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks for the comments so far. I'll try to get to them all in the next couple days, though depending on work I may just sweep through them all over the weekend instead. Wizardman 00:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

  Negro Leagues and integration done. I'll re-read and try to add a bit more that would fit on Robinson. Wizardman 02:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Cleveland Indians:

• This is a very long section. Could it be split up?
• Can we avoid the over-use of the phrase "spring training" in the first paragraph?
• "During his early years when Doby was in the dugout often, Doby also credited Indians coach Bill McKechnie, who remained in the dugout while Boudreau would play shortstop, with helping him adjust to the majors and learning the outfield.": Another "would", but this sentence seems quite mangled. Repetition of "dugout" and the phrasing seems off. And where has the "also" come from?
• Consecutive sentences beginning "During" here, as well.
• "Doby's presence on the team grew in several categories": This doesn't really make sense.
• "His game appearances jumped four-fold from one season ago to 121. He hit .301 on the season with 14 home runs and 66 RBIs, and he raised his batting average nearly 20 points in the last 25 games of the regular season from September 1 to October 4.": And this is quite choppy, and reads like sports journalese.
• "Throughout the regular season Doby was the recipient of racial slurs from opposing teams": Why not "Doby was racially abused..."? That would be tighter.
• "Doby became an important piece of Cleveland's World Series victory against the Boston Braves": More journalese: "piece"?
• "In Game 4 on October 9, Doby became the first black player to hit a home run in World Series history when he hit one off the Braves' Johnny Sain.": Would be better as "In Game 4 on October 9, Doby hit the first home run by a black player in World Series history", and I'm not sure we need the name of the pitcher. If you think we really need it, maybe finish "scored against..." or similar.
• "pitched a complete game in Game 4": Can we avoid "game...Game"?
• "The photo has been called "a signature moment in the integration of Major League Baseball."": By who?
• Could we include that photo? If it's not free, I think it would easily fall under FU as it is directly referenced in the article.
• "Nationally syndicated columnist Grantland Rice argued that without Doby and Gene Bearden, the Indians would have finished in fourth or fifth place.": Perhaps a word about what Bearden did?
• "but were kept out when members in the community revealed a petition.": This sounds odd. Revealed to who?
• "Boudreau fined his center fielder": Took me a while to work out who this was!
• "Upon the conclusion of the season": Wordy. Why not "At the end of the season"?
• "...Cleveland signed him to a new contract resulting in increased pay.": Why not "he signed a new, more lucrative contract"?
• "Following the season, Doby was named": A bit too similar to the previous sentence.
• "Doby's power numbers went down in 1951, hitting 20 home runs and 69 RBIs": Power numbers? And this sentence reads that his numbers hit 20 home runs.
• "Indians general manager Hank Greenberg reduced Doby's salary despite Doby stating he would not accept a pay cut.[48][49] Doby attributed his lower numbers to tightness in his legs.": And now I'm lost. He just had a pay rise, and now a pay cut. Why? And why would he not accept it? And then why did he accept it? And what have his numbers got to do with this? Not clear at all.
• In fact, that whole paragraph is a little choppy and hard to follow.
• "However, despite pre-season conditioning, leg injuries were with him to begin the season's campaign.": More journalese style.
• "Doby stated he was "not even making any plans to go to Tucson for spring training" leading up to the 1953 season,as he had asked Greenberg and Indians management to pay him at his 1951 salary level, $25,000, which was reduced after the 1952 season.": Missing space after 1953 season, and this remark has no context. What did he mean? Did they pay him? We just go straight into stats without following this up.

Down to the end of that section now, but the prose isn't great around here, and the narrative is getting very choppy. It might be worth checking the rest of the article for similar issues as this part is some way short of FA prose-standards. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• In progress on this section; just dropping a line to note I haven't forgotten, just haven't really been on. Should be fully completed on the 4th. Wizardman 00:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

  Finally done here. I'll do another quick run-through of that section as well, since the 1951-53 era or so is rather spotty. I'll look into the image to see if it's PD, hoping it is. If not I might include it; I'm not a fan of adding fair-use images but it is a case where an exception could be made given its importance. Wizardman 17:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Latter years:

• Not a fan of the use of "swept", as it seems jargony, but not a huge issue I suppose.
• "Doby and the White Sox had swept New York": Do we need "had" here?
• "The White Sox had won eight straight": A touch of sports journalese here.
• "In a game on August 20, 1957, against the Washington Senators, Doby helped preserve pitcher Bob Keegan's no-hitter with a backhand catch off a long line drive from Herb Plews, one of "two close calls" for Keegan that game.": Borderline jargon, but I wonder if this actually can be simplified without losing the meaning or making it too cumbersome.
• "Doby was part of a December 3, 1957, multi-player trade between the White Sox and Baltimore Orioles, but was traded before the 1958 season began": trade...traded
• "He appeared in 89 games with the Indians that season and had a .289 batting average, and accumulated 13 home runs and 45 RBIs.": and...and
• "and would be the first black player to play for the Tiger franchise.": why would?
• "for an "over the waiver price" of $20,000": for a what??
• "During the same season, Doby was traded to the White Sox, again acquired by Veeck.": I may be missing something, but I can make no sense of this sentence!
• "Doby fractured an ankle while sliding into third base after hitting a triple during a road game the Padres played against Sacramento, in which Doby was sent to a local hospital in Sacramento before going to Johns Hopkins Hospital for further evaluation.": Can we avoid using "Doby" twice in one sentence?
• "Doby, hobbled by ankle injuries": Not sure this is encyclopaedic.

Down to the end of MLB career now, but I haven't checked the changes made yet. I'm still finding lots of fiddly little issues, but nothing major. Although, to be honest, more than I would expect by the time it reached FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Issues fixed here. If I have time I'll pre-emptively take another look at the final couple sections, since if the later part of his career is any indication I didn't fine-tune it as much as I did earlier on. Wizardman 02:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Managerial:

• "He managed five seasons of winter leagues in Venezuela, including Águilas del Zulia during the 1970–71 winter season.": Not quite sure what this means: what did he manage? Teams? The whole league?
• "When Aspromonte was fired after the 1974 season, the Indians named Frank Robinson the club's player-manager, which stunned Doby.": Why?
• "At age 53, Doby became the second black manager in the majors.": Begs the question as to who was first?
• "Veeck hired player-manager Don Kessinger to succeed Doby": Seems pretty obvious, but can we state why? Also, was he explicitly sacked?
• "Doby's involvement with professional sports was not yet finished, however.": Not sure we need this comment at all. Doesn't add much.
• "In addition to being named all-state in basketball while in high school and receiving a basketball scholarship at Long Island University and later playing in the American Basketball League": As written, and given its place in the article, this looks like it took place after he retired from baseball.

Second man:

• "Eleven weeks after the annual tradition of all MLB players wearing jerseys paying homage to Robinson, Scoop Jackson in 2007 wrote": This does not quite make sense. How can it take place after a tradition? Needs re-wording.
• "Said former teammate Al Rosen": Again, this is better the other way around.

Hall of fame:

• "Although he was the first to play in MLB, Doby was the last member elected to the Hall of the four players to ever play in both a Negro league and MLB World Series: Doby, Satchel Paige, Monte Irvin, and Willie Mays.": May be better written as "the others being Satchel Paige..." etc

Death and legacy:

• "Doby underwent a kidney removal operation after a cancerous tumor was detected in 1997": Wordy. Maybe just "Doby had a kidney removed in 1997 after a cancerous tumour was detected"
• Would the parts around the Indians Hall of Fame be better placed chronologically in the main part of the article?

That's everything for the moment; I'll have a look at the whole article again once these comments and those of Resolute have been addressed. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Rest of issues fixed. Only thing I didn't change was the Indians Hall of Fame note, since it's lumped in with various other honors currently and makes sense to me. I can try placing it elsewhere to see if it fits, though. Wizardman 03:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Source comment - I suppose this is a relatively minor concern, however since Doby is an American, and thus the article is on an American topic, should dates not be expressed in mdy format as opposed to dmy (per WP:STRONGNAT? Not a hill on which I am willing to die, but a consideration nonetheless. Go Phightins! 00:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

  The prose is all in mdy format. Since the refs were all consistent I decided not to change them to that format; if that is an issue I can always swap those. Wizardman 00:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from TonyTheTiger

• You should be using team-season articles correctly in an FA. A sentence like "The two took a train from Newark to Chicago where the Indians were scheduled to play the Chicago White Sox the next day." Should be pointing the reader to the page most likely to have relevant information. The 1947 Chicago White Sox season and 1947 Cleveland Indians season should be linked in a sentence like this. Could you properly incorporate team-season articles throughout.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I see you have been making slow progress, so I have been waiting for a response.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• Also, why did you link to Los Angeles Dodgers#Team_history rather than History of the Brooklyn Dodgers?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

  I'll fix the Dodgers link. As for the season pipelinks, I'll look over the article again and fit them in where they make sense, though I disagree that your sample sentence above fits properly for them, given that they just note the teams without the year's context. Wizardman 23:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

  The "year's context" is provided by the chronology of the presentation. If you have written the article at an FA level, it should be clear to the readers who was playing in the game and in this case, it is clearly the 1947 Chicago White and 1947 Cleveland Indians. I presume that you feel a reader understands this sentence is about a game between the 1947 Chicago White and 1947 Cleveland Indians or do you think this is a mystery/surprise to the reader?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

  Your demands create overlinking issues and WP:EGGs. The team article itself should be linked on first use, and not thereafter. I would leave the final decision up to Wizardman, but I believe we should not be bathing our reader in a sea of low-value blue links. Resolute 13:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

  Team season links are not low value links. They are suppose to be used in prose when they are the subject of the prose. WP:EGGs can be avoided.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

  I am not going to get into an argument here as I do not wish to derail Zepppep and Wizardman's FAC (in fact, I will try to do a full review of my own later today), but I will make note that your personal opinion that such links be used is no more an FAC requirement than it was a GA requirement, despite your attempt to appear authoritative on this point. Resolute 17:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Resolute

I will try to avoid duplicating unresolved comments from above

Lead

• Factual accuracy on Doby being the second black player in MLB. Moses Fleetwood Walker is often credited as the first, before the color barrier was formalized, and Jackie Robinson, obviously. I would suggest rewording to specify that Doby was the second black MLBer after the color barrier was broken.
• This is going to seem ridiculously pedantic, but you note in one sentence that Doby accepted a basketball scholarship, and in the next that he became a second baseman in Newark. A potential reader who is not familiar with either sport will not realize we have switched from basketball back to baseball.
• "He helped the Indians win a franchise-record 111 games and the AL pennant in 1954, finishing second in the AL Most Valuable Player (MVP) award voting as the season's RBI leader and home run champion for the second time in three seasons." - mixed tense. I might reword to "He helped the Indians win a franchise-record 111 games and the AL pennant in 1954, finished second in the AL Most Valuable Player (MVP) award voting and was the AL's RBI leader and home run champion for the second time in three seasons."
  • Also, was Doby both the RBI leader and home run champion twice in three seasons?
• Note what year he retired as a player.
• "Doby later served as the second black manager..." - run-on sentence. Also, the basketball piece doesn't fit well in the middle of the two baseball entries. Since you aren't giving years, mention the two baseball jobs in one sentence, and the basketball directorship in another.

Early life

• "Doby lettered in track and also played, football..." - That comma after played is very awkward and leaves the entire sentence a little off-kilter. As as suggestion for rewording: "Doby was a multi-sport athlete at Patterson's Eastside High school. In addition to baseball and basketball, he was a wide receiver in football and lettered in track."
• "...where he played with shortstop teammate and future Hall of Famer Monte Irvin." - If he played with Irvin, it is already implied they were teammates. "...where he played with future Hall of Fame shortstop Monte Irvin."
• When you first mention/link the Negro National League, you should add (NNL) after to put future uses of the acronym in context.

Negro Leagues

• (Total aside: As a fan of Canadian baseball and Larry Walker, I find that this was also a pseudonym of Doby's to be pretty amazing!)
• "Of the games Doby played in..." - That cannot be said definitively since you later state that not all box scores are available. I would suggest "In the 26 games where box scores have been found, Doby's batting average was .391", or something similar.

Major League Baseball.

• I would pipe Commissioner of Baseball down to just Commissioner.
• It is noted that Veeck asked the AL president for support in getting other players to "rein in their animosity". Do we know if that request was successful?
• "...but hit 29 home runs and 102 RBIs on the year. He also had 96 walks on the year, third in the AL." - overuse of "on the year.
• When you note that the White Sox finished sixth in the AL in team home runs, that is hard to put into context because of how many teams are in the AL today. Perhaps specify they were sixth of eight teams in the AL.
• In the latter years section, you end one paragraph by stating Doby was sold to the White Sox. The next paragraph begins by noting he was traded to the White Sox. Given he was acquired by Veeck again, I take this to mean that he was traded to the Indians?
• "In 1960, Doby, hobbled by ankle injuries, worked out with the White Sox before the 1960 season but did not earn a roster spot." - Don't need the second instance of "1960".
• "In late-April..." - Is that hyphen properly placed?

Managerial

• Why did Frank Robinson's promotion to manager in Cleveland "stun" Doby?
• Spell out "National Basketball Association" on first use.

Many of the prose concerns Sarastro already mentioned (and I may have duplicated some). Will take a second pass once these are all resolved. Cheers! Resolute 01:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Issues fixed. On the animosity quote, i'm not sure if it was successful immediately. It of course lessened over time, but the gradual change wouldn't feel right thrown in there. Also I confirmed the reference said that Doby was stunned, but it went into no further detail so I just removed it. Wizardman 03:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like you've resolved my initial comments. I do want to take a second pass, and will try to do so soon! Resolute 00:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not convinced the prose is quite there yet. I've copy-edited one section here (feel free to revert anything I've messed up) to give some idea of what might be required. I'm a little pressed for time at the moment, and may not be able to do a full copy-edit myself (although I'll see what I can do), but I think the prose still needs a little work. (Incidentally, did he ever play for LIU: the article seems a little vague around this point) Sarastro1 (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll do a run-through this weekend and try to fine-tune the prose a bit further. Wizardman 11:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my time's going to be very limited for at least the next few weeks, and after a skim re-read I want to do some more prose polishing to try and bring it up to FA level. Since that's going to take a while due to a combination of the above, I request that this be withdrawn. Wizardman 00:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 15:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC) [6].

---

Laundry Service

Nominator(s): WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is about Colombian record artist Shakira's fifth studio album and first English-language studio effort. A monumental point in her career and a highly successful album, I have worked on the article for quite a long time. It received an instant pass for good article, and a few users have recommended me to nominate it for FA. I hope the article is worthy enough. I will try to address issues as soon as they are put forward. Thanks! WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from WikiRedactor

• One external link to correct.
• Perhaps "Background" and "recording" could be merged into a "Background and recording" since the latter section is a little short.
• I would recommend that "Music and lyrics" is renamed "Composition".
• I suggest moving "Accolades" in between "Critical reception" and "Commercial performance".
• Can you organize the "Personnel" section into two columns?
• I would replace the couple instances of Nielsen Business Media in the references, since it appears that Prometheus Global Media is the most commonly-listed publisher for Billboard throughout the article.

The Nielsens were added by a bot. They weren't supposed to be there in the first place --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

All of the hard work you've put into the article has certainly paid off! Aside from these minor structural/formatting comments, I have no other issues to raise, and I am very happy to give my support to the nomination! WikiRedactor (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I have addressed the issues. Much appreciated --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: WonderBoy1998. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose:I see you've put a lot of work into the article. I appreciate it. Unfortunately, it's not quite up to FA standards. The writing is not quite brilliant or interesting and far from neutral. All these biased fancruft remarks like "huge success", "huge international success", "performed well", "became hits", "performed moderately". We must only document facts and appropriate critical commentary. I find too many of these throughout the article. Also, beware of awkward wording like "a few critics praised Shakira's vocal talent". Overall, I suggest hooking up with a third-party editor who can fine-tooth comb all the unintentional praises. Good luck and I'll keep watch for improvements.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I have made some changes. However, I must say that I believe the usage of words like "crossover success" and "international success" is sufficiently backed by the charting information. Moreover, the former just doesn't refer to chart success but rather emphasises on the fact that the album enabled Shakira to enter the market successfully, which too is taken from the sources. Thanks for your input --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- As this review has stalled without achieving consensus to promote, I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 15:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC) [7].

---

Far Side Virtual

Nominator(s): Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Far Side Virtual is a strange album. It's experimental and outside the mainstream, but has received (and continues to receive) a glut of critical attention; it's alternately described as inconsequentially goofy or bleakly nihilistic, hinging on people's inability to tell if it's being performed with a straight face or not; and at the end of the day, it's just an album of songs that sound like replicas of circa-2004 MIDI ringtones. I worked on this article a lot last year, digging up a surprising amount about an album that I only had a little interest in. Looking at it again, I feel that the article is as comprehensive as an article about a recent album can be, and that I summarized a broad swath of critical opinions, analyses and interpretations. I think enough time has passed that we have some distance from the release date and I can confidently say that this is ready to be featured. Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I have a few comments:

I can't speak for everyone but I was unfamiliar with the word drone before reading the lead. I'd suggest the full "drone music" instead.

• Reworded

Farraro's announcement of the album quote probably needs an explanation. Even something simple like saying that (if this is accurate) his press releases were part of his performance, or whatever would be the most accurate. But as it stands alone I don't think it works.

• There really is no further explanation out there—sources pretty much published the quotes with a "take this as it is" attitude by letting the absurdity of the words stand for themselves. They were certainly "part of" his performance but not in a way that people chose to comment on. It's noteworthy enough that he made what the reader can clearly figure out is a rather nontraditional press release that resonates with the themes discussed later. My hands are tied in terms of talking about it anyway due to lack of sourcing, but its inclusion is important. It would be OR to extrapolate further, to say that the statement was "deliberately absurd," even though that is plainly the case.

Is there any more information about the albums writing or recording?

• Not really.

I think that overall it needs much more background info other than just saying that it was made on Garage Band. There's a lot of great theory and interpretation but I think you should add much more information (if it is available) on the process and events surrounding its writing and recording. Obviously this isn't an album that was recorded in the traditional sense, and admittedly I don't personally know much about this type of thing. But I think that any other casual reader who is as unfamiliar as I am would also have some difficulty with aspects of the article that may seem overly obvious to people who know a lot about this genre of music.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• I clarified a little with Garageband, but there's not much more to say about the album's writing or recording. Properly speaking it was not "recorded," that is, no sound was recorded with a mic, it was all synthesized within audio software. He probably spent a lot of time moving little MIDI notes around on an audio timeline. Not much more to say there. I don't feel like explaining how to use GarageBand is a task for this article, curious people can click through to that page and figure out what kind of software it is. Certainly, the article makes clear that the software makes generic electronic sounds. He was not working with sophisticated technology. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero

I feel bad that this FAC's gotten so little attention. Mine's been up for far less time and, well, hasn't gotten the kind I'd have liked, but attention nonetheless. Anyway, here I go.

• "electronic album by James Ferraro" - Ambiguous at first glance; electronic music or released in an electronic format? Since I assume it's the former, link to that genre. (Really, though, it's not the best choice of genre, either. I'd side with "experimental music" or "vaporwave".)

• Changed; when I first wrote the article vaporwave did not yet have its own article, which has thankfully happened in the interim.

• "and toward a sharply" - "and" may be unnecessary

• Reworded

• "corporate muzak and obsolete computer sounds" - Minor, but consider switching the text to just "elevator music"; elevator music is a more well-known term that is roughly correct within Wikipedia's terminology for what articles exist and is close enough, but muzak is certainly more precise in terms of what people say about the album.

• changed; I put "elevator music" in quotes to indicate that it is not precisely correct. This mainly

• "Ferraro claimed to have first conceived" - claimed when and in what context - why not "has claimed"? Actually, I'd prefer you just say that that's how he conceived of it, as I don't see any reason to doubt him.

• Reworded

• "that covers much of the same sonic and conceptual territory" - A little redundant/obvious. I'd change this construction to "catalysts of an underground electronic music movement called vaporwave."

• I want to retain this because subsequent vaporwave music tends to be, overall, more sample-based than Far Side Virtual. That would be to say: Far Side Virtual is original music that imitates the style of "muzak," while most vaporwave (especially afte FSV) samples and distorts old muzak tracks.

• "The album was preceded on the label" - awkward

• Reworded

• "Princess Diana" - may want to link to her

• Done

• "few would want to purchase a ringtone album" - Seems contradictory given the preceding expanse of the sentence. A set of ringtones, when contrasted with a full album as this idea is, wouldn't be a "ringtone album", would it?

• You're right, reworded

• "cleanly produced" - possibly not NPOV

• Removed

• "were described as "perversely commonplace,"" - by whom? One reviewer? Ferraro?

• Clarified

• "the Skype log-in sound" - sounds slightly informal; what about something like "the log-in jingle for Skype"?

• I think "log-in sound" would be more formal. Jingle implies a melody, whereas in this case the sound sampled is literally one rising tone.

• "a Windows shut-down melody" - Are there more than one?

• There are new Windows shut-down melodies for each version. 98 differs from XP differs from Vista differs from 7 etc. The specific OS identity of the sample in question is not out there but critics have certainly identified that it is one of the Windows melodies.

• "while retaining—and reappropriating—the form and ethos of noise music" - ...What?

• Reworded and added a source to back it up. Multiple critics have said that the album is "noise" in the sense that it is meant to capture the noise of the outside world, but that it's not the standard distorted industrial noise associated with "noise music" but a new noise that is cleaner and associated with post-industrial chirpy smartphone sounds. To explain any further would be original research but I think what I've written represents the critical sources fairly, and gives a broad overview without delving into technical explanation that would become OR.

• "post-modern" - add a link

• Done

• "Simon Reynolds said that" - Mention that he's an (English) music critic or something. I've never heard of him.

• Done

• "a choice that proved to be polarizing among readers" - Can you elaborate?

• I feel that the following paragraph elaborates in enough detail. The backlash was likely one picked up by the writers via word of mouth and forum posts. To the degree that the backlash would be represented by a reliable source, it is encapsulated by the fact that the controversy was significant enough that the magazine chose to respond at all.

• Are Dummy and Hydra Magazine reliable sources?

• Yes. They're not the very most popular (hence, no Wiki pages about them) but they are indeed reliable about their niche coverage area, which this article falls within.

• Not sure about the infobox genre choices; "ambient" and "experimental" appear nowhere else in the article.

• Removed

Tezero (talk) 05:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• I appreciate the feedback. I myself have been busy with end-of-semester college responsibilities but I hope I've adequately responded to your comments. Please let me know if you have any further comments. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Yeah, to answer your question, it looks better. I can't think of anything else, so I'll be happy to congratulate you on a well-written article about a rather niche topic. Tezero (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- I'm afraid that after remaining open 6 weeks or so this review has stalled without achieving clear consensus to promote, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 09:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC) [8].

---

The Doon School

Nominator(s): Drumpits (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a boarding school in India. Education articles from the South Asian region are largely neglected on Wiki, but this one has been a Good Article for quite some time now. It looks ready to become a Featured Article. Probably, the first one from that geographical region. Drumpits (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggest withdrawal

This nom is among OP's first edits, so it's unlikely the article's main contributors know about it. Sadly, he also seems to have gone on a break due to a family emergency.—indopug (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 09:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 09:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC) [9].

---

Roman Empire

Nominator(s): Historian7 (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe that this article satisfies the requirements to become a featured article. Historian7 (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment Welcome to FAC. Per the FAC instructions, have you talked with the major contributors to the article about whether they're available to help? - Dank (push to talk) 19:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose This article is 126716 characters of readable prose. According to User:The ed17/Good articles by prose size, as of April 19, 2014, it was the 2nd longest of 19,873 good articles. Only 228 of the 19873 (1.147%) GAs were longer than 60KB. Only 8 of 19873 (0.040%) GAs were longer than 100KB. According to User:The ed17/Featured articles by prose size, as of March 15, 2014, only 171 of the 4197 (4.074%) FAs were longer than 60KB. Only 2 of the 4197 (0.048%) FAs were longer than 100KB. This article needs to be pruned back and WP:SPLIT according to WP:SIZE.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived because the FAC instructions have been ignored, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 09:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 14:06, 09 May 2014 (UTC) [10].

---

Economy of Visakhapatnam

Nominator(s): Vin09 (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the economy of a city in the state of Andhra Pradesh Vin09 (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Singora

One word: NO!

I counted ten unsourced paragraphs. Take your time and improve it bit by bit. I'm sure you'll get there in the end. Good luck! Singora (talk) 09:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments There are a few unsourced and uncited claims that need to be addressed, i added one citation though.Abhinav0908 (talk) 11:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose from Hamiltonstone. This is an article about a very important regional Indian economy, has a good start, and deserves work. But the article has far far too many problems to be considered at FAC. For example:

• The lead contains facts not covered in the body text.
• Major facts are unreferenced.
• There is little detail about large economic developments, such as their history, what some of them do.
• There are insufficient high-quality references to cover the facts, but in particular to support stronger analysis of the economy. There is not a single scholarly source of any sort.
• The article does not cover the historical development of the economy, and often lacks information about when key facilities were constructed.
• The references are not adequately laid out to comply with the Manual of Style (MOS).
• Other MOS issues are everywhere, such as taking a consistent approach to the use of acronyms, measurements, and punctuation.
• There is reference, without explanation, to a place called Vizag, and it is in lower case on one occasion, but all uppercase in another.
• One section refers to the IT industry, but towards the end starts using the expression IT/ITeS, which isn't explained, or linked, and I don't know what it means.
• The article states "The employment generated by the IT/ITeS industry of the city too increased to 16,988 jobs from 16,000". Not only is 16,000 actually less than the previous number, but the cited source doesn't have the title claimed in the article, and doesn't support the cited fact.

I have done a quick copyedit to remove some of the worst issues, but this will need many weeks of research and writing to reach FA. Best wishes to the editors in that endeavour. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose due to inadequate research. Vin09, online sources alone are not enough for such an article such as this to meet WP:FA? criteria. I urge you, especially if you are in Vizag/Andhra, to check out your city's public library. You will find any number of scholarly books on the Andhra coastal economy, if not Vizag's economy itself. Then you can write a comprehensive article on the topic, with a proper historical context and everything.—indopug (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- Taking a quick glance at the article myself, I can only agree that a great deal of work would be needed to flesh out and polish this to FA standard, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Pls take on board the comments you've received and, having improved the article accordingly, seek a Peer Review before renominating at FAC. Cehers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:05, 7 May 2014 [11].

---

Slammiversary (2008)

Nominator(s): WillC 00:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is about an event held in June 2008. It is the sixth anniversary show of TNA's. A man died after the event while cleaning up the arena. I have two PPV articles from 2008 already achieve FA status and I'm trying to get all 12 there. This is my 4th attempt at getting a 2008 event to FA. I tried with Sacrifice 08 a couple of times but it never worked out. I'll be trying with it again after this one, but I figured I might as well try with a new one first. Any comments are appreciated.--WillC 00:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'll review another FA nomination in turn for a review on this article.--WillC 09:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Small fixes

• Does "After the event..." in the lead deserve its own paragraph? Not sure why it is lumped together with the 'reception' stuff in the lead.
  • Not really about reception, covers all events after the event. The buyrate, things it is remembered for, the reception, and the death of someone. Someone dieing as a result of the event is pretty important but that line pretty much covers are necessary information.--WillC 14:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
• Also in the lead (and in the article) "Six Woman Tag Team match" and in the article "Special Guest Ringside Enforcer", "Tag Team match" and "Ten Woman TNA Knockouts Makeover Battle Royal" -> remove capital letters?
  • They are match types and special titles. They are important and should be capital since that is how they are promoted. I would understand on tag team match, but it is like that to be uniform with all match titles. Plus it looks neater than 10 woman knockout makeover battle royal, special guest ringside enforcer, etc. These were things the events were promoted on. Nash being Special Guest Ringside Enforcer for this match was used later on in the storylines so it was more than just a random unimportant action.--WillC 14:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
• The predominate storyline -> predominant?
  • Either works, they have nearly the same definition.--WillC 14:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
• Reading the reception section, I thought you could afford to expand it a bit more. Mainly more of Keller's comments on the main event.
  • He didn't have alot to say. I'll look into it again.--WillC 14:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I added another line regarding Keller, all I could do with him. Switched out the Sun stuff with Caldwell of the Torch.--WillC 07:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
• Accident section - "TNA released a statement the next day on behalf of TNA President Dixie Carter." Is mentioning "on behalf of TNA President Dixie Carter" relevant? Also, I think that you would be better off using the quote like in NXT Arrival#Aftermath. "TNA released a statement the next day" -> quote -> "The June 12 episode"... starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • From the source. Said that was the purpose of the release, was on Carter's behalf and not the promotion. That table distracts too much from the purpose of the section. Makes itself the main point.--WillC 14:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately for you and the article, due to the Sun's greedy "pay for reading or read only the first line" policy, that content is no longer verifiable. Click the source if you don't know what I'm talking about. What are you going to do about that? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 01:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Ahh crap, I guess I'll remove it. I left that over from the previous revision when it passed GA. I figured it was still good. I liked the sun additions, made the articles look more professional. I'll wait and see if I can find the release through someone else. I probably can.--WillC 04:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Switched it with an article from the Fight Network.--WillC 07:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
• You explain dark match... the second time it appears in the body, not the first. Should dark match even appear in the lead? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Lead shouldn't have explanations, it distracts from the purpose of a summary. Dark match was on the card of the event. Promoted? Not really but still took place at the show.--WillC 14:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
    • The first time "dark match" appears in the body, not the lead, is in the Storylines section. You explained "dark match" later in the Event section. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Fixed that. Removed dark match and switched it with pre-show in the disclaimer. Too much of an explanation for that area. Kept the explanation in the event with the first mention of the term, besides the lead of course.--WillC 07:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
• Aftermath section - first paragraph first line - remove "still"? Also, first paragraph second line isn't sourced - the source is for the first line.
  • Done, I had the still in there because I mention the concerns in the Storylines section. I was trying to stay consistent.--WillC 07:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
• Event section - Miscellaneous subsection - "Besides employees who appeared in a wrestling role" sounds totally weird to me. How about "Besides those who wrestled a match"?
  • You may be on to something here. However, I'm not sure that explains the whole purpose. I'm trying to include everyone. Even people involved in the matches through interference. There may be a middle ground to be found here though.--WillC 07:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I know you're trying to include everyone, I'm not advocating taking out any names. I just think that the phrasing "Besides employees who appeared in a wrestling role" is wrong. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Done with a tweak.--WillC 09:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
• Event section and Results section - Roode was the next to qualify after bashing a ladder Cage held with a chair and then pinning Cage. and Roode pinned Cage after hitting a ladder Cage held with a chair. - I think that after the "with a chair"s, you should insert "into Cage". It appears that Roode just bashed a ladder. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • You are correct. He actually hit a ladder. He had no direct contact with Cage. In fact, I'm not even sure the ladder ran into Cage.--WillC 07:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I hit up YouTube for highlights, Christian was pressing his face against the ladder like it was Trish Stratus. Roode pinned Cage after hitting a ladder Cage held with a chair into Cage. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Done with a tweak.--WillC 09:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
• Okay lastly, the pictures need improvement. I don't like LAX or Styles' pictures. You could use a better Styles picture, maybe this one. Since there aren't any better LAX pictures, I recommend adding a Petey picture. I think one of this or this will work. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 11:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd change the AJ picture if a good one is presented that appears better than the one currently, but using a Williams picture is a no since his match didn't get any build leading up to and was mostly ignored. LAX overrules there since they were the undercard match and thus should be presented over Williams.--WillC 17:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I also must consider licenses and the Styles picture above does exactly have the greatest copyright info and appears to not even be on commons, thus causing more problems.--WillC 17:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Huh? The Styles pocture is on Commons. It was taken by Tabercil, an admin here (and on Commons) who has a history of taking pro wrestling photos.
    • What do you mean LAX "were the undercard match"? Petey was also in an undercard match, and his match was even longer than LAX's. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
      • I was looking at the wrong Styles picture. My bad. Williams match was added to the card right before the event. Really had no build while the LAX match had nearly 2 months of build and thus was more important. I feel it should be presented since it was a main contest, over the X Title match. I changed the Styles picture though.--WillC 17:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Okay, all should be fine now; just saying I went to crop the LAX and Styles pictures. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Why not just link right to the observer article? It also contains some things missed in the article. --124.178.179.118 (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

What?--WillC 04:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Wrestlinglover. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- I'm sorry but with no activity for over a month this review has stalled, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 07:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:44, 6 May 2014 [12].

---

Walt Disney

Nominator(s): Forbidden User (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

This article is about Walt Disney, a founder of Walt Disney Company, and more than that, the founder of a new era of entertainment. Throughout his life, he has made tremendous contributions to the world by providing refreshing forms of entertainment. That's why the page is made. I believe it meets the featured articles criteria, details as follows:

1. For writing quality,

• It is very fluently and extensively written, polished by lots of editors, having received great peer reviews.
• It is well-researched and comprehensive,detailed covering his whole life with abundant evidence.
• It does not one-sidedly praise Walt Disney for his great achievements, instead it also mentions the fact he is a chain smoker and he had dow:nfalls in career, as well as constructive criticisms towards him. However, it fairly elaborated on the fact, not trying to cover up thses bits of his life.

1. For style guideline,

• It has detailed and clear section-headings, as well as an adequately substantial table of contents which is concise, comparable to other encyclopedias. The main way it categorisis its rich contents is by the timeline of his life, and inside are further divisions by the nature of events, etc. I personaaly find it very convenient, especially when trying to find information about a particular period in his life or specific events.

1. For media, it contains rich images on his life events, which all come from reliable sources without copyright infringement.
2. For length, it is long as it is extensively written, yet it stays on Walt himself, not going off to his enterprise,Walt Disney Company. It has no nonsense in it, and summarising of vast information is well-done.

I hope this article will be featured, for enhancing the quality of Wikipedia as well as honouring this great creator of a world of imaginations.Forbidden User (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose – As far as I can see, you don't even feature on the contributions page. Looking at your user page, you only joined a few days ago, so I should think it highly unlikely that you have fully prepared this for FAC. Cassianto^talk 21:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose/suggest withdrawal; this article isn't even at GA status, and with good reason: there are, for example, numerous unsourced statements, unreliable sources (e.g. Island Net, IMDB), and instances of poor organization. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, even the nomination is spammy Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

so, you guys wanna say that I couldnt nominate a page as FA unless I am a major contributor? And btw, this is nothing spammy, Im serious in this, so do not leave spams calling meaningful words 'spams'Forbidden User (talk) 11:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

That's generally how FAC works, yes; you should've really read the criteria beforehand. If you intend to nominate an article at FAC which you have had no prior interest in, then you could have at least let the major contributors know. Then it would have been up to the delegates to allow it. For all you know, the major contributors may have been intending to bring Disney to FAC themselves. Cassianto^talk 14:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I think I should inform them on the talk page and let them get their preparation or perhaps improvements needed. I think there will be a decision soon. However, please do leave comments for us to improve! Forbidden User (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you open a peer review in that case. Cassianto^talk 17:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. JJ98 (Talk) 21:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

JJ98 please leave some comments on how to improve the page. I fell that it will help not only this article, but wikipedia as a whole!Forbidden User (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Just because I want look as William Hanna and Joseph Barbera as an FA example. I would suggest to add a WP:Good article, but it isn't since there are few ciation needed tags and several paragraphs like "1955–1966: Theme parks and beyond" and "Legacy: 1967–present" are unsorced. JJ98 (Talk) 07:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. We will take this into account. Good luck editing!Forbidden User (talk) 07:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way,Cassianto, advice taken. Thanks a lot!Forbidden User (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:44, 6 May 2014 [13].

---

Miley Cyrus

Nominator(s): Shane Cyrus (talk) 11:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

General comments I probably won't have time to do a full review, but a glance out of curiosity reveals (no pretentions at completeness, I did not read the whole article)

• Especially in the lede, the paragraphs seem long and blocky, and therefore a barrier to reading. This might not make a difference to her fans, but still.
• I see at least one instance of a non-US usage, "hospitalised". Note that there are other problems with that sentence.

Good luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done I added the US usage term to the sentence and corrected it. As for the lede, I divided it to 3 paragraphs. Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose, suggest withdrawal

1. OP is not one of the major contributors to the article. Have they been informed of this FAC?

   Me, not having been a major contributor doesn't excuse the article's great work Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

   As it says at the FAC instructions page, "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination."—indopug (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

   indopug is right. I made that mistake back in 2008 when I, not understanding the difference between GA and FA status, put Pokémon Diamond and Pearl up at FAC, even though I'd barely edited it. Needless to say, I was scolded and the candidacy failed. With that said, I think this article could very well pass. Tezero (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

   Even though, Me regularly editing the article but not being shown in that list, Top 6 editors of the article have already been informed. Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

2. The peer review OP mentions, suggesting that it contributing to "very high standards", was closed in three days without a single response.

   PR isn't necessary to nominate an article for FA, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

3. References 181–191 are bare URLs. References are inconsistently formatted throughout.

    Done Bare urls fixed Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

   Not done Refs continue to be inconsistently formatted.—indopug (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

4. The personal-life section is full of short, stubby paragraphs.

    Done Now combined to form one para Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

5. WP:RECENTISM, as seen from the almost day-to-day journal of her life in the last paragraph of the Bangerz section.

   No recentism found Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

6. Estimates of her wealth through the years do not deserve a section of their own.—indopug (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

    Done Not a section now Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Indopug. Serious concerns over the lack of preparation this article has gone through (and misrepresentation of such by the nominator) as well as the lack of discussion with those who have done the majority of the work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

1. The bare urls you are blaming me to misrepresent were added after the nomination. Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Continue as Indopug hasn't raised any points as how this article shouldn't be featured. It sounds like "I Don't Like It". Even if you do not like the person, you can't stop their article to get featured. As for the concerns raised by Indopug, the valid ones are resolved. Shane Cyrus (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

As for the PR, the nominator can close it any time and it is still valid, see [[14]], the discussion also was inactive, If there are no concerns raised, opposition holds no value. I think the concerns Indopug raised were fantastic and he could be a superb reviewer. Hey Indopug, please become the reviewer. Shane Cyrus (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Leaning towards support: The prose looks fine, and I disagree with the charges of recentism; 2013–now has been the biggest period in Cyrus' career in years in both publicity and activity. I will note, however, that not all of the sources are completely formatted; many of them are missing authors and accessdates. Tezero (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

1. I do think all of them have authors and accesdates, however, Which? do you think do not have authors and accessdates? Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

   Well, for example, the Pink News citation (237) should list Scott Roberts as the author, while Entertainment Wise (242) needs an accessdate. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

    Done fixed. Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment unrelated to my opinion of the article: This isn't the first time Indopug's made complaints without clear guidelines to fix. However, Shane Cyrus, you still ought to represent the article's history and your contributions more accurately. Tezero (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
• OK, Thanks. Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• I think I'll support; it looks like the sources without authors listed genuinely don't have them. I'm not well acquainted with pop music/fashion-related articles, so I can't speak to their reliability, but everything else looks to be in good shape. Tezero (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
• I guess this article is now ready to get reviewed and promoted. Shane Cyrus (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Not exactly. If there's even one lingering oppose, an article probably won't get promoted, whether it's a fair oppose or not. Tezero (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I see the peer review got no input. It would've been better to at least have commentary from a peer review before nominating for FA. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose – Completely agree with Indopug's points and I would also like that it has extremely poor sourcing for a BLP (see footnotes like Justjared), reads like a diary entry, looks like a teenager's slam book and fails WP:FA? in very possible way. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• First, this comment of yours isn't supported by any guideline at all.
•  Done Indopug's points are resolved and justjared has been deleted.
• Doesn't fail FA and doesn't read like a diary. Not sufficient criteria for strong oppose. Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Listen Shane Cyrus, your overall attitude and belittling all the reviewer's comments all through out this nomination is extremely non-cooperative. You might think this article is FA worthy, however it does not pass WP:FA?, neither than brilliant, professional writing, nor has a cohesive prose writing to merit a professional encyclopedia entry. Coupled with your ignorant views, my oppose still strongly stands, whether you like it or not. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Why was the peer review closed in less than two days when it received zero feedback from the other major contributors? I'm getting an impression that article was nominated only for the sake of awarding fan-favourite content, and poorly sourced, I must say.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• As I said to Indopug, PR's aren't necessary for nominations. Please suggest ifany poor sources are found. Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Calm down, everyone! Please list any poor sourcing if you find. Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• For starters, the plethora of tabloids—People, Us Weekly, E!, Access Hollywood, Hollywood Reporter etc.—indopug (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• These sources are used in many already featured articles also. Is there any guideline saying that they are poor sources? Shane Cyrus (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• I would definitely not use People or Us Weekly (in fact, I also stated this in the GAN), E! has medium-level credibility. Hollywood Reporter isn't so bad. Not sure what to say about Access Hollywood. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Removed People and Us Weekly, As for Access Hollywood, appears to be reliable. Shane Cyrus (talk) 06:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Question is there any particular reason this article has both a section on her dating life while the same info is also being stated in the "life and career" section? I recommend one or the other, but not both. Also, Mirror (aka Daily Mirror) is a tabloid that shouldn't be used. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
• From now on, response will only be given to comments supported by guidelines. You can't remove everything in an article. Personal Life is an important section and it shall remain with Life and caareer. Both sections convey different topics. Shane Cyrus (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Withdrawing nomination: This nom is taking over my life. I don't want any haters, I'm no one's enemy. Cyrus has too many haters for her article to ever get featured now. Sorry, if I caused problems to anyone! :( Shane Cyrus (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

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