Did you know that the Simpsons episode "The Day the Violence Died" features Kirk Douglas and Suzanne Somers as guest stars? And that Lester and Eliza, older versions of Bart and Lisa Simpson, appear at the end of the episode?
Images: One screenshot showing the two main characters of the episode, Bart and a newly introduced character, Chester J. Lampwick. Another screenshot shows Eliza and Lester, a different version of Lisa and Bart. The remaining two images are free.
Sources: The references are straightforward, except perhaps a few that are only used for reviews of the episode—nothing controversial. These are: DVD Movie Guide, DVD Verdict, and DVD Times.
I have been working on this article for a few months now. It is my first television episode article, but nevertheless I think that all the bumps have been ironed out. Gary King (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Could you crop that Kirk Douglas pic to remove the "KIRK DOUGLAS" banner? Its just looks very odd, since that pic is only used to identify Douglas. indopug (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Featured articles are supposed to be examples of Wikipedia's best writing. This is all written in yada yada yada style—the eighteenth episode of the seventh season, Itchy and Scratchy show, the critics generally like it, so what? I won't change this to a support unless the article focuses on what is special about the episode, and finds something special enough to make the article interesting to the general reader. Looie496 (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article also talks about Kirk Douglas's involvement in the episode, which I consider to be pretty significant. Gary King (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(To Looie) On the contrary, the article should not *focus* on what makes the subject special. That would be providing undue weight. Now, should an article mention those things, and describe them without going into excessive detail? Definitely. I don't see what the problem is here, though. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in Simpsons episode articles at all, but I believe that the reason for Looie496's oppose is not backed up by the Featured Article criteria which does not require that an article has to focus on things which are "special". --Novil Ariandis (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree with Looie here and I'm puzzled by his critics. I'm not sure that yadayada is the best way to put it but let's face it: the content is very very thin. I don't particularly fault the authors: there's probably too little material out there to construct an article with any real depth. Most of the meta-commentary is about the controversial nature of the episode but it rests on pretty much nothing. Yes, one guy from the DVD Times labelled it as "controversial" but the rest of the article seems to take that bait and discuss that controversy as if it existed. But let's pause for a moment and ask: "what exactly is this controversy?" Two critics disagreed on how good the episode was? One critic said "yeah I liked some of it but not all of it"? That's not controversy, that's what happens everyday with critics and a film is not controversial because it got a thumbs up from Ebert and a thumbs down from Roeper. Then we have
"In one of its jokes, Bart asks Homer for a large sum of money and Homer immediately pulls out his wallet. Oakley described the scene as "very controversial" among the show's producers; Matt Groening, the creator of The Simpsons, in particular did not like it."
Now why exactly is that scene controversial? It seems like a pretty harmless gag and the controversy being referred to here seems to be that Groening didn't like it. Note that this controversy is between the show's producers and has nothing to do with the so-called controversy between the critics.
The section on the episode's reception is based on a handful of reviews seemingly picked at random and this again shows that there's just not enough in-depth commentary out there to build an article that's not a collage of factoids. The last sentence of the article is a great example of this problem. Scholarly discussion of the episode probably took place during that class at Columbia but the only trace we have of that is the student's favourite quote. Until we have access to non-superficial coverage of the episode, I can't see how this can be considered as exemplifying Wiki's best.
PS: I just took a quick look at some of the other FA Simpsons episodes. I suppose people will argue that this candidate is just as good as the other FAs. I'm not sure I want to debate that because frankly some of these should go to FAR... Nevertheless, the best of them definitely have scholarly analysis and commentary about the episode. For instance, see the "Themes" sections in The Joy of Sect or Lisa the Skeptic. Pichpich (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is indeed very little out there to work with for this episode's article, but we tried our best. A "Themes" section is always nice, but when there isn't enough information for one, it cannot be created; I'd say that most recently promoted episode FAs don't have one, such as "The Other Woman". Regarding the controversial stuff, there only seems to be a few mentions of controversy in the article, which seems to be the parts of the article that you are mostly focusing on. After reading your comment, I get the feeling that it is essentially just saying that the article can never become an FA because there isn't enough information? I can remove the university statement, if that helps; I think the article has enough reviews as it is. That information was originally included before I found other reviews that I could use for the article. Gary King (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think I am saying that the article can't become an FA for now. I'm not asking for information to be created, I'm just asking for a calm realization that this information doesn't exist. This plagues the article in many ways: there's the yadayada symptom and there's the "let's say the episode is controversial" symptom. The first is the result of scarcity of content with any depth, the second is the result of trying too hard to mask that scarcity. Some subjects simply shouldn't be featured articles and standards of content depth should be maintained. And lest I be thought of as a pop culture snob, just compare this article with the FA Homer Simpson: it's not in the same league. Compare, say, the quality of the references. In The Day the Violence Died, the opinion of critic Colin Jacobson (reference 12) is used thrice. How deep is that opinion? On my browser it takes five lines. The one sentence quote of critic Jennifer Malkowski (reference 14) is actually the sole sentence she ever wrote about the episode [2]. Speaking of which, who's Jennifer Malkowski? You can see her profile here. Note this funny little detail: everyone contributing on DVDverdict is facetiously referred to as a "judge" [3] but the references in the article attribute the work to "Judge Malkowski". Ditto with reference 16: the two line quote of Dave Foster actually constitutes Mr Foster's entire take on the episode. Moreover (I just found out) he does not say that he considers the episode as controversial. He says that his singling out of this episode as subpar is likely to be controversial. And correct me if I'm wrong but this Dave Foster is not one of the better known David Fosters. I'm not even sure why dvdmg, dvdverdict or dvdtimes should be considered as more authoritative sources than say your basic Simpsons fan site. So I'm sorry for being blunt but no, there's no way for me to envision this being a featured article any time soon. Pichpich (talk) 03:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you opposing because there is not enough available information, or because the reference quality is subpar? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting to the point where I'm not even sure people read what I write. Let me try this again. The article is way below FA standards. It is short on content. A quarter of the article is a plot summary. Much of the discussion not related to the plot is based on a dubious notion of controversy. Many of the references hardly qualify as reliable. At least one name in the references is incorrect. The article misrepresents a quote to fit the "controversy" axis. The article has no depth, in part because a whole section is based on references with no depth. The article includes a photo of Kirk Douglas which was taken 50 years prior to production. Pichpich (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Short on content" isn't really helpful. Is the article not comprehensive, per the 1b criterion? The plot summary only takes up 18% of the article's prose. The controversy stuff is only the first paragraph of the Production section. Ealdgyth already checked out the references in this article. I fixed the name, the quote, and the image to one of 1978, so we're inching a bit closer to the present (all three quite trivial things to use as a reason to oppose). Gary King (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - Fair use images meet WP:NFCC and the other two images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 02:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments — File:Kirk Douglas.png: there is no doubt the movie (and hence its screenshots) is in the public domain; however, is it appropriate to refer to a 1952 image of the actor (36 years old then), when it is his 80-year-old self (whose appearance differs from his younger screen persona) who provided the guest voice in this cartoon episode? Jappalang (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are other images available of Kirk, but I think this is the best one. For example, File:Kirk Douglas 1978.jpg is good, but it is really small. I have added a "seen here in 1952" note in the image caption just in case. Gary King (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the addition to the caption should be okay. Jappalang (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'll make no bones that I'm not a fan of Simpsons FAs. Not because of how many there are; instead, because they rarely meet the criteria. Pagesize.js gives the size of this article at 18.5KB. My baseline for comprehensiveness of episode articles is , where l is the length of the episode in minutes, and s is the size of the article. This article is currently 1.5KB below my baseline. The Simpsons is one of the most influential television programmes in history. It must be possible to write more than is currently here for this episode. Sceptre(talk) 04:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of an arbitrary requirement, but okay, I'll bite; which line are you using? "Wiki text: 18 kB"? Gary King (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Did you know that an early demo of Metroid Prime Hunters, called Metroid Prime Hunters: First Hunt, was included as a pack-in game with the Nintendo DS when it first launched?
Images: Two cover images (the main one, along with the cover for the demo) and one screenshot.
Sources: Standard references, except perhaps GamesRadar. It's used only for its review; have a look here for more information.
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Currently oppose based on images.
I'm not seeing how the non-free pack-in art (File:Firsthuntdemocover.jpg) is acceptable per WP:NFCC. The art is not commented upon in the article, the caption is merely explanatory and redundant with body text, and the rationale is weak.
For quality concerns, I think going back to the original source of File:MPH Multiplayer.jpg and cropping out the black bars on the left, right and top would be nice, as they increase the quality of the important part of the image without increasing overall resolution. Speaking of sources, where did the image come from?
File:Mph cover updated.jpg should be shrunk to 256px horizontal resolution to be appropriate infobox res.
You might still want to have a little black space between the screens, to make sure people understand they are seperate, but that addresses my concerns. I'll do a more thorough review later. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - you complained, but still decided to improve the article. That's a Wikipedian to admire. igordebraga≠ 23:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"As the game begins, the Galactic Federation requests that the bounty hunter Samus Aran investigates a mysterious message originating from the Alimbic solar system." Spot the simple grammatical error. Also, some context for this Galactic Federation?
"a creature named Gorea had destroyed the peaceful civilization that once lived there, the Alimbics." Third article in a row on FAC that I've looked at that chooses to use the weak perfect tense when a stronger alternative works better. Is this some trend?
"Before it could do more harm, the Alimbics " Weren't they destroyed?
"Six other bounty hunters pick up on the transmission" "Pick up on" meaning intercept?
Development section oddly starts with information on the demo, and not on development. Wouldn't it make sense to order this section chronologically? Moreover, there is no context for the game's development. When did development start? What was Nintendo's motivation for developing the game?
"It was considered a phenomenal game by GameZone," Just crying out for recasting from passive to active.
"Despite a few "small quirks", GamePro nevertheless" One contrasting transition word too many. BuddingJournalist 14:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay all done. I'll look for the extra information but while working on the article, I looked for that information specifically but couldn't find it. Gary King (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk·contribs) I did the GA review for the article, but have returned with fresh eyes.
Is there any reason that this or this cannot be used?
"An early demo, Metroid Prime Hunters: First Hunt, was included as a pack-in game with the Nintendo DS when it launched in 2004." Not clear what "it" is here.
"At the beginning of the game"-->At the game's beginning,
Samus learns that it was Gorea who sent
"While in this form"
"strange telepathic message that states that the key to the "ultimate power"" You can remove the second "that".
"Through investigation of the planets and space stations orbiting" "orbiting"-->that orbit
"who had both previously worked together"
"It is considered a phenomenal game by GameZone, which believed that it "-->GameZone considered the game phenomenal, and believed that it...
"which Nintendo Power also praised "
"that makes a "reat addition to the growing collection of Wi-Fi titles"" Is this your typo or from the quote?
"GameSpy felt that using the stylus to play the game felt a" Change one of the "felt"s to avoid the repetition.
"GamePro's review bluntly stated that "it's hard to imagine how Nintendo squeezed Hunters into a tiny DS cartridge."" I don't see what is particularly blunt about it
"they appreciated the results, stating" Comma after this.
Ref 18, "S-Play" should be italicized. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All done, except for adding the two references, which I will get to either today or tomorrow. I disagree with about two of these: I think "beginning of the game" sounds better, and I want to leave "previously" there as otherwise it might seem like they worked on those games after this game was released. I just want to make it clear. Gary King (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've added the two articles. Gary King (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read this and this and also look here to see if they mention anything interesting/useful, of if they suggest something that leads to something interesting/useful. [And by "interesting" I don't mean trivia about House (TV series).] Research is good. More research is better. Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR) 00:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm placing a list of 25 possible sources on the article's Talk. Let me know if there are some you want but can't get. Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR) 01:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thanks I will get right on it. However, the problem with articles that mention the game is that most of them only have information useful for the Gameplay, Plot, and Reception sections. It's always hardest to find information for the Development section. I will check out the sources that you posted on the talk page. As for the three links that you provided above, the first one talks about the 802.11 connection for the game; I think that information is too technical for this article. The second link only mentions the game in passing, in a list of examples. The third link mostly contains books that are game guides, etc. but I will check them out one by one to see if there is anything useful. Gary King (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I checked a few of those articles posted on the talk page; most don't say anything about the game besides just using it as an example. However, a few of them do look interesting, such as "23. METROID PRIME HUNTERS. Electronic Gaming Monthly (1058-918X) 5/1/2006.Iss.203;p.109-109" and "24. Metroid Prime Hunters and Tetris DS Begin a New Era of Competition. PR Newswire March 20, 2006.p.NA". I worry that they might just be reviews, though, which I don't need any more of. Could you send them to me, though, so I can take a look? Gary King (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found the PR Newswire one here; and is this the EGM one, here? Gary King (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, 1b.— I'm concerned about the lack of viewpoints in reception. Opinions from the gaming press is nice, but it would be helpful to include viewpoints from newspapers and the MSM to complement; in addition in looking through LexisNexis archives I've found sentiments not mirrored in the reception text, for example Electronic Gaming Monthly savaged the single-player where "levels seem contrived and predictable--after a few worlds of hunting for keys, fighting repeat bosses, and escaping before the bomb blows, the design feels rote. Plus, placing the interface for switching visors and weapons on the touch screen adds an unnecessary layer of complexity."(May 2006: v1 n203) An article from Brandweek revealed that Hunters was a central part of Nintendo's plan to curb stomp the PSP right out of the gate, including featuring the game in its DS "Touching is good" campaign (February 7, 2005). There's substantial reviews from The Toronto Sun, The Australian, and The Washington Times, as well as lesser reviews in the likes of The Times and The Independent, which can be used at least to bolster claims made by other publications; I haven't looked at what might be online. There's even a Washington Post story that says the "swag bags" celebrities got at the Sundance Film Festival came with a DS and Hunters. In short; more refs! --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article for featured article because the city of Valenzuela began to improve, so maybe it is the time for the whole world to know what and where Valenzuela City is.
Oppose No inline citations Gary King (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Does not meet criterion 1c of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, as there are no citations. It's clear that a lot of work has gone into this, but there are no sources listed whatsoever. Suggest that you withdraw this nomination, spend some time adding references to the article, and run it through Wikipedia:Peer review prior to resubmitting. Maralia (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Gary, Maralia, David – but don't give up on the article. As a first step I suggest you go to WP:Peer Review and read the "Steps to a featured article" summary near the top of this page. Then, follow these steps carefully, with particular attention to the featured article criteria, and to getting critical feedback. It may be a long process, but it will bring results. Brianboulton (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per above, a peer review should be sought in order to get critical feedback, and then after it has improved it can be renominated for FAC. Like Brian stated, follow the steps outlined above.--TRUCO 01:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating this article for featured article because...
It's an important event in U.S. history, both in respect to government and law.
Its anniversary it approaching soon (Feb 5).
It would be nice if people understood this event better, as the conventional account most people learn in high school is grossly oversimplified and inaccurate. Foofighter20x (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current note 26 (National Industrial Recovery...) is lacking a publisher
Current ref 95 is lacking a publisher (Fireside chats isn't really the publisher, it's the FDR library that's publishing it.)
Current ref 84 (Kammen...) is lacking a page number
Decide if you want last names firt or first names first on the refs, you have some of both (although most are last names).
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I'll note that given our backlog it's extremely unlikely this will pass by 5 Feb. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The mixing of citation templates is almost certainly my fault when I did the rewrite and sources boosting for the first part. Eusebeus (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pretty common thing that happens. So common i have a "boilerplate" text to put into FAC comments. (grins) Not a biggie, just a pesky detail that needs to be fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the ones I could. Eusebeus added the Kammen cite, so he'll need to grab the page numbers for that. Also, publisher is not a parameter of the {{cite episode}} template, but I put it in there anyway... fixed the few others that use citation instead of cite <whatever>. However, I'm not sure if you meant those, or the aligned cites Eusebeus added. From that confusion, I changed all the aligned cites I found to match the rest of the article, which are one-line wrapped. Foofighter20x (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the last stray {[tl|citation}} and it's clean now. Just awaiting the last page number. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dug up the Kammen work on Google books. Some of the pages are not included (only of the latter page numbers cited), so I put a page range upon the likely spots where I think Eusebeus got the cite. Foofighter20x (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Also, the article needs a WP:MOS tuneup; I left sample edits, but there is more. Pls consider asking Epbr123 (talk·contribs) to help out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Biggest MOS issue I see is WP:DASH, court decisions should use en dashes, not hyphens, e.g. 5–4, not 5-4. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Interesting article, but there are some issues that need to be addressed:
Ironically, a minor aspect of Roosevelt's New Deal agenda itself may have directly precipitated the showdown between the Roosevelt administration and the Supreme Court. Redundant sentence, which adds nothing to the article. Ironically is a peacock word.
Not so important. Ruslik (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you do not use 3 level headings. What is the reason for this? I suggest changing 4 level headings to 3 level.
The first paragraph in Roosevelt's Justice Department subsection' is redundant as well. It conveys no information and sounds just as a legal commentary. I suggest removing it.
I restructured this section my self. Ruslik (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The challenges to Roosevelt's New Deal legislation and the administration's court-packing measures implicated this larger debate, the undercurrents of which extended back to the early years of the 20th century. Another redundant sentence.
This debate spilled over into the realm of constitutional law, raising the issue of the so-called Living Constitution, a judicial and ideological disagreement which persists to the present day. This sentence probably needs to be moved to the next paragraph. Please, clarify the relationship between the Living constitution concept and view of constitutional jurisprudence which sees the U.S. Constitution as a static, universal, and general document which was not designed to change over time. The article needs better summary of this important debate.
Done myself. Ruslik (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, add the date when Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan was decided (the date is in the table, but should be mentioned in the text as well).
Hughes believed the primary objection of the Supreme Court to New Deal legislation was its poorly drafted legislation. (in the caption). I think the first legislation should be removed, because the sentence sounds strange to me.
Hughes also renewed an old line of cases concerning the "stream of commerce" and the direct/indirect effect doctrine of analysis for determining whether transactions were within the reach of congressional commerce authority. You should either remove this sentence or clarify what it means.
Cummings's omission of preventing the proposal of poorly drafted New Deal legislation authored by the administration is considered his greatest failure as Attorney General.(caption) Very complicated sentence. I suggest 'The greatest failure of Cumming was poorly drafted New Deal legislation'.
I think the description of every case should contain at least a year when it was decide and the vote (see 6 above).
with Roosevelt inquiring about both the rate at which the Supreme Court denied certiorari and the case of Ex parte McCardle, which limited the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. You should clarify why the rate at which the Supreme Court denied certiorari was so important.
Still confident that he could win the public's backing despite opinion polls that indicated majority opposition, Roosevelt ignored much of the criticism. Please, provide a citation to this statement.
'Hughes letter' is a short stubby subsection that should be merged with its parent section.
Further, the decision worked to hinder Roosevelt's push for the court reform bill, decreasing the desire in the public to change in the Supreme Court. This is a strange statement. The article just said the court packing plan had no support of public, did not it? It now claims that the decision decreased the desire in the public. You should clarify here what was the public opinion.
On June 14, the committee issued a scathing report that called FDR's plan "a needless, futile and utterly dangerous abandonment of constitutional principle... without precedent or justification". Please, provide a citation for this statement.
The first paragraph in 'Floor debate' subsection needs a citation as well.
The general problem of the article is overuse of peacock terms (blunder, scathing, humiliating political defeat). The use of such words makes the article look like political manifesto, not as an encyclopedic article.
Weasel words like also are also (!) overabundant, and the prose needs polishing.
It's not redundant. The sentence right before that is a photo caption.
I've changed these, but I used lvl 4 headers as the lvl 3s appear a little overwhelming.
I disagree. This is vital to why this entire episode happened. What test cases are brought up through the lower courts can greatly influence how the SCOTUS will rule on constitutional matters. It wasn't just that the New Deal was poorly written, it was also that the lawyers responsible for its advocacy in Court were either incompetent or ideologically opposed to it, or both.
Agreed.
Moved the sentence, but didn't thoroughly rewrite. How about you try to tackle this one, as you seem to have something particular in mind? Just be careful not to add details which the sources don't support. Hit me up on my talk page if you have questions.
Done.
Done.
Comment tagged it until I can revise this. Fixed this.
Reworded this. Your suggested caption won't do as it implies Cummings wrote the legislation instead of merely failing to stop its going to Congress.
Done.
Done.
Eusebeus added this one. He'll need to tackle it.
Done, sort of. Removed heading; the rest is unchanged.
Done.
Will get back to you on this one. It was from either Leuchtenburg or McKenna, I think. Fixed this.
Ditto.
Sorry you feel that way about this, but this is how the stark majority of historical scholarship portrays this event. Damned historiographers. :p :)
Thanks for the quick answer, I will review your fixes tomorrow when I have more time. Ruslik (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two last issues still remain. The language should be encyclopedic. Ruslik (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is all that's left going to hold up the FA status? I wouldn't think it needs to be absolutely perfect. One or two very minor issues shouldn't hold this up, you know? Foofighter20x (talk) 07:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this is an excellent article and I salute Foofighter's solid and extensive work to provide outstanding sourcing. I have checked the source material closely and some of my initial skepticism about the points made in the article were quickly eroded as I discovered that the scholarly consensus from ca. 1970 has changed substantially over the last decades. Moreover, this is an important topic in America history and one that speaks very directly to how modern US society took shape in the wake of the New Deal. It thus is richly deserving of a strong article. I therefore started in on a detailed copy-edit (http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Judiciary+Reorganization+Bill+of+1937) to improve the prose quality & organisation. I got through roughly the first third before time constraints kicked in. My oppose vote is explained by the prose quality of the remaining text, which as it stands needs to be improved before this is ready for FA. When I have more time, I will be happy to continue the copy-editing I started, but even the first third took me many hours and I am unable to provide the kind of detailed attention that this needs to be brought up to encyclopedic quality. I would refer editors also to the comments (point #9) about the sources used. McKenna is an ok source, but as editors will note the small number of reviews (2) spawned by her book suggest it is on the slighter side of scholarship (as opposed to Leuchtenberg - links to reviews at JSTOR in the archived comments). (As just one example, the National Committee to Uphold Constitutional Government was not discussed in McKenna, a serious elision). This means that the article may need some additional sourcing, even if that requires no more than going back ad fontes for some of McKenna's assertions (e.g. the line about Roosevelt's subterfuge). I added in some of these additional refs for the first third, but more would be salutary throughout.
For the TLDR crowd: prose needs more work and additional sources could be adduced given the current reliance on a work that is fairly slight in the prevailing scholarship. Foofighter has done an outstanding job, but this is not quite FA quality yet. Eusebeus (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool beans, dude. Maybe next year. :) Foofighter20x (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think this article incorporates lot of details about the History of the city right from ancient times to the latest terrorist attacks in Nov 2008. Thanks, KensplanetTC 11:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no space for any table. Except Bombay and Mumbai, I haven't heard of any other name. It may require input from many more editors. We two cannot decide that. KensplanetTC 18:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Bombaim" and "Bom Bahia" are Portuguese names of the then town/village, as noted in the discussion. --RedtigerxyzTalk 13:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Dineshkannambadi
Portuguese period: It would help readability if you explain in one sentence who these gentlemen were, such as missionary or pastor etc. I did not click on those name links and most readers may not–Parel, Wadala, Sion, and Worli were granted to Manuel Serrão between 1545 and 1548,[31] during the viceroyalty of João de Castro.[34] Salsette was granted for three years to João Rodrigues Dantas, Cosme Corres, and Manuel Corres.[34] Trombay and Chembur were granted to Dom Roque Tello de Menezes,[31].Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Source Origin of Bombay, p. 96 doesn't mention anything about them. I have absolutely no idea. I think they are Portuguese noblemen. But I won't indulge in WP:ORKensplanetTC 19:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
British period: Sentence is ambiguous. How does one destroy a river, or was it the bridges over the river that were destroyed.-On 10 October 1673, the Siddi admiral Sambal entered Bombay and destroyed the Pen and Nagothana rivers, which were very important for the British and the Maratha King Shivaji.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was reliable since it has been published by Macalester College. which is an educational institution. I am still confused. Anyway removed it.
It's not actually Published by the university, it's a personal website from a course professor for a class. There has been no fact checking, etc by the university, so whether it's published on their servers or on another outside server is irrelevant. If the author is an expert in the field (not merely a professor who teaches basic undergraduate classes that touch on this subject, but a professor involved in the study of the subject area (i.e. Indian history) then it might fulfill WP:SPS. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just know that the source is reliable, the facts are checked by Tata Institute of Fundamental Research and the content is accurate. Let me know if anyone challenges the accuracy of their research.
The page says "Now linked by The Internationalist, Harappa, The School Page (UK), WWWVL-India. Best travel site award from PlanetRider. Guide award from Encyclopedia Britannica...A very large number of readers, many anonymous, make sure that our data and links are accurate and current. Thanks to all of them." Decide for yourself. --RedtigerxyzTalk 13:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A physics institute isn't going to reliable for history. Perhaps the history of science, but not much else. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why, they are the most reputed institute in Bombay. Since this is an article on Bombay, their research on the city is reliable. If you are challenging the accuracy of such a reputed institution, then prove it. KensplanetTC 06:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If such reputed institutions are considered unreliable, then tell me do people have any other option except to use snippets. These Snippets may then satisfy your policies, but then how much accurate it may be, God knows, since we do not get to know the entire context. Tell me, do you want me to use Snippets? KensplanetTC 08:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And actually, yes, I would prefer that folks not use Google Snippets, but that one isn't one that can be enforced. My personal view is that only seeing part of the work means you miss context, but so far, current thinking on Wikipedia is that it's okay. I usually point out when an article relies a lot on Snippets, so that other reviewers are aware, but I won't oppose on that basis. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, What should I do now? I am stuck. KensplanetTC 14:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the sentence it is used to cite Bombay time was set at 4 hours and 51 minutes ahead of Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) using the 75th east meridian. So don't you think the Green Wich Meantime website is the most reliable here
ARe they they official site for MeanTime though? I couldn't find anything that said they were. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From Tata Group, the largest private corporate group in India
But, again, what is it sourcing? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is sourcing details of J. R. D. Tata, who happened to be a chief figure of the TATA group. So, isn't TATA Group website the best here
It would be a primary source then, and allowable for non-contentious details, but other sources not connected with the person would be better. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the references, such as DNA.
Done
I note a large number of the "print" references are to older works, printed in the 19th or early 20th century. Surely there are more modern works that could be used?
Modern sources give very little details and context. The old sources, printed by the British Government are much more accurate, give more context and details. Modern Sources just mention a sentence for a fact. The old sources have many pages for a single fact. Old sources are much much better.
No, older sources are not necessarily better. They may be biased, they may no longer reflect the current scholarly opinion on the subject. Specically, any archeological studies would be out of date, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no opinion involved here. The facts are just presented as it is. All modern and scholarly sources themselves cite these British Government sources. So, why not use the original old source which give more details. KensplanetTC 19:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, facts can change, at least as new information is discovered, new documents uncovered, etc. I merely noted this for other reviewers, however. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the history of Mumbai article, nothing has changed. KensplanetTC 06:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 36 (Rajesh Kochhar...) is a jounal article so it should give the journal title, etc.
I also note the large number of references to Gazetteers, which is a concern, as these are generally not the best possible sources for history.
I have never heard of this rule. I think the Rules for RS go on changing daily. You have even challenged top academic institutions above, where facts are reviewed by professionals. I still cannot understand what is WP:RS. These Gazetteers have been analyzed by Experts appointed by the Government. What more you require. I think we must concentrate more on accuracy of the text and contents of the article, rather than Sources. Maybe They are not the best possible sources for history; but it does work here. KensplanetTC 18:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The government is not in the business of putting together scholarly histories, though. For a history article, we want the best possible sources, which would be scholarly works, published by scholarly presses, by scholars involved in the field. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A fact is a fact. It never changes. This article is more on facts not opinions. That way even BBC may be unreliable since the journalist may not be an expert in the subject.
Otherwise, the sources used look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment supporting use of Gazetteers for history issues
Having written several articles on history (though not w.r.t a city) including on some of the empires and kingdoms that controlled the Mumbai region (though from elsewhere) during medieval times, I can surely understand why the author has used Gazetteers to generate his information. If one were to read real history books on each of these empires, it would become apparent that information specifically pretaining to Mumbai would be really hard to come by simply because Mumbai was not the regal capital of any of those great empires. In fact Mumbai's rise to fame is more recent. Mumbai's current day stature in India would hardly matter to a book on Rashtrakuta Dynasty for instance. Therefore Gazetteers would be the obvious choice, were government appointed epigraphists and historians would built its history based on evidence on hand. In fact a Gazetteer could easily replace a dozen history books when we are talking about "History of a any specific modern city". So long as the information is reasonably accurate, I dont see a problem. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gazetteer by definition is "A geographic dictionary or index". This article is after all the history of a geographic location, namely Mumbai, thus the Gazetteer has to be considered a reliable reference, in this case. Also, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches says "Government sites (here Maharashtra State Gazetteer) connected to the field (here history of area. under it's jurisdiction) may be reliable."--RedtigerxyzTalk 13:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This one, we'll have to leave out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Also, there are WP:DASH issues and incorrect punctuation on image captions (see WP:MOS#Captions) throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments
The TIFR content site is referenced by Bombay, the Cities Within by city historian Sharada Dwivedi
Can't support yet - I have not taken a close look yet. On first impressions, the article is on the right track overall, but I see more than a few issues with it right now, especially with the way it is strung together. Here are some observations in no particular order.
some paragraphs are excessively long and are not easy on the eyes. The ones in the Islamic period section seem just about the right size.
The lede should start with something more introductory than "Mumbai (formerly Bombay) originally consisted of seven islands on the western coast of India.". And "originally"? So it has changed since then? I'm not sure if this is discussed in detail elsewhere in the article, but ideally, this information should be as close as possible to the "originally" sentence.
The second sentence reads more like how the first sentence ought to look like.
King Bhimdev of which dynasty/empire?
"Although human habitation existed during the Stone Age, the Kolis, a fishing community, were the earliest known settlers of the islands." -- Link Stone age to South_Asian_Stone_Age. The Indian Stone age spanned tens of thousands of years. When in this period do we have evidence of the earliest human settlement? Neolithic? And when did the Kolis live?
First part of "Ancient History" section should be hived off into a "Pre-history" section. The second part into "Age of indigenous empires" or some such because the sections that follow are constructed as "Islamic", "Portuguese", "British" etc.,.
General comment: History of any region/city is always intimately tied to larger historical patterns. For example, the Islamic period section starts abruptly by mentioning that the islands were under the Muzaffarid dynasty. Who were these Muzaffarids? Where did they come from? When? Islamic rule in India started much earlier than the 14th century and the reader should be given some of this perspective. Sections should start with a bit of 'macro-history' before diving headlong into 'micro-history'.
Almeida's image belongs in Portuguese period section. Also too many images on the left side. Unless it hurts the formatting, keep images on the right. afa possible.
In fact, the entire third paragraph in the Islamic period section seems better off in the Portuguese period section.
Some of the images can do with some more work on the captions. Peshwa Baji Rao, for example. Right now, the caption only seems to tell us-"hey look.. this is what he looked like". Instead, captions should tell us succinctly exactly why he is even afforded an image in the article. A good caption can add a lot of value to the article and understanding--especially for people unfamiliar with the subject.
More later. Sarvagnya 21:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3
File:Francisco de Almeida.jpg - Who is the artist ("author") and what is the date of this painting? Please include at least a death date for the author, as the license is dependent on the "life of the author + 70 years".
The Website just has the Image. No date has been specified.
The Website just has the Image. No date has been specified.
File:Bombay Thane train 1853.jpg - It is best to link to the HTML page, rather than directly to the JPG file. Right now, we can't verify any information about this image, including the license.
The Website just has the Image. No date has been specified.
File:Rajabai under Const.jpg - Do we have any more specific source information on this image that would allow users to locate this image? We need a date for this image, as the current license can't be verified, since there is no known author.
File:Bal G. Tilak.jpg - It is best to link to the HTML page, rather than directly to the JPG file. Right now, we can't verify any information about this image, including the license.
I found the web page http://newstodaynet.com/2006sud/06apr/2004ss1.htm But I can't dind any details about the image there. It doesn't say this was published in 1910. Image may be still copyrighted. A candidate for speedy deletion on Commons. KensplanetTC 14:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Nehru c.jpg - Please fill out the "summary" tag and resolve the issues outlined in the pink tags.
After a little bit of work, these issues should be resolved. Awadewit (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much as I would like to support this article, I must oppose due to 1c. The relevant body of published knowledge for an article such as this would be history books on Mumbai and India, not theoretical physics websites. It is more difficult to write the article if the history of the city can only be found scattered among various print sources, but these solid sources ought to be used. I also agree with Ealdgyth that old (turn of the century) books are not the best sources. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
All of the above parties of myself, Timmeh, Prophaniti, Revrant, and DisturbedTim90 would like to nominate this article for a Featured Article status, for a second time, because we believe it is ready. The article meets the FA nomination requirements, and has come a long way since its creation. We believe it to be an example of a great, complete music article. It has gone through extensive editing since its last Featured Article nomination, and has been expanded. We believe it is ready to be a Featured Article, and so we nominate it for a second time. --TheGuycomplainedits 02:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Efe
"The album features two songs that were written by Disturbed before their first album, The Sickness, but were never previously featured on an album, titled "Perfect Insanity" and "Divide"." It reads like the title of the album is "Perfect Insanity" and/or "Divide". --Efe (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re-structured to say, " The album features two songs, titled "Perfect Insanity" and "Divide", that were written by Disturbed before their first album, The Sickness, debuted, but were never previously featured on an album. --TheGuycomplainedits 03:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better. Now clear. --Efe (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"including relationships that did not work out" Is there any proper word/single word other than work out? --Efe (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't think of anything more solid, so I eliminated completely the "did not work out," in favor for the simple, straightforward, "negative relationships." --TheGuycomplainedits 03:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does the source says? --Efe (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source is a direct quote from the lead singer of band David Draiman, and it says, "I’ve had really bad relationships that I’ve been in and out of. They’ve left their mark." --TheGuycomplainedits 03:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why dont you quote "bad relationships"? --Efe (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"a motorcycle accident he was in" Same through with the above comment. "He was in" could be tighten. --Efe (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it to "a motorcycle accident that he was involved with." --TheGuycomplainedits 03:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead, there is no mention of the critical reviews. --Efe (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to mention critic scores, "It was received fairly poorly, earning a score of 57% on review-aggregating website Metacritic, based on six reviews, but still managed to peak number-one on the Billboard 200 in its first week, making it Disturbed's third consecutive number-one debut on the Billboard 200, which had only been achieved by five rock bands prior." --TheGuycomplainedits 03:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per comprehensiveness concerns. Just looking at reviews, it relies solely on reviews that are accessible by the Internet. Now, web references are perfectly fine (not to mention convenient), but according to Metacritic, the album was reviewed by major publications such as Billboard and Q, which are not referenced in the article. I'm sure Mojo and Spin probably reviewed it too. These publications have more critical weight than IGN.com, About.com, and PopMatters. Additionally, the wholesale absence of print sources (aside from one, which is a booklet for the CD) makes me wonder what other useful sources might have been excluded. For example, has a musician magazine like Guitar World or Modern Drummer done a feature on the album? If so, these sorts of articles are invaluable because they analyze and discuss the nuts and bots of the music, from composition to equipment. See what else you can dig up, either by asking other Wiki editors, visiting a library, or by procuring magazine back issue yourselves. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to reinforce the above concerns, I happened on this article. Even then (not even knowing that it was at FAC) I thought that the Reception section was skimpy, considering the relatively mainstream appeal of the album. Just a simple Google search reveals this from Abort, this from Rolling Stone, this from The Music Magazine and this from Mix. Surely you could expand the section from that sample of links. There are definitely more out there, and as Wesley was talking about, we haven't even gotten to the print reviews. There is definitely some work needed in terms of comprehensiveness. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel the printed source concerns could be satisfied in a timely matter, or even at all. For one, I don't know if the album was even featured in any magazines. Another thing, if I found out it was, I would have to research magazines for good sources. After said research, I'd have to pin-point what issue the album was featured in, then I would have to chance upon that issue. The chance of this happening for one magazine, let alone more than that, are slim. If this process is going to fail just because it doesn't contain printed sources, well I simply can't satisfy that in a timely fashion, if at all. One of the other nominators may have some magazines (but I doubt it, or they would have used information from there by now), and I'll check, but I still can't guarantee that anything will be found. Still, though, I can understand the Reception section being rather skimpy, and I will work to expand it, but I'm not making any promises for printed sources, just because of the research and resources I'd have to do/utilize in order to first locate which magazine it was featured in, then find a copy. It doesn't help that I personally live in a rural area, which is self-explanatory. Please just cut the article some slack on that one. --TheGuycomplainedits 04:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest withdrawing the FAC until you can do more research into print sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait for a few more opinions, and, if the other nominators agree (as I am not the only nominator, just the only one who has been online in the past 4 hours or so), we will then withdraw. --TheGuycomplainedits 04:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure if this is what you wanted, WesleyDodds, but I found this from Billboard. I realize it's not much, but at least it's something from Billboard. About Rolling Stone and The Music Magazine, I've heard that Rolling Stone reviews aren't very good, and also this thing from The Music Magazine appears to only be talking the song "Indestructible", but not the whole album. Sorry, Dabomb87. And like Dude527 (AKA "The Guy") said, it would be quite difficult to find printed reviews of the album, especially because it has been several months since the album's release. If anyone can find them, please tell us.--Almax999 14:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, school work is going to pull me away from this nomination for a few hours. I hope one of the other nominators logs on. If not, I'll be back. --TheGuycomplainedits 05:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the Rolling Stone reviews are good is a matter of taste (I'm personally not a fan of the magazine). however, as the foremost music magazine in the United States, their opinion has stronger critical weight that all of the online sources cited in the article. My general point is that by ignoring print sources, the editors have ignored important critical commentary because they aren't available on the web. Without an attempt to seek out print sources, this article is not comprehensive. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I provided may or may not be helpful to your research. The point I was merely trying to get across is that there is more out there. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay that you were trying to help, Dabomb87, I don't mind it at all. And if print sources are all that's needed to make the article comprehensive, then it would be great if some editors here helped to find some. Considering Disturbed is my favorite band, I would do everything in my power to help promote this article to FA status. Unfortunately, I would have trouble finding such print sources. Sorry, but that is one thing that I cannot easily do to improve the article. And on the side, I'm very busy with schoolwork (like "The Guy"), so it would be immensely hard to find the time to look for certain issues of magazines that review the album. I can easily find online sources (as WesleyDodds mentioned, they are convenient :) ), but print sources are, unfortunately, not something that I can easily find.--Almax999 03:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to agree with that, as already stated. If print sources are to define this article's comprehensiveness, then that's a pity, because all of them available would likely have been a June or July issue of a magazine, off shelves, etc. Those sources are, theoretically, going to become harder and harder to find with each passing day. I have looked, as promised, and can't find any from any friends, my local library carries none, and I've even looked online for scans, to no avail. I would look a lot harder, but, as pointed out by Almax999, school work and "real life" comes as priority. I am usually at school and, if not, I'm doing homework, or it is the weekend. There are those rare occurrences of me not having school work, or neglecting to do it, but even now, I'm having a difficult time in finding the time to even re-write the Reception section, which would take no more than a half-hour. I right now have that half-hour, but I'm doing an essay for school tomorrow, and so can't focus on the article. I'm not saying that this is an excuse if the article is below-par, I just mean to point out that any errors or issues found on a week day that are significant will probably not be tended to by me until the week end. This article as it is now, is just progress over the last six months, because I have a busy life and a slow working pace. I still don't know where those other nominators are, either. Might as well count them out, because they haven't shown up yet, over twenty-four hours into the process. Anyways, sorry for getting personal. I notice that the FA nom page says, "If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it." I don't know if nothing can generally be done about this comprehensiveness issue, but nothing can be done by me, the nominator. I'd just like to note this; I'd have to go far out of my way. --TheGuycomplainedits 04:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've done an exhaustive search in regard to print publications, unfortunately I cannot find any evidence to suggest that the some of the magazines have reviewed any Disturbed album. I have discovered Q Magazine is on Metacritic, which can be used as a source for the review in question, though Metacritic itself cannot be used as a review source or ratings device, and thus the review can be added to the article, this is also true for Billboard, as it can be directly sourced.
I have personally contacted the publications in question in regard to reviews or articles regarding Disturbed centered around or after the release of Indestructible, I have also contacted the publications of Guitar World and Modern Drummer in order to discover more recent articles featuring the band.
I should let it be known that the Rolling Stone is a print publication, and is featured in the article, though given it has shown abysmal fact checking in two instances in regard to a Disturbed album and failed to give an actual review of their first, they should not be weighted above other sources simply for their namesake. Revrant (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with Revrant, but I know that, regardless, name sakes' will be held in higher regard than others in general, and not in a case-to-case manner, like they should. Nothing we can do about that. But anyways, as another nominator has shown up, and has maybe found some things that can be done to tie up this loose end, can we discuss other parts of the article? In other words, is comprehensiveness the only issue, and you wouldn't oppose this if it wasn't an issue? --TheGuycomplainedits 01:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'd still need to track down the issue the Q review was published in, in order to determine the name of the reviewer and thus cite the source correctly. To clarify, my point isn't that there aren't enough print sources; my point is that by relying solely on web resources, the article topic has not been properly researched. I'm not convinced that the topic has been adequately researched yet. Do more research, and then you can bring this back to FAC. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a print source, it is not relying solely on web sources, The Rolling Stone and comments on the style of the album from The Rolling Stone are directly quoted, please do not use such exaggerative language. I will also contact Q Magazine in regard to more than a summary, as it is now apparent you wish for us to quote these editors, not simply feature and source the reviews, and that is impossible without physically buying the magazines in question or as I hope, the magazine willingly giving this specific back issue review excerpt. Revrant (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an addendum, while searching for information I stumbled upon an editor attempting to hurt the nomination outside of the nomination page, thankfully the information presented that would hurt the nomination may now be used to it's benefit as I contact the magazines in question in regard to their articles featuring the band and the album. Unfortunately I cannot link the information present given Wikipedia has decided to blacklist the link among all official pages, which is absolutely not helpful to this FAC process. Revrant (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying when you cite a source you need to cite the author, which in these cases means actually tracking down who the author is because Metacritic does not list who it is. To do so, the most straightfoward way is to find the issue in question. I don't know what you're referring to about "attempting to hurt the nomination", but you did respond to a comment on my talk page where NSR77 was merely pointing out that not enough research has been done even though the sources can be found quite easily and why that's why this FAC needs to to be withdrawn. Unless you can find the sources and fill out the article in time, which would be definitely preferrable, but there seems to be some resistance to do so from editors. I'm saying right here, in plain language: this article needs more research. Do it, or withdrawl the nomination, because right now the article clearly fails the comprehensiveness criteria of the Featured Article Criteria. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which meant you wanted quotations about the music rather than just the reviews, which I misunderstood. Well keeping it off of the page, away from prying eyes, and suggesting it be shutdown immediately is rather damaging language on that editor's behalf, though it's not of importance.
I may not be able to do so in time, the resistance comes from the fact that the people in question would have to physically buy the back issues from the source, or eBay, and the time required to do that is rather long, the nomination may fail simply because there is no time to respond to this issue. Revrant (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I understand your predicatement (I am also very busy at the moment), but this is where the concept of the wiki comes into play. The great thing about Wikipedia (besides the fact that it is free and anyone can edit) is that—especially for the English Wikipedia—there are always going to be editors who can help with something. Cull the collaborative power of the wiki to achive your goal. Ask around at relevant Wikiprojects for users who have access to print magazines or any sources that could help. Disturbed seems to be reasonably popular, I'm sure that somebody has material. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, as much as I love Disturbed and would love to have a featured article about them, this may need to be withdrawn from FAC, as WesleyDodds has said several times earlier. But, like "The Guy" asked, Is comprehensiveness the only issue here? If the article was comprehensive, would you support it rather than oppose it? If that is true, then as soon as someone is able to resolve this issue the article may be brought back here on a later date (unless someone resolves the issue now). That's a good question, "The Guy", as I was wondering about that too.--Almax999 04:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did some digging, and I find that these may help. These four issues of different magazines; Revolver, Metal Hammer, Guitar World, and Drum! feature interviews with three of the four members separately, and one of the band altogether, apparently. As of finding this, I am trying to contact the publisher of this media, and I am also posting around on various sites. --TheGuycomplainedits 19:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's all simply excellent, I had such trouble browsing their site I never bothered, those would be superb for inclusion in the reception section should Wesley agree. Revrant (talk) 06:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I searched Google.com for certain keywords. Was simple enough, I guess, but couldn't find the other two articles. On that note, the one from Revolver magazine wouldn't be very useful for this article, would it? It only depicts the band traveling to Kuwait for Operation MySpace, and doesn't refer to the album even once. --TheGuycomplainedits 01:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, the sources used look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (Note I'm not weighing in on the printed source debate above, but I can understand the objectors concerns. It's always good to consult ALL the available sources, not just online ones.) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I used that site only because when I was browsing other articles, one that was a Featured Article used that to cite some of its singles. I noticed that it had the ones I needed, so I used it. But that's irrelevant; I have no idea what makes it reliable according to policies. --TheGuycomplainedits 04:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has been used in some of the older FAs, but I haven't yet seen anything that shows it's reliable (i.e. has a fact checking system, etc.). Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Almax999 -
Does the Irish Albums Chart need a source?
I noticed that the other charts are sourced, but does this chart need a source? I'm a bit of a newbie when it comes to what needs to be sourced :). I tried searching for the chart, but couldn't find it online.--Almax999 06:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good eye. I will remove that information until I can find a proper reference for it. --TheGuycomplainedits 19:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3 - The use of fair use media needs to be worked out.
File:Standard Indestructible Disturbed artwork.JPG - This image, because it contains cover art, needs a fair use rationale. I do not believe, however, that its use can be justified since we are already using the album cover. This violates WP:NFCC "minimal use".
File:Limited Edition Disturbed Indestructible.JPG - This image, because it contains cover art, needs a fair use rationale. I do not believe, however, that its use can be justified since we are already using the album cover. This violates WP:NFCC "minimal use".
Reply comment for two previous comments: Those photographs, meant to depict only the packages as a whole, and not the artwork solely, are used by that template. I took them, specifically for that template, which gives an in-depth analysis of the different versions of the album, and thus, the photographs themselves. The one for the standard edition of the album would not suffice for the limited edition picture as well, as these are different packages altogether. Ultimately, these images are not meant to depict the artwork, but the package as a whole. So I believe that, should I put a fair use rationale in, they would be perfectly in line. One thing that I would like to point out: Halo 3 uses a similar template; those don't use fair use rationales, though. Why do ours need to? --TheGuycomplainedits 01:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:DivideDisturbedcomparisons.ogg - The article does not discuss the differences between these two versions - we need some critical commentary to justify this clip. What makes early the late versions different?
We really need to describe the differences in the article? Wouldn't that constitute original research, as we have no references to verify said differences? Not to mention, differences are actually so minimal that it'd seem trivial to say "during the chorus of the early version of 'Perfect Insanity', lead singer David Draiman is silent during certain parts of the chorus, whereas in the modern version, he says 'I think I'm losing my mind, I think I'm losing my mind!' during these previous silences." I really think just saying that the two songs were demos for their debut release is critical enough analysis in-article, with the sound samples being used to clearly depict what that means. --TheGuycomplainedits 01:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no "critical commentary" available to describe the differences, we cannot justify inclusion of the audio clips, especially since the differences are as minimal as you say. Note that WP:NFC states "Music clips may be used to identify a musical style, group, or iconic piece of music when accompanied by appropriate sourced commentary and attributed to the copyright holder." - We need commentary in the article if we are going to have the clips. Awadewit (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully we can resolve these issues quickly. Awadewit (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I've listed this article for featured article status because It has already been passed for Good article status and it looks as if it's good enough to be featured. Ukabia (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - given the large numbers of questionable sources, as well as concerns that, given the number of sources that have google books links to snippets but don't give page numbers, that most of the sources have only been consulted in snippet view, which can lead to problems with not seeing the full context of the work.
should it be removed? because it's used on some other ethnic group pages. It could be replaced with citations from ethnologue, is that more reliable? -- Ukabia (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua Project is not involved in primary ethnic peoples research. Rather Joshua Project seeks to compile and integrate ethnic peoples information from various global, regional and national researchers and workers into a composite whole. We are deeply grateful to the sources below who have provided data to Joshua Project.Data Sources
So Joshua Project has been categorized as unreliable on the Reliable sources notice board. I have replaced this with these sources:
Their company was featured on the PBS show African American Lives. The website had provided the DNA geenaology of the celebrities on that show, as well as off it, this page shows the responses gotten from African American celebrities on viewing their results and finding out their geneaology. PBS have also given it as a recommended internet resource, for African Americans trying to trace their genealogy, on this page on their website. PBS described the site as "The leading online web community for genealogical research; includes both free and paid-subscriber-only resources for beginner and veteran genealogical resarchers." Ukabia (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 16:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the MOS, curly quotes shouldn't be used for quotations.
Current ref 7 (Ebo landing...) is lacking a publisher.
done
Current ref 11 (Forsythe... ) is lacking a page number
done
Current ref 15 (Ogbaa...)is a book, and should be formatted as such. (I hope that it wasn't only read on Google snippets.) Again on current ref 26, same author.
done
Same for current ref 18 (Brettell...)
done
Current ref 19 (Achebe...) is lacking a page number (Again, i hope it wasn't only consulted on Google snippets) Also recurs at Current ref 103 with a lack of a page number there.
done
And same for current ref 20 (Meek...)
done
Current ref 36 is "E. Elochukwu Uzukwu (1997) p. 98" what is this exactly? Is this the Uzukwu ref in current ref 31? If so, should have the author formatted the same.
done
Current ref 39 (Basden ...) is lacking a page number. Occurs again at current ref 115 minus the publsher and page number
done
Current ref 42 (Ejofor...) is lacking a page number
Current ref 91 (Emenajo...) is lacking a page number, as this a book.
done
Current ref 95 (Olisa...) is lacking page number and publisher.
replaced with Groundwork of Igbo history. Vista Books, Lagos,. 1992. pp. 161–177. ISBN9-781-34400-8. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |unused_data= (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
Current ref 96 (Groundwork...) is lacking a page nu7mber
done
Current ref 97 Amadiume...) is lacking a page number
done
Current ref 105 (Falola..) is lacking a page number
done
Current ref 104 needs to be formatted like a book, with author, page number, etc.
done
Current ref 114 ... what exactly is this ref to? A book? An encyclopedia?
done
Current ref 121 (Njoku...) is lackign a page number
done
Current ref 147 (Pojmann...) is lackign a page number
done
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed your strike throughs, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. I changed them to little "dones" after the statement so you can keep track of what you've done. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given the large number of references and the large number of queries here, could I ask that when a source is replaced that a note be made here saying what the new source is? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The articles references can be easily improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.19.66 (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Also, there are quite a few MoS issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, with Minahan, James; Wendel, Peter T (2002). Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations: Ethnic and National Groups Around the World. Greenwood Press. p. 762. ISBN0313323844.. -- Ukabia (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully these issues can be resolved quickly. Awadewit (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose. Forget the niceties of the "MoS"; this has a long way to go. I've just gone through the introduction; there was a lot amiss even there. I then noticed that the previous edit (without summary and by some IP) had made the single change of "3000" to "6000", thus forming the sentence According to several sources, from 6000 BC to 500 AD, the Igbo people evolved over a long period in Igboland through waves of migrations. Quite aside from the question of 6000 versus 3000, the single source adduced (which doesn't itself cite any source) says nothing about waves of migrations, or indeed anything whatever about what happened between c. 3000 BC and c. AD 850. Which is hardly surprising because this source is a brief chronology to accompany a study guide for a novel. WP disapproves of tertiary sources; this looks like, oh, let's call it a quaternary source (something that the author probably derived from tertiary sources); it doesn't say what it's claimed to say, it is singular, not plural as implied; and it's summarized in a sentence that points out that 2,500 (or 5,500) years is "a long period". The sourcing is rough, the writing is rough, the whole thing is rough. It's an honorable draft that needs a lot more "person-hours" before it can be a featurable article. Morenoodles (talk) 10:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS I've looked more closely at that source, which does have a lengthy excerpt from a scholarly book published in 1976, and have rewritten accordingly. However, the paragraph of our article proceeds to cite a web page that adds an even earlier stage and comes close to repeating the material cited via the book on Things Fall Apart; it might be better just to cite the later source, except that this is within this website, which (despite being valuable in its own way, and hosted at a reputable university) doesn't cite its own sources and, with its concentration on art and culture, hardly seems the last word in physical anthropology, genetics, archaeology. etc. Morenoodles (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe the extensive additions I've made over the last few weeks bring the article into compliance with the criteria. Whale was an extremely important director, the bulk of whose works have been largely forgotten and unavailable. He was also a fascinating person and almost unique for the Hollywood of his time in that he lived as an openly gay man throughout his career. Thanks to User:Brianboulton for a strong peer review with many helpful suggestions. Otto4711 (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note this FAC was not transcluded on the 14th, rather January 16. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3
File:Dp2pa0122a.jpg - The fair use rationale needs to list the copyright holder.
File:Whale.jpg - Please add an author, source, and date for this image. Please also add a location for the statue - where it is located affects the freedom of panorama. Note also that the PD tag needs to be replaced.
Hopefully these are easy issues to resolve. Awadewit (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no way of knowing what the copyright is on Dp2pa0122a.jpg so I replaced it with another image, including fair-use rationale and left a note on the uploader's talk page to see if he has the information about the original. I assume it's a publicity still by Universal but have no way of verifying it. I have added the information on the statue based on the notes left by the uploader, User:Angry candy. The statue is located in Dudley, England. Otto4711 (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The find a grave reference is included only because it includes a photo of Whale's marker with the incorrect date. I believe that it is sufficiently reliable for that single purpose. Otto4711 (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the picture needed as a source though? How do we know that the picture hasn't been doctored, etc? (Granted, it's unlikely, but ...) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it "needed" in the sense that the article stands or falls on it? No, but I can't see the harm in linking to it. As for the doctoring question, how do I know that any photograph that I did not personally take and upload myself isn't doctored, and even if I know it, how does anyone else? We'd have precious few if any images on Wikipedia going by that standard. Otto4711 (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that you're using that picture as a source of information, whereas most pictures being used in articles are more ornamental, and not being used as sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the likelihood of the picture's having been faked is so infinitesimal as to approach zero. I believe that it is reliable for use in the article to establish the dates that exist on James Whale's columbarium. Otto4711 (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to see some evidence that the Findagrave site has editorial processes and fact checking, just as we do with any other source. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The notion that the picture is faked is ludicrous, but to Hell with it, I'll take out the note. Waaaaaaay more trouble than it's worth and already consumed far too much time. Otto4711 (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All newspaper names italicized.
Inconsistent date formatting throughout (the article starts with international dates, appropriate for a British topic, but switches halfway through). WP:OVERLINKing and WP:PUNC need review. Large reliance on one source. Faulty WP:DASHes (spaced emdashes are not used on Wiki). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Date formatting corrected, except for instances that don't have years. I am unsure of the correct European format in the absence of a year. Otto4711 (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are there specific links that you believe violate WP:OVERLINK? What's there seems to be fairly relevant so guidance in this area would be appreciated. Re: reliance on the Curtis book, I agree that a greater diversity of sources is always preferable, the article currently contains some three dozen different sources. Re em-dashes, if the original source uses spaces, aren't we supposed to replicate the source as it appears? Otto4711 (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm counting correctly, I have 67 now 6258 about 50 references to the Curtis book (including two that are quoting someone else) and 70 now 7275 close to 100 references to other sources currently. I am continuing to try to diversify the sourcing. Is there some ratio I should be aiming for? Otto4711 (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dashes and punctuation appear to be in compliance with appropriate policies and guidelines. Links appear to be relevant and within guidelines. Sourcing is approximately 2:1 non-Curtis:Curtis. Otto4711 (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments and suggestions:
There is no reason Whale's article shouldn't be an FA and good for you for taking this on. Having just finished The Celluloid Closet and its associated film documentary a few days ago, it's timely that your request appeared on my talk page.
The Hollywood section is a bit disjointed and reads like an extended timeline, and would benefit by exploring themes in concentrated detail. I have some suggestions, so let's see what you think of them. Explain the studio style of film making, which is no longer in use, and which prescribed what films directors were allowed to make. Explain the Hays Code. Organize Whale's film career in blocks. Instead of going from year to year, skipping from film to film, discuss how many and how they were made (1 paragraph with studio system), the reception his films received, both critical and financial (1-2 paragraphs), and the genres of films he made, concentrating on the horror genre and how he did not wish to be pigeonholed (2 paragraphs). Break down the Post-film life section: you can add a subheading for his suicide. I like the Sexuality section because it addresses a theme. Even in biographies where on the surface a man's life is told from one year to the next, themes can be connected and concentrated. When you make those connections really strong for the reader, the reader feels smarter while going through the article. What kinds of themes in Whale's life were highlighted by reliable sources? Professional pride? Loneliness? Artistic expression in the face of a machine (the studios)?
You may be able to use stills from film trailers as images, as trailers from the 1930s were not under copyright. Awadewit knows some about this, and of course, Elcobbola. Consider including a couple.
If you would like for me to give more explicit suggestions on the article talk page, I can do that. I've been in my own article for a while now. --Moni3 (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Detailed suggestions are always welcomed. Otto4711 (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now by karanacs. The prose needs a bit of work. Also, I feel like the article is doing a lot of "telling" without a lot of "showing". It's not always enough to tell me that something is important; it is much more meaningful to have text that explains why somthing is important.
The prose needs a little massaging. Please note that these are examples only.
Vary your sentence structures when possible. Every single sentence of the first paragraph of the first section (Early years) begins with "he" or "Whale".
There are areas of the prose that could be tightened. Go through each sentence and remove the words that don't add a lot of value (For example: It was during his imprisonment that ' could easily be During his imprisonment - and that reads much more clearly) (Example 2 - why two sentences that describe when he met Doris Zinkeisen? It could easily be reworded into one)
Lots of repetition in phrasing -- see several paragraphs in the Hollywood section that speak about "next film" or "next.."
Parts of the Hollywood section feels more like a list expanded just enough to turn it into prose. Maybe it needs better transitions or a little more detail about what makes those films (and his role) special.
The article mentions that "around this time...Whale met David Lewis". For the sake of people who didn't read the lead (or just skimmed), it might be wise to explain a little who Lewis is/why it is important that we know that Whale met him at this time
The Hollywood section mentions that several movies were critical successes. Are there any old reviews available that specifically praise Whale? If so, that would be an excellent addition to the article.
Is it important that we know in this article that The Old Dark House was considered "lost" but was found again? That might be better relegated to a footnote or a different article.
"interfere with his plans for the remake of Show Boat, " - is the planning important? This is the first that we have heard of it. And how would Remember Last Night? interfere last than the Dracula movie?
What about his version of Show Boat makes it the "definitive film version"
Is there any more information about why The Road Back was so controversial? There is not enough information here for me to figure out why Germany would have been upset about it
Is there any information about what changes were made to The Road Back against Whale's wishes?
I'll take another spin through the prose. Re the specific notation of TODH being thought lost, it's to illustrate the idea that much of Whale's work has fallen into obscurity which is touched on in the lead. TODH is one of the few of his films that's readily available so it seems important to note that this film had also vanished for several decades. Otto4711 (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it is a good quality video game article and meets all of the criteria required. I am also happy to make any changes necessary if required to do so in order for this article to become featured. EclipseSSD (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (only the lead has been reviewed so far)
Remove the periods from non-sentences in image captions, like "Two armies squaring off, sporting an array of units.", which is not a sentence.
The Fair Use images need better purposes. "Illustrates the entire subject of the article." is not sufficient. They need to explicitly state why the article needs the image in there. Check out something like File:LOTRBFME II Gandalf Power and heroes.jpg for an example.
Personally, I think only two images should be kept (excluding the cover): one showing gameplay along with the HUD, and another showing the four wonders, although even the latter is debatable.
Remove the "in English" parameter in the references—English is assumed.
"by advancing them" – Does advancing them through the four ages really make them a leader? Should probably just be an "and advances them"
"each advance" – What does "advance" refer to here?
"An expansion" – Perhaps just spell out "An expansion pack" for the uninitiated
"the next year" – Don't make it relative, since there's a lot of non-chronological stuff in between the mention of "1997" and this sentence. Perhaps "in 1998" or "the next year in 1998".
"The design team" – I think this would be much more clear if it started with "In the expansion pack, the design team"
"that some problems"
"such as difficulties with the artificial intelligence" – What difficulties?
"Age of Empires spans" – Isn't it "The campaign of Age of Empires spans"?
"Players aim to gather resources in the game, which they use to" – "Players must gather resources in the game to"
"single player" – needs a hyphen between the two words
"The game's graphics were praised, as was its gameplay and the variety of units available." – "The game's graphics, gameplay, and the variety of units available were praised."
"Some reviewers were critical of the" – "Some reviewers criticized the"
"poor artificial intelligence of the game" – "game's poor artificial intelligence"
"including Game of the Year and Computer Strategy Game of the Year." – I don't think awards are supposed to be italicized.
Okay, that's everything from the lead. Gary King (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think I've addressed the issues here. --EclipseSSD (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Time for the images. Which ones should be kept and which ones removed? --EclipseSSD (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave it up to you to determine which images to keep. Assuming that you can keep as few as possible, which would you use to best explain the gameplay? Most games only require one screenshot, but if the game is complex enough, etc. then one or two more are warranted. Also, the prose is still not up to standards. It is too easy to spot problems, such as "requires the development of a civilization". Also, "resources in order to pay" can be "resources to pay". Please copyedit the entire article, applying the suggestions I gave above for the lead to the rest of the article. Gary King (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a note on the article talk page to determine which images should be kept and which ones removed. Hopefully that will sort out the image issues. I've also contacted the GoCE calling for the article to be copyedited. --EclipseSSD (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 17 (Grossman...) is lacking page numbers.
Current ref 18 (Age of Empires Heaven..) is used to support this sentence "Various websites exist where custom scenarios can be submitted and downloaded." but one site doesn't support "various"
Current ref 22 (Russell...) is lacking page numbers
No need to say that references are in English, that's only needed for non-English sources.
Current ref 45 (Age of Empires - PC..) needs a publisher and last access date
Current refs 46 (McDonald...) 47 (Bordelon ...) 48 ( Holland...) lack last access dates and they need to list their publisher as the other references in the article do for consistency.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am in the process of taking care of as much issues brought up so far as possible. As for AoE Heaven, I belive they could be reliable because there are several interviews on the site from key people involved in the video game [12]. --EclipseSSD (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, GameVortex.com seems to have interviews with key people involved in the various video games etc. [13] As for Game Revolution, I am not entirely sure on that one. It seems to be reliable, having staff and such, but again it's not a website I am familiar with. I am currently replacing references, where I can, and making changes as requested. --EclipseSSD (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Would it be best just to remove the part about data editing altogether? Because the sources there will not be from professional websites. --EclipseSSD (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I don't know if glitches and stuff like data editing would even be reported by third-party sites. IMO, it should be alright, but I'm not a normal FAC reviewer, only a milhist writer. :) —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 19:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Super Strong Oppose as per WP:COPYVIO. I only say "leaning" because I've only looked at one ciation... but.. It's very disheartening to scan an article for likely suspects and immediately come up with copyvio. makes it hard to look further; a bit like opening a patient and finding the cancer has spread too far to operate, so you close the patient back up. The copyvio is in the text here: "The game then went through a modified synchronous model, to enable it to run simultaneously on all machines. Only moves, changes and communications were sent to the other machines, allowing the amount of data sent through to be minimized". Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR) 15:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll try and rephrase it. If it doesn't work, it's probably better to remove it. --EclipseSSD (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed 3 out of 4; I believe that ancient civilization should stay linked so that a reader can choose which ancient civilization they wish to read about. —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 01:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should probably still link to a proper article; at the very least, perhaps a list of civilizations rather than a disambiguation page. I've pointed it to Ancient history which is fairly relevant. Gary King (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and suggest withdrawing Nowhere near 1a. Copyvio issues.
Just two examples of prose issues:
"Playing Age of Empires requires the development of a civilization" Playing...requires?
"Developed under the working title Dawn of Man,[17] Age of Empires was the first game developed by Ensemble Studios."
Copyvio from Postmortems from Game Developer Just one example, probably more:
"The files were then handed to a 2D specialist, who took the animation apart frame-by-frame and cleaned up each image with Photoshop.[17] The process involved sharpening detail and smoothing the edges of irregular shapes. However, since most of the sprites in Age of Empires has screen dimensions of around 20 to 100 pixels per unit or building, the visual quality improvement was considered significant.[17] The game was very well received at E3 1997, with the artists receiving numerous compliments on their work." BuddingJournalist 22:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On further investigation, looks like everything sourced to Postmortems is basically a copyvio. Have blanked the most egregious section (Development) and tagged with the copyvio template. BuddingJournalist 22:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering how you managed to get the book, then I found the book on Google Books here, which is searchable. I found the text there, too. Gary King (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy-close - per Julian. Sorry Eclipse... —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 01:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The situation here is trickier than a simple copyvio. I don't think anyone wants the entire article deleted ("Unless the copyright status of the text on this page is clarified, it will be deleted one week after the time of its listing.") One option would be to revert the article to before any copyrighted material was added, and delete all revisions that were made since then. Most, if not all, of the copyrighted material was added in this diff, and perhaps others after that. We need to delete revisions that contain the copyrighted material so that when people look at older revisions, they don't copy the copyrighted material back into the article's latest revision. In most cases, the situation is clearer for a single administrator to determine what to do, as often the problem is simply a new article that does not meet CSD but is a copyright violation. Thoughts? Gary King (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy closure - what should be done with copyvios is beyond my scope in terms of reviewing, but it is clear it needs a substantial overhaul and rewrite. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I didn't (and still) don't really expect this article to be a FA, just thought I'd give it a shot. --EclipseSSD (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination can be withdrawn. --EclipseSSD (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eclipse, next time, bring an article to Peer Review first and perhaps notify some of the people who participated in this FAC so they can comment on your article before it hits FAC. Gary King (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, thanks for the heads up. This isn't my first FA nomination, as those who's seen the 3 FA nominations for The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. I'll try to keep the part about bringing an article to PR first in mind. --EclipseSSD (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Support as nominator I feel this article at this time meets the FA criteria. It is a good article on the controversy and the subsequent aftermath. --Pstanton (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I spot plenty of unformatted references. Also, have you contacted the article's main contributors first before submitting this nomination, per the featured article nomination steps? Gary King (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ahh, no... oops. I asked on the article talk page, but no one ever replied there. Sorry about that --Pstanton (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request speedy close I see all of your points, and this was the first time I've ever nominated an article for FA, so I guess I should have read the guidelines more carefully, I'm going to agree that this article needs more work and I apologize for making a accidentally making a frivolous nomination. --Pstanton (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is the best we can muster for this earthquake. Comprehensive as possible, this may be the shortest FA ever, but I think it meets the criterion. The prose has been worked and there's not much that can be done. Editorofthewiki should be listed as nominator (or co-nominator?) Ceran→//forge 13:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I raised a big stink about some elements of this article when it came through DYK in early November, and I can say now that it's improved a lot—POV has been controlled well. I would probably support it for FA now (full disclosure 1: I made about 10 minor copyedits to the article in November; full disclosure 2: this is my first FAC message), I just have a few minor things I noticed:
The word "offset" in the Damage and casualties section is jargon, linked to a general wiktionary page...is it possible on wikt to link to the relevant entry on the page (which I assume is the last one)? I had to scratch my head a moment to figure out what exactly "offset" meant in this context.
I'm not exactly sure how to link to a section on a wiktionary page... and yes, it is the last one. ~EDDY(talk/contribs/editor review)~ 16:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I presume the entire Background section is from Allen, p. 689. Since there's just one ref at the end of the paragraph, I wasn't sure (couldn't tell if the ref was "covering" the last fact only, or the whole paragraph) and had to go check the source. I don't know what FAC's standards are for duplicating references (personally, I would repeat the same footnote a couple times in that section, but I dunno), so I'll leave that up to someone else to decide.
Yeah, that ref is covering the whole section. I've been criticised for repeating refs too often, and I believe one ref to cover a paragraph is FA standard referencing. ~EDDY(talk/contribs/editor review)~ 16:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "China broke its silence in response to a planned memorial service for survivors and relatives held on January 5 in Yuxi" in the Reaction section seemed a bit awkward to me; I can pretty much tell what it's trying to say, but it could be reworded to flow better. I didn't touch it for now, though, because the impression I got from the source was that the PRC spokesperson announced the quake after the memorial service...so is it accurate to say "planned memorial service" if it had already happened?
Changed to "China broke its silence after a memorial service for survivors and relatives was held on January 5 in Yuxi." ~EDDY(talk/contribs/editor review)~ 17:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still a little confused about what's going on there. That news article is from 2000, not 1988, so this couldn't have been the first time China "broke its silence"—everything else says it first announced the quake stuff in '88, and just changed its numbers in 2000. The wording in our article right now seems to suggest that the memorial service is what caused China to first announce that the quake happened...which doesn't seem to be true. Politizertalk/contribs 17:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about "China published the estimate after a memorial service for survivors and relatives was held in Yuxi on January 5"? ~EDDY(talk/contribs/editor review)~ 18:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That looks fine to me; I see you've edited in the article as well. Thanks! Politizertalk/contribs 18:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, I noticed that in the current revision, refs 2[16] and 9 [17] are pretty much the same thing (both by Elaine Kurtenbach of the AP, both containing the same content with minor differences in copyediting, just published in different newspapers 1 day apart)... should they be merged together somehow (by choosing just one of them, probably the Philadelphia Inquirer one, to use)? Politizertalk/contribs 17:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just merged the two AP refs to one (just replaced all the Texas Star ones with Philadelphia Inquirer ones). Politizertalk/contribs 17:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of the Reaction section, "The Chinese government sent tens of thousands Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong books and badges in his honor to victims as part of the relief effort," was one of the major subjects of controversy when this went through DYK in November, because its source is a news article way after the fact (published 2008) and reporting on a different earthquake, while just mentioning this one as part of its intro—so it might not be technically accurate, since the author may have been using it for flowery prose, who knows. When this article was at DYK, the compromise I made was to reword that sentence as "One foreign observer characterized the Chinese government's as consisting mostly of sending," after not too long it was copyedited to something like "according to one observer, the Chinese government responded by..." which isn't a big problem since it's pretty much the same. But in this edit, Editorofthewiki restored the original wording, with the a summary of "ce," so I don't really know his rationale. I don't mind if people want to restore that wording as long as there is a good reason; I just want to know that reason.
I thought the reason at DYK was that the information was cited to a subscription-only site. Well, I found one that was completely free, and replaced it. Anyway, they relied on official government reports, so the information is accurate. Besides, aren't newspapers considered RS? ~EDDY(talk/contribs/editor review)~ 17:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "Effects of the rupture were felt through seven counties and over 8,781 km (5,456 miles) away" might not be accurate....what the source says is "over an area of 5,456 square miles in central Yunnan." Politizertalk/contribs 17:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While the Chinese official press had not released a comprehensive report, however, Reuters and the Royal Hong Kong Observatory both released information soon after the disaster - Remove "however".
At the time of the quake, the Xinhua News Agency briefly mentioned a smaller magnitude quake but did not give information on damage or casualties. - "Give" → "provide".
Are you sure there is no more information? I understand that the earthquake was not publicized, but surely there's more information regarding the 15,000 fatalities.
I discovered the original Reuters report, which added about one senench of information, but hey, that's something. I also added to the lead a bit. ~EDDY(talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per WP:NOTNOW, which translates into 1b in WIAFA-speak.
Editor(s) need to spend much more time researching, and be creative when doing so. If search terms "Tonghai" and "earthquake" don't yield much info, try "Yunnan" and "earthquake" or "Red river fault" or... etc. I found:
damage estimates and injury figures in Early Warning Systems for Natural Disaster Reduction By Jochen Zschau, Andreas N. Küppers.
The scientific aspect of this article is covered weakly; see your own source plus "Rupture complexity of the 1970 Tonghai and 1973 Luhuo earthquakes, China, from P-wave inversion, and relationship to surface faulting" by Allen, Clarence R.; Kanamori, Hiroo; Zhou Hui-Lan. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (0037-1106) 19831201. Vol.73,Iss.6;p.Part A, 1585-1597.
"China Yunnan-Sichuan is perhaps the most seismically active region of China... characterized by shallow strike-slip faulting.. two fault lines.. this subregion highest within China... etc. " Earthquake Engineering Handbook By Wai-Fah Chen, Charles Scawthorn.
90% of buildings destroyed, more fatality figures etc. "Non-linear Static and Cyclic Analysis of Steel Frames with Semi-rigid Connections" By S. L. Chan, P. P. T. Chui
I disagree with the withdrawal, as main author and article writer. I'll work to adrss the issues, but over the course of the FAC. ~EDDY(talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not withdrawn, sorry. Ling, please provide said 'Chinese' links. Ceran→//forge 01:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1b, comprehensive: please convince us why no more than 1,000 words can be written abut a modern earthquake that killed more than 15,000 people. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ling'll send me some sources to add, but basically the reasoning behind it is that the Chinese government has refused to provide much information on the quake even now. ~EDDY(talk/contribs/editor review)~ 01:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering Dabomb87's book list, and Ling's additional sources, I suggest withdrawing the article until it's ready. FAC is backlogged, and carrying an article that needs to still encompass many other sources isn't the best use of FAC resources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not many of the Google books can be found at libraries, as they are more of an official report type of thing. Can't we at last let this run the full week? We wouldn't be having these problems, after all, if PR wasn't backlogged. ~EDDY(talk/contribs/editor review)~ 12:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PR isn't backlogged, which has nothing to do with this anyway. If you can't get people to review articles at PR, then you need to approach people who know about FAC and personally ask them to review. How likely is it that you can incorporate the new sources in a week (especially if they are not at your library)? If it is pretty unlikely, then you ought to withdraw the FAC. Karanacs (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, due to comprehensiveness issues. For 15,000 deaths, surely there's more information to be found. I've written twice this much on tropical cyclones that haven't killed anybody. I understand that tropical cyclones are different than earthquakes, and that the earthquake struck an area with little media coverage, but that Google books link confirms my concerns. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 01:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm withdrawing. I wish my library wasn't so crappy and it didn't take 10 days at the minimum for books to arrive. ~EDDY(talk/contribs/editor review)~ 17:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Journal titles/magazine titles/newspaper titles need to be in italics in the references.
Double check all your links to make sure they have access dates.
Current ref 43 (Tour Director...) needs a publisher
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. The citations in all-caps are gone...what an eye sore.
2a. I see what your saying about U-S-History.com, ill replace the references with other sources –I wouldn’t put much stock in it either now that I see the advertisements on the page. That probably isnt the best source. I got rid of the one referencing the Oregon Treaty, replacing it with an Encarta reference.
I am currently trying to find reliable sources to replace the Spokane tribe references, this ones a toughie. Ill update you when Im done with that...
Update: All U-S-History references have been replaced.
2b & c. In regard to city-data and Weatherbase, these sources may not be the sources that most people prefer (government, non-profit organizations, etc), but they aren't like citing Geocities or a blog. I have no reason to believe that these companies aren't competent at what they do. Unless I find reasons to the contrary, these sources seem as reliable of a source as Weather.com, Arbitron Inc., or Nielsen Media Research, Inc. These citations are being cited for facts that are within the sources' expertise (Weatherbase is being used as a reference for climate info, not history info, etc). I would have to ask, is there a reason why you believe they arent reliable?
It should also be noted, that both Weatherbase and city-data are currently being referenced in the San Francisco, California featured article.
3. I hope to be done italicizing them later today. Ill get back to you on that when Im finished...
Update: I think ive italicized all of them.
4. I skimmed the references section. Found one instance where there was no access date; I put one on.
File:SpokaneFromPalisades 20070614.jpg - We need to establish that Mark Wagner and User:Carnildo are the same person, since the uploader has released the license and claimed the photo as his "own work".
File:SpokaneCitySeal.png - "The image is to be used to visually represent the city in articles directly related to the team." - This fair use rationale doesn't make any sense. We also need to add the name of the copyright holder.
File:Spokane Falls 1888.jpg - According to WP:IUP, "A good source for an image from a book is to provide all information about the book (Author, Title, ISBN number, page number(s), date of copyright, publisher information)". Please also add the artist's name to the "author" field.
File:Spokane Riverfront Park 20061014.jpg - We need to establish that Mark Wagner and User:Carnildo are the same person, since the uploader has released the license and claimed the photo as his "own work".
File:Spokane at night 20071003.jpg - We need to establish that Mark Wagner and User:Carnildo are the same person, since the uploader has released the license and claimed the photo as his "own work".
Ill try to address some of the other issues later. Photos could be taken out so the article can be in full compliance with criterion 3. Anon134 (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm Mark Wagner and those images are mine. I've updated the author information. --Carnildo (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We weren't systematically reviewing images in 2005. Standards have risen. :) Awadewit (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. This double standard still doesnt seem fair, but alright... If all other issues are resolved and it comes to the point where only these nagging image problems are holding the article back from reaching its full potential, then ill just delete all the problem images. They can always be put back in when they meet the Wikipedia image standards. Anon134 (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not bad, I do have qualms with it. They are:
Realign the image in Geography either down a paragraph or to the right. I would prefer down.
"According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 58.5 square miles (152 km2), of which, 57.8 square miles (150 km2) is land and 0.8 square miles (2.1 km2) is water." - Source?
"Spokane is surrounded by many incorporated and unincorporated communities, which make up the suburbs of Spokane. They include Airway Heights, Cheney, Mead, Colbert, Spokane Valley, Millwood, Nine Mile Falls, Otis Orchards, and Liberty Lake. Across the border in Idaho, are Post Falls and Coeur d'Alene." - Source?
"Much of Spokane is reflected in its large variety of neighborhoods. Neighborhoods range from the Victorian-era style South Hill and Browne's Addition, to the Davenport Arts District of Downtown, to the more contemporary neighborhoods of North Spokane. Some of the neighborhoods are officially recognized by the city, while others are not, but are commonly thought of as distinct neighborhoods by residents. The districts include: Browne's Addition, Corbin Park, East Downtown Historic District, Fort George Wright, Four Corners, Hillyard Historic District, Marycliff-Cliff Park, Mission Avenue, Nettleton's Addition, Ninth Avenue, South Perry, Peaceful Valley, Riverside Avenue, Rockwood, Desmet Avenue Warehouse, and the West Downtown Historic Transportation Corridor." <--Source?
"In all, over 500 projects worth over $2 billion are taking place in downtown Spokane." <--Source?
The first four paragraphs of Demographics are unsourced.
I would suggest a source for the chart next to it. (Optional)
"...the denominational groups of the Spokane MSA are 43,397 Evangelical Protestant, 32,207 Mainline Protestant, 776 Orthodox, 57,187 Catholic, 17,351 Other, and 267,021 Unclaimed." - Source?
"The Strong Mayor initiative created distinct legislative and executive branches within the city government. Under the Strong Mayor form of government, there are two distinct branches of government: the Executive (Mayor) and the Legislative (City Council). The Mayor, as the Chief Executive Officer for the City of Spokane, is in charge of operating city government and implementing the policies developed by the City Council. The City Council sets the policy direction for the city." <--Source?
"Hession became mayor on December 16, 2005 after the recall of the Jim West." --Source?
Education needs major source fixes.
"Natural resources have traditionally provided much of the economic activity for the Spokane area, a major center for the timber, agriculture, and mining industries in the region"<--Source?
"The region's healthcare needs are served primarily by Seattle-based Providence Health & Services and Spokane-based Empire Health Services, two non-profit organizations who run the two biggest hospitals in Spokane, Sacred Heart Medical Center (Spokane), and Deaconess Medical Center, respectively. Both hospitals are Level II trauma centers and work together by alternating weeks of being the designated trauma center in the area. The two hospitals, along with a majority of Spokane's major health care facilities are located on Spokane's Lower-South Hill, just south of Downtown. The close proximity of the hospitals, doctors' offices, and specialized clinics scattered around this area, form what is known as the "Medical District" of Spokane." <-- Again, Source?
"The first segment of the freeway is scheduled to be open in 2009. The rest of the freeway will be built as funding is made available. With full funding, the roadway would have taken 10 years to complete." <--Source?
"Before the influx of automobiles, people got around by using Spokane's streetcar system. Many of the older side streets in Spokane still have visible streetcar rails embedded in them to this day, as they were never removed." <--- Source? from a different angle.
"Spokane has rail and bus service provided by Amtrak and Greyhound via the Spokane Intermodal Center. The city is a stop for Amtrak's Empire Builder on its way from Chicago. Through service continues once a night to both Seattle and Portland, a reflection of the old Spokane, Portland and Seattle Railway."<--- Source?
"The international airport three letter designation is "GEG", a result and legacy of the Geiger Field days prior to 1960, when the airport was was named after Army aviator Major Harold Geiger in 1941." <--Source again.
"The Northwest Museum of Arts and Culture houses a large collection of Native American artifacts as well as regional and national traveling art exhibits. Located in Browne's Addition amid the mansions of Spokane's late 19th-century golden age, the Museum is in a secluded setting a few blocks from the center of downtown." <--Source
"The First Friday Artwalk, which occurs the first Friday of every month, and is dedicated to local vendors and performers displaying art around Downtown. Spokane's two main Artwalk dates (the first Friday of February and October) attract large crowds to the art district. Spokane's main art districts are located in the Davenport District, the Garland Village, and an art district in 1800 E. Sprague area. In addition, Spokane is home to a number of art galleries, many of which are in the Davenport District. The Davenport District is also home to many of the Spokane's main performing arts venues, such as Goodworks Co-op, beneath Ella's Supper Club, which projects silent black and white movies on the back of the Fox Theater each night." - Source.
"Other musical performances are performed by Allegro-Baroque and Beyond, Connoisseur Concerts, the Spokane Chamber Music Association, and Uptown Opera. Theater is represented by the region's only resident professional company, Interplayer's Ensemble, whose seven-play season runs from September to June. Theater is also provided by Spokane Civic Theatre and several amateur community theaters and smaller groups." <--- Sources for both?
" Four years later in 2002, Spokane hosted the 2002 Skate America figure skating competition as well as the first two rounds of NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Tournament. In 2003 and 2007 the NCAA returned to Spokane with the Division I Men's Tournament, and again in 2008 with the Women's tournament." <--...Source?
"Spokane's professional sports teams include the Spokane Shock (af2), Spokane Indians (Northwest League), Spokane Chiefs (Western Hockey League), and the Spokane Spiders (Premier Development League)." <--Source?
"The Spokane Arena is the perennial host to the State 'B' Basketball Tournament, which brings athletes and fans from across Washington to Spokane. With the split of the 'B' classification in 2006, in 2007 the city began to host the State 2B (the state's second smallest class) Basketball Championships." <--Source...
"Spokane is associated as being home to some sports teams that have gained national recognition in the their respective arenas." <-- Source?
"The Spokane area offers an abundance of outdoor activities that can be enjoyed in outlying natural areas that may cater to a variety of interests, including miles of hiking trails to tread, many lakes for fishing and watersports, and numerous parks for sightseeing." <--- You know what's coming.
"Almost the entirety of "Parks and recreation" lacks sources.
Along with "Events and activities".
...and media
"Spokane has one low power (LPFM) community radio station - KYRS-LP. KYRS serves the Spokane area with progressive perspectives, filling needs that other media do not, providing programming to diverse communities and unserved or under-served groups." <--Source?
2nd paragraph and list for Television need one.
That is every dang source problem :S. Good luck fixing them.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 00:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are many facts that should definitely be cited according to the criteria, but there are many on that list that I wasnt aware would need to be cited under Wikipedia's verifiability principle, which states, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.. Other
Now, it shouldnt be too hard to find sources for many of those factoids, but I wonder if it is necessary to source some of these items?
Take the following item you listed for instance:
"Spokane is surrounded by many incorporated and unincorporated communities, which make up the suburbs of Spokane. They include Airway Heights, Cheney, Mead, Colbert..." --is this likely to be challenged by most people? I dont think there is a city in America that doesnt have incorporated and un-incorporated communites. Is it the neighborhoods themselves that you are challenging? Could it be you dont think there is actually a neighborhood called "Colbert" or "Airway Heights"??
Or this...
"Before the influx of automobiles, people got around by using Spokane's streetcar system. Many of the older side streets in Spokane still have visible streetcar rails embedded in them to this day, as they were never removed." -- Does it seem unfathomable that there are visibile streetcar rails in some of the roads, especially for a place like Spokane?
It seems like the last criteria on Wikipedia's list is somewhat subjective (what is likely to be challenged might vary from person to person). Maybe you could clarify the criteria in your own words what you think Wikipedia meant by that last one there...
I think some of the items on this list are there because of Manual of Style issues, not citation issues --Ive only been on Wikipedia a bit over a month and Im not too familiar with it. Many of these factoids will simply need a re-referencing of a previously-used source (I left some unsourced in the government section because I thought it looked sort of silly citing 3 consecutive sentences with the same source), such as the AmericanFactFinder(US Census) in the 3 paragraphs after the first one in the Demographics section:
"As of the 2000 census,[1][<--American FactFinder/US Census Bureau is the source for the following 4 paragraphs) there were 195,629 people, 81,512 households, and 47,276 families residing in 87,941 housing units at population density of 3,387 people per square mile (1,307.7/km²). The racial makeup of the city was 89.46% White, 2.07% African American, 1.76% Native American, 2.25% Asian, 0.19% Pacific Islander, 0.88% from other races, and 3.38% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 2.99% of the population.
[2nd, 3rd and 4th paragraphs also are from FactFinder/Census Bureau]...
Of the 81,512 households, 29.4% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 41.3% were married couples living together, 12.4% had a female householder with no husband present, and 42.0% were non-families. 33.9% of all households were made up of individuals and 11.7% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.32 and the average family size was 2.98..."
In the demographics section you also listed the denomination statistics-which is sourced in the sentence below:
"According to the Association of Religion Data Archives' 2000 Metro Area Membership Report,[2] the denominational groups of the Spokane MSA are 43,397 Evangelical Protestant, 32,207 Mainline Protestant, 776 Orthodox, 57,187 Catholic, 17,351 Other, and 267,021 Unclaimed."
I dont see how you missed this citation. Did you confuse it as being a citation for something else (its the only citation in the sentence). Maybe the way its cited isnt consistent with the Manual of Style and made you confused. Is that an acceptable way to cite the source according to the MoS?? I just dont know.
Anyway, thanks for your input and clarifications, reviewers. Now that I can see where the article need improvements, Ill work on them in the coming months. I know failing the FAC isnt a loss, now I know how to make this article better. I hope to fix those problems in the future in hopes it might be good enough next time its a FAC. Its going to take some time though, im the only active editor on this article right now and im pretty busy this semester, but Im going to do what I can. Thanks, Anon134 (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, as far as I can tell, all controversial info is sourced. Everything else doesn't necessarily need a reference. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 02:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ive made decent headway citing notable facts, figures, and statements that might be challenged. This wont get done by the time this review or whatever is finished (unless someone else comes on out of the blue and helps..) since I will be sorta busy in the future. Also, I know this review is pretty much done and most of the reviewers are focusing on other things, but I always welcome more opinions (makes less work for the peer reviewer if anything), so let it out. Thanks again for your time. Anon134 (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose by karanacs. Overall, this article is in decent shape. It is reasonably well-written (although another copyedit couldn't hurt) and appears to be laid out fairly well. However, I have serious concerns about the quality of the sourcing, and I do not believe that these can be adequately addressed in a typical FAC nomination time period. I encourage the nominator to withdraw this nomination, work on the sourcing issues, and then contact those of us who have reviewed the article for a peer review. I read about 2/3 of the article, and here are my comments on that:
Where are the books? The history section appears to be sourced almost entirely to a self-published book (David Wynecoop), the city of Spokane (a self-published source), Encarta (a tertiary source, which we should be avoided if possible), a newspaper (which is a reliable source) and historylink, which I can't tell if it is a reliable source or not. History sections especially need to be sourced to books which give a comprehensive overview of a topic. Otherwise, the article is essentially picking and choosing from various incomplete sources. There could be giant gaps in the coverage, or it could be giving undue weight to a specific event (or events), simply because there hasn't been a good overview of the topic. Here are a few books that might be very good resources (if your library doesn't have them, they can get them via interlibrary loan)
Michael Schmeltzer: Spokane: The City and the People (Farcounty Press, 1988) - discusses history and the local economy
Robert H. Ruby, John Arthur Brown, The Spokane Indians: Children of the Sun (University of Oklahoma Press, 2006)
Lucile Foster Fargo, Spokane Story: A Colorful Early History of the Capital City of the Inland Empire (Northwestern Press, 1957)
Florence Boutwell, The Spokane Valley (Arthur H. Clark Co., 1994)
This website http://www.mtspokane.com/mountain.php?id=70 is not an appropriate citation for geography matters, and the page does not contain the information it is supposed to be citing
There are a large number of self-published websites that are being used to cite various things outside the history section, and a noticeable lack of newspaper/magazine articles. There are two issues with this approach:
This gives the appearance of original research. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to cover what independent, reliable sources think are important in the topic area. Independent, RS don't appear to have been consulted for many sections of this article - instead, it appears that someone familiar with the city simply consulted websites of organizations that the editor felt were important to the topic. I don't think that is appropriate.
Self-published sources cannot be used to cite some of the claims that are being made - it is blatant POV. For example, the downtown spokane society is used to cite this sentence Downtown Spokane has undergone a major rebirth in recent years . They might be a little biased. Also Healthcare in Spokane is considered excellent, and the quality of service attracts patients from beyond the region is either uncited or cited to one of the hospitals. (There are many more examples of this)
There is some unnecessary detail. Do we really need to know who funded the project to renovate the Davenport Hotel (or that there is a safari-themed tower added on to it)?
The article ought to have a citation for the number of students in the two school districts - those count as statistics.
Im not going to withdrawal the nomination because I know it wont pass, I know this wont pass, its work in progress. Just because it wont pass is not a good enough reason for me to give up on this process. The point of this whole process is to diagnose problems so we can impove the aritcle and Wikipedia. Ive seen articles much worse than this go through the process, so please stop trying to deny the editors of this article the precious opportunity to improve it.
Now, with the issues. I dont understand why some of the issues are a problem.
The history section must have books? Is that a Wikpedia policy? If this is the case, then why is the Grand Forks article featured? I dont think it has ANY books. This seems to be another double standard.
The history section is not entirely sourced by Wynecoop. That is absolutely false and I think you know it, and everyone can see how wrong what you said is. The majority of the history section comes from HistoryLink.ORG, a Washington State history encylopedia that is a Washington non-profit, tax-exempt corporation. The Seattle FA uses HistoryLink several times. Also, I just replaced the source for the Spokane tribe, and I still want a better, more authoritative source; however, sources about the history of an Indian tribe are hard to come by, and I find no reason to believe Wynecoop is as bad of a source as you make him out to be. He is only used 3 times. Also, how do you know that the Wynecoop book is self-published?? Even if it was, is it Wikipedia policy that all book sources cant be self published?
Why cant we use the City of Spokane website for history? Do you believe that they are going to try to practice historical revisionism to show Spokane in a positive light? Is there a conflict of interest? I dont see what motivations there would be for doing such a thing. Most people regard government sources as reliable. The Grand Forks article cited their City website 7 times (for the history section).
Encarta too?? who can we trust? Only books? What if the book was written by a Spokane native? I think books are the least verifiable of all sources -one needs the book to verify the facts.
Regarding the UW reference, Ive been searching for a replacement for the University of Washington reference, but I havent yet found one I liked better. I wanted a source that is an authority on just Geography -but these sources also seem to be hard to come by. But, that source is a University source, and I (and most people I believe) generally regard University sources to be reliable, and didnt see an issue with citing it until I found a better source.
Why exactly are self published sources are a problem in some of these places?
Example. If I wanted to know who built the Safari themed tower and the history of the Davenport Hotel, I would think the best authority on this issue is The Davenport Hotel website and those who maintain it. What alternate source do you recommend? A book about the relatively recent restoration of the Davenport Hotel and its' new Safari themed tower? I suppose I could get a newspaper, but would that satisfy you, it would probably be the Spokesman-Review...is this biased? Another example, if I wanted to know how tall Mount Spokane is, I would expect the website for the city-owned/affiliated Mt Spokane Ski Park website would be the best authority to reference. And, to get this issue cleared up, the citation was in reference to the height of the mountain, which is in fact, verified by the source.
These arent contentious like the figures from the Pontic Greek Genocide or whatnot, these issues and are unlikely to be manipulated if this is your concern. How is it POV that we are using self-published websites like these to confirm those facts. We arent consciously cherrypicking data like you suggest, we are trying to find the most reliable source. Using the Pontic Greek Genocide example, it is not as if we are cherrypicking the highest or lowest numbers to advance an agenda of sorts; I dont believe that the editors of this article are trying to distort the fact like you seem to suggest (I dont even live in Washington BTW).
Now in regard to the sentence you are referring to about Downtown, that was a verification of the dollar amount figure, not the fact that the downtown has undergone a rebirth. The latter I dont believe is likely to be challenged, and the former would seem to verify that conclusion.
"Also Healthcare in Spokane is considered excellent, and the quality of service attracts patients from beyond the region is either uncited or cited to one of the hospitals."
The first sentence is an intro to the topic, it is supposed to be verified by the following sentences, which show that Deaconess is a hospital that is considered a leader in several area and procedures such as heart and cardiovascular problems, and this is why it would most definitely draw some patients from outside of the Inland Northwest; the source is the Deaconess website. I guess I trust that Deaconess, a non-profit organization, is honest and are acting in good faith when they included that info on their website. I dont see why you are so distrustful of some of the institutions that are being used as references.
However, one thing that I am going to do that I just realized might be a problem and I do believeshold be re-referenced is Experience Spokane to one of the citations (the one that tells of Sacred Hearts specialties, etc...I do think this is a problem.
Newpapers, this article does use several news paper and journal articles (atleast 3 I know to be in the History section -Boom and Bust, and The Great Fire article, and the Idaho Yesterdays journal. Also, is there a ratio newpaper/journal-website ratio that must be maintained?
I respect your opinion, karanacs, but before I take drastic measures and remove HistoryLink, The Davenport website, etc, I would like to know what others think of the issues you raised. I think that is going overboard. Anon134 (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, the point of FAC isn't to "diagnose problems so we can impove the aritcle and Wikipedia". That's what WP:Peer Review is for. This is to recognize WP's best work, and if it's a little short, help it over the hump. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ok then...with the addition of that goal in mind. But this is still a process where problems can be diagnosed and addressed, so we can hopefully improve the quality of the article. My point is, I still think that the process should be finished, even if it is gauranteed to fail. This is am opportunity to figure out what the current and future editors should do. Anon134 (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Took another look at Wynecoop reference, it seems he did publish his own book. I dont know if Wikipedia has a policy against this, Ive only been on Wikipedia about a month in a half or so and dont know. If that is a problem, I would like to know, and then I will scout out a new source. Being self published however doesnt automatically make him a bad source or not an authority on the topic. With the selected chapters that they included on the Wellpinit website. Here is a portion of the books bibliography:
Brown, Wm. Compton.,The Indian Side of the Story, Spokane, 1961.
Cataldo, Joseph M., "Sketch of Spokane Mission," unpublished manuscript in Oregon Province Archives, Spokane, n. d.
Curtis, Edward S., The North American Indian, Cambridge, 1907-1930, 20 vols.
Dee, Henry Drummond, The Journal of John Work, Victoria, 1945.
Drury, Clifford M., A Tepee in His Front Yard, A Biography of H. T., One of the Four Founders of the City of Spokane, Washington., Portland, 1949.
Drury, Clifford M., Elkanah and Walker, Pioneers Among the Spokanes, Caldwell, 1940.
Drury, Clifford M. [Editor],First White Women Over the Rockies, Diaries,, Letters., and Biographical Sketches of the Six Women of the Oregon Mission who made the Overland Journey in 1836 and 1838, Glendale, 1963-1966, 3 vols.
Durham, N. W. History of the City of and Washington, From Its Earliest Settlement to the Present Time, Chicago, 1912,, 3 vols.
Eells, Myron, Father Eells or The Results of Fifty-Five Years of Missionary Labors in Washington and Oregon, Boston and Chicago', 1894.
Ewers, John C., Gustavus Sohon's Portraits of Flathead and Pend d' Oreille Indians, 1854, Washington,, 1948.
Fuller, George W., A History of the Pacific Northwest, New York, 1931.
Hagan, Pauline [Compiler],Legends of the Spokanes [mimeograph], [Spokane], 1967.
Jessett, Thomas E., Chief Spokan Garry 1811-1892, Christian, Statesman, and Friend of the White Man, Minneapolis, 1960.
Kappler, Charles J., Indian Affairs Laws and Treaties, Washington, 1904-1941, 5 vols.
Kip, Lawrence,Life on the Pacific; A Journal of the Expedition the Northern Indians, the Tribes of the Coeur d' Alenes Spokans, and Pelouzes, in the Summer of 1858, New York, 1859.
Lewis, William S., The Case of Spokane Garry, Spokane [1917]
Lewis, William S., and Murakami, Naojiro, Ranald MacDonald, The Narrative of his life on the Columbia under the Hudsonn's Bay Company's regime; Of his experiences in the Pacific Whale Fishery and of his great Adventure to with a sketch of his later life on the Western Frontier 1824-1894, Spokane, 1923...
I will keep trying to find better sources as always, but I believe this to be an absolutely unacceptable source. Anon134 (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"My point is, I still think that the process should be finished, even if it is gauranteed to fail." I admire your persistence, and would normally help with the identification of issues, but a) I'm about to sign off b) FAC is so backlogged that we can't waste reviewer resources on an article that, by your own admission, is likely to fail. I recommend withdrawing the nomination, starting a peer review, and asking those who commented on this FAC to add their comments to the peer review. That way, the article is being improved (without having to wait) and FAC's burden is lessened. Disregard my suggestion if you want, but I think it is the best course of action. Regards Dabomb87 (talk) 05:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note on HistoryLink. It is technically a self-published source, but it is maintained by local historians/writers and is considered the pre-eminent history site for Washington history, particularly that of King County and Seattle.[19][20] I'm not sure when it expanded to include coverage of the rest of Washington, but considering the good stuff/reputation it has for King County and Seattle history, I don't see why it wouldn't be passed on to its coverage of the rest of Washington. --Bobblehead(rants) 16:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Could someone please organize the responses into threads to make it easier to figure out what is being replied to? I've totally lost track of things, and proper threading of responses would help greatly with keeping track of things. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is a rare example of United States Constitutional Law that became watercooler conversation. As such the page was highly trafficked and highly edited. Based on preliminary results at WP:DYKBEST it was the most viewed DYK hook during the month of November. Thus, I think there is a lot of interest in fully developing this article in the best form possible. If I can get this to pass it is about a ten-pointer at WP:TFAR on March 4, 2009 (the centenary of the first Saxbe fix).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm one of the editors who's worked on this some, but while I think it probably merits the GA status it has, I don't think it's at FA level in terms of content. It would need a much more detailed and thorough examination in the "Legality" section, for instance. Right now, the only person cited as supporting the legality of the fix is a TV reporter. And the Reagan administration's opposition to it would need to be highlighted more; right now, it's buried in the "20th century" descriptions of fixes that were used. Are there any other cases where administrations shied away from appointments due to the clause? This article doesn't give me full confidence that it's giving us a comprehensive accounting of the Saxbe fix. Also, some of the sourcing and footnoting is very rough: what makes blogger "Adam B" at Dailykos (the very first cite) a WP:RS? And there are a lot of blog entries overall used as cites; this kind of article needs law review articles as sources, not bloggers. On more minor points, "Special to The New York Times" doesn't need to be in a cite (it just means no byline), "S.J. Res. 1 (1989)" as a bare cite doesn't cut it, and the date formatting in cites is very inconsistent (some month-day, some day-month, some ISO). Wasted Time R (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Daily Kos is WP:N. In most cases in the article either the blog or the blogger is notable. I believe this is sufficient. I will format S.J. Res. 1 (1989)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Op-ed columnists, talk show hosts, opinion bloggers, and the like may very well be WP:N, but that hardly makes them WP:RS. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that blog postings by unknown commentators in well-recognized blogs are in need of supporting references from more reliable sources or are you saying that they are so unreliable that they should be expunged from articles? I am doing the former right now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I realize the urgency, Tony, but isn't there a rule against nominating a second article until you've resolved concerns from a first article and built support for it? And you have Jack Kemp on the page which seems to be having a hard time of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I worry about comprehensiveness on this article. The article gives "examples" from each century, but whether or not there were other instances in which a fix was attempted (or the whole question ignored) is covered over. There is a statement that presidential nominees were voted on quickly in the 19th century. What's that got to do with the price of bread? Were any sitting representatives or Senators appointed to the cabinet under circumstances in which a fix should have been applied? I feel like 100 years of history is being glossed over because the editors of this article just don't know whether there were any before 1893. And I second WTR's concern about the legality being glossed over. Certainly, such a case is rather unlikely to be adjudicated under the political question doctrine (as well as standing, just like the oath screw up yesterday) but that's the kind of meat that law review articles, or at least notes in law reviews (i.e., student articles, not published under an individual name, but RS because they are intensively reviewed). I'd expect to see a flurry of law review articles and notes after each instance, just like there will probably be a few over the next two years. Or what do authors of constitutional law treatises, such as Laurence Tribe, say about this? It just seems an article put together out of a few random facts and more or less cemented together.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you are asking for research that a legal scholar would do much better at producing than I would.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A number of scholarly articles have been written about the emoluments clause and the issues around it. This Google Scholar search would provide some starting points, for example. So it's not WP:CRYSTAL. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly WP:CRYSTAL. Just running Saxbe fix through Google scholar, I see what looks like a good article from the Hofstra Law Review in 1995. In my experience as an attorney, most courthouse law libraries (except, no doubt, on Long Island) wouldn't carry that, but call a law school library near you and see what they got. Or it might be online someplace.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, personally I think it would be kinda cool for you to get this through and TFA it, though maybe you are a little too "fixed" on the points record. But I'm gonna hold your feet to the fire and make sure if this does pass, that it is an article on a legal topic that a lawyer could consult and take seriously. Right now, it is not at that stage. I think it is fixable, but someone's gotta do the research, and it's kinda looking like you right now!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good standard. I have been busy overhauling Fountain of Time for an upcoming WP:GTC for the last two days. I am going to spend much of the rest of the day on this seeing what I can find.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Few google scholar articles can be accessed online. Does anyone have access to HEIN online? Many sources are listed on this database.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) You might also want to see if you can find a friendly law student. Many get free unlimited access to LEXIS and WESTLAW, which I believe includes law review articles. I am a lawyer, but I use the online research service provided by my state's bar, which does not include law reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. isn't SPS for cases like Eugene Volokh writing about www.volokh.com and not when he as a legal scholar writes about constitutional law.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, SPS is for when someone noted in the field is writing in a non-standard published form (such as a personal website/letter to the editor/etc) about a subject they are considered an outstanding scholar in. Just having a wikipedia article doesn't necessarily make them an outstanding scholar. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also concerned with the number of citations to newspaper blogs and opinion pieces.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; while I agree with Tony that the subject "is a rare example of United States Constitutional Law that became watercooler conversation," the article needs work. It has some POV problems that must be addressed before featured article status obtains.Simon Dodd (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to point a few out so that I can understand how to improve the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll happily work with you on doing so. :) The most serious POV issue, to my mind, is branding those who think the saxbe fix doesn't work "literalists." That's a pejorative term, one not used by anyone to describe themselves, and it's not even particularly accurate (a literalist would have to say that the clause has no application to Hillary since it uses the masculine pronoun). In addition, there are some writing issues that I'm in the process of cleaning up.Simon Dodd (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the term is pejoritive, it seems to be politically correct, since it is in one of the few law journal articles on the fix.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would avoid using such terminology entirely, and suggest language such as "those who hold that the plain meaning of the Constitution should govern"--Wehwalt (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Hurricane Beta was one of the seven major hurricanes to form during the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season and the record breaking 14th hurricane (breaking the record set earlier that month by Hurricane Wilma). It struck an area prone to devastating hurricanes but caused relatively little impact. Despite this, eight people were killed by the storm. This article is one of the core articles for the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season series, thus improving this article to featured status is important. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit 20:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
Anything being done on this? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I fixed this one, not sure though. Cyclonebiskit 18:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hasn't been done yet, that I can see. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:2005Beta TRMM RR.gif - Per WP:IUP, please link to the HTML page where the image can be found, rather than directly to the GIF file.
These issues should be easy to fix. Awadewit (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the one for the TRMM image but I can't change the author for the track as the file is locked to prevent further editing. Cyclonebiskit 18:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think an admin can edit it - this issue has been fixed in other hurricane FACs. Awadewit (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Apparently I can edit it. Cyclonebiskit 18:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. I'm glad to see this article has been improved, but at the moment, the prose needs work.
The wave spawned an area of low pressure that later developed into Tropical Storm Alpha the next day before weakening. - Too much detail for the lead.
The wave spawned an area of low pressure that later developed into Tropical Storm Alpha the next day before weakening. The wave produced minimal convection as it moved towards west-southwest. - "The wave... The wave..."
18:00 UTC on October 29–06:00 UTC on October 30 - Unspace the en dash.
At 12:00 UTC, Beta made landfall in central Nicaragua, with maximum sustained winds, of 105 mph (170 km/h). - Way too many commas.
Rapid weakening followed landfall, with the storm dissipating early the next morning. - "With" followed by "-ing" should be avoided.
As a tropical storm, Beta produced heavy rains over northern Panama, amounting up to 3 inches (76 mm), which caused several mudslides. - Remove "up".
Rains in Honduras totalled to 21.82 in (554 mm) and rains in Nicaragua amounted to 6.39 in (162 mm). → "Rain in Honduras totaled 21.82 in (554 mm) and 6.39 in (162 mm) in Nicaragua."
The cost to repair damages in Nicaragua was estimated at $2.1 million (2005 USD; $2.3 million 2008 USD). - Is this the damage total? There's a different between the actual damage and the cost of rebuilding.
Ok, fixed the addressed issues in the lead (some were fixed by SandyGeorgia. In response to your question about the damage, it's the cost to repair the damage. Cyclonebiskit 18:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments, still oppose
On October 21, a westward moving tropical wave entered the Caribbean Sea. - "Westward moving" should have a hyphen.
Once in the southwestern Caribbean, the wave slowed down, and convection gradually redeveloped around it on October 25. - Remove "down" and "around it".
The next day, with continued organization, the National Hurricane Center (NHC) stated that a tropical depression could develop in the following day or two - Remove "with continued organization".
At around 18:00 UTC, the NHC determined that Tropical Depression Twenty-Six had developed about 105 miles (170 km) north of the north-central cost of Panama. - "North of the north" reads a bit oddly.
With favourable conditions for development, Beta was forecast to intensify into a hurricane before making landfall in central Nicaragua. - Why the British spelling here, but not elsewhere?
An increase in wind shear caused a minor disruption of the storms structure, briefly preventing strengthening. - "Storms" → "storm's".
Around 00:00 UTC on October 29, Beta passed very close, or over Providencia Island with winds of 70 mph (110 km/h), just below hurricane-status. - Why not just "passed near"?
As the pinhole eye became more pronounced - Redundant to the previous sentence.
Beta continued to intensify as convection continued to deepen around the 11.5 mi (18.5 km) wide eye,[12] and strengthened into a Category 2 hurricane with winds of 105 mph (170 km/h). - The subject of "and strengthened into" is unclear.
The sentence structure of the final paragraph in the storm history section is rather repetitive. "At X on October X, Beta..."
Ok, made the corrections and replaced some of the excess uses of Beta. Also added the IPA for the pronunciation in the lead. Cyclonebiskit 19:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's been a good article for a while, and now that the appeal has failed, I don't think the story will develop much in the short term. I am willing to make fixes based on suggestions here, and feel that the article isn't too far from featured status is ready to go through FAC. J Milburn (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've not read the article, but if by your own admission it is not yet up to FA standard, ("isn't too far from featured status"), then it has been brought here too soon. Peer review, not FAC, is the place for suggestions and fixes. It is a stated requirement for nomination (see above) that you ensure that when you bring an article here, it meets all the FA criteria. You should consider withdrawing and taking the article to PR. Brianboulton (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying, but I don't think I really meant that. I meant that I don't see any reason why this could not be raised to featured status- another editor (with a few FAs under their belt) reccomended that I bring the article here some time ago, so I am acting on their judgement now I am sure the article is stable. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Also, date linking and formatting in the citations are inconsistent, and curly quotes are used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dab links fixed, date linking now consistent (formatting was consistent anyway I believe?) and curly quotes have been removed (or, I changed curly to "n" on the few cite news templates that had it). J Milburn (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - All three images are fair use and, in my opinion, they satisfy WP:NFCC. Awadewit (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evening Mail links have been switched to the hardcopy versions; I had to assume that they were printed the day before they appeared online, but I'm honestly not certain about that. If it matters to anyone, I could probably sift through an archive of papers at my local library, but I'd rather not... Does anyone know of a way I can back up those other Evening Mail links in case they go dead too? J Milburn (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have NO idea how to go about finding an internet archive version of those stories, but hopefully someone watching will have an idea. That would be an option for this problem, I think. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper. (I noted current ref 9, Bunyan, Nigel but there are others.)
The Lean, Sandra No Smoke book is published by this company: http://www.jacketflap.com/pubdetail.asp?pub=11563 which is a "low-cost self-publishing imprint of Diggory Press" What makes the book reliable then?
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The North West Evening Mail and News and Star websites are online copies of local newspaper articles- I occasionally read the Evening Mail, but I am outside the catchment zone of the News and Star. That said, I know all of them, if they appeared online (which they did) were published in the paper too. Inside Time is a magazine for prisoners, which (I assume) are online copies of hard-copy articles. What's the best way around the deadlinks? As for the Sandra Lean book, it has been discussed by reputable sources (Evening Mail, Evening News, and so on) and forms an interesting element of the case as a whole. Lean may not be well known, but her views are respected by the press and so I think we can consider her book a reliable source. Looking through the book, it seems legit- I work in a bookshop, so I see a lot of the "local history book" types with stickers on the back- this is printed professionally, cites all its sources in the bibliography and comes across as a (rather specialist) serious work of non-fiction, by someone who knows what they are writing about. The book is also recognised by Park's supporters, though was in no way written or influenced by them. MurderUK is probably not reliable- I put that down to the fact I wrote most of this article a while ago. Same with the italics- that's something I'm rather fussy about now. I'll see what I can do about that in a sec. J Milburn (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not questioning the reliability of thoses sites (only the murderuk.com site is questionable on reliablity) but was pointing out that the links do not work. They need to be repaired to work or the links need to be removed and the references fixed to point to print versions of the articles. And if the publisher for the Lean book is a self-publisher site, it's effectively a self-published work and needs to satisfy WP:SPS. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MurderUK has been filtered out. Though I wasn't aware that No Smoke was self published, I would consider it reliable due to the recognition it has received from the press. I will look into getting hold of archived versions of those articles. J Milburn (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that recognition in the press is an indicator of reliability. A self-published work can be a source about itself but is unlikely to be a reliable source otherwise.Fainitesbarleyscribs 23:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
Carol was said to time her periods away from home to coincide with the school term. School holidays?
Only one I can see is "home for another man, and, indeed, it would" and this is correct, "indeed" is placed in parethesis. (Or, what I call parenthesis; what Americans call parenthesis, I know as "brackets". I don't know the American term for my parethesis.) J Milburn (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It really needs a copy edit for punctuation and sentence construction.
Yeah I call 'em "brackets" too.
Despite the fact that Gordon owned a large yacht in 1997, in 1976, he owned a 505 racing dinghy, which he sold later that year needs rewording.
I've not rephrased it much, but I think it is a little clearer now? Let me know what you think. J Milburn (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Park has three children[43]– Jeremy, who founded freegordon.com in support of his father,[14] and Rachael. Their mother was Carol.[5] Park's third child, Vanessa, was adopted by Gordon and Carol when she was 18 months old, after her mother, Christie, (who was Carol's sister) was murdered by her boyfriend in 1969, aged 17. is confusing and needs rewording.
Some excessive wordiness and over-interpretation. Here Gordon claimed that she had left home for another man, and, indeed, it would seem that their relationship was turbulent, with Carol having left their home in Leece twice before for example. The source just says she'd left home twice before to live with her lover.
Parts of it still read as if the appeal was still pending. I have corrected the lead but the paragraph about the new evidence reads as if the new evidence used in the appeal were still awaited.
What are you referring to specifically? "His children, Jeremy and Rachael, appointed a new legal team in an attempt to find grounds for appeal." still sounds OK to me, and nothing else really mentions the appeal. J Milburn (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rob Rode, Parks' solicitor, hopes to hear from Manchester Crown Court on whether the grounds for appeal are strong enough for it to be taken to the Court of Appeal in London and It has not been revealed what the new evidence is,[21] only that it "was not available at the original trial for example. Fainitesbarleyscribs 18:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Under "Witnesses". It has also been said that Park had never actually met Wainwright. Actually the source used says Park claimed he had no recollection of meeting Wainright. Not the same thing.
I think the article ought to mention that one of the children - Vanessa - was a witness for the prosecution. At the moment the article gives the impression that the divide is between Prices children and the victims family.
I have read the judges summing up. The section in the article about the evidence concerning the piece of rock and the slate is not accurate and is presented in a way that does not do justice to either the finding of the rock or the forensic evidence. I think the judges summing up of the evidence would in general be a better source for the evidence than newspaper reports. Theres a number of parts where the article says things like "its said by some" or "it has been said" when this derives from newspaper articles. Whilst it is true that a judges summing up does not repeat all the evidence, it does cover it pretty thoroughly. Newspaper reports can add to this but at the moment the points emphasised appear rather selective.Fainitesbarleyscribs 22:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have also read the summing up (though it was a while ago now, so I would have to reread it) but I didn't want to cite it heavily as I considered it a primary source. I thought that it would be best to focus the article on the evidence that the press focussed on, to save me having to make judgements about what to include and what not to, based on what I believed to be important. As it is, I have included details that the press have talked about a lot, and omitted those that the press don't really mention. There's too much evidence to have in a single article. J Milburn (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there no better image of Carol Park? The one currently in use is of exceedingly poor quality; it doesn't really show her face, even. NSR77T 00:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really- this is one of the few I have seen, and is certainly one of the most widely used. There's this one, but that is not used outside the Freegordon website. Would we still have a valid claim of fair use, do you think? In fact, I think I will contact Jeremy Park and ask for permission to use the images on the website. J Milburn (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contacted- I have been in contact with Jeremy before, he was very helpful in the past pointing me towards some very useful sources, so hopefully he'll be willing to release that (and other) images for use in the article. J Milburn (talk) 09:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jeremy sadly wasn't happy for the images to be released under a free license. J Milburn (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, 1c. I'm sorry, but the Lean book is a dealbreaker for me as it stands; examining the prose is not possible until we get past the point. Can you provide some links to how this meets WP:SPS? According to that page, the person must have been otherwise recognized as an expert, or the work must be cited as authoritative by reliable sources. --Laser brain(talk) 04:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lean has been used by various newspapers as an authority (The Scotsman, The Evening News and my the North West Evening Mail (see cited source) and she has been a guest speaker at events about miscarriages of justice. (Source). Her opinions have received attention, and she has been treated as an expert independent of the cases/campaigns she reports on by reliable sources. For that reason, I would consider her book a reliable source. J Milburn (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get from reading those stories that she is considered an authority. Two of those stories are written by the same woman. I have no doubt her opinions have received attention, but that doesn't = authority. Rather, she strikes me as someone who's been busy will self-promotion and has gotten herself interviewed by reporters and invited to speak at gatherings. --Laser brain(talk) 18:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give me an example of what you are looking for? J Milburn (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, I would like to see some evidence that any of her opinions have been accepted by the media or people involved with the case as being authoritative. My point is that having one's opinions cited in the news doesn't make one's self-published book a reliable source. They seem two different things. I've had my opinion about mass transit published in a local newspaper - but if I self-published a book about mass transit I wouldn't expect it to be cited in an encyclopedia. I hope I am making sense.. or maybe I've just gone off the deep end. --Laser brain(talk) 04:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Laser's concerns about sources. Lean's book automatically strikes me as suspect considering the title, but I'm not seeing any sort of SPS fulfilling. What would sway me more than newspapers is other books by recognized authors or summat' (evidence that historians or scholars are giving her accounts weight, rather than just newspapers and interest groups giving her a voice.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The book is reasonably newly published and, to the best of my knowledge, no other books discuss the Park case. There was a documetary, but that was long before the book was published. J Milburn (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because this article has everything that is necessary to describe the episode. In the previous nomination, one of the reasons cited was that it was too short. Unfortunately, there is a lack of people who review or wrote comments about Cartoons on Nick, so this show doesnt have as many citations to lengthen it as other TV episodes do. Besides that, I ready to do whatever needs to be done to get this featured. The Placebo Effect (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeWeak neutral; citation 19. Also, six reviews should get at least three paragraphs; see User:Steve's comments on this FAC. Sceptre(talk) 17:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Citation 11 is bad too. Please ref it properly. :-):-) Seriously, why was this not caught before the nomination? I won't oppose since I only found that during a quick scan, but it does surprise me. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll fix up the citations tonight, as well as beefin up the reception section. The Placebo Effect (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't expect that this FAC would be reviewed so quickly, so I added it and dropped a note for Placebo to do. Hopefully, that should be fixed soon. NuclearWarfare(Talk) 00:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a question. For info from an episodes DVD commentary, which cite template should it use? Video or Episode? The Placebo Effect (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter. I use episode for commentaries because I find it more customiseable. Good way to cite a DVD can be seen here:
{{cite episode |credits = Commentators |airdate = DVD release date |title = Episode title |medium = DVD commentary |series = DVD the episode is on (e.g. Avatar Vol 3 Disc 2) |publisher = DVD publisher |season = Season number |number = Episode number |accessdate = Today }}
What does "Six reviews need 3 paragraphs" mean? --haha169 (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rule of thumb to make sure you're adequately summarising critics: for each review, try to write half a paragraph, at least, about it. Sceptre(talk) 01:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But I only see 4 different citations in the first two paragraphs that refer to critical reviews. (3, 8, 15, and 19)--haha169 (talk) 04:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. I still feel that the full range of critical opinion expressed in the sources has made its way into the article, though. However, I've switched to neutral on this FAC. Sceptre(talk) 21:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article stats (were the principle contributors consulted?):
Very Weak Oppose This article does not have as much plot as I hoped, so I added more info in the summary in Parts 3+4. It still doesn't have too muchb detail.If it doesn't make it, I'll nominate it to WP:GAN where it would have better chances an d where it deserves. Good luck!What!?Why?Who? (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it is already a Good Article...--haha169 (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we've been trying to keep out the excessive overdetailing that people (including you) it seems have been trying to add, including superfluous text like: "after defeating the Fire Lord and bringing harmony to the world." While it sounds nice, things like that have really already been said. NuclearWarfare(Talk) 05:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - There are two fair use images in this article and both meet WP:NFCC. Awadewit (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is it used as a review, but it isn't presenting any factual evidence that might require verification. Only an opinion on what some people may think about the episode.--haha169 (talk) 06:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose from Dabomb87 (talk·contribs) The prose needs polishing; I shouldn't be able find these issues easily this late into the nomination (granted, this FAC hasn't received much love)
"which originally aired on July 19, 2008," Second comma is unnecessary
"This four-part movie focuses" That it is divided into four parts was mentioned merely a paragraph earlier. You said "series finale" there, now you say movie, which is it?
"and his refusal to kill Firelord Ozai, despite his proven untrustworthiness" What does his being untrustworthy have to do with refusing to kill someone?
"Zuko's tracker, June, is unable to locate Aang, but she is able to find Zuko's uncle, Iroh."
"and they plan to liberate the Earth Capital, Ba Sing Se, from Fire Nation rule"-->who plan to liberate the Earth Capital, Ba Sing Se, from Fire Nation rule
I see a lot of word repetition: "June, is unable to locate Aang" ... "but she is able to find Zuko's uncle" and "and they plan to liberate the Earth Capital" ... "A plan is formed" Dabomb87 (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I'd like more introduction for someone who hasn't watched the show; right off the bat from the lead I'm lost and confused as to what is going on. For example: "This four-part movie focuses on Aang's non-violent personality and his refusal to kill Firelord Ozai, despite his proven untrustworthiness." First off, I thought this was a four-part television finale, not a movie. Secondly, no idea who Aang or Ozai are, and how Ozai is proven untrustworthy.
I'm unsure how to fix this. However, anyone who reads this article probably has watched the TV series before, and if they haven't, Aang and Ozai are both wikilinked, though admittedly, those articles still have to be fleshed out. What would you suggest? NuclearWarfare(Talk) 23:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to address the second part of the comment "four-part" is more of a description of the "movie". The movie in itself is "four-part", hence "four-part movie" It was advertised as a movie by Nickelodeon anyway, but sometimes listed as individual episodes. --haha169 (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The plot summary would look a lot nicer if just combined into straight prose without the level three headings. When one episode ends and another begins can be stated in prose. Once again, there's a lack of plot details for unfamiliars to the series.
I can't really find a way to integrate well the episode ending times into the prose. Saying, for example: "declares Azula to be the new Fire lord, as part one ends" just seems wrong to me. NuclearWarfare(Talk) 23:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty enough plot details within the article to address the movie. For major series events that may have been omitted in the article could be found in the parent article. Pretty much all of the important plot devices within the movie has been included. --haha169 (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's lots of one-line or sentence paragraphs that should either be fleshed out, removed, or merged to another paragraph.
The only one-liner I see is the final sentence, which I don't see how to merge into another paragraph. NuclearWarfare(Talk) 23:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That one-liner paragraph could not be merged, but it is recent and upcoming information, and it could expanded with due time. But besides that Annie Awards one, there are no other one-liners. --haha169 (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the prose is very poor - the article requires extensive, third-party copy-editing to bring it up to FA standard. This nomination is premature. Graham ColmTalk 17:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Operation Winter Storm was a German counterattack near Stalingrad in December 1942, aimed at reversing the misfortune of having the Sixth Army surrounded by the Red Army. I believe that this article meets the criteria; anything that does not can quickly be fixed (as usual). Thank you! JonCatalán(Talk) 17:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3
All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Vmanstein.jpg - Do we have any more information on the source of this image, such as a link to where it can be accessed or some information on where the archive is held?
These issues should be easy to resolve. Awadewit (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Awadewit. The image of von Manstein was discussed during the candidacy of the article Third Battle of Kharkov. The image is apparently protected under the Alien Property Custodian, whereas the photograph are not protected in the United States, so it can be hosted on en-wiki but not on commons. I also added a source for the map; David M. Glantz provides a map in one of his books (they're not the same map, but they both show the same thing). JonCatalán(Talk) 16:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just avoided the Manstein discussion altogether and replaced the image with one from the Bundesarchiv. JonCatalán(Talk) 17:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, it is not the license that I was concerned about with the Manstein image. I was concerned that we were not giving users enough information to find the image off-wiki, if they so desired, per WP:IUP. The new image checks out. Awadewit (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
Should note in the bibliography any sources not in English. (I'm looking specifically at the Isaev ref)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealdgyth (talk • contribs) 19:56, January 13, 2009
Oops, sorry about that; it didn't hit me when I added the reference (I was busy trying to extrapolate information provided by the owner of the book on the article's talk page). Should be added now. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Article looks good now. Xclamation point 20:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComment While the article is well-written and referenced, and impressive in its detail for a relatively short article given its subject (which is no criticism), it fails to drive home the importance of this battle. The failure of this operation effectively doomed the Sixth Army, did it not? I think this campaign should be placed in greater context, and a top-level view given of its importance to the Eastern Front and war as a whole. A sentence or two in the intro and the same or a short paragraph at the conclusion would tell the reader why this battle is important. To put it more bluntly: Should we care about this battle? We should-- tell us why. Kablammo (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about that, but when I was trying to implement the paragraph it was difficult without reiterating what was already said before. The failure of the operation had as much to do with the lack of strength to break the encirclement as with the Sixth Army's refusal to breakout. This is mentioned in the article. So, while the failure of the offensive did play a part in the ultimate destruction of the Sixth Army, it was the Sixth Army's refusal itself which had a major impact. This is stated in the article, although I guess it would make sense to put it in the lead (which I will). JonCatalán(Talk) 20:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you could take out some of the detail in the lead. It need not be simply a summary of the article; it should draw the reader in.
I'd also add something to the conclusion, even if it is something to the effect that the failure of this operation, coupled with the Sixth Army's (Paulus'?) refusal to attempt to break out to meet the spearhead, effectively ended large-scale ground efforts to break out of Stalingrad. This led to the Sixth Army's eventual surrender, and the loss of all German gains (of 1942? east of the Donets?) on the southern part of the eastern front-- whatever works. Stalingrad is commonly recognized as a German catastrophe and a turning point; this operation should be put in that context. It is an excellent article but needs a little more for the average reader. Kablammo (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, on the other hand, I don't think this article should state anything about the end of the Stalingrad operations and the beginning of the Soviet drive westwards; that should be reserved for the Stalingrad article. Soviet operations to the West are irrelevant to this, really, and so there shouldn't be a lot of detail about that. Perhaps in the Little Saturn article (once I write it), but not in the Winter Storm article. Not a lot of conclusions should be made here, especially since a lot of these conclusions are not explicitly supported by sources (they are, in effect, original research). JonCatalán(Talk) 20:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why the significance of this operation cannot be related to later developments. (See Guadalcanal Campaign and Battle for Henderson Field as examples.) I can no longer remember where I first read of this operation, nor almost anything about what I read, except that its failure effectively doomed the Sixth Army as the airlift never had a chance of success. Kablammo (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change to "Support", after edits to lede. Kablammo (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added another paragraph to "aftermath", which gives some details on the future of the Sixth Army. It also adds a sentence about the interesting perspective that the encirclement tied down a large number of Soviet troops, jeopardizing their later offensives. JonCatalán(Talk) 21:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, 1a. This looks promising, and it is a great read! However, I rapidly found many prose issues that need the attention of a fresh copyeditor. Please get someone to go through it with a fine-toothed comb and clean up the sentence structure, grammar, and so on. I don't believe this should be attempted within the timeframe of this nomination.
"As the Red Army continued to build up strength ..." Would "build strength" change the meaning? If not, never use a word you don't need.
"Due to the reluctance to weaken certain sectors ..." This sentence is much too long—one forgets the beginning before making it to the end. Also, whose reluctance?
"The German force would be pitted against an array of Soviet armies ..." The clauses here are not grammatically correct. Take out the clause in the middle and we're left with something that doesn't even make sense.
Minor grammar issues spotted easily (ex. "Although ultimately German forces took ..." and "Due to the failure of the Sixth Army to breakout and the attempt to break the Soviet encirclement ...")
Comma use is all over the map, and long sentences are strung together oddly.
Passive voice obscures or eliminates subjects (ex. "Instead of attempting an immediate breakout, it was decided that the trapped forces ...")
A lot of wordiness contributes to the sentence length problems (ex. "Many of the aircraft were hardly serviceable in the rough weather of the Soviet winter ..." could be "the rough Soviet winter")
With the current velocity of the nomination process, and the two supports, I believe that this can be solved within the supposed "timeframe". Will get on it. :) JonCatalán(Talk) 04:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes, please withdraw this nomination. Hopefully, I'll be taking a wikibreak for the month of February and what remains of January. JonCatalán(Talk) 17:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for FA status because the content is well-developed, it has undergone a review that incorporated a finely detailed analysis, and it is of noteworthy quality that might be able to satisfy FA standards. --Wikitrevor (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review — images check out okay (public domain, or correctly CC licensed), except for:
File:OilSheenFromValdezSpill.jpg: this requires a source from where this image is acquired to prove that it is indeed from U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Jappalang (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as I don't feel like posting issues, i'll run through and do any copyediting myself. Ceran→//forge 02:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I really love this article! The flow of the prose is really good, and I'm giving it a copyedit, but mostly that's just replacing words here and there. Ceran→//forge 00:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have two problems: Lack of a variety of sources and image choice. Source 11 is used over 30 times, and it is often the only reference for entire sections (much of the Behavior, Characteristics, and Habitat), and Threats and the former need more references overall; in FAs a ref for the entire paragraph may nor suffice. I would prefer more different sources on individual facts. For images, I know that there a lot more photos of river otters on Commons; there are only four pictures of otters and a majority of the article has none at all. The boring photo of an oil spill is unnecessary and can simply be wikilinked. Reywas92Talk 02:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll work on getting the sources diversified. The oil spill photo has been taken care of. --Wikitrevor (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Also, pls review WP:MOS#Images; some of the images are looking off of the page, and could be juggled right-left. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken care of the dabs. Dana boomer (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The oil spill image has been removed and replaced with an air pollution picture (that is perhaps more interesting and captivating).
Strongly Opposed A quick review reveals the following concerns.
Is it necessary to provide multiple citations from a single statement that is neither profound nor controversial? For example: "The statement: However, river otters will prey on Trout, Pike, Walleye (Sander vitreus vitreus), Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), and other game fishes during spawning has three references.
There is undue emphasis on food selection. A single heading Hunting and diet similar to that in Giant Otter would suffice. The multitude of subsection for each type of animal consumed is distracting. Nearly twenty species of fish are listed by name simply by virtue of the fact that otters may eat them. This is repeated for birds and mammals.
The article reads like an assemblage of journal articles as certain sections go into excessive detail. For example: In Idaho, juvenile, yearling, and adult males averaged 8, 11, and 17% heavier, respectively, than females of the same age. In Idaho? Does this pertain to the species in general or is this as I suspect original research extracted from a single study that is being adapted to an encyclopedia. Example: River otters host numerous endoparasites such as nematodes, cestodes, trematodes, the sporozoan Isopora, and acanthocephalans. Such endless details destroy prose and seems to be overkill. Numerous list exist in the article which makes extracting information of a general nature difficult if not painful.
Although not essential for FA; many of the references are not accessible (not even abstracts) online. This prohibits verification with exception of those with access to major libraries and defeats the true value of online encyclopedias. I assume we will all have to trust that the resources are valid.
A separate heading for hunting versus feeding seems redundant and disorganized
Fail to see the purpose of Population localization under the heading Habitat In fact another section Geographic range spreads out the information even more. A single comprehensive section covering where they live would be adequate; similar to what was done with the Giant Otter.
There seems to be excessive reliance on one primary reference by Lariviere, Serge; Lyle R. Walton. The article borders on being a summary of this publication.
The oil spill image has since been replaced with factories belching smoke. Is this in case the reader needs visual reinforcement of the concept of pollution? In fact, lower half of the article is so stark and devoid of visual stimuli it verges on intimidating. The layout in general is not visually appealing and does little to invite the reader into the subject.
Paraphrasing is lacking in that some sections are lifted directly from the source with no apparent effort to restructure. Case in point is verbatim and lacks quotations. This borderlines on plagiarism and is not suitable in an article of FA stature. A quick comparison to the text below with the source here [27] (scroll down to section entitled threats). If not plagiarism -- certainly editorial laziness.
Threats to otter populations in North America vary regionally. Otter inhabitation is affected by type, distribution, and density of aquatic habitats and characteristics of human activities. Preceding the settlement of North America by Europeans, otters were prevalent among aquatic habitats throughout most of the continent. Unregulated trapping, loss or degradation of aquatic habitats through filling of wetlands, and development of coal, oil, gas, tanning, timber, and other industries, resulted in extirpations, or declines, in otter populations in many areas. In 1980, an examination conducted on U.S. river otter populations determined that they were extirpated in 11 states and had experienced drastic lapses in 9 other states. The most severe population declines occurred in interior regions where fewer aquatic habitats supported fewer otter populations. Although the distribution of otters became reduced in some regions of southern Canada, the only province-wide extirpation occurred on Prince Edward Island.[1]
This entry was submitted as part of a class project Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2008. Perhaps the student is hoping to use this forum to solicit editorial help or guidance. If so, this is NOT the place to do that. I suggest peer reviews or recruitment from users knowledgeable on the subject. Assuming there is a teacher in charge - they may be in the position to make suggestions so that the article is more reflective of FA status before it is submitted. --Croatancrazy (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Croatancrazy, I believe you have identified some concerns that need to be addressed, and I will absolutely do my best to fix them. However, in doing so, you have expressed yourself in a manner that is not in good practice. For instance, you claimed I have I have "editorial laziness," but I beg to differ. I've put a painstaking amount of time and effort into making this article what it is, so you really don't have much room to label me as a lazy individual. Secondly, instead of acting using a Sock Puppet account and a false identity to review me, why don't you use your regular account so we can all know your true colors? I do appreciate your review though, and I will do what I can to address those concerns. By the way, I have a hunch on who you really are, so I might suggest that you go ahead and identify yourself. If you have a problem with me or something I may have done to offend you, then feel free to address me under your true identity.
Perhaps an Admin. could transfer this discussion to the talk page. Beginning with: "This entry was submitted as part of a class project ..." and ending with my comments here. (Please) Clearly these additional commentaries are irrelevant to the FA nomination; but rather address the editors. I have real world knowledge of this individual and have on multiple occasions solicited their opinions and requested their input. I will (in the real world) request that they abstain from voting and limit their critiques to commentaries. Otherwise, this might qualify as a case of recruitment for the purpose of obtaining votes. It was recruitment (guilty) but for the purpose of honest and specific evaluations of my students efforts. Perhaps a course in sensitivity may be in order although I'm not sure if they will see their commentaries as especially harsh - I'm guessing humorous. As to the commentaries specific to the article - those doing the FA review will either accept or reject them as valid concerns and the editors to the article can chose to address them or ignore them as they see fit. For those who wish to discuss the pros and cons of placing class projects or student work on the world-wide stage, my talk page would be an excellent place for such a discussion. Such projects are not without major pitfalls. Again please transfer this unfortunate sequence of text to the discussion page if it falls within the powers of an Admin to do so. --JimmyButler (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to go ahead and "de-list" this article from FA nomination. I believe that valid concerns have been raised over the content of the article and perhaps submitting the article this early in the game was "jumping the gun." Clearly there is still much work that needs to be done before the article satisfies the FA criteria, and I'll take every measure to ensure that the standards are ultimately met. For now though, the article should not remain on FAC list.
I'd like to nominate this article for FAC. It has passed its good article nomination, has had a peer review, whose comments have since been included. I believe the article to meet the FA criteria. Principal contributors in terms of edit counts are myself and Silly rabbit. Thank you for the review.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakob.scholbach (talk • contribs) 15:52, January 17, 2009
Oppose per criterion 1.(c). Just looking at the lead:
... tuples of real numbers such as Euclidean vectors ... – and "Euclidean vector" is about physical vectors. The electric field vector at the point one metre above my centre of mass as of 00:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC) is not a triple of numbers per se. (It can be specified by a triple of numbers if you choose a basis). BTW, don't assume that everyone knows what the heck a tuple is. This is the second paragraph of the lead. See WP:NOT PAPERS, point 5 (and note that it is a policy, not a guideline).
... they are completely specified by a single number called dimension. I think this is supposed to mean that all vector spaces with the same dimension are isomorphic to each other; but that's not how someone who doesn't already know this would understand this sentence. And, even with my interpretation, I think this only applies to finite-dimensional vector spaces.
FYI, it applies to all vector spaces. Algebraist 17:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(I'm striking that out then. --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 17:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC) BTW, out of curiosity, how does one prove that? Does one need the axiom of choice? --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 17:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Yes. The statement that every vector space has a dimension is ZF-equivalent to full AC. Algebraist 17:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I won't even bother to finish reading it. --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 17:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do I understand you right, Army1987, that you see a factual error in the lead section? By the guideline you cite yourself, the lead should be an accessible overview, detailed explanations on choices of bases should (and do) come in the body of the article. While Euclidean vectors are ad hoc a physical concept, they do convey the right understanding of (mathematical) vectors and vector spaces, and were indeed one of the historical roots of them, so I think it is appropriate to mention them at this point.
As for "they are completely specified by a single number called dimension." I fail to see what possible wrong intuition could be implied by that wording, but perhaps a layman reviewer could tell? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Euclidean vectors: I have reworded this a little. Notice, though, that the corresp. article says "In three dimensional Euclidean space (or R3), vectors are identified with triples of numbers corresponding to the Cartesian coordinates of the endpoint". Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps write, instead of "vector spaces are completely specified by a single number called their dimension" (which is hard to "visualize" by a non-mathematician), write "for each natural number n and each field K, all vector spaces over K having dimension n are isomorphic, i.e the "same". In particular, this implies that all vector spaces over a particular field of scalars, are completely specified by a single number called the dimension.". --PST 23:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't cover the infinite-dimensional case. Algebraist 01:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the wording of the first sentence I cited implies that Euclidean vectors are a particular type of tuples of natural numbers, while the reverse is true. As for the "infinite-dimensional case", in the current version "number" does link to cardinal number, although anybody who doesn't follow that link won't consider infinity to be a number. (If a way to address these issues occurs to me, I'll point it out.) --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 02:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I have reworded it to avoid the implication made you are referring to. As for the possibly infinite dimension: I also think that lay readers won't think of infinity (or even a particular type of it, countable/uncountable) as a number. However, it would be less correct to write, say: "They are specified by a number called dimension, which may be infinite.", because this implies that all spaces of infinite dimension are isomorphic, which is not true. At the moment I don't see a good way of a) not telling what a cardinal number is (as opposed to the every-day meaning of number) and b) making a correct statement. We could just remove that part of the sentence. What do you think is best? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For now I've just unhidden the word "cardinal" from that link, but it should still be made clearer. --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 11:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I chose to remove that bit of information. As I saw when re-reading the "motivation and definition" section, the possibility of being infinite is mentioned, and the precise statement (i.e. mentioning "cardinality" is given below), so this bit of information may be omitted in the lead. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your recent change, which is better than what we had before. I trimmed it down a bit. I hope that settles this matter? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck out the "Oppose" as the lead has been improved. If I have time to take a more careful look at the rest of the article, I'll decide whether to support. --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 16:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The section on vector bundles is good but has some flaws. For example, to explain why the Mobius line bundle is different from the cylinder globally (i.e why the bundle is non-trivial), the section refers to orientable surfaces. While this is OK if you are dealing with smooth bundles, it is not in this case. Orientability is a property of differentiable manifolds and since "looks like" in the image caption links to homeomorphism, you are not in actual fact explaining why this is a trivial bundle (homeomorphisms do not necessarily preserve orientability). In effect, orientability only distinguishes differentiable manifolds but not topological spaces that are also differentiable manifolds (and I think you are dealing with the category of topological spaces here). Some parts of the section have to be rewritten. Note that, it is indeed true that globally the Mobius strip is not homeomorphic to the cylinder but the current explanation is not correct. --PST 09:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but my point is that orientability is not preserved under homeomorphisms. Therefore, the explanation in "vector bundles" is not adequate. --PST 15:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. You might want to read the article Algebraist is referring to. It says (correctly) "A compact n-manifold M is orientable if and only if the top homology group, , is isomorphic to ". A similar statement holds for non-compact manifolds, where on has to consider (co)homology with compact support. Homology groups are a purely topological invariant, i.e., given a homeomorphism M → N, the groups are isomorphic. Therefore the statement in the article is right. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I myself work in homology theory (please don't attack (in the second last sentence you implied more than just "I don't know what a topological invariant is")). It is just some parts of differential topology which I am not familiar with. I might be confused but isn't it true that the map f(x, y) = (−x, y) is a homeomorphism of the plane, whereas it has negative Jacobian determinant and therefore is not orientation preserving? --PST 21:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, homeomorphisms need not preserve orientation, but they do preserve orientability. Algebraist 22:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was seriously confused! Yes, I wasn't thinking clearly (I knew that but was thinking something else). Thanks for pointing that out Algebraist. --PST 22:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching this thread. In partial defense of PST, I would note that at Orientability#Topological definitions, two of the definitions are somewhat dubious here. The first says a surface is not orientable if there is an embedded Moebius band. The second says that transition functions preserve orientation. Both rather beg the question! However Jakob has centred the point that this is a topological invariant, even if it is hard to make that intuitively clear. Consequently that would clearly be the wrong way to explain the issue in this article. The current article doesn't attempt such an explanation and I am happy with the current text. Geometry guy 23:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I don't know the best way to express my opinion without sounding too critical. Please know that all I want to accomplish by this post is to give some feedback.) While the article is well developed (in fact, very well-developed), it feels very short in many important points or facts: categorical point of view (a sentence is nearly enough), 1st, 2nd (and 3rd?) isomorphism theorems, their roles in homological algebras, why historically algebraists preferred to study rings or fields instead of vector spaces, important examples of vector spaces over fields other than real or complex, rank-nullity theorem, algebras (as generalization of vector spaces), application to physics (mostly in forms of Hilbert spaces), roles of vector spaces in the study of division algebras skew-fields, meaning and significance of basis changes (for example we are often interested in how two vector spaces are isomorphic not just isomorphic) relationship between annihilators and orthogonal complement, applications of duality in linear algebra (e.g., min-max principle, not only ones in functional analysis), a viewpoint of a vector space as an abelian Lie algebra, geometrical issues such as convexity with connection to dimensionality. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by TakuyaMurata (talk • contribs) 21:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your comments and, BTW, absolutely no need to apologize!
I have two general responses to your points: First, I have to say what you are probably already aware of, that the article has a limited total length. With this in mind, and with the aim to give reasonable amount (i.e., sufficiently to be able to explain things briefly, not just mention them) of space to must-have topics, it is difficult to include everything that comes to mind. Second, esp. where applications are concerned: in some sense most mathematics, esp. most applied mathematics can more or less reasonably be formulated in terms of vector spaces. I think the article has to focus on applications etc. where mainly (or only) the vector space structure of some given entity is used or studied. Using this guideline, topics effectively talking about polynomial rings, say, should be treated very briefly here or even not at all.
categorical point of view: The article says "The existence of kernels and images is part of the statement that the category of vector spaces (over a fixed field F) is an abelian category." What else do you think is important? I personally think the category of v.sp. is of comparatively little importance, compared to, say, the category of modules over some ring, (both for this article and for math in general) since it is so simple. One could think about mentioning semisimplicity, but I'm not sure that is a core piece of information.
Is reworded and slightly expanded. I think that's as much as we can afford. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isomorphism theorems: we do have the 1st one. I'll think of a rewording so as to allude to the other ones.
Role of vsp in homological algebra: what do you have in mind, specifically?
Historical interest in rings vs. vsp: I have to say I'm not historically versed enough to even make sense of that point. At least to the modern understanding, as it is, vector spaces are of a pretty much different flavor than rings or fields, right? Please expound a bit...
Vsp over other fields than R or C. What do you think of?
rank-nullity: well, we have the first isomorphism theorem, which is the same thing. I'll try to reword that part (also w.r.t the 2nd and 3rd iso thm.).
algebras: there is a whole section on that. What do you miss specifically?
applications to physics/Hilbert spaces: likewise (see the final paragraph in the Hilbert space section)
basis change: OK. that's a bit short. I'll expand that a bit.
First draft done (in the section on linear maps). I'll revisit later. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've also added an illustration depicting different choices of bases. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
division algebras: I think about how to add a sentence to the algebra section.
I have added a statement about f.d. real division algebras (in the section on vector bundles, after K-theory). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
annihilators & orthogonal complement: I think that does not belong here, I would put that to inner product or bilinear form.
applications in linear algebra: that sounds reasonable
vector spaces as abelian Lie algebras: Do you mean "[x, y] := 0"? I don't think that's an important piece of information here. Where is that relevant? If anywhere, I'd put that to Lie algebra.
I've made some comments about the reciproqual vector spaces in the peer review that haven't been adressed. You might want to look into that. I may or may not opine later, but not having a section on the peciproqual vector spaces is a somewhat major issue.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow your comment in the PR went unnoticed by me. Sorry about that. I'll put a sentence about that into the Fourier section, perhaps alluding to the general principle behind the Fourier transform. (A section is clearly more than we can afford). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a sentence about that, together with its mathematical explanation, Pontryagin duality. All right? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This isn't a particularly esoteric mathematical concept; it ought to be possible to explain it to laymen in the lead much, much better than we do now. I realise that such leads are not uncommon in mathematical articles, but, per WP:LEAD, they have no right to be, and we ought to at least make an attempt to explain it in a way that, say, an A-level mathematics student, or first year university student could understand. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I share your wish to make the article esp. the lead as accessible as possible. The following reviewer gives some concrete points which I will address. Could you please point out other parts of the lead or elsewhere where you think accessibility is not as good as possible? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first section of the lead is now better. I realize that the following ones do contain technical terms like "analytic geometry" or "matrices", but I think we can't avoid these totally. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at the first illustration, as I think it shows one of the problems with the article. If you know what it's doing, it's clear. If you don't, you won't understand vector addition or scalar multiplication after looking at it. A much better way to illustrate it might be show v. Show w. Show v+w as w coming off of the endpoint of v. Show 2w as 2 seperate ws, one after another.
For these kind of esoteric articles, you really need someone with a decent background, but little knowledge of the specific concepts that can ask you questions and force you to clarify as much as possible. I don't think it's at quite that level yet. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the illustration does show two copies of w, and from looking at the image, it should be clear (without background, I hope) that the new arrow is twice as long as the old one (In addition I reworded "scaled" in the image caption to "stretched"). Likewise the image does show a (faint) copy of w which is appended at the end of v and the sum is the diagonal of the parallelogram constructed this way. I fail to see how that could be clearer. (You might object that the faint copies of w and v used for the parallelograms don't carry arrowheads, but this is simply because the arrowheads would overlap and it would be hard to distinguish what goes on). Additionally to that illustration, we (now) do have more illustrations (in the motivation section) that explain the matter once more (and giving the explanation of the constructions in words). (Also, there are subarticles on vector addition and scalar multiplication. They could (and should) be better, but this is a different story). I stand ready to be corrected, but I feel the reader has to have a certain willingness to think about what might be new to her/him, and to accept an "esoteric article" like this as an invitation à la danse (macabre? ;), not the dance lesson (including instructor) itself. Jakob.scholbach (talk)
14:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
P.S. In line with the above, I'd like to say that the objective of a lead section is not (and cannot be, IMO) to make the topic understandable to the last bit, but give an overview. More details are to come (and do come, as pointed out above) in the body. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 14:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:LEAD: "While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article.", and WP:NOT PAPERS: "A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field." Seriously. We're not talking about quantum gravity. It is completely possible to explain what a vector space is in a way that the average junior high school student could understand (provided he cared about it), contains no lies, and is no longer than four paragraphs. Probably such a junior high school student already uses the concept "subconsciously" (see my comment of 15:24, 21 January 2009, below); he just doesn't know it's called this way. --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 14:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(<--)I'm aware of these guidelines and share their intentions. But, perhaps, let's not dig our heels in guidelines and their exegesis. Rather, where precisely does the lead tease the reader or does not explain important facts? Does it contain any lies?
The lead section image is a (pretty brief and in several senses sketchy) explanation of the two operations. Explaining them in more detail and with more care later is perfectly appropriate (and without alternative). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For the same reason as Shoemaker's Holiday. I think the lead should be readable by a reader coming just out or still being in a high school. The first paragraph of the lead for example:
<quote>A vector space is a mathematical structure formed by a collection of objects, called vectors, that may be scaled and added. In a vector space these two operations adhere to a number of axioms that generalize common properties of pairs and triples of real numbers, and of vectors in the plane or three-dimensional Euclidean space.
</quote>
"scaled" should be "multiplied by a number".
"generalize common properties of pairs and triples of real numbers" should be "generalize common properties of numbers"
"vectors in the plane or three-dimensional Euclidean space" should be "vectors in geometry"
Of course footnote and link to the exact mathematical meaning can be added but the non mathematician should not be repelled by the lead.
The first picture is awful. The caption carries much too much information which is not needed at this point. The vectors are missing arrows. I prefer fig 2 but maybe without coordinate axis.
The first example presented in the example section should be a very simple and wellknown example such as vectors in physics (addition of velocities or forces) or in 2D geometry. That the first example mixes functions and fields is a very bad idea. (Fields are simple for those who know what it is but exhausting for the layman which has to click on the link to understand what it could be). Vb 08:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.168.116.224 (talk) [reply]
Strongly disagree with the above comments Let me note that you must know what a vector is before you learn about vector spaces. If you don't know what a vector is, I don't see the point in learning about vector spaces, anyhow! I agree that university students should understand it but certainly not high school students who are not in their final year. In my experience, I have seen people who simply don't understand the "abstract concept" of a vector. Indeed, it is something different compared to what people would think, i.e counterintuitive, because heaps of people think mathematics is centered about number theory. On the other hand, vectors are a very natural concept. So for someone to understand them, they shouldn't sit at the computer and read the screen blankly: certainly not. They should take the time for thinking about what is written in the article and connect it with their prior knowledge. Learning to think is also one of those concepts that must be conquered at some point; being introduced to vector spaces may teach this important skill.
On the same note, "scaled" should not be "multiplied by a number". Using the latter may lead to confusions because many people think that the only numbers are integers; some know of the existence of complex numbers: but there are other fields. We must not "put down" the generality of vector spaces. Similarly, I disagree with your second point. Many people (including those who know calculus) think that R is not a vector space. They simply think "space" must be something complex: i.e something having high dimension. So "pairs and triples of real numbers" may allow them to relate to their prior knowledge of vectors. Again, I don't really like the idea of representing vectors as arrows. Although in a sense, the represent direction, we could write them in bold face. Note that using the convention of "arrows" will lead to difficulties when we consider an arbitrary field over itself. Because in this case, an element of the vector space is a vector, iff it is a scalar. Your last point is already taken care of. Examples of fields are given, and it is also noted that the scalars belong to the field. I think that it all one needs to know.
The 2D geometry example is in the 'motivation' section. Do you think it's out of place there? Algebraist 09:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to 213.168.116.224: thanks for your points. I'll try to adress them as much as possible, without removing or falsifying facts. For example, "generalize common properties of numbers" does not give the right intuition (also not for a high-school person). I'll respond in more detail soon. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The whole first section of the lead is reworked. Do you think this is OK now? I will brush over the motivation section next, focussing on concrete physical examples (forces or velocities). Also the lead section image is now clearer. (I uploaded File:Vector_addition_and_scaling.svg, but somehow the labels of the arrows have black background. Does anybody know how to fix this? I used inkscape.) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the problem. I had run into this before and was supplied with the fix: there's a problem with text sometimes, so you need to convert all the text to a path (in Inkscape, go to "Path -> Object to path"). I also fixed the scalar multiplication symbol. RobHar (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The motivation section is now rewritten and should be accessible. Please check it out. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 07:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to respond here to Point-set topologist. I am a math teacher in high school and the topic "vector space" has a short section in the math book we use. The topic is therefore not only usefull to univesity students but also at high school. At this level, even if the students 'should' know what a real number is, it is often the case that they dislike to use such term they consider pedantic. The same is true for Euclidian geometry. Today students don't even know Euclide at his axioms but all still do Euclidean geometry without knowing it: they simply call it geometry. Thus I believe it is superfluous to tell the reader this is here Euclidean geometry. However a foot note or a link such as geometry would be enough. I think the arrows should not be used for labelling vectors but in the first picture arrowheads should be used! (just as in Fig. 2) Vb (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To Point-set topologist: But this is the article about vectors in general. Vector (mathematics) redirects here, as it would make little sense to have a separate article for that. So, as for "you must know what a vector is before you learn about vector spaces", it's this article that should explain "what a vector is", at least until someone creates a separate article Vector (mathematics) (which would be quite pointless IMO). As for "scaled" vs "multiplied by a number", the current version of the lead has the same problem, too. But I'm trying to address it. --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 13:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want to note that there are intelligent high school students who would appreciate the notion of a vector space. But most do not. You see, some high school students do maths for the sake of doing mathematics and certainly would think of vectors as doing "calculations". Indeed, in most high schools, vectors are merely added and multiplied (dot/inner product) without actually understanding them. Of course, they are also taught in the context of physics. But vectors are not physics. They are certainly used in physics but we should not give the wrong impression. As you are a high school teacher, you will probably know high school students better than me (I haven't seen the animals since I was at school :)) but I am a bit dubious that a high school textbook has a short section on vector spaces. Could you note the name of the book? Does it refer to fields (the algebraic structure)? Not that I am saying that students can't handle this, but I would be interested to know the book.
Without knowing about vectors in 2-space or 3-space, the concept of a vector space is not very intuitive. I.e, you won't get a feel for vector spaces. That is what I meant.
The book we use here in Germany is the very standard Lambacher-Schweizer Analytische Geometrie und lineare Algebra. Examples of vector spaces are presented which are not (as in the rest of the book) Euclidean vectors (although the word Euclidean vector never appears in the book). The example I discuss with my student is the space of polynoms with a given grade. Other space are cited but they are in fact simply R^n with n>3. I think the student who wants to learn bout this topic must not be a paricularly intelligent one but simply a pupil who wants to prepare a talk in order to improve his participation note! This student does not really remember what is "commutativity" or what is the difference between a real and a rational number even if he uses this concept in the day-to-day practice. About the recent modification of the lead. The first Figure and its caption is now good and explain quite well what is meant by adding and scaling. In my opinion the wording "multiplied by a number" should replace "scaled" and not be added to it. However I think that, now that the picture has been improved, the word "scaled" may be good enough. On the other hand, I agree with the comments which appeared on the talk page and think that putting the physics examples in the first paragraph of the lead enhance much too much the importance of this POV on he meaning of vectors. What I suggest is to put this example (which should be much expanded) as the first example within the example section. Moreover I think the interpretation of vectors as translations is missing in the example section. Please also refrain to use the word Field in the first example. Of course a field is a structure which is simpler than vector space but not for pupils! Vb (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have some doubts about the history -- it doesn't match the way I learned it. As I understood it, the basic motivation for the concept was a desire to be able to do arithmetic in Euclidean N-space. The first attempts tried to take off from the fact that complex numbers allow arithmetic in 2-space. However, attempts to generalize complex arithmetic to higher dimensions broke down on the fact that there is no natural multiplication operation. Hamilton's quaternions were a way to make it work for N=4, but gave up on some critical properties and still didn't generalize. Finally in the late 1800s mathematicians realized that the proper thing to do is to give up on a VxV->V type of multiplication, and settle for two other types of multiplication, scalar mult and the inner product. Looie496 (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although the modern notion of a vector in physics owes much to Hamilton, Gibbs, and Heaviside, the notion of a vector space does not appear to share exactly the same lineage. Hermann Grassmann first introduced the general notion in the same year as Hamilton introduced his quaternions, but it was several decades until Peano and Whitehead ultimately formalized Grassmann's notion of a vector space. My understanding of the genesis of the modern idea of a vector space comes chiefly from the historical notes to Bourbaki's Algebra. To quote: "Peano, one of the creators of the axiomatic method and also one of the first mathematicians fully to appreciate the work of Grassmann, gives as early as 1888 (...) the axiomatic definition of vector spaces (...) over the field of real numbers ..." siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Silly rabbit; which also concurs with the historical sources cited in the section. Looie, can you present a reference that backs up your point? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm speaking from memory—but quaternion#History gives an account that more or less matches what I wrote, I think. Looie496 (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you wrote (and what is in the quaternion article) is correct as far as it goes, but as Silly rabbit points out, that's the history of vectors as in physics and vector calculus. The history of vectors as in algebraic vector spaces is somewhat different. Algebraist 20:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To PST re "Without knowing about vectors in 2-space or 3-space, the concept of a vector space is not very intuitive.": I am playing a strategy game in which you have four kinds of resources: wood, clay, iron and wheat. It is quite intuitive that you can add "100 units of wood, 50 clay, 23 iron and 75 wheat" and "15 wood, 40 clay, 70 iron and 30 wheat" to get "175 wood, 90 clay, 93 iron and 105 wheat", or multiply the latter by two to get "30 wood, 80 clay, 140 iron, and 60 wheat". This is not really a vector space because you can only have an integer amount of any resource, but it wouldn't be any less intuitive if you could. --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 15:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on the lead. After being asked to comment on the lead, I read the article quite closely this afternoon. WP:LEAD states: "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic." In articles on advanced mathematics (and even though vector spaces are extremely standard mathematics, the abstraction involved is advanced), achieving both of these goals in four paragraphs, while remaining as accessible as possible is a very difficult task. However, Wikipedia is not a textbook: it is not the purpose of the lead to teach readers what a vector space is, but to whet their appetite to learn more.
At the moment the lead does not adequately summarize the article: it focuses unnecessarily on forces, and on applications in analysis, without covering adequately the fundamental role of vector spaces in linear algebra. I realise that my view may contradict the view of some other editors, who are concentrating on making the lead easier to understand for the lay reader. That is a painful aspect of FAC: it is impossible to please everyone.
However, as a positive suggestion, should this FAC fail, one solution to the difficulty of both summarizing the article and providing an accessible introduction is to spin out the lead (summary style) to an "Introduction to vector spaces" article (or possibly an "Introduction to linear algebra"). This would make it easier to make the lead an encyclopedic summary of the topic , while providing an entrypoint for motivated high school students and similar readers. Geometry guy 21:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on the prose. In the spirit that FAC is a painful experience, the main thing that struck me on my read-through is that the prose is woeful. Sorry, I should say there is lots of good stuff, but there are patches that are painful to read, even for someone who is extremely familiar with vector spaces and knows what the prose is trying to say. I found myself banging my head in a Quasimodo-like experience of "The prose! The prose!". This may be as painful for article editors to read as it is for me to say. So, let me add that tremendous work has gone into this article and it is well on its way to being featured, following the path of Group (mathematics), which was featured thanks to the drive of the same main editor. Bravo! I wish I had the time and energy to do as much to help. I would be happy to copyedit the article, but realistically, I can't do that for at least two weeks, so let me highlight some issues. In any case I'd rather copyedit the article in a minor way rather than make big changes.
Encyclopedic language is not flowery. I can see that considerable effort has been made to use encyclopedic rather than textbook prose. However, encyclopedic language is neither flowery nor convoluted. Don't say "keystone" when you mean "central", "in the guise of" when you mean "as", "employed" when you mean "used". "Achieved" is shorter than "accomplished" and "provide" is more widely understood than "furnish". Other flowery usages include "envisaged", "encompasses", "conception", ...
Use bland adverbs sparingly. "Historically", "today", "actually", "notably", "usually", "particularly", "especially", "essentially", "completely", "roughly", "simply". These can often be omitted, or replaced by prose which centres the point.
Don't split infinitives needlessly. Sometimes they need to be split, but in most cases they don't. For instance, I would replace "To simultaneously encompass", by "To cover" or "To include".
Avoid editorial opinion. Whenever you use an adjective of opinion, or comment on the importance of something, it is helpful to ask the question "according to whom?". Then you can decide whether to provide a source, or to rephrase. Adjectives used here include "important", "crucial", "frequent", "fundamental", "suitable", "useful", ...
Avoid long noun phrases. They tend to lead to bad prose: "Resolving a periodic function into a sum of trigonometric functions forms a Fourier series, a technique much used in physics and engineering." is an example.
Omit needless words. "certain" is usually not needed and "call for the ability to decide" is wordy.
Use a consistent English variant: I see both "analog" and "honor" (American) and "idealised" (British).
Finally, resist the temptation to tell the reader how to look at the subject. This happens at the beginning of quite a few sections:
"Vector spaces have manifold applications as they occur in many circumstances, namely wherever functions with values in some field are involved."
"'Measuring' vectors is a frequent need"
"Bases reveal the structure of vector spaces in a concise way"
"The counterpart to subspaces are quotient vector spaces." (Only makes sense to those who already know what it means.)
Why does the history stop at c. 1920? The relations to set theory could be discussed here, as could modern developments in homological algebra, Hilbert spaces (quantum mechanics), Banach spaces (Gowers).
The category of vector spaces is not boring, nor well understood, even if the isomorphism classes of objects are. See Quiver (mathematics).
The determinant of a linear map is not defined, but used.
The motivation section is poorly written: if "force" is a motivation, why not explain that addition of vectors corresponds to combining forces?
Hamel and Schauder bases are not clearly delineated. Too much effort is expended making the definition of Hamel basis apply in the infinite dimensional case. Further, refering to the existence of Hamel bases (and hence the axiom of choice) as "fact" is point of view.
Despite all my complaints, however, I must say that Wikipedia readers will be extremely fortunate to find such a comprehensive article on such an important concept. Geometry guy 23:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawal of the nomination: I would take the opportunity to thank again everybody involved in the recent development of the article, be it in form of critial comments at FAC, at the talk page or working on the article itself. I think it is better to amend all these things carefully (even if I believe the article has improved substantially, and beyond the level I was even thinking of prior to FAC) and especially without haste. To do so, I'd like to withdraw the nomination. I'll work on the issues raised above and may renominate it for FAC at some point. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some feedback
I'm putting my response here for the ease of edit (for me and others). By categorical point of view, I was thinking of, for example, the fact that the category of finite-dimensional vector spaces is equivalent to the category of matrices (see Equivalence_(category_theory)). This is very important because it explains, for example, why in linear algebra one essentially doesn't have to study vector spaces as much as matrices. (I also think the cat of finite-dimensional vector spaces is equivalent to that of finite sets.) Also, one may start with a quotient map (i.e., a surjective linear map) instead of quotient spaces and use the universality to show this definition is essentially equivalent to the more usual one. The view points such as the above are abstract but are indispensable if one wants to study vector spaces seriously. On the other hand, I don't think, as the article currently does, mentioning the category of vector spaces is additive is important, for it is very trivial. It is important to mention the applications of isomorphisms theorem rather than how to prove them.
Next, about annihilators. (This is an important concept and the article has to discuss it) I think I was getting at is that the possibility of defining a bilinear form (or sesquilinear one) on a vector space. When studying vector spaces or related stuff in application, bilinear forms defined on them are often useful and indispensable. An inner product is one example, of course, but it doesn't scale well to infinite-dimensional vector spaces (which may not have topology, like infinite-dimensional Lie algebras). So, one also uses natural pairs for V x V^*. (Though this isn't quite a bilinear form.) Anyway, my point is that we need a discussion on bilinear forms (probably a whole section on it). A basis can be chosen according to such a form, and actually that's often what one does; e.g., orthonormal basis. (I just noticed the article doesn't even mention dual basis, which is an important concept.)
Finally, on the balance. Yes, the article is fairly lengthy already, but I think we can make a significant cut by eliminating stuff on trivial facts or some linear algebra materials such as determinants. Doing that would likely diminish accessibility (and thus usefulness) of the article for a first-time learner of vector spaces. But that's something we can afford since the focus of the article should be on important topics not trivial ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TakuyaMurata (talk • contribs) 14:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The category of finite dimensional vector spaces is not equivalent to the category of finite sets: the former has many more morphisms, and the latter is not even an additive category. Geometry guy 14:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the original poster may have in mind the fact that all vector spaces are free objects. This is not correct either, however, because the choice of a basis isn't natural. Ozob (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it recently received GA status and after some further editing, I feel it meets the FA criteria for completeness, quality of writing, etc. Bwark (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the spaced emdashes, WP:MOS#Captions need attention to puncutation, and I put in a request to User:Brighterorange to run his script to correct the faulty dashes in the citations. (I do not know where to categorize this article at WP:FA if it passes, it seems to fit in at least four categories.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would categorize this article broadly as "culture and society" but I realize categories are often narrower than that. For example, I see that the feature article on Harold Innis I worked on over the last year is categorized narrowly as "business, economics and finance." That may be because Innis was a professional economist (economic historian actually). Ursula Franklin is a professional metallurgist and research physicist, but I'd say her main contributions are philosophical or sociological ones and the article reflects that. Hope that helps. Bwark (talk) 12:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have forwarded the e-mail dated July 22, 2008 from the publishing company granting permission for use of the photo of the book cover. Bwark (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Permissions has granted an OTRS ticket for this image. Bwark (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just checking out the lead, found this:
She is the author of The Real World of Technology based on her 1989 Massey Lectures - which is based...
Please, could you leave a note at my talk page reminding me to come back and fully review this article? Thanks, ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 00:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected the grammatical error in the lead that you pointed out. Many thanks. I have also left the requested note on your talk page. Bwark (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Until comments are resolved:
Career:
She spent the rest of the war repairing bombed buildings - helping to repair, or designing repairs, what did she do?
I have clarified this by adding "helping to repair" which is more accurate. Bwark (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
she - occurs too many times throughout article, needs varied SS
I have eliminated many of these pesky pronouns, partly be restructuring sentences. Bwark (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She did post-doctoral studies at the University of Toronto (U of T) and worked for 15 years at the Ontario Research Foundation. - completed p-d studies...
I have replaced "did" with "completed" as suggested. Bwark (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Franklin was also active in the Voice of Women (VOW), now the Canadian Voice of Women for Peace. - it's kind of obvious, but could you briefly explain what this is?
I have added a fuller explanation. Bwark (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ref with 'for more information' needs to be correctly formatted - no, for more info
I eliminated the entire footnote as superfluous. Bwark (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will come back after these are resolved. Ceran→→ 15:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I beleive it meets all the FA criteria and has gone through a GA process and a recent Peer Review. REZTERTALKø 14:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Refs 25, 26, 33 and 41 are dead links. - Mailer Diablo 15:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. The two remaining dead links actually work even though they are reported as dead. Gary King (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern would be using a retailers site to discuss BLP issues. As long as it isn't being sourced for anything controversial, this should be okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm not sure where the question of reliability can come in to a source which has an interview with one of the band members. Obviously you couldn't just use ANY site that claims it's an interview with a band member but this is an established site, I don't think its reliability is questionable. REZTERTALKø 17:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Left the two out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Media review - All media have sufficient fair use rationales, verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Also, date formatting in citations is inconsistent (samples: All Hope Is Gone is #1!!", Sparkart, 2008-09-03, http://www.webcitation.org/5aYydJpQI, retrieved on 3 September 2008 has lower case retrieved, and two different date formats). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also fixed that one disambiguation link yesterday. REZTERTALKø 15:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the "Sales and impact" section is small in comparison to the other sections. I would recommend making it a subsection of the "Critical reception" section.
Well sales and impact don't really relate to how critics review the album.... plus that section will more than likely be expanded as the album grows. REZTERTALKø 17:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands currently, I believe that section is too small to stand by itself, regardless of whether it'll grow in the future. It's ultimately up to the editors, and I wouldn't oppose this FA nomination solely because of that, but I would strongly recommend making it a sub-section of another section until you are able to expand it. --TheGuycomplainedits 20:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Beginning on April 1, 2008, Slipknot's official website displayed splash teasers to promote All Hope Is Gone. Ten teaser trailers were released." I think these two sentences in the "Promotion" section can be combined, perhaps, "Beginning April 1, 2008, Slipknot's official website displayed ten splash teasers to promote All Hope Is Gone."
Remove the word "official" from sentences, example of this; "Beginning on April 1, 2008, Slipknot's official website displayed splash teasers to promote All Hope Is Gone." If it is Slipknot's website, it is official, is it not?
Dates should be specified; there are some dates that have no year, for example: August 16. August 16, when? 2012? This needs to be specified.
I think I got them all. REZTERTALKø 17:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, the lead does not reflect these sections: Promotion, Musical themes, Lyrical themes, and Critical reception. The lead also states some information not contained in the article about the band members' side projects. The lead section should be a comprehensive overview of the article as a whole, that is, it should summarize the main points of each section of the article. No information that's in the lead should not be in the article. --TheGuycomplainedits 05:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the intro. REZTERTALKø 17:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing I notice: there is information regarding the debut and release of the first two singles, but not the third. You could debate that the third isn't as significant, being released after the album, but I believe info should be added about it regardless. --TheGuycomplainedits 20:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, 1a. This has the makings of a great album article, but unfortunately the prose has a long way to go. It needs a thorough treatment by an effective copyeditor. The following is a brief sample from just the lead and first section. It is not comprehensive; there are too many issues currently to delineate here.
"... the first of any of Slipknot's albums to do so." Why not, "the first Slipknot album to do so"?
"... and their first album that was released by a major label to be recorded in their home state of Iowa." Unsure what this means. Are you saying that some albums were on a major label but not recorded in Iowa, and some were recorded in Iowa but not on a major label? I'm not sure why we're interconnecting these.
"Before the album's launch, Slipknot released a series of promotional images and audio samples from the album through various websites, including photographs of their new masks on Spinner.com, which received over eight million hits on the first day." This needs to be split up. Also, we need some context for their "new masks" for the uninitiated.
"The album has been considered one of the band's most eclectic-sounding albums..." Grammar.
You mix "the album <present tense verb>" and "the album <past tense verb>" in places.
"Drummer Joey Jordison explains..." No, this should be past tense.
"Bassist Paul Gray explained that they decided to do this because Los Angeles ..." Grammar.
There's a lot of the band "revealing" things which is an odd word choice considering they're revealing mundane things like going home to visit children. Normally people "reveal" things like inventing time travel.
"Complimenting Fortman's ear for tone, Jordison explained that he considers All Hope Is Gone to be the band's best album, sonically." As opposed to.. visually?
"Unlike previous releases, all nine band members were involved in the album's writing process, writing over 30 songs." Grammar.
"When questioned about the process, vocalist Taylor explained that the process..." Same grammatical problem is cropping up everywhere with repeating nouns: album-album, writing-writing, etc.
"Some members of the group separated themselves from the band to write tracks." Meaning what? They left the room? They moved to China?
Comments I've just started reading the article and here's some issues I've found that should be addressed:
Reorganize the lead slightly. Discuss the production of the album before the chart success (you can pretty much just switch around large chunks of the first and second paragraphs). I'm not sure you have to be so detailed about the formats in the lead; In Rainbows, for instance isn't. Try and summarize more.
Remember that in American English the name Slipknot and terms like "the band" or "The group" are singular; I see some instances where the terms are referred to in the plural ("They", "Their", "Were")
There's a lot of redundant wording. Examples include "When questioned about the process, vocalist Taylor explained that the process did not occur without conflict" and "Because Slipknot's band members appeared unmasked when performing with their side projects, it was rumored that Slipknot would be recording and touring All Hope Is Gone unmasked".
The retrieval dates in the citations are inconsistently formatted. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Minor thing: "eight million hits on its first day" is a bit confusing. For example, what is a "hit?" And on what first day did it receive its eight million hits? On the first day of Christmas? That should be clarified. The entire sentence should be cut in favor of something like, "The page was accessed by eight million people on the first day it was available" (Don't use that, it doesn't have the best grammar, but use it as an example of what should be done). --TheGuycomplainedits 04:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, I'm going to have to Oppose this Featured Article nomination. The article certainly has a lot of potential, but right now, it isn't in shape. Its prose is weak, and, overall, it just needs too much work to be done in the time allotted to us for this nomination. Laser Brain has illustrated many examples of the errors in this article, and I concur. These issues can be fixed, but I doubt it will be in a timely matter. So, I oppose this nomination, and advise the nominators to put more effort into the article, compare it to other current music album FA articles, and re-submit it for nomination when it is ready. --TheGuycomplainedits 04:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Restart, old nom. I can't tell where this candidate stands. There is no image review, no source review, and mention of ongoing prose issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the relevant text regarding the Time image to understand its inclusion. If the deletion occurs we can move his congressional photo to the infobox.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support — I've stated my support for this article several times before and will continue to do so. It is a superior article, well-cited, with appropriate images and clear prose. In answer to the most basic question about FACs, "Is this article among Wikipedia's finest works?", I can answer with a firm "Yes." In terms of quality, clarity, and coverage, it's head-and-shoulders above 99% of the other FACs out there, and the only reason it has had such trouble passing is because biographical articles are held to such a high standard — particularly those concerning living figures, let alone living political figures. I applaud Tony's tenacity in sticking with this article, improving it after every failed FAC, and resubmitting it. In all aspects it is a superior article, and any minor faults pale in comparison to the main body of work, which is superb in all respects. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re the above support statement: While I understand the wish to register strong support for an article, to do so by denigrating other FACs is unwarranted. This article is better than a number of FACs I've seen, better than a few on this page right now, but it is by no means the best, let alone "head and shoulders above 99% of the the other FACs out there". That is taking support too far. A less bombastic summary of the article's merits might persuade others to look at it, and to support it, too. Brianboulton (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I intended no offense. My comment is just an opinion, of course, and by no means do I consider myself an absolute expert on what makes an excellent article. However, from my (admittedly limited) point of view, this article has been through a far stricter review process than most FACs, and has been improved every single time. It has vastly more citations than most FACs, and those citations tend to be from very reliable sources. It comprehensively covers the subject, and I merely wanted to say that while every FAC is a Ferarri, this one is a Scuderia. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are two fair-use images regarding Kemp as Dole's running mate. Since "non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" (see WP:FUC), I think one image (probably the bumper sticker) should go. --Eustress (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I can easily remove the bumper sticker because it is the less informative of the two. I guess all post-WWI campaigns have a bumper stickers. I am not sure the article is better for the removal.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose The prose isn't that bad, I suppose, but it still warrants a third-party scan. Something else I have noticed is the inclusion of irrelevant information. Samples of this and other prose things:
I believe I have recruited a third party scan. My Byron Brown GAC reviewer mentioned he/she may come by later this week as time permits.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Saban suspected Al Davis of spying on the 0–3–1 Bills and made his team practice using false numbers."
That is part of the storyline for that paragraph. The team had a slow start. Kemp led them to a successful finish. This spying probably motivated the turnaround.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth paragraph of "Lou Saban era (1962–1965)"—It almost seems like you are focusing more on the team's performance than Kemp's role in the team. Do we really need to know that "The 1964 team relied on a running game of 250-pound (113.4 kg) Gilchrist and 220-pound (99.8 kg) Wray Carlton as well as a defense that set records for rushing yards, rushing TDs, and quarterback sacks."?
I was just putting Kemp's contribution in the context of the team performances that seeason. I could rearrange so that Kemp's performance comes first.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be preferable. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"career-passing attempts" No hyphen needed, he didn't hold the record in attempts for "career passing".
"Kemp led the Bills to a repeat AFL Championship in 1965 without the 1964 AFL leader in rushing attempts, yards, and touchdowns, Gilchrist, who had been traded to the Broncos, and with the 1964 yards per reception leader, Elbert Dubenion, only playing three games."-->Kemp led the Bills to a repeat AFL Championship in 1965 without Gilchrist, the 1964 AFL leader in rushing attempts, yards, and touchdowns, who had been traded to the Broncos, and with the 1964 yards per reception leader, Elbert Dubenion, who played only three games.
Oppose, if 1996 Republican Vice President Nominee is in the Infobox. Vice Presidential Nominee is not a government office. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has this issue been debated with other politicians at WP:FAC? For Kemp, it seems that politically he is most prominently described as the former VP nominee, then as Former Secretary and Congressman. His case is different than say John McCain because he was holding no other office during his tenure as nominee and he has held none since. Thus, it is not only his most prominent position, but also his most recent. There is much debate about whether this is considered an office. It seems to be an official office for succession boxes (see the bottom of Kemp's page). It also seems that like Speaker of the House, Majority leader, Whip, and other similar positions granted by the party there is no consistency on whether it is suppose to be in the infobox. Thus, at this point I am confused on whether this is an objection based on my decision to remove something that is not suppose to be removed. Obviously, if you opposed because I included his tenure as Secretary or Congressman your opposition would be discounted. However, in this case, it is not clear to me if you objecting wrongly. I hope to get further advice because if it is suppose to be removed, it can easily be removed, but if it is not we should hash that out.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Congressman & HUD Secretary (for example) are government offices, therefore they belong in the Infobox. Presidential & Vice Presidential nominees, are not government offices; they don't belong (in the Infobox). GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep: House Speaker, House & Senate Majority Leaders, House & Senate Minority Leaders are also government offices (as congressional offices). They've been obtained via an election. Could ya imagine going through all the related biography articles & adding Year Senatorial nominee in Infoboxes (for example). GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not follow. It seems to me that Presidential & Vice Presidential nominees, House Speaker, House & Senate Majority Leaders, House & Senate Minority Leaders are all in the same class. I.E., they are all party positions. Presidential and Vice presidential nominees are determined by a series of primary elections which is followed by a party convention where elected/selected delegates vote. The others are earned by elections of elected Congressmen. All are party offices. Do you have any source that says Speaker is a party office and Presidential nominee is not? They are all offices of the political party.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
House Speaker, is a constitutional office. Would you recommend adding [Year] Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives nominee & [Year] Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives nominee to Infoboxes (remember Dems & GOP nominate a Speaker candidate every 2-yrs)? GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by constitutional office. By party office, I mean position elected by members of the party and not the general electorate. Is the office outlined in the constitution?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speaker of the House? yep. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about Majority leader and Whip? How about RNC/DNC Chair? I am looking around and I see Bob Dole also includes RNC Chair in his infobox, but does not include Pres Nom. However, his succession boxes group them all as the same type of office.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RNC/DNC Chair, House/Senate floor leaders & whips are positions. Would you agree with adding the candidates for these positions in the Infoboxes? PS: I'd have no problem (personally) with Nominees, being deleted from the succession boxes, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being nominee for Whip is probably a position that is officially held for a few hours or days at most. I imagine they have a meeting. They accept nominations from the floor and then they have a vote. It is likely that the position is held a few hours. Pres/VP nominee are three month offices that describe you forever. In all succession boxes they are grouped with the others at issue here. They are all considered party offices. I would imagine that as party offices go being Pres/PV Nom ranks above the others in terms of lifetime accomplishment. I finally understand your point that the Nominee may be a differentiating factor. I would prefer consensus on whether party political offices are all considered of equal import and notability and whether they all deserve equal treatment in terms of infoboxes. Can you tell me how Order of Precedence handles the various party officials? That may determine where I stand.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain. Some Infoboxes have offices listed chronologically (years office held), others seniority wise. Some of those listed chornologically, are themselves in different order (recent to earliest or earliest to recent). GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the thrust of my argument. Is former Pr/VP nom higher or lower rank in Order of Precedent than former RNC Chair or Majority Whip. It is possible leader/whip are just grouped in with congressmen and Pr/VP nom just grouped in with whatever political accomplishment propelled them to that rank. In this case that does not help. Then we need to determine should all party political offices be considered equal. I have never read a Time article where someone was described as former Majority Whip nominee. I have never seen the position in a succession box. I have never seen it in a Navbox template. I have never seen it mentioned in a WP:LEAD. A Pres/VP nom is in succession boxes, navbox templates and WP:LEAD. I have never heard Majority Whip nominee described as a party office. Pres/VP nom is always refered to thusly. I think Pres/VP nom is in a class by itself as far as noms go. A congressional district nominee who loses is not even necessarily WP:N. We can not say all nominees are equal. We need to rethink why Pres/VP nom ar in succession boxes, navboxes and WP:LEADs. If there is a good reason why, we should evaluate this for its relevance to its propriety in an infobox. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I don't mind seeing Prez & Vice Prez nominees in the content lead. I wouldn't mind seeing Prez & Vice Prez nominees deleted from the nav boxes (aswell as infoboxes). Remember, if ya add Prez/Vice Prez nominees to infoboxes (and nav boxes), then you'd have to add them to all related biography articles. For example: George W. Bush Infobox would require having 2000 Republican Presidential nominee & 2004 Republican Presidential nominee. Can you imagine what the Franklin D. Roosevelt & Richard Nixon Infoboxes would look like? GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need nominee if you won, especially as an incumbent. I am not asking whether you would mind. My question is what do you think is right. For losing candidates should Pr/VP nom be in 1.) LEAD 2.) Party navbox 3.) succession box 4.) infobox. I am not asking whether you mind. We need to consider what is the right thing to do. Do we expunge it from all of these places or some. Do we consider the office the equal of other political party offices?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend: 1) Keep in the LEAD, 2) Delete from Party navbox, 3)Delete from succession box & 4) Delete from infobox. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give similar responses for 1. RNC/DNC chair, 2. Speaker of the House, 3. Maj/Min Leaders, and 4. Maj/Min Whips. Then we need to take this discussion where we can get lots of feedback.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okie Dokie- Keep the following 1] In the Lead: Party chairs, House Speaker, Floor leaders & Floor whips. 2] In the Navbox: Party chairs, House Speaker. 3] In the Succession box: House Speaker & 4] In the Infobox: House Speaker. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm content with that & I'll accept whatever the consensus is. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are currently objecting over something that you yourself have removed from the article. Are you objecting because the article once upon a time included something?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify: I'm against having 1996 Republican Vice Presidential nominee in the Infobox of this article. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it has not been in the article and does not look like it is going to be in the article shouldn't you change your bolded declaration to neutral or support?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm the GAC reviewer Tony alluded to above, and I agree that the prose needs work, though I don't think it's irredeemable. I'm going to start polishing it today, though it's a long article and I might not finish before the end of the week. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Picking up where I left off, I'm starting in Post-HUD years.
The "Kemp's hosted a fund-raiser" from before was never done.
"and Gore has a reputation as an experienced and vaunted debater." Should "has" be "had". I'm not sure how much more debating he's going to do, and this has the potential to become outdated. It's a well-disguised "currently" issue.
Legacy: "that the key to cutting taxes spurs economic growth and reduces deficits." Change to "that tax cuts spur economic growth and reduce deficits? Not sure what "the key" had to do with it.
Source question: What makes http://www.remembertheafl.com/AFL.htm a reliable source? I think better sources are out there for Paul Lowe's MVP awards. Wouldn't Pro Football Reference have them on his page there? If not, my many sports almanacs might have them.
I found Nationmaster. I added it rather than replaced the other becasue I am not sure it is much better. The information is not controversial, so it should not be important regardless.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still a couple more sections to read before the end, but I'm getting there. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still in Legacy: "conservative Black intellectuals". No reason to have Black capitalized.
Late career: "Kemp was among the prominent leaders who pledged to raise money for Scooter Libby's defense in 2005." This sentence would be more effective if it mentioned why Libby needed defending. Just a brief bit on the charges against him would be enough.
"Kemp recently donated generously". Two problems here. First, there's another "recently"; just say when he donated. Second, "generously" comes off as POV, even though it's true. Again, sticking to the facts (how much he donated) will fix this. "Currently" leads off the next sentence. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, I offer support when all of my comments are addressed, but I'm a little hesitant with this article due to the ongoing prose concerns. Because of them, I'm planning on doing some work myself on this within the next few days. It's long, so it may take a while, but I think this process will lead to a better article. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose - I've copyedited about half the article now (to all but the last two paragraphs of the "Congress" section), and I think the problems go beyond quality of prose to the actual organization of the article. Within given sections (and even within paragraphs), there is often neither a thematic nor a chronological organization. More than a copyedit is needed; I think somebody familiar with the subject matter needs to rewrite sections entirely, which I'm not able to do without reviewing the sources in some depth. As noted by another reviewer earlier, I think there are also some issues with including information that's not directly-relevant to Kemp, as well as with random facts that are presented without context (which would again require somebody with more familiarity with American politics of the 1970s and 1980s than I have to address). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Equally reluctant oppose: If FAs were given on the basis of effort and persistence, this article would be promoted. But it must be judged against the FA criteria. It has been on FAC for a month, and is still being rewritten and reconstructed, which is not what this process is for. Furthermore, it is clear from reviewers' comments that there is still major work necessary. This work needs to be carried out away from FAC; there seems no shortage of editors willing to help, so I am optimstic that the article will get to FA eventually. But at present it is clearly not ready. Brianboulton (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not sure I understand who the abundant editors are to assist with Sarcasticidealist's objections.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I have completely rewritten and revised it and feel that it's ready to undergo the FAC process. The article underwent a peer review in December 2008 and passed the GA process in the same month. I thank everyone for their time. – Ms. SaritaConfer 01:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The research here looks solid, and the article is well-organized. However, the quality of the writing isn't quite at a Featured-ready level yet. I recommend finding a copyeditor to have a thorough look at the prose. For example:
Together, the couple have founded the Will and Jada Smith Family Foundation, a charity organization which has donated funds to various charities and taken part in charity events. Describe the types of charities they work with, and and try to avoid using the word "charity" three times in one sentence.
Banfield-Jones became pregnant with Pinkett Smith when she was in high school and after a few months of marriage, Pinkett Smith's parents divorced. Better: "Banfield-Jones became pregnant when she was in high school. She married the father, but they divorced after several months." (Also indicate whether she was born before of after the divorce.)
I revised the sentence to what you suggested. However, I can't find any information indicating whether Pinkett Smith was born before or after the divorce occurred. – Ms. SaritaConfer 21:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"portrayed the role" is better written as "played the role" or just "portrayed". The first section is titled "Early work, 1991–1995", but it says: "She began her acting career in 1990..." These are some isolated examples; as I say, the article could use a thorough copyedit by someone who hasn't worked on it.
Also: Some of the quotes about movies in which she has appeared are about the movie, not so much her acting. Better to use quotes specifically about her for this article.
Good luck with this. I like Ms. Pinkett Smith (especially in the Matrix films), and I look forward to seeing this piece as an FA. Scartol • Tok 17:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestions. I believe I've addressed the examples of your concerns and will work on locating a copyeditor to have a thorough review of the article. – Ms. SaritaConfer 21:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3
File:Pinkett-Smith.jpg - This image looks suspiciously professional. I hope that a professional released their image under GFDL - I really do, but I am here to be skeptical. This image is missing the source and perhaps the author. Could you contact the uploader and ask about the origin of this image?
The image was taken by photographer Jerry Avenaim and put into the article by Avenaim (his user page) with this edit. Since Avenaim has confirmed his identity and placed the image into the article himself, I assumed he had released the image properly. – Ms. SaritaConfer 00:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Jada Pinkett Smith Niobe.jpg - WP:NFC requires that screenshots be accompanied by "critical commentary", but I didn't see any critical commentary about Niobe in the article. Why would the reader's understanding of Smith be "significantly" (WP:NFCC #8) increased by this image? In my opinion, unless some commentary on the visual representation of this character can be found and added to the article, this image should be removed from the article.
You know, this image has brought on a lot of hassle, so I simply removed it from the article. – Ms. SaritaConfer 00:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully, we can resolve these issues quickly. Awadewit (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All image issues have been resolved. I've struck the oppose. Awadewit (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous missing publishers, and why are some publishers placed after the accessdate in the citations? Also, see WP:MOSDATE#Precise language on the use of –present. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by the use of –present. Are you speaking about the information in the infobox? That is how I've seen it done on numerous FA BLP pages (e.g., Angelina Jolie, Eric Bana, Cillian Murphy, etc.). Is this wrong? I did edit a sentence that would be considered dated. Jappalang was kind enough to take care of the missing publishers in the references. – Ms. SaritaConfer 08:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CelebratingChildren.com is a website that was launched in early 2000 and is dedicated to providing resources for African American families. The website has been mentioned in various local newspapers and on radio talk shows (a list can be seen here). The author for the article in question, Angela Scott, not only writes articles for CelebratingChildren.com, but is also the Special Sections editor for L.A. Parents, the local version of Parenthood.com. – Ms. SaritaConfer 00:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I simply removed this reference and the information it was supporting. – Ms. SaritaConfer 02:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FoundationCenter.org was established in 1956 and is supported by more than 600 foundations. They have offices in five major cities and keep a list of foundations and other non-profit organizations for grantseekers looking for information. – Ms. SaritaConfer 00:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this reference as well. I couldn't find a way of how organizations submitted information. I believe the website pulls data from public records. – Ms. SaritaConfer 02:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with reference from official ASA website. – Ms. SaritaConfer 00:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the three billboard refs show up as deadlinks on the link checker tool, but they do indeed work.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the other sites, to determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose from Dr pda. The article is not bad, but the prose is not yet of FA quality, and there are also a large number of sentences and paragraphs which do not cite any sources.
Some examples of prose problems (note that this is not an exhaustive list)
when she held a guest appearance in the short-lived sitcom—made a guest appearance would be more normal
She has held several roles in various movies, which span many different genres, and is probably best known for her roles in—did she play multiple roles in a single movie? How were the movies various? This sentence would possibly read better as She has appeared in more than 20 movies in a range of genres, but is probably best known for her roles in...
Watch out for close repetitions, e.g. Married to actor/rapper Will Smith since 1997, Pinkett Smith has two children with Will, or a character that was based on Pinkett Smith's own style and character.
Took care of the first example. JamieS93 has taken care of the second one. – Ms. SaritaConfer 18:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She married the father, but they divorced after several months.[4] Her mother continued to raise Pinkett Smith in Baltimore with the help of Pinkett Smith's grandmother—The first 'she' is Pinkett Smith's mother, thus logically 'her mother' refers to Pinkett Smith's grandmother, not her mother. Also continued to raise is possibly doubtful here, unless you're trying to imply Pinkett Smith's father helped raise her until the divorce, then Pinkett Smith's mother continued to raise her.
Banfield...encouraged her by enrolling her in piano, tap dance, and ballet lessons while Banfield-Jones escorted Pinkett Smith to various auditions, rehearsals, and performances around town.—do you mean that at the same time as Banfield is enrolling Pinkett Smith in a class, Banfield-Jones is taking her to auditions etc?
Revised and found a better reference. – Ms. SaritaConfer 18:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
garnishing 501 signatures—a petition would usually garner signatures :)
Pinkett Smith is referred to by her surname throughout, but her husband Will by his first name. This seems inconsistent, especially since Banfield-Jones and Banfield is considered sufficient to distinguish Pinkett Smith's mother and grandmother.
Fixed all instances. The reason behind referring to her husband as "Will" was to avoid awkward sentences, such as Pinkett Smith and Smith... – Ms. SaritaConfer 18:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few MOS points: according to WP:MOSQUOTE block quotations are used for long quotations more than four lines or one paragraph long; those in the article are not this long. Second, according to MOS:CONVERSIONS the size of their house and property should be expressed in metric units (i.e square metres and hectares) as well as US units. You may find the template {{convert}} useful for this. Finally there are a number of phrases like actor/comedian. WP:SLASH recommends against using this construction.
I've fixed all of the noted MOS issues here—the quote in the Ventures section seems a tad long to keep within the prose, but I went ahead and moved it out of the blockquote formatting. I began to copyedit a couple of sentences here and there, but I'll try to take a full look through it soon. Jamie☆S93 17:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As JamieS93 has pointed out, she has taken care of all the MOS issues. I don't know why the quotes were changed from the cquote template to the block quote. I suppose it's the same thing? Either way, thank you JamieS93 for taking care of these. – Ms. SaritaConfer 18:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Scartol says above you probably need to find someone to go through and copyedit the article. Dr pda (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let everyone know, I am extremely ill at the moment and probably won't be able to work on this for a couple days. I just wanted to keep people updated and let you all know that I have not abandoned the FAC. – Ms. SaritaConfer 16:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another update: I have contacted a copyeditor (JamieS93) who has been kind enough to go through the article. She has been working diligently for the past couple of days, focusing mainly on MOS issues. – Ms. SaritaConfer 17:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update from Dr pda: The prose has improved, but there are still issues (I'm not sure if the copyediting's finished yet). Also I count five or six places where the final sentence of a paragraph has no reference. A further five or six paragraphs plus the filmography have no references at all. Current reference 16 (SF Chronicle) only supports the immediately preceding quote, not the rest of the paragraph. Dr pda (talk) 03:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Is there a consensus on the genre of Wicked Wisdom? I ask this because referring to it as a "metal rock band" and eventually a "heavy metal rock band" down the line seems kind of clumsy to me. Is the band considered to be heavy metal music, hard rock, nu metal, or what? Aside from that, I feel that the lead is a bit too drawn out for the amount of text that is there. I suggest that the lead should either be expanded, if it should be at three sentences at all, or else condensed down for two sentences. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because...it's a well-sourced article that documents the heavy cultural impact of a half-second accident that occurred on national TV in 2004 and affected future broadcast law in the US for times to come. Also, I'd like to try getting this as the TFA on Feb. 1, 2009 - coincidentially this year's Super Bowl!
As for the FA criteria, so far it's been stable and of course well-sourced and very comprehensive. Since 2007 I've researched this incident for editing this article, especially with excellent source The Decency Wars by Frederick S. Lane. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Janet Jackson & Justin Timberlake's wardrobe malfunction.jpg requires a stronger fair use rationale other than "to illustrate the incident, which was notable", made light by its boilerplate nature (same rationale for Janet Jackson article). Something along the line of why this image is particularly associative with the event (is this the most circulated picture in the media, why is this scene particularly poignant of the incident) should be made.
I am asking another editor for his opinion on the rewritten rationale. Jappalang (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jappalang asked me to look at this rationale. First, I think that the statement "the most searched for news item in internet history" requires a citation on the image description page. Second, assuming this is the case, were viewers searching for this image or this image? Can we find a source which specifies? I have this feeling that internet searchers were looking for the "nipple shot", but it would be best to have a source to support that feeling. If that is the case, we have to decide if we want to put that shot on the article or not. In my opinion, we should include the more graphic photograph, because that is what caused the controversy. However, this is clearly an area where we need to have a careful discussion. Awadewit (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the file is appropriate or not due to moral concerns is not a matter here. It is the fair use. The rationale of "most searched image" falters when brought up against the "nipple shot", which is also the "right on the moment identifying shot". Hence, a strong rationale, which would not be based on those reasons, should be written to justify the current wardrobe file as the identifying image for the article. Jappalang (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Jappalang here. Awadewit (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please include the FCC page where the chart is found, so that it will be easier on the maintenance (in case they rename the path or file). Jappalang (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No other image issues. Jappalang (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've dealt with these issues by adding some more reasons for the fair use image and sourcing the FCC website for the chart. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
I have not spent a long time reading the article, but I see some major problems with the article content.
The article has no international perspective (well, a tiny bit on Canada) and is systemically biased in it's coverage and perception. The article needs to explain the reaction in liberal European and other continents, where most people were rather confused by Americans overreaction.
The affect on Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake needs expanding. It brings up many issues about race and gender in America. Also, there is some contradiction which needs straightening out. The article says that Jackson's first album after the Superbowl was a critical disappointment, yet it was nominated for 3 Grammys. The article says that the album had good sales, while this is true, they were definitely lower than the album she released before Nibblegate—All For You. All three of her studio albums since the Superbowl have performed progressively worse in terms of sales (irrelevant of critical reception). If you honestly believe "critical reception" is relevant to the affect on career section (I don't see the linkage myself), you should write it in terms of the content of the album reviews. For example, reviews of Damita Jo, largely commented on the Superbowl incident instead of the music. That would be an interesting point to add. Note, Discipline (Janet Jackson album), it a GA article, take any info you like from there.
I could go on, but there is no need. I suggest this article goes through the GA process and peer review. — Realist2 19:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "worldwide view": Are there any reliable sources that document how "some people" in Europe/elsewhere taunted those oversensitive Americans?
Yes there are, I'm not sure about "taunting Americans", unless you've heard about that. I'm talking of the reaction as being..."wtf O.0", confusion etc. It got coverage in the UK for example, journalists tried to explain the cultural divide in the US to UK citizens and characterized it as an overreaction. I'm not sure there was any "anti-American" sentiment in it.
Sales of Damita Jo: If it's true, I guess there'd be news reports documenting that it sold lower than All For You. Or we could just present the facts, such as the RIAA certifications of All For You and Damita Jo.
I'm sure you can find a reliable source for the worldwide sales of All for You (approximately 7 million) and Damita Jo (approximately 3-4 million). Just present the two sales figures. Certifications could be added, but that's not the best option, since that would be America only presumably.
"Issues about race and gender in America"...The section in question quotes an interview of Timberlake in which he asserts that those issues are relevant. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This still needs expanding though, it's a very important issue. — Realist2 21:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please use the link checker tool on this FAC page and check your links. A GREAT number are showing up dead, way too many for me to list.
Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper.
A number of your references are just links to websites. They need publishers and last access dates at the very least. When known, authors should be given also.
Per the MOS, link titles shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are such in the original.
Current ref 49 (US Court of appeals...) is just a numbered link, the link should be formatted with a title.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There are some football fans who are purists and don't like the Super Bowl halftime shows. I'm one of them, and was not paying attention to my TV at the time of the incident. Another genius move by yours truly. :-) As for the article, I don't believe it's ready to be here, and I almost want to suggest withdrawal and resubmission in the future. Here are some examples of issues with the page.
Many problems with the references, including several unformatted references. All refs need publisher and last access date, and dates of publication are also expected here.
The first sentence of the lead is a borderline run-on and needs to be split up.
"for exactly 9/16 of a second". I don't believe slashes are encouraged in prose.
"by the Federal Communications Commission, as well as". Instead of "as well as", just have "and". Simple writing is usually the most effective here.
Please delink January 2006. What good does that link do?
"with CBS becoming...and MTV becoming" is an example of a "noun-plus-ing" structure, a hard-to-find writing glitch. This whole sentence seems badly outdated anyway.
Remove the second MTV link in the lead. Repetitive links aren't needed.
Something could be said about how the incident overshadowed the game, which was considered one of the best Super Bowls ever. The wording would need to be carefully done, but a sentence on that wouldn't hurt.
Put the one book reference after the notes.
"tears off part of Janet Jackson's wardrobe" in the photo caption should be changed, because the deed looks like it was done by then. Therefore, present tense shouldn't be used.
Sorry, but I agree with Realist that this isn't ready yet. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Minor comment I think there should be more templates at the bottom. BUC (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a well written and comprehensive article about a very interesting subject. I made one minor copyedit after reading the entire article but I have some comments:
1)Are there any other worldwide reactions than Canada?
2)I could not figure out what these sentences were trying to say: "South Park took aim at the hysteria in its eighth season premiere, "Good Times With Weapons", on March 17 of that year when Eric Cartman sneaked across a stage in the nude and later blamed the incident on a "wardrobe malfunction." The townspeople are angered by Cartman's display, rather than feeling concern for a horribly mutilated and disoriented character (Butters) who is also present on stage, referring to the acceptance of violence and the taboo against sexual references.[28] "
Comment - wouldn't the star-over-the-boob be a better case for fair use than the current picture? Sceptre(talk) 21:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. MoS review needed, several issues (particularly in the citations), incomplete citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to withdraw and surrender because I have now a better idea that a FAC has to be just perfect, perfect, and nothing less! Given Giants2008's comment above I think a better day for this to be Today's FA would be Sept. 22, when the FCC fined CBS over Jackson's you-know-what. I'll have to do some more research as I asserted earlier before it could even reach GA status!--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This is listed as a wikipedia vital article. As it is an extensive subject that touches physics, chemistry, electronics and many other fields, information above the basic physical properties of the electron are written in the summary style; these will rely on other wikipedia topics to be better developed. For the most part the current article discusses the widely-accepted particle physics theory of the electron as given by quantum electrodynamics and the standard model. Still, I hope the material is approachable by readers who don't have a background in college-level physics.
After an extensive re-write, this article has undergone a peer review and is listed as a good article. I believe it satisfies the feature article criteria, so I'm nominating it as a candidate. Please take a look and let me know if there issues I can address. Thank you.RJH (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As the GA reviewer, I had like, three problems with the article. The prose is brilliant as ever, and I think the article, if anything is confusing, that it might be over-technical for the general reader. Ceran→→ 23:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review and the support.—RJH (talk)
Support The article is very well referenced and what I did read was interesting and informative. It is slightly complicated for the general reader, but it is explained clearly and the sections are not too long. The layout is nice and overall it is an excellent article, and I love it when vital articles are improved. Reywas92Talk 23:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This illustration was generated by a member of the Physics WikiProject in order to illustrate a point in the text. I've requested information on the software package used to generate the plot and, if appropriate, I'll add that as an additional reference on the image page. Otherwise I may have to remove it.—RJH (talk)
I have added the full code used to generate the image to the CC description page of the image. I have also added a reference to that page to back up the actual formula used. (TimothyRias (talk) 13:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
File:Lightning over Oradea Romania 2.jpg — should it not be "Mircea Madau" as the releaser of the public domain license instead of his or her username "Nelumadau"?
Mmm... that seems a little out of scope. Perhaps it should be discussed with the releaser?—RJH (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Lorentz factor.svg — not a big issue, but putting the equation of the Lorentz factor as a function of velocity in the source parameter would be helpful.
It was in there as a footnote, but it looks like an editor has put it back inline with the text.—RJH (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All images are fine (above issues are just niggles, not opposable in the sense of whether the images are correctly licensed or attributed). Diagrams about theories and workings of devices are basic and need not expertise to verify, or come with appropriate references. Jappalang (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. It needs a little work.
References: What is this pp. 72? And pp. 6–39 to 6–40? The latter may mean something, but it is non-standard if it does. The reference section has several doubled periods – for example in Numerous (1986). Soukhanov, Anne H.. ed.. Word Mysteries & Histories, which appears to be an anomalous reference in any case. All such doubles should be fixed. Otherwise, references look clean enough.
I fixed the first. The second is the page numbering scheme used by CRC (I used "to" to avoid the ambiguity of an ndash). A few of the double-periods are an annoying artifact of the cite template and I'll ask them to fix it. I repaired the others by expanding abbr.—RJH (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is a besetting difficulty with these templates. Double periods have to be tracked down and adjusted manually. I still don't understand pp. 6–39 to 6–40. What does it mean? Whatever it means, it will not do as it stands. If the source uses an en dash like that, it is destined for trouble! Perhaps, in that case, we must have recourse to [sic], and to single uses of p.: p. 6–39 to p. 6–40 [sic].–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 22:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[Response by Physchim62 moved to where this point is taken up again, below.–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 11:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)][reply]
Comments from Noetica that have been addressed
The lead: Details needing attention:
The concept of a quantum of electrical charge had been theorized on several occasions beginning in 1838, including by Irish physicist George Johnstone Stoney in 1874, who introduced the name electron in 1894.
The to and fro of dates is awkward. And why tell us of the date 1838, if nothing further is given about its significance here? And later we get As early as 1838–51 .... What are we to make of that range?
That wording was the result of a "discussion" with an individual who later turned out to be a sock-puppet of an unmitigated Troll. I am delighted to change it as a result of your feedback.—RJH (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The electron was first identified in 1897 by J.J. Thomson and his team of British physicists.
Spaces between initials need to be consistent. In the references there are spaces, so why not here in J.J.? And later we have both practices in one sentence: J.J. Thomson, with his colleagues John S. Townsend and H. A. Wilson.
Fixed.—RJH (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a contested and therefore distracting use of comprise, which standardly means "include, consist of". The construction using together with is not good here, either. In the present context, this might be better:
An atom comprises an atomic nucleus, itself composed of neutrons and positively charged protons, and these negatively charged electrons.
The use of "these" in this arrangement may be ambiguous. Instead I removed "comprise".—RJH (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now this:
Electron–electron interaction between atoms is the main cause of chemical bonding.
It might be better to avoid the juxtaposition electron–electron:
Interaction among the electrons of two or more atoms is the main cause of chemical bonding.
Fixed.—RJH (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a redundancy or an uncertainty in the following:
Electrons are believed to be point particles with no apparent substructure.
Why both believed and apparent? Try this, which makes explicit what I presume to be the underlying logic:
Because they have no apparent substructure, electrons are believed to be point particles.
Fixed.—RJH (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What follows probably becomes too specific and technical for a lead, once we get to Planck's constant, spin-1⁄2 particles, and so on. In fact, the lead is rather long; so that sort of thing could be dropped from it.
Sorry but I'm going to have to decline. The information seems quite appropriate for the lead and complies with WP:LEAD.—RJH (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The mass of an electron is approximately 1⁄1836 of that of the proton.
No need to use the indirect of that; and it should be a proton, not the. Same number of words (and syllables):
The mass of an electron is approximately 1⁄1836 the mass of a proton.
Fixed.—RJH (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An ambiguity here:
The properties of the electron are determined by its interaction with other particles.
The reader cannot know what you mean by determined: caused to be, or discovered to be? You might mean both; but that would need to be made explicit also, rather than relying precariously on an uncertainty in interpretation.
Fixed.—RJH (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The attractive Coulomb force between an electron and proton is what causes electrons to be bound into atoms.
(Note first: it should at least be between an electron and a proton.) Better, since electrons are themselves among the constituents of atoms:
The attractive Coulomb force between electrons and protons is what causes electrons to be bound with a nucleus to form an atom.
Fixed.—RJH (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The next portion, culminating in it can absorb or radiate energy in the form of photons, may be too much in a lead section. Better deferred, I think.
It can be annihilated by a collision with a positron, the electron's antiparticle, ...
This might be more informative:
In the collision of an electron and a positron (its antiparticle), both are annihilated, ...
Modified.—RJH (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, the rest of the prose seems to need a little tightening of the same sort; but a lead in particular should always be well polished and to the point. This is especially so for such a technically difficult topic, where the reader can so easily be put off by obscurities, or by detail that only the specialist considers essential. I may may have more to say later.
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 12:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I've made many of the modifications you have suggested, but not all.—RJH (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, RJH. The lead reads more smoothly with those few adjustments. Of course I was not committed to the exact details that I proposed, and I like the compromises you have hit upon. I'll examine the rest of the article more closely, and come back with some more. Looking good!
Great, I look forward to your additional comments. There is always room for improvement.—RJH (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would advise a hard space with all page numbers and the like: pp. 77–88.
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 22:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "pp." is introduced via the 'cite' templates, which reads the "pages=" variable and formats it accordingly. I'll add another request to the folks who maintain that template.—RJH (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment does the first sentence need to be cited? It's not like anyone is going to challenge that. Sceptre(talk) 12:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just playing it safe and covering all the bases; there are plenty of editors who will argue every little detail. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, that's the fundamental characteristics of a particle. You learn that in high-school (Britain, 11-16) science. Good idea to cite it in the article proper, not so much in the lead section. Sceptre(talk) 19:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well thank goodness that all of our readers have been through the British school system then. ;-) I think what I'll do is just let the Weinberg (2003) reference do the work. The citation you find objectionable has been deleted.—RJH (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. The overall idea and general layout are good, and most of the prose is excellent. I agree with the nominator that the article must rely on summary style to a large extent – people write whole books about the electron at roughly this level of presentation!
However, the article seems to get mixed up with the question of "what should be discussed where", leaving little bits of the explanation scattered throughout the text. AWB counted 53 multiple wikilinks for me, which I think is a symptom of the lack of an overall plan for the material (beyond that given by the section headers).
Sigh. At first glance that seems a bit harsh. I did have a certain philosophy that I tried to follow in laying out the article; perhaps I didn't succeed as well as I'd hoped. Multiple wikilinks are allowed. I did check through the wikilinks at one point and culled out most of the excess. Hopefully the duplicate links are in the nature of: a link in the lead and a link down in the meat of the article. A few may be alternate name links to the same material.—RJH (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To take one example, wave–particle duality is discussed at three or four points, none of them really convincingly. The Quantum mechanics section starts "As with all particles, electrons can act as waves." – if the reader already knows that all particles exhibit wave–particle duality, they are unlikely to need any further explanation, but it is a bit rough on the high-school student.
The remainder of the paragraph provides an explanation. The term "wave–particle duality" is also wikilinked to the appropriate article, which can be used for further enlightenment. How is this unclear?—RJH (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The number of references in the infobox and the lead should be reduced as far as possible. It looks strange, to say the least, to find the article references starting at number 15. All of the important points in the lead and most of the numerical values in the infobox are discussed elsewhere in the article and could be referenced there. They is no need to reference both the NIST site and the CODATA paper (see {{CODATA2006}}) for the values: I would suggest just linking to the CODATA paper to save space (and because it gives more discussion than the NIST site).
The NIST and CODATA references have been consolidated to a single cite. I cleaned up the remainder consistent with WP:LEADCITE. The artifact of starting the cite tags with the "[15]" is a function of how wikipedia referencing operates and is not a deliberate act by the editors. There's not much I can do about that.—RJH (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the Observation section, I was suprised to see no mention of the hydrogen spectrum as a methods of "observing" the behaviour of a single electron, both for historical and practical reasons. I'm not sure that the Lund images add anything to the discussion, but the authors themselves have to admit that "The filmed sequence shows the energy distribution of the electron and is therefore not a film in the usual sense." [36] Their paper in Phys. Rev. Lett. describes it as "imaging the electron momentum distribution resulting from a single ionization event", which is hardly the same as "filming an electron"!
The spectral lines of hydrogen were already discussed in the history. It seemed logical to focus on observations of unbound electrons, rather than atoms. (The latter is already discussed on the atom article.) I tweaked the text regarding the Lund image very slightly.—RJH (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph of the Applications section doesn't appear to say anything useful at all, and should be put out of its misery with the Delete key. "Virtually every developed technology depends upon electrons." Yes, well, virtually every undeveloped technology as well! In fact, virtually everything depends on electrons, if you look at it that way! Or depends on energy, or depends on photons, or depends on number theory, or depends on the will of an unknowable supreme deity, depending on your PoV and the article you're trying to write!
I removed it, as it is more or less evident from prior information on the page.—RJH (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are several minor problems with the formatting of physical quantities. Commas should not be used to separate thousands if you're also using a full point as a decimal separator. Neither should centered dots be used to express the product of two units if there is a point as the decimal separator in the numerical part. In both cases, thinspaces are unambiguous and so preferred. I saw several cases (not universal) of hyphens instead of minus signs in negative exponants. When e is used as the symbol for elementary charge, it is in italics, but when e is used as a symbol for the electron it is in upright font (the infobox was the error I noted).
Alas, I'm weary of fighting the battle over how numbers should be formatted. The comma is the result of the 'val' template, and the format is in compliance with Wikipedia:NUMBERS#Large_numbers. The hyphen is equivalent to the HTML − tag. I fixed the charge entry in the infobox; thanks for pointing it out.—RJH (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In brief, I think the article is almost there, but still needs a fairly extensive copyedit by a scientifically-knowledgeable editor: not to imply that the nominator isn't scientifically-knowledgeable (!), merely to emphasize that I see more problems that WP:MOS formatting. Physchim62(talk) 13:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been examined by multiple scientifically-knowledgeable editors. I posted notices to the Physics, Chemistry and Electronics WikiProjects asking for more input; hopefully that will be forthcoming. Thank you for the feedback.—RJH (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With any long-standing article, editors who are familiar with it tend to subconsciously "skip" passages, and so are not really the best-placed to do a copy edit. Leaving aside (for a moment) matters of style and of opinion as to what should be included where, I found the following scientific points which seem at best dubious to me, and which have probably (unless I'm the one in the wrong, of course) been overlooked by many pairs of eyes. Physchim62(talk) 00:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scientific points that Physchim62 finds dubious
"Thomson made good estimates of both the charge e and the mass m, finding that cathode ray particles … had perhaps one thousandth of the mass of the least massive ion known: hydrogen." (Thompson only measured the ratio m/e, not the individual quantities: the ratio for the electron was found to be about 1/1000 of that for the proton, which Thomson ascribed to both a small mass and a high charge)
Per Thomson's Nobel lecture (provided as a cite), his colleague Wilson found a way to measure the electrical charge e. His lecture ascribes the determination of e to Thomson, so I believe the current statement is correct.—RJH (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, by 1906 Thomson had found a good value for the charge, and hence the mass. I still find the paragraph a little misleading, but I shall try to rephrase it myself to save on discussion as we seem to agree on the basics. Revert if necessary! Physchim62(talk) 01:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Chemical bonds between atoms were explained in 1916 by Gilbert Newton Lewis, as the interactions between their constituent electrons." (Interactions between electrons are always repulsive, so could hardly explain chemical bonding: the Lewis model of covalent bonding is based on the sharing of electrons between atoms.)
"As the chemical properties of the elements were known to largely repeat themselves according to the periodic law, in 1919 the American chemist Irving Langmuir suggested that this could be explained if the electrons in an atom were connected or clustered. Groups of electrons were thought to occupy a set of electron shells about the nucleus, providing the necessary clustering." (This insight is due to Lewis (1916, in the same paper as his bonding model), although Langmuir's paper proved influential in popularizing it – and provoking a bitter priority dispute.)
"Rather than yielding a solution that determines the location of an electron over time, this [Schrödinger's] wave equation gives the probability of finding an electron near a position." (The SWE doesn't give a probability, that is Born's interpretation of φ2)
I tweaked the sentence slightly.
OK, although it might be simpler just to say "This function can be squared to give the probability…" or "When this function is squared it gives the probability…" Physchim62(talk) 01:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As that section is about history, I deliberately avoided duplicating the description from the "Quantum mechanics" section. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"However, for atoms with multiple electrons, the exact solution to the wave equation is much more complicated, so approximations were often necessary." (For many-electron atoms, the wave equation cannot be solved exactly, so approximations are always necessary)
True. I updated the text.
"Energy emission can occur when a moving electron is deflected by a charged particle, such as a proton. The deceleration of the electron results in the emission of Bremsstrahlung radiation." (How is the interaction of an electron with a proton supposed to produce a deceleration? Energy is emitted, of course, but the image is misleading as it omits any mention of the potential energy of the electron.)
I changed it to the more general word 'acceleration'. Would you like me to state in the caption that E1 and E2 represent the KE of the electron at infinity?
"For the 51 GeV electron above, the wavelength is small enough to explore structures well below the size of an atomic nucleus." (The wavelength is smaller than the size of the atomic nucleus, and the energy of the electron is higher than many of the forces that hold the nucleus together, but you shouldn't imply that you could make an electron microscope out of 51 GeV electrons!)
"By comparison, electron microscopes are limited by the de Broglie wavelength of the electron, which is equal to 0.0037 nm." (As mentioned above, the de Boglie wavelength is dependent on the kinetic energy of the electron: it doesn't have a "fixed" value.)
Comments -
A number of your book refs are lacking page numbers. I noticed current refs 5, 7, 14, 15. Please double check ALL your book refs and make sure they give pages numbers.
Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the references. I noted CERN, but there may be others.
As for the pp. 6-39 to 6-40, I'm guessing that the pages are numbered 6-39, 6-40, 6-41...so that would be the correct method of listing the pages. Some scientific/math books number by chapter then page within the chapter.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
dragging this back to my concerns Okay, I think something got lost in the shuffle over the page numbers. I did have two concerns that I listed above, but the third comment was merely to point out how some scientific works are paginated. Has anything been done on the two other concerns? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth: First, I was wondering if the character used in pp. 6–39 to 6–40 was in fact an en dash (which would be an imprudent choice by the original publishers; might it be a hyphen?). Second, regardless of exactly which character it is, the imperative is to inform our readers accurately. I think my suggestion p. 6–39 to p. 6–40 [sic] achieves this. I still advocate this solution (perhaps without the [sic], in fact).
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 02:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[Moved from above to here:] Why won't it do as it stands? It is clear and presumably accurate. Some technical books do use this style of page numbering, especially those published by CRC Press. FTI, it is to avoid having to reset every page in the book if material is added or deleted early on for a new edition. I would certainly object to any use of sic: we should not be implying that this is an error, nor hat the source "is destined for trouble". Physchim62(talk) 10:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, it won't do as it stands because here at Wikipedia it looks like a mistake. That's how I took it, and I've been around for a while (at WP, and in general). It wasn't clear to me, so it probably will not be clear to others. (This and the next point illustrate something valuable in FAC's exposing specialist articles to review from editors outside the specialty.) Even if that style is familiar to some physicists, it is not familiar to others: and this is a general encyclopedia in which all sorts of technical matters are given exposition in a way that is friendly to non-specialists. For another thing, the present form with to is already a compromise, so the idea of compromising is not itself novel. I simply say it is not the best compromise. Don't include [sic], if that bothers you, though I should point out that it couldn't reasonably be taken to imply an error in the source. The form p. 6–39 to p. 6–40 is harder to misunderstand than what it would replace. Finally, that the source is destined for trouble is borne out by the very wrangle we are currently engaged in! It should have been foreseen that citations nearly always involve an en dash for ranges of pages (or a hyphen, in some practices). It was therefore imprudent to incorporate an en dash as a part of the labelling of every page.
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 11:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would notation like the following resolve your concern? "pp. §6-39 to §6-40" —RJH (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No RJH, that would not be appropriate. I have taken the trouble to examine the source itself, and it turns out not to use en dashes as the candidate article suggests it does. Indications on each page use bold, and a shorter hyphen than those in the text: 8-2. Nothing like an en dash. The index shows page numbers like this, with a standard en dash to mark a range:
Ampere's law 6.7, 6.9–6.10
I now suggest that we follow CRC's own practice, which is quite clear:
6.39–6.40
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 21:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, Noetica's critrion is both warped and pernicious. The index of the book uses point separators because it was written (in 1980) with the intention that people would hold the book in their hands and so immediately undertand the significance of the points. I doubt very much that Noetica would have let pass pp. 6.39–6.40 at a first view, because this would "look[ed] like a mistake on Wikipedia" in his/her eyes. I certainly don't grant this editor the sole judgment as to what looks right and what looks wrong on Wikipedia. Nor do I see that the proposed solution would help users to find the reference in the cited work. How is the reader supposed to translate a point into a hyphen? Isn't the current solution les ambiguous for the normal user, even if it isn't an exact transcription of CAS style? What credit should we give to the comments of people who are so obviously more concerned with the pettiest points of style over the general aim of substance and utility? Physchim62(talk) 23:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Checked. Oh, you want me to do something about them? Beh, you've made a tool for that and you can't even be bothered to use it yourselves (let alone read the article, let alone understand it). To anyone who cares about such pettiness, the following links should probably be revised:
They have been revised. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only serious issue I can see with this article is with criterion 4. (I'm used to fixing the non-serious issues I see – as I did, rather than just pointing them out.) According to this the article has 46.9 KB of proses, twice the median feature article (23.3 KB according to this). But, given the difficulty of handling this in an article about a topic which is relevant to so many different subjects, I nevertheless support.
(As for the page numbers, one will figure out what pp. 6-39 to 6-40 (or pp. 6-39 – 6-40) means as soon as they open the book, and if they don't have access to the book they wouldn't give a damn about the page numbers anyway.) --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 15:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Isn't electricity the most obvious use of electrons? Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's that question supposed to mean? --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 17:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would seem so. The "Applications" section had a summary that mentioned both the chemical industry and electronics. However, it was removed as a result of earlier comments from this FAC.—RJH (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. I see that there's a circular bing-bang going on about the formatting of pagination et al. in the refs. Why are you using a template? Those things were made for utter newbies who've never dealt with ref lists before. It's less work to do it manually, and you maintain control over it all. My advice is to get rid of the template.
No, my strong preference is to use templates. Manual reference inserts are a nuisance to clean up. Reference templates are much easier to maintain.—RJH (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can we fix the micro things when they come up, please? Noetica is a notable expert in English-language style who has taught me a great deal. I believe that on his shelves are just about every important style guide for the language, and it shows, I must say. I'm sure he's waiting to proceed to other matters that will improve the article.
While we're on micro stuff (which needs to be got right along with the facts and the macro strategy/tone etc), you may be making errors concerning en dashes and hyphens here (-ly plus hyphen, I noticed). Feel free to run through these exercises to test your knowledge of these important aspects of punctuation.
I think the nomination has good prospects, and I appreciate the expertise of the authors. It is already an important contribution, but let's make the text entirely professional. I'll return soon to review it. In the meantime, it does need copy-editing, so I wonder whether you know how to locate one or two word-nerds who are vaguely in this area. Tony(talk) 10:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A search for ly- in the article produced no result. --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 16:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Coupla things at the top:
"... made of ... make up ..."
Can't get your point about this. Neutrons and protons make up nuclei; nuclei and electrons make up atoms. That's exactly what the article states. --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 15:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it gets a little too technical in the second para: is there some brilliant way up your sleeve of engaging more with intelligent non-experts in the lead, and pushing down just the most daunting technicalities into the body of the article?
Maybe, but I can't find a less technical translation of that. BTW, apart of "identical particles", "generation", "lepton", "weak interactions" and "quantum state", all those words are taught in high schools, and some of them in junior high schools, too. --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 15:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually tried that at one point, but got overridden by the physics experts. I think we can probably safely dump the stuff about the value of the spin and provide an explanation of quantum state. The rest seems relatively benign. Would that be acceptible?—RJH (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The properties of the electron are determined by observing its interaction with other particles." I'm confused: is this Heisenberg thingy, the stuff about "observation changes the observed"? If so, it needs to be better explained, coz I just don't get it as is. If not, please reword.
It means "the way you determine the properties of the electron is the observation of its interaction with other particles." Which is true of everything: you can see a chair because it scatters off light from a lamp/the sun into your eyes ("interacts with photons" in fancier terms). While it's true that other particles interact back with the electron or the chair (essentially, Newton's third law; this is neglegible in the case of the chair but not in that of the electron), I think this is irrelevant here. How would you reword that? --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 15:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, be technical further down by all means, but the spin/h such will frighten off most otherwise willing folk. Tony(talk) 10:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Jakob ScholbachJakob.scholbach (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The article looks fairly reasonable, but, with cursory reading, I do have a number of concerns that should be fixed.[reply]
It is not clear why "The concept of a least possible amount of electrical charge was theorized on several occasions, beginning in 1838 by British natural philosopher Richard Laming;" is mentioned so early or at all. Unless you already know what an electron is and that charges comes in discrete packages, this leads you astray.
I guess I'm a little baffled about why you're unclear here. The first sentence defines an electron. The second shows when it became understood that charges come in small packets. How does this lead you astray? Most reviewers seem to like the discovery to be in the first paragraph. That's my preference too. Please clarify.
OK, not clear was perhaps the wrong word. Let me put it differently: the lead is not written smoothly, in the sense that things that belong together are not together: the 1st sentence gives a definition of electrons. The 2nd and 3rd give historical information. The 4th gives, again, fundamental physical information. The historical stuff in between hinders a smooth reading of the physical stuff. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Each electron carries a negative elementary charge" is repetetive (with the very first sentence). Also, "Each" sounds a bit awkward, I would omit that.
"Elementary charge" is different from "electrical charge".
Do you agree that every highlighted word in the following sentences is repetitive?: "Each electron carries a negative elementary charge" and "The electron is an elementary subatomic particle that carries a negative electrical charge" , "Electrons have no known substructure". Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"proton" and "antiparticle" should be wikilinked.
The use of references in the lead is inconsistent. I think, either you source every claim, or none. (The latter is OK, since everything you write here should come up in the body, so can be sourced there).
The lead follows WP:CITELEAD. I didn't write the policy, I just follow it.—RJH (talk)\
Well, I think, you don't follow it. It says "editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material". The fact that Stoney introduced the name electron is not terribly challengeable, I feel. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Etymology section
It's a bit awkward to start with that, I feel. Also the section is really short. Perhaps merge that into the history section?
The etymologists seem to like to have the definition there. It seems fine to me.—RJH (talk)
"which in turn came" should be "comes"
I used "came" to preserve tense.
Hm. Now it reads "Both electric and electricity are derived from the Latin ēlectrum, which came from the Greek word ēlektron (ήλεκτρον) for amber." -- I still don't see the reason for past tense. An etymological derivation is something that is valid today, I think. (Not that this is terribly important...) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"with the latter now used to designate a subatomic particle, such as a proton or neutron" I doubt that. "-on" is simply the ancient Greek ending of words with neutral gender.
Is there no better illustration of the Crookes' experiment? The image just shows that the rays can be shielded, but not the deflection.
It's in the infobox. The illustration demonstrates the current flow.—RJH (talk)
The text says "Furthermore, by applying a magnetic field, he was able to deflect the rays" -- I thought an illustration of this would be good. (AFAIK the shielding depicted in the current picture is less informative than the bending of the rays, right?) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In general, the wording is occasionally not so good. I'm not a native speaker, but it seems odd to me that you put "the"'s very often, e.g. "During the period 1838–51, the British natural philosopher" or "in 1874, the Irish physicist". Another example of awkward wording: "A body has an electric charge when that ...".
Keep going! "Based upon his work, in 1930 Paul Dirac" sounds awkward. I'm sure I could spot another dozen or so ... Perhaps you ask some copyeditor with a fresh mind to scan the article? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Formation section
"The big bang theory is the accepted scientific theory to explain the early stages in the evolution of the Universe." you have to provide a reference for that claim.
Silk (2008).—RJH (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm talking about a precise reference of that particular claim. You ought to give the reference of the page where it is written. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Applications: this looks a bit unstructured, for example, the electron microscopes appear both in Industry and Laboratory, but it's not clear why. I would do a separate section for electron microscopes. I feel that the applications in general are underrepresented, for example compared to the lenghty history section.
I deleted the electron microscope entry in industry. The sectioning complies with WP:Layout. What would you add that is specifically related to applications of only electrons, as opposed to atoms? (The latter would cover virtually every application.)—RJH (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a connoisseur of these matters, but I think you should sketch how an electron microscope or the surface imaging techniques work. Also, are LEED and RHEED primarily industry-used techniques? It looks like they belong to laboratory. But actually I think the applications section might benefit from a restructuring: ordering the applications by the specific feature of electrons they use could make it all more coherent. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. I'm going to let these article comments alone for a while and then come back to them when I have a calmer perspective and more free time. Thank you for your observations.—RJH (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notes section: you might want to use two columns for that.
Actually I dislike two columns because the formulae (or some cite fields) tend to overlap the other column.—RJH (talk)
External links: I think they should only be included if they offer something the article does not have: according to that the Weissstein link should go, the PDG one is also not quite clear to me. The last external link lacks an accessdate. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for "-on", that part of that sentence is clearly about modern English, what it means in ancient Greek is irrelevant. The rest of your points sound valid. --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 18:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I doubt that "electron" (in English) derives from "electric" + "-on", rather I think, "electron" (Eng) derives from "elektron" (Greek), but I'm not an etymologist, so I give you the benefit of the doubt. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I'm going to have to go with the sources.—RJH (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can't ask Stoney what his intent was, but I think it is not perceived like that. For example, the plural is "electrons" not "electra" (compare with "phenomena", "automata", "criteria", etc.). Also, that suffix is now used in names which have nothing to do with Greek, e.g. "boson", "fermion", "gluon", etc. --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 12:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After a second reading of the lead section, I think that the lead has to be rewritten completely. Before that's done (and the above points are covered), I oppose this article being featured. The lead contains quite an amount of technical terms. I don't assume they can (or should) be completely avoided, but more of an effort should be made toward that direction. For example "The electron is an elementarysubatomic particle". The reader will wonder: What does elementary mean? You give the answer a bit later ("Electrons have no known substructure"). Another example: "Interaction among the electrons of two or more atoms is the main cause of chemical bonding. " somehow belongs to "The attractive Coulomb force between an electron and a proton is what causes electrons to be bound into atoms." Finally the formation aspects and applications are not at all mentioned in the lead! My rule of thumb: every longer subsection should be represented by about one sentence. Vice versa, every sentence of the lead should condense a considerable amount of information, or else be a very important single fact. "The mass of an electron is approximately 1⁄1836 of a proton." does not satisfy, IMO, either of the two. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To me the primary issue with the technical terms is due to the sentences on spin and the quantum state. I'll see if I can simplify a little.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This was the first Wikipedia article that I ever created, back in March 2005 when I was a freshman in high school. Since then, I have applied what I have learned as my Wikipedia editing skills and writing skills have improved. I was finally able to access a map archive and was able to write a comprehensive history of the route, as well as write a more solid route description. I believe that this article now meets all of the FA criteria, and I am ready to try my first FAC. Rschen7754 (TC) 23:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The route travels as a freeway through the heavily populated cities of northern San Diego County before turning into a highway running through the mountains to Julian. - what mountains?
Following this, SR 78 enters Imperial County and travels through the desert near the Salton Sea before turning north to Blythe. - is there a link to "Blythe"?
Yes, look at the first sentence. --Rschen7754 (TC) 02:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The freeway section in the North County of San Diego that connects Oceanside and Escondido has been improved several times, and there are many projects slated to improve the freeway due to increasing congestion in the region. - the "the" in "the region" should be "that" because it sounds like a WP:POV (Point-of-view)
The word "the" in the sentence I outlined above where it says "the region" should be changed to that.--Truco 02:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Done, but I don't see how it is POV at all. --Rschen7754 (TC) 02:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Route Description
SR 78 is known as Ronald Packard Parkway from Interstate 5 in Oceanside to Interstate 15 in Escondido,[3] and Ben Hulse Highway from SR 86 near Brawley to Interstate 10 near Blythe. - is there a link to "SR 86" and "Blythe"?
SR 78 is part of the California Freeway and Expressway System,[7] although only the metropolitan section of SR 78 is a freeway. - why isn't this in the lead? Most freeway articles have this in the lead.
This is the new standard for CA road articles (it never was the standard for freeway articles). Most of the articles have not been updated yet. Furthermore, I don't see why this should be cited as grounds for oppose at FA. --Rschen7754 (TC) 02:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not only why I opposed it, its because of the other prose problems.--Truco 02:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The section of SR 78 from the western junction of SR 79 to the western junction with SR 86 is legally eligible for the State Scenic Highway System;[8] however, only the section in Anza Borrego Desert State Park has officially been designated as being part of the system.[9] - SR 86 is first linked here, when it should be linked in the previous sentences. If that is done, remove the link in this sentence.
The first paragraph makes the prose confusing because the second paragraph begins to formally introduce the highway. I would move the first paragraph later down in the description, which will help the reader understand the description more.
Again, this is the new California standard; having it at the end of the route description was too late; having it in the lead violated WP:LEAD since it requires citations. --Rschen7754 (TC) 02:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but it seems awkward, especially for a reader who is not aware of road articles.--Truco 02:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
... the other options were worse. --Rschen7754 (TC) 02:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if its a policy/consensus, I can't change that.--Truco 03:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The freeway then turns southeast, continuing into San Marcos near California State University San Marcos and entering Escondido, where SR 78 has an interchange with I-15. - it would flow better IMO if a comma was added before and after the University's name.
The freeway then turns southeast, continuing into San Marcos near, California State University San Marcos, and entering Escondido, where SR 78 has an interchange with I-15. ??? --Rschen7754 (TC) 02:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I mean before "near" and after" the university name.--Truco 02:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Not necessary; having commas there are too distracting and interrupt the flow of the sentence. --Rschen7754 (TC) 02:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I was reading the sentence a different way.--Truco 03:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Following this, SR 78 becomes a curvy road, heading south to enter the community of Ramona as Pine Street. - "curvy road" sounds really wordy, can another word be used?
SR 78 then leaves Ramona as Julian Road, which continues on a curvy mountain road through Witch Creek to Santa Ysabel where it meets SR 79. - SR 79 is WP:OVERLINK (overlinked) linked above already. Also, the word "curvy" is also wordy here, same thing applies here like I stated above.
SR 78 and 79 run concurrently accross the headwater of the San Diego River and through the hamlet of Wynola, briefly entering Cleveland National Forest before reaching Julian as Washington Street. - typo on "across"
SR 78 and 79 turn right onto Main Street and travel through downtown Julian before SR 79 diverges south towards Cuyamaca and SR 78 heads northeast as winding Banner Road through Whispering Pines. - is "winding" needed?
It conveys more information than if it was left out. --Rschen7754 (TC) 02:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does winding in this context refer to?--Truco 02:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Twisting, curving... --Rschen7754 (TC) 02:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clearing that up.--Truco 03:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
As it nears the Colorado River and the Arizona border, SR 78 briefly passes through Cibola National Wildlife Refuge before nearing the community of Palo Verde, where the river turns away from the highway and SR 78 enters Riverside County.[ - the word "near(ing)" is overused, use other words like "approach"
SR 78 then continues north for a few more miles to its terminus at I-10 a few miles west of Blythe. - "a few miles" is WP:WEASEL, the exact number of miles needs to be determined.
There are a couple red links, a little too much IMO, either remove them or create stub versions of those articles.
Well before the designation of SR 78, a road known as the Brawley-Westmorland-Julian-Oceanside Highway connected Oceanside, Escondido, Ramona, Julian, Westmorland, and Brawley as early as around 1900. - no need for "Well" and remove the "around" because the sentence says the same thing without it.
Done first; restructured for second. --Rschen7754 (TC) 02:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This road roughly followed the current routing of SR 78 from Escondido to just east of Brawley,[13] although it traveled along a different routing from Westmorland into Brawley. - "to just east" is bad wording, how about ..Escondido to eastern Brawley or something along those lines
There is a loss of meaning if you do that. --Rschen7754 (TC) 02:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about to the east of Brawley it still says the same and is grammatically correct versus "just east"--Truco 03:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
East of the Sand Hills, there was a road from Glamis passing by Smith Well into Palo Verde which roughly follows the routing of SR 78. - comma before "which"
During the 1940s, US 395 ran concurrently along the portion of SR 78 from Vista to Escondido before continuing along Santa Fe Avenue to Bonsall and Fallbrook before meeting its alignment during the 1970s. - the two "before"'s make the sentence a run on, either split it or fix the punctuation to make it a complete sentence
Finally, in 1971, the entire routing of SR 78 as it is today began to appear on highway maps. - comma before "as" and after "today"
That's worse than it is right now. --Rschen7754 (TC) 02:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Following initial construction
On July 1, 1999, a standoff took place between Janet Lucero, an armed woman, and the California Highway Patrol after the former allegedly threatened another driver with a gun. - "the former", what does this mean?
To indicate that the CHP officer did not threaten the driver. I don't see the problem with this. --Rschen7754 (TC) 02:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand this, when I see "former" I think of somebody of a past profession, I don't know what it means in this context. A link or explanation would help.--Truco 02:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I've seen this before in published works. [38] for more info (definition 2). --Rschen7754 (TC) 02:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Preceding in place or arrangement so ..."after the former (preceding in place or arrangement) allegedly threatened another driver with a gun. Does not make sense.--Truco 03:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
It's perfectly acceptable - the average American adult can understand it. I've seen it in several fiction / non-fiction works. --Rschen7754 (TC) 03:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plans call for adding more lanes to Interstate 5 and SR 78 as well as for the construction of a new ramp from SR 78 westbound to I-5 southbound and from I-5 southbound to SR 78 eastbound. - comma before "as"
Not necessary. --Rschen7754 (TC) 02:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the past, there was a direct ramp from SR 78 westbound to I-5 southbound which avoided this traffic signal; however, it has since been replaced by a park and ride. - comma before "which"
Not necessary. --Rschen7754 (TC) 02:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After a rain during the desert monsoon season, these washes can be left with several inches of water, sand, and rock debris. - "After a rain" makes no sense, do you mean After it rains..?
The postmile column is confusing because some have numbers and others are listed as "R6.19" it confuses the reader, I suggest adding notes or a key to explain this.
It's explained just under the header... --Rschen7754 (TC) 02:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As well as the italics, it needs to be elaborated.
The web references need consistent formatting, especially with the dates because some of them have it as "2008-05-23" while others are "February 2008" it needs to be consistent throughout.Truco 01:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Not entirely possible - {{cite news}} uses different date formats in the same citation. I can try and standardize all the "retrieved" dates and all the "accessed" and "published" ones if you want, but total consistency is a red herring. --Rschen7754 (TC) 03:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well somebody went through and cleaned it up. All actionable objections addressed. --Rschen7754 (TC) 18:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really hope you did some research on this road before bringing it here. In two seconds I found that it is the longest State Route in California. Don't see that in the article. What else is missing? history, perhaps...? Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR) 11:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no way that it is the longest state route in California. What's your source? --Rschen7754 (TC) 18:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
California State Route 99 is 424.85 miles, California State Route 78 is 215.39 miles. Other longer routes include but are not limited to SR 33, SR 1, SR 36, SR 49, SR 58, ... the list goes on and on. This objection is frivolous, especially as I did put about 8-10 hours of research into this. --Rschen7754 (TC) 18:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean "the GIS data I created"? I created it. --NE2 18:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, you had to have had a map that you used as a reference for creating the GIS data, which I assume is the map you posted above... - Algorerhythms (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about positioning, that was mainly traced over NORTAD highway data. As for numbering and status, sources were the state laws and those cited in the junction list. --NE2 19:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So somebody just needs to find the NORTAD link and put it on the image page? --Rschen7754 (TC) 09:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever sources were used have still not been added to the image description page. Awadewit (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a whole bunch - is that good? --Rschen7754 (TC) 19:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone familiar with road sources evaluate these? I assume you could make the map from these, but I don't really know. Awadewit (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not going to look through the whole thing, but it appears all the early history is sourced to maps. That's not a problem sourcewise, but it means some things may be missing that would appear in news accounts or local histories. --NE2 18:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I got all the articles that the newspaper index had. That being said, the index may not go back to the early 1900's (and one might have to sit in the library all day going through newspaper after newspaper on microfilm). I'm not even sure if the microfilm archives go back all the way to 1867 - I can check... --Rschen7754 (TC) 19:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no index for the years of 1903-about 1920. I got all the articles the index had, unless they used some really obscure term to put the articles under. --Rschen7754 (TC) 21:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should try to get a copy of [42]. --NE2 23:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can try next time I get to the library; however, I'm not sure that it would add much to the article (date 1969, and I have a few other articles from that era). --Rschen7754 (TC) 23:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, you have articles about the west end from that era, but this is a long road. It seems to me that there's nothing about why the road was built, which should be available. --NE2 23:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Thi article basically passes WP:FAC criteria, it cites and references stuff, the plot isn't too long/short, it links to other pages, there aren't ny edit-wars, the page isn't biased, and the lead section covers the whole page. Elbutler (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose big fat needs references banner at the top, only two inline citations. Strongly suggest a Peer Review. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient inline citations per WP:CITE. Gary King (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The plot summary is way to long, there aren't enough refs, and the critical reviews section is based entirely on 11 reviews at Rotten Tomatoes. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not sure File:Baltocd.jpg is a justifiable use of a non-free image. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Typhoon Rammasun was one of two Super Typhoons that formed during the 2008 Pacific typhoon season. Rammasun is also tied with Intense Tropical Cyclone Hondo as the second strongest storm during 2008 in terms of central pressure. Thus it was felt that this was one of the more important articles of the 2008 Pacific typhoon season to improve and give an FAC to. Jason Rees (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These issues should be easy to resolve. All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to include a sentence in the MH stating that Rammasun was tied with Hondo as the second strongest storm in 2008. (use the RSMC BT for Hondo reference)
Rammasun formed on May 5 as a tropical disturbance, the next day the Joint Typhoon Warning Center issued a tropical cyclone formation alert, on the developing disturbance. the comma after tropical cyclone formation alert isn't needed
On May 7 both the JTWC and the Japan Meteorological Agency designated the disturbance as a tropical depression whilst PAGASA named the depression Butchoy. Whist -> while
The next day the JMA and the JTWC reported that Rammasun had reached its peak winds of 195 km/h (120 mph) and 250 km/h (155 mph) which made Rammasun a Category 4 super typhoon on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale. - add "respectively" after (155 mph) and put a comma after it
Rammasun caused a total of $8,600,000 worth of damage in both the Philippines and Japan. put $8.6 million instead of $8,600,000
You should probably mention the 40 injuries at the end of the lead
Oppose, til comments resolved - Seems pretty good, but prose could use some tune-up.
the next day the Joint Typhoon Warning Center issued a tropical cyclone formation alert on the developing disturbance. - Comma after next day, reads better
In the same section, you should mention in there that the acronyms refer to the above agencies. ie. PAGASA
Rammasun caused a total of $8.6 million worth of damage - Mention currency in lead, too
Although there were no reported deaths from the typhoon, there were 40 people sustained injuries. - Replace it with - that sustained...
Move the naming section up.
which made it a Category 4 super typhoon. - Replace it with making it a....
Typhoon Rammasun (International designation: 0802, JTWC designation: 03W, PAGASA name: Butchoy) was recognized as the second tropical storm and the second typhoon of the 2008 Pacific typhoon season by the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) and the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA). - This sentence is a bit of a mess. There are abbreviations, redlinks, parenthesis; try to break it up.
Um Julian there arent any redlinks in the lead of Typhoon Rammasun, but done.Jason Rees (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rammasun formed on May 5 as a tropical disturbance, the next day the Joint Typhoon Warning Center issued a tropical cyclone formation alert on the developing disturbance. - Replace the comma with a semicolon or a full stop.
On May 7 both the JTWC and the Japan Meteorological Agency designated the disturbance as a tropical depression while PAGASA named the depression Butchoy. - Needs a comma.
Early on May 6, the JTWC upgraded the disturbances chances of forming in to a tropical cyclone within 24 hours to "fair", as the low level circulation center had consolidated further. - This sentence doesn't add much to the article, but in any event, "in to" should be one word.
A tropical cyclone formation alert was then issued later that day, by the JTWC who upgraded the disturbance's chances of becoming a tropical cyclone by the next day as good. - "As" → "to".
The storm history seems to drag on; it comprises primarily of boring statistics by the tracking agencies. Isn't there any meteorological information that would be interesting?
I dont think so but ill double check Guam Stuff when it loads.Jason Rees (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Along with moderate to heavy rain, winds gusted up to 85 km/h (50 km/h) as the storm moved out to sea. - How could a storm move out to sea if it's already at sea?
The winds brought by the storm caused severe damage to some buildings and numerous amounts of trees some weighing tonnes were uprooted. - Run-on sentence, but do we really need to know how much the trees weighed?
This is a nice article, but I'm just going to oppose on the grounds that tropical systems that never struck land and didn't kill anybody ought not to have featured articles. GA fine, FA I oppose. There has to be an importance threshold somewhere. Looie496 (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anywhere in the FA criteria that storms can only have featured articles if they make landfall. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 21:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Articles should be judged on their quality, not on whether or not anybody was killed. JonCatalán(Talk) 21:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is not a voting process, my opinion can always be ignored, but my opinion is that at some point importance has to matter. Otherwise we'll be having featured articles about tropical depressions and bus stops, and the whole thing will become meaningless. I just can't see having featured articles about the countless Pacific storms that whip up in the open water and recurve without ever touching land, unless there is something particularly notable about them. Looie496 (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your point. We already have FAs on tropical depressions. Additionally, why does it matter if we have a bunch of storm FAs? IMO, it's better to have an FA than a stub, regardless of the subject's interest and notability. Regards, –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 23:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Post-mortem and disappointed strong oppose. Overall writing is bad, and I honestly don't think the article is a good example of how a typhoon article should look. Significant rewriting is needed.
The Infobox is wrong. The formation date is when the JMA first classified it as a depression. The met. history only says that a disturbance formed on the 5th, nothing that it was a depression.
The first paragraph of the lede is far too long-winded. It tells me nothing, just its place within the season (without even telling me the month). Here's a tidbit - every item linked in the first paragraph is wikilinked twice, which is clearly an example of over-linking. Compare the first paragraph of the lede to any of the other featured typhoon articles, and you'll see it's underwhelming and overall not helpful. I am personally not a fan of "was recognized as the second typhoon of the 2008 Pacific typhoon season". It immediately introduces an awkward element into the writing, by saying "was recognized". As the JMA is the official agency, it doesn't matter who recognizes it as what, in terms of what it really is. Because JMA said so, Rammasun was definitively the 2nd typhoon of the season. But then you introduce the JTWC element. First, it's unsourced that it was the third JTWC storm. Second, it mentions super typhoon (and tropical storm, for that matter), without explaining them. Super typhoon is an unofficial term, but you never explain in the article what it even is.
The second paragraph of the lede starts out poorly. As I said before, it is wrong to say Rammasun formed on May 5th. If you're referring to when the JTWC first mentioned it, then it was not a tropical cyclone then. The first sentence is also not a complete sentence; either it's missing a semi-colon, a verb, or a conjunction. More importantly, is it necessary to go into such origins of the precursor (like mentioning the unofficial TCFA)? Why not just start when it actually became a tropical cyclone? That leads to a broader concern that the second paragraph goes into too much detail (such as on JTWC), or at the very least that there is very little flow. The whole met. history portion of the lede is very bland writing, basically just one sentence on each event in its duration. You don't mention anything about the location (anywhere in the lede, mind you, prior to the impact). BTW, all units need to be linked in their first usage in prose, which you haven't done yet. The paragraph is also vague about its impact in the Philippines. The impact section, while almost equally as vague, still says that the impact in the Philippines came from a "tail", whereas the lede doesn't say anything about the typhoon going anywhere near the archipelago.
Moving on (since I don't want to spend all night on this) - the meteorological history has original research/false information. The first reference doesn't say a LPA formed on May 4. It just says that convection persisted, on May 5. Either a reference is missing, or it is original research. Furthermore, that leads me to wonder - where did it come from? Did an area of convection just magically appear? Next, the JTWC did not "[upgrade] the area of low pressure to a tropical disturbance" - they didn't upgrade anything, and the source surely doesn't even mention a low pressure area. Also, is it really that important to say that the JTWC "assessed the disturbances chances of forming in to a significant tropical cyclone within 24 hours as poor". First, that's a really long-winded way of saying that the agency didn't think it be likely to develop, but more importantly, most disturbances aren't thought to be likely contenders to develop! You're putting too much emphasis on what the JTWC assessed the system as. Remember, JTWC isn't official: what's more important is what happened, not what was said about what was happening. When a TCFA was issued (BTW, ref #3 is broken), what happened meteorologically with the actual storm? Surely, since the JMA is official, it should be mentioned somewhere in the first paragraph.
In the beginning of the second MH paragraph, I notice a cite web error. You say for ref's #4 and #5 that the warning was on 07-06-2008. I have no idea what that means, but it brings up two points. One, the storm was in May, so there's no way it could either be "07" or "06", and more importantly, all of the refs in the article need a publish date. "790 kms, (490 miles)" - fix that, it's wrong and doesn't follow the MoS. Watch out for poor transitions - "The JTWC then designated the depression as Tropical Depression 02W." First of all, that's false, as the lede says it was the 3rd cyclone of the season (meaning you didn't check the article very closely). Second, it's a pretty major jump to be classified as a tropical cyclone. That brings back my earlier point of not having enough actual information. The entire second paragraph is about what the agencies said. What did the actual cyclone do? Where did it go, and why?
The third paragraph has the same problem, of not having nearly enough meteorological information. It is just wind speeds and designations. I won't go into a significant review of the particular paragraph, since it needs more details (when did the eye form, what allowed it to strengthen so much, what was its closest approach to land, where did it peak), but I'll point out two main problems. You act like the SSHS is officially used in the WPAC, which it isn't - I don't even think the JTWC uses SSHS. Second, your mention of Hondo is weird, as it has no context. Where was Hondo? What measures strongest? You should specify in terms of pressure", as in terms of winds, Jangmi was stronger.
Same as above, more met. details are needed in the 4th paragraph. What caused it to weaken? What caused it to turn to the northeast? Again, there should be less focus on JTWC. How close did it pass to Japan? What happened after it became extratropical? I have a problem with the last sentence of the MH - "they downgraded it to an extratropical low". The source indicates the winds stayed the same, so it wasn't a downgrade by any means, just ET.
The "Naming, preparations and impact" section is lackluster. Generally, naming should be the last paragraph of the last section, not first. I do like how you mentioned it was one of 10 names by Thailand. The paragraph is probably the best in the article.
The second paragraph should probably be merged with the other Philippine info. BTW, there needs to be more explanation about the Philippine impact. Was that storm related to Rammasun? Was it monsoon-induced rainfall, as the preps paragraph mentioned, or was it an entirely different storm? If it was different, then it probably shouldn't be in the article. I don't like how there are only two sources for the Philippine impact, and both are within a week of the storm. Surely someone should know later on what happened there.
The Japanese impact is fine, though it'd be nice if there was more.
So that's my oppose. Good luck addressing all of that, or if you don't want to, then I would suggest withdrawing it. After this edit, I will return to retirement (I felt a need to comment here, though). I'll check back periodically to see much, if any, progress occurred. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Another Doctor Who series 4 article up for featured status. It's not as long as my Silmaril, The Stolen Earth, but at 33KB, I believe it is long enough for a 45 minute episode to be promoted to FA. I think I've sorted out all of the FA criteria, but I would accept suggestions for prose. Sceptre(talk) 04:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - I added the copyright holder to the FUR. The sole image in the article now meets WP:NFCC. Awadewit (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Three dabs require fixing. - Mailer Diablo 13:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's like I have my own TARDIS! I fixed it an hour before you said that ;) Sceptre(talk) 14:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Realized that the tool is lagging over a few days. - Mailer Diablo 15:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There seems to be a disproportionate amount of emphasis on the internment camp scene in the episode, as opposed to the main plot of the bug on Donna's back and Rose's return and warnings. Certainly it's an important scene, but not at the expense of the overall plot. Perhaps it'd be better to frame it within the overall dystopian atmosphere of the episode? It might also make more sense for the infobox image to be something relating to the episode's main plot, such as a shot of Donna in the UNIT time machine with the bug on her back, or of the stretcher with the Doctor's hand clutching the sonic screwdriver. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From a standpoint of WP:NFC, it's hard to justify a different image since both can be explained with words easily - a bug on someone's back, or the sonic screwdriver in the hands of the covered Doctor's corpse - and otherwise have no commentary outside of the episode itself to use. (Ok, maybe the bug in relationship to the previous DW episode that used the model, but again, it's still easily described by text). On the other hand, the image that Spectre's used here is one that was part of a powerfully emotional scene as stated by external sources. It may not be the most representative scenes, but it is much easier to assume this is a good rationale for the use of NFC than either of the other two examples. --MASEM 19:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Production-wise, it was an important scene; it was supposed to show to the audience really how fucked up the alternate world was. And the reviews I was able to find (mid-season reviews tend to be a bit more difficult, in my experience, to look for, and four or five are enough) all picked up on how powerful the scene was. And while it isn't really an important scene plot-wise, the plot is only one third of an episode article :) Sceptre(talk) 06:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note: it's kind of a fallacy that non-free images have to come from the plot. It helps, but just taking it solely from the plot stymies most chances of creating a decent rationale for use; c.f. The Stolen Earth and The Unicorn and the Wasp. Sceptre(talk) 06:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear on the use of WP:ITALICS in the "Writing" section? Please ask User:Brighterorange to run his script to correct the WP:DASHes in the citations. Also, citation formatting is inconsistent, some retrieved on, others Retrieved on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The italics are kind of a loan from my Wikiquote editing; they're supposed to indicate stage directions. Done the dashes issue in the citations. Sceptre(talk) 06:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This article needs to be thoroughly copyedited and the "Broadcast and reception" section needs to be reorganized.
The prose is, in general, too wordy (see the "Filming" section in particular) and there are numerous grammar errors throughout the article. A good copyeditor could fix these problems in two hours or so.
The larger problem is the structure of the "Broadcast and reception" section. The "Analysis" section is sourced entirely to Walker. Information should be drawn from the reviews for the analysis in addition to Walker, particularly since they mention some of the same themes and symbolic allusions. As it stands, the article repeats itself in the "Critical reception" section - there are ideas there that should be in the "Analysis" section. You need to select the elements of the reviews that are analytical and place those in the "Analysis" section and those elements that are evaluative and place those in the "Critical reception" section.
I hope these suggestions are helpful. Awadewit (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been substantially rewritten and referenced with proper citations. It follows the outline of a similar article Georgetown University which is an FA. It meets the standards of many articles about private and public universities in the US. It meets all of the criteria of WP:Featured article criteria. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 16:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images - is this the reason for your username? If it is, remind me to rib you about how absurd an androgynous orange puffball is for a mascot :P Anyhow, this is going to take a while but File:Otto.png needs a FUR for this page as well as its main page. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, hence my name. I'm going to have do an ANI for a personal attack against Otto. Oh, no wait, I hate that mascot. Back in my day (I'm older than dirt), we had much better mascots. This one is truly lame. But please, a dumb mascot is no reason to oppose this article. LOL. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 18:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A dumb mascot isn't a reason, them rejecting my application after I wrote the best goddamned essay ever is :P Anyhow, images:
File:Syracuse University Seal.png - the seal is no longer used on the main Syracuse site, which they have redesigned; thus the URL is outdated. Under the 'replaceable' field, it says: "No, Fair Use doesn't apply" - huh?
Not sure what you're saying here, but I can't find where this seal is "old". OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 18:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Otto.png and File:SyracuseOrange.png - the syracuse orange typeface isn't really an issue as it's PD, but wouldn't it make more sense to have less fair use images by removing Otto from the infobox? He's got his own page where such an image can be found, and I would expect the content which justifies the image per NFCC is found in that article.
I removed Otto. I'm keeping the logo, since it meets the standards that it is being used to identify Syracuse University. I'm going to read about it more. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 19:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have contacted SU's licensing departments about the logo and seal. I'm not sure I need permission, but I'm just making sure. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 19:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:SU Campus midcentury.jpg is missing the date and publication info that would cause it to be public domain (I'm iffy about the image in general because it was uploaded under a claim of fair use by a user who doesn't appear to have added any of the relevant details such as a source.)
File:MaxwellSchool.jpg - another image uploaded under fair use, missing vital info and thus an invalid PD claim.
File:June03 007.jpg - be nice to have an {{information}} template for this one, but doesn't appear to be suspect for free use.
File:CitrusTVnewlogo.png - the evidence that the uploader was given permission/is the copyright holder for this image? -OTRS verified
Just a note, if you actually remove the above as improperly free, please do something about the images on Commons rather than just removing them from the article (people seem to do that, but that just causes more issues down the road :P) I'll see about actually reading it sometime later. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on those, but I have no experience or interest in dealing with the images at commons. I just uploaded my first image last week, and I wasn't even sure I did it right. IMHO, I'd delete every single freaking image. I'd rather read than look at pictures, but hey, that's my feelings. AND, I think you were talking about the Dome Ranger. Now that's one annoying mascot. For a University that has a top level athletics program AND one of the top communications schools in the country, you'd think they could get this right. I'm starting the Down with Otto movement!!!!! OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 18:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the TV or radio logos are needed in the article. The Maxwell School image needs to be deleted on Commons and not speedy deletion here on enwiki. You can make a list of images here (or my talk page) to be deleted on Commons, and as an Commons admin, I can take care of them. --Aude (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See, I don't know anything about this. LOL. I'm trying. And yeah, I never liked the logos there. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 19:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took most of Mr. Fuch's suggestions (in the process, learning a thing or two about licensing of images), and removed suspect images. I also dumped that silly WERW and WAER logos. Not really necessary. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 07:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks much better, but File:Carnegie2a.jpg should be removed per the PD-US reason above, and what I meant about the seal is that the front page the image description page links to (syracuse.edu) no longer contains the logo, so another source for the image should be found. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - The only two big things I see are that the "Campus" and "Student life" sections are somewhat lacking in references. Also, the article says, "The Syracuse Center of Excellence in Environmental and Energy Systems is scheduled for completion in 2006." Was it completed? Also mentioned under #Downtown is the "Connective Corridor", which looks like according to [47] may be completed now. Otherwise the article is very well done. --B (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK B, this will crack you up. The Syracuse Center of Excellence in Environmental and Energy Systems has not been completed because asbestos was found in the building they're using. Excellence in Environment I suppose. It was supposed to be completed last month, but I can't find anything to confirm that. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 07:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have questions regarding some of the images' licenses - most notably CitrisTV's logo. I highly doubt that it is actually licensed in CC2.0. - Jameson L. Taitalk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 21:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Information is haphazardly spread among various sections.
Alumni call outs appear in sections outside of the alumni section: fraternities, media,
I'm going to pushback here. Since I'm going to guess that about 50% of ESPN is made up of Newhouse grads,[citation needed] I think mentioning the number of notable alumni who make up sports programming in the US is important to the article. If you can suggest a way to do this gracefully, I'm certainly not going to stand in the way of improvement. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 06:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article neglects major topics.
Where is the information on the organization/administration? How many schools? Who's the president? Board of trustees? Accreditation? Endowment? What is the relationship between the faculty and administration? Addressing Utica College and SUNY-ESF would likewise be better addressed in a standalone organization section rather than in academics.
Important academic topics are slighted. What are the largest/most popular programs? What's the academic calendar? Chapters of notable honor societies? Is there a core curriculum required of all undergraduates? The emphasis in the introductory paragraph on admissions rather than general description is inappropriate: use the Carnegie classifications first and foremost and then mention admission information later. There's no discussion of the composition of the student body: graduate/undergraduate size, racial demographics, geographic origin, average admission scores, freshmen retention rate, graduation rates, etc. No mention of financial aid, number of student qualifying for Pell grants, or graduating student debt.
If you'll indulge me while I toot my own horn, you can write a whole academics section without a single mention of rankings in the prose if you want. University of Michigan does it as well if FAs are the only precedents that matter as well. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, not to sound whiny, but Northwestern University stands on its merits without rankings. Syracuse, being a smaller and somewhat less well known school (except for the athletics programs), should have a bit more "oomph" behind what is written. It's hard not to brag.OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 06:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every school should be able to stand on its merits without rankings. I also don't understand what "oomph" is and why this article needs it, but other articles are fine without it. It may be hard not to brag, but most university FAs feel no need to do so nor should Wikipedia be in the business of promoting colleges. I would remind you of Wikipedia's policies on conflict of interest and neutrality (specifically, WP:MORALIZE, WP:ASF, and WP:BOOSTER). Madcoverboy (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Stand on its merits? So, I'm supposed to just write, "Syracuse is just a great school." Rankings do matter. And I'd suggest you retract your borderline uncivil commentary. It's not fostering discussion. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 02:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ranking section delves into too much detail on some departmental/subdepartmental topics (digital librarianship? trial advocacy?) while neglecting university-level rankings like ARWU, Forbes, Center for Measuring University Performance, etc. I would recommend using Template:Infobox US university ranking I likewise think that emphasizing positive (e.g. Top 10) rankings while neglecting lower-ranked programs is non-neutral and gives undue weight. Rankings likewise appear scattered in other sections, such as US News appearing in the intro academics paragraph rather than the rankings paragraph.
History section neglects to mention anything on racial integration, vietnam era protests, and adaption to decling government support in 1980s/90s, modernization steps during the boomer echo/admissions frenzy (new student life attractions)
The faculty section is almost completely unreferences and has no central theme other than listing a few who's who. Information on national academy membership, notable national/international prizes would be helpful. I think merging faculty with whats left of research (after spinning library out) would also be useful. Relationships/partnerships with local, state, federal govt
The museum/library information needs its own dedicated section since I don't think are entirely appropriate in the "research" section.
Lack of references in the student life and campus sections. I would emphasize and contextualize the National register of historic places much more as this is substantially more interesting than the content currently there. Campus also provides no geographic context on relationship with Syracuse, size of campus, distance from NYC, modes of transportation.
The alumni section has instances puffery and peacockery and weasel words: "one of the most-influential", "pioneering", "one of the richest"
I think these issues can be addressed in due course and there may yet be others still, but the article shouldn't be promoted. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DAB = disambiguation. In short form, some internal links lead to disambig pages rather than the proper specific page. You can check with the dab tool in the toolbox on this page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it me or is toolserver down? I know yarrow's down... but are they taking the entire thing down to get everything else back online? - Jameson L. Taitalk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 04:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. NO thanks to Jay Henry. LOL. By the way, it was Village of Lima, NY. I still don't get New York's obsessions with towns and villages. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 06:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
Current ref 1 (Syracuse Univeristy Chronology....) needs a publisher.
Same for current ref 9 (Eastern College Athlecit...)
Current ref 24 (Office of Admissions..) is lacking a publisher
Make sure all your magazines/newspaper titles are in italics. Use the work field to get this done.
Current ref 38 (Syracuse University Faculty..) is lacking a publisher
Current ref 43 (Syracuse University Research..) is lacking a publisher
Current ref 50 (Syracuse Univerity Map...) is lacking a publisher
Current ref 53 (Welcome to Syracuse..) is lacking a publisher
Current ref 57 (Student Association...) is lacking a publisher
Current ref 58 (The History of Syracuse Univeristy Fraternity ...) is lacking a publisher
Current ref 59 (BIG EAST...) is lacking a publisher. Also, should BIG EAST be in all caps?
Current ref 60 (SU Athletics..) is lacking a publisher
Current ref 62 (Pages int he History of Elmira..) is lacking a publisher
I also note the large number of references that are from Syracuse University itself. I merely point this out for other reviewers to take into account.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Marlin, I took care of the publishers. The rest are up to the article editors. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm fixing some of them. I can put in page numbers, but we've never been able to figure out a good way to add page numbers with the citation method used. I personally dislike Harvard citations, because they are not easy to use, but it's the only one that allows page numbers. Any ideas? OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 21:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: NRHP reference needed I refined the discussion of the 4 NRHP-listed properties and districts and added one reference, which, oddly, Orangemarlin promptly deleted, with an edit summary indicating difficulty reading in a Mac environment and a request to use CiteT or something like that. I think the NRHP information can and should be supported by references. The specific reference i added was this:
<ref name="nrhptextComstock">{{cite web|author=Robert Mann and Alice Jean Stuart|title=National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: Syracuse University-Comstock Tract Buildings |url=http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=6341 |date=1980|accessdate=2008-01-25}} and [http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=62 ''Accompanying 19 photos, exteriors and interiors, from 1978'']</ref>
The specific reference appears also in the Comstock Tract Buildings article. While its formatting might possibly be improved, it is in the format used in hundreds if not thousands of articles on NRHP sites. A difficulty in composing the reference is that the document being referenced appears in two separate PDF file parts. The current format is the best solution that i know of. Assistance in converting it to be acceptable for this article would be appreciated. It is an appropriate reference to include, and actually is quite informative. doncram (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, I deleted the reference (not what you wrote), because I'm a stickler about them (although Ealdgyth is giving me heartburn). It didn't work on my computer, on which I write websites, publish my blog, and do a lot of web design with no problems for Mac or PC computers. It seems to use an odd implementation of javascript, according to my error log. I've edited thousands of articles and to be truthful, I've never run into this problem. I have no clue what NRHP is, but it doesn't work here on two different Macs. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 02:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll cut you a deal, OM, I'll do the italics and the publishers, if you'll pick up the page numbers, which I can't do anyway. Yeah, most of that list is picky stuff, but I like to make sure folks know that it's supposed to be done, rather than just doing it for them. I've found that if I do it for them, the next FAC they nominate .. I end up doing it there too.. and .. welll, I've got my own articles to edit also. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dm for asking a helpful clarifying question. I was guessing, perhaps incorrectly, that Orangemarlin was objecting to the format of the footnote that showed in the Syracuse University article (and does show as footnote No. 2 in the Comstock article), as I was just recently discussing that general format for National Register documents with another editor (pdfpdf) in another context. Currently, i note that the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) website is down. (OPRHP website is now working, Thursday) I'll testify that the website usually works, and it should be accepted as a valid link rather than revising the reference to link to no website. Since the NYS website was up until a short time ago, it is also possible that Orangemarlin has some other problem on his Macs. The NYS website supports Microsoft Internet Explorer; it works less well with Firefox (which i use, nonetheless); it may not support whatever is the Mac browser that Orangemarlin uses. Anyhow, a reference or two is needed for this material for this article being at FAC. doncram (talk) 08:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had no problem with the format of the citation. I still can't get this thing to run on both Mac browsers (Safari and Firefox). Here's the error I get:
Microsoft VBScript runtime error '800a000d'
Type mismatch: 'Rst'
/hpimaging/hp_view.asp, line 24
It just doesn't work on a Mac, because of Microsoft's sorry implementation of, well, anything. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 02:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also believe the NYS website is not the greatest, i.e. that its Java interface programming is not up to world-class standards for a website. However, the website probably does serve the NYS agency adequately for its specialized purposes, and I think here it is better to provide a link that works for most browsers than to provide no link to the informative document about the Comstock buildings. So I added back the reference, as well as another general reference to the U.S. National Register Information System (NRIS). I'd be happy to have discussion--probably best elsewhere, at my talk page and/or at wt:NRHP--about refining the standard footnote to NYS NRHP sources to provide some notice/apology that the source doesn't work well with Apple browsers and with Firefox. doncram (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - It's bad enough that the moral leader of FAC (Sandy) is a member of Red Sox Nation, but now we have Marlins fans here? Yikes. I will, however, put away my dismay long enough to review the Athletics section, which I like to do for university articles.
Before I make it there, move the reference for the school's nicknames in the first sentence to after the parenthesis mark, and take care of the two cite tags in Main campus.
Now in Athletics, first sentence of the second paragraph: Change the last two commas to semi-colons. This helps when you have list-like prose with extra description. If you do this, remove "and" before "the men's lacrosse team".
Personally, I would prefer "In 1959, Syracuse earned its first (only? Did they win any more?) college football National Championship following an undefeated season", but it's not that big a deal. While I'm here, a link for the Cotton Bowl would be nice to have. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The two dollar figures in the section's final paragraph need non-breaking spaces, like this: $26.85 million (hit edit button to see code). That's something to check for throughout.
"It would go on to win USILA championships in 1922, 24 and 25." Try "It went on to win USILA championships in 1922, 1924 and 1925."Giants2008 (17-14) 03:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I can't tell what is struck/addressed on images and sources above; someone needs to keep up with the bookkeeping. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can I get a point of Clarification? Do editors have to actually respond to personal attacks on the Bosox or Marlins? And whose name appears to make him a football fan? Just asking. I've got some work to do I see. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 08:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it is encouraged, espcially when all involved share a common enemy, and the instigator is a fan of all sports. Everything above is struck, plus I left a comment. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. And Mets' fans rank just above evil dead zombies on the intelligence scale. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 02:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This is the third article in the series, as the articles covering 1917–1942 and 1942–1967 are already featured. It has already had a peer review, and is currently a good article. I've added Maxim as a co-nominator, as he helped write the article, and we look forward to all feedback. Do your worst! ;o) Resolute 19:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
First paragraph in the lead section - there is repetition with the phrase "were formed into". Try varying the wording more. This repetition with the word "formed" also occurs in the first paragraph of the background section.
Suggest wikilinking to farm system in the background section.
"The Flyers finished atop the West Division, recording 73 points ..." - when? please provide a year/season here. (1967-68 season?)
End of the two league era - "Word got out that the Canadiens, owned by Molson Brewery, and the Canucks, where Molson was served" - should this be Vancouver, instead of Canucks, in order for the sentence to make sense?
Per commons:COM:FOP (for Canada), the Gretzky statue photo should be okay, since it's permanently situated in a public place.
The references are all good and reliable, though the NHL - International Timeline and Asia Hockey League links are broken.
Hmm, well that's annoying on the NHL removing a lot of their old articles. At any rate, I've replaced the second cite, and it looks like Maxim is catching the other points raised. Resolute 21:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the rest. Res poked me about taking a look but I partially forgot and I partially had very little time. I'm still poking around and I'll polish the prose a bit more later. Maxim(talk) 21:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"(one team had ceased operations in 1978)" – which team? Why not just name the team, like "(this team had ceased operations in 1978)"
Perhaps "The NHL eventually became involved" for a sense of a timeline, otherwise it seems so sudden that they just so happened to immediately become involved
"Canada won the eight-game series with four wins to three withand one tie."
"including a current league record 215" – to show that it still stands; I didn't realize it still stood until the "also" in the following sentence
"by a meresingle point" – as "mere" makes it seem like someone thinks it was close, somewhat POV and would be better replaced
That's all I got from now from the lead. Gary King (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed those, but I'm trying to find a good copyeditor to look over the article. Maxim(talk) 02:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3
File:Orr.jpg - Each article needs a separate fair use rationale (WP:NFCC #10). Please write a fair use rationale specifically for this article on the image description page.
File:Paul Henderson 1972.jpg - According to WP:IUP, the source link should point to the HTML page that contains the image, not directly to the JPG.
Both of these images are supposedly "iconic" moments in hockey history. Since I know nothing about hockey, they do not obviously appear iconic to me. Remember that fair use rationales are not written for hockey fans, they are written for lawyers (who may or may not be hockey fans!). I think that the fair use rationales would be greatly strengthened by a citation regarding the iconic nature of these photos. These issues should be easy to resolve and I look forward to striking this oppose soon. Awadewit (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let Res take care of these—I'm really not keen on having fair use images in an article with a few free images already. I may see some use for the Orr pic (it's more, or less, the most famous hockey image ever IMO), as Orr, the best offensive defenceman ever, he revolutionized the game with his style, is flying through the air after scoring the Stanley Cup-winning goal. Maxim(talk) 01:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I agree, however being that these are probably two of the most famous hockey photographs of all time, and both directly relate to the topic, I felt they were important in this article. Across the four articles there are 31 images, only three of which are non-free, which I think is quite fair. And aside from these three - Henderson and Orr's goals in this article, and Plante donning his mask in the previous article, I cannot think of any other event of such significance that we would need a non-free image to adequately convey the historical significance of the moment.
I have rewritten both FURs, fixing the source link on the Henderson goal, and adding multiple sources to each, which I hope will address Awadewit's concerns regarding the veracity of my claim regarding the status of each image. Cheers! Resolute 05:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sources for File:Orr.jpg demonstrate that this is an iconic photo and there is a clear mention of it in the text. Here are my thoughts on File:Paul Henderson 1972.jpg. It is clear from the sources provided that this is a famous goal. WP:NFC dictates that images of iconic status be accompanied by critical commentary. I suppose I'm not totally sure what "critical commentary" in this context might be, but there is a whole paragraph on this goal and a quote box related to this moment, so that seems sufficient to me (however, I do feel that the image falls into a "gray area" that could be debated - perhaps the quote box is enough to show the emotion, for example). All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. In my opinion, these FURs meet the requirements of WP:NFCC. I have therefore struck my oppose. Awadewit (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your feedback is most appreciated. FU considerations can easily trip one up, so it is good to ensure that their use meets policy. Resolute 03:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (I took the liberty of fixing two newspaper refs. With {{citation}} you use the newspaper field to give the newspaper name, this makes the ref format properly) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - When is the fourth volume coming? Overexpansion, multiple lockouts, pros in the Olympics and my beloved Rangers breaking the Curse of 1940. What could be better? That's one that I can't wait for. Until then, I'll have to be content with offering my thoughts here.
Dollar values need non-breaking spaces, like this: $2.75 million. Click the edit button to see the formatting involved. In the lead, Bobby Hull's contract value needs one; the body should also be checked.
Winnipeg Jets isn't linked in the lead, unlike the other teams. Any reason for that?
It's linked, second para.
"Wayne Gretzky, who scored 200-points or more four times". Don't believe the hyphen is needed.
Background : "as each team selected a total of 20 players from the existing franchises." This is slightly wordy; these three words can be removed to make it tighter.
Link the full team name of the Montreal Canadiens in the second paragraph, by their manager's plan. Consider doing the same for the Boston Bruins in Expansion years, by their Stanley Cup win.
Overall, I find it quite well-written. This is all for now, but I plan on reading through more in the future. Be forewarned that six articles I'm reviewing are among the bottom 11 on the FAC page, meaning that they have top priority for me at this point. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed. The last article in the series is a GA—it needs a polish and when this one hopefully passes, or when the FAC is almost closed, it'll go to FAC, too. PS, Res and I will be really, really happy if you gave a review before the FAC. ;-) Maxim(talk) 22:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Masterton was rushed to hospital with massive head injuries..." Perhaps make it "a" hospital.
Watch for tricky "noun-plus-ing" sentence structures like this: "with the league eventually mandating their use by new players entering the league...".
Third paragraph of Bobby Orr: everything starts as either He or Orr. Some variation would be nice for "compelling prose" purposes.
Summit Series: "charging the startled police officers with their sticks allowing them to free Eagleson." Somewhat awkward part of a sentence.
"The Soviets were met with a relentless Canadian attack in the final seven minutes, outshot 14–5 during that stretch." Add "and" before outshot?
Link Alexander Yakolev. That name links to a dab, where it can be found.
Legacy: Comma after "and split Rendez-vous '87".
Twenty-one teams: "The team averaged only 9,800 fans". Make clear that this refers to attendance.
Another noun-plus-ing: "with the Islanders sweeping the Oilers". And remove the comma afterward.
Good catches on all, and all fixed except the first. I think it sounds better as is. Searched the article for other instances of noun-plusing but did not find any. Resolute 17:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Opppose Comments from Dabomb87 (talk·contribs) The article is quite interesting. However, the writing needs a polish; hopefully, I can return to make more comments and copy-edit the article some. For now, a review of the lead and first section will have to suffice.
Multiple-page citations need "pp."
"The six existing teams were grouped into the newly created East Division, while the expansion teams—the Los Angeles Kings, Minnesota North Stars, Oakland Seals, Philadelphia Flyers, Pittsburgh Penguins and St. Louis Blues—were grouped into the West Division." "while"-->and, seems to be additional info.
"San Jose Sharks were added as an expansion franchise in 1991." No need to use the passive here, "were added"-->joined.
"The NHL eventually became involved in international play" What does "eventually" really tell us?
"starting with the Summit Series in 1972 which pitted the top Canadian players of the NHL against the top players in the Soviet Union. " Comma after "1972", "in"-->of.
"including a current league record 215 in 1985–86." Hyphenate "league record"
"when William M. Jennings, of the New York Rangers" Comma not needed.
"They formed the newly created West Division, while the existing teams were grouped into the East Division. " Same as above, change "while"-->and.
"Canadiens manager Sam Pollock's plan of allowing each team to protect eleven players to start, then add an additional player to their protected list for each player selected in the draft was ultimately agreed to as a compromise solution." The ideas are poorly integrated here, try this: "Canadiens manager Sam Pollock's came up with the compromise solution: allow each team to protect eleven players to start, then add an additional player to their protected list for each player selected in the draft was ultimately agreed to as a compromise solution."
"The old system where franchises sponsored junior teams and players was abandoned by 1969 as all junior aged players were made eligible for the entry draft."-->The old system, in which franchises sponsored junior teams and players, was abandoned by 1969 as all junior-aged players were made eligible for the entry draft. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestions all, and all fixed. I did change up your suggestion on Sam Pollock's expansion draft idea, as your suggestion has a redundant use of "compromise solution". Looking forward to further feedback. Resolute 21:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch of my redundancy. Will return later today. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed my stance to "weak oppose"; some sections need significant polishing, especially in the bottom. These are examples from the "Rules and innovations" section.
"The 1982–83 North Stars and Capitals both finished with 16 ties in 80 games while 17 of 21 teams tied ten or more games." "while"-->and.
"As a result, the NHL reintroduced overtime for the 1983–84 season." Was it a result of the Stars' 20 ties the season before or a result of the general trend toward tie games?
"Before it was discontinued as a result of World War II"-->Before its discontinuation for (during?) World War II...
"The modern overtime format was set as a five-minute, sudden death period, with the game ending when either team scored."-->The modern overtime format was set as a five-minute, sudden death period; the game ended when either team scored.
"The doubling of the league in 1967"-->The league's doubling in 1967
"The playoffs were expanded to 12 teams as each division winner was granted a bye in the first round of the playoffs." "as" is ambiguous here, "as"-->, and each...
"to select two players of French-Canadian heritage, before any other players were selected and counting as Montreal's first two choices."-->to select two players of French-Canadian heritage, before any other players were selected. These players counted as Montreal's first two choices.
"Imlach admitted the made the player up," Doesn't make sense.
"The league reformated the Amateur Draft into the NHL Entry Draft in 1979, simultaneously lowering the draft age to 19."-->The league reformated the Amateur Draft into the NHL Entry Draft in 1979 and simultaneously lowered the draft age to 19.
"The public draft has grown, such that it is now held annually in NHL arenas, and televised internationally." Neither comma is necessary, especially the second one. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed those. I've been trying to find a copyeditor; Risker, who usually copyedits my articles, seems to be busy with arb stuff, and I'm having a tough time finding a good copyeditor. However, judging by your comments and suggestions, you'd make a very competent copyeditor. Considering you helped me copyedited a section already, would you mind/have the time (I know reviewers are stretched, but doesn't hurt to ask) to copyedit the rest? ;-) Maxim(talk) 21:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will do what I can. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"fastest 50 goals in NHL history" Some readers will not understand what you mean by "fastest".
"'An award such as this takes a lot of teamwork and help and both teams here today definitely have a part of the 1,851,'" Logical punctuaton, are you sure that the comma is part of the quote?
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's a classic of the horror genre and widely regarded as director James Whale's masterpiece. I believe that the improvments I've made to the article since it was listed as a Good Article have brought it to Featured Article level. My thanks to User:Ched Davis and User:Finetooth for peer reviewing the article. Otto4711 (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that only one FAC should be nominated per user at a time until their earlier nomination has had its issues resolved. FAC has a rather sizeable backlog right now, and is stretched for reviewer resources. I recommend that you withdraw and wait until your other nomination progresses. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it meets the criteria. It is not extremely well written in my opinion but I have a high standard that not even I can please. It is reliably sourced compared to the wrestling project's other FAs and my recently promoted one, Lockdown (2008), which I followed when I began working on this one again. Any comments will be addressed as quickly as I can as if they are to the utmost importance. This event is not a significant one in the history of pro wrestling but some interesting things happened at the event that I feel some would enjoy learning about. I also feel that all articles should be of a good or featured stature, in this case, I believe it should be of featured, which is one reason I'm nominating it.WillC 05:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I told you to hold off its nomination, it has a lot of prose issues. I will take this review section by section, because a quick glance, it fails 1,2,and 4.
The main event was a standard match involving three competitors fighting for the TNA World Heavyweight Championship, in which the champion, Samoa Joe, defeated Kaz and Scott Steiner. - the lead should not have Out of universe writing because it clutters the lead. Remove the OOU writing.
As per the Lockdown's FAC. An unfamilar person reading this article will not know what a 3-Way Dance is and it will turn them off from reading. Look it up, that is what Giant said.--WillC 21:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kurt Angle, originally scheduled for the match, was removed after he announced that he has sustained a legitimate neck injury as the broadcast began. He was replaced by Kaz who had won a new speciality in TNA, titled The TerrorDome. --->Before the PPV began, Kurt Angle, originally scheduled to participate in the match, was removed after announcing that he had sustained a legitimate neck injury. It could also be stated that In one of the prime matches of the undercard, Kaz defeated nine other wrestlers in The TerrorDome to become Angle's replacement, in addition to winning an opportunity to challenge for the TNA X Division Championship.
I had something different in there but it must have gotten change in the copyedit.--WillC 21:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The finals of The Deuces Wild Tag Team Tournament to crown the new TNA World Tag Team Champions were held at Sacrifice; The Latin American Xchange (Homicide and Hernandez) (LAX) defeated Team 3D (Brother Ray and Brother Devon) to win the tournament and the championship. - 1)It needs to be elaborated whether this was the undercard or what? 2)LAX should not have an acronym because their acronym isn't used later in the lead.
The event's undercard featured different varieties of matches. - now I have no idea whether the "Deuces Tourny" was an undercard or not, but if it was, it needs to be before the sentence about the tournament.
It was and wasn't. The Finals were not, but the semifinals and such was.
The debut of The TerrorDome to become number one contender to the TNA X Division Championship, and to replace Angle in the main event, was scheduled on the undercard; the only way to win this match was to escape The TerrorDome structure through a small hole in the center of the ceiling. Kaz defeated nine other opponents to win the match. - if my suggestion is take above, this is not needed, it clutter the lead
I'm following earlier suggestions from Lockdown.--WillC 21:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TNA promoted a TNA Knockouts Makeover Battle Royal to become number one contender to the TNA Women's Knockout Championship also on the card. ---> A TNA Knockouts Makeover Battle Royal was also promoted, in which the winner would become the number one contender to the TNA Women's Knockout Championship.
Gail Kim and Roxxi Laveaux won step one of the match as the last two participants remaining after the others were eliminated by being tossed over the top rope and down to the floor. ---> This could be connected in the previous sentence with a semi-colon, as...; Gail Kim won the match. There is too much plot in the lead, which clutters the lead.
When the event was released on DVD, it reached a peak position of number thirteen on Billboard's DVD Sales Chart. - per WP:MOSNUM, thirteen should be in number format
The professional wrestling section of the Canadian Online Explorer website rated the entire event a 7 out of 10, the same rating the 2007 event received. - 7 out of 10 what? Points/Stars? Aren't there any other critics, this is the only critic I see in all TNA leads.--Truco 21:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Slam doesn't do stars. They just give a rating out of 10. They don't do points either. They never mention what the 1 out of 10 stands for.--WillC 21:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll fix all these shortly.--WillC 21:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks better, but this sentence The main event was a standard match involving three competitors fighting for the TNA World Heavyweight Championship, in which the champion, Samoa Joe, defeated Kaz and Scott Steiner. - should just say "Triple Threat match" because the lead can be out of universe since the terms are explained in the article later, the lead is just a summary of the article. Other sports articles aren't like this, I think Giant was treating TNA and WWE articles differently because the leads of my promoted FA's are in-universe due to my reasoning above. Also, I believe my suggestion about the sentence on Kurt Angle's neck injury is better worded than the current revision, grammatically wise.--Truco 22:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did a compromise. It is still out of universe but also states the match. I change the Angle statement.--WillC 22:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Background Match#1 - since this article has many prose issues, I may (or may not) review the whole article due to that, but I'll try to review each match
The main event at Sacrifice featured a standard wrestling match involving three participants—titled a 3-Way Dance—between the then-champion, Samoa Joe (Joe Seanoa), Kurt Angle, and Scott Steiner (Scott Rechsteiner), TNA began to develop this storyline prior to their April PPV event, Lockdown (which took place on April 13). - 1)Link to this match? (The lead/BG links are different) 2)Needs a full stop after Scott Steiner's name; either replace it with a semi-colon or a period. 3)What championship was being defended here?
Sorry, the copyeditor placed those together. They were two different sentences. Linking the match is overlinking. It was just linked in the lead so it is too close.--WillC 02:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the lead is like a separate article, it has nothing to do with the article itself, its just a summary, which is why it has to be linked in the latter. I don't know who told you it was wrong, follow the other wrestling FA's.--Truco 02:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is the same in Lockdown. I was told by FA reviewers and a few GA reviewers.--WillC 03:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These reviewers are really treating WWE/TNA articles differently, because in the FAC reviews of WWE articles, they say the opposite thing. I would change it, and if a reviewer agrees tell them it is used by FAs of WWE, like OTE (which was recently promoted). If many disagree, you shall remove it then.--Truco 03:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Steiner announced on the April 3 episode of TNA's primary television program, TNA Impact!, that he would be activating a contracted title shot (won at the Turning Point event in December 2007[4]) against the winner of the championship bout at Lockdown between Joe and Angle. - No need to say TNA's acronym in the name of the TV show.
Proper name of the show. It is called TNA Impact not just Impact.--WillC 02:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure they call the show (during the broadcast) just "Impact!" like they don't call "Raw" "Welcome to WWE Raw" The thing is that you already established in that sentence that the show is TNA's, so no need for the repetitive TNA statements.--Truco 02:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The official name is TNA Impact!, but I'll change it.--WillC 03:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the April 17 episode of Impact!, Steiner kept his word and used his title shot to challenge Joe to a World Heavyweight Championship at Sacrifice. - no need to say "kept his word", it is already established that he was going to use the title shot. In addition, wouldn't it be a "World Heavyweight Championship match"?
Fixed. Simple mistakes. My bad.--WillC 02:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Afterwards, Angle interrupted and was scripted to announced that he had a clause in his contract that stated he got a rematch if he lost a title. - terrible wording --> Afterwards, Angle was scripted to interrupt the segment, and announced that he had a clause in his contract with TNA, which gave Angle a rematch if he lost a TNA title.
Changed.--WillC 02:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He said that he was activating that clause for the next week's Impact! (April 24). - following week's not "next week's"
Changed.--WillC 02:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the April 24 episode of Impact!, Joe successfully retained the World Heavyweight Championship against Angle after Steiner intervened in the match by hitting Angle in the head with a lead pipe (the referee had undertaken an unconscious role and Joe was not paying attention). - this nature of interference requires the sentence to state it was scripted/narrative. In addition, no need to state that the referee was unconscious or that Joe gave a hell about it (to much WP:PLOT that is irrelevant to the feud)
If you saw the match it would make more sense. I didn't even have it like that. I really to need to pay attention what was changed by people and what wasn't.
Due to Steiner's interference, authority figure Jim Cornette replaced the scheduled championship match between Joe and Steiner with a 3-Way Dance involving Joe, Steiner, and Angle immediately after the title match. - more terrible wording --> After the match, authority figure Jim Cornette replaced the scheduled championship match between Joe and Steiner with a 3-Way Dance that would involve Joe, Steiner, and Angle.
This type of wording is leading me to a quick-fail vote, there is serious prose issues here that could have been avoided with a peer review, and more copyedits.--Truco 02:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on it.--WillC 02:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review:
Free images are fine, taken by the uploaders themselves, EXIF provided, or come with OTRS attached.
Non-free image File:TNA Sacrifice 2008.jpg requires tidying and strenthening up in the "Purpose of use" field. That field is for supplying a reason why the image and not others are used. Some of the listed elements currently in there belong in other fields.
This should be an easy case to resolve. Jappalang (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sole image concern has been resolved. Jappalang (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Figure Four Wrestling site is run by Dave Meltzer and Bryan Alvarez, both of whom are acknowledged as experts in their field. Alvarez is co-author of The Death of WCW, published by ECW Press, and has been quoted in several other wrestling books (including Hardcore History: The Extremely Unauthorized Story of the ECW, published by Sports Publishing LLC, and The Pro Wrestling Hall of Fame: The Heels, published by ECW Press). Meltzer has also written books (Tributes: Remembering Some of the World's Greatest Wrestlers, published by Winding Stair Press, and Tributes II: Remembering More of the Worlds Greatest Wrestlers, published by Sports Publishing LLC, Top 100 Pro Wrestlers of All Time, published by Stewart House). He is quoted in many books and documentaries (Hitman Hart: Wrestling with Shadows and Beyond the Mat, as well as Mysteries of Wrestling, published by ECW Press; Ric Flair's autobiography, To Be the Man; Mick Foley's autobiography; and countless others). Alvarez has been running Figure Four since 1995, and he merged the magazine with Meltzer's Wrestling Observer, which has been around since 1987. If you need any more information to verify their reliability, just ask (or do a search for their names, which should turn up many hits). Pro Wrestling History is only sourcng minor issues, such as match times, attendance, and the tournament bracket which is already sourced throughout the article.--WillC 00:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning oppose - First off, if you believe an article "is not extremely well written", why are you nominating it here? Reviewers aren't here to make FA-quality prose, but I'm sure you knew that. Here are some thoughts on the article, which needs work.
"The main event was a standard match involving three competitors—titled a 3-Way Dance—fighting for the TNA World Heavyweight Championship, in which...". I don't like the way the sentence flows. Read it out loud and you'll see what I mean.
"In one of the prime matches of the undercard". What does "prime match" mean? Also, it could just be "In one of the undercard's prime matches".
"in addition to winning an opportunity to" → "and win an opportunity to". Remove comma before this part.
Remove duplicate Sacrifice link.
The first sentence of the third paragraph is just repeating information from the second paragraph. I don't see the point.
From the body: "TNA debuted a new specialty match at Sacrifice, The TerrorDome, to become the number one contender to the TNA X Division Championship." Needs rewording. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll fix these sometime in the future. Answer to the first question is: I never think any article has good prose. I wasn't sure about this one anyway. I've been acting weird the past few days so that might be why I wrote that.--WillC 19:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
WARNING! The Surgeon General of the United States has found that smoking two packs of this article a day may cause one to love Chinese history and suffer temporary loss of sight, bowl discomfort, triple lung growth, Psychokinesis, and kidney failure. In all seriousness, I've worked my tail end off since June compiling notes for this article (now completed), and four other branch articles for the Han Dynasty (i.e. society and culture, government, economy, and science and technology) which will be completed over the course of this year, hopefully by the summer.Pericles of AthensTalk 12:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear; I was meticulous in making sure that each link was directed to an appropriate article.--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She's actually checking the external links, I believe :) Gary King (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Very nice job on a long and important article. One problem that I see, however, is that there are a ton of images on the right side. They push all the other images down (especially for larger monitors) so readers cannot tell which paragraph each image is associated with. Either stagger the images left and right per MOS:IMAGE or remove some. I'm sure you can also see that the images are pushing all the section edit links down, which can be resolved by either staggering the images or using the {{FixBunching}} template. Gary King (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to announce that I believe I have fixed the problem with the pictures; in the end, only one picture (a very good one, unfortunately) had to be removed, while half the pictures in the article are now on the left-hand side.--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better, but there are still layout problems. I think the biggest issue is that there are too many images. It's nice that they are all free, but perhaps pretend that they are fair use images and then only keep the ones that you really need, because images, especially the taller ones, are still pushing down other images and edit links.
The image in "Regency and downfall of the Lü clan" is pushing the other one down. Images are pushed down on the right side all the way up until just before "War against the Xiongnu".
Images on the right starting from "Economic reforms" are pushed down, up until just before "Wang Mang's usurpation".
Images are pushed down on the right starting from "Natural disaster and civil war" up to just before "Court, kinsmen, and consort clans"
There are still way more on the right that are pushed down. Gary King (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, how wide is your monitor? Is it an 18 inch? Mine is 13½ inches and the images look perfectly fine (certainly not pushing images down that far, my God!). I don't mind resizing some of the images (especially the taller ones) in order to accomodate Wiki visitors and editors who have much wider screens like you seem to have, but to purge the article of good pics for this reason alone is perhaps a bit much.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check on a recent edit of mine where I downsized the two pictures in the "Regency and downfall of the Lü clan" section; does that look much better on your monitor?--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22" monitor. The images are still getting shoved down a great deal. It also makes sense to link to a Commons page in the External links section for readers to see more images that are not in this article. Gary King (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22 inch! Man, no wonder the article looks like hell on your screen. Lol. According to Wikipedia:Image use policy#Displayed image size, the pictures should be set at the "thumb" default anyway; if you noticed, most images in the article are 200px. I will downsize ALL the images in the article (except for the lead pic and two others) and then tell me here if you see any improvements. I hope we can make a compromise on this.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still not good. The image in "Regency and downfall of the Lü clan" is pushing down the others, along with the one in "Economic reforms", and the one in "Natural disaster and civil war". And the ones in "Foreign relations and war of middle Eastern Han". Gary King (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great, because anything over 100 KB is obviously unacceptable.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No single-editor article should ever be nominated for featured-article status the day it is created. Period. I don't care what the rules are here, it isn't proper and isn't in the spirit of Wikipedia. Gene Nygaard (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Special for the nitpickers who will insist on a rule:
Cannot possibly meet stability criteria for the reasons stated above, in anything but a trivial (mathematics) sense.
Right, there's been no time allowed for edit warring, but it sounds as if you are rejecting the article on nothing more than the hypothetical (i.e. potential edit warring in the future), instead of judging it for perhaps more important criteria like prose content, NPOV, reliability of sources, etc.--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this comment is actionable. Please read the FA criteria, specifically criterion 1e: "it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process." If you believe that the article's newness makes it deficient in some content area, please state which criteria. (prose, citations, comprehensiveness, style, etc.) Dabomb87 (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't been there a day. We have no idea whatsoever what it does "day to day". We cannot possibly know.
It's newness alone is sufficient to preclude any serious consideration whatsoever. I've pointed out one criterion it cannot possibly meet. Gene Nygaard (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Just to make it absolutely clear that this is a formal objection. Gene Nygaard (talk) 05:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I really would like to support this article, but I share the same concern with Gene Nygaard. It would have been nice to have more eyes go through the article. With the length of the article as it is and the lack of reviewers interested in this type of topic, it is a difficult article to evaluate in the relatively short FAC process. Although there is no obligation and it is not required in the criteria, I would request that the nominator have others take a look at the article either in a Wikiproject, PR, or GA. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, RelHistBuff. I wonder, though, if a Peer Review process is even warranted while the article is simultaneously in the FAC process. I'll check on that.--Pericles of AthensTalk 11:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the all-fired rush? Leave peer review alone for now. That isn't appropriate at this stage either. It hasn't even had the time to be called to the attention of members of various WikiProjects that might be interested. Nobody has had time to read it, let alone consider it in detail. The original author claims to have slaved away at this for the last seven months. I'd say, give everybody else equal time to check out what the various cited references or other sources have to say, to nit-pick over details, or whatever. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're so concerned with that, then please, why don't you nitpick over the details if you see a problem. Could you point out which specific statements in the article you have a problem with? Otherwise, your objection to the article has been noted. There's no need to beat up on another editor on two different pages.--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it has been averaging about a hundred edits per day throughout its entire existence. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read Template:FAC-instructions: An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. This nomination must be withdrawn if the Peer Review is intended to be open. Gary King (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering how this FAC would fail one criteria (stability) anyway, then so be it: this FAC should be withdrawn. I'd rather have a peer-review process look into any potential errors or things needing to be fixed in the article; I'm sure that I have missed a few things in running through the article.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright; good luck on a future FAC. I will withdraw this nomination now. Leave the {{FAC}} template on the article's talk page and let the bot archive it. Gary King (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you pointed that out that wording to me, Gary. If it doesn't belong in either, then I don't care in the least whether it could be in both or not--that is totally irrelevant. What you've cited couldn't change my mind at all, because it doesn't deal with what I was saying. And if this has been withdrawn, isn't there some "archived discussion" template to put on it? Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I just need to be more explicit on the second point, too. Wikipedia:Peer review "is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work". It is not for day-old articles either. Do you get it now? Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please be less defensive? I was telling Pericles that this article cannot be in both processes at the same time. Gary King (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wait a second, how in the world does this fall under the stability criterion? I don't see any edit wars. I don't see any underlying conflicts or hostility. And this is by no means a current event. If you're going to oppose it because it's only been around for a day, that's perfectly rational and valid reason. But it's flat-out misleading to tag that under the stability criterion.
Furthermore, I don't hold the article's age against it automatically. If the content was poorly written, unsourced or POV, then yeah, I'd say, "Look PericlesofAthens, why don't you let the rest of us take a whack at it before nominating it." But there's no evidence that any of those problems are present. Since I like judging the quality of the content instead of the unorthodox practices of the nominator (who has been working tirelessly on this in userspace for quite some time now and has shown himself in the past to be a fantastic article writer), I'm in favor of letting the nomination stand as-is.
Finally, I'd like to note that no article is ever nominated fully formed. In that spirit, we should not be so hesitant about taking on articles that could still have a few kinks to work out. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement is stability; it is not lack of instability. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any evidence of instability either, except for the usual polishing that comes with the FAC process. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what? That's not relevant to the criteria. Or, rather, while instability would show that it doesn't fit the criterion, the lack of instability in the first few hours of its existence (it was nominated here 0.0 days after it was created) isn't sufficient to show that it is stable. Don't you understand the difference? Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because,it meets the criteria, it is well written, every section or sentence is backed up by reliable sources, and is understandable throughout. I have worked really hard on this article, by adding every type of information to this topic, and believe it is a really good article. Mohsin (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. There is quite a bit of MoS cleanup needed; please see my edit summaries and sample edits. It might be useful to ask Epbr123 (talk·contribs) to help out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article needs to work on improving prose. There are a lot of run-on sentences with unclear messages. The article needs a trim and sentences need to be reworded for simplicity and clarity. I am sorry I can not support at this time. NancyHeisetalk 03:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Refs 16, 46, 70 are dead links. - Mailer Diablo 05:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Checked the sources and they do go the link. Mohsin (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now - sorry, the article is comprehensive and generally well-researched but their many problems with the prose—redundancy and repetition are a big problem. I also have concerns over WP:NPOV particularly in the section on youth gangs. I have in my notes a list of 25 examples of poor writing, but I am reluctant to record them here because experience has taught me that these alone will be addressed. This article needs a fresh pair of eyes. I do not like saying all this but this FAC is premature. Please do not give-up on your efforts, there is a lot of great stuff here, but the article needs more work to bring it up to FA standards. Graham ColmTalk 13:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: I have agreed to copyedit the article Brianboulton (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am not withdrawing my opposition. Brian Boulton has worked wonders with the prose, but other problems remain. I am particularly concerned over the reliability of the sources, as highlighted by Ealdgyth, the images used and WP:NPOV. Some of the images seem to be purely decorative and do not add any information. I like to see illustrations in articles, but I have learnt that by deleting one decorative image, another important one gains strength and impact. Please scrutinise each image and ask what information it conveys. Please be careful about neutrality; sometimes one has "to write for the enemy". And, please take the issues raised about sources very seriously; experience has shown that unless Ealdgyth's concerns are addressed an article's chances of promotion to FA will be compromised. Graham ColmTalk 23:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have complete my copyedits. I have no doubt left a trail of typos, for which I apologise and hope they will be picked up. My copyedits do not mean that I think the article is now at FA standard; on the contrary, there are many issues to be resolved with reviewers. Hopefully I have eliminated most of the prose problems identified by Nancy and Graham, so that they will be able to read the text more easily.
The particular issues to which I would draw attention are:-
Much of the demographic analysis seems based on the 2001 UK census when the British Bangladeshi population was under 300,000, Evidently it is over 500,000 now, so how valid is the analysis based on out-of-date figures?
Done. Updated population stats with ONS and estimated stat. (No other updated info available, due to being an minority ethnic group, which statistics are found in census every 10yrs). Mohsin (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There has been in the article a tendency to overlink. Straightforward English words do not require linking. Terms such as Sylheti do not need to be linked at each mention. I have delinked a large number of terms, but I think there is more to be done.
There is also repetition in the article. I have dealt with some of this, but further checks need to be made.
Some facts seem to be misplaced in the article, e.g. the reference to Monica Ali's book, and the reference to a political party in the Religion section.
Done. Removed misplaced references in sections, and ref to a political party is the correct source.
There are instances of over-referencing and under-referencing. It is not necessary to support simple facts with long strings of citation. At the same time there are sections, e.g. those dealing with youth gangs, that cold be more fully cited.
POV: I have removed some obvious POV wording from the article, but this aspect needs checking again
There are confusions in the article. For example, the very last paragraph, which depicts Bangladeshi villages as being full of hundreds of luxury homes, is frankly incredible.
Done. Changed the wording, to many rather than hundreds. (seen across many villages, backed by sources.) Mohsin (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In summary, I believe that the article could be brought to featured standard, but probably through a long process involving peer review. Frankly, I am surprised that the article, in its pre-copyedit form, was given GA status; had this review been more rigorously carried out, many of the faults could have been identified and corrected then. Brianboulton (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers/magazines/journal titles should be in italics, you use the work field in the templates to accomplish this.
Make sure every website has a publisher and last access date. (I noted current ref 17, 53, 5, there are others)
Fixed sources by adding the date published, the publisher and date accessed, a few left i think. Mohsin (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Use the link checker tool and double check all your links, several are turning up dead.
Current ref 104 (Lloy J...) is just a link to a wikipedia article. Do you mean to reference the book itself? If so, you need page numbers.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the nominator responding ? (No article edits since the nom was initiated.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Im just quite busy at the moment, will try to respond to the comments (done above 1ce), thanks. Mohsin (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done Fixed the book source, added ISBN and page number. Mohsin (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can resolve the issues of reliable sources, the nomination shouldn't remain at FAC; WP:V is policy and featured articles must be reliably sourced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK I'll try to remove them or replace them if I can. Mohsin (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I have removed and replaced the unreliabe stated above, except 'zmo.de' - because it is from a German research institute. Mohsin (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all dead links. Mohsin (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, what did you replace them with? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the unreliable sources were over referenced so no need to worry. However I have added three sources, which is the Banglapedia source[53] at the Political section, source for Akram Khan at Notables[54], and info about Whitechapel at Business section[55]. Mohsin (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Updated with a source from BSkyB. Mohsin (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to forgive me, not only am I a Yank, I review a LOT of FACs, so I have no clue what BSkyB is supposed to be. Can you clue me in? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And still need to get some newspaper titles in italics and there are still a few website refs that are lacking last access dates. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it possible to get some sources for the following statements: As a response to conditions faced by their first generation elders during the 1970s, younger Bangladeshis started to form gangs, developing a sense of dominating their territory. One consequence of this was that Bangladeshi gangs began fighting each other.In the past, Bangladeshi gangs have fostered criminal elements, including low level drug use and credit card fraud. However, for many the focus has changed to fighting over their territories. They use a variety of weapons, such as samurai swords, machetes, kitchen knives and meat cleavers, although guns are rarely used.Islamic fundamentalism has also played a part in the youth culture, illustrated by the efforts of one Brick Lane gang to oust out the white prostitutes from the area.
They seems violating NPOV issues.--NAHID 20:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are cited, from the London Review of Books, the Evening Standard[56] and Times Online[57]. Mohsin (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reference query I looked at footnote 13, which is something from the London Review of Books. Is that an extract from the book, because it reads in an odd way and isn't the tone of a book review usually and doesn't seem to be dissecting the book as book reviews would do. Which would be a problem becuase the book is actually a novel. Also why is Monica Ali's book on the references, it's a novel. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Object I think the article is POV in various places, although not always the same POV. The gangs section is one. The history section seems a bit POV the other way with perhaps too much emphasis on the difficulties of being an immigrant and sympathising when this applies to everyone who moves to a different country with a different language. The other concern is that the history section appears to be purely London-specific when your infobox seems to indicate that 50% of BBs live outside London. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The history of the first Bangladeshi immigrants settled in London, in particular in the area of Brick Lane as cited. The population started to disperse to other regions soon many years later but however there are no sources available only the history in London, and the proportion of 50% in a single region is quite high, in comparison to other ethnic groups. Mohsin (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for FA because I believe it meets the criteria. Since its last FAC was closed on 16 August, the article has undergone significant copy-editing, addressing the main concern last time that the prose was not up to standard. Thanks in advance to anyone who spends their time reviewing the article. Nev1 (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just found a nice toy to check dead external links, "Drinking water quality report" and "James Prescott Joule (1818 - 1889): A Manchester Son And The Father Of The International Unit Of Energy" are dead now, should be removed or replaced. --Stefantalk 18:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, both links have been replaced, one with a book and the other from Internet Archive. Is it acceptable to use IA? Nev1 (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather see something third party testifying to their "leading" status. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, how about this independent source stating the site allows "allows Jewish organisations and community groups to distribute press releases free online"; while it doesn't say it's "leading", hopefully the fact the information comes from Jewish organisations themselves should mean its accurate (at least for the purposes of saying under whose aegis a synagogue is under). Nev1 (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but I lean towards reliable enough for what it's sourcing. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Youngs reference, I think you have the wrong volume number, and there is no issue number. EHR's been published for well over a hundred years, so any article published in 1991 would NOT have been from volume OR issue 2 (They number their issues sequentially, btw). Please double check your bibliographical information. Do you mean this work? If so, it's got nothing to do with the English Historical Review, it's published by the Royal Historical Society.
I wasn't the one who added the reference, I shall contact the editor who did. Nev1 (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Nevell, Mike book, that ISBN is showing the publisher as Tempus, not the History Press. Double check your source or your ISBN
Not sure what went wrong, but Amazon shows the ISBN to be the same as the one used in the article, and details the publisher as History Press [59] (ie: 978-0752447049). Nev1 (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never trust Amazon, I use World Cat or Google. Amazon gets publishers wrong on its entries a LOT. See World Cat. Double check the book itself, please. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, didn't realise Amazon could be quite so unreliable, but in this case they seem to have got it right (I just checked the book). Also, the publisher's website lists the book with ISBN matching that in the article. Although ironically they misspelt the surname, even though it's quite clear in the cover image. Nev1 (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3File:Greater Manchester outline map with UK.png - This image needs a description, author, date, and source (a verifiable source per WP:IUP). All other images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would've been my fault, sorry! I am the author of the file and have upgraded the details at Wikimedia Commons. I turst that suffices. --Jza84 | Talk 04:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I've struck the oppose. Awadewit (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because after a several year effort with myself, User:Jacklee and User:Hildanknight, we feel this article shows the best work that a group of Singaporean (and one ang moh like myself) could create. We had several copy edits done after the article became a Good Article and still in the process of polishing the article before National Day of August 9, 2009. User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 23:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was one thing I also did after the nomination. Imagine all of the cool tools that we don't know about yet. I personally had to change a few links due to the redirection or location moves. User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 21:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"a pentagon of five stars." – remove the period from the non-sentence
"spoke oftalked about the creation of the national flag" – more straightforward
"red symbolises "universal brotherhood and equality of man", and white, "pervading and everlasting purity and virtue"." – notice the commas I added. An alternative would be to add "symbolises" or a synonym after "white"
"For the manufacture of flags" – Although this is grammatically correct, perhaps change to "For the manufacturing of flags" for less awkwardness
"National Day (which falls on 9 August)." – "National Day, on 9 August."
"flown – under certain conditions – " – spaced en dashes here, but unspaced em dashes are used earlier. Use only one style.
"Until 2004, the flag" – "Previously, the flag" – and then – "That same year, these" – "In 2004, these"
"flown – under certain conditions – year-round" – en dashes aren't even necessary. "flown under certain conditions year-round"
"No person must treat the national flag with disrespect" – something like "The Singaporean government dictates that no person must treat the national flag with disrespect", or something along those lines; the following phrases will have to fit, also
also, "No person must treat the national flag with disrespect" – shouldn't "must" be something like "is allowed to"?
Okay, that's it up to "In general". I'll get to the rest later. Gary King (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Gary for looking at this. If there is something I would like to contest, it is your second point. I understand from FOTW that Singapore's flag is 110000, so that means it is used as the Civil and the State flag. The code is at http://flagspot.net/flags/xf-fis.html#fiavcode. Everything else, I'm fixing now. User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 06:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By "same", I mean that the period should be removed. Gary King (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:IUP, "A good source for an image from a book is to provide all information about the book (Author, Title, ISBN number, page number(s), date of copyright, publisher information)". Could we get the rest of the information for National Symbols Kit? Awadewit (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The author is the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts, copyright date is the publishing date of 2001. I used to have the box for the kit, but I don't have the ISBN number on hand. The page is Page 5. User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 01:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This section we link to the law that demands the construction of the flag. User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 02:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully, these issues are easy to resolve. I look forward to striking this oppose soon. Awadewit (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing now. User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 07:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Fixed. The Singapore flag doesn't have a construction sheet detail from the government, but they do mention what color to use in the article. I linked the Last three flags construction sheets based on official laws or description of the laws. The historical flags I linked to a place where they show the badge in detail, and the Istana for the President's flag. User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 08:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I copyedited the article a couple weeks ago, and after a thorough review of the prose, I feel it meets the criteria. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 04:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because Escape Artist Swyer and I worked a long time to get it to GA status, then had it peer reviewed. When all concerns were addressed, we put it up at FAC. Unfortunately, it was not promoted, most likely because of a lack of "support" votes due to there having been so many FACs listed at the time. We have decided that the best thing to do is to nominate it again, since the number of FACs has thinned out a bit. Tezkag72 14:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There doesn't seem to be any critical commentary regarding the style or content of "Spiderwebs", so that audio sample seems superfluous. To address this, you should either add that commentary or remove/replace the sample. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about now? Tezkag72 18:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not too bad. My concern, though, is that we don't need the song sample for that; the text you just added is great, but it's not clear what the sample adds to that discussion. It would be better if you could (1) explain what that sample shows about the style of the album, or (2) select a sample which is more suitable for explaining this style. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there one of "Just a Girl"? The Spiderwebs one has been there for a while, but Just a Girl was a more famous song. Tezkag72 18:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no such incidents. Tezkag72 16:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Currently the lead is completely insufficient IMHO. For example, the lead is 3 paragraphs long, the middle paragraph is completely dedicated to information unrelated to this album. In essence, the middle paragraph is a "background" section, yet the actually "background" section isn't that big. The lead places too much detail on the background details, which aren't even a sizable portion of the article body. I haven't moved beyond the lead yet, but that really does need sorting. The lead needs to be a summary of the article, each section of the article. — Realist2 16:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about now? I shortened it and now it focuses more on after the album's release. Tezkag72 17:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The tour information should come at the end of the lead, like it does in the article body. The second paragraph is disjointed, first it discusses critical reception, then commercial reception, then Grammy awards (a critical aspect). I still feel the lead should be 3 paragraphs for an article of this size, but it's OK. I hope you didn't think I was saying the lead was too long, sorry if that was the impression. It wasn't too long, rather, it wasn't in proportion to the article body. I'm watchlisting the page BTW. — Realist2 17:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A lot better now. I'm not supporting or opposing, I haven't looked at the remainder of the article. Hopefully I'll get time to. — Realist2 20:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As of this version of the article, current ref #43 (chart surfer) is unreliable. Also, with regards to the formatting of the references. You appear to be Wikilinking the publication once? What is the pattern here? Rolling Stone is Wikilinked twice (Current ref #9 and #44). With regard to the professional reviews of the infobox, there is no form of linkage or sourcing to the favorable reviews in the Los Angeles Times or Village Voice. I know it's sourced in the article content, but would you mind duplicating the source into the infobox as well. Looking at this version of the article, what is that date for ref #8 and #10? Is that a retrieve date or a publication date? If it's a retrieve date label it as such. If it's a publication date then put brackets around it and move it closer to the beginning. I wasn't sure. Please do the same for any others. — Realist2 03:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the Chart Surfer unreliable? Tezkag72 14:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The folks over at Wikipedia:Record charts say it's reliable, which is good enough for me. I've struck that. :-) — Realist2 17:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and neither of the reviews in question are online, as far as I could see. Tezkag72 14:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They don't need to be, see Thriller (album) as an example. The melody maker review is offsite.
To address the final issue, I don't know how to add the dates to the "cite episode" templates. Tezkag72 14:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment's by Realist2 (Section 2)
The third single was "Don't Speak", a ballad about the breakup of Stefani and Kanal's relationship. It peaked at number one on the Billboard Hot 100 Airplay,[20] but the song was not eligible to chart on the Billboard Hot 100 because no commercial single was released, which was a requirement at the time.[21] However, the song performed well on other Billboard charts[17][22][23]... - I think you should start off saying that it couldn't appear on the Billboard Hot 100, then go onto the "other Billboard charts", where you can mention the airplay chart info. It could be much tighter. The airplay chart is "[another] Billboard chart" after all. — Realist2 18:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done...I think. I rearranged the wording order. How about now? Tezkag72 22:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great. — Realist2 23:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3File:DontSpeak.ogg - There is no specific purpose of use for this clip. Note that the FUR for "No Doubt" and "Tragic Kingdom" are exactly the same. Please explain why the reader must hear this particular part of this particular song in relation to this article. The caption and the paragraph in the article about the song don't comment on the song's musical aspects at all (there is no critical commentary on the clip), so at this point I would suggest that this clip be deleted. Awadewit (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was the most popular song from the album, and the text explains this. I'll look criterion 3 over, but it would be a shame to remove the only sound sample. Tezkag72 15:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you say anything more about the piece, though? Note that at WP:NFC, it states "Music clips may be used to identify a musical style, group, or iconic piece of music when accompanied by appropriate sourced commentary and attributed to the copyright holder." - Does a reputable source say this piece is "iconic" in any way or representative of the band? (I agree it would be a shame not to have a clip, but we have to have a real reason to include one. Sadly, few bands have released music into the PD!) Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I guess not. All the opposing so far for this seems to be stemming from the sound files. Would it be better if I just removed it? Would that help this article pass? That's my biggest concern. Tezkag72 16:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, you should remove it, yes, especially if you have no sources that comment on the song itself. Awadewit (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are; there just aren't any there that show its notability compared to other songs on the album. Tezkag72 16:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'm afraid it has to go. I feel your pain. Awadewit (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. What about the rest of the article? Tezkag72 19:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the oppose. I'm only reviewing the media content. Awadewit (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments from Dabomb87 (talk·contribs) While there are probably a couple rough spots in the prose, the writing is generally good. I copy-edited the lead; feel free to revert or alter any of my changes. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
""wherever [Interscope] could get a deal on a studio," Please see WP:PUNC about logical punctuation; the comma is not part of the quote.
"The album cover features Gwen in the foreground and the rest of the band members standing in an orange grove in the background" Noun + -ing makes for a clumsy construction.
I don't see what's wrong with this, or how to make it better. Tezkag72 03:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"band members standing" is clumsy and ungrammatical. Try: "The album cover features Gwen in the foreground; the rest of the band members are standing in an orange grove in the background" or something similar.
How about now? Tezkag72 00:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Composing the song began when Kanal was having a fight with Stefani," Eh? Do you mean, "The song's composistion..."?
"Their independence attracted Interscope's attention and ensured that they would fund a third album." This sentence is ambiguous, did their independence ensure that they would fund a third album or Interscope's attention?
I don't think it seems ambiguous. It means the independence ensured that they would fund a third album. What should I do? Tezkag72 03:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that is fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Most of the songs on Tragic Kingdom were written by lead vocalist Gwen Stefani, and were about her experiences in life, and those from No Doubt's previous album were written mainly by Eric Stefani, who left the group before Tragic Kingdom was recorded." Split this sentence in half.Dabomb87 (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tezkag, I noticed that you have replied, but I do not have any more time today, so my responses will have to wait for tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's fine; just write down if you support or if there are more issues you feel need to be addressed. Tezkag72 00:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"It was re-released on November 25, 2003 as a DVD as part of the box set Boom Box" "as a"-->on.
"Although it was a source of tension for the band, Gwen pushed for Eric to be included on the album cover, reasoning that although he had left the band, he had still contributed substantially to the album."-->Gwen pushed for Eric to be included on the album cover—a source of tension for the band—reasoning that although he had left the band, he had still contributed substantially to the album.Dabomb87 (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, give me about 8–12 hours and I will revisit. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments The structure needs work. I'd strongly recommened turning "Production" into its own section and moving the detail about singles into the "Release" section (as well as trimming it extensively; a lot of stuff should be reserved for the articles on the individual singles themselves). See Loveless (album), In Rainbows, and Blood Sugar Sex Magik for examples of well-written FA album articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my responses:
Escape Artist Swyer already did the first thing. Tezkag72 00:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you tell me what detail you mean? Tezkag72 00:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed all the info about the songs except the charting info, and the fact that Don't Speak was "a ballad about Stefani and Kanal's breakup". Tezkag72 00:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might be best to just trim it down to the main singles chart listings (Hot 100, UK Singles chart), and leave the airplay charts to the articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's also precious little about the music. Excluding the singles subsection, the music section is woefully short. can this be expanded? WesleyDodds (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now here's a thought—should I put the info about the songs' composition (that I took out of the "singles" section) into the "music"? Tezkag72 03:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because it's about the writing and themes. There were a lot of songs about Gwen's relationship and breakup with Kanal and about being treated differently because she's female. -- Escape Artist SwyerTalkContributions 13:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lief's a tad hectic at the mo but I can write up a bit about themes (with quotations, lyrics, etc) in, say, two or three days time. -- Escape Artist SwyerTalkContributions 21:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm developing it as well. Not ready yet. Tezkag72 02:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This was a great read! It's not ready for FA, though. The prose is rough and there is a frequent lack of clarity typically found when someone too close to the subject has done most of the writing and editing. A thorough copyedit is needed by an outside party with a eye toward clarity. Recommend withdrawing as I don't think this can be done quickly. Some examples just from the lead and Background - I'll be happy to revisit after the copyedit.
The second paragraph of the lead doesn't mention the album name and the "It sold ..." could use it. As written, sounds like "it" is No Doubt.
"The album sold 30,000 copies; in the words of the program director of KROQ, a California radio station on which it was one of the band's driving ambitions to be played: 'It would take an act of God for this band to get on the radio.'" I don't really understand why these two statements are together. Why couldn't a band who sold 30,000 records get on the radio? Maybe they couldn't get on KROQ, but surely they were getting radio play somewhere.
In the Background section, you introduce Eric Stefani without telling us who he is or his significance. Don't make us follow the link to find out.
"Their independence attracted Interscope's attention and ensured that they would fund a third album." I'm not clear how their independence could perform either of these tasks.
What does that even mean? Tezkag72 14:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are still ongoing questions. Please don't close it. Like, you never gave me a chance to respond to Laser_brain's comments. Tezkag72 04:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am renominating this article because its previous FAC had received very little attention in spite of it only requiring minor improvements which were quickly made following inquiry. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3
File:Ralph Bakshi.jpg - It is my understanding that all email communication regarding image permissions needs to go through OTRS. Therefore, I think Rachel Moore needs to send an email releasing the rights to this image to permissions AT wikimedia.org
This is not necessary, as Moore has already allowed the use of the image. (06:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC))
It is necessary. Anyone could type this information into the file's history. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted Moore. You should get a response. Being that I was the one who uploaded the image, I can personally confirm the correspondence with Moore. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
File:Fritz the Cat (UK poster).JPG - I can't find the image at the source link. The fair use rationale also needs to list who owns the image.
This has not been corrected: "The source of the image is irrelevant" - The source of the image is relevant as it establishes WP:NFCC #4. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added a source on this poster, and added a different poster to the main article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
File:Coonskin screenshot.png - I've added more to the fair use rationale, however more work needs to be done. The purpose of use is too vague. Please describe in detail why this particular scene is included in the article. Why does the reader need to see this image? It seems to me that there has to be some information here about the satirization of African-American stereotypes and such. The rationale also needs to indicate who owns the copyright to the film.
None of the questions I asked above have been answered in the fair use rationale. It is still far too vague. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's pretty clear. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
File:Ralph Bakshi The Lord of the Rings.jpg - The description for this image just says "A scene from The Lord of the Rings" - could we have a more specific description? Is this a scene between Frodo and Gandalf or Bilbo and Gandalf, for example? I'm unsure. We also need a stronger "purpose of use" (note that it is almost identical to the purpose for the Coonskin image). Again, the purpose of use needs to detail why this particular image is necessary for the article. Finally, we need to list the copyright holder for the film.
The purpose of use is still too vague. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. It's very clear. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
You might find this dispatch on non-free images helpful, particularly the section at the end about writing purposes of use. I look forward to resolving these issues quickly. Awadewit (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone working on these issues? Awadewit (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No edits to the article or the FAC for a week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the nominator is frustrated. This is his fifth nomination, and really the article is in great shape. There are just some minor things here and there that could be improved. I really think we should do whatever we can do make this article meet the FAC requirements.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still no response from the nominator: is anyone working on the image and sourcing issues? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The video seems to have been uploaded by the copyright owner. It is an interview with the subject of the article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Isn't this one a no-brainer? I converted the citation to cite news and linked in the magazine's wiki article.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 10:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a magazine then? It's not apparant that it's a mainstream magazine, at least not at first glance to me. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Magazine/newspaper titles in the references should be in italics. Please note I brought this up at the last FAC.
Any easy way to fix this is simply to use the work= parameter rather than the publisher= parameter. Unless you want to do something like BlackBook magazine, then just use the publisher= parameter. But this is a minor quibble. Why hasn't anyone fixed it yet? Anyhow, this article is impressive.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 10:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 8 (Maltin) is lacking a page number
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Hi Ibaranoff24. You should contact Variety or figure some way of finding out exactly the article title of "'Article unknown', Variety, (December 19, 1973). As cited by Karl F. Cohen in Forbidden Animation: Censored Cartoons and Blacklisted Animators in America." Then read the entire article. It could be of no real additional importance, but you never know. Maybe has some interesting stuff to say.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 10:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in the lede I would explain what a "cel polisher" or a "cel painter" is: Bakshi started his career as a cel polisher at the Terrytoons studio, working his way up from cel painter to inker, then animator, and eventually he began to direct animated television shows for the studio. Sure there is the wikilink, but it just has to be explained. I have no idea how he started his career if I don't know that cel is celluloid, and whatever does working with celluloid mean?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 10:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would write something like: Bakshi started his career as a cel polisher—a now uncommon material thingy that was used for animation and film production up until the late 20th century—at the Terrytoons studio, working his way up from cel painter to inker, then animator, and eventually he began to direct animated television shows for the studio. Just put something quickly in there within emdashes to explain it. It will make the reader a little more comfortable about this weird thing they don't know about.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 11:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and made a copyedit. Change accordingly.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm worried that I may have messed up the lede. I changed it to: Bakshi started his career at the Terrytoons studio as a cel polisher and then a cel painter—jobs which involved delineating objects on celluloid, a material that was used for animation and film production up until the late 20th century. He worked his way up to inker, then animator, and eventually began to direct animated television shows for the studio. I'm now thinking that inker, means cel inker? But you can see what I'm trying to do. Give a little explanation about what working with cel means.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is an outstanding article on an important figure and easily worthy of FA status. The only improvement I could find to make was to add a single wiki-link. I am expecting that the image copyright issues raised by a previous comment will be easily resolved. The use of a single frame of an animated film in an article on the animator should be classic fair use, and can easily be justified as being needed to give the reader a visual impression of the animation style used for the film. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because its well researched and fairly stable and well cited and netural and deserves to be FA. Mercenary2k (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Prose and Mos issues. Needs a through copyedit. =Nichalp«Talk»= 13:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With the exception of the map the images currently used in the article have serious issues. Two will probably get deleted soon, and File:Pic17.jpg needs to have an actual non-free use rationale written ASAP (as opposed to the current "rationale" that is just a plea not to delete it "at the time beeing") to avoid the same fate. --Sherool(talk) 22:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- based solely on the opening paragraph, and particularly the first sentence. Imagine I know nothing about it, nothing. Now, open the article with the one sentence that will set me into what this article is about. The rest of the paragraph doesn't do that either. A confrontation when? Between whom? Well, it's in Pakistan, so we've narrowed it down to some 50+ years, but .... The rest of the paragraph doesn't help. Two guys who ran a mosque were continuing to do some fighting about something unmentioned against the government, somehow a school was also in the center of the siege, did they run the school, too? the brothers committed crimes, and somehow all these confusing things led to a siege by unknown, unmentioned forces, against this mosque and school... Or maybe something else happened. It would be really useful if you wrote an opening sentence and paragraph as if this was the only thing anybody read, they would come away knowing who did what to whom when, where, and why. Then flesh out the necessary details in the rest of the lead to set the entire article. That's my opinion. --KP Botany (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ref 43 and 54 appears to have dead links. - Mailer Diablo 18:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for FA status because it recently became a GA (which I also nominated) and now after a peer review, I think it's ready. I am open to comments which will help it grow. TopGearFreak 20:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the prose is very poor. I suggest withdrawing this and getting an uninvolved editor to copy-edit the whole article. Graham ColmTalk 20:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I see no indication that WP:FAC instructions were followed:
Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination.
File:QueenBohemianRhapsody Mama.ogg - This fair use rationale does not list a specific purpose of use. Why does the reader need to hear this particular clip?
File:QueenBohemianRhapsodySolo.ogg - The purpose of use in this fair use rationale is too vague. Please describe what it is about the band's style specifically that is illustrated by this clip.
File:Bohemian vid.jpg - The band members are already depicted in the album cover. This image thus violates WP:NFCC #3a - minimal usage, which states "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information."
These issues should be relatively easy to resolve. Awadewit (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I've been working on this article for a while, it passed its GAC about a month ago. The article has been through three peer reviews, and several copyedits and now, I believe it now meets the FA criteria. I would like to nominate my first featured article candidate. Sunderland06 (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support; I read it and loved the prose. However, there are some footnotes which need en dashes (such as numbers one through forty-seven), so I would suggest reviewing those. JonCatalán(Talk) 16:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
Some of the piped links to English football seasons have hyphens. Recently these links were changed to use en dashes, and I think the piping can be changed here. Not a big deal, but it would set a good example for other club pages.Done - Changed all of them.
Early years and league triumphs: Is the bolding necessary here? I can understand the first use, but the second one is just a copy of the bolding in the lead.Done - Debolded club name.
"indicating that the clubhad opened membership to all in order to relax financial troubles and increase the pool of players avaliable to it." The words that I struck are usually considered unnecessary here.Done - Removed.
Further league championship titles: "When the war ended and the league resumed, Sunderland came close to winning another league championship in the 1922–23 season; when they finished as runners-up behind Liverpool." Semi-colon should be a comma.Done - Changed.
Financial troubles and cup success: "Sunderland only needing a draw during their final game against Chelsea, and hoping Chelsea did not beat Portsmouth in their final game of the season." Change needing to needed, and hoping needs a tweak as well. Just reading the sentence will show the problem.Done - Changed.
"After spending six seasons in the Second Division, Sunderland were promoted to Division One in the 1975–76 season, they topped the table over Bristol City by three just points." Remove just, and make the second comma a semi-colon.Done - Changed.
Recent highs and lows: First, I don't like the section title. What constitutes "recent"? 1992 was a long time ago. "with Sunderland losing 2–0 to Liverpool." This is an example of the "noun-plus-ing" structure, which is often found in FACs. A better option is "as Sunderland lost 2–0 to Liverpool." This also removes some passive voice; active voice is often preferred here.Done - I've moved the header to the following paragraph as they were also in the 1992 FA Cup Final. Changed the wording also.
"Sunderland returned to the Premier League as champions in 1999 with a then-record points total of 105." Confusing, because there is no indication that they were in the Premier League before then.Done - Mentioned previous Premier League campaign.
There's more for me to look at, but this should give you some ideas for polishing the writing further. It's pretty good now, though, and I enjoyed reading it. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Back for more.
Inconsistent hyphenation of "then record" in Recent highs and lows.Done - Used hyphen both times.
Ref 66 shouldn't have a space after punctuation.Done - Removed comma.
Colours and crest: "and also the land the Stadium of Light lies on". Word isn't necessary after and. Also, I'd delink the two stadiums here, seeing as they are linked in the next section, which is about stadiums.Done - Removed word, and delinked stadiums.
Stadiums: Change comma after "at Hendon Board School" to a semi-colon.Done
Problem sentence: "It was opened on 10 September 1898, and Sunderland played the same day against Liverpool, which Sunderland opened with a win."Done - Reworded.
"though albeit in a different language." I thought that albeit meant though; don't think the two next to each other works.Done - Removed although.
Supporters and rivalries: "including from; America, Australia, Canada and Ireland." Semi-colon could be a colon. I know I'm being picky on the punctuation, but getting this right really elevates an article.Done - Changed to colon.
Don't understand this sentence: "the jury stated it was described as 'like a scene from the film Braveheart' by some." What jury? And the "by some" part should be moved, perhaps to "described by some."Done - Reworded a bit.
I'm stopping here for now. I see some other problems in this section, including "Sunderland have number of supporters" and "and costs $3 as 28 November 2008." Also, is Banning Orders commonly capitalized? And "The Sunderland fans were voted as the loudest ground in the 2007–08 season..." needs work. Ealdgyth's source concerns should be addressed as well. Sorry I couldn't finish, but there are only so many issues I'm willing to list at once. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if they were missed, but my stopping point showed some problems that haven't been fixed. Maybe I should have made them more explicit.Giants2008 (17-14) 21:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you highlight the issues I did not resolve, I will get straight onto them. Sunderland06 (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I, at one time, copyedited this article for Sunderland06 and I was already impressed with the quality of the prose. It passes the FA criteria and was an enjoyable read. VX!~~~ 23:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ran by bookwriter Paul Days; whom wrote the Sunderland A.F.C. history book.
Leaving this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Paul Days qualifies as a football expert (especially on Sunderland) with his books on the subjects.[66][67]Jappalang (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, am not confident of this site since their sources also include web sites and blogs. Would it not be better to pick up the three books listed there and find the information? Jappalang (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through what this source was supposed to be citing, and noted that aside from talking the badge, it was used twice to talk about the sponsors of the clubs by noting the period the sponsors appear on the shirts. If this is the source of visual citing asked for, then why not go straight to the primary source at Sunderland's home page (http://www.safc.com/history/?page_id=3051)? That should suffice for Vaux and Cowies. The relationship between Cowies and Arriva can be sourced by Sunderland Echo. If Vady's logo is too small to make out from Sunderland's home page, the company itself mentions its sponsorship here. Historicalkits.co.uk is not needed for these. Jappalang (talk) 13:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding these, now replaced. Sunderland06 (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While Bert Kassies probably knows more about UEFA than UEFA themselves, his site isn't affiliated with UEFA. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability of sources should be established per the information in the link given (above) by Ealdgyth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support- a fantastic article and I believe it deserves the status following what it was like before the owner's work on it began. Looking at the sources I can't see anything wrong with them, can't see anything spelling or grammar wise, or any problems at all, it has my support for now unless anyone can address faults to it. Mackemfixer (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments From a read through there are no obvious omissions, with each period in the club's history covered evenly. The sourcing relies heavily on one particular book, but it appears that for a club of their size relatively few books have been published about Sunderland. There a quite a few small issues which are individually minor, but that I'd like to see resolved before I support. I've yet to go over the second half of the history section.
Sunderland-based school teacher James Allan started... The reference for the subsequent sentence states that he called a meeting of schoolteachers which resulted in the formation of the club. Does the print reference go into detail which credits him with starting the club? If not, wording like "a meeting of schoolteachers called by James Allan" would be more appropriate. Likewise the web reference does not say anything about increasing the pool of players, is this something from the book? - Done - I've changed this into a book reference. The book specifically states Allen as the club's founder.
as professionalism was creeping into the game - implies something insiduous about professionalism.Comment - For some reason, Allan was against the club turning professional, as they were receiving many payments from scottish companies to let their players play at Sunderland, and had just been in trouble after paying their players after an FA cup match with Middlesbrough.
Admission to League - I take it this resulted from a vote, with Stoke failing to be re-elected? Comment - Book says we were preffered to Stoke, I'd imagine they had failed to be re-elected.
famously declared - A peacock term.Done - Removed famously.
There's a bit of redundancy in some of these sentences e.g. However, they returned to the top of the English league in the 1894–95 season as they were crowned champions - There's no need for "English" as Sunderland don't compete in any other league. Finishing top and becoming champions are one and the same.Done - Removed redundancies.
Sunderland came close to winning a third successive league championship - six points was a wide margin for a 30 game season under 2 points for a win. Unless there was a late collapse, simply stating that Sunderland finished second would be more neutral. Done
Any idea when the club badge was first introduced. In the case of many clubs, no badge was used until the mid-20th century. Additionally, the reference does not support the statement that it was changed in 1972. Comment - No indication of date first badge was introduced, historical kits gives the other badge as 1977.
Is a more precise capacity figure for the Stadium of Light available? All seater-stadia are seldom precisely x000 in capacity.Comment - Everywhere I've looked (even the club website) lists the capacity as 49,000 exactly.
Its worth mentioning the capacity decreases caused by the Taylor Report as the reason for Roker Park's inadequacy.Done - Mentioned taylor report.
The Sunderland fans were voted as the loudest crowd - it was measurements by a decibel meter, not a vote.Done - Changed to recorded.
The Supporters section overplays hooliganism. Sunderland aren't particularly known for it, so it shouldn't be one of the very first things mentioned in the section.Done - I've moved the loudest crowd bit to above.
Every club has a programme, I don't think there's any need to mention it.Done - Removed. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until the prose and linking is smoother. The lead alone provides plenty of fodder for comment:
Is it Sunderland or the FC that competes in the League? "Sunderland Association Football Club is a professional association football club based in Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, England, which competes in the Premier League." Try "..., England, that competes ...". Done - Changed to that.
Remove comma after "titles". Done - Comma removed.
"They" at the start of the second para is off-putting. Perhaps "The Club were elected"? Done - Changed to The club.
It's a messy half blue at the opening. Are readers really going to sit there are divert to all of those "Year in English football" articles before they read the rest? I don't think so. And won't most of them think the year-links are just that—links to solitary year articles? Why not (1) improve the appearance and readability at the opening, (2) make the links explicit, and (3) reduce the dilution of the other links, like this: Done - Changed to that.
Remember that there's a prominent navbox at the top of each Year in English football article. Year-in-X links can also be placed in the "See also" section, with more helpful information as you please that would otherwise clutter the main text.
"The club won their first FA Cup in 1937"—You've linked the solitary year again, but this time it's to FA Cup in 1937. Why not pipe the whole group? Be explicit, where it's reasonably brief. See MOSLINK. I think there's a case for the 1973 FA Cup link to be in the "See also" section rather than in the lead. Done - Removed link altogether, mentioned later on in article.
Clunky sentence: "The club's home stadium is the Stadium of Light, an all-seater stadium with a capacity of 49,000 into which they moved in 1997 after leaving Roker Park in order to increase ground attendances." You know how I love "in order to". "stadium ... Stadium ... stadium". Needs to be split by a semicolon or period. The 49,000 thing is revisited only four seconds later; readers will be irritated. Done - Removed first mention of 49,000. Tony(talk) 08:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"It is commonly likened to Benfica's Estádio da Luz, which translates into English as "Stadium of Light"." Why not "It is commonly likened to Benfica's Estádio da Luz ("Stadium of Light")." And where the f... is it? Rio? Madrid? Who is Benfica? Done - Changed and added Lisbon, Portugal. Tony(talk) 08:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try to locate a sports editor who is unfamiliar with this article, for a good massage of the entire text.
Support A good, thorough article. Minor tweaks of the prose that might be needed are just that. The JPStalk to me 17:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image review I worked a bit on the images and they now past muster. All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rejoinder—My examples above were from the lead only, to demonstrate that the writing throughout needs serious attention. Tony(talk) 15:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comment just starting to massage the prose now. Please revert any changes in meaning I inadvertently introduce. Not too bad but I will fine-tune straightforward ones. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and their performance [in the previous season] led The Times to describe them as "a wonderfully fine team" - my sense is the bracketed bit is redundant. Can the author confirm? Done - Removed redundancy.
"Mackems" is sorta sprung on readers in Financial troubles and cup success section without being explained. I'd settle for it being mentioned in lead but it isn't there. Done - Changed to "club"
The bit on the Friendship trophy looks odd stuck there way down the bottom. I think it would go better after the other rivalry info in the main text. Comment - The reason it is under the honours is because it is an actual trophy. It does not have its own article, so needs a little further explainling.
One last thing, there should be a space between the p ad the number in all the book refs. I'd do it myself but I need to sleep now. Nearly there :) Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Added all the spaces, and thank you very much for the copyedit. :)
I placed italics for the unresolved issues above, like you asked. Don't know if my initial message was missed up there, but I didn't want to take any chances. Read them carefully and the problems will become clear. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not replying, I resolved the issues and just forgot to reply above. Sunderland06 (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of them were still not done, but I took care of them myself, along with a few other tweaks. Here is my final round, at last. Have to get moving here, because this is the second-oldest FAC up at the moment. Normally I keep my posts together, but I'm putting this at the bottom so it doesn't get missed.
Statistics and records: "with Bobby Gurney being the record goalscorer...". Noun-plus-ing structure, which is more common for candidates than I originally thought. Try a semi-colon, then "Bobby Gurney is the record goalscorer...".Done
"making 36 appearances for Republic of Ireland." Perhaps "for the Republic of Ireland."Done - Added the.
The two transfer fee amounts need non-breaking spaces between the pound amount and million, like this: $5.6 million. The edit screen shows the correct formatting, with the exception that us Americans have dollar signs on our keyboards. Another one is needed in Sponsorship.Done
Nicknames: Change the semi-colon in the second sentence to a colon, perhaps?DoneGiants2008 (17-14) 16:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was previously done, but was commented again in Graham Colm's concerns. So I'm not sure which version should remain. Sunderland06 (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is no big deal. I am happy to let the nominator decide. Graham ColmTalk 21:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportOppose- the prose is still not of FA standard. The section on stadiums is well-written but the efforts of , I guess, other writers spoils the article. Here are some examples:
The club's home stadium is the Stadium of Light, an all-seater stadium into which they moved in 1997 - why not "which they moved to in 1997"?Done - Changed.
...leaving Roker Park to increase ground attendances. - something odd here, capacity? Done - Changed.
after a 7–2 win against Aston Villa at Perry Barr - can you confirm this was at Perry Barr and not Aston? These are neighboring districts of Birmingham. Was there a football ground in Perry Barr at the time?Comment - Perry Barr was Aston Villa's ground from 1876 to 1897 as mentioned in Aston Villa F.C.#Stadium.
This occurred when they won their match against Middlesbrough, which meant they finished in fifteenth place - "and they finished in.."Done - Changed.
Both Sunderland and Norwich were relegated in the same season of appearing in the League Cup Final. - "they appeared", but still confusing.Done - Changed a bit.
Swindon's victory was revoked after being found guilty of financial irregularities and Sunderland were instead promoted - how can a victory be found guilty?Comment - Changed to promotion.
The club has many different supporters groups, including from: the United States, Australia, Canada and Ireland. - no colon is needed.Done - Removed colon.
Raine's "Eye Plan" of c.1785–90 shows two of the (ultimately four) gun batteries on the south side of the Wear which guarded the rivermouth during the Napoleonic wars- this comes completely out of the blue, the writers assumes everyone knows what Raine's Eye Plan is - I don't.Done - Reworded.
think the whole article would benefit from a fresh editor giving it a thorough edit. Graham ColmTalk 21:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Sorry, but these are just examples, please see the edits I made to the article a few moments ago for more, and this: By the 1990s, the stadium was no longer large enough, and with no room for possible expansion, the Taylor Report had also brought new regulations into football stadiums, so Roker Park's capacity was continually decreased. - Is a common problem in the article. The reader has to know that the report called for all-seater stadiums. Without knowing this the reader gets lost. And, why "also", who else brought in new regulations? And, "so" is a very weak word.Graham ColmTalk 22:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked this part around. Sunderland06 (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've gone over the article before. The language has a few problems, but these get tweaked over time (sometimes good, sometimes bad). The major structure flows well. The images seem fine. The language might not be to everyone's taste, but I helped go through somethings with Sunderland directly, so I am currently satisfied for now. I would like to see a few more satisfied (especially Graham), but this is a support as per AGF that Sunderland is working hard to accomplish that task. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your point w.r.t. AGF is a valid one. Although, FAC is not meant to be Peer Review, I am willing to copy edit the article tomorrow afternoon, (GMT), if Sunderland is happy about this, I think the article needs about another two hours of work. I think Sunderland can't see the wood for the trees, (this is a compliment of sorts ;-). Graham. Graham ColmTalk 23:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Graham, your kindness and dedication to FAC is astounding. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds informal, I think this sort of phrasing is not seen in encyclopeadic texts, except in the credits.
Changed "thanks" to "due".
Early years and league triumphs
"This helped to solve financial problems and increased the pool of players."
A bit mysterious since no problems were mentioned in the first place, perhaps it will be better to instead mention how it helped to alleviate such issues without mentioning "problems", e.g. "This increased the pool of players, thereby enlarging the amount of funds the club could draw on."
Changed to that.
"From the late 1880s, Sunderland had a brief rivalry with Sunderland Albion, until the latter club's demise in 1892. Ironically, it was James Allan who founded Albion following dissatisfaction with the way that Sunderland A.F.C. was being run, this was due in part to professionalism creeping into the game."
Was there anything interesting about their rivalry? This sounds trivial in a "A and B were rivals, but B died in xxxx." way. Since James Allan was the connection, it might be better to bring his role to the front at the start.
Suggestion: "However, James Allan grew dissatisfied with the changing attitude in the club towards professionalism and left. He founded Sunderland Albion, and the two Sunderland clubs had a rivalry that lasted until Albion's demise in 1892."
Changed to that.
"was described as the Championship of the World title match."
Just querying, I presume this is from Days, is it he who called it that, or did he phrase it in the passive without naming the parties that named the match as such?
[69] and [70] also call it the "World Championship".
It would be best to cite this sentence to Days and Hearts FC to allow verification (I have no idea of London Hearts's qualifications as a reliable site). Jappalang (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cited from Hearts website.
"involved in a payment scandal payment scandal involving"
Repetition of "involve", any way to vary the words?
Would it be better to just state what it was? i.e. "come to winning the league title and the FA Cup in the same season."
Changed to that.
"The Wearsiders escaped relegation from the First Division by ..."
The who?
Wearsiders is maybe a local term, changed to "club"
Financial troubles and cup success
"Sunderland only required a draw"
Would it be wiser to say "Sunderland required only a draw"?
Changed to that.
"However, Chelsea were victorious against Sunderland, and went on to win a game in hand 7–0 to clinch promotion, finishing ahead of Sunderland on goal average."
The first clause seems redundant until one reads "in hand", which might confuse a US reader (who I think is more familiar with "a bird in hand in worth two in the bush") when mixed in like that...
Suggestion (in addition to the preceding note): "Sunderland required only a draw for their final game against promotion rivals Chelsea, who had another game left to play after this match, to secure promotion. However, they were defeated, and Chelsea finished their last game 7–0 to clinch promotion, finishing ahead of Sunderland on goal average."
Changed to that.
"After the close call in the previous season, in 1964 the club was promoted to Division One after finishing in second place."
The "previous season" seems redundant after coming so soon after talking about it. Furthermore, I think the sentence can be phrased as "After the close call, the club was promoted to Division One in 1964 after finishing in second place."
Changed to that
"won the game thanks to Jimmy Montgomery who saved two attempts to score in quick succession by Peter Lorimer."
Like I said earlier, possibly informal in tone for an encyclopaedia.
Adjusted.
"This often described as the most famous save, in an FA Cup Final, of all time."
I believe either an "is" or "was" is missing here.
"As a result of this League Cup final, every time Sunderland and Norwich meet, the Friendship Trophy is contested."
Would it not be better to integrate that Friendship Trophy sub-section here? Right now, it just leads to sudden confusion on why they have to do that, forcing readers to break away to that sub-section and return.
Integrated it in.
"but were relegated immediately and returned to the First Division."
Instead of stating this, state their end of the season position, like "but ended up xx from the bottom and were relegated back to the First Division." Otherwise, it might invite suspicion to non-footers.
Changed to that.
"On leaving, former Sunderland player Len Shackleton said "There will never be another place like Roker"."
Is it too matter of factly stated? How about:
"Bearing fond memories of the stadium, former Sunderland player Len Shackleton said, "There will never be another place like Roker"."
Changed to that.
Recent highs and lows
"Sunderland returned to the Premier League as champions in 1999 with ..."
I think it should be made clear that "Sunderland returned to the Premier League as First-Division champions in 1999 ..."
Changed to that.
Colours and crest
"until they adopted to a red and white halved strip in 1884."
I believe "to" is unnecessary.
Yes, left over from one of my edits I think. Removed it. Graham ColmTalk
"In 1977 the badge was changed, but still included the ship, football and the background of red and white stripes."
Why does the caption for the badge state "used from 1972 until changed in 1997"? Which statement is inaccurate, the caption or the sentence in the text?
Caption, changed to 1977.
Stadiums
Since they had seven stadiums, then Stadium of Light and Roker Park should be "See also" articles rather than "Main articles", right?
Indeed, changed to see also.
"Sunderland then moved to Newcastle Road, which became the longest serving ground to the club up to that point."
They moved in and it became their longest serving ground "up to that point" (the time when they moved in)?
It was their stadium for the longest before they moved to Roker Park.
Putting it chronologically, "Sunderland moved to Newcastle Road in 1886. It became their longest serving ground up to 1886." That is what I was thinking when I read the sentence. Jappalang (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to that.
There seems to be some confusion over my issue, and I apologise for not making myself clear. Look at the sentence (in its original form, and my analyzed break-down). It does not make sense. How can the club move to Newcastle road in 1886 and have it (Newcastle Road) be their longest serving ground in the same year? That was my problem with the sentence (hence, my thoughts above, which I should have clarified was a doubt on the logic). After looking through it again, I changed it.[71] I feel the mention of Newcastle Road as "the longest serving ground" before Roker Park was trivial, including it would have made an unwieldy sentence. Is this sentence accurate to the original intent (sans the "longest serving ground" before Roker)? Jappalang (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Nearing the turn of the century, Sunderland needed a bigger stadium and moved to Roker Park, returning to Roker."
Sounds a tad weird "to Roker Park, returning to Roker."
Suggestion: "Near the turn of the century, Sunderland needed a bigger stadium. They returned to Roker and set up home in Roker Park."
Changed to that.
"The stadium's capacity increased to 50,000 ... On 8 March 1933, Roker Park had the highest ever attendance at a Sunderland match, 75,118 ..."
I have the inkling that 75,118 was due to over-crowding. Either that, or the stadium underwent further expansion. This needs to be mentioned for clarity.
Overcrowding, yes. Mentioned now.
"The Taylor Report was released in January 1990 following the disaster at the Hillsborough Stadium which resulted in 96 deaths."
The sentence as is seems to present no connection to the preceding sentence.
"In January 1990, the Taylor Report was released after overcrowding at the Hillsborough Stadium resulted in 96 deaths, an incident known as the Hillsborough Disaster."
Changed to that.
Supporters and rivalries
"different supporters groups, including from the ..."
"supporter groups from various countries, including the ..."
Changed to that.
""It was violence and disorder on a massive scale""
I think quotes are to be cited again, even if it is in the middle of a chunk of sentences cited to a source.
Referenced again.
"Like some other"
Either "some" can be dropped or it can be replaced with "several", which has a more precise definition.
Removed "other".
The issue is not with "other" (which would be correct), but "some", which connotates an imprecise quantity and could be a weasel in disguise. Jappalang (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added in "several".
"to prevent Albion from benefiting from the gate receipts."
Suggestion: "to not benefit Albion with a share of the gate receipts."
Changed to that.
Statistics and records
Although not extreme, this section still has a hint of being a list of records thrown out.
Nicknames
"They also have other nicknames which include, The Rokerites,"
Suggestion: "They also have other nicknames, such as The Rokerites,"
Changed to that.
"He said "fled from the howling of an approaching black cat, convinced by the influence of the full moon and a warming dram or two that it was the devil incarnate"."
Huh??? Is this supposed to be "He was said to have "fled from ...". By the way, what is a "warming dram"?
I think a warming dram may be a glass of whisky.
Okay with the "warming dram", but what about the start of the sentence (read it from the previous line: Manned by volunteers, one of whom was Dunn. He said "fled from the ...")? Who fled? Jappalang (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, the editor who added this must have just took it as a direct quote.
After finding this, I am of the belief that the editor left out some words. I have corrected the sentence to the form I mentioned. Jappalang (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"took a black cat to the 1937 FA Cup final in his top pocket as a good luck charm; it worked as Sunderland brought home"
Let us not propogate any superstitions here: "took a black cat in his top pocket as a good luck charm to the 1937 FA Cup final in which Sunderland brought home" Either that, or attribute whoever claimed it worked in the text.
Changed to that.
Managers
I see no point to this section. The list is a near replica of the List article. Take out the list and integrate this section into Players, turning that section into a "Players and managers" section.
Merged.
The list (table) is still there. Is there any defense to why it (a full listing of managers) should be in this article when another article (List of Sunderland A.F.C. managers) is readily available for reading? Jappalang (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I thought you meant to merge it. Its not the full list of managers, just a cut down version who have managed 50 league games.
It might be reduced, but what is the point of the table? I would not mind a talk on notable managers of the club (by means of trophies, recorded popularity, or controversies) but here we have an arbitrary cut-off of 50 games. I think it makes sense to follow the way it is done with players (although I do not totally agree with it) for consistency's sake. Have a "Current manager" entry, and let those who want more go to the List to find out. Notable managers would have been mentioned in some manner in the club history or records above. Jappalang (talk) 09:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to just current manager, but I'm not sure of its format.
Format seems fine, since that section is a short list of current members. Jappalang (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Friendship Trophy
Like I said, this could be integrated much earlier.
I integrated it into the history part.
On the whole, a very good read for a football subject, but with the above niggles. Jappalang (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get to this in the afternoon, thanks for the review, and a also a huge thanks to Graham for his copyedits. Sunderland06 (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One last issue: as have been said earlier, but seems to have been overlooked, there are still violations of MOS:FLAG. It is not clear to me why flag icons are used in the Infobox. For the player list (which should have been the one doing this instead of the manager's list, now axed), the flags do not have the names next to them.Jappalang (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've now removed the flags from the infobox and player list.
If anyone tries to bring back the flags, please do refer them to MOS:FLAG. Jappalang (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With the resolution of the above issues, I believe we have a general, concise, and comprehensive article of a football club. The ideas conveyed by the language flow smoother than at the start of the FAC. I think all issues (including sources) have been resolved and this article is worthy to be of featured status. Jappalang (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have forgotten to completely review the lede in my judgment. To make up for this, I have copyedited it to what I think would have rectified my possible issues with it (scattered ideas, awkwardness of certain thoughts in certain places, etc). Jappalang (talk) 07:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Status - the prose issues seem to have been resolved, but there is still one problem with a source. I think it would be a good idea to invite reviewers with unstruck comments to revisit the FAC. Graham ColmTalk 19:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've contacted Oldelpaso, Giants2008 and Tony1, I'll get round to the source tomorrow evening as I'm heading of to sleep. Sunderland06 (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is now done with sources provided by Jappalang.
Comment(sorry I didn't notice this sooner) in the Colours and crest section, the first mention of a ship is when you say it's "still included". For the benefit of those who can't see it in the image, could you add a bit more detail to (presumably?) the "upper part of the Sunderland coat of arms", and perhaps clarify it as the coat of arms of the city of Sunderland. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Struway2 (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleared this up now, cheers. Sunderland06 (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not happy - To be honest, I'm quite disappointed with a few things that I'm seeing, even after heavy copy-editing.
The parenthetical Years in English football link looks like an afterthought. Also, what is the method of deciding which year gets linked? Tony1 has done more than anyone here, except Sandy, to raise standards across the board, but I don't think this is one of his best ideas. I prefer his idea of placing such links in a See also section; while I'm not a big fan of See also sections in general, I feel that is a better way. I understand if you don't want to go against Tony, but that's just my opinion.
Why do some clubs have F.C. at the end and not others? Actually, I don't think much of the F.C.s and believe that they can be dropped.
Major tense problems. Just in the lead, I see "Sunderland Association Football Club is", "Sunderland have", "Sunderland were", and "Sunderland's only major triumph after the Second World War was its". Is Sunderland singular or plural? The recent Liverpool F.C. FAC was derailed by this issue, and I see parellels here.
Financial troubles and cup success: "At the end of the decade, they were again relegated to the Second Division after finishing 21st ." Number ends this sentence, which isn't even the main problem; the space before the period is.
Further league championship titles: "The club escaped relegation from the First Division by one point in the 1927–28 season despite 35 goals from Dave Halliday." Sounds like those 35 goals were the only thing that saved the team, so why is "despite" used?
Early years and league triumphs: "After winning the English League Championship, Sunderland played against Heart of Midlothian F.C., the champions of the Scotish League." Please tell me that "Scotish" is British English.
After seeing problems like this after the amount of work that has been done here, it leads me to believe that this still needs more time. Therefore, I'm going to oppose. Sorry, but I have to call them like I see them, and I don't think it's ready to be promoted now. If this gets archived, a few more weeks should be enough to polish the article sufficiently. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the "Major tense issues", please note that British English allows the use of singular and plural contructions for a proper noun such as companies, organizations, and football clubs.(British Council, American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement) In general, there is not so much a constant tense to be called for, but a rendering based on the context that the subject is to be expressed in. To expect "Sunderland" or "Sunderland A.F.C." to be only referred to as either singular, or plural in a British English article could be an erroneous expectation. Jappalang (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About the flags, they are being adding back into the squad list as they do not violate the specific manual of style for squad lists. However, they should still not be used in the infobox, just clearing this up. Sunderland06 (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That does not supercede the requirement for the country names on first use of the flags. As previously stated, if the flags are wanted in the player list, then the countries have to be named beside the flags. Jappalang (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a second look at the article, I find myself agreeing with Giants2008, and have to go with a reluctant Oppose. It is getting close to FA standard. It is incrementally improving, and has improved over the course of this FAC, but there are still sufficient rough edges to make me think that more time to refine it is required than an FAC usually grants. There's still an element of proseline, and there are frequent abrupt changes of subject between sentences, which could have better flow. In terms of things other than prose, I think the Supporters and rivalries section needs a bit of an overhaul. Sunderland are a well-supported club who have maintained their support through lean times, but not a global "big name" like Arsenal or Real Madrid. Their support is consequently located primarily in north-east England, but the section doesn't really give that impression. Unless I'm mistaken, the Tyne-Wear derby is a much bigger deal than matches against Middlesbrough, and this should be reflected in the text. The part about Sunderland Albion is certainly interesting, but should not have a larger portion of the section than more enduring rivalries. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding the captaincy and vice captaincy in the squad list: The Kieran Richardson article says "He has captained Sunderland on occasion, when regular captain Dean Whitehead has not started the match." So is Richardson or Whitehead the captain? Also is there such a position as "vice-captain" and are you able to provide a source for Andy Reid being given this position? --Jameboy (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't actually find a source for who is the club's captain and vice captain. I think it is Dean Whitehead, but can't be sure, Kieran Richardson was also captain while Whitehead was injured. I think it might be worth just removing the captain and vice captain parts from the list altogether. Sunderland06 (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not trying to rub it in, but we can't have this many issues up top after so much has been done.
"As of 2009, it is competing in the Premier League." "As of" implies that this is and has been subject to change at a high frequency. Have they changed leagues all that often? Comment - Over the last 10 years they've changed leagues quite frequently, and only rejoined the Premier League in 07-08.
"Sunderland performed well in the league, earning them plaudits such as a "wonderfully fine team"" Done - Removed them.
"However, their achievements petered out, and in 1958, they were relegated. " Sounds like the achievements were relegated. Change "they" to "the club". Done - Changed.
"Their stay in the top flight was a record 68 successive seasons" Jargon in the lead (top flight) is not helpful, maybe it is a regional variant but stay as clear as possible. Why does the sentence use the passive? Try: "They stayed in the top league for a record 68 successive seasons". Done - Changed.
"Sunderland's only major triumph after the Second World War was its second FA Cup in 1973" Is there such thing as a "minor triumph" (in this context)? Done - Simply triumph now.
"when the club secured a 1–0 victory over Leeds United, due to a goal scored by Ian Porterfield." The comma after "United" is not really necessary and disrupts flow. Done - Removed comma.
"Based in the same region, Sunderland has a long-standing rivalry with its neighbour Newcastle United, both contesting the Tyne-Wear derby since 1898." "neighbour" tells us all that we need to know. Done - Removed.
"Sunderland-based schoolteacher James Allan founded the Sunderland & District Teachers Association Football Club" I don't quite see the purpose of bolding down here, it is kind of distracting. Done - Removed bold.
"He founded Sunderland Albion, and the two Sunderland clubs had a rivalry" Almost sounds like they had children, change "had"-->formed, or something like that. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Changed to had. I understand this FAC probably won't pass at the moment. I feel a lot of improvements have been made, but should've been done at peer review really. However, I'll keep sticking in at this article, and renominate it in the future. Cheers for all the help. Sunderland06 (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for the lede, it was my fault, really (see my comments above). Jappalang (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spot-checks in one small section reveal significant prose issues. I've given hints below as to how to overcome these. I think this one should be withdrawn and resubmitted after at least a few weeks; then it should go through without too much trouble. Reviewers have been put to far too much work here, and basic problems remain.
"Found guilty of making additional payments to players in excess of the maximum wage"—I may be wrong, but do we need both "additional" and "in excess of"?
I can't remember, but if you've chosen plural for "club", I suppose I can swallow it, but ... "the club were"? Uncomfortable; yes, I see you have used plural. Hmmmm.
Clunky order: "Sunderland required only a draw for their final game against promotion rivals Chelsea, who had another game left to play after this match, to secure promotion." Why not "To secure promotion, Sunderland required only a draw in their final game against promotion rivals Chelsea, who had another game left to play after this match." Have I got it right? Is "in" right?
It goes straight on to say "However, they were defeated"—which team is "they"? Hey, this is basic: you really need to go through all text to zap these back-reference problems. It's an easy class of issue to do housecleaning on, because you simply hop from pronoun to pronoun, and from "this" to "this", etc.
"to clinch promotion" twice in five seconds. Go through and identify the close reps—that's another simple task.
More clunky sentence structure and punctuation: "Montgomery's feat is often described as the most famous save, in an FA Cup Final, of all time." The commas wreck it. Why not "Montgomery's feat is often described as the most famous save of all time in an FA Cup Final."? That way, this habit of separating bits that desperately want to be together in the sentence is overcome, as well as the bump-bumpety-bump ironed out.
Clunky: "Sunderland, a Second Division club at the time, won the game, mostly due to the efforts of their goalkeeper Jimmy Montgomery; he saved in quick succession two of Peter Lorimer's shots at goal." How about "Sunderland, a Second Division club at the time, won the game; this was mostly due to the efforts of their goalkeeper Jimmy Montgomery, who saved two of Peter Lorimer's shots at goal in quick succession." Does one not say "at the goal"? Have an eye for recasting the boundaries between sentences and clauses, with periods and semicolons, to give readers a more even run in length and complexity. The last bit was stubby, the first was awkward in length and arrangement.
Not yet of a professional standard. Sorry. Tony(talk) 13:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two much work? (yes, spelling intentional, just for you ;) ) I thought reviewers did this for pleasure, just like everyone else? If they don't wish to collaborate then they are under no obligation. I must say, looking above, it seems some have been exceptional: GrahamColm appears to have been especially helpful, putting his money where his mouth is by actually doing some work. The JPStalk to me 17:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is nice when reviewers help out. However, they are under no obligation to do so; the purpose of this process is to determine whether the article in question is ready to be promoted. FAC is meant for fine-tuning, it is not a build-a-Featured-Article service. Our reviewer resources are stretched thin. I review for pleasure also, but I don't want to turn the FAC into a peer review. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I realise now this article was not ready to be submitted. Most of this stuff should have came up at peer review, and I'd be happy to withdraw this and resubmit it in a couple of weeks. Sunderland06 (talk) 08:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing; please see WP:FAC/ar and leave the FAC template in place until the bot goes through. Hope to see you back soon! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I've achieved the GA criteria, and I'm hoping to improve it further. I'm not overly familiar with the improvement process, so it may well not be ready, but it looks to me at least as though it meets the criteria. If it's not, though, I thank you for any help you can provide in getting it there. matt91486 (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had fixed those earlier today when I saw them in the tool; I'll check them again, or it might just be delayed. matt91486 (talk) 04:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two dabs are still showing up on the tool. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I looked at the lag time on change over, and it said over 4000 minutes, but I think they will eventually switch over. matt91486 (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'll look into if Minnesota has a similar policy with regard to it's logo and get back to you. If not, there is a separate men's basketball logo that has at least sometimes historically been used, which I believe would meet the requirement. matt91486 (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images need to be re-arranged to conform with WP:ACCESS (no left-aligned images under third-level headings) and WP:MOS#Images. Inconsistency in page numbers in citations: some use pg. and some use pp. Inconsistent dates: some use ISO dates and some use Month day, year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original.
Current ref 48 (NCAA major infractions...) is just a bare link, should be formatted with a title, publisher, and last access date.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I always like to see a new article type at FAC; unfortunately, pages without a good model are the most difficult to get promoted. Questionable organization and rough edges are easily found, leading me to oppose.
I don't like how the first few sections are organized. I would place the team history section first; this method is used commonly in sports team FAs, such as Arsenal F.C. and Nashville Sounds. The coach and player sections can be placed after the history.
The yearly standings don't need to be here at all; they really clog up the bottom of the page. I recommend splitting them off into a new article, namely Minnesota Golden Gophers men's basketball seasons. If you play your cards right, you could get a featured list out of the deal.
A number of newspaper references without links lack page numbers, which should be included for verifiability purposes.
Peeking into the Clem Haskins era: "Besides lying about the $3,000 payment, he'd also told several of his players to lie to the NCAA." Contractions like "he'd" should be fixed. See if there are any more hiding in the article.
Facilities: To quote our Manual of Style: "Em dashes should not be spaced." They can either be made unspaced or turned into en dashes. I would go for the former option.
Rivals: "The greatest rival in the early years of the program were the Minnesota Aggies." Watch for tense issues ; here we have "rival" (singular) and "were" (plural). To fix this, change "were" to "was".
Unspaced hyphens need to be fixed, see my comment on dashes above.
"A one sided rivalry is with Ohio State." This comes off more than a little POV without any stats (like head-to-head record) to back it up.
Peeking at the history section: "The team finished fourth or better in the conference seven times in Cowles eleven seasons as Gophers head coach." Apostrophe needed for Cowles.
The comments on the writing are only examples of problems throughout. This needs a good copy-editor who is new to the article; that person can help you smooth out the rough patches. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I definitely think you're right with the copyediting - I've been too involved with it for too long to catch all the mistakes. With regard to the newspaper articles, I'm not precisely sure how to source them. Oftentimes they have been accessed from research databases available at universities, but not to the regular public, so it's impossible for me to get a valid checkable link. At the same time, though, page numbers aren't always available. I'll do what I can to investigate further. matt91486 (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the grammatical errors you've pointed out. It will take me a bit to figure out exactly what to do with the dashes, I'm not very good at telling the difference, but I'll try to get it cleaned up. matt91486 (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article is part of a featured topic and the most recent console entry in the highly acclaimed Legend of Zelda series. The game was a launch game for the Wii system. The article is stable, well written, and has improved since the last FA nomination. If anyone disagrees, I will help make the needed changes since the game is deserving enough to be a FA. TJSpyke 05:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
I applaud you for wanting to bring the article to FAC once more; I've been working on this article for a while and it's nice to see it's here again. I've been planning to work some more on this article soon; as it stands now, is still has issues. Nice job so far, but I think that it's still too soon for FAC.
There are a few [citation needed]s
Several awards in the Reception box aren't used, so they should be removed. It's not intended to be simply a score aggregator.
Is there any more sales information? By the looks of it, the one sentence that talks about sales is worldwide; what about United States and Japan separately, at the least? And, the game's ranking among versus other games?
Reception is several small paragraphs; the review ones should be merged.
A few unreferenced paragraphs in Gameplay and Plot sections.
The image captions that are not sentences should not have periods.
There are a few more issues; this is just to start off with. Gary King (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3 - There are only fair use images in this article and none of their rationales are sufficient.
File:TP Wii.jpg - Could you explain a bit more clearly why this is the best packaging to have in the infobox. What does this mean, exactly: "This particular version of the game, while technically not the original, was released first. Thus, this cover is more appropriate in representing the game."
File:Zelda - Twilight Princess - stab.jpg - I don't see the need for this image. The stated "purpose of use" is: "Used to illustrate the L-targeting feature of the game". However, the article only discusses the Z-targeting system (I assume there is a difference).
File:Zeldatp-screens (120).jpg - The purpose of use is: "Used to illustrate the wolf form feature of the game". However, WP:NFC has a standard far higher than illustration. The article does a fine job of describing the character changing into a wolf. I'm unconvinced that we need this image.
File:Zelda - Twilight Princess - Twilight Realm.jpg - The source for this image is "the game" - does that mean it is a screenshot the uploader took himself? The purpose of use for this image says: "Used to illustrate the Twilight Realm of the game, the wolf form, and the artistic style of the game", however in my quick skim of the article, I didn't see any text about the artistic style of the game related to this image. Could you add some to justify this image?
File:ZeldaTP-WiiRemoteExample.jpg - This has an incomplete fair use rationale and I find its use dubious. I think the caption does a good job of explaining this feature - integrating that text into the article will be sufficient. I don't see a need for the image.
I would suggest looking at this dispatch on non-free images for help with these images, particularly the section at the bottom on "purposes of use". David Fuchs might also be helpful in selecting good fair use images for this article, as he is familiar with video games and the image-use guidelines. Awadewit (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am withdrawing the nomination for now so the article can continue to be improved. TJSpyke 16:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I withdrew it. Gary King (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I have decided to re-nominate the article after a peer review process that has just concluded. It passed GA review back in March. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, based on spot-check of sources from this version:
fn 4-- page not found
fn 16-- page not found
fn 17-- the two sentences of text cited by this footnote are taken verbatim from the cited source, aside from minor punctuation changes, omission of one sentence from source, and addition of two words to article. Are there other incidents of copying and pasting of text?
fn 24-- page not found
fn 61-- page not found
fn 95-- goes to current news page of tv station; not applicable
All incidents of copying and pasting should be removed, unless quote marks are used.
Sources need to be rechecked and broken links replaced.
In the first sentence, is there a way to avoid the redundancy - tornado outbreak was a deadly tornado outbreak? Did the outbreak have any sort of superlative?
I'd like a better source for the damage toll, which is very difficult to find with the source provided in the Infobox.
Some voting locations were forced to close early due to the approaching severe weather
That seems a tad unimportant for the first paragraph of the article. I feel more pressing details should be in the first paragraph, such as more on the actual states affected (and not just which states had primaries that were affected). After all, the article is on a tornado outbreak, not on the election day. It might be useful to specify whether Super Tuesday was on the 5th or 6th.
Were all of the deaths direct? Also, the lede says At least 57 people were killed, but since it's been almost a year, shouldn't a final total be out by now?
Sorry to be pedantic, but I'd like a source for - The outbreak is the deadliest in the era of modern NEXRAD doppler radar, which was fully implemented in 1997. As it's in the lede, it should appear somewhere in the article, but I'd be happy at least with a source.
On February 5 at 7:00 am CST (1300 UTC), the Storm Prediction Center (SPC) issued a high risk of severe storms for most of Arkansas; the first in February since 1998
Two problems. First, the semicolon creates an incomplete statement. Either rewrite the last portion, or change it to a comma. More pressing is what you're trying to say. Was it the first high risk in February for Arkansas alone, or for anywhere covered by the SPC?
Somewhere a link for UTC is needed (I don't see one, at least).
Quick question about this phrase - Some of the most powerful tornado producing supercells - should that be tornado-producing? Or am I reading it wrong?
Better clarification would be good for - A record of five tornado emergency declarations were issued. I happen to think it's out of place, as watches and warnings were dealt with two paragraphs prior.
I haven't gotten past the meteorological synopsis, but suffice it to say I think the article needs more work. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Inconsistent date formatting in citations, three different styles used:
^ Monthly Storm Data - National Weather Service, Memphis. Accessed July 25, 2008.
^ NWS Mobile (February 6, 2008). "Super Tuesday Tornado Outbreak". National Weather Service. Retrieved on 2008-04-26.
^ CNN (February 6, 2008). "Voters turn out in droves for Super Tuesday", CNN.com. Retrieved on 26 April 2008.
The article uses Month day, year, but the citations have month day, year; day month year; and ISO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3
File:Noaa-outbreak-graphic.png - This image is missing a source link, date, and author. Without the source link, we cannot verify the license.
File:2-5-08CO.gif - This image is missing a source link, date, and author. Without the source link, we cannot verify the license.
File:UnionDorm.jpg - The text at this image says "I created this image and give permission for it to be used" and then links to flickr. However, the license at flickr is different than the one chosen by the uploader. Two options here: 1) Enter the information for this image, as if it were from flickr, using the license there; 2) Contact the uploader to establish that s/he is indeed the creator of the image and ask the user to state as such on the image description page ("I" is not sufficient - it needs to be "I, Tms8707056" or something like that).
File:Damage Macon County.JPG - This needs to link to the html page on which the photo appears. I looked through 30 photos - after that I thought you could perhaps take up the search. Start at photo 31! :)
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been peer reviewed and has passed GAN successfully. I'll try my best to address issues. GeometryGirl (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Vietoris4343.jpg - Twice now, I've tried to access the source and permissions links for this image (last night and this morning). Both times I've gotten a "The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later." message. Anyone else having this problem?
Yes, I'm getting the same error message. The whole website is down, and many picture at Commons come from it. GeometryGirl (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try again tomorrow. Awadewit (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can view a Google cache of the source page here. Copyright information from the MFO is here. "Those images labelled with "Copyright: MFO" can be used on the terms of the Creative Commons License Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Germany." BuddingJournalist 20:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent - this image is fine. Awadewit (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of the diagrams have descriptions and PD licenses. I am incapable of assessing whether or not they require sources. Someone with more mathematical knowledge than myself will have to decide whether or not the information in them requires verification.Awadewit (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the pictures are very basic. There don't really contain any mathematical content, they only help visualisation. GeometryGirl (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked over the images and agree. They are adequately sourced by the associated text and citations therein. Geometry guy 14:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify? Do you think the images need to be sourced on their own? Remember, these images are independent files. Since they are not always associated with this article, all necessary sourcing information needs to be on the image description page. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Awadewit, I was wondering if you could tell me what type of info in an image needs to be sourced (for FAC) (or tell me where I can read about it). I've never participated in such a review so I have no idea. Do things only need to be sourced if they are contentious? or does everything need to be sourced? For example, here is an image that is on a current featured article (and was on it when the article became a featured article [77]); this picture expresses a mathematical theorem, does it lack a source? if so there are probably a few images on the article under discussion that could use a source. I was also wondering whether you were also talking about the commutative diagrams that had to be rendered as png's in a separate software and uploaded to wiki as images (such as [78]), or just the other images. Cheers. RobHar (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I see some of this has been addressed on your talk page. RobHar (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still do not know whether the mathematical diagrams (what I would call "pictures") need a source. I really am just too ignorant of this field to judge. I didn't even realize the "commutative diagrams" were images until now, I'm afraid - I supposed they had been rendered using LaTeX. If these "diagrams" represent formulas or equations, they do not have to have a source. For example, if they are the equivalent of something like "2x = 4 therefore x = 2" (to be basic), there is no reason to have a source. Does this make sense? In the end, the mathematically-informed users will have to decide the source question. Awadewit (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The diagrams are expressions of facts that can be represented in other ways. The facts need a source; once they have a source, then the diagram does not need an additional source (except in unusual situations). Ozob (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've consulted Shoemaker's Holiday, who knows some topology and is a Commons admin, and he does not think we need sources. Awadewit (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To try and simplify it a little, these are sort of like Venn diagrams, marking out how you'd divide up simple topological shapes into other simple shapes, and where the overlap is. For instance, you could split the 2-torus (two toruses stuck together) back into two toruses by snipping along the region where the red and blue lines cross. While this may seem an imprecise way to define it, that's because topology is geometry without area, volume, or well-defined positions. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
Sources in languages other than English should note that in their reference entry
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added the languages. Thanks. GeometryGirl (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would also be helpful to note that the link to Mayer's paper requires a subscription. Geometry guy 17:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. A lot of work has gone into this article, which is now deservedly a GA. However, there is quite a gap from GA to FA, and I don't believe it has been bridged yet. The main challenges are engaging professional prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b) and more rigorous referencing (1c). The issues can be illustrated by the "Background, motivation and history" section. This has only one citation to a secondary source (Hirzebruch's essay – the papers of Mayer and Vietoris are primary sources). The section combines two distinct but related things: the motivation of the Mayer-Vietoris sequence from a modern perspective, and the history of how and why it arose. The latter is not covered comprehensively, and needs to be well cited. The history does not end with the papers of Mayer and Vietoris, and Eilenberg and Steenrod deserve more than a brief mention at the end of the derivation section. For example, I don't think the concept of an exact sequence existed in 1930 and Mayer and Vietoris did not present or name their results in this way. Who did?
The references could use a good book on the history of (algebraic) topology. The standard one is by Dieudonne: pages 39 and 110 provide some information. Ioan James' recent book may also be helpful.
Concerning the prose, I find the "(co)" appearing everywhere unhelpful. Historically, and primarily, the Mayer-Vietoris sequence is about homology and I suggest concentrating on that. The fact that there is a dual version for cohomology is important too, but it doesn't need to be mentioned continually in the lead and first section (the relative version isn't). An example of the prose is:
"The Mayer–Vietoris sequence is such an approach, giving partial information about the (co)homology groups of any space by relating it to the (co)homology groups of two of its subspaces and their intersection."
There is a mismatch here between "groups" and "it", and a further confusion when "its" refers to the space rather than the groups; "any space" is also a bit awkward.
Concerning citation, a useful rule of thumb is that Wikipedia has no opinion. Whenever an article contains a statement which is not purely factual, it needs to be cited. The question I ask when I review an article is "according to whom?". This can be asked, for example, of the statement "a theorem such as that of Mayer and Vietoris is potentially of broad and deep applicability." Also, the section uses the word "important" three times. Later on, there is also "As an important special case when G is the group of real numbers...", which could be rephrased. (This segment needs a citation too, but Bott and Tu surely cover it.)
"He was told about the conjectured result and a way to its solution, and solved the question for the Betti numbers in 1929."
What conjectured result and what question? Is this sourced to Hirzebruch's essay?
There are issues elsewhere. For instance, "holds" (in the lead) is jargon (and confusing here). "Covering subspaces" is confusing too, even with the wikilink. Finally, it would be good to back up Hatcher with another source or two, especially when the citation is to an exercise (refs 14 and 15). J.P. May also has a textbook which is available on line. I hope this and the other references given above help in improving the article. Geometry guy 17:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I think this is a really nice article, generally well-written and with very pretty illustrations. I have a number of relatively trivial issues, and
one major concern. My main concern with the present version of the article becoming featured is that it is not comprehensive (a FA criterion).
(It is nice that the article is so well-referenced, but also shows, that the content is pretty much taken from
one type of book, which increases the potential to miss important points not covered by those references). In my view, to be featured the article should at the
very least mention the following topics: MV for multiple open sets/subsets, MV for sheaf cohomology including a mention of cohomology of coherent sheaves, cohomology of sheaves w.r.t.
more general topologies (etale cohomology, say). For example, it is an easy, but really useful example of MV that cohomology of coherent sheaves on P^n (projective space
of dimension n) vanishes beyond n+1, simply since projective space is covered by n+1 affine spaces, which don't have higher cohomology. (I'm not too much
a connoisseur of advanced algebraic topology, but I suspect that there are more advanced applications of MV in this realm, too.)
The current article conveys a bit the image as if the parallel statements of MV for singular cohomology
and for de Rham cohomology are merely coincidential, but should (IMO) at least tell briefly that both are instances of the more general sheaf cohomology.
lead section
why "attributed to" (sounds a bit like it might be due to somebody else)?
the 2nd section of the lead sounds a bit like reduced and relative cohomology are an additional case (in addition to the cases covered by Eilenberg/Steenrod)
I suggest moving the sentence "Because the cohomology is not computable directly..." to the first lead section, as a motivational statement.
The statement "and a precise relation exists for homology of dimension one" has nothing to do with M/V, and should be removed.
The examples are not covered in the lead. They should be, perhaps as part of the motivation.
background section
In general I think that's well done. However statements like "the cocycle groups are often too big to handle directly" would probably be good with a reference.
"a theorem such as that of M and V" is vague, just "the MV sequence" would be better.
basic versions for singular homology
OK, if you call this basic, what is the non-basic stuff?
It would be good to mention that A and B can simply be open subsets, this is a case often needed.
Generally, * should be replaced by ∗ (∗).
"In particular, H_1 is the abelianization" is misleading. This is a general statement, unrelated to MV. I suggest rewording it to "since, quite generally, H_1 is the abelianization of pi_1, this is precisely the ..."
Basic applications
"the homology groups for A and B are trivial" should probably read "the higher homology groups" or "the reduced homology"
in the Klein bottle, putting some parentheses around Z + Z_2 would be good (in the 2nd term in the last eqn)
Further discussion
"are the usual ones" might deserve a brief explanation
"Consider the ..." could be reworded (things like "note that" etc., directly calling for a reader, should be avoided by MOS, where possible)
Is "A + B" standard notation for the union? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I am very pleasantly surprised by the feedbacks of Geometry guy and Jakob. There is enough material above to keep me working a bit. Thank you for your criticism and suggestions. GeometryGirl (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to disagree with including a lot of material on MV with three or more open sets. That takes you in to Čech cohomology: The reason why the higher cohomology of a coherent sheaf F on Pn vanishes is because F is quasi-isomorphic to its Čech resolution, which terminates after n+1 steps. (The Čech resolution doesn't appear on the Čech cohomology page, but it's the same idea as the Koszul complex.) That's really a different topic than the present article. I agree that it deserves a mention, but not much. (The generalization of the MV long exact sequence is the Čech-to-derived functor spectral sequence.) Going out into maximal generality, we end up with Verdier's hypercoverings and Deligne's theory of cohomological descent. Here's a set of notes on them: [79]. But these are all well outside the scope of the article, and they deserve a sentence at most.
I agree that it would be good to include statements of MV for other cohomology theories (such as sheaf cohomology). Does anyone know if it holds for extraordinary cohomology theories? (Weibel's K-theory book says there's a version for algebraic K0 and K1, [80], pp. 14–15) I think the right general statement for this might be that some cohomology theories preserve homotopy colimits? But I don't know much about these things. Ozob (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, call it Cech or call it MV for 3, I see it as really closely related. But simply writing "The MV sequence can be seen as a first step toward (or special case of) Cech, since..." is probably also sufficient. Hypercoverings are certainly a bit far off. And yes, there is a MV sequence for algebraic K-theory (this should be in Quillen's original paper (Quillen, Daniel (1972), "Higher Algebraic K-theory. I", Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 341: 85–147), which is mirrored by the MV sequence for (mixed) motives, and every other cohomology theory in algebraic geometry I know of. I would go as far as saying that the existence of a MV sequence is a first test for the reasonability of a cohomology theory. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Ozob has found the way to phrase the Cech vs MV issue over at "Čech-to-derived functor spectral sequence", i.e. the MV sequence is the long exact sequence associated to the spectral sequence coming from a cover by two sets. So something to that effect mentioned in the MV sequence article should be enough (and in fact pretty cool, imho). As for the more general cohomology theories, SGA4.V.3 shows the existence of the Čech-to-derived functor spectral sequence (they call it the Cartan-Leray ss) in an arbitrary topos (as far as I can tell), so the MV sequence holds for sheaf cohomology in an arbitrary topos. Furthermore, Section 2.1 (page 25) of Kōno and Tamaki's "Generalized cohomology" shows that the existence of the MV sequence doesn't depend on the "dimension axiom", and so it exists for extraordinary cohomology theories as well (such as topological K-theory and cobordism). Does this cover everything? And if it does, would the following address your major concern, Jakob?
Mentioning the MV sequence is the long exact sequence associated to the Cech spectral sequence;
Saying that the MV sequence exists in sheaf cohomology in an arbitrary topos;
Saying that the MV sequence exists in both ordinary an extraordinary cohomology theories (in the sense of Eilenberg-Steenrod).
Comments. A couple of quick comments. First, I think it'd be good to mention the dates (1930/31) when the basic result for homology was proved in the lede section, and not just in the main body of the article, to give the reader a better idea of its age. Second, does anyone here know around what time the actual term "Mayer-Vietoris sequence" was introduced (and maybe even by whom)? It is often difficult to pinpoint such things precisely but something approximate should be known. Nsk92 (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I agree with the above comments that the "history" portion of the "Background, motivation and history" section needs to be expanded. E.g. who and when stated the result in its modern form? (Presumably Mayer and Vietoris used different language.) Also, when and by whom was the cohomology version obtained? (I assume that Vietoris stated the theorem for homology only, right?) Same for the relative version. Nsk92 (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the moment - I have an amateur interest in topology, but even I find this a bit jargon-dense. Now, obviously, this is an esoteric subject, and noone expects you to simplify the entire thing, but I do think that at least the first paragraph in the lead should attempt to give a brief explanation that a layman could understand. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One could write "In mathematics, particularly algebraic topology and homology theory, the Mayer–Vietoris sequence is a tool to help compute certain invariants of topological spaces. The result is due to two Austrian mathematicians, Walther Mayer and Leopold Vietoris. The method consists of splitting a space into pieces for which these invariants may be easier to compute. The sequence relates the invariants of the space to the invariants of the pieces via a mathematical object called a long exact sequence." Is this preferable? All I've done is remove all the jargon. It is my opinion that the introduction as it stands explains the MV sequence, but perhaps this would be clearer if scary jargon were removed. Or do you think some attempt should be made to explain more of the context such as what are (co)homology groups, what is meant by invariants (and maybe the term algebraic), and maybe even what a long exact sequence is. All this is layman's terms. Is this the sort of explanation you think is lacking? Cheers. RobHar (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Invariant is still jargon. So I don't think this satisfies Shoemaker Holiday's objection. Ozob (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, Shoemaker Holiday said it was "jargon-dense", not that he was opposed to the presence of any jargon, but rather the high concentration of it. The appearance of one jargon term may be acceptable to him. Or if there's a way of saying "invariant" in layman terms then that could be substituted in. Let's see what Shoemaker Holiday thinks. RobHar (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I have already commented on this at the GA stage. I think it would be unfortunate to have on the main page of Wikipedia an article of which only a small subset of Ph.D. level mathematicians and graduate students can understand even the first sentence. For anybody else, the article doesn't even serve the purpose of provoking curiosity, because the background articles that it links to are, excuse me, crappy. The article may be very useful to a tiny group of specialists, but I don't think we should be advertising it to people who won't have any chance of getting anything out of it. Looie496 (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I also have my concerns (see above), I want to make it a point that your objection is not based on FA criteria and seems to be largely irrelevant: The argument with the main page is irrelevant, because we don't discuss that here. Also, that background articles are crappy is not the fault of this article. It is true that the article has narrow importance for the general audience, but this does not preclude it from being featured. Also, I (myself a Ph.D. student) think the article is well-written and understandable for an undergrad student willing to delve into the matter (or having had a course on basic topology), which is exactly the right audience for the article. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 08:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I said in my GA comments, I think of myself as a test case here: I came close to getting a Ph.D. in math before switching to neuroscience, and have a decent understanding of algebra, analysis, logic, linear algebra, differential geometry, dynamical systems theory, and point set topology -- more than the majority of undergraduates would know. But I never delved into algebraic topology, and don't know what a homology group is, and consequently I can't get anything whatsoever out of this article. Of course I could go to the library and check out a book that deals with algebraic topology, spend a day learning the fundamentals, then come back to this article. But it doesn't seem to me that a Wikipedia FA should have such stringent requirements. Looie496 (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since there seems to be some question about this, could you please list which FA criteria you don't think this article passes? Thanks. RobHar (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that the article is consistent with WP:MSM#Article introduction, which is implicitly part of the FA criteria. For what it's worth, a statement at the beginning that "you have to know homology theory to understand any of this article, and you won't be able to learn it using Wikipedia" would resolve some of my issues, as it would prevent people from getting frustrated. Looie496 (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think that I've improved it quite a bit since it became a GA, and believe that it meets the FA criteria. I'll do anything I can to help get this to FA-Class. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note, inconsistent date formats in citations:
^ "American Mensa mind games past winners". Mind Games. Retrieved on December 27, 2008.
^ "Origins Award Winners (1993)". Academy of Adventure Gaming Arts & Design. Retrieved on 2007-11-01.
I'll fix that up shortly. I hadn't before I nominated the article because I'd read somewhere that date formatting shouldn't be changed much, although it does make sense for consistency. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got all of them; I'll look through the punctuation shortly. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I fixed the only punctuation problem that I noticed around quotations; sorry if I missed any! -Drilnoth (talk) 00:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image reviewFile:Wizards of the Coast logo.png - I've fixed up the fair use rationale for this image, but it still needs a source. All other images have verifiable licenses and sufficient descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I don't know where that specific image comes from, but I'll try and find one that I do know the source for and replace the current one. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, although I don't know what date would be accurate to put in the description. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added today's date as the upload date. Any other information you have on when the logo was created could also go there. Awadewit (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay; I don't know when the image was added to the original website that I took it from. Is that needed for an FA? -Drilnoth (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean when the logo was created for use by the corporation? That sort of information may be very hard to track down. BOZ (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant when the logo was created for the corporation, yes. It is not necessary information - it is just best to include every last scrap of information available, particularly for fair use images. Awadewit (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We'll see what we can do... but I can't promise much, there. :| BOZ (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is more like a "if you have the information, add it" and "if you don't have it, don't bother to hunt around for it" kind of thing. Awadewit (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, gotcha. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that most of RPGnet isn't reliable, because it is mostly a freely editable database and forum site. I considered this page to be reliable because it is written by Shannon Appelcline, and with fact-checking information at the bottom of the article. The article also doesn't look like one that is open to all editing. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see a bit more about the author to make some sense of why she's reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay; I'll see if I can find something else to establish reliability or I'll try and remove the ref. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appelcline is the vice president of Skotos Tech, if that would establish any reliability through some of the articles on Google News. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References (resolved), Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both of the MTGsalvation forum cites are to posts by Daron Rutter, who was involved in the lawsuit with Wizards. I'd assumed that his posts on the lawsuit would be reliable, although other comments in the forums aren't. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Major problem with forum posts is that how do we know that the proported person writing it is really the person writing it? On official forums, when the author is given some identification as being "official" then, yes, they become slightly more reliable, but this isn't the case, as this isn't an official forum for WotC. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, so here's a bit more info to try and make it "official": his profile page at MTGSalvation, which presumably can only be edited by him, does list his name as Daron, and the combination of two official Wizards of the Coast pages ([82] and [83]) would point to rancored_elf on MTGSalvation as being Daron Rutter. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a bit too much conjecture, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 15 (Engleman..) the title of the journal is Puget Sound Business Journal, and it should be in italics. Use the work field in the template to accomplish this
Names of your journals should be in italics.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I'll look into replacing/removing the refs that aren't reliable. I've left two questions above regarding the reliability of MTGSalvation and RPGnet. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the Kotaku, ICV2, Captainprimate, Gamers Temple, and Dice Tower references; I'll work on the others later. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've fixed everything with the refs except for the RPGnet and MTGSalvation refs being discussed above. I didn't notice any journal names that should be in italics but aren't; am I just missing something? -Drilnoth (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed both MTGSalvation refs. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - the only one I saw there was Mensa. I thought I fixed this by linking to Mensa International, but it's still showing in the toolbox? BOZ (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard that the toolserver has been having some trouble lately, so maybe it just hasn't updated yet? -Drilnoth (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it means anything, I tried it again just now and it said "database replication lag is 4301 minutes"; that's about 71.6 hours, or about 2.4 days, and I did fix it since then. :) BOZ (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the "History" section: "Magic's release has been called "Probably the most dramatic event in RPG history since the 1974 release of D&D", because by 1994 "A mad rush was on to create 'the next Magic.' RPG design came to a standstill at many companies as they scrambled to create a CCG of their own."" These quotes are unnecessarily sensationalist. They should be paraphrased into a more encyclopedic description rather than a Wizards soundbite. Axl¤[Talk] 22:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, didn't really notice that before... can we keep some of that if toned down or shall it all be shucked? BOZ (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to be sensationalist when I added the lines (originally found in The Fantasy Roleplaying Gamer's Bible), although I can understand if they need to be removed or paraphrased. I'll see what I can do. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, by removing quotes. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From "History", "Sold to Hasbro": "Hasbro had expressed interest in purchasing Wizards of the Coast as early as 1994, but had become impressed with the success of its Pokémon game." [Emphasis mine.] The conjunction doesn't seem appropriate. Axl¤[Talk] 09:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How's it look now? -Drilnoth (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better, thanks. Axl¤[Talk] 19:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From "History", "Recent years", what's the connection between Daron Rutter/MTGSalvation and Rancored Elf? Axl¤[Talk] 19:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I've looked at a couple of featured articles about companies: "BAE Systems" and "Oliver Typewriter Company". The Wizards article has a well-developed History section. However a lot of information is missing. What's Wizards' market share in CCG and RPG? What is their turnover and other relevant financial aspects? I realise that the spin-out article "List of Wizards of the Coast products" is linked. However the article would benefit from a "Critical reception" section, discussing the major products: M:TG and D&D. There should be a list of the main awards received. What about criticisms of the company? Wizards has been accused of trying to monopolise the market, dumb down the game, and overcharge customers. Surely there are some reliable sources about this? Axl¤[Talk] 19:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WotC has been accused of monopolization, dumbing-down, etc., but to my knowledge there are few if any reliable sources; it's mostly just postings on messageboards and the like. I was also under the impression that "criticism" and "controversy" sections were generally discouraged and better fit into the rest of the article if possible. Otherwise, I think that you definitely have some good points and, looking again, the article does need a fair bit of expansion. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—Overall it looks to be in pretty good condition, and is close to meeting the FA criteria. I only have a few concerns:
The "Sold to Hasbro" section has one paragraph on the sale; the remainder appears unrelated. How about some information on how the sale to Hasbro has influenced the WotC company? My understanding is that the reason for the sale of WotC was some disgruntlement by the early stockholders who had not seen much of a payback for their investment. Is there any information about this that could be added?[84]
The title to the next section, "Changes and controversy", could just as easily apply to the "Sold to Hasbro" section. Is there a better sub-division of the information?
The following sentence seems to be dangling a bit, and needs expansion for clarity: Adkison "Set [the] overall design direction for the new edition of D&D". Perhaps some explanation could be provided about the business reasons for producing a new version?
Is there any information on the company revenue and profits? I know their sales were $3.3 billion in 1999; not exactly chump change.
"Games and products" is mostly redundant with the previous sections. The only new item is the publication of novels. Perhaps the last could be expanded?
Thank you.—RJH (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I'll look into those tomorrow. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've renamed the sections and added a quote regarding why Wizards decided to make a new edition of D&D. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Recent years" might not work because it introduces a time dependency into the article. But I'm not sure what to suggest as an alternative. "Second decade" wouldn't quite work since the prior section covers events up through 2008.—RJH (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding revenue/profits, I didn't see any really reliable sources in my first (albeit short) search. I'll see what I can do about expanding the games & products section and the reason for the sale. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a fair amount of information available via a google of: "wizards of the coast" revenue. It probably doesn't have to cover every year, but some information on trends would be good. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Axl and criteria 1b. I don't think that an article about a well-known company which only consists of a history section can be a featured article. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 11:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
References have been strengthened, prose has been improved. I think this article is now ready for the featured article star. —Remember the dot(talk) 00:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved my original oppose and subsequent discussion to the talk page, as it was getting rather long and cluttering up this FAC. I will be traveling over the next few days. If the article is not significantly different from this version my oppose still stands; otherwise, please feel free to ignore it. I'll revisit the article when I get a chance. BuddingJournalist 02:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technology web site that provides some basic biographical information about Håkon Wium Lie. —Remember the dot(talk) 21:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Written by Ian Hickson, the author of the Acid2 test. —Remember the dot(talk) 21:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, to be clear, it's a WP:SPS by a notable person? I'll just note that if so, it's a primary source. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well-known site that provides web browser usage statistics. This reference is used to back up the assertion that Internet Explorer 6 was the most widely used web browser at the time of Acid2's release, which is common knowledge among web developers and easily verified by any of the sites listed in the Usage share of web browsers article. —Remember the dot(talk) 21:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving out for others reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Written by Mark 'Tarquin' Wilton-Jones, a web developer. Used to back up the easily verifiable statement that Internet Explorer 6 did not support alpha transparency and Internet Explorer 7 does. Would you prefer that we used a statement from Microsoft instead? —Remember the dot(talk) 21:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably better to use the microsoft source Ealdgyth - Talk 17:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Web development tutorial that provides visual examples of various positioning options. You can get the same information from any web development site or book; this one seemed to be the most clear. It is certainly more clear to the average reader than the actual technical specification. —Remember the dot(talk) 21:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about using the technical spec as the "real" source and doing a footnote that gives the other, less technical site as an place to go if they don't understand the main source. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All this reference is doing is providing a screenshot of what you can see for yourself at the Opera Mini Simulator. This secondary reference is useful for if your browser does not support Java. —Remember the dot(talk) 21:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving out for others reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article no longer uses this reference. —Remember the dot(talk) 20:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 17 (HTML 4.01...) is lacking a publisher.
Current ref 51 (K Desktop...) is lacking a publisher
Current ref 52 (The Acid2 test..) is lacking a publisher (And what makes this a reliable source?)
Current ref 57 (KDE 3.5.2...) is lacking a publisher
Current ref 67 (Baron, David...) is lacking a publisher
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I did not evaluate the non-English sources. I'll note that some of the missing publishers were pointed out in the first FAC, and are still missing now. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All the references you mentioned now include publisher information. —Remember the dot(talk) 03:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - Can you show me where it says on this website or elsewhere that the Acid2 images are released into the PD. I couldn't find the statement. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a screenshot does not give you any more copyright to an image than copying an image from a web site. Please stop listing me as the "author" of these screenshots. —Remember the dot(talk) 04:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Acid2iPod.png - The source image does not match the uploaded image - something is amiss.
The "source image" is just a link to the Acid2 test. Did you use an iPod to view the test, as the screenshot illustrates? —Remember the dot(talk) 04:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the article states, Ian Hickson was the principal author of Acid2. What do you mean, "The source link does not work"? I just checked it and it is functioning correctly for me. —Remember the dot(talk) 04:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, a lot of little problems can add up. These should be easy to fix, though. Awadewit (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because...
This article has passed A Class Review. For Wikipedia:MIL the article has reached Class A status. A formal Copy-edit through MilHist Copy Edit Department was completed as suggested in the A Class Review process. A Peer review was completed in past and all those comments have been since incorporated. Its been archived here. I originally was planning to stick with A class. However now that I think more, I feel it deserves a shot at being FAC for the reason that There are very few articles in its class that have had reached this status. According to FA Class list, there are a total of 37 articles in all and predominantly Military related articles. Luftwaffe related articles are very few. I am not stating that this is the reason. (Lack of articles) Please note that being numbered One in among the wings was a big deal but to be named after its Wing Commander was considered a really big honor that very few people received. I think that this article deserves a shot on merit alone. Perseus71 (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I noticed no major problems with the article during my copyediting, however there ar two things;
In the "Wartime history" section the pictures of people are a little small; on one you can't even see the caption
In the "Aircraft of Jagdgeschwader 1" there are two pictures, a BF109E and a Fw109A, that have no border or caption.
Apart from that I wholeheartedly support--Patton123 20:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the points have been incorporated. That was a good catch. Thanks Patton 123. Perseus71 (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the moment on 1(a) (prose) grounds.Comments: In the lead alone I found several examples of awkward writing. For example:
Opening sentence has a double meaning. A wing is either a fighting unit, or it's a piece of an aircraft. It becomes obvious which meaning you intend, but you should avoid the initial confusion. Suggestion: Jagdgeschwader 1 (JG 1) was a German World War II fighter aircraft unit or "wing".
The comment has been incorported. Perseus71 (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second sentence: the English eqivalents rather than the German originals should be parenthesised, but personally I would do away with the parenthesis, which make the text read jerkily. Suggest: The name derives from Jag, meaning "hunting" and Geschwader, meaning "wing".
Unnecessary close repetition: "Originally formed...JG 1 was one of the original groups..." Suggest replace "Originally" with "First". I also think the latter part of this sentence would read better as "...created by the Luftwaffe as part of its expansion plans".
Starting two sentences in the same short paragraph with "Like" does not read well; in any event the second of these should read "Like that of..." but it would be better to try and replace one of the "likes". Also, "7" needs to be written out.
All mentions of "Like" are removed. Perseus71 (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Repetition of "units" in last sentence of first para.
The entire sentence was restructured as part of the point above. I believe that addresses this point. Perseus71 (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second paragraph: "..through until..." - you can have either one, but not both.
Some use of pronouns is necessary in the second paragraph, to avoid over-repetition of "JG 1"
Except for one mention, all other instances are replaced. Perseus71 (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The opening of the last paragraph is very clumsy: "In summer of 1944, the "Oesau" suffix was added after its then wing commander, (Geschwaderkommandant) Colonel (Oberst) Walter Oesau (127 kills) was killed in action over the Ardennes." Punctuation, the meaning of "its", and the over-use again of parentheses, all need to be considered.
I have not read in detail beyond the lead, but a little way down in the main text I saw: "On 31 March 1943, JG 1 was split to form the new JG 11. I./JG 1 became II./JG 11 on 1 April 1943 and III./JG 1 became I./JG 11. IV./JG 1 was re-designated as I./JG 1. A new group was added to JG 1 as III./JG 1." This seems to be over-detailing beyond the limits of what is understandable. Also, since this happened in 1943, I found it strange to read about it in a section titled "Formation history"; surely, four years into the war, this is part of reorganisation rather than formation?
A new sub-section added under Formation history for the reorganization information. Perseus71 (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to put a damper on an article that has obviously been researched diligently, but at present the prose is not up to FA standard and needs some considerable work. I will be happy to review the oppose when the necessary copyediting has been completed throughout the article. Brianboulton (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A good, positive response to my criticisms of the lead. I have done a bit of punctuation and copyediting to enhance it further. Can I suggest two further improvements: First, you say "the Oesau" suffix was added, but you don't say what it was added to. I suggest you say "the Oesau suffix was added to the unit's title". Second, is it really necessary to use German ranks, which look particularly awkward in italics? I'd just use the English equivalents, so the start of the last lead paragraph would read: "...after the unit's commander at that time, Colonel Walter Oseau..." etc. If you do want to keep the German rnks, then at least lose the italics. I have struck my oppose; as soon as I can I will go through and give comments on the remaining text (this may be a few days). Brianboulton (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the comments are incorporated. As to the ranks, I have removed the italics in the lead and will follow it in the main body. I am aware that WP:MIL requires using English words wherever possible. Replacing German ranks with English version had been discussed before but a consensus has not emerged. One of the main reasons is that some of the German ranks have no real counterpart in US or UK military Ex. Unteroffizier. For others, there are multiple equivalent ranks for air forces or land forces. Ex. Oberfeldwebel can be interpreted as 'Technical Sergeant' in the US, as 'Master Sergeant', or 'Flight Sergeant' for RAF. Which version can one use ? I am also aware that this is English language Wikipedia. But then I really do not want to confuse the reader. I hope you understand. Perseus71 (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with non-italicised German ranks, particularly as they are linked. Brianboulton (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Query Was the unit just the fighter pilots and planes or did it also include mechanics and other support crew? ϢereSpielChequers 17:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an expert on this topic. But based on all the information I have received, support personnel were part of the unit. Given Luftwaffe's structure of the time based on Vertical Luftflotte, I am not sure if there was any separate organization for Support personnel. Perseus71 (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
The "II.Gruppe Jagdgeschwader" ref is lacking a publisher. Also, what makes this site a reliable source?
This web page is part of a website maintained by User:Klaiber. It does not have a known publisher. As to the reliability, the page is based on two separate books as mentioned on the article's Talk page. Those books are Defenders of the Reich : Jagdgeschwader 1 by Eric Mombeek and Jagdgeschwader 1 und 11 : Einsatz in der Reichsverteidigung von 1939 bis 1945 by Jochen Prien. Both the books have been listed in my References. I believe this should make the page a reliable reference. Perseus71 (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not use the books themselves then, rather than using them secondhand through a self-published website? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid I do not have the requisite page numbers to cite those books. Perseus71 (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the books are listed in your references, did you use them? I guess I'm confused as to how if they are used in the references, you can't just cite the books direct. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All the books I have listed are used. Each citation refers to the books by the Page Numbers in accordance with WP:CITE. Specifically to the two Books used by the website, Defenders of the Reich : Jagdgeschwader 1 and Jagdgeschwader 1 und 11 : Einsatz in der Reichsverteidigung von 1939 bis 1945, I don't have those books. Hence I can't cite them. I had added them simply to support the information used from the website. If this is not following Wikipedia standard then I would be happy to remove those two books from the list of References. Perseus71 (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you did not physically consult the books for hte information, but are citing them because the website cited them, then no, you shouldn't use those citations. See Wikipedia:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, which deals with this sort of issue. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uncited references have been removed. The other books are not cited on the basis of entries on this website. In other words, it complies with Wikipedia:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Perseus71 (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Greg Goebel's Public Domain webpage cites three different sources for the information presented. All of these are reliable sources. Besides his Vector Site has been extensively used on Wikipedia as maintained in this article. Many other examples can be found on Wikipedia where his work has been extensively utilized. Perseus71 (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The website is jargon heavy but its in English. Perseus71 (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This website has been used as a secondary source since the primary sources I have consulted do not have a list form for the Leaders of this unit. Perseus71 (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're using it just because the information is presented in a table? Why not just use the primary sources, rather than a self-published site?
The transition information is too fragmented to make any sort of sense in the primary sources. For Example, The appointment Date for one of the Wing commanders would be in one book and Transition Date in some other book. This will then be repeated for all the commanders. Hope that illustrates the point. Perseus71 (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if the site can't be shown to be reliable, it can't be used. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This webpage is maintained by a very respected author whose other book is cited as well. This website is actually cited in a section that has been commented out as part of GA review of this article. You may wish to visit the same for details. Perseus71 (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See above about reliability of sites. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This webpage is predominantly used as a secondary source supported by primary citations. Perseus71 (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's just backing up more reliable sources, there is no need for it. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. (As an aside, unrelated to this FAC, Jagdgeschwader 1 is not a correct dab page, and should be repaired per WP:MOSDAB. Awkward image layout with large blocks of white space, quotes are not in italics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have tried my best to comply with the guidelines. If you could point out any specific instance, I'd be happy to correct it. As to the image layout, to my knowledge the images comply with MOS:IMAGES. The largest block of images in the "Unit emblem and color schemes" section use {{ImageStackRight}}. That combined with section titles so close, tend to give the appearance of more white space. This article was copy edited by User:Patton123 for WP:MHL#COPYEDIT criteria. Their comments are in this review. Perseus71 (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the Disambiguation links identified by the tool are corrected. Perseus71 (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The link to the talk page in footnote c should be removed and replaced with a comment discussing the issue in the article. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: well-researched and comprehensive, but in need of attention to the prose. I dipped into it and found "The spitfires shot down 1.and 2./JG 1 squadrons at the Twente airport as they took off for the loss of two. Of note was the loss of Unteroffizier Günter Sill of I./JG 1 flying Fw 190D-9. Ihlefeld threatened to court martial Major G. Capito the new leader of I./JG 1. But wasn't able to do so in the process of transferring to Eastern front.In Poland,..."
The first sentence isn't clear - does it mean the spitfires destroyed two entire squadrons for the loss of only two of their number? Why did Ihlefeld so threaten? ".But" should be "but" with no period and there is a space missing before "In Poland". If this isn't typical and/or other such issues are fixed get back to me and I'll take longer look. BenMacDui 18:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the spitfires destroyed two entire squadrons while loosing only two of their own. I have made it more explicit. Ihlefeld threatened to Court martial for this loss of two entire squadrons. Rest is incorporated. To my belief, this is not typical. This specific piece of information was added only very recently. Perseus71 (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Formation history
I prefer "Messerschmitt Bf 109" to "Bf 109" - the average reader will have no idea what the latter is.
For the first instance as well as template, the name has been introduced as "Messerschmitt Bf 109". Subsequent usage is restricted to Bf 109 to keep it simple. Perseus71 (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Bf 109E Emils" Emil meant nothing to me either until I followed the link. In fact, I think the last two sentences of this para would be better as "He set upon modernizing this unit by re-equipping it with the Emils version of the Bf 109E, a process that was complete by June 1939.", which avoids short sentences and duplicate " re-equipping"
"On 5 January 1942, Oberstleutnant Schumacher transitioned the command of JG 1 to Major Erich von Selle". "transitioned" may be military jargon, US English or similar, but British English would be "handed over".
Both terms are incorporated. 12:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The last three sentences seem to have escaped from the lead - they don't have anything to do with the formation.
This is not your fault but the numbering system makes this very heard to read. I wonder if it is permissible to avoid some of the "JG1"s and /or occasionally use the full name e.g. "Two groups of JG 1 (I. and III.) were transferred to JG 11. Group IV. was re-designated as I./JG 1. Thus Jagdgeschwader 1 was left with two operational groups, I. and II. A new group was formed in Leeuwarden, Netherlands and added as III./JG 1."
(It would be even easier on the eye without some of the periods after the Roman numerals, but I doubt that is acceptable.)
I believe the designation requires the period. Perseus71 (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Major Karl-Heinz Leesmann who died on 25 July" - of that year?
Yes he did. The year is added. Perseus71 (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"JG 1 Wing Commander Erich Mix was replaced by Major Hans Philipp as Geschwaderkommodore of JG 1." This reads as if we know about Mix, but we don't. Did he take over from Von Selle?
He did take over from Von Selle. For lack of primary source it can not be worded to that effect. Instead its been restructured to clarify. Perseus71 (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In early 1944, the Reich Air Ministry (Reichsluftministerium - RLM) reinforced day fighter units engaged in the Defense of Reich (Reichsverteidigung)." Why is this relevant to this section? BenMacDui 19:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its moved to Formation Section. Perseus71 (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Organization structure
Geschwader should be linked on its first appearance rather than later.
Geschwaderkommodore, Oberstleutnant, Oberst, Staffelkapitän, and Oberleutnant are not italicised
I now see User:Brianboulton asked you not to do this. Oh well, you can't please everyone. So long as you are consistent and can provide a justification for the usage... BenMacDui 09:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
consider making "for example Adolf Galland became Geschwaderkommodore of JG 26 in August 1940 while still a Major, the equivalent of an RAF Squadron Leader." a footnote as it isn't about JG1 as such.
No citations at all in this section.
Changes incorporated. As to the citations, this is an extract of the parent article. So I believe that article is the source. I just personally am not aware of citing Wikipedia articles. Perseus71 (talk) 05:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can't cite Wikipedia as a source, but nor do I think you can have an entire sub-section without a citation. I note the main article has only 1.5 citations in total and none for this section. You may need some assistance from your WP:MIL colleagues here. BenMacDui 09:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A citation from independent primary source has been added for this section. Perseus71 (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Flight JG 1
(Stabschwarm) is repeated and linked again.
Oberstleutnant is linked again
There is no need to keep repeating the German word after the English e.g. "Thus was born the Headquarters Flight (Geschwaderstab)". You told us the HQ flight was the Geschwaderstab a couple of lines earlier.
Internal Link removed. Text corrected. Perseus71 (talk) 05:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Group I./JG 1
" I./JG 1 consisted of one Headquarters Flight and Squadrons 1./JG 1, 2./JG 1 and 3./JG 1." Can this not be written " I./JG 1 consisted of one Headquarters Flight and Squadrons 1., 2. and 3." It's obvious they are in JG 1.
" I./JG 1 was formed from JG 2 and located in Jesau (modern Nivenskoye) in East Prussia." Why are we being told this again, with duplicate links? BenMacDui 12:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Having been asked to comment further I do so with reluctance. The article has clearly involved a lot of work, and I have enjoyed finding out more about the subject matter. However, as I look further down the page it seems that what I am engaging in is a copy-editing exercise, and this is not my strong suit. (For example I notice that a sentence I suggested be dramatically reduced in complexity is, in its altered form, still described as being part of an "impenetrable" paragraph below). I believe the article needs a comprehensive copy edit from a skilled person, and preferably one who does not have a deep knowledge of military affairs. If this can be achieved please feel free to get back to me. BenMacDui 21:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I have been indirectly helping with this article, for some time now and it has become an amazing high quality article. -Marcusmax(speak) 19:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — The "Organization Structure" section seems incredibly crowded with the way you've jammed the tables in there. Might I suggest separating them from the prose by putting them at the bottom of each sub-section and centering them? I'd suggest something along the lines of what you've done with the Group I./JG 1 table, except centered. Doing that also would allow you to spread out the aircraft profile images you've got crammed into the unit emblem section and give that section a little more room to fit in all of the emblem images without forcing them down into the next section, as they are currently. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3
All images should be unsized, according to WP:MOS#Images.
The layout of this article is, honestly, terrible. The tables crowd the text and make the "Organization structure" difficult to read.
Almost all of the images are right-aligned - please stagger per WP:MOS#Images.
The logos are smooshed in the "Organization structure" section - I would delete some of these images or move them.
File:JG1 New Logo.png - The copyright holder needs to be listed in the fair use rationale.
I'm concerned about the high number of fair use logos in this article. Do we really need to show all of them?
There is some work to be done here! Awadewit (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose: I earlier registered a tentative oppose on the grounds of prose issues in the lead. These were speedily resolved, so I struck the oppose, pending reading of the remainder of the article. After a delay I started to do this, but soon found myself bogged down and scratching my head. Here are a few stumbling blocks:-
Formation history:
"Even those failed to materialize, and several groups (Gruppen) were activated". The "even" is redundant and anyway smacks of POV; it is not entirely clear what failed to materialize; you have adapted an Am-Eng spelling for an article which assume is in Brit-Eng (the date formats are, anyway); the connection between the two parts of the sentence is not clear - the impression is that "groups" of an undescribed nature were activated as a result of the failure of certain plans to materialise. Is this so?
It continues: "As part of this policy..." Which policy is this?
The second paragraph states "In May 1939 the entire organisation of the Luftwaffe was changed". In the previous paragraph we were reading "In the summer of 1939", so there is some chronological confusion. This is made worse, later, by "On 7 May..." without specifying a year. This must be 1940.
In the last paragraph you mention things which happened as late as 1944 – in a section called "Formation history"?
Reorganisation: Sorry, I find this section impenetrable.
This paragraph:-
Similar to its parent Jagdgeschwader 2, Jagdgeschwader 1 (JG 1) was designated to be a "donor" unit in forming a new unit. Given the large territory JG 1 had to cover, it was decided to form a new unit called Jagdgeschwader 11 (JG 11). On 31 March 1943, JG 1 was split to form the new unit. Two groups of JG 1 (I. and III.) were transferred to JG 11. Group IV. was re-designated as I./JG 1. Thus Jagdgeschwader 1 was left with two operational groups, I. and II. A new group was formed in Leeuwarden, Netherlands and added as III./JG 1. This group was headed by Major Karl-Heinz Leesmann who died on 25 July 1943.
""Similar to" presumably means "In a similar manner to..."
The multiple repetition of terms, particularly "unit", makes for difficult reading
The distinction between a "unit" and a "group" is not clear.
The mix of Arabic and Roman numerals is somewhat confusing. I suppose this can't be helped, if the units and subdivisions were designated in this way, but it requires prose of great clarity to avoid a total head-spinning experience.
I have not ventured much beyond this point, except to note reference to the RAF rank of "Group Commander". The RAF has Wing Commanders and Group Captains, but not Group Commanders.
A general concern to me is the steady growth of this article since its nomination. During that period it has expanded by 1,500 words; it was long (8,200 words) to begin with, and is now super-long at almost 10,000 words. Most of the problems I have identified in the sections I've read arise, in my wiew, from over-detailing, and I suspect that this may be an issue through the article. I have great respect for the research, but for this to be fruitful the article must be more accessible to the general reader than it is at present. It is with great reluctance that I reinstate my oppose, but I feel that the article needs significant prose attention before it can be promoted.
Sorry, I forgot to sign above post. Brianboulton (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The first thing that will likely stand out with this article, is it's small size. However, size doesn't always matter, and when size may be lacking, quality sticks out. This article has been through several copyedits, a peer review, and has been fully reviewed by the editors of WP:WPTC. All thoughts and comments are encouraged and welcome.Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments; even assuming that all conversions are precise (which is probably the case), maybe it would be better to use conversion templates? Also, I believe that single digit numbers should be spelled out (such as nine instead of 9). Conversion template helps because they follow article MoS, including spelling out single digit numbers and spelling out the first unit (the unit in which the number is converted to, in parenthesis, is left abbreviated, however). Furthermore, I know that the article says and cites that it was a shortlived storm, but that doesn't mean that it was one of the shortest lived storms. In other words, the first sentence of the lead may be considered original research, since it's not supported by the text (that it is one of the shortest is not intuitive from the fact that it was a short lived storm). JonCatalán(Talk) 04:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected the opening statement, I meant to change it before the nomination but it seems I forgot to. In an off-wiki discussion, it was determined that it was best to stay away from that claim as it doesn't specify the type of storm (i.e. Tropical Depression, Tropical Stom...). Regarding the units, the only digit that is less than ten that is in numbers is 9 for mph. In that case, since it's conversion is greater than 10, it would be better to keep it as a number instead of written out for consistency. With the conversion templates, they don't match up with the NHC distances, as they only use numbers divisible by five. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to conversion templates, the problem with them is that they have no way of taking into account the fact that the figures for maximum sustained winds and maximum estimated gusts are already rounded to the nearest multiple of five. As a result, when they apply the conversion, they treat it as an exact quantity, which a) gives the appearance of more precision than there actually is, and b) removes accuracy in the measurement. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given these comments and the comments below, I give my support. JonCatalán(Talk) 23:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looks good so far. I've only done a brief look through, but I'll be back later with more comments. VX!~~~ 18:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on prose.
Tropical Storm Karina was a weak, short lived tropical cyclone which developed during the 2008 Pacific hurricane season. - "Which" → "that".
Karina was designated a tropical storm for only 12 hours before being downgraded to a tropical depression. - It's odd that you mention tropical storm status before you talk about the storm's development.
Moved to a later part of the lead. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 12th tropical cyclone and 11th named storm of the season, it developed out of the same tropical wave which spawned Hurricane Gustav in the Atlantic basin. - This makes it sound like Karina developed in the Atlantic.
I've changed developed to originated, not sure if that's the best wording though. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the more I think about it, the relation to Gustav probably doesn't need to be mentioned in the lead. –JuliancoltonHappyHolidays 22:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've removed Gustav from the lead. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Later that day, wind shear weakened the storm to a depression on September 3, and it dissipated shortly thereafter. - Remove the last comma.
The origins of Tropical Storm Karina are from the southern portion of the tropical wave that also spawned Hurricane Gustav in the Caribbean Sea. - Why the present tense?
After two days over water, the wave triggered the development of an area of low pressure south of Manzanillo, Mexico. - No need for "over water". Also, "triggered" → "spawned".
The low was located beneath an area of moderate convection, but was nearing cooler waters and a moist, but stable, air mass. - Change the second "but" to "yet" to avoid repetition of the word.
In an area favorable for development, the formation of a tropical cyclone was possible and a tropical cyclone formation alert was issued on September 2. - Remove "the formation of a tropical cyclone was possible". Technically, tropical cyclone formation is possible any day.
However, strong easterly shear caused the showers and thunderstorms to become displaced from the center. - Change this to "However, strong easterly shear separated the showers and thunderstorms from the center."
Despite the shear, sufficient convection developed around the center; the National Hurricane Center (NHC) classified it a tropical depression at 0600 UTC, while located 390 miles (630 km) south of the southern tip of Baja California.[1] The NHC initially recognized the system as a tropical depression and did not initiate advisories on it until several hours later.[4] The depression quickly intensified into a tropical storm due to a brief relaxation of the wind shear and was given the name Karina while located about 25 mi (40 km) north of Socorro Island. - This is confusing. Why mention twice that it was designated a tropical depression by the NHC?
Karina had winds of 40 mph (65 km/h) upon being named, which was its peak intensity. - This sentence sounds like it's trying too hard to be written professionally. Try "Upon becoming a tropical storm, Karina reached its peak winds of 40 mph (65 km/h)".
There was uncertainty as to the intensity of the storm as the Dvorak technique—a system used to estimate the intensity of a tropical cyclone—rendered an intensity of 50 mph (80 km/h) but since the center of the storm had just moved under the deep convection, the winds were held at minimal tropical storm intensity. - Needs a couple commas to improve flow. Also, "since" → "because".
That night, only 12 hours after being declared a tropical storm, Karina was downgraded to a tropical depression. - "Only" is POV.
The foreword motion also began to gradually slow. - Rather clunky wording.
By the morning of September 3, convection had been blown 125 mi (200 km) from the center of circulation, leaving only a swirl of clouds. - "Blown away" sounds awkward in this context.
The remnant low quickly dissipated that afternoon without redevelopment. - If the low dissipated, it is already assumed that there was no redevelopment.
When the National Hurricane Center issued its first advisory on Karina, the storm was located very close to the island of Socorro. - "Very close" → "near".
There were no known preparations taken prior to the storm, as the island is mainly a natural reserve and the only inhabitants reside in a military base. - Does the source explicitly say there were no preparations?
On Clarion Island, residents took minor actions to prepare for possible impacts from the storm. - Why is "impact" plural?
Officials advised residents to cancel all coastal activities and comply with advice from the National Civil Protection. - Remove "all". As a side note, is it possible to elaborate on what advice the agency provided?
Small crafts were advised to take extreme caution. - "Take "→ "exercise".
Small crafts such as water taxis and jet skis were to stay at the port. - This should be merged with the previous sentence, and "stay" → "remain".
There were also no ship reports of sustained tropical storm-force winds. - Remove "also". Were there any reports of tropical storm-force gusts?
I haven't seen anything on gusts, and the TCR doesn't say there were recorded gusts either. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When the area of low pressure was upgraded to Tropical Storm Karina on September 2, it was the first use of the name Karina for a tropical cyclone. - This contradicts other parts of the article in that it says the low pressure went straight to tropical storm status, while the lead says it was first designated a depression.
This value—an approximation of the kinetic energy used by a tropical system throughout its existence—is, so far, the lowest of the season. - The season already ended.
I've addressed most of the issues you've noted. A couple notes below some of them if I had an issue or there was a significant change. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on the prose and requests for clarification.
In this sentence: The origins of Tropical Storm Karina were from the southern portion of the tropical wave that also spawned Hurricane Gustav in the Caribbean Sea. The expression "The origins ....were from.." sounds odd. I know it was not a storm to begin with but, how about "Tropical Storm Karina originated in the southern portion the tropical wave that also spawned Hurricane Gustav in the Caribean Sea." ?
I think here: However, strong easterly shear separated the showers and thunderstorms from the center. Center sounds odd to the lay reader; they will be left thinking center of what.
The word "advisories" clearly has a precise meaning here. Can you expand/explain it?
The word "located" is used a lot and often it is redundant as here for example, When the National Hurricane Center issued its first advisory on Karina, the storm was located near the island of Socorro. How about a simple "the storm"? Are all the other uses of "located" justified?
Please don't use "prior to" when a simple "before" carries exactly the same meaning.
I enjoyed reading this article but I need to see more reviews before supporting this FAC. Thanks. Graham ColmTalk 15:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected the issues you've addressed and clarified what an advisory is. I'm a little unsure as to why advisory needed to be clarified though. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I might be because I am English. I guessed it meant "advice notice" or "warning notice" or something similar. Graham ColmTalk 16:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK we get a "severe weather warning" when rain is forecast. :-) Graham. Graham ColmTalk 22:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fundamental oppose on featuring something so short and non-notable, but since I know that will be ignored, I have other comments in the form of an actual oppose.
Meteorological terms (like Tropical wave, convection, shear, ridge) could be explained better.
Reference #3 doesn't say anything about the circulation developing. They just said it exists. What if it developed days prior? Likewise, I'm a little confused what the phrase developed partially underneath means. Did it develop partially? Or did it develop partially underneath.
Question: why did the NHC not classify it right away?
However, strong easterly shear separated the showers and thunderstorms from the center of circulation. Despite the shear, sufficient convection developed around the center
I'm a little confused at these sentences. Does it mean that the shear separated the convection from the circulation at first, and then additional convection developed around the center? Or is there some redundancy I'm missing?
The depression quickly intensified into a tropical storm due to a brief relaxation of the wind shear and was given the name Karina while located about 25 mi (40 km) north of Socorro Island
This sentence is a bit of a run-on, and the subject becomes a bit clouded.
There was uncertainty as to the intensity of the storm, as the Dvorak technique—a system used to estimate the intensity of a tropical cyclone—rendered an intensity of 50 mph (80 km/h); but because the center of the storm had just moved under the deep convection, the winds were held at minimal tropical storm intensity.
There are some grammar problems in the . The semicolon means the last statement should not begin with but because, as that's basically starting a sentence with but because. Maybe try splitting it into two sentences? I'm confused why the intensity would be lower if the center just moved under the deep convection. Typically that means the storm is becoming stronger.
That night, 12 hours after being declared a tropical storm, Karina was downgraded to a tropical depression
This sentences comes as somewhat of a surprise. I suggest moving the sentence that follows it to before it, as you should explain what's happening before you say what happened.
The foreword motion gradually decreased.
Aside from the typo (shouldn't it be forward?), that is a really short sentence.
Top five hits from dictionary.com on "dissipation" - 1) "the act of dissipating" 2) "the state of being dissipated" 3) "a wasting by misuse" 4) "mental distraction" 5) "dissolute way of living". I think some clarification couldn't hurt ;) ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image reviewFile:Karina 2008 track.png - Please list the author for this image - not everyone who edits the image page is really an author of the image itself. Since it is the author that releases the copyright, so the author must be listed. (Why do I always have to ask for this at hurricane articles?) Awadewit (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Long story short, it is because {{hurricane auto track map}} did not have the ability to name authors until recently. All the pages with the older version of the template are placed in Category:Tropical cyclone tracks needing update, which I started to clean up; however, I got a request to stop, as the track maps will be overwritten with a bot in a future update, which is coming real soon now. So, the only images that are cleaned up are those in which people actually ask for it... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with "See file history?" I can't delete any of the file history so I don't think it is credited correctly the way it is now (because we did not collaborate on the picture). Usually individual editors contributed different versions of the images. Actually, in this case every single editor was the creator of the image. It was pretty self-explanatory the other way. Potapych (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is an ambiguity on the page between the history of the file and the history of the image page (yet another type of file). If I change the description of the image, for example, I am not really altering the image itself, yet that is recorded in the history of the page. The larger point is that these tags need to be as clear as possible. If you want, you can make the author information even more explicit, but at least the basic information is there now. Awadewit (talk) 13:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any ambiguity with that. It only says "File history" in one place. Clicking on the history tab brings you to a page called "Revision history of File:..." The way it is currently set up is ambiguous because it infers that Ramisses and I worked on the current file together, when we did it completely independent of one another. Potapych (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The tag has been changed at Commons to try to ameliorate this problem slightly. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Hink, the hyphen problem that we've spent much time commenting on in previous FACs hits you in the opening sentence: "Tropical Storm Karina was a weak, short lived tropical cyclone that developed during the 2008 Pacific hurricane season." North American English uses hyphens less than other varieties, but insists on "short-lived". In fact, I see many hyphens in good US English—perhaps the differences are overstated.
"originated out of" ... bit clunky. "grew out of", but probably "originated from" is better.
"... later in the morning, at which time it was named Karina ..."—Are you scanning your text later like a radar beam to locate opportunities for removing verbose expressions? "... later in the morning, when it was named Karina ...".
"and it dissipated shortly thereafter"—sounds like the small print on an insurance document. Simple, please: "and it dissipated soon after".
I'm not seeing the personal investment in simple measures to improve your prose: the hurrican project and WP more broadly need you to do this. To start with, try these exercises on hyphens and dashes. Tony(talk) 02:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note I'm withdrawing this nomination as I now feel that this article isn't ready for FA and to allow me to have more time to deal with other, more important articles. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This is probably the umpteenth candidacy this article has now gone through but I feel the article is in the best state it has been in for while. I have gone through the article and addressed numerous problems which existed before and have hopefully I have rectified them. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: good job! Very similar at Arsenal F.C., that is in fact a featured article.--Andrea 93 (msg) 08:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
As a 'pool fan, I think the Everton rivalry is just a bit more important/notable than the Man U rivalry (it is one of the only derbies in the country without fan segregation).
"The match was against Juvenus at the Heysel Stadium before kick-off, disaster struck. Liverpool fans breached a fence separating the two groups of supporters and charged the Juventus fans.": read it carefully. A colon might be nice.
"However, Liverpool's successes were overshadowed by the Hillsborough Disaster. On 15 April 1989, when Liverpool were playing Nottingham Forest in an FA Cup semi-final, hundreds of Liverpool fans were crushed against perimeter fencing." -> "Liverpool's successes were overshadowed by the Hillsborough disaster: in an FA Cup semi-final against Nottingham Forest on 15 April 1989, hundreds of Liverpool fans were crushed..."
It may be prudent to point out that the Kop is the original and/or most notable.
Again, it may be prudent to also mention the Sun boycott in Merseyside.
Hope this helps. The last two aren't really needed, but are recomemndations. Sceptre(talk) 12:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for the comments I've addressed them all NapHit (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Also, I suggest you follow Tony1's prose-writing tips. There are quite a few "however"s in the article, which are sometimes frowned upon. Sceptre(talk) 21:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
Current ref 15 (Taylor's interim report...) is lacking a publisher.
added publisher NapHit (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've had this discussion before and since then the website has been featured on the club's official website. NapHit (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
replaced with BBC ref NapHit (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 62 (Through the Wind...) is lacking a publisher.
replaced with BBC ref
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for the comments I've addressed them all
OpposeConditional Support. This is an engaging, comprehensive article. The referencing problems highlighted by Ealdgyth must be addressed and problems with the prose remain. I have done a little copy-editing of the article, and would have liked to have done more, but I'm very busy in other Wikipedia areas at the moment and cannot give the article my full attention that it deserves. I suggest asking another established editor who is new to the article to review the prose. Please don't take this personally—it's amazing what a fresh pair of eyes can bring to an article. Graham ColmTalk 21:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note I'm willing to do copyediting and other tasks on this article, as suggested by Graham above. I am completely new to the article, but am familiar with the subject matter. I have made a few changes already, and will be available over the course of the FAC to try to make more improvements. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Wish I had time to do some cleanup work, but I'm in a similar position as Graham; I'm swamped with reviews at the moment and can only focus on not falling too far behind. Here are my initial recommendations:
"two FA Cups and the club's first European trophy the UEFA Cup." Try "two FA Cups and a UEFA Cup, the club's first European trophy."
"having won four European Cups from between 1977 and 1984." Something looks off; I think from is the problem and should be removed.
I'm not sure about capitalization in Heysel Stadium Disaster. Is Disaster frequently capitalized here, like the Hillsborough Disaster apparently is? I'm not familiar enough with the event to know.
"At the Heysel Stadium Disaster, 39 Juventus fans died when a wall collapsed in the 1985 European Cup Final." Should be "when a wall collapsed before the 1985 European Cup Final."
History: Comma after John Houlding.
Non-breaking space needed for $218.9 million (where Gillett and Hicks bought the club). I used one here, in case an example is needed. This is something to check for throughout.
Photo comment: Where was the photo of the 1892–93 squad published? It needs a source to prove that it's out of copyright.
Not sure if this suffices? can't find a publisher. NapHit (talk) 19:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it will. Proof needs to be provided that the photo was published more than 70 years ago; the link doesn't seem to indicate that. I'm not a photo expert, but I can see that from looking at the template in the file. Are there any books or newspapers from the time that published the photo? Those are the best places to look. If nothing can be found, the picture might need to be removed. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to come back here, but please don't expect too much from me, since I have many other articles to re-review. If I have time, I'll go over the article later in the week and try to make improvements to the prose. Best of luck. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just made a quick cleanup pass and took care of some minor things (en dashes in piped links, couple of easy grammar fixes, etc.). Still want to come back and read it again, but hopefully the edits are helpful. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Colours and crest: "and the home kit has been all red since the mid 1960s; but red has not always featured." Change the semi-colon to a regular comma. And should it be "has not always been featured."?
George Gillett or George Gillett Jr? Both are used at various times.
There are also still some capitalization differences involving the stadium disasters.
Statistics and records: "Liverpool's first competitive game was in the Lancashire League against Higher Walton, they won the match 8–0." Comma should be a semi-colon.
"Ian Rush, who scored 346 goals whilst at the club from 1980 to 1987 and 1988 to 1996." Remove the second comma and change whilst to while.
I must be fried, because I'm not finding anything else at this time. I'll have to read it again later and see what I'm missing. By the way, my first round of comments was addressed, even though NapHit didn't explicitly type that in his message above. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for the comments Giants I have addressed your comments. NapHit (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
removed image and replaced with another image. NapHit (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New image checks out - struck oppose. Awadewit (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Comments from Dabomb87 (talk·contribs) Not happy with the prose, samples starting from the Ownership section down:
Tense inconsistencies: "Liverpool is owned by George Gillett and Tom Hicks" but "Liverpool have often featured"
"Tensions between the Americans and their lack of support and their lack of support from the fans" Ambiguous, who are " the Americans" in question? What are tense over? "lack of support from the fans"-->lack of fan support
"also expressed an interest"
"funded by 100,000 fans paying" noun + -ing structure is awkward.
"aluing" Is this a typo?
"Liverpool fans singing "You'll Never Walk Alone" were featured " Another noun + -ing sentence structure.
"Francis Scully trying " and again...try "Francis Scully, who tried "
"A team of mostly Scottish players won the match 8–0." Two rather unrelated ideas (nationality and match result) jammed together, I recommend doing away with that rather trivial information about the players' nationality and combining the sentence with the previous one.
"346 goals in two spells" Comparative quantities should be written out the same way.
Liverpool's biggest victory"—"biggest"-->largest, not sure what you mean by "biggest", are you referring to most goals scored or margin of victory?
"Rotherham Town, beaten 10–1 in 1896, were the victims of Liverpool's biggest league win."-->Liverpool's 10–1 defeat of Rotherham Town in 1896 was its largest league win.
"This margin of victory was matched in the modern era when Crystal Palace were defeated 9–0 at Anfield in 1989." What defines the "modern era"? Comma after "era".
"Liverpool's 8–0 victory on 6 November 2007 against Beşiktaş J.K. in the Champions League is the record win in the competition." Ambiguous again, record for what? Were both teams in the Champions League or do you mean "against Beşiktaş J.K. of the Champions League"? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not ambiguous, it is the record win in the Champions League, I've changed it a bit, and have addressed all your concerns. NapHit (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"During the current season Liverpool have the fifth-highest average" Comma after "season".
You fixed the "Liverpool is/are" inconsistencies that I highlighted above, but now those instances are inconsistent with similar phrases in the above sections:"Liverpool have a large and generally loyal fanbase" "Liverpool have played at their current ground,"Liverpool FC were founded" Fix these inconsistencies throughout the article.
Is there no way to add some prose for the "Reserve and Youth Team" section?
→In my view, that section was only tangentially relevant to the article, so I've taken it out and put a {{for}} template at the beginning of the subsection (thus "For honours won by Reserves and Academy, see..."). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 16:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1906, the banked stand at one end of the ground was formally renamed the Spion Kop,[34] after a hill in Natal." Comma not necessary.
"more players have been sent off in it"—"sent off"-->disqualified.
Although in no way involved with the article, I feel I should interject here to point out that "disqualified" is not a term used in any capacity in association football and "sent off" is the perfectly correct usage per Law 12 of the Laws of the Game...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected on this. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Liverpool fans charging " Another instance of the noun + -ing sentence structure.
"families, survivors and supporters campaigning" Yet again...
"His reign saw the club win another three League Championships and two FA Cups including a League and Cup "Double" in 1985–86."-->During his reign, the club won another three League Championships and two FA Cups, including a League and Cup "Double" in 1985–86.
"During the past 30 years they have been one of the most successful clubs in English and European football, having won four European Cups between 1977 and 1984."-->In the past 30 years, they have been one of the most successful clubs in English and European football, having won four European Cups between 1977 and 1984.
"Liverpool Football Club have won a record 18 First Division titles, and seven League Cups." Comparative quantities should be written out the same way.
Please note that these are merely examples that demonstrate why a fresh copy-editor is needed to go through the text. As Graham said above, no offense to you, but when you work so hard and spend so much time on the article, you tend to miss things, making the need for an uninvolved editor necessary. I can help out a little bit in the next couple of days, but don't depend on me. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed all your comments, and Hassocks has performed a wonderful copyedit. NapHit (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I just started going through my watchlist, so I will return when I can. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still inconsistencies with Liverpool is/are was/were:
First sentence: "Liverpool Football Club is an English professional association football club"
But then, just a couple sentences later: "Liverpool Football Club have"
"The club was founded in 1892, though it had limited success until the appointment of Bill Shankly as manager." False contrast, clubs don't necessarily experience success immediately after creation; this is implied by "though it had limited success". Change "though it"-->and.
"in English and European football" Is English football not considered part of European football? Colon that follows later in this sentence should be a semicolon.
"with flames added to the crest following the Hillsborough Disaster in honour of the 96 Liverpool fans who lost their lives."-->with flames added to the crest in honour of the 96 Liverpool fans who lost their lives in the Hillsborough Disaster.
"Liverpool FC have played at Anfield since their formation, but there are plans to move to a new stadium in Stanley Park, which is due to be completed by 2011." Another false contrast, "there are plans to move to a new stadium" is just additive info, change "but" to and.
"who hold a string of long-standing rivalries with several other clubs." "other" is implied, they can't be rivals with themselves.
"The most notable of these are their rivalry with Manchester United" "are"-->is, we are talking about one rivalry.
"due to the success of both clubs, and their proximity to each other; and with Everton" Comma note needed.
I have changed to oppose; these problems in the lead alone trouble me. Please find someone who is completely new to the article—maybe even unfamiliar with the subject—to copy-edit the article, as a major prose cleanup is needed for FA status to be attained. Sorry to be harsh, but we can't have an article be promoted with this many problems in the prose. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed these comments and am going through the article to try and cure the inconsistencies. NapHit (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments: I am sorry but I cannot support this FAC at this time. I have spent an hour or so working on the prose [89], but every time I re-read the article I find other problems. Some of the problems are so elementary (such as "colours is") and there are still inconsistentcies w.r.t. concessionary plurals, (club is/club are). Also, I am constantly reading "club won", and not much "club lost" and worse "manager won". This article is tantalisingly close to FA, but it's not ready yet. I take no pleasure in writing this, please don't shoot the messenger and more importantly don't give up. Graham ColmTalk 20:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
just gone over the article again, doubt it will sway your decision too much, but would like to know if some items have been resolved. NapHit (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know how you feel, but I have to be fair. The nomination was premature, the edits that have been made since have improved the article but more work is needed before it can be promoted. Graham ColmTalk 21:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This is one of my older GAs, one which passed early last year. As with many of my nominations, it is a fairly short article, but as the storm remained at sea, there is little information that can be added. A couple of users have helped with the article, and I feel it meets the criteria. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 01:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the development section (TD to Cat 5) is rushed, without sufficient detail. You don't go into *how* the hurricane intensified, what structural changes occurred, etc. The prose from when it reached hurricane status to Cat. 5 status only mentions the development of an eye, in terms of actual meteorological information.
Most of the advisories are named wrong in the references. You call them "public advisory", but I checked and they're discussions.
You never say why the hurricane weakened, except for these statements - as it began to lose tropical characteristics. Strong wind shear developed, further dissipating the depression. The first part isn't true, as the TCR says nothing about Hernan becoming extratropical (just becoming a remnant low, which has plenty of tropical characteristics). The second part is the only meteorological reason I can find which would cause weakening, but that's only mentioned when it was on the verge of dissipating (which I believe is the wrong term here - dissipation means the circulation is about to break apart).
Something is missing or wrong in the meteorological history. You say it meandred (typo, should be meandered) off the coast of California, but the TCR says the remnant low tracked southwestward until dissipating. The article should mention and focus on what the TCR says, and ideally you should find more on what the remnant low did (did it reform? why did it track southwestward?)
Some of the prose feels clumsy. Meteorological terms aren't explained that well. For example:
where it merged with a pre-existing intertropical convergence zone disturbance - this isn't what the TCR says, and it's confusing
The system gradually developed moderate convection, and on August 30 it had developed sufficient convection to be designated Tropical Depression 10-E. - as I said above, you don't go much into the origins; the current prose has a redundancy with the word convection, but hopefully that will be changed
The depression produced persistent strong thunderstorms, primarily in two areas of deep convection located to the northeast and west of the center of circulation - first, that is not supported by the ref, and second you don't explain why the convection was like that
outflow was good - non-meteorological people won't know what that means.
This is just a look at the met. history, but I feel the article needs too much work. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article went through a peer review a while ago, and I believe most of the issues have been addressed. The article has been improved by various editors since, and this version has been largely stable for a few months now. This is an important topic for readers interested in Chinese history and culture, and I hope that it will be deemed - or improved to - FA quality. PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Non-English sources of Wikipedia:Verifiability, says "Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly." Forbidden City being such a famous structure, there must be plenty of references in English. There are around 25 Chinese references.
The text is being sandwiched between Images, reorganization of images needed.
Bullet-point lists in "Influence" and "Symbolism" should be converted to paras.
"A Starbucks store,[26] which opened in 2000,[27] sparked objections[28] and eventually closed on July 13, 2007." Why are references placed not at the end of a period? A little distracting.--RedtigerxyzTalk 16:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The Hall of Supreme Harmony ("G") is the largest, and rises some 30 metres (98 ft) above the level of the surrounding square." "It weighs some 200 tonnes and is the largest such carving in China." "According to the results of a 1925 audit,[64] some 1.17 million items were stored in the Forbidden City." " includes some 30,000 pieces." Vagueness: exact figures can be included, also "approximate" will be more suitable
"Interestingly, this axis is not exactly aligned north-south, but is tilted by slightly more than two degrees." Interestingly may be seen as one of the Words that editorialize.
There are places where there is a lack between ref tag and period. (he was evicted after a coup in 1924. [16] ,as the core of the National Palace Museum in Taipei. [20] ) Please fix them
References needed:
"Paintings": and many of these were subsequently lost or destroyed.
"The Forbidden City is the world's largest surviving palace complex"
"(Hall of Supreme Harmony is) and the largest surviving wooden structure in China"
"the imperial libraries housed one of the country's largest collections of ancient books"
"The personal interest of Emperors such as Qianlong meant that almost all surviving paintings from the Yuan Dynasty and before were held by the palace." WP:OR?
"Emperor Gia Long of Vietnam built a palace and fortress that was intended to be a smaller copy of the Chinese Forbidden City in the 1800s"
References: What are
"The Palace Museum. "Collection highlights - Ceramics" (in Chinese)"? A book? no date, author.
THanks for those ocmments Redtigerxyz. "Some" is a term of expression that means "approximately and/or at least". The reference issues you mentioned seems to be a cite template that has malfunctioned since it was added to the article. I'll see if the template is being repaired or whether an alternative template can be found. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Specific citation methods are not prescribed by either WP:CITE or WP:WIAFA; citation templates are not obligatory. Consistently formatted citations are required by WP:WIAFA, whatever the method. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though I see a lot of work has gone into this article, my concerns about the Chinese references may be not be fully satisfied in the short period of the FAC. I also see a need for a section devoted to the restoration of the Forbidden city. A section about the construction and materials used in much more detail. (Read comprehensiveness concerns) Both of these were detailed in much detail in a programme on National Geographic, yesterday. So i am opposing the article in the current form. --RedtigerxyzTalk 15:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This article is gonna take a long time to examine, and I'm not gonna have any time at all... just off the top of my head, the Symbolism section is way too list-like and way too sketchy. Not much discussion of numerology etc. I'll try to add more comments, but I'm gonna go catch a flight in about 2 hours or less.
I hope you can find a better word for "pierced" to describe the entrances. And yuk, the Influences section is looking a lot like a "Forbidden city in popular culture" section. Yuk. Yuk. Why on earth is it notable that some theater in Seattle looks kinda like the Forbidden City? I know a Chinese restaurant in [city omitted] named "Forbidden City"; should we include that too? This looks an awful lot like boosterism. Anybody from Seattle involved in writing this? As for Kingdom hearts, I don't think it's notable that a scenario takes place in the Forbidden City. I mean, if the game were titled "Kingdom Hearts in the Forbidden City" I could... extremely reluctantly.. close my eyes, grit my teeth and let it pass. But it isn't. So I won't. Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR) 09:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all of those comments. I'll work on those over the next few days and report back when ready. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
In the Notes, it should be Author name, year, THEN page number, not page number first.
Current ref 5 (Gugong...) is using a wiki article as a reference. (you'll need a reference for this statement)
Books that are in Chinese need to be so noted.
What is "National Palace Museum - Tradition & Continuity"? Book? Magazine article?
Newspaper titles should be in italics
What is "The Palace Museum "Yin, Yang and the Five... "? A book? Magazine article?
LIkewise, the Palace Museum "Hall of Supreme Harmony", "Hall of Central Harmony" and "Hall of Preserving Memory"?
What is current ref 58 ("Working People's Curltureal Palace" china.org.cn?) Looks like a website but not link provided.
Likewise current ref 59 (Zhongshan Park China.org.cn)?
What are current refs 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72? (Palace Museum "Collection Highlights...)?
What is current ref 73 ("The 5th Avenue Theater" "Our Historic...)
Current ref 70 Laufer, Berthold needs a page number
Current ref 74 is lacking a publisher
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All books which are in Chinese are noted as such.
The cite web template seems to be malfunctioning. I'm not sure why the URLs are not showing up as links. This will need to be fixed. Hold on. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. And, lots of text squeeze between images, see WP:MOS#Images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Just from glancing through the article, so I may have more to add.
There are many scholarly books in English on Chinese architecture that include in depth analysis of the architectural elements of the Forbidden City and how they evolved. Suggest that you include information from these books for a more in depth description of the Chinese aspects of the architecture, rather than a tourist guide view. You could also include more of the distinctively Chinese style that for thousands of years has distinguished it from Western architecture.
Suggest that you expand the "Religion" section and include a more in depth description of the interweaving of religious and architectural elements so important to Chinese architecture.
Suggest you remove tangential sections, such as "Surroundings" which, again, is more like a travel guide approach.
Suggest that the "Symbolism" section be written in prose (the bullet points removed) and expanded, as this is a very important element of the Forbidden City, not just a side note.
The "Influence" section could be expanded to reveal more of the significance of the Forbidden City to the Chinese.
Also, "Depiction in art, film and literature" and "As performance venue" seem tangential and could be removed entirely.
Perhaps the "Collections" section should be spun off into another article, much as the History of the Forbidden City has been (which seems more important than "Collections") as "Collections" takes up a large percentage of the article.
Seems like there are too many images relative to the text, but this may be a personal preference. (I don't think images from the "Collentions" are necessary unless they illustrate a point pertinent to the city's architecture or history.
Thanks for those comments Matisse. Much appreciated. As to the issue of collections, my understanding is that this article deals currently with the Forbidden City as an architectural complex *and* as a museum, hence a description of its collections. There is already a main article on the museum collections, which is linked from the Collections section, at Collections of the Palace Museum. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The cite web template is not working properly in the article, which is why a lot of the references are not displaying correctly. This may take some time to clear up. Should this be withdrawn until that's fixed? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting, and potentially important to other articles. Can you list three or four examples, please? Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR) 20:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Finally, Luan Da, the mystic and conman who became the second most powerful man in the sixth largest ancient empire simply by telling tall tales (and a little magnetic trick with chess pieces), is back at FAC. He's been through two previous FACs - premature, of course - since when he's undergone the rigors of a peer review (which unfortunately didn't get a lot of love, though Rjwilmsi helpfully fixed up some MOS trinkets for me). The article still is fairly short, though not as short as before; a brief description of the changes since the previous FAC can be found in the peer review. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite yet English sources are preferred to Chinese when available. Here they clearly are (for example, the magnetic statues are in Needham, and most of the story of Luan must be in Sima; the customs of Early Han China must be available hundreds of places), and I encourage the efforts to replace one with the other, and look forward to supporting when this is done. (I should also like to see Sima Qian cited by chapter, as well as page number, which would make the references independent of edition.) SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 17:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
English sources are preferred to Chinese when available No. English sources are only preferred to foreign ones when they are of equal quality. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And sources of equal quality to a publisher's website and China's 30 Most Controversial Historical Figures should not be hard to come by. The rest of the sources aren't popularizations; why should we put up with worse soources which will be of limited use to our readership? We should not assume that the users of this English WP read Chinese. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 21:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bit about magnetic statues is now sourced to Needham. I'll see how much of Luan's life I can source to the English sources I'm using. I'm not sure what you're talking about in regards to "the customs of Early Han China must be available hundreds of places," since that's entirely sourced to Lewis, a very recent scholarly work in English. I added the chapter for Sima Qian as well. Nousernamesleft (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The one use of Xuhui (for use of personal names and epithets in histories under the Han). SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 22:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel this article is in a somewhat catch-22 situation. On one hand, there is a complaint that the article is too short, so additional information is brought out. These sources are not found in English sources as most Western works go for a general summarized approach that drops the details between various historical accounts and Sima Qian's works (this is described by Nienhauser in his prefaces of his The Grand Scribe's Records). Chinese sources are used to verify additional information (they are linked to websites, but the contents are lifted from the books). However, now the contention is that these sources are supposedly "not as good" as English sources (which do not cover the details). So should this article take out the Chinese sources and the information they source, and be left with a shorter article, or should it keep looking for likely non-existent English sources to back up those details?
Regarding the use of Xuhui's reference, there are English sources that tell of how ancient figures are named in historical accounts (e.g. see "Family Names and Given Names" of Endymion Porter Wilkinson's Chinese History).[94] However, there are none found so far that specifically name Luan Da as an example. It still boils down to the fact that Xuhui's is the only book found so far that specifically analyzes "Luan Da". Jappalang (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then cite both; Wilkinson for the custom, Xuhui for the application. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 15:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: The Beginnings of Alchemy journal Isis, Vol. 38, No. 1/2 (Nov., 1947), p. 74, Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society [95] I found some things that are not mentioned in this article, but need to be mentioned (doubts about comprehensive). The half page para in the journal speaks about
Another name of Luan Da: "Taida", i do not know why a superscript is used in the journal
"alchemical gold" (no mention of alchemy, gold is mentioned)
Luan Da being intially a slave of King Kang of Jia-Dung (may be the same as "Liu Ji, the Prince of Jiao Dong" mentioned in the article) --RedtigerxyzTalk 04:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alchemy is mentioned in the current article via the "[[alchemy|create gold]]" piped link in "Rise to power". King Kang was Liu Ji's posthumous title, they are one and the same. As for "slave", this was discussed in the previous FAC. Jappalang (talk) 08:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: To avoid confusion, by "previous FAC", Jappalang means the FAC before the restart, not FAC 2. Nousernamesleft (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The FAC before restart is visible here. Looking at the discussion of "slave" there strongly suggests that Nousername has been presented with English sources for much of this, and has misunderstood what they are. In particular Isis is a journal; George Sarton was its founding editor. The article is available, through JSTOR: H. Dubs, Beginnings of Alchemy, Isis, Vol 38, 1/2 p.62-86 (1947). SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 15:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The particular article should not be considered as a source for the article, however, as it deals with entirely different subject matter and only mentions Luan Da trivially, with redundant information. Nousernamesleft (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then make my voixce Oppose until it uses English sources, of which Dubs' article is one, for materials sourceable both in English and Chinese. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 17:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I can and will replace most of Luan's life and perhaps the naming customs above with English sources - however, I refuse point-blank to use a source like Dubs. Nousernamesleft (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I re-sourced a significant amount of material to the new Qian translation and other works. How does that look? Nousernamesleft (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better, certainly. The remnant appears to be Xuhui's assertion about historians not using surnames for the common people which is surely findable elsewhere, and several digs about Luan's corruption. If these are consensus (aren't some of them in Sima himself?) they can be sourced elsewhere; although even if they are, we may not need them. If they are only in Zhang, why do we need them at all? (I'll do some research myself after Christmastime.) SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 14:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—1a. Sorry, but it's not well-enough written. It's hard to summarise the technical deficiencies, but they're there. You need to bring on-board one or more good copy-editors. You know how to find them for this type of topic? The lead provides ample evidence of the problems.
Does MOSNUM really say to put a ? for the birth-date when it's unknown? Maybe it does.
"Possessing the gift of gab and adept at confidence tricks, Luan Da gained the favour of Emperor Wu of Han, also known as Han Wudi. In the space of a few months, he rose from"—"the gift of gab" is not English ("the gab"), and is rather too informal, especially at the top. Is this a phrase you've seen in one of the sources and simply moved across? The last "he" refers to which man?
"In the space of a few months, he rose from a commoner to great influence, holding titles and land, and marrying one of the emperor's daughters. However, he could not fulfill his promise to Emperor Wu, failing to produce a means to immortality." The "However" doesn't work well, because it refers to something we should already have been told about—the promise. Clunky effect.
"He gradually lost the emperor's favour and went on a purported visit to immortals; however, he was ..."—Who did the purporting? He, presumably, but we shouldn't have to wonder. Nor should we have to click on the link to "immortals" to find out what on earth it all means. Very odd. Another "however", in the very next sentence.
Another back-to-front sentence: "His death was a sign of the trade's fall from favour; laws were passed to restrict the practice of mediumship, even penalising those who married its practitioners." The trade? What trade? Ah, we reach it later—mediumship, whatever that is.
The whole article is at issue; I've just pointed out examples of the larger problem. Tony(talk) 14:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets all the criteria set forth. Zeus1234 (talk) 10:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I can't comment on the content as I lack any knowledge. Instead I'll suggest a few small improvements that might be adopted.
In the first para of the Rebirth section the word "Buddhist" or "Buddhism" is over-repeated (five mentions in all). A spot of rewording should deal with that.
"the adept's body..." An adept is a person with some particular skill or proficiency, and I'm not quite sure how this meaning suits your phrase.
"Sinicization" should be linked
"kalpa" should be linked at first rather than second mention.
It may be worth looking out for other specialist terms that should be either linked or explained. However, I believe the links on "sun", "moon" and "planets" are unnecessary overlinking.
Books in the list of references should have ISBNs
It looks an interesting and informative article. Brianboulton (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the fixes you suggested. Thanks for the help!Zeus1234 (talk) 08:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Language is fine, and the article performs well as an introductory guide to Lingbao School (origins, beliefs, and legacy). Whatever jargon (deity names and spiritual terms) are much easier to identify than before. I think this qualifies as a Featured Article. Jappalang (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments — generally the language is fine, but I removed redundancies and changed several sentences to avoid repetition and bad forms. Content-wise, however, this article might be confusing...
Language
First off, the article should be consistent. Is it US English or British English? "-ize, -or" are US English. "-ise, -our" are British English. Currently, the article is a mix, with "visualize" and "colour" as examples.
History
"Ge Chaofu did not claim to have had the scriptures revealed to him directly from the spirits, but rather from a line of transmission going back to Ge Hong's great-uncle, Ge Xuan (164-244)."
Are scriptures supposed to be by default revealed by spirits? This sentence seems to imply so. It is a surprise out of the blue, and it is rather pointless if it is not the default rule (which it is not). Hence, simply stating that the Lingbao scriptures were passed on generation to generation by word-of-mouth (or handed down) would be sufficient.
"Under the Tang Dynasty, the Shangqing School, better integrated with the aristocracy, was more influential in court. The Shangqing School, however, borrowed many Lingbao practices, thus further integrating the two schools."
Here, an unknown school is introduced, then revealed as a successor of the Lingbao School. The order is reversed. I also suspect that the "further integrating" should not be used in that manner. It would have been better to phrase, "Over the centuries, various teachings formed as offshoots of the Lingbao School. One of them, the Shangqing School, prospered in the Tang Dynasty. Borrowing many Lingbao practices, it was well accepted by the aristocracy and established an influence in court."
Rebirth
"These were reborn into earth prisons, as a hungry ghost, as an animal, as a man or as a celestial being."
"These" refer to what?
Cosmology
"kalpa cycles"
The what?! There is the article, kalpa (time unit), but for all I know, kalpa cycle might be talking about another thing.
"Deviating from Buddhist beliefs was that the heavens rotated around a huge mountain known as the Jade Capital, which was the residence of the Celestial Worthy."
I would suggest "Lingbao cosmology deviated from Buddhist beliefs by proposing that the heavens [...] Worthy.", and who is the Celestial Worthy?
"traditionally Daoist ideas"
I would hazard it is supposed to be "traditional Daoist ideas"
Please explain what is the Single Breath.
"is subdivided into three breaths that corresponds to three deities, the lords of the Celestial Treasure, of the Sacred Treasure and of the Divine Treasure."
Better punctuation is recommended here, I recommend a dash or colon between "three deities" and "the lords". Furthermore, first it was divided, then the breath was subdivided? This is getting confusing.
"During the subsequent three cosmic eras in the three Daoist heavens, these three lords introduced the teachings of the Dadong (Great Grotto), the Dongxuan (Mysterious Grotto) and of the Dongshen (Divine Grotto). These three teachings form the basis for the later classification of texts in the Daozang."
Lots of "three"s and an expectation of the reader to know of the cosmic eras in Daoist heavens. What are they?
"the emperor of the colour that was associated with that era would descend onto earth"
Most people would think of an emperor as a mortal. Who is this "emperor" who came from the heavens? He deserves clarification.
"the Nine Breaths of the universe"
Nine? I thought the Single Breath was divided into two, three, or was it six?
"ten thousand emperors"
Where did they (no mention of there being 10,000 before) come from? Are there supposed to be 10,000 colours as well?
Immortality techniques
"their essence coagulating and entering the body."
"These practitioners were not professional priests, but rather 'students of the Dao'."
Do you mean "Early practitioners" rather than "These practitioners"?
"meaning that it was carried on at several different levels simultaneously." and "In addition, rituals always involved three levels: heaven, earth and man."
These sentences can be merged.
"and in addition to preventing bad weather, also ensures salvation."
Suggestion: ", ensuring salvation and preventing bad weather."
The article seems to presume the reader has some insight into Daoist teachings (especially the Cosmology section), which makes it inaccessible to those who do not have an inkling to the teaching's gods and hierarchy. (update: I will re-read later to verify if this still stands.) Finally, the article fails to talk about the relevance of Lingbao School in the modern days. We are only vaguely told that it survives in some form, and those descriptions are scattered across the article.Jappalang (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken many of your suggestions to heart, and have tried to simplify much of the content, by standardizing terms and clarifying the language. I added a new legacy section at the bottom to synthesize the parts of the Lingbao School that are still relevant today. I am Canadian, and follow Canadian spelling, which is a combination of British and American spelling. I don't believe this to be too much of an issue. If you have any further suggestions, please let me know! Zeus1234 (talk) 08:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lede needs to be fixed to summarize the changed article (right now, it states the Single Breath, which is no longer stated in the text; furthermore, the present day situation of Linbao School needs to be accounted for in the lede). Jappalang (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just completed to two fixes to the lede that you suggested. Thank you for the suggestions.Zeus1234 (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually a preference for -ize is fully compatible with a preference for -our even before we considering Canada, thanks to "en-GB-oed". That little matter aside, the spelling of the article seems to be in accordance with an emerging quasi-standard for Canadian spelling of English as I infer it from this explanation. Morenoodles (talk) 09:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As long as there is a standard, then it would not be an issue. Jappalang (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Ge Xuan.jpg — Source given, but it is not the page the picture exists. Please provide the link to the page where the picture is shown by this site (not the direct url of the picture). Furthermore, date of the picture must be provided by sources to prove public domain. Jappalang (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I located the image here but it is of smaller resolution. The page list four sources (I doubt it could be from the Records of the Three Kingdoms—Wu, so it might be from the other three), so it should be looked into from which book it came from. Jappalang (talk) 09:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected File:Baopuzi.JPG to conform to what is needed. Please take a look and do likewise for the other two images. Jappalang (talk) 09:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could not adequately source the other two images, so they have therefore been replaced with images that I was able to provide adequate sources for.Zeus1234 (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments — looking into the sources, several items are cited to The Encyclopedia of Taoism, which is a tertiary source. Can references to it be reduced? Wikipedia is aiming to be a tertiary source, and it is desirable for most (if not all) of its sources to be secondary per WP:PSTS. Jappalang (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to get rid of all references to the encyclopedia except for 12 and 27. These are probably present in sources I don't have access to, as I've looked in all sources available to me for any other reference.Zeus1234 (talk) 09:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two references is not that major (requirements are for minimal use), so this is pretty fine. Jappalang (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that this objection has been addressed and struck out, but I think it deserves a comment all the same. It strikes me as an extremely strict application, or even a misapplication, of "WP:PSTS". The "tertiary source" cited in this article is not a general-purpose work of reference that must ruthlessly or hurriedly crush knowledge and educated theory into a short space for casual or quick consumption. Instead, it's a special-purpose encyclopedia for which (or for half of which) the publisher charges $300, with signed articles; and the article cited here is written by somebody who's written other pieces that this article cites and who seems to know what he's talking about. Citing it seems perfectly proper to me. Morenoodles (talk) 09:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quick-fail—1a: My head is spinning. Poorly organised ideas; repetitiveness. Here are examples just in the lead. The whole text needs a good massage. I think this should be withdrawn and put through a major clean-up.
"The Lingbao School is a synthesis of religious ideas that is based on Shangqing texts, the rituals of the Celestial Masters, and Buddhist practices." Somehow a little wordy. What about "The Lingbao School is a synthesis of religious ideas based on Shangqing texts, the rituals of the Celestial Masters, and Buddhist practices."? Or "The Lingbao School is a synthesis of the religious meanings in Shangqing texts, the rituals of the Celestial Masters, and Buddhist practices." Unsure.
"The beliefs of the Lingbao school were based on the Buddhist concept of reincarnation. The school's cosmology was also influenced by Buddhism, but still maintained many Daoist beliefs, including the idea that the world emerged from a type of qi called yuanqi, and that an apocalypse would occur that only a limited few could avoid through faith." Also? These sentences seem to contain repetitiveness/circularity. I'm confused.
"Laozi. Alongside Laozi," So reorganise the sentence boundaries to overcome this rep., and the noun+ing urchin, and the clumsy order of the phrases and groups: "One of its most important gods was the deified form of Laozi, alongside which were minor gods, some in charge of preparing spirits for reincarnation." That also solves the "important" but then "minor" (other minor gods) description of Laozi. Very confusing.
"Although reincarnation was an important concept in the Lingbao School, the earlier Daoist belief in attaining immortality remained." The logic of "although" will escape non-experts. "Likewise, Lingbao ritual was initially very similar to individual Celestial Master ritual, but went through a transformation that put more emphasis on collective rites." Why "Likewise"? I can't see the connection. Why "but"? Can a transformation put more emphasis on something, or lead to more emphasis? What a mess. Tony(talk) 15:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Shanqing" is linked twice in a few seconds. More to the point, its very appearance twice at the top of the lead seems repetitive or redundant. The relationship between the first and second paras needs to be more logical and cogent.
I've looked over the lead, and have edited it as per your suggestions. I kept the sentence "Although reincarnation was an important concept in the Lingbao School, the earlier Daoist belief in attaining immortality remained." There is an although because reincarnation seems to be diametrically opposed to the idea of immortality. If you have the ability to reincarnate, why would you seek immortality? I hope that clarifies things.
As for the rest of the article, I looked it over and gave it an edit. However, it has been looked at by other editors already, so if you have any significant problems with the rest of the article, if would be very helpful if you tell me where so I can fix them. Zeus1234 (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm here to try again. Myself and others have continued to do work towards the improving of this article; concerns cited last time mainly revolved around perceived problems with clarity and tone. Now that the article is slightly longer and more detailed, with a longer lead and clearer explanation, I'd hope that these problems would be fixed. While some of the omissions in content noted at the last FAC have been remedied, we have still taken care to give a comprehensive but not overly scientific coverage; this is, after all, an encyclopedia, and we wouldn't want a book length analysis of a topic that could become easily convoluted with too much advanced scientific and/or theoretical exploration. I'm perfectly happy to act upon any concerns mentioned. I just hope that this article will be deemed simple enough but detailed enough now; last time, we had one camp saying that the article wasn't written simply enough, while another was calling for greater technical expansion. It's my belief we have a better mix of both now. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues
Comment Lead is much better now. So is the overall prose. I would support the FAC nomination, but for one omission that I failed to spot last time. As noted on the talk page. The article does not mention the CKM matrix for the quark masses/ quark mixing. It is one of the most striking differences between quarks and leptons in the standard model. (in the SM the leptons have no generation mixing) Hopefully this can be corrected during this FAC round, because I feel overall the article is very strong. (TimothyRias (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I must confess I don't know bout that particular concept. I'll read some material on it today and tomorrow, and insert some information on it into the article then. I wouldn't want to add some ill-informed stuff right now. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well now, let's have a look. The lead needs some work to make it crisper, and the logic could be tightened. Avoid elegant variation (called, known as, named). Be consistent in style (serial comma or no serial comma?). Try this alternative (references omitted):
Quarks are of six different types, or flavors: up (symbol: u ), down ( d ), charm ( c ), strange ( s ), top ( t ), and bottom ( b ). The up and down quarks are the lightest and most stable; as the constituents of protons and neutrons, they are primary and most abundant building blocks of matter. The unstable charm, strange, top, and bottom quarks decay rapidly, after formation in particle accelerators, cosmic rays, or similar high energy environments. For every quark flavor there is a corresponding antiquark: an antiparticle differing only in that some of its properties have the opposite sign. The properties of most quarks must be deduced from experiments on the hadrons they compose; but the top quark, decaying too rapidly to hadronize, is observed by identifying the particles it decays into. Some Big Bang theories postulate a quark-gluon plasma with single unbound quarks (including "free" top quarks), in the extremely hot early universe.
The quark model was proposed independently by physicists Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig in 1964. Confirmation came in 1968, when electron–proton scattering experiments revealed three "sphere-like" regions in the substructure of the proton. In 1995 the last of the six, the top flavor, was observed at Fermilab.
I might say more when I've read through the rest. Interesting!–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 11:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Such a concise style can become hard to read when it is full of technical terms. Phrase such as known as signal a reader that it is not expected that he has known of the term. I definately prefer the more gentle style of the current lead. Note that elegant variation refers to using different words for the same thing, not to using different phrases with a similar meaning in different contexts. (Imagine a text that describes complex reasoning that only used the word thus and never any of its synonyms consequently, so or therefore because they would constitute (in)elegant variation.) (TimothyRias (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Timothy, I agree that conciseness can be taken too far. I offer a much tighter version as a basis; anything that is then added might require specific justification. As for elegant variation, I disagree. It can apply to any wording, not just nouns (as your reference to "things" suggests). Perhaps this in unclear in our article; but it is plainly stated in its primary source, which begins like this: "We include under this head all substitutions of one word for another for the sake of variety,...". Fowler addresses nouns mainly, but gives a few examples like this: "I must ask the reader to use the same twofold procedure that I before requested him to employ in considering...—H. Sidgwick." Anyway, the contexts here are not different, as you seem to imply; and the varied words are quite near each other. –⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 20:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Timothy; we should give a definition of quark as soon as possible[1], but it cannot be made specific enough without using technical terms, and the In technical terms tells the reader "don't worry if you don't understand this now".
[1] Not everyone would agree to call that a "definition", as it would also apply to gluinos, but given that the hypothesis of the existences of gluinos (and supersymmetric partners in general) is (IMO) largely speculative with very little or no empirical evidence, and that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, better not worry about that. --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 15:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Army, it ought to be blindingly obvious that the terms are technical. Would anyone think they are the common terms of everyday life? Because they are likely to be unfamiliar, they are clearly linked. We should not patronise readers; we help them best by writing lucidly what they need to know.–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 20:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is "In physics" absolutely needed? I think the next clause, "A quark is a type of subatomic particle." encompasses that sentence perfectly (cf [98]) Sceptre(talk) 14:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, be wouldn't that conflict with the also true statement that "A quark is the sound a duck makes"? Now, of course, I don't think anybidy would be confused by this. But it is a wikipedia best practice to establish the right context in the opening sentence. (TimothyRias (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
There are other meanings, more serious that the cry of a gull (see Quark (disambiguation)); besides that, starting article with "In topic, subject is" is de-facto standard in Wikipedia, and it doesn't harm. It's obvious that we're not talking about a cheese here, but see WP:State the obvious. --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 15:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think the context is there without "in physics". I normally see In topic opening clauses as poor writing and can be easily replaced with {{about}}. Sceptre(talk) 15:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Sceptre, even though I retained in physics in my concise draft above. I was tempted to drop it; there is a pointer to a disambiguation page at the top, after all. –⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 20:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment: is the first citation necessary? Seeing as quarks being subatomic particles is pretty much the first thing you learn in A-Level Physics... I don't think you really need to cite that. Especially in the lead section. Sceptre(talk) 22:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not convinced of the way information about hadrons and strong interaction is scattered in several sections in different places in the article, but as soon as I figure out a better way to do that I'll fix the problem. --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 15:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:This is turning out to be far less trivial than I believed... --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 23:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC) [Done, see below --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 00:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)][reply]
Comment: Like Tim above, I also would mention the CKM matrix. And that color coded table still is an eyesore. I'll make a thourough review in the next few days, but it looks pretty solid.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 19:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question - What exactly is Murray Gell-Mann holding in his hand? A lump of coal? A Ding Dong? It's hard to tell. Kaldari (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To me, it looks like a remote control or a laser pointer, though a rather large one. But I'm not sure. --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 21:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments:
Lead : Quarks are the only particles to experience all four interactions. This is mentioned in the "classification" section, but IMO this should also be in the lead.
Is it accurate to describe Zweig as a co-proposer rather than an independent proposer or something to that effect? Co-proposer seem to imply that Zweig and Gell-Man collaborated on this.
"However, this notion has been recently challenged in quantum chromodynamics by theories that include vacuum polarization and the coupling of quark hadrons to strange quarks in the vacuum.[41]" The reference given is from 1993. That's 15 years ago...
"Current quark mass". I feel the term should be a bit clarified. "Current" could be interpreted to mean "the quarks of 2008's mass" instead of "flow".
And I just have to reiterated that I really hate those nigh pointless colors in that table...
In the color confinement section, more could be said about how the top quark's "non-hadronization leads to direct measurements of the mass. It says it's an exception, but stops there. I feel this leaves the reader wanting for more.
Assymptotic freedom --> Mentionning that this got Wilczek et al. a nobel prize here would be fitting here I think.
I think the note about the number of generations should be merged in the text.
Should the image about the decay include "rarer" arrows from t to d and b to u?
I've done most of what you've requested. I removed the 15 year old material. It didn't seem very relevant and was representative of just one of the many fringe views on the topic. i think the colours are fine. I also didn't mention Wilczek; I don't necessarily object to a mention, but I couldn't see how that would fit well into the section, as we were right into the throes of a deep explanation when the freedom was mentioned, and noting that a Nobel Prize was won would kind of distract from that. I also don't really know what more information you want about top quark non-hadronization; there isn't much more to say, from what I know. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And here are mine:
I have attempted, and might have succeeded, in re-organizing the material about strong interaction. But since Murphy's law predicts a very high probability that I screwed something up, I saved my new version to User:Army1987/Quark. Might someone take a look at it? If there is nothing seriously wrong with it, it can be incorporated into the article.
Hmm, I'm not sure. Could you outline exactly what you've done? I don't have the time to read through it all now, and I certainly don't have the time to actually compare the two side by side. From a quick glance, you've elected to place the material about hadronization first, and the "other" properties last. I don't think that's entirely sensical, myself, and, at least in that regard, I prefer the way the current article is structured. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point is keeping all the information about the same topic together. All those "below" links about gluons and sea quarks are not very reader-friendly. As it currently stands, the article introduces some of the concepts of QCD, then it discusses completely unrelated things such as spin, electric charge, etc., and then goes back to QCD to end explaining the concept which were introduced. Doesn't sound like a good structure to me. --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 02:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking of a way of mentioning the CKM matrix, without stating either falsehoods or things that will be totally incomprehensible to the average encyclopedia reader. I failed. Any ideas, anyone?
(This is one of the very few times I'm nationalistic.) But surely Nicola Cabibboshould be mentioned somewhere in the History section, shouldn't he?
Comments: mostly copy-and-paste from my opposition at this article's last FAC, slightly updated.
Curious omission: not even a hint of the group theory basis of the quark model? Doesn't need to be much, but if it isn't mentioned at all, this article is not comprehensive.
Curious omission: Yang-Mills theories and, more generally, non-Abelian gauge theories not mentioned at all. Doesn't need to be much, but if it isn't mentioned at all, this article is not comprehensive.
Major omission: quark gluon plasma is in the lead, but not in the main article (big no-no in itself). This is a central aspect of modern research on quarks.
Description of the parton model: could use some words on what it means that "the proton had substructure".
I did some tweaking. A sphere would be something else; for definiteness, I took the formulation used in the article that is cited as a reference. Markus Poessel (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
History section: CP violation should have a one-sentence-explanation or text will not be accessible for your average interested reader
"The system of attraction and repulsion between quarks charged with any of the three colors (...) is as follows: a quark charged with one color value will be attracted to an antiquark carrying with the corresponding anticolor, while three quarks all charged with differing colors will similarly be forced together. In any other case, a force of repulsion will come into effect." - that makes it sound more simple than it is. If, say, you have three quarks, each with a different color, and take the symmetric combination, you'll end up with a repulsive force. Also, for a symmetric state with two quarks with two different colors, you get an attractive force.
"Composed of one d and two u quarks, the proton has an overall mass of approximately 938 MeV/c2, of which the three quarks contribute around 10 MeV/c2, the remainder is from the energy of the gluons." - 10 MeV/c^2 sounds very low. I remember coming across higher numbers (quark rest mass plus kinetic energy contributions - which one is meant here? quark rest mass only?). Also, at least one of the sources cited (Veltman p. 46) doesn't say anything about this - why is it cited here? Possibly a different page?
From "Review of Particle Physics:Quarks of 2008 this mass is 12 Mev (3*2+5). Ruslik (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But those are the quarks' rest mass contributions only, then. In that case, the sentence, as it stands, is wrong: The quarks contribute not only their rest mass, but also the mass associated with their kinetic energy. If I remember correctly, the latter contribution is significantly larger than the former. Markus Poessel (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kinetic energy contribution may be difficult to estimate, and impossible to separate from contributions from gluon field. I changed that sentence to reflect this fact. Ruslik (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Gluons are constantly exchanged between quarks through an emission and reception process. These gluon exchange events between quarks are extremely frequent, occurring approximately 1024 times every second." - I'm very skeptical about the number given. After all - and that should be stated here! - the exchange picture is perturbation theory; whatever happens inside a hadron is highly non-perturbative.
I agree with most of your points, but I'm afraid it'd be very difficult to mention group theory and Yang-Mills theories in a way that would be comprehensible to the average reader. IMO such details belong to more technical articles such as Quantum chromodynamics, quark model, etc., which are linked by this article, and the reader can follow the links for more information. I'll try to address the other points. --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 11:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you need to mention it in a way that the average reader understands completely – but, in the appropriate place, a single sentence that says "In mathematical language, ..., and quarks are in the ... representation of that group." would be something that a) makes the article more comprehensive, b) contains wikilinks to important terms that are intimately connected with the way quarks are described in physics, and should definitely be wikilinked from this lemma, and c) can be made brief enough to show the average reader that there is more, but not something that he or she need understand in detail at this point. Markus Poessel (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Unfortunately, I think the paragraph is a bit off. QGP is certainly not a theory; if you want to stress the speculative nature, "conjectured new state of matter" or similar would probably be appropriate. Sourcing with a textbook from 2000 is unfortunate; there were major new results from RHIC in 2005. In this lemma, there's probably not enough room to mention specific experiments (if you mention CERN, you must mention RHIC, and outside the time-frame mentioned the LHC), but there should be a mention of cosmological implications – after all, that's one reason this has generated so much interest. Would you mind if I gave it a try? Markus Poessel (talk) 09:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all; please do. If you could possibly lend your expertise in the other areas that you mentioned were in omission, I'd also be hugely appreciative. I'm no expert, and am frankly overwhelmed by some of your requests. I'd offer that since you were the person to bring some of the matters up, you might know some information on each of the respective omitted topics? If you can't, I completely understand; it'd just make the improvement of the article easier and the overall product better. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[Continuing from my earlier comments:] An interesting and important article with some sophisticated technical content, apparently aimed at explaining quarks to the naive reader. I would like to see it succeed; but I cannot give it my vote in its present state. Generally, I regard the writing as not up to standard. There is uncertainty of tone and of technical level. Here are some specific points, some of which are connected to observations I make above:
In the lead, the reader is pampered with such comforts as "in technical terms", "because of a phenomenon known as", "they are found in two of the primary building blocks of matter – protons and neutrons". But there is little point mixing such pabulum with hard-core assertions like this: "This color confinement is propagated by the quarks' engagement in the strong interaction due to their color charge." In fact, it is better to omit the soft stuff and rely on the links to do the work. Evenness of tone; and a consistent level of difficulty.
I have eliminated the color confinement mention; it wasn't necessary there at any rate. I don't understand what you mean when you say that the reader is "pampered" by some kind of perceived "softness" in sentence construction. Different concepts ad elements of the text require a varying level and complexity of articulation, and there is a difference between this and unevenness of tone. Anyhow, I have fixed and attended to both of the instances you have pointed out; if you could point out further instances of the issue, please do so. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also manifest in the lead, and throughout the article, is uncertainty with the serial comma. And a spaced en dash is used, though all other sentence-punctuating dashes are unspaced em dashes (see WP:DASH). WP:MOS stresses early on the need for consistency of style. Also on punctuation, note 8 needs a space between . and ". Generally the notes seem pretty clean, though – apart from the redlinked names of publishers. Is it policy to include those? I'd prefer to see them unlinked.
"Uncertainty" rectified. If you could point to where the offending space is located, I'd be happy to remove it. Note 8 fixed. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, not offending space: offending spaced en dashes. Actually, I prefer them, myself. (Read WP:DASH.) But we have to be consistent, so the sentence-punctuating dashes in this article should all be unspaced em dashes. Substitute them, in "...three flavors of quarks – up, down, and strange – to which..."Fixed.–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 12:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, no. AD, I invited you to read WP:DASH. Forgive me, but it appears that you have not done so. You have now put in unspaced en dashes, where I and WP:DASH and all publishers allow only spaced en dashes (which you had at the outset) in this role, or em dashes (which are in fact required for consistency in this article: unspaced, in fact). WP:DASH (part of WP:MOS) and I repeat our recommendation: now replace your text quarks–up, down and strange–to which with quarks—up, down and strange–to which. Only trying to help. :)Fixed. –⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 04:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Classification section: "In this context, flavor is an arbitrarily chosen term referring to different kinds of particles, and has nothing to do with the everyday experience of flavor." Really? And this soon before the dizzying abstruseness of "meaning that their spin quantum number (a property related to their intrinsic angular momentum) is half-integer". Surely such explanations are aimed at different readerships! And more of the same in the rest. Other things: Is the "u with bar" well executed? Surely there is a more suitable character than this, in which the bar looks like a mere artefact on the screen. In "antiquarks have the same mass, lifetime and spin of their respective quarks" there should be a serial comma for consistency (or none elsewhere), and as should replace of. Such matters contribute to an overall looseness in the prose.
I disagree about the readership notion; spin is explained quite simply, with links to relevant articles. I don't see a problem with this, really, and it was you after all who suggested that we let the links do the work in your first point. The u bar notation is based in a template that houses the scientific notations for all particles, and its use is standard and required in all articles on particle physics. Fixed the of --> as and the missing serial comma. We now have no serials in the article. I think. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two serial commas that I can see: "...strange (s), top (t), and bottom (b)", and "...three flavors of quarks – up, down, and strange – to which...". I don't know why you have just now settled on a no-serial-commas policy. I'm a strong advocate of them, myself. But if you have that policy, apply it to the two cases I have just shown.Fixed.–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 12:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
History section: Are readers supposed to think that several and numerous carry different weight, in "several leptons and numerous hadrons"? If so, how might they tease this out? Again, elegant variation theatens to distract readers. Consider this: "The Gell-Mann–Zweig model predicted three quarks, which they named up, down and strange. At the time, the pair of physicists ascribed various properties and values to the three new proposed particles, such as electric charge and spin." (What, for the naive reader, is the difference between a property and a value, here?) Why not simply this instead: "Gell-Mann and Zweig postulated just three flavors of quarks – up, down, and strange – to which they at first ascribed such properties as spin and electric charge." Why do I propose this? Study it! Two points: Dropping "model" (which turns up soon enough) lets the remainder of the sentence use "they". Similarly, we don't need it repeated that there are "three new proposed particles". Three? Yes, we got that. New? Well, newly discovered – we got that too. Proposed? Of course. Particles? Sure, what else could they be? Later whilst turns up: the ugly "formalising" variant of natural English while, used throughout the rest of the article. Not pleasant. Now this: "Following a decade without empirical evidence supporting the flavor's existence, it was created and observed..." Created? What, the flavor? How so?
Fixed; I've replaced the old sentence with the one you proposed. I also fixed the problem with leptons and hadrons in the least awkward manner I could think of. I don't understand what you're asking in your final sentence. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that sentence I was wondering what the text means: "...it was created and observed". I understood observed: a quantum, and therefore the flavor of a quantum, can be observed; a quantum can be "created" in a sense (but it's better to say produced). But quantum does not occur in that sentence! A flavor per se (as a category of quantaquarks that have been theorised about, but not yet observed) is not created – except perhaps for revisionist mystics like Paul Davies, who would have God creating the whole box and dice. I suggest you have this instead: "Following a decade without empirical evidence supporting their existence, charm quantaquarks were finally produced and observed...". See? I genuinely couldn't see what you meant, till I thought again at length. Fixed.–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 12:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with a sentence nearly identical in structure to yours ('quanta' was replaced by 'quarks'). —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good, AD. What was I dreaming about, with "quanta"? Fixed in above discussion, now. It was way past my bedtime, here in Australia. More soon.–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 22:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for "several leptons and numerous hadrons", there are six leptons, and dozens (maybe hundreds) of baryons. And not all of them were known in 1964. So "several leptons and numerous hadrons" was much better than "a multitude of leptons and hadrons". I don't want to go around researching when exactly the muon was reclassified from a meson to a lepton, or when the tau lepton, the muon neutrino, and the tau neutrino were discovered in order to replace that with the exact number, and anyway that number would be highly irrelevant in that context. --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 13:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Etymology: More he, less Gell-Mann, I think. "George Zweig, an independent proposer of the theory,...". Yes, we know that by now. Too much repetition and wordiness.
I am ready to offer more comments once these points have been addressed; and I look forward to being able to support promotion of the article, eventually. No, no more to say.
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 10:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the lead and the first section after that. I agree with Anonymous Dissident that the article strikes an appropriate balance between scientific rigor and accessibility to readers. I may support if I finish reading it later. Crystal whacker (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I finished reading the article and support its promotion to featured status.
One point to consider: In the last section it is written: "The area of physics that studies strong interactions is called the quantum chromodynamics or QCD.[51]" However, QCD is mentioned earlier in the article. Is there a way to introduce QCD earlier or resolve this redundancy, or should it be introduced in two separate parts of the article as it is now? Crystal whacker (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I moved this definition forward. There is no redundancy now. Ruslik (talk) 10:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reread every argument made and these needs to be address before I give my support:
A mention of the CKM matrix and quark mixing needs to be there. Preferably a section devoted to it. Took care of it.
Why in the world is that table full of colors?
The colors do mean something symbolically. Every element of the table with one colour is related to every other element of the same colour. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current in 'current quark mass needs to be clarified in some way (wikilink?).
I think the italics around the phrase make it clear that it's a technical term and there wouldn't be much room for confusion with "quark mass as of now." If you can think of a link, I'd be happy to add it, but I honestly don't think we;'ll have any confusion. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At first usage, I have explained what the term means and said that the process will be "hereon referred to as hadronization." I think that should be enough. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should the image about the decay include "rarer" arrows from t to d and b to u? (The labs will take care of this eventually)
Probably, I just have no way of doing it as I don't have an application to edit images. Hmm. I'll see if I can contact the uploader. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Flavour quantum numbers deserves a section of its own, similar to spin and electric charge. Should the Gell-Man-Nishijima formula be mentionned somewhere? List of baryons has something on it that could prove usefull.
Done by Markus (I think; may have been someone else). —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the hadron section could use a short meson section and a short baryon section, with main article links.
I'm not sure. I think we've given good coverage to them and mentioning more of the basics (that's all we'd need because this is an article on quarks) throughout the article, so a dedicated section might not be needed. We already discuss how they're formed in color charge and confinement/gluons. It'd just be redundant. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some more issues
I know I said I was going to support, but I've recently notice potential issues about factual accuracy and completeness of coverage.
Charm quark says they (charm quarks) were theorized by Glashow, Illious, and Maini in 1970. This article (quark) says they were theorized by Glashow and Bjorken in 1964. One of the two articles has to be wrong. Which is it?
The down quark and up quark pages said they were discovered in 1967, not 1968 as quark says (I changed the down quark based on the quark article, so it now says 1968). However the articles used as refs to back the claim of 1968 are from 1969. So which way is it?
This article is definitely right, my sources are reliable. I'll now fix up and down quark articles. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yuval Ne'eman proposed a SU(3) scheme to classify hadrons in 1961/62, similar to/the same as Gell-Man's SU(2) in 1962. Both event take place before 1964, which is the "birth" of the quark model/eightfold way/aces. What is Ne'eman's role in the quark thing? How is the 1961/62 version of things from Ne'eman and Gell-Man different from the Eightfold way?
From my understanding, Ne'eman has little to with quarks. He independtly proposed the Eightfold way from Gell-Mann in the same year. The Eightfold way eventually led to the postulation of quarks. I don't really understand what your question is; you seem to be implying that there is something historically wrong with the eightfold way being proposed before quarks, but the eightfold way concerns octets of mesons and baryons, so I don't see where the problem is. In regard to your last question: from what I know, the two proposed a notion that was almost identical. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've confused the color SU(3) with the approximate flavour SU(3). Seems consistent with the content of the "color" section.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the remaining disambiguation links. Wronkiew (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, in light of the comments I made above. Markus Poessel (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: No other reviewers seem prepared to !vote on this. Writing as an "outsider" (I am a microbiologist and perhaps therefore an average reader); I find this article fascinating, engaging and very well-written. It has taught me very much. It seems to me that the discussions above pertain to criterion 4, mainly wrt summary style, and this is so difficult to get right. This is a damn good article. Period. I would be pleased to see this on the Main Page. There is room for improvement in all articles, including those that are featured. No doubt, such improvements will be made to this one—but I see no reasons, based on the Featured Article Criteria, to withhold the bronze star. Graham ColmTalk 22:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I supported this article two months ago, and I should admit that it has become much better since then. I copy-edited it slightly. There is, of course, a room for improvement, but think the article is very close to FA level. Ruslik (talk) 10:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.Neutral. [Changed because some specific concerns have been addressed. Only neutral, I'm afraid, because I do not think the article quite meets the high standard of writing demanded in a featured article, and therefore does not succeed in delivering its content as efficiently as it might. I will not, however, oppose its promotion on that ground. I'll have no more to say here.–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 20:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)][reply]
Oppose until the referencing issues are addressed, and until the Gell-Man and Ne'eman thing in 1961 is clarified.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 11:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the third time in this review that I've come across a reference that doesn't contain the information it's meant to provide, which I think is very, very worrying. I'm going to make spot-checks on some of the other references, but for now I'm going back to Oppose - this indicates serious problems with the way references have been added to this lemma. Markus Poessel (talk) 14:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: I'm commenting on the licensing of the images only. I am unable to comment on the accuracy of the self-made images.
I have a question about File:Charmed-dia-w.png. I am confused because it is marked as PD US Gov, and I read the permissions exchange linked in the Source. It acknowledges the image is PD, but asks for no proprietary use for the image. I am unclear why someone would ask such a thing of a public domain image. I have asked for further clarification on that image in particular.
All other images appear to be fine. --Moni3 (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"These partons were later identified as up and down quarks when the other flavors were beginning to surface.[23]" where the reference is L.M. Lederman, D. Teresi (2006). The God Particle. Mariner Books. p. 208. ISBN0618711686. The book is online at Google Books, and there is nothing on p. 208 to support this particular sentence, as far as I can see. Markus Poessel (talk) 12:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is weird. I'm going to remove this reference; I'm not sure who added it - it may well have been me - but, you're right, it isn't pertinent. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Various theories have been offered to explain this very large mass. The Standard Model posits that elementary particles derive their masses from the Higgs mechanism, related to the unobserved Higgs boson. Physicists hope that, in the next years, the detection of the Higgs boson in particle accelerators—such as the Large Hadron Collider—and the study of the top quark's interaction with the Higgs field might help answer the question.[28]" where 28 is this press release. As far as I can see, the press release says nothing about the LHC, and about explaining the interaction of Higgs and top quark. It's all about the upper limit on the Higgs mass from measurements of the top quark mass.
You haven't read it, then. Please see "Physics: The mass of the top quark (pp638-642; N&V)", the second section. It does mention the LHC, and how the Higgs boson may be related to the top quark mass. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've most certainly read that section. Where does it say anything about answering the question of why the top quark mass is so large? As I wrote above: It's all about the upper limit on the higgs mass from measurements of the top quark mass, as far as I can see. Here is a nice little summary on how top quark mass and higgs mass are related. Markus Poessel (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"For example, the mass of the top quark is related to the mass of the long-hypothesized but still undetected Higgs boson. Properties of the (equally hypothetical) field associated with this particle would help explain why matter is, not to put too fine a point on it, 'massive.' In principle, the top quark is point-like and should have no mass; yet, through its interactions with the Higgs field, the physical mass of the top quark appears to be about that of a gold nucleus." - that is a valid and appropriate reference to "Various theories have been offered to explain this very large mass. The Standard Model posits that elementary particles derive their masses from the Higgs mechanism, related to the unobserved Higgs boson. Physicists hope that, in the next years, the detection of the Higgs boson in particle accelerators—such as the Large Hadron Collider—and the study of the top quark's interaction with the Higgs field might help answer the question.[28]" —Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. What you quote simply describes the Higgs mechanism, which is how all quarks get their mass. It does not tell us anything about why the top quark mass is so much heavier than expected – it does not "answer the question" of why the mass has the value it does have, as the statement claims. Also, what is the "study of the top quark's interaction with the Higgs field" the statement is talking about? Is it anything other than measuring the top quark's mass more precisely than before? If yes, then the article basically says that measuring the top quark's mass more precisely might help answer the question of why the top quark's mass is so large. How is that supposed to work? Markus Poessel (talk) 14:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who said the ref has to provide an answer? All that needs to be referenced is that elementary particles are affected by the Higgs mechanism, and, as you yourself stated, it does. This was the statement, and the source backs up and parallels the statement. That's what a reference is. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reference is meant to provide support for the assertion that "Physicists hope that, in the next years, the detection of the Higgs boson in particle accelerators—such as the Large Hadron Collider—and the study of the top quark's interaction with the Higgs field might help answer the question." - the question being, as stated earlier, why the top quark is so heavy. The reference given does not say anything about physicists hoping to answer, by detecting the Higgs boson and studying the top quark's interaction with the Higgs field, the question of why the top quark is so heavy. That's not what a reference is supposed to be. Markus Poessel (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reference says ".In principle, the top quark is point-like and should have no mass; yet, through its interactions with the Higgs field, the physical mass of the top quark appears to be about that of a gold nucleus." then followed by "Further improvements in precision are to be expected from the Tevatron at Fermilab, and from the Large Hadron Collider at CERN (the European nuclear research laboratory at Geneva) when it becomes operational after 2007." I don't know what more you could ask for as a ref for the statement that the interaction of the top quark with the higgs fields is the proposed reason why the top quark is so heavy, and that physicist are looking forward to the LHC experiments to probe the interaction of the top and the higgs so they can understand it.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More on references.
The current ref. 1 is "Fundamental Particles". Oxford Physics. http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/documents/pUS/dIS/fundam.htm. Retrieved on 2008-06-29. "Oxford Physics" is a bit grand - if you look at the author information, it was written by an undergraduate and a sixth-form student. Yes, it was written for the public webpages of the Oxford Physics Department, and they probably looked some or all of it over, but it's still an inappropriate source. If this statement needs a reference at all, it should be one of the text-books used elsewhere in the article.
Current ref. 4 is to HyperPhysics - why, when there is the online Review of Particle Properties, which has the same information, much more authoritative?
It's a simple ref right at the beginning that goes straight to the point. Quarks are fundamental fermions that compose baryons (groups of 3), such as protons and neutrons, and mesons (groups of q-antiq), and talks about confinment. And it covers their names.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref. 8 apparently gives the same information as ref 4. (six flavors). Better to have both point to the same reference, and the natural choice is the Review of Particle Properties.
Current ref. 3 is meant to support the statements 1) top and bottom sometimes known as truth and beauty, and 2) Color confinement; all we know from quarks is from studying hadrons. The page reference is to page 169, which does mention in passing truth/topness and beauty/bottomness, but nothing about color confinement or the necessary of inferring quark properties from hadrons.
Current ref 5. is an article from an institutional newsletter/journal ("Beamline"). The article itself is about the top quark discovery. Seeing how much literature is out there on the history of physics, this is not a very suitable reference for the quark model being proposed by Gell-Mann and Zweig in 1964.
It's suitable enough to establish that Gell-Man and Zweig proposed it. Nevertheless I've placed the original articles from Gell-Man and Zweig next to it.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A page or section number would be helpful for the current ref 10, J. Barrow (1997) [1994]. "The Singularity and Other Problems". The Origin of the Universe (Reprint ed.). Basic Books. ISBN978-0465053148 - it's not very helpful if readers have to search the whole book to find the information they're after.
—This is part of a comment by Markus Poessel (of 17:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]
"The Singularity and Other Problems" is a (relatively short) chapter, the book being The Origin of the Universe. I only have the Italian translation of the book. The TOC of the book is available online for preview on (IIRC) Amazon and it is where I took the English title of the chapter (which, incidentally, had been translated verbatim in Italian), but that chapter wasn't on preview, so I couldn't add page numbers. (If someone has either the original language edition of that book or another source which says the same thing, please add page numbers and/or the other source.) --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 17:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref. 12, P. Rowlands (2008). Zero to Infinity. World Scientific. p. 406. ISBN9812709142: Reference for statement that antiparticles have the same mass, life-time, spin. That particular page is part of the limited preview on Google Books, and has no statements about antiparticles whatsoever, as far as I can see.
Switched it to Introductionary Nuclear Physics by Samuel Wong. There's a paragraph directly on that.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref. 17: A. Pickering (1984). Constructing Quarks. University of Chicago Press. p. 84. ISBN0226667995. Reference is to p. 84, but should probably better be to section 4.4, where the question is discussed of the reality is discussed in more detail
Current ref. 18: B.J. Bjorken, S.L. Glashow (1964). "Elementary Particles and SU(4)". Physics Letters 11 (3): 255. doi:10.1016/0031-9163(64)90433-0 is the reference for a fourth flavour of quark being proposed. I might have overlooked it, but I don't find the word "quark" in the article. My impression is that Bjorken and Glashow at that time did not think the constituent quarks were all that relevant. It's all about the symmetry groups, not about partons.
The publication predicted what became known as the charm quark, even thought it might not have been proposed as a quark. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 23, here, is just a text-only timeline, no indication of any publication, apparently part of lecture notes by an astronomer. Surely, there must be a reliable alternative source. Also, I see no indication that the text on that page supports the statement for which it is listed as a reference: "These partons were later identified as up and down quarks when the other flavors were beginning to surface. Their discovery also validated the existence of the strange quark, because it was necessary to the model Gell-Mann and Zweig had proposed." It doesn't use the word parton, it just lists the Stanford experiment without pointing to later identification of the particles observed, and it certainly doesn't say anything about the strange quark being indirectly validated.
The 1968 section matches with "There partons were later identified as as up and down quarks" and the "without mentioning the name quark" means they were using the name "parton". If you really want to be picky about it, I suppose it is a bit of a strech, but the five refs of this paragraphs do cover all the paragraph, even if they aren't rigoursly aligned statement by statement.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref. 26, M. Kobayashi, T. Maskawa (1973). "CP-Violation in the Renormalizable Theory of Weak Interaction". Progress of Theoretical Physics 49 (2): 652–657. doi:10.1143/PTP.49.652. http://ptp.ipap.jp/link?PTP/49/652/pdf, doesn't appear to say anything about naming the two additional quarks top and bottom.
Moved ref to relevant part, and placed a [citation needed] tag for the names.
"The building blocks of the atomic nucleus—the proton and the neutron—are baryons" - I agree it's a small step from "proton and neutron are made of three quarks", which is what the reference says, to "... are baryons", but still: if there's a reference for such a straightforward sentence at all, why not one that actually talks about baryons (this reference doesn't mention the word)?
Current reference 33, E.V. Shuryak (2004). The QCD Vacuum, Hadrons and Superdense Matter. World Scientific. pp. 59. ISBN9812385746, does mention pentaquarks, but not tetraquarks, as far as I can see.
Current reference 34 (Povh et al.) should have a page or a section number. Otherwise it's not very helpful.
Ref. 37 (Demtröder): The limited review available on Google books has p. 39-40 all about the mass of the electron, not about atomic nuclei, protons and neutrons.
Current ref 38: F. Close (2006). The New Cosmic Onion. CRC Press. p. 82. ISBN1584887982. Cited in support of the spin of quarks, and the fact they are fermions. Page cited is about quark spins combining to form hadron spins. Quark spin itself is one page earlier; I don't see anything about fermions.
"Half-integer spin" and "fermions" are synonyms. I've changed the page to 81 though.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref. 40, "Quarks". Antonine Education. http://www.antonine-education.co.uk/Physics_AS/Module_1/Topic_5/quarks.htm. Retrieved on 2008-07-10 - how is this a reliable source? What is worse, it's given as a reference to how quark spins combine to give hadron spins. I found no such information on the page. In fact, I didn't find a single mention of "spin".
Current ref 52, M. Veltman (2003). Facts and Mysteries in Elementary Particle Physics. World Scientific. p. 46. ISBN981238149X. - again going by the preview available on Google Books: On the page cited, nothing I can see about the different contribution to hadron mass, which accounts for two of three uses of this reference. The third use is close, although on Google, the color changes are on p. 47.
Current ref. 62 , Papenfuss/Luest/Schleich, is a collection of contributions by many authors. Quoting it in support of a very specific statement without giving a page or section number is rather pointless.
"Therefore, although the color of each quark is always changing, a bound hadron will constantly retain a set of colors that will preserve the force of attraction, therefore forever disallowing quarks to exist in isolation" - current ref. 67, S. Webb (2004). Out of this World. Springer. p. 91. ISBN0387029303. As far as I can see, nothing about confinement or about the statement about bound hadrons retaining a set of colors on that particular page.
Ref. 69, J.T.V. Tran (1996). '96 Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories. Atlantica Séguier Frontières. p. 60. ISBN2863322052. is not cited properly. This is a contribution by Michael Doser, titled "Status of Glueballs", in the proceedings. Tran isn't the author of the contribution, he/she's the editor of the proceedings.
Ref. 72: National Research Council (U.S.). Elementary-Particle Physics Panel (1986). Elementary-particle Physics. National Academies Press. p. 62. ISBN0309035767. Reference doesn't say anything about colloquial usage. Also, "the sea" is not a quote from there (although "a neutral sea of gluons" and "a sea of low-energy virtual quark-antiquark pairs" does occur on that page).
Ref. 73 (Perkins) doesn't say anything about CERN experiments. Any reference for the quark stars etc. in the second part of the paragraph?
Some other statements I came across while checking on references:
"Gell-Mann and Zweig postulated just three flavors of quarks—up, down and strange—to which they at first ascribed such properties as spin and electric charge." - why only "at first"? Surely quarks still have these properties?
I think it's because later physicists added more properties such as weak isospin, etc... Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 10:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Section "Weak interaction": The second paragraph doesn't make clear the connection to the first paragraph. We're talking about W bosons in both cases, after all.
Query: I've never understood why this article can't begin with a clear definition of a quark, such as here or here. Two subsequent sentences in the lead start with "because", and this article still lacks a clear and cohesive lead. Quarks are not rocket science: an older person who studied physics before quarks were observed should be able to read the lead and understand what changed when they were discovered and why it mattered. The lead isn't doing it; perhaps the authors don't remember how exciting the discoveries in the mid-90s were, or understand the context that should be established in the lead for older readers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Headbomb and I have tried to address this. I think that the third sentence is way too soon to mention such technical terms as "color confinement", considering that most people reading the lead word-by-word are likely to have never heard of quarks before. (People who already know what a quark is are likely to just skim the lead through and go to the TOC.) Now, such people would know almost exactly what the heck we're talking about by the end of the third sentence, provided they know what "subatomic particle", "matter", "proton", "neutron", and "atomic nucleus" mean. I think that the second sentence ("In technical terms, quarks ...") could be moved below, too, but I'm not sure about where to place it. --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 12:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, leaning Support Sandy beat me to it, dammit. I've been meaning to return to this article for three or four days. My main reservations two days ago (left unposted) were first that I didn't walk away from the lede knowing what a quark really was in relation to other subatomic particles and second that I wanted to see closure on all the objections by Markus to the refs. Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR) 20:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The fractional electric charge is one of the most peculiar features of quarks, do you people think it might be mentioned in the lead somehow? --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 11:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator - I have been meaning to set to work on some of the concerns mentioned, but I have been extremely busy, and unable to even edit let alone attend to the FAC. I hope to be back in a few days; until then, I hope you all understand and can bear with me. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—The mathematical notation and wording in the "Cabibbo angle and CKM matrix" section seems much too technical for the large majority of readers. I'm not clear what value this provides to an overview article. This by itself is sufficient to prevent me from supporting the article, without re-reading the remainder. Please see Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible.—RJH (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is practically unanimous consensus that the CKM matrix should be mentioned, but I didn't do that in the first place, because I tried to find a way to state what it is without using terms which only readers fluent in linear algebra and its application to QM can understand, such as "eigenstate", and without lying, but I failed. Is there a channeler around here who can ask Dick how he would explain that? --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 22:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think even Feynman could explain the CKM matrix in less than three or four paragraphs. I mean you can simply say something like "The CKM matrix is a way to keep track of how often the quarks decays into other quarks" (and it is said), but then you'd still haven't covered a thing about the CKM matrix and its importance. I would find it rather frustrating that this article fails its FAC because it is complete in coverage. There is no FAC criteria saying that articles should be dumbed down to the point that it becomes pablum. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well sorry we have to disagree on this, but my answer is no. Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible is a MoS criteria. I also think the notation fails WP:Explain jargon. Removing (or explaining) mathematics that only makes sense to a university upperclassman in physics is hardly dumbing it down. Your argument is hyperbole, and my objection remains unresolved. If you are going to include mathematics of that nature in the article, then you must make an effort to render it comprehensible to the majority of readers. "If you can't explain something to a first year student, then you haven't really understood it." ;-) —RJH (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." (Yes, that guy managed to explain how the principle of stationary action is a consequence of interference between wave functions in a way that even my mother would likely understand, so maybe he did understand it to some extent.) Well, we might start drawing a pair of Cartesian axes, labeled |d> and |s>, and another pair rotated by 13°, labeled |d'> and |s'>, showing that |d'> equals 0.974 times |d> plus 0.226 times |s>... Maybe I'm getting somewhere. But I don't know how far WP:NOR allows me to go with an intuitive explanation like that. --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 18:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In google books I seem to be able to find a number of works that explain the Cabibbo angle in a clearer manner. For example, just by writing the equation this way: , the math already seemed clearer, at least to me.—RJH (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see how that clarifies anything. or is exactly the same thing, with the later having the advanage of being the conventional way of writing things. As for google books, got links?.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—I was ready to support, but started to find too great a density of issues in the prose to do so. It requires another copy-edit by someone fresh to the text.
"Quarks (and antiquarks) are the only known particles whose electric charge is a fractional multiple of the elementary charge, although this can never be directly observed, as hadrons all have integer charge." The "as" causality has lost me, and it's still the lead. Can you be a little kinder to non-experts just here? Why does hadron integer charge preclude the observation of the elementary charge of a quark? (In addition, consider removing "all"; does "this" refer to "elementary charge" or "fractional multiple of the elementary charge"?
Because quarks are only found in hadrons, as the previous sentence says. --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 12:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC) (Headbomb moved the sentence higher, now it's clearer. --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 14:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Remove "the" from the last sentence in the lead.
This is clunky: "plus the unobserved (as of 2008) Higgs boson"; why not "plus the Higgs boson (unobserved as of 2008)"?
The flavour names are italicised in the first section, but roman in the lead. And are you going to use the symbols introduced in the lead?
You italicize words when you introduce them for the first time (that's what the <dfn> tag does in HTML), no point to always italicize them. --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 12:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for using the symbols, there is little point in using them in prose, but in places such as uud and in the indices of matrix entries they're useful. --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 14:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"All quarks of the same flavor are identical particles, meaning that all of their properties are the same." "Identical particles" links to a definition that does not specifically mention properties. Here, properties are elevated to the definitional. Why not "All quarks of the same flavor are identical particles with the same properties." Perhaps I'm not getting something here.
"they are subject to the Pauli exclusion principle, stating that no two fermions of the same flavor can ever simultaneously occupy the same state."—"..., which states that ...". What about three fermions? Why not remove "two"? Do you need "ever" as an amplifier?
Fragmented sentence structure: "This contrasts with particles that mediate forces: such particles are bosons, meaning that they have integer spin; the Pauli exclusion principle does not apply to them." Again, the ", meaning that ..." formula is used, possibly misleading us.
Given that "integer spin" is sometimes used as a definition of "boson", it's not misleading. But sometimes "symmetrical wave function" is used as a definition, so it isn't misleading even if the reader interprets "meaning" as "implying". Given that the two definitions are equivalent, there's no point in discussing which one is the right one. --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 14:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
" This interaction is the reason why quarks attract each other to form hadrons". Do we need both "reason" and "why"?
Ah, yes. Because the majority of the population writes poorly, so should we. As a writing teacher, I am saddened by that argument. Awadewit (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see nothing poorer in "the reason why" than in "the person who", or "the place where". --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 14:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They introduce redundancies and can be eliminated in favor of stronger, crisper writing. "This interaction is the reason why quarks attract each other to form hadrons" or "This interaction is the reason why quarks attract each other to form hadrons". ("France is the place where he went." "The person who won the election was Obama" -> "Obama won the election", etc.). BuddingJournalist 15:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"In the same way that the electric force is responsible for atoms attracting each other to form molecules, the strong interaction is responsible for protons and neutrons attracting each other to form atomic nuclei." The old noun + ing urchin, twice. "for the atomic attraction that brings atoms together to form molecules"? etc.
Do you really want to invent names such as "atomic attraction" even if almost no-one uses that name? (2,380 ghits for "atomic attraction", and many of the ones in the first page mean different things.) --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 14:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Elementary fermions are grouped into three generations, each one comprising two leptons and two quarks." Spot the redundant word. Tony(talk) 06:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like using "bare" adjectives as pronouns very much, but if our goal is to use as few words as possible, I'm removing that one. --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 14:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC) (It was already removed. --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 14:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
All that jazz about words and stuff is nice, but could we get to the real problems of this articles. Aka, the two [citation needed] tags, clarifying the contradiction between Gell-Man and Ne'eman in 1964 vs. Gell-Man and Zweig in 1964, writing in non-klingon, and addressing the ref issues? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I too am very keen on seeing Markus' concerns about the refs fully addressed. You know, Wikipedia is an imperfect process, and even at the FA level we field articles that probably could still be improved in some manner or other. And that's OK. But in general, in academic writing, the refs are sacrosanct, at least IMO. If they don't match the content, or if the content is not fully reflected in the refs, then the article cannot be FA. Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR) 21:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of withdrawal - I'm sorry to do this, but it's the right thing to do. I will be extremely busy until February because of personal commitments related to my schooling situation. I will literally be unable to edit any day until January 29. I therefore think it only right that I withdraw from this nomination, but it is certainly my intent to fix the problems and concerns brought up here as soon as I am able. I hope everyone understands. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment HB said: "I don't think even Feynman could explain the CKM matrix in less than three or four paragraphs. I mean you can simply say something like 'The CKM matrix is a way to keep track of how often the quarks decays into other quarks' (and it is said), but then you'd still haven't covered a thing about the CKM matrix and its importance."
Hey. People. I greatly fear my voice will be pooh-poohed here. In fact. I would bet on it. But it shouldn't. To paraphrase Feynman (if I followed the logic of the threads correctly): "I think I can safely say that this article doesn't need CKM in it." If it takes three or four paragraphs, then it needs its own article. End of story. Please see Wikipedia:Summary style, esp. the part that says: "The idea is to summarize and distribute information across related articles in a way that can serve readers who want varying amounts of detail." IF CKM isn't an example of a section where readers would want varying amounts of detail, then I don't know what is... So I repeat: This article does not need it or want it and should not have it. End of story. You can put in a few sentences about the importance of CKM and give its definition an oversimplified miss. It is safe and fair to give it a miss, since it needs its own article. Crap, you can even redlink CKM (I haven't looked to see if the article exists yet) and I would Support. Some person might Oppose based on 1b (Comprehensive), but that would be.. what's the word for "following rules in a single-minded manner, to the detriment of any meaningful measure of reality"? So. try to find a few sentences about the importance of CKM. Put in a definition like the one above about "a way to keep track of how often the quarks decays into other quarks" and state explicitly that this is an oversimplification. Fix the references of this article (absolutely required) then PASS it FA then work on the CKM article. I hope I can make you see the light with respect to the fact that any topic which requires so much explication does not belong in this article. It belongs in its own article. Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR) 01:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you noticed what is between the section header and the sentence "In 1963, Nicola Cabibbo ..."? --Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 01:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or for what matters what comes after? It was very jargon-y before, but things have been reworded to be more accessible to everyone. If you have a way to improve the section, go ahead I'm all ears, but it's completely unacceptable not to have a section on the CKM matrix, its signicance, its accounting of CP violation, and its prediction of the third generation of quarks. Not having it would be like not speaking of speciation on in the evolution article. By comparison, this section is IMO far more accessible to the layfolk than the Enzymatic function section in the Exosome complex article, riddle with unexplained jargon such as "These are all 3'-5' exoribonuclease domains, meaning the enzymes degrade RNA molecules from their 3' end." yet that one got featured too. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I were the author of this article, I would not include CKM subsection too. It introduces too much technical information, which is not interesting for a casual reader, who only wants to know what quark is. Ruslik (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because... I think this article has a very healthy amount of information, and is organized. I think this is an important historical event that many are uneducated about. Promoting this article to featured status will help get the education of this event out to people born from years 1984 to 2008. Rj1020 (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments The article uses the two most oft cited books on the disaster so I am fine with references. The pictures and prose are terrific and I like how the article is organized. I felt the lead was excellently done. I can not support at this time but hope to do so if a few small but important items are addressed:
Large sections of article text are uncited and they seem to be easy enough to cite to the two books used as references.
Some areas go into too much technical detail. This article is going to be read by people who are not interested in the minute and boring technicalities of the disaster and I felt the article could be trimmed with some of the explanations for the disaster summarized a little more. However, this is my personal opinion, not an FA criteria so there may be other reviewers who like your style and I would be fine with this article passing FA if others feel differently about this issue.
The sections "Comparisons with other disasters", "In the public consciousness", "Representation in games" and "Commemoration" are unnecessary and do not add anything of value to the article. I suggest that they be completely deleted. The "Commemoration" section might be OK to keep if you had a picture to put with the section otherwise I would reduce it to a sentence and include it in the last section of the article.
Query "The DSSS is a yellow steel object which has been placed next to the wrecked reactor; it is 63 metres (207 ft) tall and has a series of cantilevers which extend through the western buttress wall, and intended to stabilise the sarcophagus." This needs either is if the DSSS "is intended to stabilise the sarcophagus." or are if the cantilevers "are intended to stabilise the sarcophagus." ϢereSpielChequers 13:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bare urls in the references, as well as websites without publishers.
Basically, the references are a mess and with the large sections that are unreferenced, I must oppose on sourcing issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Format references per WP:CITE/ES to include publisher and access dates
"Further reading" goes after "References" per WP:LAYOUT
For "Commemoration of the disaster", is the subsection "Chernobyl 20" necessary when it's the only one in that section?
Comment Looks like a drive-by nom. BuddingJournalist 22:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: This is a very interesting article which has clearly been well-researched so it is unfortunate that so many important, and possibly controversial sections lack citations. The article is not ready to be considered for promotion, but I enjoyed reading it. I would be pleased to see a fully prepared version back at FAC in the future. Graham ColmTalk 16:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would suggest that the editors of this article read this dispatch on non-free images, as many of the images in this article are non-free. Each fair use rationale must include a very specific purpose of use (most of the images I looked at only had a vague statement that was entirely inadequate). Moreover, the idea is to use a limited number of fair use images in each article - it is important to remember than any printed or distributed version of Wikipedia will not include any fair use images. The use of fair use images in this article needs to be carefully assessed image by image by the editors and free equivalents need to be sought out. Awadewit (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for featured article.Tj terrorible1 (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Opppose
The lead is too short and doesn't properly summarize the article
The Role in The Simpsons section is overdetailing of minor things, and it only mentions a single post-season 11 episode. It's more of a glorified detailing of what he's done rather than actually being about his role in the show.
On that note, it isn't very well-written. There are too many short sentences and not many transitions.
The sections don't have proper introductions, for example, the "voice" section starts out "It is not easy for Dan Castellaneta ... " without any kind of introduction. On that note, there should be some more about Castellaneta.
The reception section is too small, I'm sure there has to be more out there about him.
In the "Merchandise" section, there are only statements backed up by NoHomers.net, which is a fan site. Is FilmCritic.com a RS either?
No personality section.
The article should follow mentioned titles with (season #, year) as in the FAs Homer Simpson and Bart Simpson
The nominator has ownership issues refuses to discuss things with other users and has reverted many attempts to clean up the page. For example, I got Risker, an excellent and experienced copyeditor to give the page a once-over and he has largely reverted back to "his" version. -- Scorpion0422 23:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Image:Barneyfirst.png is entirely replaceable by the line of text: "the original character had yellow hair," so NFCC #1 doesn't apply there. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I submitted this article for peer review about a week ago (a peer review which is now closed), and had the following impartial reviewer comment:
...upon review of the criteria at WP:FA? IMHO your article is 98% of the way there. In my book 98% is an A. So congratulations you have an article that needs a bit of work but is class A none the less. --Hfarmer (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
He does not seem to have a problem with the prose. And another reviewer stated that the article had "greatly" improved. Please also note that Scorpion is a biased reviewer, so take none of what he says into consideration.Tj terrorible1 (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Tj terrorible1 (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"so take none of what he says into consideration" And that's why this is going to fail. You're dismissing my comments outright without consideration. It's not like I said "opposing due to a lack of pictures of monkeys" or something ridiculous. All of my comments are either policy based, or based on other FAs that I have worked on. -- Scorpion0422 23:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Role section describes Barney's major appearances. He's had none since "Days of Wine and D'oh'ses", which is why there is no post-season 11 mentions. I don't believe that the Reception section is too small seeing how Barney is a peripheral character. (It's about as big as McClure's.) The same "supposed" NoHomers.net website you are referring to is one that is used in "A Streetcar Named Marge", which is a featured article. And does every character really need a personality section? IMO, there is no further content to be added.Tj terrorible1 (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Responses Actually, Troy's is twice the size (and to be fair, TM isn't really up to current standards, even the nominator admits this). And, it's not really a "role" section, it's basically just an appearances section. Who cares if NoHomers is being used in another FA (and I have removed it)? That's not the article being discussed here. Yes, every FA should have personality section (yes, many character pages don't, but that's because they were promoted a while back... And they aren't FAs). Many character FAs have a personality or characteristics section: Padmé Amidala, Jabba the Hutt (although they call it "characterization"), Jason Voorhees, Martin Keamy, Nikki and Paulo, Palpatine, Khan Noonien Singh (although they call it "analysis"). -- Scorpion0422 00:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ResponseTroy McClure does not have a Personality section and yet it's a featured article. Maybe I should get that article to be un-nominated.Tj terrorible1 (talk) 00:49, 30
True, but two more recent (and dare I say better) Simpsons FAs, Bart Simpson and Homer Simpson, DO have personality sections. As for your threat of getting Troy delisted, you could go for it, but may I point you towards WP:POINT. -- Scorpion0422 00:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: I don't see any chance of TM getting a personality section, all of his personality info is included in the role section. If you want to request its FARC, then please go for it, but that article is not relevant to this discussion. Gran2 10:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Scorpion0422. Tezkag72 03:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - My biggest problem with the article is the lack of reception. I'm sure you can find some analysis in Google Books, try this link. You need too fix the stuff Scorpion0422 pointed out as well. —TheLeftorium 08:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
Current ref 19 (McCann...) is lacking a page number
Otherwise, sources look okay, couldn't check links, the toolserver's down. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Went back and checked links with the link checker tool, and they all work. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response 1) When I see the criteria for an FA, IMO, this article meets all of them (although, I will admit that the lead can be expanded): It is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate (sources are verifiable and reliable), neutral, stable, structured appropriately, and with consistent citations. 2) Is the NoHomers website any less (or any more) accurate than the other one used, "Simpsons Collectors", which, by the way, doesn't even work any more. 3) I have tried finding Analysis on Barney (at GoogleBooks, by the way) and the most I could come up with is a single mention in a book about Irish stereotypes and a mere reference to the character in a book about TV town drunks.Tj terrorible1 (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing "Simpsons Collectors" used in the article as a reference. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. May I also suggest that the nominator not get defensive about comments made, but rather respond to them and attempt to work with the commentators to improve the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The website that I use in this article, "Simpsons Action Figure Information Station", is one, as I pointed out earlier, that was used in "A Streetcar Named Marge", which is an FA, until Scorpion tried to cover up his tracks by deleting it. The website was used as a source in the article the day it became featured. See for yourself.Tj terrorible1 (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Cover up his tracks", no I was agreeing with you.
Use in other FAs doesn't necessarily mean it's a reliable source. That FA was promoted in September 2007, sourcing wasn't necessarily checked back then. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the claim that it's well-written, I disagree. There are a lot of short setences in there, which disrupts the flow of the article. Also, a lot of the sections don't have proper introductions, they just jump into the middle of it. -- Scorpion0422 17:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
^"Spokane, WA MSA". Metro Area Membership Report. The Association of Religion Data Archives. 2000. Retrieved 2009-1-02. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
.svg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[78]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mayer-Vietoris_naturality.png){kind=link}
