Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/April 2009

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 2009[edit]

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 Karanacs 15:07, 28 April 2009 [1].

Ron Saggers with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948[edit]

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Part of {{Invincibles Advert}} FT drive... YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ron Saggers with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948/archive1
FAC on other Wicket-keeper in the team YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is there really no other way I can confirm simple statements other than by consulting a string of 20+ citations, as you appear to be requiring me to do on several occasions? Brianboulton (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
short answer, no, because the statisticians don't normally keep a record of that kind of thing in a group. The statistical databases do have input querying things where you can ask it to calculate averages and create a page for you, but only batsmen and bowlers and not wicket-keepers. For whatever reason, their processing/summary pages don't keep track of how many fumbles the wicketkeeper makes in the said player's summary page, so you have to count them individually with match-by-match scorecards. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I agree with Brian on the reference strings. I count eight strings of six or more references, including five of the 20+ variety. Are there really no books or other sources that can cite these facts without making readers look through that many match scorecards? The early part seems quite good, if heavy on cricket jargon. I'll try to come back and read it more closely later, but it may be a few days before I return due to a heavy real-life workload. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you go to link 5 this one, it says that in the Leeds Test, Saggers took 4 catches in the first innings and two in the second. But if you go to the scorecards, he took 2 and 1. Is this a cricketarchive bug ? Tintin 06:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Happens on a lot of them. I always go to the scorecard directly. The Harvey orcale says he took 6 catches in the HEadingley Test. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tech. Review
  • No disambiguation links were found with the dab finder tool.
  • No dead external links were found with the links checker tool.
  • With WP:REFTOOLS: the following ref is used more than once under 2 different ref names, it needs fixing
  • {{cite web | url = http://www.cricketarchive.com/cgi-bin/player_oracle_reveals_results2.cgi?playernumber=830&opponentmatch=exact&playername=John&resulttype=All&matchtype=All&teammatch=exact&startwicket=&homeawaytype=All&opponent=&endwicket=&wicketkeeper=&searchtype=InningsList&endscore=&playermatch=contains&branding=cricketarchive&captain=&endseason=1948&startscore=&team=&startseason=1948 | title = Player Oracle RA Saggers 1948 | publisher = [[CricketArchive]] | accessdate = 2008-12-18}}--Truco 19:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The format for the access dates for refs 37 and 39 should be changed to YYYY-MM-DD to be consistent with the rest of the article.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  20:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is going on with those long strings of citations? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I answered this to Brian above. Unfortunately the summary sheet for wicketkeepers neglects to count the fumbles so I had to get the individual scorecards and count them up. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I wasn't convinced by your answer. "Counting the fumbles" seems unnecessarily detailed, as well as completely mucking up the article's appearance. For "batsmen" articles, would you count the times they play and miss? I'm sure we can appreciate Mr Saggers's performance on the 1948 tour without exact knowledge of his fumbles. Brianboulton (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For batsmen, no scorecard records how often they play and miss. For wicketkeepers, byes are recorded in the scorecard explicitly and they do keep lists of most byes conceded in a Test etc, Dinesh Karthik in late 2007 and Matt Prior in early 2009 were criticised a lot when they broke these records. Also, byes hurts the team on the scoreboard; playing and missing does not. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that byes only count fumbles that result in the loss of a run. If a wicketkeeper drops the ball but it doesn't run away then the batsmen can't take a run and that is equivalent to the play/miss which doesn't cost anything on teh bottom line. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The number of byes conceded is a critical piece of information in an article about an wicket-keeper. As YM mentioned above wicket-keeper are in part judged by the number of byes they concede. The article is better for the inclusion of this information and I would be loathe to see it removed merely because the string of references looks untidy. That said, the long string is untidy and unwieldy for readers and others attempting to ensure the article correctly reflects the references. Is there a method where the string of notes could be consolidated into one note, with many links to the source data? There is no rule, AFAIK, that says each link requires a separate note. Yes, the notes section would look a little less tidy but the article appearance would be improved dramatically. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, you can put more than one source within an individual footnote tag like this:

      <ref><br />
      Smith, Jones, [http://www.smith.com The Smith Report], published by Smith Enterprises on 31 October, 2007. Retrieved 31 October 2007.<br />
      Brown, Thomas, [http://www.jones.com The Jones Report], published by Jones Family Corp on 31 October, 2007. Retrieved 31 October 2007.<br />
      Banks, Steve, [http://www.banks.com The Banks Report], published by Banks and Company on 31 October, 2007. Retrieved 31 October 2007.
      </ref>

      Here is how that might look in this article. The only problem then is in using the individual citations more than once, but a bit of creative thinking should be able to get around this. Steve T • C 08:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But then about 20 cites will need to be listed twice...or the bunch of 34 could be used everywhere and confuse the person who is looking about where the info comes from. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, that's definitely a drawback, but some creative thinking might be able to resolve this; perhaps some elaborate variation on how the {{Harvard citation}} template works? It's definitely worth looking into it if it avoids that long string of cites at no detriment. Steve T • C 13:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)A[reply]
Why not just provide one link to CA page on the series, or Player Oracle link for Saggers' matches, and leave it at that ? The reader will need to click twice to reach the scorecard of the particular match. So what ? (It is probably only very few imbeciles like me who actually visit all these scorecards anyway !) I am more on Brian Boulton's side in the business of byes. The article tries too hard to convince the reader that Saggers was better than Tallon *because* he conceded fewer byes, which is an incorrect assumption. Tintin 04:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support While I would prefer that the reference strings were smaller, that does not seem to me to prevent this being some of Wikipedia's best work. However, there is just a few little points before I can support
  • Australia won by an innings and 451 runs, the largest margin of the season. I know this means winning margin but it doesn't sound quite right to me. Does it need the word "winning" in there or just changed to "largest win".
  • Should innings and 451 runs be linked to result (cricket) to explain the concept of an innings victory? This may require an earlier link for an innings victory.
  • It was a chance to gain a psychological advantage, Should this clause specify whose chance to get an advantage it was, i.e. Australia's and why Tallon gave Australia that advantage. I don't think the sentence makes that clear at present.
  • crease at 7/98 Cricket scoring notation needs explanation or spelling out in the first instance, i.e. 7 wickets for 98 runs (7/98). Perhaps a footnote to explain that the article uses Australian notation despite the series was played in England would be useful.
  • county fixtures needs a link I think, but what too? County Championship perhaps but that is a little misleading.
  • took three more dismissals. Do you "take" a dismissal or do you "make" a dismissal? Make sounds more natural to me, but I am willing to consider the alternative.
  • not required to bat as Australia declared at 5/549 Would spelling it out here i.e. "declared their innings closed at" be clearer for non-cricket readers?
  • Tallon's little left finger Should this be "left little finger"? I'm not sure which way is correct, but the latter sounds more natural to me.
  • During the innings, Saggers was noted for being quiet and unvocal behind the stumps, whereas Tallon was known for loudly appealing in concert with the bowler The way this is written, it is unclear if it was during this innings that Saggers was quiet and unvocal and Tallon was known for loudly appealing (and both played in the innings) or if someone noted this innings that Saggers was quiet in comparison to Tallon normally being loud. If it was someone in particular who noted this, perhaps this should be mentioned. Also, isn't "quiet and unvocal" a tautology?
  • Leveson-Gower's XI Someone will ask, "What's an XI?" A link to 11 (number)#in sports may help.
  • batting between No. 8 and No. 10 A link to batting order (cricket)?

There is nothing too major in all of that and happy to support when addressed. The string of refs may require a technical fix. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done all of these. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support although I would like to see the ref strings fixed if possible. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I'm sorry, but I cannot accept this, as it stands, as an example of Wikipedia's best work. The unsightly reference strings would make any reader blench, but that's not the core of the problem.
Reading through the article again, I am struck by the emphasis given in the text to the comparative rates at which Saggers and Tallon conceded byes during the series, this comparison being the basis of most of the giant reference strings. The impression on the reader is that all byes are conceded due to wicket-keeper error, which is not the case. This is the reason why separate statistics for bye concession are not tabulated – it is impossible to say what proportion of byes are due to wicket-keeper error ("fumbles") as against other causes – erratic or misdirected bowling, unpredictable bounce and deviation from the pitch, poor light etc. So the very precise percentages which you use to compare Saggers's performance with Tallon's are somewhat misleading, and don't justify the repeated multiple references you supply.
Judging the relative values to the side of the two wicket-keepers is a more complex task than simply comparing their bye concession rates. To be fair, you do imply this in the article, but the impression is still given that this comparison is the fairest indicator of relative performance and that the selectors were being somewhat unfair to Saggers (perhaps the same unfairness that prevented him from ever being picked for a Test in Australia?). Is there not, among the dozens of books and accounts of the 1948 tour, a statement to the effect that while Saggers proved, in England, to be generally the tidier of the two wicket-keepers and conceded fewer byes, Tallon's greater athleticism and potential with the bat kept him in the top spot? A reference to a statement like that would, in my view, do away entirely with the need for these intrusive reference strings and would reduce the need for the somewhat repetitive comparisons.

Brianboulton (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose sorry. I agree with Brian and the citation style ruins the flow of the prose so the article does not satisfy Criterion 1a. Graham Colm Talk 14:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 Karanacs 15:07, 28 April 2009 [2].

Metroid II: Return of Samus[edit]

Nominator(s): Gary King (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started working on this a few months ago. I think it's a well-written article, and since I haven't had an FAC in a few months, I'm submitting this. Gary King (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tech. Review
  • Minor Support well-written, and as complete and referenced as a game that old can be. igordebraga ≠ 20:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "Space Pirates are able to obtain and use them"
  • Can you make a mention in the lead of what exactly Samus is (protaganist, playable character, etc.)?
  • "Samus comes across a Metroid egg" "encounters", maybe?
  • "but it was still"
  • "102nd best game"-->102nd-best game
  • "also noting that the music was not up to par with what the series is known for."
  • "planet SR388" Fictional planet, yes? Please clarify.
  • "the total time the player took to complete the game is shown"-->the total time taken to complete the game is shown obviously, the player took the time
  • "Metroid II features the Space Jump, a new suit enhancement that allows Samus to access otherwise unreachable areas. Metroid II sees the return of Samus's Morph Ball, a mode in which she curls up into a ball to travel through small tunnels. " Two consecutive sentences with the same sentence start, diversify.
  • "newly-discovered" No hyphens in -ly adverbs.
  • "she notices the mutations that each creature exhibits; they grow from small jellyfish-like creatures into large, hovering, lizard-like beasts." Ambiguous wording, is it referring to the mutations or the creature? Obviously, I know that you are referring to the creatures, but the sentence is not as clear as it could be.
  • "Samus then proceeds to return "

I'll return for development and reception tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Gary King (talk) 03:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "both which also worked " Missing word I think.
  • "which appear in every Metroid game"-->which have appeared in every Metroid game
  • "Often considered the weakest game in the franchise,[3] Metroid II still received generally favorable reviews, receiving an aggregated score of 80% from Game Rankings. Due to its success, Nintendo included the game in its Player's Choice marketing label." The placement of the second sentence (which discusses its "success") is confusing, coming right after the sentence that says the game was the weakest in the series.
  • "Despite those shortcomings" Comma after here.
  • "Believing that Metroid II would please fans of the original Metroid, Allgame also noticed that the backgrounds were more detailed in this Game Boy iteration."-->Allgame believed that Metroid II would please fans of the original Metroid and noticed that the backgrounds were more detailed in this Game Boy iteration. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Gary King (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My comments have been addressed, but I'd like to hear from other reviewers before supporting. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a and 1c. Not impressed by the prose in the lead, but I didn't go further. The research has been lazily done—it needs vast improvement before examination of the prose is really possible. Start with back issues of EGM and Nintendo Power, both of which are sure to have covered this in detail.
    • "and the only one on the Nintendo Game Boy." Sounds like you mean physically on it. Maybe, "the only one developed for the Nintendo Game Boy."
    • "In Metroid II, the developers added round metal shoulders on Samus's Varia Suit to differentiate it from her Power Suit since both looked similar without color in the Game Boy's limited black and white color palette." Maybe "For Metroid II"; also, "without color" is redundant here. "looked similar in the ... black and white" gets you the same meaning.
    • "Samus reaches the Queen Metroid, and kills it." Smoother without the comma.
    • "follows her to the gunship" suggests a level of familiarity we don't have. What gunship?
    • "Metroid II is often considered the weakest game in the franchise." Statements like this always raise red flags for me and encourage me to check the source. "Often" is a nebulous term, and the way you've worded it suggests the source aggregated several opinions to make this statement. I'm not satisfied they've done this. In fact, the GameTrailers video is rather weak as a source and you've used it to back up some pretty important claims in the article. For example, "While improving Samus's design, the change also made the environments feel cramped." According to whom? The person who produced the GameTrailers video? We need better sources than this.
--Laser brain (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I copyedited your complaints, except for the "weakest game" one - that probably needs to say "Gametrailers considered it the weakest game in the franchise."--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - for the external links, the question is WHY "Metroid II at IGN" - why IGN as oppose to other gaming news sites?
  • other than that, the other interesting thing is WHY do we not choose actually signficant articles for FAC...WhatisFeelings? (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Featured Articles are chosen on the quality of the article not the importance of the subject matter. IGN is a news site for video games, so I don't understand that question. Jay32183 (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • the second one is not a real question. it's just for you to ponder. the first one was missing the 'other' before "gameing news sites."WhatisFeelings? (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well pondering on that question still means you're missing the point of FA. Jay32183 (talk) 05:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, mainly prose and comprehensiveness issues. I'm concerned about how brief the gameplay is. I think that some terms and elements should be clarified right then and there rather than relying on knowledge of video games and/or the series. For example, "in which the player controls the protagonist Samus Aran on the fictional planet SR388". Who is Samus Aran? And the wording implies that she isn't fictional, only the planet is. The reception section is sorely lacking contemporary reviews; I will try and find some info via my print archives and send you what I find. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree with other reviewers that the prose needs another pass, but it's not the major issue, so I won't bog the page down with a list of passages that need tweaking (unless requested). What does concern me is that which David touches on above, but it goes beyond the lack of contemporary reviews to the article as a whole. Not one secondary source is cited from the year of the game's release, which does leave me wondering if the article has been as thoroughly researched as it could be; I find it difficult to believe that complete coverage can be provided retrospectively, especially with regard to its development, marketing and reception. If you tell me that I'm wrong about this, and that there's nothing in magazine articles from 1992 that provides more development information than the retrospective sources, then I'm happy to take your word for that. The recentism in the reception section would remain a concern, however, and should favour 1992 reviews over those from sites such as IGN and 1UP.com; though retrospective sources are good for reporting the critical consensus in 1992. The Game Rankings score in particular has been calculated using only one review from that year (and from only seven reviews overall—too small a sample size from which to calculate an accurate score). It also seems telling that the article contains no information about how well the game did commercially; something that magazines from 1992 are likely to have covered. Steve T • C 08:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 SandyGeorgia 23:51, 26 April 2009 [3].

Don Tallon with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948[edit]

See also: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ron Saggers with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948/archive1
Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Part of {{Invincibles Advert}} FT drive......Tallon was the main wicket-keeper in the team. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


See also: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ron Saggers with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948/archive1
FAC on the other reserve wicket-keeper in the team. The issues raised there about thet cites are the same here, the stats were a comparison of hte performance of the two cricketers. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Request withdrawal: I believe that the issues should be resolved in the Saggers article before consideration is given to this one. Brianboulton (talk) 10:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Withdrawal is another thing, but for now this is up here. So what's the deal with reference 38. It says: Cashman, pp. ??. Mm40 (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I also think it should be withdrawn, per "Users should not add a second FA nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." At the time of the nomination, Ron Saggers with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 had one support—hardly what I'd consider substantial. Having two articles with the same issues on FAC at once is inconvenient for everyone involved. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, its the third nom, there's also Hue chemical attacks. Sasata (talk) 00:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tech. Review

Comment: it means absolutely nothing, but I think this is a little discouraging for an FA. Reywas92Talk 16:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: is there such a thing as too much referencing --Thanks, Hadseys 20:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 SandyGeorgia 23:51, 26 April 2009 [4].

Indiana in the American Civil War[edit]

Nominator(s): King Bedford I Seek his grace 17:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because... the previous attempt died due to lack of inertia. It is ready for another attempt.King Bedford I Seek his grace 17:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Bedford is an active participant in the WikiCup, but I don't think it matters; he might be controversial, but Bedford does know how to write articles. As a matter of preference, it might be wise to use {{harvnb}} instead of bare unlinked references. Sceptre (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tech. Review
  • Oppose. Not neutral or accurate.
    • Despite significant anti-war activity in the state and southern Indiana's ancestral ties to the Southern United States, it did not secede from the Union. Southern Indiana's "ancestral ties" were and are to Kentucky, which didn't secede either.
      • Strongly disagree, Indiana's earliest settlers were dominantly Virginians - the same as Kentucky's earliest settlers. (George Rogers Clark, William Henry Harrison, etc) Southern Indiana continued to have strong southern ties, and even if the ties were to Kentucky, Kentucky was a southern slave holding state - so how is the statement inaccurate? There were stong family ties to the southern states among southern Indiana's population, and there was significant copperhead activity there, but the state did not succeed. Charles Edward (Talk) 12:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • In a sense: Indiana's earliest settlement was while Kentucky was part of Virginia. So? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, that is true - which makes the statement in the article true. (Virginia = southern, Kentucky = southern) Both Kentucky and Indiana were owned originally and settled originally by Virginians (southerners). Almsot all of the signers of Indiana's constitution where from born in Virginia. I don't understand where the problem is? I pulled the source listed in the article and it says, "The territory's (Indiana) early stock was of Virginian origin and supportive of the institution (slavery), and Harrison (William Henry) was able to quickly gain their support in the passage of the indenturing act." There are other sources which make similar claims.Charles Edward (Talk) 12:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because Morton did not allow the General Assembly to meet, no budget or tax provisions were passed. This rapidly led to a crisis as Indiana ran out of money to conduct business, and the state was on the edge of bankruptcy. Going beyond his constitutional powers, Morton solicited millions of dollars in private loans. His move to subvert the legislature was successful, and Morton was able privately to fund the state government and the war effort in Indiana. The facts appear to be that the Republican Assemblymen forced adjournment, and Morton did not call the legislature back into session. This is dramaturgy, not history.
    • That is a very good summary of the source. The republican's left the legislature to deny qourum in the second month of the session when the legislature attempted to take command of the militia from governor and give it to a board of commissioners. The Republicans left at the urging of Morton, and he then some of the democrats arrested and detained. The session still had four monthes to continue, which it did not. Legally Morton had the responsibility to round up the republicans and drag them back to the capital - which he did not. This was a major political and governmental development. Can you please provide a source for your claims? There are sources for what is already there. In addition it did lead to a fiscal crisis as the state verged on bankruptcy more than once. Morton had no authority to take loans and did so knowing full well he might be taken up on charges after the war. Charles Edward (Talk) 12:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doubtless. The willing use of almost entirely pro-Confederate sources is what makes this less than FA; for the account I give, see "Oliver Morton" in American National Biography. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]
        • I beg to differ. Foote is the only source there could be construed as pro-confederate, but that is not right. To my knowledge every other source used is from a northern author. Could you please provide an example of which reference you beleive is pro-confederate? Or a specific statement that is unfairly biased towards the confederacy? Charles Edward (Talk)
  • In terms of the war dead, more Hoosiers died in the Civil War than in any other conflict. What, if anything, is this supposed to mean? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It means exactly what is said, more people from Indiana died during the Civil War than in any conflict since it or before it. Charles Edward (Talk) 12:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indiana's southern ties were to Virginia and, to a lesser extant, NC and Tennessee as well, all three seceded. Also, KY's seceding is an arguable point, given their rump government. The second point is not dramatic. As for your third point, it is a convenient matter of reference, to put IN in the ACW in comparison with its role in other conflicts.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 05:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I stand by my oppose. When these, and such claims of meaningless state pride as By the end of the war, 46 general officers in the Union army had resided in Indiana at some point in their lives, are cleaned up, do let me know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the references, such as PBS, etc.
  • What makes http://civilwarindiana.com/biographies/index.html a reliable source?
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article has several POV issues. The mention that Indiana did not secede despite “ancestral ties to the Southern United States” suggests that the Civil War was somehow mainly about kinship ties. In fact, the main reason Indiana developed differently than the folks in Virginia was that early on, despite the efforts of folks like Harrison, the state rejected slavery. There is no need to say anything in the lede about the state's heritage other than that it fought for the Union -- emphasize what it did rather than what it didn't do.
Nowhere is there a mention of the 1860 presidential results -- Lincoln carried the state with 51% followed by Douglas with 42%. Breckinridge only received 4.5% of the vote. These results certainly don’t suggest any groundswell for secession. There certainly should be a “Background” section that describes the situation before the war. If there actually WAS a significant secessionist faction, then describe it. If there wasn't, then cut out the insinuations that there might have been.
The lede claims, “The state experienced political strife when Governor Oliver P. Morton suppressed the Democratic Party ...”. Actually Morton was reacting to circumstances created by the views of the Democratic Party. Rather than casting blame, the lede should say that there was strife and then describe the opposing positions.
The lede says the Democratic Party as “largely sympathized with the Confederacy” (which suggests that they were pro-secession) yet the body of the article states “The Democratic position was clarified at a state convention in the summer of 1862. The convention was chaired by Thomas Hendricks, and convention members stated that they supported the integrity of the Union and the war effort but opposed the abolition of slavery.” Big difference.
The article says, “While not particularly numerous, some Hoosiers chose to fight for the South.” I suppose that is fine, but then the article goes on to specifically name four ENLISTED MEN who fought for the CSA. Why exactly are the names of folks from this tiny minority relevant to the article? Where are the names and mention of Union generals and there contributions which should be a major focus of the article?
The only statement on the reaction of the state to the Union victory was, “The Indianapolis Journal called the subsequent celebrations within the city ‘demented.’” How balanced is that? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. I think the article could benefit from some more research and added information to better bring out the central themes of the subject. Charles Edward (Talk) 20:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I think Tom was overly negative, the presidential election results should have been in before, and I have added them.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 21:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: rgerading the four enlisted men of Tom's, one was a former US Army OFFICER. I removed the two brother-in-laws, and felt that the enlisted man who later helped Morgan invade Indiana was worthy enough of mention to keep in.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 21:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 SandyGeorgia 23:51, 26 April 2009 [5].

1941 Florida hurricane[edit]

Nominator(s): –Juliancolton | Talk 19:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's not really much to say. I've searched around for more info, and after coming up dry, I'm confident that the article is comprehensive. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tech. Review
  • Link checker tool times out for me; could you please be a bit more specific? –Juliancolton | Talk 20:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the notes (NOAA came to my notice..)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Why does the article deserve to be featured and considered one of Wikipedia's best articles? The research appears scant for such a historical storm, namely that it extensively relies on material from more than 60 years ago. If you could, I'd prefer if your response doesn't mention the FA criteria, and simply why it should be considered one of the best articles on the site. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I'd prefer if your response doesn't mention the FA criteria"? Ideally, a discussion on whether to promote an article to FA should involve the FA criterion. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you can't give you reasons why you think it should be one of Wikipedia's best articles, without copying and pasting the FAC criteria? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you have objections, let me know which of the criterion this articles fails. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you can't say why you think it should be featured? That's fine. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it should be featured because I believe it meets WP:WIAFA. There's nothing else to it, I'm afraid. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some links to consider - 1, 2 (an interesting take), 3 (p. 152), 4 (if you can track this down, it will be useful in all of your pages), 5 (p. 142 "For example, a storm that entered the west coast of Florida in October 1941 was never of hurricane intensity; nevertheless"), 6 (says the same as number 5 on p. 512), 7 (p. 9 "Such an explanation cannot be used for the October, 1941 hurricane while it was

in the subtropical regions of the Bahama Islands and Florida because..."), 8, 9 (p. 76). There are possibly one or two sentences that can be drawn from each. This should quell any research concerns when added. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The two pages have nothing to do with each other, so there is no grounds for such a suspension. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Ottava is correct. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the moment, mainly prose, 1a. Specifically:-
    • "The warnings were attributed to extensive preparations..." Surely, the other way round?
    • "Trees and powerlines knocked down, resulting in extensive power outages." Not a sentence
    • "No casualties occurred in the city, although a schooner, the Goodwill II, sank during the storm." Sank in the city? These distinct statements should be separated
    • "Some hospitals were left without power, forcing six babies to be delivered by candle light." Wrong order of words: "forcing delivery of six babies.." etc. And "candlelight" is one words
    • Also, not a prose problem as such, but the following sentence doesn't seem related to the subject: "When the United States entered World War II, new vehicles become unavailable, forcing residents to resort to horse-drawn carriages for transportation." This might be OK as a footnote but seems out of place in the text.
    • There are also numerous nbsp violations.
  • Good points; all fixed, though you might want to make sure I've addressed the non-breaking spaces correctly. Thanks for the review. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I've checked the nbsps and they seem OK. Note 12 needs a citation if you're keeping it in. Brianboulton (talk) 00:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • In the Preparations section, refs 3 and 1 need to be ordered
  • Same as abovewith refs 13 and 1 in the last paragraph of United States Mm40 (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 SandyGeorgia 23:51, 26 April 2009 [6].

U.S. Route 41 in Michigan[edit]

Nominator(s): Imzadi1979 (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets the criteria. The article has recently been through a peer review which checked its sources, copy edited the article and even added some additional content to the article. Comments are welcome. Imzadi1979 (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • Comments - I have some concerns with this article before I will support it for FA:
  1. In the south end section of infobox, what state line are you referring to?
  2. The article begins with "U.S. Highway 41". Usually, articles on U.S. routes would begin such as "U.S. Route 41". Is it this way because Michigan uses the term "highway" rather than "route"?
  3. "serves as a major conduit"? Sounds a little awkward
  4. In the lead, it may help to indicate which Civil War general the highway is named for
  5. "It replaced the M-15 designation of the day" sounds a little awkward. Is there a better way to phrase this?
  6. "except for sections that are concurrent with US 2 near Escanaba or M-28 near Marquette.": Add "the" after "for" and change "or" to "and"
  7. References should be at the end of the sentence and not in the middle
  8. Is it nessecary to indicate the street grid for Escanaba in the article?
  9. When using verbs with subjects such as "US 2/US 41" and "US 41/M-28", they need to agree with the plural subject. For example, use "join" instead of "joins"
  10. When there begins a sentence, follow it with a comma
  11. "running through the western edge", use "part" instead of "edge"
  12. When referring to the "western junction of M-28", you are referring to the end of the concurrency. You may want to make this more clear
  13. "Sheldon Ave for northbound"? add "traffic" to clarify
  14. Avoid using short, choppy sentences in route description
  15. Is the wikilink to M-15 (Michigan highway) nessecary as it links to an unrelated route?
  16. You use "decommissioned" in the history section. This word has been determined a neologism in the past, even though I am okay with the word. If possible, another word could suffice here.
  17. "the City" sounds colliqual
  18. In sentence "The Portage Lake Lift Bridge connects the cities of Hancock and Houghton, by crossing over the Portage Waterway, an arm of Portage Lake that cuts across the Keweenaw Peninsula", comma is not nessecary after "Houghton"
  19. The "other historic bridges" section seems to jump around a little bit and should provide the information in a more consistient tone
  20. Warren truss redirects to a page about an Australian politician. It should link to truss bridge
  21. The Business loops section sounds awkward and short. Rephrase and perhaps add more information
  22. In the sentence "The roadway followed US 41's predecessor, M-15 and included numerous road signs bearing Sheridan's silhouette mounted on his horse Rienzi." a comma should be included after "M-15"
  23. "congressman" and "senator" should be capitalized
  24. Are the missing mileposts in the Major intersections table known?
  25. Is it nessecary to constantly indicate termini in the notes as it can be inferred from the directional banner of the road
  26. When indicating a street name in the Major intersections table, put the street name as "name1" in Template:Jct rather than the street parameter in the MIint template as it is more standard in articles
  27. "Cul-de-sac past Fort Wilkins State Park" would look better under "Roads" rather than "Notes"
  28. For Reference 2, it may help to indicate image is on Wikipedia
  29. Is it possible to combine the Google Maps references to show driving directions of the whole route?
  30. References 16 and 17 are of images uploaded to Commons. Is that appropriate for a FA?
  31. Reference 43 appears to be a personal website and may not be a reliable source
  32. Reference 44 and 51 are the same source and should be merged
  33. Dates should not be linked Dough4872 (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replies to Dough4872:
  1. Done.
  2. Michigan vernacular is "US Highway" not "US Route".
  3. Suggestion for phrasing?
    1. "serves as a major road" or something, the term conduit just does not seem right when referring to the route Dough4872 (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A good lead should summarize the article, not replace it. Maybe it's better sometimes to tease a little in the lead to entice a reader to continue through the article.
  5. If you have a suggestion for a better phrase, suggest it. I don't.
    1. "It replaced the original M-15 designation of the road" sounds better" Dough4872 (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Done.
  7. References are acceptable in the middle of a compound/complex sentence when the first half is sourced to one specific source and the second half is sourced to a different specific source. In that case, the two maps have two different sets of information listed in that sentence.
  8. Reworked a bit.
  9. It's a compound name for a single highway. Changing it to the usage you suggest raises a problem though. When substituting for the name in subsequent sentences, the substitute wording is better as "the highway" or the "trunkline" since it's a single road.
  10. Commas added.
  11. Both are correct. My preference is to indicate that the highway is running close to the border, not just in the western part of the forest.
  12. Rephrased slightly.
  13. The word traffic is already in the sentence. Using the same word twice sounds redundant to me.
  14. Two sentences combined. Feel free to copy edit any others as you wish.
  15. Why not build the web by including the link? (P.S. the M-15 article should mention in its history section the connection to US 41)
  16. As as been discussed before in various forums, there is nothing wrong with the word, and I stand by my choice.
  17. What would you suggest as shorter reference for the municipal government known as the City of Marquette?
    1. It may be better to just say it out the longer way. Dough4872 (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Errant comma removed.
  19. Feel free to copy edit that section at your leisure. I don't think it jumps around at all.
    1. I must have overlooked this, but the "Other historic bridges" section appears to describe only four bridges rather than five. Dough4872 (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Link corrected. Thank you for pointing it out.
  21. Considering I could have made just a bulleted list of links, what would you like to see added from the two existing articles? There is no article researched nor written for the third business loop.
    1. Just add complete information about the routes' histories. Dough4872 (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. That's where that errant comma really belonged ;-)
  23. Titles are only properly capitalized before names, not elsewhere in a sentence.
  24. The missing mileposts are not known without using a GIS program. I don't have the knowledge nor software to extract those measurements. Only the given junctions and intermediate county lines have mileage information in the Control Section Atlas.
    1. Could you possibly find someone who has the capabilities of using a GIS program. I unfortunately do not have the knowledge either. Dough4872 (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      1. For the record, you can get these to .1 mile with Google maps if you're cleaver. If I had to do it on U.S. Route 50 in Nevada so do you =-) Dave (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        1. But the source used currently is to the thousandth. Using GIS would get at least to the hundredth, Google is the least precise option. Which is valued more, precision or completion? Plus, Google may give a completely different total length due to inaccuracies. In that case, MDOT's figured are a better source. Imzadi1979 (talk) 08:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Not all termini have directions (BUS M-28 is not directionally signed ever for instance) nor all directionally signed junctions termini.
  26. Changed. Please note that those two junctions aren't coded by {{jct}}.
  27. Changed around.
  28. What difference does the host make in this instance?
  29. The individual Google Maps when clicked zero in on the information being cited. Otherwise, a reader would have to search almost 280 miles of highway for a few specific facts.
  30. Photos are allowable as sources. What difference does it make if they are uploaded to the Commons or Flickr. The URL and link are conveniences to the reader.
  31. The reference as used is to a photo supporting the ribbon-cutting ceremony (as shown at the link) and the date. Photos are generally considered reliable sources.
  32. Ref tags merged.
  33. Date linking is still allowed, not forbidden. In this case, it is only an artifact of the previous template usage that linked accessdate= and parameters. It has been fixed.
Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied back to some of your above replies that still need to be resolved. Dough4872 (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed them with the exception of "conduit" and the GIS issue. Conduit is a valid word choice in this instance, and the GIS issue is outside of my control. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since my major concerns are resolved, I will Support the article. However, I would eventually like to see the missing mileposts added somehow. Dough4872 (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - just a few changes needed - Hey, it meets the criteria, just want to change a few things:
  1. Section 7 - Works Cited - could use a renaming to something else.
  2. Is M-553 in Marquette a really major junction? It really isn't that major.
  3. Link Canyon Falls Bridge, if it gets info later, may be good to have.
  4. Unsure, should the really US 41 memorial designations be bolded?
  5. Link Memorial Day.
  6. If you could, just get some more images either by hand or from Flickr or something to add to the bottom 2 sections.

That's all I see. Good inline sourcing :) - I can't tell you why I'm a nitpick.Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 17:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on one historical photo from 1933 that's hosted on Flickr that shows highway construction. I'm hoping it a) will be relicensed or b) confirmed as a WPA work and in the public domain. Yes, M-553 is a major junction. If it were dropped, it would be the only state trunkline junction along the highway removed from the table. None of the memorial designations have redirects here, so they shouldn't be bolded. The links are added. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Current ref 17 (nolte...) needs a last access date.
  • Are the two pictures (refs 16 and 17) really reliable sources?
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (Btw, I love this road, spent many an hour driving it on family vacations..) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The two photos are only establishing the existence of the signs shown in the respective photos, which are unique. I have no reason to believe a photo isn't reliable. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport - My concerns are resolved Dave (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO this statement is a little rough "These changes also created at least two business loops off the main highway, one of which still exists, another is signed with a different designation." , maybe?
  • I would like to see more information about the Interstate bridge (i.e. year built, length, how was the river crossed before these bridges were built, etc?) As lift bridges are pretty rare, especially for those of use in the desert =-), this is the kind of thing that can add some interest.
  • Having the section about the Portage lift bridge is nice, but this section is similarly missing some basics, year built, etc.
    • I've added the construction date to the section. The Interstate Bridge though isn't a lift bridge, it's a plain concrete bridge many miles away from the lift bridge. I've added some info about it though.
  • The word concurrent is used in the route description at least once before it is linked.

The very first mention is wikilinked, but I think you found a second one linked later. The extra linking has been removed.

  • "historic sawmill town of Alberta" WP:Peacock term, don't say historic, explain why it's historic.
    • Added in the Henry Ford connection.

Dave (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by karanacs. I actually think this article is pretty well-written, but I am unhappy with the level of sourcing. The majority of the article is sourced to maps, to the MI DOT, or to self-published websites and press releases. In some cases, I don't think these sources support the wording that is used. Details below:

  • Is it really important that we know in this article that M-35 is the shortest state trunkline highway between Menominee and Escanaba? This seems like extraneous information.
  • Any expanation for why the highway doesn't follow "the most direct path between two locations"? Did they have to get permission for that?
  • I think you need a citation for this that is not a map
    • Under American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines, US Highways are to follow the most direct path between two locations
    • The 1926 creation of the U.S. Highway System led to the redesignation of M-15 as US 41. - the map proves that in 1926 this was redesignated; can it prove that this happened in 1926 as part of the US Highway System creation?
    • The northern terminus of US 41 was extended easterly from Copper Harbor to Fort Wilkins State Park in 1930 -- the map shows the extension in 1930; does that really prove that this was extended in 1930? Maybe they extended it before that and it just took a while to show up on the new maps.
    • The rest of the mainline history section has the same problems as above - we are assuming that a map published in 1930, etc means that the road actually changed in that year, instead of that the map changed in that year. I don't think that is a valid assumption to make.
  • The 34,700 number for 2006 AADT doesn't appear to supported by its source
  • Is this really supported by the current map that is used as a source? The two cities host BUS M-28, which was once designated as BUS US 41 as well
  • Need a page number for sentences sourced to Hunt's Guide to Michigan's Upper Peninsula
  • I don't think is really appropriate: A mileage sign in Copper Harbor gives the distance down US 41 to Miami, Florida as 1,990 miles (3,203 km), sourced to a picture of the sign. This information doesn't seem to be that vital to the article, and if it is, find a better source.
  • I also don't think that it is appropriate to source this Past the park entrance, US 41 ends at a cul-de-sac, marked by a large wooden sign to a picture of a sign. This picture is on wikipedia - anyone can change it if they choose.
  • Surely there is a newspaper reference or something that can show that this was the first scenic heritage route so that we don't have to source this to a governmental website that is essentially not an independent source?
  • Can we replace the press releases with newspaper articles? When at all possible, avoid self-published sources.
  • What makes http://dlund.20m.com/dick6.html a reliable source?
  • Do we really care about the colors of the lift bridge? That seems trivial.
  • I don't like that the lift bridge info is cited to a self-published city website. I've seen too many city websites for history that are just, well, wrong.
  • Is there a source for Today, drivers cannot use the Peshekee River Bridge south of US 41/M-28 in western Marquette County's Michigamme Township?
  • This is a self-published source and should be avoided: http://www.lindberginc.com/projects.htm

Karanacs (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Replies:[reply]

  • M-35 vs. US 41 info pulled.
  • As for the argument that the highway wasn't changed when the maps show the change, the article has been tweaked and fully complies with the proposed guideline on maps formulated in response to a debate at WT:RS.
  • The AADT info has since been updated. The previous link went to the newly released 2007 data. Rather than update the number, I updated to the archived, static link for 2006 (which is only slightly different than the 2007 data.)
  • The BUS M-28 sentence received its own referencing, even though it's foreshadowing information cited in a subsequent section.
  • Hunt's Guide is published both online and in book format. I'm referencing directly to the online edition, so it doesn't have page numbers.
  • I think it's absurd not to source to a photo of the sign being discussed. Photography is specifically listed as an exception to WP:OR and the sign is rather unique. I did pull the reference to the sign out of the lead, but I feel it should stay in the body of the article.
  • Ditto on the photo of the terminus. As both photos are directly shown in the article, any replacement of the photograph/source will be readily apparent, and easily revertible.
  • There are only two press releases in use. They are published by the agency that administers the roadway in question. To argue that they are SPSs would mean that Department of Energy articles would not be allowable in articles on nuclear power plants.
  • The Lund source is no longer in use since the article no longer states when the replacement bridge opened. The colors of the lift bridge are pulled.
  • The fact that other city websites may be wrong doesn't prove that Hancock's website is. If you can find a better source, let me know.
  • The National Register of Historic Places listing states that the bridge is "Vacant/Not in use". I've cited that sentence to that source, as well as the replacement. The Lindberg Construction source was pulled along with the replacement date.

Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making improvements so quickly. I've struck many of my comments, but I am still unhappy about the number of self-published sources that are being used. The article has very few independent sources and would be better served by removing press releases and self-published websites and replacing them with news or book sources. As for the city website, you have no way of knowing who wrote that information or how accurate it is, and it is an inappropriate source for any history information. Karanacs (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note regarding karanacs review: I proposed guidelines for using maps as sources, resulting from what I perceived as a common misuse of maps as sources. However, there was little interest and the push went nowhere. I agree this was a miss when I reviewed this article. I have gone over the article with Imzadi, and believe the article is now in compliance with these proposed guidelines. If you have more sway than me and can get these guidelines discussed again, I would be grateful for the effort.Dave (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the guideline - it is written pretty clearly and makes sense. I'm not an expert on getting guidelines passes, though, and don't really know the steps to go about doing that. Karanacs (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm a little confused, did I understand correctly that you're of the opinion that a Michigan Department of Transportation press release or map is a self-published source? MDOT is the governing agency officially charged with such matters. IMO that's like saying the FBI is not acceptable for sourcing an article on crime statistics, or the Department of Energy is not acceptable for a source on Nuclear power, or 20th Century Fox is not acceptable to use for an article on the Simpsons. Or did I misunderstand?Dave (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with the maps, as the MI DOT would be the most authoritative source for that information. I do have an issue with using press releases when newspaper articles are almost certainly available. Those articles would be independent sources and may very well contain information that is not included in the press release (for example, local impact and potential problems with the intended action). It is always much better to avoid press releases and use independent sources instead. Karanacs (talk)
I've placed e-mail requests with the Marinette Eagle-Herald and Peter White Public Library in Marquette for clippings from the former and the Marquette Mining Journal. Neither newspaper archives back very far online. Archive.org breaks on the MJ's website in that time frame and doesn't have the EH site at all. That's all I can do at the moment concerning the press release-referenced information. I re-edited the Lift Bridge section to eliminate the City of Hancock's website as a source, using Hunt's Guide for one piece of info. As an aside, the author of the City's article on the bridge's history was written by the city's photographer and keeper of the photo archive used to illustrate the article. Does that affect the accuracy of the article originally used in your opinion? Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it was written by a published historian (of books/journal articles from this area and this time period), I'd accept the city website. I don't think a photographer would be counted as an expert in the field (history of this area), which is the usual guidance for accepting a self-published source. Karanacs (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well at any rate, the source has been replaced. So I guess I wait until the paper and library return my e-mail. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 SandyGeorgia 23:51, 26 April 2009 [7].

Polish culture during World War II[edit]

Nominator(s): Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the upcoming anniversary of WWII, here's what I hope is a comprehensive overview of an important but often overlook part of the home front of WWII: Poland. The article has just been promoted to MILHIST A-class (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Polish culture during World War II). It was an unsuccesfull FA-class candidate a year ago (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Polish culture during World War II/Archive 1).

Since this is a renomination, I have prepared "a reply to common criticisms about comprehensiveness I've encountered in the past". I would strongly suggest you read the article before you read that reply, and read it only if you think that the article is not comprehensive or biased (as those were the points I am addressing). Those replies are available here. Again, you don't have to read them (they are a bit on the long side anyway) unless you want to vote oppose on the grounds of comprehensively or bias; accordingly, please read them before you do so. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments -
  • Current ref 3 ([Niall Ferguson, The War of the World, The Penguin Press, New York 2006, page 423]) seems to have some brackets around it and shouldn't the title be in italics? Needs page numbers too. This pops up elsewhere in the refs
  • Sources that are in languages other than English need to have that language noted in the reference
We usually do so for FAs. I won't oppose on this, obviously (it's way too nitpicky) but it's been the case that we do this. (Easy for me to say, since my only languages are very rusty classical and medieval Latin...) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added them to the reference section and to inline refs where needed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 5 (Madajczyk..) has two numbered links in the ref. Need them titled.
Done (one titled and the link to amazon removed). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current refs 73 (Ryszard Czekajowski) and 75 (Christine S Parker) lack last access dates
  • Can we standardize the references on either last name first or first name first and get them alphabetized?
LOL... well, it won't be me. I'm behind on FAC from being at the library all day.. research is such fun! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've done so for the references section. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tech. Review
  • WP:MOS#Ellipses are spaced. Lots of image juggling is needed. Faces should be facing the text, not off the page; images should be in sections, not above them, images should be alternated right and left where possible, and no left-aligned images under third-level headings. See WP:ACCESS and WP:MOS#Images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am afraid I don't know what do you mean by "ellipses are spaced"? Images were juggled by several editors during preparation for A-class article and now, and I am afraid I personally don't see much difference (images were for example more alternated right and left, then somebody aligned them to the right as a condition for milhist A-class...). I have no problems with others moving the images, but I have personally given up on this, as whatever I do seems to be reverted sooner or later - and everyone and his dog cites MoS or some other image policy to justify their changes :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ellipses should have a space on each side. I made that change, presuming the ellipses don't appear in the original text and are your own to indicate elided material.
  • Can't help you on the images. They don't need to be alternated right and left where possible, as I understand it: it is up to editors to decide whether to right-align or to alternate. I guess if you decide that images of right-facing people need to be left-aligned, then you have to alternate? Or something... 86.44.25.125 (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not ready. This shouldn't have been rushed here immediately after passing A-class review. A thorough proof-read would have caught a lot of the problems I ran into just in the initial paras. I'm not going to read further, because, with all due respect to your hard work, this doesn't appear to have been adequately prepared for FAC. Please get someone to comb through it looking for prose issues and outright errors.
    • "Special Polish Underground State departments worked to salvage whatever cultural institutions and artifacts could be saved." "to salvage ... could be saved" seems redundant. Maybe, "to salvage whatever cultural institutions and artifacts they could" or "to salvage as many cultural institutions and artifacts as possible"
    • "in the face of draconian punitive measures" Were they only punitive? From reading so far, many of them sound preventative.
    • Hmm. Interesting point, but debatable. What were the Nazi measures intended to prevent? Many were certainly aimed at punishing individuals who tried to promote the cause of Polish culture. Perhaps the measures were both preventative and punitative... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "After World War II, this wartime period" Do we really need to specify "wartime"?
    • "many German officials and military officers had no clear guidelines how to treat" Word missing after guidelines?
    • "annexed to the German state" Annexed by, I think.
    • "as little possibilities as possible" Ew.
    • "periodically shown movies showing"
    • You have "theaters" and "theatres" in the same para.
    • Certainly, "Polish-language newspaper"
    • Huh? There were books published during the Nazi occupation if that's what you mean. Tomasz W. Kozłowski (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I mean "Polish-language" should be hyphenated when used as an adjective. --Laser brain (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Laser brain (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I've stated many times, I am not a native speaker (of English). Several editors have carried out copy-editing of the article. If there are any prose issues, there is nothing I can do about it; but there shouldn't be many. If you find any, I'd appreciate if you could follow WP:SOFIXIT and address them; your review above indicates that there are only a few of those (and they've already been fixed - thanks). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My comments were meant to be representative. I wouldn't make a list of little problems—I would just fix them. What I meant is that I found enough small problems to make me think the article hasn't been properly proofread. --Laser brain (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you won't list additional issues and help us improve the article, I am afraid that this is not very helpful. We can't fix what we don't know about. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 SandyGeorgia 23:51, 26 April 2009 [9].

Mongolian language[edit]

Nominator(s): G Purevdorj (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it seems to address the topic in a fairly comprehensive manner and is rather well researched. On the other hand, there might still be a few areas of concern, so that I'd be glad if these could be pointed out to me so that I can improve them. I might point to such areas myself, eg the discussion about classification and dialects might well not only be mentioned, but argued for. However, the article has a length of 60000 bites, which is about as long as it should be, so that it has become difficult for me to differentiate between useful additions and additions that would only violate comprehensiveness requirements. I see this nomination as an opportunity for getting some consensus on weak areas and maybe as a way, by improving these, to also get it promoted. (I'm nominating today to start collecting some opinions, but I'll only be able to make some major edits on Sunday.) G Purevdorj (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments -
  • your websites in the notes need publishers
  • You have bare numbered links in the bibliography. They need to be formatted with titles.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that I did not evaluate the non-English sources nor the ones published in English by the non-standard publishing houses. Given the subject matter, I would expect most works to be from Asian publishing houses, so that's not a big concern. The ones that are from US and UK publishing companies look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I integrated the bare numbers, removed one source and added one publisher, while a third publisher had already already been present. The article of Sühbaatar doesn't point to any publisher and might be self-published. It addresses very self-evident facts that I could easily "prove" (which would of course be original research) by pointing to hundreds of websites that show that Mongolians indeed often use Latin when writing on the internet. On the other hand, no scientific publication available to me seems to take notice of this. If required, I could replace the first link with a manual for the proper use of Mongolian, which is even less reliable, but has been properly published, while dropping the second link. Else, footnotes 81 and 84 would have to be deleted together with their respective content. G Purevdorj (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
Fixed six of the links to disambiguation pages, changed one disamb page to article status, kept one link to disambiguation page that contains a short, but useful definition of a linguistic category that doesn't have an article of its own. Deleted one link and slightly modified another (I was aware that Ganhuyag had gone offline, but had been waiting for some days whether this might change). References should be in good shape, as they were fixed when going for GA. Mechanical fixes might sometimes even mistakenly alter the scope of a reference. Better point to individual discrepancies in case that those still exist. G Purevdorj (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run his script to fix the WP:ENDASHes in the citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments While I appreciate that this article has to be technical in places, I think you might do more to help the reader in this otherwise excellent article.
  • verbal and nominal domain - links to verb and, I guess noun
  • noun phrase order - link to noun phrase, or gloss
  • diachronic development, it has undergone a major shift in the vowel harmony paradigm, developed long vowels, slightly reformed its case system and re-structured its verbal system. - what a sentence to have in the lead. What does diachronic mean? Surely this sentence can be made more accessible (I did the GA review for Wagiman language, so I don't think I'm unusually dim on understanding language examples )
  • ...much-disputed problem between different scholars. - Assuming it's not a major talking point in the pubs and supermarkets, perhaps end at ...much-disputed problem. This also avoids the pointless different, unless you're contrasting with a single schizophrenic scholar racked by internal turmoil.
  • verbum sentiendi et dicendi. - redlinked and no gloss, write a stub, explain meaning or replace please, meaningless to me as it stands
  • None of the book references have isbn numbers given, as required by MoS. I think this must be fixed to avoid an oppose
Good luck jimfbleak (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links to noun and verb are given in Mongolian_language#Grammar#Morphology. noun phrase was given as “nominal phrase” which doesn’t seem to make any difference, but I changed it. The word “diachronic” was useful, but not necessary. I could have replaced it by “historical”, but as this word was used in the preceding sentence, I just dropped it. Else, I don’t know how this sentence might be simplified, as it refers to complex linguistic phenomena that are explained within the article. Except for “has undergone a major shift in its vowel harmony paradigm”, the language doesn’t seem technical to me. But if I’d reformulate this sentence and speak about palatalization instead, I fear it won’t become easier to comprehend. I replaced verbum sentiendi et dicendi and followed your advice concerning the "much disputed-problem". I'll see to adding some ISBN. G Purevdorj (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added most ISBNs. Two books that might have ISBNs are not accessible to me right now, the rest is old western books, modern western books without ISBN and essays from journals without ISBN. G Purevdorj (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I guess I'm finished with the ISBN. G Purevdorj (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support and further comment The point I was trying to make with verbal and nominal domain wasn't that they were not linked anywhere, but that I felt that it would help to link them at the first occurrence, especially as both words have more general meanings (the sentence could be read as oral and unimportant). I still think it would help your readers to link in the lead, but I'll leave that to you and other reviewers to consider. Now the isbns have been added, I'm happy to support jimfbleak (talk) 06:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article is superbly sourced and comprehensive. To meet prose requirements, it needs a copyedit, which I'll undertake over the next few days. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up Aside from the rather intensive copyediting the article requires, I found—as a layman, by no means a expert in the field—a substantive error in the first, very brief section of the article's main text. Even with an intensive copyedit, there is no way I can support this article for promotion unless its substance is vetted and approved by an independent, veteran Wikipedia editor demonstrably familiar with the field of language.—DCGeist (talk) 09:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query G Purevdorj, you are the primary contributor to the Daur language article as well as the Mongolian language article. Why is Daur transliterated as Dagur in the latter? Is there any good reason for the inconsistency? You should be aware that this inconsistency also occurs within the Daur language article itself—this is obviously unacceptable.—DCGeist (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, many thanks for the copy-editing done so far. As I'm not a native speaker of English, I can't do this myself. I hope that you will complete the copy-editing irrespective of whether you think that this article should become FA or not.
There is an enclave of Dagurs in Xinjiang that was relocated to there during the Manchu reign. There are some Oirats in Kyrgyzstan. Though I'm not aware of a scientific source mentioning this, there are substantial Mongolian communities in the US and Germany. You can always add some areas where a language in question is spoken by a few people. I added the infos on the detailed distribution of Oirat and Dagur in the respective articles, but in the article on Mongolian I just intended to give a general picture. By the way, Janhunen himself makes the same "mistake" on page xvii of "The Mongolic languages". (The new formulation - mentioning the huge Xinjiang area instead of the tiny vinicity of Tacheng - seems somewhat misleading.)
When I first started to contribute to Daur language, this article already existed. "Daur" is the approximate pronunciation of the language name by its contemporary native speakers, but the variant "Dagur" is far more widespread in scientific literature, so I guess using it is more appropriate. If necessary, though, one could rename the Daur article. G Purevdorj (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. G Purevdorj (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query In the Geographic distribution and dialects section, there is the following passage; "In Inner Mongolia, official language policy divides the Mongolian language into three dialects: the Inner Mongolian dialect, Oirat and Barghu-Buryat. While 'Inner Mongolian' is said to consist of Chakhar, Ordos, Baarin, Khorchin, Kharchin and Alasha, it is nevertheless supposed to jointly provide a common standard grammar for all of Inner Mongolia. Only the standard pronunciation is said to be 'based' on the Chakhar dialect of the Plain Blue Banner." The "only" at the beginning of the last sentence is confusing. It looks like what is meant here is simply this: "The standard pronunciation is said to be 'based' on the Chakhar dialect of the Plain Blue Banner." That is, the standard pronunciation of Inner Mongolian according to official policy. Is that correct, or is something else implied by the word "only"? —DCGeist (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "only" was meant to imply that the authorities have "only" cared to establish a standard pronunciation, while leaving alone all the grammatical differences, eg different pronouns, verbal suffixes etc. G Purevdorj (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up OK. I think as well that the phrase "the Chakhar dialect of the Plain Blue Banner" may pose difficulties for many readers. Are there multiple Chakhar dialects, associated with the different banners? Did the Chakhar dialect emerge in an administrative district under the Plain Blue Banner? If so, where was that? The sentence works fine thus: ""The standard pronunciation is said to be 'based' on the Chakhar dialect." If we're going to mention the Plain Blue Banner, we need to be clearer about the information being imparted.—DCGeist (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chakhar is a vast area, and Sečenbaγatur et al. 2005 even include some varieties into it that several scientists would consider separate (either as part of “South Khalkha” (Svantesson et al. 2005) or as a separate variety, “Shilin gol” (Janhunen 2003, “Mongol dialects”)). Even if we limit ourselves to Chakhar proper, there are still 10 different banners (Sečenbaγatur 2003: 6), Šilaγun Köke or “Plain Blue” being one of these, and while I’m not acquainted with differences between those, such differences are likely to exist. So it is better to point out that it is the Chakhar of the Plain Blue Banner. G Purevdorj (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I've edited the passage per your explanation to make it a little clearer.—DCGeist (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Query A final question concerning this section. In the following sentence—"While there is a common literary standard, a dialectological approach would see a sharper distinction between, for example, the 'Inner Mongolian' varieties of Chakhar and Khorchin than between the 'Inner Mongolian' Chakhar and the 'Outer Mongolian' Khalkha"—what precisely is meant by "literary standard"? Is this a reference to the fact that all the varieties of Inner Mongolian are written in traditional Mongolian script (in contrast to the Cyrillic used for Khalkha)? Or does it mean something else?—DCGeist (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most South Mongolians don’t read Cyrillic and most people of the Mongolian state have only a very limited command of the Mongolian script. Notice that Cyrillic is rather close to actual Khalkha pronunciation, while the Mongolian script is 800 years remote from it and thus independent of modern dialects. But there are also several grammatical differences in both standards, eg concerning nominalization (overt nominalization is always necessary in literary Cyrillic, but very often left out in modern Written Mongolian), verbal suffixes (the verbal suffixes -uushtai and -maajin are widespread in the Southern standard, but nearly non-existent in the Cyrillic standard) etc. There are several words that differ considerably in meaning between Mongolia and Inner Mongolia, and the loan word inventory is distinct, and this is conventionalized within the respective literary standards. G Purevdorj (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

question Why is File:Mongols-map.png different from the map in the featured article [10]? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The map you mention is hopelessly incomplete and quite strange. It includes Gansu-Qinghai, but excludes Oirat and Buryat. I won't say that the map used in "Mongolian language" is without fail, but compared to that other map it's rather accurate. G Purevdorj (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query Please take a look at this diff. My copyedit here involved a substantive change, from "Written Mongolian" to "Middle Mongolian". Please check that I've understood correctly.—DCGeist (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The terms Ulaanbaatar Khalkha Mongolian and Standard Khalkha Mongolian need to explicated, as well as the distinction between them. This can be done at the top of the Phonology section, where the former term is currently introduced, or in the Geographic distribution and dialects section, or even in the lead section.—DCGeist (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just gave an explanation for Standard Written Mongolian, but this might need copyediting. I don't think it should be explained in the sections that you suggested as it is not crucial for the article. Ulaanbaatar Khalkha is a self-explanatory descriptive term. G Purevdorj (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And similarly for Preclassical Written Mongolian, if that is the proper orthography. Preclassical Mongolian is defined at the top of the Historical Mongolian section, so you could use the phrase "written Preclassical Mongolian" (or "Preclassical written Mongolian") below. However, you are currently using Written Mongolian as a proper noun (and, as you suggest in your recent edit summary, it has a specific definition); the term must be thus be defined at the point where you currently use it, or above.—DCGeist (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preclassical Written Mongolian is the same as Preclassical Mongolian, so I just dropped the "Written" and got the desired terminological consistency. G Purevdorj (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One comment to one previous edit of yours: “Ödrijn sonin -> News.mn”. The link was intended as an extra. The text was published in the daily newspaper “Ödrijn sonin” which is a better reference than the internet portal “News.mn”. I wonder whether this could be taken care of in the footnote. G Purevdorj (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. No problem.—DCGeist (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—needs a thorough copy-edit. The language issues are not just on the surface, but involve matters of logic, flow redundancy and ambiguity. We owe it to the topic to make the language top-notch. And it's pretty technical, so it needs to be crystal-clear. I was slightly concerned by the amount of link-hitting you have to do (even an expert) to follow much of the description in the lead. Maybe, but consider glossing a few of the technical terms on the spot.

  • "It is the language of most residents of Mongolia and of many of the Mongolian residents of the Inner Mongolia autonomous region of China, totalling about 5.7 million speakers". Slightly unclear as to whether this number is of the second-listed item (those in China). Why is "language" linked? Is it helpful to the readers? Is there a section of that article you could more usefully pipe-link it to?
  • "fairly complex"? Perhaps just "complex? "Mongolian has vowel harmony and a fairly complex syllabic structure for Mongolic"—clearer to write "... structure for a Mongolic language"? I don't get it as currently worded.
  • "the verbal and nominal domain"—should it be plural "domains"?
  • "Subject Object Verb"—can you pipe-link this ... "subject–object–verb"?
  • "the noun phrase order is relatively free, so functional roles are indicated by a system of about eight grammatical cases." The "so" locks us into logical causality; but do the cases really arise from the freedom of word order in nominal phrases? Which came first, chicken or egg?
  • "The verb can take several voice suffixes and is marked for aspect and some other notions belonging to the domains of tense, modality and evidentiality. In sentence linking, converbs play a special part." I suggest "Verbs can ...". Remove "some"? Can't it just be "and are marked for tense, modality and evidentiality"?
  • "Mongolian evolved from Middle Mongolian, the language spoken in the Mongol Empire of the 13th and 14th centuries—a major shift in the vowel harmony paradigm occurred, long vowels developed, the case system was slightly reformed and the verbal system was restructured." Remove "the language" (it's redundant). The use of the dash is puzzling grammatically. Do you mean "; since then, a major ...". Or perhaps "; in the transition to the discreet ....".

These are just examples from the lead; please find a WPian who is interested in foreign languages to copy-edit this. May I suggest User:Timberframe? Tony (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful comments. I’ll address them in the following in row:

  • I don’t get the ambiguity (or consider it highly implausible), but I’m no native speaker after all. Maybe you could suggest an alternative wording anyway. As for the link to language – I think most links are given at the first occurrence of an item. I thought that this is meant to be so.
  • “fairly” dropped
  • “domain” > “domains”
  • “subject–object–verb” adapted. Indeed, it looks better now.
  • The “so” doesn’t necessarily mark a causal relationship, but may only point to an interdependence. Seeing one part of the language, it is logical to conclude that the second part looks so and so.
  • “The verb” ~ “Verbs”. I don’t see much of a difference, but adapted your suggestion. “some” cannot be dropped because without it, the clause gets ambiguous, as you could then misunderstand that “aspect” is a notion belonging to the domains of tense, modality and evidentiality. “and are marked for tense, modality and evidentiality” wouldn’t do as there are several paradigms and each of these only includes a few of these notions. Then, it isn’t clear whether the word “yum” should be integrated into these paradigms (as Hashimoto seems to suggest). No, we may not oversimplify the matter. (I would indeed be ready and willing to oversimplify it here if it was resolved within the article, but it isn’t feasible to do so now: I’m aware of some ongoing research and several papers that have not yet been published, and as these will greatly contribute to clarify the matter, it is worth waiting a few years before trying to improve the aspect section.)
  • I removed the dash and replaced it by “In the transition, “. I don’t agree that “the language” is redundant, but feel that it contributes to the readability of the text.

I do agree that additional copyediting would be useful and gratefully accept your suggestion to contact the editior you suggested. I would also be delighted if you would make some additional contributions as well. G Purevdorj (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Some attention is needed to style consistency in dashes/hyphens, and clarity in explaining items in the lead. For example, you now have "subject–object–verb" in the lead, apparently with en dashes. While looking for further information in the article, I discovered that you don't ever write "subject–object–verb" again (confusing) but I did find "subject, object, predicate" (commas) with the side note that it's referred to as "SOV". Why use "predicate" here but "verb" earlier? Later, we have "Object-Predicate-Subject" and "Subject-Object-Predicate", this time with hyphens and capitalized. --Laser brain (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Er, I should have been more clear here. We don't want changes to hyphens in these cases. Hyphens should only be used to indicate a conjunction. Everything like "subject–object–verb" should have unspaced en dashes. To indicate a pause in the sentence, use either a spaced en dash or an unspaced em dash. --Laser brain (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dashes are a bit annoying as I don't have them on my keyboard, but I've (re)established them. By all means use spaced dashes for a pause in a sentence – otherwise it looks very ugly. G Purevdorj (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the term "verb" in this context is most widespread, but as this word order is generally meant to hold for any kind of predications, it is highly imprecise. I've now changed to "subject-verb-predicate" throughout the text and dropped the brackets referring to "SOV" altogether. As for the other problems of the lead section: I've invited User:Timberframe and hope that s/he will join us at the weekend. Of course, I'll be glad to take care of any specific issues in the meantime. G Purevdorj (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I look forward to it. I will scan for any dash/hyphen bothers. Your research and writing are highly prized, but unfortunately none of us can escape the Manual of Style. --Laser brain (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments just started to copy-edit per invitation above, but already I have several comments and questions:
    • Lead: "is the best-known member of the Mongolic language family" - citation required as well as a clarification of what is meant by "best-known" in the context of a language. "Most widely spoken" or "most commonly used" might be considered to be more meaningful, if true.
    • Lead: "about eight grammatical cases" - can we state the exact number of cases? If the "about" arises from a core of frequently use cases plus some additional or alternative cases which are used only exceptionally this could be mentioned as a feature of the language.
    • Classification: Mongols-map.png. The caption in the article "Geographic distribution of the Mongolic languages" could be at odds with the file info: "The red areas are the places dominated by ethnic Mongols". Ethnic Mongols, especially those removed (or descended from people removed) to regions dominated by other languages, do not necessarily speak Mongolic languages; nor is the use of Mongolic languages necessarily restricted to areas where ethnic Mongols dominate. I would suggest that a new or different map, depicting geographic distribution of the Mongolic languages and citing a relevant source, be used instead.
    • Geographic distribution and dialects: "The delimitation of the Mongolian language is a much-disputed problem" - is it a problem in the sense that a resolution is demanded, or would it be sufficient to say that "the delimitation of the Mongolian language is much-disputed, and would probably require a set of comparable linguistic criteria for all major varieties"?
    • Geographic distribution and dialects: "Such data might account for the historical development of the Mongolian dialect continuum" - which data? This seems to be a non-sequitur.
    • Phonology - vowel length: "about 208%" - 208% is an excessively precise measure of a quantity which is inevitably subject to wide variation. Would "about twice" suffice?

Nevertheless, I'm impressed with the depth and scope of this article, congratulations on what you've produced so far. -- Timberframe (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is the best-know language of Mongolic – the only one that any German, Chinese, English etc. person will be aware of, but it seems futile (while probably possible) to search for a reference for such a claim. “most commonly used” doesn’t make sense, but “most widely spoken” will do. Svantesson et al. 2005: 141-155 supports such a claim.
  • The number of cases given for many languages is frequently disputed, but to have such a number often gives a good impression about how the language in question might work. Khalkha Mongolian school grammar used to propose 7 cases, but more recently switched to 8 (which is absolutely justified). There are two further items proposed as case suffixes by Janhunen and Sechenbaatar. At least for one of these suggestions seems to be very well-founded, but a detailed analysis of this problem has not yet been done. And then there are the dialects: starting from the traditional analysis, Khorchin and Baarin dialect have at least 9 and Ordos dialect 10 cases. (These are the more conservative estimates that I’d support; the grammars sometimes suggest a few more suffixes, but often it isn’t shown that these fulfil the criteria of casehood (such as full productivity and vowel harmony).
  • Map: it is wrong that these areas are “dominated” by ethnic Mongols, eg South Mongolia has about four or five times as many Chinese inhabitants as it has ethnic Mongolians. Then, we don’t always know what Mongolians actually speak. No map I am aware of accounts for all available data, eg progressing language death of Buryat and Oirat in Russia. The map in question has at least one difference to language distribution: the spot in the far south-east are ethnic Mongolians that speak Chinese. But in principle, the map is quite accurate and I am not aware of any other map that is not copy-righted and shows a more accurate distribution. The only way that I'd see to deal with this inaccuracy would be to drop the map altogether.
  • A difficult question. An alternative view could mean a different distribution of very much money in China, but the Chinese government is not likely to alter its views because of a different analysis that might be supported by the majority of scientists. So I don’t think that any institution in the real world is considering this question as an unsolved problem.
  • The last sentence says “a set of comparable linguistic criteria”. “Such data” then means an extensive data font that provides the data that is necessary to compare all these criteria. (It might be quite easy to propose sufficient criteria for a dialect classification, but we don’t have data on most aspects of grammar for most varieties, which is not very surprising at all as most innovative grammar studies are done by Japanese researchers and are ignored by those who do the dialect studies.)
  • 208% itself might be changed, but the article also has 127% and 71%, so you would have to replace all these values which probably isn’t feasible. I fancy it is clear that these are average values from experimental data provided by Svantesson et al. 2005. G Purevdorj (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 Karanacs 19:50, 21 April 2009 [11].

Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism[edit]

Nominator(s): NancyHeise talk 20:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it is an interesting subject that I have worked on for months with the help of experienced FA writers and administrators who have reviewed and commented on it extensively. Thanks for taking the time to review and comment. NancyHeise talk 20:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • If this article is going to cover morality, it should better distinguish more or less serious obligations and failures. It should also express better the range of thought on certain points like tattoos and elective surgery, which are not necessarily included in "mutiliations" in the CCC.[12] It needs a little more historical perspective, too, not just about the history of certain moral positions (eg, just war philosophy), but about the commandments as a way of collecting moral rules, that is: how the Decalogue is used in the Church. (Moral rules are also organised in terms of the theological and cardinal virtues, or the 7 sins/virtues, for instance.) Also, I think the quote use in the caption on divorce is misleading, out of context. Gimmetrow 15:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gimmetrow, thanks for your comments. I changed the wording in the picture to express exactly the words used in the Catechism and referenced the sentence to the Catechism. The picture shows a man with subdermal implants in his forehead, these are expressly covered in the Catechism section referenced. There is no mention in either the article text or the picture about tattoos or body piercings. Also, I want to point out that this article is not "going to cover morality" (your words). The scope of this article is limited to the Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism which is a part of the Catholic faith covered in the Catechism in its own section. It is not an article on the whole Catechism and we explained this in the lead. We explain in the second paragraph in the "Lead" and the third paragraph in "Background" how the Decalogue is used in the Church, and we wikilinked just war so reader can go directly to that page for more info. Since this page is a summary of ten commandments, we make use of wikilinks as policy suggests. Thanks for your comments. NancyHeise talk 22:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the words "subdermal implant" in the CCC, so where is this expressly covered? This, and the caption referring to divorce, seem misleading as to content. Also, if this is an article on the place of the Decalogue in the Church, then it should cover the history of the Decalogue in the Church, which includes how some applications have changed over time. Or are you planning a series which will include "Fifth Commandment in Roman Catholicism"?Gimmetrow 22:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the picture to that of a woman smoking crack cocaine since the Catechism just says "body modifications that are not for therapeutic medical purposes" and this is not defined in the actual Catechism but only on some other peripheral sites that are not as authoritative as the Catechism. The Catechism and the scholarly works supporting the article do actually say the words "use of drugs" [13] and crack fits into that category. Peter Kreeft states on page 238 of his book [14] "Especially 'the use of' (illegal) 'drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life' (CCC2291)". Does the Catechism have to actually use the words "crack cocaine" for me to use that picture? NancyHeise talk 22:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, regarding your comment that says this article "should cover the history of the Decalogue in the Church". The article does cover that already, in the lead and background sections. Neither the Catechism nor my scholarly sources dwell on the history of any changes in the decalogue. What changes specifically would you like to see covered here? I am not aware of any changes in Church teachings, it has condemned abortion since the first century and we already cover just war theory developed by Augustine. Please be more specific. NancyHeise talk 23:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. The CC refers to "amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations" under the 5th commandment. In that context, it means pretty serious mutilations, on a par with amputation, that either removes or severely interferes with the normal function of the body, which are only permissible for medical reasons. The point is, I don't think everyone agrees the specific body modification is a mutilation in this sense. Probably just about everyone agrees that crack is an illegal drug. For historical perspective: has the Decalogue always had the same emphasis in the Church? There is a mention of a change of view on cremation. Has anything else changed somewhat? Gimmetrow 23:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you are OK with the new picture it sounds like - great. I also placed a new picture in the sixth commandment that has a caption that is referenced to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops book on the Catechism, I included the quote. Regarding changes in Church emphasis on the decalogue: We state in the lead that it has been used in teaching the faith "ever since the fifth century" and maintains this prominent place today so there is no change to discuss. The issue concerning cremation is also covered in the article. While new issues have been introduced to mankind in these latter centuries like artificial birth control, these did not change church teaching on the ten commandments. The Church addressed these new issues in the different categories of the Ten commandments into which they fell. This is not a change in church teaching, just a clarification. Do we need to tell Reader that there was no artificial birth control before such and such a date? NancyHeise talk 23:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a source that explains what I just stated above regarding the church addressing new issues.: [15]NancyHeise talk 00:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added mention in "Background" that the Ten Commandments serve as the basis for Catholic social teaching referenced to this theology professor's book here [16]. I think you were making the suggestion that the Church changed its teaching on the Ten Commandments but really the Ten serve as the basis for Catholic social teaching, not the other way around. This is now included in the Background section for clarity. NancyHeise talk 00:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, what? If there were a featured article on, say, Beatitudes in Roman Catholicism, what would you expect to find? An explanation of the moral implications, sure, with background of the occasional when they were said. I would also want to know where and how they are used in the liturgy, and about significant treatises and sermons throughout history. I would expect some history of interpretations and a reasonable emphasis on explaining the views that are not shared by groups outside the Church. Gimmetrow 03:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gimmetrow, I think you are going beyond the scope of this article. I am using several scholarly books to create this article and none of them cover what you have proposed here. If my scholarly sources don't cover those issues, I don't think I should try to either. Regarding views not shared by groups outside the Church, we have covered the opposing POV's in the First Commandment under Graven Images as well as in the Fifth and Sixth Commandments. Are you proposing that this article should cover the beliefs of other Christian groups interpretations of the Ten Commandments? I would have to disagree since the title of the article specifies which Christian group the article is about. The main article on the Ten Commandments of which this article is a subpage, has the information on the various beliefs of different Christian groups. This page has a link to that page in the very first sentence. NancyHeise talk 03:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources are probably explaining the CCC, so If you follow them, you will have an article on the "Ten Commandments as presented in the CCC". Is that the scope you want? Gimmetrow 04:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My sources are explaining more than the Catechism and draw upon more than just the Catechism. Please see the bibliography of the article for a list of these sources. The source used most often is Peter Kreeft's Catholic Christianity which is a scholarly source with notes to the Catechism as well as relevant papal encyclicals, sermons and all those things you wanted me to include. I have also used Pope Benedicts Jesus of Nazareth among other neat sources that go beyond a mere interpretation of the Catechism. None of these go into the subjects you have suggested above and I think your request is beyond the scope of this article which mirrors the most scholarly works on the subject. NancyHeise talk 04:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But you just said Kreeft includes "all those things"? Gimmetrow 04:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As references and he discusses them. I have included Kreefts comments referencing these other items throughout the article. See the Tenth Commandment for an example [17]. Please read the whole article to see how different sources have been used to create a whole picture of each commandment that goes beyond the Catechism - even though the Catechism is the central consolidated work of Catholic belief that this article relies upon the most - as it should. NancyHeise talk 04:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmetrow, just scanning through the article, there are numerous references to documents throughout the article beyond the Catechism. I make a list for you here so you can see that we go way beyond the Catechism and include the relevant documents where appropriate as used by our scholarly sources:

  • 1)In Background we have references to the Bible, the book Western Civilization, Peter Kreeft, the Torah, the Council of Trent and the Second Vatican Council, Lutheranism, and Augustine of Hippo's book Questions on Exodus, Schreck.
  • 2)In the First Commandment we have references to Augustine of Hippo, the Catechism, the Second Council of Nicea and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Schreck
  • 3)In the Second Commandment we have references to Gospel of John, Kreeft, Catechism, and Pope Benedict XVI, Schreck
  • 4)In the Third Commandment we have referenes to Pope Benedict, Rabbi Jacob Neusner, The Catechism, papal encyclical Dies Domini and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Schreck
  • 5)In the Fourth Commandment we have references to Pope Benedict, Rabbi Jacob Neusner, The Catechism, Sirach, Gospel of Matthew, Kreeft, Shreck
  • 6)In the Fifth Commandment we have references to Kreeft, a book called Life Unworthy of Life, various medical books and journals, the Catechism, the US Catechism for Adults, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation, Second Vatican Council, Gospel of Matthew, Schreck
  • 7)In the Sixth Commandment, we have references to Crossing the Threshold of Hope by John Paul II, the Catechism, the US Catechism for Adults, Kreeft, DignityUSA, Courage International, various news articles, Schreck
  • 8)In the Seventh Commandment, we have references to Kreeft, Schreck and the Catechism
  • 9)In the Eighth Commandment, we have references to Kreeft, Schreck and the Catechism
  • 10)In the Ninth Commanment, we have refernces to Kreeft, Schreck and the Catechism and the Gospel of Matthew
  • 11)In the Tenth Commandment, we have references to the Catechism, Kreeft, the US Bishops, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Paul, the Gospel, Schreck NancyHeise talk 05:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article has references. It needs more historical perspective to be comprehensive. With that, I'm out. Gimmetrow 11:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinion Gimmetrow. The article does more than reference these, they discuss them in the article text. If my scholarly sources went into more of a history, I would have included more of a history. I also did a search on Googlebooks to try to attend to your comment but there is nothing more about the history of the Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism other than what we have already provided. The Ten Commandments are pretty straightforward, not much can really change about them you know. NancyHeise talk 02:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the Commandments don't change. Man's interpretation and application of them does have a tendency to change, though. Anyway, the article still has this sentence:
The Church considers "marriages marked by serious emotional, physical, or substance abuse" to be candidates for valid annulment.
This seems misleading, out of context. Gimmetrow 00:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per your comment here, that sentence referenced to this source [18] has now been moved to the section that discusses separation, domestic violence and annulments. Thanks. NancyHeise talk 03:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've moved it to the small section on separation, but the quote says annulment. If it's going to be used at all, it should be in the section on annulments. However, you're missing the point - the quote is out of context as it stands. Read the source (a diocesan website) and notice everything else discussed in the same context as the one part you've selected to quote. It's discussing "signs" that may indicate a reason for investigation, all of which imply something that existed for the entire term of the union. Taking this one part out of that contexts implies that substance abuse appearing years after a marriage could be grounds for annulment - which is misleading without more explanation. Gimmetrow 16:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good comment, I have rearranged this section per your comments here. Since separation, civil divorce and annulments are not considered an offense against the dignity of marriage, I have made them their own section instead of including them in that section and expanded upon what could pass for cause for investigation for annulment per the source that lists those grounds. Please see the section again. Thanks for pointing this out, it led to an important change. NancyHeise talk 17:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Okay, the RCC navigation template is huge. I have a nice big screen and it's taking up way too much space on my screen, I can only imagine what it's like for someone with a normal sized monitor. Oh, wait, I see it resizes to take up a fixed percentage of the screen. Ugh.
There is no requirement to have navigation templates or infoboxes in articles. So if you want to remove it, you need to secure consensus on the talk page to do so, etc. etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 10:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - I removed the template and placed a note on the talk page letting people know I removed it because of your comment here. NancyHeise talk 02:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For some reason, there is a big pile of white space after the seventh commandment section on my screen.
Fixed
  • You have embedded links in the quote boxes. Embedded links are no-nos for the MOS in the body, not sure about the text. Strongly suggest removing them though.
Removed
  • Current ref 44 (Nazi doctors..) lacks all bibliographic details. You need to format it just like a book, with page number and publisher author, etc.
Fixed
  • Current ref 45 and 46 The Journal of Medical Humanities and Science articles, are both lacking all other bibliogrpahical details, they should be formatted like a journal, with titles in quotation marks, journal titles in italics, etc
Removed (because they are redundant and one ref to university press is enough.)
  • Current ref 73 (Is the Vatican wrong..) is lacking all bibliographical data. Needs publisher etc.
Fixed
  • Your Catholic Encyclopedia ref is wrong. You're referencing the "commandments of god" article in there, correct? You should use {{cite encyclopedia}} as the author of that isn't Herbermann, it's John Stapleton (the author of each article is credited at the end of the article).
Fixed
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "embedded links" using {{bibleref}} in the quote boxes would have been fine. Gimmetrow 02:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ealdgyth, I have made corrections to these items. NancyHeise talk 04:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tech. Review
  • Addis, p. 195
  • Kreeft, p. 238
  • {{bibleverse||Exodus|20:17}}
  • Also, multiple pages in the refs should be formatted as pp. not p.
Thanks Truco, I fixed these items. However, I was only able to find Kreeft p. 238 in there once and I did not change two of the listed dabfinder items because they currently link to the correct page. The problem was that the correct page has the correct definition we are using and then lists other items. There is no other page for those to be linked that would be more correct. NancyHeise talk 03:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay, thanks for explaining that. The scripts sometimes lag a bit.--Truco 23:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)--Truco 23:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the issues I raised in the previous FAC remain unaddressed. There is still incorrect use of WP:ITALICS throughout the article. There is a mixed style on bullet lists, with some beginning with caps, others not; some correctly using bolding, others using italics; some ending in puncutation, others not. Bullet lists need to be consistent: see WP:MOS. The hyphen in the infobox between Pope and Pope needs to be corrected an WP:ENDASH. WP:PUNC logical punctuation needs review throughout. Images belong within sections, not above them, and there should be no left-aligned images under third-level headings (see WP:MOS#Images and WP:ACCESS; example at Graven images section). There are still WP:MOS#Ellipses and WP:DASH issues throughout; sample at ... the first to win public acceptance... by German doctors before World War II - the basis ... and another sample at: Lust - The Church teaches ... Still on WP:MSH, why "The" vocation to chastity? These issues are still throughout the article, although I raised them in the last FAC. Here's a sample of three issues in one sentence:

2) Divorce - Jesus taught that "anyone who divorces his or her spouse, except for marital infidelity, and marries another commits adultery"Mark 10:11.
Faulty hyphen (should be WP:ENDASH, inconsistent punctuation at ends of bullet lists, and please point out the exact version of the scripture cited that includes "except for marital infidelity".

Cleanup is needed throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sandy, I have cleaned up these items and gone through the article again. Another couple of editors came through too I see, Michael Devore and Edge3. I hope we got everything this time. NancyHeise talk 04:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these items have not been attended to. In addition to my edit summaries as samples, there are still inconsistent lists and faulty dashes in the citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, I have spent more than an hour and a half rechecking the article for these issues and fixed everything per your comments here and in the edit summaries. If I failed to fix something it has not been for lack of trying. :) I really think I got them all this time, Brian helped a lot too. NancyHeise talk 03:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oppose - This may be a bit harsh, however File:Smoking_Crack.jpg I feel is inappropriate. In including the image an individual who is clearly identifiable is permanently branding them as a drug user for all time. I think another more appropriate annonmised image could be found Fasach Nua (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is your interpretation of the image grounds for opposing the article? If the image doesn't breach any rule of copyright or licence, I don't think your oppose is sustainable. Also, what is "annonmised"? Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS However, the image size looks disproportionate to the text and should not be forced up to 300px. It should be thumb size as required for general non-lead images. Brianboulton (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The use of images is the same for any content, it can be licenced correctly and still be rubbish if the article singles out president Bill Clinton to illustrate adultary I would oppose, as I would consider it needlessly diparaging, and the inclusion of this image, for me means it is not wikipedia's best work, and thus not an FA. If you type "annonmised" into google, it asks Did you mean: "annonymised", perhaps that's what I meant Fasach Nua (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The photo raises the question as to whether the permission came from the subject, and if so whether it is really of a person posing as a crack user, which may be acceptable for illustrative purposes. Certainly an annonymised photo of a crack user would be virtually useless for any purpose.--Grahame (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the photo to a hunky marine instead of the crack smoking woman. The section deals with personal health not just illegal drug use so the healthy marine jogging in the water is descriptive too I think. Let me know your honest thoughts. Thanks. NancyHeise talk 02:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
oppose stricken Fasach Nua (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am reading slowly through, and expect to have a few further comments in due course. For the moment I have several issues with one of the key sentences in the lead, namely:
"The New Testament used by Christians depicts Jesus's teaching that following the commandments are among the bare minimum required; he exceeded them in his teachings and summarized them into two "great commandments" that taught love of God (the first three commandments) and love of neighbor (the last seven)."
First, the absence of punctuation in "The New Testament used by Christians..." suggests that there are other New Testaments used by other people. Then, surely "depicts" is an inadequate word? "Depicts" suggests portrayal, not at all the sense rquired here. And, "are" is wrong, because it relates to "following the commandments" which requires an "is". "Among the bare minimum required" feels like suspect grammar, and doesn't say of whom it is required – "a minimum requirement for mankind" might serve better. Finally, to say that "he exceeded them in his teaching" is really saying again what has just been said, that observance of the commandments was a minimum requirement; this needn't be said again. So, putting all these together, I suggest a revision of the sentence along the following lines:
The New Testament, used by Christians, contains Jesus's teaching that observing the commandments is a minimum requirement for mankind. He summarized them into two "great commandments..." etc.
I can't promise this level of clause analysis throughout, but I think this is an important sentence, and that the wording must do justice to its significance, particularly as this has the makings of a powerful article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Brian, I changed the sentence, please see and let me know your thoughts. Thanks also for your kind copyedit. NancyHeise talk 23:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the sentence is good now. I read through the whole article carefully, and made numerous punctuation and minor prose fixes. I think I've picked up most of the glitches, but there may be a few still lurking out there. My more substantive points:-
  • Background: Can "ten" be described as "several". If I had ten children you wouldn't say "he's got several children". I think several means a smaller number.
Fixed
  • Fourth commandment
    • Opening sentence: Citing Rabbi Neusner, Pope Benedict XVI states that he "rightly sees this commandment as anchoring the heart of the social order." As written, the "he" could refer to either Neusner or Benedict. It would be clearer as: Pope Benedict XVI states that Rabbi Neusner "rightly sees this commandment as anchoring the heart of the social order."
Fixed
    • There are two bare external links in the text which need formatting
Fixed
  • Fifth commandment
    • "...some going so far as to call such rhetoric 'odiously wrong'." has the smack of POV. "...some calling this rhetoric "odiously wrong" would be OK.
Fixed
    • Is the parenthetical (such as World War II) given in your sources as an example of a just war, or is this an editorial aside?
Fixed I eliminated the phrase because my source just lists US bishops [19]
    • There's a bare link here, too.
Fixed
  • Sixth commandment
    • In the list, fornication is defined but not condemned
Fixed
    • I found this phrasing very odd: "The procreative aspect requires couples to be open to children, regarding them not as a right but as gifts from God." I assume this means open to the idea of having children. But I find "the procreative aspect" rather cold and clinical.
Fixed - I changed "open to children" to your wording but was not able to come up with a better word than "procreative". I welcome you or anyone else to change that word if they can think of something better but for now, it is a correct term if not warm and friendly enough. :)
I would suggest you begin the sentence: "Transmission of life" requires couples... etc. That phrase relates to earlier text and is a lot warmer, I think, than "The procreative aspect". Brianboulton (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed inserted "transmission of life"
    • "Jesus taught that "anyone who divorces his or her spouse, except for marital infidelity..." Sandy has marked this as a failed verification, because the biblical text you have cited says "except in the case of sexual immorality", not mentioning marital infidelity. Your text should reflect the source.
Fixed actually it says "unless the marriage is unlawful", I copied the text directly from the New American Bible (the Catholic bible)
Looks OK now, but your inserted note "depending upon the biblical interpretation" is unnecessary. I think this is a question of wording or translation rather than interpretation. Brianboulton (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
changed "interpretation" to "translation". Do you prefer to eliminate this phrase altogether?
As worded now, it's OK I think. Brianboulton (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seventh commandment: Since the commandment is "You shall not steal", I fail to see the relevance in this section of "Because it considers humans to be stewards of God's creation, the Church forbids abuse of animals and the environment." Likewise I found the second paragraph somewhat tangential – though I suppose Proudhon's "property is theft" has relevances in capitalism and socialism.
Fixed
  • Eighth commandment: The words "These include:" have to be considered as part of each of the sentences in the list that follows. As you have it, each of the listed items is a complete sentence without "These include", except the first which I have fixed. Can you fix the rest?
Fixed
  • Ninth commandment
    • More bare links
Fixed
    • If this commandment deals with covetousness of the flesh, why does the wording in the display box refer to house, ox, ass etc – things which are not part of the flesh? Should the wording of the commandment be so nearly identical to that of the 10th?
Response The wording is copied and pasted directly from the Catechism definition of the ninth commandment. I was wondering the same thing but I can't argue with the primary source and the quote box states that it comes from that source.
I think some sort of note is necessary, drawing attention to the repetitive wording. I'm frankly surprised at the confusion here – not yours, but the Church's. If I covet my neighbour's ox, am I breaking the ninth or tenth commandment, or both? Why is it necessary to have a sort of double jeopardy here? We Prots don't have this confusion because it's all one single commandment. Brianboulton (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note added
The note says: "The wording of the ninth commandment in the Catechism is almost identical to that of the tenth". What is the exact wording of the tenth, in the Catechism? Your version has two ellipses and repetition of the phrase "anything that is your neighbor's". Is that exactly how the Catechism records the tenth commandment, ellipses and all? If not, the wording in the tenth box must be altered, to correspond to the text in the Catechism. (Some sources, like this, suggest that the wordings of the ninth and tenth are identical). Brianboulton (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brian, I actually copied and pasted the exact words taking them from the Vatican website for the Catechism, ellipses and all. The quote box is not altered in any way by me. It is difficult to say that the wordings are identical when they clearly are not exactly the same per the original document on the Vatican website. Per the Vatican Catechism, here's the ninth [20] and here's the tenth [21] NancyHeise talk 18:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine - that's the way it is! Brianboulton (talk)
    • "Blessed are the pure of heart..." I have never seen this rendered other than "pure in heart" – and that's how your reference has it.
Response The bible ref uses "clean of heart" and I changed it to that wording. However, I kept "pure of heart" later in the text because Kreeft uses both "pure in heart" and "pure of heart" but the latter term is the one that I was more directly referencing in the text.
  • Tenth commandment
    • More bare links
Fixed
    • The last sentence is not a "While" sentence, since the two statements are complementary. Suggest replace "While" with "Since" or "As".
Fixed

These are not major matters, but need attention. I look forward to your responses. Brianboulton (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great comments Brian, thanks for taking the time to go through and alert me to these items. I have addressed all of them as noted in your text above.NancyHeise talk 03:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to Sandy

Sandy, you tagged this sentence "Jesus taught that "whoever divorces his wife, except for marital infidelity, causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." because it did not reflect the biblical interpretation given in the Bible reference. I changed the sentence to Jesus taught that "whoever divorces his wife", except for fornication, unchastity or an unlawful marriage (depending upon the Biblical interpretation), "causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."[95] Different versions of the Bible apparently have different interpretations of that sentence so I adjusted the sentence to reflect that inconsistency. Thanks for pointing this out to me, I always just go to the New American Bible but someone else added that sentence and must have been using a different Bible version. I think it is OK now, let me know if you have a problem with the new sentence. Thanks. (See the New King James Version, the New American Bible Version and the 21st Century King James Version of Matthew 5:32 for illustrative examples)NancyHeise talk 04:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: I have one outstanding query concerning the wording of the tenth commandment. Otherwise, all my concerns have been met, and on resolution of this one remaining issue I am ready to fully support this article's promotion, as I am satisfied that he FA criteria are met.Brianboulton (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CoI'd from supporting or opposing. However, some minor things - "Third commandment" has sandwich text between the Pope and the box on the upper right. It also has a blockquote with quotation marks (one or other) and the blockquote is squashed by the Pope. I would possibly add some text after the blockquote and move the Pope to the right. I would fix the quotation marks with the blockquotes throughout. You tend to break things into smaller sections too quickly. The marriage sections, after Commandment Six, tend to do this a lot. Larger sections would be more appropriate and make it easier to read. I was surprised that there was little historical consideration. Those like Augustine or Aquinas spoke about the Ten Commandments often. Also, there are Catholic textual glosses that go into great depth about the Ten Commandments which have not been stated. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
moved picture to right
keeping quotation marks because they do not violate WP:MOS
Augustine and Aquinas are included in the article to the extent they were covered by scholars discussing this subject
Other concerns addressed below under Ioannes Pragensis commentsNancyHeise talk 22:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose unless the article would be renamed "Ten Commandments in today's official Roman Catholic teachings". The article is full of sentences beginnig like "Pope Benedict XVI states...", "The Catechism explains..." but it offers almost no information about hundreds years of Catholic moral theology, the development of its views and related church doctrines etc. There is only one short reference to Thomas Aquinas in the article, and that is all - no other early Catholic moral theologians are included, no explanation of "sola fide" conflict with Reformators in 16th century is offered etc. I think that the article in its current state is a well designed presentation of what one would hear about Ten Commandments in the church sermons and documents today, but it has a rather shallow theoretical basis (for example it offers almost no information about the textual critic of Ten C. in context of Vulgata translation) and it ignores the historical development of the understanding and use of Ten C. in the church. Therefore its perspective is more the perspective of an insider from 2009, not neutral perspective of history, sociology and philosophy of religion, which considers development of ideologies in time, includes also critical voices and tries to see things from impartial perspective. I am very sorry to vote against a well written article full of information, but I felt very disappointed after reading it because of its one-sided, reductionist perspective.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In order to be more specific, let us take the following two examples:
1. You cite Aquinas only in a general ethic context, but you drop his (and other Scholastic theologians) analyses of problems in Ten C. like here, for example A.4. - why Christians are not hallowing of the Sabbath?
2. The article should explain the role which Decalogue played in the Sola Fide controversy, leading to canons of Trent council (see esp. chapter XI).
There are more things like this, one should also include early history of the church, and also things from the 20th cetury, like the letter of German Catholic bishops from 1943 where they protested against Nazi murders in the name of the Ten Commandements ([22]). I hope that you understand better what I mean now.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ottava Rima and Ioannes Pragensis, I want to point out that there is no mention of the items you are asking for in the most modern scholarship on this subject. When a person does research on the Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism, they will find no more historical information, nor criticism than we have provided on the subject matter here. I will not be amending the article for your considerations because they do not reflect modern scholarship, Catholic or non. Thanks for your comments anyway. I just want to mention here also that Council of Trent decisions regarding the Ten Commandments is mentioned in this article - to the extent they were covered by modern scholars. Also, Ioannes, the New Advent Encyclopedia of Catholicism is almost 100 years old, the issue you link is also not mentioned in any modern scholarship on this subject. I can not be expected to create an article that meets FA if I have to create controversy that is found nowhere in modern scholarship. Please understand that FA criteria prohibits these fringes. Final decisions of the Councils concerning the Ten Commandments is all that is needed in the article, not detailed discussions amongst the bishops over two millenia and it is these final decisions that we have already included here.NancyHeise talk 22:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further, re: Ioannes request that I include the German bishops mention of the Ten Commandments in their protest letter to Hitler. Catholic Bishops mention the Ten Commandments so often in their discussions with leaders and others throughout history that it is unreasonable to expect me to include this especially when scholars discussing the Ten do not make mention of these things. Ioannes link is to a primary document in German, not a scholarly work discussing use of the Ten. The Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism is not a history page, it is a theology page with background and the most relevent decisions by Church councils and key Church scholars throughout history as relevent to the developement of Catholic doctrine on the subject. NancyHeise talk 23:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are joking, Nancy, right? Do you realy believe that modern scholars are not interested in developments of scholastic theology or in the history of Reformation and Trent Council? - Of course I do not insist on including exactly those links I placed here - it is up to you to find better sources. But you cannot omit 1000 years of development of R-C theology.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 07:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ioannes, I am in possession of and have access to the most modern scholarly works on this subject and all subjects of the Catholic Church. The most respected work on the developement of Catholic doctrine, a book I own and one that is also on googlebooks [23], is called The Catholic Tradition by Jaroslav Pelikan. There is zero mention of a history of the ten commandments in this book - perhaps because the ten are so straightforward that no further analysis is needed other than what we have already included in the article because this is all that the scholars discussed about them. You are asking me to create something that is not covered in modern scholarship. That is WP:OR. A total of Zero scholars mention the German Bishops letter to Hitler in their discussions of the Ten Commandments. Why then should I be asked to include it here? You provide a primary document as a reference but when I search for secondary sources discussing the topic of the Ten Commandments in English (as required by Wikipedia policy), I come up empty. Jaroslav Pelikan produced several other works on the development and history of Catholic doctrine but there is nothing in his books that goes beyond what the other scholars I have used in the article say too. What is important to these scholars and this article is the final decision of the Councils, not their discussions leading up to decision and I think you are being unreasonable to ask me to include things not covered in modern scholarship. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to be in summary form - which is what this article provides to Reader.NancyHeise talk 12:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, there is no Wikipedia policy demanding that we "search for secondary sources discussing the topic ... in English". WP:NONENG says only "editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality". I fear that for this topic you should include sources in German, Italian, French and Latin, because many of the books are probably not available in English.
Further, the discussions or conflicts leading to a decision are about as important as the decision itself because without knowing the history leading to a decision you do not understand the sense and motives of the decision, and therefore you are unable to interpret it. Your article is good in describing WHAT the R-C church teaches today; but it is very weak in explaining WHY and SINCE WHEN the church teaches it, and many similar questions.
Moreover the church history often translates into "normal" history of the world and this connections should be included. I give you an example: I live in a city with many Middle-Age Catholic churches in Gothic style. But in the churches from about 1300, most of the pictures, altars and other furnitures are Baroque or younger, that is after 1650 or so. Why? Because of the conflicts about the interpretation of the commandement "You shall not make for yourself an idol". The iconoclast conflits in the Western European church in the late Middle Age / Early Modern Era led to almost complete destruction of the old pictures, statues etc. - you cannot explain the state of our Central European churches without mentioning these conflicts about the Second Commandement and the victory of the iconodulic Tridentine view in our region.
Further, the article does not include the current discussion in R-C moral theology about the interpretation of Commandements. Let me allow another example: Your personal page features a picture with a lot of halibuts you caught. Does the Fifth commandment allow to kill a living being for fun? Does it even allow to kill living beings? There are important R-C theologians who say "no" at least to the first question, and some (like Eugen Drewermann) even to the second one. The environmentalist themes are very quickly gaining importance in the current Christian theology, and one of the themes in this context is the Fifth commandment.
To summarize, the R-C theology always faced many important questions regarding the Decalogue. 1. If we are no more living under the Law, why and how are the Commandements (which are the very heart of the Law) binding for us? 2. If they are binding, why are we obeying only some of them (we do not observe the Holy Sabbat, we do use pictures of God, we call Jesus "God" even if there is only one God in Heaven) 3. If we know which Commandements are binding, then we should interpret them in the current situation in order to know how to behave according to them (the task of moral theology), and 4. If we know how to behave, we must know how to tell it to the people (pastoral theology). You succeeded somehow only in the fourth question, but you do not tell us the story behind the first three questions, which are in my opinion preceeding the fourth one, and therefore more important.
I really do not believe that it is possible to save this article under the current name for FA status. It would require a total rewrite and a lot of work. Consider to change the name of the article in order to reflect the limited nature of the text. "In Roman Catholicism" does not mean only in today's Roman Catholicism, only in official Roman Catholicism and only teachings of R-C Magisterium without deep explanation.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ioannes -
  • I think I need to clarify that we eat those big fish (halibut) all year long. If you go to Kodiak and go fishing, your fish are filleted and frozen and shipped to your home, or in our case, packed in coolers and checked on as luggage. My family and I do not kill for fun and fishing is not immoral if you eat your catch. The article covers care of the environment in the Seventh Commandment, this has not been overlooked as you stated above.
  • Regarding your comments on the article: you want this article to be a summary of the developement of Catholic Doctrine - something that no scholar does when they write or speak about the article's title "Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism". If they did, I would have no problem complying with your request. I am not complying with your request because if scholars do not do what you are asking, I don't think I should be creating something that does not reflect "modern scholarship".
  • You say I do not give Reader the "why" regarding not being held to the Jewish law but I do - the article text in "Background" states "The Church teaches that Jesus freed people from keeping "the burdensome Jewish law (Torah) with its 613 distinct regulations but not from the obligation to keep the Ten Commandments"[5] because the Ten "were written 'with the finger of God',[note 1] unlike the other commandments written by Moses"[5] - with an explanatory note (note 1) to boot.
  • Also, per modern scholarship, the article includes all references they make to the history of the developement of Catholic interpretation of the Ten, including the clash of iconodules and iconoclasts. This is not something I left out - its under Graven Images and has wikilinks to appropriate daughter articles discussing the matter at greater length - in accordance to WP:summary style. This same method has been applied to every major Church decision regarding the Ten - as discussed by modern scholarship. I did not go beyond the matter provided by the experts on the subject and I think that doing so would constitute WP:OR.

NancyHeise talk 18:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy,
  • The problem is not your personal consumption of fish, but the current theological discussion about the rights of humans to destroy nature and life in light of the Decalogue, which is omitted in the article.
I think because there has been no change in official Church teaching on this subject, there is no mention of these discussions in modern scholarship and I don't think I should cover it unless scholars cover it. NancyHeise talk 09:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the book [24] I found this "In der Katechtenbelehrung der Alten Kirche kommt der D. durchweg nicht vor. Aufgenommen wird er dagegen in MA. in Beichtunterricht und Beichtverhör. Dies führte schliessl. dazu, dass der D. zum Gliederungsprinzip moraltheol. Abhandlungen wurde..." (Article Dekalog) In my humble English translation "In the Old Church, the Ten Commandements were absolutely not used to teach the catechumens. They were accepted in the Middle Ages and used in the Sacrament of Penance and for the preparation for it. At the end, this led to use of the Decalogue as ordering principle in books about moral theology...". That means your assumptions about unimportance of the history for current scholars are false. In the literature they cite for example R. Hoffmann ([25]) and his article "Die Bedeutung des Dekalogs, theologisch und geschichtlich, in der Sicht der katholischen Moraltheologie", then K. Holl, "Der Neubau der Sittlichkeit", B. Reicke "Dei zehn Worte in Geschichte und Gegenwart" (1973) etc. This is the type of scholarly sources you should read and use - otherwise the WP article will remain without the historical basis.
The article omits no facts of historical importance for the Ten Commandments and is properly based upon modern scholarship. According to Wikipedia policy, the article uses English speaking works for references on a topic that is vastly and properly covered by English speaking experts - no need to go to work in other languages as this is not an obscure subject. NancyHeise talk 09:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the above point it looks like your assertion that "Jesus freed people from keeping the burdensome Jewish law (Torah) with its 613 distinct regulations but not from the obligation to keep the Ten Commandments" seems to be one-sided of even false: The Wörterbuch says that the early Christians thought that the Decaloge as such was abolished by Jesus, and moreover the Catholic Church itself does not observe all points of the Decalogue (the images of God, Sabbat).
No, this assertion is false and I have never seen this in Catholic teaching anywhere. In fact, in the Didache, the earliest Christian writings, the Ten Commandments are part of the examination of conscience prescribed by the Apostles - our lead also mentions this use and this work is part of one of my books on Catholic teachings. NancyHeise talk 09:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The the clash of iconodules and iconoclasts you describe is the one which happened in the Old Eastern Church and was partially motivated by influence of islam. But for this article is much more important the further conflict in the R-C church itself (Savonarola, Calvin...) which was more clearly motivated by the interpretation of the Decalogue. Again, there is really a lot of literature to this problem at least in major European languages, so have no fear form WP:OR and start a research.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the wikilink to the page on the iconoclasm issue addresses all clashes. The only one that affects this page is the one that resulted in a decision of a Church Council. No change was made in Church teaching for the latter thus we have covered that which is relevent to the developement on Church doctrine regarding the Ten Commandments and omitted that which is irrelevent. NancyHeise talk 09:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am very busy for the week of April 20-24 and will not be able to respond to comments until after Friday Thanks, NancyHeise talk 09:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Karanacs 17:53, 21 April 2009 [26].

Martin Bucer[edit]

Nominator(s): RelHistBuff (talk) 09:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As this is a long article and some people have mentioned that this is a near non-notable topic, I thought a blurb is needed to attract some reviewers. This is about a character of the Reformation, an equivalent of Martin Luther, but who is nearly unknown except among historians (check out the scholarly books on him on amazon). But consider this: he personally mediated between two of the best known rivals of the Reformation, Martin Luther and Huldrych Zwingli and he tried to make them the best of friends; he housed and mentored another better-known Reformation character, John Calvin; and he contributed to Thomas Cranmer’s second edition of the Book of Common Prayer which is more-or-less the edition that survives today. So he ended up touching upon every major historical Protestant group, i.e., Lutheranism, Calvinism, and Anglicanism. Add to that, as an early ecumenist, he even advocated unity between Protestants and Catholics within Germany. Almost modern in his thinking, he was once one of the most influential figures in European church history. And like a typical European diplomat, he would have been a gold member of the frequent-equestrian-miles programme. Too bad he wasn’t more successful. I welcome your comments and criticisms. RelHistBuff (talk) 09:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (Who the HECK said he wasn't notable???? Many of my bishops are less notable than Bucer!) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to clarify, I have been trying to make the case that Bucer is mid-importance in the Christianity Wikiproject and a couple of the regulars insist that he is low-importance (which in my mind strikes me as equivalent to near non-notable). Ok, maybe that statement was a bit of a hyperbole; it wasn't an AfD candidate... --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at least for the moment on the grounds of POV and comprehensiveness. A spruced-up (if not whitewashed) version of Bucer is present in the article, which doesn't specifically cover, or glosses over, negative aspects. Thomas Murner was not just a "satirist" who attacked Luther, he was a poet and Franciscan who published pro-Catholic tracts, and whose press was attacked. The article says that "emotions reached boiling point", and "angry mobs formed and broke into the monasteries, looting and destroying" without saying anything about the role of Bucer's preaching in this. Treger, "left Strasbourg" after the riot and imprisonment. Nothing is mentioned about the many other priests and canons forced to flee.
Bucer's four year campaign, described by others as intimidatory, for the suppression of Catholicism in Strasbourg is not mentioned. The article here uses weasel words like, the reformers asked the council to "completely abandon the mass". No. Those who wanted to had abandoned the mass. Bucer demanded that the worship and preaching of Catholics in the city be completely banned and suppressed. He argued the same in Ulm, Augsburg and Bern. There ius the same pussyfooting with regard to the Anabaptists, who Bucer wanted to recant or be expelled from Strasbourg. The article says only that he and his pastors were "calling for better enforcement of ethical standards and the preaching of true doctrine." The expulsion is blamed on the Council, with no mention of Bucer's role in this.
Another serious omission is the failure to deal with Bucer's beliefs that the State had authority to rule the Church in all respects including doctrine and appointments. In the section "Organising the Strasbourg church " blame again is placed on the Council while no attempt is made to portray Bucer's views. Again, amazingly, there seems to be no reference at all to one of the most controversial and scandalous events in Bucer's career - his promotion and advocacy of the bigamous marriage of the powerful Philip Landgrave of Hesse. these are all serious omissions of material that should be in this article. Xandar 01:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. In order to avoid crowding this FAC with discussions on these points, I suggest we move to the article talk page in order to come to a resolution. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I have criticized some previous nominations for lack of notability, but there is no doubt at all that Bucer is notable -- he was a major figure in the Reformation. However this article very badly needs a major copy-edit, and I'm not sure FAC is the place to do it. There are tons of awkward or malformed sentences. Looie496 (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will see what can be done about this. --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brianboulton has kindly done a copy-edit. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical Review
I did see the disambiguation page, but I noticed that the page itself defined what is a religious colloquy so I was not sure what to do. I have now created a new page with the definition and added the wikilink to the disambiguation page.

--RelHistBuff (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support It is more comprehensive about his life than the Martin Luther article is for his. While it doesn't follow a pro-Catholic POV, it does present an equitable summary of his relations with a variety of other people. Bucer is very notable.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was the first of two who stated that we did not consider the subject to be particularly significant to the Christianity WikiProject as a whole, as it is now arranged. While he did have some importance to each of the groups mentioned, in comparison to many other articles relative to those same subjects, this is rather less significant than many of them. Basically, as the first "priority" reviewer, I gave him a "Mid" priority for some of the groups, which, in general, tends to be brought down a notch for the Christianity project as a whole. One of the other coordinators of the project implied that the subject might be of high priority to a Reformation group, but no such group exists at this time, and the subject is virtually unknown in most of the groups he impacted today. If the author's representations of the comments of others are indicative of the way he writes articles, I very much urge everyone to check for exaggeration and/or mild misrepresentation. John Carter (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why RelHistBuff would deliberately exaggerate anything. As for mild misrepresentation, that's always a risk with Wikipedia, and I expect we are all unintentionally guilty of it. To be honest, I regard your comment as off-topic: it is up to you to find some specific faults in the article and then to bring them here. In my experience, RelHistBuff always tries hard to be objective: in all his articles on religious history, I've never been able to detect what his own beliefs are. qp10qp (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support An observation to the negative vote above: As objective encyclopedists we should be ready to post and download all the information, even the skeletons in the closet; however, one is struck with two aspects of the prevailing philosophy in academia: 1) one must take a jaundiced view toward famous Christian religious leaders of the past and 2) one must be sure to emphasize all of their shortcomings and peccadilloes. We should assume the good faith of the editors, who are sprucing up this article. Perhaps those with the prevailing attitude should provide the derogatory material they feel is missing. I am sure that the knowledgeable editors will take it into consideration for inclusion. --Drboisclair (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A featured article is required to be comprehensive, and NPOV, however. I don't think my objection is intended to insist on "all shortcomings and peccadilloes" being in the article, but certain major strands that are covered in some detail in the sources. While some of my concerns have been dealt with, I did propose an amendment on the article talk page which would make some reference to the remaining ommissions that raised concern. That was a week ago, but the article nominator has not responded so far. Xandar 22:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, been away due to real life. Will get back to this soon. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
I am almost ready to support this article for FA. I think it is really interesting and well done, even if it is a bit long. I made some minor copyedits and I have a few recommendations for improvement:
  • Bucer's stepdaughter is mentioned in the Death and Legacy paragraph but I can not find where she is first introduced in the article. I see he married a former nun but I think it would be nice to mention children or lack of and let Reader know from where the stepdaughter originated.
  • The lead does not mention one of Bucer's major contributions, the concept of religious pluralism listed in Death and Legacy.
  • There really is very little in the article about his personal family life. I am not going to oppose for lack of, I just think it would make the article more complete if more could be included. Perhaps modern scholarship skips this and I would completely understand if my comment is asking you to unreasonably find things that are not discussed by scholarly experts on the subject.
Otherwise, I thought the article was well done. NancyHeise talk 00:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
adding to above - I see that somewhere along the way he married a woman named Wilbrandis Rosenblatt [27] who is the mother of Bucer's stepdaughter. Something should be included about the end of his marriage to the nun (did she die?) and his marriage to Rosenblatt. NancyHeise talk 01:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also found this source [28] that tells us his first wife died of the plague along with all but one of their children and that this first wife asked him to marry Rosenblatt after she died. Neat info that should be included in this persons life story. He is more than his accomplishments, he is a man with a family! : ) NancyHeise talk 02:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. The personal life information is unfortunately revealed in small snapshots as his biography progresses and there is not much available in the sources. To improve this I will add a few clauses to try and tie together the personal life bits better and add some details about his children and also what happened to Wibrandis. Concerning what appears to be missing details:
  • Bucer's first marriage to Elisabeth Silbereisen (the former nun), is mentioned in the fifth paragraph of "Early life". The death of Elisabeth by the plague is mentioned in the last paragraph of "Colloquies, controversies, and the imperial diet". It also mentions that Elisabeth asked Bucer to marry Wibrandis Rosenblatt. It is also here that mention is made of Wibrandis' previous marriage to Wolfgang Capito (who was the father of Agnes).
  • As for religious pluralism in the last section, I used a different word as a synonym, "ecumenism", in the lead. Ecumenism is probably more accurate, but Greschat noted his "theological pluralism".
--RelHistBuff (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added some family details: Bucer's surviving son, Nathanael, the family's move to England (including Agnes Capito), and Wibrandis' return to Basel. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fruitful discussions here and on the talk page seem to be improving the article. I hope to support at the end of this process. If there is anything in the sources on Bucer's position(s) on the use of religious images, and his actions on the issue, this would be a very welcome addition. It's the sort of thing theological historians tend to neglect, as not reflecting their current interests, but is actually significant in a wider perspective, given his power over large numbers of masterpieces of medieval art at various points. On a quick google search, I see there is some coverage here. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since he was a reformer, I don't think he would have promoted their use. So I guess your question is where did Bucer's views lie on the scale between mild rejection to extreme iconoclasm. I will have to take a look at the sources. --RelHistBuff (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 Karanacs 17:53, 21 April 2009 [29].

Yukon Quest[edit]

Nominator(s): JKBrooks85 (talk)

Since the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race is going on right now, I figured it might be the right time to nominate this fellow 1,000-mile sled dog race in Alaska. This is the first time I have attempted to create an article about a race, but I feel the article is comprehensive, correctly illustrated, adequately cited, and accurate. It presents its information in a clear, informative way and addresses the subject without bias. The dead links tool has detected no problems, and the reftools citation check has revealed no problems as well. As always, I appreciate all comments, questions, and concerns, and don't hesitate to drop a note on my talk page for anything that can't be addressed here. Thank you for your time, and have a great day! JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments -
  • ARGH! You have three big red Invalid ref tag... notices in the middle of the article.
  • Serves me right for making a last-minute change before going to bed.
  • Current ref 25 (John Schandelmeier...) needs a last access date. Same for current ref 31, 47 (same author)
  • Added.
  • Be nice to have ISBNs for the books.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I've made it through most of the race route, and am quite happy with what I'm reading overall. Here are a few thoughts from me, as I get over the shock of seeing a JKBrooks nom that has nothing to do with the Hokies:-)

  • Heh, you missed out on Rampart Dam before this one (but don't worry, I'm just waiting for the NFL draft to be over :)).
  • "and the limited support allowed mushers". Doesn't read that great, at least to me. Try "allowed to mushers" or "that mushers are allowed".
  • Changed.
  • Musher Lance Mackey, who held the quickest-finish record before Schuelle, is the only musher to have won the race four times." See the redundancy?
  • Changed.
  • In the last two sentences of the lead, there are a couple places where commas could be inserted, seeing as you're using serial commas. Not something I'd be too worried about, though.
  • Changed.
  • Pre-race preparation: There's an "in order" here that can go. Also one in the next section, and another in the section after that.
  • Removed.
  • Two photos are on the left side below second-level headers, which the MoS discourages.
  • The action in those photos is going left to right, which is why I put them on the left side. If it really bothers you, I can move them over to the right side.
  • Eagle to Central: One use of Biederman's Cabin is misspelled as Biderman's Cabin.
  • Fixed.
  • Two Rivers to Fairbanks: Hyphens needed for Whitehorse to Fairbanks route.
  • Fixed.
  • References are out of numerical order once ([59][57]). Not a big deal, but would be nice to see them in order.
  • I believe that's because it's a duplicated citation. Is there an easy way to fix that?
  • If you want to change it, just move the duplicated reference in front of the new one. Not something I'd withhold support over, however. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Participants: "The race attracts anywhere from 47 (in 1988 and 1989) to 21 (in 1996) mushers each year." Why is the higher number given first? I would also ask this of the linked list.
  • Fixed.
  • "to reach Dawson City (the midpoint of the race) and complete the race." A little redundancy with "race". I'd recommend changing the parenthetical part here.
  • Fixed.
  • Penalties: "The last instance of a team being removed for poor care took place in the 1998". This part of the sentence leaves the reader hanging, if you get my drift. :-) I'm also not thrilled to see a dollar amount start a sentence.
  • Fixed. I spelled out the dollar amount.
  • History: "Despite its problems, however, the Yukon Quest continues to operate on an annual basis." Despite changes the tone, and I don't think that however is needed on top of it.
  • Fixed.
  • This hasn't been touched, as far as I know. Do you want to leave it? Giants2008 (17-14) 21:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first decade: "In 1989, 39 mushers completed the race, the most that have finished a single race." Again a redundancy with "race".
  • Fixed.
  • "race officials awarded him the Red Lantern Award." This time, "award" is a little repetitive.
  • Fixed.
Not easy to pick out these minute flaws, but it's important for our readers to have the best-written article possible. Almost finished with it now. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely. I wouldn't continue to do FACs if I didn't want to answer reviews and create the best possible article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing review here to avoid clogging the page. Shouldn't be too much more to look at. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. The only thing I was a little confused about was the item about closest finish; check to see if I fixed what you were thinking of. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I left a few notes, but there's nothing to prevent me from supporting. The article has everything one would ever want to know about this race, and is well-written and presented. I cleaned up several things; please check to ensure that they are okay. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tech. Comment -- Based on the checker tools [for dabs and external links], and WP:REFTOOLS for ref formatting, all three are up to speed. Best, --₮RUCӨ 23:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • See also contains links that are already in the text or could be worked into the text (see WP:LAYOUT), and I believe the main template in the Sled dogs section is incorrectly employed. Main is used when this article is a summary of another article; see also or further might be better used here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can do! Do you have an example of a filled-out template that you like? JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) This is very good. EDIT: All issues have been resolved.

  • "From Eagle to Central is a total trail distance of 233 miles separated by a checkpoint at Circle." I don't see how distance can be "separated".
  • Fixed.
  • All in all, the sentence structure in the "Eagle to Central" section is very repetitive, "X miles from here is there". Try to mix it up a bit.
  • Take a look and see if what I've done makes it better for you.
  • "is a cabin located at mile marker 101"
  • Fixed.
  • "valley containing"-->valley that contains
  • Fixed.
  • "attracts anywhere from 21 (in 1996)[75] to 47 (in 1988 and 1989)[76] mushers each year."
  • I wasn't sure what you were pointing to here, but I moved the citations to the end of the sentence.
  • Sorry, I was referring to the idle "anywhere". Dabomb87 (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "several racers are recognized by special awards given for various feats performed on the trail. " "recognized" seems redundant, receiving awards is a recognition in itself.
  • Reworded the sentence.
  • "but Lee was forced to rest more often." "forced"-->had or needed, I doubt that he was forcibly made to rest more often
  • "founded with the intent to encourage self-sufficiency"
  • Fixed.
  • "This rule came into play in 1993" "came into play" is a bit too loose for me; maybe "introduced" or "implemented" or "enacted"?
  • Changed to "applied".
  • "prior to "-->before (multiple occurences)
  • Changed where found.
  • "Mushers must start the race with at least 14 dogs, and must finish with no fewer than six dogs." Remember that nagging WP:MOSNUM rule about comparable quantities ? :)
  • Gah. Unfortunately, yes.
  • "Participating dogs are not allowed to receive injections during the race, are not allowed to be under the influence of performance-enhancing substances such as steroids, and the race marshal may remove any team from the race because of inadequate dog care." The third idea (inadequate dog care) seems too separate from the first and second (potential substance abuse) to warrant being connected with a comma, perhaps a semicolon or a whole new sentence?
  • Take a look at the change.
  • "official latitude whether"-->official latitude on whether
  • Fixed.
  • "race first was imagined in 1983" word choice bothers me, maybe "conceived" or "created" instead of "imagined"?
  • Replaced.
  • "of whom only 13 finished."
  • Removed.
  • Improper bolding in the "Quest 300 and Junior Quest" section. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it is considered the most difficult sled dog race in the world, and has been called the toughest race in the world." Redundant phrasing?
  • I don't think so, because different sources are saying those two things. If you don't believe one source, you might believe another. What do you think?
  • Well see, when you use the quotes, as in the "Route" section, it doesn't sound as redundant because it emphasizes that these are two different ideas said by different people. So, perhaps add quotation marks (and a ref) to this phrase in the lead? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isee where you're coming from. I've added the quotes in the lead. JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Racers also cannot accept"
  • Removed.
  • "Wildlife also is common, and participants sometimes face challenges from moose and wolves along the trail." I'm trying to see what "is common" means here. Maybe, "Wildlife along the trail, such as moose and wolves, sometimes poses challenges to participants."
  • Reworded.
  • "there are several traditional preparation stages before the start of the competition" "There are" can be an indicator of weak sentence structure and redundancy, let's see if we can eliminate some here: "several traditional preparation stages precede the competition"
  • Reworded.
  • "The Scroggie Creek dog drop is located at the"
  • Removed.
  • "Alaska/Yukon" Use an en dash instead of a slash.
  • Changed.
  • "markers have been known to be obscured by the snow." Dabomb87 (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsNeat article. I just have some minor quibbles.
1)The lead does not adequately summarize the article and needs to include some mention of the junior quest.
  • Added.
2)I think the article data content is very good but the prose needs improvement. I see some run-on sentences and awkward sentences. For example this sentence: "In the competition, which began in 1984, a single musher and a team of 6 to 14 sled dogs race for 10 to 20 days while following historic 1890s Klondike Gold Rush, mail delivery, and transportation routes between Fairbanks, Dawson City, and Whitehorse." places too many different ideas into the same sentence. There are three sentences in that one sentence.

NancyHeise talk 02:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I broke the sentence up. Take a look and see if you agree. JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better now, thanks. NancyHeise talk 01:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a. I was encouraged by the comments above, but on reading, I didn't get far before being mired in problems. Below are just from the lead and first section—a careful copy edit and wikilink audit are needed.
    • All the red links are yuck. One or two, I can stomach, but not this sea of red. Either create stubs or maintain a wishlist on the article Talk page or a relevant WikiProject page. Once they are created, go back and wikilink. The current effect is of being "unfinished".
      • Thanks for the comment. Filling the red links is a work in progress, and if it's any consolation, most of them are concentrated in the first quarter of the article.
    • "... but are not allowed to replace the dogs at any time or their sled without penalty." Oddly written. Why not "replace the dogs or their sled at any time"?
      • According to the copy of the rules I looked at, the dogs may not be replaced, and replacing the sled involves an eight-hour penalty.
    • "Veterinarians are present at each checkpoint and dog drop to insure the health and welfare of the dogs" I'm pretty sure the vets are ensuring unless they have insurance agencies staffed with veterinarians out there.
      • Fixed.
    • Why is "quickest-finish" hypenated?
      • Reworded.
    • "It is a qualifier for the long-distance race and is run concurrently with the longer race." How can it be a qualifier if it's run concurrently?
      • Added "next year's"
    • "the exact course of the Yukon Quest varies slightly from year to year." What is the word "exact" doing?
      • Removed.
    • "in a weather-shortened 2003 race" You want "the weather-shortened" unless there were more than one.
      • Changed.
    • "In odd-numbered years, the start and finish lines switch locations—the race starts in Whitehorse and ends in Fairbanks." Is that anything after the dash really needed? Ending with "start and finish lines switch locations" is surely good enough.
      • I'd hope it's good enough, but I wanted to make sure.
    • "Because it is run in early February, racers endure ..." Dangling modifier. --Laser brain (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More problems, I'm finding issues in any section I pick at random to start reading. The issues I mentioned above were representative only—I urge you to find a fresh copy editor to go through this. It's rough.
      • I've gone through the history section again and removed some of the redundancies. I also have contacted additional FAC reviewers for their opinions. I think the prose is on par for a FA, but I'm not exactly unbiased. :)
    • "Because of the harsh conditions, the Yukon Quest has been called ..." Are you sure you don't want "Due to" or "Owing to"?
    • Second decade: "This problem was rectified in the 1996 race ..." I'm sure you mean "for the 1996 race".
      • Changed.
    • Third decade: an oddly cobbled-together section that jumps all over the place chronologically. Facts are sprinkled and/or repeated, but there is no cohesiveness.
--Laser brain (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've gone through and rewritten portions of the history section, including the third decade subsection. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 Karanacs 17:53, 21 April 2009 [30].

Necrid[edit]

Nominator(s): Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After several copyedits, scouring for issues and a peer review, resubmitting Necrid for featured article status. The sources have been checked, the prose tweaked, and the article is stable. All content in the article should be up to snuff and legible without requiring a fundamental understanding of video games.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per comments in the peer review. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 09:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images The image File:Souldcalibur2-necrid-screenshot.jpg shows both appearance and weapons the remainder is excessive 20:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Would the secondary design image be better replaced with one of the action figure (which also used the secondary design)? I feel wary about nominating an article for FA with only one image outside of the infobox to be honest.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technically no FA article has to have an image, and when dealing with non-free content where the image elements are considerably similar in each shot, less is better. I still do not see how the two other images outside of the article meet NFCC as significantly increasing understanding beyond the identification image. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Swords are swords, and I see no reason how it's necessary to have the screenshot if all it can really depict is his weaponry. You've gone a good enough job in the prose with that. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • In the third image, what kind of form is the weapon taking? Also, if applicable, note which game the image is from, and end the caption with a period.
      • Fixed it up, noted the form taken.
    • "His weapon attacks will manifest and disappear into his hands for each, presenting different visual cues than the original character.[26]" (Gameplay section) Can you rephrase that? I don't know what you mean by it.
      • Reworded this to be clearer.
    • (This is just a style tip.) In the "critical reception" section, put the positive reviews first, then the negative ones, then the "Despite their negative remarks" paragraph. If you feel the character has been noted in enough reviews, start the section with "Necrid had a mixed reception among critics of the Soul series" or something like that.
      • Well the reviews are more chronological in a sense, because many early reviews were the first to complain about the character, such as GameNOW's.
        • If it's chronological, put "later" at the start of the second paragraph.
    • In "Design", remove the space between "6" and "½ feet".
      • Fixed.
    • "the vocal samples in his profile are named after emotions, such as 'Determination' and 'Indignation'". Rephrase this to something like "His speech is subtitled, rather than onomotopoetically, as the emotions he expresses, such as 'Determination' and 'Indignation'."
      • Not sure about this one...it's more or less a case where the sentence is meaning exactly what it sounds like. I'm worried other editors might take any expansion upon that as OR on my part, so it might be best to keep it brief, no?

Good work on this article, and on video game character articles in general. These were just a few comments I had after skimming it. Tezkag72 (talk) 14:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Alright, think I nailed everything you mentioned, hopefully that'll suffice.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Think I nailed them all.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentReference number 38 is linked to a Wikipedia page. Is there no link to the actual magazine? If not, is there any more info you could add to this reference like page number or volume? NancyHeise talk 02:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while since I've seen the reference source, but it came from a periodical database that omitted the page numbers, similar to how MyWire does. However I added an issue number based on what issue it exactly was. Will that suffice?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats better than nothing. Can you provide the periodical database too? NancyHeise talk 03:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't recall which one it was at this point, other than it was one I couldn't link to outright. It's been some time since the reference was retrieved.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are dates linked in the references? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...because nobody's ever mentioned it as a problem before? Why would it be an issue?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I'm sorry but the prose is still not up to FA standard here are some examples:

  • "After the discussions, Namco proposed the idea of his company designing a new character for the title which McFarlane accepted, considering the opportunity to also create a toy based upon the finished design" - there's a problem with company designing which should be "company's designing" and "considering " should be something like and considered it an opportunity to create. The flow is very poor here.
  • "Strapped to his chest is a circular piece of metal with a large swirling, pulsating red jewel set inside." - this is back-to-front A pulsating red jewel set inside a circular piece of metal is strapped to his chest
  • "additional changes to his color scheme include teal eyes, black pants and the jewel on his chest changed to blue." - and a blue jewel on his chest
  • "changed to be crystalline in appearance" - and are crystalline
  • "A physical manifestation of the same energy contained within Soul Edge, it is controlled through the jewel on his chest." - that is controlled
  • "IGN's Xbox article editor stated Necrid did not "vibe" with the rest of the game, adding that new characters made without McFarlane's involvement would have been more welcome, and describing the event as an unnecessary marketing ploy." - What event?

These are just some examples; there are problems throughout the text. The main one is a lack of logical flow. It is not ready for FA. Graham Colm Talk 18:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all but the first...something doesn't sound right about the way you're suggesting it should read:

"After the discussions, Namco proposed the idea of his company's designing a new character for the title which McFarlane accepted, and considered it an the opportunity to also create a toy based upon the finished design."

That doesn't seem to flow better at all, if anything kinda makes it harder to read since, doesn't it?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it sounds fine as it is, but he's the opposer. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 SandyGeorgia 16:56, 21 April 2009 [31].

Bulbasaur[edit]

Nominator(s): Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ LifeDeath 14:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Bulbasaur for FA becasue it was a FA article previously, then WP:FANSITE came and knocked it out. Since then have worked hard and we believe it is ready again.Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ LifeDeath 14:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose – There are some unsourced statements and the reception section still needs to be expanded. Also, you're not a significant contributor to the article so this nomination should be removed. —TheLeftorium 15:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am.Not recently ,because I have been working on other pokemon, but I still worked on it a lot.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ LifeDeath 15:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you used another account or something? Because the history page says you've only made two edits. TheLeftorium 15:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I helped from the project pages talk page, which since have been deleted, there left.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ LifeDeath 15:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The article isn't ready yet. Cultural Impact still needs some expansion, one or two of the refs are dead links, etc. MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and suggest withdrawal; quite a long way from featuredness at the moment. Sceptre (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 SandyGeorgia 23:13, 18 April 2009 [32].

Pennsylvania Route 652[edit]

Nominator(s): Mitchazenia :  Chat  3 years and counting... 10:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because, after about, oh I don't know, eight months of work on the article, it is finally finished as far as I can go. It went through an A-class assessment from November 2008 to March 2009, covering every last detail issue the project, U.S. Roads could fine. The article, if it passes, would be Pennsylvania State Highways WikiProject's first Featured Article. Again, all comments are welcome.Mitchazenia :  Chat  3 years and counting... 10:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeComments
    • The article needs copyediting. Case in point, these sentences: "The population along the highway is not at a dense spectrum, with dwellings surrounding the highway at certain points." and "Route 652 has a consistent stretch of four bridges that puts the highway together"
Done.Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 10:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The history mentions 4 bridges that sound somewhat notable, yet the route description says nothing about this. The Route description is frankly just a rehash of the major intersections table. The history section also needs to be wikified and cleaned up. I'm pretty sure wikipedia has an article about the Delaware River, yep blue link. My apologies, didn't notice that the article was linked in the lead, a better example would be the Narrowsburg-Darbytown Bridge. Dave (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, it is not a rehash. I always make sure that it doesn't just mention intersections in it. I can see easily that its not.Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 10:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability: The article does a descent job of describing the highway, but does not tell me why I should care. There are only some hints, such as a mention of a Sproul Road Bill and that the road is only 10 miles long but has 4 descent size bridges (long bridges by 1920 standards). From those two implied, but never stated facts, I'm guessing this road was needed to make a better connection between two important commercial regions that previously required navigating significant obstacles. The article on the Delaware River is pretty well written and supports this. That article makes the case this this river is a pretty formidable obstacle. Tell that story, don't leave me to guess that by golly if the Pennsylvania legislature funded this highway than it's important for some reason or another. Dave (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can help me solve this one - As 1) the delaware river article sucks and 2) I can't find what you see at all. Also, you've overlooked that it is old U.S. Route 106.Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 10:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.loc.gov is a good starting point for information about historical landmarks. By playing with search terms "Wayne County Pennsylvania" "Delaware River Pennsylvania" etc. I was able to pull up some "Historical American Engineering Records" for 2 or 3 landmarks I suspect are along this highway..Dave (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but I usually don't include things like that in articles of my own. But we'll see.Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 13:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As my concerns have gone mostly unaddressed and have been seconded by the next reviewer, I feel I must change my position to oppose until they are resolved. Mitch, the info is out there. I found a lot of historical info about these bridges on my own, and I know almost nothing about this area. Do the research. This article has potential, but it needs expanding.Dave (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
Done. Thanks.Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 10:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I don't think this article is even close to FA standards. It does not have a professional standard of prose, I doubt it is comprehensive, and I have serious concerns with the structure and the sourcing.

  • I'm concerned about the level of sourcing in this article. Of the 19 sources listed, 12 are to maps (8 of the 12 published by Pennsylvania Dept of Highways, which in this case is a self-published source, as it is essentially sourcing its own "child"). An addition 4 of the citation are to the USDoT National Bridge inventory (again, citing things they own). To me, this is highly excessive. Are there no newspaper articles that discuss this? How can we tell whether the road is even important if it has barely been mentioned outside of state and federal databases or maps?
  • The article discusses only the alignment of the road (not surprising, considering most of the sources are maps). Is there anything of interest off the road?
  • A quick google books search showed me more information is readily available about the road. For example
    • [33] discusses average daily traffic on the road in the 1960s
I don't have access, can't add anything from it.Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 17:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what libraries are for :) Karanacs (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what happens when you don't live in Pennsylvania.Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 22:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interlibrary loan Karanacs (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article needs a thorough copyedit. Wording is unclear and often ungrammatical and does not flow well.
  • Why is the history section out of chronological order? The first section is current alignment (1972-presnet), but it is mostly talking about things that happened very early. I would lose the subsections and reorder this section to be in chronological order.
  • When was the road built? What does the Sproul Road Bill have to do with anything (article is not clear)? and legislatures can't "sign" bills - that is the governor's job
Checking - and clarified.Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 17:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we really care about the bridge replacement costs? If there are no plans to replace them, that seems like trivia.
Done. I've heard rumors that the Narrowsburg-Darbytown may be replaced.Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 17:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Text in the article is sourced incorrectly. Examples:
    • ' The population along the highway is not high, with dwellings surrounding the highway only at certain points and There is a small increase in the area population as the route continues northward. are sourced to Yahoo Maps. This information cannot be gotten from that reference.
    • In 1972, US 106 was decommissioned and replaced with the PA 652 designation between Indian Orchard and the Delaware River implies that the decommissioning took place in 1972. This is sourced to a map. From the map, you cannot determine that the decommissioning took place that year.
    • PA 652 was first assigned in 1928 is referenced to a map. While it might have first appeared on a map in 1928, I don't think you can infer that that was the year it was assigned.
    • In 1946, PA 652 was transferred to the control of the local suburbs along its entire length, and control of the roads went to local highway departments - again, cited to a map. Doesn't seem like that is the type of information that should come from a map.

Karanacs (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I solved some of it. Can I ask that the FAC either be suspended or be let up for more than the necessary time? I am looking into contacting the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation's library, because there is literally no newspaper articles. Give me some time.Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 17:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a. Here are examples from the top that prove the entire article needs revision:
    • "Pennsylvania Route 652 (designated by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) as State Route 0652) is a 10.57-mile (17.01 km) long east–west state highway located in northeast Pennsylvania." To avoid "parenthesis within parenthesis", convert the outermost set to commas. "Located" is redundant.
    • "The western terminus of the route is at U.S. Route 6 in the Texas Township community of Indian Orchard, and the eastern terminus is at the New York-Pennsylvania border in Damascus Township, where Route 652 crosses the Narrowsburg–Darbytown Bridge and into New York, continuing as New York State Route 52 and Sullivan County Route 24." Sentence is a bit of a snake (4+ clauses); perhaps restructure into two sentences?
    • "The highway reaches New York over the Delaware River and is located in Wayne County, Pennsylvania." Why not just name the county in the lead sentence, where is already says "northeast Pennsylvania"?
    • "The state highway originated as United States Route 106 when U.S. Routes were first assigned in 1926." "The state highway" should be simplified to "The highway". Perhaps change "U.S. Routes" to simply "names"?
    • I'd rather see SR 652 spelled out to at least "Route 652", but that's just my opinion.
      • This is valid per WP:USSH. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Yikes, this is not. It would be if it was Pennsylvania State Route 652... --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Road articles are very difficult to word, and this is no exception. Keep copy-editing; you'll get closer to a crisp article with each pass. — Deckiller 19:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded.Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 20:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I have the time right now to list everything that could be changed; if I were to do that, I'd just copy-edit the article myself. I just listed these examples to show that further copy-editing from a third party is needed. User:Hoary and User:Tony1 are probably the best copy-editors on Wikipedia; maybe they can help? — Deckiller 20:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above prose problems and per serious breaches of WP:USSH. No, USSH isn't in the FAC, but it would be bad form to promote an article that does not conform to the same standard that all USRD articles have to conform to after the ArbCom-imposed WP:SRNC. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All SR stuff removed. Bull proposal that Pennsylvania got, and there was never a discussion for it. Stupidity.Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 20:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose still stands. Three people complaining about the prose indicates serious prose problems. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 SandyGeorgia 23:13, 18 April 2009 [34].

Dr. Octagonecologyst[edit]

Nominator(s): Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has undergone a significant amount of rewrites, copyedits, and a good article nomination, and I believe it meets the qualifications for FA status. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. While I am passionately in love with this album, I feel that the prose right now is too sloppy to gain my vote. The first paragraph of the lead, for example, moves between past and present tense, and is made up of many short choppy sentences. Some referencing problems also appear to me straight away — for example, superlatives like "gaining more attention than any non-mainstream hip hop album released in the same period" deserve a footnote. (Is this even verifiable? If not, it should be reworded.) I may be willing to help improve the prose (since it's such an important album to me and the world of hip hop), but I can't commit to anything right now. (If I am to help, I'd rather see the nomination withdrawn so we're not under severe time pressure.) Scartol • Tok 14:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sentence is cited, under "influence". (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
      • Okay, I've added a duplicate footnote to the lead. (I think that's just one critic's opinion, but I suppose it works so long as we consider it a definitive statement.) Scartol • Tok 18:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've re-read the article after the recent copyedit, and it looks better. But a number of problems still appear to exist in the text. For example: In both the United States and United Kingdom, the album was issued on vinyl as a double LP, and on compact disc, with bonus tracks. In the UK, the album was issued by Mo' Wax as a triple LP reflecting the track listing of the Bulk Recordings compact disc edition. It's unclear why (or whether) Mo' Wax released both a double and triple vinyl version. Other problems still remain in the prose; the lead, for example, says: "The distinctive sound of the album crosses multiple genres, including..." This would be much more effective written thusly: "The album's distinctive sound crosses genres such as..." I'd like to see the final two paragraphs of the lead combined, and there are a number of quotes from reviews in the "Production" section for reasons that are unclear. Et cetera. We're getting closer, but I still don't think it's there yet. Scartol • Tok 17:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still have some serious concerns about the prose style (that sentence about the double/triple LP/CD MoWax/BulkRecordings is still very confusing to me), but I think the multiple copyedits have pushed it just over the line into acceptability. Removing my oppose vote, but I'd still like to see the writing clarified. Scartol • Tok 17:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ....not certain that I get a vote, but the article, yes, has great potential. It still lacks, however, lots of proper citations. It needs a moderate amount of tweaking, but it's headed in a great direction.Buddpaul (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — The sentences you tagged were all in the lead. The statements you refer to are properly cited in the main article. The lead doesn't need that many citations - it summarizes the rest of the article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (Before anyone points out the iUniverse published book, note that it is used to source the fact that the writer of the book ranks the album ... and the information is properly attributed as the author's opinion, thus fulfills' WP:SPS.) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree.....changing my vote.....looks great! Buddpaul (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 SandyGeorgia 23:13, 18 April 2009 [35].

Hainan Island incident[edit]

Nominator(s): &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera!, — BQZip01 — talk, John

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a very well-written, very clear description of a famous incident. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 19:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article does appear to be in fairly good shape, but have you consulted the significant contributors to the article, per the {{FAC-instructions}}? Two major contributors to the article appear to be actively editing it as recently as the last 24 hours. Maralia (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did contact User:John, and I think he's just tidying, really. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 19:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick reply. I am glad to see that John supports the article's nomination; it's difficult to address issues raised by reviewers without the help of the editors who wrote and sourced the article's content. Multiple nominators are perfectly acceptable here; it would be appropriate to offer co-nomination to those editors who have significantly contributed to the article. Maralia (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I confirm that I am aware of and support this nomination. I think the article is well-written and well-sourced. I know there were some problems in the past with edit-warring and NPOV concerns, so I have put a lot of work into trying to make the sourcing as good as it can be and verifiable to avoid this. --John (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What John said... — BQZip01 — talk 06:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical Review

images should be alternated left and right to balance the article per MOS Fasach Nua (talk) 08:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --John (talk) 08:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be a pain, generally images should face into the text, and is the only exception to the left/right rule, so File:LockheedEP-3E_VQ-1_2001-2009-29-03.jpg might have to go on the left, and the line of troops should maybe swap with Bush so they are facing inwards. Fasach Nua (talk) 11:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. I can't reverse the images of planes as they show text. I can't move the returning crew or the Bush photo as they need to stay in the section they illustrate. Feel free to have a hack yourself. --John (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about switching the Bush image with the "EP crew" image directly opposite? I previewed it and it makes the paragraphs get a little funky (on my screen, at least) but other than that it looked ok. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks, you're right, it does look better. --John (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
see here. I reversed it, but of course the plane number is reversed. No way to fix that. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 17:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --John (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, I was incorrect (One of these days I'll cadge John's secrets). Anyway, the planes now appear to be in opposition which is perfect. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 17:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now, because...

  • the intro section doesn't summarise the whole article (WP:LEAD). Once you beef it up a little, I can reconsider.
  • the references seem a little mixed up. For example, you have some book references (Osborn, Brooks) separated out into a Bibliography section and given in shortened footnotes within the refs, and you have other book references (i.e., Peebles) given in long form directly in the References section; I don't know the official rules, but I think if you're going to have some refs separated into Bibliography and short-form footnotes, you should do the same for all book sources. Also, the Osborn book listed in "Bibliography" is never cited in the text, so shouldn't it go under a "Further reading" header instead? (I got confused looking through the footnotes trying to find Osborn). Finally, this is just a minor thing, but for the online references you generally give the publisher/work as a website (un.org, bbc.co.uk), and you should probably convert those to the actual publisher names (United Nations, BBC Online, etc.).

Once these issues are taken care of, I can take a second look. Best, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed refs, thanks. --John (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, struck that part. Having article titles in italics rather than quotes looks strange to me, but since it's consistent throughout the article it's not a problem. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beefed up intro slightly too; I think this answers the first criticism. --John (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I still think it's a bit lacking, though—there's currently nothing about the aftermath or impact of the incident (other than saying the US wrote a letter) or its importance. That is to say, not just the aftermath/impact of the crash, but the aftermath/impact of the entire political incident (ie, the aftermath of the aftermath of the crash) and how if affected US/China relations, etc. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I acknowledge this comment. I intend to do something later today about it, if nobody else does. --John (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such a section would be welcomed, but, that presupposes that 9/11 didn't overshadow the incident to the point that not much was written about the aftermath. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 17:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sums up the problem fairly well. I can add a sourced statement to the effect that there was criticism of both sides' handling of the crisis, and that it was Dubya's first real foreign policy crisis, but that is about all I can find and it seems pretty thin. However I think Rjanag is right and that it ought to go in, thin though it may be. --John (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds OK to me. As of 2009, there was no real impact as economic concerns on the part of both countries, and the US obsession with the war on terror precluded any lasting effects. That the incident happened should be sufficient in this case. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 21:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tried to address this concern by adding a little about the political reaction, and a tiny addition to the lede. Please feel free to suggest further improvements. --John (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Ealdgyth 14:09, 29 March 2009-
  • Need to move the Osborn book to a further reading section.
  • Note about the above oppose, it's not necessary to have ALL the books in a short form, you can do what this article does and put the most used ones in a bibliography and do a full citation for books that are only used once or twice. This article has a perfectly acceptable form of referencing.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool.
Thanks Ealdgyth, that makes sense. I have stricken my comments about the shortened footnotes (I still think it would look a lot cleaner if all the books were treated the same, but that's just my personal style so I won't let this get hung up over it), although I still have concerns about the formatting of the other references. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. For what it's worth, I tend to agree with you, I think the short footnotes with longer bibliography looks a lot better, but it's all a matter of personal preference. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if the lead image is from Xinhua, then why is it licensed under {{PDUSGov}} on Commons? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 22:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice question. I've asked the editor who added this attribution where it came from. I have also asked the original uploader of the image at Commons where it came from. --John (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apparently this was the photo's credit when Air Forces Monthly ran it. It would qualify as fair use I think, but I am happy to remove it from the article pending clarification of its status. --John (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have now done so.--John (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • It was a similar photo that Air Forces Monthly ran with, but not this one. I have re-uploaded it and replaced the lead image as it is not a PD image, but an irreplaceable historical image that cannot be faithfully reproduced. — BQZip01 — talk 06:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Few image concerns as follows:

  • File:KampfflugzeugF-8China-2009-29-03.jpg: per MOS:IMAGES, "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. [...] However, images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines; doing so misinforms the reader for the sake of our layout preferences. If an image is reversed or otherwise substantially altered, there should be a clear advantage to the reader in doing so (for example, cropping a work of art to focus on a detail that is the subject of commentary), and the alteration must be noted in the caption." This image is a derivative work made in an attempt to comply with the MOS facing rule. However, there is no advantage to doing so (why not put the two aircraft images on the left, separated by the map on the right?), and by flipping the plane and "re-aligning" its designation, we might be presenting a false representation of the physical structure of the Chinese jet (If a F-15 is flipped, is anyone going to claim that the M-61 is accurately on the left side?).
  • File:Schina sea 88.png: which map among these is this picture?
    Nevermind, I just found where it was. Jappalang (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Steve and pres.jpg (source for File:Steve and pres-2009-29-03.jpg): is the photographer a White House photographer, or is he or she Blocher's family or friend who took the photo during Bush's visit of the airman?[36] If it is not a White House photographer, we need the explicit permission of the person who took the image.
    removed pending verification. — BQZip01 — talk 06:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I nominated it for deletion. Jappalang (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:EP-3 Hainan Island 2001.jpg: the non-free version of the plane in question. I am on the fence with this (inclining to believe its fair use is warranted as an identifying image). This is listed here to see if anyone has objections to its use as such. Jappalang (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Ep3 crew.jpg: I prefer the original File:EP-3's crew return.jpg; it does not shift the focus to Towne alone, showing the crew as they emerge from the plane. VIRIN: 010412-F-0848C-003 (Richard Pray's return) might be even better. Note: this point is not an actionable item, just a suggestion.
Some should be easily resolved. Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd keep the one with Towne, though the wider shot would be more appropriate, IMHO. The one with Towne saluting shows the entire crew whereas the one featuring the marine doesn't show them all (some are blocked by him). — BQZip01 — talk 06:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the wider shot would be better; it is the call of you and your fellow nominators. Jappalang (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Public domain images have been verified. The copyrighted image claimed for fair use is up for discussion, but in my current opinion adequately serves as an identification of this incident. Jappalang (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: a shot of most of the EP-3E crew is available at http://web.archive.org/web/20051230194044/www.pacom.mil/imagery/archive/0104photos/index.shtml. Look for the John A. Giles photo at the bottom. This could conceivably be placed in the "On the ground" section since it mentioned the crew complement, or not... Jappalang (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - this was pretty big news in its day, and while I don't expect a minute-by-minute account, I would hope for at least something from the relevant NYT stories. And please, more book sources! [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51] -- that's just a start of what's out there. Also, the footnotes are in disarray. Treaty titles are not in italics; neither are news article titles, which should be in quotes. Note 1 is just a link; note 24 doesn't tell us the date of retrieval, etc. A good start, but there's more work to be done. - Biruitorul Talk 02:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What would the NYT references (I've read them) add to the ones we already have? I am not convinced this would be an improvement, let alone a necessary improvement. Similarly, while some of these book sources are interesting, and some even contain material which could be incorporated into the article, many of them are just mentions and add nothing to what we already have, or else go into (I think) unnecessary detail about the political aspects of the matter. Andrew Brookes is a specialist writer on aviation safety with a military background, so he is a pretty credible source for much of the material we have. If you honestly think there is a problem with the sources then I will reconsider but I think it is pretty well-referenced. On the formatting issue, I am not clear what you are saying; most of these footnotes are template-generated. News articles being in quotes I can understand and I will implement this.--John (talk) 05:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • About the ref formatting...I think I expressed a similar concern above, but my general feeling is that, yeah the titles in italics seem a bit weird, but since they're consistent throughout the article it doesn't seem like a major problem. Of course, I personally would prefer to see them in quotes, but their being in italics isn't (imo) a reason to oppose outright, as long as they are consistent. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What is this (currently ref #31) supposed to be:

    The Economist, London: Economist Publishing, April 17, 2001

    rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It refers to an article on Economist.com, which I am reading here. However it is (I think) subscriber-only and I was unsure how best to indicate that in the reference. Any suggestions? --John (talk) 06:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • A title, at the least, would be useful. (Author would also be nice, but it looks like there isn't one listed, at least not in the blurb.) Most of the article does seem to be behind a paywall, but the link might also be useful because it at least gives a blurb. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've done this. This too might be a place to bring in some of these book sources mentioned above by Biruitorul. --John (talk) 07:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 SandyGeorgia 23:13, 18 April 2009 [52].

Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway[edit]

Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because its a companion piece to two of my existing featured articles on the early history of London's tube lines. It's brand new (uploaded today from user space), but, having taken three articles successfully through the FAC process, I believe that it covers all FAC requirements.

Images are either self created, uploaded as attribution sharealike from Flickr or PD due to age.DavidCane (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • TEcH. Review -- Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS script), dabs and external links (respective link checker tools) are all found up to speed.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image Review - All images in either public domain, a CC, or GFDL license and are hosted at commons. It seems like these rationales are all correct. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 19:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brief comment: I found I had to force the 1898 and 1901 route maps up to above 500px before I could read the station names. I didn't have the same problems with the others, where the thumb was sufficient. Can any thing be done about those two? Brianboulton (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the text in the map is quiet small in the thumbnails. I was following the guidance in WP:PIC about thumbnailing being the best way to display images (so that users can have a degree of control over the size of images in their displays) and have assumed that readers interested in the maps will click on the links to see the full size versions. I did look to see if the text in the images could be bigger but I wanted the presentation to be consistent from one map to the next and some of them are a bit crowded meaning the station names can't be much bigger. If the images are made large enough to read the station names directly, they overpower the text and cause some formatting issues with the images running over more than section. --DavidCane (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is, you seem to have used three different print sizes in the seven maps. The lead map and the 1896 map are fine when the thumblink is used; the printing on the 1898, 1901 and 1902 maps is much smaller, and the station names are unreadable even using the thumb. The last two maps use a slightly bigger print and the station names are readable again – just. For clarity's sake I would like to see all the text on all the diagrams in the size used in the first two, or at least no smaller than in the last three. I take your point about crowding, but you need to consider readibility, too. I'm not asking for the images in the article to be made bigger, but in my view a diagram should be readable when the thumblink is used - the reader shouldn't have to force up further. Could you look at this? I am off to do my delayed reading of the prose. Brianboulton (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • What makes the following sources reliable?
    • http://www.davros.org/rail/culg/
      • Within the WP:LT group, this is a well respected and recognised source of high quality information. The distances are based on London Undergrounds official kilometrage.--DavidCane (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The site gives a comprehensive list of its published sources here plus other, more general, sources here (under sources). I have a number of the books listed in the bibliography (using two of them myself as sources for the article) and have crossed-checked information listed on the site against these without discovering any discrepancies, so it seems fair to conclude that other information is also properly sourced. The information for which the web site is cited in the article is:
            1. the length of line in the original form and current condition. I have confirmed these are accurate by:
            2. the number of lifts at certain stations - which matches the observable facts.
            --DavidCane (talk) 02:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://homepage.ntlworld.com/clive.billson/tubemaps/1908.html
      • This is only being used as a link to an image of an original 1908 map to demonstrate that the GN&PBR was referred to thereon as the Piccadilly Railway. An image of the map itself is on Wikipedia in the Tube map article, but I used the link to the external site as it offers a visual history of tube maps for those interested in the subject.--DavidCane (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave these two out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments:
    • I have given the article a fairly light copyedit. I think the prose is OK, though there may be a readibility issue arising from the headache-inducing multiple initials. Way down the article I had long since forgotten what some of these meant, and had to track back to look for reminders. Also, the repetitive processes of seeking parliamentary approval are a bit numbing. I don't really know what the answer, if any, is – the information needs to be there, and being interesting is not a FA criterion. However, any opportunity of lightening the load on the reader should be taken. For example, in the Search for finance section, is it necessary to name the five other companies competing for finance? This information is marginal to the article, and ditching it would do no harm at all.
      • I have tried to vary the format of the sentences relating to the publication and assent of the bills and acts and have kept these to the minimum. There are many other acts amongst the various tube railways being proposed at the time that make reference to the GNP&BR and its constituent parts which I have not included as they're not vital to this article. The search for finance section mirrors the format of the corresponding article in the Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway article which gives in full a slightly different list (different due to the different chronology) - it is a useful way to provide links into the other articles. The list could be relegated to note 12 but that's already quite long. --DavidCane (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have been thinking about a way to enable readers who have forgotten what an abbreviation stands for to find out. I have created an example at User:DavidCane/Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway which adds a glossary of abbreviations at the end and uses the {{wikicite}} template and [[#References-id]] method to jump to the relevant item in the glossary if the link is clicked. Only the GNP&BR abbreviations have been linked in the example but you can see how it works - e.g. click on the first GNP&BR in the first sentence. To go back to where you were hit the back button. Do you think that this would be helpful? --DavidCane (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is an apparent gap in the chronology between Co-operation and control 1906–10, and Move to public ownership 1924–33. Did nothing significant happen in that time – the war, for instance? Wolmar has a chapter on the Underground during WW1. The jump in time meant, among other things, that Lord Ashfield appeared in the article without introduction—I've linked him and described him as UERL chairman. But I have a sense of missing history and would like to see this time gap filled in a bit.
      • Thanks for spotting that Ashfield needed a link. In the other articles he gets an earlier mention which was linked. Wolmar's chapter on the tube during WWI mainly deals with people using the Underground as a shelter from Zepplin raids and an increase in passenger numbers across the network. There isn't anything specifically relevant to the GNP&BR. Unlike the CCE&HR, the C&SLR and BS&WR, which all had extension plans on hold or under way, there was little planned on the GN&PBR, but I will see if I can close the gap somehow.--DavidCane (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have partially closed the gap by adding a paragraph about the escalators installed at Earl's Court in 1911 and the LER's 1913 bill for an extension west from Hammersmith (which wasn't built until the 1930s) but that still leaves a ten year gap from 1913 to 1923 when nothing particularly noteworthy happened to the line. I could just extend the consolidation section end date to 1923, but that seems a bit of a cheat. --DavidCane (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The early ownership history of the B&PCR is a bit confused. In Search for finance we are told: "In March 1901 he [Yerkes] and his backers purchased a majority of the shares in the MDR and, in September 1901, took over the B&PCR." In the next section it seems that MDR had purchased B&PCR in 1898. The two accounts don't appear to match.
      • Although the MDR bought the B&PCR in 1898 and had effective control, it remained a separate company with its own board. Badsey-Ellis's book indicates that it was not bought along with the MDR but came under Yerkes control in September 1901 following an agreement by the B&PCR board. It's probable that the B&PCR still had some non-MDR shareholders remaining in the intervening period although this is not stated explicitly. --DavidCane (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am still concerned by the point I raised earlier about the small print in some of the diagrams, and ask again that this is looked at with a view to improving readability of the diagrams.
      • I will have a look at this shortly. The first map is deliberately done with thicker lines and larger text but the rest are all at the same scale and the text is the same size in each. I think the problem is because a couple of diagrams have greater vertical dimensions than the others because of the extensions to Wood Green and Parsons Green which means they get more compression when reduced to thumbnail size (the compression is based on image width).--DavidCane (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I haven't forgotten this - just haven't found an adequate solution yet. --DavidCane (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think there is anything that can be done about this problem. The size of the image displayed in the file description page shown when a thumbnail image in the article is clicked is controlled by individual users. Users can set this maximum size to one of six choices given on the Files tab under "my preferences". The options range from 320x240px to 10000x10000px, so it is impossible to know how big the image will appear for a particular user when it is displayed. For some, their setting will inevitably mean that the image will be too small to read the text whatever is done. For others, with the higher setting, they will see the full size image automatically without it being compressed.
          • I have slightly improved the display of the maps in the article itself by fixing the image widths, instead of allowing wiki software to size them based on user preferences. I have sized them so they are shown at the same scale.--DavidCane (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Despite these criticisms I believe that this is an important article, potentially of great interest to London Transport's historians. Why the WikiProject London classified it as of "low importance" I have no idea. This article is part of a series, two of which are featured. David has been meticulous in pursuit of detail, and with a little more work there is no reason why this shouldn't join the other two. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, I think the low importance rating for Wikiproject London was added by me when I borrowed the tags from the Charing Cross, etc. article which is what they assessed that as. --DavidCane (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. From experience, it's impossible to write about pre-nationalisation British rail transport without the bewildering array of acronyms, thanks to the bewildering array of alphabet soup of the 100+ rival rail companies. As one of the other fish in the small pond of "obscure defunct rail transport projects of south east England" writers, I can see nothing I'd change about this article were I to have written it myself. One very minor point; you discuss other post-1933 station closures in the Legacy section, but not Aldwych – don't know if that's intentional. – iridescent 14:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The closure of Aldwych should have been there and has now been added. --DavidCane (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (part 2)

  • File:GNP&BR.png, File:GNP&BR 1896.png, File:GNP&BR 1898.png, File:GNP&BR 1901.png, File:GNP&BR 1902.png, File:GNP&BR 1903.png, File:GNP&BR 1905.png - All of these maps need sources per WP:IUP.
    • As I said at the top, I drew all of these myself and they are appropriately, sourced and licensed as such.--DavidCane (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Surely there is a map that can verify this information? The point is that we cannot take your word that these maps are correct. Like all information on Wikipedia, self-made maps need to have verifiable sources. Awadewit (talk) 03:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The planned routes are described in detail in the Badsey-Ellis book giving the streets under which the line was to run with all of the station locations specified. The GN&PBR route shown on the first map is what was actually built and exists today and can be checked from any geographic source. For the others the source information is the same as the descriptions in the corresponding sections of the article. --DavidCane (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The sources need to be on the image description page, in case anyone wants to use these images on a different article. The images are separate files from the article. Awadewit (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've added a reference to each of the images. --DavidCane (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Yerkes002.jpg - We need the complete publication information for the source for this image.
    • From the current source information, I believe this was a catalogue published privately by Yerkes of his art collection which he was planning should form the basis of a museum on his death. As such, the source is probably as complete as it can be. --DavidCane (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is what it looks like, but is that the case? We can't assume. Do you know for sure? Have you looked into this at all? Awadewit (talk) 03:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am pretty sure that the question was raised once before and investigated then, but I cannot, at the moment, find on which talk page the issue was raised. I will look further. --DavidCane (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These issues should be easy to fix. Awadewit (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All image issues resolved. Awadewit (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comma audit needed—I'm noticing a lack of commas before transitions, conjunctions, and so on. Can someone go through and add commas where appropriate? — Deckiller 19:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have had another run through a added a few that were missing. Let me know if I have there are any others missing. --DavidCane (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 SandyGeorgia 23:13, 18 April 2009 [53].

James Nesbitt[edit]

Nominator(s): Bradley0110 (talk)

Article about Northern Irish actor with Remarkable Performing Eyebrow. Surprisingly, we don't have any featured articles on Northern Irish actors. This article has been through expansion and sculpting over the last two years, passed through GAN last July, had a peer review last month and has had general comments from members of WP:ACTOR. I'd also like to see an FA star put on this article as a "seal of approval", as derivative versions of it have been appearing on high-profile websites. Bradley0110 (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • TEcH. Review -- Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS script), dabs and external links (respective link checker tools) are all found up to speed.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support pending image review (although I don't suppose 3 FU iamges is excessive).

Support Well written and engaging. Sources look ok, although hellomagazine.com? Hmm. Ceoil (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not too pleased with using Hello either but it does satisfy WP:RS. Unfortunately, he's not listed on ancestry.co.uk so it's probably just matter of waiting for a... less icky source to turn up; he might get another profile published in a national newspaper when Five Minutes of Heaven is broadcast. Thanks for the copyedits you've done on the article. Bradley0110 (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there is much vigorous fact checking there is all, though in this instance it surely seems fine. If you could find another source, great. Ceoil (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only other thing I can suggest is a "born on this day" newspaper entry (like this one in Metro) but I doubt that's any more reliable than Hello (they probably just look them up on IMDb) Bradley0110 (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Say what you want about Hello!, but I'd imagine they would be sound with fact checking profiles, espically when it comes to auld Remarkable Performing Eyebrow. He gives good copy to them to be fair to the man. Ceoil (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Very well, in future, I shall think before I mock that fine periodical! ;) Bradley0110 (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let this be a warning. Ceoil (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oppose - excess of copyright images which are unjustified under WP:NFCC Fasach Nua (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to expand your comments to include why you think each of the three images fails the NFCC and what can be done to justify them, or are you just passing through the FAC with no intention of returning? Bradley0110 (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bradley, you have 3 images under FU, I'd expect that cutting 1 would bring you in line with the FA and NFCC criteria. I strongly recommend though that you choose to keep the Murphy's Law image. Ceoil (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, that's the one I believed was the most expendable; the Bloody Sunday image shows him in what has been near-universally perceived to be his greatest role and it would be detrimental to the section to remove it. As for the Jekyll image, it seems silly to have a paragraph discussing the prosthetics and wig used on him and then not have an image. All the Murphy image shows is Nesbitt with a handlebar moustache. OK, so there are no free on-set images but there are probably some of him off-set with it in casual Murphy-esque clothes (although I don't recall Murphy ever going undercover as an after-dinner speaker!). Bradley0110 (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fine, that makes sence. He just looks hard as rocks in the Murphy's Law image, kind of how I see myself in my minds eye. If you remove, it might be worth pinging Fasach, s/he is good and knowledgable on this area and might be able to advise. Ceoil (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to but s/he never replies to people's requests for help or even comes back to FACs. I'll remove the Murphy image for my own piece of mind. Bradley0110 (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article now has 2 images that fall under FU, and one free.[54] Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FU is not about quantity, it is about significantly increaseing the readers understanding of the subject in a way that cannot be done with free content, As far as I can tell neither of the two non-free images significantly increase the readers understanding. Fasach Nua (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you are saying -I'm trying to hard to tell cause its vague- is no images allowed, at all? O wait no is a quantity. So what was that again. I had thought Bradley made a good case at least for Jekyll, how ever a seems not from your criptic one sentence explination. Ceoil (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for returning, Fasach Nua. I'm not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that the images do not significantly increase readers' understanding of the content, as that is an individual opinion. I have made my case for the use of the images and until a better reason for their removal can be made, they should stay. Bradley0110 (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe I'm saying this, seeing as I've disagreed elsewhere with Fasach Nua's strict stance on NFCC, but I think he's probably right that the rationale for the Bloody Sunday image is insufficient. There's a case for the inclusion of the Jekyll image (though a grab that shows the prosthetics more prominently might be better), but what the Bloody Sunday image needs to demonstrate is that it adds to the reader's understanding in a way that a text description alone would not. Saying that is was one of Nesbitt's most significant roles doesn't cut it; we know what the actor looks like via the infobox image, and a plain description of the part tells us everything we need to know without the image. The best route open to you is to perhaps craft a rationale that reflects upon the emotions of the part and its associated imagery. I had a similar experience recently with an image I'd uploaded, where my original rationale, which pretty much said "this illustrates what the article says", was deemed insufficient, so I crafted a new one that used secondary sources in the accompanying article text to stress the emotional intent, something that would be difficult to convey using words alone. A similar route may be open to you if you can find critical commentary to this effect. All the best, Steve T • C 22:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 SandyGeorgia 23:13, 18 April 2009 [55].

Admiralty Islands campaign[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it is a truly high-quality article. Currently A-class. It has been peer reviewed and passed a Milhist A-class review. Comments welcome. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dabs need to be fixed, as seen with the dabs checker tool in the toolbox.
Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs are found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 23:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)--₮RUCӨ 23:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref formatting is found up to speed, as seen with WP:REFTOOLS.
  • External links are found up to speed, using the external links checker tool in the toolbox.--₮RUCӨ 22:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added the missing access dates. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't even notice those.--₮RUCӨ 23:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the background section could do a better job of putting the campaign into a larger perspective. Specifically, it could use a paragraph or two at the very beginning describing the overall status of the war - that the Americans divided the pacific into regions - one of which was under the authority of MacArthur and the other under Nimitz; that the Admiralty islands campaign started just as Nimitz et al had beat the Japanese in the Solomon Islands campaign, etc. Raul654 (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added another introductory paragraph with words to this effect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Why are the footnotes like that? You don't list the title in every footnote, just the author name and page number. Good lord!
I wrote the article using the footnote form that military historians are required to use for publishable articles. We don't use author name and page number (date would also be required) because we don't normally cite books and that style is impractical for citing documents. This is one of the things that distinguishes history from a humanity. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. At least it's consistent. --Laser brain (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • MoS issues: Please go through and make sure there are non-breaking spaces between things like "1st Cavalry" and "No. 73".
Can you point me to the MOS requirement for this? Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Mos#Non-breaking_spaces. --Laser brain (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not it. We're looking for one that mandates it for military units. I'm very reluctant given how aversely it will affect the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno about "1st", but "No." at the end of a line would be a real problem, since the dot could be a sentence period. Bump-bump for the reader. Tony (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some changes to conform to the style used by the FA Guadalcanal campaign. Unit names do not have &nbsps; in them, but adjectival numbers do. Your point about "No." makes sense though, so I have inserted them in those cases as well. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spotted some overlinking, such as Landing Ships, Tank and then later LST. Wikilink first mention and not after. Please check throughout.
Checked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "On being pressed, it stubbornly increased the estimate to 4,000." This lacks clarity. Who was pressing?
Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Apparently not expecting the Allies to move on the Admiralties so quickly, Imamura was given until the middle of 1944 to complete the defensive preparations for his command." Again, lacking clarity. As written, it seems as if "someone" didn't expect the Allies to move quickly, and thus gave Imamura more time. Was it Imamura or someone else? In either case, specify who didn't expect, and who gave Imamura the deadline.
Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More later. --Laser brain (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a great article which meets the FA criteria. The 'Japanese perspective' section is interesting, but doesn't fit in with the rest of the article though. Nick-D (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—You know how much I love MilHist articles. This one is a great story, but the ideas are jumbled and there are technical faults. I've read only the lead, which indicates clearly that the whole article needs the attention of a new copy-editor. Who is the MilHist word-nerd around here?

  • "Belligerents" in the infobox. Is that what WikiProject MilHist mandates? I don't like its over-pejorative tinge. Some of them were good guys, yes?
I'm not allowed to tell you who the good guys were ;) But yes, this is what WikiProject MilHist mandates. You can take it up at Template talk:Infobox Military Conflict if you like. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "assaulted Japanese bases in the Admiralty Islands"—I guess I'll find out by reading through the article, but is it hard to give the number of bases? (Maybe it is: just checking.)
  • Watch those close reps: "landed ... landing ... landing", within two seconds of reading. I'd substitute the first one.
  • "may have been evacuated" would be neater.
  • Remove "being made".
  • "air above"—not below? Think opposite to test for redundancy.
  • Ouch. Let's look at the whole of the second para: the distribution of ideas among the sentences is not good. And you have to refer back to "evacuated" for it to be cohesive.

Acting on reports from airmen that there were no signs of enemy activity and the islands had possibly been evacuated, United States Army General Douglas MacArthur accelerated his timetable and ordered a reconnaissance in force of the islands. The campaign began on 29 February 1944 when a small force was landed on a beach on Los Negros Island. By landing on a small beach where the Japanese did not anticipate a landing attempt being made, the force achieved tactical surprise, but the islands proved to be far from unoccupied. A furious battle developed for control of the Admiralty Islands that was fought out on the islands, in the surrounding waters, and in the air above.

Here's one possible solution, but I've put what you need to fix in square brackets, just as hunches:

Acting on reports from airmen that there were no signs of enemy activity and the islands may have been evacuated, United States Army General Douglas MacArthur accelerated his timetable [for ?advancing on the Japanese army in the Pacific?] and ordered a reconnaissance in force of the Islands. The campaign began on 29 February 1944 when a small force landed on a small, unlikely beach on Los Negros Island, [one of the ?three main islands in the group]. Despite this tactical surprise, it soon became evident that the islands had not been evacuated at all, and a furious land, sea and air battle ensued for their control.

  • "Reconnaissance in force" is expert-talk, and our readers shouldn't have to divert to the link to find out what it means ... well, unless it's seriously clunky to give us non-experts an easier wording (I guess we can work it out, sort of).
    • It is expert-talk, but there is a link, and it happens to be critically important to understanding the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Islands that became"—maybe "Islands, which became". There were other launching points, were there? Otherwise, make it "the launching point", yes? And perhaps "for the Pacific campaigns of 1944"?
    • Yes, there were other bases, some large, some small. The most important established up to this point (March 1944) in SWPA were Milne Bay, Finschhafen, and Oro Bay. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno anything about it, so I'm throwing out fishing lines here. Tony (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you watch the video? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 Maralia 22:48, 16 April 2009 [56].

2008 Mumbai attacks[edit]

Nominator(s): WhaattuSpeakwhat iDone


I am nominating this article for FA-status because it has been largely improved since achieving GA-status, and as far as I can tell, it complies with WP:MOS WhaattuSpeakwhat iDone 12:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tech. Review
Done -- Technical Problems Fixed. WhaattuSpeakwhat iDone 21:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MOS issues: See WP:LAYOUT on the order of items in sections. The images encroach on the text and need to be juggled.

Done. WhaattuSpeakwhat iDone 16:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CAPTION, image captions that are complete sentences should have periods at the end, example: "Several motorcycles lie in a pool of blood" (needs a period).

Done. WhaattuSpeakwhat iDone 16:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ACCESS breaches, images should go at the bottom of sections and should not be left-aligned directly under level-three or lower headings. I changed the reflist to two columns (three or more break on some browsers).

Done. WhaattuSpeakwhat iDone 16:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Publications should be in WP:ITALICS, (for example, The Guardian, not The Guardian).

Done. WhaattuSpeakwhat iDone 13:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spell out abbreviations on their first appearance (IST).

Done. WhaattuSpeakwhat iDone 22:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The hidden comments in the text are distracting, can we tone it down a bit? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. WhaattuSpeakwhat iDone 22:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Prose is not up to FA standards. Suggest a copyeditor. Here are some random examples:
  • were more than ten coordinated shooting and bombing attacks across Mumbai, India's financial capital and its largest city. Awkward. Suggest: consisted of more than ten coordinated shooting and bombing attacks across the city of Mumbai, India's financial capital and largest city
  • which drew widespread condemnation - condemnation?
    • In section: Attacks
  • Link speedboat, Babri Mosque (move it up), Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus, Remove the main article link at Taj Mahal Hotel and Oberoi Trident section and convert to link; same with Nariman House
In fact, this happens throughout the article.

Other sections: Attackers:

  • Witnesses reported that they looked young, in their early twenties, and wore T-shirts, black shirts, and jeans, and that they smiled and looked happy as they shot their victims - Rephrase, please
  • It was initially reported that some of the attackers were British citizens,[86][87] but the Indian Government later stated that there was no evidence to confirm this.[88] Why is this sentence needed...? I'm not quite sure I understand.
  • Aftermath:
  • Link: Maharashtra state, correct me if its not linked, same with Bollywood
  • Also, have you contacted the major contributors of this article? You are not the foremost one. Ceranllama chat post 17:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. WhaattuSpeakwhat iDone 22:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review File:Mohammed Ajmal Kasab.jpg - Could you please link to the HTML page for this image rather than directly to the JPG file per WP:IUP? All of the images in the article are adequately described and have verifiable licenses. The one fair use image meets WP:NFCC, in my opinion. Awadewit (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. WhaattuSpeakwhat iDone 22:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is still linked directly to the JPG. Please link to the HTML page on which the image appears. Generally, such pages have information about the image itself. Awadewit (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noble comments I reviewed this article for GAN, and after a long review, I passed it. However, there are problems that need to be addressed if this is going to be an FA. Just for starters, it recently struck me: You have nothing about why. You give examples of other attacks, describe the attackers, and the attacks, but not why this happened. You mention in passing "the Mumbai attacks were directed by Lashkar-e-Taiba militants inside Pakistan", but you say nothing about the group, why the exist, why they wanted to attack, and so on. Surely out of all the references there must be a "they did this because...". This is a big comprehensiveness issue, and as such needs to be addressed. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 13:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggest withdrawal - As I've mentioned above, the prose is not up to par and now the article is not comprehensive. Thanks, Noble, I can't believe I missed that. Ceranllama chat post 22:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concurrence with Ceranllama and Noble Story, withdraw nomination -- I have been quite hasty in looking over this article for FA-status, and everything mentioned is true. I will wait at least a few months and I will wait for more information on this before nominating this for FA-status again once it is archived. WhaattuSpeakwhat iDone 00:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn by the nominator, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{FAC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Maralia (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 Karanacs 19:23, 14 April 2009 [57].

Traumatic insemination[edit]

Nominator(s): Raul654 (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article I found a few months ago and made a mental note to work on later. I spent much of last week expanding it and now I think it's up to FA quality. Raul654 (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Aside from the first sentence of the lead, nowhere does the article say what T.I. actually is, and at no point is the actual mechanism explained. If the sources exist, it really ought to say how it actually works at a deeper level than "the male pierces the female's abdomen with his penis and injects his sperm through the wound into her abdominal cavity" – I'm not talking about a long technical lecture, but just basic "how does he aim it? why doesn't she die? is it always the abdomen in all species?" type basics. I think it should probably at least mention love darts, if only to explain that they're not involved in insemination; most people with a slight-but-basic knowledge will likely have a garbled image of T.I. in which the love dart itself carries the sperm, and I think that's a common enough misconception that it warrants a brief debunking in this article. – iridescent 23:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added a mechanics section to address some of the points you raised. I'm not sure some of the questions you are asking are in the scope of the article. (To wit - a male finds and mates a female using the exact same senses any other animal does - sight, sound, smell, and touch. The wound is not immediately fatal for the same reason a needle prick is not fatal -- the wound is simply not damaging enough to cause immediate death. Not only is this, IMO, rather obvious, but in general our articles should not address why things don't happen.) The article already gives a more technical description than is found in most literature. Raul654 (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I was excited to read this article. A lot of the FA's today are on what I would consider 'boring' subjects. This is a very important topic in species evolution. However, I also have a few concerns:
    1) no peer review
    2) red links are bad style
    TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Just for starters, I see no references for the Insect Anatomy section, or the first two paragraphs of Mechanics of Traumatic Insemination, or the first paragraph of Bedbug adaption. And some prose:

    • I've added a ref for the mechanics section. The anatomy section is all extremely basic stuff (basic high-school biology) and doesn't require a ref. Raul654 (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have been through high school rather recently, I can tell you we really didn't learn anything about hemolyphes migrating the female ovaries of an insect. Also, if you start talking about "high school biology", then where do you draw the line? And in any case, if FAs are supposed to be the best work of Wikipedia, then I think you could find at least one ref for that single paragraph. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 13:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mating plug is an mechanism used by many species." This is rather isolated and interrupts the flow.
  • "There is a tendency for dense colonies of bedbugs kept in laboratories to go extinct, starting with adult females." I would believe "go extinct" is not a formal way to say that. Also, is there a better word to use than "extinct"? I would have thought that it only refers to the whole species dying out, not individual groups dying.
    • "Go extict" is fine for formal writing ([58]). "Extinction" is the correct word to use. It can refer to when any taxa goes extinct (not just species), but also colonies too. (See this) Raul654 (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bachelor herds of Bottlenose dolphins will sometimes gang up on a female and force her to have sex with them." "force her to have sex with them" is another informal phrase.
    • I don't agree, but I've adjusted that sentence and added a ref for it. Raul654 (talk) 04:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could go into more detail, but this is just the start. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 03:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose The article needs a lot of work before reaching FA quality. Sasata (talk) 05:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • needs a MOS workover; some problems I saw from a quick read included inappropriate capitalization of headings, non-use of endashes for page number ranges in the refs, 2-sentence "paragraphs" in the lead; (a whole parenthetical sentence in the "Bedbug adaptation" section); too many long quotes - why not just summarize the info in your own words?
  • Needs a regular copyedit as well... some random examples:
  • "The mating plug is an mechanism..."
Fixed. Raul654 (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...holds that traumatic insemination evolved in as a new development..."
Fixed. Raul654 (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...risk of infection through the puncture would,"
Fixed. Raul654 (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • bloodstream incorrectly written as two words
  • "Once in the blood stream, the sperm act..." They act?
    • Re-written to : Once in the hemolymph, the sperm and ejaculatory fluids may act as antigens, triggering an immune reaction. Raul654 (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...towards the development of the a mechanism..."; also, this one-sentence paragraph is unreferenced.
  • "In the genus Acrocimex..." incorrect spelling
  • The section "Use in the animal kingdom" is merely a list of other species known to use TI; at FA level I would expect at least a little more information about each, as I expect the process differs among different phyla/classes with different anatomies
  • The section "Insect anatomy" is completely unreferenced
    • As I said above, the insect anatomy contains extremely basic, undisputed facts, such as "In humans and other complex life forms, blood and lymph circulate in two different systems, the circulatory system and lymphatic system". There no need to reference these things. Raul654 (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several sections have short 1-sentence paragraphs
  • The caption for the second image is excessively long; I thought the ideal was to have succinct captions
  • The comprehensiveness is also an issue; a quick check on the ISI Web of Knowledge Academic database reveals many recent articles (several of them reviews) that one would expect to be cited in this article
  • I could go on, but I think you get the point. No disrespect intended but as the FA director shouldn't you know better? Or was this a test? :)
  • Comments -
  • s the Hugot ref (current ref 4) a journal article? If so, the article title should be in quotation marks, the journal title in italics.
  • Same for the Valerie Schmit ref (current ref 7)
  • Same for current ref 10 (Jane A. Smith..)
  • Same for current ref 12 (Trowbridge...)
  • Same for current ref 17 (Siva-Jothy..)
  • Same for current ref 22 (connor..)
  • Current ref 8 (Arnqvist..) is a book but we need publisher and page numbers at the least
  • Current ref 9 (Arnqvist and Usinger) needs page number
  • Lastly, was there a reason this was inserted further down the list than usual? I almost missed it.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have fixed all of the your above points except the last ( was there a reason this was inserted further down the list than usual). I'm not sure what you mean by that. Raul654 (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you put the nomination on the list, you put it down the list, rather than at the top of the list, that's all. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I caught that and fixed that, so Raul might not have noticed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Much work needed before this becomes FA. I think GAN is a better place to put this article in its current state. --mav (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC) In addition to and repeating what others have said:[reply]

Whole article
  • Overuse of long quotes (esp in the 'Homosexual traumatic insemination' section). I'd get rid of all of them; much better to synthesize what several researchers have reported vs quoting a few in long form. Short inline quotes are fine in an article of any size but long quotes, I think, should be avoided in short articles unless absolutely needed.
Lead
  • Every paragraph starts with 'Traumatic insemination' - suggest mixing it up a bit to improve readability and flow.
  • Last two paras are two sentences each. Suggest combining them.
Use in the animal kingdom
  • Just a list as is. Suggestion: Much more discussion about how this method of reproduction is represented in the animal kingdom is needed, citing as examples from the list (hopefully, thematically organized somehow into paragraphs). The flatworm / penis fencing bullet is the only one that I think is currently sufficient.
Insect anatomy
  • Seems to be unnecessary as a stand alone section. Suggest merging into the Mechanics section, perhaps putting much of the general background info in a ref note. Seems like too much of an aside right now that hinders flow.
Interspecies traumatic insemination
  • One paragraph sections, especially at level two, are to be avoided. I think this paragraph would fit nicely at the end of an improved 'Use in the animal kingdom' section.
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 Karanacs 19:23, 14 April 2009 [59].

Billie Jean[edit]

Nominator(s): Pyrrhus

I'm nominating "Billie Jean" for FA because I believe it meets the FA criteria. It was promoted to GA in February, and had a very helpful peer review the following month. Thank you, Pyrrhus16 14:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • Support — Well referenced and written article with plenty of context. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Oppose—1a. Great work overall, but there are too many problems with precision and flow.

  • "after he and Jackson had a falling out. " Too loose, what does this mean? A disagreement?
  • "female fan claimed Jackson"-->female fan claimed that Jackson
  • "The dance-pop R&B song was mixed 91 times" Why don't you mention the genre/style in the lead sentence instead of the bottom of the first paragraph?
  • "The song rose to prominence through the distinctive bass line and Jackson's vocal hiccups." So the bass line literally carried the song to the top of the charts?
  • "becoming one of the best-selling singles of 1983, and dominating the US and UK charts simultaneously. " Not grammatical: "it became one of the best-selling singles of 1983, and dominated [dominated is POV, what about "topped the charts"?] the US and UK charts simultaneously."
  • "Considered one of the most revolutionary songs in history, "Billie Jean" was certified platinum in 1989." Usually, I don't ask for sources in the lead, but this is a pretty large claim you're making.
  • "the song and music video propelled Thriller" You made no previous mention of the music video, so introduce it more gradually: "the song and corresponding music video propelled Thriller".
  • "promoted with a short film that broke down" "with" or "in"?
  • "Jackson suffered severe burns to the scalp"-->Jackson's scalp was severely burned
  • "Covered and sampled by modern artists, including Kanye West, "Billie Jean" sealed Jackson's status as an international pop icon." Another extraordinary claim.

This is just a sampling of issues from the lead, which suggests that someone new should comb through the text. This is a well-known song, we need it to be really good for our readers. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved the above issues. Pyrrhus16 08:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on criterion 3
  • The "purpose of use" in this FUR is too vague - "Critical commentary included in article" is insufficient. Please explain what the commentary is and why this particular clip is being used.
  • File:Billie Jean music video.jpg - There is no clear purpose of use for the screenshot. Why is a shot from this particular scene being used rather than another?
  • "The screenshot is intended to represent the nature of the single." - This is not a clear purpose of use. Please provide a detailed purpose of use (see advice in the dispatch I linked below). Awadewit (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it important to have a screenshot from this part of the video? What is significant about this part of the video? What does the reader learn about the song and the video from seeing this shot of the video? Awadewit (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a more detailed sentence to the rationale. Pyrrhus16 19:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Michael Jackson - Motown 25.jpg - Please explain why the moonwalk is "iconic". Providing a source would be even better. Since the moonwalk is a dance step of sorts, I would actually suggest a video clip for this, rather than a still shot. I do not think that a still shot conveys the nature of the moonwalk very effectively.
  • "The screenshot is used for critical commentary of an well known performance." - In no way does this convey the "iconic" nature of the moonwalk, which became one of Jackson's most famous trademarks. Again, a source describing this famous dance move would be the best way to go. Secondly, I really feel that video clip of the moonwalk would be much better. A still shot of the moonwalk does a very poor job of representing of what was unique about the step. Awadewit (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is distinctive about this part of the moonwalk? How does the image convey an individual part of the entire dance move? I would like to reemphasize how much better a video of the moonwalk would be. Have you tried to find one? Awadewit (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I've tried but I can't find one. I don't have the equipment to create one either. In regards to the still, I've added a more detailed sentence to the rationale. Pyrrhus16 19:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confident that these issues can be resolved and I look forward to striking this oppose soon. See this dispatch for help on using non-free images. The section at the end on "purposes of use" should help you in particular. Awadewit (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed your concerns. I'm no expert with images and files, so you may want to check it over and fix any problems :) Pyrrhus16 19:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded beneath each issue. Please read the dispatch that I linked to above, particularly the section on "purposes of use" (as I recommended before). Awadewit (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've added a bit more to all three files. Pyrrhus16 08:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The remaining two are still extremely vague. I've responded under each again. Awadewit (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Responded under your comments. :) Pyrrhus16 19:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 Karanacs 19:23, 14 April 2009 [60].

Obesity[edit]

Nominator(s): Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obesity is a very important topic. It currently is comprehensive, well referenced, and on par with many of the other medical article which are listed as feature. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article needs a fair amount of MoS work: see my edit summaries. I saw WP:DASH issues, WP:ACCESS, WP:MOSNUM on when to spell out numbers vs. digits (and sometimes 10, other times ten), WP:ITALICS problems, missing conversions, incorrect punctuation on sentence fragments in WP:MOS#Captions and missing accessdates. Also, pls discuss the section headings in relation to those recommended per WP:MEDMOS. Also, please review the use of the {{main}} template (some of them might better be Further information or See also, main is used when this article is a Summary of the other article.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Also, numbers like 1,234 need commas per WP:MOSNUM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adjusted {{main}} templates, think I fixed hyphens --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about adding notations on my trivial MOS items, DocJames; I'll follow along and strike them all when you're all done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of the MOS cleanup is accomplished, except there are still main templates that might want to be See or Further, and we still need to understand the sections relative to those recommended at WP:MEDMOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The main sections lead to an in depth summary of the section. For example childhood obesity, diet and obesity, obesity epidemiology. I created most of them as the obesity article became to big to carry on discussion. Which do you fell still need to be changed?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - just a few from my first reading. In addition to Sandy's comments above, I felt that the article was written for a medical audience. Could we avoid "subjects" and "patients" where possible? I realise this can be difficult. I had to guess what "body composition is affected" means. Why the "absolute" in "absolute waist circumference"? The sentence explaining that kids do not run around, ride bicycles or take part in sports is a bit weird, from memory it reads "Physical activity in children in activities..." or something similar. What are "these commodities" - does this have another meaning that I don't know? We have "negative health consequences/outcomes" in a few places, is there a less pompous why of saying that being obese leads to ill health? Last, for now, "Flier summarizes.." but, unless I missed this, we are not told how. These are just a few things that I spotted during a first, rather rushed reading. Graham Colm Talk 18:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Graham. Fixed most of this. Not sure what one would change outcomes too though. The wording is to be politically correct. And not sure what your last sentence "we are not told how" refers too.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is just to acknowledge that I have read your reply, and that this page and the article are on my Watchlist. I will return here with a fuller review later. In the meanwhile, I see Ealdgyth has raised quite a few issues regarding the referencing :-) Graham. Graham Colm Talk 22:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some more comments:

  • The lead does not provide an adequate summary of the article.
  • Done hope this addresses the issue various diseases - is too vague for an FA
  • This is discussed in the text that follows and hopefully people will look at the section on Public health Here: - authorities view it as one of the most serious - begs the question who are these people?
  • Done Here: - Obesity, in absolute terms, is an increase of - similarly makes me think what are "absolute terms".
  • Done This phrase, in a practical setting - sounds like one medic's advice to another.
  • Done On a similar note is "clinical" needed here, the common clinical methods used to estimate obesity..
  • Done Here:- Obesity in children and adolescents is defined as a BMI greater than the 95th percentile. Clearly, we are talking about the top 5% - I think this could be more clearly written for those readers unfamiliar with the normal distribution.
  • Done Various - is rarely helpful or informative.
  • Done Neither is - a variety of....as well
  • Done Here:- Excess body fat is behind 64% of cases of diabetes in men.. - I think "underlying cause" would be better.
  • Done I state the subgroups in the next sentence Certain subgroups - is much too vague
  • Done I think The "individual vs societal level" - contrast could be better worded.
  • Done Here:- A 2006 review identifies ten other possible contributors - should be in the past tense, it was three years ago.
  • Done I see we still have "subjects" instead of people.

This is as far as I have got tonight. My initial reaction to this important article is to oppose the FAC, I will have a clearer opinion on this when I have finished studying it. Graham Colm Talk 18:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I am so sorry and I hate doing this, but the article is not ready for FA. The flow of the prose—often vague and disjointed—is poor and it lacks polish. The article looks and reads like Revision Notes on Obesity. Please don't shoot the messenger, particularly because this one knows how bloody hard it is to produce contributions to the FA standard. I think this nomination was premature. More opinions should have been sought from others beforehand. Now, there is a rush to fix things. I suggest withdrawing the nomination and bringing it back to FAC in a few weeks. Graham Colm Talk 20:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure were Citation has been used, and remember it is not just me :-) Used always cite--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/Abstract.asp?AID=4669&Abst=Abstract&UID= deadlinks
  • Done Current ref 13 (Gabriel I Uwaifo) needs a publisher done
  • DoneCurrent ref 19 (Healthy Weight) needs a last access date and publisher at the very least.
  • DoneCurrent ref 26 (Body-mass...) needs a publisher and a last access date at the least.
  • Done found other refsThe two refs to the Encyclopedia of Obesity, that have links to google books searches, you need to list the page numbers too.
  • DoneSame for the current ref 142 (Boss...)
  • DoneCurrent ref 61( POol) needs pages numbers
  • DonePlease spell out lesser known abbreviations in the footnotes such as USDA (current refs 69 and 70), WHO (current refs 84, 85), CBC (current ref 136), FDA (current ref 137), IOTF (current ref 156), CDC (current ref 170), OED (current ref 181), NAAFA (current ref 186), ISAA (current ref 187)
  • Done Current ref 82 (mdPassport) needs a publisher and it requires registration, that should be noted.
How does one show registration is required? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Phagocyte has a couple of examples where free registration was required to access papers. Just stick some text after the template. Colin°Talk 14:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done Current ref 92 (www.commonsensemedia.org) needs a last access date, title, and author
  • DoneCurrent ref 93 (newsletter...) needs a publisher, author, and last access date at the least.
  • DoneCurrent ref 98 (Kolata...) needs page numbers
  • DoneCurrent ref 110 (www.who.int) needs a title
  • DoneCurrent ref 116 (Boulpaep...) needs page numbers
  • DoneCurrent ref 129 (Information Plus..) needs page numbers
  • DoneCurrent ref 135 (WIN - Publication) needs a publisher
  • DoneCurrent ref 153 (Behavoioral..) needs a publisher
  • DoneCurrent ref 155 (Janet D. Latner..) needs page numbers
  • DoneCurrent ref 156 (www.iotf.org) needs a title
  • DoneCurrent ref 161 (Tara McClair) needs a publisher. What makes this a reliable source?
  • DoneAre you referencing the login page for current ref 175???? That would be what the title implies.
  • DoneCurrent ref 179 (Carol Gerten-Jackson) needs a publisher. What makes this a reliable source?
  • DoneCurrent ref 180 (Online Etymology...) needs a publisher and title
  • DoneCurrent ref 184 (Critser..) needs page numbers
  • DoneCurrent refs 186 and 187 (What is NAAFA) and ISAA) don't need the html format notes, html format is presumed for websites
  • DoneCurrent ref 192 (Campos...) needs page numbers
  • DoneCurrent ref 193 (Gard..) needs page numbers
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you remove your strike throughs, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. If you need to keep track, little dones after will work for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
Done*Fix the 1 disambiguation link found with the dab finder tool
  • The following refs (code pasted below) are duplicated and appear more than once in the ref section, using a ref name instead
Done*{{cite journal |author=Barness LA, Opitz JM, Gilbert-Barness E |title=Obesity: genetic, molecular, and environmental aspects |journal=Am. J. Med. Genet. A |volume=143A |issue=24 |pages=3016–34 |year=2007 |month=December |pmid=18000969 |doi=10.1002/ajmg.a.32035 |url=}}
Done*{{cite web |url=http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/factsheet_inactivity/en/index.html |title=WHO | Physical Inactivity: A Global Public Health Problem |format= |work=[[World Health Organization]] |accessdate=February 22, 2009}}--Truco 14:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done I thinkSorry to be fussy, but as MoSNUM says, a space like this, consistently: > 50. Why is "less than" spelled out in a table? That's just where you'd want the symbol. Slashes should be unspaced, I think, unless there's a space within one or both items (same rule as for en dashes). Hyphen in "FCA-approved".
  • Done"Women who have abdominal obesity have"—avoid rep. "Women with abdominal obesity have".

Lots of good about this article, but some cleaning up is required.

  • BMI section. I've heard too many researchers cast doubt on the generalisability of BMI to like the angle. Yes, there's a disclaimer about body builders et al., but I think more needs to be said about the naysayers.

Tony (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not come across this doubt in the medical literature. If it exists it should be dealt with on the BMI page. Do you have any references? Thanks--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The first two references have inadequate citations, as they are both large books and no pages numbers are given:
    • DoneThe first, WHO_TRS_894, is a 250+ page book, which is downloadable in six PDF parts here. Presumably all 7 cites come from the linked Part 1, which contains two chapters and 37 pages. I suggest you move this citation down to a common References section (see Phagocyte for an example) and change each of the seven cites to indicate the page number for the fact.
    • DoneThe second ref is a 230 page book and needs page numbers for each of the cites.
    • Are there any more like this?
I'm a bit concerned that such a short lead could be an adequate summary of such a long article, but haven't read more yet. Colin°Talk 18:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I wonder why more of TRS 894 (the other chapters) wasn't used. It seems like an excellent source for this article. Colin°Talk 18:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is 9 years old I though one should use more recent sources.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you follow talk-page conventions when responding to a comment, rather than prefixing your reply in bold. Thanks. Colin°Talk 12:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DoneThe Kopelman2005 source is a 500 page book. For that kind of book, where each chapter is like a review-paper by a variety of authors, compiled by an editor or editors, I suggest you follow the citation format recommended by the Uniform Requirements example "23. Chapter in a book". For example:
Done*Seidell JC. Epidemiology — definition and classification of obesity. In: Kopelman PG, Caterson ID, Dietz WH, editors. Clinical obesity in adults and children. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers; 2005. p 3–11. ISBN 140-511672-2.
DoneI've formatted it by hand but you should be able to compose everything following the "In: " with the cite-book template.
DoneThe citation then is specific to the chapter (with chapter author, name and pages supplied) but not down to the individual page. I think that is acceptable for that sort of work, and should minimise the number of unique citations you need to format. Oh, and drop the Google Books link; it doesn't add anything that the ISBN link doesn't do better. Colin°Talk 12:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google book link used to add something as one used be able to read parts of the books. Since used the above ref this has changed.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Okay found another e version --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article needs a work-over to check for inaccuracies, appropriate sequencing of information and to copyedit the prose. Here are some comments from just the first section:
  • Done"Obesity is an increase of body adipose (fat tissue) mass. In a clinical setting this is difficult to determine directly and therefore, the common methods used to estimate obesity are by body mass index (BMI) and in terms of its distribution via the waist–hip ratio"
  • DoneThe definition of obesity here is inadequate, which is unacceptable coming so soon after a decent definition in the lead.
  • DoneIt isn't clear if "this" refers to the increase or the amount of fat.
  • DoneThe comma should come before the "and therefore", not after.
  • DoneObesity isn't "estimated", it is actually defined by these proxy-measurements of excess body fat. It is the body fat percentage that is being estimated.
  • DoneJust saying "body mass index" is just meaningless jargon at this point in the article. We need to briefly explain what it concerns, as the lead now does.
Rearranged the sections so that BMI is first
  • DoneThe "it" in "its distribution" actually refers to "obesity" but should refer to "body fat".
  • What does "in terms of" add here?
Not sure what you are getting at
  • I can't (yet) understand why the distribution of body fat affects the "estimate" of obesity. We need to explain first that abdominal fat is the least healthy and therefore (given our definition of obesity requires a risk to health) such fat leads to obesity more than fat elsewhere.
  • "The presence of obesity needs to be evaluated in the context of other risk factors such as medical conditions that could influence the risk of complications." I don't really understand what this is saying, or why it is relevant to the "classification" of obesity.
  • Before we even get going with "body fat percentage" we are given a method for estimating it from the BMI. Shouldn't we describe how it is actually measured first? And we can't really use BMI until it has been defined, which is the next section. I don't see how this formula helps this article. It comes very near the beginning and so is likely to put readers off. Only a statistician would love it. In the BMI section, we could say that "a formula combining BMI, age and gender can be used to estimate a person's body fat percentage to an accuracy of 4%".
  • The body fat percentage isn't "10% greater in women than in men". It is 10 percentage points higher in women than in men. The facts that women have a greater normal percentage of body fat, and that a person's percentage of body fat increases with age even if weight remains constant, are significant to the article and should be noted outside of discussions of mathematical formulae.
  • Done"Direct attempts to determine body fat percentage are difficult and often expensive". Why "often"? Are there some cheap methods?
I think this means direct measurements of body mass. Only direct way to determine fat is via autopsy.
  • Done"one of the most accurate methods of body fat calculation in which a person is weighted underwater." so there are other methods in which a person is weighted underwater that are less accurate? The sentence needs recast.
  • Done"hydrostatic weighing" isn't a direct method of determining body fat percentage. It measures body density and an be used to indirectly estimate the body fat percentage. Perhaps it is more accurate than other methods, but it isn't direct.
  • Done"It has, however, been limited evaluated in obese subjects." eh?
  • Done"Therefore the routine use of these tests are discouraged." why don't we just be upfront that these are inaccurate historical methods that are now discouraged, rather than tag this fact on the end? Two "therefore"s.
  • Done", but it can be difficult to scan the severely obese due to weight limits of the equipment and insufficient diameter of the CT or MRI scanner." This isn't a "difficulty" but an absolute restriction. Better to say ", however severely obese subjects may exceed the weight capacity of the equipment or the diameter of the scanner aperture."
We do occasionally use the veterinary equipment. They have MRIs for horses and other animals. Just harder to access.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Colin°Talk 22:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - I found the article to be informative and comprehensive. I greatly respect Graham Colm but the version I read seemed to flow fine to me given that this article necessarily must jump around a bit to stay at a readable size (8000 words). But it can be improved in that regard (hence my weak support). --mav (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 Karanacs 19:23, 14 April 2009 [61].

Hampton National Historic Site[edit]

Nominator(s):  JGHowes  talk 03:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because, although it is relatively short, I believe it meets FA criteria, covers the subject comprehensively, is properly sourced, and uses images appropriately, and is ready for FAC.  JGHowes  talk 03:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - MoS compliance may require attention; see here for an example. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have gone through the article and made MoS corrections.  JGHowes  talk 12:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • I'm assuming that the McKee and the Gardens and Grounds refs are short and thus don't need page numbers? If they are over about 50 pages, you really should provide page numbers.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right—I've added page refs throughout for McKee; Gardens and Grounds is short.  JGHowes  talk 17:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This needs a lot of MOS work. There is an image in a section heading (that's a big no-no), and incorrect use of WP:ITALICS in National Park Service management. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, MoS issues corrected. I've also removed quotes from the race horses' names, etc., although there doesn't seem to be a specific style guide at WP:THORO.  JGHowes  talk 00:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

These issues should be easy to fix. Awadewit (talk) 05:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. Please note, since your review I've added one more National Park Service PD image from their Digital Archives: File:Hampton NHS7.jpg.  JGHowes  talk 01:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tidied up the images and tagged a few to be moved to Commons. Everything is in order now. Awadewit (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This article is not comprehensive. Two major omissions stuck out at me as I was reading. 1) A detailed description of the architecture of the mansion. The mansion is clearly a major landmark and yet there is very little description of the house itself. I would have thought that the article would have had individual sections on the mansion, the grounds/gardens, and the slave buildings, for example. 2) There is little discussion of slave life at the plantation. There are published articles on this specific topic. I found them in a "Bibliography" linked from the "For teachers" section of the NPS page. I would suggest that you do more research and expand this article. Awadewit (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose In addition to everything Awadewit said (some of which I was about to add myself) I have a few nitpicks: 1800s is ambiguous as it can also mean the period of 1800–1809. Please use century format instead. There are also a couple monster paragraphs (2nd paras in 1700s and 1800s). A strictly chronological section order in the history is bit constraining. A thematic presentation that is less strictly chronological and provides more descriptive subsection titles will likely work better. --mav (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions/expansion per yesterday's comments of Awadewit and Mav are now being worked on and will be finished Thursday. Pls hangon until then.  JGHowes  talk 20:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, such massive revisions should not take place during FAC, particularly since they involve research. You do not have the time to read new material carefully, select the appropriate information, and seamlessly integrate it into the article. Awadewit (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose—1a. Two or three editors need to give the entire article a copy-edit. Examples:
    • Missing commas, such as before "including" in the very first sentence.
    • Lead section is a bit short.
    • "The landscaping also includes many trees which are more than 200 years old." Sentence could be trimmed.
    • "The property now known as the Hampton estate was originally part of the Northampton land grant given to Col. Henry Darnall (c. 1645–1711), a relative of Lord Baltimore, in 1695." Debatable, but "the property now known as" is unnecessary, as it's covered by "was originally part of".
    • This sentence is a bit of a snake and should be restructured: "In 1783, Capt. Ridgely began construction of the main house, Hampton Mansion, said to have been inspired by Castle Howard in England, owned by relatives of his mother."
    • "When Capt. Ridgely died that same year, his nephew Charles Carnan Ridgely (1760–1829) became the second master of Hampton." Some may say "same" is redundant, but I think it provides positive emphasis here. "Charles Carnan Ridgeley (1760-1829)" should be embraced by commas.
    • "Another of Ridgely's Hampton-raised racehorses at the time, Post Boy, won the Washington City Jockey Club cup." "Hampton-raised" is assumed, and is therefore redundant. I could make the same case for "at the time". In the previous sentence, you might want to insert a comma after "his racehorse".
    • "More than 300 slaves worked the fields and served the household, making Hampton one of Maryland's largest slaveholding estates." "worked the fields and served the household" can be shortened to "served the Manor" for the sake of succinctness.
    • "When Governor Ridgely died in 1829, he freed Hampton's more than 300 slaves in his will." Number of slaves is already mentioned a few sentences earlier.
    • "John Carnan added indoor plumbing, heating, and gas lighting to the mansion" "Indoor" seems redundant, especially with "to the mansion" at the end.
  • These are examples that more copy-editing is needed. I skipped over several iffy sentences, so try to get a couple outside editors to give you a hand. I know it's difficult to find people, but every bit of help is huge. — Deckiller 00:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 SandyGeorgia 22:06, 11 April 2009 [62].

First Roumanian-American congregation[edit]

Nominator(s): Jayjg (talk)

I am nominating this for Featured Article status because it is a well-cited social history of a significant New York City congregation and synagogue. Jayjg (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The convention is for quotes to be directly attached to a cite. Some paragraphs have multiple quotes and only the end of the paragraph is cited. Also in the footnotes for the number ranges of the periodical dates, they need an ndash for Feb - Mar like in the final extended booklists. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments. Regarding the quotes, I think I've fixed them all. Regarding the ndashes, I think I've gotten all of them too. Please let me know if I've missed anything or made any errors. Jayjg (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tech. Review

  • Fix the Dabs (based on the toolbox checker tool) are up to speed.
  • External links are up to speed (based on the toolbox checker tool)
  • Ref formatting (based on the WP:REFTOOLS script) is up to speed
  • The following ref name is used more than once to name different refs when it should only name 1 ref
  • Dolkart1997s7p3--Best, ₮RUCӨ 03:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking that. I believe the dab was already fixed - I think the checker tool is just taking time to catch up. Regarding the refs, it's fixed now. Jayjg (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into that. The first source was part of a synagogue project, but the material in it really only duplicated what other sources said, so I've removed it. The second source is listed as a "Comprehensive website" in the Columbia Guide to the Holocaust:[63], listed as a good resource on the Holocaust by quite a few sites/books/institutions, e.g. ([64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71]), referenced 128 times on Google books, etc. I've only used it for one sentence; the sister of one of the rabbis wrote her memoirs, and in them she gives the country he was born in, the institution he graduated from, and when he emigrated to the United States. I figured it was good enough for that fairly uncontentious material. Jayjg (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can deal with this. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got a redirect from "Rumanian"? I think that's the standard spelling, isn't it? "Rou" is pre-war? Then there's "Romanian" in the text. I'm confused.
  • "The building had been extensively remodeled in 1889, and was remodeled again after the purchase in 1902." Easy to avoid rep.
  • "but as Jews moved out of the Lower East Side, the membership declined to around 40 in the early 2000s". Uncomfortable time clash. Don't know how to fix. "but in the early 2000s, as Jews ...., the membership ..."? Or was it "by the early 2000s"—another point.
  • "Though listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1998,[12] the synagogue's building deteriorated, and the congregation was reluctant to accept outside assistance and the conditions that would come with it." A few problems: remove "synagogue's" (redundant and ungainly 's); the causality doesn't work (buildings listed on the register don't normally deteriorate, because of their listing?); the "the conditions" is a little cryptic, and of course in the lead you're trying to avoid the level of detail required to explain it. Can you avoid the issue here, dealing with it only below? Why not just state that they were reluctant to accept outside assistance?
  • "two months later" might be neater.
  • MoS problem: "continued to" ... wouldn't you say "As of 2009, the congregation has held services ....". Think of avoiding unnecessary article maintenance.
  • Why on earth is "United States" linked? This is classic overlinking, and dilutes the high-value links in the vicinity. Why is "History of the Jews in Romania" linked twice in 30 seconds' reading? And "Lower East Side"? Please go through and weed out the low-value links. It's hard enough to get readers to click on any links. Would it be possible to stub the red link articles, so they're not large blotches of red?

It needs detailed work to bring the writing up to a high standard. Just casting my eyes down: " The portico arch itself was stone, and carved into it were the words "FIRST ROUMANIAN-AMERICAN CONGREGATION", all in capitals.". Yup, OK, we see it's in caps.

This is worth an FA, but not unless the prose is better. Surely there are unfamiliar copy-editors around who'd be interested in this topic? Tony (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. Responding to your points, in order:
  1. The re-direct didn't exist, but it does now. Regarding "Romanian", that is the standard spelling, at least as far as Wikipedia goes.
  2. Re: "remodeled" - fixed.
  3. Re: early 2000s - re-worded.
  4. Re: NRHP listing, deteriorated - re-worded.
  5. Re: "two months later" - done.
  6. Re: "continued to" - re-worded to avoid issues.
  7. Re: over-linking - fixed. I had generally re-linked any items linked in the lede, which I saw as a standalone piece, but I've removed those links repeated in the first couple of sections. Regarding red-links, only two remain, and I plan to create articles on them.
  8. Re: portico: I think the article should be explicit about these things, just as the NRHP nomination by Andrew Dolkart was. Perhaps other can weigh in with their views.
Thanks again for the feedback. Jayjg (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've also created the two stubs, so no more red-links. Jayjg (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, thanks for those stubs and other corrections, Jay. "Romanian" is fine as a WP spelling, but am I being thick about the title? "Rou"? But no big deal. I would be happy for the rest of the article to be reviewed by a copy-editor who is distant from the text (makes it easier to see things). Tony (talk) 08:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The organization was founded in the 19th century, when "Roumanian" was the norm, so that's the official name of the congregation. Thanks again, and I'd be happy if another copy-editor reviewed it too. Jayjg (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question It's an interesting and poignant article, although a little bittersweet given the outcome of the building. Can you add dates for - "Cantor's Carnegie Hall" - when did Jan Peerce and Richard Tucker sing there. When was Eddie Canter and Red Buttons choirboys there? When was Edward G. Robinson Bar Mitzvahed? The NY Times reference also just mentions those very interesting vignettes. Are there any other clarifications? Modernist (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 SandyGeorgia 19:17, 11 April 2009 [72].

Central Intelligence Agency[edit]

Nominator(s): No barometer of intelligence and Morethan3words

I am nominating Central Intelligence Agency for featured article designation because it has been under public deliberation going back to June 28, 2008. There is a very thorough discussion of the article's merits and readiness for FA status on the talk page, and several editors who have been active in making the article as thorough and comprehensive as it is have weighed in on that talk page. It easily meets the enumerated criteria for Wikipedia Featured Article status, and is informative and of great interest to those who follow current events. No barometer of intelligence (talk) 01:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Obviously since I was going to nominate it anyway. I look forward to hearing what people have to say. (Morethan3words (talk) 05:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Contributor and nominators (don't usually support). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that makes sense. I put in the support before adding myelf as a nominator, if it makes sense to remove my support comment, I'm happy to do so. (Morethan3words (talk) 05:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
P.S., Also, I urge anyone who is looking at this article to at least skim the associated main articles that often go into much greater detail on specific issues than this main article does. One of the most common issues we have had with past editors is that they do not see a particular issue in the main article (e.g., CIA's actions in South Africa) and assume it is not covered anywhere in wiki, whereas it is more than likely covered in depth in one of these associated articles that are referenced and linked in this article. (Morethan3words (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Tech. Review
  • Seems that this was taken care of somehow, as when I go to the page now there are no dead links. (Morethan3words (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose for now Just looking at the lead I see a bunch of problems.
  • Too much blue and too many refs in the lead.
  • some blue removed, and a couple of sentences with references moved to approriate section. (Morethan3words (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • The fact that the CIA is prohibited from collecting intelligence inside the US borders needs to be in the lead.
  • The lead should briefly contrast the functions of the CIA and NSA.
  • I'm not sure why this is necessary in the lead, please explain. (Morethan3words (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • The paragraph "When discussing the CIA…" is written in a very non-encyclopedic style.
  • The lead absolutely has to say something about history, especially the numerous occasions where the CIA played the lead role in attempts to destabilize foreign governments -- basically the dual function of "covert ops" versus "intel".
  • I am not sure why this is necessary, a brief examination of articles on the FBI, NSA, DIA, Department of State, Department of Commerce and even the US Congress reveals no discussion of specific actions taken in any of their leads, and I don't think WP:LEAD requires as much. Current re-wording, however, does discuss the importance of the changes that occurred in 2004, from an organizational standpoint. (Morethan3words (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • The lead should also mention the "culture of secrecy" associated with the CIA.
  • I'm not sure what you mean by this, it discusses internal IC politics and efforts to foster cooperation, if that has anything to do with what you mean. (Morethan3words (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

And that's without even looking at the body yet. Looie496 (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. The kinds of objections that Looie496 enumerates above are what I (and former editor Howard C. Berkowitz) feared in the FA review process. These are very old, almost shopworn editing disputes regarding the main CIA article that were long ago effectively settled among the editors who have actually taken a hand at substantially improving the article from the conspiratorial, boogy-man mishmash that it was before December of 2007. I would ask people to look through some of the article's archived discussion pages to see if their potential criticisms of the article as it currently stands have already been addressed. Here is a link to a particularly good portion of the voluminous archived discussions this one article has spawned:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Central_Intelligence_Agency/Archive_4 Plausible to deny (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Always willing to listen to reasons, but I'm not willing to hunt through massive archives in hopes of finding good reasons. I stand by my rather basic objections. Looie496 (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've been watching this set (can't really deal with the single main CIA article in isolation) of articles and their associated discussion pages for some time now, after making a few edits of my own a year or two ago. I think they meet all of the FA criteria, and are a tribute to the incredible volunteer scholarship of Wikipedia. An unattributed source (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plausible to deny (talk · contribs), An unattributed source (talk · contribs), Misleadingsource (talk · contribs), Intuitively apparent (talk · contribs). I suggest this FAC be immediately delisted and the GA be removed. I ask the FAC directors to contact the GA directors. The article isn't in good shape anyway. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article is long way from FAC-ready, and should be submitted to peer review to prepare for GA. Because of the long-term socking, I'll archive now and ask that GA re-evaluate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well... that's disappointing... I guess I'll just have to spend a couple months walking it through GA, PR and FAC, again.(Morethan3words (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
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 SandyGeorgia 16:28, 11 April 2009 [73].

Harrisburg, Illinois[edit]

Nominator(s): Ruhe1986 (talk) 03:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article of Harrisburg, Illinois I think is a "good representative" for articles about small towns in the United States on Wikipedia and believe that there are no articles of it's caliber for a town of its size. Ruhe1986 (talk) 03:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm sorry, but there are long sections that go unreferenced. What refs there are are questionable in terms of reliability, and are desperately in need formatting (publisher, date, access data, etc.). That doesn't go into any other of the FA criteria. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 11:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - unreferenced sections, embedded links in the text of the article, bare urls in the references, unreliable references. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Reference fixes done for this page. Take another look. 96.230.239.172 (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Dr pda. While almost all sections now appear to have references, some still need formatting as mentioned by Noble Story above. Some references do not support the claims they cite, for example reference [2] does not contain any mention of Harrisburg being named after James Alexander Harris. The sentences

Many business owners faced a daunting task as they assessed damage and began cleaning up. Some needed waders to make their way through the mess. Others were able to reopen fairly quickly after suffering only minimal damage or waiting for floodwaters to recede so customers could reach their businesses. Harrisburg officials reported 74 businesses affected by flooding, but businesses along Commercial Street (U.S. Route 45) and the city's east edge seemed to be hardest hit. Kroger, which had just undergone a major renovation, reportedly had two or more feet of water inside.

are cited to reference 14, which supports none of these facts except for the figure of 74 businesses affected. This reference is only about the Kroger store, and doesn't even mention the figure of two feet of water. The first couple of sentences seem to be verbatim from here or some other mirror on the web. I found other examples of plagiarism in some of the references I checked. For example

Reference number 2:

In 1854, the first slope coal mine began operations southeast of the community. At first, the coal was carried by wagon to area homes and businesses and used for heating. After the Civil War, coal production became an important industry in the county. The first shaft mine was sunk in 1873 or 1874. This was followed by the creation of several more shaft mines and by an influx of settlers drawn to the area to work the mines. By 1906, the county was producing more than 500,000 tons of coal annually, with more than 1,000 miners at work.

Early the 1870s, Harrisburg residents raised $100,000 to pay for construction of a railroad through the city. In 1872, the Cairo & Vincennes Railroad, later the New York Central, was completed and provided the means needed to haul coal to distant markets.

Article:

Early the 1870s, Harrisburg residents raised $100,000 to pay for construction of a railroad through the city. In 1872, the Cairo and Vincennes Railroad, later the New York Central, was completed and provided the means needed to haul coal to distant markets.[2]

Coal mining was the city's biggest industry. In 1854, the first slope coal mine began operations southeast of the community. At first, the coal was carried by wagon to area homes and businesses and used for heating. After the Civil War, coal production became an important industry in the county. The first shaft mine was sunk in 1873 or 1874. This was followed by the creation of several more shaft mines and by an influx of settlers drawn to the area to work the mines. By 1906, the county was producing more than 500,000 tons of coal annually, with more than 1,000 miners at work.

I suggest having a look at Wikipedia:FCDW/Plagiarism, which will shortly appear in the Wikipedia Signpost. Dr pda (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna need help with this. Been improving the article throughout the day96.230.239.172 (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tech. Review
*Fix the 6 disambiguation links
  • The following ref (code pasted below) is duplicated and appears more than once in the ref section, use a ref name instead
  • {{cite news | url = http://www.wsiltv.com/p/news_details.php?newsID=4499&type=top | format = Text| title = Grocery Store Woes | date = [[2008-06-07]] | accessdate = 2009-04-06 | work = [[WSIL-TV]] }}
*The following ref name is used to name more than 1 ref, it should only name 1 ref.

Oppose The article just isn't, well, encyclopedic. Just skimming, I saw: "This ended the reign of big coal in Harrisburg." This sounds a bit, not POV, but not like something that should be in an encyclopedia article. And to start the very next paragraph: "In 1984, horror struck the community when a respected local physician, Dr. John Dale Cavaness, was charged with the murder of his two sons for insurance money. The case was chronicled in the book by Darcy O'Brien." I'm pretty sure that's POV, and the article doesn't mention the title of the book by Darcy O'Brien.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  02:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 SandyGeorgia 16:28, 11 April 2009 [74].

Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Company[edit]

Nominator(s): grarap (talk) 10:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it well sourced, comprehensive and well written. I built it from the ground up and genuinely believe that it is of an excellent standard. I am extremely open to criticism and will do my best to bring the TCI article up to FA status. grarap (talk) 10:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)grarap[reply]

Comment: I gave a very fast CE, and fixed a few things. One thing I noticed is that ref 8 doesn't have a citation template. If it's a book, it should use a cite book template.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  13:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check the link checker at the right of this page. The link to the map you included in text is dead and so is #12. Maybe instead of linking to the map, you could include it in text?  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  13:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I like this article. However, I wonder if it is long enough. Also, the article needs updating: "...continues to be operated by U.S. Steel to this day (April 2008)..." TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Fails 1a and 1c of the Featured article criteria. The 1c oppose will stand until the above sourcing issues are resolved; the reliability of several needs to be demonstrated, and the deadlinks updated. The 1a oppose will stand until the article has had a thorough copyedit. Most of the following issues are from the lead only, yet seem representative of the article as a whole. However, it is a short article, so an experienced copyeditor may be able to clean it up within the timeframe of this FAC. Steve T • C
    • It might be the right time of year for it, but Easter egg links are discouraged. Thus, the reference to "coal" should not point to coal mining. You perhaps do need/want the link in the section somewhere, so recast the sentence to properly include it. Similarly with "index"/Stock market index, and "turbulence on the financial markets"/Panic of 1907.
    • Multiple redundancies. Identifying and eliminating redundancy in prose is 90% of the copyediting job; fewer words means cleaner reading, yes, but it also reduces the likelihood of other errors' creeping in. Some clarifications may also be required. Some examples:
      • "Originally based entirely within the state of in Tennessee..." At a push, you might mention that it's a state, but the wikilink perhaps makes that unnecessary too.
      • "from then onwards operating almost exclusively around the Birmingham region."
      • "With a sizable real estate portfolio, it owned the Birmingham satellite towns of Ensley and Fairfield..." If these were the only towns it owned, then the statement may be unnecessary. If there were others, why present only these two examples? If the ownership of the towns was part of a larger real estate portfolio, then include the opening statement, but make that clearer.
      • "where it located two large steel mills..." Located? "Built" or some other synonym would be more appropriate; this sounds as if they were Prefabs.
      • "the latter employing a peak of upwards of 4500 workers during World War II." Confusing and vague. Up to 4500? Up to maybe a little more than 4500? A lot more?
      • "This brought it into direct competition with its principal rival, the United States Steel Corporation, with which it merged in 1907 after banker J.P. Morgan exploited turbulence on the financial markets by procuring a majority stake in Tennessee Company shares from a troubled New York brokerage firm." Perhaps overlong sentence that would benefit from splitting. Also, some might consider "This brought it..." to be ambiguous; this what?
      • Inconsistent use of "Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Company" and "Tennessee Company". It's obviously fine to list them in the lead sentence, but when referring to the company afterwards, you should pick one and stick with it.
      • "continues to operate the Fairfield steel plant to this day..." Might be outdated in a few years if no-one remembers to update the article. Consider As of.
      • Inconsistent use of "United States" and "USA" in a couple of spots. Inconsistent use of "US Steel" and "U.S. Steel".
  • As I say, these were picked up based on one pass of the lead only. The sourcing issues remain my largest concern, but in the meantime I strongly recommend making several passes to tighten the prose and look for other examples of the above. These exercises also come strongly recommended. I'll watchlist this FAC, so I'll be able to respond here to any replies or rebuttals. All the best, Steve T • C 13:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 SandyGeorgia 16:28, 11 April 2009 [75].

Michelle Obama[edit]

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has improved greatly and its wide audience continues to refine its editorial content. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I appreciate the effort that has gone into keeping this article relatively condensed and on point, but there are still many prose issues. In several sections, particularly at the end of the family and education section and throughout the career section, there are way too many short, broken paragraphs with insufficient transitions. I also believe the 2008 campaign section could be reorganized to have a better flow and greater adherence to summary style. Individual interviews, appearances, etc., should only be referenced if they are needed as examples to support specific points in the article or if their greater importance can be illustrated by secondary sources. Indrian (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have right-sized the paragraphs in the two problem sections by merging content.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That certainly takes care of my first issue, but I stand by the second. Note that I am not necessarily advocating cutting any material; its just that right now I feel the campaign section does not have a strong narrative thrust and is mostly just a chronological listing of various appearances and comments without much attempt to tie them together to reveal the big picture. Indrian (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. The chronology of the article jumps all over place. The "Career" section seems badly underweighted compared to the rest of the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that this article is structured topically instead of chronologically, with intended chronology holding by topic. Topical structure is accepted at FAC as I learned when I voiced some objections to William D. Boyce. Do you feel that it is out of chronological order within any topics.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I realize that some people prefer topical organization, but this treatment leaves me with no sense with how she's developed as a person and how she got from there to here in her life. As for your question, the topic granularity seems to be below the section level, so I can't really tell the boundaries. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image comment. Is the fair use rationale for File:March 2009 Obama Vogue cover.JPG really valid? I thought we could only use magazine covers in the article about the magazine itself. If this one is okay, there are a bunch of Vogue and Time covers that would be great to add to other BLP articles ... Wasted Time R (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to Wikipedia:FU#Images #8, Fair use is permitted for "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary.". She is noted in sources as becoming an icon largely for stylistic reasons. Nothing serves as a better commentary of her budding iconic status than a cover appearance on the world's pre-eminent fashion magazine. I will update the FUR for this rationale.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is, and it screams WP:RECENTISM Fasach Nua (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not recentism. Recentism is editing "articles without regard to long-term historical perspective". In this case we have a woman who by the sources cited in the article is becoming a fashhion icon and a woman who has been compared to Jackie Kennedy for some time. This is the type of woman for whom an appearance on the cover of the world's pre-emininent fashion magazine is a fairly central topic and for whom that topic is not likely to be a short term one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While the effort gone into raising this article to a higher standard is commendable, I'm concerned by the disproportionate size of the 2008 campaign when compared to the rest of her life. Since I don't have a clear solution as to how to address this (I'm hesitant to suggest condensing it and also unsure about ways to expand everything else), I won't mark this as an opposition but more as a general concern. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep in mind that she was not a WP:N person prior to the campaign by most WP guidelines. The wife of a U of C law school professor is not notable. Neither is the wife of a state senator. Unlike Nancy Reagan and Hillary Clinton, none of her prior professional roles were subjects of normal WP articles. Also because of the prominence of females in the campaign that included Sarah Palin, both Obama, Jill Biden and Cindy McCain became much more important to the race. Thus, the article elaborates on the first notable role that she had. I don't think there is much encyclopedic info missing from pre-notability times. The question is just how much to retain from the campaign section. I had hoped some other editors more knowledgeable in politics might jump in with this at FAC. However, I will attempt to winnow things down a bit tonight if no one else steps forward.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • For starters, I think there's way too much on her convention speech. In the scheme of things it was important but not that important, and it's not necessary to give the views of 20 different commentators on it. Maybe some of this should be offloaded to 2008 Democratic National Convention#Monday, August 25? Also, it's odd that National Review's opinions are given so much emphasis regarding the speech, when the most famous National Review treatment of her – their "Mrs. Grievance" cover story earlier in the campaign – isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments

Prose needs significant cleaning up. I've read only the lead and first section, and it clearly needs attention throughout. It's well worth it, since this topic is thoroughly deserving of promotion. We need to do her justice. Here are a few random examples, just from the top.

  • "Michelle can trace her roots to pre-Civil War African Americans"—Her first name alone is way too informal, except in the context of her as a child in the family.
  • "The family ate meals together"—you're kidding me. "and also entertained together as a family by"—Redundant "also". I hope it's not a feature of this text. "and by reading" ... they read together? Reading was encouraged by the parents? Can you recast this whole sentence, or put it in a footnote, or something ... I know you don't intend it, but there's a sense of triviality in this bit. "skipped the second grade"? Why? Needs to be logically wound into this summary account of her early years. (Like "despite her skipping .... because of ..., she joined a gifted sixth grade class at ...). Tony (talk) 06:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A response about the use of the first name: we do use "Michelle" occasionally, when it is felt that "Obama" could be misunderstood to mean Barack Obama. This came up in the FACs for Nancy Reagan and was discussed here and here - I am not finding discussion about the further changes to this section of MOSBIO text, but maybe I'm missing it. I think we should evaluate each use of "Michelle" and see if "Obama" would be confusing - and if so, stick with "Michelle" or "Michelle Obama". It may not be precisely according to MOSBIO, but clarity should trump guideline, especially when there's no particular evidence of discussion or consensus on the current MOSBIO wording. In other words, despite the guideline, the far worse offense would be to imply something about Barack which was actually about Michelle - so I think, as I thought for Nancy Reagan, that we should use the first name where needed. As for your specific example, I re-worded it as "The Robinson family can trace their roots...". Will have to look at other examples, but I don't agree that it is necessarily the right thing to replace all "Michelle"s as, again, clarity should be our goal over strict adherence to rules. Tvoz/talk 09:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Happyme22 (talk · contribs) has undertaken a much needed industrious copyedit. It seems that text was removed in a rather haphazard way with relevant citations disappearing. Was any attention paid to the citations when the copyedit was performed. See as an example the following change: She has also sent representatives to schools to encourage the personal development of the students.<ref name=MIFOTS/> She has also advocated for public service.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newsweek.com/id/188270|title=An Army Of Changemakers|accessdate=2009-04-06|date=2009-03-07|work=[[Newsweek]]|author=Alter, Jonathan}}</ref> --> She has also sent representatives to schools and advocated public service.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newsweek.com/id/188270|title=An Army Of Changemakers|accessdate=2009-04-06|date=2009-03-07|work=[[Newsweek]]|author=Alter, Jonathan}}</ref> Obviously, a citation has disappearred. Much of the diff is difficult to follow in the markup and I can not confirm how many refs were recklessly abandoned. I see that AnomieBOT has found at least one. It seems like the copyedit was pretty good and I don't want to revert. I am tempted however.

I also noticed that some images were removed. Following this talk page request, I added the following image: File:Michelle Obama at Notre-Dame de Strasbourg 4-4-09 2.jpg. I know that meeting the Queen of England is important. It may be somewhat more important than entertaining with the spouses of the entire G-20, but not to the point that it should replace such an image. I think both can be included and have readded this one. I am also disappointed that File:March 2009 Obama Vogue cover.JPG was removed, but am not sure how much support there is for its inclusion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy's a very good editor with mucho experience in First Lady articles, so I would definitely AGF here. His edits aren't that difficult to follow if you look at them one by one. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 SandyGeorgia 16:28, 11 April 2009 [76].

Papa Don't Preach[edit]

Nominator(s): Frcm1988 (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first article I am nominating for featured article. It covers one of Madonna's most famous and controversial songs; it had a massive expansion during the past month. It also had a very useful peer review; it's currently listed as a GA and I believe that it meets the criteria. Frcm1988 (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • "The opening chords and the melody emphasize the tonic of the leading notes: Fm---E♭---D♭---Cm---D♭-E♭-Fm---D♭-E♭-Fm, resembling a Baroque work." What is baroque (and distinctly Vivaldian, as claimed) about this chord progression? Very unbaroque, I'd say. What does "the tonic of the leading notes" mean? How bizarre. May we have en or em dashes between these symbols? The prose throughout needs work.
The reference Im using have the following: The opening chords, presented twice in antecedent/consequent phrases, could easy resemble a Baroque work, as both chords and melody emphasize tonic, submediant and flattened leading notes: Fm---E♭---D♭---Cm---D♭-E♭-Fm---D♭-E♭-Fm. Frcm1988 (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"anticipates the lyrics to follow"—how could you anticipate something that wasn't to follow?
Again the book have this: "Papa Don't Preach" begins with a distinctly Vivaldian flair, as the fast tempo and classical-style chord progression anticipates the listener for the substantive lyrics to follow. I didn't put substantive because I think is a bit POV. Frcm1988 (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"the only song in the album that she did not have a strong hand in writing"—no strong hand in the writing of the album or all but one songs?
It said making "Papa Don't Preach" the only song in the album... I don't understand what is unclear about this. Maybe if I replace that for in which. Frcm1988 (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"but commonly used in classical music, like Beethoven's Appassionata sonata"—one work cannot be likened to "classical music".
The source mention this work in particular, but I'll remove it if you believe is unnecessary. Frcm1988 (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"the combination between"—wrong preposition.
Changed to of. Frcm1988 (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Odd to say that the instrumentation produces a powerful beat.
I changed it to instruments. Frcm1988 (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd withdraw, do serious work with others on this, and resubmit in a while. Tony (talk) 03:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rejoinder to nominator's responses: Yep, I'd withdraw and renovate. Can you find a copy-editor in this field, and a WPian with good knowledge of how to describe popular musical style? Alas, Deckiller isn't around at all nowadays. I can advise on how to search for one, on your talk page if you need it. While WP is based on secondary texts, editors need to rely on more than one, to ensure that it's well-written and authoritative, and preferably to cross-check it with other sources. Could I remind you to be aware of the need to avoid repeating word-strings from other sources without quotation marks (you may not be, but there's a sense of over-reliance on what is written elsewhere. Tony (talk) 06:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 SandyGeorgia 16:28, 11 April 2009 [77].

Edmonton[edit]

Nominator(s): Cheers Kyle1278 17:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because i have brought the page up to GA status. It was a long 2 month process but it was well worth it. The article contains soused information and well written paragraphs. I am very open to suggestions if anybody has any and i will gladly fix this article if it is required.Cheers Kyle1278 17:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments -
  • Per the MOS, link titles (and anything else) in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original.
Done
  • Are there no books written on Edmonton? Or its history? The entire article is cited to web pages. Surely, for such a large and important city, there are some books?
Have added some books but still looking for some
Done I replaced this one with a book Naming Edmonton ISBN 088864423X
For book refs, you need to give author, title, publisher and page number at the very least. {{cite book}} gives you help with setting this up. You should fill in as many of the fields as possible, as year of publication and location are very helpful. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done I replaced it with a proper website about Edmonton's river valley.
Done I replaced this one with a book Edmonton, a history ISBN 0888301006
This link is to show and prove that it was nicknamed "Black Friday"
This link is to show Edmonton's economic history, and recovery through out the years.
This link even through it is about more than just Edmonton is about the type of geography Edmonton has
Done I replaced it with a proper website about Edmonton's river valley.
This link is about Edmonton's skiing locations.
Done I replaced it with a proper link from the communities site.
Done I removed this one i do not think it needs a ref.
Done replaced with a proper link from West Edmonton Mall.
Done I replaced this one with a site from the city of Edmonton's website about the stadiums in Edmonton.
Done I replaced this one with a book i found about it ISBN 0888644493.
Done I replaced it with a link to here.
Done removed the link i do not think it need a ref.
  • http://www.muralmosaic.com/Livia/mural.html is used to source the information "It is home to North America's largest mall, West Edmonton Mall (which was the world's largest mall for a 23 year period from 1981 until 2004.), and Fort Edmonton Park, Canada's largest living history museum. In 2004, Edmonton celebrated the centennial of its incorporation as a city." but nothing on that webpage supports that.
Done I have found to separate links for both the statements.
Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the references, such as CBC or EFCL.
Done
  • The following refs lack publishers
    • Current ref 12 (R. Dale McIntosh..)
Done
    • Current ref 15 (P. WHITNEY...) This appears to be an online journal, should use {{cite journal}} for it.
Done
    • Current ref 23 (ELIZABETH WHITNEY...) this appears to be a newspaper, should use {{cite news}}
Done
    • Current refs 25 and 26 (Gary Lamphier...) 25 is a reprint of a newspaper article. Does the site have permission to host the article and if so, you'd use {{cite news}}. 26's accessdate is broken.
Done
    • Current ref 28 (Todd babiak..) should be Babiak also, I think. newspaper article again.
Done
    • Current ref 29 (STEPHEN DAFOE...)
Done
    • Current ref 30 (Ron Chalmers..) newspaper again.
Done
    • Current ref 32 ... the author isn't "urban villages" and it's lacking a publisher.
Done
    • Current ref 40, the author isn't "Edmonton..." it's a professor and it is a reprint of a newspaper column.
Done
    • Current ref 42 (Lawrence Herzog...)
Done
    • Current ref 44 (Edmonton...) and the author isn't Edmonton .. it's the official edmonton tourism site.
Done
    • Current ref 46 (Famous five) author isn't "Famous Five" is is the Heritage Community Foundation... lacks a publisher also
Done
    • Current ref 60 (Drrick Kania...) SHouldn't it be Derick Kania not Derick Kania1?
Done
    • Current ref 85 (Grahm Hicks...) newspaper again.
Done
    • Current ref 88 (Life sciences news...) the author isn't Life Science... it's the government of Alberta Department of Education and Technology...
Done
    • Current ref 110 (Northlands..) author isn't northlands, it's probably the festival itself.
Done
    • Current ref 112 (nortlands..) see above about the 110 ref
Done
    • Current ref 121 (SPORTS, EDMONTON...) the author isn't SPORTS, EDMONTON, it's relocatecanada.com
Done
    • current ref 123 (Rahul Vaidyanath..)
Done
    • current ref 136 (bob Kenyon...)
Done
    • Current ref 137 (Train station..) the author isn't train station and the publisher appears to be rail canada.
Done
  • A couple of your references have formatting errors (72, 84 are the ones I noticed) I tried to fix them but they are beyond my pitiful efforts.
Done
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments i will try my best to fix this up. Cheers Kyle1278 15:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the liberty of removing the little templated dones. It's fine to do "done" just that we try to avoid the use of templates and graphics at FAC, since there is a limit on the number of templates the FAC page can hold, and if everyone used them, we'd overflow that limit a lot. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK sorry about that. Cheers Kyle1278 15:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. You're new to FAC, it's all part of the learning experience! Welcome to FAC, by the way. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kindness. Cheers Kyle1278 15:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the sites that I questioned the reliability of, could you please let me know what exactly was done? Were they replaced, and if so with what? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the books. Cheers Kyle1278 23:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You still need page numbers. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it has page numbers now. Cheers Kyle1278 19:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the websites, to determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical Review

Thank you for the info about the fist disambiguation links but could you tell me in a little more detail about how to fix it this is my first time with going through FAC. Cheers Kyle1278 22:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect this to pass this first time but it is very helpful to make the article better quality. Cheers Kyle1278 22:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Click the link at the right (the first one in the toolbox), it gives you a list of disambiguation links. These links that are in the article lead to disambiguation pages (in which multiple uses of an entry are listed), what you need to do is to direct and pipe link the link to the specific article instead of that page where all the entries are listed, see WP:DABS for more info.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for the info i hope im not brothering you but where should i pipe the link to? Cheers Kyle1278 22:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the specific article. Lets say you have George Bush as a Dab, you need to pipe link it as [[George W. Bush|George Bush]]--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the Victoria Day disambiguation but i can't find the Hugh MacDonald one any where on the article.Cheers Kyle1278 04:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try searching it with the wiki mark up, so search it as [[Hugh MacDonald--Best, ₮RUCӨ 20:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info i found and fixed it. Cheers Kyle1278 21:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:MOS#Images and WP:ACCESS issues, text sandwiched between images and left-aligned images below third-level headings. There's also a hidden template in "Climate". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to try to create a main page History of Edmonton i thing it will help with the issues. Cheers Kyle1278 22:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hav e fixed it up tell me what you think. Cheers Kyle1278 22:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose. First things first. Thank you for working on this article. I love the city of Edmonton (although I think it highly unfair that there are so many freaking mosquitos that far north) and I'm glad you took the time to improve the article. The article is in decent shape, but I don't think it currently meets the FA criteria. A lot of what I wrote below are examples - fixing just the one thing I mentioned won't necessarily get me to strike, because there may be other instances, for example, that are poorly sourced in a similar fashion. I think you're going to have a bit of research to do, and I recommend that you withdraw the nomination now, continue working on the article, and then bring it back. If you choose to do that, I'll be happy to do a peer review before you renominate (I'll be happy to review it anytime).

  • There are lots and lots of self-published sources (primarily websites of local organizations). It is not a good idea to rely on those. The number one reason why not is that this gives the appearance of WP:OR and may lead to undue weight. It is much preferred that the article reflects what third-party sources say - do newspapers /books/etc consider these organizations worth mentioning when discussing the city? The current sourcing method makes the article appear as if a few people thought up all the cool things they liked about the city and then went to search for information on those cool things. But what if you don't know all the cool stuff - then the article is not comprehensive. It's a tricky line to walk, and I don't think the article falls on the right side.
  • I thought the lead was relatively well-written. The rest of the article needd a good copyedit.
  • Real Estate Marketing Services is not an appropriate source for the history of a city. Period. Neither is Edmontonrivervalley.com. At least one book is cited for the history section - make more use of it!
  • Need a citation for the highly fertile soils surrounding Edmonton helped attract settlers, further establishing Edmonton as a major regional commercial and agricultural centre
  • Need a source for the Canadian Northern Railway (CNR) arrived in Edmonton, accelerating growth.
  • I expected to see a bit more detail about Edmonton's choice as the provincial capital - wasn't that a big fight and a bit unexpected that Edmonton won?
  • What happened in the city's history after 1905? Perhaps mention its expansion with taking over Strathcona....and other stuff? (large ukranian immigration, etc)
  • This does not appear to be a reliable source http://www.experiencefestival.com/geography_of_alberta
  • I get lots of whitespace at the beginning of section Parkland..., due to the stacking of the images.
  • Beware sourcing anything to the Edmonton tourism website. Their goal is to get people to visit, so it's a very POV source. Try to find something more neutral (maybe a book?)
  • Can't use self-published websites to source peacocky things. For example, "excellent bike and walking trail connections" is cited to the City of Edmonton Transportation department...need someone independent and neutral to ascribe adjectives like that
  • Detailed information about Mill Woods is cited to a map - that information can't have come from the map
  • There are a few measurements that need conversions in the climate section
  • I'd like to see the list of attractions under culture be turned into prose
  • Need citations for number of students at UofA and its campus size

Karanacs (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey for being so far north as you like to say we have very nice summers :). and thank you for your input i will take it into consideration to help improve on the article.--Cheers Kyle1278 18:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 SandyGeorgia 16:28, 11 April 2009 [78].

Shadow the Hedgehog (video game)[edit]

Nominator(s): Tezkag72 (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. I began working on this article at the end of December 2008 and after three months of work, I think it is at the level of other video game FAs. Tezkag72 (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you were using the review site just for the review, it wouldn't be an issue. You're using it for gameplay though, so it needs to satisfy WP:RS. To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All I could find was a list of their staff writers. And it isn't in gameplay; only in "censorship". Tezkag72 (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It still applies, if they are being used for anything other than an attributed review, they need to satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Layout/Prose/Style

  • Inline citations are generally not required in the lead.
  • The infobox lists the game's genre(s) as action-adventure, platform, and third-person shooter, but the rest of the article generally refers to it solely as a platformer. Maybe the first sentence in Gameplay could be changed to read "Shadow the Hedgehog is a platform game with elements of action-adventure and third-person shooter gameplay. Its basic gameplay is similar to previous 3D Sonic games."
  • In the Reception section, there are two single-sentence paragraphs. It's not unheard of in video game articles for sales info to be included in the first paragraph of Section, so I suggest the second single-sentence paragraph be merged with the first.
  • The second picture is cutting a bit into the Development section. Could it be moved alongside the first paragraph in Plot?

Sources

  • That first sentence in Reception should have inlines, for Metacritic and GameRankings, for instance.
  • Per WP:VG/RS, MobyGames should only be used for credit information (and even then I'd recommend Allgame); its review information is unreliable. Considering there are already scores from Metacritic and GameRankings, it seems excessive anyways.
Good, but is aggregate info from three separate sources necessary? It just seems like the reviews infobox is kind of huge as it is. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Tezkag72 (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • "Instead, A2 recorded the song "Chosen One" in its place." - This sentence should have an inline citation.
    • Moved reference because it covers both that statement and the one it was previously after. Tezkag72 (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. I don't have any problems with the Gaming Age and Sonic Planet sources. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 05:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: 1b, 3.

  • Images
  • Sources
    • Is that all there is for sources? I found [79][80], for example, and plenty of possible print sources via LexisNexis. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't own or have access to any print sources regarding the game. Why? What needs sourcing? Tezkag72 (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not what's in the article that needs sources, it's the demand that the article be comprehensive—that a good sampling of all possible content out there is in this article. Send me an email and I'll reply with the print sources I find. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Is this something that makes the article un-worthy? Tezkag72 (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Of the editors in the VG space, I probably bitch about sourcing the most, as can be seen from my string of FAC opposes whenever I actually review a candidate. But online sourcing is not an issue here, this is a mass market PS2 era game, pretty much all the relevant coverage can be found online. (My general rule is pre-2001 = needs print) - hahnchen 23:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • There's nothing that makes the article "unworthy", I'm not trying to knock what you've done, but per comprehensive and well-researched criteria, what you can slap together from online searches isn't always enough. There's plenty of newspaper briefs I can send you which I feel would bolster the reception section, which focuses entirely on the gaming press' views; without information from mainstream newspapers, how are we to know if their opinions differed? There's plenty of previews out there online that could be used to bolster the development section by a paragraph or so, as well. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 13:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • The Nintendo Power review is in the August 2005 issue, which I unfortunately do not have access to. GamerPro64 might, though. Tezkag72 (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Famitsu is not just a score index. You should cite the actual review and magazine. - hahnchen 23:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't own the magazine. I removed the Famitsu stuff. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—1a. Prose is not up to snuff yet, see if you can recruit User:Deckiller or User:Masem to sift through the text.

  • "what levels are played, and ultimately, which of the ten possible endings will be reached" Endings are ultimate"
  • "A number of new gameplay features separate Shadow the Hedgehog from the previous entries in the Sonic the Hedgehog series which feature Sonic as the main playable character. A difference between Shadow the Hedgehog and previous games in the series are the weapons sported by the character, which he can use to combat enemies found in each level." Several things wrong here, but this two-sentence chunk is generally wordy and repetitive. "which he can use to combat enemies" are you referring to the characters or the weapons?
  • "There is a multiplayer mode for two players, in which they can play as Shadow, two Metal Shadows, and a palette swap of each." More wordiness, "In the multiplayer mode two players can play as Shadow, two Metal Shadows, and a palette swap of each." Also, there is no mention of what a "Metal Shadow" is.
    • I de-capitalized "metal", but I think the wording you suggested just makes it confusing, talking about the multiplayer mode without introducing it with a "There is"-type thing. Tezkag72 (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, my suggestions aren't always the best. The point is though, the original sentence was unclear also. I think what is needed is someone who understands the game and terminology but is uninvolved with the article to check for comprehension. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "specially-designed" MOS breach, -ly adverbs should not have hyphens.
  • "and can attack each other, steal each other's rings, and use weapons against each other until one is eliminated." Redundant, using weapons against each other is an attack. Ambiguity, who eliminates whom? How about "and use weapons against each other until one eliminates another."
  • "co-op is possible by a second player connecting " Use of "co-op" like this will lose many readers who are unfamiliar with video game terminology.
  • "50 years before " Another MOS breach, don't start sentences with numerals.
    • Reworded to "Fifty". Is this right, or am I missing the point?
  • "who had the ability to harness the mysterious power of the Chaos Emeralds in new ways."-->who could harness the mysterious power of the Chaos Emeralds in new ways.
  • "its leader, Black Doom"-->their leader, Black Doom simple subject pronoun error, the "Black Arms" are plural, yes?
    • I'm not sure. I wrote it how it is because the Black Arms is the organization.
  • Walk of Game. Link?

Dabomb87 (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • So, am I done or not? Tezkag72 (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those were just examples of why you need to find someone uninvolved, maybe an experienced video game editor, to copy-edit the whole text. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 SandyGeorgia 16:28, 11 April 2009 [81].

Smithfield, London[edit]

Nominator(s): DarTar (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it was significantly expanded and improved since it obtained GA status and was peer reviewed. The article covers the history of one of the most prominent historical sites in Central London. In 2008 the market was at the center of a violent debate on demolition and redevelopment, that opposed developers, architects, the Corporation of London, several British heritage associations and the UK Ministry of Culture, and received a major coverage in the press. DarTar (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by User:Nev1

  • For an article of this size, the lead needs to be expanded.
  • I started expanding the lead, feel free to modify it as needed. --DarTar (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

will create a two-column reference list, and

will create a three-column list. Three-column lists are inaccessible to users with smaller/laptop monitors and should be avoided".

  • There may be a need for some copy editing:
  • "At once a trading event for cloth and other goods and a pleasure fair, the four-day event drew crowds from all classes of English society": I understand that by "at once" it means the event was all those things, but it feels clumsy.
  • "Geoffrey Chaucer supervised the preparation of the tournament's works as clerk of the king." Could "preparation of the tournament's works" be changed to "preparation of the tournament"? Just feels like a better flow.
  • "Smithfield was for centuries the main site for the execution of heretics and dissidents." Doe we have a date for the first execution, or at least something a bit more specific that "for centuries"?
  • I don't know when the series of execution started, but it's definitely something that would need further research. I used "centuries" because the executions I mention in the following section span the period from the 14th to the early 17th century. Since the 16th century, Tyburn became a more popular location for executions, and this should be mentioned in the article --DarTar (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chronology of the area and its history section is a bit odd in that in the second paragraph it mentions the fair being suppressed in the mid-19th century, and then jumps back to the 14th century. Also, there's a gap in the history of the place between the 17th century and the 1990s.
  • I agree, this needs to be improved, unfortunately there is not much material about the history of the area as opposed to the history of the market in modern times. --DarTar (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd feel more comfortable if more references were used, some paragraphs don't have one. Claims such as "The fair was suppressed in 1855 by the city authorities for encouraging public disorder" and "Meat has been traded at Smithfield Market for over 800 years, making it one of the oldest markets in London" can be challenged and so per WP:V need a sourse.
  • Sources added from the Corporation of London's website. --DarTar (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the Victorian period, many started advocating for the removal of the livestock market" Who suggested this? Local landowners? The government?
  • Many, including writers and local residents as those that I mention in the following paragraphs. I changed the paragraph and added a further section heading to make this clearer.--DarTar (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "West Smithfield was left as waste ground for a few years" That's a bit imprecise, it would be better to say "...was left as waste ground until 1866", which leads into the next section.
  • "pykrete, a mixture of ice and woodpulp, alleged to be tougher than steel" I don't think pycrete is tougher than steel, the wikipedia article on it says it was stronger than concrete in some ways but doesn't mention steel (though of I shouldn't use wikipedia as a reference and this probably isn't so important really).
  • maybe we should add quotation marks as this was the original "marketing idea" of pykrete as far as I know --DarTar (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A nice article, but these issues need to be resolved before I can support. I've made these edits to the article, mainly some minor copyediting, but you may want to check to it over to make sure it doesn't inadvertently change the meaning of anything, such as when I was decapitalising City. Nev1 (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • The picture "workers inside the market" probably ought to say which building is depicted. Fainites barleyscribs 18:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not comprehensive and not neutral enough.

  • While there is a great deal about the history and development of the Meat market. Apart from very brief references there is virtually nothing about the Bartholomew Abbey, the Charterhouse monastery, and even more importantly the famous Bartholomew Fair that ran there from the 12th century to 1850. It is the subject of a play by Ben Jonson, important plays such as the Beggars Opera were performed here, and it is mentioned in Shakespeare. It should have at least a subsection. (The link to "Bartholomew fair" in the article actually links to the play by Jonson)
  • All these do not belong to the Smithfield article, but to their respective articles: St Bartholomew-the-Great and London Charterhouse. Have you checked these articles at all? I agree the Bartholomew Fair article should be expanded to include details on the fair on top of the Johnson play, but again I am unsure this is part of the duties of an article on Smithfield. I can try to improve the article on the fair in the future, but I don't think this should be considered part of the assessment of the present FAC (much as the aforementioned related links) --DarTar (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The people executed in the market are twice referred to solely as protestants and "Marian martyrs". In fact Henry VIII burnt Catholic monks and others here, particularly from the Charterhouse, and Elizabeth burnt Anabaptists and others. Xandar 23:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have sources I could use to expand on Catholic and Anabaptist martyrs? That would be very useful. Also, consider adding to this page any link to existing articles on individuals executed at Smithfield (my current list is as comprehensive as possible, but I may have overlooked some names)--DarTar (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A good article and in particular a Featured Article should cover everything notable about its subject to a reasonable extent. I am not asking for a huge amount, but considering the weight of text directed to the Meat market, there should be at least a paragraph on the great monasteries there, and slightly more on what was Smithfield's major claim to claim for most of its history - the Bartholomew Fair.
As far as executions go, Hanging Drawing and Quartering generally took place at Tyburn from Tudor times, and burnings took place at Smithfield. Friar Forrest and the Maid of Kent were certainly burnt at Smithfield along with other Henrician martyrs. Elizabeth burnt people there too. Xandar 12:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the article on the play to Bartholomew Fair (play) and added some initial materials at Bartholomew Fair with disambiguation links, former links have been updated to reflect the disambiguation. --DarTar (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an improvement. However I still feel there is not quite enough about the Fair. A sentence about the plays held here and perhaps a direct reference to Ben Johnson and the Beggars Opera would help cover this issue properly. I still think the article gives the feeling that the Meat Market is the primary focus, when this is actually an article on the district of London called Smithfield. There are some other issues too which I think are standing in the way of FA status.
  • There is no map that locates the district within London. Check the locator maps on articles such as Vauxhall and Wandsworth.
Comment Smithfield is within the City Ward of Farringdon Without (note place and political entity); for which there is such a locator map. There is currently a discussion at WP:London as to whether there is a need for a finer grained map to cover locations within central London - as the current map makes little distinction between places within (say) Zone 1. Vauxhall and Wandsworth are not comparable, as they are much larger districts than this. A plethora of maps can be called from the geo-co-ordinates, at the top of the page. While I can see there may be a need for a map; perhaps we can agree that it should actually be a useful one. Kbthompson (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added a section Religious houses to deal with the sites and their subsequent history. It's fairly tightly referenced to the relevant chapters in History of the County of Middlesex, but my prose could always do with a brush up. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great job! I changed the section title to "Religious history", I wonder if this makes more sense? Then we should decide what to do with the religious executions described below. --DarTar (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very positive changes so far. The new sections make a big difference. However there's still no more on the fair. And any sort of locator map showing Smithfield's position in London (even one just indicating the location with a dot) would be better than none. Xandar 00:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issues with prose.
  • As a large open space close to the city it was a favourite place for gatherings such as public executions and jousting. In 1374 Edward III held a seven-day tournament in Smithfield, for the amusement of his beloved Alice Perrers. Possibly the most famous tournament in medieval Smithfield was the one ordered in 1390 by Richard II. Jean Froissart, in the fourth book of his Chronicles, reports that sixty knights would come to London to tilt for two days, "accompanied by sixty noble ladies, richly ornamented and dressed". The tournament was proclaimed by heralds in England, Scotland, Hainault, Germany, Flanders, and France, to rival the jousts given by Charles of France into Paris a few years earlier, on the entry of his consort Isabeau de Bavière. - Public executions and jousting should be dealt with separately. It is not clear whether the Jean froissart report is of the same joust as that referred to previously. The final sentence seems too long and confusing.
  • The area is also a popular venue for historical racing and other sporting events. What exactly is "historical racing"?
  • In the Victorian period, many pamphlets started circulating in favor of the removal of the livestock market and its relocation outside of the city, due to its extremely poor hygienic conditions[11] as well as the brutal treatment of the cattle. No need for the "many" before "pamphlets". The sentence falls apart after "market". Might be improved by splitting in two. US spelling of "favor" jars here.
There is a "center" in the text too, which should, for consistency, be anglicised. Tim riley (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The General Market, built between 1879 and 1883, was intended to replace the old Farringdon Market located nearby and established for the sale of fruit and vegetables when the earlier Fleet Market was cleared to enable the laying out of Farringdon Street in 1826–1830. Again, long confusing sentence.
  • It was one of London's first cold stores to be built outside the London docks and continued to serve Smithfield until the mid-1970s "London" twice in the same sentence.
  • Smithfield is one of the few of the great London markets not to have moved from its central site to a location further out with cheaper land, better transport links and more modern facilities (compare with Covent Garden and Billingsgate). Since the market is designed to supply inner city butchers, shops and restaurants with meat for the coming day, the trading hours are from 4:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon every weekday. Instead, Smithfield market has been modernised on its existing site; for instance, its imposing Victorian buildings have had access points added for the loading and unloading of lorries. Opening hours split the flow of ideas re: the non-removal of the market. First sentence of this passage is a mess.
  • Some of the buildings formerly associated with the meat market have now been put to other uses. For example, the former Central Cold Store is now, most unusually, a city centre power station operated by Citigen. "most unusually" is comment, not needed here.
  • The public park comprises the centre of the only part of Smithfield which is still open space – this is in effect a large square with the market forming one side and mostly older buildings the other three. Confusingly unclear description. Is the public park the whole open space and "large square". If not, what else is in the square? Xandar 00:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical Review
  • Fix the 3 dead external links, as found with the links checker tool.Strike-through text
  • Fixed, thanks --DarTar (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also added a note why it is not advisable to change the redirects (using a permanent identifier as main URL)--DarTar (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref formatting, as checked with the WP:REFTOOLS script, is up to speed.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support an excellent article on the principle use of the meaning. Bartholomew Fair is related to the eastern edge of the market, so not a primary use. Similarly, the Abbey should be dealt with under the development of Barts - it's at Smithfield, but not within Smithfield (see etymology). Charterhouse was still going to a disambig, but somebody fixed it - before I could! Em, the article there could do with some work - Thomas Sutton was one of the principle beneficiaries of the dissolution, and his foundation had nothing to do with the Carthusians - but that's irrelevant to the current discussion. Barts was re-established after petition by the City of London to Henry VIII; he gave in - but they paid for it. But these are all in the surrounding area - would like to see some link to William Dixon's Cattle Layers (see Islington); where the cattle were fattened before coming into the market. Possibly, some link to the annual Smithfield Show at the Royal Agricultural Hall. Missing is some link to St John's Gate - which was the entrance to the Priory of the Order of St John (Clerkenwell, just to the north of the site) - hence St John's Street. Seems to me the article covers the links to the various 'malcontents' burnt, pickled, or fried here. Might be worth putting in an external list - like Tyburn should be. Ah, there's something missing Fortune of War was a popular meeting place for Resurrection men, definitely worth a mention. Em, Turnmills, probably more appropriate to mention that the street was associated in Tudor times with brothels; particularly that of a black madame who had been a maid to Lizzy I - I can probably dig out a ref for that. None of that detracts from a fine article, all those are peripheral to the main topic. Kbthompson (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Bit by bit, this little corner of Jacobean London emerges: the industrious, quarrelsome, somewhat rackety French family with whom he lodged; the neighbours he knew – the trumpeter Humphrey Fludd, the adulterous mercer Henry Wood, and, most interesting, the brothel-keeper and hack author George Wilkins, who later collaborated with him on Pericles. Wilkins was a dangerous and unpleasant character – his voluminous police record includes brutal acts of violence against prostitutes. On one occasion, he “outrageously beat one Judith Walton, & stamped upon her, so that she was carried home in a chayre”; on another, he was charged with “kicking a woman on the belly which was the greate with childe”. Wilkins’s establishment – nominally a tavern but certainly a brothel – was on Turnmill Street, in the notorious red-light district of Clerkenwell. His wife, Katherine, was nicknamed “Mistress Sweetmeat” – perhaps she served the overpriced cakes and pastries that were associated with brothels. “For a pippin pie that cost in the market fourpence”, warns the pamphleteer Robert Greene, you will pay “at one of the trugging houses 18 pence”." - from Times Online. That's Wilkins brothel, there should be much more. Note, The Times places the street in Clerkenwell - and the Shakespeare connection. The Turnmill brothels also come up in the Threepenny Opera. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to look at:
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; pretty much what Kbthompson says above. It comprehensively covers what someone familiar with the area would consider "Smithfield", and I'm really not concerned with the whole "technically, foo falls within the formal boundaries" issues – any more than Noel Park needed a long section on Wood Green Shopping City. Ideally, I'd see the history section split into subheads, but that's just me and certainly not something I'd oppose over. – iridescent 19:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose based on sourcing and structure.

  • Some of your references are bare links. The websites need publisher, title, and access date at the very least (see current refs 8 and 9)
  • Books need to have the publisher listed. Books also need to have the specific page number listed for each fact used., Some do this, some do not.
  • I echo Ealdgyth's concerns about some sources not being reliable. Please see her comments above.
  • Why are so many of the sources consulted so old? I see several that were published 150+ years ago. Have nothing been written more recently on this topic? A quick google books search showed a few more recent things that may be useful (and there were more than these examples):
    • An economic history of London, 1800-1914 By Michael Ball, David Sunderland [82]
    • Smithfield Meat Market By D Metcalf, London School of Economics and Political [83]
    • London, A Social History by Roy Porter [84]
      • Is there any official WP guideline against the use of old sources? All of these sources can be looked up in Google Books and are essential to report factual information that is not available in references published more recently. --DarTar (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should there be citations in the first part of the area and history section? I would expect one at least for the name Smooth Field'
    • Most basic information about Smithfield is available in multiple sources, including the official market website (ref. 9), I can surely add further notes but adding a reference every three words does not help legibility. --DarTar (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it known when the first reference to the Smooth Field/Smithfield area was made in written documents?
  • per WP:MOSDATE, 24 August instead of 24th August.
  • There are comma issues throughout the article - I see many instances where a phrase begins to be offset by a comma (or should be offset by commas), and there is no closing comma
  • The prose in the Area and history section does not flow very well.
  • I think there is a tad bit of overlinking. Do peasants, coing forgers, boiled in oil, etc really need to be linked?
    • I think they do, considering that the English Wikipedia is read by a massive number of non native speakers who may not know what "peasant" or "forger" mean. --DarTar (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably need a source for By the 18th century the "Tyburn Tree" (near the present-day Marble Arch), became the main place for public executions in London.
  • Is the information about Smithfield, RI really that necessary? That seems a bit trivial to me and seems to have no bearing on the future of Smithfield in London. (If this does stay, it needs a source)
  • Need a source for the entire paragraph on bars, pubs, and clubs
  • Did nothing happen in the history of this area between the 17th century and the late 1990s? There seems to be a great big gap in the history
  • Need a source for , but with the increased nightclub activity around Smithfield the UHULMC (a motoring club) decided to move the event start to Finsbury Circus.
  • Why are we using Self-published sources to describe events that happen in the area? It is much better to find newspaper articles, etc that discuss interesting things that go on. Besides the fact that newspapers are much more reliable sources, sourcing events from self-published sites (like the smithfield Nocturne website) leaves an impression of WP:OR - someone familiar with the area is deciding what is important by consulting the websites of things that person knows about.
  • I think these pointers are meant to provide readers with the official link for a specific event. Is there any reason to doubt that information about a sport event as published by the official organisers may be less reliable than informatin about this event in secondary sources? --DarTar (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOSQUOTE, short quotations (4 lines or less) should not be offset, they should be inline.
  • Due to the volume of cattle driven to Smithfield on a daily basis, the market started raising major concerns. - who was concerned? why? Very vague sentence
  • Between 1740 and 1750 the average sale at Smithfield was reported to be around 74,000 cattle and 570,000 sheep -- I read "average sale" as average individual sale, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Is this annual sale or something else? please be more specific.
  • I agree with the above oppose that the article appears weighted very heavily towards the market (perhaps undue weight). This can be fixed with a mix of two methods - add more information about other pieces of the area history (some suggestions below) and/or better integrate the information that is currently in a separate meat market area into the history section. For example, the world War II info is dropped into the meat market section, but it does not relate directly to the meat market
  • There is no information about how the boundaries of the area might have changed. When did Smithfield officially become part of London? (There is no real information about what makes up the boundaries now at all)
    • As much as many London districts described in Wikipedia (Clerkenwell, Covent Garden, Soho, West End, etc.) Smithfield is not an administrative district with clearly defined boundaries so it might be pointless to try to figure out how boundaries may have changed over time. I agree more information could be added to better define the geographical scope of the article in the first section. --DarTar (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume there were neighborhoods in the area - is it possible to get information on how the population changed over time?
  • I think the article is using italics incorrectly throughout the article. See WP:MOSITALICS
  • Much of the today section is not cited; what is is cited to the market website, which may or may not be appropriate.

Karanacs (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Karanacs 15:54, 7 April 2009 [85].

History of the Han Dynasty[edit]

Nominator(s): Pericles of AthensTalk 18:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article meets all the requirements for FA status, along with the other Han-dynasty related pages I have worked on.Pericles of AthensTalk 18:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This is, by any reckoning, a formidable piece of work. But...File size 390kb, wikitext 141kb, wordcount 14,608? Breaches all the guidelines as to length, per WP:LENGTH. With 15 links to other "main articles", and 19 more to "further information" articles, it must be possible to produce a summary history of the Han Dynasty in a shorter form than this. Other reviewers must decide for themselves whether to take the plunge, but for me, life is too short. I would love to see a scaled-down version, say 50% less (and still a fairly long article), but as it stands it is way, way too long for me to feel confident that I was doing a proper job while reviewing it. Apologies, Brianboulton (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it doesn't violate Wikipedia:Article size at all. The wikitext 141kb is the overall length, thus includes "see also", external links, categories, reference sources, section titles, hidden citations that appear in the notes section, and the lead paragraphs in the introduction. The only thing that matters according to WP:SIZE is the prose text of an article, i.e. the main body of text. Using a word document a little while ago, I found out that the prose size is about 86 KB. It is still very big, but falls short of the maximum tolerated size of 100 KB. Plus, the scope of this article covers four centuries of history and thus completely justifies the current length (in my opinion).--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK I stand corrected over the length guidelines, but please note what they say about articles over 60Kb readable prose (and yours is way over that). I hope that others have the time and patience to review the article fully, but my own view is that nothing justifies a single article of this length. Good luck with it! Brianboulton (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. User:Nlu and I actually did a lot of copy-editing so far in an effort to reduce the size of the article. Believe it or not, but a lot of extraneous stuff has already been pruned from the text.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Brianboulton is correct. WP:SIZE recommends a maximum prose size of 10,000 words; this article is almost 50% larger than the outside limit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that (i.e. 10,000 words or 50 KB) is the recommendation for most articles (with the toleration limit exceeding no further than 100 KB), but Wikipedia:Article size#occasional exceptions states that "Two exceptions are lists and articles summarizing certain fields. These act as summaries and starting points for a field and in the case of some broad subjects or lists either do not have a natural division point or work better as a single article. In such cases, the article should nonetheless be kept short where possible. Major subsections should use summary style where a separate article for a subtopic is reasonable, and the article should be written with greater than usual attention to readability...Readers of such articles will usually accept complexity provided the article is well written, created with a sensible structure and style, and is an appropriate length for the topic. Most articles do not need to be excessively long, but when a long or very long article is unavoidable, its complexity should be minimized." I would argue that, given the brevity of this topic—comparable to the timeframe for the History of the Roman Empire and even longer than the History of the United States—I have done a fairly good job in cutting out the extraneous and keeping in what is necessary to explain this rather massive topic.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: As the reviewer of the Good Article nomination, I can assure you that much effort has already been made to shorten the article. Any further shortening, would, in my opinion, excise important information. I am in full support of promotion of this article to Featured status. Zeus1234 (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical Review
  • The following refs (code pasted below) are duplicated, a WP:REFNAME should be used instead
  • Ebrey (1999), 73. Fixed.
  • Loewe (1986), 136. Fixed.
  • Torday (1997), 83–84. Fixed.
  • Ebrey (1999), 66. Fixed.
  • Bielenstein (1986), 238. Fixed.
  • Bielenstein (1986), 241–242. Fixed.
  • Crespigny (2007), 498. Fixed.
  • Crespigny (2007), 591. Fixed.
  • Bielenstein (1986), 284–285. Fixed.
  • The following ref names are used more than once to name a ref, they should only name 1 specific ref.
  • loewe 1986 136
  • torday 1997 83 84
  • crespigny 2007 498
  • crespigny 2007 591
  • bielenstein 1986 284 285--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I'll strike these out as I fix them. Is that ok with you?--Pericles of AthensTalk 09:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to go right now, I'll be back to fix the rest of these.--Pericles of AthensTalk 09:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All done!--Pericles of AthensTalk 10:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its all chevere.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 14:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on citation style Have you considered using {{Harvnb}} to make the References more accessible from the Footnotes? Or condensing the References section using {{refbegin}} and {{refend}}? Thirdly, it is somewhat unusual to have a "further references" section; if the reference in question (Dubs 1938-) is not used in the article, it might be clearer to title the section Further reading, which makes it clear that the section is not references mark II but rather categorically different. All suggestions are purely optional, of course. Thank you for writing the article, it was a very enjoyable read. Skomorokh 14:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I have amended the article according to your suggestions of using refbegin/refend as well as changing "Further references" to "Further reading". I have used Harvard style citation in the past. Although I don't mind using it for such articles, at this point it would be very inconvenient to replace the existing method, as I would have to change not only the citations in this article, but would have to conform the other five Han articles to the Harvard method as well (i.e. Han Dynasty, Economy of the Han Dynasty, Government of the Han Dynasty, Science and technology of the Han Dynasty, and Society and culture of the Han Dynasty). You can see how this becomes a much larger issue than fixing the nearly 400 individual citations of this article alone. I hope you understand. Aside from that, would you care to review the article in full? It doesn't seem to be getting much attention here at the FAC page.--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment great job with the images, its hard to get an FA on such a broad topic, best of luck Fasach Nua (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you can view more Han images in the other four branch articles for the Han Dynasty; just go to the template at the bottom of the article, or simply go to the main Han Dynasty page where all the links are located.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Apart from being much too long, the overall approach is for my taste too descriptive, even at places anecdotal. It should be more analytical instead. Statements such as the dubious "the Romans allegedly paid tribute to the Han court" in the lead (!) show that the author places too much faith in Han dynasty propaganda which, as all subsequent Chinese dynasties, would call as a rule trade foreign "tribute" and their tribute "presents" (a custom already wide-spread in the Oriental Kingdoms of the Ancient Near East). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the tribute thing, it's not a matter of what you or I believe, it is a matter of what sources say. In this case, the source I used, Rafe de Crespigny's A Biographical Dictionary of the Eastern Han to Three Kingdoms (2007), does not explicitly say "tribute" but rather "gifts" that the Romans presented (he speculates they are merchants, not diplomats). I will use the term "gifts" instead, just to be safe on this matter. Sound better?--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is Crespingy's passage in full, just for the record:
Page 600: QUOTE: "Most spectacularly, it is recorded that a mission from Daqin 大秦, identified as the empire of Rome, came to Luoyang from the south in 166. The envoys claimed that they had been sent by their king Andun 安敦, presumably the Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus [reg. 161–180], and the gifts they brought, including ivory, rhinoceros horn and tortoise shell, had evidently been gathered on their journey. There was and still is some suspicion that these men were enterprising traders rather than accredited officials, but their visit provided valuable prestige to the emperor at a time of political difficulty. [It may be only chance, but the date of this visit coincided with the outbreak of the Antonine plague which ravaged the Roman empire from the middle 160s: the question of epidemics is discussed in the entry for Liu Hong, Emperor Ling.]"--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now, if you're serious about improving the article, exactly what contents in the article seem extraneous enough to you that they would need to be removed or further summarized? Keep in mind, I don't want to water down the article or take out so much detail that it confuses or misleads the reader, or forces them to ask more questions about the subject instead of answering them. Also, where (in exactly which sections) does the article need more scholarly analysis? Please be specific.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record. Pulleyblank has treated the subject most comprehensively. This is what he says:

...One such source of information would have been the so-called embassy from the king of Da Qin, Andun xyz an twan, that reached the Han court by sea in 166 c.E. Since the name Andun can be plausibly identified either with the emperor Antoninus Pius (reg. 138-161) or his successor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (reg. 161-180), this provides at least one firm link to Rome itself. There is not much else. A point that needs to be stressed is that the Chinese conception of Da Qin was confused from the outset with ancient mythological notions about the far west. In the same way that Da Qin replaced Zhang Qian's Da Xia as the "counter-China," the Weak Water (rud shut §§7fc) and the Queen Mother of the West (XI Wang Mu ffizE M), reported by hearsay as features of Tiaozhi in the Shiji and Hanshu, were moved to the western extremity of Da Qin in later texts. Attempts to identify them with actual western places are obviously futile. Edwin G. Pulleyblank: The Roman Empire as Known to Han China, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 119, No. 1. (1999), pp. 71-79 (78)

Please show me where Pulleyblank speaks of Roman tributes to China. This is nonsense, because, apart from two possible contacts, there was never any direct interaction between Rome and the Han. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

??? From the passage you provided, he does not mention tribute, but I never made an assertion about Pulleyblank's work, nor have I cited him in the article. As for the Han people's conception about what Rome was (or rather, misconceptions based on mythology of the far west), I believe Michael Loewe is the authority (can't remember off the top of my head which one of his books covers this in detail). Now, is your main qualm merely with the fact that Rome is mentioned in the introduction to this article? Since this occurence is described in greater detail in the body of the article, I would argue that a quick mentioning in the introduction is not unjustified (as WP:LEAD notes, a lead summarizes what is found in the body), but perhaps you're right. After all, the Han interactions with Parthia and Kushan were much more substanial.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, I'm the one who wrote Tibet during the Ming Dynasty; trust me, I know all about the dubious claims of "tribute" in many cases where the correct term should be "gift".--Pericles of AthensTalk 09:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To beef up the crediblity on this issue, I recently added a citation (page 460–461) from this source:

Yü, Ying-shih. (1986). "Han Foreign Relations," in The Cambridge History of China: Volume I: the Ch'in and Han Empires, 221 B.C. – A.D. 220, 377-462. Edited by Denis Twitchett and Michael Loewe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521243270.

...who also uses the word "gift", not tribute. However, Yu notes that nothing is entirely confirmed in regards to the occurrence of this alleged visit to Huan's court by Romans.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you going to lay out any specific points on where you think the article should be reduced in size? I'm all ears for suggestions, but I would ask that they be constructive ones that take into account the need for comprehensiveness (i.e. I don't want to cut anything that is vital to the understanding of this subject).--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My criticism is not that you "made an assertion about Pulleyblank's work", but that you made an assertion about Sino-Roman contacts which is not supported, ex silentium, by Pulleyblank (among others).
And this is not the only example. Your account does also mispresent the Seres by equating them simply with the Chinese, although, in fact, the term was used, in the course of several centuries, for a number of peoples and tribes in Central Asia, including the Indians. The story about the Romans allegedly praising Chinese iron has been long refuted on good grounds:

Although in Pliny's "Natural History" there are several references to the Seres and a very full account of the mining and smelting of iron in all parts of the world that were in communication with Rome, there is no other passage in that work in which the Seres and iron are brought together, nor is there in any other work that survives to us from the Roman and Greek period anything to connect the people known as the Seres with the production of or trade in iron. Yet upon this slender authority rests the assumption that steel was brought overland to imperial Rome from far-away China.

The various referenees to the Seres in the Roman writers cannot be harmonized for any one people, and it is certainly an unneceessary interpretation to identify them with the Chinese, or to transfer the "Serie iron" to China. I have already indieated that the Indian steel, although mainly an Andhra produet, was attributed by the Romans to tbe Chöra Tamils, and then eonfused with the Seres of Turkestan; and I will elose with a further identifieation of one of these ubiquitous Seros, not heretofore made, so far as I am aware.

Wilfried Schoff: The Eastern Iron Trade of the Roman Empire, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 35 (1915), 224-239 (224, 237)

I have read some articles of yours and IMHO they all suffer from the same problem. You are content with the first source you find, to quickly move on to the GA or FAC nomination, without sufficiently taking the time to look for contrary stances. IMO it could be expected from a FAC that the author is aware that Chinese 'knowledge' of Da Qian (Roman Empire) had strong mythological connotations, or that the Seres should never be lightly equated with the Chinese. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 03:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this meant to be a snarky comment? For one, there is not sufficient room in this article to explain the Chinese conceptions of the far west and the various mythological ideas about lands of immortals therein (although covered briefly in Society and culture of the Han Dynasty; well ahead of you). Even if I tried to make room, it would be irrelevant, and you would certainly complain, given that you already have issues with the size of the article (as you stated, one of the main reasons why you oppose it). In any case, I already removed the Seres comment in the article due to the fact that you shared Wilfried Schoff's source on your talk page with me already. So how exactly is it relevant anymore? So far it seems you have seized on two statements involving Rome (which I've amended according to your suggestions), and haven't really offered much in regards to improving the rest of the article.--Pericles of AthensTalk 08:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what made you think I was totally unaware that the Chinese attached mythological ideas to Daqin? Was it the mentioning of the alleged embassy? The Book of Later Han description of Rome's government, postal network, and cities that I briefly mentioned in a foreign affairs section? I'm all ears, because I don't know where you got this idea (given the sparse amount of attention I gave to Rome in the article to begin with).--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gun Powder Ma. It's been a week since you first stated your opposition to this FAC. As we discussed on your talk page, are you going to list point-by-point the specific statements/areas which need improvement that I can address? It's hard to address vague generalities about what you think is anecdotal; it would be much easier for me to address your concerns if you laid out specific items that needs to be fixed, much like how User:Ruslik0 listed his concerns below that I could address one by one (click the "show" button on the extended content box). That is fairly normal procedure for an FAC if one is not merely commenting but opposing the article.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cross-checked some points and, particularly in the field of foreign relations, I noticed again the tendency of the author to attract notice away from the normal and usual to the unusual, extraordinary and rare. Specifically, I am irritated by some points which are given prominent weight in the lead, but which are only briefly addressed in the continuous text, and which pertinent secondary sources do give even less weight.

  • So in 400 years of Han history we have 2 possible direct contacts between Rome and the Han dynasty through Roman travellers, while a single Chinese party made it reportedly as far west as the Black Sea or the Persian Gulf. Since these travels are not in any way exemplary for the true geographical scope of China then, I am still not sure what warrants an inclusion in the lead. IMO the lead is for the broad outline and not for extreme anomalies which may effectively heavily mislead the reader. This also holds true for the 2 Japanese missions:
  • The Cambridge History writes only: "These (Hann) units <a Korean tribe> were in all probability in contact with visitors from the Japanese islands, and the missions that made their way from Kyushu to the court of Lo-yang in A.D. 57 and 107 may well have passed through the Hann confederacies on their way." From this flimsy passage the author extracts: "The first known diplomatic mission from a ruler in Japan came in 57 CE (followed by another in 107 CE)" which is fair enough in the continous texts, but leaves me mystified as to it being mentioned in the lead. Shouldn't the lead rather say something along the line that, with the exception of the odd mission, about which we know next to nothing, there were no known political contacts between Japan and China then?
  • Third point: Much of the article is simply descriptive: For example, in the first passage of "Foreign relations and war of middle Eastern Han", the relationship with the Western regions is dealt with by relying on the Cambridge History. But, while the reference explicitly evolves around the problem for the Han to upkeep their control of the Western regions due to the great financial strains and demands of their allies, which would be an interesting general point understanding Han foreign policy in the region, the WP article simply lists events and events.
IMO this is symptomatic of the general style of the article which leaves the reader with a mass of 'facts and figures', but, due to its lack of analytical structure, with little real understanding of the real forces which shaped the history of China then. This may well do in a normal or even GA status article, but IMHO fails short of FA status. Therefore, I remain opposed. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding! Since you have issues with a couple statements in the lead which are not pertinent to the summary of the article as a whole, I have shortened that particular paragraph so that it now only mentions prominent foreign contacts like the empires of Parthia and Kushan. I think that is a fair compromise.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to slightly disagree with your third point, though. I don't know if you read it or not, but the financial crisis and constraints of the Eastern Han court at this point are already mentioned in "Reforms and policies of middle Eastern Han". I didn't want to seem redundant by mentioning all of the same material again, especially since the issue of size constraints have been raised for this article (even by you in one of your original points of opposition). Plus, do I really have the space to dive into the various complex relationships and alliances that Han had with the Tarim Basin states? I'd be glad to provide a little analysis on this, but it's not going to exceed a sentence or two.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, I added a bit of analysis on why Han involved itself in the Western Regions:

The Eastern-Han court periodically reasserted the Chinese military presence in the Western Regions only as a means to combat the Northern Xiongnu.[1] Han forces were expelled from the Western Regions first by the Xiongnu between 77–90 CE and then by the Qiang between 107–122 CE.[1] In both of these periods, the financial burdens of reestablishing and expanding western colonies, as well as the liability of sending financial aid requested by Tarim-Basin tributary states, were viewed by the court as reasons to forestall the reopening of foreign relations in the region.[1]

I hope you find this sufficient, especially since the issue of the article's size does not allow me to add much more. In the next paragraph, the comparison of the cost of putting down the Liangzhou rebellion (24 million cash coins) to the average annual amount of minted coins (220 million) should demonstrate just how the court's finances were suffering and why they could not commit their forces to far-flung campaigns of conquest and settlement. What do you think?--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? You still around, Gun Powder Ma? I'd like to get your take on the revision to the article I made a couple days ago.--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A lot of work has clearly gone into this article. I am no expert on Chinese history (and I hate unpronounceable Pinyin naming). But I have a few niggles on prose style, particularly in the lead, where I have taken the liberty of splitting some confusingly overlong sentences. However there are two sentences in the lead which I find baffling:
  • The Han emperors were initially forced to acknowledge the rival Xiongnu shanyus as their equals, yet in reality were inferior partners in a tributary and royal marriage alliance known as heqin. Who were the inferior partners - the Han emperors or the Xiongnu?
  • From its beginning, the Han imperial court was threatened by plots of treason and revolt from its subordinate kingdoms, eventually ruled only by royal Liu family members. Were the Imperial court or the subordinate kingdoms ruled by the Liu family?

Xandar 02:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope that I fully addressed those two "niggles" you have listed here. I reworded those two selected sentences just a bit to clarify my points in no ambiguous terms. I hope you find this sufficient.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. My points have been addressed. Thank you. Xandar 11:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I read the article with great interest, but I noticed some problems that need to be fixed before the article becomes featured.

Extended content
  1. General comments:
    • The date format is not consistent. Some years are given with CE (or BCE) after them, while many others without. The article should either omit CE or use it everywhere.
    • The time intervals for the Westerns Han and Eastern Han are given in almost all figure captions! I think they should be dropped, as specifying the period as the Western or Eastern Han is enough in my opinion.
    • The article mentions the names of many persons without any explanations of who they were. Specific examples are below. Every historical figure mentioned in the article should have a very short description of their background.
  2. Lead:
    • founded by the rebel peasant leader Liu Bang However the main text says nothing about his peasant ancestry (it only says that he was a supervisor of convicts in Pei County).
    • yet in reality the Han was an inferior partner in a tributary and royal marriage alliance known as heqin Again the main text does not say that they were "an inferior partner".
    • according to Dong Zhongshu's (179–104 BCE) cosmological system involving the earthly imperial government. Could you clarify this sentence. What does "involving the earthly imperial government" mean in this context?
  3. Fall of Qin and Chu-Han conflict:
    • the armies of Qin marched on and conquered the other six Warring States I think it would be good if the names of all six states were provided here.
    • employing a ruthless realpolitik to preserve his rule I do not like this phrase, particularly the word "realpolitik". Is it used in historical literature?
    • with an agreement that the first officer to capture this region would become its king Did Liu Bang become the king of Guanzhong after he captured it? It is not clear from the article.
    • persuaded by Zhang Liang and Fan Kuai not to let his soldiers loot the city, he instead sealed up its treasury Please, clarify who they were.
    • carved Guanzhong into three kingdoms with Zhang Han and two of his subordinates Was Zhang Han the same person as the Qin's general who fought against rebels before? The article should say something about this.
    • With Chenggao and his food supplies lost, and with Han Xin (d. 196 BCE) having conquered Please, clarify who Han Xin was, what was a second front to Chu's north.
  4. Reign of Gaozu
    • I think the paragraph beginning with According to Michael Loewe should be moved forward and placed before the paragraph beginning with Wu Rui (吳芮), King of Changsha.
    • When the Xiongnu invaded Taiyuan in 200 and were aided by the defector King Xin of Hán I want to know if he was the same Xin of Hán who is mentioned above. Some clarification is necesary of why he defected.
  5. Empress Dowager Lü's rule:
    • I think the part beginning with After Hui's reign, however, the court under Lü Zhi was not only unable to deal should be moved into the next subsection, as it is not really about Hui.
  6. Reign of Wen and Jing:
    • Han imperial patrons of Huang-Lao, a mix of political and cosmological precepts, sponsored the policy of "nonaction" I do not understand what this means. What does "a mix of political and cosmological precepts" refer to? to patrons? Or may be it refers to the policy of non-action?
    • The sentence beginning with From 179 to 143 BCE, the number of kingdoms is too long and should be split in two sentences.
    • When Liu Xian (劉賢), the heir apparent of Wu Is he the same Liu Xian who rebeled against Lu in 180 BCE?
    • Emperor Jing carried out under the advice of Chao Cuo, Please, clarify who Chao Cuo was.
  7. Reign of Wu:
    • Fergana threatened to cut off Han's access to the Silk Road, yet historian Sima Qian (d. 86 BCE) saved face by asserting that Li's mission was really a means to punish Dayuan for not providing tribute of prized Central Asian stallions. Can you clarify what "save face" means in this context? The language used here is not encyclopedic.
    • Moreover, it was a government means to take over the profitable grain trade and eliminate speculation in grain trading Can you clarify what this means?
  8. Latter half of Western Han:
    • and by 80 BCE Shangguan Jie and Sang Hongyang were executed Can you clarify who Sang Hongyang was. Was he mathematician and official mentioned before?
  9. Wang Mang's usurpation:
    • Dowager Wang confirmed Wang Mang as acting emperor What does an acting imperor mean? I have never heard about "acting imperors". Does this position is the same as a regent?
    • despite the fact that a Liu marquess had revolted against Wang a month earlier, followed by others. What is the connection between the revolt of "Liu marquess" and the confirmation of Wang Mang as acting emperor? Can you calrify.
    • The "partisan" historian Ban Gu I do not like the word "partisan". It is not encyclopedic.

I will review the Eastern Han part later. Ruslik (talk) 06:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC) The second part of the review.[reply]

  1. Restoration of the Han:
    • On April 8, 70 CE, a Han imperial edict boasted that the southern branch of the Yellow River emptying south of the Shandong Peninsula was finally cut off by Han engineering. This looks like a stray sentence. It should be probably moved into the 'Policies under Guangwu, Ming, Zhang, and He' subsection.
    • With much of the southern North China Plain inundated, It is not clear why "much of the southern North China Plain" was inundated. Was it because of the opening of the south branch of the Yellow Rive? It should be clarified.
    • captured the fleeing Gengshi who they demoted as King of Changsha before killing him. The article does not mentioned that he was the King of Changsha. He was a king of Nanyang, was not he?
    • Comparing this to the census of 140 CE, there was a significant migratory shift of up to 10,000,000 people from northern to southern China during Eastern Han How many people did live in China in 140 CE? I think the article should say this.
    • that had been abolished by Guangwu, thus favoring centralizing policies which were not the hallmark of most Eastern Han policies to come and which himself canceled in 68, finding the policies ineffective This long sentences contains two "which", ans should probably be split.
    • he was followed by the initiative of Ban Chao Please, explain who Ban Chao was.
    • However, Gan described Rome as having hundreds of walled cities, a postal delivery network, the submission of dependent states How was it possible if he never traveled further than Persian Gulf? This should be clarified. In addition, near 100 CE Rome was an empire, not a republic. So the next section, which identifies Roman "king" with consul is probably wrong. Should it be princeps instead?
  2. Middle age of Eastern Han:
    • The total monetary cost for putting down the Qiang rebellion in Liangzhou was 24,000,000 cash. Can you compare this sum to, say, the total annual revenue in that year? Otherwise it looks meaningless, because modern readers are unlikely to know how large this sum really was.
    • Following Ban Yong's reopening of relations Please, clarify who Ban Yong was.
  3. Concluding remarks:
    • I think a table with names of all emperors and years of their reign would be beneficial for the article.

Ruslik (talk) 08:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominator's Response: Hello Ruslik. I have just begun addressing your concerns; hold on to your bootstraps, this is going to take a while!--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. General comments
    • I have fixed the BCE/CE issue as well as the Western and Eastern Han date range issue with picture captions.
  2. Lead
    • Fixed everything you mentioned.
  3. Fall of Qin and Chu-Han conflict
    • I originally had all the six Warring States mentioned by name, but User:Nlu, in an effort to reduce prose size, took them out of the article. I have replaced them according to your suggestion.
    • Got rid of the "realpolitik", as it is an anachronistic phrase that was used by the source I cited, but not by Han scholars (since it is not an ancient Chinese word, lol).
    • I cleared up the Han Xin thing.
    • Did Liu Bang become the king of Guanzhong after he captured it? It is not clear from the article. No. In the next paragraph, it explains why he was not granted Guanzhong (given to three others), but Liu Bang was granted Hanzhong instead.
  4. Reign of Gaozu
    • I switched those two paragraphs as you suggested.
    • I clarified that he was not the general Han Xin, but for the sake of staying on topic and reducing the article prose size, I do not think it is necessary to mention why the King Han Xin decided to betray Emperor Gaozu of Han and form an alliance with Modu Shanyu. That's not the job of this article; that is the job of a lengthy description that should belong at Han Xin's page. His name is linked if anyone wants to know more. Besides, his role is not that important anyway.
  5. Reign of Wen and Jing
    • I fixed the Huang-Lao thing and the excessively-long sentence.
    • I believe you are mistaking "Liu Xian" for "Liu Xiang"; one has an extra "g".
    • I added that Chao Cuo was the Imperial Counselor.
  6. Reign of Wu
    • Can you clarify what "save face" means in this context? I changed "saved face" to "downplayed this threat", since that is what Sima did; he was downplaying the fact that Fergana had the power cut off Han's prime trade route.
    • I clarified what I meant by "eliminating speculation" in the grain trade by adding a comment in parentheses. I do hope all of your suggestions don't amount to an excessive increase in prose size, as this article is already fairly big.
  7. Latter half of Western Han
  8. Wang Mang's usurpation
    • No, Wang Mang was already the regent by 1 BCE. To clarify that Wang Mang was given a new status as of July 6 CE, I added the title of the acting emperor (jiahuangdi 假皇帝).
    • Noted why the marquesses were rebelling against Wang Mang.
    • I deleted the word "partisan".
  9. Restoration of the Han
    • I moved the sentence on the Yellow River engineering project down to the section you suggested.
    • Clarified why the southern North China plain was inundated: creation of the Yellow River's southern branch.
    • The article does not mentioned that he was the King of Changsha. He was a king of Nanyang, was not he? No, he was never made a King of Nanyang (as far as I know), he was the Emperor Gengshi. When one is demoted one level from being an emperor, one becomes a king. In this case, they made him the King of Changsha, a new title that was inferior to the one he previously enjoyed: emperor!
    • I added new census info as you suggested.
    • I split apart that long sentence in the "Guangwu, Ming, Zhang, and He" sub-section.
    • I clarified that Gan Ying acquired the information on Rome from Parthian oral accounts and not by actually visiting Rome. Since Gan Ying's information was out of date, he was in fact anachronistically describing the Republican-era consul, not the princeps.
  10. Middle age of Eastern Han
    • In the previous section on the economy under "Reign of Wu", I noted that 220,000,000 coins were minted annually, so I just reminded the reader of this in regards to the 24,000,000 cash coins used to fund the campaign of suppressing the Qiang rebellion in Liangzhou.
    • I added the fact that Ban Yong was a general, but you might remember from the previous foreign affairs section that I already mentioned Ban Yong as the son of Ban Chao.
  11. Concluding remarks

I hope that I have fully addressed all of your concerns; please let me know otherwise.--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So the population of China decreased by 10 million between 2 and 140 CE? And this decrease is attributed to the migration of 10 million to the southern China, which appears not to be a part of China at all? Ruslik (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC) I also noticed that some figure captions are excessively long and duplicate the text:[reply]

  1. the Chinese were fearful that Han-manufactured weapons would fall into the ... in the caption in the 'Xiongnu and Heqin' subsection should be shortened with duplicate information removed.
  2. The same with the eunuchs Zhao Zhong and Zhang Rang concealed their enormous mansions ... in 'Partisan Prohibitions' subsection.
  3. You may want to look at other captions as well. Some of them, while not duplicating the text, still are too long, my opinion.

Ruslik (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further Response: So the population of China decreased by 10 million between 2 and 140 CE? And this decrease is attributed to the migration of 10 million to the southern China, which appears not to be a part of China at all? No. I guess you didn't notice the new sentence I added to that section, QUOTE: "Population size fluctuated according to periodically-updated Eastern-Han censuses, but historian Sadao Nishijima notes that this does not reflect a dramatic loss of life, but rather government inability at times to register the entire populace." I've read the same statement by many sinologist scholars; see the last section of Ming Dynasty for further analysis on government inability to county everyone in the census, even in later times. As for the Han Dynasty, parts of southern China were still wilderness areas (or controlled by tribal peoples or states like Minyue), but over the course of Han, more and more Chinese settlers moved south into new areas that were thus occupied by the Han Empire. Does this make sense? I took care of the duplicate information in the picture captions, shortening a few picture descriptions as you suggested. Is this really grounds to continue opposing the article, though?--Pericles of AthensTalk 13:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think now I can support. However some remaining long captions can be still shortened. Ruslik (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks for reviewing the article. I will shorten some more picture captions at your request.--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is the four-column reflist ok? It shows up wonderfully on my computer (and it makes sense to have it that way, since the references are all short-form), but I don't know if it will show up well for everyone, and I know the rule of thumb is not to use more than two. Since this is an unusually long article, maybe it gets to be an exception, I don't know. This is not an oppose, just a question for anyone else looking at this FAC. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really mind it, but someone else might object.--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about {{reflist|colwidth=25em}} instead of a set number of columns – that way users with wide monitors get the full four columns, but the hypothetical reader on an iphone gets them all in a single column. (See the current version of Michael Jackson for an example of how this works in practice – resize your browser window from wide to narrow and watch the number of columns automagically change.) – iridescent 22:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly, truly have no preference in this regard; I would not mind if someone changed it to {{reflist|colwidth=25em}} for the sake of iphone users, if we are to be entirely inclusive and fair to all. Feel free to edit the reflist section any way you want.--Pericles of AthensTalk 01:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reflist|4 is broken in some browsers, and is discouraged (somewhere in WP:MOS). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I couldn't find it in WP:MOS; could you point this out? In the meantime, I'll change it to {{reflist|colwidth=25em}} anyway.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to troll through the mess that is MOS to find it, but the browser issues for reflist greater than three are also mentioned directly at {{Reflist}}. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link; regardless, I have just recently changed the reflist to {{reflist|colwidth=25em}}, so everything should be ok.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note on prose size, per WP:SIZE; 86 kB (14937 words) "readable prose size". Reviewers should comment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my recent comment above on this issue. Keep in mind, this article covers a country's historical timeframe that is roughly twice as long as the entire History of the United States, if I were to make a comparison with my own country. As User:Zeus1234 pointed out above, any further reductions in the size of the article might excise vital and pertinent information.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is very good. I've made a few changes in one section and will try to return to do a little more. Please check my alterations. Tony (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! Thanks.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Comment - The article is too long and detailed. I know it covers over 400 years of history and we should expect a long article, but this is too much. It would benefit from the advice given here; WP:Summary style. It is certainly well-written, as far as I got, but it would take me a month to produce a thorough review. Please, can some attempt be made to make this more digestible? I am not opposing because I haven't read the whole article, and this is also the reason why I am not supporting. Graham Colm Talk 17:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Unfortunately, the previous suggestions posted here have forced me to add a few more sentences and thus increase the prose size (if I was to gain support for the article). I certainly can't please everyone, but I would definitely take further suggestions on how to reduce the article's prose size. I don't think any single section is excessively long. It's just that there has to be so many sections to cover the history in a linear way and comprehensive fashion. Perhaps we could cherry pick a sentence or two out of each section that could be stricken from the article, granted that the flow of the article is not disrupted or major points made unclear by removal of vital content.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm completely out of my depth on this subject. I have made a suggestion on my Talk Page User_talk:GrahamColm#Hi_GrahamColm—in response to your message—which I'm too shy to paste here. Graham Colm Talk 23:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pasted from my Talk Page:

This is a difficult because this interesting subject is completely new to me. My gut reaction is to suggest simply dividing it into two articles straight down the middle; "History of the Western Han Dynasty" and "History of the Eastern Han Dynasty". I know that this would probably mean sacrificing this FAC, but who knows, two FAs might result! As I say, this not something I know anything about and you might think this is a ridiculous idea, if so please forgive my ignorance. Bye the way, the article is beautifully written on the whole. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 22:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is an ignorant idea at all; it does make logical sense to make such a split considering the interruption of the Han Dynasty by Wang Mang's brief regime. However, in addition to what you've already mentioned about this article's current featured candidate status, another reason it would bad to split the article is the fact that it is already a branch article of Han Dynasty. I think it would be a bit excessive to make branch articles of branch articles. That might make it a bit too confusing for the readers who want to know where they can locate everything.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you are the expert, but the second half of the article would only be one mouse click away. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 23:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I thought you meant simply shortening the article so that it would summarize two new articles: "History of the Western Han Dynasty" and "History of the Eastern Han Dynasty". Like I said, I'm not entirely opposed to the idea; however since I have three supports for the article in its current form and two oppositions, let's see how other editors feel about the 86 KB prose size of the article. I think at this point that is the only matter of contention that some editors might have. Keep in mind though that this is a preference issue, since the article prose size exceeds the recommended limit of 50 KB, but not exactly violating the maximum, upper bound limit of 100 KB (according to WP:SIZE).--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 SandyGeorgia 19:39, 4 April 2009 [86].

Release the Stars[edit]

Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it qualifies and I have made improvements based on a peer review session. Thanks so much! --Another Believer (Talk) 20:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I checked this at Peer Review, and asked about these also. I'm not convinced about the LOGO one at all, the first one, I'd like to see a bit more about why it's reliable, unrelated to the wikiproject's recommendation.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how else to insist NewNowNext.com is the official blog of the TV channel Logo. The network's logo appears in the banner and Logo is mentioned throughout the "About This Blog" section. I'd like to reiterate that the reference, in this case, is only being used to cite the airing of a television program on the network--it is not contributing any other information to the article. ChartStats was used on Rufus Wainwright discography, which was recently promoted to FL status. Is there a better source or database that can be used to cite UK Singles Chart positions? I can try to find an article that indicates the position reached. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. Sorry, I didn't get the first time that Logo is a television channel. (I'm a Yank and I watch very little besides Discovery and History Channel...) That's done. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem! Perhaps I did not explain that well enough the first time. Any suggestions for replacing ChartStats? I have used it in the past without problem, but I am not saying that reason will work here. I am simply not aware of any other databases that keep track of UK Singles Chart positions. Is acharts.us acceptable? --Another Believer (Talk) 23:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no clue, honestly. I'd love for someone to show ChartStats reliable so that I can quit questioning it. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's my problem. I don't know how to show a source is reliable. According to this chart, theofficialcharts.com is reliable for citing UK Singles Chart positions. However, the archive here only display Top 40 positions, as opposed to all Top 100 positions. It's a shame there isn't a single, simple, reliable database with this information. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information Ealdgyth - Talk 00:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Here is how ChartStats operates. I will continue to look for a newspaper article that mentions the peak position for "Going to a Town". --Another Believer (Talk) 00:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—Is "pop classical" a real genre? I've never heard of it, and we don't have an article on it either... I think you can cut down on some of the names listed in the lead; stuff like guest musicians don't really belong there. Also, as somebody who has never listened to Wainwright, the lead tells me nothing about the music on the record. More later. indopug (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the genre to baroque pop. Wainwright's music can be hard to categorize, but this genre is used often since he tends to draw from both pop and classical influences. As for the guest musicians, I understand where you are coming from, but in this case I think the names are relevant because they are famous performers and family members. I did remove Julianna Raye, however, since she is not a family member and does not have an article here on WP. In what way(s) should the music on the record be addressed? An overall theme for the album? I'd be happy to expand. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 SandyGeorgia 19:39, 4 April 2009 [87].

Hue chemical attacks[edit]

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!)

Article has passed a GA and a MILHIST A-class review... YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tech. Review
  • Dabs and external links (based on their links checker tools in the toolbox are up to speed), as is the ref formatting (based on the WP:REFTOOLS script)--Best, ₮RUCӨ 23:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Media Review - All images (2) are licensed under either a Creative Commons license or are in public domain. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 01:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sasata

Very interesting article on something I knew nothing about. Would like to support, after the comments below are addressed. Sasata (talk) 09:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "...while protesting a ban against the Buddhist flag on Vesak." -> against the use of the Buddhist flag (or something similar)
  • "...while protesting against a ban on the flying of the Buddhist flag on Vesak." how about "... while protesting a ban that prevented them from flying the Buddhist flag on Vesak." Sasata (talk) 09:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chenged. and defiance is more approriate, they ignored the ban, YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*vaporise spelled differently in lead and infobox

*I think the lead needs to be lengthened a little bit, perhaps one more sentence about how the whole affair culminated in the assassination of the President? That would certainly encourage the average reader to continue reading the article!

  • Suggest putting the first sentence in the Background section a couple of sentences later
  • The reason for this suggestion is that the first sentence in this section states that Ngo's policies created claims of religious bias; however, it has not yet been explained what these policies were, so the reader does not yet have any background context for interpreting the statement. To me, the paragraph would flow better if this statement was saved for after the explanation of Ngo's pro-Catholic policies. Sasata (talk) 09:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I think the summary should go first, which is why it's there. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Wikilink or define pagoda

*"Furthermore, the land owned by the Catholic Church was exempt from land reform." Please clarify what is meant by land reform.

  • "In May 1963, a rarely enforced 1958 law known as Decree Number 10 was invoked..." Can you provide a more specific date for this Decree, it would give a better timeline to the May 8th activity that soon follows.
  • Now it's better ("At the beginning of May 1963..."), but why not just say "On May 1," (or whenever it was)? Sasata (talk) 09:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The exact date isnt given YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to Hue Vesak shootings (largely edited by you) it was May 7th. Sasata (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This disallowed the flying of the Buddhist flag on Vesak..." Passive voice
changed YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's another instance in the Background section. Sasata (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed some. If there are any more, please remove them. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*"On June 3, protests continued." I think they had been continuing for some time, perhaps on this day they escalated?

*Several times throughout the article, it makes reference to the government deflecting responsibility by blaming the Vietcong, so I think it would be helpful if a sentence or two could be inserted somewhere to inform people who the Vietcong are and how they fit into the big picture.

*"...the troops fixed bayonets and put on gas masks before charging the protestors and pelting them with tear gas grenades." Unsure of the usage "fixed" in this context.

added the knife onto the rifle, basically YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 06:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*"Deaths and injuries were averted when a Buddhist leader urged the protestors to..." Do we know the identity of this leader?

No not mentioned. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 06:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Wikilink state department

*"...passed on the US threat to denounce regime for the chemical attacks." missing "the"

*"Before the Ngo family were deposed in November..." Isn't it the Diem family? Or is this a case where the first name=family name? At any rate, it's confusing.

*"...the findings declared..." awkward

  • "...had used tear gas ... which was known for its strong irritant symptoms." A gas doesn't have symptoms.
  • "The former has a brown colour.." -> "The former chemical...", or even better, just use the chemical names again so the reader doesn't have to go back to the last sentence to see what is being referred to.
  • "Chloroacetone has a brown colour, while the ethyl bromoacetate is yellow, is used in conjunction with acid, and is a liquid at outdoor and room temperature." This sentence needs some repair. Sasata (talk) 09:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
changed. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reference cited does not support the statement. The only reference I can find to color in that Org. Syn. article is: "After about half the bromine has been added, the liquid assumes a cherry color which is retained throughout the remainder of the bromination." The phrase "... used in conjunction with acid." also seems misleading. Yes, the cited Org. Syn. article describes the use of a variety of acids in the synthesis of ethyl bromoacetate, but this doesn't really have anything to do with the use of chloroacetone and ethyl bromoacetate as chemical weapons. Sasata (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*"Some varieties of French tear gas also contained phosgene oxime[29] or hydrogen cyanide.[30] This can lead to fatal consequences.." What can lead to fatal consequences?

*"Despite continuing protests, including self-immolations..." please clarify this latter part

I've changed all these, except the sentence reordering. Not sure it should be....YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article doesn't do enough to place the attacks in broader historical context, in particular, the context of the Vietnam War (a topic that isn't even mentioned in the article) and US connections to the ARVN.--ragesoss (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Improved. I still think it does not do enough to give broader context for the event, but I'd like to see what other reviewers think.--ragesoss (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In general yeah, but this was an internal SV matter not about communism/colonialism/puppets etc YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 SandyGeorgia 19:39, 4 April 2009 [88].

Homeopathy[edit]

Nominator(s): Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

Homeopathy has had a long, chequered past. I am reliably told - by the person who did them - that scholarly studies have been done on the edit wars and battles over this article.

However, the battles appear to now be mostly over. Discussion is polite, progress has finally been made, and I think, after much work, that this article has finally reached a state that it can be considered for featured status.

I believe this will be the first candidacy of a controversial subject in some time; however, if we can handle Intelligent design and Global warming, it's my hope that Homeopathy can join this club of articles that rose above the problems inherent in their material to reach featured status. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per the WP:FAC instructions, were the lead editors consulted about the preparedness of this article for FAC? For example, TimVickers (talk · contribs) and Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) are currently active significant contributors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they were, and I thought that everyone knew by now my old identity, which clearly is one of the lead editors. While I don't want my real name appearing on Wikipedia for websearch reason, I did think everyone knew what my old account was. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is not even of good status as it explains the topic poorly, has a patchy coverage of the topic's history and has a generally tendentious tone which is not NPOV. Overall, it compares poorly with encyclopedic treatments which I have inspected elsewhere and so promoting this as a FA would damage Wikipedia's reputation. Pushing for FA status seems likely to reactivate the battles of which User:Shoemaker's Holiday speaks. I had walked away from the article as discussion was so hostile and uncivil that it was quite unpleasant to work upon. Looking at the current talk page, this still seems to be the case but I shall return. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems to have improved significantly since I last read it in depth. I can see few major problems.
  • The references will need checking to ensure that they are suitable.
  • This paragraph under Research on medical effectiveness reads poorly: "In 2005, a systematic review of publications suggested that mainstream journals had a publication bias against clinical trials showing positive results, and vice versa on the complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) journals, although it's probably an involuntary bias. A possible submission bias was also suggested, in which positive trials tend to be sent to CAM journals and negatives ones to mainstream journals.[142] It also noted that the reviews on all journals approached the matter on an impartial manner, although most of the reviews on CAM journals avoided noting the lack of plausibility, unlike the ones on mainstream journals who almost always mentioned it." Fences and windows (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edited. Fences and windows (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow, this is gonna be ugly. I'll just mention the first three issues that pop out at me: (1) the lead does a poor job of explaining the rationale, (2) far too many references in the lead, (3) the lead does a poor job of concisely explaining the scientific objections, to wit, that homeopathic remedies are frequently advertised as having no side effects, for the simple reason that they are completely inert and have no effects whatsoever. Basically I think that in Wikipedia, an article on this topic that can survive will inevitably be an "article by committee", which cannot possibly be an example of Wikipedia's best writing. Looie496 (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tech. Review
  • Dabs (based on the checker tool in the toolbox at the right)
  • Need to be fixed.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • External links (based on the checker tool in the toolbox at the right)
  • There are 2 dead links that need to be replaced.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref formatting (based on the WP:REFTOOLS script)
  • The following ref (code pasted below) is duplicated and appears more than once in the ref section, a WP:REFNAME should be used instead.
  • {{cite web |url=http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleId=197&sectionId=27 |title=Homeopathy results |accessdate=2007-07-25 |publisher=[[National Health Service]] }}
  • The following ref names are used to name more than one ref, when it should only name 1 specific ref.
  • pmid8554846
  • pmid12492603--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Started work on this, it may take a little bit. I hope you don't mind, but I'm renumbering your numbers as I go. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Take your time. It's a big article and lots of extraneous issues come in so I expect it'll take a bit of time. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article requires some work before I would consider it a FA. There is little info on the main page about areas in which it is practiced and how it's popularity has changed over time. Both of these would make good images ( which is something else that this article needs more of ). Make a world map of areas were this stuff is practiced and a graph of how its popularity has changed over time.

Also the discussion of regulations and its popularity are two different things and need to be separated into two sections. I am also not certain after reading this article what kind of conditions homeopathy treats. Does it treat everything of just certain conditions?

The wording often seems to side step the issue. If you look at the lead it says "Claims of homeopathy's efficacy beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence" This is a round about way of saying: "evidence has not shown homeopathy to be of proven benefit for any medical condition." Some of the wording in the rest of the article is also a little confusing.

Also the fact that homeopathy has a placebo effect should be emphasized as a positive rather than as a negative. A placebo effect is powerful and is all that is needed or is the best currently avaliable treatment for many conditions. Take the common cold for example or most cases of depression, anxiety, or insomnia. One can explain that no treatment is needed which takes a great deal of time or one could prescibe a placebo. Giving a placebo is much faster and is what some people want. But for a physician of course this is unethical.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some points:

  • Needs a paragraph on the proposed mechanism - "law of similars" and "water memory" in the lead.
  • Needs to discus in-depth the conditions used to treat and how often it is used to treat those conditions. I'm guessing most of the time it is used for colds and flus.
  • Why use multiple footnotes for single facts in the lead?
  • A historical summary is merited in the lead as well; in Hahneman's time, his approach had lower death rates, as noted in the article. It was abandoned was medicine became more science-based. How it rose to popularity again in the 1970s is a historical gap which needs to be filled. Who popularized it?

(Reading above, I see these points have already been made.) II | (t - c) 07:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the two types of citation templates – I tried to do this mostly by hand, but it's too much work. I am working on a script which can convert citation templates automatically. It should be finished this week, probably in the first half. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Excellent article. I have a couple of comments. The "Revival in the late 20th Century" is too short and does not discuss the incredible growth of homeopathy in Europe. Given its effectiveness is under so much dispute, why is it so successful to the point that homeopathic treatments are accepted by major European insurance companies or national health systems? A significant portion of the population believes in homeopathy; this cries out for an explanation. Also, I have to agree with the discussion on the talk page that the final image does not illustrate what is in the caption (the woman is looking at other items, not homeopathic remedies). It should be removed or changed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't agree that there is an incredible growth of homeopathy in Europe. Certainly not in my observation. Homeopathy is now covered by some of the health insurers that make up the German public health system, but that's just an experiment with the new freedom left by a recent reform. In Britain it has always been part of the NHS, and now there are strong attempts to throw it out. Anyway, we would need a reliable source observing such a growth before we could describe it. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the way you state it sounds like a pretty good rate of growth to me! The fact that homeopathy is even covered (even experimentally) by a national health system says something about how much it has changed during the 20th century. The article gives no history on how it grew from almost non-existence to accepted practice as an alternative treatment. How in the world did it become a part of the NHS? Pharmacies where I live are all stocked with homeopathic remedies attesting to its acceptance by a significant number of people. If there are no sources describing this phenomenon, then that would be a rather unfortunate gap in the coverage of this article. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. Homeopathy has been an optional part of standard medical training for a long time, although there are attempts to get rid of it. The German health insurers are now covering almost everything from acupuncture to voodoo (well, almost). What has changed is only that they are now allowed to do it. I think it's quite likely that the same would have happened 30 years ago, had there been such a reform at the time. Homeopathy probably became covered by the NHS because of the strong support by the Royal Family. The gap in coverage is not because we don't want to describe this but because nobody has found a good reliable source. Homeopathic sources tend to overstate the prevalence of homeopathy, while more general sources tend to understate it or ignore homeopathy. The best thing we have is the WHO report on CAM, but it's not enough for this purpose. We must distinguish how prevalent homeopathy is in a country from the trend of prevalence in that country. My guess: Germany > UK > US; US increasing, UK decreasing, Germany staying on the same high level. But as I said, I have no reliable sources for this. This is just my impression. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The trend info may be unavailable, but the early history of support (such as your speculation about royal family support) might exist somewhere. Whatever you could add to the 20th century history would be interesting. Excellent article anyway. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In a telephone survey of 1001 adults in Germany, 11.5% had used homeopathy. [89]. News story about increase in homeoapthy in India: [90]. News story about homeopathy increasing in the US: [91]. More here.

This looks like a good review. It is already cited in the "rise in popularity" section, but it points to two studies that themselves should be cited: Eisenberg DM, Davis RB, Ettner SL, Appel S, Wilkey S, Van Rompay M, et al. Trends in alternative medicine use in the United States, 1990-1997: results of a follow-up national survey JAMA. 1998;280:1569-75. [92]; Jacobs J, Chapman EH, Crothers D. Patient characteristics and practice patterns of physicians using homeopathy Arch Fam Med. 1998;7:537-40. [93]. Fences and windows (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
outdent - Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy already has a lot of information on the prevalence of the use of homeopathy today and historically in various countries. Fences and windows (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it's so unstructured. It's hard to draw any claims about general trends from it without serious original research. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Homeopathy is controlled by the critics and skeptics. No homeopath would accept it to be NPOV, so it should never be a FA.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... no. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it were controlled by the homeopaths, then it would also be POV, and no skeptic or critic would accept it, so... Poechalkdust (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Article is quite good and is nearly of featured quality. I found some problems in the current version, which need to be fixed before I can support:
  • Topics that are missing or are not well covered:
  • scope of practice (e.g., what are homeopaths not allowed to do?). To address this, the Associations and regulatory bodies section should be moved out of External links and should be put into the main text.
  • education and its relationship to licensing
  • schools of thought within homeopathy
  • What percentage of the population uses homeopathy? (This should be in the prevalence section.) Also, please give prevalence versus time.
  • Regulation and prevalence talks only about Europe, and needs more of a worldwide focus.
  • Misspelling: "Hehnemann"
  • "US" is sometimes used; should be changed to "U.S." (the majority).
  • Truncated sentence: "sunlight,[101] Recent"
  • "professional qualifications and licenses are needed in most countries" (stated in both the lead and the body) is dubious, and the cited source says "relatively few countries have developed policies and regulations", which seems to contradict the claim.
  • The Campbell/Vithoulkas incident is repeated in two sections. It should be mentioned just once.
  • The See also section should not list Homeopathic dilutions, as that is already mentioned in the text. Nor should it list Electrohomeopathy, as that topic should be briefly covered in the text and the wikilink moved there.
  • Some citations separate author names with commas, others with semicolons. Please standardize. I suggest commas, as that's the typical style in medical sources.
  • A stray space before a period In the Williams 2002 citation.
  • The Other links section should be either removed or drastically trimmed down. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of links, and the utility of these links is dubious. Do we really need a link to an 1885 history of homeopathy?
Eubulides (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eubulides, why don't you recommend Chiropractic to be an FA instead of this? I know that you post a lot there.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 11:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely you meant "in addition to this", not "instead of this"? But that would be a different topic; let's stick to Homeopathy here.
  • I fixed the minor editorial stuff noted above, and struck it out.
Eubulides (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I've been slow about everything - illness'll do that. Will try and get it all sorted tomorrow. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion "d". The article is biased. It is obviously controlled by the critics of homeopathy. I am not a homoeopathist or a conventional doctor and I am not a fan or a critic of alternative medicine or the conventional medicine. I simply do know a little bit about homeopathy. After reading this article I would think that homeopathy is some kind of witchery. The problem is that most of the article - not only the sections that are related to criticism according to their headings - are related to criticism. The article purposely uses a style, where every statement by homeopathists is immediately disproved by the classical medicine. Many sections that are related to the characteristics of the method are full of pure criticism instead of a description of the method. Many arguments are raised by the classical medicine, but the arguments of the other side have been left out. "Criticism" of homeopathy should be one section of the article. It should not be part of every single paragraph. The language is also oppinionated by using words such as "been diagnosed" for conventional medicine, but "been claimed" or "under the belief" for homeopathy. As I said I am no expert of any kind of medicine, I am just a student, but this article is totally opinionated from the top to the end - I know a bit about homeopathy and it is not what this article says. The writer is using the sources that he prefers for his view and ignores the arguments of the other side. Already the lead section is ridiculous. In this article, homeopathy is being treated as something that "does not work". It should not be treated as something that "does or does not work". It should be described from a neutral view with a neutral language (simply collecting facts that homeopathists provide) and then there should be a section about the view of the conventional medicine. Therefore I oppose.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 12:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The thing is, because Homeopathy is a fringe theory, it is quite reasonable to use disparaging references. One must not obfuscate neutrality with objectivity: an objective encyclopedia cannot allow for fringe theories to be construed as anything more. WilliamH (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can homeopathy be the fringe theory on the article on homeopathy (that argument may hold water only in the article on allopathy created by Bryan Hopping)? Why don't you go argue like that on the osteopathy, naturopathy or chiropractic articles? The online Encyclopedia Brittanica is really NPOV, while Citizendium allows both criticism as well as a defence, but Wikipedia is being policed by the skeptical critics who don't let a defense to be put up. Wikipedia lost credibility when it let people post that some people had died, when they hadn't on their wikipedia biographies - if this article becomes an FA, it will lose more credibility. I'd prefer the articles on osteopathy, naturopathy or chiropractic to be made FAs'.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Homeopathy is a fringe theory because it is not supported by the vast majority of the scientific community, because the evidence for it is poor, and because it contradicts well-established scientific principles. Where it is being discussed doesn't change this. Brunton (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then why aren't the articles on osteopathy, naturopathy or chiropractic considered fringe theory and called quackery? Let's have the same yard-stick for all Alt. Med. articles.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 07:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you think they should include it, and can find RS for it, then add it. But can we stick to the topic of the homoeopathy article here, please? Brunton (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your answer is pretty much of a good display of the problem. "Homeopathy is a fringe theory" is what you say. That is the problem. You are observing Homeopathy from the view of the critics.
In the most developed countries in the world such as Sweden or Netherlands, homeopathy is officially been used in hospitals along with conventional medicine and also veterinary homeopathy is used there for agricultural animals instead of antibiotics. Yes, the majority of scientific community does not support homeopathy, but a huge part of scientific community and thus reliable scientific sources written by medicine professors and scientists do support it just because its effectivness as well as some developed countries decided to.
"Homeopathy is a fringe theory" is a non-neutral statement as well as this article is. I am absolutely not saying that homeopathy should be put on the same level as the conventional medicine. But to say that the conventional-medicine-view is the objective one and the view of homeopathy is the subjective one is wrong and not neutral. There is a difference between these two of course. But that does not mean that conventional medicine, which is only acknowledged by the majority (that's not 100%), must comment every statement of homeoathy from its "conventional medicine view".
Yes, homeopathy is not accepted by the majority of scientists, and that is why the conventional medicine (which is accepted by the majority) should have a section about criticism in the homeopathy article. But the conventional medicine is not the only accepted medicine. Homeopathy is accepted by a minority of scientific world thus it is not any kind of quackery. And that is why conventional medicine is not the objective one that has the right to say its opinion on everything in the article. Conventional medicine has its reliable sources but homeopathy does have its reliable sources as well. Conventional medicine is not objective just because it has more of them.
You can use this style of writing for some quackery, but not for homeopathy, which is supported by many scientists and some European countires. The problem is that you think that homeopathy is quackery, but that is not neutral.
These arguments are just a lame way how to preventively get rid of criticism.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 11:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously this is a controversial area, but I suggest taking this dispute to Talk:Homeopathy. It's out of place here. Eubulides (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a debate between homeopathy and "conventional medicine". The issue is one of science. If these treatments were so wonderfully potent it would be EASY to show effectiveness. Research however has not shown more than a placebo effect. Therefore claimed benefit is pseudo scientific and based on faith.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) Whether the issue is one of science is one of the issues. 2) I think Eubulides meant that everybody who wants to continue this discussion should do so at Talk:Homeopathy. 3) I think he is right and I apologise for responding here. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not an expert so I don't think that I can contribute any effective arguments to any side of this discussion anymore. I am only expressing, as an average potential reader, who is not on a side of any of these treatments, that the style and language of this Wikipedia article seems to be pretty unbalanced to me and thus definitely not FA quality. The way I think you should deal with the imbalance is described in my last comment. But if you believe it is balanced, you can simply outvote my single oppose. Cheers.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 21:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the nomination as a FA due to the concerns made above. A few other concerns include

  1. "In many countries, the laws that govern the regulation and testing of conventional drugs do not apply to homeopathic remedies." implies that in some countries it is regulated under the same laws as pharmaceuticals
  2. "Specific pharmacological effect with no active molecules is scientifically implausible" It is not implausible but impossible.
  3. More on prevalence and regulations need to be combined into the main article
  4. I think history section should be moved to the end.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 SandyGeorgia 19:39, 4 April 2009 [94].

Zaprešić[edit]

Nominator(s): Admiral Norton (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because it passed GA recently and had a subsequent peer review to determine whether it's ready for FA. Thus I believe it's time to make this article progress one step further. Admiral Norton (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - the couple of English sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I did not evaluate the non-English sources. And surely there must be some books on the subject? I note that all the refs are to websites. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at web, I've almost immediately found Sto godina vatrogastva u Zaprešiću (100 years of firefighting in Zaprešić), but this is hardly something that would merit a "Further reading" section. I'll have a look at a public library, but I don't promise anything, because Zaprešić is a fairly new town and it didn't even have a four-story building before the Zagreb urban area came close. Admiral Norton (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've researched several public libraries in Zagreb (I haven't found time to visit Zaprešić), but everything else I've found are two books about Novi Dvori (a castle in Zaprešić). —Admiral Norton (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tech. Comments

  • Dabs need to be fixed (according to the checker tool in the toolbox at the right)
  • ...are up to speed as well.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • External links (according to the checker tool) are up to speed
  • Ref formatting (according to WP:REFTOOLS) is found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 23:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's a nice looking article, but I'm concerned about the grammar in places, and further explanation could be helpful in some places. You've got a lot of good information here, but I think that it could be organized better and the history section in particular needs to be expanded.
  • Comments and questions:
  • Overall, I'd suggest getting a few people to read through this and copy edit it. In many places, articles are misused and the text does not flow smoothly.
  • The article has been already through two peer reviews and I feel that, unfortunately, I'm the best speaker of English on WikiProject Croatia, so I don't know what to do anymore. I had tried to make some improvements to the flow before, but I was asked to remove them at the GA review because it was deemed to be unnecessary editorializing. (Also, I was taught that encyclopedias don't look the same as ordinary books; I was trying to pick the notable bits of information from a large body of text).
  • In note 1, I'd suggest second-largest rather than second-biggest. Traditionally, large is used more often when dealing with size and big when dealing with importance or notability.
  •  Done
  • In the lede, it's stated that the city's water quality is good, but I don't see a citation to back that up in the text.
  •  Done It's ref 49 ("pitkavoda_zap"); I added it to the sentence "The water from the water pump is of drinking quality."
  • In the lede, you state that Zapresic had the first "meat industry" in Croatia. What does that mean? Was it the first large-scale packaging plant, the first export-quality meat, or something else?
  •  Done I changed to "meat packaging plant", as it agrees with context of the sentence mentioning it in the ref.
  • I threw a wikilink in for the utility company, but don't feel as if I'm forcing you to stub that out.
  •  Done I'll have a try if I catch enough time soon, but I don't think it's very notable.
  • The lede sentence about the "palace path" was somewhat awkward; I changed it around a bit, so let me know if it's wrong or if you disagree.
  • It's correct. In fact, it's way better now.
  • You alternate between using the serial comma and not using it. Please stick with one style.
  •  Done I tend to use it only when the last entry is so long that an omission of a serial comma would be ambiguous. However, I've now changed the entire text to use the serial comma.
  • I've heard that basketball is pretty popular in Croatia -- does the town have a basketball team? I ask this because you mention the futbol team.
  • I'd suggest removing the reference to the global financial crisis in the lede. As phrased now, it reeks of boosterism and doesn't really contribute to an overall understanding of the town's history.
  •  Done I had decided to reek because the source did, but the mention in the lead is now gone.
  • I'm a bit concerned at the length of the history section. For a town that has been in existence for more than seven centuries, I don't think a few paragraphs do it justice. Forex, we don't get anything about the period from 1575 to the First World War. That's more than three centuries! Surely something important must have happened during that time period. Industrialization, the building of the railroad that you mentioned, political upheval, anything at all would fit in here.
  • Also in the history section, you mention something about the refugees bringing a different Slavic pronunciation to the area. Why is this important? Do people in the area still pronounce things differently from their neighbors? Is it a pronounced regional accent unique to the town itself? If this is something that affects more than just the town, I'd strongly suggest putting it into a different article.
  • If the town was not established as separate until 1995, I'd strongly suggest putting that in the lede. In addition, I'm confused as to how the area was organized prior to the establishment of the town. According to your notes, it looks as if the town was formed from the merger of several smaller communities. Is this correct?
  • In the text, you mention that it's the most densely populated town in Croatia, but the density figures aren't in the text. They're just in the infobox. Could you put those into the text right next to where you talk about the density?
  • You say that it has "very high" net migration and population growth -- could you provide a figure for another town of similar size in order to provide context and back that statement up?
  • When you say that NK Inter Zaprešić is the "best-placed" team in the county, what does that mean? Is it the highest-ranked, plays in the highest league, or something else?
  • These are a few things that came to mind as I did a quick readthrough of the article. Feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns, and I'll reserve a second readthrough until other folks take a look, too. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 SandyGeorgia 17:22, 4 April 2009 [95].

Phong Nha-Ke Bang National Park[edit]

Nominator(s): Es.ntp (talk) 03:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because this is a well-qualified article about geography. Es.ntp (talk) 03:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comments:

Suggest withdrawl, there is serious work needed before this is ready. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 SandyGeorgia 03:48, 4 April 2009 [96].

Schulze method[edit]

Nominator(s): Señor Señor Señor (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article explains a rather complicated single-winner voting system in a scientific and very elegant manner. Señor Señor Señor (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - references lack publishers and last access dates, some are just bare links. Some appear to be forum posts. There are embedded links in the article, which is contrary to the MOS. Unreferenced sections. I also suspect it's not comprehensive, since I don't see any impact or criticism sections. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This really isn't ready for nomination. C code to implement the method in a Wikipedia article? No chance. Looie496 (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This article does not satisfy any of the Featured Article Criteria. Graham Colm Talk 18:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query Hola Senor, When you state "Voters may give the same preference to more than one candidate and may keep candidates unranked." Don't you need to make it clear that this is an aspect where Schultze differs from STV and AV? ϢereSpielChequers 18:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The Schulze method is used for Wikimedia's Board of Trustees elections. The lack of good references is caused by the fact that this is a very new election method. Markus Schulze 18:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical Comment -- Although it may fail prose/referencing wise, the disambiguation and external links are up to standards (as checked with the tools in the toolbox at the right), as is the ref formatting (as checked with the WP:REFTOOLS script).--Best, ₮RUCӨ 20:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 SandyGeorgia 03:48, 4 April 2009 [97].

Friday the 13th (franchise)[edit]

Nominator(s):  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that the article currently meets the criteria for featured articles, though I concede my bias and acknowledge that others might point out some flaws that need correcting. That being said, I do not believe there are any major issues that should/could keep this article from being "one of Wikipedia's best".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Explain how so? The text beside it describes the image in detail. The image itself is used to illustrate the description Cunningham gave of how he wanted the advertisement to look. That meets the very definition of FUC. I'm curious. Why is it that you immediately opposed Friday the 13th, but merely made a suggestion to the Alien FAC to look at the NFCC? Also, I'm curious how "basically" gave your support to them, but how exactly does an image of the cast become detrimental to readers if it was removed? Or, how does a still photograph illustrate someone shooting in slow motion? I know what it looks like to film an object, the average reader does to, but I don't see how this image significantly increases my understanding of slow motion filming. File:F13Variety.jpg actually has text describing it (a whole paragraph all to itself, both describing the look of the image Cunningham was going for and how that promotional ad was used to facilitate interest in a project that did not even exist).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can empathize with Fasach Nua's oppose; I cannot speak for him, but this is my view. Fair use images help the reader understand the topic in ways words cannot express (well, except for main subject identification shots, which are less critically judged unless they are living persons). Moreover, the aid for understanding has to be for a significant point. In this case, the imagery of "the words 'Friday the 13th' breaking through a glass pane" can be readily imagined by most people. Unless notable opinions claim that there is something sublime about this imagery, or that it has some quality that is not material, such a display is not of significance to the topic at hand. The poster, hence, simply functions as identification of a mere idea—decoration. The claimed fair use of this poster is not as strong as that for the theme song (whose rationale would be helped with further buffing up, and whose caption in the article should point to the distinctive quality of the tune), which has text about its "iconographic" and "memorable" properties, as well as the rhythm and sounds that cannot be accurately described in words (I doubt "ki ki ki, ma ma ma" is what everybody thinks of on hearing the tune). Jappalang (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the image serves two purposes. First, it's the illustration of text. Maybe you could visualize the text bursting through glass, but maybe you couldn't visualize it doing so in this detail (i.e. With this style of font, and with this imagery of glass shattering...maybe "glass" is synonymous with a window instead of a bare pane of glass). Maybe people think of simple bolded terms coming at them. Regardless, it does add to the understanding of the text, the question is whether is adds enough to warrant inclusion. That comes to the second point, which is that the image serves an additional purpose of illustrating the actual advertisement that Cunningham developed simply to create interest in a film that did not even exist. The simplistic nature of the ad was used to generate studio interest as well as test the waters for potential lawsuits regarding the use of the name. If there are any "problems" with the fair-use of this image, it's subjectively borderline. It's not as black and white as including some generic screenshot from a film in a plot section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the CAPS problem. I think you brought all this up at the Peer Review before. So, to save space (and I'm not sure if you ventured back to that page), I'll just provide a link to the peer review discussion that has my explainations for why each of those sources was used.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Just because they are reviews or they are used in other GAs or FAs doesn't mean they are reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any are "reviews". If they are "reviewing" something, that wasn't what I was citing them for - I am typically citing them for describing some objective thing (e.g., this DVD contains these features...), which allows me to provide a third-party source for describing something that can easily be read on the box. Or, as was used for sites like Bloody-Disgusting, ShockTillYouDrop, or Slasherama, I'm using first-hand, exclusive interviews they conducted - that's straight from the horse's mouth (i.e. Q&A where they put in fully quoted conversations). I've been on Wiki since 2005, so I know what WP:RS is.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant to type "interviews" not "reviews". However, just because they are interviews, doesn't mean they are reliable. You need to make sure that the reporting of the interview is reliable also. The site itself needs to have some sort of reputation for accuracy, so we know that the interview was accurately reported. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Collectonian did that below for several of them. Using other news sources reporting on those websites doesn't prove reliability - it's more like circularly defining reliability. IMDB is cited by USA Today and many other professional, reliable news agencies but we know that it's not a reliable source of information. I'm not trying to deflect your concerns, just pointing out that having some other agency report on your website, or not having one do so, isn't necessarily reflective of reliability. I also couldn't see how an FAQ or About Us page that says "we get some of our information from exclusives" is any more helpful than one that doesn't. One could easily say, "how do we know they're telling the truth?" IME, it's always up to the communities common sense to read the actual source and make the call from their. If there are clues that the source is a little too "iffy", then suggest finding a different one. USA Today could be considered the most reliable source in the world, but I wouldn't cite them if they said "We heard from a scooper inside Universal Studios that Film X...."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - sorry, there are problems with the prose too numerous to list. I recommend that an uninvolved editor is asked to copy-edit the whole article; it is not ready for featured status and this nomination is premature. Graham Colm Talk 17:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - I have to agree, the article as a whole needs a third-party copy editing to fix prose issues. I'm curious on the box office box - why are so many films missing information on the worldwide release, yet the first film has it? Why is it with the development section instead part of the reception/impact section. For the overall article organization, why have Films separate when they are the main part of the franchise? Why not have the films' sections be the main sections, then have the television, novels, etc under a other media section? It seems like the article is using short references, but I don't see a notes section with the listings for those being used multiple times, like "Brack, Peter, pp. 50–52". I presume its referring to the book in ref 19, but either all the refs need to be full, or a central ref for that book added. For the referencing issues noted above, my views:
Collectonian, I have removed all of the soundtrack info (minus one statement) from the article and move it to the talk page. I was having trouble finding a reliable source to back up all of the information we had on that, so I moved it to the talk page for the time being so the FAC could continue.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have any specific prose examples? Vague notions of poor prose does not help. I'm not positive that most of the films even had worldwide distribution, or if it just was not significant enough to chronicle by any outside source. The books certainly do not mention anything. I don't understand " Why is it with the development section instead part of the reception/impact section?" - The Box office information is part of the "Films" section, not the "Development" subsection. I also don't understand the follow up question. "Films" IS the main section. Films, Television, and Literature are all their own independent sections. Because most of the literature does not directly tie to any specific film, they are independent. They got their start thanks to the films, but they have taken on a life of their own. As for the references, the first instance it was used you got the full citation. After that it was the short reference. It's no different than having a "Notes" section and then a "References" section, except that it doesn't put a needless section in there. Look at "References". The first time Grove and Bracke are cited they have full citations filled out.
HorrorDVD is not being used for anything beyond a listing of the DVD features. I don't even need a source for that, because looking at the back of the box will tell you what's on the DVDs. It's uncontroversial, kind of like a plot summary.
As for the sources that Ealdgyth listed, and Collectonian addressed individually, the vast majority are used for first hand interviews, which have been upheld as "reliable" in most articles because they are reporting first hand (instead of hearsay information).
I'll have to check the soundtrack link to see what exactly is being cited. I'll try and find a replacement for it. Other than Amazon, I cannot find anyone talking about the soundtracks. I'll check the books again to see if they mention them.
I fixed the journal source you mentioned.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I usually don't give examples because it is hard for me to do so. My brain just goes, this isn't reading well for me, but my copyediting skills are not that swift, so its hard to explain why, so I usually just note unless I see something really bad/blatantly obvious. It might be good to see if the film's without info did have worldwide distro, to clarify that either "the data isn't available" or "American only release". And sorry, I meant why is box office under Films instead of Impact, but okay on your explanation of the structure. For the references, the reason for having a note section is so readers don't have to hunt through the 145 references trying to find out what Grove?Bracke refer to. Don't get me wrong, I personally hate them, but it seems to be what is preferred in WP:CITE if you're going to use that method (and feel free to point me elsewhere that says it isn't). I'd go ahead and switch the HorrorDVD to just the DVD itself, then, or point to one of the other DVD reviews (if possible), or even Amazon just to clear up the issue. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EL Question: Why link to just the timelines page instead of just having an official link to the main http://www.fridaythe13thfilms.com/ URL? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it did just go to Fridaythe13thfilms.com.... Hmm, I'll check that and make the correction as necessary. You bring up a good point about the "Notes" structure, and I'll take care of that as well. To answer the question about the box office stuff, it's because the "Impact" is speaking more directly about how the franchise has impacted cultured. Box office success doesn't really reflect cultural impact, and it's really specifically aimed at each individual film. "Impact" is aimed at the series as a whole, instead of any one film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey there. I wish I had the time to review the article right now (I'm trying and failing to weigh in at every film-related FAC), but I did happen to see the comments already posted via the transclusion on the main FAC listing. What I will say is that it's almost always best to give constructive examples when opposing an article's promotion on prose grounds. Sometimes an article that seems like it needs a thorough rewrite can be made good with just a couple of hours' concentrated work on removing redundancies and similar. But without that feedback, nominators can be at a loss as to what kinds of issues they should tackle. With that in mind, I've taken a look at the lead only to see what specific pointers can be given:
    • Overlinking. Examples include television program, fictional character, novel. I can't see anyone's needing to click through to these for clarification, and they draw attention away from the potentially higher-value links around them.
    • "various merchandise" is a little hand-wavy; the sentence works equally well without the "various". If you think it lacks something without a word there, clarify with a more useful term, such as "tie-in merchandise".
    • Dangling modifier. "Originally created to cash in on the success of John Carpenter's Halloween, the success led Paramount Pictures to purchase the full rights to the Friday the 13th franchise." The statement as written states that F13's success—rather than the film—was created to cash-in.
    • "[comma] with [noun] [gerund]" is, apparently, a clumsy connector. (See sentence beginning "While the franchise was owned by Paramount...")
    • Immediately following, it seems a little clumsy to say "and a crossover film with Freddy Krueger from another horror film series, A Nightmare on Elm Street." Would it be better to say instead "and a crossover film with Freddy Krueger from the A Nightmare on Elm Street horror film series" or similar?
    • "When the franchise was sold to New Line Cinema, Cunningham returned to oversee two additional films..." Some readers might define the director as the overseer of a project; this sits oddly with the statement in the previous paragraph about Cunningham's not writing or directing any film but the first. Better to be precise and say "produce" or "executive produce" (depending on what his role actually was).
    • "various comic book series". Never a fan of "various", I've always thought the more direct "several" works just as well a lot of the time. I think it does here.
    • "Though not very popular with critics, it nevertheless became a financial success at the box office." The previous paragraph ends by talking about assorted franchise media; this begins with a statement relating the film series only. Suggest clarifying by using "the film series" instead of "it". Beginning the sentence with "Though" makes "nevertheless" redundant too.
    • "but also because the extensive merchandising and repeated references in popular culture." Missing "of", or is there a word or statement missing from the end of the sentence?
  • As I say, this is based on nothing more than a quick look at the lead in isolation; I have no idea if it's representative of the rest of the article, whether it's better or worse. But I hope it gives some pointers, and I will restate the point that the prose issues may be more easily resolvable than you've been led to believe. Good luck! Steve T • C 21:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from GrahamColm (talk · contribs) The nominator has asked twice, on my talk page, to provide examples of poor prose. This is not fair because this is FAC and not peer-review. Steve, has listed the ones I saw in the Lead, but there are many others throughout the article:

  • were off having sex and not paying attention - why the "off", indeed where were they?
  • Five years later, a group of teenagers arrive at Crystal Lake to set up a new camp, only for Jason to murder them, one by one. - "but Jason murders them.
  • Friday the 13th: A New Beginning (1985) tried to move in a new direction. - Perhaps it was the producers or director of this film that tried to adopt a new style?
  • They learn Roy was motivated to become Jason after witnessing the remains of his son, whom no one knew about, butchered at the hands of one of the patients at the institution. - Perhaps "whom had been butchered" would help.

These examples are taken from the next section. There are many more throughout the article. I agree with Steve in that a competent copy-editor could fix the article in a few hours. But at FAC reviewers have to decide whether to support or oppose a candidate. It is of no help to the FA delegates to dilly-dally. I am often guilty of such and will provide "comments" or "conditional support" and so forth. But, as I have said above, this nomination is premature. FAC is too congested, we haven't the time and are not obliged to fix articles. We judge them as they are presented here. I do not like opposing because I know the amount of time and effort that is put into writing these articles. It is a poor show to challenge an FAC reviewer on their Talk page and not at FAC. Graham Colm Talk 21:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I completely and utterly agree that a solid oppose should be registered if you think the prose isn't up to scratch. :) I didn't mean to try to dissuade you from doing so, I just had in mind that Bignole has several Featured articles to his name, so presumably has the writing chops to make any necessary amendments if given a few examples. Steve T • C 22:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To both Steven and GrahamColm, thank you both for the examples, that's basically what I needed. Steve showed me some flow issues, while Graham seemed to point out a concern that I mentioned on his talk page about prose problems often relating to the fact that the primary editor (in this case myself) will overlook explaining things because subconsciously they already understand it. I will get to work on not just the lead, but the whole article and try and go through sentence by sentence to make whatever adjustments necessary. When I'm done I'll provide a link for the full edit history so you can see what was changed throughout the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just so there isn't worry (don't know if anyone is watching the article itself), I am in the process of cleaning up the page. I've just had a bunch of real life projects that I have had to focus on, so it's taking a bit longer than expected. I'm on the TV section right now, so I'm virtually half-way done. Just wanted to let you guys know that I am attempting to get this done in a timely manner.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Article appears to be complete. Looks well sourced. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment The merchandise section alone has so many small issues that it hangs a question mark over the prose of the article, for me at least.
  • Ref #128 is a little muddled, 'The Your Sinclair Rock and Roll Years' is a fansite covering Your Sinclair (and a good one), but the article linked seems to be on World of Spectrum (an archive of magazine scans, games and misc. other things), neither of which should be mentioned when the publication details are there for it to be cited directly to the magazine article.
  • The NES game's details take several sentences, and all are cited to ref #129, GameSpot, which gives no details except for the developer/publisher/release date/genre. Fine for an infobox, but the rest of this information is unverified. Due to the game's age it will be difficult to cite this info without having access to a game magazine from the time, but that's what it boils down to.
  • I'm not convinced that Domark's release of License to Kill and Pack-In-Video's development of Rambo is relevant, film licenses were not new even then, they're not even in the same film genres.
  • The mobile phone game is sending mixed signals, I've seen examples of it being called Thursday the 12th, IE an unofficial knock-off, though some sources like GameSpot list it as Friday the 13th. It's not looking very notable and it might be worth removing it altogether, not sure though.
  • "Jason appears as a normal character in the game until he decides to attack." Meaning he's disguised as one of the teenagers until he reveals himself at random and attacks? Needs clarifying.
  • "Friday the 13th has stretched beyond film, television and literature into other collectables." Stretched? Seems far too casual.
  • "In 1988, Screamin' toys produced a model kit where you could build your own Jason statuette." I believe this is incorrect, one of the first things I learned when editing video game articles is to switch 'you' to 'the player' etc. I checked back in the history to early July 2008 and this particular line was there too. That suggests to me that this article needs some attention from an experienced copy-editor, or at least someone who's had no hand in bringing this article forward to its current state. Someoneanother 19:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're commenting on a section that I havne't gotten to yet in my c/eing (Coincedently, I was going to change that "stretched" bit as well). I'll have to check some of those sources, but I could have sworn there was one on the game that just details what the gameplay is. THe "Your Sinclair" is used merely because it is publishing a scanned copy of the actual magazine. I could cite merely the magazine itself (without the url), but I felt providing a link would help people in verifying the magazine information. The GameSpot page might have died...again I haven't gotten to that section yet so I cannot say for sure till I go through it. I'll recheck where the information is coming from while I c/e (as well as take under advisement the non-direct relation of the other games by Domark). Could I request you check out the article from the Lead through the films' section? I have the TV up to (but not including) the Merch. section done I'm just at work and haven't have a chance to impliment it yet. I'd like some looks over what has been c/e'd to see if I missed something as well as to get some more thoughts on the plot section. The Plot section is the hardest to c/e because I need someone who isn't entirely familiar with the films to let me know what is confusing (when you've seen them as many times as me, you tend to automatically fill in the blanks with your mind).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing with the Your Sinclair cite is that some may quibble about a direct link to a copyrighted scanned image, I totally get why there's a URL link but it may trip you up. If someone wants to verify that source during the process it's all here. I'll gladly check the rest of the article over the weekend, haven't seen any of the films and don't know a thing about the franchise. Someoneanother 20:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this moment, I think I'm going to leave it and if there is a real problem with it then I'll remove the link and do a typical "cite journal" template for it. I have taken care of the rest of the c/eing (what I call the "first round", because I want to make a second pass and see if/what I missed). You can all of the edits, from the start and get an idea of the changes that were made. I'll wait to do a second pass until after I have checked on some source replacement for the "Soundtrackcollector" links, because there was concern over their FAQ indicating that they take user submitted content. It may be that I have to remove the soundtrack info until I can find replacements because Amazon doesn't have release dates for most of the older CDs. I'll also check on those game sources and see if they say (or said) what they were supposed to have said about those games, as well as that "Thursday the 12th" contraversy.
I found this source, which seems to show that the mobile game was in fact called "Friday the 13th". I wonder of "Thursday the 12th" was some game released at a different time, before this mobile game?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, since I didn't see anything about it in the article at the moment: if it would be useful information, I found a reliable source on the 1989 game noting there was also a Friday the 14th board game released in the UK which was a top seller in 1989 and came "with blood capsules that you crunch in your mouth to create home-made special effects." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hell, if you got a RS for it, sweet. I didn't know about the board game. As an update for Someone Another, I have checked the GameSpot sources and they are useless as they are. I'll try and find replacement sources for them...otherwise (they'll all have to be ousted).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, here is the cite: {{cite news |title=Giving the games away: Sheila Johnston pits her wits and her patience against the latest best-selling video and board games-of-the-films |first-Sheila |last=Johnston |work=[[The Independent]] |date=December 15 1989 |page=27 }}; alas, she did not mention which company published the game :( -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have her text, so I know what it says or you could add it to save time?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sent via email. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is getting confusing. The mobile game listed on GameSpot is this Thursday the 12th developed by HeroCraft. Compare the title screens, they're identical except the GameSpot one is obviously Jason. 'Thursday the 12th' had players controlling 'Slayson'.. I think what might have happened is that they started with the knock-off, then managed to secure a license then changed the title screen. The mobile game reivew you found is a different game entirely developed by Xendex. Xendex's version is an adventure game whereas the Thursday the 12th .. thing by HeroCraft looks like a Splatterhouse clone (very much an action/beat 'em up game, look at the screenshots on the Thursday the 12th site). The HeroCraft game could do with some research. Someoneanother 22:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add the Xendex's game info when I get a chance (didn't realize there were 2 mobile games). I found this NewsWire source saying that HeroCraft did make a "Friday the 13th" game (but it's just a list mentioning). Maybe for the time being it will be best to just remove that game mentioning from the article, given the confusion over the licensing, because I haven't really seen (was just googling) anyone talking about HeroCraft not having a license...or not initially having one but later getting one.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How's this Someone?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, the description of Xendex's title coupled with the 'make your own special FX' board game info adds a lot of interest to the section. Duh me BTW, I brought up Splatterhouse without suggesting that it would be worth considering mentioning it somewhere - the game's character Rick is basically Jason Vorhees, and there should be sources out there to back it up, like this. Splatterhouse is a notable series (very few games at the time had anything like as much gore or feeling of dread), and after a break of 15 years is spawning a new game, it would probably be brought up at some point due to that. Someoneanother 23:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at that, it seems like it might be more relevant for Jason Voorhees, than this page, given that the character is a "supposed" homage/rip-off/coincedental look-a-like for Jason, and the game itself isn't a homage to Friday the 13th in general.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 SandyGeorgia 03:48, 4 April 2009 [99].

Fountain of Time[edit]

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because of my A-Class WP:MILHIST articles, this passed in the shortest amount of time. Thus, it is probably interesting or something. It is the only high quality level WP article that I know of that is about a memorial to peace. In order to answer a question from my GA reviewer Chzz (talk · contribs), I got two books from the library. I was unable to answer the question, but did end up adding 25% more text to the article and I found several old Library of Congress photos in the mean time.

I am quite sure the image guys will have instructions in regard to what is kept in the article. I was going to move out the gallery and then the GA reviewer said he felt they added to the article, but needed better captioning. I am thinking that the image reviewers might want them moved out so I have not worked on that. I am hoping that none of the images other than the gallery are contentious and am willing to make any changes to the gallery or remove it entirely. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WRT, the image gallery, I should note that because of the restoration, this might be a rare case where it is appropriate to have one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There remains one dab (Open house) that I am not sure how to resolve. It describes what I mean in the opening sentence and then lists another dozen possible uses for the term.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query Hi Tony, interesting topic "Despite all the restoration that has been completed, supporters of Time continue to pursue resources for additional lighting," what has the lighting to do with restoration? ϢereSpielChequers 22:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also "Time is one of the few outdoor sculptures that has been made of these types of materials since the 1930s" might need rephrasing if the opening date of 1922 is correct. ϢereSpielChequers 22:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a big public sculpture and I think the article could benefit from a bit about the vistas that incorporate it (which might be a way to move some gallery pictures into the article). How much of the Park around it is designed to show off this monument, and which bits are meant to be seen up close and which from a distance? ϢereSpielChequers 15:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you working from a source that I should know about. I have not seen a secondary source with the information that you are referring to. Alternatively, are you suggesting that I interpret the photos that we have to make the analysis that you suggest? Isn't this WP:OR? I am really not sure what you are suggesting.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Tony, well if the sources don't cover it then we can't but thanks for checking. I'm a bit surprised that they don't as its a frequent topic for describing major sculpture near me (mind you I live near the end of a mile long avenue lined with several rows of trees that leads up to one statue, so I may have a non global perspective on this). ϢereSpielChequers 16:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical Review
  • I don't know what you mean by "adequately explained", the 2 dabs need to be disambiguated, if thats what you mean.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, it looks fine to me.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 14:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone else having problems with the newsbank refs. They got reformatted with these two edits. They are no longer working on my machine even though they did when I first checked out what had happened.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]

The links were not working earlier, but they are working now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm opposing because I think the prose is not FA quality, and there's some MOS issues to be addressed (eg. page # ranges in refs need endashes). I've listed some examples below, but stopped reading after the Installation section. Sasata (talk) 08:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support The prose has been much improved, and I'm switching to support now. I'll take Tony's word about the lead citation issue, but am not striking it out, as I'd still like to hear an MOS expert's opinion about it. Sasata (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replied below: I am unaware of any reasoning, logic, policy or guideline to support this notion of fully cited or fully uncited leads. See WP:LEAD#Citations: leads are summaries. Surprising or controviersial info, or direct quotes, need to be cited. Other information summarized from the article doesn't always need to be cited; common sense applies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have responded below with the reasoning as it had been taught to me with an explanation of why I don't have specific policy or guidelines to point to.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I got the endashes. I can always use some MOS assistance and advice.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see your point about some prose issues. The article seems to have gotten the attention of several copyeditors. I hope they continue to help me clean up the quality research here. I also would appreciate any continuing feedback you might have.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly. And if you feel so inclined, I have a FAC further down the page that would love some comments :) Sasata (talk) 09:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it appropriate to have so many (I counted 19) citations in the lede?
    • I don't think the Lead is presenting anything more than the summary of the article and thus the text is good, IMO. Are there facts that you would like to see the citations removed from?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Assuming that everything that's cited in the lead is also cited in the main body of text, then I would take out the citations for anything that isn't contentious. For example, its location, when it started running water and its year of dedication, and the fact it underwent repairs; I doubt if any of that is likely to be challenged. The rest can probably stay. Sasata (talk) 09:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you aware of the two citation conventions for the WP:LEAD? Either a LEAD can be fully cited or fully uncited. Both conventions are common and fully acceptable. What is unaccepatable is a partially cited LEAD where some facts are cited and some are not. In this case, I attempt to do a fullly cited form. Your suggestion is against convention. Either you want the citations with the main body text only or also as presented in the lead. There is no halfway.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I was not at all aware of the two citation conventions. I was working off Wikipedia:LEADCITE; could you point out the location of a description of these alternate lead citation conventions? Thanks Sasata (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is no clear governing text where you point. Policies change and I am going by interpretations, that prevailed in 2007 and 2008. I have been asked about citing WP:LEADs several times by reviewers and given this explanation. I have never been told it is wrong. I believe it to still be the prevailing sentiment that editors agree that leads must be either fully cited or uncited. I do not have an MOS text to point to.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • So what you're saying is that there is a policy/convention for citing the lead that directly contradicts what's currently suggested in the MOS, yet I can't read about it because it's unwritten? Am I being punked? :) Sasata (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←What I am saying is that in my experience with GA, FA and FL reviews on WP, which is fairly extensive, this subject has come up dozens of times. I have explained that in my early days they taught me to only do fully-cited or fully-uncited WP:LEADs. Every time that explanation has been accepted. I have not reviewed policy to give the explaination. Thus, I don't know where it is. What we need is an expert on current MOS guidelines to confirm the currently prevailing policy.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any convention, reason, guideline or policy to support the notion that leads should be either fully cited or fully uncited; as far as I know, this is simply incorrect. Information about citations in leads is at Wikipedia:LEAD#Citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know guidelines or policy. Generally, I spend my time adding encyclopedic content. I only learn policy through MOS tussles about my work. In terms, of convention it seems to have been longstanding and reasons are pretty clear. Suppose you have two fully cited paragraphs in a LEAD and someone plops a third uncited paragraph that further summarizes the article it looks bad. Similarly, if you have an uncited paragraph or two and someone contributes a fully cited one, it looks just as bad. Citing half the claims in the lead as necessary and the other half as unnecessary begs the question of why should the uncited half be cited in the main body either.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*"Time had to undergo several restorations due to the elements" What elements? I think this is a too-informal way to say "weathering"

*"Originally conceived in granite,[14] Time had another plan that called for it to be chiseled out of Georgia marble..." Anthropomorphizing the sculpture

*"... a Bridge of Arts at Woodlawn Avenue would have been more elaborate than a Bridge of Religion at the intersection of Ellis Avenue and a Bridge of Science at Madison Avenue." I'm confused about the relevance of the elaborateness of these bridges; were these bridges even made?

*"...Taft began lobbying for a grand Midway beautification plan in 1908 immediately after winning the first commission from the Ferguson Fund to create the Fountain of the Great Lakes, ..." This clause in the middle of a longer sentence is dificult to follow and should be broken up into something more digestible.

*"Two surviving elements stand outside the entrance to the Main Library and two others are at the south side of Foellinger Auditorium." Confusing - there are four "elements" in total, two are not surviving, but two are? What's the distinction between the surviving and non-surviving elements?

    • I have rephrased for clarity. Keep in mind we have a photo showing that there were about a dozen elements originally planned.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*"...was delayed by Taft's World War I service in France with the Y.M.C.A.," Sorry, but I don't know enough about history to make a logical connection between war service and the YMCA

    • Some basic info is here on WP at Y.M.C.A.#YMCA_during_American_wars. None of the texts I used elaborated on his service and this is not an article about his service. This is not even a bio article on the sculptor. I think it is sufficient to note here that the reason it was two years behind schedule was that he served in WWI with the Y.M.C.A. and leave it at that. Does that seem reasonable?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*"However, Taft and his Chicago school of sculpture..." What school was this? (Sorry if I seem deliberately disingenuous, but that's the question that intuitively pops to mind when I read that sentence)

  • "Another notable sculpture nearby is Henry Moore's National Historic Landmark, National Register of Historic Places-listed, Chicago Landmark Nuclear Energy, which is located..." Jarring constructing construction, does not flow smoothly.
  • Sorry, mistyped that word. I just meant the sentence seems run-on. Try reading it out loud. Sasata (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tweaked the sentence a bit to remove the redudant "Chicago Landmark (we know it's in Chicago, it's already stated that it's a landmark. Sasata (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*"Formerly, The Midway Plaisance, Jackson Park and..." Does the "The" really need to be capitalized?

  • "There is little agreement on the dimensions of Time, with various sources describing it at 102 to 127 feet (31.1 to 38.7 m) long.[10][3][12] One of the few precise estimates describes it as 126 feet 10 inches (38.7 m) long, 23 feet 6 inches (7.2 m) wide and 24 feet (7.3 m) tall.[2]" Why is there little agreement on something which can be measured with a tape measure? What makes the latter measurement more precise?
    • I suppose that there are at least four or five ways to measure the width:
      1. The width of the reflecting pool, which probably could be measured by the width of the water (interior width) and the width of its physical structure (exterior width)
      2. The width of the base of its figures
      3. The width of the sculpting of the figures
      4. The width of the ground upon which it is laid.
        1. Suppose there is a three foot-wide ring of grass around the sculpture which is considered Fountain land.
        2. Suppose that there is an official plot of land that contains the fountain that the Cook County assessors office might describe as a parcel or something.

This is my best guess. I have seen this problem with other sculptures such as the near by Nuclear Energy (Henry Moore sculpture). I have also had articles where I was able to get specific dimensions for separate parts such as Crown Fountain where I was able to get dimensions for the reflecting pool and the physical sculpture separately. Here separate measures do not present themselves in the sources.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps it should be mentioned that the reason for the disparate measurements for various sources may be because they don't specify the boundaries used? Sasata (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*It's still plural. Sasata (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Charles Hutchinson, President of the B.F. Ferguson Trust; John Barton Payne, President of the South Park Board, also spoke." Not a proper sentence.
  • "Charles Hutchinson, President of the B.F. Ferguson Trust. John Barton Payne, President of the South Park Board, also spoke." Nope :) Sasata (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing review: (Starting from "Design" section)

  • "John Early of Washington, DC determined that by crushing pebbles, he could create a new concrete mixture that was more durable..." How about something like "John Early of Washington, DC determined that by adding crushed pebbles, he could create a new concrete aggregate that was more durable..."
  • "The same material was used at Chicago's Fine Arts Building." According to that article, the building was built in 1884–5 and remodeled in 1898 (i.e., many years prior to when this article claims the material was first used.)
  • "Although most of the figures are generic representations,..." of what?
  • "The sculpture depicts a hooded stationary Father Time..." Why the distinction that FT is stationary?
  • "It was produced in the period following his assignment to design sculptures for William Le Baron Jenney's Horticultural Building when he designed several large-scale public works, including Fountain of the Great Lakes." The sentence seems run-on, please reword, or split into two sentences.
  • "Designed without expansion joints, Time is one of the few outdoor sculptures that has been made of these types of materials, and few have been created since the 1930s." What types of materials? The pebble/concrete aggregate? Please clarify. What kind of repairs were needed in 1936 (i.e., did the sculpture really deteriorate that much in 14 years?)
  • "Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley attended a rededication in 1966." So? How does this fact fit in with the previous or next sentence?
  • "In early 1997, after almost two decades of study," What were they studying? Wasn't the holdup due to lack of funds?
    • Read the source. It does not say funding. It seems to suggest that they were concerned about the formulating the plans explained in the paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The repairs were expected to last about 30–50 years." The way the sentence reads now might be interpreted as meaning the repair process would take that long... needs rewording.

"Below are pictures of the Fountain of Time uploaded in August 2004 before restoration."

*Reference formatting needs some more tweaking: some books refs (eg. #28, #32) end in periods, some don't; ref 15 has double period after author name; Taft refs do not have "p." while the other book refs do.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the ref.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose—Not well-written. MoS breaches in the linking of dictionary terms. In addition, the nominator continues his established practice of fighting against almost all issues raised. This article, by no stretch of the imagination, could be promoted. Is the whole text going to be fixed up? I have provided only random examples. Tony (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gawky four-item hyphenated hedgehog: I've commented on this before in your writing, and gone to some lengths to explain how easy it is to avoid. Here we have it right at the opening: "a 126-foot-10-inch (38.7 m) long sculpture by Lorado Taft situated at the western edge of the Midway Plaisance". Here is how you fix it, by simply moving the noun: "a sculpture by Lorado Taft, 126 feet, 10 inches (38.7 m) long, at the western edge of ...". Or choose your own recasting, but no quadruple bypasses, please, especially since the conversion is required in the midddle. Here's another: "20-foot (6.1 m) high robed model of Father Time". Please fix them all. You seem to be hooked on this word "situated", but a statue is a statue, and it just is where you say it is. "Situated" is quite redundant; clunky, actually.
    • Are you against the {{convert|adj=on}} parameterization in general?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no idea what on earth this is, but if it creates ugly ducklings like that, get rid of it. The quadra-hydra-monster stinks. Tony (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • When I ask, I am trying to determine if you are just against the singular format for measures with the convert template. I don't think I left any monsters.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was the first work of art made of concrete,[7] and used a new type of molded, reinforced material". The linking of "concrete" is on the boundary of the required relevance test, but since the text is not massively overlinked with dictionary words, it works, I think, and there's some slight chance that a reader might click on it. But is the "material" referred to the concrete? It's unclear.
  • "that corrected many of the problems caused by prior restorations." Please remove "prior", since it's pretty hard to correct something that hasn't already occurred.
  • "caused by the natural elements such as weather"—what other natural elements are there? Why not just "by exposure to the weather", or something like that?
    • Here is a sentence fragment from the restoration section: "Five workers began repairing the cracks, killing biological growth, removing calcium deposits and pollution-blackened gypsum" I had thought that weather and time (or in the case of this fountain Mother Nature and Father Time) are conjointly considered natural elements. As such corrosion that occurs over time is considered the result of the natural elements. Later in the article I describe urban soot and grime as natural elements. Also, note that WP redirects to (Periodic table), so it is not clear to me that natural elements means weather.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is unclear as it is. Specify whatever you mean. What is the full list (you say "such as" ... well, what else?). Tony (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have added urban decay, which pretty much covers the rest of examples in an introductory way that is fit for a WP:LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • (copied from Talk:Fountain of Time) In the third paragraph there's this sentence: "Time has had to undergo several restorations due to the deterioration and decline caused by the natural elements such as weather and urban decay." This stopped me in my tracks as it makes no sense. How is urban decay a natural element? And how does it directly contribute to the deterioration and decline of the sculpture? I think that what is really meant that is that vandalism increased as its surrounding neighborhood declined. If so, say exactly that, and don't use weasel words like urban decay. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • (copied from Talk:Fountain of Time) I mean grime and soot that have led to biological growths, calcium deposits and pollution blackening that have caused deterioration of the sculpture (according to sources). What is a word to describe that?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • How about urban elements?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Neither urban decay (which typically means economic decline of a neighborhood or city) nor urban elements (citizens or parts of a city?) make sense. I'd settle for urban pollution, acid rain, etc. since you're talking about pollution-caused effects. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the late 1990s and first few years of the 21st century"—"the" is missing.
    • I have made the correction. However, I'm surprised that you, the word miser, makes this correction. If I said "during the 1980s and 1990s," would that also be considered incorrect?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is close to a personal attack. No, in your example, "the" is carried through by ellipsis. To repeat "the" there would be clumsy. But the ellipsis doesn't work for "first few years of ...", because the items are not parallel (decades). Tony (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite all the restoration that has been completed, supporters of Time continue to pursue resources for additional lighting, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation has nominated it for further funding." How does one "pursue resources"? It's not English. The National Trust nomination was despite the restoration? The clauses in this sentence need to be rearranged so they're unambiguous in relation to each other.
    • To the best of my understanding pursue is used grammatically and in a common way. At m-w.com, the second of six meanings for pursue is to "employ measures to obtain". That is the meaning meant herein.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It does not work; it is unidiomatic. It is vague. "pursue resources"? Google it and present the evidence if you're too lazy to find an acceptable word. Tony (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overlinking: "intersection". This is a breach of the guidelines, by any stretch of the imagination. The overlinking is not at the ruinous density I've seen before, but here it is: "lagoon", "canal", etc. Just why you'd want to click on a link to "World War I" from this article is beyond me. Let the important links show up, please.
  • Mea culpa; during GA review, I asked that intersection be wikilinked. As a Brit, I felt the term sufficiently obscure to warrant a wikilink for clarification. The word is not common in the UK.  Chzz  ►  06:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You find them "linkable" because it "borders" on some WIkiProject? That is not the test of whether the link deepens the reader's meaning. This is overlinking—dictionary terms—and is clearly a breach of the style guides. Tony (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow me to clarify. The article has a lot of encyclopedic information related to urban planning and beautification. Thus, readers with urban planning interests may find this article worth reading. For those readers lagoons and canals are not tangential terms. They are central to the proposed urban beautification plan. I feel in this context linking the terms is O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The finished portions of Fountain of Creation are considered Taft's final work, and were given to University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, his alma mater." What does "are considered" add? If it is necessary to inject a little uncertainty, make it clear why. This comes over as coy.
  • "The figures in the sculpture were planned to depict the Greek legend of the repopulation of earth after the great flood." They were planned to, but didn't end up doing this? That is the unfortunate tinge of meaning. I had to read it twice and think before realising that you probably didn't intend this nuance. Not good. Same for "possible themes"; I have to work hard to fathom whether these bit the dust or were borne out. Planning versus constructed features is blurred in a number of sentences.
  • " Two surviving elements stand outside the entrance to the Main Library and two other surviving elements are at the south side of Foellinger Auditorium.[23] The four figures range in height from"—Can we avoid the straight repetition of "surviving elements"? Can we know first that there are four, and then ... "Two are ..., and two are ..."?

I've not read more than the lead and some of the first section. It all needs treatment. On the other hand, it has the makings of an FA, and I can see the effort you've put into this (and the good results). But it can't be promoted until the writing is up to scratch. Please bring in someone else to sift through the text. You have a lot of valuable things to say, but you don't do justice to your knowledge without collaboration with a skilled writer. Tony (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've covered this hyphenation issue many times on TTT's previous FACs, so shouldn't still be finding these kinds of errors in the first line of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This needs a thorough copyedit. Minor issues include a quote in italics; a poem title in italics; a publication title in plain text; Jstor listed as a publisher; and National Trust and American Express listed in italics. Conversion figures are needed for historical monetary values. There are flow problems (there is no connection between these sentences: "The sculpture had a rededication in 1966. However, early repair crews often did more harm than good with techniques such as sandblasting and patching cracks with rigid materials.") and logic problems (all NHLs are listed on the NRHP, so why "Time is located a few blocks from Taft's studio, the National Historic Landmark, National Register of Historic Places-listed, Chicago Landmark Lorado Taft Midway Studios, which is located at 60th Street and Ingleside Avenue. Another notable sculpture nearby is Henry Moore's National Historic Landmark Nuclear Energy, listed with the National Register of Historic Places."?). The Chicago Tribune is arguably not a reliable source for the massive assertion that this piece is "the first work of art made of concrete", later restated as "the first finished art piece to be made of any type of concrete". The main issue, however, is that there are grammar and word choice problems throughout. Maralia (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am unable to find the publication title in plain text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have never heard of the historical monetary value conversion requirement and don't believe it exists. I see nothing at WP:$. There are about a dozen different years in which dollars are used. In addition, a historical monetary value conversion requires constant updating. Any policy on dollar conversion would require reconversion every time a new inflation index number arises.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The publication title in plain text is in "Some Tribune critics". RE the monetary conversion issue, I don't have time to dig for policy at the moment, so let's just use a little logic: the average reader likely has no point of reference for the equivalent modern value of early 20th-century dollar figures. FAs have long offered such conversion by giving a modern value as of a specific year; {{Inflation}} even offers a country-specific conversion that automatically updates with the CPI. The "$30,000 per year for five years" figure for Taft's initial plan is (very roughly) $5.1 million in modern terms—surely more meaningful to readers. Maralia (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{Inflation}} is an interesting template. Feel free to tweak or advise on stylistics of use. Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 SandyGeorgia 03:48, 4 April 2009 [100].

Ultime grida dalla savana[edit]

Nominator(s): Helltopay27 (talk)

This article is already listed as a Good article, and after some further copyediting, I've decided to try my luck here. I have two major concerns that I feel reviewers will target: the synopsis section may be too long and detailed, for one. No documentary article is currently a featured article, so I had no example to follow. I found this film in particular, which doesn't feature a cohesive narrative, to be particularly challenging to provide a sufficient yet concise synopsis. Also, the lack of a "Production" section is unfortunately unavoidable, as I've yet to encounter any source that covers the production of the film. I will try to implement these corrections if asked. Helltopay27 (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for writing such a good article on an obscure topic, it is an enjoyable read. I'm sorry to say this, but I couldn't support the article in its current state given the absence of page numbers for each book reference. I know it would be quite a chore to have to through them again, but think of the poor reader trying to chase a claim! Some other comments, queries and suggestions:
    • The average reader is likely to be unfamiliar with the Mondo and exploitation genres; perhaps you could add a sentence or two to provide context?
    • In the Synopsis, is the hunter being introduced to Patagonia or the viewer to the hunter?
    • Is there an appropriate wikilink/redirect for social hunting that might be useful for context here?
    • Not sure about the appropriety of an entirely parenthesised sentence; might be better as a footnote. A MoS-expert could help here
    • There are second-grade teachers out there who would decapitate you for starting a sentence with "Also,"!
    • "Reflected in this is a montage of gun ownership, which is related to feelings of masculinity" – does the film make this relation explicit, or is our article simply saying that there is a relation? In the latter case, attribution to a reliable source would be necessary.
    • If the author of the Time Out Film Guide entry is named, the article ought to mention them.
    • Could you briefly state James Ferman's argument as to why the film showed the need for censorship?
    • This sentence needs altering: "The inclusion of several staged or scripted scenes has made the film, which claims to consist of purely authentic footage, a target for critical condemnation." Films don't make claims; if there is written text or voiceover making the claim, say so. If the producers make the claim in an interview, say that.
    • "The lion attack on Pit Dernitz is also suspected of being a fabrication" – by whom?
    • "While staged footage had been included since the early history of Mondo films, these scenes are nonetheless targets for critical abashment." The change of tenses here is awkward; changing either clause to the past tense might help.
    • "come under fire" is a little informal for an encyclopaedia.
    • In the last sentence of the Criticism section, it appears as if Goodall is receiving criticism, and at least one of "aside from", "also" and "another" is redundant.
    • Most readers will not be familiar with the Valtion elokuvatarkastamo; couldn't hurt to add an adjective or two. In a similar vein, RSPCA might be clearer if not abbreviated.
    • What makes the following links Reliable sources? [101][102][103][104][105]
    • It might also be a good idea to add articles on the directors, Antonio Climati and Mario Morra. Again, thanks for your efforts thus far and I think the article could be featured standard without too much trouble. Sincerely, Skomorokh 21:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've corrected most of the points that you've made. Unfortunately, I won't have access to the books again for another week or so, so the page number issue will have to wait. Here are some responses:
        • No, Time Out Film Guide doesn't give the name of the reviewer.
        • The DVDManiacs reference, which is now dead, will be removed once I find another review of the film (which are quite scarce).
        • The Digital Retribution reference has been replaced.
        • The DVD Aficionado reference is intended to prove the existence of said DVDs, which the link clearly proves. The purpose of the DVD Aficionado website is to collect various DVD releases of films and provide them as a reference. Its dedicated purpose, combined with the fact that it is not an independent website (i.e. it is part of Saudakar Corporation) I believe makes it reliable.
        • I'm looking for a more reliable source than SoundtrackCollector.com to provide a source for the soundtrack's release, although I believe that the soundtrack's mere existence is of itself evidence.
        • Refused-Classification.com receives censorship information from the OFLC, which is a pretty reliable source. Helltopay27 (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tech.Review
  • Dabs are not up to speed (checked with the links checker tool)
  • They need to be fixed
  • External links are not up to speed (checked with the links checker tool)
  • There is 1 dead link
  • Ref formatting is not up to speed (checked with WP:REFTOOLS script)
  • The following refs are duplicated and appear as such in the ref section, a WP:REFNAME should be used instead
  • {{cite book |last=Kerekes |first=David |coauthors= David Slater |title=Killing for Culture: Death Film from Mondo to Snuff |year=1996 |month=January |publisher=Creation Books |location=UK |isbn=1-871592-20-8}}
  • {{cite book |last=Goodall |first=Mark |title=Sweet and Savage: The World Through the Shockumentary Film Lens |year=2006 |publisher=Headpress |location=[[London]], UK |isbn=1-900486-49-0}}
  • {{cite web |url=http://wc04.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=1:245084~T1 |title=Ultime Grida dalla Savana > Review |author=Robert Firsching |publisher=All Media Guide |accessdate=2007-10-04}}
  • {{cite web |url=http://www.digital-retribution.com/reviews/dvd/0779.php |title=Savage Man, Savage Beast DVD Review |publisher=Digital Retribution |accessdate=2007-11-08}}
  • {{cite web |url=http://www.refused-classification.com/Films_S.htm#Savage%20Man,%20Savage%20Beast |title=Films S |publisher=Refused-Classification.com |accessdate=2007-11-08}}
  • The following ref names are naming more than 1 ref name, when they should only name 1 specific ref
  • Slater
  • Goodall
  • AllMovie
  • Refused
  • AussieDVD--Best, ₮RUCӨ 23:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what "Dabs" are, but the references have been fixed. Helltopay27 (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It means disambiguation links. Sorry.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then forgive me, I'm not sure what you're proposing that I need to fix. Helltopay27 (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It means that some of the internal wikilinks, instead of leading to the intended article, instead go to disambiguation pages, and should be fixed. The two in question are Huemul and Kangaroos. Steve T • C 01:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I believe all of your issues have been fixed. Helltopay27 (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image Review: Could you please format properly summaries the three files included in the article on their respective pages?[106][107][108] I believe that WP:FURME can help that along. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 01:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse my ignorance, but what's wrong with their format as is? Is there a style guideline for such things? Skomorokh 03:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find nothing in Wikipedia's policies that say that these are inadequate. In fact, I've formatted image pages like this for other featured articles. Helltopay27 (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, I have always formatted fair use images like so. I am unsure if it is a requirement to use such templates, or if it just makes it look nicer. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 01:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. I'll try to hunt down the appropriate templates. Helltopay27 (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the film poster's page, and the soundtrack cover is no longer part of the article. However, the screenshot template is about to be deleted and since its inclusion is up in the air anyway, I've let it be. Helltopay27 (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any Italian language sources that could be used to construct a development section? BuddingJournalist 03:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oppose - three low quality images that show a man getting mauled are unjustified under NFCC, images don't convey much information. The LP cover seems weird, I don't know why that is significant at all. Fasach Nua (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll remove the LP cover, but the other images help identify the scene in question and gives context to the scene's violence and why the scene is often censored. Helltopay27 (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't it standard practice to include the cover of soundtracks in film articles? Skomorokh 19:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This was the premise I was working under, yes. Helltopay27 (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Per the film article guidelines, the image in the film article's infobox serves as cover art to identify the topic. With this identification in place, the inclusion of additional cover art should be rationalised with a non-identification purpose, e.g. secondary sources' coverage of the cover art's appearance. While it relates to DVD, a good example can be found at Fight Club (film) – Home media. Saying all that, there may be some wriggle room in that the soundtrack cover art is identifying a separate subject. But coming at this from an angle of what's best for the article, I'm not sure what the image was actually adding of value—just because an image can be included, it doesn't necessarily mean it should. Good luck with the rest of this FAC, Steve T • C 09:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Page numbers are coming as soon as I get the books again, and I've already been over the reliability of R-C.com and DVDaf.com. The other site is the official site of the Finnish film board, and since it is used to cite the classification of the film in Finland, I think it qualifies as reliable. Helltopay27 (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
R-C.com gets their information directly from the OFLC -- reliable. The official site of a film board -- reliable. 99.167.78.33 (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing where on the refused classification site they say that their information comes from the OFLC. Looking at the page for the film, they are crediting someone named "HellToPay27" for some information on what was and wasn't cut. I've struck the Finnish film board query. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On individual film entries, they will provide specific information on their sources. A good example is the Cannibal Holocaust and Classes in Seduction entries, where they quote numerous customs and government releases. Also, I'm not affiliated with the site; I merely gave them cut status based on a comparison of a cut and uncut print, and they credited me for it. This website has been used as a source in other featured articles without a hitch. Once I get access to the books again, I'll do further research. Helltopay27 (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've also removed the DVDaf.com citation, as the existence of said DVD releases should be evidence enough. Helltopay27 (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OKAY, let's review what issues have been raised:
    • The references have been fixed. The format is updated, and all book references have been revised to cite the specific pages.
    • The DVDManiacs citation exists no more.
    • The disambiguation links have been fixed.
    • The overlinking issue has been fixed.
    • As for the pictures, the LP cover has been removed, and I've given my argument as to why the images of the lion attack should be included: they provide a visual example of the violence of the scene without being excessively graphic. So far, nobody has commented on this, not even the person who originally brought up the issue.
    • The picture pages have been reformatted.
    • The seemingly only remaining issue is the credibility of Refused-Classification.com. I still contend that the website is indeed reliable, as the bulk of their information comes from the Australian government, as evidenced by the multiple quotes of customs reports, court transcripts, and OFLC rulings throughout the website. Helltopay27 (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 SandyGeorgia 03:48, 4 April 2009 [109].

Slovenian presidential election, 2007[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone

Lots of work has been made on this article since the last FAC attempt. I believe all the issues raised during the last nomination have been addressed, the article went through Guild of Copy Editors polishing and passed a GA review. I believe it is finally ready for a FA now. Thank you for your consideration. Tone 23:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that I did not evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources in Slovenian are from mainstream media, so is the one in German. --Tone 12:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tech.Review
  • External links are up to speed (checked with the toolbox checker tool)
  • The dabs are not up to speed [there is one that needs to be fixed] (checked with the toolbox checker tool)
  • Ref formatting is up to speed (checked with the WP:REFTOOLS script)--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Media Review - All images free; I moved one image to Commons for you. Good work. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 01:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

image comment - I would prefer if File:Glasovnica_za_predsednika_republike_2007.jpg credited the author of the subject, should also be tagged with Template:PD-text, otherwise fine, good job! Fasach Nua (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a ballot, an official document issued by the electoral comission, i.e. the state authorities. IMO, this doesn't require such a credit. Zocky | picture popups 18:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - not a show stopper by any means, but it would be nice if the article explained what finally happened with the votes from abroad, which were regarded as potentially contentious (and favouring the right wing) before the election. Zocky | picture popups 18:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about it. This source says that Peterle actually got some more of those votes than Turk but since the difference was so big, they didn't change anything. If I put it in the first round paragraph, it does not fit well but if I put it in the final results one, it still does not fit too well. The thing is that Peterle got 1106 and Türk 963 votes from the embassies while the ballots sent by mail were 2587 for Peterle and 2077 for Türk. Nowhere close to tip the scales. Do you have any suggestions how to include that? --Tone 20:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Zocky | picture popups 13:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Many of the issues I brought up in the last FAC have not been fixed. The prose needs a major overhaul. There are a lot of small grammatical errors. Listed below are examples only.

  • There are capitalization inconsistencies. Sometimes the article capitalizes "Government", "Prime Minister" and "President" when there are no names behind them; sometimes it doesn't. (I realize that there are occasionally times when this is necessary, but most inconsistencies here don't appear to be.)
  • "more than good" is not good prose
  • Some of the prose is still pretty clunky.
    • Where possible, the prose needs to be tightened. Examples:
      • "The disagreements however escalated " - why "however"?; that should probably be removed
      • watch for repetitive phrasing - "rejected President's candidates for the Governor of the Bank of Slovenia, beginning with the rejection of "
      • "Jelinčič had already run for the office " - why already? "had run" already tells us that this was int he far past. Perhaps you are thinking of "previously"?
    • In some cases, the grammar appears to be off. sometimes, it looks like words are missing. Examples:"the Roma family Strojans", "rejected President's candidates", "revealing, among other,". Also, check for verb agreement - "One of them were " should be "one of them was" etc
    • The Leading candidates section has several two-sentence paragraphs. Such small paragraphs tend to break up the flow of the section; I encourage you to combine and/or rewrite them as necessary to help the section flow better.
  • The article doesn't say whether presidential elections are held on a consistent cycle (every 5 years) of if they are called whenever the government wants to call them. Perhaps this could be included in the background section?
  • I think the background section may go into too much detail on the political workings in the previous presidency. It doesn't appear that all of that is completely relevant to this article.
  • I'd combine the two sections on the first round of the elections
  • Need a citation at the end of every sentence with a quotation in it. Example that does not have a cite "Prime Minister Janez Janša blamed Peterle's poor showing on certain topics that were brought up during the campaign by "hidden centres of power". "
  • Image stacking leads to large white space after heading Runoff campaign and before the text
  • The lead still contains a lot of information about a referendum; this is not mentioned at all (that I saw) in the body of the article.

Karanacs (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at the prose once more, I think the guild of copyeditors did a good work but there may be some details here and there yet to fix. Otherwise, I believe I have already fixed most of the issues you mentioned last time. Too bad the last FAC was closed just after you made your comments, I hope we can work it out this time.
  • Capitalization: when president refers to the function, it's lower case. When it refers to Drnovšek, it's upper case, isn't it the way it's supposed to be? Otherwise, no problem with fixing. Lower or upper case for all, what's better?
  • Maybe a good idea to add details about election in the requirements section instead, I'll do that.
  • I believe that the background section needs to go into details because it is the confrontation between Drnovšek and the government that set the stage for the election and the atmosphere surrounding it. I wouldn't want to cut it. It is relevant, more or less all of it.
  • I think we had only one section about the first round before but then decided to make two instead. I find it better because the second round and results are also separate. And the focus of each section is different.
  • There are citations for each sentence with "". The one you mention is ref 48, at the end of the sentence (because it refers to the whole sentence, I didn't want to put it in the middle and repeat again but it can be done).
  • I don't see any white space because of the image stacking. Maybe you are using another browser? What do you recommend in this case?
  • There is now a section on the referendum in results section as well. Again, the referendum needs to be mentioned because of the consequences both election and referendum had for the government.

So, I believe most of the issues are fixed already actually... I'd appreciate further comments. --Tone 17:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Karanacs 14:34, 3 April 2009 [110].

Vasil Levski[edit]

Nominator(s): Todor→Bozhinov'

I am nominating this for featured article because I've spent a lot of time working on it since I took it up in October 2008 and I believe it meets the criteria. The GAC review back in November was particularly optimistic, and the article has been improved since then thanks to a very helpful peer review. English sources have been used where available, but the best research on Levski's life is undisputably the work of Bulgarian historians, and so most of the references are in Bulgarian. Todor→Bozhinov 08:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Sources that are in languages other than English need to have that language noted in the reference
  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper. (Example ... New York Review of Books)
  • Current ref 64 (Vassil Levski...) is lacking a publisher
  • Current ref 68 (national sports...) is lacking a publisher
  • What makes http://www.bulgariasportbase.com/?magic=0.0.0.2 a reliable source?
  • What makes http://www.kirildouhalov.net/ a reliable source?
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I did not evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed your points. http://www.bulgariasportbase.com is the website of the state-owned company that maintains the Vasil Levski National Stadium, so it's pretty reliable with relation to that. http://www.kirildouhalov.net/ was used to cite a commonly known fact, but I've changed the footnote nevertheless, to a photo of the banknote. Thanks, Todor→Bozhinov 10:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend reduction of over-linking. Linking common English words such as "moustache", "inn", "gun", "knife", "abstain from drinking" or "of middle height" is annoying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was a pretty good suggestion, I have to say. I found out I've linked a bit too many common words. I've removed those wikilinks, but I've retained links to some common terms like democracy, republic, ode, political corruption or middle class because I believe they would be of use to the reader. Todor→Bozhinov 12:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref comments -- Errors found using WP:REFTOOLS.

  • <ref>"[http://www.aba.government.bg/levski/VL_snimki.htm Външен вид]", ''170 години''.</ref> | Does not use a citation template
  • <ref>"[http://www.aba.government.bg/levski/VL_avtob.htm Автобиография]", ''170 години''.</ref> | Does not use a citation template
  • <ref name="bio">"[http://www.aba.government.bg/levski/VL_bio.htm Живот и дело]", ''170 години''.</ref> | Does not use a citation template
  • <ref>"[http://www.aba.government.bg/levski/VL_Arabakonak.htm Обирът при Арабаконак. Процесът над Левски]". ''170 години''.</ref> | Does not use a citation template
  • <ref name="idei">"[http://www.aba.government.bg/levski/VL_idei.htm Идеи за свободна България]", ''170 години''.</ref> | Does not use a citation template--TRUCO 21:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
there is no requirement to use citation templates. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The best biography of Levski I have ever read (having read a lot about him). Hesitating whether refs/citations should be translated in English as English people usually balk at Cyrillic texts. Maybe this article is an exception because Levski is a Bulgarian national symbol/icon. In addition, the book of an English woman (well, maybe Scotch), Mercia MacDermott, deservingly features prominently in the article. --Lantonov (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - ver well-written and comprehensive article. --Gligan (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now by karanacs. This was, overall, a very interesting article. I know nothing about Bulgarian history, and for the most part the article did a decent job of explaining the necessary background. I believe the text needs a good copyedit, however. Some examples and other issues:

  • I'm unclear from this sentence The ideologist and strategist of a revolutionary movement aimed at the Liberation of Bulgaria from Ottoman rule, Levski founded the Internal Revolutionary Organisation, a network of secret regional committees seeking to instigate a nationwide uprising. whether internal Revolutionary Organisation is the same as the revolutionary movement described in the first half of the sentence. I suspect this needs to be rewritten
  • Watch for redundant prose. For example, "It was ... that..." can usually be reworded to be much tighter prose.
  • Watch for repetitive wording (for example: "In emigration...an emigrant ...")
  • Quote in lead needs a citation in lead (even if cited in article body)
  • "leaving Vasil a half-orphan"...um, there really is no such thing.
  • Do we really need to know that Ivan Kunchev's family was traced back to the 17th-century? Is that important later? If not, I'd remove it
  • "a whole, Vasil Kunchev's family could be described as belonging to the newly-forming Bulgarian middle class." -- could be described seems awfully wishy-washy. If they were middle class, just say so, otherwise, tell which scholar thinks they might haveb een
  • Don't wikilink names separately. I assumed "Archimandrite Basil" was the name of a person, but it isn't. The link to Basil needs to go away, and there should be a bit of explanation on what an Archimandrite is
  • Provide some context for the reader. Who is Panayot Hitov? A biographer, friend, etc? I had to check the link to figure it out. (same with the other names just dropped in to that paragraph)
  • There are several cases where the prose is a little too relaxed - for example "he got to know "
  • Any details on the "elaborate disguise" he had to use to avoid arrest?
  • Can you expand on "Levski's one-man judgment on important matters often came to be questioned"
  • The betrayal of Levski is a matter of heated dispute among Bulgarian historians and writers - to me, this implies that whether or not he was betrayed is the dispute; is that true or is it a question of who betrayed him? Maybe another sentence or two on the alternate theory would help
  • "was the killing of a servant in Lovech that the capital punishment was based on" - we haven't heard anything about this before....more detail?
  • "Levski developed a revolutionary theory, which meant a decisive step forward for the Bulgarian liberation movement" - this seems a bit...peacocky?

Karanacs (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

half orphan or half-orphan (plural half orphans) 1. A person, especially a child, with only one living parent. (see allwords.com, Wiktionary). --Lantonov (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed comment, Karanacs, you've brought up some good points. I'll be working on your suggestions tomorrow. All I can say right now is that it's really hard not to be peacocky when writing a biography of Levski. Also, it is unclear whether he was betrayed at all and by whom, so the dispute involves both points. I guess I should elaborate on that. Otherwise, I'm glad you think the article provides a good background for readers who are not familiar with the subject and its context. Todor→Bozhinov 18:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I believe I have addressed all issues you have pointed out above. I have added some information to all the parts which you thought should be expanded, but sometimes sources don't get much more detailed than what we already have. Also, I wouldn't like to elaborate too much on some peripheral matters such as the betrayal controversy, the killing of that servant or the dozens of anecdotal stories about Levski's disguise, so as to keep the article tightly focused on the important facts. Thanks again, Todor→Bozhinov 18:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been unable to contact Karanacs so she can check if I've really addressed all concerns and potentially change her vote. Any ideas about what I should do? Todor→Bozhinov 15:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like she hasn't edited in a few days, so I would give it a bit more time. I see that she asked for a copyedit, though, and these are representative issues. --Laser brain (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I can be expected to know what the other issues are if I don't get any feedback :) This oppose vote may be very important and it currently all of the examples given by Karanacs have been fixed. I hope Karanacs responds soon because this vote seems to be vital for the nomination to succeed or fail, and this is all pretty important. Todor→Bozhinov 15:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for a delayed response - illness and computer issues prevented me from editing for a time. I see that Tony1 has also gone through the article and his prose objection is satisfied. I don't have adequate time right now to go through the article again, but I will strike my objection because the vast majority of the time I agree with Tony. Good luck, and thank you for your hard work. Karanacs (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay: in fact, I feel a bit awkward for asking you to come back and review the article again. There are things that are more important in life than Wikipedia and that should be respected :) I deeply appreciate your trust and thank you. Todor→Bozhinov 21:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review as follows:

  • File:Vasil Levski.jpg, File:Levski2.jpg, File:Levski3.jpg requires source, author, and date. At the minimum, a source must be given. The author and the date need not be a factor since Levski died in 1873, and Bulgaria's copyright law is 50 years p.m.a., which means that unless the photographer lived beyond 1946 (to account for URAA), which is unlikely, the photos are PD. However, we still need the source.

Other than that, the outdoor shots are okay; even though Bulgaria does not permit freedom of panorama, the creators of the buildings and monuments have died more than 50 years ago. Jappalang (talk) 07:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some sources for those images, although I can't be sure where exactly the images were taken from. I can possibly add some info about the photographers and the dates when I get back to Sofia, but given the public domain status of those works, I don't think it's really important. Thanks for the review, Todor→Bozhinov 18:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine, all images are okay. Jappalang (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say that I've researched the authors of the individual photographs and included them in the image descriptions, with the year and in some cases the date the photograph was taken. Todor→Bozhinov 14:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Neutral; certainly improved. Stilted language, not a nice read. 1a not satisfied.
  • "renowned as the national hero of Bulgaria and styled the Apostle of Freedom." Sounds like I'm at the hairdresser's. Who styled him? A group of followers, or was he "self-styled"; this statement looks stubby.
  • "a network of secret regional committees seeking to instigate a nationwide uprising, that Levski founded." I think you mean "... the network of secret regional committees Levski founded that sought to instigate a nationwide uprising."
  • "... to join both Bulgarian Legions and several other Bulgarian revolutionary groups." "Both" means two. Several means more than one. Doesn't add up.
  • We're told twice in the lead that his nickname was Levski. Why is the title his nickname rather than his real name?
  • "he proceeded to propagate his revolutionary ideas and developed the concept of his revolutionary organisation"—easier, and probably what you intended, to say "he proceeded to propagate his revolutionary ideas and develop the concept of his revolutionary organisation". That is, he proceeded to do two things.
  • "several" twice. Careful of this word—it's vague. How many tours? Don't you know? And there are more vague numerators in the lead, thick and fast: a number of; numerous. One or two may be OK, but ease up on them.
  • a wide network, probably.

And spot-checks after the lead:

  • and the political actions towards the formation of a separate Bulgarian state." Strange use of "the": do we know about them already?
  • "another girl called Maria was born to the family, but died as a child" --> "another sister, Maria, died as a child". Do we need to know this? Seems trivial.
  • "Vasil commenced his education at a school in Karlovo and learned to read and write; he also studied homespun tailoring as a local craftsman's servant." Boring. What else would you learn to do at school? And the two halves of the sentence are uncomfortably linked by the semicolon. "Also" needs shooting down.
  • "In Stara Zagora, he worked as Basil's servant and spent several years studying at the class school of that place." This is not English.

Serious copy-editing is required. I would withdraw the piece, edit, and resubmit when it's written properly. There's a problem in the control of the level of detail. Trivialities are admitted; obvious points are made, or made too much of. Tony (talk) 11:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the mentioned issues have been fixed... I think. The title is his nickname because this is the way he is known: not as Vasil Kunchev, but as Vasil Levski. I've been intentionally vague about the number of tours. Besides the 1868–1869 two tours that are clearly described, there was at least one more during the establishment of the organization. We don't know the exact number of monuments and institutions either, don't think anybody has counted those. I'll try to find a native speaker to copyedit the article. Todor→Bozhinov 07:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to Oppose: I agree that an article on Levski should largely be based on the works of Bulgarian historians. But then why are most of the citations to websites and not to history/biography books? To show the differences, take a look at an FA that relies on Finnish language sources. Notice in this article that nearly all the references are to books. I would have expected the same for this article. For this reason, I must lean toward oppose as this article may not comprehensively cover Vasil Levski (1b) and may not be factually accurate (1c). --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article certainly doesn't rely mostly on websites for the biographic data. You were probably misled by the fact that the Commemoration section has about 30 of the the 83 references and it has been mostly referenced using online sources. All the references have been checked for their reliability, so I fail to see how the different way they have been published can influence your decision, really. Some of the online resources are books and articles by established publishers and this website, to which most online references in the Biography section point, is an official publication of the Bulgarian government. I am pretty convinced that my coverage of Levski matches the expected level and I'm confident in the accuracy of facts in the article. Todor→Bozhinov 07:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is right now the article reads like a hagiography. The cause may be the website sources that were used. I took a deeper look at the sources. Even if you exclude the Commemoration section, leaving only the biography sections, more than half the cites are to websites. Among the bibliography (which I thought were all books), Manova points to Radio Bulgaria (that one alone is cited 11 times) and there are a lot of cites to http://www.aba.government.bg/ which according to the English version is the site for the State Agency for Bulgarians Abroad. These are not sources that are known for their historical studies. When books were cited, Бакалов do not give page numbers, Стояновъ is from the 19th century, and Кондарев is from 1946. I would recommend largely using modern solid biographies by historians if they exist. This is especially important for someone who is a prominent hero of the nation. I am striking the Leaning to and changing to a full oppose. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bakalov (Бакалов) is cited in the CD edition, which, understandably, does not have page numbers. There are no new biographies of Levski (that are not reprints of Undzhiev (Унджиев), Stoyanov (Стоянов) or Strashimirov (Страшимиров)). Levski has been dead sinde 1873, which means that pretty much all the data about his life has been available since then. The sources that I've used are the most comprehensive and accurate biographies of Levski. I don't see why Radio Bulgaria and the State Agency for Bulgarians Abroad, a ministry-level institution, cannot be considered reliable for basic facts. I really don't see the problem with online sources and how they can affect the quality of prose either.
I don't know how Finnish Civil War can be an FA with uncited paragraphs and sections (!?), one citation for huge blocks of text and short two-sentence paragraphs. There ought to be better examples to illustrate your point: I mean, the article you're asking me to compare to mine is worse referenced than this one... Todor→Bozhinov 09:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the point of the comparison. It was not to make a comparison of the two articles. It was to show an example of an FA that largely used scholarly, non-English sources; the Vasil Levski article does not. Instead, it relies largely on government websites that are not involved in the area of historical research. The article reads like a hagiography, possibly due to poor sources used. I would recommend to undertake new research in the library, revise or perhaps rewrite the article, and bring it back here. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't miss the point at all, I was just remarking that the article you used as an example is, overall, worse referenced than mine, and therefore an awful example. I still maintain that my referencing meets the required standards and there is nothing more to be researched. So far, I've seen nothing particular that can question the reliability of my sources. And I'm sorry, but "rewrite the article" doesn't just sound ridiculous, but almost disrespectful to the hours I've worked on this piece. As for the quality of prose, see below. Todor→Bozhinov 19:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, R.J. Crampton, an Oxford history professor whose focus is 20th century Bulgarian history, cites Mercia MacDermott's Levski biography (referenced in the article) as both "well-researched" and "hagiographic" (Here). Nevertheless, her biography is the most thorough English-language text on Levski to date. The article gives fair attention to Levski's misdeeds (see the paragraph on making Levski a saint) and also presents the current doubts surrounding the hagiographic myth that a colleague betrayed Levski to his persecutors, as Judas did to Jesus. After contributing to this article, I learned a lot about Levski (mainly from the sources) and would liken his historical treatment to that of George Washington. Researchers haven't scrounged up much dirt on either of them.—Raskovnik (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, I was not pinged to revisit this FAC; in any case, I remain opposed. You mention MacDermott, but it is not cited at all; in other words it does not look like it was used at all except for the transliteration definition. And as you mentioned, even that source is not one of the best. I see that new sources were recently added (e.g. Crampton) which is definitely an improvement. But if one eliminates the Commemoration section (which by itself is almost all cited to web sites), one is left with a biography section of which half is cited to websites. Since you mentioned George Washington, the analogy of this article in an American context is a biography on him in which a significant portion of the text is based on the websites of Americans Abroad organisation and Voice of America Radio as sources. That would not be accepted as FA as it violates 1c. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say MacDermott's bio isn't one of the best; in fact, I've noticed that bibliographic sections of Levski-related texts frequently cite the bio, making me wish I had access to it. I do, of course, respect your input and am now adding more sources (especially Crampton). I'm finding, however, that such texts lack precise dates found on the referenced websites, which makes me hesitant to dismiss or delete these online sources. In particular, the frequently cited Agency for Bulgarians Abroad online text is written by an assistant professor (Vania Racheva) in the history department at the most prestigious university in Bulgaria and includes sources. But to reiterate, I'm more than happy to keep researching additional sources.:)—Raskovnik (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I didn't ping you, but given that you were the latest opposer and you had been around just a day before the copyedit, I assumed you were following the nomination closely. In addition, your reason to oppose is not only the quality of prose, but also the perceived bad referencing (which I disagree with), so I though you wouldn't just change your opinion after a copyedit. Thanks for revisiting though :) Todor→Bozhinov 06:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I noticed that Raskovnik has doubled-up some of the cites with a second cite to a book. That definitely reduces the impact of those online sites. By the way, the appearance of online sites having additional useful information as compared to books is misleading. Online sites often use poor sources and add old anecdotal information that may not be accepted in an academic book or paper. If you could backup the remaining text that have cites only to the websites (Agency/Radio Bulgaria/Online news, examples: [5], [23], [29], [31], [51], [52], [57], [60], [61]) with additional cites to Undzhiev, Crampton, MacDermott, Jelavich, etc., then I will cross out my opposition. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will certainly try to meet your referencing standards, even though I disagree with your view that websites are, by default, inferior as sources. Particularly the State Agency for Bulgarians Abroad microsite devoted to Levski is a pretty credible and itself well-referenced resource. As Raskovnik pointed out, Vanya Racheva is an assistant professor of Bulgarian history at Sofia University. Not only that, but she's also a specialist in the Bulgarian National Revival, which is the period that covers Vasil Levski's life. She cites this online publication of hers in her resume along with her books and scholarly articles, meaning that she herself hands it no less importance.
I don't see why articles by established publishers such as Radio Bulgaria, The Sofia Echo (largest-circulation English-language paper in Bulgaria), Sega (a major national daily) or the Zemya archives (once a large-circulation weekly) should be snubbed either: a few days ago we had the Lazare Ponticelli article on the Main Page, which is a biography referenced using mostly online newspaper and news agency articles by reputed publishers. It employs hardly any offline resources for the entire article.
As I said, I promise I'll work on adding Undzhiev and MacDermott footnotes when I have the time (that is, Saturday/Sunday), it's just not possible for me right now to even lend the books once more, what's left to put them to any use. Todor→Bozhinov 10:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Racheva article may look credible, but the question is the publication process. If she wrote a scholarly book, she writes it knowing her peers will carefully examine her output. A website is only a short-term marketing exercise; the content may be solid, but how much confidence could we have in it? Did it get peer-reviewed? Did a government editor change it for marketing purposes? As for Ponticelli, the quality level of the sources depends on the field. For a biography on a contemporary person, news sources may be the best and perhaps only sources available. However, that's not the case for top historical figures. Most of the biographies on WP:FA on 19th century figures (and earlier) are sourced to books because they are our best sources. You will probably find very few, if any, cites to news or radio sites. Granted, that does makes the research work searching relevant literature much harder. But then you are writing about a national hero, not Britney Spears. :) --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how the government could be involved in marketing, but I've added citations from another scholarly source, a chapter of a book written by Doyno Doynov, a professor and doctor of history and a Bulgarian National Revival specialist. I was unable to visit the library and lend Undzhiev and MacDermott this week, but I hope these new references will be of help. Todor→Bozhinov 09:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) The new source certainly helps, but I see that of the 12 new Doynov cites, only three provided additional support to a web-only citation. There are passages that are still sourced only to the websites of Bulgarians Abroad/Radio Bulgaria/online news. As I mentioned previously, for a biographical article of a prominent historical figure, these are not high-quality sources and thus they violate criterion 1c. I found the following:

  • to achieve what our French brothers have been seeking...
  • Turks, Jews or others—should enjoy equal rights.
  • his moustache was light brown and his eyes appeared hazel.
  • but was arrested in Zaječar and briefly imprisoned.
  • relations were maintained with the revolutionary diasporic community.
  • fake personal and committee names.
  • Levski's assistant Dimitar Obshti defied his orders
  • Obshti and the other perpetrators were soon arrested
  • inspired one of Levski's informal nicknames, The Deacon (Дякона, Dyakona).
  • Rakovski exclaimed, "This is a lion's jump!"
  • the principles of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen,
  • the Russian vice-consul Nayden Gerov.
  • but those assumptions are based on uncertain data.
  • actualise his concept of an internal revolutionary network.
  • his views on the revolution had clearly matured.
  • tactical matters were increasingly questioned.
  • while attempting to extort money from a wealthy local.
  • liberation once Bulgaria was reestablished.
  • and did not tolerate corruption.

If these could be cited to Doynov or some other solid source, then I am willing to pull my oppose. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


UPDATE: The article has been copyedited by Raskovnik, a native speaker and a teacher of English (big thanks for that!). The people who voted oppose based on the quality of writing are more than welcome to review the article again. Todor→Bozhinov 19:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping all of the opposers for a revisit (they may not have the FAC page watchlisted). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Todor→Bozhinov 08:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony and Karen have amended their votes after the prose and referencing improvements by Raskovnik. Thanks, Sandy, for your patience with this nomination :) Todor→Bozhinov 21:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've economized the prose and rearranged sentences to streamline the article's flow and style; however, its structure and sections are already well-organized. No facts are missing (admittedly, I considered deleting some facts), and the historical background section succinctly covers the relevant Bulgarian resurgence during the Ottoman Empire's decay. The extensive references and citations contain quality research, and I've added additional academic English-language sources available through Google Books for non-Bulgarian speakers.—Raskovnik (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. EDIT: Struck, Steve T • C I'm leaning towards supporting, but there are a few points that may require clarification first:

  • Lead: "before emigrating to join the two Bulgarian Legions and other Bulgarian revolutionary groups." It's not clear to someone unfamiliar with the Bulgarian Legions that they were set up outside Bulgaria, rendering that "emigrating" somewhat confusing. Would "the two Bulgarian Legions in Serbia..." suffice?
  • First Bulgarian Legion and educational work: "After the legion's disbandment, Levski joined Ilyo Voyvoda's detachment at Kragujevac, but returned to Rakovski in Belgrade after discovering that its plans to invade Bulgaria had been all for naught." I'm not entirely sure what this is referring to. The "all for naught" is vague enough to mean anything from the simple disbandment of Voyvoda's detachment, to some kind of defeat.
  • Hitov's detachment and Second Bulgarian Legion: "In November 1866, Levski visited Rakovski in Iaşi. Concurrently, two revolutionary bands... had been inciting the Bulgarian diasporic community in Romania to invade Bulgaria." It seems odd to say "Concurrently... had been". The former suggests the incitement occurred at the same time as Levski's visit; the latter that it began before the visit, continuing throughout. If that is the case, you'll see that removing "Concurrently" retains the meaning while eliminating the ambiguity, as Levski's subsequent selection as Hitov's standard-bearer indicates the detatchments remained active.
  • Creation of the Internal Revolutionary Organisation: "The internal correspondence employed encryption, conventional signs, fake personal and committee names." I assume the intent is "fake personal names and fake committee names"? In which case, the sentence is ungrammatical and should say, "and fake personal and committee names." If the intent is otherwise (fake personnel?), then repair accordingly.
  • Creation of the Internal Revolutionary Organisation: "Levski resorted to an elaborate disguise to evade arrest during his travels. For example, he is known to have dyed his hair and to have worn a variety of national costumes." This doesn't seem a particularly elaborate example, though the wording suggests he was some kind of master of disguise. Would the sentence lose anything by getting rid of that "elaborate" ("Levski resorted to disguises to evade arrest...")?
  • Creation of the Internal Revolutionary Organisation: "The political and organisational experience that Levski amassed is evident in his correspondence dating from 1871–1872;" in this instance, "from" and "to" are complementary and should be spelled out (i.e. "dating from 1871 to 1872).
  • Commemoration: some overlinking in this section. Museum, and perhaps some of the more well-known place names (e.g. United States).
  • Throughout: a mix of national varieties of English are used, e.g. organisation/organization. A good way to spot further examples is to open an edit window within a browser that checks spelling as you type, and in the options ensure the language is set to the variety required by the article. In Firefox, for example, this will then underline in red all instances where the wrong variety has been used (among other words it doesn't recognise, unfortunately).
  • Throughout: "autumn/winter/spring"—for southern hemisphere readers, these will be "spring/summer/autumn". Consider using spans of months where the information is available.
  • The prose is generally good, though it could probably use another pass by someone familiar with removing redundancies that serve only as bumps in the road of smooth reading. Note: there's no requirement to do this to get my vote of support; there are no particularly egregious examples.

Otherwise, nice work! On the sourcing issue, that several online sources are used is not a problem in my view. For example Vanya Racheva's tenure as an assistant professor of Bulgarian history at Sofia University should be more than enough to prove her a credible source. I don't buy the argument that online sources are inherently less reliable than print sources; Vanya Racheva's reputation is as much at stake—if not more so, considering the ease of access to her words—online as it is had she written a book. All the best, Steve T • C 14:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed comment! I think I have fixed all issues that you have pointed out but the last two (the redundancy check and the seasons thing). Quite often, my sources explicitly use seasons and this is often the only data we have available: if you feel this can be confusing for Southern Hemisphere people, we can add some kind of footnote explaining that it refers to Northern Hemisphere seasons. Todor→Bozhinov 15:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds an excellent idea; one footnote on the first instance should suffice. Steve T • C 16:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done :) Best, Todor→Bozhinov 16:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←Support; my oppose has been struck after TodorBozhinov's speedy and characteristically gracious responses. It was a pleasure to review the article. Good luck, Steve T • C 16:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, I don't find anything I can complain about, except one of my pet issues below. I hope you can resolve the sourcing issue above—I regret that I don't know nearly enough to weigh in on the topic. Good work.
    • "This later inspired one of Levski's informal nicknames ..." Avoid beginning sentences with the ambiguous "this" in reference to something prior. This what?
--Laser brain (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: for a national hero, you usually have a dictionary entry. Any chance of getting an audio pronunciation of his name in Bulgarian? Ottre 23:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

OPPPOSE not enough references and too many in not English. An article of this length should have more references. 141.161.92.138 (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The IP was blocked for disruptive editing. This oppose can be discounted. -MBK004 04:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What happened to the committees after Levski's death? Why? See page 11 of Dimitrov, Vesselin. (2001). Bulgaria: The Uneven Transition. Routledge. ISBN 0415267293. More at Jelavich & Jelavich (see below) p. 138. Also, Rumen Daskalov describs a "crisis" in the revolutionary movement after Levski's death... Daskalov, Rumen. (2004), The Making of a Nation in the Balkans: Historiography of the Bulgarian Revival. Central European University Press, ISBN 96392418300.
  • What on earth is a half-orphan?
  • Unless I missed something, the article gives only a very sketchy description of how extensive the networks were. How many cities? How many people? What was the geographic spread as measured in miles or kilometers? How many "region-wide revolutionary centres" were there? There are some good numbers on p. 89 of R. J. Crampton R. J. Crampton (2007). Bulgaria. Oxford University Press, ISBN 0198205147.
  • What the heck did all these committees do? Did they do anything substantial?
  • Did they have the support of all the Bulgarian people? Did some people oppose them? Why? Were other groups less radical (e.g. the Bulgarian Society, see page 117 of Kellogg, Frederick (1995). The Road to Romanian Independence. Purdue University Press. ISBN 1557530653).
  • Mmm. along those lines, looks like the lack of popular support may have been a major factor in the committees' lack of success, see approx. pp. 137ff of Jelavich, Charles & Jelavich, Barbara (1986) The Establishment of the Balkan National States, 1804-1920: A History of East Central Europe. University of Washington Press. ISBN 0295964138. See also more on lack of popular support, with brief explanation, on pp. 135-36 of Roudometof, Victor (2001). Nationalism, Globalization, and Orthodoxy: The Social Origins of Ethnic Conflict in the Balkans. Greenwood Publishing Group, ISBN 0313319499.
  • Again and again the sources indicate that levski's assistant gave up levski's name and details of the committes only because he was attempting to establish bona fides as a political captive. This is not mentioned in the article.
  • Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that this is an article about Levski, there is a separate article about the Internal Revolutionary Organisation which is supposed to provide more in-depth information about the network of committees, its members and its proceedings. In my view, the Vasil Levski article gives a more than adequate overview of IRO without getting overly engaged with what should be treated in a separate article. Vasil Levski is trying to be a featured article, not a featured topic.
A dictionary definition of "half-orphan" was already quoted, but since the word isn't known by most people as it seems, I've removed it.
If you are interested in more specific details about IRO's network of committees, Dimitar Obshti's confessions or even the entire history of the Bulgarian National Revival, please expand the relevant articles. But this is a biography of Levski and as such, it attempts to stay tightly on topic, while of course providing a useful but brief background. Todor→Bozhinov 12:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. It is about Levski, but shaves off context to the point where Levski and his movement float along in a vague cloud of glory. Opposable on 1c and 1b grounds.
  • Moreover, if his death caused a crisis in the revolutionary movement, that is very strictly relevant.Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That might be notable, and I will include it. I still strongly disagree with your first point and I'm very wary of turning this into a comprehensive "History of the revolutionary movements in 19th-century Bulgaria", but I will see what I can do to reach some kind of compromise: would including the data from Crampton be enough? You have to excuse me, but I hope you understand that I'm pretty exhausted of responding to new comments after a nomination that has taken over a month now. The article should have been promoted more than a week ago in my opinion... Todor→Bozhinov 13:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your weariness.
  • However, if you take that weariness and multiply it by 30 or so, and you have the weariness of the (conscientious) FAC reviewer.... Moreover, ummm, does the article stress the fact that one of Levski's major contributions relocating the revolution to places inside Bulgaria, rather than basing it in other countries? Not sure that point was hit clearly enough.
  • Moreover, if he struggled against a lack of public support, as it seems he did, then that too is strictly relevant...Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have stressed that point in the intro, although it was also made clear in the relevant section ("Revolutionary theory and ideas"). I have also inserted some brief info about committee membership, the lack of universal support for a revolution, and the crisis in the movement that Levski's death exacerbated. I don't believe there is any even remotely accurate data about the number of committees or even places, or the exact geographical spread of the network. I do think that the info about Levski's assistant Obshti belongs in the relevant biographical article, not here. Thanks for the suggestions and once again excuse me, but this really is pretty stressful :) I do hope the nomination comes to a successful end pretty soon :) Todor→Bozhinov 14:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 1b. Having just finished reading the sections which you have indicated are the ones that contain some discussion of the lack of public support for his movement (not a lack of support for independence; rather, a lack of support for his tactics etc.), I see absolutely no mention of it at all. Am I missing something completely? I also oppose the idea that that the precise nature of the committees' activites should be left undiscussed. The activities of the committees were the goals of Levsky's activities and the culmination of his most important work, and thus are directly relevant. I can accept putting most of the descriptive info about the makeup of the committees into a sepatrate article. I also oppose the lack of discussion of the fact that apparently Levski was alone in insisting that he Bulgarian revolution should not seek help from outside countries, while seeking such help was the main feature of other Bulgarian revolutionaries' plans. I also suggest that the fact that Levski wanted all the revolutionary committees to be based in Bulgaria (a related, but separate point) is not explored in relation to other methods advocated by other revolutionaries... To sum up, who was Levski? He was the one who wanted a revolution by Bulgarian people on Bulgarian soil, without seeking outside help. He was the one whose life's work was the actions of the committees... however, those actions are left undiscussed herein. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence that I inserted before is exactly about the lack of support for an armed revolution, though I have added another sentence about the lack of support for an independent struggle now, hope that helps. It's all in the first paragraph of "Revolutionary theory and ideas" now, I hope you can find it. Levski's idea to base all the committees in Bulgaria is already mentioned. I have also added a sentence about committee activities. If this is not enough, then please provide more feedback so I can address your comments more effectively.
P.S. I'm never going on FAC again, this nomination has been hell on Earth :) Todor→Bozhinov 13:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Todor, if this is your idea of hell....(?). This FAC has been a light, fluffy, sweet piece of angelfood cake. Some comments, some light criticism. I think there's one and only one Oppose (mine). No drama. No blood on the floor—not even a little tiny bit.Is it hell because the article was not Passed in under two weeks? Is that why it was hell? If so, then.... your idea of hell is an extremely gentle place. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is another oppose and the nomination won't be successful if it was to be ended now. Never mind the post scriptum, it's not directed at you or anybody. Let's just say that this FAC has been much too stressful to be worth it for me and leave it there. Also, a smiley was used so that you don't take it too seriously :D
So can you please comment on my recent updates (see article history to locate them easily) and reply as to whether this is a step in the right direction: I'm ready to address the concerns you have brought up as best as I can, but I need your feedback as well to eliminate those issues. Thanks, Todor→Bozhinov 16:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your high-quality contributions! Is there anything I can do to help you improve the article, particularly with regard to your own objections? Or have those been addressed effectively? Todor→Bozhinov 07:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are more references than actual text. It is not worth to be FA.-- MacedonianBoy  Oui? 19:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How am I supposed to address this concern? One has to note that the user has had a personal issue with me and my nationality. He has been blocked for abusing me in the past and such an ungrounded oppose smells like vendetta to me. I'm officially requesting that this oppose vote is not taken in consideration. Todor→Bozhinov 20:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an actionable issue (citations are GOOD) and under the FAC instructions will thus be disregarded. Don't worry about it, Todor. (An actionable request along these lines would be "the article does not adequately cover X topic".) Karanacs (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Karen. I was really worried about this. Guess I'll take a break from Wikipedia once this nom is over (or over the coming weekend for sure), I'm beginning to take this too seriously and I'm experiencing a fair amount of wikistress, which isn't healthy in any way ;) Todor→Bozhinov 20:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing with someone here, the article is too short and is not worth to be FA. That I have been blocked here do not mean that my vote is not counted. Is this civilized and democratic ency? Yes, it is, according to the rules everyone can edit here. I do not like this article, it is not good to be FA and that is it. There are much better articles that should be FA, but this one no. And spare us from sending false messages TB, my vote is equal as the rest votes.-- MacedonianBoy  Oui? 20:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You do have as much right as anyone to enter comments; however, all reviewers are expected to limit their commentary to actionable requests. "I don't like it" and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aren't actionable comments - that means that there is nothing the nominator can do to "fix" the "problem". If you believe that content is missing from the article, you should provide concrete examples of topics that are missing or reliable, preferably scholarly sources that have not been consulted. It might be wise to look at some of the other FA nominations and see how the other reviewers make comments so that you can see what is expected of a reviewer. Karanacs (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'd like to say that Nico Ditch is over four times shorter and an FA. It's not about length, but comprehensiveness, as our criteria point out. Todor→Bozhinov 20:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Too short" is not an oppose rationale. If you believe that the article lacks coverage of a relevant detail, say so. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be nice if the article used {{harvnb}} {such as in the article on William Shakespeare) with the incline citations to make it easier to navigate through. 98.166.139.216 (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, but not required. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've introduced {{harvnb}}, but I can't get most of the links to work. Any troubleshooting suggestions? I'm not experienced with this template. Todor→Bozhinov 08:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the date= field to year= which seems to have fixed a lot of them. Some still aren't working; this may be an issue over the use of special characters (some that look the same may not be quite right). I'll take another look at it later, see if I can straighten it all out. Steve T • C 10:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I think the links that are currently broken may have something to do with the presence of more than one author for each publication. Does anybody know how the template should be formatted to link correctly to such references (Cornis-Pope & Neubauer 2004; Дойнов et al.; Jelavich & Jelavich)? Todor→Bozhinov 11:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Using last2= and first2= instead of coauthors= should resolve the issue, though it will result in the names' being displayed as they are in this example (lastname, firstname; lastname, firstname). Steve T • C 11:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that got it fixed :) Thanks a lot, Steve! Todor→Bozhinov 11:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, with strong suggestion: Well, crippity cripes... I was trying to help you by tracking down as many of RelHistBuff's objections as I can, and improving them as much as possible. But then I hit what may be a very nasty wall. Bakalov (Бакалов) is cited 11 times by my count. I wish I didn't have to tell you this, but on page 355 of this source (email me for copy): [Mosely, Philip E. (1937). The Post-War Historiography of Modern Bulgaria. The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 348-366] I found: "The lives of all the leading revolutionaries have been re-written in Communist style by Bakalov; interesting in their stress on class conflict within the revolutionary movement, they are in no sense scholarly." I sorta suspect the Bakalov in our article is a revised edition of the earlier version(s) that Mosely demurs. If we were professionals, we would get right on this, tracking down the relevant info. We would care. Does Wikipedia care? I don't know. I am unable to answer that question. Anyhow, here's my strong suggestion: find someone with access to MacDermott's bio, and ask for help. You really do need to get rid of those questionable websites that RelHistBuff mentioned, and to be honest, I'd be willing to bet my neighbor's ox that you could find 90% of the relevant info in MacDermott. Finally, the article still needs work on 1b, at least by my standards... In particular, though, a lot of the info I would like to see explored (see my comments above) is on page 89 of Crampton. I'm withdrawing my Oppose, not 'cause I support, but I have no time. Good luck. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 11:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work and your suggestions! Just like I promised to RelHistBuff, I am totally willing to work on improving the referencing in the near future, and this I promise to you too. I have been planning to get MacDermott and Undzhiev (best scholarly bio of Levski in my opinion) from my university library, but unfortunately, that can happen in the middle of next week at the earliest, and I'll be able to devote significant time and resources to further research only towards the end of next week. I'm working full time and I do feel like I need a more or less complete wikibreak for the coming weekend. That coincides with a trip I've planned, so two birds with one stone, one might say.
I'm going to look for an original English-language edition of MacDermott, though I suspect my library might only have the Bulgarian translation. You never know, though.
I don't think we have anything to worry about Bakalov, though. I'm not aware of his work during the Communist period, but the source I'm using is a new publication by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and has been revised, if not rewritten. There is no Communist wording there. The guy is deputy rector of Sofia University, responsible for the university's research activities and one of Bulgaria's most prominent historians: he's certainly a credible source.
Is the journal really from 1937? Georgi Bakalov was born in 1943 and it seems weird that a 1937 would talk about Communist style in Bulgaria. Communism was taboo pre-1944 :)
You have my word that I'll work on the issues you've pointed out. Thanks again and all the best, Todor→Bozhinov 11:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In case anybody was wondering, we've sorted out the Bakalov issue. Turns out there was another Georgi Bakalov who was a Marxist historian and journalist: Georgi Bakalov that I'm citing is a modern historian. Todor→Bozhinov 07:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wish I had the words to say this in a way that would not offend anyone, but I am not sure I do. I will just say what I think, and if everyone wants to ignore and/or revile me, they are welcome to do so. I have been reading and reading about Levski, and have come to a conclusion: This article is slipping through the cracks of Wikipedia, and is not receiving the focused attention it needs in order to be FA-quality. It does not, in its current form, present a coherent picture of who he was or what he did, or why, or why others did not do what he did, etc etc etc. I am not insulting its authors. Writing is difficult. It requires a great deal of thought. This article doesn't say why folks weren't trying to run the revolution from Bulgarian soil (they considered it too dangerous). It doesn't clearly state that Levski and Karavelov joined two organizations together, doesn't clearly say what his Levski's principal contributions were (what does "ideologised and strategised" mean?). It doesn't do several things that it should. For example, it doesn't tie key ideas together... But people want comments to be "actionable". But I am saying, there is no way (in my opinion) that this can be made FA-quality within the normal timeframe of a FAC. I can't give actionable comments aside from "large sections need to be rewritten for clarity, and checked for possible hagiographic tone". Rewriting those sections requires researching the topic thoroughly, until the editors understand it fully, in order to be able to explain it clearly. At least as far as I can see, and may everyone forgive me if I am wrong, no one in PR or FAC has yet done so. It would require a nontrivial amount of time and effort, and I cannot do it... The FAC and PR processes implicitly assume that the info presents the whole picture in a coherent form; they then check mainly for surface problems. The problems here are not surface ones. So perhaps my comments are not "actionable". That's up to Sandy and/or Raul and/or Karanacs to decide. If they are not, then forgive me. I cannot Oppose because everyone will want "actionable comments", and as I said, my only comment is "it is not coherent, and needs nontrivial rewriting". I'm sorry. Consider this a symbolic oppose, not an actionable one. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to Ling.Nut.Public's comment. My contention was that the sources used were weak (violating 1c). But what Ling.Nut.Public has exposed is that poor research results in gaps in coverage (violating 1b). Hence, even if one could "patch up" the 1c violation by doubling up cites, this is not enough. Therefore I would again reiterate that the editors undertake new research in the library, revise or perhaps rewrite the article, and bring it back to FAC. The FA standards are high, but with some more work this article should be able to meet those standards. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article looks much better now. Jingby (talk) 09:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Todor provides us with another great article.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Sandy and Karen, I believe we've had a consensus in support for a while now. The only active oppose vote by RelHistBuff (bar MacedonianBoy's vote that we have agreed should not be considered) is not actionable in the sense that it is now based on the non-actionable comment by Ling.Nut.Public. I do not agree that the article has to be rewritten, and this seems to be a minority view compared to the seven supporting votes and the three oppose votes that have been struck. I cannot and will not rewrite the article: the current piece has gathered a significant majority in support and a rewrite or any major revisions may be irresponsible on my part. When an article is overwhelmingly regarded as being of FA quality, a rewrite is pretty much the most illogical thing one can do, and I won't take that risk in order to have a single oppose vote struck. Furthermore, that would be a major violation of criterion 1e: an article that has been thoroughly revised or rewritten is by no means stable.

Also, I firmly believe that my referencing meets criterion 1c. The criterion itself mentions nothing more than "high-quality reliable sources" and "a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature", and my sources certainly conform with this. Using book sources or certain authors (when all are reliable) is not a criterion.

I expected the nomination to take two weeks at best and it has been over five weeks now. This is nobody's fault, of course, what I mean is that I've been finding it increasingly difficult to respond to comments and votes, and I do believe we have a consensus that the article meets the FA criteria.

Thanks, Todor→Bozhinov 11:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point I made about going back to do the research and rewriting is only a suggestion for a solution. However, the problem still exists; that is to say, the violation of 1c. It is not acceptable to use Radio Bulgaria/Bulgarians Abroad/online news sites for the biography of a major national character when scholarly biographies exist. Raskovnik pointed out through a link to Crampton a nice little bibliography for Levski noting three biographies: MacDermott, Genshev, and Undjiev. The first two are not used at all. The last book is only cited twice. But instead online sites that are not specialised in history are heavily used throughout the article. This means the article is not "characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature" (the key word here is relevant). The whole point of "high-quality" sources was to avoid the use of weak sources such as websites and rely on scholarly sources (see Jackie Robinson FAC as it was an example used during the criterion discussion). Finally, one can see the impact of not using high-quality sources: 1b comprehensiveness problems as Ling.Nut.Public pointed out. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I realize you're vocally opposed to this being an FA and you'd really like to emphasize that, but I think we can get away with your oppose vote, no offence. We have already discussed the "weak sources" issue and we've reached a deadlock. Nothing is forcing me to use books if my online sources are also reliable, and nothing is forcing me to use any specific authors if the other publications I have cited meet the FA criteria. I have said that I will work on introducing more book sources at some point, but this is just because I'd like to make the article as good as possible. Please remember that it's just a minority opinion that the article violates 1c, it's your view, not a fact, and I cannot stress this any further.
There really is no point in repeating the same stuff over and over again, and my comment is explicitly addressed at Sandy and Karen anyway. Todor→Bozhinov 13:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to barge in; I haven't been following this discussion closely since I registered my support for the article's promotion, but just to restate a point I made above, I don't have a problem with your using online sources instead relying wholly on books; if the information they provide is the same, and the source is reliable, then I'm OK with that. I suppose the only concern is that the book sources will contain significant additional details that the shorter online articles do not. Am I right in believing that you have read these books? If so, can you say that—as per 1b—you've left no major aspect of Levski's life unexplored, that the books don't cover significant areas untouched by the online articles? If you can, then I'll be happy to let my support stand. All the best, Steve T • C 13:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do believe my article is comprehensive and covers criterion 1b. I have read Undzhiev and I used MacDermott in my research (though I didn't have the book with me while doing the actual writing, so as to include footnotes). I've also read the Doynov, Stoyanov, Bakalov, Kondarev and Castellan books in their entirety. I'm confident that my online sources have their facts straight and I do not think I have omitted any major facts. Todor→Bozhinov 14:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. Good luck, Steve T • C 15:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm sorry to change my mind but my previous assessment was based on examination of the prose (or "surface" as Ling.Nut put it). I've spent a few days reviewing the concerns of Ling.Nut and RelHistBuff. I'm convinced now that either this has not been researched as well as it could be, or the right information didn't make it into the article. I think this should be archived now so the sources and the use of sources can be thoroughly vetted. Let's find an interested expert - why not contact a few academics in the field and have them provide a list of essential sources? Or better yet, have them review a working outline? --Laser brain (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, given that Ling.Nut's comments are not actionable and RelHistBuff's oppose is based on those comments as well, I'm stuck with non-actionable comments and votes here. There's really nothing I can do and all these comments seem to lack any concrete basis in my opinion. I maintain that the article is well-written and well-researched and it meets all of our criteria. I'm not required to go beyond the criteria, am I? Or should I rethink my goals? FAC has really been a confusing and stressful process for me, it seems to be too much for my common sense and reasoning. Todor→Bozhinov 16:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but how can you assert that my opposition in unactionable? I even gave you sample actions that you could take in response to my opposition. If you choose not to take them and maintain your position that the article meets 1b and 1c, despite the objection of two reviewers I know to be very careful and conscientious commenters, then that is your choice. But, it doesn't mean it's unactionable. I surely understand your frustration! I am working on an article now that, once posted at FAC, has a fair chance of meeting opposition based on the sources I chose to use. I attempted to head it off by building consensus nearly a year in advance about the sources I planned to use. However, most FAC reviewers weren't part of that conversation. I also corresponded with 9 different recognized experts in the field to get their opinions on which sources should be used. Someone could still oppose it—I could disagree with them, but I certainly couldn't tell them their opposition in unactionable. --Laser brain (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I have misunderstood you, but it is unactionable in the sense that it is not actionable within the timeframe of a FAC. I cannot be expected to do all the research again, contact experts and rewrite the article for a few days, and that would be against consensus (and against the stability criterion!) anyway. Archiving a nomination that has a large majority of support votes is simply not a serious suggestion. That's what is causing my frustration. Todor→Bozhinov 16:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - thorough, well-documented, interesting. Much improved since nomination too. It seems unfair to call for "a few academics in the field" to review the article - we hold no other candidates to that standard, and the academic sources speak for themselves. - Biruitorul Talk 18:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1a. Complete rewrite required. I'm unhappy about the "actionable" business for a very simple reason: the whole thing needs to be rewritten, top to bottom. Sure, I could put up a couple examples of unclear English (such as "he propagated his views and developed the concept of his Bulgaria-based revolutionary organisation, an innovative idea that superseded the foreign-based detachment strategy of the past" or "Levski ideologised and strategised a revolutionary movement"), but then the nominators would want to throw a patch over those and call it "done." As I said before, this article takes a ton of information—much or even most of it important—and presents it in a manner that lacks coherence, lacks the kind of organization and clarity that permit the reader to easily grasp Levski's contribution to history... Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 02:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I won't go from violating 1a in your view to undisputably violating 1e. I won't rewrite a piece that I've spent months researching and several weeks writing because of vague comments I do not agree with. I think we really need to reconsider the way FAC works because it may continue to force prominent editors to leave the project. I can't take this nomination anymore: in my view, it should have been promoted long ago, but I couldn't care less if it's not promoted now, I just want it to be over. Todor→Bozhinov 06:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Todor, please. Please stop taking this personally, and please stop this "significant editors will quit" stuff. It's... immature, and it's a form of "office politics": I won't get my way, so me and my friends will raise a stink... Everything I'm saying is the same as what Tony said a while back. It's possible that Tony and I are both complete idiots. I grant that possibility. It's also possible that he and I are complete... jerks, to put it nicely. I grant that possibility as well. Can you at least consider the possibility, then, that we are neither idiots nor jerks, but are expressing opinions based on an unbiased view of the article? Please stop. Please... grow up. I'm sorry, I have to say it. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 07:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I accept your opinion, so you might consider accepting mine. This is not a welcoming place, it puts off editors and it's an unpleasant experience, very much like a month-and-a-half-long rollercoaster ride after a hearty meal: I didn't sign up for this. Am I not entitled to an opinion as well? I'm not sure why you're involving Tony anyway, his comments were entirely different and the issues he pointed out have been long fixed. I haven't called you an idiot or a jerk and I'm not even sure why you're using such language to illustrate your point. Now archive this nomination, please, I just can't stand this. Todor→Bozhinov 08:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Please calm down. This is nothing. It is not a crisis. It is not even a major problem. It is not anything at all... Everyone in America is asleep now. No one will archive it until several hours from now. Moreover, archiving it now is... not a mature response by any means. But... well, whatever. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yep, I am jerks and idiots in other respects, Todor, but here, all you need to do is to engage with our critiques. I reluctantly changed to "Neutral", so I wouldn't be thrilling myself over that. A few spot-checks:
    • "and began to actualise his concept of an internal revolutionary network"—"Actualise" sounds like Orwell 1984-speak. Can we be plain?
    • "Despite insufficient documentation of Levski's activities in 1870, it is known that he spent a year and a half establishing a wide network of secret committees in Bulgarian cities and villages." There is a ref. three lines later ... is this one of the "insufficient" clues to this claim? It "is known" among whom? The verification is having a bet both ways.
    • "The goal of the committees was to prepare for a coordinated uprising." Remove "for", unless the committees were preparing to fend off the uprising from another source. Tony (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It should probably be noted that the nominator has indicated his desire to archive the FAC and has taken a Wikibreak. I agree with the archiving; the opposition to this article's promotion is probably too great to resolve within normal FAC timescales, but I hope Todor will reconsider about not renominating when he's back. Steve T • C 08:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure that this is actually a wikibreak. Todor indicated that he just wants to "relax". I propose that the FAC director or his delegates give the FAC a couple of days. If Todor remains inactive or if he insists on his calling for the nomination's archiving, then just do it. If he (hopefully) changes his mind, then IMO this nomination should start from scratch with a new entry, so as the reviewers to resume their comments, helping the nominator (to engage with their critique), the FAC director (to properly assess the situation), and the reviewers themselves current and future ones (to compare, assess, and further judge).
  • I think that, as it is now, this FA is impossible to follow. By the way, I am sorry to see that Wikipedians, either nominators or reviewers, declare furstrated wiki-breaks, just because of a FAC tension. But I can understand it, because I have also been in the past in similar stressful situations.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Todor has expressed an intent to take a several week wikibreak [111]. There is no point in leaving the nomination open while he is gone; Todor is free to bring it back when he returns. Karanacs (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Karanacs 14:25, 3 April 2009 [112].

Criticism of Tony Blair[edit]

Nominator(s): Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is an interesting topic and a thorough article. It is an important page as it deals with Iraq war, etc. It has been heavily worked on by many editors. It would be of great interest to anyone reading it.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose. Sorry, but this seems to need a total reworking. The lead is two sentences long; the article at no point even mentions who Blair is; the body text is just a laundry list of assorted complaints, some of which border on outright BLP violations ("Blair continues to be condemned internationally as a liar" and so on), with no apparent attempt made to provide evidence as to whether they're true or to put them into context; I count five "citation needed"s, and one is unacceptable on a controversial high-profile BLP like this; there are some glaringly dated statements ("As of August 2005 Blair had yet to collect the medal…" when five seconds on Google would have shown this is no longer the case, for example). Plus, this is your sole contribution to the entire article. Sorry to be harsh, but I'd strongly suggest withdrawing this nomination now. – iridescent 15:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Per Iridescent and bad formatting of references. — R2 16:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This article has existed since September 2006, when it was broken out from Tony Blair. A comparison of the article at creation to now shows what might be expected of an article that has had 130 total edits, no more than 10 by any single editor: this is not a comprehensive, cohesive article about significant criticisms, but rather a coatracky list of complaints. It is a little better cited than most, but that is saying very little; many of the sources do not meet WP:RS. Many of the assertions are blatantly NPOV in presentation. Undue weight is a problem throughout, beginning with the "Bush's poodle" comment in the lead. From a BLP standpoint, this is unacceptable on many fronts. Maralia (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Apparently prepared without any knowledge of or concern for FA criteria or for WP policy, this is about the worst featured candidate I've seen. A template for how not to do it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be too harsh, I'm sure the nom was made in good faith. Let's not scare him off. — R2 20:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Fix the 1 disambiguation link found with the dab finder tool.
  • Fix the 1 dead external link found with the checker tool.
  • The ref (''http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6908308.stm) needs to be cited properly and a ref name should be used instead to cite this ref more than once, checked with the WP:REFTOOLS script.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 21:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - sorry, but nowhere near Featured in too many ways to be fixable in any reasonable timeframe -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will withdraw the nomination. I agree the way in which it is written is not up to standard, it was really the content which I thought might be of more interest.217.43.238.206 (talk) 09:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Featured Articles are intended to represent the very best work on Wikipedia, not the most interesting..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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 Raul654 20:07, 2 April 2009 [113].

Terri Schiavo case[edit]

This article went through several FAN's in 2005 but never made it. It has since been renamed from Terri Schiavo to shift the focus more towards the historic legal case, not the person, and the amount BLP-ish information has been reduced. The prose of the lead section back then suffered from a vagueness that has been overcome with the move away from BLP. The article has just had a terse but constructive peer review and the issues raised have been addressed. Please note that all FAN's and PR's were under the old name, but naturally, the ArticleHistory template on the talk page is comprehensive. The previous FAN is here.--Lagelspeil (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow,I remember when this happened, especially that the disconnection from life supported happened on my fourteenth birthday. I took a look at the article a few days ago coincidentally. I have some nitpicks on the inline sourcing:
    • concerned with cognition, perception, and awareness. - Need a source.
    • Electrolyte imbalance can be caused by losing fluids. Her medical chart contained a note that "she apparently has been trying to keep her weight down with dieting by herself, drinking liquids most of the time during the day and drinking about 10–15 glasses of iced tea." Iced tea is a mild diuretic; that is, it is a food that causes fluid loss. However, the low potassium could have been a spurious result caused by the intravascular administration of fluids during the attempt to resuscitate her. It is unclear whether she was bulimic. - Need a source.
    • Schiavo remained comatose for two and a half months. When she emerged from the coma, Schiavo regained a sleep-wake cycle, but did not exhibit repeatable and consistent awareness of herself or environment. While initially fed by means of a nasogastric feeding tube, she eventually received a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding tube—inserted through the abdominal wall. - Need a source.
    • where she received neurological testing and regular speech and occupational therapy until 1994. - Need a source?
    • Schiavo's husband trained and became a respiratory therapist and emergency room nurse. In 2004, he was hired as a nursing supervisor at the Pinellas County Jail in Florida. - need a source.
    • From 1998 to the end of 2002, the Schindlers were locked in a struggle in the courts, first to decide if Schiavo should be removed from life support and then the appeals by her parents to block this determination. This legal struggle received no significant publicity. This phase started with her husband's initial petition to have the feeding tube removed and involved four legal decisions of note. Michael did not directly make the ultimate decision about whether Terri should live or die: he petitioned the court, asking it to act as Terri's surrogate and determine what she would decide to do if she were able. The court determined that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. While Michael remained interested and visible in the proceedings, he had conceded control to the court and the Schindlers now faced the decision of the court. In many ways, the legal status at the end of these five years was the same as immediately after these initial court decisions, but up until the end of this time, the story had received little coverage in the media, and thus it was still a family affair. During this time, some legal discovery occurred as to Terri's medical situation, but, none of that new information had much bearing on the legal case since her PVS diagnosis was the decisive element. - need a source.
    • (2nd DCA) and came to be known by the court as Schiavo I in its later rulings. - Quick source needed.
    • care and treatment for Terri. The Schindlers further suggested that he was wasting the assets within the guardianship account by transferring Schiavo to Pinellas Park, Florida hospice "after it was clear that she was not 'terminal' within Medicare guidelines" for hospices. By this time, while still legally married to Terri Schiavo, Michael was in a relationship with Jodi Centonze, and had fathered their first child. Michael denied wrongdoing, stating that the Schindlers had actively encouraged him to "get on with his life" and date since 1991. Michael said he chose not to divorce his wife and relinquish guardianship because he wanted to ensure her final wishes (not to be kept alive in a PVS) were carried out. The court denied the motion to remove the guardian, allowing that the evidence was not sufficient and in some instances, not relevant. It set April 24, 2001 as the date on which the tube was to be removed. - needs sources.
    • "2.5 Schiavo III & IV: PVS diagnosis challenge" - needs sources in the entire section.
    • The Schindlers' other attorney, Pat Anderson, was concurrently challenging Michael Schiavo's right to be her guardian, and, on June 16, she made a petition for writ of Quo Warranto, a pleading that asks "by what right" someone acts in an official capacity. - Needs a source
    • It is contempt of Congress to prevent or discourage congressional witnesses from testifying. The purpose of the subpoenas was thus to postpone the feeding tube removal. - source?
    • Although Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Senator Rick Santorum, and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay brought the possibility of sanctioning Greer on charges of contempt of Congress, Congress did not attempt to enforce the subpoenas or take any action against Greer. - Source?
    • Sections 4.3, 5 and 6 need better inlines.
As a favor, I won't oppose you, I'll just leave them as comments, but I suggest you fix up the sourcing fast.HurricaneCraze32 :  Chat  April Fools! 10:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I have incorporated most of it into the article. I will attempt to make section 6 "Public opinion and activism" a bit more terse. It has always been a problem child for this article.--Lagelspeil (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, the prose is also very choppy due to the number of short short paragraphs. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ a b c Yü (1986), 421.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/April_2009&oldid=304480053"