Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/August 2007

August 2007

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

The article was not promoted 17:53, 31 August 2007.

---

2007 Malaysian Grand Prix

Nom restarted (Old nom) Raul654 16:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. I looked at the article and didn't think what I read was too bad. I simply felt it required a copy-edit. I therefore proceeded, and I think pre-race and qualifying are now up to scratch. However the lead places emphasis on the wrong areas. The race section requires a re-write to the extent that I don't think the prose is currently good enough for GA, let alone FA. There are a lot of positives: sources seem good and if the images aren't fair use I can rectify this. I'm willing to work extensively to get this article it up to FA standard, but I don't have the time to adopt a current FAC. BeL1EveR 13:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• 'WHY' has this been restarted. The list of nominations is very long already. We deserve a short, substantive reason for each restart. Tony 02:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • From who? From Raul654? My request for a short rationale for closures was slapped down pretty hard: " he has a huge workload; please don't suggest that it be even marginally increased".[1] If so this seems like a marginal increase to me and no more deserving. Mark83 13:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I really do want to know why a huge list is further blown out by restarts, with apparently no good reason. Very unhappy about this. I think the default should be a fail. Tony 07:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Err, excuse me? If you haven't realised, people over at WP:F1 have worked trying to get this article to FA status? And your their saying it should be default fail? If you didn't realise we've been improving the article via the previous comments, and I think Raul654 noticed that, therefore he extended the time, so we could make further edits. Ans as for you thinking it should be fail, at least give us constructive criticism to work on, don't just be stubborn and give it a fail like that. Davnel03 14:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Calm down! In Tony's defence I believe he is talking about processes in general - not this article in particular. As for "constructive" or not might I suggest that calling somebody stubborn is far from constructive. Ironically you're attacking a user who supported the original FAC! Mark83 21:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - So wait - does anyone else have any comments on how to improve the article toward FA status? Guroadrunner
  • I don't think anyone does. If no-one else has any comments, the article should be promoted as nothing is concerning anyone. Davnel03 12:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I would say it's still in "seeking comments" status instead of "automatic promotion" status? It seems like there was some dissent. Guroadrunner 11:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Well I addressed all the points before the restart, so there's nothing else I can do to improve the articles now. I guess it's just "let's wait and see...." Davnel03 15:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Actually, in the case of an article that goes little/no feedback, the default is to fail the nomination. Over the last couple years I've decided I really don't like doing that, so I tend to leave things on the FAC a long time to get some comments. Raul654 17:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Fine, so why restart it?

Issues

• MOS breach: "two tenths"; and others.
• "pretty (no closing quotes).
• We have "1.3 seconds", to one decimal place, but three decimal places elsewhere (three seems too much, esp. for distances in the infoblot).
• "Race"—is there some way of merging the stubby, choppy paras?
• "Hamilton started to struggle in the latter stages"—Remove what I call startitis"—"H. struggled ..."
• "aggresive" Tony 11:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 17:53, 31 August 2007.

---

Kirby (Nintendo)

I've been looking after this article for a while now, fixing it up and getting it to GA status back in April. Personally I think that the article could be considered Featured Article status at this point; all of the images have Fair Use Rationales, there are twenty-two references, and all of the specific sections appear to be covered rather well. Kirby may not be as significant as other Nintendo characters, but that doesn't make his article any less worthy of being a Featured Article. Disaster Kirby^Talk 22:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I've only given the article a cursory glance, but it looks like it's coming along well and you're doing a good job. But I'm afraid the references are not properly formatted; see WP:Ref. Plus, "Kirby's Rainbow Resort" is often used a reference, but it looks quite a bit like an unofficial fansite, and therefore not a reliable source. There are also many stubby paragraphs, especially in the "Other information" section, and several sections seem to be lacking references.--Dark Kubrick 03:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The references need improvement like the comment above says. I also agree about the stubby paragraphs. I'd be more willing to support if these problems are fixed. --RandomOrca2 15:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I notice that the paragraphs are less of a problem now. However, I'll still oppose until the references are replaced to be more reliable. --RandomOrca2 04:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional support - The "other information" section needs to be 90% cut and 10% incorporated into the other sections. Also, in the appearances section needs to mention where kirby has been seen in popular culture. Judgesurreal777 19:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment—not bad, but needs work to attain the required professional standard of writing. Here are random samples, just from the lead:
• "with the same basic abilities- he can walk,"—no way: either a colon or an em dash. NOT a hyphen. "or" inhale ... There are other examples where hyphens are wrongly used. Read MOS.
• "As such his games"—Comma after "such", please.
• There's an awful lot of "Kirby" in the lead. Rephrase to reduce its occurrence. Tony 01:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Support From what I can see all the problems have been fixed.Rlk89 21:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Support I think some of this can be condensed or trimmed out, but nothing that should keep it from FA status. RaidOverHoboken 06:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - as Tony said, this needs more copyediting. Some things I noticed:

- "His other friend is one of a few blue fish who works at a bar known as the Blue Fish Bar, who is also one of Kirby's informants." - I'm assuming the bar isn't Kirby's informant.

- "He can be impulsive, such as how he accuses Dedede of interfering with the Fountain of Dreams..." - Could be phrased better.

- "(Which was originally to be titled 'Twinkle Popopo' instead of the current 'Hoshi no Kaabii' or Kirby of the Stars.) - This is a fragment and would be better attached to the previous sentence and taken out of the parentheses.

- In general, a lot of the writing seems choppy and repetitive. One example I noticed was the "Kirby is a character of few words..." paragraph, which contains a lot of "however"s and almost reads like a ping-pong match of fact, however, fact, however, etc. The "In anime, manga, and comics" section has a lot of "Kirby also x" or similarly phrased statements back to back.

Don't get me wrong; this is better by far than the majority of video game articles I've seen. It just needs more polishing. Crystallina 04:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, 1c. Reliability of sources can't be evaluated when publishers aren't identified. Please format citations correctly (see WP:CITE/ES). All sources need a publisher, websources need last accessdate, and author and publication date should be provided when available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose until Sandy's concerns are addressed; they go to the heart of the authority of the project.
  • MOS breach in spelling out converted unit.
  • MOS breach in final period of caption that is not a complete sentence.
  • "Personality" finishes with a hanging stub. Merge. There are other stubby paras, too.
  • MOS breach; read em dashes; but should be a comma, probably: "He is also fearless - though other characters". Tony 12:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 17:53, 31 August 2007.

---

Halfbeak

previous FAC

Support as nominator. Problems since this article was reviewed last year (see Archive) have been fixed. Bruce Collette (probably *the* halfbeak expert in the world) at the Smithsonian Institution looked over the article and described it as "quite well done", so I'm happy that the science is solid. He was kind enough to send me some scientific papers that I've used to improve the verification of the facts as listed in the article. Since I write about these fish for the fishkeeping press, I'm quite happy that the aquarium aspect is robust, too. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 15:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Object. It's a fine article, but the following problems (minor, I hope) need fixing.

• References should be given just once; use named footnotes to cite the same source in multiple locations. This problem afflicts many references, e.g., Mahmoudi & McBride; Collette. They all need to get fixed; there shouldn't be any duplications in "References".

• In references, the title should be the link, not the publisher. This problem afflicts Mahmoudi & McBride and perhaps others.

• Some references use templates like "cite web"; others don't. It's generally better to always use templates, or never use them, for references, so that you get consistent appearance.

• Some references are last name first, others first name first. They should be consistent.

• Book and journal titles should be in italics. Using templates would fix this in references.

• All URLs in references need a "Retrieved on" date (or accessdate= if you use templates), unless they are to stable URLs of refereed journals.

• Ranges should use en dashes (–), not hyphens (-). Typically this means page ranges in references. There are still some instances of this, e.g., "57-67". Please look at every hyphen in the source and see whether it should be an en dash.

• Boldface shouldn't be used for names, except in the topic sentence. See WP:MOSBOLD. This affects all uses of boldface in the text, except for the first sentence and for the "Type 1", through "Type 5" list. There are still some instances of this: Hemiramphinae, Zenarchopterinae, freshwater halfbeaks.

• The "see [[IUCN red list#Categories|here]]" isn't right. Wikipedia articles should be written so that they're useful even when printed out. Spell out what the link is meant to be.

• Several / One or maybe more references have stray periods. Search for two periods in a row (in the article, not the markup) to fix them. Search for "]." in the rendered text; right now I see "spiders.[13].[14][15]".

• Footnote 41 (as of this writing) precedes the period at its sentence end, rather than following it.

• Tibbetts's name is misspelled.

• Shouldn't the article mention Euleptorhamphus velox, which can glide through the air like a flying fish?

• Here are some dumb questions that are not answered in the article but which I hope someone can find answers for (doing this part is optional if the answers are not known):

• How long do halfbeaks live (in the wild, in captivity)?

• How long have halfbeaks been around? What's their evolutionary history?

• How much do they weigh?

• When were halfbeaks first discovered and/or mentioned?

• Is there a map of their range in the wild?

• Have the numbers of halfbeaks increased or declined lately? (This question comes up even for species that are not vulnerable.)

• How do these fish stay alive in the wild? Are they fast swimmers? (They look like it, but the article doesn't say.) Do they school? Do they hide? That sort of thing.

Eubulides 06:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I will digest and hopefully implement these changes soon. As for your "dumb questions", while I can answer some of them off the top of my head, finding verifiable sources will take longer. Neale Monks 10:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe I got most of the stuff related to referencing and citations done. I also changed the taxobox image size and "In the aquarium" section title as according to WP:FISH. MiltonT 16:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, many of the problems are fixed. A few minor problems noticed as I struck off the above items, problems which were introduced in the recent copyedit:

• The "Heterochrony in Jaw Morphology of Needlefishes" reference is messed up; the authors are missing, due to a typo in the use of the citation template. There are similar problems in other references. In general the "References" section needs to be copyedited as carefully as the rest. Kind of a pain, but there it is.

• A dangling link to [2]. Please continue to check the outgoing links and make sure they're there.

• Redundant wikilinks in the references to places like IUCN_Red_List. The general rule for wikilinks is that you need only one per section or so, to any particular place, and this should be true for the "Reference" section too. Admittedly it's harder to get right.

• No need to say "Nelson, 2006" in the text, since there's a citation. "Nelson" suffices unless there are two Nelson references. Better yet, reword the text so that "Nelson" appears only in the citation. This is an encyclopedia article, and it's better to omit sources' names in the text unless the sources are part of the subject.

• Briefly explain "monophyletic"; a general reader won't know what it means.

Eubulides 19:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Tried to fix some of that stuff. I used the {{IUCN2006}} template for the IUCN links. Should I not?MiltonT 20:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I struck out more things. It's a bit awkward that the template does that, but I guess it's OK. Maybe someone can fix the templates sometime, but that's not a Halfbeak issue per se. Eubulides 20:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Tried to answer the dumb questions. There's some Life History stuff now that quantifies size, growth rate, maximum age/size, and weight for a typical marine species. A cladogram has been added to simplify the evolutionary history/relationships of the group. Social/feeding behaviour has been outlined, including info on their speed (specifically acceleration rather than prolonged swimming). Hyphens have been corrected. Flying halfbeak is mentioned (under behaviour). Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 16:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, most of the stuff is struck off now. At least one hyphen still needs correcting, as noted above. Wow, you guys have been busy! I'll reread it now and see what I can find from the new stuff. Eubulides 07:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, here are some problems I noticed, I think all introduced by the recent changes:

• Misspelling: "artisinal" -> "artisanal".

Done.

• In Esox brasiliensis, just the Esox is wikilinked. It would be better to wikilink the whole species name, for consistency. Perhaps Esox can be wikilinked later in the sentence, when it appears alone.

No, because Esox brasiliensis is synonym, and a clunky one too: Esox the genus contains the pikes, and when these fish were first described hundreds of years ago, they were lumped in with the pikes. There's no point labouring this because it's all historical more than scientific.

• The phrase "erected the genus" is too obscure for the general reader. It should be explained the first time it's used.

Changed, but "erected" is actually formally correct in systematics.

Sorry, I didn't mean for it to be changed, just explained. It's up to you, but one possibility is to change it back to the formally correct term, and then put in a parenthetical remark explaining what "erected" means. The term "erected" is still used in the article so the issue still needs fixing one way or the other. Eubulides 22:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• No need for Theodore Gill's middle name, surely.

Truncated to "Gill"/

• "basing its name off of" sounds a bit odd. Perhaps "basing its name on"?

Fixed (to "derived from").

• The sentence "Halfbeaks are named after their elongate…" is a jarring change from the previous sentence. Doesn't this sentence belong at the end of the previous paragraph, perhaps with some linking text?

Deleted; it's already mentioned in the into.

• (very minor) "Taxonomy" ends ".[4][3]"; ".[3][4]" would be nicer.

Gone anyway.

• The image in "Evolution" is very useful but is too wide and needs to be reformatted or something. Some people have narrow screens. Given the info, it should fit in 300px I would think. A combination of larger fonts and shorter tree-links should do the trick.

Done.

• Should standardize on "flying fish" versus "flyingfish". Both spellings are used in the article. I think "flying fish" is the preferred one in Wikipedia.

Done. Flyingfish is preferred by Fishbase, so I'm going with that. There's a bunch of different groups that include fish that can fly, but there's only one "flyingfish" family.

• I got lost in the last paragraph of "Evolution". I couldn't relate it to the diagram. Some of the sentences didn't make sense to me, e.g., "Though morphological evidence places Oxyramphus closer to the flyingfishes, molecular evidence places it with Oxyrhamphus,…" Maybe trim it? Or add another diagram?

Re-written to be shorter and clearer (hopefully).

• "SL" should be defined before being used, e.g., "standard length (SL)".

Done.

• Missing space after comma in "relatively large,".

Done.

At this point I stopped. I'm afraid it does need a copyedit for stuff like the above. Perhaps an editor could do a copyedit for the whole article? I could then review from "Morphology" on, after that. Eubulides 08:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Neale Neale Monks 11:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I struck out more stuff. Please reply here once the copyedit is done; I'll review from "Morphology" on after that. Eubulides 22:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose—1a. Needs copy-editing throughout, by someone fresh to it.
  • Starts with plural, so the "It" that starts the second sentence is a bump.

Done.

• • Comma after "modes"; in a long sentence, give readers a place to pause and collect themselves. Audit the whole article for comma use. Again, "vivipary,".

Agreed, and done.

• • Is "also" necessary? There's another in the second para. Hmmm.
  • Hint for future writing: "ALthough" is more formal than "though".

A bit subjective, if you don't mind me saying. I like both words.

• • Personal hate: "UPon"; what's wrong with "on". Plainer is easier and smoother; UPon is not a claim to elegance.

So? Not sure FA status should stand or fall on personal hates! I don't like articles that use non-SI measurements, but that's just me.

Looking further down, briefly: The Phylogeny caption is HUGE; the figure is likely to squash the main text into a slither. Read MOS on captions. "Juvenile needlefish pass through a developmental stage where the lower jaw is longer than the upper jaw, sometimes known as the "halfbeak stage", so it has been hypothesised that halfbeaks are paedomorphic needlefish, that is, halfbeaks as adults retain characteristics of the juvenile stages of their ancestors, the needlefish." Long snake that needs chopping up. ...so ... that is ... that is ... "with needlefish being relatively derived in comparison"—ungrammatical; use a semicolon to get rid of the "with" connector and the noun + gerund blot. "by comparison"? Tony 01:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This whole segment has been rewritten. Agreed, it was cumbersome. That said, phylogeny isn't an easy topic, and virtually impossible to boil down to tabloid newspaper level English! So please go back and see if it makes sense to you now. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 11:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comments
  • The opening sentence once the statement in brackets is removed reads "Halfbeaks is a geographically widespread and numerically..." Should this read something along the lines of "The halfbeaks are a geographically widespread and numerically abundant family of epipelagic fish inhabiting warm waters around the world?". The current wording sounds wrong.
  • It might be a good idea to link to articles on pH, salinity, water hardness etc from the aquarium section, as i can imagine some people wondering how water can be hard ;)

Support; two of the previous items i reconsidered to be fair. A very good article

Kare Kare 06:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Still oppose—1a and MOS. Get someone else to copy-edit thoroughly. Here are sample glitches.

• Sentence starting with "Also"?

Fixed.

• "The eyes and nostrils are placed at the top of the head"—Spot the redundant word.

Fixed.

• "Very" is usually very redundant.

Hardly relevant here. That's your opinion entirely.

• "the length or shape of the beak"—check "or".

Done.

• Stubby paras.

Will have this looked at. perhaps you can be more specific? Are these sentences misleading or unclear because of their length, or do you simply not like short sentences because of some unpleasant experience with one in your childhood?

• "20 m (66 ft)"—Don't link them (oh, "millimetres" linked? Three times in two sentences? Please delink all of the units. Kilogrammes? Who spells it that way?)

The British spell Kilogrammes thus! And since I'm British... that's the way it was spelled. Will have the units fixed.

• "Flies"—hand up who doesn't know what they are. Why link? "Blood"?

Oh sheesh... OK.

Flies isn't wikilinked as far as I can tell, so not sure what that's about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neale Monks (talk • contribs) 13:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• "4.8–11 mm (.19–.43 in)"—MOS breaches in inconsistent decimal places and omission of leading zeros.

Agreed.

• "with broods of around ten to twenty, 10–15 mm long offspring being typical"—This is a bombsite: spell out or numerals? Two hyphens missing ("; offspring of 10–15 mm in length are typical").

Agreed.

Tony 12:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I appreciate your comments and help. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 12:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 17:53, 31 August 2007.

---

John Cena

Very good article, suitable references, pictures seem to go with the text. If there are any issues, I will sort them out. Davnel03 14:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Personal Life section seems rather brief. Is there nothing else to be said about this guy? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 15:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Not without it coming off like a trivia section. The stuff that was there (his brothers, college attended) was moved into the biography section of the article to try to clean it out.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 01:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Object too listy, too little prose, and 4 ref columns (hard to read, try 1). Sumoeagle179 18:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  •  Done trivia section. Can you say anything major that can be changed. And by the way, how can we make it not too listy? Davnel03 08:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The listy thing is kind of a wrestling problem. CM Punk passed FA despite the same kinds of lists.«»bd(^talk _stalk)
    • I really don't like how long the reference section is now. Would two columns be a problem? Nikki311 17:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I've changed it to two, but in my opinion, it still looks too long. Davnel03 18:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I really don't like ref columns of 2 or more, I much prefer single columns. ANything else makes it hard to read the refs.Rlevse 23:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
    • OK, I've changed it back. Davnel03 07:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The "personal life" section might as well be labeled "trivia" because thats what it is. None of the information there is important to the article, its just a bunch of random facts that don't have a place in the main space of the article and should, in my opinion, be scrapped. --Naha|^(talk) 20:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Johnny Fabulous, John Cena's father is still not mentioned in the article. The fact that he is also in the pro wrestling business makes the information notable and it should be added, and referenced. --Naha|^(talk) 20:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - there is room for improvement with respect to prose; namely its diction, sentence structure, and strength of cohesion. The article also suffers from nasy overlinking - with numerous links irrelevant to the context or otherwise simply redundant. -- Chris.B 22:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Is there any specific things you dislike, any lines that catch your attention? Davnel03 15:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, a little bit of everything. Please see WP:DASH; the article mixes spaced emdashes, unspaced emdashes, and spaced endashes. WP:MOSBOLD breaches. Incompletely formatted citations, all publishers aren't identified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 17:53, 31 August 2007.

---

Baltimore Urban Debate League

I think the article meets all of the criteria for it to be a featured article. The prose is written well, all the images are free and/or have fair use rationale, everything is sourced according to Wikipedia's guidelines and generally meets every aspect of being a featured article. - Thx2005 16:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

From a quick glance, I can see that there are some sections lacking any inline citations. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 17:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Needs a bit of Red link removal at the end of article, and could use a few more inline citations. Other than that: Good job! •Malinaccier• ^T/C 20:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Speciy in the lead that Baltimore is located in the United States. People wrongly assumes that everyone knows what Maryland is, and could be a little harder for someone trying to establish the geographical context of the article. CG 11:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - many sections have no citations and appear to be personal observations of how the BUDL operates. Secondly, the article uses a lot of BUDL's own website as a source, which is not allowed for an FA. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, suggest peer review to prepare for FAC. WP:MOSBOLD, WP:DASH, WP:FN, and WP:MOSNUM breaches, inadequate WP:LEAD, numerous short choppy sections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 17:53, 31 August 2007.

---

Andrew Saul

I am nominating Andrew Saul because I know that it is extremely close to becoming a featured article. As it stands now, the piece comprehensive, verified, contains no original research, and in line with all policies. It has undergone some peer review(including automated) and GA-nomination. It may need a few style changes and some copy editing, but nothing that should preclude it from FA-class that I can see. It will help to have some fresh sets of eyes and collaboration. I'd just like to say before hand that I realize it is long. It is about 9,000 words, most of the 70Kb is actually markup.

I know that the first part of the TSP section and the TSP Funds probably have the least to do with Saul himself, however I think explaining them is integral to understanding the rest of the article for a nonexpert user, since it talks so much about the TSP and the funds. I realize the funds portion is nearly verbatim from the TSP wiki-article (which is itself verbatim from the TSP government website), however I am not a finance expert and I'm really not qualified to explain it any better then it already is(and I have modified it a bit from its original format, so now its more like the TSP article copies this one). The only other issue I've had is wether or not to wikilink all the dates. Any guidance on this would be appreciated.

Anyway, I hope that you will support Andrew Saul for FA-class once any small issues are dealt with. MrPrada 03:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment on stability of politician articles

• 'Comment i think this candidate should be suspended until the congressional election has finished

I would like to note that the election is not until November of 2008, which would be an awfully long time to suspend a nomination. Also, wasn't the Barrack Obama article on a Presidential candidate recently on FAR and kept? See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive2. That candidate is in a January '08 primary election. The congerssional portion of the article is about 1/5th of the total content, I personally do not believe that should preclude it from gaining FA-status. Now, it is a valid argument to keep it off of the main page. MrPrada 21:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Yeh i know but in other fac's, i.e. the simpsons movie, they insisted on waiting until it was released on DVD, so i suppose it add's to the articles encyclopedic value. But, go for whatever you guys think is appropriate, you're the professional's, i just thought i'd give my 2 cents

Active politician FAs: Jean Schmidt (congresswoman), Thomas Brinkman (Congressman), Bob McEwen (former congressman), Barrack Obama (presidential candidate), Wesley Clark (Presidential candidate). All of these FAs have the ongoing election tag, all were nominated and/or survived FA-review close to or during an election season, which provides precedent to consider Saul for FA-status a year and a half before the election. But thanks for sharing your opinion—like I said, if their is a consensus opinion to suspend the nomination, I will not object, although I do not see how it can be done in the face of the precedent to include such articles as FAs. Its more about the quality then the timing, to me at least, and in the case, fifteen months out, an argument against promoting it based on timing is very hard for me to agree with. MrPrada 21:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Comments

1. Image:MTA disc.png is a copyrighted image and use in this article appears to be for decorative purpose only. At the very least, the image fair use description should contain a fair use rationale for use in this article.

Will research if another version of the logo is available. It doesn't have to remain in the article, since I found a photo of him in a MTA station. MrPrada 21:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done MrPrada 20:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

2. The section "Congressional campaign" contains a banner that the content might change, which is (a bit) at odds with the requirement for an FA article to be stable. Any ideas on that? I do not know how this is usually dealt with.

I will research into the other WP:BIO FAs about active pols and respond to this. My understanding is that stability means that it has not been the subject of an ongoing edit war between several groups of editors (the Obama article was one fringe editor versus a large consensus, that was not enough to say it should be delisted for instability). I think that adding or changing content over time, by editors who are keeping up on the topic, would not be a hinderance to the article or detract from the quality. If it degenerated into some kind of edit war as the election approached, it could always be brought up for FA-review.MrPrada 21:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done See below. MrPrada 21:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

3. Image:Thriftboard1.jpg does not have a caption in the article

Why did you struck this one? --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a caption in the markup, it is not displaying for some reason. I have trouble with the image: tag from time to time, perhaps someone could help me fix that? MrPrada 21:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done MrPrada 20:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

4. Perhaps the numbers under "TSP funds" can be in the form of a table, that would help the readability

Will get on this ASAP. MrPrada 21:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done MrPrada 21:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

5. Some links under "External links" could use a short description

Will get on this ASAP. MrPrada 21:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done MrPrada 20:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

6. Under "Early career and background" there are some inline external links. Personally, I prefer that these are converted to wikilinks, linking to (stub) articles explaining the topic. The external links can go in the stub article then.

It would be difficult for me to write stubs on these organizations since I am not acquainted with them, nor am I positive that they are particularly notable. Is there a policy against inline links in FAs? If so, I could remove them entirely and just leave them dark. Personally, I prefer being able to associate them, but I would prefer to leave it how the community feels is best. MrPrada 21:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if there is any policy against it, it is just a personal preference of me :) --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done I will create wiki-stubs for any of the thinks that are notable. MrPrada 21:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. I have very serious concerns about this article. About 95% of the content has come from one editor. Moreover, that editor's Wikipedia contributions are overwhelmingly focused either on Andrew Saul or other topics/people connected to Andrew Saul. I therefore consider it highly likely—overwhelmingly likely—that this editor is on Wikipedia primarily to edit this one article. The lack of edits by others makes me dubious of the article's objectivity. There could be a heavy (but subtle) selection bias in the sources that only someone who knows Andrew Saul would be able to detect. I also notice that the article has been marked as "high" importance on a number of WikiProjects. Is he that important, when hardly any other editors have touched the article? The more I look at this article, I see one red flag after another. Marc Shepherd 22:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Note to closing FA-director: This oppose should be discarded or at best considered a comment because it has not listed any of the "red flags" to be addressed, among other issues.

• • I'm not quite sure how to respond to that, other then to say, I'm a member of the military--of course Andrew Saul is important to me, he manages my pension. Please list the red flags, and I will try to address them one at a time.
    
    And to address the concern that I'm "only here to edit one article" and that all of my edits have to do with Saul-related topics...
    total edits: 3532
    number of unique pages 1435
    

Mainspace
338 Andrew Saul
146 John Watts de Peyster
124 Willis Stephens
114 RoseMarie Panio
83 Hugh Boyle Ewing
63 Eliot Spitzer
57 Johnston de Peyster
33 Michael Benjamin Bonheur
31 Kentucky in the American Civil War
24 Civil Affairs
18 Kieran Lalor
16 George Pataki
16 Joseph J. DioGuardi
14 William Tecumseh Sherman

• • Clearly, your statements about me are inaccurate. However, I would be happy to work with you to improve the article.
  • As for the selection page, this article is more objective then Saul's own biography, which contains inaccuracies such as "Andrew’s accomplishments with the Federal Thrift Investment Board include cutting operating expenses by over $20 million while helping to grow the plan by over $2.5 billion a month. When Andrew began as Chairman, the fund was valued at $98 million, under his leadership he has grown the fund to $225 billion. It is the largest retirement fund in the United States of America, providing retirement security for more than 3.7 million participants." That was how this article originally looked, a word-for-word copy of the bio. At least my edits corrected this. I would love to mention this in the article, but it would violate WP:OR since no media outlet has picked up on it.
  • On the topic of "high-importance", the man manages the pensions of four million people (high importance to New York), runs a US Government agency requiring Presidential nomination and Senate Confirmation (high importance Biography), sits on the MTA board (high importance to Trains and NYC Transportation), was the CEO of two major fashion companies (high importance to Fashion and B&E). There are no other concerns in your "oppose" that can be addressed. The FA-process requires a specific rationale that can be addressed, so at this time, your vote cannot be counted in the final tally.

• Furthermore, I'd like to add that I knew nothing about Andrew Saul when I started this article. The sources I used were EVERY source I could find via Google, Google Books, Google News, Google Blogs, and Google Archive. If you can find any other sources, please, list them, and I will incorporate them.

MrPrada 22:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Please remove that tally; FAC is not a vote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)  Done MrPrada 23:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

• The TSP and related retirement board sections shift the focus to the federal organization away from Saul. Although he was the chairman, the sections focus more on what has been done (e.g. a product) rather than the person. This is a borderline coatrack situation where the person is hidden. I will elaborate on the article's talk page.
• The captions for the images of Saul should explain the actions of the images. Right now, in the context of a political candidacy (and even without it), they sound like propaganda and even appear as such. (The images are admittedly from campaign brochures.)
• I doubt that the Bridges and Tunnels mention reagarding the Minnesota bridge collapse is notable unless you can elaborate on it; I think heightened awareness of bridges and transportation infrastructure occurred everywhere in the US after the collapse. The same goes for his opposition to the December 2005 MTA discounts; that's more of a news story and to heighten that board vote out of many others is probably not a good idea.
• Is there any way to cite the books, which do not immediately show the person as the subject of the books, inline in the article?

What I think Marc Shepherd is trying to say, in part, is many featured articles have been edited by a sufficient number of peers before they are accepted as featured articles. (At least this is what I see and expect from featured articles.) Plus, featured articles normally take a long time to develop. This in itself should not preclude FA candidates, but there is a big difference between no edit wars or minimal day-to-day changes over a long article history than the same over a short article history. This article was only created July 8, 2007! From this alone, I don't think the article is stable because it needs more time (in months or weeks) to be reviewed and refined thoroughly. But my more pressing concern is that the summary style should be extensively refined. TLK^'in 04:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• • That is not an actionable objection, nor is the one editor actionable. If folks oppose this article, they need to give actionable examples from WP:WIAFA. Many articles have been featured in a matter of weeks; you need to demonstrate why it's not neutral or not comprehensive or not stable or whatever. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I withdraw my comments on holding the sole editor responsible and how quickly the article was nominated from its creation. I never said those comments are actionable, and never thought they would be anyway. But there is too much unnecessary detail about the TSP that is handled in another article (4), the article needs to relate more on the subject's direct actions in order to be comprehensive and concise: it is not clear whether the actions are attributable to Saul or the retirement board (4), the captions should describe the image (3), and the books need to be cited inline (2d). The last one I cannot fix because I don't have those sources. Plus, the main editor has all the expertise. The political campaign section I still need to read over, but I see still more tangents. TLK^'in 06:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Sandy, I don't think you're the arbiter of which objections are permissible. Where you have a long article about a candidate for political office, and practically all the content is coming from one person, the potential for POV abuse is pretty obvious. I'm a New Yorker, and follow politics pretty closely, and I've never heard of this guy. He becomes a candidate, and a 75k article appears out of nowhere? The article shouldn't be featured until it has has passed the gauntlet of fact-checking and POV checking that comes from work by multiple editors. Marc Shepherd 12:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Sandy. Marc, if you want to object, you must do so on the basis of the text, not these extraneous matters. The text and the Criteria are all that matter here. No tallies, no votes, and please, minimal personal discourse. Tony 14:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC) PS I'd be happy to see the non-relevant text here moved to the talk page of the article. Otherwise, this will end up being re-started. Tony 14:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Then we will have to agree to disagree. My objections are strictly based on the lack of neutrality, which clearly is a featured article criterion. Marc Shepherd 15:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose on two grounds.
  • I agree with Marc Shephard that the prose is tendentious; for example, this passage from the lead, even although sourced, is laudatory and defensive: As Chairman of the Thrift Investment Board, he is responsible for managing the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) which is the retirement savings account for employees of the Federal Government and soldiers of the armed services.[4] The TSP is known to reap higher returns for their retirement than comparable private-sector workers, and is immune from many of the problems that plague mutual funds. This is not a neutral tone; is unlikely to indicate consensus opinion; and is, above all, undue weight where it stands.
  • More seriously, it is appallingly obscure. This may not be our editor's fault; if all he can find is second-hand government prose, which he does not understand, he's stuck. But the objective of a Wikipedia editor should be to read the sources, understand them, and explain them to the reader. There is nothing wrong with keeping this, if we can't do better; but it is not FA material by any stretch of the imagination. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

NEVER. Looks like PR campaign to me. Same user under IP address 67.87.233.252 created also articles about this candidate on Spanish, French, Dutch and Italian Wikipedias. It was his sole contribution to each project. M0RD00R 00:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not really sure how this turned into a discussion of me instead of the article. Creating stub versions of it on the other wikipedias has nothing to do with the article, or its featured status. It does have to do with soliciting as many contributors as possible to research this guy, who is notable in more then one language. It's strange, in all of March Shepard's arguments that this piece os biased and only had one contributor, he forgets that I solicited his opinion and that of many others in the applicable Wikiprojects so they could come and improve the article and neutralize any of that bias. I see a few people are starting to do that, which would also coumtermand his claim that the article cannot be featured because it had only one contributor(which, as I understand, is not a valid ground to oppose). What I dislike is making more edits to the talk page and FA-nom then the article itself, without speficially mentioning things that I should trying to fix or for other editors to fact-check. MrPrada 12:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 17:53, 31 August 2007.

---

Dartmouth College

While I have not contributed to the editing of this article, I have been following its progression and growth over time, and I believe that it now qualifies for FA-class status. - Prezboy1 23:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I don't generally frequent the FAC page so I'm not really the best-equipped to offer sound advice for this article, but I will say that the images make the page seem a bit busy -- lots on both sides, often causing the text to be sort of distorted. Of course, it might just be my browser. But I thought I'd toss it out. Dylan 23:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, yes, I do agree... some of the picture thumbnails are oversized, but I've made them smaller and it looks much better now. - Prezboy1 02:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Many sections have no references: "Board of Trustees", "Nelson A. Rockefeller Center for Public Policy and the Social Sciences", "The John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding", "Aquatic facilities", "Housing clusters", "Varsity teams", "Venues", "Greek life", "Traditions", "Alumni" and "The Arms of William Legge, Second Earl of Dartmouth". --Kaypoh 10:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 17:53, 31 August 2007.

---

Peter Canavan

This article has gone through a pretty thorough Good Article review. I'm not sure it's featured status yet, but feedback would be most welcome. Thanks--Macca7174_talk 23:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Biography of Irish sports (Gaelic football) star, who retired in 2005. Considered among one of the best in the country for most of his career, and is one of the most decorated players of the game. --Macca7174_talk 13:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose—But correct 14-19 in the notes, please. Lots of little glitches, such as the following samples:
  • MOS breach in hyphens (should be en dashes) in the infoblot. Done
  • "Canavan was the tenth of eleven children,[2] including his older brother, Pascal, who played with him on the Tyrone panel for most of the 1990s." Very odd. As though the eleven children wouldn't include an elder brother.
  • Clash of person ("he" vs "I"): "stating that he knew, subconsciously "I was going to be playing".
  • Why does the referencing start with [6]?
  • Paragraph stub end of "Under-age career".
  • "He was the top-scorer in Ulster"—why the hyphen? Done
  • A certain informality that is awkward in this register, e.g., "Tyrone made it to the All-Ireland semi-final". Done
  • Further MOS breaches in the hyphen in sports scores.
  • "Despite being used as an 'impact substitute' for most of the season"—Read MOS on "words as words".
  • "albeit necessary—-move"—dash chaos.
  • "he was receiving treatment to his ankle, including having pain-killing injections"—Spot the redundant word. Done
  • MOS breach in comma before closing quote marks. Done

Needs a thorough massage. Tony 14:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• firstly thanks for the feedback. I will start working on most of the things you mentioned, but there are a few I need to challenge.--Macca7174_talk 20:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "Canavan was the tenth of eleven children,[2] including his older brother, Pascal, who played with him on the Tyrone panel for most of the 1990s." Very odd. As though the eleven children wouldn't include an elder brother.
    • I'm not sure what you mean here, unless my wording is ambiguous. The point I was trying to make was that his older brother was also on the same team as him.
  • Clash of person ("he" vs "I"): "stating that he knew, subconsciously "I was going to be playing".
    • I was unsure about how to word this as I was typing it. Would stating that he knew, subconsciously "[he] was going to be playing" be better?
  • Why does the referencing start with [6]?
    • This is because there are references in the infobox. If the infobox was not placed at the top of the raw text, it would break up the copy.
  • Paragraph stub end of "Under-age career".
    • what does this mean?
  • Further MOS breaches in the hyphen in sports scores.
    • I assume you mean a score such as 1-8. This is the way that gaelic football scores are written, and it is said as "one eight." It signifies he scored one goal, and eight points (a total of eleven points). See Gaelic football#Scoring
  • "albeit necessary—-move"—dash chaos.
    • What is this?

--Macca7174_talk 20:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No, MOS specifically says to use an en dash for such sports scores. En dashes separate related, but contrasting items. Tony 12:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: En dashes have been inserted in scores and em dashes used where appropriate. Pascal (his brother) has been cleaned up. Per Tony's comments. Good luck ww2censor 13:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Still oppose. Thanks for the fixes, and please don't strike through reviewers' comments. I'm still not happy to find things like this in the lead— a huge snake, MOS breach in illogical punctuation at end of quote, and generally poor wording:

"His high scoring rate in his earlier years, when he would often be Tyrone's highest scorer[10] (particularly in the 1995 All-Ireland final when he scored eleven of Tyrone's twelve points),[11] led to claims that Tyrone was a "one-man show,"[12] but the continued emergence of skilled players like Brian Dooher and Stephen O'Neill means that burden has been lifted off Canavan."

Break it up thus:

"His early high scoring-rate, when he would often be Tyrone's best performer[10] (particularly in the 1995 All-Ireland final when he scored eleven of Tyrone's twelve points),[11] led to claims that Tyrone was a "one-man show";[12] however, the continued emergence of skilled players such as Brian Dooher and Stephen O'Neill has lifted that burden from Canavan."

Then: "scoring record, scoring"

And "Canavan's career is dotted with examples of indiscipline,[13] as he would often get into on-pitch scuffles with other players."—"dotted" is too informal; "as" is not good, so why not make the causality explicit: ",[13] including many on-pitch ...".

The first sentence under the lead I happened on was "In order to play for an inter-county GAA team, Canavan had to work around a Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA) bylaw in order to represent his county, due to a dispute in his parish of Errigal Ciarán." Repetition, and avoid "in order"—"to" is usually good enough. It's circular and hard to understand, overall.

If those scores really are a particular Gaelic thing (goals and points), explain this on first occurence; otherwise, most readers will think they're the contrasting scores of opponents.

It needs a good copy-edit by someone else. Tony 06:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the strikeouts, they have now been removed. I'm not sure if the done templates are also offensive so I left them in. Thanks for the further comments. I have addressed what you mentioned, but as for the extensive copy edit, is there a project or workgroup or anything that does this?--Macca7174_talk 13:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/proofreading, in the FAC/FAR section. There's a backlog, mind you. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 10:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I went to that page. They stated that until the copy edit is the only disputed point of the the FAC, the article should not be submitted under the FAC category they have. I don't think we're anywhere near that point yet.--Macca7174_talk 19:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Ilse@

lead

• What does "native Tyrone" mean? If it refers to the county, the club should not be wikilinked. Rephrase.

Yeh, this sentence does need to be reworded, cheers. Done--Macca7174_talk 19:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Remove the three words "its reintroduction in" from the lead, it is not directly related to Peter Canavan, so has no place in this summary of the article. Done
• Make sentences with a verb of all elements of the second paragraph, an example for the first element: "He played from 19xx to 200x in the senior inter-country scene.".

I'm not sure what you mean there.--Macca7174_talk 19:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Avoid the use of words like "prestigious". Done
• Are "under-age and club championship medals" worth mentioning here? If they are not important in his career they should be removed.

I would argue that they are. They were listed in match programs under his list of achievements, although if your point is that the article does not pay enough attention to them to justify their inclusion in the lead let me know.--Macca7174_talk 19:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Put elements of lead in chronological order.

I have to challenge this sentiment. Would it not be preferable o mention his greatest feats first? His underage success (or international representation) occured before his first senior All-Ireland win. A senior All-Ireland is this pinnacle of the sport.--Macca7174_talk 19:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Avoid words like "known primarily" or "hugely prolific"; change the sentence about his scoring record into something like "His scoring record of 218 points was the second highest tally of all time in the Ulster Senior Football Championship.". Done
• What is "tally"? Wikilink or rephrase. Done
• Remove "Oisin McConville" from the lead, the article is not about him. Done
• Remove the text between brackets, if it is not important, it should not be in the lead.
• Why is "one-man show" between quotation marks? I prefer unambiguous language in this case.

it is a direct quote from the referenced sources.--Macca7174_talk 19:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Remove the speculative statement about the "burden".

should i remove the entire statement, or just the perception of NPOV?--Macca7174_talk 19:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I intend to give comments on other sections later. – Ilse@ 13:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the feedback. It is much appreciated.--Macca7174_talk 19:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, inconsistent and incomplete formatting of citations, no consistent biblio style. Pls see WP:CITE/ES or use cite templates if you're not sure how to format citations. All sources need a publisher, websources need a last access date, and author and publication date should be listed when available. Also, pls read WP:DASH and fix throughout. This article has been at FAC for over a month; there should not still have been a MOS breach in a noticeable section heading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 21:28, 30 August 2007.

---

Chocolate

• Support Conforms to all of the criteria, is well written, provides ample amounts of information without rambling, and has great images as well. Jedibob5 14:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Half the history section consists of the debate over the etymology of the word "chocolate" and there are only two very short paragraphs of how chocolate in the Old World. There is no mention about the development of conching and other processes that have made large scale production of cocoa solids possible. There's also no mention of chocolate being one of the luxury drinks of the nobility in early modern Europe and how it preceded coffee as one of the common non-alcoholic stimulant breakfast drink. Peter ^Isotalo 07:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• OpposeSeveral sections has no inline sitations, it has several stubby sections that should either be removed or merged with other sections and it has external jumps that should be converted to proper refs. The tempering section is too long and reads more like a textbook than an encyclopedia article. Also the TOC does not make sense. How are sections such as tempering and storing a subsection of Bean?--Peter Andersen 16:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per a general shortage of inline citations for some potentially controversial facts, mostly shown through the extensive existence of fact tags. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Just about all the fact tags were added by a single editor, seemingly at random, and almost none of the facts are particularly controversial. Peter ^Isotalo 07:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The See Also section should consist of terms that are not already linked in the body of the article. I'm not convinced of the relevance of the first External Link (Original Chocolate Drink Recipe). 69.202.45.153 15:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose due to comprehensiveness issues. The history section effectively ends in the pre-Columbian Mesoamerica and lacks information on the historical events allowing chocolate to be produced and consumed in a non-liquid form. Regional omissions are also present with the article mentioning the current U.S. dispute over use of fats other than cocoa butter in the manufacture of chocolate but omitting information on how a similar dispute in the EU was resolved. The article also shows organizational issues as detailed above along with a need to convert embedded HTML links into full citations. --Allen3 ^talk 19:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 21:28, 30 August 2007.

---

Bratislava

Nomination restarted (old nom) Raul654 15:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As the nomination is restarted, I'm posting here old issues which remain unresolved:

• General
  • Copy-editing (partly copy-edited by User:Milkbreath) MarkBA ^t/c/@ 16:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• History
  • Comparing Bratislava to other multi-cultural cities (is this even necessary?)
• Economy
  • No explanation why Bratislava boomed in the 1990s while the rest was going broke
• References
  • Weak referencing from English language sources (though I think this is for longer run than this FA candidature) MarkBA ^t/c/@ 16:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

MarkBA ^t/c/@ 21:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I removed map issue because a new version with states is uploaded (a better map is still needed, though). MarkBA ^t/c/@ 21:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I spotted some internal inconsistencies and significant issues that need resolving:
  • The name section gets no treatment in the lead. As it was known as Pressburg for so long, shouldn't this atleats get a blurb in the lead?
    • I've introduced anchor link in the lead. Is this enough? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 06:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Not really. For a city known, to the English speaking world, as Pressburg for most of its known history, perhaps mentioning the word Pressburg I thought would be appropriate. The point is, that per WP:LEAD, a lead should fully summarize the article. The fact that the article has a whole section on etymology and that the LEAD makes no mention of the etymology or of past names is the problem I was getting at. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Oh well, it seems that I won't avoid this one, so I've posted a short mention again, though I think it should stay at this point, I don't want to clutter lead with names. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 05:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The names section is confusing and internally contradictory, or atleast vague. For example, it says that the city was named for "Predslav, third son of king Svätopluk I, or the local nobleman Braslav" and later "The current name, Bratislava, had its beginnings in 1837, when Slavist scholar Pavel Jozef Šafárik reconstructed a variant of it (Břetislaw)[13] from old names derived from that of Bohemian ruler Bretislav I." I assume that Predslav, Braslav, and Bratislav are all cognates of each other; which makes it confusing. Does Pressburg derive from Predslav and Breslav (the earlier 10th century figure) and does Bratislava derive from Bretislav I, the 11th century person? If they are all varients of the same name, then don't they all derive from the earliet name? The whole section is hard to follow...
    • Well, I admit that names research is sometimes quite difficult and so it applies for multi-cultural cities like this. The main trouble is, that references which I used say sometimes something different on some point. I guess I should list them again and change as necessary, right? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 06:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It was an ambiguous formulation. In fact, the scholar wrongly believed the name of the city was derived from the name of Bretislav I. I have made it now clear in the article. Tankred 20:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
      • The names section still seems confusing. I haven't seen much change to it rather than the addition of the word "believed" which doesn't really fix the problem. The section is poorly organized, and that leads to some of the problem. For example, it is unclear if the name "Brezalauspurc" derives from "Predslav, third son of king Svätopluk I, or the local nobleman Braslav" or if the name "Pressburg" does or if the name Bratislava does or if all three do or if none do. It is just hard to follow the history of the city's name. The actual establishment of Bratislava as the name is actually handled well, but the first few paragraphs are so hard to parse I can't make heads or tails of them.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Thank you for pointing this out. I have made a more substantial change.[3] Do you think the paragraph is now clear enough for a reader? Tankred 12:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • In History: Even though Bratislava has been one of Europe's newest capital cities (since 1993), the territory has a rich history connected to many tribes and nations. This is ambiguous. Territory implies something different than a city. Does this statement refer to the city or to the Bratislava Region
    • True, it is really ambiguous. I've changed that to "the city", because territory can refer to the present-day region, former county or just something else. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 06:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Cool. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • In Geography: The city has a total area of 367.58 square kilometres (141.9 sq mi), making it the second largest city in Slovakia by area (after the township of Vysoké Tatry). reference for superlative claims and statistics? Also, this section makes no mention of its position as part of the Bratislava Region, though this is mentioned later in the article. Wouldn't that be geographically relevent?
    • Well, will I fix anything if I'll post some reference or two with this page [4]? You'll see there that Vysoké Tatry city has around 13 km² more area than this. For the Bratislava Region, I can think of the first sentence only, where to insert that, being careful not to be repetitive with Government, MarkBA ^t/c/@ 07:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, adding the ref would be great. Per: Wikipedia:When to cite (and before you tell me this is an essay, I know it is. Read Wikipedia:Per... ), statistics and data should always be cited. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I've added a link to the Vysoké Tatry town statistics plus added mention of Bratislava Region right in the beginning. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 05:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • In Cityscape and architecture: The cityscape of Bratislava, characterized by medieval towers and 20th-century grandiose buildings, is going through profound changes due to the construction boom at the beginning of the 21st century. This statement just hangs there without reference or any support from the subsections that follow.
    • I have expanded the cityscape section a bit, so the first sentence now summarizes the section. Tankred 20:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Still, when expressing opinion-laden statements (such as "profound changes" and "construction boom") it is VERY important to cite where those opinions come from. The additions you made are STILL unreferenced, so it is unclear that a) these changes are profound b) there is really a construction boom. Who aside from you feels these changes are profound? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC
        • Well, looking at the city's official site, the city itself thinks there is a construction boom. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 12:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I have added references to the only Slovak magazine published in English (the cited articles quote mostly the city's officials, architects, and activists) and Bratislava's website. Basically, I could not find any source saying: no, there is no construction boom in Bratislava and the changes of the cityscape are minor. So, I hope this opinion shared by all the relevant actors can stay in the article with the new appropriate references to a mainstream magazine and the city's website. Do you think the latest changes[5] were adequate or you propose rather rephrasing the text of the article? Tankred 13:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Performing arts section contains several external links in main text, needs to be removed or wikified: See WP:EL
    • I've removed external links from the text. Looks like articles have yet to be created and I don't want to flood the text with redlinks. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 06:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
      • 3-4edlinks is hardly a flood. I would not object to 3-4 redlinks in any way...
        • Yes I know, FA criteria don't care about amount of redlinks, still, it is good idea being careful not to have too many of them. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 05:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The Sport section is inconsistant, unreferenced in places, and repetitive. Consider formatting this section like the Museums and galleries section, which is much better done.
    • References, well, could be surely found. I don't understand "inconsistent and repetitive". Can you clarify or perhaps give an example? From the Museums and galleries, I can think of only one thing – that I should merge some of the sentences into paragraphs (maybe like this – intro, football, ice hockey, other sports?)
      • Well, repetitive in that the Davis Cup is mentioned in several times, ice hockey is mentioned in 2 different places, etc. etc. ... In general the section lacks proper paragraph organization. For example, the last paragraph jumps from sport to sport without any sense of reason why. Also, it might be nice to see the teams from the top leagues actually named. Perhaps subsections for Football, Ice Hockey, Water Sports, and Other Sports would be appropriate, and then name major teams, events, for each... It just seems hard to follow.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Looks like I got to split some content from intro to the parts so the article section wouldn't be repetitive, like moving Ice Hockey Championships to the Ice Hockey paragraph, right? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 05:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • As a whole, the article could use some copyedit help, perhaps from The League.
    • I have posted a request to the League. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 05:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is easily GA class, but seems to need some help to reach FA standards. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose (I have no significant contribution to the article, I think this must be noted according to rules)
  • I must join the previous voter in saying that the name section gets bad treatment in the lead. Important names like Pressburg and Pozsony should be mentioned in parantheses (in the place where the alternative names link is now). There is no need to clutter the lead with names as "Brezalauspurc" which gets 500 google hits is hardly of equal importance to Pressburg (500 000 hits) or Pozsony (over 1 million hits).
    • The solution chosen for this article is perfectly standard and in accordance with WP:NCGN The convention says: "Once such a [Names] section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line." The name "Brezalauspurc" does not appear at all in the lead, so I am not sure if I understand the second part of your objections. Tankred 14:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I tried to say that move the most important names(Pressburg, Pozsony) to the lead while obscure names like "Brezalauspurc" can be moved to the "history of Bratislava". Basicly the previous voter asked that "Pressburg" to be in the lead and I ask for both "Pressburg and Pozsony" to be in the lead based on the importance of these names.Hobartimus 15:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I am afraid the proposed solution would contradict WP:NCGN. Furthermore, all the names can be found just after the lead, so I think it is not a big deal. Tankred 16:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The alternative names section (as designated by the link in the lead) is a huge mess. Its full of trivia, obscure name variants like Preslava, Braslava and others while it doesn't explain much about the importance of names.
    • The name variants are used to explain the origin of the city's modern names. Importance of the name Pressburg is already highlighted by the sentence "Pressburg was used to refer to the city by most English-speaking writers until 1919 and it is occasionally used even today." Could you elaborate on what exactly you mean by "importance of names" and suggest how we should deal with it please? Tankred 14:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
      • For example which names were official, and generally more important to the city's history used by large number of people or not this sort of thing. Hobartimus 15:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I hope this issue is now[6] addressed in a satisfactory way. Tankred 16:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It also has a long section about Bratislava which is not an alternative name it should be discussed what is the purpose of the section. Is it alternative names, is it names history, is it names trivia, which is it? Bratislava can be easily dealt with in the main history section, or the history of Bratislava article, not to take away space from "alternative names".
    • The section is called "Names", not "Alternative Names". Again, its composition follows WP:NCGN. I think it is better to have all the names together (especially in the case of Bratislava in which they share the same origin) than to discuss one name in the History section and other names in the Names section. What do you think? Tankred 14:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
      • It is now called "Alternative Names" by the link in the lead, then this should be somehow fixed. It should be known what is the clear purpose of the section, I think this is one of the reason why this section can be confusing a little. Hobartimus 15:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
        • The name of the section is "Names". But I have changed the link in the lead to avoid confusion. I hope it is all right for you now. Tankred 16:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "[the city] was renamed from Pressburg or Pozsony to Bratislava in March 1919" , this looks odd, you can only change the official name of the city, not what other people call it in their own language, so the sentence should read "the official name of the city was changed from [official name] to Bratislava", or "The city was renamed from [official name] to Bratislava in 1919", which was official Pressburg or Pozsony? both cannot be official at the same time.
    • Done. Tankred 14:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Much of this names section really belongs in the history section like the part about the "free city" and other parts.
    • In the preceding discussion, another editor expressed his/her view that the Names section should not be just a list of names, but should provide motivation for the name changes. Tankred 14:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I see than this should be struck out or what's the procedure? Hobartimus 15:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, it would be nice if you can strike all the issues that have already been resovled. Tankred 16:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak sourcing in english was already mentioned, but the other problem is total domination of Slovak sources, which could cause major POV problems esp. in the history section. (these sources cannot be challanged by non-slovak users) So quality english sources should replace at least some of the slovak sources esp. in the history section.
    • We are struggling to get more English sources into the article, but it is not so easy to find them. I am afraid this is a general problem for all the articles about small Eastern European states. Tankred 14:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes and Slovak sources are still much better than no sources no question about that. Since this is an important topic a few more English sources can hopefully be found over time. Hobartimus 15:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, it's true that English sources should be predominant, but unfortunately, I'm afraid that I can't do this kind of task overnight, and sometimes it isn't easy job to find something in English. Some source is still better than none, however, and this objection is better suited as a long-term task. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 12:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Slovak sources can lead to not just POV but more serious problems as well. For example the sentence "The first permanent bridge over the Danube, Starý most, was built in 1891." This is sourced to Lacika p. 41 a Slovak language source but it's simply not true. One permanent bridge in Budapest was built in 1840s more than 40 years earlier (Lánchíd). So this "Stary most" is definitely not the first permanent bridge over the Danube. This "Lacika" where the bad information comes from is used massively throughout the article.
    • This misunderstanding was caused by an unfortunate formulation of the sentence in the article. The bridge was the first permanent bridge over the Danube in Bratislava. I have fixed this. THank you for highlighting this confusing sentence. Tankred 14:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you for fixing that, now you fixed it so well that I get attacked for suggesting something was wrong in the first place :) Hobartimus 15:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • There are multiple other problems as well but it has the potential to became a nice article. Hobartimus 14:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    • From the comment above, regardless how everyone likes that, I must state that this user has strong pro-Hungarian bias and I don't wonder that because something is Slovak, he must attack it regardless of circumstances. Regarding the names, sorry, but I think they have adequate coverage both in the lead and the Names section. Regarding the permanent bridge issue, sorry, but you're doing extreme misinterpretation. That source doesn't talk at all about first permanent over the Danube, I would lie if I'd state so, but over the Danube in Bratislava, so read the sentence carefully next time and don't do big problems from small issues. Overall, I'm very disappointed that nationalist issues must be brought even to FA reviews. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 14:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I would appreciate if you would not attack me personally, I tried to make sure not to mix criticism of the article with criticism towards it's creators. I respect your opinion about the names you could also respect my sligthly differing opinion. The bridge sentence was already fixed (I suspect the quick work of Tankred) so in it's current state it is perfectly fine, but the sentence had a completely different meaning before. Please check the article history before accusing me with "because something is Slovak he must attack it regardless of circumstances". I see that you are deeply involved with this article but please try to keep it cool and I will do my best to do the same. Hobartimus 15:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
      • OK, I apologize for the strong reaction, but still, I have mild prejudice against some, but not all Hungarian users. OK, if this isn't going to be large-scale rewriting of Names or something old discussed, as this is a hornet's nest, I'll try to keep my head cool. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 18:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Notice: You may want to know that for next 10 days there may be no response at all because I'll have shorter time to check and user:Tankred will be off-line. As such, if we don't respond to the objections immediately, don't mistake that with the loss of interest in improving to FA standards MarkBA ^t/c/@ 21:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support It appears all of my concerns have been addressed, and after re-reading the article, I can find nothing overtly wrong with it anymore. However, I am not a cunning linguist myself (nor am I a master debater); as such I don't have a great eye for grammar and the like; if you have not already done so I would recommend getting a fresh set of eyes, perhaps from WP:LOCE, to look it over for copyediting... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

So I'm back to "normal" mode and I have more time to respond to objections. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 12:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Time is running out! MarkBA ^t/c/@ 16:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 21:28, 30 August 2007.

---

Platform game

Self Nomination: Nominated this last January, addressed most or all of the objections since then. The article is very stable, exceptionally well rounded, reflects a worldwide historical context for the genre, and offers a detailed history of its evolution, including many lesser-known games.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Frogacuda (talk • contribs) 11:18, 2007 August 17

• Suggestion. Just an idea that came up when I first saw the article. Is it possible to replace the lead image with an animation sequence showing how characters run and jump... It would be cool and would make the article a bit clearer for the reader that have never played a video game. CG 08:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that animated gifs are really big. I've created an example here: Image:Super mario world.gif, which is 3 megabytes. JACOPLANE • 2007-08-18 23:04

To see what it would look like on the article, see this revision which includes the image. The thumbnailed image here is 1.6MB, too big no? JACOPLANE • 2007-08-18 23:12

Yeah, definitely too big to do that way. Maybe doing an original hand-animated one without the moving background would be reasonable in size, but I don't think it's neccessary, nor do I feel motivated to put in the effort to do that.Frogacuda 23:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I've raised the question here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Animated screenshots. JACOPLANE • 2007-08-18 23:44

Using some creative optimization, I've gotten a decent size animation down to around 300k. I think it's a very clear illustration of platform jumping (taken from the same sequence as the current shot, which was chosen for the same reason). Image:Wonder_boy_platform.gif I think that should work nicely. Frogacuda 01:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on your "creative optimization"? I'm curious what you did. JACOPLANE • 2007-08-19 01:16

Well I used a source that was well suited to the kinds of optimizations gif offers. I did a lossless screen dump using an emulator, the game itself only has a palette of 64 colors so there's no need to reduce or dither (dithering is the enemy of gif optimization), the backgrounds are mostly empty space so the frames are largely redundant from frame to frame, and I could merge it into a global palette so each frame didn't need its own. I'm having trouble inserting it into the entry, btw. The caption seems to disappear when I do it. Could you help me out with that?Frogacuda 01:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I fixed your usage so it includes the caption. JACOPLANE • 2007-08-19 01:31

Whee, that looks pretty good, thanks. Frogacuda 01:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Object, now, I hate to be a stickler about fair use images (I love them too and I always wish I could include more) but 15 is way too many. Take a hard look and decide which ones are absolutely necessary and remove the rest. It would be great if the images showed a clear evolution of the genre, not that they don't already but the surfeit of images dilutes this progression. Axem Titanium 05:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Response: It's an exceptionally long article, on an exceptionally broad subject matter, though. The Nintendo Entertainment System article is Featured status and has almost 20. The Chrono Trigger aticle is half the length and only covers a single game and it has 11 images. How are those ok to be featured but not this? It's funny, too, because I have so many images in part because the peer review thought they were needed. No pleasing everyone :/ Frogacuda 06:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Standards change over time. Fair use is way more strict now than it was when those articles were featured. --Mika1h 16:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, the Chrono Trigger page was promoted over a year ago and seems to have slowly degenerated as well. For NES, I don't think every single image there is necessary but each one does illustrate something different, whereas, say, the "Shadow of the Beast" and "Jump Bug" shots don't seem too different from the others (in the case of the latter, it's because the picture doesn't show the scrolling feature). Another concern, several sections have zero citations. Axem Titanium 20:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support Video game history articles are difficult to write, with so much misinformation out there. This is very detailed, and accurate as far as I can tell. Fair-use images seem comparable to other CVG articles of that length. RaidOverHoboken 06:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The above user's first edit is supporting this article. M3tal H3ad 14:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Brave effort, but there are too many unsourced claims and the focus is a bit shaky. For exaple, who says that Sony, Sega, and Nintendo were under pressure to release something before the 1996 holiday season? Who says that Sonic the Hedgehog cemented the view that platformers would make or break a console? The section on failed or forgotten experimental 3D platformers like Bug! is longer than the section on the titles which finally got the genre right. Finally, I've never heard of 'hop and bop' sub-genre. Is it really a popular term?--Nydas^(Talk) 17:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The section on the origins of 3D platform games is more storied because, as you would expect, it was a time during which there was a great deal of change and experimentation. There is more to talk about. To call these games "failed" or to say the article should spend more time talking about the games you think are more fun is not very encyclopedic. I'm not going to list every unimaginative Mario 64 ripoff that added nothing to the genre just because they were more commercially successful.

The Sonic the Hedgehog claim is just an intuitive one. It does not say that the view is correct, nor universal, as certainly that is not the case. But it a major factor in the system's success (a claim which IS sourced) so therefore, it would have to support that view. I don't know that that needs any additional sourcing, nor am I sure precisely what kind of reference would make that claim stronger.

Hop and bop was a very common term during the subgenre's peak years. It's not used today, but that's because the genre isn't particularly vital at this point.Frogacuda 01:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The article should concentrate on games which have had the greatest impact on the world. At the moment, Bug! merits an entire paragraph whilst Tomb Raider only gets mentioned in passing. The article assumes that the reader will know about the big games.

The Sonic claim sounds authoritative, and shouldn't be in there if it's just what you think. One could easily argue that Mario cemented the view, or that there never was such a view.

I do not remember 'hop and bop' being used by the gaming press during the early nineties, is it an American term? I can't find any convincing uses of the term on Google, compared to say, the European meaning of 'beat 'em up'.--Nydas^(Talk) 06:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's an American term. Dig through enough old magazines and you'll see it used much more commonly than the term "platform game" actually. The term "Platform game" actually didn't become common until the genre had been around for many years. It's rare to find the term "platform game" on marketing materials earlier than around 1990. I tried to find out where and when the term originated for the article, but no one seems to know.

And, yes, one could easily argue that Mario cemented the view. In fact, I thought it was fairly obvious that I was saying as much. Or rather that Mario established that view in the first place, and Sonic's success seemed to be further evidence (hence "cementing" an existing view). That's not really a matter of opinion, it's intuitively true that it would support that claim.

Also I would argue that the games that defined and refined the genre are the ones that had the greatest impact on genre, moreso that the ones that simply sold well. In the same way that Die Hard 3 isn't a hugely important work of cinema compared to, say, Citezen Kane, despite being a more successful movie. The history section is an attempt to explain how the genre came to be, and not just chronicle releases. Frogacuda 20:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, the article closely ties the hop and bop 'sub-genre' to the 16-bit era, even though it seems the term had died out by them. A google search for 'hop and bop' + mario gets only 77 unique Ghits [7].

The article shouldn't be advancing arguments, it should just be reporting what published sources tell us. If there is a Citizen Kane of games, then Mario 64 is good candidate. It has much more published material discussing its impact than Bug!.--Nydas^(Talk) 13:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That's why the article spends much more time discussing Mario64 than it does Bug. Bug only has 5 sentences about it. There's more about Mario64 in there than any other game. There's a huge section dedicated to Mario 64 and its impact.

Also, the sites you're googling weren't written in the 80s. Are you arguing that "hop and bop" isn't a unique subgenre with hundreds of games adhering to its conventions? Or is there just another term for it you think is more common?

And I hate to say it, but in the CVG history domain, it can't just be about compiling crap reported else where, because so much of what's been written about game history is badly researched and patently untrue. I'm not saying you want to publish OR, either, but you have to do it differently. You can't just find a source that says "Such and such is the first game to yadda yadda." You just need to source credible information about when it was released and make sure that that date is earlier than anything else making the claim. There's not really a publication out there that is consistently reliable in the area of gaming journalism.

It's very possible to write a well sourced article using only major sources that wiki would consider credible which is completely and utterly false. CVG is a tough area. Frogacuda 00:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Video games are not living organisms, they don't all need to be in a sub-genre. Mario, Sonic, Bubsy etc are just platform games, not 'hop and bop' platform games. The term is hardly used nowadays, there's no need to try and resurrect it. One recent usage is in IGN's review of Alex Kidd and the Enchanted Castle [8], contradicting the article's definition of hop and bop as involving killing enemies by jumping on them.

Sourcing credible information is all very well, but a lot of the claims in the article are not sourced at all. Who says Sonic the Hedgehog (video game) was intended to 'fend off' Super Mario World? How is Super Mario World a 'conservative' design? Who says PC platformers helped to fuel the shareware model?--Nydas^(Talk) 11:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, I write for IGN myself (freelance), and they have a lot of talented people writing for them, but they have printed so much garbage printed on the subject of gaming history that them screwing up hop and bop is just a drop in the bucket. They've also claimed that Jumping Flash was the first 3D platformer, that Zelda was the first action adventure, and a lot of other crap.

You can source things all you want, but since none of these sources are sourced, it's more or less a pointless excercise, but I will go through the motions to meet wiki standards. Added a source for the Sonic thing. The mario design being conservative is elaborated on in the next sentence. It doesn't need further justification.

As for who says that platformers feuled the shareware model, I'm going to say "You", since all I said was that Commander Keen was a successful shareware game, and other shareware platformers followed.Frogacuda 01:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 21:28, 30 August 2007.

---

The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest

Nomination restarted. (Old nom) Raul654 18:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I was talking to Peter Lawrence, who masterminded the show. But he's been busy, so I'm not sure when I'll learn more. To reiterate the others, I have to a.) fix the reference formatting b.) extract character summaries and turn them into a contrasted list format c.) add in new informatoin concerning creative direction and changes. Zeality 02:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Why was this restarted? The nomination page looked fine to me.

• Oppose—MOS and 1a.
  • "Each team produced twenty-six episodes for fifty-two overall" plus other hard-to-read numbers—MOS says normally digits for numbers over nine. Any reason to spell these out?
  • Why are "1990s" and "2003" linked? (See MOS on links.) Please identify the relevant information in that article.
  • MOS breach: ellipses need spaces on both sides.
  • MOS breach: final punctuation after" the closing quotes. There are several instances.
  • Bumpy quote that doesn't make grammatical sense: Producers applied the process "in excess of 20 hours per episode...just for effects...We added
  • While on that topic, there seems to be an over-reliance on crafted direct quotes; stubby and bumpy.
  • Linking of common dictionary words: "composers", "commercial breaks", and much more. Why dilute the valuable links?
  • MOS breach: hyphens as interruptors: the original quote came from a website, which almost certainly accounts for the mangling of spaced en or unspaced em dashes from the original. I'd be inclined to assume that they got it right originally. "Described as "single-minded - almost to the point of obsession - in his pursuit of knowledge,"

Lots of fixing required throughout. Tony 12:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 21:28, 30 August 2007.

---

Final Fantasy XI

The article is exhaustive but focused, and is well-sourced. Kariteh 10:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Co-nom pending copy-edit and final tweaks—everything is handled well with this one. A few tweaks and it'll be in good shape. — Deckiller 14:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Object: The image Image:FFXIBundle.jpg is used under fair use, but does not appear to provide any information beyond what the text of the article does. --Carnildo 18:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

All right then, we need to fix this information up as soon as possible. Greg Jones II 21:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per User:Sjones23. --Hornet35 14:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• I added fair use rationale. They're probably comical in the eyes of the "image specialists", but fair use is not my forte. Also, I guess I'll take it on myself to copy-edit and tweak the article (we need a review box and extensive copy-editing). — Deckiller 17:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, only four images? The Vana'diel article needs to be more presentable to make the main article work.--Nydas^(Talk) 22:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't play FFXI, but I'll see if I can answer those questions. I'm not even sure of the Vana'diel article should even exist, since I doubt there's real-world information out there. As for the images, I wish we could include more too, but the fair use people have already objected to one image being used under fair use, so additional images might cause an even greater objection. It's truly unfortunate that we have to be so strict with images. — Deckiller 22:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I've cleaned up the Vana'diel and List of Final Fantasy XI characters articles a bit. Now whether these two articles should actually exist seems to be a debate unrelated to this nomination. Kariteh 22:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Related to the original comment, I find it very odd there isn't a picture of the UI, and the only in-game shot is "naked". Nifboy 04:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Object

• Serious issues with wikification. Second and third paragraph of lead, and after that just about every section. Words like storyline, sub plot, character (to player character), quest, subscription, the items in the list of character traits, monster (to Mob (computer gaming)), abilities, spells... etc should be linked. I am not listing every word I think should have an internal link, but this is a serious issue. Most of the non-trivial (dates etc.) internal links in this article lead to other FF articles. This is bad for the uneducated reader.
• The article fails FAC 3, because it needs more images. After the setting section, no more images appear. Where images are not available, especially in the reception section, a {{cquote}} from a review may prove useful.

More minor things:

• 1c issues with the last two paragraphs of the updates section and the last few of the release section.
• 1a and 2 issues - see WP:VG/GL#Style. The story is set in Vana'diel - what is that? Explain in the lead, or do not use that word in the lead. The prose in the expansions and updates section is not up to FA standard - they contain jargon and are generally not well written. Expansions, updates and audio sections contain proseline.
• There is a fansite in the external links. Remove this please - the number of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments for keeping fansites would be enormous if this article would be promoted with one in the links.
• Infobox length. Move the information on some of the less notable designers, the 360 release dates in different countries, and the different ratings (write 12+ and link) to the development section.
• All of the information in the gameplay section is drawn from sources that are not independent of the subject. Draw at least some information from independent sources such as reviews.

User:Krator (t c) 08:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

AlrightOur WikiProject is experienced with FACs, but this was premature; such a nomination won't happen again. I could be at fault for recommending we get another group of FAs soon, and then not being able to actually help where articles need me the most.

WRT the images, we are going to be stuck between a rock and a hard place; if someone adds images, they'll probably be decorative, so they'll feed Carnildo's objection. Yet if we don't add images, they'll feed your objection. But the image quality is also lacking severely; the gameplay image doesn't even show the menu screens.

As for wikification/copy-edit, I haven't had the time to touch the article, and I might not until tomorrow. It needs a lot of work.

In general, we don't use reviews for gameplay sections because the manuals suffice; however, if you'll still object without them, then they can be added. — Deckiller 14:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Krator. A few sections need references. --Kaypoh 11:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment All issues need to be fixed before nomination can continue. Greg Jones II 11:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, that's common knowledge. The nomination doesn't exactly stop because the article needs fixed, if it's not fixed, it will fail. DarthGriz98 14:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, just to clarify, Griz, if this FAC does fail, we will restart it once we make it FA quality. Greg Jones II 14:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 18:12, 25 August 2007.

---

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

It is an excellent article, has many, many, many great citaions, great prose and an overall amazing job. It definitely deserves to be in the running at the very least for a FA.  Bella Swan_(Talk!) 01:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This is a fantastic article as it is, but I have serious concerns since the book has not been out long enough. The critical reception and sales sections stand to undergo major changes pending future developments. Could we wait a few months before rushing this to FA? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Fixes needed, completely unformatted references, so reliability of sources can't be judged without clicking each ref. Please see WP:CITE/ES; all sources need a publisher, websources need a last access date, and author and publication date should be listed when available. Rowling's commentary section is listy and could be converted to prose. Pls see WP:DASH, for example, no spaced emdashes. Image layout in Sales squishes text between right and left images and leaves large white space. Uncited text, example: In the last financial year in which no Harry Potter book was released, Bloomsbury's profits dropped by 75%. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I like the editor above feel that it has not been long enough for reception of the book to take root, and thus making this article featured would in essence keep it from advancing into an article that it could eventually be. As well, if there is still hype going on about this book, it would certainly fail the stability criterion. Jared (t)  02:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment/quasi-oppose The section on critical reaction is dreadful. All we get are the opinions of three critics? I want to know what everyone thought as a whole. What were the main strengths and weaknesses of the book? What did every critic say needed to be improved upon? How was the book received in different nations? I can't possibly support with that section in its current state. -- Kicking222 04:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It is not reasonable to expect the article to relate the opinion of every critic. Raul654 04:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    • When I said "everyone" and "every critic", I didn't literally mean "every critic". I meant that the article should express what the consensus thought, not just a few sentences each from three critics. -- Kicking222 10:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment/weak oppose. Unfortunately, it is only short time out for FA, and I'm afraid stability criterion will shake considerably, even with semi-protection. I also doubt if this is going to pass with the listy section of Rowling's comments. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 09:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose This isn't going to happen less than a month after release. The article has to endure the enormous amount of fans, anti-fans, amateur scholars, plagiarizers and religious fanatics who want to have their say about the book. The initial bruhaha has to settle before any serious attempts at reaching FA-status should be attempted. Peter ^Isotalo 10:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - per other comments, this book is too new to really even have completed its impact enough to comprehensively report on it.--Esprit15d 12:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: battle of hogwarts part in the plot summary should really be trimmed. -Icewedge 07:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too soon, so stability is a definite problem. The plot summary is also too long- it's as long as the synopsis for the three books of Lord of the Rings, and it's really unnecessary to have subtitles.-Wafulz 14:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Currently fairly badly structured. It looks like the plot section was grafted onto the front of an existing article of pre-release information - more cross-referencing is needed; "pre-release" material should be written in a discussion style (i.e. what conclusions were being drawn by fans from the clues given) rather than a list style. The pre-release information section features some duplication of material; critical reception section currently essentially consists of three random textbites rather than a general summary drawing on a wider range of sources. "Rowling's commentary and supplement" section could reasonably have the {{laundry}} tag applied to it (i.e. converting list to prose). I also agree with one previous commenter that stability is a valid concern. 82.71.48.158 17:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. It's not there yet, however it will be soon. --Isis4563(talk) 18:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. This isn't even close to being one of Wikipedia's best articles. (I'm not even sure it should have passed GA—although it did.) On top of that, the article isn't stable, and the book hasn't been out long enough for its reputation to shake out. Other than the plot, the article is dominated by ephemeral factoids that eventually will recede into trivia. (Is it really that important that a couple of newspapers reviewed it a few days early?) I also agree that the critical reception section is woefully short. The editors who are so concerned about excessive length should trim some of the trivia sections, to make room for real analysis from citable sources. Marc Shepherd 23:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - too soon. Will ^(talk) 03:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose on stability grounds, the article has undergone many changes in the four weeks that the book has been out and will undoubtedly be revised further. I have read the article a few times in the last four weeks and it has changed substantially in content and layout each time I have read it. Give it time to stabilise, and it will no doubt have far fewer objections if it is nominated again. But it's just too soon right now. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 13:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I just did a scholarly search on "Deathly Hallows" and came up with nothing. Other Potter books have been analyzed by scholars, so I think it would be important to wait and see what they have to say before promoting this to FA. Wrad 03:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Too many sections uncited. Not stable enough yet. ♫ Cricket02 12:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 18:12, 25 August 2007.

---

History of Baltimore City College

In general this article is well written, very comprehensive, extensive, neutral, stable and an accurate depiction of the history of the institution. The article meets wikipedia's citing conventions and has a good amount of references. This article is easily amongst the best secondary schools and collegiate history pages on wikipedia. If there are any problems with the page please dont hesitate to notify me or make the project aware. Thank You, --Bcc07 18:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Referencing and WP:MOS look very sound. The only strange thing I encountered turns out to be a direct quote, incorrect punctuation and all: "The subject of chronic lamentation,—the Baltimore City College Building,—which for the past fifteen years" ... Nice work !! Now to wait for people who know the territory to read through it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Some refs should be in the {{cite book}} format. Otherwise, very good and very well done. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 10:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Dale, unless you can clarify further, that's not a valid oppose. It's not at all necessary to use cite templates. The footnotes are correctly formatted as far as I can tell; the method is irrelevant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think this article needs a good copyediting. There are extraneous commas in some places, and many of the paragraphs don't read well. I've listed a few examples below, and made a few changes myself to the article.
• Support, although, in the interests of disclosure, I did copyedit many of the sections after my initial review. Golem88991 was very responsive to my comments -- thank you!Karanacs 21:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Second paragraph of lead does not flow well.
  • The lead focuses a lot on the location of the school rather than other things that were happening
    • I have rewritten the lead to de-emphasize the focus on location and I think it flows better at this point. Golem88991 23:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Good job, I like the new lead a lot better! Karanacs 18:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • per WP:DATE, need commas after a single year (in 1814,)
    • Done, unless I missed one. Golem88991 23:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • was "Library Company" the name of a company? If not, it probably should not be capitalized.
    • Done. Golem88991 23:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • why was the building "unsuitable to house an academic institution?" This should be explained and cited.
    • It has been cited now, and I think the issue has been cleared up by explaining what the building was originally constructed for.Golem88991 23:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Remove "Nevertheless" when speaking about the renaming
    • Done. Golem88991 23:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • After introducing a person in the article, in subsequent mentions use only their surname. Thus "Professor Brooks" should just be "Brooks."
    • This does not seem to be suggested by any of Wikipedia's stylistic guidelines, but I understand the concern here so I have changed it to conform with your suggestion. Golem88991 23:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
      • The main argument in favor of this is WP:BIO, which discusses primarily how to handle naming within a biography article. The same rules, however, should apply whenever an article discusses a person in depth. Thanks for making the changes! 18:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Word choices seem repetitive, and there is a serious lack of pronouns which could help the issue. For example, in the first section, at least, you seem to overuse people's names when you could use pronouns. From the last paragraph, "Under the direction of Dr. Waters, the school day was divided into eight periods lasting 45 minutes: four sessions were held in the morning and four in the afternoon. In addition to reorganizing the schedule, Dr. Waters divided the courses into different departments. Seven departments total were established under Dr. Waters direction: " could be "Under Waters's direction, the school day was divided into eight periods lasting 45 minutes, with four sessions held in the morning and four in the afternoon. In addition, he divided the courases into different departments. A total of seven departments were established, including..."
    • The paragraph has been changed. Golem88991 23:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I've done some copyediting of my own, and I think a lot of the repetitiveness has been removed. Karanacs 21:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "Holliday street theater " -> should Street or Theater be capitalized?
    • It is a proper noun. Golem88991 23:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Need a citation for last few sentences of first paragraph of Reconstruction
    • Done. Golem88991 23:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Magazine and newspapers need to be properly cited (they need to be italicized). The best way to do this is using {{citation}} and replacing publisher= with newspaper=
    • I was under the impression that as long as they were standardized it was okay, i.e. as long as all paper and magezines were cited the same. It would seem to defeat the purpose of the templates if the {{cite news}} template did not include the correct parameters. Also, in the example provided on the citation template page Marine Corps News is italicized when {{Citation}} is used, but not when {{cite news}} is used. To me this seems like there is no firm rule on this. That being said, I have changed it per your request. Thanks for your recommendations and comments. Golem88991 23:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
      • The citations were correctly and consistently formatted before; I've seen the notion now on multiple FACs that certain citation templates must be used. This is incorrect, and not a requirement of WP:WIAFA; your understanding was correct. The citations were fine before, and they're fine now, but the work to change them to a specific template wasn't necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Good luck! Karanacs 21:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose—1a. The prose needs to do justice to such an eminent academic institution. Here are samples, not the full deal.
  • First caption: S for Streets, as a title.
    • An oversight that has been corrected. I also went through and checked all the other occurrences of street names and changed the those that were not capitalized. Golem88991 19:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I've just read the very same construction at the opening of a similar FAC. The readers will have to perform mental arithmetic to identify the year of establishment.
    • I don't understand this comment. It states in the first sentence that it was established in 1839. Could you clarify? Thanks, Golem88991 19:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Instead of having to hit the link, tell us here "the noted educator and historian, Nathan C Brooks". Lifts the paragraph. Otherwise, who the hell is he? might be the response.
    • An appositive phrase for Brooks has been added. Golem88991 19:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh dear: "the school was given the power to grant it graduates certificates"—how did that happen?
  • What's a "commencement" in this context?
  • "In the 1860s, there was an effort to expand that power and allow City College to confer Bachelor of Arts degrees. However, the attempt was unsuccessful." Why state it in one sentence when two will do? "In the 1860s, there was an unsuccessful attempt to expand that power and allow City College to confer Bachelor of Arts degrees." Yes? Can't we have the actual years or year range? WP provides precise info.
  • "By the early 1900s, the priorities of the school began to shift"—something's wrong here: "had begun"? Or lose the startitis: "the School's priorities had shifted ...".
  • "The academic program was changed further in 1927. At that point, City College divided its curriculum into two tracks, a standard college preparatory course, known as the "B" course, and a more rigorous course, known as the "A" course." Clumsy organisation of ideas: "The academic program was further changed in 1927, when City College divided its curriculum into a standard college preparatory course—the "B" course—and a more rigorous course—the "A" course." (That's one way of doing it.)
  • "Part" --> "proportion".
  • "The "A" and "B" courses, which had lasted for over 60 years, were discontinued and ...". Remove the nested phrase—you've just told use about the A and B, and when. Remove "Then,". Hyphenate "turn-around", I think, even in AmEng. Funding from where? IB Diploma in what year? Precision, please. Tony 08:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
    • To my knowledge, "turn around", does not need to be hyphenated in American English. Golem88991 04:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• • So you refuse to hyphenate "turn-around", but you do hyphenate "map-reading"? "single sex educational system"—one hyphen necessary; "all male tradition"—one hyphen essential. Do an audit on the many double epithets. Most should be hyphenated; probably some can survive without.
    • After reviewing the MOS on hyphens, I removed the unnecessary hyphen from map reading and added any missing hyphens to compound adjectives. I may have overlooked a couple, but in general I think I have addressed this issue. Golem88991 15:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "150-ft (46 m) tower"—MOS breach.
    • It has been corrected and I checked for other occurrences. None was found. Golem88991 14:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "voted 11-6 in favor"—MOS breach. Read it on dashes.
    • Done. Golem88991 14:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "the top 1 percent"—MOS breach; read "Spelling out numbers".
    • Done and checked for other breaches, but none was found. Golem88991 14:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Why is "present" italicised in "Principals"?
    • It was italicized to separate from the years, which were all written as numerals. That being said, after reviewing the MOS on italics I agree that it should probably be removed. Golem88991 14:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Overall, not yet good enough. Tony 10:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• I am unsure of how to proceed at this point. As a result of your initial comments, I undertook a copy edit of the article, paying particular attention to the suggestions of your how to satisfy criterion 1a and the comments you left in this discussion. At this point, I do not see the prose as being any more problematic than most other featured articles. I am sure we could continue to nit pick about small stylistic issues, but on the whole I do not see a problem. As you do, I would ask that you make further suggestions for improving the prose so that it "is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard." Thanks, Golem88991 15:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 18:12, 25 August 2007.

---

Jack Harkness

I've worked a lot on this article, I've given it a whole load of real world context and skimmed the fat so the plot details are not excessive, so that the lead section is thorough but succinct, so that there is no original research or speculation and so that it is cited thoroughly. It's already a good article and has been peer reviewed with little problem.

Anyway, to summarise against the criteria, I believe:

1. It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.

2. It complies with the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects.

3. It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must meet the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.

4. It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

I think it's ready for featured article status.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, I think the lead definitely needs some work. "Dark-themed" is not very good writing and it also doesn't really nail the thematic differences between the two series. Lastly, since this character is still alive in two separate series, I don't think a comprehensive and stable article on the topic can be written yet. Best to wait until the whole story has been told, don't you think? —ptk✰fgs 20:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "completeness" has been a requirement for other featured articles in the past (e.g. Andrew Van De Kamp). The article is stable, everything has been contracted and laid so that new information and appearance can be appended where necessary. I will work on the lead some more, though.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Aaaaand I've just gave it another major overhaul.23:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"Comprehensiveness" is required under criterion 1. b., so your assertion "completeness" hasn't been a requirement is false. LuciferMorgan 12:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is comprehensive, but Doctor Who being ongoing is incomplete.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to point out, something being on going doesn't necessarily mean it isn't comprehensive. I think the article might need a bit more OOU information, but in regards to the fictional information, Lost (TV series) is still on-going, but it's FA.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

*Support, regardless of 'completeness' issues. It is comprehensive from what we know so far. As the character is immortal and the Doctor Who series doesn't look likely to end for a very long time, I think opposing on ground of it being 'incomplete' is a bit unfair as by those standards it will never ever be complete :) Not really an actionable reason to oppose.

One comment: "Within his own team, Jack and Ianto are driven to violence, Suzie becomes a serial killer and attempts to kill him and he is forced to kill her, and he faces mutiny and is shot by Owen." I think this sentence goes on for too long. Kamryn · Talk 23:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Withdrawing for the time being, per below. Kamryn · Talk 04:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment:

1. All footnotes should be after a punctuation mark. Some are not.
2. "a comedic supporting character" is mentioned in the lead, but nowhere supported in the text. Have I missed something?
3. "Little is known about Jack's youth." opens an entire paragraph about what we know about Jack's youth.
4. The Time Agency is mentioned twice in the first section but it is never explained what it is.
5. You mention several people who are in Torchwood without explaining who they are. in fact this is a major probelm with the entire article. I have only seen the first series of the latest Doctor Who and only two episodes of Torchwood,and as a conseqeuence I have absolutely no idea what most of this article is taking about. Obviously sci-fi series are always difficult to explain concisely without running through the entire history of the series, but you might benefit from printing off this article and either getting someone else to read it or reading it yourself from the perspective of someone who has never seen Doctor Who and highlighting stuff that needs reworking.
6. The "Other Appearances" section may as well be renamed "novelisation" or something similar and expanding. What are the basic plots? Does the Jack in the novels differ from the Jack in the series? Do we learn anything new about him in them whose cononicity is doubtful?
7. Who the hell is Gwen Cooper? Why has she softened Jack?
8. "Jack displays attraction to beings (people, robots[4] and humanoid aliens)[5] which fit into the gender binary of male/female." Thus far. I'm sure Davies will get him to have sex with an other at some point, or he wouldn't have called him "omnisexual".
9. "When battling Abaddon, a Biblical demon who steals life," Ooh, an explanation. Use this as your example.
10. "As a time traveller, Jack is saturated in "artron energy"," So what? What does this do to him?
11. "The Dead Ringers series in which Jack is parodied is noticeably absent of the Doctor Who sketches (parodies of Tom Baker's Fourth Doctor) present in all previous years." Not relevant. Delete.
12. References. Things like names and episodes of people only have to be linked the first time they occur, at the moment it is a rather blinding sea of blue.
13. Alternate your images and quotes between left and right. Nice quotes btw, good and relevant.

Alrighty then, fix those and we'll see what we can do about supporting you. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Oooh, you're totally right. I was reading this article from the perspective of someone who's watched a lot of Doctor Who, so everything fell into place for me. But people who haven't watched the show? Not so much. I'd also advise the nom to fix these issues. Kamryn · Talk 04:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, but we don't actually know what a Time Agent really is, it's just occasionally mentioned, but I will try and give it some context.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Dev, I've taken your edits into account, care to give it another once over?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC) And done, btw, longtime.  Done 21:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)~

Comment - I've mentioned this before on Zythe's talk page, but does anyone else think the subheadings in the television appearances section are too in-universe? For example, the "Early appearances" heading implies that these were his early appearances in the show when they were in fact simply flashbacks/revelations about his past (maybe change it to "Backstory" or something similar?). I also think that "Leading Torchwood" should be changed to something more specific like "Torchwood Series 1" - if Jack remains leader of Torchwood in future seasons, this section will become huge. Paul730 14:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Specific season subheadings could be very problematic, but the character history pretty much only needs to note really eventful things. Nothing like "in episode 2.6, Jack is seen in conversation with Harriet Jones and fights werewolves and then in the denouement kisses an elephant", just important stuff. But yeah, it's OOU now.  Done:)~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks much better. :) Paul730 16:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• I invariably find that FACs I have supported are later found to have problems with prose, so I make no guarantees that because I am satisfied, the prose is actually FA standard. I leave that to other people. For me, however, besides being impressed by the speed with which my suggestions were implemented, I am happy to give my conditional support on the basis that the footnotes-after-punctuation issue I previously raised is addressed, "early appearences" be renamed per the above editor, and you remove the "." after the T in Russell T Davies' name - it doesn't actually stand for anything, so he shouldn't have a point. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried using AWB to find those citation errors but I can't, if anyone could find them and fix them it would be great. As for the Russel T. Davies thing, isn't the "." part of his name? His article uses the dot. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it's wrong. His real name is Russell Davies, he added the "T" to differentiate him from some other guy called Russell Davies. It doesn't actually stand for anything, so it shouldn't have a mark, in the same manner that we don't put periods after people's full middle names, like Joey Lauren Adams. Technically, his middle name is T. From middle name, "In such cases, using a period (full stop) after the "initial" is incorrect, since a period denotes an abbreviation."

Also, to make sure refs come after a punctuation mark, you do not need AWB, you only need eyes. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: Image:Cardiff-Bay-01.jpg does not contribute to the article in any significant way. The caption on the image on the article says "Jack leaving the Doctor's company in Doctor Who series three" Why is this significant? It's not mentioned in the article at all, except on the caption. Nothing about the image seems significant enough to warrant inclusion of this fair use image. It depicts the character, nothing more. We already have another image for depiction purposes. This is just decoration. --Durin 19:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done Happy to see it gone.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment
  • Could we put powers and abilities above characteristics. It's just further IU information that should probably be kept with the rest of the other IU stuff.
    •  Done
  • Is there more literature information? Like, does is only appear in this stuff? Did anything happen in this literature? Was he only briefly mentioned. Did they expand on the character of Jack in a way the show did not?
  • Coincidentally, the 1968 Doctor Who serial The Mind Robber features a character who wrote a series of books titled "The Adventures of Captain Jack Harkaway". - What does this mean? Is it simply pointing out a coincidence in similarities between names that an editor found? If so, coincedences are not relevant without meaning.
    •  Done
  • Can we get more OOU information? Right now, your IU info takes up about half your article, which slightly concerns me. It makes me think we are focusing more on what he does on a show, and less on his impact in the real world. Can we expand the critical reception and impact section? There has to be more out there on him.
    •  Done quite a bit more.
  • Someone might want to check out User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a, for removal of redundancies and ways to tighten up the prose.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I moved the powers section. As for extra booky info, there's not necessarily a source more for or of any particular note. Filling in any information about the books would be more IU stuff, since the books have to be written as strictly "filler" stuff. Taken out the Harkaway thing, there's no official comment on it. Gonna go sourcehunting for more OOU. Prose? More rewrites to come.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• The reason I mentioned the literature section is because, if something truly significant happened, then it's ok to mention it. You can get a feel for it at Jabba the Hutt, where the books expand on aspects of the character that the films did not. I say this because I don't want it to appear as though the article cares only for the television show. The television appearances may be able to get tightened up so that they aren't as large. It depends on how you write things (I don't mean trim events and concepts, but sometimes you can merge several events into a nicely written compound sentence that summarizes like-minded events).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Everytime I go over that section I find new things to merge. I have four episodes in one sentence towards the end, which I quite like. Anyway, I've expanded the OOU stuff even more and contracted more of the IU.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I was attempting to go through and clean up your references (i.e. I was removing spaces between words--"cite web | title = Episode X |"-to-> "cite web|title=Episode X|series="...as it's just unnecessary spacing, and also removing fields there were either not filled in...like the city...or remove unnecessary "link" sections that can be done more easily by simply linking the section that says "title" and "series"...no need to have two sections were one will suffice), when I came across a bigger issue that made me stop. I saw the use of episode "Boom Town" twice inside of a couple of the first paragraphs. What caught my attention is that each instance had a different reference name. One used "Boom Town" and the other used "Badwolf" (or something along those lines). The one that used "Boom Town" was even immediately followed by the latter one I mentioned in the same sentence. When I checked the reference section, sure enough, there were two there (#3 and #11). Those are the ones that caught my eye. Might I suggest, as you go through and clean up the references to remove that unnecessary spaces and sections, that you look for duplications like that. I'm not familiar with the show so I probably won't realize I saw an episode title more than once. This time only caught my eye because they happened to be right close to each other.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that, it's fixed. Yes, I'll check the refs over again tomorrow, but I'm tired now. I don't know if the plot section can be reduced anymore, and the only place I could possibly see expanding too much in future, although perhaps the "backstory" section will for a time. The plot section is also quite grounded in reality. The powers section is a notable character trait - even the Superman and Batman FAs have powers/skills sections. The characterization/impact sections are comprehensive with regards to every aspect of the character and are thoroughly sourced. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose—1a and MOS.
  • "openly non-heterosexual". Thanks, I'll call you "openly non-black" or some such, then.
    • There's nothing wrong with that. "Openly bisexual" would suggest the show has had gay characters, and "LGBT" would complicate things with an acronym. I understand there's an implicit heteronormativity to it, but it's a bit of a stretch to find... casual readers may even find substitute terms like "queer" offensive.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • We speak English, so why the link for normal words such as "protagonist" and "immortal"? Needs a full audit throughout so that high-value links are not diluted by useless ones.
    • {{done)) Will do.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Why pipe-link "2006" to "List of Dr Who serials"—no one will bother clicking on a year, so find a more explicit way of linking it.
    • The link is "2006 series", because "Series 2" is confusing as Doctor Who has had two of those.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, one season; one series. The terminology sets the two productions apart.Aderack 02:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "appears to lack any extranormal abilities"—Spot the redundant word.
    •  Done It wasn't originally worded that way, will change it.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Repeated references in successive sentences become intrusive in places; e.g., 10, 10, , , 10, 13 10. 10. We get the point. Why not ration the 10 to, say, two positions here? Sometimes fine-grained extactitude becomes a nuisance when we know basically where the information comes from. And what about "Rose Tyler,[7] the Doctor,[7]"—that's ridiculous!
    • Basically, it's done because in some places people are likely to get confused as to what instance is being referred to... but I will trim them out.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "At present in the series,"—"At present" means exactly what?
    • As of the latest episode that's shown? It's not saying the character has a present. Will change for clarity.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "team-mates"—isn't this one word?
    •  Done Yes, that's a very recent change.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "series 3"—S coz it's a title.
    •  Done K.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Lots to do. Please don't just fix these samples. Tony 12:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Better get a copyeditor in, mate. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I listed it for the WP:LoCE.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone who's already given this article some comment like to give it another once over?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Has it been copyedited? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Is that to say copyediting is the only adjustment still required? That was the point of my previous question, if that wasn't clear. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, clearly if the only oppose at the moment is Tony. If you haven't got a good copyeditor in yet, find one and then ask the same question. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the sub-subheadings (Introduction/Torchwood onwards) in the "Appearances" section are necessary anymore now that the backstory stuff is gone, especially since he continues to jump between shows. Also, if more OOU info can be found about his immortality (why they made him immortal/how it affects the character), I'd like to see "Powers & abilities" merged into "Characterization". Also, is the sexual orientation subheading really necessary? It seems to break up the article unnecessarliy to focus on something which is essentially just part of his personality anyway. I think the section would be stronger merged into "personality." Paul730 13:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done Powers and abilities has been merged, you're totally right there. However, I feel the sexuality section is rather notable in itself as a character's defining trait which takes up a rather large proportion of the characterization section, and also as it might necessarily need distinguishing from personality (sexual orientation can be a can of worms, not touching it anymore specifically than to say it's best not to lump it together with anything). The television appearances subheadings are also removed, with editors notes' in their place so new editors can understand the layout.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I suppose it is an important section, it just looked a little brief to be an independant subsection, that's all. :) Paul730 02:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have no idea what--Jack's youthful nickname, "the Face of Boe" (the Boeshane Peninsula being his early home),[12] implies that Jack may eventually become the enigmatic Face of Boe — a disembodied, giant head in a jar. Russell T Davies called this scene as presenting "a theory" in the episode commentary for "Last of the Time Lords".[13]--means. It's so out there in the section. Especially the last part about Davies calling it "a theory". It either needs better explaination, or complete removal. I mean, the section is about his appearances, not about some possible change in his appearance later (if ever) in the series.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• It was such a rawkas at the time, fans demanding it be a three paragraph thing about Jack being the Face of Boe. Placing it in "character history" was a compromise, but since this FAC began it has become an appearances and separate characterisation section. It can't be removed entirely, though. Perhaps integrating it with characterisation along the lines of "Jack's character may evolve further in much later points of his fictional history, with the episode "Last of the Time Lords"[12] promoting a "theory"[13] that Jack may become another recurring character in the series: the Face of Boe — a mysterious, large disembodied head, and friend of the Doctor's." The article would suffer from comprehensiveness issues if the entire concept was omitted.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If "Face of Boe" is some sort of characterization that will take place, then yeah, it would be better there. Instead of being vague about, with a "may evolve", and I would do more of a "'Fill in that guy's name' has stated that Jack could evolve into the "Face of Boe", a mysterious...... 'Same guy's name' explained that "Last of the Time Lords" promited the theory of Jack becoming a different recurring character in the series: the Face of Boe."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Russell T Davies referred to a scene in "Last of the Time Lords" as promoting a theory that Jack's future may involve him become or age into another recurring character in the series -- This is very awkward sounding.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Despite having worked with him for some time, his present-day colleagues know very little about him and Jack is preoccupied with. - Preoccupied with what? Paul730 17:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea. Stray sentence fragment from an old edit I guess.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume it has something to do with finding the Doctor? Maybe it should be mentioned in some way, since Jack's quest to reunite with the Doctor and discover why he was immortal was his main character arc in season 1, before realising in LotTL that his TW friends meant more to him. Paul730 17:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thought it could be, but then with the rewrite that information comes in just before there anyway.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 18:12, 25 August 2007.

---

Homer Simpson

A really concise, but good article. It follows the manual of style, is well written and has many reliable references to support its statements. Nominate and support --Hadseys 18:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support I was a bit cynical about this at first, since Wikipedia has so many articles about The Simpsons. However, I like the clear and concise tone of the article.--Ianmacm 19:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your support --Hadseys 20:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support well referenced, concise, well written, overall an impressive article. An excellent example of writing about fiction --Brent Ward 23:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Whilst the article is nicely written, (although not very well sourced), it neglects a vital part of any article about a fictional character:- their real world relevance. The cultural impact of Homer Simpson is tucked away in a short paragraph at the bottom of the article and mainly focuses on lists in which he features. Homer Simpson is one of the most recognisable figures on the planet and has a legitimate and real effect in many places today, for example here are just a very small selection of webpages dicussing Homer Simpson's image [9], [10], [11], [12]. The article needs far more real world relevance from places like this before it is ready for Featured Status.--Jackyd101 00:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • You're first link is speculation and original research, so shouldnt be in wikipedia, your second focuses on a secondary character within an episode, the third is intended for comedic value and is more about everybody from springfield instead of just homer, and you're fourth link is merely about the movie, which has only 1 comment so it doesn't really have any "world relevance" --Hadseys
    • You've missed my point - I wasn't giving you links I thought should be included, I was attempting to portray a small sample of the wide range of ways in which the character of Homer Simpson has been interpreted, applied and influenced in the wider world. This aspect of the character is currently missing from the article and without it, the article should not, in my opinion, be a featured article.--Jackyd101 02:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I've expanded the cultural influence section --Hadseys 21:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I've been asked to take another look at this, butI'm afraid I still oppose. Although there is now a slightly larger cultural influences section, it is still much smaller than this character deserves. In addition it is laid out in a strange and untidy format with short stubby paragraphs rather than flowing text and the references are improperly formatted. On top of this there are other problems I did not mention above; the personality section still contains a lot of original research and irrelevancies, the sources used are inadequate for a featured article and the new merchandising section is tiny. This piece is a long way from FA quality I'm afraid. It requires a major overhaul and a much greater non-universe input before it can qualify. See this FA on fictional characters with a far less significant impact on culture for some ideas.--Jackyd101 11:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support great article, well done to all contributors! --Ahadland12345 12:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. The whole "personality" section is based off of original research pieced together from episodes. This section should consist of personality traits as described and supported by creators and some sort of analysis (a show this popular and influential certainly has professional analysis on its main character). There are also much better sources available for the subject:

• I've re-written the personality section --Hadseys 21:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• It didn't really address the major concerns I brought up. The "personality" section should not be derived directly from episodes.-Wafulz 14:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• The Simpsons and philosophy : the d’oh! of Homer
• Leaving Springfield : the Simpsons and the possibility of oppositional culture
• Watching with The Simpsons : television, parody, and intertextuality

These are just the books in my local library. These types of sources could provide much better insight into the topic- remember that for an article reach FA status, it should use the very best sources available.-Wafulz 13:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This is also a good starting point.-Wafulz 13:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• • well the episodes are Matt groenings and if thats how he depicts his character who are we to argue?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahadland12345 (talk • contribs)

• Well you're wrong on a few points:

• The episodes aren't all Matt Groening's since he hasn't written them all
• The characteristics chosen are chosen arbitrarily by editors and don't necessarily assert their importance. Do we really need to know his lifelong dream is to run out in a baseball field in underwear? Or that in one episode his rage saved him from a heart attack? Lots of material here is extremely trivial.
• Lots of the material within "Personality" is the very definition of original research. Things like asserting that he is a borderline kleptomaniac, analysis of his self-confidence, and phrases like "some episodes suggest that Homer's normal functions do not require the use of his brain" are extremely troublesome. These are opinions and original analysis- they are not encyclopedic content.

• Well to be honest, that original research is backed up by the episodes, so quite how it is original is beyond me. And also those 'trivial' things make up aspects of homer as a person—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahadland12345 (talk • contribs)

• It's original research in that there is secondary analysis coming from editors. It contains personal opinions, and the notability of the material is not established. If we don't apply notability or original research standards, this article is just a rehashing of plot summaries that editors arbitrarily included. Basically, if I wanted to, I could go in and add something that Homer has done in any episode of The Simpsons and claim it is part of his personality. Also, sign your posts.-Wafulz 17:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Given the context, there is much better material out there. This article currently does not represent the very finest of Wikipedia, and it probably shouldn't even be a Good Article to begin with.-Wafulz 15:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Definately not representitative of Wikipedia's best work. The referencing is terrible. One section starts with the word Although and the culture section consists of one paragraph. Homer Simpson is definately an article that is WP:FA potential in the future, but not in its current form. Please do not nominate or support an article just because you like its subject - and lets go throught the proper processes before nominating...e.g. WP:PR and WP:GA .....Todd^#661 13:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC) _{(Sorry if i sounded harsh)}
• Support well referenced, written well, give me an encyclopedic grasp of the topic, great work --Brendan44 15:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It is unusual for a FAC to produce such strong for and against comments. I did not support the article out of any bias towards The Simpsons, and suspect that the other supporters did not do this either. I like the article, although I agree that the cultural influence section could be expanded. --Ianmacm 19:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment What definitely gives me pause is sentences like this:

"While Homer's stupid antics often upset his family, he has also performed acts that reveal him to be a surprisingly loving father and husband."

The use of value laden words like "stupid" and "surprisingly loving" are not neutral and give the appearance of being the editor's opinion. I would prefer such language be changed. Mattisse 21:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: I've gone through this article more than once, and I am unsure if it is going to make it this time around. It needs substantial improvement, and I would dare say a new overall approach to the way the article is handled. An exemplary handling of a fictional character is Felix the Cat. It has a nice real-world perspective, and shows why this character had an impact on the world, not just why it is interesting or some of the comical things the character has done. Of the four featured article criteria, I recommend addressing the following:

1. Basic criteria met?:

1a. Well written?

• "have come into everyday use" - everyday use where? Uzbekistan? China? Ghana? This is an international encyclopedia. Done
• "The two were wed in a small wedding chapel across the state line,[18] spent their wedding reception alone at a truck stop,[19] (despite an earlier episode having Homer recall a party with lots of guests, alcohol "and a priest", and Marge informing him afterward that it was their wedding) and the rest of their wedding night at Marge's parents' house." - I think this sentence tries to do too much and slips into being a run-on.done
• "so Homer could work at his dream job, pin monkey in a bowling alley" - you don't work at a job. This should say "so Homer could have his dream job as a pin monkey in a bowling alley"done
• "Despite their disadvantages, these common outbursts save Homer from dying of a pent-up rage-induced heart attack." - this statement needs context, like "in one episode" or "after one particular hospital stay" - something like that

• Sentence removed

• In the sentence that begins "While Homer's stupid antics often..." the gerund use in the list of his actions (selling, giving, spearheading, etc...) is incorrect. You actually can word it like that if you preface the list with "Examples include" or some other simple sentence. Otherwise, starting a phrase off with a gerund makes it a dependent clause, and thus should be attached to a sentence.

• Not sure what you mean

• "this, though, but" - redundant and wrong. Either start the sentence off with "although" and ditch the but, or ditch the "though".

• Done. I think

• ", (Which was just them being locked" - ditch the comma and lowercase "which"done
• "his children is not incredibly well but" - well is an adverb. Try a adjective (like "good")done
• "relationship, although" - replace the comma with a semicolon or colon

• Can't find where you mean

• I think in some of the rephrasing, this was changed--Esprit15d 13:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• "Bart very well he also has" - comma after well

• Can't find where you mean

• "a very popular running gag" - popular to whom? This is an unsubstantiated claim/opinion removed
• "mean Maggie, in one" - replace the comma with a period, capitalize "In". removed as that only happened once
• "asks for his daughter and" - clarify who "his" is removed because homer doesn't automatically assume maggie is his daughter
• "voiced by Dan Castellaneta" - "and he is voiced by Dan Castellaneta"
• "His voice was originally based on that of Walter Matthau." - this is a random fact that doesn't serve to summarize the article which is the point of the lead section.
• "And although he" - not a formal way to start a sentence. Drop "And"
• "stereotypes. He is" replace the period with a colon and lowercase "he"; otherwise it sounds like everything in this paragraph relates to the American stereotype
• "with Homer named" - "with Homer being named"
• "19 April, 1987" - dates should be formatted MONTH DAY, YEAR. And wikilinked accordingly.
• "the shorts compared to" - "the shorts when compared to"
• " usage is not from" - " usage is actually not from"
• After the first instance, Dan Castellaneta only has to be referred to as his last name (not the full name). The same goes for everyone else.
• "(sometimes too quickly)." - rm this, it is too specific
• "From there they spent their wedding reception alone at a truck stop,[19] and the remainder of their wedding night at Marge's parents' house." - rm, too specific (in other words, this would be interesting to a fan, but it's not relevant to Homer's characterization)
• This sentence should start a new paragraph: "After failing to get a job..."
• "According to comments on The Simpsons DVD commentaries " - this sentence is fantastic
• "Homer is prone to emotional outbursts; he is very envious of his neighbors, the Flanders family, and is easily enraged by Bart and strangles him frequently." This is one sentence but covers three entirely different topics. Each of these should probably have its own paragraph. Also, all the information about Homer's relationship with his family should be together in one paragraph.

1b. Comprehensive?

• "However, the features of Homer's character design are not used in other characters." - in what way?

1c. Factually accurate? The more I read, the more the personality section looks like OR and less like the guidelines at WP:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). The biggest offenders are phrases like "Some episodes suggest," "presumably lowering," etc..

1d. Neutral?

• "Partly due to these contradictory attributes, Homer is considered by many to be the greatest comic creation of modern times." - This is a generalized and pretty audacious opinion - which is totally fine. Except that (1) while this opinion is substantiated by the Sunday Times, that is only one source, and one of dubious widespread credibility. I would prefer multiple references, and preferably a more mainstream one. (2) "Considered by many" is the godfather of weasel phrases. The more specifically an opinion is attributed, the better. (3) The fact that this sentence appears in the lead further perturbs me. By nature, sentences in the lead are very pointed, because the explanation is in the article. So, for that, I say it is even more important to find the right balance between being concise, while still being neutral. and lastly (4) He only rates number one on one of the polls in the article, so the claim is tenuous. All said, the sentence should ideally read something like this "Due in part to these contradictory attributes, Homer has been recognized by show fans and media organizations alike as one of the greatest comic creations of modern times."

• Done the re-phrasing. Looking for a better source

• "Homer embodies several" - "Homer was intended to embody several", otherwise, it sounds like Wikipedia believes that Homer embodies the stereotyped, but Wikipedia has no opinions
• " Despite his apparent blue-collar status, he has had a number of remarkable experiences." - Blue collar workers can't have remarkable experiences? This needs to be seriously reworded or deleted.

1e. Stable? Yes

2. Complies with Manual of style and relevant WikiProjects?:

2a. Concise lead section? In general, the lead is not adequate. The lead is suppose to be an abstract, or summary, of the article. I don't think that someone who read the article's current lead section would come away with a brief overview of the article. Currently it is a personality summary, which is teeters on original research (which several editors have mentioned). Instead it should have about two or three sentences that directly summarize the content to each subheading.

2b. Hierarchical headings? Good here, except for a few things:

• But, I think "cultural influence" isn't the best name for that particular section. Basically it is a list of awards. added much more information
• The subheading Personality should probably be renamed Characterization, as if that isn't what it is, that what it should be.
• The subheading "Biography" should be modeled more after the section called "Appearances" in teh article Jabba the Hutt. This article is featured. Notice the clinical (and not personal or interpretive) way the character events are described. For example: " Han Solo has a confrontation in a Mos Eisley cantina with an alien bounty hunter named Greedo (Paul Blake and Maria De Aragon) that ends with Greedo's death." Very straightforward. Additionally, the events chosen are notable to overall plot development of the character and series, and arranged chronologically. I think the article has improved even since my first reading, and is not all bad. But to quickly demonstrate where it fails, the "Personality section" does not always show an example from the show or from a recognized published reviewer. It just makes a statement like "His relationship with his children is not the best, although he loves his children deeply." Unfortunately, that is not acceptable. In contrast, notice in the Jabba the Hutt article "Jabba the Hutt does show rare moments of charity, however. For instance, in one Expanded Universe story..." Another example "The character is known throughout the Stars Wars universe as a "vile gangster" (and this statement is referenced) Another example: "Science fiction authors Tom and Martha Veitch write that Jabba's body is a "miasmic mass" of flesh that shakes as he laughs." This is how the bulk of the sections should be written.

2c. Well-structured table of contents? Yes

2d. Consistently-formatted inline citations? Yes

3. Properly placed, captioned and/or rationalized images?: Yes

4. Appropriate length?:

• I would like to see a section on how this character is merchandized, or something that is more encyclopedic. More topics that make this less of a POV character bio, and more of a out of universe discussion on the character's impact. While this is not a FA, this article is closer to the mark Bugs Bunny.

• I'll try and put together a section on merchandising

When these issues are addressed, note the changes here and notify me on my talk page. Thank you for your work so far. — Esprit15d 21:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: I was the main contributer who helped the page reach GA status and I've recently had doubts that it is still of GA quality, so I definitely oppose FA status. The entire article should be reworked and modelled after Troy McClure. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support I believe that this article is up to par and able to be a featured article. although I noted a couple of minor problems, such as the formatting of two footnotes, these are minor and I still support the article. Karrmann 23:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support Good article. Avala 18:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• SupportBrilliant article Everlast¹⁹¹⁰ 13:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Right, I've been watching this for a while, to see if the page improved and I'm glad to say it has. But that said, I'm still opposing. I just cleaned up a bunch of things, but there are still some referencing problems. I mean, can an Ebay search and a fansite really be considered reliable sources? Also, I persoanlly think this page could be more comprehensive. I mean, in many people's eyes, Homer is one of the greatest fictional characters of all time, and so his cultural influence could still need some more work. Gran² 16:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 18:12, 25 August 2007.

---

Uranus

This page has gone through extensive revisions since acheiving GA status and I think it's ready for FA consideration. Serendi^podous 09:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I passed this at GA and it has been nicely kneaded, massaged and moulded since then.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, please remove all caps per MOS:CAPS#All caps. Also see WP:MOSNUM regarding linking of month-day combos so user date preferences will work. There are instances of incorrect dashes; example, and temperatures 110-170 K. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. I'm not sure what you're asking as regards dates; they seem properly linked according to your manual page. Serendi^podous 16:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There still seems to be confusion between mdash, ndash, hyphen, and the minus sign. Some of the extended numbers get split up by linewrap and could benefit from the nowrap template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. That should do it. Tell me if there's any I missed. I'm taking a tea break. Serendi^podous 17:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Still some confusion—minus sign info here (minus sign is not a hyphen). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I fixed it Serendi^podous 10:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose—MOS breaches and 1a. Here are random samples. Please engage one or more unfamiliar editors to run through the whole text.
• MOS. Please fix the infobox. Common mathematical symbols need to be spaced on both sides (except for minus signs). Why are spaces used to separate every three digits in the decimal parts of values? On the integral side, sometimes commas are used and sometimes no separators are used. "Day", being fully spelt out, should be pluralised where appropriate. The distances are averages, are they? Some units are converted into imperial equivalents, others not (consider not converting, but it must be consistent). Check that a logical, reasonable consistency pertains WRT precision throughout the infoblot.
• 1a: "Image showing Uranus, its bands, rings and moons clearly outlining its sideways pose". I presume that "pose" is the standard term. The clause is ambiguous. "The period of Uranus's orbit (it's year) is roughly 84 Earth years long"—ouch; remove apostrophe and "long".

Tony 14:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The space separators to the right of the decimal appear to come from ISO 31-0. It's been applied to all of the Solar System planet articles by an unknown editor. — RJH (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've raised this issue at MOSNUM talk.

More examples of why a copy-edit is required throughout. It's not a long job, but better done by someone unfamiliar with the article:

• Sorry to harp on about the infoblot: "km" etc are linked on third appearance, not first. Unsure that kilometres and miles are so little known as to require linking: AU, yes. The K for Kelvin is linked three times in a row. See MOS on linking. The symbols are still unspaced ...
• "far less massive than either Jupiter and Saturn"—"or".
• Does "ices" have to be in quotes?
• "possesses a ring system"—oh, just "has". Be plain.
• "Uranus is unique though in that it, its moons"—Better "However, Uranus is ...".
• Do the quaint images of archery target and hands of a clock add anything? Hard to imagine.
• "it found it"—There's a lot of "it" in the text. Rephrase the sentence.
• "twelve"—MOS says normally digits for > nine.
• "place."—MOS says final punctuation after the quotes. Please fix all of them.
• Curly double quotes, yet straight apostrophes?
• "The name Georgium Sidus or "the Georgian" was still used infrequently (by the British alone) thereafter."—"Still" and "thereafter"?
• To be fussy, a comma is required after the parenthesis: "The historically incorrect pronunciation [jʊˈɹeɪ.nəs], with stress on the second syllable and a "long a" (ūrānŭs) has become very common."
• "Uranus's"—Hmmm, nicer as the blah of Uranus". Tony 00:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose As someone unfamiliar with the article, I took Tony's suggestion and began a copy edit. It's not a long job, but a few hours on the first few sections, I can say it's not a short one either. When I compare it to the planets articles that have been featured, I think the article is still in the "getting there" stage. Flying Jazz 05:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment about a technical aspect of the display. The section on the structure of the atmosphere describes the "H⁺₃ ion". This appearance looks rather odd to me. I went to the original reference (an on-line pdf) to confirm that it wasn't supposed to be a tritium ion. Is there any way of displaying the "+" superscript directly above the "3" subscript? Axl 19:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC) I also see that the "Magnetic field" section describes "H₂⁺ ions". Axl 19:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Serendi^podous 07:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Er, you only fixed one of the entries. There is another one. ;-) Axl 20:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I fixed another one. Serendi^podous 21:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl 21:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 18:12, 25 August 2007.

---

50 Cent

A really informative article. It follows the manual of style, is well written and has many reliable references to support its statements. It covers all aspects of his life from a neutral point of view. Is stable and has experienced editors keeping watch on it and updating it. --The-G-Unit-Boss 20:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support-This is a very well written article. A very good representative of the Hip hop and G-Unit articles. --The-G-Unit-Boss 20:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose This passed as a good article only three weeks ago. The reviewer suggested room for improvement, which has not even been addressed yet. It's still not as comprehensive as it should be. For example, there's no critical reviews of his acting and there's little critical reception of his albums. And since he's coming out with an album in a few weeks, there could be stability issues. This nomination is quite early and I think there should have been a notice on the talk page first. Although it's a fairly good article, it's still not up to FA standards. Spellcast 21:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Spellcast took most of my words. Wait until the album comes out. Add any extra information with the album if there is any. Also I would like to see the page unprotected. If it is semi-protected, it probably means its a target for vandalism which is a no-no for a FAC. However this article does have potential and I am ready to change my vote after the album comes out. -ScotchMB 02:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

  Semi-protection should have absolutely no impact on whether or not an article passes FAC. "Reversions of vandalism and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions" do not make an article unstable. 17Drew 21:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if I should have put up that comment but vandalism on the page means there are some people who disagree with the current writting stuff on the page. If a neutral compromise is found then vandalism would probably go away. -ScotchMB 14:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read the cirteria, you clearly do not understand them. Vandalism has nothing to do with stability. Tayquan^holla_{My work} 01:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per Spellcast and ScotchMB. Especially because of the upcoming album(s). Also, as Spellcast said, if the suggested improvements have not been addressed yet, it is still at GA status. --- Realest4Life 15:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per Spellcast and ScotchMB. --Ayoleftyz 15:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Needs more time put into it, and more polishing. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 20:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too many opinions Rlk89 00:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Spellcast and ScotchMB. --RandomOrca2 03:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per above, sorry. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• An administrator should close this per WP:SNOW. Davnel03 12:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 18:12, 25 August 2007.

---

Guided by Voices

Highly influential and very prolific indie-rock pioneers led by frontman Robert Pollard who, for twenty-one years, established themselves as leaders of the lo-fi indie genre, and created a very large following from indie listeners. ThirdPoliceman 21:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• And with an article lacking any references or sources. Strong oppose on said grounds. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• strong oppose - no references! did this even have a GAC review? this topic should include coverage from major national media sources (nytimes, rolling stone, chicago tribune, etc) including performance reviews, album reviews, and cultural influences. for an FA, i would also expect prose and reference regarding appearances in rock and roll poster art, e.g. Derek Hess and Frank Kozik among others. LurkingInChicago 03:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Lenin and McCarthy and LurkingInChicago. No references or inline citations. WesleyDodds 05:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Next time, consider the merits of the article independent of its subject.--Rmky87 18:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose/Comment No references whatsoever is a big one, but there are a few other huge reasons why this couldn't be featured. However, this is sitting somewhere in the back of my future projects list, and I just got a biography of the band. --Brandt Luke Zorn 07:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 18:12, 25 August 2007.

---

Sinhala alphabet

I self-nominate this article because it is the most comprehensive account of the Sinhala writing system available in book form or on the internet. Besides technical information about the composition of the letters, it contains information about the script's history, its modern usage, Western and native transliteration, and computer support. The information presented has been checked for factual correctness against Sri Lankan and Western literature from several academic traditions, which is referenced in footnotes+{{cite book}} style.

Special care has been taken to make the article accessible to users who do not have any Sinhala fonts installed (probably the majority): all pieces of information pertaining to the shapes of the letters are also provided as linked images. Important details of the letters are highlighted in the images and refered to in the text.

A real-life image shows the script in a natural (read non-academic) context. The very same illustration is re-used later in the article to illustrate some finer typographic points, creating a self-contained article, which is nevertheless embedded in its scientific, areal and social context by appropriate and specific linking. Jasy jatere 19:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. This may need a copyedit- just a quick look through the article and I had to make this edit.-Wafulz 16:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. For the sake of convenience, the ominous edit refers to changing 'due to the fact' to 'because'. Jasy jatere 21:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Also a comma into a semi-colon.-Wafulz 23:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose—Needs a copy-edit desperately. I like the subject—fascinating. Here are samples from the top of why new collaborators are required, to run through the whole text.
  • First sentence: "and also"—one is redundant. I don't like "sometimes". It's the opening, so we need to get it right.
  • "Being a member of the Brahmic family of scripts, the Sinhala script can trace its ancestry back more than 2000 years." Scripts don't trace back; historians and linguists do that. The causal connection beetween its membership of the B family and its long ancestry is unclear. "Being" would have been better as "as", if this causal grammar were to survive: it shouldn't.
  • "Sinhala is often considered two alphabets, or an alphabet with another alphabet, due to the presence of two different sets of letters." Insert "to comprise" before "two", and remove everything after "alphabets". Then: "... alphabets; the core alphabet, known as ...". Remove "can", to make it "represents". Remove "in order". It looks very messy without the right software—all of those squares in the text.

I'd love this to be a shining FA, so why not push and pull to get the best copy-editors to work on it. It's way below standard at the moment. Tony 08:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Ref #3 is broken.--Rmky87 16:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Changes since my post. Very disappointing. Tony 13:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 18:12, 25 August 2007.

---

Shelley Archer

Self-nomination. I've been working on this article for a while now, and I believe it is up to FA standard. It is the most comprehensive biographical article of the subject, cites pretty much every useful WP:RS in existence on the subject, and I think achieves a neutral balance on a reasonably controversial figure. Rebecca 13:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

• Why are reference 1 & 2 of the same speech? There should be 1 reference there, not two.
• Picture might help this article
• This article doesnt talk about her as far in depth.
• I would prefer the references to be in the cite format, but that isnt nescessary.
• having 2 or more citation marks next to each other is plain ugly. Look at FA's like Hamersley, Western Australia - which has some quite cool ciation bits, which make things like this less messy. For me, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Twenty Years 13:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The speech references are fixed. The article covers everything that is notable and important, and uses essentially every WP:RS in existence. What have I left out? There are no free use images of the subject available, no fair use images would be permissible under Wikipedia's policies, and I do not believe it is essential to understand the topic. I've changed the citations accordingly where there were two adjacent to one another, as per the Hamersley article. Rebecca 13:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Why have 2 references that can say the same thing as one. By using the ref name you can do this. Twenty Years 13:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This is also fixed. Rebecca 14:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I just say, having more than one citation next to each other is perfectly acceptable, and not really an actionable objection. Each reference should go into its own reference tag. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Nitpicks. I think this is pretty much ready for FA as-is, but here are some thoughts. Numbered for convenient reference.

1. A picture should probably be possible for this article. This is easily sufficient commentary to justify a non-free image, and I'm given to understand that Archer doesn't spend enough time in public for a free image to be practical.
2. The "Corruption and Crime Commission investigation" section is actually her political life since 2006. Since she's still active in politics and the section already has a little bit of info on later happenings (the stem-cell research vote), resectioning or renaming of the section may be in order. I can't figure out how, though.
3. There's a lot of redlinks. I realize most of them are subjects that need articles at some point, but it may be best to explain the significance or role of some of the redlinks.
4. Is there no reference with her year of birth?
5. The reference cited doesn't seem to state that she joined the Australian Labor Party at 16; did I miss it?

None of these are the end of the world, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

As I understand the fair use policy, I don't believe that any fair use justification would be possible, as she is alive and the article does not refer to any image itself. However, a free use image would be so difficult to get as to be essentially unobtainable, and I do not think it would add substantially to this article. She hasn't really done much since the height of the Burke affair, and I think a two-sentence section would look rather strange, so I think that might have to wait until if or when something else happens to warrant creating a new section. There is no WP:RS for her date of birth - believe me, I've looked. I've removed the sentence about her joining the ALP - I'm a bit miffed as to what happened there, and can't for the life of me find the actual source I used. As for the red links, I'll take care of them over the next couple of days. Rebecca 14:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Her being alive isn't the issue with the image; it's whether it's possible to get a free image of her or not. I understand that it's not possible, and a single image illustrating a biography is typically fine if no free image is possible. It all hinges on whether a free image is possible. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been over this with the fair use obsessives numerous times, and as far as I understand, "no free image possible" is defined such that the person being alive is enough to deem it theoretically possible that a free use image could be obtained. As this makes it impossible to use a fair use image, and because it is practically impossible to obtain a free use, I think we'll have to settle for no image. I don't like it any more than you do, but it isn't like it's vitally necessary to understand the topic. Rebecca 14:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am a fair-use obsessive, and I recommend that you not give up hope. If you upload an image, we can work on a rationale for it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

AMIB, I tried to look for photos myself and the only ones that exist are under a do not use commercial/do not modify license. Unless we can ask her office for a photo, I am not sure if we will even have one for the article. However, I will not let that stop the article from being FA. Once some of the other comments are addressed, I am ready to support the article being FA. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Note sure I like the intro. Lines like "The partner of powerful unionist Kevin Reynolds, she is associated with the right wing of the party." especially when this figure is redlinked come off as strange.
2. Doesn't tell me much about her views/voting history.
3. Too many redlinks, at least for a page of this size.
4. The number of sections/length seems out of balance. Something feels amiss. "External link" section seems odd.
5. I'd really like a picture here (nitpick)

Ping me if these change. I'll be bit busy with dev stuff. Seems doable though. Voice-of-All 03:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've included as much information about her views and voting history as is on the public record. A notable difference between the US and Australia is that, because MPs are expected to follow the party line on all occasions, their views don't really tend to become public knowledge unless either they start publicly advocating for a policy (as occurred here with nuclear power) or the party allows a conscience vote (as occurred here with stem-cell research). I've explained above why a picture here is impossible. I'm not sure I understand the issues with the intro and the sections - could you explain? The red links, on the other hand, will be taken care of within the next couple of days. Rebecca 03:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, better. I quickly changed the word "powerful" to something less loaded sounding. It still does not have the kind of sense of "completeness" and elegance of form (yeah, it's just the words form blocks on the page, but still). Just noticed, no birth date/location bothers me. Voice-of-All 04:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC).

I'm still not sure what you mean by "sense of completeness" and "elegance of form", and our conversation on IRC has left me none the wiser. If I'm to address your concerns, I need to know in a non-vague manner what they actually are. Rebecca 04:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak support at the moment, although not much has to be done in my opinion. For an interesting subject, Rebecca deserves to be commended on a fantastic article. A couple of minor things I picked up:-
  • Birthdates etc. - if they're known, could they be added to the lead per the MOS?
    • Except... WP:BLP advises against this. Add the year, not the date. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Could there be a link for "right wing of the party" in the lead, for those who don't understand right/left politics?
  • "began seeing unionist" - the word 'seeing' isn't terribly encyclopedic for this meaning, especially for an international encyclopedia. I have no alternative proposals at the moment :|
  • "due to claimed harassment by colleagues" - source, and clarify whether colleagues were claiming they were harassed by Archer or Archer was claiming that she was harassed by them.
  • "a position which she held until her election to parliament" - would tacking which year (2005, as far as I can work out) to the end of this sentence be better?
  • "referring to Burke as "my mentor" and described her "undying friendship" with him" - 'described' seems to be in the wrong tense. Should it be 'describing', given the use of 'referring' earlier in the sentence?
  • "He was accused both in parliament and in the media of being afraid to take action against Archer because of her relationship with Reynolds, by now a powerful factional leader within the party, a charge which Carpenter strongly denied" - although I understand the use of the word 'charge' here, I think given the legal nature of this article that another word may be better, given there were never actually charges made.

Very nice, and kudos to Rebecca :) Daniel 04:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the in-depth feedback. I've looked everywhere for a birthdate, and there just doesn't appear to be a WP:RS for it. I've changed "right wing" to conservative - does that improve things? I've tried to find a better way of phrasing the sentence than "began seeing", but it was the best that I (and a few people in #wikipedia) were able to come up with. (Better suggestions would be appreciated.) The harassment is cited - it's just at the end of the next sentence, because people whinge if there's two references to the same source in two contiguous sentences. I'm not sure how I could word that sentence better to make it clearer that she was being harassed - do you have any suggestions? As for the last three, I'll go and fix them now. Rebecca 04:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - "conservative" is difficult as it isn't classically a term used on the labor side of politics, yet right-wing isn't instantly obvious to those outside. Maybe "right wing (conservative)" - i.e RW bluelinked and conservative in parentheses.

The lead should be longer.

The article's prose is repetitive in places with In (month/year), x happened..... - mixing up some of these would be helpful > can tweak a few of these if you want.

The article is brief but I can appreciate the limited direct information. In which case it is a good idea to add colour and context - where did she grow up in Perth? If not suburb then inner/outer north/west/east/south. Adding some background on the history of urnaium mining and bans/viewpoint here would be great to put it in context. Younger readers and those outside oz may not get why this is such an issue. Also gambling/pokies. When she was elected where was she on the ticket -was she an acrimonious or contested preselection?

The last line isn't part of the last section but sort of belongs in a current... bit

disgraced former-Premier-turned-lobbyist.. - not in lead - just "disgraced former Premier" I think is fine, remember it is a summary.

...she began seeing unionist.. sounds unencyclopedic - "began a relationship with" (?)

Overall a fascinating read and great topic to work up to FA but really needs some colour - if can think of some other things to add I'll give a hoy. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for these suggestions, Casliber. They'll take me some time, so I'll get to them in a couple of days when I have access to a computer again. Rebecca 23:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support excellent, and fascinating. Well sourced too :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 12:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• oppose -- For me, the article just doesnt have enough content and body to it for an FA. An infobox is needed too. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • How is it not comprehensive? What is missing? What have I left out? As for the infobox, as I said below, it is not in the featured article criteria, and would be absolutely pointless here, as the only information that would be in it is already nicely highlighted in the second sentence of the article. As such, these suggestions are unactionable. Rebecca 23:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I can't understand why no free (as opposed to fair-use) images are available for a current state politician, I would have thought we'd have someone around who could get one. Not that I'm going to fly to Perth for you though... User:AndyZ's automated peer review tool still has a fair bit to say about this article, most of which I agree with - in particular:

This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.^[?]

Even that script thinks there should be an Infobox, as do I and others here who oppose FA in the current state.

I think there should be scope for seperating "early life" and "political career", being a public servant might provide a pathway into politics (particlualry the positions which are mentioned) but it isn't what she is known for.

In no way am I saying it's not a great article - just that there doesn't seem to be enough to say about her for it to become a featured article. Maybe when she's been a state MP for more than four years there might be more to say about her.

Garrie 21:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not at all surprised that there are no free use images available for a current state politician. If I were involved with the WA Labor Party, or a politically involved student at UWA, I might be able to get a picture of some state politicians, but it's actually very hard to do - it's not as if these people regularly appear at rallies or other places they're easily accessed and photographed. With the sectioning - it was done that way originally, but (at the suggestion of Golbez, who I agree with), they were merged together, as we felt it looked better that way.

• As for the article being "not comprehensive" - what does it not include that it should include? Every article is supposed to be featurable, and I've cited every useful WP:RS there is. It isn't as if sources don't exist on anything substantial, either (apart from her birthdate and place) - the article covers anything notable that she's actually done. And an infobox? Andy's script may think it should have one, but it is not in the Featured Article Criteria, and I think it would be absolutely useless in this article - what would it contain that wasn't bleedingly obvious from the first two sentences? As such, I think I'm going to have to take these suggestions as being unactionable. Rebecca 23:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Rebecca, this is pretty much as comprensive as you are going to get, without getting into ridiculous trivia that would be a violation of WP:BLP anyway. I don't see how it's an actionable objection. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support, as Becca says, it's probably the most comprehensive biography available anywhere, exhaustively referenced and researched. It would be grand to have a picture but apparently Aussie politicians are camera shy. --Golbez 05:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Given the limited resources you are going on, and the fact that the sensationalist language in the news articles themselves has not been carried over, this is excellent. One nitpick though—is there any way to scrap the word 'controversy'? It's used in excess all over Wikipedia, and it would be better to just explain the controversy than have the word. Michael ^talk 00:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to contact her office and ask for a freely licensed photo? Raul654 20:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I very much doubt that such an endeavour would be successful, considering the content of the article. Wikipedia can't have it both ways - either it needs to allow fair use images where a free one is not feasible, or it needs to accept that articles may not end up with images at all, even at featured status, and stop expecting editors to pull a free image out of nowhere. As it is, it's just adding pointless stress for anyone who tries to take a living person article to FA. Rebecca 01:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose These fixes needed:

• PDF sources need a "format=PDF" parameter in their citation template
• Only full dates or dates with a day and a month should be linked, as per WP:DATE.
• "March 2, 2007" - dates shouldn't have a comma before the year, as per WP:DATE.
• "another source of income for rural pubs" - – "pubs" is a slang term, "public houses" should be used
• I don't think the lead adequately summarises the article.
• I have doubts about the article's comprehensiveness. Could some items be expanded on, such as her welfare fraud, her sacking from union and her ALP presidency bid? Epbr123 12:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how to add the PDF parameter, and I've never seen it used anywhere else. Could you explain how one does that? As for your date preferences, they appear to be just that - and, as far as I can see, are not actually in the guideline you cite. "Pubs" is not a slang term - rather, it is the common word for such a thing here. "Public houses" is never used in Australia, and I doubt many people would know what it referred to.

• There isn't really much that could be said about the issues you suggest could be expanded. In each case, the article says both as much as is sourceable via reliable sources and as much as is actually notable. The welfare fraud was not notable at the time, and is only in the article because of its minor (but important) role in the later political scandal - to spend any more time on it would be to both blow it out of proportion and create a BLP issue. The sacking from the union was just that - she was fired and successfully sued for unfair dismissal. The same issues arise here as with the conviction - there isn't anything much more that could be said about it, beyond what is already there (she was fired, she sued for unfair dismissal, she won, end of story), and to spend any more time on it, even if sources could be found, would be to blow it out of proportion, compared to the attention it warranted at the actual time. The ALP presidency was similar - she was one of about ten candidates, she was not one of the favourites, she ran, and she lost. There isn't really much more to say than that. Rebecca 14:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the remaining outstanding issues are a) the length of the lead, b) the minor prose issues noted by Casliber above, and c) the red links. I'll aim to have these finished within the next three or four days. Is there any actionable objections that I've missed? Rebecca 14:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the red links...too many looks ugly. I dont want to wait for the magical "red link man" to come and fix it. So just remove them, or even better - create stubs for them yourself if they are notable, maybe just delete them. Twenty Years 14:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Added. I'll take care of it. Rebecca 22:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

All my objections are actionable.

• Please read WP:DATE.
• Copy and paste "|format=PDF" into the inline citation templates.
• At least wikilink "pub".
• "The welfare fraud was not notable at the time, and is only in the article because of its minor (but important) role in the later political scandal" - this is an article about Shelley Archer, not the political scandal. The welfare fraud was an important part of her life.
• "she was one of about ten candidates" - that's an example of the kind of info that should be added. Epbr123 14:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• " I've tried adding that into the templates, and it still isn't working - perhaps you might do it by yourself if it's so important. I've read WP:DATE, and I think you're imagining things. Pub is now wikilinked. The welfare fraud was still not notable at the time - it received no public attention whatsoever, was formally declared spent five years ago, and only ever came to the public's attention because of its brief role in her end of that scandal this year. To go into any more detail, even if there were sources (which is there is not), would be a blatant BLP violation - just because it's salacious doesn't mean it is notable. I don't see how adding that "there were several candidates" would help improve the article - it would just make that sentence less concise. So yes, they're still unactionable. Rebecca 22:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No, they're still actionable. Epbr123 22:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that they're doable, but since they would make the article less worthy of featured status, they're not actionable for the purposes of this process. Rebecca 22:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how adding that "there were several candidates" would help improve the article - you delibarately misquoted me there. The fact that you even refuse to label the pdf files suggests to me that you're just being stubborn. I now agree that expanding on the welfare fraud is unnecessary, but more detail is needed on the notable events for the article to be comprehensive. Epbr123 22:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not refusing the label the PDF files - I can't. I'm quite happy for you to do it, seeing as you evidently know how, but when I do it, it doesn't work. As for the comprehensiveness, what "notable events" would you like expanded? I've already explained why the changes you've suggested so far would make the article worse, not better. Rebecca 23:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I'll let you decide whether it's comprehensive or not. Regarding commas within dates, WP:DATE states "Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes or articles, or put a comma between month and year.". Regarding the linking of single years, WP:OVERLINK states "Only make links that are relevant to the context" and "there is hardly ever a reason to link the same term twice in the same section". WP:DATE states that only "full dates, and days and months" need to be linked for autoformatting purposes. Also, "2006-2007" needs an en dash. Epbr123 23:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't between the month and year (or at least, isn't as explained in WP:DATE, and dates in this form are far more common across the project than the alternative. As for the others, I believe these links are relevant to the context. I don't know how to do an en dash - perhaps it might be easier if you made these sort of changes directly? Rebecca 23:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

All the footnote dates have commas in. How does a link to 2007 add context? Why does 2005 need to be linked five times in one section? I think you're being stubborn again. I think you need to learn how to add en dashes yourself: your either type – or use the en dash button next to "insert" underneath the edit box. Epbr123 23:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Where is 2005 linked five times? This is all pure matter of personal preference, and it's ludicrous to have to argue over it in a featured status discussion. Rebecca 00:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

In the "Early life and political career" section. It is part of the FA criteria that articles comply with the WP:MOS guidelines and sub-guidelines. Epbr123 00:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Epbr, I think you are confused -- the dates in the footnotes are all full dates and properly use a comma. When the MOS says that Wikipedia articles don't put a comma between month and year, it means (as the example makes clear) that "In March 2007 the United States..." is preferred over "In March, 2007, the United States..." Hopefully this clears up the issue. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you seem to be right. MOS wasn't very clear. Epbr123 21:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Overall, I think the prose needs work. Most of the sentences begin with "She" or "Archer." Many sentences do not read well. Following are other concerns:
  • Single years should not be linked. Link only if there is a full date (January 1, 2000) or if the date is of particular importance.
  • Can you find out anything else about her early years? Where/when was she born? What was her mother's name? Did she go to university?
  • Why was her promotion considered controversial? If it was so controversial, any idea why she got it?
  • Add a wikilink for spent conviction. That is not a term used in US English, and I had no idea what it meant.
  • Did she appeal the firing or the conviction for fraud? You might reword these sentences anyway -- first talk about her being tried and convicted, then that she was sacked because of it.
  • Second paragraph in early life section, almost every sentence begins with "She" or "Archer." Can you vary your prose so that not all the sentences begin the same?
  • You mention in the lead that she represents the Western Australian Legislative Council, but this is not spelled out in the article and needs to be.
  • You need to explicitly mention what party she represents in the body of the article, not just in the lead.
  • I don't know how party selection works in Australia, so what is it about the affirmative action rules that allowed her to be selected? Is it unusual for someone to nominate herself?
  • Why was the fact that she won the top position "ensuring" that she won election to the Legislative Council? Did no one else run? Does that party always win?

Karanacs 20:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose—MOS breaches
  • Why are all of the simple years blue?
  • Read MOS on dashes.
  • No page numbers in references? Tony 11:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 18:12, 25 August 2007.

---

Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope

Self nomination. This article about a Royal Naval Admiral has been through a peer review and has passed an A-Class Review with the ever helpful MILHIST project. I think it now meets the FA criteria, thankyou for your attention. Woodym555 12:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support Comment I went through the article and found that the information is very good, but that several grammatical/formatting issues are present. I noted these on the talk page. Another thing that could improve the article is a better explanation of jargon concerning military terms, ranks etc.. If you can fix those issues that I noted on the talk page, I will give my support. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 19:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks good after the revision. If you could, I would like to see a little more jargon explained as others may have problems with that(e.g. maybe briefly explain fleet in being or what a DSO is awarded for). Also, "passed away" is discouraged by the MoS, and while I personally think that's silly, you may want to replace it with "died". At any rate it's a well-written, informative article. Good luck Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 01:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose NeutralSupport Let me quote:

  Cunningham saw much action in the interwar years starting with an immediate post war deployment on HMS Seafire which was involved in the campaign in the Baltics. They were faced with an extremely complex situation in which several different groups were attempting to gain control of Latvia, the independent status of which had been agreed under the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and had been subsequently endorsed by the British Government. HMS Seafire was there under the flag of Admiral Walter Cowan. On the voyage to Libau Cunningham was impressed by Cowan's methods of achieving the task set as the fleet was ordered to continue to steam at 22 knots despite dangers posed by thick fog and minefields. Cowan's forceful brand of diplomacy saw the objective of the exercise achieved and the safe return of the fleet.

  • This is murky to a degree; what did Cowan do? Also, "forceful brand of diplomacy" is the sort of faded jocularity all too common in official writing.
  • This is because this is official writing. The source cited says:

    1919 saw the Squadron ordered to the Baltic with Cowan flying his Flag in the cruiser H.M.S. Curacoa. They were faced with an extremely complex situation in which several different groups were attempting to gain control of Latvia, the independent status of which had been agreed under the Treaty of Brest Litovsk and had been subsequently endorsed by the British Government. The posting saw Cowan join forces for the first time with another of Hood's Admirals, the then Captain Andrew Cunningham who was serving as Captain (Destroyers). On the voyage to Libau Cunningham was impressed by Cowan's methods of achieving the task set as the fleet was ordered to continuing to steam at 22 knots despite dangers posed by thick fog and minefields. Cowan's forceful brand of diplomacy saw the objective of the exercise achieved and the safe return of the fleet.

    • Plagiarism is unacceptable. You've found a fact; state clearly as much as you can, without the verbiage of the original, and then go find out what happened.. At a minimum, find the article, or write a stub, on what the British Navy was doing in the Baltic in 1919, and link. 22:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I am fully aware of the fact that plagiarism is unacceptable and i appreciate you bringing it to my attention. I apologise for the fact that this has slipped in. I will be the first to admit that this particular section of text was full of jargon and did not explain his actions. To explain the situation, the issue of Latvian independence was a complex one with several Wikipedia articles including the subject in their text, to name but a few; the Red Army, White army, Latvian History. To reply to your comment I have added a wikilink to the latvian history of the 20th century to try and meet your concern. Woodym555 22:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
        • The revised text is a great improvement. Little is visible in the source, but it says that little clearly. However, if this is how you compose, other text may have slipped in by accident. Do check. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
          • I have will check the article as you suggest. I composed the articles by looking at several different sources and compiling the evidence. Some of the original information was based around the emotive HMSHood bio. I write the text on Word and then wikilink it later and though this process is not perfect it does work, although in this case it has failed. Some of the basis for this article has slipped in and i apologise for that. Woodym555 23:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
            • • It happens to professional historians. It will happen to WP. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I do not regard this as disqualifying (which is why I'm not going to fix it); but MoS says that year should be wikilinked only when
  • The year is particularly important for the article.
  • The date has year, month and day; it is then wikilinked to allow readers to chose how it is formatted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I have removed all of the year wikilinks except the first instance of dates in the two World Wars. I have left these to show the context in which the battle was fought. I hope this assuages your concerns. Woodym555 12:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support LordHarris 22:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, I started making WP:MOS corrections, but there are more than I can finish. Please read WP:MOSBOLD, WP:ITALICS and WP:DASH. Sample edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the gap between addressing your comments, i was on holiday. I have now taken out the italics in the article, The only bold is in the table of awards, should these be removed? All dashes conform to the WP:MOS as far as i can see. Thanks for your attention. Woodym555 14:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I debolded the remainder per WP:MOSBOLD; article looks sound ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: Support 1a. The problem is a serious shortage of commas—is this article conducting a war against commas? Nearly every sentence seems to need one. For example:
  • "In World War II, as Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean Fleet Cunningham led British naval forces in several Mediterranean ..."—
  • "Cunningham was known for his lack of enthusiasm for field sports although he did enjoy"
  • "This operation was intended to find and destroy the Goeben and the Breslau but they evaded the British fleet[11] and"
  • "In 1911 he was given command of the destroyer HMS Scorpion which he commanded throughout the war." Ungrammatical without.
    • What is ungrammatical about it? Do you mean ungrammatical without the period? Would you prefer it if it were "In 1911 he was given command of the destroyer HMS Scorpion, which he commanded throughout the war"
• And things such as:
  • "1902–1903"—This should be "and".Tony 13:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
    • With respect no it should not. If you were to say "1902 and 1903" this would suggest he was doing the course for the entirety of bth 1902 and 1903. This is simply not the case. If anything it should say 1902 to 1903. That is what the dash is for, it is in place of the "to". I have changed it to "In the Winter of 1902-1903...

Or "during 1902 and 1903" ... what was there wasn't clear. Tony

• • • I have now conducted a thorough copy edit on the article [13] taking your concerns into account. I am not conducting a "War of commas" per se, i simply feel that the serial comma clogs up articles and does not let them flow. I was taught, rightly or wrongly, that a comma never precedes "and". However, i have implemented the serial comma in this piece to assuage your concerns. I will be happy to help with any further concerns. Thanks Woodym555 15:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Further issues. A few commas have been added, but more are required for easy reading. Commas are to some extent a matter of personal style, and no one can object if you locate your text on the low side of normal WRT to comma usage. But it's significantly below the low side at the moment.
• Wondering why professor, grandfather", "clergy", "servants", "governesses" and "mathematics" are linked. And it goes on: "political"? These are dictionary words that English-language beginners can look up if they need to; please don't dilute the high-value links with these useless ones. Audit throughout required.
  • Removed some "dictionary definitions" throughout the article.
• "first class marks"—check throughout for double adjectives, which in BrEng are quite likely to require a hyphen.
  • Checked
• "Alon"?
  • Done
• "messing around in boats." Breach of MOS—see quotations (final punctuation).
  • Done
• "obtained a 'very good'"—See MOS on "words as words".
  • Done
• "For his performance Cunningham was rewarded by a promotion to Commander and awarded the Distinguished Service Order." Comma after "performance? Grammar is wrong in the second clause: "and received the".
  • Done

See if you can find fresh eyes to sift through it. Tony 00:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Given that you just rewrote the WP:MOS, i don't think i can be criticised for not seeing those particular points. The italics for "Very good" had previously been removed for being in breach of the MOS. I have fixed all of the problems that you have stated above although i know you meant some of them to be specific examples of a general problem. I think a few is understating it somewhat given that i added in about 50 ad rephrased certain sentences to avoid commas. I personally think that the commas in the article are now sufficient, that being said i have asked for help from the WP:MILHIST project. Thanks Woodym555 11:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC) (added done for clarification' Woodym555 14:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC) )

Oppose. I accept that any comments are subjective and the information is comprehensive, but:

1. One concern is readability. IMO, some the prose is jerky and does not flow, eg the para on "Childhood". I have rewritten the section and hope it deals with your concerns Reads much better.
2. "...schooled at several institutions." On one hand this could be better said, perhaps "... attended several schools and colleges." Either way, it says little - do we know which schools? The schools are noted in the childhood section. I didn't think that the schools and instituions alone waranted mention in the lead. Fair point, the Dublin school(s) would be of interest, if known, and the phrase still grates with me - but that's subjective.I meant to remove it earlier, but didn't, i have removed it now!
3. reference to Scots background repeated unnecessarily. Removed in the rewrite Ok
4. "By the end of his course he was anxious to seek adventure at sea; consequently he committed numerous minor misdemeanors ...", how were the misdemeanours a consequence? To be honest I have no idea what link there is, i have rephrased those sentences. Ok.
5. Naval Brigade should be capitalised and could be linked to the article. Done Ok.
6. "Their arrival there was a catalyst that contributed ..." - "there" is tautologous and I think this is an incorrect use of "catalyst". Howabout "Their arrival contributed ..."? I didn't write that section, it was recently rewritten, Anyway i have fixed it now Yeah, I didn't think there was a single author, just your fate to be holding the baby. Often official sources are verbose, and they're often referred to.
7. Explanation of "bar" (in relation to awards) not explained at first use. I thought that was the idea of wikilinks. V true, I didn't spot that the first one was linked. Mea culpa. Perhaps "Two" should not be capitalised?
8. ".. return from the Baltics ..." - plural? Baltics meaning "Baltic states" ergo plural, Baltics is commonly used True, again. It caught me out, however, so I suggest that "Baltic States" is used & the link points to the "Baltic States" article, I think one exists. On the other hand, was ABC involved with all three States?I haven't done any of the above suggestions, stay with me, i read up on it and they were expressly forbidden from maing landfall, as such i have linked it to the Baltic Sea instead
9. "... return and protect the Italian cruiser Pola." What was wrong with the Pola? added in: which had earlier been hit and disabled by the Formidable's torpedo bombers. Ok
10. I think that there's too much detail of individual operations - these are covered in the respective main articles. The peer review and A-Class review asked for these sections to be expanded in order to provide a background of his activity. These were his major attacks and form a key part of his legacy. As such i think they should be included. Ok, I stick to my view, but it was subjective anyway, but they don't emphasise his contribution (except for the negotiations with Godfroy.
11. On the other hand, in respect of Matapan, there's a story of how ABC, aware of Axis agents in Alexandria, attempted to mislead them before sailing. It's not mentioned. Its and unverifiable story. The sources i have looked at: Churchills book, Salvo and Simpson do not mention it. As such should i still add it? Don't know given the status review. I've seen it more than once, so I'll dig around - it's a good one if true.I agree, its just i haven't seen it so couldn't possibly try to write about it!

There are other points, this will do for now. Folks at 137 18:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I have replied to these points. Your other points are welcome... Woodym555 18:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your courteous responses. Replies above. I'll continue reading later, but I have learnt info already. Thanks. Folks at 137 22:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added my replies to your replies if that makes any sense; i have fixed the additional problems and some old ones. Thanks Woodym555 23:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Found a reference to the Alexandria deception and added it (took 2 changes). Please review and change as you see fit. Folks at 137 11:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No need to change, looks good. A worthy addition. What do you think about whether it should be First World War or World War I? I notice this was changed and reverted within the space of an hour. Thanks Woodym555 11:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Support Please fix all images (set to default size) IAW WP:MoS#Images. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed them all. They are now at default size except the Matapan map which calls on the provision:Except in the case of detailed maps and drawings. The meaning is lost at default size. Thanks for your comments Woodym555 09:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• In response to your assertion: ABSOLUTELY! Excellent! Great job! You have my support. On a related note, there is a discussion going on the talk page regarding this. Your opinion would be useful in shaping the the FA process. Once again, excellent article. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Just in passing and very nitpicky, I noticed that the actual awards he received aren't listed in the infobox, only the general division of award. Also, it seems a bit stylistically off to denote that he received the DSO and two bars with '**' rather than saying 'two bars'. RHB - Talk 15:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I have adde Knight Grand Cross to the infobox. To the best of my knowledge the Order of the Thistle only has one division, i have added military division to the Order of Merit. They are listed in the Honours section at the bottom of the page as well. With regards to the **, they are a comon British Convention. The article itself refers to the Medal bar within the text. It is a matter of opinion really. Thanks for the comments Woodym555 17:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The ** convention is mentioned in the Medal bar article. It's a new one on me, too. Is it purely British & Commonwealth to use bars (there's a mention of separate US practice)? Folks at 137 18:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is just a quirky British convention. You could try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals for any further info or to clear it up. Woodym555 19:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added detail from [14]. There is an apparant discrepancy: the existing article says that ABC commanded HMS Lochinvar at Port Edgar but the "Officers" site calls it HMS Columbine - which is supported by a ref at [15]: "HMS Columbine: 1916: a site at Queensferry, Port Edgar (north of Edinburgh, Scotland) was acquired by the Admiralty and developed as a purpose-built Torpedo Boat Destroyer depot." Also, if one is listing the actions - even major ones - during his tenure as Naval CinC Med, then it's a v long list. It's arguable whether Taranto and Matapan were the most significant. Do we limit to where he was present - then Crete is out, as are some of the significant actions while he was allied naval CinC for the various landings. there's also a list of various civic (hon Freeman of cities and livery companies) and foreign awards, if they're relevant and not OTT. Folks at 137 20:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems that both names were in use. A search for HMS Lochinvar on google immediately comes up with a view of a minesweeping base. A search for HMS Columbine comes up with info about a torpedo testing base at Port Edgar. I think we have to go with the published biographies, Simpson, and Cunningham himself, state it was Lochinvar.

In the infobox i selectively picked commands, he had so many i think naming all of them is counter-productive. Again naming actions would extend the infobox further. I think Matapan and taranto are key battles, the Navy website has both in detail. I think the previous infobox was fine to be honest, the current one is too lengthy, listing all of his commands.

The honours are tricky, i think all of the foreign honous should be listed such as the Legion of Merit and the Legion of Honour. I think all of the honorary masons etc should probably be excluded. They could be listed in the Honours section i suppose in a line if it was deemed neccessary. I will add the foreign ones in soon. Woodym555 20:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, gone with your preference and reverted the command list in the info box: I don't wish to muddy the water at this stage. Not sure what you mean by "honorary masons". The refs to "honorary freeman" are not masonic, they are civic recognitions, eg Freeman of the Cities of London, Manchester, etc. See Freedom of the City. Folks at 137 05:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It was late, i was tired, sorry for the misnaming. (been watching Davinci code recently, freemasons everywhere) I am aware of the differences in civic titles. I think that they could be added in a sentence such as;

Cunningham was also given the freedom of several cities and other Honorary titles such Honorary Member the Company of Merchants of Edinburgh.

Or we could go the whole hog with Cunningham was awarded the title Honorary Freeman: Fishmongers' Company, Company of Shipwrights; Borough of Hove, City of Edinburgh, City of Manchester, City of London, City of Lincoln. He was made an Honorary Member of the Company of Merchants of Edinburgh, an Honorary Bencher Lincoln's Inn, an Honorary Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons of England (Hon. FRCSE)and an Honorary Member, Royal Institution of Naval Architects. (Is the Lincoln's Inn bench the same as the Surgeons of England? Need to consult someone knowledgeable or not include it at all.)

Personally i think the first one is better, though needs refinement, it is less congested and i don't see the titles listed anywhere else (on other pages). Woodym555 11:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: MOS violation with date reference: In the winter of 1902–1903. Needs to be replaced with neutral wording per MOS. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 02:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Fixed, replaced with Late 1902, early 1903. Woodym555 10:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Nonsense; the objection would only apply if it were ambiguous; since there is no question that Portsmouth has winter in January, and that this was January 1903, the original wording was impeccable; the revision is ungrammatical. Changing to support in reaction to such criticism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh look, it's Mrs Nonsense herself. Well, do change your declaration on that basis, if that's how you like to play it. Careful not to discredit yourself. Tony 14:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Tony can you look over it now, it has had some revisions by Folks at 137. Do you still oppose? Are there any problems? ThanksWoodym555 10:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 18:12, 25 August 2007.

---

William Claiborne

Self-nom after peer review and recent GA promotion. Geraldk 19:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Unless there is evidence that the 1622 Indian Massacre affected him directly (in which case that should be spelled out) it might be a good idea to remove the picture of all those dead bodies, which is fairly distracting. Do we know whether his town or village was a victim of the attacks? BenB4 21:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I was using it to try to demonstrate the difficulties of being an early Jamestown colonist. Do you feel it is distracting because it is too small to be readily comprehensible at first glance (and would therefore be acceptable if slightly enlarged) or is its subject matter itself distracting (in which case it would need to be scrapped, I suppose)?Geraldk 21:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's the bunch of bodies with nothing to explain them except a sentence buried in the adjacent paragraph. Let me try adjusting the caption to help.... There, I hope you like that one as much as I do. BenB4 00:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Another comment - There are a lot of repeated references here, many on adjacent sentences. I don't know whether this is in the manual of style, but I believe that it's common practice to shorten "Sentence one.^[1] Sentence two.^[1]" to "Sentence one. Sentence two.^[1]" and so forth. Since a lot of the references are from consecutive pages in their sources, I think you should do it. Noticing the same reference number over and over is a little odd. BenB4 00:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Done - have put one reference at the end of every consecutive series of sentences with duplicated references. Geraldk 01:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I would recommend using the Harvard referencing templates for the citations since the article relies upon published scholarly sources, rather than websites and newspaper articles.Madcoverboy 05:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The referencing style is entirely up to the discretion of the article's author(s). Raul654 20:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - The birth and baptismal dates listed under the "Early Life" heading appear to be incorrect. It says he was born and baptized in 1660, even though the top of the article says he was born in 1600, and even though the rest of the article describes his activities in earlier decades. The birth year is certainly mistaken, and getting baptized at the age of 60 seems unlikely, though it's of course not impossible.
  • 1600 is correct. Not sure how it got changed, but I've changes it back. Geraldk 11:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Provisional oppose
  • MOS breaches in infobox: en dashes should be unspaced; prefer two-digit closing years.
  • Sub-professional formatting in the absurd overlinking of dictionary words: "baptized", "apprenticed", "tobacco", "acre" and scores more. Please audit and remove the spattering of useless, untidy blue. Tony 01:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Is someone working on this one? It's FA material, but should be fixed before promotion. Tony 12:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I've addressed the second concern, but am not entirely sure that my edits addressed the first concern. Let me know if what I've done does not address it. Geraldk 01:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Having looked for this before, I do not believe that the two-digit closing is in MOS. Tony has never given a citation for it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support, well-researched and succinct biography; didn't see any problems that should stand in the way of promotion. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The MoS says that year should be wikilinked only when the year is particularly important for the article. The date has year, month and day; it is then wikilinked to allow readers to chose how it is formatted. Many years here need attention. Hmains 03:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus that years should not be linked, and the MOS actually reflects this lack of agreement: It neither forbids nor requires such linking. Hmains is among the editors who think that they should never (or scarcely ever) be linked. Other editors, such as myself, think that years should generally be selectively linked, typically by linking to the first occurrence of most years. The crux of the matter is the question of whether year-links are useful: Link-disfavourers assert that they are not. Link-favourers think that they generally are, with the usual rationale that they give ready access to historical context, especially in historical articles. So long as the year-links are judicious, they should not affect the bid for "featured" standing. -- Lonewolf BC 03:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Linking standalone years in every first instance serves no purpose. Such years are just mechanically and mindlessly linked and a detriment to reading. The purpose of linking is to provide context for the article. To provide context, the year article must have content that supports and elaborates the content of the main article. These year links do nothing of the sort. Read the year articles and state what 'context' each provides. This statement is for people who are seriously interested in improving articles, not someone pushing a theory. Thanks Hmains 05:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC).

This arguement belongs at WP:MOSNUM, not here. The usefulness of year-linking is a matter of opinion. Those who favour it generally do so because they think the year-links give useful (historical) context. A poor article at the other end of what should be a useful link is always possible (for any link, not just a year-link); the solution to this is not to do away with the link, but to improve the poor article at the other end. This is not to advocate linking years "mechanically" or "mindlessly". Ultimately, year-linking is a matter of judgement. Judicious year-linking should not affect an article's bid for "featured" standing. -- Lonewolf BC 23:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose—Requirement for professional formatting and MOS. Why are simple years linked? They're not even piped to pages that are remotely relevant to the article. Read MOS. Tony 10:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Further comment—The lone years are still linked. I strongly object to promotion unless they're fixed. MOS breach in the spaced en dashes in the infoblot. MOS breach in the final period in the second caption. MOS breach in the page ranges in "Notes". Tony 14:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Year-links are not against MOS. Tony's claim that they are is simply not true, so to that extent his opposition is wrongful. -- Lonewolf BC 23:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment:WP:MOSNUM:"Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic."--Carabinieri 01:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly: please justify each trivial year-link here, now, WRT how it is "likely to deepn readers' understanding" of this topic: Tony 12:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I would not link to any of these myself, except possibly for 1660, the year of the Restoration, and 1648, the year of Lord Calvert's death; but to make this a "strong objection" is patently disruptive bullying. Ignore objection, and consider from scratch. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep your bib out of this, Anderson, unless you've got something useful to say about the article. The MOS is quite clear on the need for links to deepen readers' understanding. Each needs to be justified. Tony 14:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I delinked the single years (hopefully correctly) as I noticed that the nominator of this article has not edited since August 11 may not know about the opposition due to the linking. Mattisse 22:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Addendum - I also replaced dashes. I was not sure how to do the (c. 1600 – c. 1677 in the first line. Also, the issue of the final period in the second caption I am unclear about. The third caption has two sentences. That is probably not optimal. Mattisse 22:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. It's a really good article and I'll support once the following have been fixed:
  • "The family's business was not enough to make them rich, and so Claiborne's older brother was apprenticed in London, becoming a merchant involved in hosiery and, eventually, the tobacco trade." Shouldn't that be "enogh to make it rich" since "family" is singular, or is this one of those cases, where British English prefers the plural pronoun? Anyway, the rest of the article is written in American English. ("baptized", "center", etc)
  • "His business acumen quickly made him one of the most successful Virginia colonists, and within four years of his arrival he had grants for 1,100 acres (445 hectares) of land and a salary of 60 pounds a year." Any idea how much that would be today? If today's value is not given, the figure seems kind of meaningless, to most readers (including myself) at least.
  • "By 1646, however, Governor Leonard Calvert had retaken both St. Mary's and Kent Island with support from Governor Berkeley of Virginia, and, after Leonard Calvert died in 1648, Cæcilius Calvert appointed a pro–Parliament protestant to take over as governor." According to webster.com, "protestant" is always capitalized when used in the religious sense.
  • The last sentence of the article uses an embedded link as a citation. Although I think this looks ridiculous, WP:CITE does allow it, but a "full citation is also required in a References section at the end of the article". I would recommend removing the link and adding a footnote with a proper citation, but adding the source to the article's list of references would be enough to satisfy Wikipedia policy.--Carabinieri 00:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• MOS breaches:
  • Speaced en dashes in infobox.
  • En dash in "pre–Restoration", "small–time" and tons of others. Read MOS on hyphens. For some reason, they've been changed en masse.

When these are fixed, I'll change to support.

PS Why spell out this obstructive "Pages" in the notes. Most unusual.

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

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

The article was not promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.

---

Martin Peerson

Hi, I'd like to nominate this article for promotion as a Featured Article. I created it, and got it up to Good Article status on 4 May 2007. Cheers, Jacklee 17:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• From a first glance, I'd say it seems a bit short. Are you certain there's nothing more that can be said about this guy? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 17:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oooh, that was quick. Well, not a lot is known about this 16th-century English composer, which is what intrigued me to create an article on him in the first place. I consulted Grove Music Online and they didn't have much more about him apart from a detailed technical analysis of his compositional style which was mostly beyond me and, I suspect, not of especial relevance to Wikipedia users. Cheers, Jacklee 17:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's about the same length as Hurricane Irene (2005), if you're after precendent. Still, two minor points:

• With such uncertainty over the dates of birth/death, the opening sentence could use an attached note saying which records were used to get the information.
• All refs using an external link should have a date of retrieval, in case the pages are changed or taken offline at some point down the road.

There's bound to be more changes/additions needed, but I'm about to log off, so I'll leave that to others :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Is there some more you could put in the lead besides "Despite Roman Catholic leanings at a time when it was illegal not to subscribe to Church of England beliefs and practices, he was highly esteemed for his musical abilities and held posts at St Paul's Cathedral" that would give the reader a reason to be interested in this person? Even phrasing it without the negative in the second sentence might improve it by being more forceful. Mattisse 21:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose—Is it sufficiently comprehensive to satisfy the FA Criterion? One glaring deficiency is that it says nothing, niente, zilch about his actual music. Needs a description of his stylistic development and of his style compared with those of his contemporaries. Who influenced him; whom did he influence? The article is hardly written to the reequired professional standards. Here are samples of problems.
  • Hate the way the opening of "Biography" is smeared with hedge words ("it appears that"; "it is believed that"; "seems"). Can you recast so we're not hit with quite that density of them?
  • Complying with a church—bit fuzzy.
  • "In order to do so"—Spot the two redundant words.
  • Why supply the abbreviation "B.Mus."? And nowadays, people normally lose the dots, don't they?
  • "there is also some evidence suggesting he was later made a petty canon."—lotsa flab here. "there is evidence that he was later made a petty canon."?
  • I think MOS says "c." is in roman, not italic face.
  • Surely he's referred to in hard-copy ...

Tony 07:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.

---

Star Wars Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast

Self-nomination: This article has been completely re-written since the days when it was a mere start-class article. It's currently a Good Article, and was only put on hold during its period of candidacy due to some minor points with references. A healthy number of images (all Fair-Use-Rationale-ed), good prose, when I put it up for VG Peer review it had too many citations... I think this article is fully deserving of FA status. UnaLaguna 12:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: I hate to object, because this article is really looking good and you've obviously put a lot of work into it. But, after giving a quick copyedit of the lead and Gameplay section, writing problems were a little too easy to find. Here are some problems:

• Perhaps a little more about the story could be explained in the lead; it's still got room for expansion (the lead, that is).  Done
• Jedi Outcast's gameplay is largely similar to its predecessors. Predecessors, as in plural? I only see one predecessor mentioned in the lead.  Done
• usually killing enemies with blasters or a lightsaber (as is common in many action titles), The parenthetical comment here seems weird and out of place: it sounds like it's saying a blaster and lightsaber are common in many action titles, but even ignoring that, what is the point of it?  Done
• As with previous games in the series, the player controls the protagonist Kyle Katarn: a former Jedi Knight who cut his link with The Force after straying close to the Dark Side, and at the start of the game is a mercenary working for the New Republic.[6] A colon is mistakenly used instead of a comma after Katarn, "straying close" is kinda vague (how about "almost succumbing" instead) and a new sentence should be started after Dark Side.  Done
• Why is Billy Dee Williams the only voice actor mentioned? I understand he's the only one reprising his role from the films, but it seems unbalanced to not mention the other voice actors.
• "Parts of the game" "Sections of the mission": These phrases are used too much, and almost shouldn't be used at all, as they're just too vague.  Done

That's just in Gameplay and part of the plot section, so make sure to run through the whole article. Done ... I think.

Also, several references are missing author's names, such as refs #5, 6, 13, 14 (I assume), and 25, just to name a few. Done Good work so far, but a few more problems to fix.--Dark Kubrick 19:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I knew when I was putting it up that the writing and other tiny things which gradually add up would be the thing which would be criticised. I do have a bit of an obsession with colons and semicolons, and lead sections have never really been my thing.

I'd agree with all your points, save the one regarding Billy Dee Williams. I figured, as he's the only one from the films, he's the only one notable enough to merit a brief mention (no disrespect to the other actors; I just never heard any of their names before). He's also the only voice actor actually mentioned outside the game's credits, which whilst I know doesn't set things in stone for Wikipedia policy, should at least count for something.

And don't feel bad about having to oppose: it's the summer holidays, and I need things to stave off boredom!

Update: by the magic of templates I've given you an idea of what I've done. I just finished going through and adding authors names to articles where a real-world name, not an alias (as was the case for two citations), has been provided. I'd go over the rest of the prose with a fine (metaphorical) comb, but I like sleep too much. UnaLaguna 20:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing my concerns. Two more minor problems I see with the references is that (1) some don't list the publisher (read:website) while some others do, and (2), JediKnightII.net (used in refs #16 and 24) is a fan website, and therefore not reliable. I'm sure it could be easy finding replacements for those though. Done Before you do that though, get some more sleep. Done--Dark Kubrick 22:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I see your point with the Billy Dee Williams thing.--Dark Kubrick 22:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

All my objections have been addressed, except for the writing, which I feel could be tightened up a bit more, Done and that the Gameplay section feels a little small (this is a new one). I mean, what else can you tell us about Force powers? I feel there could be more in that section. Done I'm going on a 3-day vacation now, so I'll check on the article when I get back. Good luck.--Dark Kubrick 12:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The dreaded 1a!!! I've expanded the section on Force powers, but I'm apprehensive to expand this section further as this might result in turning it into a dreaded game guide. I'll really have a good attack at the prose now. UnaLaguna 14:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I did work with the prose on a bigger scale than I've done before, doing the old trick of printing it out and attacking it with a pen. I might have another copyedit again, just to be sure. UnaLaguna 21:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose—Not well written throughout. Here are samples.
  • "a first and third-person action game"—Read MOS on hyphens. Done
  • Why are single years linked? Read MOS on this. They go nowhere helpful for the reader. Please remove those trivial links throughout. Done
  • False contrast: "Jedi Outcast's gameplay is similar to its predecessor." (Add "that of") Done
  • "While most of the game involves dispatching enemies single-handedly, there are several puzzles which the player must solve." Better as "players must solve several problems". Same "there are" issue with "There are a number of combos which can be used,"—reword.
  • "Also involves"—remove the redundant "also".
  • "Powers are available in singleplayer and multiplayer, but more powers can be used in the latter." Why "but"?
  • "these can be played over LAN or the Internet, but is limited to"—Basic grammar. Tony 02:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've addressed a couple of the specific issues raised, and I'll go through and compare the entire text to the MOS. Sorry my response hasn't been sooner. UnaLaguna 14:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Due to other commitments I won't have much time to address this problem. As the sole unaddressed objection points concern the prose, I added the article to the list of FACs needing a copyedit at WP:LOCE. UnaLaguna 18:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.

---

History of Georgia Tech

Well-referenced, high-quality article that (in my opinion) meets all of the FA guidelines. From experiences learned from my first FAC, Tech Tower, there are no redlinks and very few mid-sentence refs. This article has had two peer reviews: one, two. For your information, this article is maintained almost exclusively by members of WikiProject Georgia Tech. Finally, note that the only other FA "History of Schools" article that I have found is History of Michigan State University, which seems somewhat inferior to this article's quality. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Support - My concerns at PR were addressed. This article is well-researched and an interesting read. --mav 18:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment (more below on my Oppose) - There is more to it than what I have here (yes, I have read the whole article), but I don't have time right now to get to all of it, so I'll give you a few quick things to work on.

• Image sizing needs to be removed IAW WP:MoS#Images. If you want all of the images at 300px, please adjust your wikipedia settings accordingly. Please note the FIRST image at 300px is ok.

 Done

• The lead needs some work since things introduced in it are not expanded upon later in the article (this is basically everything with a reference. If you need a ref in the lead because it is not mentioned elsewhere, then it needs to be mentioned elsewhere, not referenced). Please note some people choose to put refs in the lead, which is ok, but is duplicitous.

 Not done see below

• Lead 2nd para: how is 1934 the school's early history if it was started in 1865? Right now, it's right near the midpoint. Replace with a more appropriate adjective.

 Done

• "Historic District" does not need quotes IMHO.

 Done

• Ensure no break spaces between numbers and their associated nouns (i.e. "100 men")

 Done

 Not done see below

 Done

• Make sure all dates are wikilinked (see references for quite a few).  Done  Not done see below  Done

That's all for now, but I promise a full and complete review later.

Oppose by — BQZip01 — ^talk - Ok, now for the big review. In order not to spring a bazillion things on you at once and due to a lack of available time on my part, I'm going to make this a multiday review, so bear with me. While each item in each "subheading" may be addressed as you go through it, I still reserve the right to add to sections if I find something later before I am done. When I am done, I will state as such.

General

• Variety in placement of images - consider putting some on the right and left. Any pictures of past presidents?  Done
• Make sure financial claims are made IAW WP:$  Done
  • "Fully identify a currency on its first appearance (AU$52); subsequent occurrences are normally given without the country identification (just $88), unless this would be unclear." I shouldn't have to quote these. You can read them. I even wikilinked them for your use, which you don't appear to be doing. — BQZip01 — ^talk
    • The sentence immediately after the one you quoted there: The exception to this is in articles related to the US and the UK, in which the first occurrence may also be shortened ($34 and £22, respectively), unless this would be unclear. Georgia Tech seems to obviously be in the United States. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Ah, the ambiguity of English strikes again. I read that as a requirement pertaining to UK and US articles, meaning articles with both currencies involved. I see what you mean and I think you're right on this one. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• ALL dates need to be wikilinked. Again, still problems in the references.

 Done Per WP:DATE#Autoformatting and linking, "Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic."

 Not done, but not as severe as I first thought. Per WP:DATE#Autoformatting and linking (the first sentence of the guideline), "Full dates, and days and months, are normally autoformatted, by inserting double square-brackets, as for linking. This instructs the WikiMedia software to format the item according to the date preferences chosen by registered users." These are missing in one of your references (#27). In retrospect, I may have gotten your article's references mixed up with another article I was working on. My apologies. Just fix reference #27 and this should be it.

 Done

• Ensure no break spaces between numbers and their associated nouns (you still missed quite a few. An example is in the FIRST sentence. Please let me know if you can't find it.)

 Done ::Please specify explicit locations for non-breaking spaces or put them there yourself. Just telling me they exist is counterproductive.

 Not done I am not going to list every number in your page that isn't a year. Just go through the article by yourself. As a reviewer, this isn't my job. It's yours and the request is actionable. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done I believe I've found all of the remaining places a non-breaking space could reasonably be used. If you have any more, state them explicitly or fix them yourself, as you had to find them in order to tell me about them. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• WAY too much use of passive voice (this is a common problem). Please read this for some ideas how to improve the article.

 Done improved, although further copyediting by independent editors would be helpful

Lead

• The bolded text in the first sentence does not match the title of the article.

 Done

 Not done Please read this. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

From WP:LEDE#Bold title: The name of the subject is usually identical to the page title, although it may appear in a slightly different form from that used as the title, and it may include variations. (emphasis mine) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

 Not done Please address here, not below

 Done The title of the article and the bolded lead text vary because "Georgia Tech" is the informal but more commonly used and recognized name for the school, and Georgia Institute of Technology is the more formal name to be used in the context of a historical article.

• 150 years is quite a claim since it has been only 142 since the end of the Civil War and the school didn't even open until 1888. Maybe "since the Civil War" and leave it a little ambiguous?

Eight years is a close approximation to "nearly" when discussing a period of time greater than 100 years. (8 is 4% of 150)

8 is actually 5.33% of 150. I think nearly a decade is too much, but that's just my opinion. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• "In that time, the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech) has undergone significant change, expanding from a small trade school to the largest technological institution in the Southeastern United States."

 Done Rephrased/ref'd

• • parenthesis not needed for Georgia Tech. Rephrase. Maybe change to "...Technology, also known popularly as Georgia Tech..."

 Done

• • The largest technological institution is a claim not expanded upon in the body, nor is the claim referenced. Expand upon it (or at least re-use it) and get a ref in the main body of the text.

 Done

• "It was established after the Civil War (redundant with the first sentence of the paragraph and misleading since it wasn't established until the late 1880s, two decades AFTER the Civil War was over) in order to improve the industrial competitiveness of the Southern United States, with the first and (if it is the only degree, it is by definition, the first) only degree being in Mechanical Engineering. Other engineering degrees were added soon thereafter, including Textile, Electrical, and Chemical Engineering." Again a LOT of information that is not expanded upon or referenced (like "industrial competitiveness in Southern US" and Chemical Engineering.

 Done re-read #Establishment, I think you missed some paragraphs

you don't once mention industrial competitiveness or chemical engineering or the "only" degree, etc. after the lede. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done - Removed specific list from lead. Also, "Industrial development" and "Industrial competitiveness" are used interchangeably in the industrial development of the Southern United States following the Civil War. Examples:

strongly believed that the South needed to improve its technology to compete with the industrial revolution that was occurring throughout the North

Such a method was seen as appropriate given the Southern United States' need for industrial development.

—Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• "The Georgia Tech Research Institute has its roots in the school's history; it was created in 1934 to assist in the state's industrial development using the school's reputation and resources." I thought this was about Georgia Tech, not the research institute it spawned. Rephrase. Maybe something like "Georgia Tech has spawned many other institutions of research and academic study..."

 Done The mention of the Georgia Tech Research Institute in the lead is significant because it is very closely tied to the school and its history. The CEO of GTRI is also the VP of Georgia Tech. Re-read #Technological University for more on that. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

AGAIN, please put responses with the individual problems — BQZip01 — ^talk

• "The institute..." Uh...which one? the Research Institute or GIT?

 Done

What exactly did you do? I say, this isn't clear and you say I'm done??? Not trying to be too picky, but trying to understand what you did. — BQZip01 — ^talk

• "...one of the few southern educational institutions to integrate peacefully..." Quite a claim, but not backed up by any sources nor expanded upon in the body. In addition there was the whole riot that took place in regards to the 1956 Sugar Bowl. In addition, avoid using weasel words like "few" unless backed up or quoted by a source.
  •  Done This was fully explained in the #Integration section, but I've reused that ref in the lead anyway. The 1956 Sugar Bowl Riot was because Georgia Tech was not allowed to play against a desegregated team: it's the opposite of what happened at UGA, etc. Tech was rioting for integration. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Rioting for or against integration is still a riot and, by definition, not peaceful. — BQZip01 — ^talk

• Before I go any further, the last paragraph is AWFUL with numerous redundant phrases
• "...in 1996, it was the Olympic Village for the 1996 Summer Olympics. The recent history of the institute has been focused on rapid expansion, including apartments and an open-air competition pool built when it served as the Olympic Village for the 1996 Summer Olympics..." serious overuse of "1996" and the Summer Olympics. One instance each of "1996" and "Summer Olympics" is enough. Condense into one sentence.

 Done

• "The school has also established several new campuses, most notably Georgia Tech Savannah (how notable is it if this is the only instance of its use in the entire article? It needs to be expanded upon in the body. In addition, the notability either explained or the term "most notably" should be removed) in Savannah, Georgia and its first international campus, Georgia Tech Lorraine in Metz, France.(You already mentioned this. Why do it again using the exact same phrasing?)"

 Done

• With the recent rewrite, some of my comments have been addressed with new problems arising. I will go back and check on those comments that have been addressed in a little while, but will finish a re-critique of the lead here
• Again, the term "Georgia Tech" should be used in the first sentence, since it is in the title. Even the given example of a first sentence in WP:Lede uses the term in the title. This is an ideal time to intermingle the use of the terms for further variety in the article. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• How exactly did the school open with construction? Wouldn't it be with the completion of the given buildings and not their actual construction? As a suggestion, why not simply rephrase to "opened with two buildings, the Tech Tower and the shop building, and offered only..."? — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed.  Done —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• "In 1948, the name was changed to the Georgia Institute of Technology to reflect its evolution from a trade school to a technical institute and research university." You never mentioned it was called anything else. What did it change from? — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• "Founded on October 13, 1885 in Atlanta, Georgia as the Georgia School of Technology..." Your reading comprehension has just increased by one point. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Your comment is WAY out of line. I missed one word in a good-faith comment. I personally am tempted to just oppose this article on the basis of how you are handling it. If you want honest feedback and an FA-quality article, assume good faith in all comments or don't expect feedback. A public apology is in order. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't meant to attack you, just to add a bit of humor. You're doing a good job copyediting, and being very thorough; while I may disagree with you on some points, I appreciate your work on the article. I apologize for any offense incurred. :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• The reference in the lead is unnecessary as long as it is used later in the article. Delete accordingly. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed.  Done —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I fail to see the importance of the two other schools in the second paragraph. This is the history of Georgia Tech, right? Ok, the night school makes a little sense, but its history, links to the University of Georgia, and subsequent name changes makes the connection a little vague. Though Georgia Tech didn't take women, its associated night school did (beginning in 1917). In addition, it's like nothing happened from 1901-1980s except one sentence about the name change. Please expand the history of this school. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Those two other schools were part of Georgia Tech. There's a comment in this part of the lead to expand this part of the lead after I've fixed other reviewers' suggestions, particularly those dealing with the article's content in that timeframe. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

While I understand they were part of the school, the lede doesn't explain what happened (other than a name change) from 1901 to 1980. Please expand. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Again, the term "peacefully" does not take into account the riots. Please eliminate the term. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• The riots had nothing to do with integration of the school. The students just wanted to play the football game; the fact that integration was involved is incidental. It just happened to be the reason that they couldn't play the game. The account is given to show that Tech students cared more about football than any sort of racial issues. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I would hardly call that incidental then. It was a riot because of race relations, it's hardly calm. Football was more important than racial integration? — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It was a riot because of football. It had nothing to do with integration of the school. When it came to that, it was completely peaceful. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• In the third paragraph: "...amid significant controversy." Amid implies that he did the stated actions while other (unmentioned) controversies. "with" would be more appropriate here. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• "In 1996" and "1996 Summer Olympics" is redundant. Use [[1996 Summer Olympics|Summer Olympics]] instead. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that I have done this section, I think it should be noted that there are a LOT of problems already and I recommend this article get a better copyedit by someone.

I don't want you to be disheartened. There is a lot of good stuff here too. Firstly, I am impressed with the quantity of references that CLEARLY show the article is well-researched. In addition, the basic layout appears very professional. Good job there.

• There are too many semicolons in the entire article and they are generally in sentences that go on WAY too long. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Establishment

• "had taken" should be "took" — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

•  Done —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• "The next twenty years would be was a time of rapid industrial expansion; during this period, Georgia's manufacturing capital, railroad track, and property values would each increase by a factor of three to four" Georgia's manufacturing capital is what exactly? It and "railroad track" expanded by a factor of 3-4? please explain. I'm kinda confused on this one. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• It's were, not was. Also, added "mileage" to the railroad bit.  Done —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• "Major John Fletcher Hanson and Nathaniel Edwin Harris"

1. Major links to the US version. The CSA wasn't exactly the equivalent of the modern day version of "Major". It might be better to link to Major instead. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

1. What was the rank of Nathaniel Edwin Harris? Either include both ranks, or none at all. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't found Harris' rank in any of my sources. They're always listed as "Major John Fletcher Hanson and Nathaniel Edwin Harris." —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• "had become" should be "became" — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

•  Done —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• "A technology school was thought necessary..." Who thought it was necessary? Again, more passive voice that needs to be dealt with throughout the article. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Passive voice is avoided when it would cause confusion as to the acting subject. However, in this case, the preceding context makes it fairly obvious as to who thought it was necessary. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• "the committee eventually reported" Why "eventually"? Was there some sort of delay in the report? Just delete the word. It isn't necessary. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

•  Done —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• "...but there were efforts to repeal the law that were suppressed by supporter and Speaker of the House W. A. Little." — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

•  Done —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• "was known" should be "known" — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• They were known for those things. They're not known for anything these days. They're kind of dead, and footnotes to history. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• "The act that created the school had also appropriated $65,000 towards the construction of new buildings." needs a citation. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

•  Done —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Early years to be added in the near future

Trade school to be added in the near future

Technological university to be added in the near future

Integration to be added in the near future

Reorganization and expansion to be added in the near future

Modern history to be added in the near future

See also to be added in the near future

References to be added in the near future

— BQZip01 — ^talk

Please stop for just a minute and please respond to each item. You keep putting  Done by everything that you don't seem to want to address or you don't think is important. Please slow down and answer anything that you don't do anything on. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going through each suggestion and either implementing it or explaining why it isn't productive or relevant. Isn't that what I'm supposed to do? If I mark something as done and don't explain it, chances are I think I fixed it. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Then please tell me what you did in the sections where you don't appear to have done anything. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In addition, please indent and put  Done underneath each item (as it is, it makes it look like I put them there). — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It is understood (yeah, passive voice) around here that the  Done stamps are from those who fix items while strike outs are from the person who mentioned an issue but then found that their concern has been addressed. --mav 06:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Mav, not the way it is being done here. Please just put them on the next line. so it is clear who wrote them. This becomes especially confusing when I believe things HAVEN'T been done. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support Sumoeagle179 18:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose—Not written to the required professional standard. If the contributors are academics at the institution, they need to lift their game. Here are samples indicating the larger problem.
  • Obtuse chronological opening: "The history of the Georgia Institute of Technology began shortly after the American Civil War and extends nearly 150 years." Our readers have to do mental arithmetic to arrive at the year of establishment.
  • False contrast. Use a semicolon or reword rather than using "but": "Initially, Mechanical Engineering was the only degree offered, but other engineering degrees were added soon thereafter."
  • "Georgia Tech has spawned both Georgia State University and the Southern Polytechnic State University, with the former enrolling Georgia Tech's first female students in the 1920s. The school did not officially allow women to enroll until 1952, and it did not allow them to enroll in all programs until 1968. Georgia Tech was also one of the few southern educational institutions to integrate peacefully, doing so in 1961." Uncomfortable coupling of the female students idea with the previous idea in the first sentence. Separate into its own sentence, integrated with the subsequent points. "Also" is redundant. So is "it".
  • "The recent history of the institute has focused on"—No, history doesn't focus on things; historians do. Reword.
  • "an open-air competition pool built when it served as"—Unclear referent for "it". Rephrase.
  • "The school has also established several"—Weed out all of the redundant "alsos" in the article. There's yet another in the subsequent sentence. Much stronger without either.
  • "Academically, the school has gradually improved its rankings and has given significant attention to modernizing the campus, increasing historically low retention rates, and establishing degree options that emphasize research or an international perspective." Perhaps too much info for one sentence. The readers would like a time anchor or two here: since when? "given significant attention"—yuck; try just "and has modernized". Tony 00:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of these are stylistic issues in the lead, which doesn't represent the article's quality. Additionally, these particular "issues" are typically choices made by the writer, and not things that are considered "correct" or "incorrect." Bringing them here as a reason to oppose is particularly inappropriate given that there were two peer reviews designed to address preferences regarding style and structure. Nevertheless, you found a few confusing pronoun references that I endeavored to fix. I appreciate that as it's hard to catch everything. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The overall quality, quantity, and continuity of the writing isn't up to FA-snuff. I get a general sense that more than just stretching some google searches, it might pay to go to the library/archives. (I apologize if this comes across as sarcastic, it's meant more as a stream of consciousness.) Madcoverboy 08:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The Lead: I had a hard time getting through the lead without wanting to click on the edit button repeatedly. The first paragraph in the lead just needs to go as it says absolutely nothing substantial about dates, people, or places beyond making a booster-claim about engineering graduates. Who founded it? When? Why? Where? The second paragraph of the lead discusses other universities which have no apparent relation with the present topic until you read the article. Integrate peacefully? As in there was absolutely no violence whatsoever? (But weren't there riots in front of the Governor's Mansion?) Perhaps it is better said "non-court-ordered" integration. Few as compared to what other southern universities? The final paragraph again says nothing substantial about the material contained within the article except that the university has expanded to other campuses, an idea that could easily be condensed into a sentence.
    • I went ahead and just put in an altered paragraph from the main Georgia Tech lead to replace the lead and it already solved several of the problems. Obviously needs to be expanded, but don't just revert or copy and past the dif back in. Madcoverboy 08:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
      • That paragraph (that you unceremoniously dropped in) is vastly inferior to the newer (and extensively copyedited) lead of the history article. In my opinion, specific dates aren't relevant enough for the lead- the lead is supposed to provide a general overview and introduction to a topic and that's what this lead does. If they really want to know when the school was established, they can continue reading. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Reworked the lead again since the previous version is completely unacceptable. From WP:LEAD: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." The complete lack of specifics, dates, locations, and so makes it fail every aspect of the guideline. Madcoverboy 18:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Much better this time. I still like mine better, but the one you just wrote is acceptable, and conforms to your recommendations. What do other reviewers think of this new lead? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
    • If you paid more attention, you'd notice that the riot wasn't about integration, it was about football. The school integrated peacefully. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Establishment: What is this about fortifications on a hill before any discussion of the motivations for a university? This sentence is just full of loaded terms that need to be deconstructed and explained (see Technology and society): "strongly believed that the South needed to improve its technology to compete with the industrial revolution that was occurring throughout the North." Is the South a geographic location, the defeated Confederate states, or something else? Does this collective entity need to improve its technology (little "t" technology, i.e. artifacts and infrastructure) or economic, social, and education systems (big "T" technology)? What is the North? Which industrial revolution was occurring and was it present throughout or just in major industrial centers like those that Atlanta wanted to emulate? This loaded sentence is later followed by a : "A technology school was needed because the American South of that era was mainly comprised of agricultural workers and few technical developments were occurring." Again what is "mainly" and "few"? The concepts of "mercantilist-agrarian roots" and "market-industrialization aspirations" in both need to be merged. Why just WPI and MIT in Massachusetts? Certainly West Point, RPI, any of the (soon-to-be) Ivies, or Edison's Menlo Park, New Jersey, or other western Land Grant universities would have been likely models for higher education and industrial development in the 1880s. Why were Mell's arguments for an Athens campus rejected? How and why did Peters become interested? What ties to the military (analogous to Corps of Cadets at Texas A&M, etc.)? What was the university established as (board of trustees, corporation, state agency, etc.)? Who constituted this body and how were they selected? What powers or limitations or general mission was the body/university charged with in the charter? What impact did land grant or tax-exempt legislation have on its ability to buy and sell real estate to fund operations?
    • "strongly believed that the South...": the context should automatically make it clear; if it doesn't, then whether or not I'm referring to the geographic South or the former Confederate States is irrelevant; regardless of which one I'm talking about, they were both very agrarian compared to the industrial "North" (geographic or Union) of the era.
      • Some context on industries would be relevant. Was someone espousing this view or is it just a historical perspective? What was Georgia doing to industrialize or de-agrarianize? What were neighboring states doing with regards to education and industrialization that might have been influential? What industries were important or prevalent? (railroads, telegraphs, mechanized farming, food processing, etc.) Madcoverboy 19:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    • little t vs big T: most of the South's infrastructure was destroyed after the Civil War, so they needed both of these. Again, there's not really a distinction.
      • It goes to the question of whether or not the initial mission of the university was to provide technical training for an increasingly industrial south or if it was meant to address the shortcomings of a traditional liberal education. Was GT intended to be an important educational component within a larger framework of industrialization (which you imply) or just a vocational school? If the latter, then some mention of the founding mission or charter would be appropriate. Madcoverboy 19:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    • "mainly" is generally assumed to mean "mostly" or "primarily"; things like this are usually understood by readers. "few," meaning "not many."
      • These are weasel words, if it is the most or least, say so and provide a cite. Madcoverboy 19:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
        • From what I can tell, the instances of these words remaining in the article (that I was able to consciously detect, mind, it is a lengthy entry) are used for the sake of clarity, brevity and simplicity and are in the context of facts that are either not generally disputed or in regards to a historical event or situation that would require unnecessary digression in order to provide a more precise wording. I refer you to WP:AWW#Follow the spirit, not the letter, which makes allowances for these circumstances. A pertinent example from the article is from the History of Georgia Tech#World War I section: "However, the state and federal governments provided little initiative for the school to grow significantly until 1919." To describe what "little initiative" was exactly would require an unnecessary digression into governmental budgetary concerns and academic funding structures during that era. Even to provide an exact numerical comparison (before and after) would be cumbersome and to obtain any such numbers would border on original research, as those numbers would likely have to be discovered through extensive synthesis of budget documents. I should point out that in the article, there is a reference immediately following that sentence which expands upon what "little initiative" translates to, at length. LaMenta3 22:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Why just WPI and MIT? I just looked it up, and they also visited Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, New Jersey and The Cooper Union in New York City. Those are the four schools they visited. I don't have any sources that indicate that they visited the other schools that you listed. I suppose those two could be mentioned, but they're relatively obscure compared to MIT and WPI. (source: Dress Her in White and Gold, page 5)
      • It doesn't matter if they're obscure now, they were important enough then to warrant a visit. Madcoverboy 19:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    • With some more research, I fleshed out the rest of the "Establishment" section, and hopefully answered the rest of your questions.  Done —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Early years: Repetition of the "contract shop" marketable goods and need for Southern US industrial development memes. Discussion of the number of initial enrollments lacks authority – encyclopedias aren't the place for airing historical inconsistencies, commit to a number in the body, make a footnote about the inconsistencies and provide the citations for the reader to verify the claim. Enough about the damn newspapers, WHERE'S THE FOOTBALL HISTORY?! :) Oh, and other sports as well.
    • What about the repetition of those phrases?
      • It was repeated in the establishment as well as the early years sections as a distinguishing feature of the early university's operations. I believe it's more appropriate in the early years since the university wasn't established for the expressed purpose of the contract shops, but came about and later disappeared. I feel the "establishment" section should speak more to the university's early mission and history before opening rather than bygone activities which should be early years.
    • I fixed the enrollment problem; it turns out both numbers were correct, but referred to different points in the year.  Done
    • There is a significant amount of football history in Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football. Perhaps you'd like to copy some of that to this article? The problem is that there's so much of it. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Content can certainly overlap between articles. Given the modern emphasis and historical importance, it definitely deserves a summary-style berth in the article that can link over to the main page. Certainly any other sports' national championships or dominant era should also merit mention. Madcoverboy 19:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
        • My question is less "if" and more "what"; given the 100 or so years of football history, you have to draw the line somewhere. What parts of Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football#History would you find most appropriate in History of Georgia Tech? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Technological university: What is the distinction between a trade school and a university? If it's research programs and advanced degrees, then the reader should know when these are introduced. Moreover, mention is made at the beginning that only Mechanical Engineering degrees were offered, when did this change? What are engineering experiment stations? When was the school of commerce founded (it suddenly pops up as its being spun off!)? Likewise for Aeronautical Engineering and other departments (EE). What of Georgia Tech alumni's involvement in WW1? The impact of the Great Depression? How was GT "swiftly enlisted" for the war effort other than providing young men?
    • Titles: The distinction is that the school grew. If you have better ideas about section titles, do tell me; however, I feel that those adequately represent the school's development.
      • This goes to my question below about the growth of research and graduate programs. Certainly vocational schools weren't expressly founded to conduct scientific research, but many like MIT, Caltech, GT, VT, Texas A&M, Michigan State, etc. came into this capacity. By the 1920s and 1930s, many American colleges and universities were emulating German and French research universities by funding faculty research and graduate programs. Other schools emphasized it after WW2. When did the shift to graduate education begin, what were early programs, etc.
    • Engineering Experiment Stations: I expanded the explanation a bit.  Done
    • Degrees: Looked it up, added more info on the new degree programs offered by Lyman Hall.  Done
    • School of Commerce: It was founded at the beginning of the #Technological university section.
    • Aeronautical Engineering: Fixed.  Done —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
      • These look better. Madcoverboy 19:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    • World War I: Fixed in the article body.  Done —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Great Depression: (next task to do) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Integration: Shouldn't we have known at the very start that it wasn't called Georgia Institute of Technology originally? What's this about a Southern Technical Institute's contributions to WW2 after the section on WW2? What's this about a split in 1981 within a section about integration in the 1950s? Ah finally, the third paragraph is discussing integration in a meaningful way. GT students "too busy to hate" is a cop-out: there has to be a lot more history on the racial integration of the university beyond "the student body voted to endorse all qualified applications" and some guy closing his restaurant in protest. Presidential addresses, dissension among the board of trustees, student group opposition, politiking in the legislature or governor's mansion, lessons from the UGa forced integration.
  • Reorganization and expansion: What the hell happened to the end of the 1960s and entire decade of the 70s? Nothing about Vietnam protests, women's rights, environmentalism, civil rights? That's some nice back-scratching on the centennial, but some book and a time capsule are not at all important or notable enough to warrant inclusion in the article body - kill that whole opening paragraph. Apparently President Pettit served for 14 years but didn't do anything to warrant mention, even being inaugurated or stepping down for any reason. Looking back, likewise for Van Leer and Harrison. Interesting that Hansen only served for 2 years during the most tumultuous era of protests and social movements in the last 50 years, probably a story behind that too! There must have been more costs and benefits involved with the Crecine reorganization than just management style to warrant such narrow approval margins. Does GT have any other schools of arts or humanities, because I haven't heard about those. That crytpically-worded cquote about being under fire should probably be a citation, not a prominently displayed feature of the article because it provides absolutely no depth or context. I imagine GT was just as affected by budgetary belt-tightening during the 80s and 90s, how did they respond? (tuition increases, program cutbacks, etc). I definitely want to hear more about how the Olympic Village was secured, the construction and changes impacting the campus and community, boost in admissions after being featured prominently, etc.
    • Georgia Tech has three schools that could be considered arts/humanities: the College of Architecture, the College of Management, and the Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts. Collectively, those three (of the six) colleges make up 25% of Tech's undergrads and 17% of its postgrads. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I only ask because I notice that there are points in the article in which the reader is presumed to be familiar with the organization, or sports, or traditions, etc. of Georgia Tech when it is not always the case. As I said before, just because a topic is discussed in greater depth on another page doesn't mean it doesn't warrant mention at all here. Madcoverboy 19:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Oh. Anywhere in particular that needs to be worked on? I probably couldn't find those places if I tried, given the amount of time I've spent working on this stuff. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Modern history: Probably the best section so far. If a Hesburgh Award is so great, why isn't it important enough to have an article about it? Whoa, Master Plans have existed for over 50 years and the reader just finds out about them now! Probably some interesting stuff in those earlier ones. The article misses a legitimate opportunity to boosterize by not discussing changing demographics (women, minorities, international), recent sports successes, and increasing admissions competitiveness as well as controversies like rising tuition, town-gown relations, greek life, etc.
  • I also realized that any History of Somewhere University article absolutely needs a discussion of the symbols: backgrounds on the logo, motto, colors, mascot, nicknames all absolutely need to be in any history. Madcoverboy 14:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Much of that information is in Georgia Tech traditions. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Bring some of it in anyway, it's definitely of historical importance. Madcoverboy 19:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
        • That's actually a really good idea; it'll beef up some of those smaller sections. #Early Years looks so small now that I've doubled the content in #Establishment, and some good football history/traditions would work nicely there. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I added the early history of the fight song, Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech, and it seems to fit nicely. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Also added the history of Buzz, the mascot, to #Reorganization and expansion. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I made mention of this in the lead, but there is little to no discussion of the establishment and growth of the graduate and research programs at this major American research university. Likewise, the contexts and occasions of the 3 presidents' visits also warrant more attention. Madcoverboy 18:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.

---

Raëlism

previous FAC

reviewed version → version in response to first FAC criticism by Argos'Dad

The article has Good Article status. Factual accuracy, neutrality, stability, adherence to the manual of style, and proper image use are already agreed upon according to Good Article criteria. The higher standards for in-line citations and referencing have already been achieved before the article passed Good Article Nomination. However, the main issue is whether it is so well written and broad in coverage that it has comprehensive, engaging, and professional prose.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 00:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Fails criteria 1a, 2a and criteria 3 is doubtful.

• This article is not well written. The prose is inartful and the entire article reads like it was written in another language and then ported to en.wikipidia.org (which it may have been). There are phrases that make no sense and even typographical errors.

• The heading is neither concise, nor a summary of the article and thus fails 2a.

• The images are strange choices for a church (I understand this church is different, but...) particularly the "Lady on bed adorned with Raëlian symbol" image. I am not sure what this image adds to the article.

• • This objection is now invalid because the image has been since been removed.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 23:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I am dubious about its status as a Good Article (which was awarded 4 hours before this shotgun nomination for FA status), but there is no question it is not FA material. Argos'Dad 01:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Object to objection - Sandy's comment nullifies this concern. All the above objections ARE INVALID.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 23:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what "object to objection" means in your particular context, but in point of fact, my concerns are both valid and continuing. Your one-editor-revert-war does not eliminate my concerns that the prose and typographical errors make this article not a fit candidate for FA. Argos'Dad 01:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. This is the version that passed GAC and these are the changes made since GA passing; only a few hours after passing GA, we're viewing significantly deteriorated prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I suggest a revert to the GA version. Kmarinas86, would you mind removing all those special fonts from the FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Am I really that bad at fixing the prose? LOL. At least we're back to business now.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 03:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
      • You mentioned on the talk page that you had reverted to the GA version, but we're not there yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I've been trying to fix the lead since I reverted to the GA. That's why it does not look the same.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 04:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
          • I don't see a revert; the changes from the GA version now are this. I still suggest a revert to the GA version, followed by a peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
            • Reverted again. But this totally undoes what I was trying to do last night, to fix the article according to Argos'Dad's comments. I actually did revert the article (source). First, I decided to delete irrelevant content from the lead, and within it, I moved the criticism part from the second to the third paragraph (source). Then, I removed "Lady on bed adorned with Raëlian symbol" image like he requested (source), and I also tried to make the paragraph a summary of the prose (source), which I think I succeeded at. After changing plurals to singulars, fixing links, and resizing images (source), I tried to make the prose better only by adding hypens (source). Now that I showed that I did revert, would you say that these changes after I gave you the revert you requested were good changes?◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 14:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
              • I'm tired of waiting, so I went ahead and unreverted the article after moving it to Raëlism. The former Raëlism article is now a part of Raëlian beliefs and practices.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 19:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"Women are a minority in most chapters of the Raëlian Church, but it is claimed that the Mongolian chapter attracts a female majority." I'm not sure about the phrase "it is claimed". Isn't that a weasel word? The reviewer who passed it for GA rewrote it to that. Is that actually good prose?◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 05:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment - For an idea of what to aim for before submitting this as a FAC again, have a look at Bahá'í Faith and Sikhism. Tim Vickers 12:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Raëlianism articles are not hierarchally ordered. Here are some possibilities I have considered:

• Expand the Raëlism and Raëlians articles and take summary of them as well as of the Raëlian Church article and put them into an overreaching article Raëlianism article.
  • The Raëlians articles is definitely not up to NPOV since it relies on too many primary sources
  • The Raëlism article isn't exactly perfect, but it may be more easily merged with the Raëlian Church article. But I have always that that it served a seperate purpose, like Sikhism primary beliefs and principles or Bahá'í teachings.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 15:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Actually, according to Google News, most references of Raëlism refer to the church and most references to Raëlianism refer to the beliefs. I will change this now.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 15:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I moved the page. Hope this helps ;).◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 19:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Time is running out!◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 22:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Particularly ugly signature there, which really interferes with the reading of this page. Oppose on the basis of the writing. Here are examples to demonstrate that the whole text needs serious attention. Don't just fix these:
  • "afterwards"—overly informal in this register.
  • Overlinked: Canada? Very obscure country. "Sensual"? We do speak English.
    • Canada is an obscure country? Oh brother -_-. Am I supposed to believe that?18:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Canada is a major center for the Raëlian movement. Also, Sensual is the correct word because is it linked to the Raëlians Sensual Meditation. How is that the problem.
    • Canada is overlinked. Two links before, now one. Fixed.
  • Overuse of em dashes. For example, the first one should be a comma.
    • Fixed.
  • Last word in lead: "fronts"—meaning unclear.
    • Fine. But IMO, it's very clear.
  • "The structure of the Raëlian Church is hierarchal religious order"—"a" is missing.
    • Done.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 18:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Read MOS on "words as words". (e.g., "bishop")
    • Helpful.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 00:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Remove "#"
    • Fixed/
  • "twenty-three hundred", "one hundred seventy guides", and similar: why not express as numerals? These are all over the text; harder to read. Read MOS on this.
    • Fixed. Strange, as I was recommended to spell them out-by the automated peer reviewer.
  • "Rael's Girls, in contrast to the Order of Angels, solely consists of ..."—Reverse order of two of these words. Tony 14:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
    • BAD ADVICE AS IT REVERSE THE MEANING OF THE SENTENCE. I DELETED WHAT IS BETWEEN THE COMMAS FOR YOUR SAKE.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 00:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I ALWAYS HAVE SERIOUS ATTENTION WHEN LOOKING AT THE ARTICLE. Apparently that's not what is need. Most of your advice is helpful. But what is not helpful is saying that it needs a lot of work and not making up for saying that for giving advice on all of what you can see. You apparently see more problems than you spoke about. Your objection is valid, but not completely helpful. I don't care if you don't like my signature, either.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 00:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
      • It would do to show more respect for people who are trying to help you fix up this article. Kamryn · Talk 08:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Object if you need 8 refs in the lead, esp one that short, it's not a true lead. The lead should summarize the main points of the article and the details and refs will normally be in the body.Rlevse 20:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Object to objection - There are now 4 refs in the lead. Three of them note the GENERALITIES of controversy contained in the controversy section. The controversy section is not MEANT for those generalities. So those have three citations in the lead still. The remaining citation is for the size of the movement-which is essential to introduce the size of the subject-but is covered in more detail in the Raelian membership article. It MATCHES with the history section of the Raelism article. The lead summarizes the text-that's a fact.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 23:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• "In Belgium, two guide members of the Raëlian Movement were convicted of having sexual intercourse with children on January 15, 1995 of that year, by the Court of First Instance in Brussels (Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles). They were each given a prison sentence of five years. Subsequently, French psychiatrist Jean-Marie Abgrall testified to a Belgian parliamentary board of inquiry that the Raëlian Movement posed a public danger, particularly to children. This claim was contested and the Raëlian Movement sued Abgrall for slander and libel, but lost the case.[8]"

• I really don't think this should be included unless there are sources saying that the guide members did that because of the Raëlian movement. Elsewise it's just POV pushing. Kamryn · Talk 08:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• • You really think so? I'll gladly remove it.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 09:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • Unless the fact that they are Raelists (?) is significant to their commiting the crime, then yes. We don't fill Christianity, Islam, etc with lists of their followers who have committed whatever crime (the lists would be huge), the same goes for any other religion. Unless their Raelism ties were a significant factor in their motivations I don't think it is particularly relevant and gives the wrong impression ([i assume] there are many followers of raelism who havent done horrible things). As for the psychiatrist's findings, that is one person of the 6 billion people on Earth who haven't issued findings of the like. This reeks of undue weight. Kamryn · Talk 22:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Thank you so very very much!◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 00:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Please reformat all images to default size IAW WP:MoS#Images. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment Well that only took a minute.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 19:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Second Comment It turns out that User:Wikipediatrix and I agree. The pictures look better at 240px. User:Wikipediatrix reverted it to 240px. But people with baby-size monitors will not like that. I will have to revert it.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 02:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment all these "Objection to Objection are getting you nowhere. FYI, SandyGeorgia is probably the best FAC reviewer on wikipedia.Rlevse

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

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

The article was not promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.

---

Telecommunication

previous FAC

A vital, core and good article that has previously been nominated for featuring (nom1, nom2). The changes in this version include the further trimming of technical detail, more citations and a stronger focus on writing. Cedars 00:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Consider using numbered lists where possible. This is important for text to voice as well as Wikipedia:Spoken articles. Thank you. Spamsara 19:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added punctuation to the bulleted list. This should improve the experience for those using text-to-voice software. You are also welcome to convert the list to a numbered list if you feel it would improve the article experience. I have text-to-voice software and will run the full article through it as soon as possible to see how it handles. Cedars 01:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment 2 Too many subheadings in first major section. One heading per paragraph is way too much! Spamsara 20:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The section was originally just a collection of paragraphs with no headings. However, this was complained about in the last featured article nomination. As a result, the headings were added. The reason for the number of headings is that the section aims to give a very brief synopsis of technical concepts in the telecommunication field. As a result, the paragraphs change focus very quickly, leading to a large number of headings. I appreciate it is undesirable to have five headings for eight paragraphs but I think it really helps people to understand the article. If you like, I could reduce the size of the headings? I am also open to suggestions about how the headings could be merged. Cedars 01:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose—1a, 2a and just generally needs more thought to create an article that is one of our "best".
  • Do you need "over a distance" in the opening sentence? Not sure I like the definition, with or without this phrase: speech can be seen as signals.
  • Devices that ?assist the process? No, television etc enables".
  • "... with the telecommunication industry's revenue being placed at ..."—clumsy grammar.
  • The lead doesn't grab me. Last clause repeated word-for-word below.
  • Are the bullets necessary at the start of the first section? Then, "For example, consider ..."—there's redundancy here, and a problem of consistency of tone (addressing readers directly). Lower-case letter after colon, please. Some of this opening seems to be trivial. Radio is transmitted over free space? Hmmm. I knew that.

Please don't just correct these examples. Bring on board other people who are good with language and structure. Tony 08:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Concur with Tony's comments. In addition, size images IAW WP:MoS#Images — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.

---

Casino Royale (2006 film)

previous FAC

I think that a lot of work has been done on the sources as well as the language. This should be sufficient for FA. Vikrant Phadkay 16:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I think the lead paragraphs do not meet requirements. Might want to check out Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Lead section to get an idea.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I made a few edits on the lead. Is it proper now? Vikrant Phadkay 16:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    • No. It has 5 paragraphs worth of lead. The size of the article wouldn't warrant more than 3 paragraphs. These paragraphs need to be good, full paragraphs that summarize the production of the film, and the impact the film had when released.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Bignole. The number of lead paragraphs is too overwhelming, and the content needs to be summarized in a more concise manner. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

•  Done Alright the paragraphs have been integrated. Any other flaw? Vikrant Phadkay 16:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't think that the unreferenced Cameos section is appropriate. There's no independent, secondary sources verifying that a crew member or an actor of a previous film did have a cameo in the film. I have no idea what producer Michael G. Wilson looks like, and it's unreasonable to identify people like him by face. The whole section reads like trivia -- is it really necessary to mention all the cameos in a film? What encyclopedic value exists? Is there not a citation that says, "Several crew members and former James Bond girls had cameos in Casino Royale," without fancruftish detail of precisely where you can spot them in the film? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

•  Done I have removed all the trivia on the cameos; should be fine now. Vikrant Phadkay 16:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Needs copy-editting by someone unfamiliar with the article. For example, these sentences could be better phrased, "Several locations around New Providence were used for filming during February and March, largely on Paradise Island and in the southern Coral Harbour area, with an abandoned Royal Bahamian Air Force base being a particularly important location for the production." "The three biggest scenes involving physical effects in the film were those involving the chase at a building site in Madagascar, the Miami International Airport tarmac chase sequence, and the sinking Venetian house, with scenes located on the Grand Canal and in Pinewood Studios." There is also some overlinking of common words, and underlinking of full dates in the footnotes. Epbr123 18:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

•  Done The sentences have been modified. Vikrant Phadkay 15:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

•  Done I have removed several overlinks. Any more left? Vikrant Phadkay 15:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Where precisely, are the underlinks in the footnotes? Vikrant Phadkay 15:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

All the access dates in the footnotes need linking. After a quick browse, I spotted at least four words that shouldn't be linked, eg. radio. Wikilinks should only be made if they are relevant to the context, and a word only needs to be wikilinked once within each section. I would still like to see the article copy-editted by a third-party, eg. "The sequence at Miami International Airport was partly shot at the Dunsfold Aerodrome in Surrey, with some footage captured at Prague and Miami airports with the first and second units of the film taking some 10 weeks to shoot the entire sequence." Epbr123 16:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I am very much that third-party. Vikrant Phadkay 15:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done Most lines have been copy-edited. If there is more, please tell me the specific sections. Vikrant Phadkay 15:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done Overlinks have been removed; where is the word radio, by the way? Vikrant Phadkay 15:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done All dates in the references have been linked. Vikrant Phadkay 15:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak oppose As mentioned in the previous FAC, some of the information is still cited by SuperHeroHype.com, which is not a particularly reliable source. The article could also go with a general copy edit by someone who hasn't contributed to the article already. - • The Giant Puffin • 19:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

SHH is a very reliable news source. In fact, all sources are reliable if it's an interview straight from someone's mouth. Alientraveller 19:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly is copy-editing needed? It has been done in a few places. Please be specific. Vikrant Phadkay 16:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done Copy editing has been done all over the article. Vikrant Phadkay 15:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Very very weak oppose. The images Image:GunBarrelPhoto.jpg and Image:CasinoRoyalePhoto.jpg need better fair use rationales. Dalejenkins 08:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done The rationales have been cleaned up. Vikrant Phadkay 16:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, refs 3 and 24 are the same. They should be merged as 1. Dalejenkins 11:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done The references have been integrated. Vikrant Phadkay 16:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• OK then, a SUPER STRONG SUPPORT from me! Dalejenkins 17:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Do we need for 4 minor sections under "Release"? Could these be better summarized into just one plain section? Group content by paragraphs, instead of separating them into subsections which only consist about about 1 paragraph worth of information. 15:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  •  Done I have cleaned up and merged the subsections. Vikrant Phadkay 16:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Continued - I apologize for my broken reviews, I have a lot on my plate right now, both in the Wiki-world and the real one. The "Release" section looks better. Question: I thought it was decided that the "map" image shouldn't be in the filming section since they didn't really film in all the locations that the movie actually takes place?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  •  Done The image has no place suitable, so it's out. What does "a lot on my plate right now, both in the Wiki-world and the real one" mean by the way? Vikrant Phadkay 16:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok. I've moved the "soundtrack" info as it's labeled as if it's talking about the actual album that was released, but really discussing the music in general. I moved it to the "Production" section, under "Music" and move the line about the release to the end, since that came last. As for what I said, I meant that I have several projects on Wiki I'm working on at the same time, plus I have school and work full time, so I haven't been able to sit down and read the entire article word-for-word yet. My reviews so far are based on what catches my eye as I scan the page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I removed the OR line, and merged the soundtrack release line. Vikrant Phadkay 16:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support since the article has been recently copyedited, TOC has been taken care of, and the referencing is pristine. Cliff smith 16:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support seems to be a well-written stable article --Hadseys 15:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • Requirement for professional standard of formatting (overlinking) and MOS breach: why "terrorist", "boycott", "United Kingdom", "2006", "castrate", and many more, some more than once?
    •  Done By the way, dates including 2006 need to be linked everywhere. Vikrant Phadkay 16:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Em dashes not normally spaced, says MOS. Why here?
    •  Done All is well now. Vikrant Phadkay 17:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • MOS breach in failure to convert units into normal-speak.
    • What do you mean by this line? Vikrant Phadkay 16:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "Utilised"—Do everyone a favour and make it just "used"?
    • Is there any problem in having better prose? Vikrant Phadkay 16:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "the previous record being six rolls set by Top Gear"—funny one.
    •  Done Cut it Vikrant Phadkay 16:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

These are samples only. Tony 11:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Point out all flaws; saying "samples only" will be of no use otherwise. Vikrant Phadkay 17:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.

---

BackupHDDVD

previous FAC

Self-nomination. The article has undergone significant improvement since its last FAC nom and has remained stable for over a month. Noclip 15:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support Oppose - The statement about being forced to rely on new keys for new discs should be balanced with Ed Felton's comments on the likelihood that there will always be a stream of new cracked keys.[16][17] ←Ben^B4 08:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Both those articles discuss compromises to K_p (and K_d) and are therefore irrelevant to the BackupHDDVD utility, which uses neither. Noclip 12:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Which keys does it use, and where in the article is this explained? ←Ben^B4 00:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
      • The second half of the "Background" section discusses it. Noclip 02:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Struck opposition. I don't know if it's the technical nature of the subject, or the prose, but it occurs to me that this article could use a copyedit. ←Ben^B4
  • I'm reinstating my opposition. There needs to be a clear discussion of the different kinds of keys, explaining which keys the utility does and doesn't use, along with an explanation of the implications. The encryption technology is so central to this utility that you can't expect a novice to understand this article without a more complete explanation. Perhaps a subsection in Background, which is only two paragraphs at present? ←Ben^B4 19:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • "A clear discussion of the different kinds of keys, explaining which keys the utility does and doesn't use, along with an explanation of the implications" is basically what the Background section already is. I have clarified the main points, but you might want to re-read it as what you're talking about is already there. Noclip 00:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, in just the second word you use an abbreviation that isn't defined anywhere in the article (LA.) I'll look at this again in three or four days in hopes you can get some strategic distance from those two paragraphs and expand them. ←Ben^B4 01:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • What this article needs is a free version of the first diagram on this page. I'll try to make one. ←Ben^B4 03:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Now I like it! ←Ben^B4 05:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I think the new diagram has issues. Detail at User talk:Noclip. ←Ben^B4 02:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I noticed you changed the license field, stating that "no license isn't public domain; author retains rights". I can't describe how much copyright paranoia like this irritates me. The software was specifically released by the author into the public domain, and the license field originally said "public domain", but some people objected to that wording on the grounds that public domain isn't a license and suggested that the license field be changed to "none (public domain)". Now you have interpreted this to mean that the software is copyrighted and made the article inaccurate. Noclip 21:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I have to switch back to Oppose because your revised diagram renders horribly as discussed, unreadable font size and no arrowheads, for example. ←Ben^B4 14:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I've reverted the diagram to your version. Noclip 15:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose These minor fixes needed:

• There was some speculation that the device key belonging to the version of PowerDVD then believed to have been used by the utility's original author to extract keys would be added to revocation lists in future HD DVD titles, preventing the obtainment of valid keys by users for any discs not already released. - could this be rephrased, as it's difficult to follow?
• "Early versions were not able to properly decrypt discs" - "not" shouldn't be used when easily avoidable
• According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images, it is recommended not to specify the size of images. The sizes should be what readers have specified in their user preferences. Epbr123 12:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

•  Done Noclip 13:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Now there's a slightly bigger problem to fix, I'm afraid. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, these blogs and forum posts don't seem to be reliable sources: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. Epbr123 14:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• I would agree that the first two sources listed above should be removed, but I have to defend the third. The author of the forum post is one of the only experts outside of AACS LA with a similar knowledge of the system, and is notable in his own right having been the one to defeat the several successive updates to AACS. I don't know if there is a specific rule about referencing Slashdot, but both usages here seem to pass WP:V to me. Noclip 19:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Noclip, are you referring to Arnezami or Samzenpus? Both of them seem to be nyms, so how can we be certain they are who you think they are? And do you have any sources which show them to be published experts, per WP:SPS? We need some indication that these nyms correspond to reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• I am referring to Arnezami. The pseudonym is known to belong to a reliable source because the crack of the 2nd generation of AACS was publicized under it. Noclip 02:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• How do we deal with the issue that anyone can register and post under a nym ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• That's obviously more of a policy issue which has been discussed to death, but I think that in this case the pseudonym is acceptable because the person using it established his/her own expert knowledge of the subject under it on the same website that is being referenced. Noclip 14:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• I concur with Epbr123 that there are WP:V issues with those sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Why plural? All of the sources above except the doom9.org forum post have already been removed. Noclip 20:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.

---

John Henry Cound Brunt

The article is already GA approved. The person is an interesting, heroic character, and one who is deserving of Featured Article status. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 18:44, 1 n7 July 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose I'm do not believe this article meets FA criteria.

1a: Poor verb usage with regards to consistent tense. Example:"The actions that won him the Victoria Cross exemplified this behaviour, as despite being wounded he single-handedly held off enemy troops, allowing his men to reach safety." is an awkward sentence with shifts in verb tense throughout. It is also passive voice, which is frowned upon. Numerous copyedit problems: unclosed parenthesis, improper capitalization ("North"), incomplete locations ("Lincoln"...Lincoln where? Nebraska?).

1b) Neglects major facts and details.

2. Numerous violations of WP:DATE throughout (tip: search for everything with "19" in it and you'll find most of them. Please also check WP:BIO for additional information.

2a) The lead section seems woefully inadequate and does not address a third of his life (also omitted in the body), though it is sized appropriately for an article of this size.

2c) It lacks a substantial table of contents and size (there simply isn't enough here to be considered a featured article).

2d) Inconsistent citation formats. In addition, citations should be used at the end of a section from the same source, not every sentence. Example: Blah blah blah.^[1] Blah blah blah.^[1] Blah blah blah.^[1] should be Blah blah blah. Blah blah blah. Blah blah blah.^[1] In addition, this article seems to take almost everything from one source (11 of 13 complete paragraphs from one source!). Please find more and balance this out. Last sentence is unreferenced.

3 Only a single image? For an FA?!? Surely there has to be a picture of something to illustrate this man's life. How about the book you reference? No pictures there? A unit logo? A map of where he lived? fought? died?

4 The length is woefully inadequate. For a person who died at only 22 years of age, 9 years of his life are covered in only 3 brief sentences?!?

In short, it is an quick summary of a book and the life of a hero with a few other sources thrown in, but it is not written up to Wikipedia standards. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose—MOS breaches, overlinked, poorly written. Tony 11:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.

---

Pio of Pietrelcina

It's a very good article for Padre Pio. Green Owl ^{Uh uh}

Without giving it a detailed look I can tell you the lead is too short. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 04:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - not bad article, but I'm afraid I'll not support yet. Lead is short, from the first glance I think one or two more paragraphs should be written. Not sure about wording, but from section "Desire to become a friar", "it is said" doesn't sound well. And third, although references are sufficient (haven't checked reliability), they need balancing, as sections "Supernatural phenomena" and "Sainthood" and possibly others are weakly or not sourced at all, and most of the references need formatting for author, access date, etc. and merging same pages into one. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 11:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Inadequate WP:LEAD, rambling TOC with WP:MSH issues, unformatted citations (see WP:CITE/ES; all sources need a publisher, websources need a last accessd date, author and publication date should be given when available), citation needs (example, Half a million people were estimated to have attended the announcement ceremony.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.

---

Portuguese phonology

This article has been completely rewritten and brought to GA status. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 16:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, refer to peer review. I can't find a record of it at WP:GA or any indication on the talk page of a GA candidacy. It appears that a Project put GA tags on the Project templates without a GAN. I suggest a peer review to help prepare the article for a GA nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose --Kaypoh 12:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose
  • Intro far too short
  • Overlisty in places and severe overuse of tables. Compare Irish phonology
  • Obviously fails exhaustivity.
  • Only 2 notes and 2 relevant sources. The IPA handbook is not a source about Portuguese phonology.
• Circeus 14:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with these comments. Poorly written, too, especially for an article on language. First sentence ends with the prickly "difficulties in intelligibility". Tony 07:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.

---

Pennsylvania Route 39

• previous FAC

Currently, this article is an A-Class, good article. It is well documented and includes well written information about the route. It has a detailed intersection guide, and includes historical information. There has been a previous FAC. --Son 19:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, with many of the same objections from last time.
  • Some of the wording is awkward.
  • The history of Legislative Route 39 does not belong in the history, since in Pennsylvania the Legislative Routes and Traffic Routes were totally different systems. It's like having the history of US 30 in the article on PA 30.
  • The "route description" and "other development along PA 39" sections duplicate each other in part, and should be merged.
  • The Delorme "Toggle Measure Tool" probably gives false precision. Is there a government source you can use?
• --NE2 22:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Removed LR 39 history. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose—1a and 2a plus MOS breaches.
  • Got to the fourth word: MOS breach. Please read about units and values.
  • Unsure about "designated". It stretches from ...? And what does it mean by "signed east–west"?
  • Please read up on leads. Three stubby paras, inadequate in length and scope.
  • Link: lower-case "annual ..." in middle of sentence. Remove "it".
  • Read MOS on seasons ("fall").
  • "farmland".
  • "more and more"—too informal. Try "increasingly".

And more and more issues. Please arrange for the whole article to be properly copy-edited. And do your best to raise it to an interesting level—at the moment, it's kind of boring. Route description, for example, says nothing about the topography/geography spanned by the route. Give us a bird's-eye view rather than a succession of trivial details. Needs to be "among our best work", doesn't it? Tony 07:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• In terms of the fourth word... did I fix it correctly? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Seasons issue fixed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.

---

World Community Grid

I've done a lot of work to improve this article, and believe that it now passes the featured article criteria. I requested a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/World Community Grid/archive1 but unfortunately received only a couple of comments. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 17:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Fix the external jumps that [24] look like this, then them into refs.Rlevse 20:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There's only two of them, and they're left there intentionally because they're links to regularly updated statistics pages. The user is encouraged to click the link to see the latest statistics. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

doesn't matter.Rlevse 10:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The Manual of Style is a guideline, and not set in stone. There were two places in this article where it was more helpful to the user to just use an external link jump rather than an inline reference. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 13:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so we pick and choose what we follow.Rlevse 14:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Based on common sense and careful consideration, yes. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 16:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

oppose per all of the following:

• expand role of partners and how the companies use the technology within their operations LurkingInChicago 21:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

What exactly would you like to see? Partner organizations encourage their members to install the WCG client, and feedback from partners is probably given preferential treatment. I'm not sure what more this section needs to say. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• expand detials of operation: inputs, description of info processed, processing time, processing difficulties, outputs LurkingInChicago 21:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I have greatly expanded the "Operation" section and created a new "Statistics and competition" section. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• expand details for the results of the completed projects LurkingInChicago 21:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added more information about the FightAIDS@Home paper. Is there anything else you'd like to see? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• create section for upcoming projects or expected efforts LurkingInChicago 21:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• expand references to sources beyond the WCG website, e.g. major news coverage, government press releases, etc LurkingInChicago 21:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this is that while WCG is mentioned in the news and promoted on and off the web, the details are for the most part only verifiable from the WCG web site or through original research. Is there a specific source you had in mind that you'd like to see included in the article? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• for example, the new york times has multiple articles relating to the subject in the archives, but none are referenced in the article. including other major media sources significantly improves the notability and verifiability of the topic. LurkingInChicago 02:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not have access to the New York Times archives. If you have access, would you be willing to add the citations that you requested? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

continued oppose - the overarching point is that the article needs considerable expansion of verifable references outside of the organization that produces the software to satisfy FA criteria, specifically 1c. i strongly question if the internet forums referenced in the article qualify as reliable sources, e.g. with fact-checking, editorial oversight, peer review, or widely known credibility. an FA is the "best of the best" - including the best in comprehensiveness and accuracy of referencing. LurkingInChicago 20:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• then expand the lead LurkingInChicago 21:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

What would you like mentioned in the lead that is not currently present? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• thorough copy edit LurkingInChicago 21:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Already  Done. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per above.Rlevse 14:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

1a issues:

• "an average decrease of processor use"—"in", even though there's another in the sentence.

I'm confused as to what you mean. The word "in" is used only once in that sentence. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Spaced em dash not "normal", according to MOS. Spaced en or unspaced em.

 Done —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• "It should be noted"—no way: wrong message to reader.

How exactly would you like this changed? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• "open source BOINC client"—most readers will find a hyphen easier.

I've wikilinked "open source" to open source, which should clear up any confusion. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• "Teams allow for a heightened sense of community identity and attempts to inspire competitiveness." Grammar.

 Done —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Could do with a once-over by someone new. Tony 01:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that you have not contributed to this article. Would you like to help? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.

---

Editing of anime in American distribution

This article is very well written and comprehensive. It was incredibly informative to me, and I think it should be featured. MalwareSmarts 15:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per lack of references and inline citations. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

**Upon ufrther examination I've alos found an entire paragraph of probable OR in "Violence, death, and weapons" --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • I just got rid of that section myself. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 20:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, lack of inline citations. Kamryn · Talk 23:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Maybe it was a bad idea for me to nominate this. MalwareSmarts 00:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Mmm probably :) Citations are pretty important in FAs. However if everything can be sourced then it's not a huge problem, it shouldn't take long to properly cite everything and cut out anything that can't be sourced. I can help if you like. Kamryn · Talk 01:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm new to Wikipedia, so it would be a good idea for someone to do some proper citing, as I have no clue as to how. MalwareSmarts 02:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Might I suggest starting with "Wikipedia:Citing sources"? The array of {{Citation}} templates are fairly straight forward once you get the hang of them. — RJH (talk) 14:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - not very sufficient number of citations (personally I'd expect at least 30 or so) plus I've found four tags. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 12:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge tag at top? I shouldn't have to hit the link to learn what "anime" means. Tony 01:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.

---

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (Atari 2600)

4th nomination (Previous FAC): Well, here I am again trying to get this thing to pass. Let's see how it goes this time.--SeizureDog 23:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: TTN and I have been working on condensing and cleaning up the Gameplay section. The whole article should probably go through a significant copyedit session, though I'd say the level of citations and references in the article is quite good. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: The introduction is meant to be a summary of the article, yet it only discusses its poor sales and reception - there needs to be gameplay and development information. The gameplay section has no inline references. Image:ET2600-TheBestPart.png is far too large to pass fair use. Part of its rationale: "Atari doesn't want it and has dumped in into a landfill. That's sorta like giving up copyright." Is it? In the critical response section, the title "The worst video game of all time" is inappropriate, most of the reviewers don't use those words. Also in that section, the last paragraph is completely unreferenced (and it's making some very bold statements). Those two section titles in critical response could simply be removed, they're excessive, considering both discuss similar things. It's difficult to elaborate on everything else because there is so much use of a bad tone, unreferenced statements, and inappropriate quotations. --125.238.144.97 05:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • These are all issues that can be easily addressed - most especially the fair-use rationale for the image. I'll take care of that now. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • If you can easily address the lack of gameplay and reception references, be my guest. I wouldn't consider it a simple task to do well. --125.238.144.97 05:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
      • The Gameplay section simply describes the gameplay, which can be easily found in game's instruction manual. Sometimes, I have to wonder what the purpose is in requiring citations for patently obvious descriptions of a game's gameplay. Reception, on the other hand, always needs to be well-cited, as that is especially prone to POV. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Then cite the pages where the information was taken from the game's instructional manual. You could use multiple cites, or one that encompasses all of the pages. The answer to your question is: because "patently obvious description" still may be original research. For reception, I had a real look at it, and it's in quite bad condition. To make it easier, I've created some "citation needed" tags, trying not to be too excessive. There are some very bold statements that may even need to be removed. --125.238.144.97 05:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
          • I agree on the critical response section. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Ok, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to cite some of these things. Perticularly this one: "Although the movie it was based on is widely considered a classic" - The E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial has around 30 cites for its reception section. How am I supposed to cite this statement without cluttering the article? How do I narrow this down to being able to call it a "classic" with just one or two cites?--SeizureDog 05:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't even call it a "classic". Use something like "Although E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial was generally well-received..." - notice the link to its reception section. --125.238.144.97 05:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: As noted in the above discussion, this article needs a lot of POV cleanup and better citations in certain places. Yes, the game is often referred to as the "Worst Game of All Time", but the way this assertion is currently stated in the article puts undue weight on this particular issue. While these issues can be fixed, I don't think the article is in Good Article status, much less appropriate for FA at this time. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I should add that very little is revealed why it was considered the worst game of all time. We get a large paragraph of people who have called it the worst game of all time, and then we are treated to a small paragraph of a few complaints with no references. This is probably the article's largest flaw, but its bad tone and bold, unreferenced statements are contenders. --125.238.144.97 05:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Ok, I cleaned up the reception section. I think it's less informative now, but that's the price to be paid of strict citing. However, I see no reason whatsoever to cite the gameplay section. The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask is a FA with zero cites in its gameplay section, and it's a far more complex game. Is the article, or at least the section, fixed now? Or is there more to be corrected?--SeizureDog 06:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The gameplay isn't a real worry, but Majora's Mask is a terribly-referenced article from my viewpoint. You've fixed a few problems with the reception section, but it's still far from featured quality (the second paragraph is the problem). Look here: Final_Fantasy_VIII#Reception_and_criticism. There is a good amount of problems that are credited to multiple reviewers. It needs to be similar to this. --125.238.144.97 06:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I would like to point out that this game was made in 1982. If you're saying I need more reviewers then well, there aren't any (at least not credible). You also seem to be saying that I need to list more problems critics have with the game. But the thing there is that it's too simple of a game to have very much to complain about. So I'm confused what you want. --SeizureDog 06:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
      • You've created blanket statements while only citing three reviewers. The problems need to be discussed like the reviewers have discussed them, and three reviewers does not mean that every reviewer thought the same. I'm sorry, but featured articles need to be almost perfect. There are literally two sentences on the game's criticism. That is not sufficient, especially for a game so widely criticized. I can't put it any other way. --125.236.145.60 07:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I've basically fixed all the problems with the reception section. However, it still needs more reliable reviews or mention of criticism. Don't tell me there aren't any, a game of this age will require real research (books and such), not just Google searching. By the way, I am the IP address criticizing the article; I couldn't be bothered logging in. --Teggles 08:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Mk, I see what you did there. As for real researching, I did that a long time ago. There aren't very many books out there on classic gaming, and most of those don't have much information on the individual games themselves (unless it's like Pong or Pac-Man). So the few books already cited are probably going to be as good as this gets.--SeizureDog 13:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
            • I personally have less issue with the citations - I agree that official reviews and citations about this game are going to be difficult to come by. My issue (as of last night - haven't had time to review today's version yet) is the overall tone of the article. I see that quite a bit has been done to improve that, so my criticism may be moot now. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: There is much incorrect in this article. First, the suggestion that Kassar didn't want to do the product, "...we've never made an action game out of a movie" is silly. What was the Raiders game? Second, to suggest that Atari crashed because of the money spent on licensing and the extra games built is ridiculous. First, Atari could have easily weathered that storm, and second, it doesn't explain why the entire video game industry crashed at the same time. I was at Activision then, having previously been with Atari, and I can tell you that the release of ET spelled the end of the entire industry, not just Atari. The reason ... no open-to-buy at the retail level. Excess ETs and Raiders (from the year before) had clogged the system and buyers just quit buying product. Customers still wanted new games, but stores weren't carrying them. What we have here is a primary example of how Arrogant Ignorance at the highest levels can bring down, not only a company, but an entire industry. And, believe me, the ignorance at the highest levels of Atari and Warner Communications was obvious to any of us who were there and had access to the executive staff. ET should either have not been licensed, or it should have released after Christmas. It would probably have sold just as well. In addition, the decisions of how many and when to manufacture and ship product were made with no forethought nor true understanding of the market. A marketing 101 class would have made better decisions with even less information. This is what happens when senior executives don't know they don't know, but think, they know better than anyone else.Bradfregger 17:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Brad Fregger
  • Well I dunno what to tell you about the Kassar quote. That's what he said. Maybe he just forgot about Raiders or something. I've also tried to steer the article away from saying that E.T. directly caused the crash, but it was one of their biggest mistakes and certainly the most prolific. Still, it's great to have an industry insider commenting on the article. Perhaps you can help improve the article? Know of some things to source that perhaps even you yourself have published?--SeizureDog 19:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I realize we're discussing hear-say and potential POV issues here, but in all the history discussions I've had with people about the 1983 crash, everyone tends to point to the 2600 version of Pac-Man first as the cause of the crash, and E.T. is almost always mentioned as an afterthought. It's not until you get into the "glut of terrible movie-licensed games" argument (which seems to start with E.T. even though Raiders came before it) that people really start paying attention to E.T. as a significant factor in the crash. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, in my reading, people tend to point to Pac-Man as crippling Atari, but to E.T. as finishing it off.--SeizureDog 21:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 00:24, 15 August 2007.

---

Titanic DVD releases

I believe this article should be a featured article because of the following reasons:

• It lists all of the DVD sets, and all of their features in good detail. Instead of leaving a list, It takes the features of each set and they are turned into a paragraph, so it is not written like a paragraph.
• It doesn't go off topic. It stays focus on what the heading says, and it's worded great.

Limetolime 20:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Lack of citations. Images lack fair use rationales. I would also like to question whether or not this DVD release of "Titanic" deserves an entire article, and suggest that the article be expanded into a full history of this film's DVD releases and renamed as such. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed, this article would probably be better off as some sort of "English language home video releases of Titanic" article. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. -- Underneath-it-All 18:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I'd like to see this merged into the main Titanic article. If it is not merged, it should be renamed Titanic DVD releases. Please re-read featured article criteria and WP:IMAGES. --thedemonhog talk • edits 01:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Images are too large and poorly formatted. It contains a list in the form of international ratings: pointless without context. The JPS^{talk to me} 13:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. I'm not very sure about images, not speaking about their formatting; and shouldn't be this one merged under something else, like "Titanic DVD releases", as suggested above or similar? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 09:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Regarding the nominator, Read WP:WIAFA. Regarding the article, merge or rename. Regarding the article's FA candidacy, no. -- Kicking222 16:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Renaming

Since many users have stated that the page should be merged, I will take their idea and rename the page Titanic DVD releases. Please leave comments to whether you support or oppose on the article's talk page. Limetolime 14:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.

---

Defense of the Ancients

This was until a week or so ago an incredibly crufty article, but after merging it and DotA Allstars together I think it's a solid article. The GA reviewer didn't leave any further suggestions upon passing, so no doubt there will be some things I will have to fix, so note them and I will jump on it. David Fuchs ^(talk) 20:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, because none of the references are to reliable sources. It may be that nothing resembling a reliable source has ever commented on this very minor piece of gaming culture, in which case (with no reflection on the people who have worked on the article) it should never become an FA. The Land 21:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Various problems:
  • "The original Defense of the Ancients map was not incredibly popular" -- incredibly popular is vague
  • "making the map open" -- should have a link to open source somewhere here
  • "controls a single hero" -- hero should be capitalized here, as it is a unit, correct?
  • "traditional Real-time strategy games" -> "traditional real-time strategy games"
  • "DotA experienced a slow buildup of popularity over time, especially with the release of Allstars" -- is this sourced? What does this even mean?
  • "some cases replaced Counter-strike" -> "some cases replaced Counter-Strike"
  • The article states that DotA Allstars is the most popular variation, but the sourced reference for this is weak ("is arguably the most popular") and doesn't seem to say how they came to this conclusion. --- RockMFR 20:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the grammar errors and removed the weasel words. As for the popularity of Allstars, there's no good source that states it, although it is true (on US Battle.net servers, it is literally the only version of DotA played.); instead, a rewrote it with a bit that is supported by the sources in the last section. David Fuchs ^(talk) 19:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I would like to see a longer article. Maybe the history can be longer or a new section can be added. Also I'm a little concerned about the lack of external links and references. -ScotchMB 02:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Expanding the history, frankly, isn't an option. There aren't any good sources , especially before allstars, because back then it was just a custom map like any other. As for external links, there were international dota leagues, other stuff like that, however I chucked all but the official sites since the others were linkspam or fan sites. What more would you want in the external? Unfortunately, its not like answers.com or some other resource exists for DotA info, which is why adding to the article was hard: most places just copied Wikipedia's info. David Fuchs ^(talk) 18:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 09:41, August 10, 2007.

---

Geology of solar terrestrial planets

The following article is very well cited and it follows WP:MoS. It satisfies all the required criteria for a FA. thanks, Sushant gupta 12:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Note: The nominator of this article is soliciting 'Support' for this FAC, through a wikiproject talk page, and user talk pages like here, and here.

i am extremly sorry. i didn't knew about that. from know onwards i won't do any such thing. Sushant gupta 09:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. This article's just a series of cut-and-pastes from other articles. Solar System#Formation, Mercury (planet)#Surface geology, Venus#Geology, Mars#Geology, Solar System#Asteroid belt etc. Even the intro was clipped from Terrestrial planet. It might be quite useful as a gateway to other more detailed articles but it certainly doesn't deserve to be featured. I'm not even sure it shouldn't be deleted. Serendi^podous 12:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see that it is a summary type article. the following article only deals with the geological aspects only. likewise i can also say that whats the use of articles like Jupiter or Earth. they are also a sum up of their sub articles. thanks, Sushant gupta 12:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Jupiter and Earth are not merely collages of paragraphs from other articles. I've written a number of planet articles myself and I can assure you that I did not look at any related articles while doing so. They are entirely original works. I don't mind this article as a gateway article, or summary article if you prefer, but it shouldn't be featured, not if no actual work went into it. And I have this page on my watchlist. No need to post on my talkpage as well. Serendi^podous 13:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

but the content is classed under GNU free documentation license. so whats the problem. Sushant gupta 13:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• I recommend that you nominate the article for a peer review first and close this FAC. Sorry, but it is premature. Please also consider adding new work it, instead of just (summaries of) sections of other articles. Melsaran 13:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - As the person who originated the summary style page, I can say that this article missuses the concept; each of the summaries here should really only be at their respective planet articles (just because something is legal, does not mean it is correct). It is needless duplication to have approximately the same sized summaries in more than one article. If however, this article were about how different classes of the Sol System's planets have formed and evolved (using the known planets as examples), then this article would make sense. But borging an article from text from other articles does not a featured article make. --mav 01:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

i think i need some time to develop the article. Sushant gupta 09:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 14:19, August 8, 2007.

---

The Simpsons Movie

I really like this article, its stable, well-written, well-referenced and think it may be upto standard. --Hadseys 15:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Request quickest removal physically possible. Not ready for FAC, its still only a GAC. It won't be FA ready until the DVD is released, which won't be for months. Gran² 15:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Snowball oppose. It won't be comprehensive enough come the DVD and its "two films worth" of deleted scenes. Alientraveller 15:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose due to recency of this film. Waiting for the DVD release, as others suggested, seems to be a good idea; there would be more real-world context incorporated into this article. The film is still out in many places, so there's no reason to believe that the article has plateaued. However, in due time, the article should definitely revisit the FAC process, barring any future issues. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose due to comments of Alientraveller and Erik. I think this has potential but should be renominated in future after DVD release and further edits. LordHarris 17:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose current movie releases are not ideal FACs. Also, the article is nominated simultaneously as a Good Article, which is against Wikipedia guidelines.--Ianmacm 18:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• D'oh-ppose. Inherently unstable.--Esprit15d 19:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose It isn't quite FA quality. Give it some time, it will get there. 171.71.37.103 22:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

'Close the nomination: a message was left on my talk page to request a hasty close to this discussion as the article in question is not, yet, comprehensive enough to make featured article status --Hadseys 01:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 18:16, 6 August 2007.

---

The Colbert Report

previous FAC

The article is culturally significant, is well-written, well-sourced, has been noted as a good article, is stable, and properly organized. I believe it deserves the Featured Article status. The Clawed One 04:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - I feel like this article contains too much fancruft. One example is the lengthy description of the set, and subsequent changes that have been made to it. There are other examples, and I feel like they need to be trimmed down before this article can be featured.--Danaman5 04:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been trimmed down now. --Jude. 16:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Changed to Support, concerns addressed.--Danaman5 16:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment - looking at the sections, I do see several areas where irrelevant data can be re-written or removed. Although I'm not withdrawing my nomination, I'll see what I can do. Thank you for your input. The Clawed One 04:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Having worked on this article recently myself, I consider the article to be well referenced, well written and well organised. It would also probably be good to promote an article which often features criticism of Wikipedia. ISD 07:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The "Greenscreen Challenges" and "Fictional characters" sections have no references. I don't see any references in the "Robert Wrexler" and "Neologisms" sections either. A few big sections (for example, "Set") have only one or two references when they should have more. The "Wikipedia references" section has ASR problems (for example - by checking this page to find out whether he usually refers to) and has too much little details that should not be there. --Kaypoh 09:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The "Greenscreen Challenges" and "Fictional characters" sections are now referenced, and the "Set" section has been cut down. --Jude. 05:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrexler and Neologisms have been cited, and the "by checking this page" line has been removed.--Jude. 20:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Have all your objections been addressed, or is there something else that needs to be done?--Jude. 16:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Make sure the "Wikipedia references" section has no cruft, check for ASR problems again, and I strike my oppose. --Kaypoh 15:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I've addressed everything. (I'll be away for the next 2 days, so if there's anything else, hopefully someone else will address it, or I'll fix it when I get back) cheers, Jude. 16:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The "Wikipedia references" section still looks a little crufty. SandyGeorgia also said that the lead section and prose need work, and there are some problems with reference format and style. --Kaypoh 06:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Tip of the Hat - I support the idea of this article obtaining Featured Status. It's quite well written. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 01:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. The article is well written and well-organized. However, the "Greenscreen Challenges" and "Fictional characters" sections are unreferenced (as mentioned by Kaypoh). If this is corrected, I'll support the article. --Jude. 22:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment:So the section is now cited...with wikipedia articles. Which are unsourced. Hmm.--Jude. 02:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Support: Uncited sections are now cited.(by me, I don't know if that disqualifies this or something?) Anyway, since my objections are addressed, I support this article attaining FA status. --Jude. 05:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I found more problems with the article. So I will not strike my oppose. Instead, I will expand my oppose. --Kaypoh 07:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: it seems that there's not enough consensus for support or oppose. More people need to voice their opinion on this subject. The Clawed One 16:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I just left notes on the talk pages for Wikiproject Television and Wikiproject Comedy. Hopefully, someone will respond. Cheers, Jude. 18:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Copyedit needed, e.g. This is evidenced in one of the recurring questions that he asks to many of his guests - "George W. Bush: great President, or the greatest President?" I don't think the verb "to ask" takes that preposition ("to") in this context. I found other instances where prose was cumbersome. Also, specifically unhappy with the "Stephen Colbert character" section. This is an ecyclopedia. That's to say, everything should be obvious to the uninitiated. And in that section, I don't think you'd be leaning out of the window too far to mention, preferably in the first sentence, that the character is satirical. Was this omitted due to lack of a reference, I wonder? 82.71.48.158 02:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Also, Almost immediately the Wikipedia entry for "librarian" was protected from vandalism, and edits to other pages were rapidly undone. - I can't think of anything that would be easier to reference. 82.71.48.158 02:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pardon? Ok, you oppose it, but I have no clue why. Could you be more specific to the problems you found? The Clawed One 02:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The George W. Bush sentence has been corrected. As far as the other instances where prose was cumbersome, the more specific you are as to the instances, the easier for us to correct the issue. I don't believe that the Stephen Colbert character is satirical, however. The show is satirical; the character is a caricature. Anyway, I did some copyediting; but if there are any specific issues that need addressing just say so. Cheers, Jude. 03:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The WP:LEAD needs a lot of work to make it a compelling, stand-along summary, and it's visually unappealing with all of that progamming detail crammed into one paragraph. Footnote/reference formatting is all over the place, with numerous errors and an unprofessional appearance (see WP:CITE/ES). A copyedit is needed (sample sentence, As an example of "The Wørd," Colbert showed a graphic of the Wikipedia page "elephants," which appeared to say "Thanks to the works of Stephen Colbert, the population of elephants has tripled in the past 10 years."[82], and offered $5 to the first person who changed the Wikipedia article "Reality" to read "Reality Has Become A Commodity".[83]) WP:DASH and WP:UNITS (non-breaking hard spaces) need attention. The prose is choppy: there are several two- and three-sentence sections and one- and two-sentence paragraphs. Sample one-sentence para, The Colbert Report presents various recurring themes that help define the show. The article relies very heavily on quotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 18:16, 6 August 2007.

---

Atlantique Incident

The article is very through, properly cited and explains the whole incident in great detail. So I am nominating it for FA. Mercenary2k 07:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Because I'm the main contributor to this article, I was planning to list it as a FA but Mercenary2k has listed it showing there is some consensus already. Naturally I would support it. :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Idleguy (talk • contribs) 13:25, July 21, 2007.
• Oppose This article is pretty good, but isn't FA quality yet. The quality of the writing could be improved, and more citations are needed. Some suggestions:

• The lead sentance states that this was a 'major event' but why this is the case isn't explained in the introduction. The article never really explains this either - it is stated that it lead to increased tensions, but not that there was ever a serious risk of things getting worse.

• Ok, maybe we can change it to an important event then but the article does talk about the result of the shooting including increased military and political tensions so probably a word change is in order perhaps? Idleguy 15:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• The 'The Confrontation' section really needs at least one inline citation supporting this account of the shoot down - the current citations appear to only confirm the plane's callsign and that it was approaching the international border.

• I've added further inline citations for nearly everything in that para.--Idleguy 15:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• The description of the plane and it's mission should be seperated into seperate sentances.

• Done. --Idleguy 03:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• The 'Claims and counter claims' section is rather tiresome to read. Is there a neutral account which can be drawn on? - the 'he said' 'she said' paragraphs probably reflect how the two Governments responded, but it's hard to read.

• Actually the final paragraph does talk about the neutral viewpoints in detail. The reason why both accounts seem to be lengthy was to ensure that NPOV was held as the discussion on the article's talk page would reveal. The current version is the one that is accepted by both pak and indian editors without compromising facts. However, the section does finish off with the neutral account. Idleguy 15:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• The 'Rise in tensions' section states that "both the countries' militaries near the Rann of Kutch and nearby were put on high alert" this needs a citation, especially as the only example of this alert is the redeployment of a single infantry company (eg, only about 100 troops). A citation is also needed for the claim that the US State Department said that there was "continued high-stakes tension" --Nick Dowling 10:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• I've added sources (actually most are given in the references) as inline citations now. Idleguy 15:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Few things:

• The formatting of the refs need standardising. Some haven't got publisher info, publication dates, retrieval dates. Sometimes the publisher is first, sometimes the date. Sometimes there's a full stop before the "Retrieved on", sometimes there isn't. It's hardly crucial, I know, but should be fixed.
• Surely the one link in "See also" can be merged into the text or discarded.
• Check the dashes with regards to the guidelines.
• first and only - "first" is redundant, "only" is sufficient.
• Check for redundant or ambiguous use of "also", there are more than necessary in the "Claims and counter claims" section and possibly in others. Possibly "counter claims" should be hyphenated, but I'm not sure.
• "Claim" is in the list of words to avoid. It might not matter too much in this case because it's used for both sides, but just wanted to raise it for consideration.

Overall looks fairly good, nice work. Trebor 15:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have addressed all possible aspects given as suggestion by Trebor. Claim word has been reduced, though not entirely eliminated since it still is needed in some cases. The publishers where given are produced faithfully - however if I have omitted any specific instance , then pl. inform me and I will correct it. The retrieval and publishing dates too have been taken care of. The dash issue is I'm sure according to the MoS, i.e. en dashes for the right places and em dashes only sparingly (total 3 instances) and according to the context/application. Redundant words and sections have also been removed as per suggestion. Thanks. Idleguy 17:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose—1a, 2a. Is this really the lead?

"The Atlantique Incident was an event in which a Pakistan Navy plane, Breguet Atlantique, carrying 16 people on board, was shot down by the Indian Air Force citing violation of airspace. The episode took place in the Rann of Kutch on 10 August 1999 just a month after the Kargil War, creating a tense atmosphere between India and Pakistan. This was the Pakistan Navy's only loss of an airplane to hostile fire in its history."

Totally inadequate in scope and length. "Citing" is a problem, and better "shot down by an Indian Air Force ?fighter plane. "Carrying 16 people on board"? Not on the wings?

The prose is faulty throughout. Just the tip of the iceberg: read MOS on captions. "further added"—one word redundant. The use and neglect of commas is awkward. "Pakistan said"—what, millions of people uttered at once? Read MOS on en dashes for ranges (Notes). Pity there's little but websites as references. Tony 07:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If needed the lead can be expanded. Not sure what the issue exactly is about "citing". Pl. elaborate also on the 16 people issue. I'm really not with you, unless you're saying perhaps that "on board" is redundant? I can make changes on commas soon and the redundancy can be removed. As for the references, 1/4 of the sources I obtained were originally offline (like newspapers etc.) for which I tried to get an online equivalent for easy access. So they're not just websites but links to stories/editorials/journal publications. There are also no books that deal primarily with this incident. Idleguy 10:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 18:16, 6 August 2007.

---

Colorado Avalanche

I have been working on this article to expand it and detail it. It is heavily referenced and I think it really tells the story of this sports team. The article was submitted for two peer-reviews, but I had no reply on the last one.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 10:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Spend some time on the WP:DASHes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Solved, I think. Thanks.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 17:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Support Well written and referenced. Looks good. Kaiser matias 06:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support Per Kaiser matias, you've put a lot of work into this article. Bsroiaadn^Talk 13:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Needs a good copyedit first.

"The Avalanche are also notable for being the first team in NHL history to win the Stanley Cup their first season after a re-location". Not concise - remove "also notable for being".

You need to clarify what the WHA is for non-hockey folks. You immediately switch from "World Hockey Association" to "WHA"

There are lots of instances of "would [verb]", which should be shortened to just [past tense of verb]. Example: "Lindros refused to sign a contract and began a holdout that would last over a year" should be "Lindros refused to sign a contract and began a holdout that lasted over a year"

"Two years later, in 1979" Spot the redundancy.

"the Nordiques fell into the league's basement" Non sports people might not understand what a "league basement" is.

"In 1991, for the third straight draft, Quebec had the first overall selection...." Sentence has no lead-in context.

"The Lindros trade is seen (at least in hindsight)" should be "In hindsight...". The rest of the sentence is a run-on, and there should be a citation for the team becoming contenders overnight.

"In the first season after the trade, the 1992–93 NHL season, the Nordiques reached the playoffs for the first time in six years and would do so two seasons later". Awkward.

"While the team experienced on-ice success, the team was far less successful off the ice" Repetitive. Try "the team struggled financially".

"Quebec City was the smallest market in the league and in 1995,[13]". This is a weird citation. Is it supposed to be referencing the "smallest market" bit?

The 1995-2001 and 2001-present sections are too long. Consider shortening them and possibly creating History of the Colorado Avalanche.

This is what I have for now. I'll watchlist the discussion. -Wafulz 13:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'll try to address those issues very soon. English is not my native language, isn't there someone available to help FAC's on copyedit issues? I'll (try to) correct every one you mentioned, but you said it needs a good copyedit. And that "weird citation" really is to reference the smallest market bit. It should be after "league" and not there, probably. Thanks--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 14:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

All addressed, but: "In 1991, for the third straight draft, Quebec had the first overall selection...." Sentence has no lead-in context." I don't really understand what you mean. The fact that a team has the first overall selection means that the team is weak. Three straight seasons illustrates that even better. Also, that sentence serves as an introduction to the Lindros trade, a major event in the history of the franchise. About the history sections, I'm not sure if there is really the need to create a new article for them. The article has around 29 KBs of text, which is good enough, but I agree that the sections may look big. I could divide them further: it would "dilute" the amount of text. I'll try to see what can be reduced and deleted.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 16:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I mean the sentences don't flow well. "They finished in last. They had three draft picks. Eric Lindros didn't want to come over". These are three distinct topics all bundled together into one thought. Try something like: "...and three times had the worst record of the league. As a result, the team earned three consecutive first overall draft picks, which they used to select Mats Sundin (1989), Owen Nolan (1990), and Eric Lindros (1991). Although Lindros..."

Done, I think.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 17:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That works. You even linked the draft articles, which I was going to mention but forgot.:o) -Wafulz 17:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors might be a good place to start, but they prefer being notified before an article is put up as FA candidate. I could go through and copyedit myself later tonight, but then I wouldn't be able to support the article without having a conflict of interest.-Wafulz 14:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I submitted the article there exactly two months ago, but I think nothing was done. So, I guess resubmitting if there are no major concerns (other than the copyediting) is the way to go.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 16:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

They might just have a huge backlog. Most of Wikipedia's articles are written poorly, so it wouldn't surprise me if they just haven't gotten around to it.-Wafulz 16:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The second paragraph of the article seems to contain two facts (their home arena and their rivalry with the Red Wings) which are not at all related. To have randomness at such an early point in the article is quite distracting to its overall worth. Are there other places in the article where these sentences can go? Skudrafan1 15:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's just mirroring New Jersey Devils (the only other NHL team FA). It would work as a new paragraph in the lead I think.-Wafulz 15:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 16:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the need of a copyedit the only (major) objection? I need to know that before submitting the article to the WikiProject League of Copyeditors. Thanks.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 17:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally would have minor opposition until each game notable enough have a full game recap or a box score. 1996 Game four has an excerpt of a game recap and the date of the game is not stated in your article.

Also it seems more conventional to discuss all-stars as players who play in the mid season all-star game. Can you explain your reasoning?

Please cite "Joe Sakic was the playoffs leading scorer with 26 points (13 goals and 13 assists)."

The Colorado Avalanche had nine players representing six countries. (it seems there were 10 but 1 was injured from page 191 of the Franchise record book).

The Colorado Avalanche have the NHL record for the longest consecutive attendance sell out with 487. (I thought the Sabres had a streak of about 15 years). Also, the record in seasons might be longer because the seasons use to be much shorter. Any info on that record might be interesting.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

1. I don't really see it as a game recap, it is just explaining what happened that created the Avs-Red Wings rivalry. 1996 final game in the Stanley Cup final has what you could call that, when it says that "In Game Four, during the third overtime and after more than 100 minutes of play with no goals, defenseman Uwe Krupp scored to claim the franchise's first Cup.". Is that kind of thing what you are talking about?
2. There are two things. There are the players who play in the National Hockey League All-Star Game, which I only mention in 2001 when the game is played in Denver. I think I did this following what I've seen in the New Jersey Devils article. And then, there are the two NHL-All star teams elected after the end of the season electing the best two possible teams of 6 players; you could find examples of that in every seasons article: like 2005-06 NHL season#All-Star teams, for example. So, when I say that "Forsberg was elected to the league's first all-star team; Hejduk was elected to the second all-star team.", I'm talking about the latter, not the mid-season game.
3. Will look for that.
4. No, there were 9, including the injured Forsberg. 3 Canadians, 2 Czechs, 1 Finn, 1 Swiss, 1 Swede (injured Forsberg) and 1 American.
5. I did find information here about the streak you are talking about. Sabres' streak only lasted 8 years and less games than the Avalanche. In terms of games, there's no doubt that the Avalanche streak was the longest and it is the official record. I will try to research if any team as a longer streak in terms of seasons. Thank you for your reply.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 10:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

3 is done and I've added mention that Forsberg was the leading scorer of the playoffs twice. Cross that out of the list. :-) Thanks--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 12:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I remember the Sabres streak stopping when I was in high school. I am surprised it was fall of my Sophomore year. I also was under the mistaken belief that it was from the beginning of the franchise in fall of 1970 and not the actual start date of October 15, 1972. These two factors lengthened the streak by about 3 or 4 years in my mind. Good research.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, what I meant is that I generally object to any article that does not have either a box score or a full game recap for each game that is notable enough to be mentioned specifically in an article. That is my general policy. I have never encountered a partial recap like you present, but would prefer a full recap.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you please point me to an article with that, so I can see examples? Thanks.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 16:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose These minor fixes needed:

• PDF sources need a "format=PDF" parameter in their citation template
• According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images, it is recommended not to specify the size of images. The sizes should be what readers have specified in their user preferences.
• "Peter Forsberg and Adam Foote were lost to free agency in order to save some room" – the "in order" and the "some" are redundant
• "Around the whole logo, there's a blue oval." – avoid contractions
• "biggest spenders of the league" would be better as "highest spenders in the league"
• "There are two black and white zigzag lines along the jersey" – sentences shouldn't start with "there" when the "there" doesn't stand for anything
• "when the California deal soured due to financial and arena problems" - "due to" means "caused by", and therefore doesn't work well here
• "Bertuzzi was away from professional hockey for 17 months due to suspensions." - "due to" doesn't work well here
• "The 2004-05 NHL season was canceled due to an unresolved lockout" - "due to" doesn't work well here
• "Ossi Vaananen]] ended up not playing due to an injury" - "due to"
• "Due to the punch and the consequent fall" - "due to". Epbr123 11:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think all issues are solved. If you still feel they aren't or have any other suggestions, be my guest. Thanks for the contribution. I'm sorry for English mistakes, I try to do the best according to my knowledge.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 19:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Dates such as 2007-03-13 are meant to have hyphens, not en dashes. Also, full dates in the footnotes should be wikilinked. "a 45-28-8-1 record" is meant to have en dashes. Epbr123 19:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 10:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I made some sample edits. There are still MOS errors and refs aren't formatted (example, Hockeydb.com, Colorado Avalanche season statistics and records ), see WP:CITE/ES. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose—MOS issues and 1a. Needs work throughout.
  • I see "8" and then "seven" and then "5". Read "Spelling out numbers".
  • "1972–1995"—Read year ranges; you follow it in the main text (1987–88, etc). "1999–00"—no way. Slashes "2006/07" now allowed by MOS—see last section.
  • "After making the postseason for seven consecutive years"—"Making" is rather informal for this register, as is the metaphor "from 1981 to 1987, the Nordiques fell into the league's basement".
  • MOS: Title: "2001–Present"—what's wrong here? You tell me.
  • "Like in 1997"—Ouch! Tony 13:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 18:16, 6 August 2007.

---

Deoxys

I like this article, it's very good! --A cool night green owl 07:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support from Green Owl
• Oppose - I don't know if I'm alone, but what strikes to me immediately is number of inline citations - three is somehow very low at this level (in my opinion) and web citations would surely look better with {{cite web}} template. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 09:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose And don't forget the lack of out-of-universe information that got Torchic demoted as well as Bulbasaur.--Rmky87 14:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose.

• Lots and lots of prose, spelling, and grammar issues
• Lack of inline citations
• Contains speculation/original research
• Reads like a video game guide
• Excessive use of non-free images

Needs extensive editing before it can be near featured article criteria-Wafulz 16:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, lack of citations, among other things, hurt the article. --RandomOrca2 21:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Althought it certainly doesn't meet FA standards (prose quality, in universe focus, citations), it might make a good GAC candidate should someone take the pain to go through the article and provide inline citations everywhere.--SidiLemine 11:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose for too much game guide content that violates WP:VG/GL and WP:NOT. Strategy and stat info like "In this form, its Speed is its greatest asset; its Attack and Defense stats are balanced (Attack is slightly higher), more so than its Normal Form, but neither are especially outstanding. Its Speed, on the other hand, exceeds that of all other Pokemon." is far too specific and game guide-oriented, and it is also unsourced. The article needs many more references, as well. Andre (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 16:20, 3 August 2007.

---

Evolutionary history of life

I think the article is written in a very comprehensive manner. Its is throughly cited. The article also follows Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Though the article is very recently created (18th July 2007) but it do meet the FAC requirements. thanks, Sushant gupta 11:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• comment first cursory check the lead needs to expand 1 paragraph for article of this size isnt sufficient see WP:LEAD Gnangarra 13:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done i have improved the lead section. can you please justify your comments. Sushant gupta 10:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Question Precambrian is only referred to in one sentence yet the article indicates its substantial period. It not linked to the article, I saw the word and wondered what more I could find because the section on cambrian period didnt mention it. Gnangarra 14:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC) retract must be late sorry. Think I better leave it there tonight Gnangarra 14:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  •  Done To explain the above, links need to be at the first instance of the subject/concept this is where I got confused(being tired didnt help) as it wasnt linked in the first instance. Gnangarra 12:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  •  Done section Early signs of life this sentence If life arose on Earth, the timing of this event is highly speculative—perhaps it arose around 4 billion years ago.[8] if it arose? why speculate on already known concept. Why not just say Life arose on Earth around 4 billion years ago, though the timing is highly speculative. Also prose is weak in this section I've broke it down to smaller paragraphs the first paragraph could also be broken into two as well. Gnangarra 12:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Reluctant oppose. First off, let me congratulate for taking on so massive a subject and doing a good job of it. Tackling high level concepts and subjects is no easy task and there is a very passable article here for your efforts. I have been poking bird for the best part of 6 months and appreciate the effort involved in the task. That said, there are major structural and emphasis issues in the article that need to be addressed before this can be awarded FA status.
•  Done Vertebrate/animal bias - understandable, since this is where a lot of attention is focused in the media and even within science. Nether the less this needs to be addressed - we need the evolutionary story of all life, not just the big things. Just off the top of my head fungi gets one mention in the whole article, one, and fungi is one of the kingdoms. About 500 million years ago, plants and fungi colonized the land, and were soon followed by arthropods and other animals. No mention is made of when it arose, where it came from and what it did afterwards. According to the article on fungi or some time after the Permian-Triassic extinction event, a fungal spike, detected as an extraordinary abundance of fungal spores in sediments formed shortly after this event, indicates that they were the dominant life form during this period—nearly 100% of the fossil record available from this period, this is unmentioned here and is quite relevant. Similarly hardly any mention is made of the origin and early evolution of insects (no approximate date is given).
•  Done Evolution of Mammals - another example of misplaced emphasis - this deserves its own article (it may already have one) but even though it concerns our ancestors it is still too much for one class to have its own large section. Especially given the lack of attention given to other classes, phyla and kingdoms.
•  Done The development of eukaryotes and the engulfing of chloroplasts and mitochondria deserves way more attention than it gets. This is arguably more important to life than any of the extinction events.
•  Done No mention of the evolution of bilateral and radial symmetry, or segmentation in animals.
•  Done No mention of the evolution of sexual reproduction. The omission of sexual reproduction is arguably reason to oppose all on its own.

The evolution of sexual reproducution is immensely important in the history of life, and has arisen in spite of the obvious benefits of asexual reproduction. Most animals do it, as do plants, fungi, even bacteria. It needs addressing.

•  Done A great deal is made of some extinction events but others are completely omitted. Why? I think that there is also a little too much emphasis on these events rather than the evolutionary breakthroughs.

From the article on extinction events The classical "Big Five" mass extinctions identified by Jack Sepkoski and David M. Raup in their 1982 paper are widely agreed upon as some of the most significant: End Ordovician, Late Devonian, End Permian, End Triassic, and End Cretaceous. There are the big five, yet you only deal with three of these.

•  Done Some structural problems; Second paragraph of Paleozoic life begins At the start of the era, life was confined to bacteria, algae, sponges and a variety of somewhat enigmatic forms known collectively as the Ediacaran fauna. A large number of body plans appeared nearly simultaneously at the start of the era -- a phenomenon known as the Cambrian Explosion. - but the previous section is all about the Cambrian explosion! Repetition and stating something as if it is a new concept when it was dealt with at length beforehand.
•  Done Common descent doesn't this section belong closer to the front?

I thought, as the article was originally laid out, that this would benefit from being at the begining. It seems less important now.

I don't wish for you to become discouraged, there is a great deal that is good here. It is strongly referenced, it is well thought out. It would benefit from more time, more editors, more eyes and a peer review. There are numerous good scientific reviewers and copy editors that you can approach for help; make use of them. Good luck, and I hope this helps. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to some questions left on my talk page about my review;

semi-  Done*Thirdly, you are a biologist; you must be knowing the number of phylums. if i sit and write about their history even in brief it would consume a lot lot and lot of time. - I was not asking for every phyla to be discusssed, I was suggesting more balance in those discussed. And at least give more time to the other kingdoms. In the bird page I don't discuss every family of bird, but I do include a range of different familes from all across the world. The focus of the article, particularly the Life during Phanerozoic section, is highly animal orientated.

 Done*Secondly, whatever points you mentioned i have addressed most of them but i haven't got the exact meaning for 4, 5 and 7th point. can you please explain them in detail. I will attempt to elaborate above.

• I'll have to flat out oppose this one. There is a lot of good material there, but the fact of the existence of a fairly good article on origin of life is somewhat obscured by the lede. There are some major gaps - the three domain theory does not refer to prokaryotes, eukaryotes and viruses; viruses are not universally accepted to be life forms at all (although I lean towards that view), and the three domains are eukaryotes, prokaryotes and ARCHAEA (archaea). The virus section is fuzzy, even if the origins of viruses are indeed not very clear. The research could certainly be described more crisply. "Sex reproduction" does not exist; if anything, it's "sexual reproduction". I suggest reading the literature on the subject and reproducing (no pun intended) the jargon faithfully. Before discussing the evolution of sex, you should discuss several of the other major transitions as per Szathmary and Maynard Smith. This article will be ready eventually, but isn't yet. Addressing only the flaws that I have found will not mean that it will be ready. Have a look at some other featured articles and compare them with this candidate. That should give you quite a few good ideas. Regards. 82.71.48.158 17:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • PS for transitions, start here. 82.71.48.158 17:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The section Tree of life doesn't deals with three domain systems. viruses are a part of tree of life. Sushant gupta 12:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Way too many uncited statements. Also, the organization seems random. The content in Evolution of life, for instance, is repeated throughout the article. Why is there a whole section on human evolution thrown in at the end? Why did you pick asymmetry and sexual reproduction as the two most important things to cover? This should be justified and explained in the text. Calliopejen1 09:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I was asked on my talk page to elaborate. Honestly, I can't go through and say all the citations that are needed. In short, basically every sentence should have a footnote, but tons and tons do not. For instance, there is not a single reference for the entire "Life during Phanerozoic" section. Calliopejen1 12:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops, just saw that one sentence mid-Cenozoic has a citation. Still, not nearly enough. Calliopejen1 12:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 16:20, 3 August 2007.

---

QI

This is a self-nomination. I believe this article meets all the featured article criteria. It is accurate, stable, well referenced, with referenced images, and fits with the manual of style. ISD 09:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

• Some sentences appear to be non-encyclopedic/POV. For example "Davies is frequently mocked, albeit in a friendly fashion, by Fry"
• Very few references, what is there is poor. IMDb, Blogspot and an internet forum should NOT be included.
• The image summaries are weak, "It is very hard to find any other images featuring ___" is NOT a reason for fair use. See [25] for a good example. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 10:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Response - I've tried to find some better references, corrected the fair use rational accordingly, and tried to improve the article style. ISD 18:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Quite Interesting (1) "one of the BBC's most successful shows" for this to be true we would need to see data for the highest earning/most watched programmes on the BBC, I doubt this would be one of them. Granted that this is one of the most successful shows on BBC2 and BBC4, but then only 4 people in the country watch BBC4 (me included, actually I watch it Quite Frequently). (2) "One of the most famous tasks" requires referencing for the fame. (3) "Some people have suggested" Who? (4) I would move the asides on the Duke of Westminster to a footnote. (5) The "Culture" and "Awards" sections are broken and choppy prose. They look like lists of trivia; I'd amalgamate them into one section and two paragraphs. (6) On criterion 1b: How many points are awarded for correct, interesting and obvious/wrong answers? DrKiernan 08:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Quite Interesting Response - I've corrected and edited the parts you had problems with. Some parts have been referenced, whilst some unreference parts have been removed. ISD 10:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Support Thanks, that deals with my comments! I wonder if the "Awards" section could be expanded to include quotes from national press TV critics? DrKiernan 10:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose for the time being.

• Images are generally too big and need detailed fair use rationales. A couple are probably dubious fair use at best.
• "Highlights" is necessarily very POV. Who decides what is a highlight?
• "QI has had an impact on British culture" - a fairly meaningless sentence (how much of an impact), and needs a cite.
• Should there not be something on its reception (particularly critical reception)?
• The references are very sketchy at best. There's a lot of primary sourcing, which may cause reliability problems. I know there's probably not much in the way of reliable sources on much of it, but are you sure there's not anything better out there?

Trebor 00:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment - Just a few things.
    • When you say the images are too big, do you mean in the the article? What are the exact problems with the fair use rationals?
    • Other than Wikipedia, there are no episode guides to QI with the same amount of detail. Wikipedia's episode guide talks about every question, so I believe the Wikipedia guide is the best on the web. ISD 09:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 16:20, 3 August 2007.

---

2007 French Grand Prix

Self-nomination. Suitable references and pictures, as well as quotations. If there are any changes I need to make just leave a note of how it could be improved. Thank you. Davnel03 14:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Weak Oppose. From a glance I can see that the lead seems a bit short and there's a bit of a trivia section (without any references to boot). And while I can't claim to be experienced with this sort of article, the dominance of AutoSport.com among the references seems a touch...odd if not worrying. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 01:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Does that really matter that most of the sources are from AutoSport? It doesn't affect the quality of the article does it? Davnel03 13:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  •  Done trivia section. Davnel03 13:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, the Classification section contains no references and I can see a trivia section. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 11:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  •  Done - removed trivia section - as for the Classification part, the reference is located in the External links part under Detailed French GP results. It is located like that for most of the F1 races. Davnel03 13:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - lead is inadequate. Similar to my comments in the Malaysian GP article, this needs a summary of the aftermath section in more detail. Namely Alonso's struggles and Raikkonen regaining the Ferrari initiative. It also has pov like "sad news", use of contractions and also things like "weird accident" - running away with the fuel hose connected is not that uncommon. Also, the actual race description should be more detailed, especially the battle between Alonso and Heidfeld, especially the attempted pass and the eventual pass where he did a very risky move around the outside of a fast chicane type corner (Chateau d'Eau I think its name is). Also, the Hamilton extra stop gamble needs to be discussed. The image fails FUC 8 IMHO. It does not significantly add to the coverage. If it was a controversial and big crash, then it would show us something that the words cannot. We only have a string of cars in a procession, and you can convery the same info simply by reading out the running order. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose As per Blnguyen's comments, primarily because there was nothing pre-race to warrant it being larger than the race section. If race section is expanded appropriately I would Support. BeL1EveR 12:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 16:20, 3 August 2007.

---

Mazie Hirono

I think this article illustrates one of the best points of Wikipedia. It is very well developed and the value of the article's quality meets many standards. Self-nom. naskgetty (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2007

• Oppose. From a quick glance I can see that the lead is pretty short and, more worryingly, there is a severe lack of sources. The brevity of the article would also make me suspect it is missing something. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 01:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, "self nom" indicates you have worked on the article. From your contributions I'd say you haven't. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 01:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The sources should be properly cited, i.e. author, date, title - not just the URL. --thedemonhog talk • edits 02:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • ok I fixed the sourcesnaskgetty 09:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I made some minor changes. The majority of sentences in the "Early years," "Legislative career," "Lieutenant Governor" and "Gubernatorial Campaign of 2002" sections should have references. The article has a lot of potential once you get those sources. --thedemonhog talk • edits 20:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: Many sections of the article are very short and seem to be lacking complete coverage such as the section on Hirono's legislative career. Also, a lot more things should be sourced. -- Underneath-it-All 15:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - commendable effot, but this doesn't even meet good article criteria: MOS issues; one sentence paragraphs and one paragraph subheadings; improper date formatting; few inline citations; and the article needs a thorough copyediting.--Esprit15d 16:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 16:20, 3 August 2007.

---

Srinivasa Ramanujan

I think this article has been improved enough to be currently a candidate for a featured articles.Badripk 02:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)badripk

• Oppose: Though Biography section is good, Mathematical Achievements section is not proportionate to Ramanujan's stature. It should be extended. DSachan 07:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The last two sections, "Projected films" and "Culture references", need to be un-bulleted, written in prose form and summarized, and preferably be merged into one section named "In popular culture". All web references need retrieval date, and authorship and publisher information (if available). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The article definitely needs more work before becoming FA quality.
  • Math achievements section needs to be expanded big time. Terms like Landau-Ramanujan constant, Ramanujan-Soldner constant, Ramanujan theta function etc. appear once at the top infobox and next at the bottom See Also. These need to explained in the Math section. Same applies to many other links in See Also.
  • Some of the text can be rearranged differently. Technical information in the "Life" section (like his theorems, puzzles etc.) can be briefly touched upon once and then expanded in the Math achievements section. Also, some recognition details in the "Life" section (like fellowships) could be moved to the "Recognition" section.
  • Some sections could use cpediting. Example: these two sentences in the early life sections seem contradictory about when he was introduced to math:

Ramanujan entered Town Higher Secondary School where he encountered formal mathematics for the first time, and

This book was a collection of 5000 theorems, and it introduced Ramanujan to the world of mathematics

• • I don't know if this is easily available.. but any pictures of him with other mathematicians would be nice.Lotlil 22:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Cultural references are just a list. More can be done with that section. External links need to be more selective collection - please make some editorial decisions about these. "Projected films" section could be integrated with "cultural references". MOS needs to be followed w.r.t. titles, e.g. "Ramanujan conjecture", not "The Ramanujan ...". The article also is an example of an unnecessary use of three levels in the hierarchy; "adulthood in India" seems superfluous - not only does he spend his childhood there, he also returns later! Finally, there are citations needed tags, and other places where citations would be recommended. For instance, try to avoid paragraphs that start with a referenced sentence and then peter out with what looks like speculation in the absence of further citations. See the "personality" and "Ramanujan's notebooks" sections for this. Also avoid redundant mentions of his name in section titles. Probably the best recommendation I can make is to re-read the manual of style, and implement suggestions made there. The points I listed are just examples - please do not consider this oppose resolved if you only address the issues I listed. The article as a whole must be improved. 82.71.48.158 13:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 16:20, 3 August 2007.

---

Solid Snake

Meets the requirements for a featured article. - Addit 21:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The writing is not featured quality, there are not enough sources, and too much of the article is in-universe- there is very little dedicated to the creation and evolution of the article. The references being used are unclear. Example: the article points out that Snake resembles Mel Gibson, but the source is just the DVD- is this just an arbitrary comparison? Did the artists intend for this to happen? Is this original research? The prose seems very jumpy, clumsily moving from topic to topic.-Wafulz 16:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

  I don't think this is quite FA quality, myself, having written the bulk of it, but some of your criticisms are a bit unclear.

  • The article is in chronological order, since much of the story is told as a flashback, often retconning previous stories. The entire article is about the creation and development of the character.
  • The comparison of Solid Snake to Mel Gibson and Michael Biehn is made on the "making-of" DVD, and is passive. It isn't stated that Solid Snake was intended to look like these characters, but the strong assertion (that Snake is based on contemporary action heroes of the time) is made.

  How would you suggest rearranging it? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Chronologically arranged fictional subjects are difficult to follow. The real world content should be separated, and the fictional content arranged into a plot-like section.

• There should be a section on character development. The inspiration behind the character, the creators' intents (is he a badass? Comical? Epic hero?), any voice acting and casting
• A section with "appearances" could be created, with subsections for each major game, and a subsection for "other appearances" for cameos or minor roles (ie, Smash Bros)
• If possible, something like influences, popularity, or notable parody.

The problem with mixing plot and real-world material is that it's very hard to find information on the character if you're not familiar with each game.-Wafulz 13:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. Five copyrighted images can never constitute fair use, especially not for an article of this length. Whilst I appreciate you have taken the time to explain the rationale on the image pages, and that no free images are available, this does not automatically make an image fair use. In particular the one of him in a box has the rationale "Used to identify the subject in question", and should be removed. Ideally this and one other image should be removed; making the article look pretty is not sufficient justification for fair use. In addition the inclusion of an image below the infobox has resulted in a large unattractive gap.

Other points of contention are the length of the infobox and the fact that the MGS3 plot is described despite Snake not actually being in the game. I would suggest something along the lines of

"Snake did not feature in Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater, aside from a role in the Snake Vs Monkey minigame, a reworking of Ape Escape. However, the upcoming PS3 game Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots will once again feature Snake as the protagonist."

I appreciate that this is a long list for a "weak oppose" but I feel it's more useful to you that I give a detailed account of why I haven't supported. I would consider changing my vote if these things are addressed. BeL1EveR 13:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose This needs far more sourcing- huge swaths of the article are completely uncited. I'd also echo the above concerns about lack of information on the creation/development of such an important character and the number of fair-use images. -- Kicking222 15:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted 13:35, August 2, 2007.

---

Khan Wali Khan

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Khan Wali Khan1
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Khan Wali Khan2

Freedom fighter close confidante of Mohandas Gandhi and respected pakistani politician who died last year.--Zak 11:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment--Couple of things

1. Can you clarify where is Khan Wali Khan in the picture in the info box. There are 2 men shown in the picture. So it needs a caption stating where Khan Wali Khan is.
2. When Khan Wali Khan died, where did he die?, where did his funeral take place?, where was he buried? and what kind of a funeral was it?
3. The article mentions Khan interacting with Gandhi but not with Jinnah. If he did, can you add that, if not, then explain why.. Mercenary2k 22:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

1 # True, I've changed the pic. 2 # Corrected and referenced 3 # Difficult one; to my knowledge he had no contact with Jinnah directly, his father did, as Wali Khan was only in his 20's at the height of the Pakistan Movement. His closeness to Gandhi was due to his father staying with him when exiled from his home province. I'll look into what you said though.. --Zak 23:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Support Looks good now so I support. Mercenary2k 00:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Good article. Should be FA - P.K.Niyogi 10:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The lead needs work (see WP:LEAD). Section headings need work (see WP:MSH). The footnotes/references aren't correctly formatted (see WP:CITE/ES). A thorough copyedit is needed, sample prose:
  • However, in the final analysis, senior Pakistani journalist M.A Niazi summed Khan him when he wrote ...
  • However, in his statements he left a certain ambiguity in his policies, and in 1972 when a journalist questioned to where his first allegiance was, his reply was, "I have been a Pashtun for six thousand years, a Muslim for thirteen hundred years, and a Pakistani for twenty-five."

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - needs more references. Some sections don't have any at all. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, I have made a few corrections as have a few other people since the time I submitted it, the lead could be better and yes the footnotes need improvement which I am working on.. Bingu: Which sections are you referring too, I have attempted to be as exhaustive as possible in referencing. --Zak 20:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose—1a, 2a and 2 (MOS). Take the opening sentences, one-by-one:
  • "Khan Abdul Wali Khan Pashto:(خان عبدالولي خان) (b. 11 January 1917 – d. 26 January 2006) was a Pashtun freedom fighter against the British Raj, senior politician in Pakistan and a writer." Missing "a".
  • "A controversial figure in Pakistani politics, he was referred to as both a hero and traitor at varying stages of his political career." Surely "both as a", which has a different meaning. "at varying stages" is weasily: try "during".
  • "A respected politician in his later years, he contributed to Pakistan's third constitution constitution, led protests for the restoration of democracy in the 1960's and 1980's." Nice repetition of "consitution"—how was this missed? See MOS on "1960's". Missing "and".
  • "Also"—get rid of it. And again in the next sentence. And again two sentences later. None, please, to make it stronger.
  • "Joint" opposition leader? Unclear.
  • Why is a common dictionary word such as "orator" linked? We do speak English.
  • "would often hold an audience spellbound with stories and amuse people with"—uncomfortable to use "audience" and then "people". Recast this statement so that only one is acted upon.
  • "despite provocations"—unclear. Whose?

The lead is inadequate in length and coverage, as well as this high density of linguistic problems. On this basis, the whole text needs considerable work, preferably by unfamiliar copy-editors. Tony 07:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

PS The footnotes need attention. For example: "pp. 11-13+18" no way! En dash, and comma rather than plus sign. Read MOS on "the 10th of". Needs to be consistent in formatting, too.

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

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

The article was not promoted 13:35, August 2, 2007.

---

Shared universe

Self-nomination. While articles about literary techniques and concepts are not as flashy as hurricanes and dinosaurs, I've helped to bring this a long way from its previous state to its current GA status, and think it is at or approaching the FA standard. Perhaps because of the nature of the topic, its peer review did not provide much insight. I'm more than happy to work with commentors regarding any shortcomings or issues. Serpent's Choice 17:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I believe the article is not wordly enough. It is very strongly anglo-centric, with shared universes from Japanese animation, or even other European literatures (e.g. the German Perry Rhodan multiverse) ignored entirely. Also, are TV series involving several writers and producers to be considered shared universes? Circeus 17:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Changes pending. Working now at widening the scope of examples. As a matter of some personal embarassment, I was totally unaware of Perry Rhodan. The issues with TV series is complex, see also my response to Mike, below. I'll try to clarify in the restructuring. Serpent's Choice 18:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • No embarrassment to be had there. It's never been widely published in English (actually, there is relatively little foreign SF/F translated to English, I think). Circeus 18:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Interesting article. Here are some miscellaneous thoughts.

• The development of shared universes as a publishing phenomenon in science fiction would be worth covering -- when it began, what fraction of publishing is now in this category (e.g. there is now a separate section under sf in many bookstores just for shared world fiction such as Dragonlance).
• Shared universes have also spawned vocabulary such as "-verse", seen in words like "Buffyverse", for Buffy the Vampire Slayer; and there are words such as "share-cropper" which refer to the economics of this form of book publishing. You can find citations for these in Jeff Prucher's Brave New Words; and most of the cites are also online at the OED sf citation project; the words I'm talking about are on the criticism pages.
• More generally, I'm not sure you have the organization of the article right yet. You have a definitional section up front, which seems right. But then you have a long paragraph covering such things as retcons; this seems out of place as the reader hasn't yet seen an example. The "Expansion" section is really a historical view, and I think it might come before the retcon paragraph (and perhaps be titled "History" or "Origins" or something similar). Retconning and so forth seem to belong in a section about techniques and problems. The historical coverage in the first two sentences of the "Expansion" paragraph is a bit thin, though; I'm not actually clear from this whether the universe became a shared universe in 1941, 1961, or somewhere in between; and I'd also like to know just when the first publication from separate writers came out that qualifies as a shared universe. Am I right in thinking that comics are not invariably written, inked and lettered by the same team? If so, what is the definition of shared universe for comics? When a different character has a comic in the same universe -- essentially a spinoff? If so that should be precisely dateable, and I think it should be given in the article. I also would like to see a more specifically historical approach to the TV and book development of the use of shared universes. I mentioned books above, but I think you could also look at the history of spinoffs in TV to good effect. Or are spinoffs out of scope, do you feel?

-- Mike Christie (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Changes pending. There are some excellent points made here. I'm going to hit the online refs and my friendly local library to try to get some firm dates on publications and the origination of terms, where available. With that in hand (hopefully tonight), I'll aim to restructure the prose with a clearly defined "History" section, allowing the technique discussion to be moved, well, to a discussion on techniques. This should also allow for a better discussion of the dividing line between the concept of a shared universe and other forms of collaboration. Serpent's Choice 18:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Just saw AnonEMouse's note below. It's true that reliable sources are going to be difficult to find, but I think there are some. One example is the Peter Nicholls/John Clute Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, which has a couple of pages that might be useful, written by Clute. It quotes Mugby Junction, an 1866 anthology by Dickens as the first significant shared-world anthology; apparently the form was invented in about 1860. (Online refs seem to think it was by Dickens alone, but I'd trust Clute here; he knows his stuff.) I do think this means that you've got a lot of research to do. Mike Christie (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, I'm afraid. There's a big underlying problem that causes lots and lots of smaller ones. The general problem is that no one has really written a scholarly work on this topic before. People have written about specific shared universes, but I can't see much on your reference list about shared universes in general. Just look at the references section - there are a lot of them there, but only two even use the words "shared universe", and that's a single page from a FAQ, and a collaboration page. So you're blazing new ground here, which is great for a PhD dissertation, but a big problem for an encyclopedia article, which is supposed to repeat others research. Now what specific problems that causes:
  • The article references are just not respected, reliable sources. Most of your references are fan pages without editorial review and promotional material with a stated bias. They don't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability. And this isn't a case where there just aren't reliable sources writing about these subjects, there are: Lovecraft, Asimov, Niven, Baum, Marvel, DC, etc. have real scholars writing about them, people with PhDs, but you don't have anything like that in your references.
  • Article emphasis is all over the place: Star Wars, incredibly popular, gets 1 sentence. The Cthulhu Mythos, 70 years old, gets 1 sentence (and just mentioning Derleth is a disservice to just how shared that universe is). Dr. Who, not as old as Cthulhu Mythos, and not as popular as Star Wars, gets a huge quote.
  • There is a lot of stuff that just isn't covered. Where is Phillip Jose Farmer, a guy who made a career out of making non-shared universes into shared universes? Where are the TV series that aren't incidental crossovers: Mary Tyler Moore to Rhoda to Lou Grant? The relationship between The Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew is not just incidental either, but isn't mentioned. Without authoritative reliable sources, we don't know what is being left out, but a lot is.
  • Was Thieves' World the first intentionally shared published series? If not, what was? Surely this article should address that.
  • Your images are fixable problems, but they are problems:
    1. Only 2? With so many rich universes to cover, I expect you'd be able to get many more, and most of them would be completely free, not fair use.
    2. The All Star Comics cover fair use - OK, first ever comic shared universe. But Crossgen poster - no chance. Only one sentence in the article mentions it, and no reason why this particular comic shared universe is so important, when you've gone on so long explaining how important Marvel and DC shared universes were.
  • Anglocentric was mentioned by others above. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment No external links section. I will not oppose because I'm not sure whether the article needs external links, and what external links would be useful. --Kaypoh 05:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm almost positive this practice is also referred to as "sharecropping" [26] ("the practice of writing fiction set in a universe created by... another" - [27]). If it is the same, then it should be mentioned. If it's different (and I'm pretty sure that it is not) then the differences need to be established. Raul654 15:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawing nomination for now. I'll admit, I grossly underestimated just how "comprehensive" this article's comprehensive scope could -- and should -- be. I'm working to remedy the problems raised here. AnonEMouse had concerns that "no one has really written a scholarly work on this [general] topic", but happily, that turns out not to have been the case. I am also building a more comprehensive history with specific dates, broadening the cultural basis of the material, shifting citations almost exclusively to university-press publications and scholarly journals (where possible), and addressing the economic value of the concept. And so I will be back here again in reasonably short order with a very different, very much better article. Serpent's Choice 18:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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