Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/November 2007

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

The article was not promoted 02:22, November 27, 2007.

To Kill a Mockingbird[edit]

Self-nomination - I've worked on this article for several months, bringing it to GA status and improving it significantly since then. The novel is a top priority and I believe it should be featured... Moni3 (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Query I was looking at the sources in this article and they seemed a bit thin on the scholarship side. For example, have you seen Readings on To Kill a Mockingbird, edited by Terry O'Neill? When I searched the MLA database for "to kill a mockingbird", I found a bunch of articles not included here. Is that because they were unhelpful, unaccessible, or something else? I just want to understand how the sources were chosen for the article. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 02:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That book is not available to me. I just checked the library I use, which is a very large library. There are some parts of books and articles that I did read and decided not to use because they were so specific to one part of the book, or they were - I don't know how to describe this - an essay on the symbolism of right and left based on the testimony of Heck Tate and Mayella Ewell. Personal reflections on the book, the South African response to the book. I read a lot on it, but didn't feel that including everything was appropriate for an encyclopedic article. What I used was overriding in theme, or repeated by more than one reviewer. --Moni3 (talk) 03:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that not everything should be included ("encyclopedic" is a bit of a misnomer). However, I am curious why you chose (at times) to reference themes, for example, to newspaper articles rather than scholarly works, if you saw them repeated? I think you have precisely the right idea of using what is repeated. I think we as editors just have to be very careful what we use as sources for literature articles. What is a reliable source for a novel? I would argue that the scholarship published on it is the most reliable source. I also noticed that one entire subsection on the meaning of the novel's title has no sources. Without sources, this looks like original research, particularly statements such as "The mockingbird motif is used throughout the book to symbolize the innocence of various victims of injustice". No matter how obvious such a statement might seem, it must be sourced. Also, all quotations from the book must be sourced to an edition of the book. Lining up quotations with interpretations is also somewhat tricky. I tend to only use quotations I have seen others use. That way I cannot be accused of interpreting the text myself. How have you chosen your quotations? Awadewit | talk 04:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have sourced the quotes from the book, and contacted your talk page about MLA. I incorporated the statements about how the book was titled with the above section about "Death of innocence" to avoid redundant sourcing and writing. The quotes I used (about courage, about it's a sin to kill a mockingbird) from TKaM were used in the sources I claimed. I didn't choose them.--Moni3 (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With the helpful tip on MLA, I was able to request 7 articles or books I had not previously had access to. However, the search of the MLA database that brought me 42 responses, of those, five of them I cited. Three, I think, articles on the list I decided were inappropriate for the scope of the article (the aforementioned symbolism of right and left, for example), one was in Italian and one was in Chinese. So give me a couple days to go through a few more articles and I'll see what I can do to add to some scholarly references. --Moni3 (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might also try other search terms, such as "harper lee". And of course the bibliographies of the articles and the books will lead you to other sources. Oftentimes bibliographies are some of the most fruitful lists of sources. Awadewit | talk 22:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the fact that I included quite a few more articles as references, I will be adding more, but I can't until Sunday due to the library's being closed and other events beyond my control. --Moni3 (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not just about adding references, I'm afraid. It is clear that there is a sizable body of material that you have not read that needs to be read and pondered. You may need to rethink the structure of the article dramatically - research guides what information is included in an article and how it is structured. That is why it is so important to have good research. I would not expect that you would be able to read several articles and books, analyze their worth for the article, integrate the useful material, and the polish the writing in the space of 2-3 weeks here at FAC. Awadewit | talk 01:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that sizable, really. Honestly, it isn't. Depressing, but true. Unless the article is to be centered on how TKaM is a legal literary work, the many ways a teacher can use TKaM as a lesson in Language Arts (there is a sizable amount of info at NCTE.org), or I should expand the film portion of the article, there's maybe half a dozen, ten at the most, more articles I need to read, ponder, and determine if they are an appropriate fit in this article - and many of those are from Southern Literary Journal. I looked up "Harper Lee" in the MLA database, and I'll read what there is more for her, but I am finding that I am going beyond bibliographies. When a work references another, I go off and read it. I'm running out of references to go off and read. --Moni3 (talk) 05:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While there is much solid information in this article and I know that this editor has put a great deal of effort into this article, I am not confident that it is as well-researched as it could be (see above), it is not yet comprehensive, and it could be organized better.
In light of the changes I have made for the FAC review, I no longer consider the article to be encyclopedic (which I rather thought was the point). It now rivals literary articles written about it, in my opinion, and my opinion counts a lot since I've read so many of these literary articles about this book.--Moni3 (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure what you mean here. The best literature articles on wikipedia rely on published literary scholarship as the foundation of the article (WP:RS) but make that scholarship understandable and accessible to the lay reader. Awadewit | talk 01:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Encyclopedic", to me at least, means an article to is a general overview of the topic, including many viewpoints but rarely an in-depth look at the subject. It provides references for folks who are curious to go search on their own if they want to learn more. Having read all these articles, this one on Wikipedia is fast approaching its own literary article instead of general overview. --Moni3 (talk) 05:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we all agree that "encyclopedic" means a general overview, but wikipedia's FAs have come to have a much higher standard than even Enyclcopedia Britannica's articles. They are often much more in depth. Obviously we want to be sure that readers can still understand the material, but there is no reason to restrict ourselves to cursory information anymore since "wikipedia is not paper". Moreover, if wikipedia wants to supplant these other reference sources, it has to be better - not just the same. Awadewit | talk 07:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Background" section does not prepare the reader for the biographical data - readers have come to the article for information about the novel, so the section needs to explain why it is giving biographical information rather than just dive right in.
  • The "Background" section is choppy and frequently does not explain to readers the reason the information is being offered. For example, details about Lee's family are offered, but not the explicit connections to the novel.
I have split the background section and moved the character inspiration portions below the plot summary.--Moni3 (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is still a problem - there is extraneous information that is directly connected to the novel. Select only the most relevant information to the construction of the characters. Not all biographical data has to be retained. Remember, there is also Harper Lee. Awadewit | talk 05:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What parts of the Autobiographical elements section do you consider irrelevant? --Moni3 (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much rewriting of the "Autobiographical elements" section needs to happen. The basic information is there, but it needs to be arranged in a more organized fashion and it needs to flow better. For example:
  • Choppy: Lee has said that the novel is not an autobiography, but rather that one "should write about what he knows and write truthfully."[7] Her father, Amasa Coleman Lee, was an attorney and editor and publisher of the Monroeville newspaper. - These two sentences don't flow together very well yet.
  • Not tied to novel: She had a brother, Edwin, four years her senior. A black housekeeper came once a day to take care of the house and family. Her mother was prone to a nervous condition and if not physically absent, was mentally and emotionally absent.
  • Choppy: Capote (who was known as Truman Persons then) served as the model for Dill. - No transition into next paragraph.
  • Information on Capote is not tied to novel.
  • First and fourth paragraphs deal with inspiration for main story line - why not integrate these paragraphs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awadewit (talk • contribs) 02:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest deleting the "Character" list, as it repeats much information from the "Plot summary" (it also makes the page resemble SparkNotes rather than an encyclopedia entry). Since there is a link to List of characters in To Kill a Mockingbird, that can be placed in the "Plot summary" section.
This has been removed, with the main|character list link still intact.--Moni3 (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Themes" section is sourced to a bit of jumble of reviewers and scholars. The prose even reflects this. The beginning of the section and the subsection "Southern life through a child's eyes", for example, emphasize what reviewers thought about the novel. Might not reviewers' comments be better placed in a "Reception" section?
I think it bears pointing out that the themes of the novel have evolved since its publication. There were two repeated comments on the book by reviewers: it was a cute story about growing up in the South, and it was a plea for racial justice. Time giving critics some room to reflect, this helps to expand on further themes that may apply 50 years later (and more). If I need to make this clearer, I can, but the evolution of its reception has value, in my opinion. --Moni3 (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is an important point, but I think that it makes more sense in a "reception" section, as it demonstrates how the reception of the book has changed over time, if you see what I mean. I wouldn't delete the material, just frame it differently. Awadewit | talk 04:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The themes section has been significantly expanded with references to scholarly articles.--Moni3 (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it is still largely framed in terms of reviewers - this is confusing for readers who do not really grasp the difference. Awadewit | talk 02:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The genre of the novel is not explained at all - a brief passing comment to bildungsroman and the Southern gothic, but no section.
I'm using other FA novels as guides here, not having written one already. There are no sections for genre in Uncle Tom's Cabin, Starship Troopers, The Well of Loneliness, or The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Is a section for genre necessary for FAC, or can you be more specific as to what is necessary? --Moni3 (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle Tom's Cabin does discuss its genre (the sentimental novel) in its "Style" section. The Lord of the Rings should most definitely have a genre section, as it is largely credited with inventing the fantasy genre. I notice it does have an "influence on the fantasy genre" section. I would have to read the whole article to see if anything is missing. Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman and Mary: A Fiction both discuss genre as well.
Well, as you know - you wrote those two articles. And as The Lord of the Rings Trilogy includes a section on how it has affected the fantasy fiction genre, a discussion of its own genre isn't quite as in depth. As well, the style of Uncle Tom's Cabin is the section where genre is discussed, and the genre of TKaM is discussed in the Themes section. Lee, apparently did not think her novel was a Southern Gothic, and it is most probably worth it to discuss this, which I will, but I'm trying to understand what will exclude the article; what is an absolute, if such a thing exists in FAC. --Moni3 (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are no absolutes in FA-land and we should always strive to write the best articles possible, no matter how far short others have fallen. :) A discussion of a novel should always include a discussion of its genre. This is simply good literary criticism. I don't have a problem with having a "Style" section which discusses the genre (I did this as well). It's just that now there is no real discussion of genre in the article. What Lee thinks about her book is interesting and worth including, but, of course, not the end of the matter. Awadewit | talk 22:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The aesthetic of the novel is also not addressed at all - this could be part of genre, but something needs to be said about the writing style.
Much more has been done with this now - nice work. However, explaining terms like bildungsroman and Southern Gothic for the reader is a must. Awadewit | talk 05:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both genres have been expanded and defined. --Moni3 (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they have, but you have used wisegeek.com as one of your sources, a clearly unreliable website when you look at their contributors. Also, the paragraph on genre should be clearly marked as such for ease of reading. The Southern Gothic paragraph right now is a bit of a jumble. You don't seem to be truly rewriting - you are just adding and moving around. This article needs to be redrafted in parts - that takes time. Awadewit | talk 02:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article names a lot of lists the novel has appeared on - readers are overwhelmed. Explain the significance of these lists and pick a few select ones.
There are now four lists in the Reception section, and one in the Themes section (in Southern Gothic discussion, with an explanation). I think it shows the impact the book has had to have been included on multiple "Best of" lists. I think they should stay the way they are. --Moni3 (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I read the first three paragraphs of "Reception", however, the statistics start to blend together. If you want to keep all of these stats, you have to find a way to make them distinct. Awadewit | talk 02:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several paragraphs within "literary significance and criticism" that could be combined with material from "After publication" and material from "Themes" to make a much more coherent "Reception" section. Right now, that material is sprinkled throughout the article.
I have created a Reception portion and combined some paragraphs from "literary significance" with "after publication".--Moni3 (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would also suggest moving the first three paragraph from "Literary significance" to "Reception" and moving "Reception" up before "Film adaptations". Awadewit | talk 05:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has been done. --Moni3 (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would still frame the "Reception" section using the material you have from actual critics, rather than using that material in the "Themes" section. It makes more sense, in my opinion. You would be tracking what is called the "reception history" of the book. Right now, I still can't quite follow the organizational structure of the article - it's better, but still not there. Awadewit | talk 02:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the Capote authorship faux-dispute deserve its own subsection? Surely not.
While I agree with not making an issue out of a non-issue, I came across the rumors repeatedly when researching the book, and as Capote's father was apparently spreading the rumors, they have become a part of the novel's lore. I felt it was worth it to address the rumors as false. That it got its own section is more an issue of organization in that section than a statement about how important the issue is. --Moni3 (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. It just seemed like a lot of information was provided on something that is clearly untrue, if you know what I mean. Is there an undue weight problem here, I wonder? Perhaps paring the section down a bit...Oxford doesn't get this much credit in Shakespeare. :) Awadewit | talk 22:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also balancing the suggestions of other editors, one of which was to expand the controversy section. The Capote rumor was at one point in the article a single sentence, and another editor commented that it wasn't detailed enough either to describe the rumor or dispel it. Instead, I hope to have unequivocally discounted it. (Shakespeare would also be all over the internet had he written within the past 50 years, and the object of his rumor was an outlandish, if charming, liar who played the talk show circuit constantly.) --Moni3 (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Atticus Finch stands as one of the most memorable models of a lawyer-hero, in direct contrast to the popular depiction of lawyers as unscrupulous and models of greed. As such, the book's impact on the legal profession cannot be underestimated. - statements like this bother me - they seem a bit too general
I have changed the wording in this section to be more specific, despite opinion Which it read better in its original format ;) --Moni3 (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After publication" - This section seems unnecessary. The material about reception can be placed elsewhere and the biographical material belongs in the Harper Lee article.
See comment above. --Moni3 (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also a recommend a copy edit by someone unfamiliar with the article. I kept noticing sentences that had the most important elements at the end and other small errors of emphasis that someone who hasn't been poring over the article for weeks on end could easily fix.

This article has a lot of potential. I just don't think it is quite ready for FA yet. I hope these suggestions were helpful - I tried to be as detailed as possible. Awadewit | talk 05:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on it...--Moni3 (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Awadewit | talk 22:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what this means. Much of what Awadewit opposes has been changed. I added a section and restructured much more of it since the original opposition, and have had another editor tell me the changes were unnecessary. I need to know what to improve for this process. --Moni3 (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that the editor withdraw the nomination for now. As research is ongoing, substantial reorganizing is taking place, and copy editing will have to take place, the article doesn't seem quite ready for FAC. Working on these changes in a less pressure-filled environment than FAC is often beneficial. Awadewit | talk 05:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read your comment and will take it under advisement.--Moni3 (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After advisement, the committee thought it more prudent to continue working on it while the committee has the time off of work to do so and the resources, and it doesn't feel like nominating it again. The committee urges a re-evaluation of the article, or in the immortal words of Atticus Finch, "I'll kick your ass!" (that was a joke, for people who can't read irony) --Moni3 (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would also endorse a withdrawal. I like the article and I think it's very important – so I'd be willing to donate some time to it. However, I really don't like peer-reviewing articles at FAC, so while I won't officially oppose here, I will second Awad's suggestion and leave my offer on the table if/when this process is closed. – Scartol • Tok 23:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's unfortunate on many levels. I asked for a peer review before it went to GA review, and didn't get a very satisfactory one: one response, with the suggestion that I find more sources, particularly from one I had cited five times. Even the GA reviewer didn't seem to be knowledgeable about what makes a GA novel. I asked three active members of WP:Novels on their talk pages to give it a peer review, including Awadewit, after it earned a GA, and got a very good set of suggestions - by Yllowsubmarine. I followed those, waited and pondered a bit, and nominated it here. I understand FAC is not the best place for a peer review, but what other process should I have followed? Your volunteering to assist suggests it's still not in the right state to pass as FA. What needs to be done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moni3 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would re-urge the editors to withdraw this nomination, particularly in light of Scartol's offer to help. Articles that are at the research stage should not be at FAC since research is the foundation of any good article. (By the way, what committee?) Awadewit | talk 01:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I wasn't part of the process before it reached FAC; I know how frustrating it is to get little or no support on the path (though you were lucky to cross paths with the mighty Awadewit!). I do think the article is not in the right state to pass as an FA. It needs more images, the prose is clunky (in "Background", why does the bit about Huntington College interrupt a description of the writing process?), and I'd like to see the references cleaned up. (It's much neater to have a separate Bibliography list, with single-word citation references to it – see The Age of Reason. Also there's a single URL as a reference, which is yucky to mine eyes.) These are quick observations based on a cursory read-through; I'm sure I'll find more things to complain about in a more detailed review. I do think this article is close, and I very much want to see it featured; but in my opinion it's not there yet. – Scartol • Tok 01:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(indent reset)Reply to Scartol: Images - I perused other FA novels. There are nine total and three of those published within the past 50 years. Starship Troopers has 2 images, and right now TKaM has three. The majority of the other images for the other two modern fiction books are book covers. Can I include multiple book covers? I already included several screenshots of the movie, but another editor removed them. Die Another Day includes movie screenshots, but that's a GA. There are beautiful shots of Lee with her father at Getty Images. I've written to them to ask if I could use it and they did not respond. --Moni3 (talk) 05:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References - So I can clean up the references and make them the way you like them. I just need to find the page numbers, which will take me only a couple hours. I've already started that. That single URL was actually a .php in an otherwise clean reference. The php references don't like to word wrap in a cite web format (or any other format, it seems). --Moni3 (talk) 05:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Clunky" will not do, in any way. I included a segue for the paragraph in question. --Moni3 (talk) 05:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Awadewit - I am the committee. It makes me feel more important to attend meetings. --Moni3 (talk) 05:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to both - I have read your points, and I do understand them. I do not wish to be a pain in the ass, but here is where I have gotten the most feedback on this article. I think I'd rather make out with a clown than de-nominate this article, and I hate clowns. I've read a lot on this book. I mean - a lot. In another way, I wish to big a rather big pain in the ass, being the automath I am, in light of the fact that all 9 FA novels are so dissimilar and this process is quite subjective, and at times apparently whimsical. I use the other 9 FA novels as guides, but they are all so unique, and there is much to this book that sets it apart and incomparable to the other 9. To my mind, the structure of the article fits the information available for the novel. It seems to me what I must do is find what each of you wants to see personally. I will do it if told. --Moni3 (talk) 05:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Try to understand my reluctance here - you are claiming that you have read "a lot" on this book yet just a few days ago you did not know what the MLA database was - the most important database for searching for sources on literary topics. This is in no way your fault, but it does bring into question whether or not you really have read "a lot" or done enough research. I applaud your efforts to immediately begin researching in this new database, but as an active researcher myself I am skeptical of anyone's ability to absorb so much information and decide on its relevance so quickly.
  • Second, I would suggest that you stop trying to compare this article to other FAs. You are correct that they are dissimilar - there is little to be gained, in my opinion, in poring over FAs and trying to make this one "match". You need to think very carefully about how to make this article the best it can possibly be. You seem to be trying to do this - perhaps articulating for us why you have the sections you do and in that order would help us understand your conception of the article?
  • I share your concerns that FAC can be arbitrary and subjective (I've had people oppose FACs I brought based on national varieties of English and on dashes in the footnotes), but I am rather surprised that you would consider such basic considerations as genre and style (topics I asked you to add) as something so subjective. These are fundamental topics when discussing literature and form the foundation of any "introduction to literature" class, for example. One of the first questions one asks of a text when one begins to analyze it is: what is its genre? (novel, poem, short story, etc.) That is why discussing genre, for example, is so crucial. Awadewit | talk 07:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My final reply here: I'm not sure why it's a problem to withdraw the FAC. Al Ameer son and I withdrew the nom for Yasser Arafat because I wanted to do a more extensive peer review, and after some retooling it went on to become an FA. I think the same process would make sense here. I shan't reply to the specific items you mentioned, Moni, because I really don't like doing reviews at FAC. – Scartol • Tok 14:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot keep re-reading this article everyday. I am confident that I have provided more than enough direction for the editor as well as more than enough explanation for my "oppose". These changes cannot be made quickly - they require time because they require redrafting. Awadewit | talk 02:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I have not seemed appreciative, that is my fault. I thank you very much for what pointers you have been able to give the article. I continue to work on it. --Moni3 (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Missing citations: not a single one in the 'Plot summary' section (who's to say it's not a hoax?); and a few other odd unreferenced claims throughout the article (ex. Brock Peters also attended the affair, just months before his own death).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is my understanding that the plot summary needs no citations unless there are quotes directly from the book. As for the issue regarding the reference to Brock Peters, this is a question about style: the reference for that statement is the sentence directly preceding that. If, say, I have three sentences back to back that can be attributed to one source, and one is a quote, must there be a reference for each sentence? That would seem to pack the article with references to the point of distraction. --Moni3 (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not this is the correct policy, it would indeed seem that plot summaries are not sourced. I think this is because they are supposed to be straightforward descriptions that are not controversial claims. (I have a lot to say about plot summaries, but this is not the place.) Awadewit | talk 02:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what's going on here, but this nomination was never submitted to WP:FAC, so I'm archiving it now. If a FAC is the intent, the nomination needs to be submitted to WP:FAC. I'm curious at how people are coming to this FAC since it's not at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ah, now I see it was removed by the nominator without being archived, so I shall have to botify and close the previous FAC manually.[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:06, 28 November 2007.

Half-Life 2: Episode One[edit]

Valve's first foray into episodic gaming and the first expansion to the multi-award winning Half-Life 2. Though it is a short article, I believe it comprehensively covers the game and is a suitable candidate for featured status. Qjuad 22:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I have to say great work here. All of the expectations I had before clicking on the article were met. Lead adquately summarizes the article. The plot section isn't bloated with unnecessary detail and good level of reputable citations. In particular, the development and critical reception sections are quite thorough. Wisdom89 17:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The gameplay section is lacking, it should elaborate more on the "single player co-op" style of gameplay and touch on sections that highlight this such as the flashlight co-op sections. The in-game commentary provides insight into these areas of gameplay. You should move the Zombine into the gameplay section too, and make a distinction between that, and the 2 creatures introduced, but not fought (the Hunters, and the Advisor). - hahnchen 20:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The gameplay section has been expanded and additional references added. Qjuad 21:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have access to the game? There's a lot that can be gleaned from the commentary nodes provided in game, especially when talking about the new types of gameplay and their design ideas. The Episode One commentary track is already referenced in the article, but as a single reference, it would be a lot more helpful if the node numbers were mentioned, such as you would mention page numbers when referencing a book.
Comment - I have seperated the commentaries into their respective chapter. However, providing the number of the nodes would prove difficult as the number order is not universal to the chapter but the specific map. Qjuad 01:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through some of the plot, and it's weak. Some sentences seem trivial and pointless, such as the "Alyx mourns..." line. All you need to state is that the train derails, and they're forced to flee on foot. And yet, it doesn't elaborate enough on the greater themes of the game and setting. It should stress that the Combine were deliberately accelerating the meltdown of the reactor in order to transmit a message. The Breen/Advisor video, is not as important development wise as the Mossman video, yet no mention is made of that. The overall theme of the game is the aftermath of the Resistance victory on City 17 as it desolves into chaos with the Combine in disarray. There are many instances of this, such as the Resistance having taken over the PA systems, but others should be mentioned. The Zombine, antlions making their way into the city, out of ammo sentry guns, the hazy air and sky all seek to accentuate this. - hahnchen 00:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Have begun to modify the plot section and remove redundancies, and have increased the gameplay section with comments from the developers in the commentary and previews regarding the re-design of the Citadel and City 17 to reflect the changes from Half-Life 2. Qjuad 01:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How many games has this sold? hbdragon88 05:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose until this is clarified. Cannot call it comprehensive without this information. hbdragon88 22:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I don't believe this information has been released by Valve. While retail figures may have, I don't think sales over Steam have been or will be which prevents any comprehensive coverage on how many copies have been purchased overrall. Qjuad 12:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If Valve is being super special awesome secretive about it, there's nothing can be done. Do you have the retail figures at least, then? hbdragon88 19:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commment The fact of the matter is that these figures will ultimately be released and available. Once they are, they can be included in the article - if you can concede that, then you might want to rescind your oppose and switch to support - that is, if this is the only information causing you to oppose the FAC nom. Just my two cents. Wisdom89 19:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Comprehensive and nicely written. Axl 17:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pass & support

  • On the basis that it's acceptable. Learnedo 08:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After a quick read, this is a pretty good article and looks informative. Though I think it could use some organization to make it to FA.

  1. The "Plot" section makes little mention of the setting of the game and seems to require knowledge of the previous games. Maybe take the current content and put it under a subsection, "Story", and above it create a new subsection, "Setting" and possibly "Characters", to give a bit more background information to the story.
  2. The "Gameplay" section could use a screen shot that helps depict what the average gameplay looks like. If the gameplay is very similar to Half-Life 2, then I would think about trimming the content down and put a See also link to the "Gameplay" section of Half-Life 2.
  3. The "Awards" section is a bit sparse compared to the "Critical response" section. Maybe remove the subsections and integrate the content into three paragraphs that are more evenly sized.
  4. Given the size of the "Soundtrack" section, it may be best to move it into a subsection of the "Development" and rename it "Audio". Also maybe split the soundtrack list into two columns.
  5. And of course, additional reliable sources never hurt an article and further help establish creditability.

My two cents (Guyinblack25 talk 18:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  • Comment - Guy is right, in that the Soundtrack section seems out of place. Is there anything else that can be said about the soundtrack? Is the track listing even important to the article? - hahnchen 18:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The soundtrack section has been merged into the development section - ultimately the soundtrack is unneeded, plus it is listed in the composer article. Qjuad 14:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—Prose could do with fresh eyes throughout. For example:
    • "fight to the surface"?
    • MOS: no final period if caption not a real sentence.
    • Long snakes need dividing for the sake of our readers: "After some initial confusion, sparked partly with an attempt at humour by PC Gamer UK, which suggested that Alyx was Episode One's playable character,[25] it was confirmed that players would indeed play as Gordon Freeman – unlike the original Half-Life expansion packs, which all dealt with different characters." Here's another, just below: "As the character of Alyx accompanies the player for the vast majority of Episode One aiding in puzzle solving and combat situations, Valve made major modifications to her AI throughout development that allowed her to react to the players actions - such as commentating on objects the player manipulates or obstacles they have overcome. She also acts as an important device in both plot exposition and directing the player's journey, often vocalizing what the player is required to do next in order to progress.[19]" And see MOS on em dashes, please.
    • 'hero moments'—see MOS on double quotes and "Words as words" italics. Your choice, but not singles.
    • "The developers explained a large part of their focus was creating not only a believable companion for the player, but also one that did not obstruct the player's actions; allowing them to dictate". You must insert "that" before "explained". See why? I don't mind the singular they nowadays, but does "them" refer to the companion? Make it clear by rewording. Tony (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have begun to make the needed edits. Qjuad 18:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:06, 28 November 2007.

Trade routes[edit]

This good article article is both self contained and informative. It includes images and is well sourced according to WP standards. Havelock the Dane Talk 19:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this article be called Trade route? Pagrashtak 21:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Historically, any route of note was a series of routes. The ArchAtlas and Mat Ciolek also seem to favor the "routes."
Havelock the Dane Talk 21:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then, why those routes of note are called incense route, silk route etc. and not incense routes, silk routes, if this is the case? DSachan 21:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its more convenient to use "Silk Route" as a term which may mean many locations, sometimes many modern nation states fall under the boundaries of the same convenient term. That's for Silk Route (one entity one term), when we're talking specifically about "Trade routes" in general even the arteries within the Silk Route or the Roman India routes for that matter are covered using "routes." ([2][3] Press CTRL+F for "routes" using these Metropolitan Museum of Art links). Trade routes is a very broad term, and the routes themselves are rarely as well laid out for studies as the Grand Trunk Road or the Silk Route. In most cases we have an idea and a probable network and that's it. The use of "routes" is universally applicable to most cases, with names and definitions or without them.
Havelock the Dane Talk 01:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other examples may include this and this. "Trade routes" is especially more useful since we're dealing with the subject of multiple routes, and their place in world system history, and not just one route or one entity.
Havelock the Dane Talk 02:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That the article discusses multiple routes doesn't matter. Wikipedia uses the singular form. For example, cat discusses multiple types of cats, but the article is not called "cats". There are cases where the plural form is acceptable, but so far I'm not convinced that this is one of those cases. Pagrashtak 05:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the mentioned points:
* The ArchAtlas Project has a page tiled Trade "Routes": THE GROWTH OF GLOBAL TRADE.
* Dr T. Matthew Ciolek has a project titled Old World Trade "Routes" (OWTRAD) Project.
* Ancient Trade "Routes" between Europe and Asia: Department of Ancient Near Eastern Art, The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
* Minnesota State University website has a paper titled Trade "Routes."
I have been reading a lot about trade routes during the past couple of months and I can't think of any title that started with trade "route." Instead of letting this one become the first, I would like to play it safe and follow prev examples.
Havelock the Dane Talk 10:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would vote to Rename as "Trade route". The examples you cited seem to be articles about many trade routes, as opposed to having articles on each trade route, and wikipedia is not like that. (although incidentally this doesn't talk much about the subject "trade route" but does talk about subject trade routes. --Keerllston 20:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article, like the ones cited above, is about many trade routes as well. Havelock the Dane Talk 18:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter what other papers are called—we must follow Wikipedia naming guidelines. If the sentence "This road is a trade route" is correct (as opposed to "Thus road is a trade routes") then the article should be called Trade route, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals). Pagrashtak 22:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The other papers give us a solid idea of what we're looking for. If we take "This road is a trade route" example then we must also take the example that "XYZ is a Romance language" (note that the Romance language article is titled Romance languages). There are notable exceptions.
Changing the title doesn't make any difference to the content and the change requires minimum effort. My concern is that by making such a change we will be publishing an article which does not follow prev examples and goes on to set its own, original one.
Havelock the Dane Talk 12:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Romance languages is a language family, which is one of the listed exceptions. Trade routes is not a language family, so that has no bearing here. Are you seriously saying that titling this article "trade route" constitutes original research? Pagrashtak 16:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have prev examples ? Then why not cite them here ?
Listen,
The title of the essay is of little consequence, what matters is the actual content. If you still want to move it to "route" then get a few prev examples. I'll be glad to get this over with and improve the "FA" chances for the article that I worked so hard on and which stands to lose the FA nom based on the tiniest thing.
Havelock the Dane Talk 06:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you're concerned with previous examples. My reasoning is based on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals). Pagrashtak 21:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're repeating yourself here when we have exceptions.
You're suggesting a move without providing prev examples of such a title being used for an essay on the same subject elsewhere.
Havelock датчанин 01:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm repeating myself because you keep asking the same question. To repeat yet again, I realize there are exceptions. This is not one of them. Essays are irrelevant, only Wikipedia policy. Pagrashtak 01:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try and cool down, I'm not your enemy and I have valid concerns. You think I would hurt the "FA" chances of an article for which I put in 50,470 bytes worth of cited effort if I didn't have them? I understand that you will stick to your guns when you say things like "Essays are irrelevant."
The current title does not violate any WP policy and follows prev examples instead of setting its own original ones.
Peace, Havelock датчанин 02:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to cool down, I'm not upset. I looked back though the history and saw that this article was in fact located at trade route until you moved it last month, so I've reverted that move per Wikipedia naming conventions, as mentioned above. If you insist on pursuing this, I would suggest bringing this up at Wikipedia:Requested moves to get other opinions. Pagrashtak 16:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If unilateral move wars are the way to proceed here then I withdraw from this FA nomination.
I urge the concerned authorities to kindly judge the article in its present stage as my involvement in this process is finished.
With Regards,
Hαvεlok беседа мансарда 18:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object[Mostly Outdated Comment--Keerllston 20:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)] [1b -Comprehensiveness] I like the way it's written - the images are mostly gorgeous, books are cited, it's very nice, and it is work on a vital subject.[reply]
Modern routes is tiny, has no main article, could turn huge, modern trade routes include the exremely notable Suez and Panama Canals.
Most of the articles is on "Historic Trade Routes" - I would suggest renaming the article that, and the category that, but I'm guessing you wouldn't like that "solution".
It seems there is no note on why people went so far from one place to another. The Trade article, History of international trade, Economic history are much more incomplete, which is unfortunate.
Missing: Roman Highways? wagonways? Rail transport by country? Highways?
It seems to need a lot of work to be comprehensive, and don't give me "it will always need a lot of work to be comprehensive".
I like the subject, I think it's rather important in "Economic History".
--Keerllston 20:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really never give the "it will always need a lot of work to be comprehensive" line to anyone. Roman Roads, Suez Canal, Panama Canal, wagonways etc. sound good. Rail transportation is already covered but a {{Main|Rail Transport}} template, among others, may solve most of our problems. I'll get down to it soon and expand the article accordingly.
I think that the reason why people went from one place to other was simply to trade, bring in stuff from other regions and eventually other cultures, and their frequented overland/maritime paths became known as trade routes. The Development_of_trade_routes section gives an idea on how arteries were developed for trade.
Havelock the Dane Talk 08:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
haha, perhaps you don't give that line.
Why trade routes? Right- to trade, and they wanted to trade because? I mean, we're talking about across thousands of miles, across desert, across oceans. People don't suffer these hardships for little reason. Building Railroads, Highways, are expensive and difficult. Point is, This is mainly about various trade routes, and little about what it means to be a trade route. Current items in trade routes: oil, computers, drugs, diamonds, wheat. Things which are readily available in one place and in demand, scarce, in another. This is a rather important fact, and it is not quite noted. (currently it says "goods to reach distant markets")
Perhaps a section (perhaps "Definition") for defining what a trade route is exactly would help.
--Keerllston 03:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The development section does detail out some points regarding this, exemplified by lines such as: "Maritime trade began with safer coastal trade and evolved with the manipulation of the monsoon winds, soon resulting in trade crossing boundaries such as the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal."
I think we can include specific links in the external link section for definitions etc. since the article covers short distance routes and local routes and makes it clear that "With productive developments in iron and bronze technologies, newer trade routes — dispensing innovations of civilizations — began to rise slowly."
I'll get to work on the modern routes sections (my system just recovered from a major bug or something) and it would probably be a good idea to have subsections here (railways, wagonways, pipelines, highways, air, maritime etc.). Each providing info on major goods etc.
Havelock the Dane Talk 12:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The definition is covered by the first footnote and opening paras but I have done some massive expansion in order to address some concerns. The diffs are given here.
22:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Roman road system, wagonways, Panama canal and the Suez canal are in the article right now. The links can be accessed from within the section without using the potentially messy {{Main|XYZ}} tags.
Havelock the Dane Talk 18:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support better than a lot of FAs. Excellent work. Perspicacite 21:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild object The Silk Route is probably the most famous of the historical trade routes, and is probably worth mentioning in the lead. I would also like to see the article refer to the canal networks of the 18th/19th centuries, and a brief mention of modern long-distance highways / air-trade. Bluap 18:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a mention in the lede: "Historically, the period from 1500 BCE–1 CE saw the Western Asian, Mediterranean, Chinese and Indian societies develop major transportation networks for trade."
The Silk Route was huge, as were the Incense Route and the Roman-India routes, but we can't mention every trade route from these civilizations in the lede (there are simply too many) so the best thing is to mention that these societies were in an advanced stage of trade route development and explain the astounding significance of these routes, including the fabled Silk Route, in later sections.
Canal routes are in the article now. Havelock the Dane Talk 18:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only time I see canals mentioned are for the Suez and Panama canal. I still don't see any mention of canal networks as a predecessor to rail networks for long-distance inland transport of heavy goods. Bluap 19:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I'm talking about things such as 18th-century Russia having a nationwide canal system connecting the Baltic and Caspian seas via the Neva and Volga rivers. Bluap 19:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about the Erie Canal? Where will this end? List of canals in the United States? Mattisse 19:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The EB does mention Wagon-train migrations playing an essential role in an expanding America before the railroad and the article has been used as a source for "Wagon freighting was also essential to American growth until it was replaced by the railroad and the truck." but I'm not aware of canals as predecessors to rail networks for long-distance inland transport of heavy goods.
Aren't they water based ?
Havelock the Dane Talk 19:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, Suez and the Panama are adequate examples of such routes. More can be found by just clicking the canals link.
Havelock the Dane Talk 19:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that my problem is two-fold: 1) Both of these canals are relatively modern; 2) Both of these canals help to expand sea-based trade routes, as opposed to earlier canals, which helped to expand river-based trade routes, by linking rivers that flow in opposite directions. (Canals were also useful as local distribution networks, but that is outside the the scope of this article) Bluap 19:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I still feel that the article could have done without this expansion I've used EB to address raised concerns. Havelock the Dane Talk 20:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would always advise to go with your judgement, unless (of course) you judge your judgement to be worse. If you didn't think it was necessary you shouldn't have made the changes, stating that the objections were unreasonable and why they were unreasonable. I think it fits with the "Be Bold" policy.--Keerllston 01:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies to user:Bluap if I appeared rude or appeared to be lacking in judgment. I'm still new here and am still learning the ropes, so to speak. All I wanted to say is that at 40,876 bytes we already had a long article and only the most necessary changes should now be made to it. There is room for more changes but if they are covered by an existing link then we should think twice before placing them. Right now we have the luxury of thinking twice but still going ahead and placing the edit since the article is large but not prohibitively so.
Once again, my apologies for any inappropriate wording on my part.
Havelock the Dane Talk 12:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NB: the above comment by Mattisse was moved by myself (Bluap), since the original positioning of the comment made it look as if Havelock the Dane was responding to Matisse's comment, rather than my own. Bluap 02:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good work on the comprehensiveness issues so far. I'm pretty much willing to support, but what about mentioning the historic and modern environmental impact of trade routes? Historically of course, the impact is usually limited to the actual path of the route. But in modern times, with the mass shipping of commercial goods being a significant contributor in greenhouse gas emissions, it really is a global issue. Anyway, I don't need a whole new section, but at least a few sentences on environmental impact issues are necessary. VanTucky Talk 00:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will get to it soon. If I don't log in unexpectedly then its my PC acting up again in which case my edits might take a day longer.
Havelock the Dane Talk 06:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do these edits address the concerns adequately ?
Havelock the Dane Talk 19:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Good work. Another factor I just thought of: is there a general mention of the fact that trade routes have encouraged - and in some cases, been nearly the sole contributing factor - in the creation, growth and decline of many towns and cities? This is a factor in all the eras covered, so I doubt it needs to be said in each; just an overview statement would be good. VanTucky Talk 21:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on it. Sorry for the delays, my computer freezes up and I'm told that I'll have to format the HDD since a lot of my files have been corrupted (virus).
It's hard and frustrating and tends to delay things until I find a way to solve it without losing my data, however corrupted it may be.
Havelock датчанин 01:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do these edits highlight the trade_routes/urban_civilization connection adequately?
Havelock датчанин 02:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objections -[1a, 1b] Still more on specific trade routes than on the topic of "the trade route(s)"
    The Section "Historic Trade Routes" is divided mostly by specific route(s) and Section "Modern Routes" is only divided by Type of Transportation. - the article should be consistent.
    Free Trade area does not fit in Modern Routes, the trade routes inside those Free Trade Areas are. - These might be railroads or highways or seaways/oceanways.
    The section "Development of Trade Routes" is too small - how about the development of transportation through land - wagonway/dirtpath to railroad/highway, coastal barques to steam ships to ocean oil tankers, development of containers, a note on the simultaneous development of ports/markets, a note on pirating/security on routes.
    --Keerllston 21:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for a very well thought out to-do list.
I'll try to address those concerns as soon as possible.
With Regards,
Hαvεlok беседа мансарда 00:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. Consistency: We now have Combined land and waterway routes, Predominantly overland routes and Predominantly maritime routes in the "Historic trade routes" section while the "Modern routes" section has Wagonway routes, Railway routes, Modern road networks, Modern maritime routes, Free Trade Areas, Air routes and Pipeline networks.
* Diffs.

2. Free Trade Areas: The pointing out of specific routes for FTAs is a bit of a problem. The amount of commodities crossing borders depends upon the degree of production (and demand) of exempted goods and the financial status of the producer, which would dictate how he would choose to send those goods across the other side. The modern FTA treaties allow most channels available for exempted goods, so a series of pathways and stoppages for the commercial transport of cargo is formed – with relaxed restrictions on goods – which exists only for partner nations, not for others.
These treaties result in opening up of regular travel/transportation routes as newfound international trade routes as finished goods now travel freely along the same arteries which previously restricted them.

3. Development of trade routes: Actually, that section was intended to be the "prehistory of trade routes" sort of thing, and the title, admittedly, was confusing. I have renamed it to "Development of early routes" so that it touches on the points highlighting only the early development.

4. A note on the simultaneous development of ports/market: Kindly see if this edit address the concerns adequately.

5. A note on pirating/security on routes: Kindly see if these edits address the concerns adequately.

Hαvεlok беседа мансарда 16:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency/Comprehensiveness is still a problem. The Modern Times holds no routes for specific products.
I am not comfortable with Historic Routes, the Spice route for example stopped being maily land-route and became prevalently a water-route ca. 1500 ACE. The split between pre-1900 and then post-1900 is somewhat unsatisfactory.
Missing Routed: Sugar Trade/Smuggling in the Americas- also of Cotton, Coffee, Tobacco, Cocoa, Natural Rubber.
Notion of Manufactured goods is lacking. This is very important in terms of the routes
England became a major exporter of clothing because of the industrial revolution.
The US exports everything it exports through routes, and imports everything it imports through routes.
I note the Free Trade Zones argument - should then talk about Mercantilism and what it meant in terms of routes - especially the Spanish Empire/Kingdom.
Nice work- I assure you it's not in vain, even if this doesn't get FA status this time- some articles need a lot more work and information than others to be comprehensive.
With Regards,
--Keerllston 15:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:06, 28 November 2007.

Today (Australian TV program)[edit]

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I would like to receive feedback from other Wikipedia users.

Firstly, because I believe this article deserves some better attention and just basically needs improving. Secondly, to see if my edits (current and future) of the Today (Australian TV program) article could perhaps make this article become a Wikipedia:Featured articles. I would also like to receive posts from others, on what they think about the article, what needs improving and change, and also what content is good to stay. --Tjkirk (talk) 09:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This process is generally for articles that supposedly meet the featured article criteria, and although FA candidates do receive feedback relating to improvements to the article, it isn't a process like Wikipedia:Peer review. If you solely need feedback on the article, request a peer review. If you believe that the article meets the featured article criteria, then continue this nomination. Spebi 05:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Comments

  • This is not a full GA review as (a) it wasn't nominated for one and (b) I haven't considered all the GA criteria

General

  1. Inline refs are supposed to follow punctuation. The article is inconsistent.
  2. Images properly need a Fair Use rationale for each article in which they're used. There's a general one here for each and this may be a future problem. They are also used in an editor's User Space, which is an invalid Fair Use. They should be linked there with [[:image.....]].
  3. Otherwise well-referenced, enough citations.
  4. Article seems broad enough to cover its topic without deviation.

Lead

  1. broadcasted -> broadcast (this is both the past and present tense)
  2. celebrates -> celebrated (it's already happened)
  3. three hours -> this is restated in the same sentence "6 - 9am"
  4. sport -> sports

Format

  1. sms -> text message (sms is a technical term)
  2. onto -> on to (it's not one word)

History

  1. celebrates -> celebrated (it's already happened) (again)
  2. While, it -> While it (comma unnecessary)
  3. "was Sarah Murdoch and Kellie Connolly, both who saw a significant increases in ratings" (this is clumsy. It says they saw it but maybe did not cause it, which I think is what is meant. In any case, this is speculation, isn't it? Also, verb & noun numbers do not match. Could do with a rewrite)
  4. As of 28 May 2007 -> On 28 May 2007

Brand Extension

  1. First sentence is too long.
  2. Need citation for last sentence to justify reason for its cut.

25th Anniversary

  1. Needs rewrite to make it concise and clear. In particular, do any of the participants need Wikilinks?

Anchors

  1. Different problem! There's too much Wikilinking. WP:MOS says only once per section.

Bulletins and Regular Segments

  1. A lot of this section is just stating the obvious. It reads like a TV magazine listing. Does the reader need this much detail?
  2. How has the idea of providing the latest news been "critical" (a strong word) to the function (perhaps "success") of the programme?

Substitue Presenters

  1. Fix typo in this heading
  • Oppose - Main points - the lead is too short. Many parts are not referenced. Many of the references only consist of links and do not have their details filled out. The information is heavily biased towards the present. Almost 80% of the information is about the current presenters and current history.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article is far from FA:
  • No references in "Format", "Brand Extension", "News", "Sports", "Weather" and "Traffic Watch" sections.
  • References 1, 3, 4, 7-10 and 14-26 have formatting problems.
  • The article is not comprehensive. There must be a Reception section. There must be a section how how the show is made.
  • Improve the article and try GA first. --Kaypoh (talk) 11:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—Not yet of the required professional standard. Pick the blooper in the opening sentence: "Today, usually referred to as The Today Show to avoid ambiguity, is an Australian breakfast morning news program which has been broadcasted live by the Nine Network since 28 June 1982 and celebrates its 25th anniversary in 2007." And what ambiguity? Then the third sentence: "The program is hosted by Karl Stefanovic and Lisa Wilkinson, who are accompanied by news presenter Georgie Gardner,"—"accompanied" makes me feel as though we're climbing aboard a carriage. And that disease "also-itis" is in evidence soon after the start. Please read MOS on the spacing of en dashes in ranges. Tony (talk) 08:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Still needs quite a bit of work. There are some basic typos and grammatical errors. There is quite a bit more that could be said - very little about its rating problems in recent years, very little about the whole Jessica Rowe fiasco (and subsequent lawsuit), very little about the early history (both in terms of presenters and ratings), and not enough about the sort of content the show has. Rebecca (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:06, 28 November 2007.

Silent Hill 4: The Room[edit]

Just passed GA, and I want to see if it meets the criteria yet. My apologies for being unable to find much other information of commercial reaction and development. Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 01:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - The article is not comprehensive. There are no sales figures, the reception section does not take into account the Japanese reaction. - hahnchen 18:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any figures, and I checked the sources that other FA games used, and most of those don't have a lot of Japanese critical reaction information either. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 15:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please, if you're captions aren't full sentences, then a full-stop (period) isn't required. I'll modify this now. Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full critique from User: Ashnard :

  • "The Room was released onto multiple platforms consisting of the Sony PlayStation 2, Microsoft Xbox and PC". By "The Room" are you abbreviating the title? If so, why break the trend when the rest of the article states "Silent Hill 4"?
    • Done. Also tried to rewrite sentence better.
  • "Unlike the previous installments, this game is set in the fictional town of South Ashfield" this means nothing to the readers who know nothing of the series. How is this town different?
    • Attempted to clarify.
  • Lead is insufficient for FA; expand info about gameplay, and include "development" and "music" info. Should be able to summarise the article completely.
    • Slightly expanded.
  • "Henry Townshend" can you provide a link to a character list or article? If not, explain who he is. Do this for any other characters.
    • Linked Henry in lead, delinked in Gameplay (already linked in plot)
  • You need to specify your rationales; for example, instead of "fair-use rationale", it should be "fair-use rationale for Silent Hill 4".
    • Done
  • "Silent Hill 4: The Room was originally envisioned as a spinoff of the Silent Hill series". Envisioned by whom? It may be obvious, but please specify.
    • Done.
  • "which the player navigates through a first-person perspective and contains their only save point". This reads awkwardly.
  • The last two sentences of this paragraph read awkwardly—try merging into one sentence and removing "also" as it's redundant. Ommit any usage of "also" unless the word's necessary.
  • Some missing commas, for example "In the main levels of the game the player uses the usual third person perspective of the Silent Hill series." Comma should go after "game". This is a general tren throughout the article.
  • "While gun combat is not emphasized, a feature is added that allows melee attacks to be "charged" before they are launched". What? Confusing.
  • "One of the most significant changes is the introduction of the "Victim" monsters, the unkillable ghosts of Walter Sullivan's victims." Change "unkillable" to "impervious" and add something like "which are" after the comma.
  • The prose tends to assume that the reader knows the game with subject-specific terminology like "the holy candle". Please explain these things.
  • "Ghosts can also be knocked down for a long time with one of the two silver bullets and pinned permanently with a Sword of Obedience item." This is incoherent and bordering on game-guide content.
  • Delete the last paragraph in this section; it's completely game-guide info.

I'm saving the page now—will resume critique later. Ashnard Talk Contribs 10:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Critique resumed:

  • Actually, the gameplay is incohesive; some of it is just minutiae too.
  • The plot seems okay enough, but I'm not sure if an absence of sources can be permitted. I'm no expert in this field, though.
    • The whole practice of citing with gameplay comments strikes me as a bit pointless, but I can probably finish that soon.
  • I'd delete the "Endings" section and mention something briefly in the "plot" section. It goes beyond the detail required for a plot.
  • "The previews of the game provided at E3 2004 lead IGN to name it the best PlayStation 2 adventure game in show." This is more suitable for the "reception" section—not development.
  • You've ordered the reception by which reviewer said what. Try a reverse order, in which it can be ordered comments on graphics, and then gameplay, controls etc.
  • The "Connection to other game" section is strange as it only refers to one game outside the series; references within the series aren't really notable, and should be reserved for "plot" or "character" sections.
  • Please try to expand the "music" section.

Oppose: Nice job, but this need more work before it can reach FA. I hope my comments help. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 11:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 20:06, 28 November 2007.

Boston Celtics[edit]

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has all the viable information for the proper comprehension of the history and present of the Boston Celtics. I also think that if the Toronto Raptors article received the featured article status, the Boston Celtics article should also receive it, as the quality is at least at the level of the Tornonto Raptors article. | 8-Hype (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Just by scanning it I can tell it needs a lot more refs and the lead expanding. Buc (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article is far from FA:
    • Many sections are unreferenced.
    • Lead section is too short.
    • The History section makes me want to sleep.
    • The article is not comprehensive. It needs a Supporters section, a Stadium section and a section about the Reserves/Ladies teams if there are any. Also if the club is very famous there should be a "In popular culture section".
    • Improve the article and try GA first. --Kaypoh (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There isn't no reserves/ladies in american sports, just the minors in baseball, and I don't think a in pop culture or supporters section is needed, the other American sports teams FAs doesn't have it, but everything else I agree with Kaypoh, I could do whole paragraphs for what is wrong in the article, but too lazy. Anyways Oppose for me This is a Secret account 20:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not even close. The lead section is totally inadequate, the references are totally inadequate, and most of all there is horrible WP:Recentism: the section on the epic Russell years is pathetically short, the section on the Cowens years is too short as well, while the sections on the 1990s and especially the 2000s are given way too much space by comparison. This article needs some editors who either saw Bill Russell play or know what he and the Celtics teams he played on (and later coached for as well) meant to basketball. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think that it is a very interesting article, and is worthy of being on the main page. It is extremely informative. I think that it details seasons and stars. Basketball110 (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose More references needed. Also, references aren't according to Cite. Miranda 04:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:06, 28 November 2007.

The Elder Scrolls IV: Knights of the Nine[edit]

I re-wrote and cited this article in a brief spurt a few months ago, submitted it for GA and received a thorough review that worked over some fiddly minutiae and stylistic infelicities. It's been idling through the relevant Wikiproject's Peer Review for the past month or so now, with decidedly less helpful results. I believe this article fully conforms to all Featured Article Criteria at this time. Nevertheless, I've probably missed something, and will be glad to take any actionable criticisms or comments regarding anything in the article. It's a small, unimportant topic, but there's no reason we shouldn't have good articles on everything. Much thanks for your time! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 01:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I agree that this article is well-written and covers the various available aspects of the subject. (I'm actually playing Oblivion as I type; I just took a break.) But I think the short length of time it's been around, the limited scope of the product, and the lack of tremendous social impact make it hard to create a comprehensive article at this time. – Scartol • Tok 14:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is lacking? I do not believe that any sort of "social impact" is necessary for a subject to be considered eligible for Featured Article candidacy, nor is the limited scope of the product any bar to the same. I doubt this subject will ever receive more coverage than it has at present: "at this time" is misdirected. It does not matter: "Comprehensive", in the Featured Article Criteria, means only that the article "does not neglect major facts and details" of its subject; it cannot be said that "comprehensive" necessitates facts and details that have not yet been created for the subject, nor facts and details that do not exist for the subject. This article is comprehensive, and the fact that it does not cover facts and details that have not yet been conjured for its subject means nothing as regards Featured Article candidacy. This article was created under WP:SIZE recommendations for the size of the parent article, and its scope is limited as such. Thank you for your commentary, Scartol, but I do not believe that anything you say has grounding in any guideline or policy I know of. As it stands, this Oppose is not actionable. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, a comprehensive article addresses the various aspects of its subject, including a broader social impact. (This is often done through "Legacy" sections and such.) This sort of thing is really only possible after some time has passed and reliable sources report on that impact. (The reader needs to get a sense of how the subject has affected the world.)
In some cases an article's subject has had a profound impact in a short period of time. The Wii, for example, has only been on the US market for a year, but its innovative gameplay possibilities have sent some shockwaves through the industry. That Featured Article, then, goes through the various innovations and implications in terms of its demographics, etc. Minor video game add-ons, meanwhile, aren't likely to have the same impact, so writing comprehensively about them is much more difficult.
If the article contains all of the available information, then maybe there just isn't enough out there yet to make it an FA. (I had a similar experience with the 1998 Puerto Rican general strike. I simply can't make it a GA, because the information isn't available. Sucks for me, but that's the way it is.) – Scartol • Tok 19:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think something like that depends on the subject matter. The Wii's article would have to cover the impact it has had in the industry, because it has had an impact in the industry; this article would not, because it had none and will have none. One could imagine an eventual history titled Labour Movements in Puerto Rico: 1898–2005 covering such an impact, because we'd assume that such a large strike would have some grander relevance—we'd just have to wait for a Marxist to drop in and write it up. That isn't the case for the subject of this article: we aren't going to see any grand impact, any good sources, ever.
That does not mean, however, that we can't write an article on the subject. What it means is that we're going to be limited in our scope: this isn't relevant in terms of the industry, it's relevant in terms of Bethesda's corporate aims, its relations with its consumers, its relevant in terms of modern video-gaming content release policies. That is what the sources cover, and that is what I write up. I talk about exclusivity, I talk about tensions between general expansion packs and minor content releases, and I conclude the article with one reviewer's caution: "if consumers were to fully accept individually priced content releases, Bethesda might just begin charging for all its quests"; that comprehends all significant impact the pack will ever have. That is the substance of Knights of the Nine's legacy, and that is all the impact you are ever going to see. I stand by my position that discussion of that legacy is sufficient for "comprehensiveness". Geuiwogbil (Talk) 20:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote: The discussion of the Wii's impact in its article actually seems quite weak. Indeed, the Wii did force others to reconsider their positions, it moved Nintendo into a very favorable market position, and it has opened a broad field for video game designers—but the article barely talks about those things at all. That's pretty bad. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 20:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Scartol. This article is not comprehensive. --Kaypoh (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is lacking? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have not responded, either here or on your talk page, so I will go ahead and assume this comment is not actionable. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 20:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support - 1. Gameplay needs to summarise Oblivion's gameplay, besides saying that "litle was changed". 2. There are no images in the article. User:Krator (t c) 16:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've strengthened the Gameplay section with some skill-building details &c and a cite to the GSpot review of the original game. Anything specific still lacking? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still a bit light. See Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance on how I see such things - you do not have to copy that style, but it is about the amount of information I think is required for "comprehensive". Also, I just noticed that there are no images! Please add some. User:Krator (t c) 17:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've weighted it a bit more: there were really no changes to the gameplay at all. I'll work on getting some images. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 17:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have obtained an image. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think the current image even does anything. A detailed description of the role and/or appearance of the knights is never presented in the text, making me think that there is not enough significant commentary to justify the use of the image. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"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." Nothing is spoken of "significant commentary", only of "understanding"; if that understanding could be conveyed through the text, there would be no need for the image. It is detrimental to the understanding of the reader not to have any image of what the basic structure of the interface, of the game-world, and the main characters in the game look like. The image features (1) the game world, in clarity' (2) a Knight, the titular character of the game, and the key actors in the second paragraph of the plot: "Along the way, further characters join the player's quest, re-creating the Knights of the Nine, a faction once pledged to defend the relics, whose former members had since passed on.[12] The relics united, and the Knights reborn, the player sets off to fight Umaril in his temple at Garlas Malatar. The Knights fight and defeat Umaril's minions, and the player slays the mortal body of Umaril. The player then follows Umaril into the spirit realm, and destroys Umaril's soul. Returning to the land of the living, the player is greeted with the grateful cheers of the Knights, praising the gods for their grace.[13]"; and (3) the relics of the Crusaders, the central objects in the game, one of the key additions of "items" noted by reviewers in the progress from the original to the expansion. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment withdrawn. Thank you for the long explanation. hbdragon88 (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit long-winded, yes. Apologies and thanks! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 20:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Seems short. Yes, I know, it's not very constructive - hence I am not opposing, but compared to most other computer games articles this is short. Expansion would not hurt.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment, Piotrus, but I believe that the article as it stands is appropriately sized. I have checked over other Video Game FAs, but it seems as though, where they had the same number of sources, but were longer, it was because they had more in-universe content, more detailed explanations of the plot, discussion of "Characters", "Setting", or of the intricate details of "Gameplay". I aim for concision and brevity in my description of in-universe material, writing only as much as is necessary to describe the essence of the game. I aimed to structure the article around what was most relevant to the reader, and what was covered in the reliable sources; pricing, publication, release dates and cross-console availability. I did not wish to stray beyond the reliable sources with the aim of inflating the size of the article, and so I have kept it at its current, reasonably-sized, level. There is a limited subject matter to be considered here; it is a single expansion, not a full game, and so the description should, of necessity, be briefer. I believe comprehensiveness is achieved in few words when writing on the smallest of topics; I would not wish to stray into unnecessary detail.
Now, I had considered bunching all the expansions together to make a single "Expansions to The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion" article, but that idea has the distinct limitation of not being a single, coherent topic. The topic "Knights" is addressed in a number of articles; the topic "Expansions to The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion" is addressed in none. It would be an artificial molding of the sources to meet an arbitrary feel for size. I think, overall, that I have kept on with what the sources state, with what guideline recommends, and do not think that any expansion is necessary or beneficial. Small FAs exist, where their topic recommends it. Again, Piotrus, thank you for bringing this up. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 00:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Length is not a Featured Article Criteria, comprehensiveness is, and the article appears to be so. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:06, 28 November 2007.

Gustatory system[edit]

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it is of high quality, is brilliantly written and is factually accurate to a tee. Benji63 (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose: does not meet FA criteria at all. The lead is way too short, references are not formatted correctly, and the writing isn't the best Wikipedia can offer. That is only a taste of the problems this article has; you really need to work to get the article to even GA. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 00:21, 23 November 2007 (GMT)
  • Comment. I have informed the nominator of WP:FACR and the likelihood that this nomination will fail unless significant effort is put into the article. JFW | T@lk 01:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Needs images, inline references and expanded lead. DrKiernan (talk) 08:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per above. Sorry, this is nowhere near FA standards.
  • Lead section is too short.
  • Many sections are unreferenced.
  • I think the article is not comprehensive. You need info about how scientists research on it and a lot of other stuff.
  • No images.
  • Normally I will ask people to try GA first, but this article really sucks and has no chance of getting GA also. If you want to try getting GA learn the policies and read what is a good article? --Kaypoh (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"this article really sucks" does not sound like the proper tone for a reviewer.
many articles do not get GA before getting an FAC - it is not policy that one is needed before the other - probably per "wikipedia is not a bureocracy"---Keerllston 21:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection [1b, 2a, 2c, 3] seems well written, but not wikified, has it been checked for plagiarism?
1b It seems it is not comprehensive, Function is too small.
2a lead defines subject but does not introduce article.
2c strange use of referencing, inline citations or harvard referencing needed, not just noting which sources.
3 lacks images
4 "Importance" section is not concise and redundandly refers to information about function.
--Keerllston 21:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Like stated above. It should start with a peer-review. NCurse work 13:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as not wikified or in-line cited, making it difficult to verify —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owain.davies (talk • contribs) 18:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Benje63: don't lose heart—now build a team of good editors to get this into shape. Know how to locate them? Tony (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:06, 28 November 2007.

Halo 3[edit]

(previous FAC) - Seeing as no one posed any comments/concerns, renom'ing. David Fuchs (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, coincidentally, I had guests for Thanksgiving who, when reading this entry as they were playing Halo 3, said that "the plot summary was incoherent" and that it "appeared to be written by someone who didn't know anything about Halo". Please don't shoot the messenger; it's just a coincidence that this came up at my house yesterday, and I know nothing about Halo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cocks rifle I'll take a look... ;) David Fuchs (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same guests had a look at more recent version, and are no longer concerned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support well sourced, written, etc., and the plot section seems fine to me. Well done to the editors responsible. :) Miremare 01:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose.
    • The "features" section is written as a game guide, something Wikipedia is not. Please merge it with the gameplay section. Sure, these three features are notable and should be described, but this amount of detail borders advertising.
    • The gameplay section makes use of gaming jargon, something to be avoided. Examples to ctrl-f and solve: "starting weapon", "campaign scoring mode", "headshot", "improving enemy behavior", "versus match", "matchmaking facilities", "playlist", "rank" (in multiplayer - what is it?), "player's profiles", "game object", "gametype", "spawn", " Other jargon is there, but wikilinked. However, some of these linked articles do not explain the term adequately in its context in this article. Examples: A.I., pack mentality, meta-game.
    • Some of the claims in gameplay about the intentions and uses of certain gameplay items need sources. The whole analysis on why TrueSkill is as it is is OR. The "vehicular component" is apparently "strong" - who says so?
    • In gameplay, the prose gets really repetitive when a lot of the sentences start with "Players ..." - not "engaging prose".
    • The setting and character sections throw out a lot of wikilinked names that the reader is expected to know, apparently. What is a Halo? What is the Flood? Who is master chief? Who is the arbiter? (insert all other returning characters here) Reading these two sections alone does not enable the reader to understand the Plot section. I will leave discussing that section to someone who has actually played a Halo game.
      • I clarified this, is it up to standard now? Mad031683 (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Development is solid, but lacks images. This is one of the FA criteria.
    • The information on pre-orders in Sales is not verifiable.
That's it for now. User:Krator (t c) 01:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged the features, expounded upon the jargon, and sourced the statement in Sales I assume you were talking about. I will work on cleaning out redundancies in prose and making the synopsis setting more newb-friendly. However, if you could kindly explain to me why we must have an image in development? David Fuchs (talk) 02:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of note, for the development image, would a screenshot of one of the ViDocs or perhaps one of the storyboard images provided by bungie work for FA criteria? ♦TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 03:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an excellent suggestion for an image. David Fuchs, feel free to strike out parts of my rationale above when you have fixed those parts. User:Krator (t c) 11:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Krator. Referencing is not FA standard, article has a lot of fancruft and prose needs improving. --Kaypoh (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Krator. Article seems much too long in general and I feel like the gameplay section could be reduced without the subheadings and still include the same amount of information. Some of the prose is really repetitive and is a pain to read. Zemalia (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to specific examples? David Fuchs (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The plot section in particular seems very in-universe and is very confusing to non-players. Perhaps less plot detail, more explanation. Some of the wording in the audio section is off, as well as the gameplay (too many simple sentances making to difficult to read prose). Also, there is an entire article for the marketing of the game, but it seems like the info is overdone in the Halo 3 article. Awards section needs to be converted from a list to prose. Hope that's a bit more helpful, but I feel Krator already provided a lot of input. Zemalia (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro is a bit winded. Lots of detail into how many units, how much it made, etc. but nothing about reception. Did it open to thunderous and universal praise? Discord and disdain? I just checked, and it's strange: Halo: Combat Evolved does lead off with a paragraph on the game's reception, while Halo 2 only talks about the new engine. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To all concerns above: I've redone the Synopsis section, with an expanded introduction- is this more clear? I've also added info about the reception to the lead, added a development image, and the Marketing section has been cut down. David Fuchs (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Methinks that five non-free images is pushing it a bit. Are two images necessary to illustrate the plot? And Image:High Ground Gate.jpg seems a bit out there; at least it's my opinion that, while it illustrates the multiplayer element, my understanding is not significantly degraded if the image was not there. Also what are rating points, and how are they awarded? hbdragon88 (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Killed the multiplayer image; as for rating points, I wikilinked them to Xbox Live#TrueSkill and clarified that the points were connected to your wins/leaving. David Fuchs (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to comment on fair use images, I think we should have images detailing the new features Halo 3 brings. Such as the Film sharing UI, the new vehicles, equipment, support weapons and Forge. They'd serve the article a lot better than generic show screenshots such as Image:Halo3 campaign ss.png and Image:Masterchief company h3.png. And could we have at least one screenshot of a decent resolution? Fair use on Wikipedia specifies low resolution copies, but to give an indication of the graphical fidelity in game, you need higher resolutions. 360 lines of vertical resolution would do, and that would still only be a quarter of the original size. - hahnchen 19:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:01, 26 November 2007.

William Adam (architect)[edit]

Self-nomination (page largely written under my previous username: Edward Waverley). I believe this is of a comparable standard to recently promoted William Bruce (architect). Comments welcome, thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck 08:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • When I see a ref like "Gifford, p.110", in which one of these should I look?
Gifford, John (1989) William Adam 1689-1748, Mainstream Publishing / RIAS
Gifford, John (1990) "William Adam and the Historians", in Architectural Heritage I: William Adam, Edinburgh University Press
Gifford, John (1992) The Buildings of Scotland: Highlands and Islands, Penguin
Pagrashtak 19:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point! Dated all the Gifford refs. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck 08:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keywords might be easier for the mere reader; although telling the first two apart might be tricky: Adam, "Historians", Buildings, perhaps? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

support--Mini@ 08:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is certainly an interesting and valuable page. As far as FA status is concerned, though, I find it unnecessarily (and slightly frustratingly) thin and short. The material is somewhat skated over, in my opinion, and I sense a reluctance to enter into the architectural issues and complications, perhaps out of fear of losing the reader. Speaking for myself, I have come to the conclusion with Wikipedia that when specialist issues exist, some serious attempt should be made to enter into and summarise the complexities in a way that might interest the reader to investigate further. Too great a smoothing of the difficulties runs the risk of verging on the misleading, I feel. For example, the lead says: "Despite this, Adam's work has often been overlooked as it did not fit into the prevailing Palladian fashions of the day, and he is often overshadowed by his son Robert Adam". The article never goes on to say what is meant by "overlooked" or to address that phenomenon; indeed, we see some biographies and studies in the bibliography, so who has done the overlooking? And would such overlooking be done simply because he was not thought to be fashionably Palladian? After all, other non-Palladian architects of the day are not overlooked, for example Vanbrugh. At the very least, this all needs to be addressed in the article itself rather than left as a flat statement in the lead. And, in my opinion, that statement raises questions about whether his work did not fit into the prevailing Palladian fashions. Shortly afterwards, the lead adds that "His individual, exuberant style built on the Palladian style, but with Baroque details inspired by Vanbrugh and Continental architecture...". This tells us that he actually did build, at least partly, in the Palladian style.

I hope this line of thought doesn't seem like undue nitpicking. It my opinion, it goes to the heart of what an architectural biography article needs to provide for the reader: a clear account of the architect's style and, where necessary, an elucidation of the complicated issues and apparent contradictions that always arise with architects (since buildings are not sculptures and are rarely pure). From my limited knowledge of the subject, I would say that a more thorough attempt needs to be made to describe some individual projects, fitting them into an overview of Adam's variety of styles, which included the Palladian and the Baroque (in their British manifestations) and the influence of native Scottish architecture. The views of architectural historians and biographers might also be introduced into the article more often to help underpin such descriptions and lay out the issues for the reader. At 22kb, the article has plenty of room for such expansion. qp10qp 11:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks qp10qp, a challenging comment, and one I've given some thought to responding to. Having reread the article, I think you are probably right; the article generally focuses on biographical detail and there is less on the actual architecture. As you say, this is a fairly fundamental issue for a page about an architect. I think a section on "critical appraisal" or something, quoting various sources, might fill a gap, discussing his style and showing how he has been considered provincial, possibly more so in the past than now. I agree that expanded discussions of some of the more important works would also help. I will have a look around and see what I can find. Jonathan Oldenbuck 12:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No & Oppose

  • On the basis it does not fulfill #1d NPOV.

Request: Consider adding a Legacy section. Learnedo 07:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Few examples:[reply]

And why is it in the beginning for? It appears to be one person's view. Strong favoritism towards the subject matter.

Will support when it's not so one-sided. Leranedo 06:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review 

   * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
   * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial
   * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ
   * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Examples

in their entirety. Leranedo 06:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leranedo/Learnedo, without a sample of why you consider the article POV, your "vote" can be considered invalid. Raul, the nominator, and all of us need to see your reasoning. The nominator can't address it if there is no example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Jonathan Oldenbuck is nominator though am not sure. I only care about the content. Happy editing. Leranedo 06:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, pls review punctuation on sentence fragments per WP:MOS#Captions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I got all of it, but it's not as important as NPOV. My modest opinion is that we should purge of "WP:MOS#Captions" so editors can focus on NPOV and content matters. Happy editing. Leranedo 06:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In defence of the nominator, there really aren't any other serious sources, as far as I can see. The ones used are enough to support a Wikipedia article, I believe. There is more information in them than has been used, though, which is why I proposed expansion.qp10qp 12:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your comments and suggestions, I hope to review the article over the next few days. To start, I reworded the lead a bit and tried to addresss the POV issues as follows:

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

The article was not promoted 03:01, 26 November 2007.

Victoria Cross for Australia[edit]

Nom restarted (Old nom) Raul654 16:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So has anyone got any objections now, i think i fixed all the content ones. Previous editors in the discussion are welcome to return and discuss further... Thanks. Woodym555 21:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've copyedited the article. There are a few issues that weren't clear to me, or need more work:

  • The first two sentences ("The Victoria Cross for Australia (VC) is a military decoration awarded for valour "in the presence of the enemy"[1] to members of the Australia Armed Forces." and "It may be awarded to a person of any rank in any service, and to civilians under military command.") are directly contradictory in terms of who is eligible for the award.
    Which part is contradictory? Any service relates to the Armed Forces (Navy, army etc). The civilian command means that contractors employed by the armed forces are eligible. So, they are part of the forces, just not part of a specific "service". Woodym555 21:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would never consider civilian contractors to be 'members of the armed forces', so the first and second sentences appear contradictory. I think the explanation in the 2nd sentence is clear and precise; how about merging the two into "a person of any rank in any service of the Australian Defence Force, and to civilians under military command"? (Note: I've used ADF here because Australia Armed Forces redirects to Military of Australia which redirects to Australian Defence Force - correct me if I'm wrong, but the double redirect seems needless.) Maralia 00:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have described both the original Victoria Cross and the Victoria Cross for Australia as VC in the lead; this is confusing. Expansion: you introduce the abbreviation "Victoria Cross for Australia (VC)" in the lead - but you use VC indiscriminately to refer to both the British and the Australian awards throughout.
    • Corrected now, i have used the expanded version throughout. Woodym555 21:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to reorganize the lead because I found the repeated transitions between old & new VCs confusing. After further reading, I decided my reorganization wasn't great and reverted it, but I still feel that the lead confusingly leaps from new to old to new to old.
  • In the History section, you have used both "cannons" and "cannon" as plural of the word cannon.

Thanks for an interesting read. Maralia 19:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much for the copyedit. I have rearranged the lead and removed some information. I have tried to strike a balance between the old and the new. Is this what you were thinking? Woodym555 20:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've got the right idea with the reorg in the lead. I think you should also rewrite the "from the gunmetal of weapons" fact to frame it in terms of the VCA, though - for the purpose of this article, it's not important what the old medal is made from, but rather what this medal is to be made from.
I have rephrased the sentence to provide emphasis on the VCA. Thanks. Woodym555 21:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Maralia raises the issue I had in the previous FAC. Too much of this article is about the original VC, which makes me believe that this article would be of more use to the reader if stripped down to the pure VC for Aus parts (rather small), and presented within the Victoria Cross article. Pagrashtak 19:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Although i cannot speak for Maralia, i think s/he was talking about the confusion within the lead. I agree with their conclusions when i read through the lead again. I have restructured it now to try and address those concerns. I reiterate that i think the article itself gives the history of the VC for OZ and of the history surrouding it. Woodym555 20:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and that confusion is an issue I raised in the previous FAC. My solution is presented above. Pagrashtak 20:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with Pagrashtak. While the article is well-written, there is so little information available about the Australian Victoria Cross that much of the article is duplicated from the other VC articles. Karanacs 20:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Opposing something because there is little information available. The article is complete, and is missing no references. Twenty Years 06:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is well written (as stated above), and it easily meets the FA criteria. Twenty Years 06:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Lack of information: is the medal transferrable? what was the honourable medal before the VC being made? will the medal be awarded for those who are non-Australian citizens but who have made a great contribution to Australia? is the medal being regarded as the highest honour in Australia? neutral Coloane 21:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    With regards to transferable, no. I have added in a sentence about this. I don't understand what you mean by "what was the honourable medal before the VC being made?" If you mean, what was the medal before these, then: Before the VC for OZ, it was the VC, before that there was not one. I think this is made clear in the text. The last two points are made in the text. It is awarded to Australian citizens, and that is what is stated in the text. (of course, politicians may change this later, or special circumstances may arise, but that is speculation). It is stated in the text that it is the highest honour. I have now repeated this. Any other problems? Woodym555 21:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - my objections stay from the last nomination (why was it restarted, by the way?). I agree with the editors above that there is not enough information in this article to distinguish it from a slightly elongated subsection of the main VC article. A featured article is supposed to be Wikipedia's best work, and in my opinion this article does not meet that standard, despite the good work the editor(s) may have put in. There are bits missing, like the development of how the medal for Australia came about, which although there may not be anything on the internet, is lacking in the article. I would like to see this expanded and filled out with more relevant information, or some reliable sources telling me that no such information is available on that topic, before I will consider changing my mind on this. JRG 05:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What i have said is, there isn't anything in Hansard, which, given that it is the archive of all parliamentary activity, suggests that sources will be lacking. Given that, I am looking for more sources on the discussions leading to its creation. I have left notes at WP:AUS and WP:ODM for sources as well.
    • I would just like to reiterate to all that this article contains information that the Victoria Cross article does not and could not reasonably contain. You cannot divorce this medal from its point of common origin, the Imperial award. It (so far as Australians go) inherits the customs, dignity, and position of the Victoria Cross as the pre-eminent award for military valour. This article currently contains all the information that you would want regarding the Victoria Cross for Australia, with the exception that JRG has pointed out. I think that any duplication is therefore neccessary to create a complete article on this medal. Woodym555 19:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have you tried printed sources and printed parliamentary material, like Government Gazettes (or whatever they call them in Federal Parliament) which would discuss individual ministerial actions? Hansard only publishes the main house reports and committee reports, so there's a lot that doesn't make it into Hansard. Have you emailed the Department of Defence or the Australian War Memorial on sources that might be able to expand this article? I'm very sure there would be some more detailed infomration out there to expand this article properly. I also have another point - the proposal by Chris Schacht in 1991 to award the medal to 3 Australians included John Simpson Kirkpatrick as one of the recipients - as he is so well known in Australian military history because of his role in the Gallipoli campaign, surely this would be worth a mention? JRG 23:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:01, 26 November 2007.

The Blackening[edit]

This article was in really bad shape so i decided to do something about it. The last week or so i have made the final changes to hopefully bring this up to FA quality and a peer review was most helpful. M3tal H3ad 04:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — Article looks good, but you might want to request a copyedit. Some of the sentences in the article probably need to be reworded. I don't recall any featured articles that describe a song as being "as a 'fuck you' to [etc.]". (Ibaranoff24 05:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Well none of the songs on other FA's are most likely not to be written with the intention as a "fuck you" to someone. Any suggestions to reword it? M3tal H3ad 05:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have no idea. That's why I suggested requesting copyediting. (Ibaranoff24 07:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Better? I don't want to request a ce because not much will be done (i don't blame the project as it is entirely voluntary) M3tal H3ad 07:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Needs a copy edit. Here are some examples (ie there is much more than this that needs addressing) of why:
  • "Fuck you" and "fucked up lyrics" etc need inline citations.
Check the end of the paragraph, no point having 3-4 references that are the same for one paragraph
Each quote needs a separate citation, per WP:CITE.[RD]
Cited. M3tal H3ad 14:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a section using the {{cquote}} template which is specifically deprecated.
Fixed.
  • Quotes—consider single and double per WP:PUNC and removing intermediate ones altogether when two quoted sentences run on—need urgently sorting out. Examples: (1) "Aesthetics of Hate" contained what Flynn described as a "totally fucking lame "Angel of Death" rip off." "I hated it every time we played it so I was glad to see that part go!" (excessive/confusing quote marks) and (2) Vocalist Flynn described "Clenching the Fists of Dissent" as the most difficult song to create (missing quote marks) and (3) "Are you sure you don’t want to get into something a little more direct? (missing closing quote altogether).
1) Angel of Death is a song, thus in speech marks but i have merged the two quotes into one for readability as you said
As you're using double quotes for song titles, you should consider using single quotes to indicate speech.[RD]
Then wouldn't that go against the standards set? M3tal H3ad 14:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2) There is no quote here, the song is in speech marks
That's my point. Perhaps 'the most difficult song to create' should also be in quotes (and cited).[RD]
Reworded the sentence. M3tal H3ad 14:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3) Fixed
  • Days/months need wikifying.
Days and month are wikilinked. Single dates and months alone do not need to be linked (as far as I'm aware) and add absolutely nothing to the article.
They absolutely do need it, to render dates correctly in countries where May 16 is written 16 May (this is governed by the "Date and time" tab in My Preferences).[RD]
Never knew that, done. M3tal H3ad 14:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs logical punctuation for quotations.
I don't quite understand?
See WP:PUNC. If the quotation is part of the sentence put the punctuation outside the quote marks.[RD]
Done, although I'm not sure if i quote a full sentence if the fullstop should be inside?. M3tal H3ad 14:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll comment again after it's cleaned up.--ROGER DAVIES TALK 09:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for the comments. M3tal H3ad 12:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification — The problem is that you're using the same type of quote marks (this one ") to indicate song title, direct quotations, paraphrases (I think), and emphasis. This not only results in an overwhelming sea of rabbit ears but also makes it difficult to work out which bits are what. Here, blindly following the MoS doesn't help, you need to improvise. I suggest you use single quotes (') to indicate direct quotations; double quotes (") to indicate song titles and italics (italics) for emphasis. There remain (though it's difficult to say for sure because you're using " for both quotes and emphasis) several quotations without citations. Every quotation needs a citation [n] indicating its origin directly after it. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 13:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now i understand, these are now changed to 'Song', "quote", emphasis thanks for clearing that up. M3tal H3ad 01:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • I don't think Roger Davies is right about the MOS issues. Songs and quotes are always in double quotations; except for when there is a quote-within-a-quote or a song-within-a-quote, then you use singles quotes - "blah blah blah 'songname' blah blah". As for emphasis, from what I have seen, encyclopedic prose never requires emphasis. So there is no neccesity of italicised words at all (pre-buzz should be in quotes)
  • The fuck you in the lead, cannot be used the way it is now because the language is unencyclopedic. What you CAN use though is - X has said that the song is meant to be a "fuck you" to Y - cause then your quoting somebody.
  • The last paragraph of the Recording section can do away with the "Which song was the most difficult for you to construct?" quote and instead simplify the prose to "Flynn has said that "X" and "Y" were the mos difficult songs to construct". Also attributes is supposed to be attributed, continued is continues. Also, the last sentence of that paragraph doesn't fit with the rest.
  • What is tracking? The first REALLY should be completely changed. None of that stuff should even be in the lead. Instead talk about more general stuff like release date etc.
  • Whats a tentative b-side? Vibe is unencyclopedic.

Actually, looking at it, this article way too many prose issues - unencyclopedic language, past/present tense problems, arbitrary italicisation and bad grammar... Also there are content issues like the Background which seems to grapple with itself over which song was written/recorded first. That stuff shouldn't even be in the Background section! Tommy Stardust (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woo a comment! :) The first 3 things were changed because of the person above, but i agree with you and changed it back. Tracking removed and length of recording and writing added, two paragraphs in background moved to recording, the current background section now deals with stuff building up to the album. Will give the article another rundown and thanks for the comments. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:01, 26 November 2007.

Guitar Hero II[edit]

I'm nominating this article for featured article because...it has had a successful GA review earlier this year, and any concerns voiced at that time have been addressed. In my limited expertise, I believe that the prose is excellently written; it is both easy to follow and keeps the reader's attention. In my slightly greater expertise, the article is organized into clearly defined, user-friendly levels; all citations have been inserted where they are needed and correctly; and the Manual of Style has been followed. All in all, Guitar Hero II is an article that exemplifies some of the best of what the Video Games WikiProject has to offer. --tennisman 23:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think the "development" section should be renamed "release" because it's says nothing about the development of the game. And shouldn't the lead be reference-free since it's a summary of the whole article anyway? Also there are some "citation needed" tags, which are unacceptable in a FA. ---- Mika1h (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's seems okay for an article's lead to be free of references, but an article shouldn't really be penalised for actually having these references, even though they're not necessarily required. Ashnard Talk Contribs 10:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm assuming that the game's development went through more stages than "announcement" and "release."-Wafulz (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:01, 26 November 2007.

Harry and the Potters[edit]

I'm self-nominating this article for featured article because, it received good article status several months ago, and recently undergone a peer review. The article looks well presented, well written and well formatted. Hpfan9374 (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm the editor who heavily revised the text and successfully brought Harry and the Potters through the GA process. I endorse Hpfan9374 (talk · contribs)'s nomination. I'm available to revise the article when and if necessary. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • MOS breaches - harry and the potters, wizard rock (bands and genres aren't italicised), Harry Potter, when referring to the book series, should be italicised, the quotes need formatting.
  • Prose - Very choppy; the lead is a mess - just one para, very poor prose; many small, stubby paras; unencyclopedic language: "the end is not in sight", "they are not alone", "the humor is readily apparent". Also there too many quotes.
  • Citations - For some reason, arbitrary fans' opinions gave been quoted. Many claims have not been cited at all.

Tommy Stardust (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 03:01, 26 November 2007.

Hybrid Theory[edit]

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's gone through some huge improvements contributed by me and SouperAwesome. I recently put for peer review here. I think it passes all the FA criteria. But I think desperately, that it is in need of a thorough copy editing. So, tell me what you think. Thanks! (SUDUSER)85 06:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support As nominator (SUDUSER)85 06:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree, the article needs copy-editing. Desperately. --Kaypoh (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Suffers from POV -
  • "proved to be a commercial success"
    •  Done changed it to "was a commercial success". (SUDUSER)85 18:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critically acclaimed internationally" - yet we have critics panning it in the reception section?
    •  Done rephrased sentence to "...peaking at #2 in the U.S. Billboard 200, as well as reaching high positions in charts worldwide, despite receiving mixed reviews from publications." (SUDUSER)85 18:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Four hit singles were released" i listened to this band back in 2001 and the only 'hit' was "In the End"
  • "The success of the album made it a bestseller during the time of its release" you already told us it was the best selling debut album
  • years alone such as 1996 should be delinked
    •  Done all standalone years have been delinked. (SUDUSER)85 18:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He then sent the tapes back to Blue by FedEx[6] Blue was impressed - missing fullstop?
  • the band renamed themselves as Hybrid Theory after Bennington was included, - in the line-up?
    •  Done rephrased to "the band renamed themselves as Hybrid Theory after Bennington joined the band". (SUDUSER)85 18:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Whisky[9] - end of the paragraph and no fullstop?
  • Linkin Park had produced a nine-track demo tape
  • and also played forty-two
  • lasted four weeks that were spent re-recording the songs off of the demo tape - off of is not well written, remove 'of'
  • , isolation[14] and also disappointments and aftermath feelings of failed relationships.[15] Remove "and also" and add a comma
  • Four singles off of the album
  • All Music Guide should be in italics
    •  Done "All Music Guide" has been italicized. (SUDUSER)85 18:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M3tal H3ad (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)  Done All issues addressed by M3tal H3ad have been corrected. (SUDUSER)85 05:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Quite informative with the issues above being fixed. But is there any info on art cover avaliable? --Brand спойт 18:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tried searching for sources relating to the artwork, but the cases were: there were not reliable or there wasn't anything about it. Sorry. (SUDUSER)85 05:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:01, 26 November 2007.

Oxford United F.C.[edit]

I'm nominating this article for featured article because i feel that it is good enough to become a featured article. I think it is similar to the existing non-league FA's. Eddie6705 (talk) 12:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose This article is far from FA.
    • The lead section sucks. Two paragraphs with only one sentence. A list of managers and players.
    • A lot of POV words. For example, "Its history is quite unlike that of any other club in English football", "most impressively winning", "an excellent way", "famously asked", "an excellent start", "most successful ever" and many more.
    • The article is not comprehensive. Add a section about the crest. Add a section about the colours. Make the Supporters section longer.
    • Referencing is not FA standard. "Records" section, only 1 reference. "Financial crisis" section, only 1 reference. "Stadiums" section, 0 references. "Backroom staff" section, 0 references. "Notable players" section, 0 references. "Managerial history" section, 0 references. "Achievements" section, 0 references.
    • My English is not very good but I can see that the article needs a copy-edit.
      • Choose whether Oxford United "is" or "are" a football club.
      • The "Headington United""2001 to present" section and "Financial crisis" repeats "the team" and "the club" until I want to sleep.
      • "By now, Oxford were deep in relegation trouble." When is "now"? 2007?
      • "relegated to the National Conference from League Two in 23rd place" is confusing.
      • "because of £13 million debts, which almost bankrupted the club." Huh?
      • And many more.
    • Is it important for readers to know the result of every match in the 1986 League Cup and the 2006 playoffs? Is it important for readers to know the result of the last match Oxford played with Swindon Town?
    • Why is the "Financial crisis" section put at the end of the "History" section?
  • Improve the article more and try GA first. --Kaypoh (talk) 12:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way Kaypoh, it's a GA already! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a GA already? I see. Eddie6705 fixed some of the problems, so I strike them, but the article is still very far from FA standards. --Kaypoh (talk) 06:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as Kaypoh rather clearly stated, it's in need of some serious work. Some specifics from me:
    • Get to know the WP:MOS, particularly with regard to the placement of references and WP:DATE for date formatting.
    • Check other club FA's. Notable players is a no-no, inherently POV, so create a subpage of players who meet specific criteria, club records, 125+ appearances, internationals etc.
    • Fill in the publisher field in the {{Cite web}}'s.
    • Ensure all statements of fact which need citation have citation.
    • Crest section could do with some work on citation and prose.
    • Backroom staff section is really trivial stuff. Best off removed.
    • Check other club FA's for the managerial history section, most include complete match records.
    • Get rid of the succession box, does nothing for the article.
    • Why all the bolding in the Records section? Plus consider including a graph for attendances, league finishes and the like.
    • Trim external links per WP:EL
  • Let me know if I can be of any help. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the reasons above. Also there is a distinct lack of images. It should be easy to get hold of at least one player, manager and stadium image I'd have thought. I think you should aim to make it significantly better than existing non-league FAs, since Oxford were a league club for many years and have played in the top flight, hence there should be more source material readily available. Well done on getting it to GA though and keep up the good work. --Jameboy (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for many of the reasons above. There are a lot of WP:MOS issues and the entry needs a good copy-edit. There are a lot of shorter sentences and it doesn't flow too well. It's a good start but a lot of work needed. And you'll need some images to get it to FA.
    • First line. who are currently playing, simply say who play. You certainly don't need currently.
    • upto should be two words.
    • As above, differentiate between is/are or was/were. It ought to be plural but consistency is the main thing. See here for more details.
    • 1940's. No apostrophe.
    • Maxwell takeover. It seems a bit of a short but possibly very interesting chapter. Can you expand further on this?
    • FA Cup run. but have not progressed that far in the competition since then, then is unnecessary.**2nd-round and 3rd-round. Should be second round and third round.
    • The whole league cup section is very choppy. It particularly could do with a good copy-edit.
    • a winners medal. Probably ought to be a winner's medal?
    • Do you need to say it was the last time it was the Milk Cup? It doesn't strike me as being key to Oxford's history though others might disagree.
    • As above 8th should be eighth.
    • Stadiums section first line Oxford United (also as Headington United) . You've already said they were Headington United. In fact this line is a basic repetition from the first section of history.
    • The four stands were: Beech Road (west), London Road (home), Cuckoo Lane (north) and Osler Road (east). Urgh. This could do with being re-written.
    • redeveloping the ground was too costly, so the club decided to move to a purpose-built all-seater stadium on the outskirts of the city Is this right? I would expect a new ground cost more than re-development. In fact how much did the new stadium cost?
    • Make sure references come after the punctuation without a space as per WP:MOS.
    • The club name also returns to the crest returned?
    • with a current membership of 263, I'd try re-word this otherwise you need to update it every time someone else joins or leaves.
    • Backroom staff. I'm guessing this list has come from the official website. I don't think you need to list all these staff. Chairman, manager and possibly coaches ought to suffice.
    • Managerial history. I really like this table.
    • How about a section on the club's rivalries, particularly with Reading and Swindon Town, and why there isn't much rivaly with Oxford City. Peanut4 (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:01, 26 November 2007.

The Apprentice (UK Series Three)[edit]

Seems to pass the criteria. Agree? Dalejenkins | 10:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose with a number of issues:
The lead doesn't adequately explain the concept to a reader unfamiliar with the show. The briefest of synopses of The Apprentice premise is needed to make sense of the rest of the lead.
The format section should also include a slightly longer explanation of the prize / the contestants goal.
There is no response section. The criticism and controversy section goes some way to including this information but it is also important to include info on the ratings, reviews of the show rather than coverage of the controversy generated and any awards and nominations it might have received.
There is no production section. There should be information detailing how the show is made, where it was filmed (where was the house? Where is the board room?) and any notable crew involved.
The episode list should be reformatted into a table and preferably use the episode list template
--Opark 77 (talk) 11:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Disclosure: I don't live in the UK and I've never seen the show, not even a single episode, American or British.
First, please explain the team membership thing. The images show people in one team but the Challenges section say they are in a different team. I thought this was an error until I deciphered what "In Stealth" and "In Eclipse" on the Weekly results table meant. They switched up teams every week right.
I agree with Opark's point on the lead. I should be summarizing what exists in the article but it introduces new information and jumps to the results before explaining what it is about.
I agree with Opark's point on expanding the format/production section explaining objective, rules, structure, etc. for those of us who just stumbled upon the article. Even information about episodes (running time, how many, appeared weekly, time slot, etc) would be good.
I'm not convinced on Opark's point about using a table for the Challenges section.
Some of the writing should be reviewed:
"filmed in the autumn of 2006 and airing during the spring of 2007" - tense shifts
"before the series began in order to recruit the candidates."
--maclean 09:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:01, 26 November 2007.

The Preuss School UCSD[edit]

This is a self-nomination. I have worked on this article for over a year in an attempt to make it one of the strongest school articles on WP. I have got it up to GA, and recently had it peer reviewed. In this peer review, the major concern was the article's references, which I feel I have sufficiently addressed. It was also suggested I attempt a copy edit, but responses to the League of CopyEditors does not appear to be quick, with many articles having waited up to six months. As such, I have done what I can myself with the prose and ask that anyone who feels the article is objectionable over prose to cite specific examples and/or attempt to help me with them. Besides that I think the article meets all the requirements. Cheers. SorryGuy 01:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose:
  • Referencing is not FA standard. The "Facilities" section has only 2 references. There are no references in first three paragraphs of "Academics" section and no references in "Graduation requirements" section. "Clubs" section also needs references.
  • I added two to Facilities, one in Academics and two in Graduation requirements. I am not exactly sure what can be referenced in clubs. To see how referencing has been done in FA school articles in the past, please see Hopkins School, Plano Senior High School, and Stuyvesant High School. I have generally modeled this after those and feel the references are comparable. SorryGuy 02:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • References always go after a comma or full stop. Move the references after "1997 National Principal of the Year Dr. Doris Alvarez", "whose source was past faculty" and "investigating the accusations" to after a full stop.
  • My English is not very good but I can see that, yes, the article needs a copy-edit:
    • "Subsequently, tuition is non-existent." Huh?
      • I feel that this makes sense. SorryGuy 02:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "public universities were not being active enough in pursuing education opportunities" I thought students pursue education, universities don't pursue education?
    • "together proposed the goal of establishing" sounds funny.
      • I don't see the problem. SorryGuy 02:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "would have on overseeing agency" On? Overseeing agency?
    • "with assistance from public outcry and press" How does public outcry and press assist the school?
    • "whose source was past faculty and included a former teacher who filed a legal claim against the school" is too wordy.
      • Not sure how to make less wordy and keep meaning. SorryGuy 02:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The campus has five buildings for classrooms, each building has six classrooms, three on the first story and three on the second. The one exception to this is the science building, which requires more room for labs and hence has four rooms in its building." I think some commas are in the wrong place.
    • "takes at least three years of a foreign language" Er, you study years of a language? Like what "2007" is in Chinese?
    • "each student take" I think it should be "takes".
    • What is "an addition course"? They study addition in twelfth grade?
    • What does "beginning for most in their freshmen year" mean?
    • "Fridays rotate between the two." Huh?
    • "Of 2005's 75 graduates" also sounds funny.
    • "both boys and girls cross country, soccer, basketball, and lacrosse and girls only volleyball" I understand what you mean, but try to find a better wording.
    • Is "busing" a word?
      • See, I believe it is. SorryGuy 02:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "similar a Key Club" I think it should be "similar to".
    • "Other more tradition clubs also exist." What are "tradition clubs"? Clubs about tradition?
  • --Kaypoh (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In general, thanks for all the reading. Almost all of them are good fixes. SorryGuy 02:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose—Needs copy-editing. Here are random examples just in the lead. Please find someone else to go through the whole of the article.
  • "sixth and twelfth gradeS"?
  • "and been listed" (give the year, too)
  • Remove "also" from the last sentence in the lead.
  • Awkward (actually, incorrect) grammar, and is "facets" the right word? "Facets of admission include the primary guardian lacking a college education and the student's family qualifying for"
  • "Subsequently, tuition is non-existent."—Not much of a school. Tony (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:01, 26 November 2007.

Flag of Poland[edit]

Selfnom. I believe this article meets all FA criteria and has all that a featured-quality article about a national flag should have. It was already an A-class Heraldry and Vexillology article before I substantially expanded and improved it. — Kpalion(talk) 04:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose. The article leaves much to be desired. Overall, the prose is at a rudimentary level, far from the usual Wiki FA professional (or semi-professional) standard. The same facts are repeated ad nauseam challenging the reader’s intelligence (for example, the phrase "colors are white and red..." "white and red", "white and red…"). The paragraphs are stubby and dry, many without inline citations. The lead does not prepare the reader for the greater detail in the subsequent sections. Also, the elongated Table of Contents with uninteresting and uninformative titles leads to nagging mysteries, like "Flag protocol". What is the flag protocol if there’s none? – Many themes are treated with one-liners, or worse, only bullets… BTW, the bullets make some of the subsections plainly unacceptable as not comprehensive enough. Many references have no retrieval data and no names of authors nor the titles of their publications. The article as it stands should not have been submitted here at all. --Poeticbent talk 07:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. There are still paragraphs lacking inline citation. May I suggest obtaining WP:GA status before going for WP:FA?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The standard of the text, especially the introduction, does not meet criteria 1a on quality of prose. I believe this needs looking at by a different copyeditor to bring it up to standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owain.davies (talk • contribs) 18:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose with the other users. I am working with the user to clean up some of the sentences and dealing with citations. I honestly felt the lead was talking a lot about other national symbols and not just on the flag. The lead also mentioned some derivatives of the flag, which I added to it. Gruntbrat (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:01, 26 November 2007.

Henry Allingham[edit]

While this article is currently categorized as a start, I believe it should be a FAC. It is short, but is beautifully written and sourced. I would love to see him the first supercentenarian featured as he approaches his 112nd. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose This article is quite far from FA:
  • One reference per paragraph is GA standard referencing, not FA standard referencing. Some paragraphs have no references. For example, paragraphs 2, 3, 5 and 6 of "World War I" section, paragraphs 2 and 3 of "After World War II" section.
  • The article is not comprehensive. It needs a "Personal life" section.
  • The lead section is weak. It is too short. It also says "Allingham credits "cigarettes, whisky and wild, wild women — and a good sense of humour" for his longevity." but this is not explained further in the rest of the article.
  • Some paragraphs are too short. I think there are a few English mistakes, but I'm not very sure because my English is not very good:
    • "revert to his previous desire" Is "revert" used correctly?
    • "his role was the maintenance of aircraft" sounds funny.
    • "what later has become known as" is too wordy.
    • "by now an Air Mechanic First Class" When is "now"? 2007?
    • Is "instrumented" a word?
    • "The marriage lasted 51 years and produced two daughters" I never heard that a marriage can produce children.
    • "The most significant of these was perhaps" I think there is a weasel word here.
    • "he had successfully completed the task" sounds funny. Maybe you can remove the word "had".
    • "so that other generations will not forget" Not forget what?
    • "A couple of weeks later on, in May" is too wordy.
    • "visitors remarking on his memory and voice" Is "remarking on" correct?
  • Improve the article and try GA first. --Kaypoh (talk) 10:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:01, 26 November 2007.

R.O.B.[edit]

R.O.B. -- I am very interested in Wikipedia, how can I make this become a featured article?—Preceding unsigned comment added by H.M.S. Goldfinger (talk • contribs)

  • This page isn't for questions about featured articles- the talk page might be a better place. Read through What is a featured article? You should probably check out WP:NEWBIE too.-Wafulz (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
  • Lead section is too short.
  • Article has only 1 reference.
  • Do you need a list of "Appearances in Games"?
  • If you are new I suggest you try GA first. Please read the FA criteria and the GA criteria before nominating an article for FA or GA. --Kaypoh (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose See the articles that have made FA at WP:FA too. This ROB one is barely more than a stub. Remove per WP:SNOW. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objections A case study in FA Candidateship? It is at least "start" class I believe. Who gets to nominate articles and which get to be nominated? only articles which are already close to FA status? Is the FA nomination a process to better the quality or a judgement on the quality? Who gets to decide and how long does it get to change?

From Wikipedia:Featured article criteria

    1. "Well-written" the lack of other qualities makes this hard to qualify.
    2. Not "Comprehensive" - History seems too short, lacks Nintendo development story.
    3. I am unable to qualify "Factually accurate" because of it's criminal deficiency in sources
  2. MOS
    1. The lead is concise, rather it is too concise.
    2. It does not use a consistently format for citations/references as it has only one.
  3. It has images and other media that are helpful to the article.
  4. It does not go into inadequate detail, opposite is true.

--Keerllston 15:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.

Reform Act 1832[edit]

I stumbled across this article, and my first reaction was "Wow, this article is really good." I don't think there's much necessary to get it to FA, and I'm willing to do what's needed. Vanished user talk 02:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did you notice that almost all of the footnotes are from books published in either the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries? While using the occasional historical source might be fine, there is a lot of excellent scholarship on this topic that has been written by modern scholars. Are you prepared to read some of it and check the article against it? We don't want the nineteenth-century view of the 1832 Reform Act! (I see the "Further reading" lists some good books.) Awadewit | talk 07:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but it'll have to wait a day or two. Vanished user talk 18:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I anticipate waiting a month at the very least! I can't imagine it would take less time than that to start reading on this huge topic - and that would be if you had hours every day to devote to it. Awadewit | talk 20:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's the estimated time to see if modern interpretations strongly differ. If they do, then yes, we have a lot of extra reading. But if they turn out broadly similar, then much less work is necessary. Vanished user talk 21:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but you still need to do quite a bit of the reading to see if they differ (one book, for example, is not sufficient) and cite sources in the article so users don't think we are relying only on old sources. Awadewit | talk 21:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, agreed there. But should at least get a preliminary idea after a day or two, which I don't have now. So, insofar as that, I'm not really able to say much more until tomorrow =) Vanished user talk 21:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way: Slight update: Flu. May be a little longer. Vanished user talk 05:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry to hear that! I am just recovering. Awadewit | talk 09:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm opposing for the time being because I'm not convinced that this article is founded on solid research. I am of the firm opinion that wikipedia history articles should be based on modern scholarship. Awadewit | talk 18:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment contains unneeded links to standalone years that yield no additional information to support the article content. Just link clutter. Otherwise, fine article. Hmains 03:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I studied this some years ago, and it certainly doesn't deviate from my recollection of the subject. Probably reads a little old-fashioned, but I don't believe there've been any major reinterpretations of the subject. If modern sources differ, they probably focus on their opinions of its long-term impact. J.Winklethorpe talk 07:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're saying there have been no major reinterpretations in 100 years? Let's just say I'm skeptical. You must at least grant that pre-Hayden White and post-Hayden White theories of the Act are going to look different and that's just a beginning. What about the reassessment of the Industrial Revolution that took place rather recently (last 20 years or so)? What about history written using Marxist theory? There are iterations of this. Awadewit | talk 07:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you provide an example of a different interpretation? Vanished user talk 05:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to believe that it is the responsibility of articles to provide up-to-date scholarship and editors to be able to defend their sources per the featured article criterion which states: ""Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge". The "relevant body of published knowledge" goes beyond the nineteenth century in this case. I was not under the impression that it was the job of the reviewer to do the research. I do not have the time to spend researching this article but it is simply illogical to suppose that the historical interpretation of this event has remained unchanged since the interpretations of other major historical events, such as the French Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, the rise of the middle class, etc. have altered significantly. Awadewit | talk 09:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said "I don't believe there've been any major reinterpretations", which is based on remembering from "some years ago". I've read some recent works that touched on the subject, and didn't come across anything that jarred with what I know, and the same applies to this article. This isn't, and wasn't meant to be, an absolute claim, but my personal belief that it's basicly sound, and doesn't exclude any major interpretations. So I didn't see a failure of 1b or 1c, and didn't withhold my support. J.Winklethorpe talk 07:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am quoting you: I don't believe there've been any major reinterpretations of the subject. You then went on to speculate about how modern sources (which it is not clear whether or not you have read) differ in interpretation of the Act's impact. It is unclear whether you view this as significant. I am also not sure why you would support an article that does not use modern scholarship for its sources - how does this make wikipedia look to the outside world? Even if the information from nineteenth-century sources is identical to modern scholarship (which I highly doubt), a reader would have no way of knowing this and would assume that this page is primarily a nineteenth-century view of of the Act. I do not think that this is the face we want an FA to present to the world. Awadewit | talk 09:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence you quote should be read in the context of the preceding sentence. My belief (which I deliberately phrased as such so as to be softer than, say, "certain knowledge"), is based on some small familiarity of the subject, which I hope I made clear was some years old (although some related reading is more up to date; a recent biography of Wellington, for example, included his role in the period). My statement of support should be read as no more, or less, than was stated. You say you are unsure why I support the article. The short answer is that I felt it met the FA criteria. I do feel that simply because certain books are used for inline citations, and other listed references are not used in-line, doesn't necessarily imply the listed references have not been used to craft the article. Quite the reverse in fact: if references are listed, it could be assumed they have been used. When I combined that view with the fact that the article did not conflict with what I knew, I concluded I could see no 1b or 1c issues, or any other issues that would prevent my support. I believe (and correct me if otherwise) that you find that the choice of citations implies out-of-date scholarship. That's a perfectly valid view, and I can see the logic behind it. Personally, I don't subscribe to it, and will continue my support. Finally, I will say that what you accurately describe as my "speculation" as to where modern works might differ (and that was my point, that that was the only place I could see where some extra work might be needed) probably wasn't a helpful addition by myself to the discusion; it added little. At the time, I hoped it might help Adam focus the extra reading he has very willngly offered to undertake. I apologise if it was something of a red herring J.Winklethorpe talk 22:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are basing part of this chain of reasoning on an assumption that cannot be proven yet: that the article was written using the more modern scholarship listed in the "Further reading". It has been my experience on wikipedia that editors often list books that they have not consulted in the "Further reading" so I am hesitant to accept that premise. Furthermore, I wish you would consider how this article looks to the outside world. If I came to this article from a google search and checked its references, I would assume that its content was based on sources cited in its footnotes and its "References" section and I would discard it - I would say to myself, "why do I want to read an article only based on nineteenth-century scholarship?" So, again, I ask you, is that the face we want to put forward as "the best wikipedia has to offer"? Awadewit | talk 22:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are entirely right: I haven't personally reviewed the literature on this subject in order to be certain the article is correct. However, I've already outlined why I'm sufficiently confident to support the article. Another reason is that FAC is not a one-person process: other reviewers, who may be more up-to-date, will come along and review. The idea of the FAC process, as I understand it, is that one well supported oppose can trump any number of supports. If someone highlights a failure in the article, then it won't be promoted until fixed. It's entirely possible that I'm badly wrong on this matter, and the FAC will fail.
  • As I have covered above, I have "consider[ed] how this article looks to the outside world". I simply disagree with your view on the matter. "[T]he best wikipedia has to offer" is a very subjective description. I've given my subjective opinion, and you're giving yours. Hopefully others will give theirs, and Raul will weigh them in the balance. Perhaps the simplest solution is to wait until Adam reports back on the results of the research you suggested? In any event, I am away for several days from tomorrow. J.Winklethorpe talk 23:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Apparently this is current A-level syllabus territory, the main text for which is by Norman Gash "Politics in the Age of Peel". --ROGER DAVIES TALK 11:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Written in 1971. (I wish someone would explain all of that A-level stuff to me....) Awadewit | talk 02:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. There's better and more up-to-date stuff available. (I'll leave a brief explanation on your talk page later.)--ROGER DAVIES TALK 07:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lol. What I meant was that 1971 is more up-to-date than the current footnoted sources on the page right now! Awadewit | talk 07:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you meant. "Indeed. There's better and more up-to-date stuff available [than the 1896 book cited here]." I'm sorry if the ellipsis left my remark insufficiently specific for you. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 08:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, anyway, since we agree on that issue (the issue of up-to-date sources being available), are you going to undertake the massive task of reading to check on this page to help out poor Adam? I am afraid that I am swamped at the moment. Awadewit | talk 08:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still too emotionally scarred from studying the Corns Laws at school to snuggle up with Peel I'm afraid.--ROGER DAVIES TALK 09:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pass & support

  • On the basis that it's fine.

Request: Add more to External links. Remark: "there is a lot of excellent scholarship on this topic that has been written by modern scholars." And I agree the article needs a wider breadth of sources. Unfortunately current criteria does not require it. Learnedo 00:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Criteria 1c reads: "'Factually accurate' means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge." - See WP:FA? Awadewit | talk 02:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria 1c is of extremely poor standard. This is why more than one person urges any article have a wider breadth of sources. I never said that it's require however. Do you remember me using the word require? NO. Leranedo 09:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. My question about this article is whether is "accurately represents the relevant body of published knowledge". I have a hard time believing it does, since the majority of the footnotes are to nineteenth-century sources. That is why I don't think it meets this criteria. Awadewit | talk 09:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leranedo, please read WP:EL; there is no reason for a comprehensive article to add external links, which should be held to a minimum. Also see WP:NOT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of reasons, among those "Adding external links can be a service to our readers" so do so. Leranedo 09:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leranedo, why don't you show us some links that would be helpful? Nothing is jumping to my mind immediately. I believe wikipedia is trying to cut back on external links, especially on FA pages. Awadewit | talk 09:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I found the article confusing—it says the act "specifically disenfranchised women", which to my mind means their vote was taken away, but then almost immediately afterwards it says "The right to vote [before the Act] was restricted to men". Other parts are unclear: e.g. "George III was averse to the idea" (the idea of enlarging the franchise or the idea of trying to get an unpopular bill through a parliament destined to reject it?) Then later on: "Support for reform came from an unexpected source—a faction of the Tory Party—in 1829. The Tory government under Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington.." followed by "The Duke of Wellington...strongly opposed reform measures". And "The Whig party won almost all constituencies with genuine electorates," but I inferred from what we were told earlier on that this number was very low. The article needs a thorough checking to clear up these misunderstandings.

Unfortunately, all the statements cited are correct, even the apparently contradictory ones: For example, no women could vote before 1832, but it was not impossible for women to do so; but no constituency did in fact include them in the list of electors. One of things the Reform Act did was to establish uniform qualifications for the vote for the first time, and these included being male. Similarly, it established a uniform property requirement, much wider in most constituencies; but it also disenfranchised some poor men. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why were the bishops against reform? How widespread/serious were calls for abolition of nobility and monarchy? Were there prominent people or print media saying this, or were they small public demonstrations?

  • The bishops were against reform because they were Tories. This in turn for three reasons:
    • They had, almost all of them, been appointed by 40 years of Tory ministries.
    • The Anglican Church, in any case, naturally tended to have High-Tory, no-meddling-with-the-Matchless-Constitution, no-reform-at-all politics, because some of the obvious minor reforms would giving more rights to the Portestant Dissenters in England and the Catholics in Ireland.
    • And the Reform Act itself, besides encouraging other reforms, would give a greater Dissenting vote, both by removing local religious restrictions and by making places like Manchester into parliamentary constituencies.
  • I would have expected so much to be the background any literate general reader would bring to this article (its authors may well think so too); clearly not, however. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have misunderstood my criticism, which is not on the facts presented but the manner of presentation, which is confusing for any person unfamiliar with the subject matter.
By the way, I don't appreciate your sneering tone, please don't insult my intelligence. By making such attacks you are simply denigrating yourself, rather than the object of your scorn. DrKiernan 09:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What sneer? I said that your criticism indicates that this amount of background is not possessed by all literate readers; saying so implies that you are one. (If, on the other hand, you did accept the facts as obvious, and are suggesting that other readers may lack this background, that is an entirely different question: Should we write down for our readers? and if so, how far?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my misunderstanding. We should remember that the article is being read by non-native English speakers and children, in addition to general layreaders, so clarity is important. DrKiernan 08:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think all quotes should have citations and would prefer to see one citation per paragraph so we can see clearly from where the information has been taken. DrKiernan 15:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.

2007 Malaysian Grand Prix[edit]

previous FAC

Nom restarted (Old nom) Raul654 16:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating from old nom: Oppose A lot of writing problems.

  • "poor form" POV
    • How is it? Can you think of a better way to reword it? Davnel03 08:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Poor is POV. Buc 12:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buc 12:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "problems four laps later and lost places." how many places?
    • The source doesn't tell me. Davnel03 08:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • See if you can find one that does. Buc 07:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The race section could do with a few more mentions of what lap stuff happened on.
    • I think things are detailed quite clearly. If I put "on lap ___" for every sentence, it would get a bit repetitive and boring. Davnel03 08:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reading I got confused about what stage the race was at. Buc 07:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #35 no entered the same way as all other refs.
    • Which exact source are you on about? Sorry, I've since added a ref so that's slightly confused matters. Can you tell me the title of the source, and tell me what I've done wrong.
      • 36
  • "The test was scheduled to begin on 27 March" scheduled to? was it canceled or something?
  • "arrived at the test directly...without returning to their European bases" These to statment imply pretty much the same thing.
    • Comment Only if you know their bases are in Europe, which a reader new to the topic will not. 4u1e 18:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do they need to? Buc 06:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, not going back to Europe from Australia is a completely different story to not going back to say Japan - and a reader new to the topic might reasonably believe that Toyota, Honda and Super Aguri teams were based in that country. So yes, I'd say it was rather more informative as it gives some idea why they didn't. 4u1e 16:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • This needs to be explained in that case. Buc 17:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't think it does, to be honest. That would amount to explaining why the information is given in the article, which I suggest is not a good use of space. 4u1e 17:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Okay how a ref where it is explained. Buc 14:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Perhaps I'm not understanding what you want explained. Declaring my interests, I wrote the bit we're discussing. The intent of including the fact that the teams didn't go back to Europe was to give a new reader more of a feel for the sport (i.e. that it is largely Europe based) and to explain why the teams went straight to the Malaysian race. I can't think of any way of explaining the first in the article that would make sense. Do you mean that we should spell out that Europe is 20,000 km (ish) from Australia and that Malaysia and Australia are much closer to each other? 4u1e 18:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • "I'm not understanding what you want explained." The reason why the didn't return to Europe. Buc 11:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Because it's a very, very long way away and they only had nine days. I think I've explained this a bit more clearly, see what you think. I can't see that it needs spelling out any further. Anyone else care to comment? 4u1e 11:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • It looks like it is more clear now. -- Davnel03 (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Robert Kubica, Kimi Räikkönen and Lewis Hamilton set the fastest times on consecutive days" when I first read this I thought "consecutive days" ment all three drivers were fastest on two days in a row, but since the test only ran for 3 days that can't be right.
    • Re-written: clearer? 4u1e 11:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The teams agreed to extend the testing by one day due to the poor weather" I think "Due to this poor weather, the teams agreed to extend the testing by one day"
  • I the Background section could use some sub-sections.
  • Use just one of "qualifying round", "qualifying session" or "QX". Also why are "Q1" and "Q3" in brackets but "Q2" not?
    • Brackets was probably just because Q1 and Q3 were interjections, while Q2 was used directly. I've changed all to 'part', which is what is used in the table. I'm not sure the table should say that though - FIA use Q1, Q2 and Q3 and perhaps we should follow suit. Views? 4u1e 12:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The caption under Image:F1 whitestripetyres.jpg is a bit long.
  • Comment I believe the caption is as concise as it can be. IMO, it has to mention the car names, identify them (above/below), say if they have the stripe and give both the colloquial and formal names of the tyre type. I can't see how you could say that in a shorter caption that reads easy, or why you would want/need to. AlexJ 19:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could drop the car names, since they won't mean much to many readers, but that wouldn't save you much, since you'd then have to say 'the top car', or 'blue car' instead. Otherwise agree, the caption is informative in its current form, and would not be so if content were cut. 4u1e 17:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buc 20:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.

Klaas-Jan Huntelaar[edit]

I recently made this article in to a Good article, and it has gone through peer-review. I think it's ready for FAC and I'll do my best to address any issues with the article which will undoubtedly be raised. JACOPLANE • 2007-11-9 22:24

  • Object -[mainly 1a, also 1b, 1c] I really like the article, my problems with it seem fixable.
only 16 out of 78 sources are in english, this doesn't disqualify it in any way but was this translated from the dutch wikipedia?
The article was not translated from the Dutch Wikipedia, I wrote it solely for the English WP. The problem I had is that there are simply no English sources for a lot of the facts that need sources in this article. JACOPLANE • 2007-11-10 10:18
Wow! It makes it a bit harder for me to check some things, but this was merely an observational comment, not an objection. It's interesting that this might get FA status in the English-language wikipedia before it does in the Dutch-language wikipedia.
Comment: If you need to get some facts from a Dutch source verified, I'm sure I can get another Dutch admin to help out with confirming the sources. JACOPLANE • 2007-11-15 12:35
"(another one was disallowed by a controversial off-side call by the referee, denying him the hat-trick)," why is this inside parenthesis? if it isn't notable it shouldn't be in the article, if it is notable it shouldn't be in parenthesis, and who says its controversial?
 Done Removed that sentence. JACOPLANE • 2007-11-10 10:18
"In the final Huntelaar scored a brace" I wasn't able to find this usage in wiktionary for brace.
 Done I've re-added a wikilink to Brace (grouping). JACOPLANE • 2007-11-10 10:18
"He is seen as a rising star in Dutch football, being named Dutch Football Talent of the Year and [...]" grammar, "weasel terms", unreferenced - are all Dutch Football Talent of the Year seen as rising stars? who sees him as a rising star? My solution would be "He won the title of Dutch Footbal Talent of the [...] and forget about "rising star"
This was raised in the GA nomination too, everything in the intro is referenced in the article. The "rising star" bit is referenced in the National football team section using this reference: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/internationals/4795339.stm. JACOPLANE • 2007-11-10 10:18
That individual part was not referenced and even now I doubt it's NPOV. The report calls him a Rising Star, the article says he is seen by as a rising star. So far, we have that BBC sees that a commentor for the BBC sees that he is a rising star. "Various media outlets have noted him as a rising star in netherlands football, and he has won..." would work better.--Keerllston 14:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Used your suggestion. JACOPLANE • 2007-11-15 09:49
"He led the Dutch to victory" this seems POV to me. My solution would be to delete, his goal making is notable, his leadership is not.
Rephrased the sentence. "While Holland went on to score just three goals in four games goals at the World Cup in Germany, the youth side did a lot better in the U21 championship. Huntelaar was the top-scorer of the Under 21 tournament with four goals, including a powerful strike in the semi-final against France and a brace in the final against Ukraine, as the young Dutch were victorious in the tournament." JACOPLANE • 2007-11-10 10:18
I was wondering why you had changed it and it was still there - you changed the line inside "Netherlands national team" the same line is also in the lead.--Keerllston 14:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rephrased the intro to say "He was a part of the Dutch side that won the 2006 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship, where he became the tournament's leading goal-scorer. He is the all-time highest goal-scorer for the Netherlands U21 squad with 18 goals in 22 matches."
--Keerllston 03:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like it but I keep finding these...
"as a centre forward, or an "out-and-out" striker, rather than as a supporting striker." -centre forward... shouldn't need to repeat "out and out striker" which is (I believe) informal ... yet more could be said about what he actually does in the field.- games are more than just scoring and moving from team to team.
"as a youth talent at an early age" can you put his actual age? otherwise delete word early, youth talents don't recruit old people.
 Done Removed "at an early age". JACOPLANE • 2007-11-15 09:49
"He has a good technical ability and can score goals with either foot" referenced to goal.com -but what is "good" technical ability? that he can score with either foot perhaps should be referenced to matches/match reports. is goal.com a reliable source? it doesn't even say that he has good technical ability - a comment by a woman from chile apparently says that.
 Not done I've asked what people on WikiProject Football feel about using Goal.com as a source. JACOPLANE • 2007-11-15 10:01
The consensus on WP:FOOTY seems to be that Goal.com is an acceptable source. The Goal.com article also mentions that he is a "rising talent", BTW. I agree with you that the "good technical ability" is rather ambiguous and I'll have to rephrase that. I'll try to come up with something better today. JACOPLANE • 2007-11-15 12:32
"Huntelaar was the top-scorer of the Under 21 tournament with four goals, including a powerful strike in the semi-final against France and a brace in the final against Ukraine, as the young Dutch were victorious in the tournament." bad grammar/run-on.
 Done Rewrote it: "While Holland went on to score just three goals in four games goals at the World Cup in Germany, the youth side did a lot better in the U21 championship. Huntelaar was the top-scorer of the Under 21 tournament with four goals as the young Dutch were victorious in the tournament. He scored a powerful strike in the semi-final against France and a brace in the final against Ukraine."JACOPLANE • 2007-11-15 09:49
All the problems I've seen are fixable and pretty small, but it seems there's a lot of them. This article still needs work.--Keerllston 14:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object if only on a number of minor points and a couple of other easily amended comments. Though I have to point out I've help to copyedit some of the sections at GA.
Profile; Huntelaar and his girlfriend became a couple. What do you mean? Engaged, married?
No, just what it says, they announced to the media that they are a couple, not engaged, and definitely not married. JACOPLANE • 2007-11-18 00:04
No worries. It seems a clumsy way of explaining this but it's referenced and I'm not sure how best to change the wording unless you explain he and his girlfriend were previously friends. Peanut4 (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This might be something for another page but what are A1 and B1 teams?
A1 is the highest youth level, B1 is a lower youth level. I don't feel this article to explain that, though. JACOPLANE • 2007-11-18 00:04
The reason I asked is because I don't understand what they mean, not knowing the Dutch league in-depth. Are there are wikilinks (even if just to subsections) that explain A1 and B1? If not, then you're right, this isn't the article to explain the levels. Peanut4 (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PSV; In his second season at PSV (2001–02), I'd try rewrite this so 2001-02 isn't in brackets.
 Done Removed the years, those are made clear in the infobox. JACOPLANE • 2007-11-18 00:04
PSV; I'd wikilink substitute when mentioned in his debut. It's obvious what it means to me, but a page exists so I'd use it.
 Done Added a wikilink to Substitute (football). JACOPLANE • 2007-11-18 00:04
PSV; the links in the final section, go 5 then 2. Should they not be re-ordered?
I'm not sure what you're talking about here, could you clarify? JACOPLANE • 2007-11-18 00:04
'This turned out to be his only Eredivisie appearance for the club.[5][2]' I just wondered if the two references at the end of this sentence should be switched round so it says 2 then 5. Rather than 5 then 2. Peanut4 (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
De Graafschap; Huntelaar was sent on loan to his old club De Graafschap to gain experience. Can you find a reference for this that it is to gain experience and not to help him find a new club?
 Done Although I'm 99% sure that I read in a source that he was sent back to gain experience, I can't seem to locate that right now. So I've removed the "to gain experience" bit. JACOPLANE • 2007-11-18 00:04
Heerenveen career seems to be predominantly a list of goals. Is there anything else you can add to expand this section? I much prefer the Ajax section because it puts his goal more into the overall context of the club.
There are no sources available that I have been able to locate (in Dutch or English) to add much to this section. I guess you could fail the article for this, but it's simply because there are no sources available. Anything further I could add here would be original research. JACOPLANE • 2007-11-18 00:04
Netherlands career. I'm a bit dubious about this sentence; Huntelaar's status as a rising star was confirmed when Marco van Basten decided to select the striker as his starting striker in the Dutch National squad's friendly against the Republic of Ireland on 16 August 2006. I'm sure this needs a reference regarding the rising star comment. It could be seen as PoV. Plenty of players get international caps without necessarily being rising stars.
 Done Previous reviewer raised the "rising star" issue, please see my answers above. JACOPLANE • 2007-11-18 00:04
Fair enough. But one of the two uses of rising star needs a reference to that BBC story. Otherwise it's POV. Peanut4 (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any links available to separate articles on the Dutch seasons in the career section?
I don't understand what kind of links you are looking for. Sources that summarize full seasons? JACOPLANE • 2007-11-18 00:04
See Thierry Henry. All the years in the left hand column have a wikilink to that particularly year in English / Spanish seasons, etc. Are there appropriate seasons to wikilink the Dutch seasons? Peanut4 (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise this article is making very good progress since I first came across it a few weeks ago. Peanut4 22:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.

Angolan Civil War[edit]

I'm nominating this article for featured article status because it fully covers the topic in detail exceeding several other articles currently listed as FACs. I dealt with the war's impact after it ended in '02, foreign involvement in supporting different sides, and I actually ended up creating articles on other wars, Shaba II, as I researched the circumstances in Angola. Perspicacite 12:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Without reading the article, I feel the lead does a poor job of summarizing and explaining the conflict. Could something be done in regards to this? Thank you. 70.51.118.198 17:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, not unless you point out something specific you dislike about the lead. What do you feel is missing? Perspicacite 18:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection [due to 1a, 3] Very interesting piece of history.
The writing style is not elegant, engaging, or brilliant. It states the facts in a style that's not very pleasing.
One picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Namibia_mapa.png is great, more images in that style are needed.
There is a better way to organize the article than through decades.
The spanish language version seems substancially nicer, has an image of the bust of Neto the english version could use, has a better infobox, has better section-naming. I suggest piracy! :)
--Keerllston 21:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure that you're objection's overly helpful as you don't suggest ways in which the article is lacking, or give suggestions for how the writing and organization of the article could be improved --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 21:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I stated what I thought was wrong with it, and while I didn't provide examples, I was honest - fact is though, I was pressed for time and hoped to continue it, elaborating on specific examples and so on. Thanks for being honest. I appreciate it.--Keerllston 03:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Organization by the decades is how Angola's history is usually dissected - if you have an alternative I am open to suggestion. Half of the Spanish language version discusses Angola's war for independence, a completely different war. Neto died four years into the war. He's not all that notable in relation to the conflict. How should the infobox be changed? Which section titles would you change? Perspicacite 22:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • While the spanish version uses half of itself to talk about something else, this one hardly has an introduction! (I kid) let me elaborate further on what I meant.--Keerllston 03:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elaboration/Continuation
Well, there is no image in the infobox, - an image would be really nice. otherwise the only improvement in the spanish version is the casualties per side, which currently has only civilian casualties.
The spanish version actually has three images that are some good! Neto, and Dos Santos and one about south african invasions! They might be unimportant to the article in general, but to specific sections they seem to me rather relevant. (I've just discovered that the image I praised in the article is also in spanish, surprise!) I want more pictures in the article to increase ease in understanding, to help contextualize the conflict. I guess
What about the distinct sides? Shouldn't there be a description of the sides of the conflict? there is a tiny description in the lead, saying where each had support, and I suppose there are articles of each side in their own article, but a section (called "Actors" or "Armed Forces" or something else) further explaining each side, would be helpful to comprehension.
I know you it was probably my critique unsupported criticism about the writing style that annoyed you. I'll try to show what I meant.
The lead needs work. Specifically the second paragraph. Specifically the first and second sentences. "The conflict, one of the largest Cold War conflicts of the developing world, involved three main factions and several smaller ones." are you're trying to say that the conflict involved three main factions and several smaller ones, introducing your next sentence? are you trying to say that it is one of the largest Cold War conflicts of the developing world? Either way, not a very good sentence, talking about two very separate subjects.
"Government troops wounded Savimbi in battles in January and February 1990. Namibia declared independence on April 1. The MPLA ended the one-party system in June and rejected Marxist-Leninism at the MPLA's third Congress in December, formally changing the party's name from the MPLA-PT to the MPLA. Savimbi went to Washington, D.C. in December and met with President George H. W. Bush. The National Assembly passed law 12/91 in May 1991, coinciding with the withdrawal of the last Cuban troops, defining Angola as a "democratic state based on the rule of law" with a multi-party system." Stating the facts - the facts themselves tell the story, they are the right facts. But it's not elegant, and the facts are engaging even though the writing style isn't. That the writing style is not elegant - I think we can agree, brilliant - I think we can also agree, engaging is troublesome because of the facts being so very interesting.
How would I propose to change the above? Well, I think it's rather significant that this is how 90s begins[an], not with any introduction, but with facts, lots of them, in quick succession, rather than an introduction to the topic. Rather than a description of any kind.
I hope I have made my earlier comments clearer, more helpful.
--Keerllston 03:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice addition of the image of Senator Clark!
Note - Topics in Article: Chronology, "Legacy", "Cultural Influence", [soon also "Cabida"]
Wow! 90s introduction is better. My previous comments are becoming outdated! I'm glad.
--Keerllston 03:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Objection until properly copy-edited. Just at the opening, and in many other places, there are things that need attention. The whole text needs fresh eyes.

  • "mid-2000s"—Some people promote the idea of this term as standing for just a single decade, but it will confuse many readers, who will think it means around 2050. In any case, you say the war formally closed in 2002, which is mid nothing.
 Done Perspicacite 00:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "27-year long war"—Two hyphens, not one, required. There are other examples of this, too.
 Done Perspicacite 00:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The conflict, one of the largest Cold War conflicts of the developing world,"—"conflict" twice? of --> in?
 Done Perspicacite 00:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • the US, apartheid SA—there's a time-shift in this list, at least it's a little jarring to have to think "ah, it means Sth Af in the earlier part of the conflict, and the US throughout ... or does it?"
  • And at random: "By mid-November, the Huambo government had control over ..."—insert "gained". MOS breaches, for example, in the spacing of currency value, final period in non-sentence captions, and the need for logical punctuation at the end of quotations. Tony (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Perspicacite 00:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had in mind something a little more intensive than this. Apart from all of the other issues, I see that decades are linked. Why? Tony (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, very well written, factual and comprehensive article. It really was a pleasant read, I see no reason why it should not be promoted. Regards, Bogdan що? 03:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — The introduction doesn't go far enough in identifying the issues or making the article accessible. Where is Angola? Where is Cabinda? Why did Cabinda seek separate independence? Why did this become a proxy conflict? Why did it become polarised? What political factors were involved? --ROGER DAVIES TALK 19:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree. FA criteria: It's 1a in that it is not encyclopedic style to lack those things. It's 1b in that it's not comprehensive to lack those things.
  • In the history it said the Cabinda section would be amplified, I understood it to mean that more work would be done in the introduction in general... I am not entirely sure what FA candidateship means - is it the current status with minor changes, or it the article in its future status that is being nominated?--Keerllston 12:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I said I would 'amplify it soon' I meant a couple of days, as in Wednesday, most likely. Perspicacite 13:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't mean to hurry you or single you out-
a disclaimer would have been nice, noting that changes are being made, etc. I put one up myself.
reviewers are not responsible for noting every single error
the "done" templates suggested that you believed your work was through in regards to Tony's comment, when he was talking about a larger issue
That placed the done templates in that way led me to doubt that you were going to work further on the larger issues, considering your work done, having fixed the examples.--Keerllston 16:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disclaimer: Significant work in large quantity is in progress on this article, comments on current status might become outdated.[-- disclaimer added by Keerllston on 16:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)][reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.

Holden[edit]

I'm nominating this article for featured article status because after successfully passing the article through the good article process, I was recomended that I take it further. Thanks in advance. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing based on things from just a cursory read

  • 1(b) - comprehensiveness. From my limited knowledge there appears to be missing information. According to - Holden Barina - the early models were rebadged Suzuki Swifts but this is not noted in the article. There is no mention of the Adventura, Rodeo or other significant models. Mostly though there is little on the company, factories and people. The article is written about cars and models. The closure of many factories and the reduction in workforce from over 30,000 to 6,000 (numbers may be wrong) is of great note and must be covered more broadly. There is nothing on the company structure, any published financial information and little that I would expect to see in an article about a corporation.
  • 1(d) - NPOV. The section titles need some thought.
  • 2(a) - the Lead does not adequately summarise the article per WP:LEAD

- Peripitus (Talk) 11:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.

Green Wing[edit]

previous FAC

A self-nomination, this article was put up featured article status before, but was not promoted. (The fact that the nomination was restarted might have had something to do with it.) However, I believe this article is now of an acceptable standard. It is already list as being A-class, and I can see no problems with the article myself. ISD 06:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I noticed the links to the BBC comedy guide need updating. If they're the same link they could be combined. Otherwise, I'll stick to what I wrote in the original FAC prior to its restart: "It seems a bit unusual to use so many references to primary sources (the episodes themselves) and it would be better to have more third-party commentary such as BBC articles, but I can't think of anything more specific at this time." Gimmetrow 07:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just had a quick read through and stumbled badly on the plot section, which isn't plot but character sketches. This should go either one way (plot) or the other (characters). I'd like to see much more sourced and referenced material, from third-parties, so I endorse Gimmetrow's comment. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 08:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response to comments: I have tried to use more third party sources (British Sitcom Guide, Channel 4) as references sources. The episode references now link to these sites, rather than to Wikipedia articles. I've also tried re-writing the plot section. I shouls point out that the BBC comedy guide is currently being updated and is not online, so at the moment it is of much less use. ISD 12:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Fixes needed:
  • "The main plot is split between two love stories. These being the love triangle between Caroline, Guy and Mac, and the on-off relationship between Alan and Joanna."
  • "The first series introduced the main characters, as well as introducing Caroline to the world of East Hampton. She wonders whom she loves, Guy or Mac? Even then Martin seems to be attracted to her. She takes in Angela as a lodger. Alan and Joanna try their best to hide their relationship from others, unsuccessfully, but soon Joanna falls for IT manager Lyndon Jones and Alan becomes jealous." This seems choppy to me.
  • According to WP:EPISODE, the episode is the primary source and does not constitute original research. From what I gather, I think that means that the citations aren't necessary in the series summary (see The Office (US TV series)). Dabomb87 16:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response to Opposition: I have tried to carry out everything you asked me to do. Is the article better? ISD 12:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks much better. However, I would feel better about supporting if the whole article was proofread by a more grammatically knowledgeable person by me. Also, perhaps you could make a section about the characters in the article. Dabomb87 16:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: is the blurry blob in the infobox the best that can be got? It might be worth getting hold of someone like James Henry at his blog, to see if a better image can be released under GFDL or Creative Commons. Haven't gone through anything else, so nothing further. Carre 18:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pass & support

  • It's readable and fine. It appropriately passes. Learnedo 08:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—The writing is passable in places, but overall, it needs glitches to be weeded out. For example, in one small portion of text, I found the following:
    • "Originally, the show had a half-hour pilot made a year before transmission"—ungainly.
    • "The pilot allowed the writers to experiment, such as using different filming techniques."—Ungrammatical.
    • "In the pilot, Doon Mackichan played Joanna Clore and was meant to play her in the original series, but left because she had a baby." Had to read this a few times to identify the news (as opposed to the given, grammatically).
    • "Although each script is fully written, the actors are allowed to improvise their own jokes, frequently adding to what has already been written." I guess if you improvise jokes, you do add to the script.
    • "The filming was done"—inelegant.

These are examples of why the whole text needs a good going-over by a different copy-editor. And try to make it sound less trivial? Tony (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose i'm going to echo Tony's comments. A copyedit is needed by fresh eyes.Legalbeaver 21:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.

2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl[edit]

Self Nomination. I've been working on this article for just under a month now, having created it on October 9. In that time, it's gone through several rounds of editing, expansion, copy editing, and more expansion. It just recently passed a GA review, and I think it's time for the next step. I feel the article does an excellent job of covering the subject, and even though it is a specialized topic, was understandable by the GA reviewer, who hails from Australia and thus was relatively unfamiliar with American football. Please let me know if there are any changes that need to be made to this article in order to bring it fully up to featured status and I will be happy to make them. Thank you for your time. JKBrooks85 03:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article a few times and am impressed with the details that went into creating and maintaining the article. As of now, I have not seen any inaccuracies in the article. Keep up the great work. Dawg1279 04:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My only complaint would be that it's a bit biased towards a US audience. For example, you might indicate that it's a bowl game for American football (since the rest of the world calls soccer football. :) And mention that the bowl is played in the US, for those readers who don't know where "Atlanta, Georgia" is (and don't want to click the wiki-link). Once those small issues are addressed, I'm happy to support it—it's a nice, well-written article! MeegsC | Talk 08:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done JKBrooks85 12:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support MeegsC | Talk 18:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! And thanks for catching one of those duplications. JKBrooks85 18:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The tone doesn't seem very encyclopedic. From the lead: "A postseason showdown...between two long-time football powerhouses", "Virginia Tech jumped out to a 21–3 halftime lead", "Georgia stormed back", "When the final whistle sounded, Georgia was on top". Pagrashtak 17:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with you, but I've changed the sentences you mentioned. JKBrooks85 17:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's better. The article needs a copyedit, though; I'm seeing some redundancies. The following are examples—please go through the entire article:
  • "a postseason American college football game in Atlanta, Georgia, United States between two football programs"—Football games require football programs, yes?
  • "The selection process for the 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl was different from that of previous previous years, when the game had been conducted under the Peach Bowl brand. Beginning with the 2006 game.." It seems the entire first sentence is neatly captured in the phrase "Beginning with the 2006 game". The only thing that would be lost is that the game was previously the Peach Bowl, which is already mentioned elsewhere.
  • "Various casinos and betting organizations favored Virginia Tech when setting their point spread. Prior to the game, Virginia Tech was favored to win by either 2.5 points or three points, depending on the casino or betting organization." Again, does the first sentence say anything not covered by the second?
Pagrashtak 17:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed those examples. JKBrooks85 17:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but please look through the entire article, as those were just examples. There are still many opportunities to tighten the prose:
  • "The 18-point comeback was the largest for Georgia under coach Mark Richt in any game up to that point." (Not incredibly happy with that, but it's better.)
  • "The game marked only the third time in history that Virginia Tech and the University of Georgia played a football game against each other."—or, better yet, recast along the lines of "It was the third football game between Virginia Tech and the University of Georgia."
I suggest trying to find someone unfamiliar with the article willing to go through and copyedit. Do you know anyone at the college football WikiProject who might help? Pagrashtak 20:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anyone personally -- the project isn't very active -- but I'll post something and see if it generates any results. JKBrooks85 21:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also confused by why the score 31–24 in the infobox links to "2006 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl", which redirects to this article. I'm unfamiliar with that infobox and how it works. Pagrashtak 20:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As am I. I'm not that proficient with infobox templates -- the whole thing is a mystery to me. Basically, there are two college football infoboxes that would've fit here. The first is Template:Collegebowl, which is quite beautiful stylistically, but is more appropriate to a parent article describing the bowl game in general. The other is Template:Infobox CollegeFB Bowl, which, while not as aesthetically pleasing, might be more appropriate. I'm not a big fan of that latter one, so I went with the former. JKBrooks85 21:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is the incorrect usage for the template. The parameter names are prev_matchup_year, prev_matchup_season, prev_matchup_teams, and prev_matchup_score. So, it is seeking the previous bowl game results. So, those fields should contain information on the 2005 Chick-Fil-A Bowl. And the CFB WikiProject is very active. I'm sure somebody will be willing to help.↔NMajdan•talk 21:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my only other experience with wikiprojects has been with the Military History one, and from what I understand, that's one of the most active ones around. I imagine that's affected my judgment of how active a project is. JKBrooks85 23:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll buy that. The CFB WikiProject is active, especially around this time of the year. Unfortunately, the most active of us are focusing in on our team's yearly article (in my case, 2007 Oklahoma Sooners football team.↔NMajdan•talk 21:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and looking at these two templates closer, to me it seems the one you are using are more for the general article on the bowl, not a specific matchup. So, it would be most appropriate on the Chick-fil-a Bowl article as opposed to this one. The other one you mentioned is more for specific yearly matchups.↔NMajdan•talk 21:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Doing... it now. I'll need some help making it look nice. Infoboxes aren't my forte. JKBrooks85 23:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done It's now replaced. I have to admit that it doesn't look as bad as I thought it would. I'd still appreciate some help in making it look a little nicer and easier to read. Fortunately, this infobox is a bit easier to alter than I thought it'd be. Let me know what you think. Thanks! JKBrooks85 01:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks great. What are you wanting to do to make it look nicer? Although, did you subst the template? If so, you shouldn't. Just transclude it.↔NMajdan•talk 21:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did substitute it -- deleted the old one and slid in the new one. As for looks, I think I'd like to throw in a grey background for the subheads and put the main title inside the infobox itself. JKBrooks85 23:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question was not if you substituted the template, but if you WP:SUBSTed it. I've fixed it and it's now transcluded. Pagrashtak 19:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that. I understand what you were talking about now. It makes the code look a lot cleaner, but isn't it kind of like a step sideways, since it removes the final score from the infobox? That's probably one of the biggest things someone would want to know in a hurry. JKBrooks85 20:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most game specific articles I've seen also put the {{NCAAFootballSingleGameHeader}} at the very top of the article for this very reason. You currently have it at the bottom of the Game Summary section. See 2007 BCS National Championship Game to see what I mean.↔NMajdan•talk 21:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I did see that. I think it kind of overshadows the text... maybe a smaller version right below the infobox would work better. What do you think? JKBrooks85 23:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I threw the score at the top of the infobox. That should work pretty well. JKBrooks85 00:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Review by Johntex: It is clear that a lot of work has gone into this and the article is looking very good. Great work! I am finding a few things that could be improved. Therefore, I Oppose for now.
  1. Some important college football terms are not wikilinked. For instance, the first 2 instances of "quarterback" are not linked.
  2. I think one think that would make it easier on the non-college-football fan would be to include "see also" links to articles such as Glossary of American football. You can check 2005 Texas Longhorn football team (which is FA) for an example of this.
     Done
  3. I disagree with the reviewer who said to mention that this game takes place in the United States. For a city like Atlanta, Georgia, that is over-kill. Virtually anyone with a computer and internet access who read English well enough to be reading this article will know Atlanta is is in the United States. This is even more apparent since the sport is mentioned. I would remove "United States" as being stylistically cluttered. I would also link to Atlanta, Georgia as one link, not two.
     Done
  4. I like the citations in the lead. They are much better for the reader than an uncited introduction. I recommend citing the last sentence of the lead also. This should be easily found in one of the existing sources.
     Done
  5. This sentence confused me, "To face the ACC representative, the Chick-fil-A Bowl selection committee had the right to select first SEC school after the Bowl Championship Series, Cotton Bowl, Capital One Bowl, and Outback Bowl made their selections. " It was not clear to me at first what "To face the ACC representative..." meant. Perhaps something more like "In choosing the SEC opponent..."? Also, I think their is a missing word. Shouldn't it be "select the first" instead of "select first".
     Done Good catch.
  6. There is a fair amount of discussion of the rankings. I think a link to 2006 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings would be helpful.
     Done
  7. The terms "offense" and "defense" should be linked to their respective American-football articles.
     Done I didn't see an American football-specific article for either, so I linked them to offense (sports) and defense (sport)
  8. {{NCAAFootballSingleGameHeader}} needs to be moved to the top of the article. One of the goals of this template is to introduce the important elements of the article to the reader. It cannot do this as effectively if it is buried in the article. Please see 2006 Alamo Bowl, 2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game, 2007 Navy vs. Notre Dame football game for examples of its use.
     GA on hold I'm really against putting the single game header template at the top. It's not that I don't like it — it's a very useful tool — but it's too big for such a prominent position. Its size means that it overshadows the lede of the article and the infobox at the top of the article. By putting the template at the top, I feel that the assumption is being made that the final score is the most important thing about the game. I don't think that's necessarily the case with every football game. I do, however, feel that the final score is extremely important, so I put it directly below the name of the bowl game above the infobox. For more information about the scoring summary of the game, it only makes sense to have the template in the statistics section of the article with the rest of the statistics.
  9. Abbreviations need to be defined as they are introduced. For instance, "...Southeastern Conference (SEC) and Virginia Tech represented the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC)..."
     Done
  10. In the "Selection process" section, the Atlantic Coast Conference is wikilinked but the Southeastern Conference is not. If you link one you should link they other. They are both linked in the intro (just one section up) so I would link neither in this section.
     Done
  11. (not a formal FA requirement, but suggested under Wikipedia's Manual of Style): I notice that you already have some good pictures of the game, but they really should be on Commons, not on Wikipedia. Freely licensed photos should really be stored on Commons so that they are readily available for use in other article. One does this by creating a Commons gallery such as this one on the 2007 UT team. Then you can organize it into categories such as "college football", "Atlanta, Georgia", etc. Finally, you put {{tl:commons|2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl}} at the bottom of the Wikipedia article to point to Commons. Oops, the photos are on Commons. Sorry about that. I still think it would be a good idea to organize them into one Commons page and link to {{commons|2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl}}. (optional)
     Done
  12. (also not a requirement) Also, there are more good pictures of this game on flickr if you search for "2006 Chick Fil-A". For instance this one. I left a flickrmail for that photographer asking if they will change the license to Creative commons so that we can use the shot. If you have time, you may want to contact other people on flickr with a similar request.
     Doing... Great minds think alike. I've already got a few emails out to people on flickr and folks on a few Virginia Tech message boards to see if they've got any pictures they'd be willing to make Creative commons.
  13. (optional) on the statistics table, I think it would be better to have a key at the bottom of the table to define terms such as "completions/attempts". An example would be the key found under the schedule in season articles such as 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team#Schedule. I think this is easier on the reader than a footnote.
     Done Created a key below the Georgia table. Do you think that one is needed below the Virginia Tech table as well?
More coming... Johntex\talk 15:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the critique! JKBrooks85 17:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JKBrooks, thanks for the swift action.
In regards to the single-game header: I think we need to apply it consistently, as it has been done on the other articles linked above. I also don't think it is over-emphasizing the final score. There are many useful links in that template, such as to the team pages and coaches pages. These links are not as useful if the template does not occur high on the page. If you think the de-facto standard should be changed, then I think that should be brought up for discussion by the college football wikiproject.
I can't finish my review right at the moment but I will find time to finish reviewing it within the next couple of days. In the meantime, could you please fix the list above so that your insertions do not mess up the numbering? You could do this either by pulling your replies to a list below mine, for example. If you use the same order then it will be obvious which reply refers to which point. Other reviewers can also comment on these points by referring to the number, if they wish. Thanks, Johntex\talk 17:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the numbering. In regards to the template, I think it works well for articles in which that information has not already been included in the lede and for which there is no separate statistics/recap section. In larger articles, however, I feel that the hierarchy of the page is upset and that more important information is knocked down the page to a point where it's not visible immediately when the page opens. I'm running Safari at 1680x1000 resolution, and in the 2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game article, I can't see the Ohio State infobox without scrolling down, even in full-screen view. In short, it's a great template, but if there's a more appropriate place in the article, it should go there. Most football game-related articles aren't this large, and I've got no problems putting the template at the top in those articles. Here, however, the template isn't as effective at top and there's a risk that it would break the hierarchy of the page and prevent readers from accessing the information in the article as effectively. JKBrooks85 18:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your opinion about the template, but I still disagree. If you look at 2006 Alamo Bowl, this is a comprehensive article which still has the template at the top. It does not cause any break in the heirarchy, in my opinion. 2007 Fiesta Bowl has the same lay-out. There are many more examples in Category:College football games. I just checked 10 and 8 had it at the top. The other 2 were stubs that did not have the template at all. I will not be able to support this article for FA unless this is changed to conform to these existing examples.
At the very least, it needs to be brought up for discussion at the WikiProject. If you can get consensus there to allow an alternate placement I would go along with that consensus, but I won't support one article unilaterally taking a different approach. I'm sorry to be adamant but I feel consistency (within limits) is a virtue unless there is a compelling reason to diverge. I see no such compelling reason here. Johntex\talk 18:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I'll be posting that shortly. JKBrooks85 00:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning point 7: offense/defense, I would link to Offensive philosophy (American football). I thought there was also one for defense, but I guess not. I'll put that on the to-do list! Johntex\talk 17:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done JKBrooks85 18:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Good article. Ezratrumpet (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.

Flag of the Philippines[edit]

The article seems well informative to me. Maybe its time to nominate it. But please feel free to oppose if you don't want to. --ilyk2learn ilyk2learn 02:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose This is barely sourced and prose isn't that up to par…yet. O2 (息 • 吹) 02:45, 02 November 2007 (GMT)
  • Sorry but I feel unable to support this nomination at the moment, The prose isnt up to scratch, and there are only 7 refs. It has potential. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.

Malaysia[edit]

I'm nominating this article for featured article because this article has undergone a complete overhaul last month to ensure it is comprehensive, flowing, and extremely well referenced, and I believe it fully meets the FA criteria. White2020 06:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAC instructions, "Users are asked not to add a second nomination here until the first has gained support and concerns have been substantially addressed." Do you want to withdraw one of your nominations? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm withdrawing the nomination for Universiti Sains Malaysia. White2020 07:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Weak citation. Sourcing has not improved ever since I last cleaned them up back in December 2006. Do compare the last time I worked on the reference section [4] with the current edition [5]. There was no "complete overhaul" last month at all. The article requires considerable improvement before it could be promoted to FA level. __earth (Talk) 08:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I only read the lead section and it is not summarizing at all the whole article. The lead section is poorly written. For a general reader who wants to learn about Malaysia, the lead section is very confusing with already specific terminologies about the territory and politics, some of which are not related with the country in general. Why would you introduce road connections between Malaysia and neighboring countries in the lead section? Per WP:LEAD, it has many problems: it is not capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article and there are many missing important point, notably the overall history and culture. Besides that, there are couple of assertions in the lead section which have problems:
    1. Although politically dominated by the Malays, modern Malaysian society is heterogeneous, with substantial Chinese and Indian minorities. → the source links to CIA world fact that shows Indian in Malaysia is only 7.1%, while indigenous 11%. Why isn't there indigenous minority as also a substantial component? The assertion "politically dominated by the Malays" also needs a citation there.
    2. I don't understand what "communal nature" is. There is no wikilink and the source cannot be verified directly Also the last word of ...restrict membership to those of one ethnic group (what ethnic groups??)
I stop reading at the lead section. I will continue to the rest of the article when this problem has been solved. — Indon (reply) — 09:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've addressed your concern and redone the lead section. Despite that, I doubt the page merits an FA. It should go through a review process first. __earth (Talk) 15:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Okay, I see that, but you put also citation request tags there. Agree with you, the article should go to the peer review first. — Indon (reply) — 14:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - very weak citation, esp. in the section of economy. I doubt that if this article meets GA criteria. Coloane 04:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.

Sara Sidle[edit]

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been a good article for a couple of weeks now and myself and others consider it has reached FA quality. Yamanbaiia 15:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, this has a long way to go. Specific feedback follows:
  • The entire article needs to be copyedited for brilliant prose.
  • Consistency: You alternate between referring to the subject as "Sidle" and "Sara". It should always be the former.Fixed
  • MOS: You slip into describing plot elements in the past tense. When recounting fiction, use the present tense. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).
  • Grammar: "...a crime scene investigation team from Clark County, Nevada which investigates..." Use that instead of which.Fixed
  • Consistency: "Sidle has appeared in every episode except in CSI's Pilot, Random Acts of Violence, from season three, Jackpot (CSI), from season four and "Hollywood Brass", from season five." The first episode mentioned is fine. The second should be a piped wikilink omitting the "(CSI)", and the third is in quotes. Should they all be in quotes?Fixed
  • Verifiability: "This is attributed to her looks and behavior, which are those of a normal woman in her thirties, making it easier for many female viewers to identify with her." I would expect to see this discussed and sourced in the Public Reaction heading; it isn't. Avoid beginning sentences with words like "this" that refer to previous statements.Removed
  • Prose: "The relationship between the two characters caused diverse opinions among fans of the show as well as in the press." Things don't really cause opinions.. people develop opinions. Fixed? Changed for "triggered".
  • Jargon: "...working her way up to a CSI Level 2" What is that?Removed It's just a fictinal rank, and this information was never said on the show so i consider it irrelevant.
  • The "Fictional character biography" section is poorly written and contains unnecessary detail, such as what shift she works.
  • The "Character Development" section is not comprehensive and is poorly sourced. There must be more to say about her character than two or three sentences per episode.Fixed The GA reviewer made us cut-back on the references.
  • MOS: "Throughout season seven the audience saw Grissom and Sara as a couple, but the relationship was kept secret from the others in the lab until Sara's abduction by The Miniature Killer in the season finale." This sentence oddly mixes real-world and in-universe perspectives. Again, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).
  • The opening of the "Public reaction" section is original research. You need secondary sources backing up all those statements.Removed
  • Consistency: Your accessdate parameters in the References section are a mixture of date formats.Fixed
--Bloodzombie 04:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed some things.Yamanbaiia 11:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, my colleague was only exemplifying issues. The whole text needs treatment, preferably by someone who's unfamiliar with it. Tony (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you for the discouraging comment! Then i guess i'll just sit and wait indeterminably for someone to re-write the whole article. Yamanbaiia 18:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sitting back, as you put it, will not produce FA standards. Tony (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.

Governor General of Canada[edit]

previous FAC

This article has been improved a lot since its previous FAC two years ago. A far as I can tell it is now featured-quality. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose very well-written but too much of the article is unsourced. Perspicacite 08:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My recommendations (Perspicacite 21:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)):[reply]
    • Convert citations to cite web and cite book
    • Avoid passive voice ("was," "were")
    • Attribute material
    • Condense stray sentences into paragraphs
    • Put the "Canadian institutions" section in paragraph, rather than bullet, form
    • Condense small sections into larger ones
  • Oppose I agree with Perspicacite. You should be able to find sources for much of the article without many issues. Please also take a look at the citation formats for your existing citations. All citations should have a publisher listed (even web pages). Web pages should also have a last accessed date specified, and do not need language=English because that is the default for this wikipedia. One of the existing citations is also throwing an error. Karanacs 16:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Unnecessary and pointless links to standalone years, providing no support to the content of the article. Hmains 04:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They make us link all the dates. I'd take them out if I could get away with it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Who's "they"? Suggest a look at WP:MOS#Dates and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Autoformatting and linking; Dates with days and months should be linked, so user preferences work, but not standalone years, or months & years without days. Carre 19:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had users vote against FLCs because individual years weren't linked. It still seems silly to me to have any dates at all linked when most of our readers aren't signed in anyway and therefore don't have user preferences set. But this battle has already been fought and lost, and doesn't really pertain to this FAC. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. For heaven's sake, delink the trivial, useless years. Who wants to have bright blue spattered everywhere without reason? Defies the requirement for professional-standard formatting at the top of the FA Criteria. 14:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs)
    I'll gladly un-link the years, but as I've said, I've seen other FC debates where people oppose because the years aren't linked. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think things have changed since then. People realise that links need to be employed strategically. Tony (talk) 12:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.

Golden Film[edit]

Nom restarted (old nom) Raul654 16:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.

Movie Battles[edit]

Self Nominating Movie Battles This article is about as good as it can get, and while it isn't long, the criteria doesn't demand that, it just demands "appropriate length" which fits rather well.. It became a good article a month ago, and it seems good enough to get a FA now. I know many of the sources come from the same source, but it is really difficult to find many sources for a rather small mod like this. Yzmo talk 21:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is Movie Battles, but the lead sentence says Movie Battles II. Which is it? At first glance, I'm concerned by the number of references from "Movie Battles website" and "Movie Battles forums". Are there any more reliable secondary sources that can be used here? Pagrashtak 21:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right with the title, it's confusing... The thing is that the Mod itself is called Movie Battles hence the article name, but since it's on version 2 now.. its ALSO called Movie Battles 2 do differ from the other one which was made for an older game. So i don't really know what to choose. I mean, it's not really a big deal to change it, but the question is what to change...
About the sources, i know this is a small issue, but as i stated in the nom, it's very hard to find better 3rd party sources which are more reliable. Yzmo talk 21:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I dont like in the infobox where in the system requirements it says "Identical to Star War Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy", it should have its owns system requirements detailed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadseys (talk • contribs) 01:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So i should just copy them over? Yzmo talk 07:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that would be a good idea, because that way people don't have to follow a link to see the system requirements --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 09:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've taken the liberty of expanding the system requirements section myself --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 10:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comments I'd like to see more on how the idea for the game was conceived, produced and definately more about the critical reaction it received from the gaming community --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 10:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here we get to the same problem again, Movie Battles is a rather small mod, not very much known outside the JA community, therefore, almost all sources on reception you can get are from Community and clan forums, which i have heard are not really good sources. Yzmo talk 15:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you try and fix one up anyway and we'll give it an appraisal? --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 19:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first there is of course the Critism post on the official forum (again, no good 3rd party source). [6]. Then we have the release announcement posts with their replys showing the reception of the single builds.. again on the official forum.. [7] [8]. There are also the comments on the moddb entry [9] as well as the thread about the very first Movie Battles and how that was received. [10] Both of these are already cited soures. There is also this [11] news entry with it's comments. Yzmo talk 21:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Totally lacking a reception section. - hahnchen 18:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm worried about the sourcing in this article. Forums are not considered reliable sources. The bulk of the article is sourced to the self-published website, which isn't great, and the two non-self-published sources appear, from what's in the article, may only mention this mod in passing rather than focus on it. That makes me question whether the article even meets notability standards. Karanacs 20:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are two kinds of sources from the self-published website, first, a few things from the features section, which works as some kind of online game manual, and game manuals are reliable sources. The other things which are cited are the changelog, which is, well, would not be available anywhere else and which does not contain any POV since it's a simple list of changes. The last thing would be the credits section which only is used to compare the The New Era team with the Movie Battles team. And things like this would naturally be of neutral POV since its just another list of names, sure, its self published, but who would publish the credits if not the mod team itself ;) . Yzmo talk 22:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that this article has gone through an AFD and survived. This contains many points which have been mentioned above. This is a very small subject with a highly limited number of sources: hence the shortness of the article and the lack of a Critical Reception section. I believe the use of forum topics as reliable sources depends on the context: as the forum posts cited are made by the developers themselves and not some random joes, I think that qualifies them as reliable. Una LagunaTalk 21:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't know how the article survived AFD in the first place. While it was better than the AFD version, sourcing is a very, very major issue, almost all the sources are either the Movie Battles website, which isn't independent, or trivial mentions. Sorry unless this is fixed, it's a candidate for deletion, not featured. This is a Secret account 00:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only sources from the official website are the changelog, which is the most accurate when it comes from there, aswell as the credits.. None of those can contain any kinds of POV or anything. Then there are also cites from the features section, which sort of is the mods game manual. And game manuals are allowed sources, many other video FAs cite them. And they are always self-published. Yzmo talk 17:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Way too short for a featured article. Cat's Tuxedo 00:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria doesn't demand a long article.. And this article can't really be made any longer, since there's nothing more to write about, if you dont want to go into the details.. Which isn't good according to WP:SS. Yzmo talk 15:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.

Parallel computing[edit]

Parallel computing is a core topic in computing. It's also a subject near and dear to my heart, since that's what I've spent 4 years in grad school learning about. I recently got tired of the really sorry shape the article was in, so I totally rewrote it from scratch (you can find the deleted revisions at user:Raul654/PC).

I've tried to make the article as accessible as possible to a non-expert, but it's a complicated subject area. For highly technical articles like this, the rule of thumb (as previously discussed here on the FAC) is that while obviously we would like it if the whole article were accessible to laymen, it's unfeasible to expect the entire article to be that way. The intro should be accessible, however, but beyond that it's not strictly necessary. Raul654 05:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raul, I have some capitalization questions, and some MOS adjustments are needed (mostly caps, hyphens, dashes and some ref formatting). May I just go in and make those myself? There are caps I can fix myself, but some aren't clear. For example, I'm not clear what to do about Flynn's Taxonomy; the article title uses a capital T, but the article text does not (Flynn's taxonomy is a classification of computer architectures, ...); which is correct? If it doesn't have a cap T, the article needs to be moved to the correct name. Let me know if I can make the MOS fixes myself; they are mostly trivial, except for confusing cases like Flynn. I can leave inline HTML queries when I'm not sure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Make any changes you feel are appropriate. If it's factually wrong, I'll let you know. I'm fine with decapitalizing the T. Raul654 05:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could sentences such as this one... Despite these power issues, transistor densities are still doubling every 18 to 24 months per Moore's Law. Now that these transistors are not needed to facilitate frequency scaling, they can be used to add extra hardware to facilitate parallel computing. This is the basis for the current push towards multicore computing paradigm ... be written in a way that is more permanent, that is if read a year from now, this will be still accurate? I refer to the words "still doubling" and "current push", for example. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten that section. I'm keeping "still doubling", because that's really the best way to say that some people think Moore's law is at an end, but this has not materialized (so far). Moore's law has been with us for 40 years, and I don't think it's going anywhere anytime soon. Raul654 15:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hit a lot of the MOS concerns. I see someone else was removing some of the wikilinks from section headings, but there are still more. I would remove them myself but I can't find that guideline that I've seen a million times about no wikilinks in section headings because they break something in the software. Maybe someone else knows if something changed in the software or what became of that guideline, but wikilinks in section headings used to be a big no-no. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not recall a guideline on this issue, but agree that it is much better to have the wikilink in the body text, rather than in a section title. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Article is well written, concise, and and the same time covering all notable aspects of the subject. The only change I would make would be to move the equations down the page a bit, providing first a textual description of the concept and its evolution. Think of the reader... I would also add a section with an alpha-sorted list of all the sources used. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't want to move the history section (currently at the bottom) because it includes a technical description of some older machines, and an understanding of those technical concepts (explained in the proceeding sections) is necessary to full understand that section. I don't have a problem adding an alphabetized list of sources used. Raul654 17:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tried creating a references section, but I have so many one-time sources that the sections are very redundant and reduce the usability of the article. As such, I reverted myself. Raul654 17:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am happy to see that Raul654, our featured article director, with all of his responsibilities, still has time to edit articles. While I have the utmost respect for Raul654, I am concerned that if he decides on the promotion of the article he himself nominated, it could create the appearance of a conflict of interest, and even the appearance of a conflict of interest can reflect poorly on the WP:FAC process and wikipedia itself. Even if Raul654 were to recuse himself in this case, reviewers might feel inhibited and the position of the nominator might influence their comments. Awadewit | talk 04:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure my various comments here on FAC provoke many responses, but I very much doubt that inhibiting is one of them. This is not my first featured article (I've notched something like 10 of them up). Raul654 04:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was alluding to your position as FAC director, not your comments or anything about you personally. It was more of an abstract argument about the petitioner and the judge being the same person (why have a jury, then?). Also, I do believe that the fact you have "notched" ten FAs could be used as evidence for my argument as well! :) However, no one else seems concerned about a possible COI, so I will post my review. Awadewit | talk 01:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. As a lay reader, I was able to follow the majority of this page, which is a testament to the editor's ability to explain a complex subject, however there are several issues that still need to be worked out before I believe the article will meet the FA criteria. Whether or not these can be addressed in a week or two, I am not sure. I am certainly not qualified to judge the page's comprehensiveness.

Prose issues:

  • The lead feels listy to me, particularly the third paragraph which introduces terms but does not define or explain them. Oddly, the lead was not as easy to understand as other parts of the article.
  • Parallel computer programs are harder to write than sequential ones - add a "because" clause to make this explicitly clear to the reader
  • In recent years, power usage in parallel computers has also become a great concern - why?
  • Moore's Law, despite predictions of its end, is still in effect. - Explain Moore's Law; beginning the paragraph with this sentence is abrupt and makes it difficult for the reader to follow your explanation.
  • Briefly explain the applicability or need for Amdahl's law and Gustafson's law before launching into an explanation of them - it is hard for readers to see why they need to know this information. Help them out.
  • Locking multiple resources using non-atomic locks introduces the possibility of program deadlock. - Perhaps explain a bit more?
  • "Some machines are hybrids of these categories, of course, but this classic model has survived because it is simple, easy to understand, and gives a good first approximation. It is also—perhaps because of its understandability—the most widely used scheme." - Tell the reader who is saying this - why should the reader trust this quotation? (Go through the article and check all quotations for this same problem.)
  • Advancements in instruction level parallelism dominated computer architecture from the mid-1980s until the mid-1990s. - This sentence is just hanging off the end of the section.
  • Parallel computers based on interconnect network need to employ some kind of routing to enable passing of messages between nodes that are not directly connected. - I assume this is supposed to be "interconnected"?
  • There are quite a few one-sentence paragraphs; these should either be expanded or integrated into other paragraphs. If there is only one sentence, the reader wonders why it was included. There must either be more to say or it is indeed rarely worth including.

Images:

  • What do we think about having an image at the beginning of the article? It would help attract readers. We must pander.
  • All of the images are on the right-hand side of the article. WP:MOS#Images, and aesthetic common-sense, dictates some staggering.

MOS issues:

  • The two bolded terms in the introduction are confusing and seem a bit misleading since the article is titled "parallel computing". If distributed computing is a term being introduced, which it looks like it is, it should be italicized per WP:ITALICS.
  • Punctuation inside/outside quotation marks doesn't always follow WP:MOSQUOTE.
  • Format all footnotes the same way - some use "pg" and some do not. Pick a style and stick with it.
  • Spending a day perusing the WP:MOS might be worth it. I'm not a MOS guru by any means, but I did notice quite a few deviations from the rules I do happen to know. I just listed a few here.

Sourcing:

  • For statements that include claims such as "first", "rarely used", "most", "best known", etc., please add citations to the article per WP:V. In my experience, these are the kinds of statements that are most often challenged.
  • All sections need citations - not just for verification, but so the reader knows where to go for additional information. It is a courtesy and bolsters wikipedia's legitimacy. (Ex: "Multicore computing")

I hope this was helpful. Awadewit | talk 01:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now. (These are my first FAC comments, so please let me know if I commit some faux pas)
  • A few comments, mostly regarding the content:
    • The intro could do a better job of introducing the concept.
      • The first sentence could perhaps be rephrased to prose rather than a direct quote?
      • While Amdahl's law is very important, its mention in the first paragraph seems a bit abruptly introduced.
      • The first paragraph doesn't seem to "flow", but that may just be me. :)
    • Background
      • Parallel computing has a long history, but the background section treats it as a recent phenomen. It's true that it's only gone mainstream recently, but there is a long and interesting history here (Connection Machines, MTA, dataflow computing and other interesting early parallel architectures). Some of that is mentioned in the history section (why is that last in the article?), but I would like the background and history be merged and lead the article.
      • One idea might be to first mention early architectures, mention why they weren't successful, then introduce the clock speed barrier hit in 2004 and say that this has renewed interest.
    • Classes of parallel computing
      • ASICs aren't usually referred to as "computers", and they're used in a very different way.
        • The first half of your statement is correct. As far as being used in a different way -- they are functionally no different than any of the other specialized co-processors listed in that section (GPUs, FPGAs). Raul654 04:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think the central difference is that an ASIC is fixed function, while FPGAs, GPUs and CPUs can be reprogrammed for different tasks. henrik•talk 12:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • An ASIC and an FPGA are programmed *exactly* the same way, using exactly the same languages. The only difference is that you push a button to convert the HDL into a bitmapping for the FPGA, whereas with an ASIC, you send your HDL off to the foundry and they produce your chip. What's you're saying - that ASICs are domain specific and FPGAs are not - is true, but that's why they are listed in the 'specialized devices' section -- they are the ultimate in specialized devices (in that they are specialized for just one app). Raul654 13:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps the section could be roughly classify into Multicores (traditional multicores, GPGPU and CELL), Distributed computing and others?
        • This is identical to what I already have in the article, except it lumps "symmetric multiprocessors" with "specialized devices" into what you call others. I believe they (SMPs) are significant enough and distinct enough from the other specialized devices to have a section of their own. Raul654 04:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Software
      • I feel parallel programming languages deserve more than one single sentence paragraph.
      • "Parallel programming languages remain either explicitly parallel or (at best) partially implicit with the programmer giving the compiler directives for parallelization." I'd argue that this is factually incorrect. For example pH (Parallel haskell), Sisal and Mitrion-C are all fully implictly parallel languages, though they are all fairly obscure. Perhaps it could be rephrased so that no mainstream or widely used languages are implicitly parallel?
        • I agree. I spent the summer programming in Mitrion-C (In the next month or two, I have a work-in-progress paper coming out describing it; I should have a bigger, finalized version in the next half-year). The guy who invented SISAL spoke to my research group about a year ago. I've rewritten that section accordingly. Raul654 04:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • General comments
      • "Power and the heat problem" and the second half of "The move to (multicore) parallelism" should be merged.
      • The software side of the problem and parallel programming models should be given more weight.
  • In general, my personal opinion is that this is still quite far from the comprehensiveness (1b) criteria. Like Raul, I work in the field, and I would be happy to help, if you think my comments are justified. henrik•talk 13:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - you said the introduction would be understandable by a layperson, but "operations are done simultaneously" to a layperson sounds medical. Even operations doesn't link to anything computer related - to mathematical functions it does. It seems that the reference list is way too short. I found 9 instances of the word "typically" (personal dislike) all but one unsourced. The picture with the caption "This will make the computation much faster than by optimizing part B, even though B got a bigger speed-up," seems a strange and unreasonable example, why 5x vs. 2x? It would be more reasonable to say "if there are two processors working separately" and "if they work together" which much more realistically shows the merits of parallel computing. This is a remarkably humane discussions about a candidacy, congratulations.--Keerllstalk 01:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first paragraph was recently changed by Henrik. I've changed operation to instruction (which is more accurate terminology) and linked it to the respective article.
    • The purpose of the picture you mention is to demonstrate Amdahl's law diagrammatically, and it does that accurately. I have tweaked the caption to make this more apparent. The purpose of choosing 5 and 2 is to show that a smaller speed (2x) in a large section of code can be superior to a large improvement (5x) in a small part of code. Raul654 01:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is true. It shows it drammatically, however, not very scientifically. Image:Amdahl-law.jpg is, although less æsthetically pleasing, more relevant. I notice you didn't say anything about typically. -"they are usually larger, typically having" has both typically and usually (redundant), weasel terms, and it is ugly, I'd suggest "some" or "the majority" if those are meant.--Keerllston 17:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The diagram is actually about programming for parallel computers rather than Amdahl's law itself.--Keerllston 15:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is neither a good illustration of gustafon's law nor of amdahl's law. It is instead a proper illustration of "Speedup in a sequential program". Which does not seem to be notably mentioned. The difference between sequencial programming doesn't seem to be mentioned much. Not to mention "By working very hard" is not an encyclopedic tone.--Keerllston 19:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're right about the tone. I copied the caption verbatim from Amdahl's law. I've tweaked it now to fix the problem. As far as illustrating Amdahl's law, you're just plain wrong. First, the article talks extensively about parallelization of sequential programs. The article already says "Any large math or engineering problem will typically consists of several parallelizable parts and several non-parallelizable (sequential) parts." It further said "where S is the speedup of the program (as a factor of its original runtime), and P is the fraction that is parallelizable." - I've added the word sequential in here just to make it explicit. The difference between sequential and parallel programming is covered in background sections 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4. (1.3 in particular). Raul654 20:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • it has a two paragraph "History" as a topic? - ??? This should be reformatted or expanded or deleted. There's a bit of history in the background, perhaps there?--Keerllston 19:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We cannot describe the history of parallel computing until the very end of the article, for the simple reason that such a section would be meaningless until the basic concepts are explained. The background mentions - in passing - that parallel computing is a hot topic now because of the end of frequency scaling. This is a fact which itself is explained at fair length there, and which is not heavily predicated on understanding many other topics. But beyond that, such a discussion is not appropriate until the end of the article. Raul654 20:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Bit-level parallelism is a red-linked article. If no such article exists, just expand the section in this article on this subject and get rid of the link Hmains 20:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've copied (but not moved) much of the bit level parallelism information into a seperate bit-level parallelism article. If someone wants to expand that article beyond what I've copied from this one, that's fine by me, but it's otherwise unrelated to this FAC nomination. Raul654 15:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.

Opera (Internet suite)[edit]

A lot of work has gone into this article, and I believe that it now rivals the featured article Mozilla Firefox in quality. This article has already been promoted to good article status, and I think it's ready to receive featured status. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Temporary object. Some sections appear stubby, particularly these ones:
    • Standards support
    • Smartphone and PDA
    • Nintendo DS
    • Awards section, need a few introductory sentences too, in my opinion

Once these issues have been resolved and referenced with inline citations, I'll glady support. Other than these issues though, an excellent read, well done --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 13:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I've expanded and refined all the sections you mentioned. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.

The Carpenters[edit]

previous FAC withdrawn and immediately restarted by same nominator.[12] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am self-nominating the Carpenters article once again, because I made the appropriate edits from comments from the old nomination, and the quality is much better than now than before. Please leave constructive criticism. Thank you! Karen Carpenter's Biggest Fan 04:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per the three solid opposes already given. Please do not withdraw and simultaneously restart nominations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a sample only, here are two sentences (sort of) in the lead:
  • It has been estimated that the Carpenters' album and single sales total more than 100 million.[2] easily putting them high on the list of best-selling music artists.[citation needed] During their fourteen year career, the Carpenters had ten albums, five of which contained top 10 singles (Close to You, Carpenters, A Song for You, Now & Then and Horizon), thirty one singles, five television specials, and one television series.
  • Strong Oppose: due to many missing references.--Redtigerxyz 05:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Missing references in "Carpenters" section and lead , critics views etc. Also I suggest a more suitable sub-heading should be found for the "Carpenters" section. A sub-heading, X in an article named X appears absurd.--Redtigerxyz 11:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • checkY Done. Fixed the lead, and renamed the "Carpenters" sub-heading.
    • To Cuyler91093: Please see WP:CITE, "Short footnotes with alphabetized full citations" section for referencing as a book has been named several times.--Redtigerxyz 06:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please eliminate or expand the one liner Albums section.--Redtigerxyz 06:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • checkY Done. Fixed the albums, and wikilinked to the page List of the Carpenters albums. Cuyler91093 08:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Add a summary to 'Albums and Singles' or just put the links in See Also.--Redtigerxyz 15:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • STRANGE BUT TRUE. THE ARTICLE REFERENCES (1,59,60) ARE FROM WIKIPEDIA ITSELF. AND NOT ANY ARTICLE BUT "THE CARPENTERS" ITSELF. THAT IS WIRED. Changing to "Strong Oppose". --Redtigerxyz 06:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because three people opposed it before I re-edited isn't good reason for opposing it. I made the corrections to everybody's constructive comments. What more do you want besides references? Karen Carpenter's Biggest Fan 07:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images need Fair use rationales, the song soared to #1 reference?, The song did become a double (awkwardly written), "Gold: Greatest Hits." full-stop should be outside and the DVD should be in italics not speech marks, "As Time Goes By" CD another album which should be in italics, .[1] external link needs to be converted to a reference, "Both have been honored with Grammy Hall of Fame awards for recordings of lasting quality or historical significance." both what? the members of the carpenters? this one sentence paragraphs reads like trivia, web references need to be formatted to include a title, publisher (the website), date and author if applicable and a date retrieved (check Reign_in_Blood#References for an example on how to do this. M3tal H3ad 09:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Working on it. Fixed the "Both have been honored..." Reformatted most of the citations, and added over 40 to the article. I shall work on fixing speech marks to italics tomorrow. Cuyler91093 08:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • checkY Done. Alright, I finished correcting the periods and commas outside of the song and album quotes. The only ones I left are the ones of spoken quotes. I believe it's okay now.
  • Oppose. I'm sorry, but in my view this article isn't close to being FA ready yet. Go to WP:FA#Music and look at some of the existing FA examples there; you can focus on comparable singles-oriented pop artists' articles such as Celine Dion or Kylie Minogue or Mariah Carey, and see how this article compares to those. And you still don't have the discography right — the full albums and singles tables should be contained in a separate article (or two, if you really think they can't be combined), while the main article should contain a summary of just the studio albums and just the major hit singles with fewer columns of information. If you look at the other FA articles you'll see what I mean. Also, what references you do have are not in proper format. Again, study other FA articles. Wasted Time R 14:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm working on formatting the references. If you check, there are more references now, and I formatted them in MLA (if that's good, then good. If not, someone can fix it, because I put way too much effort into this). I shall look into the featured musician's articles. Just please keep giving me suggestions, because I want to get this article featured! Cuyler91093 08:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • checkY Done with moving the huge single chart to List of songs by the Carpenters. Cuyler91093 08:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

**What has that got to do with anything? I'm not sure what you're trying to argue against regarding the contents of the page itself. Karen Carpenter's Biggest Fan 08:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • One issue with WP popular culture articles always is, is this a serious analytical look at artist X or is this a thinly-disguised fan page for artist X? When the biggest booster of article [[X]] is named X's Biggest Fan, reviewers will naturally tend to fear the fan page possibility and their reading may be thus influenced. Wasted Time R 02:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

**Now are you happy? Cuyler91093 08:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. My dad loves this group. Too many one-sentence paragraphs and refs are no where near ready.Sumoeagle179 20:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I added more references. It went from under 30 to 45. I will continue adding references. Projected estimate will be around 100. Cuyler91093 02:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another note: Now, there are 67 references total. How much do you guys recommend I put in the article? Cuyler91093 08:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Its not about quantity, its about quality. You could have 100,000 refernces and still get opposition, or you could have less than 50 and get unilateral support. The key when citing is to hit the information that you think is likely to be challenged, and if people oppose on the grounds that the article lacks citations request (politely) that they add {{fact}} tags to the info that they wanted cited so you can see what needs referenced. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly no. Article lacks any context or insight, and is riddled with stubby paras, incomplete refs, and blue links. Ceoil 15:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.

Principality of Sealand[edit]

previous FAC
FARC
Former featured article: Note to Raul: has been on main page

I'm nominating (self-nomination) this article for featured article because it has significantly improved since the last time it was a featured article. It states clearly what the Principality of Sealand is, with enough detail. There are seperate articles for those topics that required more detail, so this article does not have too much detail either. It now has 39 references, 31 more than when it was last demoted and any citations that were required have been added.Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 17:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE:If a comment or opposition is written, remember to remove it using <s></s> when what should have been corrected has been corrected. Since I have nominated this article, some of the comments below have not been removed when the article was corrected. If a user who has commented or opposed does not think that the article has been corrected, then that user should reply. There have also been contradictions in the comments and oppositions made - some comments and oppositions contradict other users' comments and oppositions. If a comment or opposition is not replied to it will be disregarded. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 20:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the coat of arms does not bear copyright holder attribution, as is requested at Image:Coat of Arms of Sealand.png. Also, I tend to think that the article should have more citations. I personally lean to at least one, and hopefully two, citations per paragraph. John Carter 19:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The coat of arms now has copyright holder attribution, however I think that 39 citations should be sufficient, unless you have any suggestions to the contrary. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 20:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I love Sealand, so I hesitate to oppose, but there are several very small sections which should probably be merged into larger paragraphs. Some of the content is also unsourced. Perspicacite 21:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have merged some of the smaller paragraphs together so that information of the same topic was grouped together. I have also added 9 more references, which brings the total amount of references to 48 (40 more than when the article was demoted). These additional references have been placed throughout the article, and also not all the references are from the internet - some are also from the book "Lonely Planet guide to Micronations", meaning that there is now a variety of types of sources. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 23:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still see one-sentence paragraphs, so for now, I oppose. Perspicacite 09:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The smaller paragraphs have been merged into larger paragraphs. There are no longer any one-sentence paragraphs. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The recent events section needs work. Too much "On 28 February 2007..." This all needs to be integrated into a paragraph. KnightLago 02:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have merged these small paragraphs into much larger paragraphs, so that they no longer represent bullet points that begin with "On 28 February 2007...". Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 12:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you also need to move the Sealand launches official newspaper section into another section, maybe the recent events section. 2 lines don't need to be their own section. KnightLago 15:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sections have now been merged into one recent events section. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 16:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I just saw the references, they are a mess. See WP:CIT and use the citation templates and fill in as much information as possible. If you can bring them up to par I will reconsider. You also need to remove a lot of links from the links section. KnightLago 16:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the references using the templates and filled in as much information as possible. Also I have removed any unecessary links from the links section - leaving only the links to Sealandic websites. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 18:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See {{cite web}} for citing websites. You need the title, accessdate, author if given, date of publication if given, and publisher. See WP:CIT to see what is required depending on the type of source. To see good citations look at a WP:FA and see how they do their citations. KnightLago 18:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More information has been added to the references section using the templates. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 20:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is going on with reference 1? 5 should include a date of publication. 6 the date of publication should not be in the title. 11 and 14 are missing dates of publication. 15 and 16 have incorrect titles. 17 and 18 need publication dates. 19 is missing the full title of the publisher. 20 needs publication date. I only went through the first 20, you need to check the remainder for the same problems. KnightLago 12:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 1 is there for copyright status. The date in reference 6 is not a date of publication, but is when the court decision took place. References 15 and 16 do not have incorrect titles - Inmonaranja is used on the new Sealand transfer stamp, and the title of their website. All other references have been fixed, including the references beyond reference 20. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 18:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think ref 1 is correct. I have never seen an image link to the references section before. Also, did User:Zscout370 create the image or modify it? Because the image's page says it has been released but requires attribution to where it was taken from. I am not really sure what is going on with this pic. Maybe someone with more knowledge of images could take a look. 5 is incorrect still. 6, the date is not part of the name of the case, so why include it in the title? And the articles with "Published January 8 2007" etc are incorrect. Check the template for news, you should use the date field for the date of publication. KnightLago 20:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the cite web templates with cite news templates if the reference was a news article. For reference 6 I removed the date from the title. Because reference 5 is a news article, I used the cite news template, but the date of the article is "July 2000", no more information is given - therfore I left date of publication as "July 2000". The Coat of Arms picture requires attribution - from what the page states, User:Zscout370 didn't create the image (the references section has been edited to show this) - it seems to come from the Sealand Government website). Copyright is held by the Government of Sealand (see copyright status on left of website. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left a message with someone that has OTRS access to find out what is the exact permission for this picture since it appears to be copyrighted by the Principality of Sealand. KnightLago 22:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The claims made in the article are not substantiated by the sources given. For example, "is sometimes cited[3] in debates as an interesting case study" (No, it was cited once, in an unpublished dissertation, that "Apparently" it might be a good wheeze to escape internet restrictions); and "Sealand's royal family have travelled to many countries on their Sealand passports" (No, they claim to have travelled to other countries. Note the lawyer's wording: "supported by the fact, as you have advised," (my italics). That could mean England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which as British citizens they can quite happily do without showing documentation.) Any information in the article deriving from Sealand itself must be qualified, as they are biased sources and clearly non-neutral; any information from the Press must be qualified because the Press are often not providing news in this instance, but amusement. I think you should have restricted yourself to academic and legal references, as these may be the only reliable sources on this subject. DrKiernan 09:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected the sentences mentioned above so that the references support them. However, information on Sealand on the internet is limited compared to, for example, the United kingdom or the United States of America. Most sources of information are from the Government of the Principality of Sealand, Sealand News and news sources. Academic and legal references are extremely limited in number - the only ones I could find were the legal opinions on Sealand. Articles with a limited amount of sources, such as the Principality of Sealand, rely on all these sources to support the information in them, and featured article status requires a suitable amount of ciations. The Government of the Principality of Sealand, Sealand News are both reliable sources of information, but these are just two sources of information - more are required, and I can't delete the references from the other sources, the amount of sources of information is already very limited. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I limited the number of references to academic and legal references, The amount of references would decrease significantly. A lack of references was the reason why this article was demoted in the past, so I don't see how reducing the number of citations will promote this article. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per my earlier reservations regarding insufficient referencing above and all those cited by others. John Carter 18:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your earlier suggestions regarding insufficient referencing asked for more citations, but DrKiernan suggests using "academic and legal references, as these may be the only reliable sources on this subject." As stated above, I can't delete the references from the other sources, the amount of sources of information is already very limited. To only use academic and legal references in the article would mean eliminating many references, but to add more references would mean a smaller percentage of academic and legal references. I can't improve the article in both ways. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that to improve this article adding more references is the better option rather than limiting them. By limitng references much of the article's information would have no source - leaving any information without references to be easily deleted. Also, this article was previously demoted for having too few references. Approximately how many references should be added to reach a suitable amount? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 22:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no right number. The right amount is the amount necessary to throughly cite all claims made. Keep the sources you have. If you have a better source that is unrelated to the government itself use it and remove the government reference. But try and add more 3rd party sources. KnightLago 23:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has been suggested earlier that at least 2 citations per paragraph is a suitable target, so I will list all the paragraphs that require 2 citations, and the paragraphs that require 1 citation to achieve this. There is no maximum to how many citations there should be, so more references would be better. If references are added to a paragraph, the paragraph can be removed from the list below using <s></s>. 3rd party sources are the best sources to use. A complete list will bring the total amount of references to 64. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraphs requiring 2 citations
  • Third paragraph
  • Twenty first pargraph (Motto and anthem section)
Paragraphs requiring 1 citation
  • First paragraph
  • Second paragraph
  • Fourth paragraph
  • Seventh paragraph
  • Twelfth paragraph (First paragraph in Bates Family section)
  • Thirteenth paragraph
  • Fourteenth paragraph
  • Fifteenth paragraph
  • Seventeeth paragraph
  • Eighteenth paragraph
  • Nineteenth paragraph
  • Twentieth paragraph (Coins section)
  • Twenty second paragraph
  • Twenty third paragraph
What you are doing is not correct. The correct amount of citations per paragraph is the amount needed to cite all claims made. So it could be 2, or 10. I think just having 2 per an entire paragraph may not cut it in most cases. KnightLago 20:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Also, I tend to think that the article should have more citations. I personally lean to at least one, and hopefully two, citations per paragraph." The comments and oppositions are contradicting themselves, it seems that some users are not replying to or removing their comments and oppositions. I have added a section to [13] so that more users, if they can find sources, can add as many references as necessary to the article. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whoever said that is wrong. See my comment above for the correct amount. KnightLago 22:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more references to the article where they were required. I added references to the following sections:
  • History of the fort
  • Motto and anthem
  • Sports and activities
  • The GDP of Sealand
The total amount of references is now 59, 51 more than when the article was last demoted. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 22:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your changes, but I'm still not happy, even looking at the very first sentence: "Sealand is a micronation". The sources (except the Sealand News) do not support that. It's within British territorial waters. Their argument may have held when Britain's limit was 3 miles, but now it's 12 miles, the court rulings would probably be quite different and if they try broadcasting a pirate radio station again... DrKiernan 14:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Principality of Sealand does not see itself as a micronation, nowhere does it officially state that it is a micronation. When the Principality was founded, its territory was in international waters. It was founded before a law was passed by the UN stating that nations cannot be founded on platforms, and it was founded before the UK extended its territorial waters limit from 3nm to 12nm. The British and Sealandic territories therefore border eachother near the British coast in the North Sea. Sealandic territory must be considered because the Principality has many laws supporting its claim to sovereignty and has been recognised many times over throughout its history. Therefore, even if the UK does not recognise this, the Principality is not in British territorial waters and the court rulings during the time that the Principality was not in British claimed waters support this. I agree that the first sentence is misleading, micronation seems to be what the Principality was labelled as just because it has never been "officially" recognised by the UN or the UK. Some people consider it a micronation, and others a microstate. The problem with using microstate is that there are people who will argue that the Principality is not a country, and would sooner base this on their own opinions rather than legal facts. I suggest replacing micronation with microstate as legally (using facts which Wikipedia requires) it is a nation, but whether that edit would stay I can't guarantee. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 22:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a reference that shows that the Principality of Sealand does see itself as a microstate, and not a micronation. The reference can be found here. Therefore it is incorrect to state at the top of the article that Sealand is a micronation - the first sentence has to be changed. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 22:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What it sees itself as is a matter of note - but is also largely irrelevant from the perspective of taxonomy. What it actually is, is an ephemeral statelike entity - ie, by definition, a micronation. That is how virtually all reliable external sources refer to it. --Gene_poole 14:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But there are those who do not consider it a statelike entity, but a nation. Many of these external sources do not base their view of Sealand as a micronation on legal facts - it is just an opinion. This opinion has only been used because there are people who cannot accept that the Principality of Sealand can be a nation, even if there are legal facts to prove that it is a nation. To say "The Principality of Sealand is a micronation" would be against WP:NPOV because that sentence is just the opinion. What about those that do see Sealand as a nation? Their opinon isn't just an opinion, it is a statement supported by laws and facts. Why isn't this statement included into the article? There must be a way of rewriting the sentence so that it is a more accurate definition of the Principality. -- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.

Anodyne (album)[edit]

Self-nomination. The last album by alternative country band Uncle Tupelo, which has been been GA for a while. I find it pretty comparable to other featured album articles. Thanks in advance for your comments. Teemu08 21:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: not all that compelling. GA status, yes, but not FA-status. I would try to expand the overall article. There's not that much content. Perspicacite 09:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's not much content to be had. This article paraphrases everything I could find about the article. I think its important to consider that this album is an independent release that has only sold ~150,000 copies. If there was more info about this album, I'd quickly put it in, but to date there isn't much. Teemu08 (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Everything here is nice, but it's pretty passé for lack of a better term. Critical reception is but a tiny, one-sided paragraph. In that way it is relatively POV. YouTube redirects should be kept out of External Links. If that video needs to be in this article, try going to MTV or Yahoo! Music for it. A background section should be put in because I have no idea what is going on, or the history of this band. Most will not be willing to read the entire Uncle Tupelo article in order to understand this one. Overall it is a GA class article that needs work to become FA. NSR77 TC 16:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.

Joel Selwood[edit]

I'm nominating this article (self-nomination) for featured article because I feel it fulfills all the FA criteria, and as an article, represents some of Wikipedia's best work, particularly within the sub-field of Australian Rules Football Articles Boomtish 05:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, I'm afraid that there are some big issues with prose. For example, from the lead section: "A midfielder at 1.82 metres and 82 kilograms, he has often been compared to AFL superstar Chris Judd due to the impact he had during his debut season, where he received widespread recognition as the best and most successful first-year player to enter the league in recent times, having already been awarded the AFL Rising Star Award and achieving AFL Premiership success in just his debut year." This huge sentence needs splitting into at least two, and perhaps three. There are some more 'snake' sentences like this.
Some redundancy of phrase, for example: "Born in Bendigo, Victoria, to Bryce and Maree Selwood, Joel Selwood grew up in the country town of Bendigo"
Please read WP:DASH for correct usage, for example this sentence "Although raised in a sports-gifted family - mother Maree was a top runner..." should use unspaced mdash
It did get a peer review, but this was rather scant and it seems in need of a thorough going-over before submitting here.
I hope this hasn't been discouraging and can be helpful. — BillC talk 13:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead section concerns have been addressed, I believe. Snake sentences have been removed from the article, and splitted into additional sentences. Redundancy of phrase removed. Use of unspaced mdash applied in relevant sections.
Oppose POV in some parts, mostly suffering from recentist hyping in the modern era. Also, the prose is not good and those fair use images fail WP:FUC number 8. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please be more specific with any concerns regarding prose, POV etc. It's very difficult for me or anyone wishing to address these points to know where to start/where to refer to if no clear indication is given.

Your concern regarding the use of the images is noted. Although, I do slightly disagree. Out of the 3 images used in the article, one is used for the player info box, another used to summarise his debut year to date (I feel, particularly the successful nature of it), and another accompanies his 'honours' sub-section. Thanks.

Oppose, substantial 1(d) and also 3 concerns. Daniel 01:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, as per above, please be more specific with your concerns, particularly with regards to POV. Thanks.

Oppose Apart from the prose issue, the article is seriously padded out with repeated information. Although he is a promising player, he has only one season of league football behind him, which means there’s not a lot to write about. The infobox is an issue:

  • It lists the Ron Evans medal, the rising star nomination and that he won the same award as separate achievements. It’s the same thing…
  • He actually won the AFLPA best 1st year player award, it’s listed as a nomination
  • Contains not notable stuff like The Advertiser Southern Cross Ten Sports Star of the Year Award Nomination (2007) and The Age Sports Performer of the Week (2007)
  • The stuff about captaining Bendigo & his junior achievements in IR etc. would make more sense incorporated into the body of the article to discuss how his junior career developed.

Achievements are stuff like B&F, Brownlows, leading goalkicker, club captain, Vic rep, All-Australian, Hall of Fame. His achievements are premiership player & rising star winner. The article is also cluttered with too many templates at the bottom. There is a big factual mistake repeated many times, ie. that he is the youngest ever VFL-AFL premiership player ever. Many have achieved this at a younger age; it is believed (because of scant records in the early days) that Murray Weideman was the youngest, playing in Collingwood’s 1953 flag. You should've read you own ref for this; it says Selwood was the youngest since Andrew Eccles at Adelaide in 1998. Not really notable.

In short, the article needs to be chopped down by anything up to 50%, and the “fanzine” style of prose rewritten. The statistics section makes no sense; they are two tables saying the same thing, then giving career averages when he has played only one season. The honours section is the infobox rehashed. The personal life section repeats the section from the early days. Phanto282 (talk) 08:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.

Frank Barson[edit]

After reading up on Frank Barson I decided to look him up on wikipedia and found this was the article, I then gradually expanded the article to what it is today. It has recently passed to a GA now I feel it is ready for FA. Thanks Everlast1910 14:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose -
    • Comprehensiveness. There are large gaps, 91 appearances in eight years at Barnsley and 140 appearances in six years at Manchester United merit far more than a single paragraph each.
      • At Barnsley there was the world war in between? But no info if he fought or what? And at Man U he was injured a lot of the time as it says. I will look for more info but its hard to find!
    • The lead contains some facts which are not present in the body of the article.
      •  Done
    • There are issues with the prose. Awkward phrasing, run-on sentences and over-use of passive voice are all present to some degree. However, comprehensiveness is the more pressing concern.
      • Ill give it a re-write when I have time.

Everlast1910 10:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Oldelpaso 15:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Objection[1a,1b, 1d]-cool article,
  • writing is more like sports magazine in parts than an encyclpedia,
    • Reply I'll have a look through and try to re-write bits which sound like that. Everlast1910 15:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps due to sources aimed at bias loving football crowd - more reliable non-propagandist sources would be nice. But I can imagine they would be very hard to get.
    • Reply Yes that is one of the problems as there is barley any information that is why I think this article brings together all the information that is out there - but that's me Everlast1910 15:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not as easy as you make it sound to extract truth from bias.--Keerllston 04:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although it's not known whether he merely decided he wanted the job and nobody dared argue with him. He celebrated his appointment by scoring with a header from thirty yards out" a lot of things are unknown, such as whether Elvis went back in time picked him up, and is now currently partying with him. I note that unknown is not in the article. Why "he celebrated it" -Do you mean that on his next game he scored a header from 30 yards? Hardly seems like a celebration about his new post and instead normal football. Calling it a celebration is very much "sports magazine" tone and not encyclopedic tone.
    • Reply Celebrated - being named captain is something people would celebrate and seen as he didn't score many goals in his career a goal as well as your first game as captain would be something to celebrate. Also a header from 30yards is something that doesn't happen often! Everlast1910 15:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know, but unlike getting drunk is not often celebratory, mostly luck/chance/good pass, it could have had a salutory effect on his enthusiasm and therefore an effect on his playing ability, but the truth is is this statement is clearly not the proper tone.--Keerllston 04:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"and was so sick of such attention" better would be that he said he was sick of it- I don't think diseases actually develop from that kind of attention.
  • "Coaching career" has little information other than his coaching titles. Information on who and how he coached would be nice.
  • "Personal life" lacks information on family, relationships, early life, education, and so on.
    • Reply As with both of these its hard to find the information but I will have a look Everlast1910 15:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Keerllston 15:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response - I will try to fix the issues brought up when I get back from work! But from a player who played in the early 1900's - Barnsley it is hard to find the info but when I get back I will. Everlast1910 15:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object a bit too flamboyant on the newspaper style prose. Also, is "englandfanzine" and "ye olde tree" RS? I'll need convincing. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply As with every source there may be some doubt! But things do overlap from the sources so I think they are fairly reliable. As Barson played so long ago when lots of things weren't wrote down as much. I will give the article a full copy-edit. Everlast1910 23:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • OpposeSorry I missed the PR. I can't support but have the following comments.
    • Choppy prose in lead. Could do with flowing out sentences and a copyedit.
    • "hideous challenge" - bit POV.
    • You have Youth clubs in the infobox but no mention of them other than Cammell Lairds.
    • "notorious temper" - OR unless you can cite it.
    • "ugly brawl" - again, is that a direct quote or is it POV?
    • "...very public fall out..." - you need to expand on this.
    • " Barson undoubtedly played a large part in the Villa team during his three seasons at the club, but it is his run-ins with authority for which he is best known." - this sentence just says WP:OR all over it. It needs direct and clear citation (I might have missed it!!)...
    • "His living arrangements caused further controversy on the opening day..." - how?
    • " it's" - not in a FA - "it is"
    • "He celebrated is first game as captain... " typo I assume!
    • "The most famous story..." - original research again...
    • Wikilink cap.
    • Expand his England appearance, against whom, how did it go, if possible...
    • Ensure references are aligned per WP:CITE so directly after punctuation if possible...
    • " injury plagued" - should be hyphenated? A bit colloquial...
    • "Watford player Joe Davison was later sent off in that game with the referee reportedly saying "Off you go, Barson"." - expand and explain.
    • "...Fulham's Temple" - picky, but is that a place or a person?
    • Wikilink FA.
    • "but within five months (October 1929)" - yuck. Flow dates into the prose.
    • "...signed amateur forms for Wigan Borough.[7] He became a professional for Wigan in July 1930 in what was Borough’s last full season as a Football League club..." - this is confusing!

Hope some of my comments help. The Rambling Man 17:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.

Ohio Department of Transportation[edit]

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it is complete in its coverage as well as concise and well-written. As I am the major contributor to this article, I need outside opinion and review of featured article standards. Polypmaster 15:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose My eyes are already rolling.
    • Too many stubby paragraphs, especially in the lead. Chunk them up, more so in the lead, since you will lose readers quickly when they can't read a quality summary.
    • By 1947 the Ohio Department of Highways was constructing—Where can I get a quick breath? And there's a whole lot more.
    • …and has an annual budget approaching $3 billion.—Which dollar do you mean? Definitely not the Hong Kong dollar or the New Taiwan dollar.
    • …and by 1962 had 684 miles of interstates open.—Convert these units please. There is also a capitalization error, and it exists throughout the article.
    • Could I have more information about the other transportation modes that ODOT manages, such as aviation? The article as it stands only describe road stuff.
    • References go above External links. Always.
    • Is the mission statement really needed?

More as I find them. O2 (息 • 吹) 00:10, 14 November 2007 (GMT)

  • Oppose I think you have image problems. I think we need permission in writing from Ohio, not simply an email address to contact Todd. Who is Todd? Does he have the authority to give away these images? What happens if Todd leaves tomorrow, is anyone else going to know that he gave permission? If you have written permission was it sent to Foundation email address so they can keep a record? Also, the image obtained from flickr. I think we need a link to the actual flickr image so we can see that it has been released. There is a template that you can add the link to and a bot will check flickr to verify. KnightLago 01:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.

Halo 3[edit]

In the wake of Halo: Combat Evolved and Halo 2 comes the final game in the trilogy. On your mark, get set, savage away! David Fuchs (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lose the gallery in the Versions section. Also I'm not if this is too soon or not. Buc 09:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You said the same thing in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Master Chief (Halo) but that passed. I don't think there's much instability; it's been over a month since release and all of the reviews are published. I think the only information that will be added will be awards and a PC port (can't be mentioned in the article yet as it would be OR) like the other 2 games. I removed the gallery, I was wondering about that myself. I shuffled the images and table around in the versions section (see diff), it currently formats very neatly in my browser (IE7), I don't know about others so if it's a horrible mess please correct it. James086Talk | Email 10:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've never seen the title parameter be used in such a way before. Should logos even be used in that parameter? After all, it is on the box art. « ₣ullMetal ₣alcon » 17:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It shouldn't be. I've removed it and marked the image as orphaned. Pagrashtak 20:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.

Batman Forever[edit]

I'm nominating this article because there's no new information found on the net. Wildroot 16:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object Support: Some of the sentences need to be reworked, for various reasons. Here's what I found: Problems have been fixed.
Edward Nygma (Jim Carrey), a lowly worker at Wayne Enterprises has been doing unauthorized research at work into a brain-manipulating device, ostensibly as an entertainment medium, following his perceived rejection as a business partner by Bruce Wayne, whom he idolizes to the point of obsession. -- This is a run-on sentence, and if I hadn't seen the movie, I wouldn't quite understand it. Nygma does research on a device to act as a form of entertainment after being rejected? That needs to get fixed.
Burton himself felt he had enough with two films, and the fact that he wasn't excited for the new direction Warner Brothers was going with. -- The fact...what? Everything after the comma is a dependent clause. You need another independent clause there.


The filmmakers claimed that Schumacher wanted to bring somewhere along the lines of a more "MTV organic, and edgier feel" to the film. -- The problem here is the use of the quote. Who said it? Where's the citation for it? Because you're using a direct quote, you need a citation for it.
  •  Done That's fixed as well. It was already cited for "The Many Faces of Gotham City" featurette. Wildroot 20:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ventilation was placed in the suit and according to the costume design team, Kilmer had "a more stature feel than Michael Keaton" which served as a minor problem. -- This sentence has a citation for the quote, but I feel it would be better to give a name of the person on the costume design team, instead of just attributing it to the entire team. The entire team, I'm sure, didn't say that; only one person did. The article should state who. This same reasoning applies for the sentence above.
Schumacher commented on working with Val Kilmer, Tommy Lee Jones, and Jim Carrey stating, "I was told that Val was difficult and wasn't [right] for me. Jim Carrey was a gentleman, and Tommy Lee was threatened by him. I'm tired of defending overpaid, over privileged actors. I pray I don't work with them again." -- is this a joke, or for real? Because I own the two-disc version of Forever, and the director had nothing but praise for the actors. This isn't a problem with the sentence per se, but if someone could clarify that for me, that'd be great.
  •  Done That is already cited. Look at it. Wildroot 20:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Schumacher claims he met with actors Ewan McGregor, Jude Law, Alan Cumming, and Toby Stevens. -- This definitely needs a citation. Where did this idea come from?
  •  Done That's already cited for "Legends of the Dark Knight: The Cinematic Saga of Batman - A Hero Reborn." I thought you said you owned it. Wildroot 20:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The film was a box office success and naturally beat out it's $100 million budget. -- This smells of WP:PEACOCK
  • There is also a few spelling and grammar concerning wording mistakes. Not a lot, but I counted at least two, maybe three. As the article is right now, I must object to it. Anakinjmt 02:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do own it. However, I must look at it from someone that does not own the DVD, but browses the article for the first time. I still don't see a citation for the director's comment about meeting Jude Law and Ewan McGregor. There is a citation for the casting of Chris O'Donnell which comes after the sentence. Is the citation supposed to be for both? If it is, I would think the citation should be listed twice, because as it is right now, it appears as though only the latter sentence is cited. Anakinjmt 03:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Fine, just because I love you, I'll fix it. Geese. Personally I think it looks a little funny and weird. Anyway I'll get to that other stuff later. Anything else you want to add your royal asshole-ness? Wildroot 20:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, calm down. You don't have to; I just want to know if the citation is for both. If it is, I've never seen it done that way before. Now that I know all the facts, I can change my opinion to support. Anakinjmt 04:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to insufficient authoritative sources to improve the article. Google Books and Google Scholar shows ample resources, not to mention a very lengthy list of resources found here at User:Erik/Batman Forever. Feel free to copy and paste to research them for the improvement of the article. Other issues with this article at the present:
  • The lead section fails to provide a concise overview of the entire article.
  • The non-free image in the Plot section is decorative; it needs to be signified per #8 of WP:NFC#Policy.
  • Same goes for the non-free image in the Cast section. You should be able to provide real-world context about how the characters appeared for the camera.
  • The teaser poster is another non-free image that needs to be signified -- lots of films have a wide range of posters, but we don'[t put them all in a gallery to display to readers. We need substance to signify non-free images.
  • Batman-on-Film should not be relied upon for Critical reaction of the film. There are far more authoritative sources that can be implemented, starting with Rotten Tomatoes' Cream of the Crop for Batman Forever, which has major news outlets.
  • These are primary concerns, and while there may be more, the above important points need to be addressed before further scrutiny is warranted. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:50, November 7, 2007.

Pule (Holiday)[edit]

I'm self-nominating this article for featured article because I believe it is one of the best examples of Wikipedia's work. The quality of the page's writing would very much do Wikipedia justice. Also, I believe that Wikipedia should stand behind its otherwise ignored (yet well-written) articles, show that we care about all content, whether it's a major world event, a famous inventor, or a fictional holiday. Go to my user page if you want to see the lost information on the holiday of Pule! 21:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, gotta oppose this one! No references at all. And would need some serious copy-editing too! Sounds like you had fun writing it though... :) MeegsC | Talk 22:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and suggest withdrawal. No references, many stylistic errors, notability has been question, and quite brief for a FA. The JPStalk to me 00:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But length isn't part of the criteria. Go to my user page if you want to see the lost information on the holiday of Pule! 00:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy remove, can't be serious.--Grahamec 01:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this article is a pule of crap --Cloveious 02:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are kidding, right? I AM serious, and this article is NOT crap! Explain to me how this article is crap.Go to my user page if you want to see the lost information on the holiday of Pule! 02:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't know WHY it was deleted! And there's not even a deletion nomination thing for that article, just the original article! And "Deck the sock puppet"? What the hell does THAT mean? Go to my user page if you want to see the lost information on the holiday of Pule! 11:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is wrong with you people?! Don't you know a good article when you SEE ONE?! I'm with Feats-O-Strength on this one here. And a very merry Pule to you too! Deck the Hallz 15:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:20, 5 November 2007.

King Crimson[edit]

Nom restarted (Old nom) Raul654 02:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Gave the first paragraph of the lead a small copyedit. Several questions (I'll add more as I come across them):
  • What genre/type of contemporary musical artists have King Crimson influenced? It wasn't obvious from the reference given.
  • "In the late 1960s, the band were influential in popularising a previously unexplored mellotron rock style". Is this rock music using mellotrons (The Beatles used a mellotron in "Strawberry Fields Forever") or a subgenre? It's not clear.
Although you might be discouraged by some of the feedback here, the amount of work you've put in has greatly improved the article; keep it up. CloudNine 21:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right. I'd say that although King Crimson were not the first to use the mellotron, they certainly were regarded as pioneers in its use. Also, the reference states that King Crimson "have influenced hundreds of bands in the Avant-garde, Progressive and Heavy Metal area, always being ahead of their time" - that should answer your question.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Thorough and engaging article. I made some edits to make myself happy. --maclean 19:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs a copy-edit. Here are random samples of why someone else needs to come on board to sift through it.
    • Remove "also" from the second sentence.
    • "Although ... although".
    • "mid 1970s"—hyphen
    • 37 seconds is over the normal limit for a fair-use clip. Remove "It is believed that" from the infopage. Who believes? But the accompanying main text on these clips is good. 33 seconds might just be OK, but if it fades at the end of the clip (it probably should), take the timing only up the the start of the fade.
    • England: little-known country that needs a link.
    • Logical punctuation not consistently applied—Gibson."
      • The full quotation is "For me, being on stage with King Crimson is like Lenny Kravitz playing with Led Zeppelin, or Britney Spears onstage with Debbie Gibson." This is the punctuation of the source cited, and I see no reason to believe that this was not a full sentence when spoken; in short, this is the best available logical punctuation - one of the problems with the system is that it is difficult to install retrospectively. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Errant space after one em dash. Tony (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose: Though I'm impressed to see an editor has put so much work into such an obscure band, I don't think it's ready yet. Your sources are good (though there's heavy reliance on Bruce Eder) and the research is solid, but the writing kills it. For example, under Musical themes: Some of King Crimson's albums are noted for sounding very similar to one another, whilst others are known for sounding vastly different. That line instantly would kill any support I could offer for this article! Can't you make the same argument for nearly every band? But, beyond that, in that section, there's this: Other themes harder to document clearly include the composition of difficult passages for individual instruments (especially Fripp's guitar, notably during "Fracture" on Starless and Bible Black); pieces with a loud, aggressive sound not unlike heavy metal music, and the juxtaposition of ornate tunes and ballads with unusual, often dissonant noises. That's one sentence! Do some work on the prose throughout then let me know and I'll re-review it. --Midnightdreary 02:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Nice job on the copy edit. I like how you fixed the sentences I pointed out in particular. Based on this edit, I am changing my vote. Personally, I would suggest changing the first line "King Crimson are..." to "King Crimson is..." Technically, the band itself is singular, isn't it? --Midnightdreary 01:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A band is pleural in British English. ♫ Cricket02 04:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reject & Oppose For reasons of:

  • Confusion due to writing that does not flow smoothly.
  • Lack of images throughout article. #3

Requests:

  • Please focus parts of the article more on their impact, be it cultural, commercial or whatever you deem appropriate.
  • Create a section for reception or something of the sort.

Leranedo 06:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The main problem here is the prose. I just can't follow the story with all the extra details choking it up, and some of it borders on trivia. For example:
  • "According to Fripp, Beelzebub would be an anglicised form of the Arabic phrase "B'il Sabab", meaning "the man with an aim".[9] However, the original name is understood to be from ba'al zebul, "Lord of the High Place". (The name was later popularly corrupted to ba'al zevel, "Lord of the Dungheap", and ba'al zevuv, "Lord of the Flies", because the god's statue was constantly covered in blood." What does this even mean? I'm lost.
  • "McDonald had been writing songs with lyricist Peter Sinfield who also joined the new group, in a band called Infinity, which briefly included Fairport Convention singer Judy Dyble." How did he "join the new group in a band called infinity"?
  • "Ian McDonald and Michael Giles left King Crimson to pursue solo work, recording the McDonald and Giles studio album in 1970. McDonald went on to be a founding member of Foreigner in 1976"
  • "King Crimson has had 17 musicians pass through its ranks as full band members" put this in the lead, it makes me want to read more!
  • "Muir left the group in early 1973 following an on-stage injury and joined a Buddhist monastery in Scotland."
  • "However, technical issues with some of the original tapes rendered some of David Cross' violin parts inaudible when mixed in 1974, so Eddie Jobson was brought in to provide studio overdubs of violin and keyboards. Further edits were also necessary to allow for the time limitations of a single vinyl album." Why is this in the history section?

I get so lost trying to read this article. It's hard enough following the ins and outs of the 17 full members. A lot of the problem is due to the fact that the band had so many changes of personnel, but this encumbers the writer to make an even greater effort to summarize and "cohesify" the article. Instead of being engaged and drawn in, I am turned away by the sheer complexity of every paragraph, with so many new names, places, etc. You might consider making a timeline-chart to show how the band evolved over time, which could make it easier to understand the history. But although the article has loads of detail, I just can't follow. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 22:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the nominator has not been active since Sept 14, I will try to address this, though all I know about the band is what I read here and in some of the online references while reviewing. On your first, third, and fifth bullets I agree and removed some text but ensured the points were in the relevant articles on the individual people. On the second bullet, I checked the reference and clarified. On the fourth bullet, I agree and incorporated them in the appropriate sections. On the sixth bullet, I don't follow - can I just remove those two sentences? My edits are here: [14] --maclean 02:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for taking up the cause. The more I read it, though, the more concerns I have. For instance, the Membership section seems to just repeat what's been said in the history section, and is merely a list of the members and where their careers went after leaving KC. I still can't follow the history section; it really needs to be rewritten rather than simply amputated. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 15:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I brought the "Membership" section in line with the other FAs on musical groups by simply reducing it to a list: [15] --maclean 04:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I wonder can you find any copyright-free or even fair-use images to add to the one in the infobox. There have to be some around. I think it would significantly add to the visual appeal of the article. Here is one suggestion for you Image:KC newspaper.jpg Good luck. ww2censor 15:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks people. I haven't had the internet for a month and a half; I see good work has been done here. I don't think I could really improve this page any further.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Writing, references look very good. (Ibaranoff24 13:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:20, 5 November 2007.

Shuffle![edit]

I've not nominated the article for a long time, merely assuming that it wouldn't be able to get FA. However, I can't think of how to improve the article any longer and the peer review from long ago was nearly commentless. Before it is brought up though, there is no "Critical response" section due to my complete lack of knowledge of any respectable Japanese visual novel reviewers. Even if such reviews exist, they are likely in magazine form only and would be extremely difficult for me to get a hold of. I therefor hope that such a section is deemed unnecessary to being an FA. Any other issues brought up will be fixed to the best of my ability.--SeizureDog 03:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments There are no sections on Development, or Music, which I think are two large oversights, especially development. I've attempted to include such a section in the Key visual novel articles, but most of the time it's just a list of names and what they did; not really much to look at in the end, but I would still think this essential for an FA. What's really needed here are interviews from the creators, but I know as well as you that they are few and far between. And what about conjoining Plot, Characters, and Themes into an overall Plot section? I started doing this after a user directed me to the FA article FFVII which has such a configuration. And then I always wondered what was with the titles in a lot of the references being in Japanese text; shouldn't those be altered to titles that the reader can actually read?--十八 05:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for development, it's like you said: don't really have much in the way of references for that. It may be that the absence of such a section completely cripples the article from being FA, and if that's the case then there's little hope for the article. As for music, there's plenty of FA video game articles that don't have such a section (for example none of the Devil May Cry games). Obviously Final Fantasy articles need music sections as Nobuo Uematsu is one of the few truly famous video game composers, but I don't think Shuffle!'s soundtracks were notable enough to require a section. As for merging into a Plot section, I don't really like how the FF7 article is set up, plus it's speckled with cleanup tags so I'm not sure if it's a good guideline to use at the moment. As for the references, if the person can't read the link title then fact-checking the link itself isn't going to do them much good is it? Not sure if there's a guideline there or not. Anyways, sorry I can't do much more than defend how it is but thanks for stopping by Juhachi.--SeizureDog 08:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pass & support

  • On the basis it's good enough.

Remark: I can't believe this was notable enough. Learnedo 06:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reluctant Oppose - Unfortunately, some information about the development of the game is needed to satisfy criteria 1(b) "Comprehensive". There are a lot of game articles that don't have development sections either because of age and/or lack of English sources. It's a shame though, the rest of the article does a decent job of covering everything else. Some other things to reach FA and general comments to help improve the article: 1) Expand the lead paragraphs. 2) Additional reliable sources never hurt an article. 3) There are some sections that could use some reorganization. The "Sequels" section could be be combined into a single two paragraph section instead of three sections with three small paragraphs. Personally, I'm not a fan of bulleted character lists. Most of the FA video game articles have character sections in paragraph form. This article does have the potential to be FA though, hopefully development info can be found. But until then, it doesn't look up to snuff. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    Willing oppose.
    • MOS breach—First caption is not a full sentence, so should have no final period; add "An" at the start, since captions are not short texts like titles.
    • Ungrammatical: "due to it being"—try "because it was". Needs sifting for grammar throughout, by someone else.
    • MOS breach, possibly (consult Dashes): "~$79.73"—Do we allow swung dashes to represent about? In any case, get rid of it or write "about $80"; the exchange rate would have fluctuated since you started reading this review, so don't be over-precise.
    • Sections are choppy, small, disjointed. Try to merge some and use paragraphing more as a strategic structural unit. It's smoother for our readers.
    • Unsure why the text is cluttered with Japanese script. Does it mean anything to English speakers?
    • Pretty ordinary, overall. This first sentence in "Gameplay" sums it up: "The gameplay mostly consists of just reading and listening to the conversations provided." So is this "among our best work", as required? Tony (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:20, 5 November 2007.

Sai Baba of Shirdi[edit]

previous FAC

Self-nomination: Restarting the FAC. It's already been nominated for FA once (but it failed), after that I nominated it for GA twice and it passed the second time. I think I've corrected most of the mistakes and faults of the article and that it complies with the FA criteria. Kkrystian 14:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Please format your references. It's hard to gauge the reliability of a source from a plain URL. You may wish to use {{Cite web}} for this. You've also got some short sections or paragraphs. "Miracles" is a short section, and has some one- and two-sentence paragraphs that display as one line on this computer. Many of the other sections appear to have too many header levels. "Biography" is broken into five subheading, and only one exceeds one paragraph. "Death" is two lines. Avoid restating the article subject in headers, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings. Pagrashtak 15:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to lack of citations and the need for a good copyedit. Here are some of the issues that I've found.
    • I am not familiar with Hindu naming practices. There needs to be consistency in how he is referred to after the first mention of his name. In general, the convention is to use only a surname for subsequent mentions, but it's unclear to me whether Baba could be considered a surname or not. The article currently alternates between using "Sai" and using the full "Sai Baba", and should standardize on one.
    • The lead has two one-sentence paragraphs, which is not good form. It will also need a citation for "one of the most popular Indian saints," as that is a statement that could be contested.
      • Paragraphs combined, statement cited. Kkrystian 19:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is an overuse of parentheses. Many of the parenthetical phrases could, and should, be incorporated better into the text.
    • The subsections in biography are very short and should be combined.
      • "Second stay in Shirdi" and "Death" combibned. Kkrystian 19:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's better, but what if you just have two sections there - one called Early life and one called Ya Sai or something like that. The first section would group together everything that is in the current first 3 sections, and the last one would be the current "Second stay" section. Karanacs 19:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't wikilink single years (like 1858). Full dates, however, should be wikilinked (15 Oct 1918)
    • Every fact needs to be cited; this means that at the very least there should be one citation per paragraph. Several paragraphs have no citations.
      • Added some more citations. Kkrystian 19:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Better, but the statement about the 1977 film being "hugely popular " definitely needs a citation. Karanacs 19:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article needs a copyedit. There are clunky sentences and paragraphs that don't flow well.
      • COuld you please correct them. Kkrystian 19:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't really have time to copyedit, and that's not my biggest talent anyway. The League of Copyeditors might be able to help. Karanacs 19:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He prayed in the Hindu and Muslim way. " - are the ways the same or are they different and the article means he prayed in both the Hindu and Muslim ways? It might be wise to expand that.
    • Use named refs, when possible, to reduce the number of duplicated references. For example, 15 and 16 are the same, and 20-23 are the same.
      • Largely corrected. Kkrystian 19:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's still at least one more instance. Karanacs 19:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Citations to websites must include the name of the publisher (often the website name) and the title of the page. They should not include format=HTML, because that is the default.

Good luck! Karanacs 19:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose:

Too many missing citations; starting from the lead.

    • The lead has just a reference. Sentences like "an Indian guru, yogi and fakir, who is regarded by his Hindu and Muslim followers as a saint. Some of his Hindu devotees believe that he was an Avatar of Shiva, Dattatreya, a satguru and the next incarnation of Kabir."; "revered by several notable Hindu, Sufi and Zoroastrian religious leaders." ; "his well known epigrams says of God: "Allah Malik" ("God is Master")."; "His philosophy was Advaita Vedanta" " 11 assurances" "Miracles" section etc. facts like birth in C.1838 and Death date need references.
    • Then there are 2 mentions of Dwarakamai : once as his parent ; once as a mosque???? Clarify. --Redtigerxyz 12:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:20, 5 November 2007.

Conversion therapy[edit]

Article is extensively sourced and covers all major aspects of this topic. For what it's worth, I've had a scientist who is an expert in the field review the article and it was well received. It has been GA class for some time, and has undergone MANY improvements since then. Fireplace 17:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks pretty good, but I have a few nitpicks I'd like to see taken care of before I support:
    • NARTH should be named in full before it is referred by its abbreviated form (even if the abbreviation is common in the U.S., it is virtually unknown outside them)
    • APsaA and APA are seriously overlinked. (and the article could use the APA abbreviation more often). At some point APsaA is inked twice in as many lines.
      •  Done It is inconvenient that the standard abbreviation of both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association is APA. My solution was to use the abbreviation whenever the context or the footnote clarifies which one it is (e.g., only the Psychiatric Association can modify the DSM, as they publish it); otherwise, I spell it out. Fireplace 22:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, I had not even spotted that difference, otherwise I might have been more careful with my recommendation. Circeus 23:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last paragraph in "Peer-reviewed research" needs a source(s).
    • The sources need some fixing: dates (not access dates) given in ISO format needs bracket around them. Red links and links to stuff linked in the article itself should be removed.
        • Note, there's nothing wrong with redlinks, and their removal is not a requirement for FA status. On the other hand, if a term is not adequately defined in the article, then the redlink can be stubbified or a definition provided in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done Thanks for taking the time to comment! Fireplace 22:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Circeus 18:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral Article is not very stable at the moment, and it appears that it might not stay stable after its promotion. Circeus 05:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a quick comment -- the lead mentions various US sources, studies, scientists, etc. While as a controversy the issue is centered on the United States, I feel that this may be an overly nationally biased way of introducing the article, as it frames the issue as an American issue and, moreover, the only relevant scientific studies as the American ones. Generalizing a bit more is not a problem in the lead as long as more specific facts appear in the body of the article. —Verrai 04:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article does mention WHO and the Chinese Classification and Diagnostic Criteria of Mental Disorders. Maybe that could be moved up further to the top.Joshuajohanson 04:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article doesn't seem to say in which countries this therapy is popular today, and where it has been used in the past but fallen out of use. Narayanese 06:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the slow reply. I've gathered some excellent sources on the status and history of conversion therapy outside the English-speaking world, and will include the information in the article tonight. Fireplace 14:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment before making any vote: The APA logo cannot be used in this article, since it fails FUC #8. I realize it's a tough subject to illustrate and in a long article you desperately want images to break up the text, but the fact is that the only justification for using the copyrighted logo of an organization outside of the article on that organization itself is when the logo in question is discussed specifically in the text. In plain language, it does not significantly enhance the article to have the image there, regardless of what the fair-use rationale at the image page asserts. Until it's gone or replaced by some sort of free image the article cannot be promoted. Daniel Case 18:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum. Ditto with this image, too. It's not necessary. Daniel Case 18:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done A while back I found some very politically incorrect (by today's standards) drawings used in an early 20th century journal article on conversion therapy. I'll see if I can dig it up to fix the problem with too few images. Fireplace 19:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, completely unformatted and incompletely formatted references, see WP:CITE/ES. All sources need publisher and title, author and publication date should be given when available, and all websources need a last accessdate. Few of your medical sources have PMIDs (see WP:MEDMOS; this article should comply). Cite needed tags and uncited text, example: Mainstream gay rights organizations and some religious organizations opposing conversion therapies include the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, The Interfaith Alliance, New Ways Ministries and People for the American Way. Neutrality tag on the article obviously disqualifies it for FA status. The article is very listy and could be better prosified. You might relist at peer review and prompt the Projects to contribute; you need MEDMOS input. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree completely with SandyGeorgia and the comments she has left... I got lost while reading it due to all the information on list format.
    • I have also reviewed some of the titles of the bibliography and the following article "Zlotlow, Moses; Paganini, Albert E. (1959). "Autoerotic and Homoerotic Manifestations in Hospitalized Male Postlobotomy Patients". Psychiatric Quarterly 33: 492-97." seems to state the opposite to what it supposedly makes reference: in the wikipedia article is used to support that lobotomy was used to treat homosexuality but the title of the article seems to be talking about homosexuality tendencies as a consequence of lobotomy (Which on the other hand makes more sense with a frontal brain damage, since it sometimes produces hipersexuality)
    • The following reference "Max, Louis William (1935). "Breaking Up a Homosexual Fixation by the Condition Reaction Technique: A Case Study". Psychology Bulletin 32: 734. (the article describes the "success" of electroshock treatment when used at "intensities considerably higher than those usually employed on human subjects.")" has an explanation of the article. Not much sense in a reference section.
    • Same happens in "Smith, Glenn; Bartlett, Annie; King, Michael (January 2004). "Treatments of homosexuality in Britain since the 1950s -- An oral history: the experience of patients". BMJ. doi:10.1136/bmj.37984.442419.EE. Retrieved on 2007-08-28. “Other forms of treatment were electroconvulsive therapy, discussion of the evils of homosexuality, desensitisation of an assumed phobia of the opposite sex, hypnosis, psychodrama, and abreaction. Dating skills were sometimes taught, and occasionally men were encouraged to find a prostitute or female friend with whom to try sexual intercourse. Many described the treatments as unsophisticated and un-erotic because of the clinical setting and images used: "The whole week was totally un-erotic. I don't think I could have had an erection for any reason that week because I didn't like being there."”

--Garrondo 17:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's lots of good about this article, so I await the outcome in dealing with Sandy's objections. See a few inline queries I've left. Tony (talk) 09:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Great, thanks for all the comments. I've added PMIDs where available; cleaned up the other reference formatting issues; dealt with {{fact}} templates; cited the text requested by Sandy; dealt with the {{neutrality}} tag; dealt with the three issues Garrondo raised; and dealt with the inline comments Tony left. Fireplace 22:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done I haven't responded to the complaint that the article is list-y. I'm doubtful that too much improvement can be made there -- there's already a lot of prose, and due to the fragmented nature of the field, it's probably impossible to compile a more unified story. Fireplace 22:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:20, 5 November 2007.

American Civil War[edit]

I think that American Civil War should be used to redirect to this page, but the actual official Congressional name for this war is "The War Between The States". This is due to the fact that a civil war implies that a body wishes to overthrow the established government; whereas, in this war, established governments wished to leave and form a new separate goverment with the old still intact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.180.160 (talk) 07:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this article for featured article status because it has improved quite a bit over the past year or two. This is a self-nomination, since I contributed to the article. Now the American Civil War article is stable, thorough and well-referenced.Jimmuldrow 23:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment work on the items in the PR script on the talk page. What jumped out at me is the long, detailed lead with several footnotes. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment overall this is an excellent article about a very important subject, but it still needs work. I'm not sure that the listing of novels in the references (and poems and songs in a footnote) works. I suspect these works were not in fact used as sources, and it might be better to put them in a subsidiary article. The footnotes to poems and songs (currently #170) and "Massachusetts in the Civil War" (#98) are in a particularly poor format.--Grahamec 02:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object As pointed out, the lead is really excessive, and so is much else in the article. "Causes of the War" is pretty much an article in of itself (37k) and the "See also"-section is massive. A stricter application of summary style would be a great benefit to readers. Also, why is "Aftermath" a section separate from "Analysis of the outcome"? These are really just two terms for the same thing. Peter Isotalo 05:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the feedback. So far I trimmed the lede a bit by moving most of the last paragraph further down, and trimmed the Causes section a bit, although remember that this was a big war. I also deleted the novels and songs and poems thing. Dates were de-linked, and words like "some" were taken out where not needed. I believe the Aftermath section is more about the results of the war after it ended.Jimmuldrow 11:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the importance of the war, but I don't believe any topic justifies such excessive coverage in a main article and some sections are just simply overdoing the whole thing. "Causes of the war" gives too many examples of the same basic aspects. Subsections like "States' rights and slavery in the territories" are hardly necessary for an overview of the war. "Abolitionism" should be handled under "Slavery" as the former is merely a reaction to the latter. And the "Arguments for and against slavery" seems to have been included merely for good measure.
The justification of "Aftermath" does not seem particularly intuitive. I suggest joining it with "Analysis of the outcome" and simply calling the whole section "Aftermath". Implying that we're presenting an analysis has a slight twang of original research about it.
Peter Isotalo 10:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done For the Aftermath section.Jimmuldrow 00:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done For the scotching the States' Rights section.Jimmuldrow 00:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done For merging Abolitionism with the Slavery section.Jimmuldrow 00:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done For eliminating Slavery in the Territories.Jimmuldrow 00:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done For moving Arguments for and Against Slavery.Jimmuldrow 01:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The lead - which I did not really manage to break through - is weak, perhaps because it's difficult to see the wood for the trees. I wouldn't have thought it was impossible to have four concise paragraphs laying out: the causes and background; the nature of the war and its battles; how the war was won/lost; and what happened next, or similar. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 13:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tightened the lede a bit. Maybe it's better now.Jimmuldrow 17:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fraid not. It needs a radical rewrite, from first principles. It needs to explain what it's all about to someone who hasn't heard of it before. It's just too dense and too complicated at the moment. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 17:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any specifics? I thought the lede only mentioned the highlights.Jimmuldrow 18:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly right. It needs to tell us the basics. ie the war was between the XX states of the Union and the XX states of the confederacy, what issues precisely they fell out over, why this was important enough to go to war over etc. Then how long the war waged, how it was won, what the butchers' bills were etc. A technique I sometimes use to clarify things is to list bullet points, then link the bullet points together into sentences. In other words, I treat first the draft as if it's a Powerpoint presentation of the key stuff. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 18:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lede mentions eleven Southern states. The number of Union states changed, and the details of that would make things more dense and complicated. As for how long, the lede says the war was from 1861-1865. As for how won, Grant's battles of attrition led to Appomattox, and this was mentioned. I could add that about 620,000 soldier deaths resulted from the war.Jimmuldrow 19:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't, in my view, a quick fix for this. I really think you should get someone else to go through it and ruthlessly cut it to the essentials. You won't improve it by tweaking it, that'll make it even more dense. I'd like to help you but I can't give you a blow by blow list of edits. It's got over-written and impenetrable. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 20:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made one last try here anyway. I don't see how you could cut the lede more without taking out information that's very basic to understanding the war.Jimmuldrow 23:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who hasn't worked on the article, I've taken up Roger's suggestion and trimmed a good bit of excessive detail from the lead. This is of course a complex topic difficult to briefly summarize, but I think the lead is fairly decent right now. Agree? —Kevin Myers 03:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Big improvement, Kevin. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 06:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The lede looks good now. Thanks, Kevin.Jimmuldrow 03:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Outishdent) The same problem also afflicts the next section, Causes of War; lengthy and repetitive. If someone will cut it, I'll help tweak and polish. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 07:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I just read that section. It's repetitive, redundant, and somewhat repetitive. Twice. And the excessive detail! Pruning is clearly needed when trivia like "a gold-knobbed gutta-percha cane" is included. Or the listing all of John Brown's Secret Six supporters. (A reader who needs the six names can link to the article in question.) I'm afraid there's more copyediting needed than I have time to do, but I hope someone does it, because the article is fixable. The important information seems to be in there; it just needs tidied up. —Kevin Myers 14:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a known problem that has been pointed out on multiple occasions. There is an entire article about the causes of the war, which means that this section should be a brief summary, not an exhaustive rewrite. Perhaps a dozen paragraphs? It is really telling that the Overview section of this article occurs about two thirds of the way through the text. I also agree with the comments regarding the bloated nature of the end matter. There is a complete article on American Civil War bibliography, so there is no need for a lengthy list in this article. My preference for such things is to clearly list the source materials that are directly cited in the article as the References and to put all other nice to read materials into Further reading. In this case, the separate bibliography article should replace the further reading category. Perhaps now that Richard Jensen has moved his hat over to Citizendium, this could be accomplished in a noncontroversial way. Hal Jespersen 14:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the time to do the basic surgery on this but agree with Kevin that it can be rescued. If someone else will swing the ax, I'll do the follow up. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 15:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made a start at reducing the repetition and sub-sections for Causes.Jimmuldrow 22:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's about 3300 words: it needs to get down to about 1000. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 22:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's better now, or at least much more concise.Jimmuldrow 03:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment only on the title. There are no references to the war being called the "American Civil War". There is a link at the top to the naming of the war. "Civil War" is stated as the most common. Since "American Civil War" is, at best, a rare usage, the name should be changed. Maybe "Civil War (USA)"? Mrs.EasterBunny 16:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amazingly, there's an entire article on this, Naming the American Civil War :)) My preference is to leave it as it is. At least that way it's symmetrical with English Civil War(s), Irish Civil War, Greek Civil War, Lebanese Civil War and the dozens of others mentioned in the List of civil wars. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 17:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that the article be called "Civil War (USA)" is extremely US-centric. Of course the most common name of the war is the current title... The rest is just hairsplitting among Civil War aficionados. To a non-American like myself the link above the lead borders on the annoying. I would prefer that it be made into a footnote right after the title.
Peter Isotalo 06:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not US-centric. If other countries simply say "Civil War" then we could use that for their article, such as "Civil War (England)" if that were true. Mrs.EasterBunny 01:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They all do. Putting the country name first makes it instant which one we're talking about, so I suppose it's rename one, rename the lot. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 12:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"American Civil War" is the title used by Encyclopedia Britannica and the Oxford Companion to Military History, to cite the first two examples I just checked at my local library. Clearly, the article is correctly titled.
I agree that the hatnote at the top of the article should go. I'm not sure what chain of events led to it being put there, but it doesn't really add anything and seems to go against the spirit of WP:HAT. —Kevin Myers 13:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 DoneJimmuldrow 04:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This article, while quite detailed, does not yet represent the "best wikipedia can offer". It is that very detail that hinders it, I believe. I was once a Civil War buff myself and have read scores of books on the topic. However, this page does not adequately summarize the event, in my opinion.

  • My first big question is about the research; I see a lot of books listed under the "References", but James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom seems to be the main source for the article. Did the editors read all of the other sources and just use McPherson's book for the page numbers or something? Because right now, it looks like we are getting primarily McPherson's view of things. As anyone who has read both McPherson's one-volume treatment and Foote's three-volume treatment will know, there are differing interpretations of the Civil War - and that is only among popular treatments for the public. If the editors have read the other books and they coincide with McPherson, it would be great if they could add references to that effect. It would bolster the page's credibility enormously.
  • At first glance, the lead seems to have been written by those interested primarily in military history. :) The lead should summarize the entire article, from the causes of the war, through the battles, to the possible international intervention, and mention Reconstruction. It should also, ahem, mention slavery as there is a large section on that in the article itself. (WP:BETTER#Lead section has some helpful tips on writing leads - they are quite difficult. I struggle with them myself all of the time.)
  • I feel like the "Causes" section dives right in and assumes a great deal of knowledge. If this is the first page that people are going to come to on the American Civil War in wikipedia, it needs to be much broader. Who is Lincoln? What was the "Houses Divided" speech? What era are we in? To give one small example, the article introduces the word "free-soil" in the first paragraph of the "Causes" section, but does not define it or wiki-link it. That is a very uncommon term. Perhaps it will help you to know that I once surveyed a group of freshmen composition students I was teaching and they placed the American Civil War in the eighteenth century and could name no causes of it.
  • The details in the "Causes" section weigh it down. Delete many of the details and keep only the broad outline; it needs much more summary writing (one of the hardest kinds of writing there is). You should not need a "Clarification of causes" section if the "Causes" section is written well.
  • I would suggest that the editors come up with an outline of the five to ten most important ideas they want readers to come away with from this page (five would be ideal) and work outward from there, always keeping in mind those five to ten ideas. What is the narrative of the Civil War that this page is trying to tell? Try to articulate that narrative in a few paragraphs (that is the lead). (The entire page suffers from the same problems that I outlined for the "Causes" section.)
  • I would also suggest that the editors provide readers with "signposts" along the way - alert them to where the article is going. Provide little two- to three-sentence summaries of each section: this is where we have been, this is where we are going. That way readers are reminded of what they have read and can keep track of all of the information.
  • Listing movies, etc. about the Civil War is unnecessary. I assume some sort of "American Civil War in popular culture" page exists? Best they go there. This is not a comprehensive list and the criteria for their selection are bound to be personal.
  • I find the pictures in the infobox busy - I think one picture would do fine.
  • On my screen, you can't see the TOC when you first view the page - is there any way to fix that?

I understand how dispiriting such suggestions can be and I really am sorry to have to make them. I do not make them lightly. I know that the editors share my fascination with the American Civil War and want its pages to be of truly stellar quality. I would expect that it would take several weeks to revise this page, that is why I have opposed it rather than "comment". The editors need to ruminate a bit on what to include and then engage in a massive revision of the page (what we writing teachers call "global revision"). Using someone's sandbox to try out various new versions is one way to do this; I have found it works well. Awadewit | talk 05:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pass & support

  • On the basis that it's acceptable according to low-standards. Leranedo 09:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:20, 5 November 2007.

Jacques Le Gris[edit]

An article I have been working on for a while now. It has had a brief Military History Wikiproject A-class review and has passed for GA during which the reviewer suggested that the article was probably an FA candidate. The article does rely rather heavily (although by no means exclusively) on one source. However, as touched on in the Legacy section, Eric Jager's book is the only extensive and reliable source on this subject in English and I have no access to French sources even if I could read them. If this proves too great an obstacle for FA then so be it. Any comments will be much appreciated. Jackyd101 23:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments as I come across themSupport. Prose stuff mainly, I should think:
  • Early life; In 1370 his long service was awarded - should that be rewarded?
It should indeed. Changed.
  • During his career he became firm friends with another squire in the Count's service named Jean de Carrouges. - I'd think about rewording slightly to friends with Jean de Carrouges, another squire in the Count's service. (The Count's service wasn't called Jean de...!)
Quite correct. Changed.
  • 2nd para - the friendship between the two men became strained. This is only a suggestion, but since you've just mentioned the two barons, this reference to "two men" isn't as clear as it may be. It's perfectly understandable, of course, but could it be better?
Substituted "squires" for "men".
  • Who lent the 3,000 livres to whom?
Clarified.
  • While making a small copyedit to remove a stray apostrophe, I noticed (or at least, Firefox's inbuilt spell checker spotted) an instance of AmE. The use of neighbour in the lead suggests BrE use, and I seem to remember from the Ostend Raid article, that's your usual choice. Are there more? Do you want me to go through looking for them? I fixed that one, and am perfectly happy to seek and destroy any others. Actually, I've already fixed the two I could see; don't think there are any more. Carre 14:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Legal difficulties, I think subject to should be subjected to - past tense of the verb, rather than the adjectival sense (see [16])
  • Quite a few instances of "the <something> of <someone>", rather than "<someone>'s <something>". Some of them can't, I think, be fixed without clumsy language, but some can.
In the process of changing, will finish soon. Done I think, if I haven't done enough then please let me know.
  • Looks ok to me now - I think the remainder are either those that would need clumsy language to amend, or the accepted phrase "the court of..."
  • "fifty miles" or "50 miles"?
50.
  • Was it really the Latin misericordia, rather than misericorde? No idea, just asking. :)
The source material uses misericordia, so I'll stick with that for now. If these is a contradictory source then by all means bring it to my attention.
  • OK - I don't know of any sources, just thought it odd and worth asking the question.

Hmm - that's it; I did tweak a few bits and bobs of MOS issues along the way, but nothing much. A testament to a great tale that I found myself engrossed in reading it, and not looking for problems! And a nice little dig at Britannica at the end too ;) Carre 14:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your comments, I have responded above. Your input is most appreciated and please let me know if there is anything else you think needs to be done to the article. Regards--Jackyd101 17:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely job; changed to support. Carre 15:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've given this a bit of a copy edit, mostly to work in feudal references, and remove a bit of duplication. If you think, I've broken it revert what you will. I'd like to mulll this over for a bit as I think something is missing and I can't decide what :) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 10:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for your edits,I changed a couple of typos (the source material refers to Carrouges with simply his surname and not "de Carrouges" so I think that is probably the best expression to use). In general I think your edits have enhanced the article, the only problem I have is that you removed a comment about his physical strength. I think this important, as all the source material emphasises that Le Gris was an exceptionally large and powerful man and that this threatening and imposing physique was an important asset in his military and political career.--Jackyd101 13:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks (that's very tolerant of you). I think you're right; that the "de" means "of" rather than being a particule. Things went a bit astray this morning as my dog was being very persistent about going out and kept nudging me. I tried to restore it all but forgot to work the bit about physical strength back in. I'll look at it again later (I've got some material on this, but only in French). --ROGER DAVIES TALK 13:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is going to seem very harsh, but I don't believe in many of the close-focus details given in this article. In my opinion, it gives more credence to the primary sources than they deserve. I have no doubt that the article is a faithful summary of Jager's book; but Jager is not a historian. To me, this article does not read like medieval history. Passages such as the following raise one's eyebrow:

As his horse faltered and collapsed, Le Gris was thrown off and lost his axe. Undaunted, he rose and drew his longsword, turning to meet Carrouges who was already advancing on him, sword also drawn. Again the combatants traded blows, their weapons the only sounds heard in the silent battleground.

What Jager is doing is retelling a semi-legendary event, as enhanced by the chroniclers. The article admits that "in the centuries since Le Gris' death the case has become an important cultural legend in France". My experience of Froissart, for what it is worth, is that he is not to be relied upon too much. His account of the death of John of Bohemia, for example, in which the blind king rides into battle and dies valiantly, is hardly credible. Froissart was bewitched by chivalric fantasy; that bias colours what he wrote.

In my opinion, this article would be better framed as a critical analysis of the sources for the legend. Perhaps with a slightly different title. I recommend a look at Joan of Arc for an objective article on similarly fantasized material.qp10qp 14:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion and I will look at the issues you raise, but I will continue this nomination as I do believe the approach to the article is sound. Jager is not basing his account on Froissart (which Jager acknowledges would be an absurd basis for a historical study) but on wide range of sources, including but not limited to the notes of Le Gris' lawyer Jean Le Coq, the studies of French jurists and the records of the Parlement of Paris. As such this is far more than simply a "semi-legendary event". Where I have used the chronicles as sources it is in an effort to add colour to the references and they have only been used where Jager agrees with them. Regards--Jackyd101 17:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, just to note, the passage you quoted above is not from Jager (as that would be plagarism and a copyright violation), but written by me based on Jager's account. The "dramatic" nature of the prose has been commented on before, but I maintain this is an effort to achieve "Brilliant Prose" as required in the FA criteria and there is nothing there which cannot be backed up by the source material.--Jackyd101 17:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I realised you had not copied the passage (and there are many like it) and did not suggest that. However, I do not trust a style of writing medieval history that gives close-focus details that cannot be known and which, to my eyes at least, reads like a novelisation. You write these vivid passages with no framing devices to indicate where the details are derived from. It is the vivid storytelling that betrays much of this narrative as a semi-legendary event, particularly the duel itself, which is like something from Lancelot and Guinevere.
You mention the court records etc. I think these should be addressed directly through the work of historians rather than through Jager, who is not the best source for those aspects. A purely objective and sober account of this case would be fascinating.qp10qp 17:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although Jager is not a professional historian, he is an academic with expertise in the middle ages and I don't think that his work should be dismissed lightly. There are also problems associated with there being few 2nd hand sources on this man's life and with difficulties concerning OR, which would arise should the primary sources (which I have no access to) be used directly. I don't think the purely sober account you mention has been published, certainly not in English. --Jackyd101 23:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've been looking at the Joan of Arc article and was wondering if you meant Alternative historical interpretations of Joan of Arc instead of the main Joan of Arc page? The difference between these figures is that Joan is far more famous than Jean and consequently there are far wider interpretations of the former. In addition, as stated above, almost all sources apart from Jager are in French (and therefore beyond my reach) and there is little disagreement between those considered reliable.--Jackyd101 17:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I won't say anything else here. But I've added something to the article's talk page.qp10qp 18:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I take your point, the problem still is essentially a lack of sources on this event with which to compare. Some of the details for the combat come from (according to the endnotes of Jager's book) a French legal study in 1976. Where that study got its details from is unclear. In breaking these sources down (without access to many of them) I think I'm getting dangerously close to OR. --Jackyd101 23:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have made an attempt to change the tone of the combat paragraph with a simple passage. Let me know if it improves things. I have been thinking on this problem for several days and I think that the most significant problem is the reliability of the sources used in the section on the combat. The "rape" by contrast seems well sourced. I have introduced a couple of sentances explaining that the combat is drawn largely from the chronicles. I am still considering other options and would appreciate further advice, but this is an effort to address the problem in a simple manner whilst I continue to think about it.--Jackyd101 23:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pass & support

  • On the basis that it's good enough and that's fine from what I heard. Leranedo 09:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I share many of the same concerns that Qp10qp does and perhaps even the nominator himself/herself. It worries me that this page rests largely on three sources: Jager's popular history and two primary sources. I am also concerned about the writing style, which I believes derives from Jager.

  • Jager is not a historian - his academic books are in the field of English literature and as someone trained in that field, I can tell you they are very different. I checked for reviews of The Last Duel in academic journals because sometimes good popular books are reviewed there, but I didn't find any (I did find reviews of Jager's books on medieval literature). Nor has The New York Times or any other large newspaper employed someone to review the book yet. On what basis should we be willing to accept this book as the sole secondary source for the page? It is not written by a medieval historian, it is not an academic book, and it is has no solid reviews supporting it.
  • I am also concerned that we are only presenting one scholar's view of this event. Surely other scholars have written about this, even if they have not written entire books on it? There must be articles and references in other books. Does Jager's book have a bibliography? The research for this article seems superficial to me. It does not appear to me that the editor(s) took the time to find out what the scholarly consensus on this event is.
  • An Account of the Duel between Jean de Carrouges and Jacques le Gris in the Chronicle of the Monk of St. Denis - What is this source exactly? Is it being used as a secondary or primary source? If it is a primary source, the information from it should be announced to readers that way: "according to medieval sources..." Its use is not as clear as it should be. Also, it would be better to rely on scholars' analysis of these sources, not our own, as we are not the experts.
  • Froissairt's Tales appears to be a medieval source, but the article does not tell the reader until much later. The article bases the entire story of the rape upon it - I find this very problematic. Either use secondary sources or make it very clear to the reader primary material is being summarized. The rape sequence currently looks like a presentation of your version of the rape from the two primary materials - that could be considered WP:OR.
  • At the marshal's signal, silence descended over the field and both knights spurred their horses and charged, their lances each striking the other's shield but not causing significant damage. Wheeling, both again struck but failed to penetrate, scoring glancing blows on their helmets but remaining horsed. For a third time they turned and charged and again they both struck. This time however the lances shattered, sending slivers of wood cartwheeling across the arena and nearly unseating both men.[22] Regaining balance, the knights closed on one another with battle axes drawn, trading furious two-handed blows. As the engagement progressed, Le Gris' superior strength began to tell and Carrouges was driven back until with a mighty swing, Le Gris' axe severed the spine of Carrouges' horse. The dying beast tumbled to the ground, Carrouges leaping clear and meeting Le Gris' charge with a side-step, allowing him to thrust his own axe's pike deep into the stomach of Le Gris' steed. - This is novelistic writing - this is not encyclopedic writing. I remain skeptical that we have sources to back up this level of detail.

I have no doubt that a thoroughly-researched article with toned-down writing on this subject would be just as fascinating and I look forward to reading it in the future. Awadewit | talk 05:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your comments, perhaps you should also have a look at the article's talk page where several of these issues have been discussed. Fundamentally, the problem with this article is that Jager IS the only secondary source written in English which provides any more analysis than a brief paragraph length overview. There are more detailed sources in French, primarily legal studies, but I have no access to them. Jager discusses these sources and their conflicting opinions, but obviously their contents are unknown. Thus there is no consensus to represent other than that already shown in the article. As for the chronicles, I added them in to provide some colour to the references and only used them where Jager backs them up (they do differ quite a bit). However, I have since discovered thanks to input from other reviewers that Jager's own sourcing is rather poor. The section on the combat you quote above is possibly taken almost exclusively from the chronicles and thus is not a reliable source (the section on the rape actually appears to be taken from court records and lawyer's notes in the French National Archive). However with such a vague referencing system as Jager employs, it is difficult to see where he has used reliable sources and where he hasn't. In the absence of any corroborating evidence, this article is forced to rely too heavily on Jager and as a result has accuracy and reliability issues which simply cannot be addressed at the present time. I expect this nomination to be failed in the near future. Thankyou again for your comments, --Jackyd101 11:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being so honest. It is good to know that you are putting the integrity of the project first. Perhaps this topic is more suitable for GA? I myself have written some articles that are based on the kind of scrounging that it looks like you would have to do for this topic - a paragraph here and an article there. I have left them at the GA-level because their level of comprehensiveness is so shaky that to bring them here would not enhance the FA process. We simply have to wait for more scholarship to be published (see The Guardian of Education and Priestley Riots, for example). Perhaps this is the time for you to start learning French, eh? Awadewit | talk 03:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:20, 5 November 2007.

Australian rules football[edit]

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it meets all nomination criteria, is fully referenced, easy to understand and comprehend, and is well over due for a nomination. Aflumpire 10:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from myself when reading the article, please remove anything that does not make sense as I have had to just remove a whole load of crap from the article. Please don't mark that down. If it's bad, move it, delete it, whatever. Most Australian's think that outsiders don't know anything (im an Australian saying that!!!) Aflumpire 10:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The bulk of this article is missing citations. The citations that are there are not formatted properly. The See Also and External links sections are way too long. Karanacs 15:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Eeek! This wouldn't even pass GA with the lack of citations! Carre 17:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - sorry, not too far off. Will need alot of refs which should be fairly easy to find, and some combining of stubby paras and some copyediting. Though the prose is actually pretty good on cursory inspection. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - Hi Aflumpire, and thanks for the FAC nom. Unfortunately, the article isn't close to the current FA criteria. It needs a lot more referencing from reliable sources. The sources also need to be formatted using {{cite web}}. When some of this has been done, please don't hesitate to leave a note on my talk page, or nominate the article for good article status (criteria). Cheers, — H2O —  09:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources don't have to be formatted used {{cite web}} (although that's the easiest way to do it), but they need to follow an accepted formatting style. (WP:CITE is the best place to start). Good luck! Karanacs 13:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:20, 5 November 2007.

Preity Zinta[edit]

Support This article has had considerable development since its promotion to GA status and recently passed A but due to strong support I am now proposing it for an FA. It is well written, structured and informative and is an excellent source for encyclopedic information. It covers every aspect of her career and life and has over 100 references which are correctly filled out and professional. For me this is therefore just about up to FA quality. An article on a living actor is a pretty difficult one to write and this does a very good job of it - and this is better in my view than some of the actor articles which are already FA. Please could you review as soon as possible thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 10:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preity Zinta will become only the second Indian cinematic person to achieve a FA - an amount I believe is incredibly low considering India has the biggest film industry in the world. I'm sure the move if proposed will become incredibly popular and lead off a spark of several other Indian articles becoming a FA.
Summarising, my points, Preity Zinta's FA status will become a positive turning point in Indian cinema pages on Wikipedia. Universal Hero 11:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great article, my single minor complaint was dealt with. Well deserved. - Francis Tyers · 11:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For neutrality's sake, you really shouldn't open a sentence with "award winning". I know other actor articles do that, but the first sentence of the article, really the first paragraph, should be the most basic information about the topic. You shouldn't start by saying how great it is, even if you can verify it, because it creates an unnecessary bias from the beginning.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am going to read the article more thoroughly later today as I have the time, but on a cursory glance, it looks like it could use some more copy editing. Probably worth listing with LCE for the meantime. I'll see what I can scrub up a bit myself when I get the chance, too. Girolamo Savonarola 12:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The image is believed to be not a screenshot of the film, but a photograph of Zinta on set - note she is looking into the camera. According to the website the Bollywood blog often has photographers on the set of films in Mumbai also but this particular image appears to be a promo photo. If you see the Angelina Jolie article which is already FA it has three screenshots of her so quite reasonably this article could have one or two more . ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The one reservation that really comes up is the unusual phrasing of some of the content. I didn't mention this in A-Class review, because I'm not sure of existing norms for grammar and suchlike outside the central United States, and can't be sure that such usage might not be common elsewhere. But if others mention that concern as well, I think some copyediting might be in order. I can try to pitch in myself a bit as time permits today, but can't make any guarantees. I do think the reservations about the photo questioned above have been address, however. John Carter 13:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Every edit of yours will be much appreciated. Thank you! Shahid • Talk2me 14:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
  • Comment Small issue: some image captions refer to her as "Zinta" whilst others refer to her as "Preity Zinta", please choose one and go with it. Otherwise, its definately FA material. Good work. Twenty Years 14:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Comprehensive and well-written article. utcursch | talk 14:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very well-cited and quite complete.- AKeen 14:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, just improve image captions. - Darwinek 14:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Article is well written, and has a staggering 106 sources. Could be expanded though -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk) 17:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just want to register that User:Blofeld of SPECTRE left me a message on my talk page asking me to come here and support the nomination. I have no knowledge of this article whatsoever and therefore won't give an opinion, but I have concerns that he may have selected me because of perceived sympathy with his cause. If he indiscriminately messaged everyone, then I object to receiving unsolicited messages of no relevance to me. It may be worth it for whoever closes this discussion to investigate how much support, and from which corners of the community, came from similar get-out-the-vote activities. Croctotheface 17:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • Reply to Croctotheface Sorry sorry sorry, but you have provided wrong and false info here. You have removed Blofeld's message, writing in the edit summary "Go away, spam". Let me copy your words: left me a message on my talk page asking me to come here and support the nomination. - not true at all. Blofeld left the same message to all the users. Here it is (and it is copied from your talk page, a message you've removed): "I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable." If you could provide where exactly Blofeld asked you to support it here, I would be extremely grateful Croctotheface. Shahid • Talk2me 17:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to Croc Absolute rubbish. I would never ask somebody directly to support an article. Please don't insult me. Correct me if I am wrong but is "I would be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable" asking to support it?. I merely asked for your opinion and to respectfully review. I am very disappointed in your response Croc. I made sure I asked a diversity of people which is probably how I came across you. Now why would I have assumed you would have been sympathetic to it??? There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking people to review the article themselves and leave their own views and comments. Nobody around here (with the exception of one or two) is a fool and even if I had said "OHhh please support this article" on my hands and knees nobody is going to be forced to do anything. People are able to think for themselves and anyway the article speaks for itself. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • To the idea that Blofeld was not looking to garner support for his position, that's just nonsense. It is certainly possible to try to influence the outcome of a discussion sucha s this without saying, "come support this FA nomination" or something like it. To suggest that Blofeld, who clearly wants to see this article promoted, had something else in mind by publicizing this discussion is disingenuous at best. Setting that aside, WP:CANVAS says, "Even if the goal is not to influence the outcome of the debate, indiscriminately sending announcements to uninvolved editors is considered 'talk-page spamming' (or e-mail spamming) and therefore disruptive." Considering that I had never edited this article, I am an uninvolved editor. Considering that I never expressed interest in the topic, this action was disruptive. It is not somehow evil or terrible of me to complain about it or to remove the spam message from my talk page. To the extent that it was clear to me that such messages as the one I received could influence the outcome, and since I had no knowledge of how widespread these messages were or whether anyone else was involved in sending them, I felt it appropriate to bring this to light. That's all I have to say about the topic. Croctotheface 07:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • comment Well why on earth do you think I would have asked somebody like you if I didn't want a neutral turn out? You are not involved with this or our paths have never crossed before, so why would I request you to review it if I expected you to support it? It is quite insulting to other editors Croc that you think by asking intelligent people to review the article and state their opinion of it is suddenly going to propel them into supporting it. Publicizing a FA candidate is not a crime - it is to avoid the restrictions of the same limited group of editors and get some broader perspectvies across a range of fields ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 11:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is well written and well researched. Tovojolo 18:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article is well written, comprehensive, and generally of high quality - • The Giant Puffin • 19:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A well written article that meets the criteria. Cla68 20:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canvassing stuff moved to this FAC's talk page. O2 (息 • 吹) 01:06, 02 November 2007 (GMT)
    • Canvassing; I was so surprised at what I found here, that I went back and reread all of the supports, and only now discovered that canvassing comments were moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. I have entered my strong oppose at the end of this sea of support, but I entered it before I read the talk page and became aware of the canvassing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is well written and in my opinion should be FA status. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Mainly MOS breaches and 1a.
    • There is a punctuation error in the beginning of the lead.
    • Some of the week events—possessive.
      • Where? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 22:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You should be able to figure that out. If you can't, ask somebody else to give the text a massage for you. O2 (息 • 吹) 00:10, 02 November 2007 (GMT)
    • …performed at the…to help raise money for the victims of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake.—a little awkward; there is a redundancy here.
      •  Done
        • That doesn't look like you did anything. O2 (息 • 吹) 00:10, 02 November 2007 (GMT)
    • Zinta donated her winnings, from her 2007 appearance on Kaun Banega Crorepati to the Shimla District Red Cross Society in Himachel Pradesh, along with Rani Mukerji.—How does this flow if one takes out the phrase in between the commas?
      •  Done
        • Not done yet. You've just made it worse and harder to articulate. O2 (息 • 吹) 00:10, 02 November 2007 (GMT)
    • In August of that year, Zinta along with Mumbai-based artist Gurcharan Singh, painted for the cause of street children for the Non-governmental organization Khushi.—punctuation and capitalisation errors.
      •  Done
        • Not yet. O2 (息 • 吹) 00:10, 02 November 2007 (GMT)
    • This article is extremely long; please condense some of the long sections into detail pages (SS and SIZE). Make sure people with short to medium attention spans can read the article comfortably.
    • There are inconsistencies between U.S. and British spellings. Examples of words that are inconsistent are honour and criticise. Please convert all U.S. spellings to British so that this article can be easily read around the globe. (SPELLING)
    • Please check this article's image licences; I got one from hollywoodblog that has a fair use rationale, and the rest are under a CC licence. All images must have acceptable copyright.
      •  Done The promo photos or screenshots are easily distinguishable from the images owned by the Bollywood website. I have emailed the director of Caledonian publishing and the images are now licensed correctly. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 22:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's all for now; I may find more as I read. O2 (息 • 吹) 21:37, 01 November 2007 (GMT)
      • Please do not strike out a commenter's objections until the commenter determines if they have been fulfilled. O2 (息 • 吹) 00:10, 02 November 2007 (GMT)
  • Support Very well written and very well cited article. El Greco(talk) 22:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per The Giant Puffin. Way to go, Blofeld! Cliff smith 23:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I hereby note my support for Preity Zinta.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support definitely FA quality. —Anas talk? 00:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well written and comprehensive article. Definitely FA worthy. -- Grandpafootsoldier 00:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Impressive work. igordebraga ≠ 01:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose, 1a, 1c, 2. It's disappointing to have to swim against this sea of fan support, but prose is not sufficient for a good article. Girolamo indicated a copyedit was needed: I noticed the following examples only on scanning. Throw-away sentence, inconclusive: "Since then, apparently this controversy has come to an end." "It was not the first time that Krishnamurthy has accused Zinta in this issue." "The press came up with no findings, and this rumour was considered to be false." "She told the court that she had received threatening phone calls from the mafia, trying to extort money from her while shooting the film Chori Chori Chupke Chupke, and told her that she would have to bear the consequences if she did not pay up." "In January 2007, Zinta visited Hisar, Haryana, and spent a day at the army training base to boost the morales of the jawans ... " (what are morales?) The grammar and prose is not to a functional level, and definitely not close to the brilliant and compelling level expected of an FA. An independent copyedit by an uninvolved person is urgently needed. Youtube is not a reliable source (I suspect a number of the other sources may not be reliable either, just glancing at the sources, I wonder about sites like www.bollyvista.com). Don't start sentences with numbers (see WP:MOSNUM). Also, see WP:MSH: is Stage Shows a group or proper noun or what? It's surprising to have to make basic MOS fixes after more than a dozen supports. WP:DASH fixes needed (see sample edits), for example, endashes, not hyphens, should be used on year ranges. I am sorry to have to enter Strong Oppose, which I rarely do, but the support level for an article which needs a basic copyedit is surprising, and this article is not ready for FA status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for pointing your points out, each of which will be adressed. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 05:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Addressing each of my points will not be sufficient; these are examples only. A thorough copyedit is needed. Please do not fix only the samples and ask me to revisit: fixing the samples only won't be enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So please be more precise. Please don't leave it in mid-way. Shahid • Talk2me 05:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I didn't leave it midway at all; I pointed out numerous basic flaws in English grammar, and those were only on a quick glance. The entire article needs a copyedit; the deficiencies are obvious. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose—Peacockery is evident throughout, not just in the lead. Oh my heavens, just reading the lead gives me indigestion. Most popular ... commercial success ... widely recognized ... her versatility ... film heroine ... commercially successful ... commercial success ... much critical acclaim ... praised ... prominent leading actress ... highest success ratio ... noted columnist ... . Is this fancruft or what? It's not the kind of authoritative account that WP aims to give. Perhaps her publicity agent wrote it. The whole thing needs to be toned down; it's OK to have a bit of positive commentary, but not the continuous gushing we're faced with throughout, I see. This publicity brochure is not worthy of promotion as it stands. I echo Sandy's comments about referencing. Oh, and the writing—love this one: "and there were some speculative issues whether she is doing it for her boyfriend rather than for her own interest". Tony (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Toned down.

    • comment I've tried to tone it down a little and have suggested that we introduce more negative reviews if there are any ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 16:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Perhaps some of the sentences could be toned down a bit but Tony I don't think you are aware of how much success Preity Zinta has actually had. She has received a high degree of acclaim and what appears to be mostly strong support for her film work in, and to hide all information that she is a success would be a lie. This isn't some small time actress. According to box office figures she is , correct me if I am wrong the biggest selling actress in India today, and in a country with 1 billion + people that is huge. The article does cover the negative side of her life also. Are you proposing we add in false negative comments about her or remove that she has received any success at all for her film work just for the sake of it? It is very difficult to write an article on a living actor who has received so much acclaim for her work and make it not appear in the slightest bit gushing. You have repeated the phrase biggest commerical success several times. This in fact is true and is fact. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 11:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think he's suggesting that some of the praise be toned back from the lead, while some neg. criticism be added to the lead--because WP:NPOV requires a "fairness of tone", which is presenting both sides of the argument, as well is not being overly critical or praiseful. Meaning, just because you have 20 sources saying "she's the greatest thing on Earth", but with different wording, doesn't necessarily mean that it would be appropriate to say that on Wikipedia...at least not 20 times. But, I have to agree that there isn't a neutral balance in the lead when it comes to how much she is praised and how much she is criticized.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well yes I am also all for presenting both sides of the argument and it is very important to have a balanced tone in a NPOV but I guarantee if you google Preity Zinta you'll find a huge amount of praise and success and little major criticism in her acting ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 11:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Nice article. Good job. For me, it satisfies all criterias. Indianescence 12:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rejoinder—The lead need not necessarily contain negativity, although it might if appropriate. What you say in response above just needs to be said ONCE, not again and again and again, through the constant barrage of attitudinal items and through the general tone. It's meant to be an account, and attitude should be measured and attributed to others, not WP itself. Yes, tone it right down throughout. It's too long, anyway. And it needs a copy-edit. Tony (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I can certianly see what you mean about some of the positive wording. It is very difficult to write about somebody who is at the top of an industry as big as this and to remove anything which might appear gushing.The trick is the try to reduce the number of words which repeat that she is a success and that leans towards a tone written in her favour but still convey the same information. The thing is most of her career particularly since 2003 has been a major success. Perhaps it could be toned down and shortened slightly in places and minor structural/copy editing work but it certainly isn't the major flaw that Sandy Georgia is highlighting. I remember it took four months to pass Casino Royale partly because she had issues with what appeared to many people to be a satisfactory article. I agree it still needs some copyediting still and polishing to ensure it is fully of an FA quality. Hopefully anybody who opposes to it can help correct what they see is wrong and work together with everybody to achieve an FA for everybody's benefit including Sandy. As for British English, I can't help being from the UK -english is named so for a reason. I believe Indian english is based on British also. However as this is an American site I have no qualms over which people want to use, but I feel it is important to be consistent in all articles and we must stick to one either British or American spelling. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 14:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think Sandy made any comments about English² or American English, the other comments were mainly requesting that it be kept in a standard format, which should probably be English². - Francis Tyers · 14:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it would be well worth contributing editors to have a long look at WP:NPOV. I'm not saying that because I believe that any of you don't understand the concept or are actively pushing POV, but more because the policy demonstrates some common mistakes which have happened here and shows how to fix them. Check your weasels and peacocks, too. And if any editor is worth listening to during this nomination, I would strongly recommend Sandy; she comments on almost every FAC I've been aware of in recent memory and has a clear grip on how this process works and what an FA does and doesn't have. Girolamo Savonarola 16:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the kind words; we need to find an independent copyeditor here, and I'm no copyeditor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've had a look at the article again, and I think it should also be noted that while it's not quite there yet (IMHO), a lot of progress has already been made on these issues between the start of the nomination and now. So I give credit to everyone. Girolamo Savonarola 16:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • comment Well I have just given it partly a major copyedit today I'll address the controversy section later. It may not be perfect but there's probably some minor grammar issues in there Can't you see the difference Sandy? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 16:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another note: can we lose the parenthetical years of the film from the lead? That's too much detail for a lead, and makes it look cluttered. If anyone cares about the years, they should be in the film article or in her filmography (or whatever) section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done
      • Another random issue I just found while making a WP:ITALICS correction. This sentence (At school she met Shagun who has remained her best friend for life, and is frequently mentioned during Zinta's interviews) talks about a Shagun person, who apparently isn't discussed anywhere else in the article. Who is this person and why do we care? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done
  • comment As far as I am aware this Shagun plays a major role in her daily life and she regularly discusses her in interviews. Normally I would have thrown this sentence out for triviality but the fact she has remained a strong figure in her life since childhood I beleived made it adequate. However important she is, it may not be appropriae for an encyclopedia article as there is little context ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 16:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, but some (many?) of us have never heard of Zinta or Shagun, and the article introduces this person randomly; we don't even know who s/he is or why s/he is relevant. Last name? For that matter, we don't know if it's a she or a he. The article itself gives no reason for this sentence to be there; that's why you need someone independent to go through the article. It doesn't appear that you are writing to the portion of the world who has never heard of Zinta. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment Well I did suggest to Shahid earlier on that it may not be a suitable sentence fir an encyclopedia and yes you do have to look at it as an article in a huge book in relation to all the other articles and question whether it is necessary. If I remove this sentence I think Shahid may object. I don't think it is of the uttermost importance but as she appears to be a ,ajor figure in her life I thought it may help ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not asking for its removal; I'm offering it as an example of why you need someone unfamiliar with the topic to copyedit. The sentence needs context for those of us who have never heard of Zinta or Shagun; that may be hard for someone close to the subject to see. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Yes I am fully aware that Sandy participates in most FA's. I am impressed by her will to comment on the majority of them and I am fully aware she has a very strict criteria , one of the highest for FA articles. Perhaps this is a good thing for ensuring FA articles are of the uttermost gold standard but it can be difficult when the article is made to look inferior when most of the issues which I believe are minor can be addressed and can be corrected reasonably straight forwardly if the opposers would help correct what they see as a problem ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 16:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blofeld, if you want me to do MOS fixin' on this article, you only have to ask. However, what it mostly needs is copyediting, and I'm not a good copyeditor. Also, it doesn't make a lot of sense to adjust the MOS issues yet, since a lot of the article may be rewritten. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have polished up some words and phrases today and rid up some shorter snappy sentencing and made it flow but I believe there are still some minor grammar and wording issues which an independent copy editor could correct. You can see the improvement already when reading it. However the controversy section which will need th most attnetion that I haven't got around to yet. I have also suggested to Shahid who has done most of the work on this to find any negative reviews she has received and perhaps introduce them to areas where it may appear to be slightly too gushing to demonstrate neutrality and to avoid the perception that the article is written to promote Zinta, Feel free Sandy to address any issues that you see a problem. I would be very surprised if you aren't a great copy editor as you appear to have an intricate knowledge of the mechanics of FA's ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 16:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of the citation issues that need to be addressed:

  • "Actresses Filmographies". Retrieved July 14, 2007.

No publisher is identified, and when you click on the link and then click on "Home" to try to find authorship of this website, you get a dead link. What makes this a reliable source? All of the sources should be checked for reliability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes I don't know why that home page isn't there. But it is the official Indian box office website and would normally be regarded as reliable. Most of the sources are retrived from mainstream websites that are prominent sources in discussning Bollywood film. Maybe ther eis still one or two that need addressing ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you fill in the Publisher field on the cite template so we know what organization is behind the website (and make sure all sources have an identifiable, reliable publisher)? I will go through tonight (about six hours, my time) and work on overlinking and, if it's OK with you, I'd remove those years in parens from the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes thats fine Sandy I want this sorted and based on your experience any issues you have with it -I would be very grateful if you could help and correct. I want you also to be happy that this is really up to FA standard. I have addressed the above issues you have borught to my attention thankyou. I have now removed the Shagun part which unless the context can be filled is too obscure , I've adjusted the parens per standard only leaving the relevant years to the awards in question and have addressed several of your other issues ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only sections I feel which need real copy editing are the personal life and controversy sections which cover a difficult subject but may appear to read like a blog. Other than this i would suggest introducing some negative quotes if they can be found to try to give a balanced view in the career section and waying it up equally so it gives the impressio of meing an encyclopedia entry and not a promotion. Other than this I really can't see any major issues at all now. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blofeld, I prefer to strike my own comments as I review; I will sit down tonight my time (in a few hours) and go through everything, do as much as I can, and strike what I can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not a good copyeditor, but from my pass at the lead, you can see there are still redundancies, WP:MOSDATE issues (don't use – present) and some unnecessary adjectives (most prominent = prominent), as well as basic ce needs still.[17] I'll keep working. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It was rough going in the first paragraph of the body; the copyedit needs of this article are more than I can handle. I am not that good at copyediting, but more seriously, there is too much in the text that isn't explained to someone unfamiliar with Indian cinema, so I don't know how to fix it.[18] I'll focus on the MOS and other fixes, but I really shouldn't be trying to fix the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still working, but the copyedit needs are substantial, from tons of misplaced commas, incorrect use of WP:ITALICS to sentences I can't decipher at all, flow problems (two death escapes are discussed early in the article, but not explained until the end), to basic grammatical deficiencies like "Initially Zinta kept silent and refused to talk about the issue, waiting it to disappear for itself." I'm working on it, but the article still needs sustained copyediting and flow improvement. I'm also having a hard time understanding how she was involved in so many box office flops in which her performances received unanimous acclaim. Now that some of the MOS issues are addressed, I'm going to strike what I can (above), but the ce needs are substantial. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm really grateful to you. Yet, a film wouldn't necessarily be a hit if it was critically acclaimed. Art films and parallel cinema films are almost always declared as flops, but they're almost always critically acclaimed and actors actually win awards for their performances, regardless of the film being a hit or flop. Shahid • Talk2me 00:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does anybody think about merging the personal life and controversy section?. Isn't this personal life? And where it discuss her boyfriend this could all be in one section ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have 4 controversies. Merging them is a mess and not necessary, unless there are ToC problems (and there aren't) Shahid • Talk2me 18:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not a fan of separate controversy/criticism sections; they are often POV forks, and I believe criticism and controversy should be woven seamlessly into the rest of the article in the appropriate section. If it's criticism of her work, there; if controversy in her personal life, there. On the other hand, I don't feel strongly about this yet, as I need to carefully read the entire thing. I just generally don't like separate criticism sections, as they imply the rest of the text isn't written in a balanced way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have to agree. Merging is necessary I believe and the personal life section now needs cutting down as this section was a bit excessive and this is the final section for me which now needs a copy edit. I think it is is very neccessary to avoid specific sections on taboo subjects such as controversies particularly to have a different sub section for each case as if it is some kind of legal historical event - this is not really acceptable for a biographical criteria. Words such as rumours should really be removed. Before it mentioned her boyfriend in three different places in the article which wasn't good. It needs to be covered in one section to make the information flow to the reader and to avoid confusion. It is now in some form of chronological order which I believe enhances understanding and consolidates the section. Remember we are looking for the most concise way to convey information to the reader ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As for criticism, the career section is very well balanced in the matter. There are comments of criticism. Preity Zinta is widely known for her controversies in India, so I believe they must be put in a separate section. Furthermore, the controversies are neutral and don't show her in a bad light. The Bharat Shah case is one of the biggest issues in India during this decade. It was a shock for the whole film fratrnity to discover the underworld links. Zinta was the only film personality to come to the court and testify, that's why she is always called "The only man in Bollywood" and that's why she won the national honour for her "brave". That's only one controversy I introduce to you, out of the four. And BTW, there are more controversies which I didn't find good enough to write here, such as Shakti Kapoor's casting couch accusations against several filmmakers and actresses, all of whom kept silence. Zinta again was the only one to express herself against him publicly. Her statements shocked the industry and people were amazed to witness Zinta's guts. She was again described in the media, "There is no doubt, this lady has the biggest mouth in India, be careful the next time"... That was only to note, Best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 18:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am fully aware of how widely regarded Zinta was in regards to her remaining strong in the face of death threats from the mafia and sticking to her word in the court. It is undoubtedly a major controversy and of major significance but it still falls into her personal life if she was personally threatened even if it involved some of the other stars. Anybody reading that section can clearly see how significant it was in her life. I am also fully aware that she is one of the most controversial figures in Bollywood but I genuinely think seperate sections on controversies for a biography should be avoided primarily for purposes of tone and neutrality not in the content but in terms of article structure. Generating controversy by four or five different "cases" looks like we are building an argument specifically to emphasise blunders in her life when it really should be toned down ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the sentence "During her years in the Indian film industry, Zinta has been the subject of numerous controversies and media speculations, which put her among the most controversial celebrities in Bollywood" clearly asserts her controversy and the reader in proceeding is clearly aware of it ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I truly feel that this article is not only one of the best articles on Indian cinema but one of the best on Wikipedia. The article covers the most important aspects of her life and everything is truly at its best. It is also well written, flows easily, comprehensive, very interesting to read and overall the most important factor of an encyclopedia: informative. Someone who doesn't even have a clue about her can find out so much by reading this article. I am not saying all this because I am an Indian but I strongly support in Zinta's article in becoming a FA. The article has improved by leaps and bounds thanks to the hard work and dedication of the two editors and it truly meets all the criterias. --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 20:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further rejoinder. What does "truly" mean in the comment above? The reviewer is using the same density of peacock eptithets as are in the article itself, so no wonder it's a support declaration. I'm suspicious about the appearance of a cabal-like generation of support for this nomination. I'm not blaming reviewers here, but their inexperience in matching the FA Criteria to the nomination is quite clear.
I draw the contributors' attention to Wikipedia:Avoid_peacock_terms, and in terms of the legal requirements here, to the MOS on Words to avoid. I've added the Template:Peacock to the article; please let me know when it's no longer required and I'll remove it. Tony (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? What are you talking about? Every editor has equal rights to support an article as you have, even if he is not aware of the criteria at all, it is still his right. Your complaints were mostly adressed, the lead was toned down. In fact, according to the Indian box office she is the most successful actress in Bollywood - and it is a fact. She is popular, and it is a fact; see the in the media section (which was removed BTW).
Now, before adding these tags of yours, you have to discuss, provide good examples, and finally you can't do it for your own and decide to do it just because you want. Apart from it, this article is an FAC, people are reviewing it, so I guess you want them to automatically oppose. So I disagree. I'll remove it. Shahid • Talk2me 00:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked on reducing some of the peacockery; some of it was due to a large emphasis on the films rather than the actress, which I tried to reduce. I cannot figure out what this sentence means, and the source gives me no idea what a 65% success ratio means, how it's measured, or by whom. "According to the Indian box office, she has the highest success ratio of 65% among Bollywood actresses of this generation." I've done all I can; the article still has ce needs, the prose is still rough, and I've left numerous inline queries, which you can find by searching on <! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment thankyou sandy that is appreciated. But what is being strongly opposed here are trivialities or minor problems certianly not a cause for "the strongest oppose possible". I do find that some people exaggerate at FA's ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 10:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I have no problems with your opposing (yet it's not a big deal to STRONGLY oppose). Please see Angelina Jolie. It is written, "Best known and highest paid" so what's wrong with writing "prominent"? And if you change to strong oppose, you must provide some examples. Where do you see more peacock words? Tell me please. Shahid • Talk2me 03:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't tell me what I must do. There was an edit conflict.
  • Excuse me Done, the peacock tag is not mine, it's there for articles just like this one. No, reviewers should not come in and declare support just on a whim: you misunderstand the process here. Now, let's start on the prose, which is quite inadequate for an FA. Here are a few random examples from one small portion that indicate that THE WHOLE ARTICLE requires treatment, preferably by fresh eyes:
    • "Zinta then gained some experience in the Tollywood film industry"—Spot the redundant word. Done
    • MOS breaches: use logical punctuation. Have you read MOS?
    • "the third highest grossing film of the year"—potential ambiguity: hyphen required.
    • "her performance garnered positive reviews"—garnered? Hello? Done
      • That one was me ... we know I can't copyedit ... I was trying to fix something that was there that was worse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "released after a one-year delay due to the trial of producer Bharat Shah." Oh, where are we told about this "trial"? Suddenly, we're expected to know what on earth it was. Is it a trial in the legal sense (more information required) or a metaphorical trial (difficult period)?  Done
      • They originally had a section on that, and a link to that section, but when they deleted the section, they didn't re-explain what the trial was. I tried to fill something in, but there's not enough. Similar situation on the two near brushes with death; discussed before context is given, the article needs to be re-worked for flow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "she was welcomed with unequivocal praise for her performance and recived a Best Supporting Actress nomination at the Filmfare"—nice spelling; and isn't it enough to mention the nomination rather than ... again ... that word "praise"? But you've removed the peacock tag I posted, of course. Perhaps I'm not allowed to mention this. Tony (talk) 03:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Done[reply]
      • I took out about three or four praises, and got it down to only three left in the article; that one came back after I finished. We need to watch the word "praise" here, as it tends to be overused. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you being so rude? And why are you so angry? We are trying to get this article to a featured status, and I believe that you have no personal problems with this article, and would also like to see it reaching a FA like we all do. So please, I ask you to calm yourself. Shahid • Talk2me 04:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Consequently, she became sought after by some of the best known filmmakers." - That statement is unsourced in the article.
To address Tony's comments, anytime you have to tell the reader how great the subject of the article is, you're most likely using a peacock term. The reason being, if you showed how great they are, based on their actions, then you wouldn't need to qualify that with a word like "great", "wonderful", "best", "famous", etc etc. If they are famous, show that with discussion on how they are famous. Don't simply say "they're a famous actor", because that says nothing to the reader.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! You are ver nice. I'll take it into account. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 04:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object --
  1. needs a copyedit. eg phrases that cannot be quantified, meaningless: "has two brothers both of whom she is very close", "and returned home only on vacations", "Durganand Zinta died" -- use a less harsh term (eg passed away / killed in a car crash), "which *became*? one of the year's..." (these are a few, not all)  Done Shahid • Talk2me 15:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Her first advert for Perk chocolates -- what year?  Done Shahid • Talk2me 15:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Convent of Jesus and Mary (Delhi) -- link to correct article  Done Shahid • Talk2me 15:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Credibility of sources -- How credible are sites such as bolloywood spice etc?  Done - removed. Shahid • Talk2me 15:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

=Nichalp «Talk»= 07:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongest possible oppose - Can an admin talk some sense into Shahid. Can someone let him know that he cant edit others' comments, more so on a discussion like this. This article is reeking of non-RS sources and fansites. bollyspice.com, bollyvista.c, desiparty.c, apunkachoice.c, boxofficeindia.c, santabanta(!!!)... is this a joke or something? How did this thing make it past PR? Also blatant fair use violations on the article which Shahid keeps bring back after I've removed it. Sarvagnya 08:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - there several more which will be changed. Shahid • Talk2me 15:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment on redundant vote I have to say that this vote appears invalid and is done out of spite following a confronation on the article -please see Shahrukh Khan history. It looks very suspicious to me that the above user came across this page after checking the contributions of Shahid following the edit war on that page and come here specifically to give the "strongest oppose possible" -I find this utterly unacceptable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 12:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm accusing you of bias now. I'm going to report you.
A) This user just had an impolite discussion with me, and that's why he opposes. He had also wikistalked me.
B) You claim that boxofficeindia is unreliable, while Lage Raho Munnabhai which is a featured article, and was on "Today's featured article" section on the main page even. It is reliable so stop it.
All the FU images are used in the same way on Jolie's page, which is also an FA. Shahid • Talk2me 08:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid, who are you going to report Sarvagnya to? why? Sarvagnya is entirely correct in opposing this nomination as per WP:WIAFA. The article does not cite reliable sources so it fails 1c. Regardless of what differences you had with Sarvagnya, the oppose is a perfectly valid. Secondly, editing another person's comments is considered to be bad form, and in the event you report Sarvagnya to any dispute process, it will be used against you. So please stop resorting to underhand methods to get this article featured and provide reliable sources and references. I fully stand behind Sarvagnya. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stand behind him. I don't care. I will change the necessary. Yes I will. But BOXOFFICEINDIA is used in other FAs so please stop saying that it's unreliable. And how do you know that these sites are unreliable? Who said that? How can you know? According to WHAT? It is very easy to say non-rs thousand times. Shahid • Talk2me 08:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, the article from Santabanta.com for example, is written by Subhash k. Jha who writes for the times of India. And what's wrong? Shahid • Talk2me 09:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your attitude is most disheartening. I have not singled out boxofficeindia.com, rather the presence of unreliable sources. If you're unsure of what is a reliable source, please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more information. Briefly, what I can tell you is that sites such as planetbollywood.com etc may not contain reliable source. If tomorrow you were to open bollywoodgossip.com, how would it be reliable information? Who has fact checked? Is there a peer review. Having such links are your word against mine. You may ask the question, how would planetbollywood be considered to be reliable? My answer would be to check for independent credible third party sites (eg rediff.com) that cite planetbollywood in their film articles. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look I don't know why this has flared up , calm down Shahid, but I find the comments by Sarvagnya with "Strongest possible oppose" as delibrately antagonising. If the article has any problems with professional referneces these can wuite straightforwardly be corrected and any unreliable references removed. This most certainly isn't a criteria for strongest possible oppose -damn you make it sound like it is an unwikified stub up for feature. Oppose or strong oppose but this Sarvagnya I find is over stepping the mark. Rediff.com is one of the major Bollywood sites and should be considered reliable but I'm afraid there will be some bias and indeed concealed racism from western users who may find Indian websites unreliable. PLus BOXOFFICEINDIA is the official statistical organization that registers Indian takings -I'm aware of the dead link that needs sorting but this is certainly one of the most reliable sites on the web for statisticss in Bollywood movies. However I certinaly agree with Sarvagnya that fansites should try to be avoided. Now whats all the fuss? Can anybody seriously say the article is very poor? No. To those who oppose I would be very grateful if you would try to wrok together with us and correct and problems you see and help promote the article rather than seemingly going against it ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 10:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing deliberately antagonising about it. I've seen several FACs and I've worked on a few FAs myself and I know perfectly well what is expected of an FA article. I personally would forgive cpedit, prose issues if the article was well-written overall and cited good sources. But I have a more or less zero-tolerance policy for non-RS sources on an FA. And I believe, everyone should be like that. It is also not as if the non-RS cites were few and far apart. The entire article, almost every single line is cited using non-RS sources. And worse, when I try to remove it, I get revert warred by one of the lead editors on the article. Most FAs are written by people who take the pains to buy books or make multiple trips to neighbourhood libraries, gather their sources and meticulously put together articles. You dont simply google and pull content off of the first hit and call it FA. It is an insult to those other FA contributors who work infinitely harder to build their FAs. afaiac, this FAC is a joke. You cant have an article written entirely from non-RS sources going through FAC. Sarvagnya 03:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments As someone completely unfamiliar with who this

person is (I have never heard of this person at all), but familiar with article quality, I'll just offer a few comments (mostly related to layout and style, as the content seems to have been covered above by those familiar with the subject). First let me say, with regards to the "canvassing" accusations, Blofeld left me a very nice message that basically said the article was up for FA, and he valued my input. In no way was it a request for a "support" of the FA, but came across to me as requesting input on how to improve the article. With regards to the article itself:

  • Images: I'd like to see the image under the "Breakthrough (2000–2002)" header moved to the right. Per WP:MOS#Images, ("Generally, right-alignment is preferred to left- or center-alignment. Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes.") I'd also suggest that the forced oversizing be removed from images, (MOS: "Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended:") as users can set their preferences in "My preferences", and forcing images to over-ride these preferences again can cause display errors for users with large fonts/low resolution. (MOS: "Bear in mind that some users need to configure their systems to display large text. Forced large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult.") I find oversized images distracting from the article, and appropriate only in some situations, but not something I'd use with general images of people.  Done - Shahid • Talk2me 15:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quotations" Per WP:MOS#Punctuation, the {{cquote}} template shouldn't be used: ("No quotation of less than four lines should be in blockquote format.") This article uses that template three times, and the quotations could just as easily be incorporated directly into the prose.  Done Shahid • Talk2me 15:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • References: All IMDB references should be removed from the inline citatsions completely (refs# 15, 28, and 102). As anyone can add any (incorrect) information to IMDB, it is not a reliable source. Instead, use the {{imdb}} template in the External links section. Where IMDB was used as a reference for awards, I'm sure that the awards would be covered in reliable news media sources.
  • Tables: I'd personally like to see the filmography table centered to provide visual symmetry.
If any of these items are already mentioned, my apologies, but I personally think these things should be taken care of to have the article in line with the manual of style, and with regards to accessibility for all readers. Ariel♥Gold 11:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments ArielGold, much appreciated. Shahid • Talk2me 15:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviewers, including me, are being snippy because some of the contributors have attitude. Simple as that. Tony (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, do we need to tell everyone to focus on the article and not on each other? Please focus on the article, and not on each other--that's for everyone, including me since I'm focusing on everyone focusing on each other.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My words exactly. I'd rather people spent more time fixing what is apparently wrong rather than confrontation. ♦ King of Baldness ♦ "Talk"? 16:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Impressive work done on this article. This article seems to be very well written and thoroughly researched. I myself whole heartedly beleive this article is definitly worth a FA status. Hedgehog Kanna 17:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support - As pointed out several times above by various reviewers, the article does need a thorough copyedit. Aside from that, I see nothing wrong with it. Strong suupport for FA once the copyedit is through. xC | ☎ 18:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, um, let's see, prose (1a), reliable sources (1c), neutrality (1d), and correct format citation (2c) are all part of WP:WIAFA, and yet this article garners support when it is clearly not neutral, not copyedited, depends on non-reliable sources, and still fails to identify publishers on sources. Now one of the main editors is blocked for 3RR, "100 or so editors" were canvassed, and participants are throwing arrows at each other. And I've never even heard of this woman; she must be some kind of POV magnet. Anyway, I've put more effort into trying to help this article along than I put into most FACs, and I really think it's time for some up the 20-plus supporters to dig in and start fixing the very real issues that have been raised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No they weren't canvassed. I asked many editors to review the article not just people who I know of which is clearly seen above by editors who had never heard of me asking for it to be reviewed. When I said so far 3 supports I was surprised at the quick response and the support. You make it sound as if it was some scheme of SPECTRE to garner support. If you don't let people know about a nomination it remains the same group of limited people who review it every time ♦ King of Baldness ♦ "Talk"? 18:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Besides, more number of people means more sets of eyes having a look at the article. Greater the number of eyes, quicker the errors will be found. So isn't it a good thing that more people were invited to review the article? As far as everyone here understands, Spectre cross-posted a lot, but didn't canvass. So then isn't he simply encouraging more editors to have a look?
Is there something wrong with that?xC | ☎ 20:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. See comments below
  • After earning a degree in criminal psychology at the St Bede's College in Shimla, Zinta pursued a different career path in modeling. - What is a different career path?

 Done

  • The infrequent visits home did not deter her from pursuing her education at a boarding school - Sounds very much like POV, does not have any source for this information. The given TOI interview doesn't say this fact.

 Done.

  • At one point she tried writing poetry herself... - At which point?

 Done

  • Whilst she was a good student, she was also interested in sports. Again this is just a POV from the Zinta herself. Any reliable source to back it up? In the interview that is given as source, she has told, "I was a very good student." You cannot take that sentence itself and make judgement that make that as an encyclopediac statement. At the least, the sentence should start with, "According to Zinta .... " or something.

 Done

  • Generally, I do not see a new paragraph that starts with a pronoun, when that pronoun is not given a reference to a proper noun later in the sentence. See the paragraph that starts with, Her first advert ....
  • Her first advert for Perk chocolates happened purely by chance when she met an advert director at a friend's birthday party; he informed her that he had written an ad script which would be ideal for her, and insisted that she attend the audition. - This is the first sentence of a new paragraph. No names whatsoever for reader to understand, who are those "Her", "she", "an advert director", "friend". What does "He informed her" refer to? Friend informed her? Director informed her?

 Done

  • Avoid terms like "purely by chance", "took part in numerous other commercials" - they sound either WP:Peacocky or POV.

 Done

 Not done yet. Those were just examples. See more comments below. - KNM Talk 01:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • By Indian standards, the film was an unusual launch for a newcomer, as she had a small role of only twenty minutes long. - What is "unusual launch"? Referencing needed. Also needs a reference or Wiki-article for Indian standards that is used in this sentence.

 Done (removed that portion as i couldn't find refs for this)xC | ☎ 22:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The above sentence, continues with this: However, it was eventually turned out as unusual ..... Flow is not proper. Also, we should not impose our POV by repeating terms like "unusual" and should leave it to readers to decide.

 Done

  • Film critic Anish Khanna from Planet Bollywood noted... What is Planet Bollywood? Neither Anish Khanna nor Planet Bollywood is linked in this sentence.
not done - couldn't figure what to do with this portion. Any suggestions? I haven't ever really understood the logic of putting in random critics' lines into the article, so I'm willing to go along with any good idea here.xC | ☎ 22:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see 1 line, 2 line paragraphs. For example, this 1 line is a paragraph of its own.
During her years in the Indian film industry, Zinta has been the subject of media speculation and numerous controversies, which put her among the most controversial celebrities in Bollywood.
not done-will look into this asapxC | ☎ 22:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not looked into rest of the article, but now I feel, the article is still far away from FA status. The POV issues need to be addressed with reliable sources. The prose needs to be copyedited thoroughly by several experts in that area. Thanks, - KNM Talk 21:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • "According to Box Office India...." - What is Box Office India? Is there wiki-article on it?
The official site of box office figures in India. We have no article because Indian cinema is not as much covered on Wikipedia, but I'll create the page later.
  • Zinta has the most success among all the Bollywood actresses of her generation, having the highest success ratio of 65% - Tall claim. Needs reliable source to support this claim.
Box office India is the most reliable source. Shahid • Talk2me 17:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her trademark dimple is often cited by the popular media. - trademark? popular media? Shahid • Talk2me 17:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A) Rewrote. Just saw the Jolie (FA) article, and "popular media" is mentioned there in the very first para, that "she is cited as one of the most beautiful woman". Shahid • Talk2me 17:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • She is known for her vivacious personality and is frequently described by the press as having a bubbly outgoing persona, an image she dislikes. - Blatant POV by a blogger. Please remove this sentence or provode a reliable source. Do not use blog sites such as this to cite claims in an encyclopedia.
 Done - sorry, replaced with a reliable one. Shahid • Talk2me 17:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2003, Zinta was placed number one on Rediff's "Top Bollywood Female Stars". and in the following years, she was ranked second for three consecutive years (2004–06). - Copyediting please! Cannot digest a sentence starting with "and". Again, this itself is a paragraph. Should be merged into others.
 Done - Rewrote and merged. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 17:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excessive wikilinking. See links to Rediff.com in "In the media" section.
 Done Shahid • Talk2me 17:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - You're right friend, removed. Shahid • Talk2me 17:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her first world tour, an international concert called Craze 2001, was performed across the U.S. alongside Anil Kapoor, Aamir Khan, Aishwarya Rai and Gracy Singh. - cites a photo gallery! Either remove the sentence or provide a reliable source
 Done - there is a RS from Indiatimes The Times of India at the end of the para. Shahid • Talk2me 17:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zinta is an active stage performer, frequently taking part in major stage shows and world tours. - POV
 Done - Rewrote to "Zinta is an active stage performer, and has taken part in several stage shows and world tours since 2001." - OK? Shahid • Talk2me 17:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • .....and joined a line up of some of South Asia's most renowned commentators.... - Sounds very much a POV. Unsourced.
 Done - Removed renowned. Added source. Shahid • Talk2me 17:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • She expressed her joy at participating in this project, saying: "I am pretty outspoken and have my own view on every subject. So it will be a good platform for me to air my views." - The cited web link results in "file not found".
Quite weird. I have the link, and it works properly. Shahid • Talk2me 17:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One critic wrote "Preity not only looks gorgeous, but the dedication to her role shows at vital points. Her penultimate scene with Rani [Mukerji], when she confronts her at the marriage reception, is fabulous."[39] and Rediff.com concluded, "Preity looks glamorous and in a couple of scenes, manages to overshadow King [Shahrukh] Khan too"[40] The film became one of the biggest box office hits in India, earning Rs 464 million, and grossed over Rs 445 million overseas, the biggest Bollywood hit in the overseas market ever, which simultaneously became her fourth overseas top earner in four consecutive years. - No full stop anywhere in this paragraph-looking single sentence! Copyediting please.
 Done - Moved BO results up. OK? Shahid • Talk2me 17:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later in 2007, Zinta took on a proefessional turning point in her career. - One example to show why thorough copyediting is required. These kind of spelling mistakes must not be there anywhere in the article. Also, just state the facts. Whether it is a turning point of her career or not, leave it to the reader to determine.
 Done - removed "turning point", rewrote. Shahid • Talk2me 17:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Taran Adarsh a notable person? Why is his name used multiple times in the article? An article Taran Adarsh and its linking in this article would help better to the readers.
 Done - He is a former director, and now the site indiaFM is one of the most reliable sites of Bollywood films. So I created the page for Adarsh. Shahid • Talk2me 17:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zinta's most notable film of the above-mentioned was Kal Ho Naa Ho - POV.
Not done - Kal Ho Naa Ho was the most notable and it's not my opinion, it's a fact. It is perhaps the biggest milestone of her career, it really was. It was filmed in New York and went on to do very well overseas (In fact, the biggest Bollywood hit of the year overseas), it was the second biggest hit of the year (in India) after her film Koi Mil Gaya, but Koi Mil Gaya was not notable. She won her first Filmfare award for best actress as well as numerous other awards. Tell me please, can I do something like this ... <ref> Explanation why Kal Ho Naa Ho is the most notable...</ref> ...? Shahid • Talk2me 17:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The film was India's second biggest hit after Koi... Mil Gaya and the biggest Indian hit of the year overseas. - This is a tall claim, and needs strong reliable sources supporting it. Box office India is the official site of BO figures. There are other sources for this, but why? BOI.com is used in featured articles also. Shahid • Talk2me 17:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Akash Gandhi again, in the lines of Taran Adarsh?
Not done - Will do later. Shahid • Talk2me 17:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite being the fourth-highest grossing film of the year, the film failed to do well at the box office. - Cited source doesn't seem to say this. The sentence is confusing, at least to me.
I'll try to rewrite it later. Meaning, it grossed very well, but yet didn't recover its budget costs. Shahid • Talk2me 17:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats for now. Thanks - KNM Talk 01:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments, KNM. Shahid • Talk2me 17:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - First of all, numerous non-reliable sources in the article. Some of them almost look and read like a personal blog. Need to take care of them. And then, tons and tons of personal opinions in the article. Just in the first few paragraphs I reviewed

  • She went on to demonstrate her versatility as an actress by portraying a variety of unique characters, each distinct from typical roles played by Indian actresses then, introducing a new image of a Hindi film heroine. - Where is the source for this sentence? Each and every word sounds like POV.

 Done - OK ref added but I generally feel references are not necessarily needed in the lead. Anyway added. Shahid • Talk2me 15:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • She was later recognised for her portrayal of an independent, modern Indian woman in international hits like Salaam Namaste and Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna - International hit? What is that?

 Done removed the words international hit, instead making it "did very well overseas"xC | ☎ 22:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Zinta is also a columnist, having co-written several columns for BBC News Online South Asia with writers such as Ahmed Rashid and Kaushik Basu, an active stage performer, and a humanitarian. - Source please? Humanitarian is POV.

 Done added sources xC | ☎ 22:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humanitarian is not a POV. She supports several humanitarian causes. Removed anyway. Shahid • Talk2me 15:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I request you to see WP:NPOV and WP:RS. To me, any claim which is not supported with a reliable source and is questioned by other editors, is a POV. Anyway, if the claim is removed, then it is good. - KNM Talk 16:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • a year older and a year younger, respectively; she is very close to both. - Very close to both?

 Done - i figured it wasn't encyclopedic to keep in she is very close to both. One, we don't really know if its true. And two, who cares? xC | ☎ 22:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • as an adult she continues to remain physically active and fit. - POV. Source?

 Done no ref found, rmvd xC | ☎ 22:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Though the film was not a box office success, it presented Zinta an opportunity to explore new avenues - POV.

 Done- threw out xC | ☎ 22:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The film was known for its bold social controversial theme of single parenthood and teenage pregnancy - Bold? Controversial? POVs.

 Done - reworded to "themes not dealt with before by Indian cinema" xC | ☎ 22:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done "themes not dealt with before by Indian cinema" is a big joke and a blatant POV!! - KNM Talk 15:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2001 she starred alongside Aamir Khan in Farhan Akhtar's Dil Chahta Hai, a realistic romance which depicts the contemporary, routine life of Indian youth, with Zinta playing a young sensitive girl, Shalini. - Same again.
 Done - Rewrote. Shahid • Talk2me 15:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The film was one of the first Bollywood movies to handle the taboo issue of surrogate childbirth.
 Done - Added reference for it. Shahid • Talk2me 15:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was soon recognized for her versatility as an actress, regarded for enacting distinct characters and roles.
It is very well referenced. Shahid • Talk2me 15:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roles like the CBI officer in Sangharsh, the teenage single mother in Kya Kehna and the prostitute turned surrogate mother in Chori Chori Chupke Chupke not only raised awareness of social issues, but were distinct from typical roles played by Indian actresses at that time, and established a new dynamic for a leading actress in Bollywood film
There are references, one of them indicated all these films exactly, second is a review which proves the written text, and third is another source which states the matter. It is not a POV. If you see the Diane Keaton (FA) page, you will notice something very similar in the lead.
You need strong references to prove that these films raised awareness of social issues. They raised awareness to what extent? What was the percentage before and what was the raise in percentage? Of course, you can't prove all these things and that's the reason they are POV. I'm not interested in what the other article says. "Indian actresses" comprises of a very large set from different industries and you can't just make a judgment about all of them on the fly. This issue needs to be resolved. Gnanapiti 20:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, article claims hit/superhit ( Done - reduced. Shahid • Talk2me 15:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)) in many places. These words are very much POV. Rest later. Gnanapiti 21:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Error on citation 85. Needs fixing. Universal Hero 23:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SupportIt looks as though lots of hard criticism and lots of hard work have gone into this article since its nomination. This seems to have led to continual improvment of the page. MarnetteD | Talk 04:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, just checking in, the confusing statement is still in the lead:
  • According to the Indian box office, she has the highest success ratio of 65% among Bollywood actresses of this generation.[5]
What is a "success ratio" and how is it defined and measured? Success at what? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • (1) Quite apart from the reliability issue, quoting a critic for every movie (always showering "glowing praises") makes it read like a magazine column, not an encyclopedia article.
Thamks for the comments, yet you should see Jolie. The career section is full of reviews, most of which are positive. On Zinta's page you will notice criticisms also. Shahid • Talk2me 15:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (2) The section "Columnist" has three paragraphs explaining three columns from 2004-5. If she a regular writer, why does the article use so much space on these three old articles ? If she isn't, why does the lead talk about her as a columnist who has contributed "several columns" ?
  • (3) Too much space is used up on quoting what Zinta said about this or what her opinion was about that. Lord Labak Daas
  • (4) The article tries too hard to make her look good ("She painted a dog in flaming red and named the work Circle of Life. She said, "I am sure this piece of art will win many little hearts and make a difference to the lives of street children. After all, we are all a part of the circle of life") instead of taking a distant view. 05:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a FAC, for crying out loud. Please leave your petty squabbles about user conduct out of this page. Discuss the article ONLY. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 06:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WHAT? WHY? WHERE? EXAMPLES? Please explain yourself, you must provide examples. It is clear that you're writing it here because of our little tiff. But it's OK - it's your right, please give exampled to your claims. If you don't, I'll strike your comment. Shahid • Talk2me 12:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should not be threatening the reviewers by saying "If you don't, I'll strike your comment". Please be patient and polite. Just for your information again, you are not allowed to strike reviewers' comments.
Regarding, non-RS sources, a just quick glance over the article gives you the answers for your questions, Where? Examples?
And, what do you mean by your questions "What?" and "Why?" ?
Non-RS such as http://movies.dcealumni.com/archives/veer-zara-movie-review, http://www.desiparty.com/content/content.aspx?GetArticle=1&ArticleID=457&BackURL=%2fsearch%2fresults.php%3fq%3dpreity%2520zinta%2520guest%2520of%2520honour%26tb_id%3d%2525toolbar_id%26ch_id%3d are still appearing in the article. - KNM Talk 16:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not depend on a single(or 2,3,4 etc..) source(s) too much. For example this article totally depends on UTHR while this article totally depends on fan sites. Try to find refs from news sites, etc.. and replace those. She is an Indian celebrity, so surely you can cover-up fan site's claims from those news sites. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 16:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is in very good shape. It passed GA with flying colors, and I think with the post-GA editing, any additional work has been much improved. Dr. Cash 20:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have questions about images used in the article. Can someone use so many fair use images in an article to illustrate a subject? If yes, then what is the purpose of fair use images? I would completely agree with using movie posters in articles related to those movies. But using too many fair use images in WP:BLP is not acceptable according to me. Please don't point me to some other article. I'm only interested in this article and something wrong in other article doesn't qualify to be correct just because someone forgot to correct things. Gnanapiti 20:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Gnanapiti!
A) As you said, is not acceptable according to me - I really respect you and your opinions. Yet we have to rely on some policies.
B) The article has only three fair use images. Is it too much?
Best regards. Shahid • Talk2me 20:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Policy? Which policy tells you to use fair use images in an article when free images are available? And yes, three is too much. Using even one fair use image when you have abundant free images available is unacceptable. Gnanapiti 20:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I completely respect your hard work and effort you put in this well written article but this article needs several rounds of copy editing and peer reviews to be done. Making this article better is good for everyone and wikipedia in general. This is too early for FA. Gnanapiti 20:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being nice at least. There are some users who have unpolitness issues, which is very offending. The article though has gone through a major copyediting since it's nomination for FA. If you think that this is not a FA yet I still respect you as it is your personal opinion. Your "oppose" is there so it's OK.
But if you want to make a FA, You are most likely to look at other FAs for inspiration and experience. That's what I did, I'm really impressed by some FAs and it helps me to promote this article, I don't fear for filure. I just want to progress. Best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 21:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WHAT? WHY? WHERE? EXAMPLES? - Shahid • Talk2me 15:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look into the article give you the answers. Non-RS such as http://movies.dcealumni.com/archives/veer-zara-movie-review,  Done - Removed blog. Shahid • Talk2me 17:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC) http://www.desiparty.com/content/content.aspx?GetArticle=1&ArticleID=457&BackURL=%2fsearch%2fresults.php%3fq%3dpreity%2520zinta%2520guest%2520of%2520honour%26tb_id%3d%2525toolbar_id%26ch_id%3d are still appearing in the article. - KNM Talk 16:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well if anybody claims that the Times of India isn't reliable then this most certainly is a joke. Isn't it the worlds biggest newspaper or something distributed to like over 1 billion? Nobody would question the New York Times or The Times would they? Well if somebody is going to regard that as unreliable then this will never pass and all of the sources will be disregarded anyway however much people try to improve them. All thats missing is an FA in writing, 25 of us can see it is of clear FA quality. I'm not going to fuss and argue over this. Most normal people wouldn't question many of the sources. I bid you all adieu and am now staying well away from this, I've done my part. and hope somebody will do what you all require to make the article "perfect" ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 12:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:20, 5 November 2007.

Ghost[edit]

I'm nominating this article for featured article because the article is timely for Todos Los Santos or All Saints'/Souls' Day... Tell me what you think... :) ilyk2learn 11:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose The lead sentence: "A ghost is defined as the apparition of a deceased person, frequently similar in appearance to that person, and usually encountered in places she or he frequented, or in association with the person's former belongings." OK, except ghosts aren't encountered in places frequented, since ghosts are encountered precisely as often as leprechauns and the tooth fairy. This article is too POV for my tastes, downplaying reality. Take this example: "Skeptics also say that, to date, there is no credible scientific evidence that any location is inhabited by spirits of the dead." Why are we mentioning skeptics? Can't the lack of scientific evidence stand on its own? Why "to date"? Are we expecting some in the near future? Just say "There is no credible scientific evidence that any location is inhabited by spirits of the dead." Pagrashtak 14:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Pagrashtak; and there are MOS breaches all over the place. Tony (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I'm not even convinced the definition is correct. Surely the apparition doesn't have to come from a dead person... Animals can become ghosts too (non-scientifically speaking). - 87.212.40.234 02:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:25, 4 November 2007.

Qantas[edit]

I'm nominating this article for featured article because Qantas is Australia's national airline that is apart of the 2nd largest international airline alliance of the world. The article has something around 80 references and documents the airline past and present acuatly. This aritcle is better than some past FA's. Aflumpire 03:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Notability of article is not one of the criteria for FA. Notability is a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. Articles about non-notable subjects should be nominated for deletion. Regards, 129.215.191.74 10:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
129, I think you placed this comment on the wrong nomination since Quantas is clearly notable. - Mgm|(talk) 10:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mgm, I think you placed your comment on the wrong nomination since Aflumpire is clearly nominating partly on notability and 129 is entirely correct that notability is not a criteria for FA. pschemp | talk 18:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify here, i'm not nominating purely on notability. I think that this article has been around for a long time and many people have put a lot of hours into this artice and I think that it is time for an Australian airline to be a featured article. Not just an airline, it's the airline that everyone knows when they see the kangaroo. It meets all the criteria, everyone has been wanting this for a long time so why not now?? Aflumpire 06:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support As nominator. Meets all criteria. Aflumpire 06:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Comment: um .. this doesn't really mean much, and clutters up the page. Your nomination embodies your support, and it's not a vote-count. Tony (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'm afraid that I don't have time to do an exhaustive review, but I offer the following constructive comments on a few things that jump out at me...
  • The lead needs more. See WP:LEAD. Leads are supposed to summarise the article that follows, whereas yours introduces facts that don't appear anywhere else in the article.
  • There are a number of citation needed tags that need sorting.
  • Some very short sections. Can they be expanded or amalgamated into larger sections?
  • Following on from the above, the structure is a little haphazard. Inflight internet connectivity (which subject appears to carry over into the next section as well), inflight mobile phone trial, and inflight entertainment, are all separate sections, not even next to each other in the article, which would presumably sit quite happily in a single 'inflight entertainment section'. Promotional activities and Logos have separate sections under History, though only brief one liners of the early logos actually qualify for this description (maybe they can be dispersed about the appropiate history sub headings). Frequent flyer and club sections might also combine into a single passenger benefits section. The incidents and accidents, sex discrimination and extortion sections might come under a single 'incidents' section (the latter two certainly don't need their own higher level sections as far as I can tell).
  • Do the various lists really add anything to the article? It seems to me that they verge on simple directories of information and don't really help your cause in terms of engaging prose per the FA criteria. I'm not sure, for example, that you need to say anything more than frequent flyer partnerships exist with x number of airlines and y number of car rental firms, if that. The sponsorships lists and aboriginal sections might be better served as a narrative under a single 'Community' section - not sure that every single one has to be listed. Do we really need to know every club lounge location and codeshare partner? The two line list under catering seems particularly unnecessary.
  • I think you might be pushing it with the fair use images. The club and frequent flyer logos don't really add to the article and don't seem to me to be necessary for identification, nor are they providing critical commentary. The frequent flyer credit cards also don't really do anything to illustrate the article, and for a one liner section on inflight entertanment do you really need the fair use image of the magazine cover?
--FactotEm 19:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have given everybody until November 2 to object to any changes. Aflumpire 22:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note sure what you mean by it. The comments above need action to pass this article as a FA. If you don't it won't pass, so I can't see the logic of waiting 2/3 days. Mark83 23:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't set deadlines here, Aflumpire. BTW, I think you invite vandalism on your talk page by going on and on about it. Has it done any good? (There's a typo right at the top.) Tony (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • As per above, unnecessary lists are a problem. The bullet points after "Margaret Jackson (Chairman) said the revised proposal provided an attractive premium for Qantas shareholders, being" and the other bullet points in that section break up the article badly, that info would be much better as prose.
  • Having a section just for "Qantas has a range of in-flight entertainment, including movies, TV programs, news, music and a magazine called The Australian Way." is strange - either merge that info into a larger section or expand on the one sentence.
  • "Airline Partners Australia takeover bid" -- many facts and figures in that section that are unreferenced.
  • Many one or two sentence paragraphs.
  • 5th iteration of the Qantas kangaroo logo since 2007 > 5th iteration of the Qantas kangaroo logo used since 2007
  • Many refs not formatted correctly and one url link (Sex discrimination controversy section) that needs converted to a reference.
  • Refs 1 and 62 are the same.
  • Painting of Qantas Boeing 737 in ext. links -- nice and all, but seems a bit random.
  • Other ext links: board - consider if that should be discussed in article. Fleet, Fleet Age covered in article. Qantas Fatal Accident List should be moved to Qantas fatal accidents.
  • Overlinking, e.g. planes linked multiple times.Mark83 23:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4 sentences for a lead isn't good enough. WP:LEAD says "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article." Mark83 11:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose.

  • Lead section too small
  • There's a proposed merge on one of the sections
  • The history sections are stubby. As the national airline and one of the oldest airlines in the world, the history section needs to be filled out or made into summary style links to deeper articles.
  • There are no photos or description of the vast majority of the fleet types, the terminals (especially the newly refurbished "home base" in Sydney), internal arrangements or airport lounge.

sorry, I think this could well be a GA but not an FA just yet. Witty Lama 16:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—1a, 2a, 2 (MOS compliance). I think this should be withdrawn and worked on a lot.

  • 2a—Please read WP's advice on leads. Just in the tiny portion of text there, "fifth-best" requires a hyphen when before the noun it qualifies, and why clutter with "New South Wales"? The last sentence contains two quite different statements: clumsy to read.
  • See MOS on images: please don't squeeze text in between right- and left-side images. It looks bad on my screen.
  • Thought of coming up with a currency and time-based conversion of your Australian pound figure? Means nothing, otherwise.
  • "Eighty-four year old outback pioneer"—I'm afraid it's a quadruple hyphenated item, unless you reword.
  • "The airline operated air mail services subsidised by the Australian government, linking railheads in western Queensland." Year range and reference?
  • The section titles are unwieldy. What about: "Flying boats and war (1934–45)" rather than "Flying boats and war — 1934 to 1945"? That's how people often do it. Tony (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:25, 4 November 2007.

The Make-Up[edit]

After a fairly easy GA nomination, I'd like to see how far this article can go. I feel it's a pretty solid article, and am open to any comments and concerns.

  • Self-nomination Drewcifer3000 05:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence uses "The Make-Up was..." while the second uses "The Make-Up were..." You should probably pick one and stick with it throughout the article. 69.202.41.119 02:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Good catch. Thanks! Drewcifer3000 05:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No Reception section. But I'm not sure whether band articles need Reception sections, so this is a comment, not oppose. --Kaypoh 11:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that would be more relevant to album/song articles rather than the band's page, since the reception could change dramatically between releases. But that's just my opinion. Drewcifer 15:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, very well written and comprehensive. However, there were a few things that should be fixed or improved that I noticed:
  • The third paragraph of the lead sounds choppy: What's there could be shortened to a sentence or two. You may want to beef it up with more information about the band's legacy, influence, or anything else related to the band's post-career.
 Not done I understand what you mean, but I just can't imagine how to improve it. If I combine sentences it'll become a huge run-on sentence. And there really isn't anything else important to add - anything else would be unnecessary fluff. Any specific suggestions? Drewcifer 06:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After trying to reword the sentence myself, I found that every way I tried it sounded awkwardly phrased. Consider this one scratched through. --Brandt Luke Zorn 06:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "We had to determine our next move and this (the forming of Make-Up) is it." the parentheses should be brackets.
 Done Drewcifer 19:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Drewcifer 05:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, it needs to be explained why Blue is Beautiful 7".jpg is relevant to the article - album artwork is usually left out of a band article unless the artwork itself is mentioned in the article, and in this case it isn't.
 Not done Done It was their first release. That's explained in the prose and in the caption. Do you think more explanation is necessary?
It may have been their first release, and mention of their first release is certainly relevant to the article, but is the artwork of their first release relevant to the article? You will probably need to explain the relevance of the single's cover design itself. --Brandt Luke Zorn 06:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying. I added a bit of text about the design. It's a little awkward, but it's definitely an improvement.Drewcifer 06:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Musical ideology" and "Style" section should be merged.
 Done Drewcifer 19:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There definitely needs to be some kind of summary of why the musical samples are relevant to the article
 Done Drewcifer 19:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This attempt to co-opt the vitality of the 90s dance scene was typical of the Make-Up." sentence needs clarification/citation/at the very least rephrasing because the wording is awkward.
 Done That was a stupid sentence. Drewcifer 06:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, the article looks very good. --Brandt Luke Zorn 09:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support One issue left, but otherwise this is a great article worthy of featuring. --Brandt Luke Zorn 06:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, and I took care of that last lingering issue!Drewcifer 06:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—Can the decision be held off for half a week? There are a number of problems.
    • The lead is inadequate in length and scope, and includes two paragraph stubs. There are stubby paragraphs throughout, which makes it a choppy, disjointed read (for example, why not merge the second and third paras in "Politics"?).
 Done Expanded the intro a bit and merged the two paragraphs. Oddly enough, the previous GA review suggested I downsize the introduction. Hopefully the way it is now strikes a nice balance. Drewcifer 04:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are simple decades ("50s", etc) linked? MOS says should be four-digits.
 Done Fixed. Drewcifer 20:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP's non-free content policy requires "fair-use" audio clips to be educational: there's no comment whatsoever on the two clips in the main text. The infopage justification says "It is used to demonstrate musical characteristics of the band, where no scholarly print source could be found on the topic." Yours doesn't have to be "scholarly", but what are the musical characteristics you say it demonstrates. Use the clip to educate the readers, or it doesn't pass the NFC criteria. Second, how do you know it doesn't harm the copyright owner? Justification text not good enough—see WP:NFC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 DoneI tightened up both sound file's fair use rationales, as well as mentioned both in the prose.Drewcifer 04:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I've tidied it up a bit, but:
    • What is "stomp"? No explanation, no wikilink.
 Done Took it out. It wasn't especialy important in the first place. Drewcifer 02:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Too many short paragraphs. In fact, the article's kind of short in general.
As far as I know, length is not a factor in an article's FA nomination, nor is it mentioned anywhere in the FA criteria. The only thing similar mentioned in the criteria is breadth, and the number of sections in this article cover that criteria quite well, in my opinion. That said, this is easily the longest/biggest/most exhaustive source of information on the Make-Up anywhere: I have exhausted all relevant possibilities for information, trust me. As for the paragraphs, there's only one paragraph that's less than three sentences, so I'm not sure if I follow you on that point. Granted you did help me out on that with your edit to the article, so thanks for that. Drewcifer 02:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does the second sound clip (of "They Live By Night") add to the article? It's probable not fair use (I don't see it being discussed - not mentioned, discussed - anywhere in the article).
The clip is mentioned in the prose in the last sentence of Musical ideology and style section. However, I did expand the setnence a bit to add further clarification. Drewcifer 04:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • References should all be first name-last name or last name-first name.
 Done I presume you meant reference #5? I fixed it. Drewcifer 02:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incorrect uses of dashes in the references (should be em dashes - such as "Make Up - A Biography", this should be "Make Up—A Biography".
 Done? I think I fixed them all. Let me know if I missed anything. Drewcifer 02:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "dedicated themselves to expanding the workforce of music" - what?
 Done Reworded the sentence a bit. I admit, it was probably a little bit confusing. Drewcifer 03:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the upside, it's an interesting read. Neil ☎ 19:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks for the compliment! I hope I addressed all of your concerns. Let me know if there's more I can do. And thanks for giving some attention to this FAC. Drewcifer 04:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine now - support! Neil ☎ 12:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article is pretty well written, but in some places it seems a little choppy. That I could live with, but I think two major things are lacking. The first is there seems to be very little criticism (positive and negative) of the band. In other words, what did people think about them? what was the public reaction? What was their impact? The vast majority of quotes are from band members; surely others have quotable things to say about the band. In a larger sense, the article seems very introspective. The other main concern is the history section, it seems very thin. I also think the article is a little hard to follow. Jeff Dahl 23:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the long delay in addressing your concerns. I've finally had a chance to do a little editing, and I think I've addressed some of your concerns. Specifically, I've added a few outside quotes to even things out a bit. As for the "very little criticism" part, an unfortunate fact of writing about an obscure band is that there is very few instance of critical analysis to quote. That said, the vast majority of reviews I have read have generally been very positive, so if I were to quote a bunch of these reviews it might come across as POV and overly positive. I've found that Save Yourself was the band's best reviewed album overall, so there is a mention (and quote) from a positive review of the album. As for anything else (like general criticsms), I'm afraid there's not alot out there other than flowery language about how cool they were.Drewcifer 04:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking better with respect to the prose; no major problems there. The big issue is still content and coverage. Quoted in the article, band leader Svenonius says "It was becoming redundant and people were copying us" Ah! So Svenonius is giving us a clue that others were copycatting the band's style, and presumably the band had some influence on the music scene. Why not tell us about that? If this is all that is published about the band, it may not be possible to write a Featured quality article on them. If readers are left wondering about one thing or another, how many other things are left unsaid? There is just not the coverage here I would expect in a featured article about a band. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No changed to Yes Learnedo 22:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe great improvements has been made since the self-nomination; however, the article is currently in GA status. I would strongly encourage that the article reach A status and be featured on the "Today's featured article" as requirements before an article even considers trying to become a FA. The GA nomination may have been 'fairly easy' but FA status is in a league of its own, and it should not come easy. Keep up the great work! Leranedo
  • (FYI) in order to be Today's featured article, the article has to be promoted to FA here first. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 18:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I had the impression that if this article passed, then it would be on the main featured article page. In this case, I won't have such high-standards.
"Politics" I think the section title should be change to more reflect what that section is one (it's far too vague), like how the Musical ideology and style gives the reader a good idea of what's coming next.
How does "Political stylings" strike you? After all, their politics really was more of a style thing than anything else. Drewcifer 06:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Political tendencies? Political beliefs? Political actions? etc. etc. In the world of politics, we don't typically refer to it as a style. Learnedo 22:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's exactly my point: the have something to say politicaly, but they're not "in the world of politics." They say and do these political things as more of an aesthetic choice, not as a point of view per se. I just think Political stylings would most accurately describe the band's odd form of political idealism. Drewcifer 06:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Add revenue and how much the band grossed.
Revenue?! Seriously? Not only is that information not available, is there actually any other FA article ever that has a band's revenue??Drewcifer 06:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there isn't they really ought to start doing it, it would be immensely interesting. I'm sure it's available, the record companies just usually don't divulge this type of information. They have something to hide. Learnedo 22:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Put what record label they started with near the beginning of the lead.
 Done Good call, added a few notable record labels to the lead. Drewcifer 06:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Focus the article more on the cultural impact or whatever other impact of the band if any.
I think you pointed out the problem with that: "if any." They're a pretty obscure band, so such information really isn't available, especially from reputable sources. I've heard that (International) Noise Conspiracy was heavily influenced by the Make-Up, but have been unable to find a good source for that info, so I've hesitated to put it in. Drewcifer 06:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Focus on what the critical, commercial, and public reception if any.
Same thing as above. Take a look at the reviews of all the albums. Maybe 8 at most, and they are all very specific to the albums, not the band itself. Besides, critical reception is more appropriate for album pages, in my opinion. Critical perceptions could (and do) change all the time, depending on particular phases, critic's tastes, particularly strong/weak releases, etc. Drewcifer 06:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps expand on the Musical ideology and style section as that's a key section.
That's already the longest section, complete with music samples and direct quotes. There really isn't that much more to say, honest. Drewcifer 06:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Add more images if possible.
For an article of this size, I'd say there's a good amount of images. Especially since most images of them are fair-use, which is a policy which pretty much enforces the opposite: use as little as possible.Drewcifer 06:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People like images, but it's understandable that it's difficult to find/use many.
Changed to yes as I don't notice any other possible major improvements. Leranedo 05:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—Hardly FA-standard writing. What's wrong with plain old "before": "Previous to the formation of the Make-Up ...". Awkward and ambiguous: "In a post-Nation of Ulysses interview, Svenonius explained the formation of the Make-Up from the ashes of his former band". MOS breaches in final punctuation before closing quotes. UNspaced en dashes as interruptors? No: read MOS. "as "cultural refugees" as". Fair-use justifications good, though. Needs massaging throughout. Tony (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments Tony. I think I've addressed some of your concerns (diff)). I was aware of the punctuation after the quotation thing, I just happen to think that it is incorrect grammar. But if Wikipedia says it is so then I guess it is so. I also changed "previous" to "before," as well the double "as," and also one instance of an unspaced en dash. I could only find one instance of that, so let me know if I missed any. As for the akward and ambiguous quote, I'm not sure what the problem is. Svenonius explains the formation of the Make-Up, which came immediately after and as a result of the break-up of his previous band. I think that setnence is pretty clear in setting up the quote that proceeds. Do you have any specific suggestions? Thanks again! Drewcifer 22:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. Logical punctuation is not a grammatical issue; it concerns WP's overarching policy of not tampering with original sources. It's not conceived as a transatlantic dispute. My examples above were at random to underline the need to bring on board others to collaborate in improving the prose on a technical level. Tony (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I don't agree with the policy, but I am willing to abide by it. As for bringing others on to collaborate, I'm afraid I've done everything I know of to do that. If you take a look at the history of the page, I am by and large the main editor of the article: I guess not very many other people are interested in the topic. I asked for a peer review some time ago, which largely went unfulfilled. The GAC and this FAC has helped somewhat, but I would guess you'd argue it didn't help enough. So, is there some other service I am missing? Otherwise, I'm happy to take care of specific problems, issues, or suggestions myself, but without specifics, it is largely an un-actionable objection. Drewcifer 03:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:25, 4 November 2007.

Devi Mahatmya[edit]

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it deals with a scripture which was the first religious text which enunciated the Supreme Deity exclusively as a Female Principle. The article is comprehensive, well referenced, and deals with all aspects of the scripture.

"self-nomination"

Sankarrukku 18:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I recommend that you alphabetize "References" and that the Rferences use same font size as "Notes". I added some "Further Reading"; you may want to change font in this section to match other sections. Good luck with your nomination to Featured Article status. Rosiestephenson 17:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Done.--Sankarrukku 10:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object - References need to be put in a consistent format. Some parts are a bit thin on sources and other parts consist of many one line paragraphs and so forth. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Liturgy" and "Place in hindu Canon" need to have more smooth flow. Many one sentence paras and dot-pointesque sentences.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Corrections made in "Liturgy" and "Place in Hindu Canon".--Sankarrukku 10:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, I archived the peer review. Please see the instructions at both WP:PR and WP:FAC; articles shouldn't be submitted both places at the same time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article should first be peer reviewed thouroughly. So maybe this FAC can be archived instead of the peer review? – Ilse@ 07:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same view as Ilse.--Redtigerxyz 14:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No & Oppose

  • On the basis that it does not fulfill #1d NPOV. Learnedo 09:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:25, 4 November 2007.

Bicholim conflict[edit]

I'm nominating this article for featured article because after much work I believe it has reached its maximum potential. It is not a very huge event and doesn't have more than a few chapters in literature based on it but I've still created the article to quite a good size. AbA 07:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - just opened it up and can say straightawy looks promising but would be alot better if individual page refs were reffed rather than umpteen identical refs for book. Also the caption of the chruch in goa image - is this a significant church? If so should say. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this has several links to "Vasco da Gama" that link to the person, when I presume the place is meant.--Grahamec 13:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- avoid "multiple use" footnotes. A single footnote used for "a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax ay az ba bb bc bd be bf bg bh bi bj bk bl bm bn bo bp bq br bs bt bu bv bw bx by bz ca cb cc cd ce cf cg ch ci cj ck cl cm cn co cp cq cr cs ct cu cv cw" is not useful. {{page number}}. Also, sourcing half of the article's statements to a book published with Voice of India, a self-declared propaganda outfit, does not exactly bode well for npov (even though, of course, the facts referenced to that book may be absolutely correct, I have no way of knowing); especially statements like The inquisitors had great influence in Portuguese Goa's administration in those times and conducting negotiations with the largely Hindu Maratha Empire would be considered a betrayal to the cause — that's perfectly plausible for the period, but you would still prefer to get a reference somewhat more precise than an entire book. dab (𒁳) 09:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Dbachmann. The footnotes need to be fixed, and a new set of NPOV sources should be used in the article. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Definetly have to agree here. If the references are dividied out by page and a few better NPOV sources can be found, then there won't be any objections.Cromdog 01:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:25, 4 November 2007.

Fort Lauderdale, Florida[edit]

I'm nominating this article for featured article because its a great article, thorough, well formatted, well referenced and no POV issues Hadseys 13:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments by TREYWiki
Why is "Venice of America" bold? Also, It needs a reference.  Fixed Unbolded and added reference.
Why is Fort Lauderdale bold in the history section?  Fixed Unbolded.
The history section is lacking references.
Although not a necessity, a picture would be nice in the history section.
Lots of raw data in Demographics. You can incorporate some of that into a table.  Fixed Used table from FA Erie, Pennsylvania. Removed some less-important stats.
Economy has lots of unreferenced claims.
A little more on Government would be nice.
The list of university's in Education should be incorporated.
...airport and is one of the fastest growing airports in the country. This needs a reference.  Fixed Added reference.
Include a little about Utilities serving the area. Could be incorporated into Healthcare.
The Media subsection has little content.
There are no references in Sports.  Fixed Added references.
Overall, this article is good. A few more references are needed. Also, A few pictures would help.—treyomg he's back 14:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (response) I went ahead and removed the extra bolding (on the nickname and the city's name in the history section). As to "Venice of America", it is part of the city's logo (in the infobox) and appears on every page of the city website, so I didn't think to add another reference; I'll try and dig one up. The name was bolded in the history section as it is a summation of the linked history article; I forgot to remove the bold when I brought it over to replace the old section prior to the GA review. The history section has twelve distinct references, cited twenty times. Without trying to be snide, can you specify what needs to be referenced? The linked articles in that section all have references of their own, so I can pull their references if needed. I'll see if I can dig up more refs for the economy section, although (again) most of the claims there are already supported by references. I'll see what I can do for the media section, but there is not a whole lot going on, since Miami is where most of the action occurs. I'll also come up with references for the sports section in the next couple of days, and I'll find a reference for the airport claim. Horologium t-c 18:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will continue working on this during the coming week. I have been quite ill over the past week, and have not had the energy to work through this thoroughly; my apologies. I will be addressing the government, history, and economy sections in particular. Horologium t-c 11:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Misc. comments. Healthcare, only those hospitals? The city probably has more since the population is so big. What are the major issues debated in government. The government section could be expanded if there are things to write. Isn't the city where that historic Bonnet House is? Or is that another city? Is crime a problem or not a problem? Many city articles list the sister cities though it's not a requirement that there be a list for FA status. Are there ethnic sections, like Lauderdale Lakes? Why are the bus announcements is Creole? Other cities don't have such announcements. Notability? Was Broward County involved in the controversy in the 2000 election or was it Palm Beach County?(may not be notable) Was Arthur Ashe from there or not? Is the Galleria Mall notable for anything? First something? How about Sunrise Mall, the biggest (?) on the Eastern Seaboard? Or is it in a nearby city? Mrs.EasterBunny 23:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are only three hospitals *within the city*; there are quite a number more in the suburban communities (Pompano Beach, Coral Springs, Tamarac, Margate each have one, and there are more to the south in Hollywood and SW Broward County). There is a list of sister cities (in the See also section.) Bonnet House is in Fort Lauderdale (it's in List of museums in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, which is linked in the culture section. The article on Bonnet House itself is a tiny stub.) and Lauderdale Lakes is a separate city (see Lauderdale Lakes, Florida), not a neighborhood in Fort Lauderdale. Arthur Ashe is from Richmond, VA; I think the school was named after him in recognition of his status as an icon, rather than a personal connection to the area. Broward was involved in the 2000 election fiasco in a tangential fashion, but that would be more relevant to the Broward County article, not the Fort Lauderdale article; only 10% of the county's population lives in Fort Lauderdale. The Galleria is not a particularly notable mall, although it is the largest mall in Broward (other than Sawgrass Mills, which is an outlet mall, and in Sunrise to boot.) I'll be expanding the government section tomorrow, and include a few of the controversies (the current mayor is the target of gay activists right now because of some of his recent statements about the gay community; that is covered under the Jim Naugle and the Stonewall Library & Archives articles). I am not aware of the bus announcements in Creole, but it has been well over 20 years since I have been on a BCT bus, and that might be more appropriate to the Broward County Transit article. I had been editing this article under the impression that it should focus on the city itself, but most of the questions you have raised relate to other subjects. Was I mistaken? Horologium t-c 23:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not objecting to FA status. I just offered some questions which I wasn't sure of. The fact that this editor has considered them reflects well on the person and the potential for the article to adapt with time. Mrs.EasterBunny 01:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments by Alan
  1. Overall inconsistent formatting is a nightmare.
  2. Photograph captions should not introduce text, but be referenced by the text.  Fixed Rewrote captions to remove material not in text.
  3. After refactoring the page, please apply the WP:LEAD guideline.
  4. Facts do not require multiple citations, please select the most reliable source.  Fixed Removed double citation.
  5. Further condense history section.
Alan.ca 07:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you be a bit more precise about formatting? I'm not quite sure what you mean. (I'm not trying to be snarky or difficult; I'm genuinely puzzled.) I removed the double reference in the lisfestyle section, and refactored the captions to remove text not in the article. I'll look at condensing the history section, but it was expanded for the GA review, as reviewers felt it was too short. Horologium t-c 11:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reject & Oppose

  • On the basis that it has "citation needed" tags. Are article allow to come to FAC when there are basic flaws?... I guess so. Learnedo 03:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both citation tags were added after nomination; one has been referenced, and the other sentence was removed with the citation tag; it was too vague. Horologium t-c 11:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As this is a mid priority page for WP:CITY, I only have time to say this article has a long way to go before it is ready for FA status. I recognize the efforts of the applicant, but I think he would be better served by participating in the improvement of an national or state capital. After gaining a better understanding from working on such a team he will be in a better position to understand why this article is not ready for FA status. Alan.ca 05:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:25, 4 November 2007.

Virus[edit]

Previous FAC
  • Support I am re-nominating Virus as a candidate for Featured Article status. The objections below have all been addressed and the article has been expanded both with text, references and figures.GrahamColm 06:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrahamColm (talk • contribs)
<Moved old nom to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Virus/archive1 as per instructions at top of page.Woodym555 15:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)>[reply]
< And, updated it in archives at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/July 2006> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. While there may be many mechanism by which viruses can cause disease, there are just a few core principles by which they infect and replicate. The life cycle section mentions none of them and since replication is the main 'goal' of a virus, I consider that a grave omission. A less complicated issue: I'd put an etymological section near the top of an article. - Mgm|(talk) 11:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you, the five "core principles" are clearly described, Attachment, Penetration, Uncoating, Replication and Release. I agree with you in that Etymology needs to go at the top. I think the article would benefit by the addition of the Baltimore Classification scheme which is based on replication strategies and I will work on this. GrahamColm 14:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Which is probably why section three (Classification) has had Baltimore included before you mentioned it. The core principles are clearly described, but to be comprehensive, I believe they should go into more detail after that clear definition and description. - Mgm|(talk) 16:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the 5 steps of the viral life cycle should be 6 as you totally left out Maturation and/or assembly as one of those steps. I've started reading over the article with my recent Crash Course of Virology in mind and I've found several grammar problems and some obvious omissions. I'll either solve or list them here within about 48 hours. - Mgm|(talk) 08:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, assembly is there "Replication involves synthesis of viral messenger RNA (mRNA) for all viruses except positive sense RNA viruses (see above), viral protein synthesis and assembly of viral proteins and viral genome replication. Following the assembly of the virus particles post-translation modification of the viral proteins often occurs." And maturation is better described as post-translational modification when writing in general about viruses. I never teach assembly and maturation as being separate to replication - as often it all goes on at the same time. BTW it's good to know that someone out there is actually reading Virus. I sincerely appreciate your interest. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrahamColm (talk • contribs) 11:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you read "Principles of Virology"? That's where they taught me Assembly should be a separate step. I'm not arguing the proteins aren't synthesised simultaneously, I'm arguing that the creation of a virion from its individual components is a separate step even if it happens simultaneously. Replication and release also happen at the same time in most infections with enveloped viruses, but that doesn't mean they are one step. Attachment, penetration and uncoating are all part of the virus' entry, but they too are separate steps even though the borders between them are sometimes hard to discern. Take for example poliovirus. It attaches to the CD-155 receptor and releases the genome into the cell through a pore - presto immediate uncoating. - Mgm|(talk) 12:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not, it is taken-up by Endocytosis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrahamColm (talk • contribs) 18:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask a virologist which of the two ideas is more recent and why there are two to begin with. - Mgm|(talk) 19:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. So endocytosis puts it inside a little bubble. How does it get out of the bubble? Methinks I hear elegies of panspermia. 129.215.191.74 02:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Acidification of the endosome and/or membrane fusion are two ways of getting out. - Mgm|(talk) 19:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well! you can see just how complicated things can be. Given that Virus is meant to be a good general introduction I think it's best to leave it the way I have written it. To be honest, I think you are overplaying this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrahamColm (talk • contribs) 15:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, you have Strongly Opposed the promotion of Virus to FA status based on an erroneous argument. You then concur that what, at first, you called a grave omission, was in fact there all along. You then go on to argue that this, (very minor issue) still isn’t correct. To me this is just nit-picking. By raising this opposition, sadly, I feel, you have already denied Virus the wider readership that I know it deserves. You seem to have a contracted concept of who Wiki contributors are. You asked me if I had read "Principles of Virology". I haven’t read it from cover to cover but I have a copy and it’s a good source but there are some points made in it that I disagree with. However, it’s pleasing to see that my own research papers are appropriately cited. Wiki is not a place for vanity publishing and I contribute where I can because I think Wiki is such a noble idea. It might be appropriate to come clean about my credentials: I am 55 and a Professor of Clinical Virology and I have published over 60 research publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals. I have been teaching virology for over 25 years. A handful of the figures in Virus are from my own research archive. Certainly Virus is not a perfect article, (if such a thing exists), but it was a good introduction to virology when I first started editing it and now it is much improved. I think I am more qualified to judge the merits of Virus than someone who has a “recent Crash Course of Virology in mind”. I ask you to remove or at least strengthen your argument for “strong oppose”. GrahamColm talk —Preceding comment was added at 18:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, part of what I thought was missing, was indeed there, but there are other problems. I will post them as soon as possible. (If I don't do it in time, my comment will be considered inactionable anyway). - Mgm|(talk) 19:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. What happened to this article since TimVickers worked on it?! It even glaringly deviates from WP:MOS now. 129.215.191.74 02:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I think you might be confusing this article with the Influenza FA, which is the only virology article I have made any significant contribution to. All the best Tim Vickers 19:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From My Talk Page

Hi there, thanks for your improvements to the Virus article. If you need any help or advice with anything please just drop me a note on my talk page. All the best Tim Vickers 15:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, have a look at this image for an example of a fair-use image rationale (Link). Tim Vickers 15:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look, this tool {Link) lets you paste in a PubMed ID number and returns a formatted reference. Saves a lot of time. Tim Vickers 18:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC) GrahamColm talkGrahamColm 05:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: I'm basing these comments off notes to the printed version with id "165988982". I won't be covering all copyedit things here, I'll just do those myself and ask the league of copyeditors to do a final run after all comments have been addressed.
  1. Some headers have capitalization that contradicts MOS guidelines (unneeded capitalization.checkY doneGrahamColm
  2. Neither the lead section nor the 'Size' section under 'Structure' mention a source for the range of viral sizes.checkY DoneGrahamColm
  3. "Therapy is difficult for viral diseases as antibiotics have no effect on viruses and antiviral drugs are expensive."
    That's not the complete story.checkY Done There are multiple reasons creating antiviral drugs is hard. They don't neccesarily all have to be covered in the lead, but this sentence needs alteration so expenses don't seem the only reason. (Not reacting to antibiotics makes treatment harder, but has no effect on making a viral cure.checkY Done GrahamColm 18:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. The Discovery-section doesn't mention that Beyerinck expanaded on Ivanofski's experiment..checkY Done GrahamColm 18:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. The latter half of the discovery-section cites no sources. checkY Done GrahamColm 17:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. In classification, the example needs to be at the bottom, so the reader first gets the theory,checkY Done GrahamColm 13:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC) then the example (you could even use an example-template) It would make sense to mention the Baltimore classification of the virus in that example. Section also needs referencescheckY Done GrahamColm 15:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. The Classification section needs a diagram. The system isn't just based on the genetic material the virus contains, but also the replication strategy, so it pays to have a diagram of those intermediate states, especially for the non-experts who don't know the implied intermediates of any of these viruses.checkY Done GrahamColm 15:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. Structure, the table with the morphological examples doesn't make a distinction between capsid and envelope morphology.checkY Done GrahamColm 13:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. Article doesn't make a distinction between reassortment and recombination. Genome rearrangement, the last in the list at Genetic change, could cover that, but doesn't really explain how it could occur. checkY Done GrahamColm
  10. "Released virions can be passed between hosts through either direct contact, often via body fluids, or through a vector. In aqueous environments, viruses float free in the water."
    This really belongs to an epidemiology section,checkY Done GrahamColm 11:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC) but the list of possible modes of transmissions appears incomplete. The word 'vector' needs explanation for laymen. checkY Done GrahamColm 10:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  11. Although the viral life cycle is more detailed as I thought in my initial comment, I still think each of those points can be expanded upon. The MOS says short sections should be merged, so it might be an idea to merge them all together and underline the names of the stages. (For example, Attachment mentions an example virus, penetration doesn't, and uncoating doesn't give any details on methods or examples specific viruses use to achieve this. And then you come to the release section and we have a massive section about lysis vs non-lysis during release.checkY Done GrahamColm 11:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  12. In Viruses and Disease, the text mentions latency, but doesn't mention acute and chronic infections and the difference between them. checkY Done GrahamColm 18:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  13. The Epidemics section isn't in chronological order and fails to mention the Spanish flu outbreak in the early 20th century. Granted, technically not an epidemic, but it's a major pandemic relevant to the subject and I think the section should be called epidemiology anyway.checkY Done GrahamColm 11:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  14. Viruses and Cancer: The sentences are correct as far as I can tell, but they don't flow well, because they are all of the same structure. checkY Done GrahamColm 18:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  15. End-point dilution and the One-step Growth Cycle or (==are?) important laboratory techniques that don't get mentioned. I don't think they are very important anymore. checkY GrahamColm 18:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  16. Cell-mediated immunity (the term "innate immune system" should be mentioned) is the first line of defense of the body, so it makes sense to list it before the adaptive (humoral) immune system.checkY Done GrahamColm 18:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  17. You don't explain how RNAi defends against viruses. All it does is get rid of ss copies; you don't mention an effect of ds copies of the genome. Laymen won't understand it. checkY Done GrahamColm 18:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  18. Vaccines, probably worth to mention the role of viruses in the expansion of vaccination (see main article link too) Term morbidity needs explanation, I'm assuming everyone knows what mortality is. Section also is missing refs. checkY Done GrahamColm 18:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  19. Section should make distinction between different sorts of vaccines, so the reader knows why a life vaccine is dangerous and what the alternatives are. (really short)checkY Done GrahamColm 18:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  20. Antiviral Drugs, You say use of analogues inactivates newly synthesised DNA/RNA. I thought it caused the stop of elongation during replication. checkY Done GrahamColm 18:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  21. Which protease? checkY Done GrahamColm 18:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  22. The most used antiviral drug is Acyclovir. This is the place to mention it.checkY Done GrahamColm 11:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  23. The 'weapons' section needs to explain why we're not immune if smallpox was to be released.checkY Done GrahamColm 13:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  24. Etymology needs to be near the top of the article.checkY Done - Mgm|(talk) 21:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pass & support

  • On the basis that it's far better than most other articles on this page. Leranedo 10:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Graham, you should identify support as nominator. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is an excellent general introduction to this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.40 (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virology for beginners.This is an excellent introduction to viruses.This is a discourse on a difficult subject written in a way that is easily understood by the layman.This is a must for anyone who is affected by a virus -which,of course, is everyone. Sparkax —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparkax (talk • contribs) 10:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Account registered November 1; this is the account's only contribution to date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a, 1c, 2. Not ready, needs peer review by medicine project or help from TimVickers. Many basic MOS issues like WP:MSH, WP:MOSBOLD, WP:DASH, MOS:CAPS#All caps. Needs a copyedit, sample: All double-stranded RNA genomes, and some single-stranded RNA genomes, are segmented,[22] (see below). And: Animal RNA viruses can be placed into about four different groups depending on their mode of replication. And: During this process, the virus acquires its phospholipid envelope which contain embedded viral glycoproteins. Overlinked (pls see WP:OVERLINK). Many completely uncited sections. Please prune external links per WP:EL, WP:RS, WP:NOT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—Needs serious copy-editing throughout. Here are examples from the lead of the task ahead. Please do not just correct these. Find collaborators who haven't seen it yet.

  • This "outside OF", "inside OF" infection that pervades English should be stamped out now. Like "IN ORDER to" (except that the latter is very occasionally required for disambiguation).
  • "the later are known as bacteriophages or, simply, phages"—Do you mean "latter"?
  • My fuzz-antennae are bristling at this: "The opinions of virologists are split over whether viruses are truly living organisms." Isn't this too black-and-white? I'm sure that some experts regard viruses as at the boundary, or conceivable as both living and non-living, depending on context (as for the wave–particle duality of light).
  • "Viral infection usually, but not always, results in disease"—Well, "usually" does mean "not always".
  • "Often, the virus is eliminated by the immune system and supportive therapy is all that is required." Here, a comma is required after "immune system" to signal to the reader that another statement is coming in the same sentence. Take note throughout. A comma would be nice after "viruses)"—see why? Helps the readers through, and you've put one into the subsequent sentence to prove the point.
  • I'm being picky: suddenly, the tone changes to what might possibly be an attitudinal statement: "For serious diseases, the best solution is prevention through vaccination, which can produce lifelong immunity." Can this be reworded? ("... solution is now recognized as ...", or something like that?) The last sentence of the lead should go further up. Tony (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead, at the point Tony reviewed it, was mostly the text I suggested on the talk page. His points 1, 2 and 5 are due to my sloppiness and inexperience, and don't necessarily reflect the rest of the article (which I haven't touched). I agree with point 6 but note that saying "is now recognized" changes the meaning of the text and wouldn't be correct. I see that Graham is still working on the text and has revised the lead some more. Colin°Talk 12:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:25, 4 November 2007.

Britney Spears[edit]

Self-nomination. Britney Spears has been the most searched names on the internet for several years. She is a cultural icon and gained much attention from the media. The article itself seems to fit FA criteria. Oops!...I did it again (talk) 10:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While this does read to a degree like one of those nominations made without regards to how the article itself looks, this one doesn't look too bad from a brief glance. Not sure about article stability though. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose With how often she's been in the news recently, I'm not convinced this article is in a stable state as required by the criteria. - Mgm|(talk) 19:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The stable criteria says "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day. - Even though she is in the news a lot, as long as there is no "significant changes" to the article all the time, it meets the criteria. Oops!...I did it again (talk) 03:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest re-write. The article is a bit hard to read. The intro is so long but is it all needed. Maybe breaking it off into paragraphs. Some of the music commentary is so geared to the fan that is (probably incorrectly) seems like fluff to me. How about an education section? Did she receive music lessons from a famous person? Home schooled? A better name for the personal struggles section? I know this is an unusual request, but how about the discography list first then a description so that I know which albums came first? Finally, a news comment. Are all these news details fitting in a biography? Look at Mozart and there are not monthly details of his life, whether or not he was wearing underwear, whether or not we could see his genitalia, etc. Is that notable, that she exposed her private parts for the world to see (yuk!). True, you put a lot of work into it but I'm not sure it's ready for FA yet Mrs.EasterBunny 23:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For example, biography may state "(famous actor) Joe Smith was divorced on -- --, 2007 and was not granted custody". That will stand the test of time. Going into all the lurid details is very interesting but may not stand the test of time. That's the difficulty with fast changing events associated with a person. I commented on another FA a while ago that had the same problem. Nothing wrong with the person, just the fast changing nature of the life history and how much of it is really time honored biography. I just looked up a dead singer, Laura Branigan. On first glance (not a detailed analysis), her article seems to stand the test of time yet still informative. Come to think of it, her article is not even a GA. Maybe I'll work on it to make it FA? Mrs.EasterBunny 23:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The "lurid details" are simplified down to the most important information. Oops!...I did it again (talk) 03:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that things like education and other stuff you mentioned should find a place in the lead. The lead is supposed to be a SUMMARY of the article. If the lead would go on becoming lenghty, then it will give a perfect messy look. Have a look at Gwen Stefani. The lead does not mention about her education. Yet it gives a proper taste of the article. Indianescence 12:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose What Mrs.EasterBunny has written is entirely correct. The writing in this article is not up to featured article quality. The lead is a choppy mess. The article continues in the same fashion. Examples:
    • "Britney Spears was born in McComb, Mississippi, but was raised in Kentwood, Louisiana, having moved to the latter at such a young age that it is often erroneously reported as her place of birth."
 Done Fixed. Oops!...I did it again (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It peaked at number one on the Billboard's Hot 100 and has earned nine million sales worldwide.[2][25] and was ranked 25th on Rolling Stone and MTV's "100 Greatest Pop Songs of all time".[26]"
    • "Reviews of the performance were unfavorable; BBC's David Willis stated that "her performance would go down in the history books as being one of the worst to grace the MTV Awards,"[74] and Times Online noted that "Spears was out of synch as she lip-synched and at times just stopped singing altogether."
    • "Their marriage was officially over in July 30, with Spears's attorney stating "They are divorced. Everything is finalized."[123]"

The citations in this article are a mess also. I went through the first 20 and a number of them are to "editors from...", broken links, or improperly formatted. See 1 2 3 4 7 10 11 12 13 14 16 20. I don't see any stability concerns besides vandalism, but this article still requires a lot of work. KnightLago 22:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Citations fixed. I have just clicked on all the links and they all work for me. I can't really do anything about the "editors from" problem. Some sites do not tell us exactly who wrote the information. Even the websites from the highly respected RIAA do not post the actual name of the author. Oops!...I did it again (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Sorry, not done. 10 11 13 still don't work. And I have only looked through the first 20. I am sure if I continue with the rest I could find more problems. You need to go through all the sources one by one and make sure they work. Also, If there is no author name you should leave that field blank, not add editors or whatever.

Pass & support

  • On the basis that it fulfills #1e Stable. The article is not currently in an ongoing edit war and that its content will not change significantly from day to day. It may change significantly weekly or monthly however. I see no problems in passing it as it is better than most articles on this sickening FAC page. Learnedo 00:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • " I see no problems in passing it as it is better than most articles on this sickening FAC page." "Sickening"? If that's how you feel about this page, and the work so many people put in to writing and reviewing here, it may cast your Support and Oppose declarations in a pointy light. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obliviously I do feel this article is far better than most of the articles here, regardless of whether you like my opinion or not. I'm honest. This article is fine, and I therefore vote to pass it. Oh, and you never got back on the Al gore issue. I'll just assume there isn't any issues. Leranedo 07:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh before I forget. GOOD JOB editors of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leranedo (talk • contribs) 07:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support :The article ain't so higly unstable. Whatever problems it faces are rectified by a group of editors. The article is high on maintenence. So not a problem with that. The article does justice to Spears and does not look like a fan page. Indianescence 09:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support : Germany and Iran also appear daily on the news, that doesn't make the articles unstable. If you would check Britney Spears' history you would see that there is an army of editors watching the article and reversing the minor spamming and WP:NOT edits. Yamanbaiia 01:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I hate her attitude. I love her music videos. I like this article. Axl 19:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a, 1c, 2. Text redundancies necessitate a copyedit (examples: Federline had very recently been in a relationship with actress Shar Jackson, who was eight months pregnant with his second child ... eight months pregnant defines how recent it was, very is redundant ... Just Two days before Sean's first birthday, Spears gave birth to her second son, ... ) The redundancy reducing exercises on Tony1 (talk · contribs)'s page may be helpful. Other prose issues, for example, "Following the success of her debut album, Spears released the album Oops!... I Did It Again, which debuted ... " Debut followed by debuted, repeat. Prose needs to be audited throughout. Full dates (Month day, year and Month day) should be linked so user prefs will work. See MOS:CAPS#All caps on eliminating all caps, also in citations. Some citations are not fully formatted and are only blue links: see WP:CITE/ES. All citations need publisher, author and pub. date should be given when available, and last access date should be givin on websources. Many publishers aren't identified, so reliability of sources can't be evaluated. IMDb.com is not a reliable source for most information; all sources need review once you've identified all publishers. On the positive side, it's a relief to see that External links are not full of unreliable fan sites. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Citations fixed. Oops!...I did it again (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Double "debut" fixed. Oops!...I did it again (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:25, 4 November 2007.

Nancy Reagan[edit]

previous FAC withdrawn
Nom restarted (Old nom) Raul654 04:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this nomination has been restarted. Self-nomination. This article is well written and fully covers the life of one of America's former first ladies. It is factually accurate and up-to-date, as Mrs. Reagan still frequently attends major functions. The article is very well cited, as well. There have not been any recent edit wars, thus making the article stable, and images are presented throughout. Overall, this GA is deserving of FA status. I urge you to support. Thanks, Happyme22 04:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - very nearly there. I just feel the lead lets it down a bit - the stubby 2 sentences and then a sort of long chronological bit - I thought of combining paras 1 and 2 but that doesn't solve the problem - some of the sentences are repetitive - I would have thought listing actress and First Lady in first few sentences - para 1. Then Para 2 -expand acting, screen guild, marrying RR, para 3 - "Most remembered for...(first lady stuff).." and launch into it. Lead is much better - I just noted, can we expand a little on relationships with children in last para of Marriage and family at all? I'm noting other little things, we're getting there. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Check out the current lead and see what you think. Happyme22 23:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC) I have expanded the para; pls take a look. Happyme22 17:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Problem - the new lead introduces a fact that's not in the body - "her parents separated sometime before her birth" whereas the body says "While her parents divorced in 1928, they were separated for some time before then." What exactly is it, and in the body we need a cite. Wasted Time R 13:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - I've solved the problem, and cited it with her autobiography. Happyme22 22:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another problem - the lead says "Amidst the Cold War, Nancy aided in softening relations between the Soviet Union and America by suggesting Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev and her husband form a personal relationship." But the body doesn't really discuss this much, instead talking about Nancy and Raisa. More needs to be said about Nancy's views on the Cold War and the Soviet Union and negotiation-vs-confrontation, arms control, summits, etc., and about whether she influenced her husband in this area. When the conservative "Let Reagan Be Reagan" movement came about, was Nancy one of the targets? Wasted Time R 20:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
have removed the sentence all together per this discussion, as well as User:Arcayne's comments at the bottom of this page. Happyme22 01:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per last nomination.
    • Please see WP:MOSBIO for the appropriate way to reference the subject of the article. After the first time a person is referred to by their full name (can be once in the lead and once in the article), only the surname should be used. Therefore, the subject of this article should be referred to as "Reagan" not as "Nancy", "Davis", or "Nancy Reagan." To avoid confusion, her husband should be referred to as "Ronald Reagan" or "Ronald." The article should refer to her only as Reagan, after the first time where her entire name is used.
This is the text of the old nomination (linked above) regarding this point. I am placing it here for Raul to decide. Happyme22 02:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to partially agree and partially disagree. There shouldn't be any just "Nancy" references, except perhaps when she was a small child. But there should certainly be "Davis" references; that was her name before marriage, and her professional name after it during the balance of her acting career. To refer to her as "Reagan" during the 'Acting career' section would be crazy; WP:MOSBIO certainly blesses references to stage names, which "Davis" effectively became after her marriage. Regarding later sections, you're right about the guideline, but as someone experienced in writing First Lady articles, there are really times when it helps to use "Nancy Reagan" or "Hillary Clinton" or whatever to avoid likely reader confusion. Wasted Time R 15:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you should definitely make note of her stage name, but it is not necessary to refer to her by that surname only in the article. She is best known as Nancy Reagan, and Reagan is the surname that should be used. Many women are married, and they are referred to in articles by their married surname even before the article reaches the point where the marriage took place. Karanacs 16:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Wasted Time R here - although a few "Nancy" references don't actually bother me, I have a problem with them all being converted to Reagan because that tends to be confusing vis-a-vis Ronald who is commonly known just as "Reagan". Using "Nancy Reagan" is preferable to confusion. WP:MOS itself acknowledges that it doesn't have to be slavishly followed - common sense should prevail. Tvoz |talk 22:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above statement. Happyme22 23:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People who are reading this article as specifically interested in Nancy Reagan, and, as most biography articles (at least the FAs) refer to the subject by his/her surname, they should not be confused that Reagan = subject of article = Nancy Reagan. As long as the article is careful to use "Ronald Reagan" when referring to him, as it does, then it is fine. Karanacs 14:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking under WP:MOSBIO#Subsequent_uses_of_names Nancy is like Royalty in a way, also, using her surname throughout undermines the prose and makes it jar from time to time. 'Nancy' was more unique and instantly idenitfiable as to which subject was being talked about whereas 'Reagan' was always ambiguous. I don't think it is as simple as that given how many times then 'Ronald Reagan' has to be written out. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Let's decide on which one; and decide quick! Happyme22 23:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy Reagan is like royalty????? The issue with royalty is that many of them don't have last names or are never referred to by their surname. Ronald Reagan will always need to be written out in this article to mitigate confusion, but there is no reason to write out Nancy Reagan, especially when policy says to use the surname. Karanacs 14:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is no longer copied from the previous FAC. Happyme22 04:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Tvoz, Wasted Time R, Casliber and Happyme22 on this one; the naming issue here should be a case of WP:IAR in order to help distinguish mention of Nancy from Ronald throughout the article. If we look at Hillary Rodham Clinton, we find a similar situation, and following the manual of style to force that article to always refer to her as Clinton will just be confusing; we often need to know which Clinton. I submit that the consensus here is to ignore this rule. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I agree. Happyme22 04:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, however, I object to referring to her as simply "Nancy", as the article does in multiple places, and to referring to her as "Davis", which is a recipe for confusing readers. Karanacs 15:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would cure any "Davis" confusion by changing the lead to specifically state her acting name in bold: "As Nancy Davis she was an actress in the 1940s and 1950s, appearing ...". Since "Nancy Davis" was her professional name that she kept after marriage, not just her pre-marriage name, I think it merits the explicit bolding. Wasted Time R 15:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is bolded in the lead: "Nancy Davis Reagan was..." - I think Sandy mentioned something along the lines of it already being bolded in the old nomination, therefore it doesn't need to be. Frankly, I'll add it in if there's no rule against it. Happyme22 22:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That bolding doesn't make it clear that she was known as "Nancy Davis" as an actress. I've changed the lead now to illustrate what I mean, see what you think. Wasted Time R 13:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. I'm very glad we were able to solve this in a clean, diplomatic manner haha. Happyme22 01:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Use more active verbs. Instead of "took on a championing role", use "championed", etc
    • Need a citation for the last two sentences in On the campaign trail section
      •  Done - removed the last sentence and cited the other. Happyme22 04:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and the derogatory nickname "Queen Nancy" was created." who created the nickname? If you don't know, it might be better to reword this.
      • See what you think of: "The new china, a White House renovation, expensive clothing, and her attendance at the royal wedding of Prince Charles and Princess Diana, gave her an aura of being "out of touch" with the American people. This and her taste for splendor inspired the derogatory nickname 'Queen Nancy.'[2]" - this is how it is currently presented in the article, and I for one find nothing wrong with it. Plus, I'm almost sure it was coined by the media (or a newspaper/magazine columnist), but after researching on Google the most I could find what we already have. Happyme22 04:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I like this new wording better - thanks. Karanacs 13:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would move the section on her husband's protector to just below the assassination attempt section (or combine the two), as they are related
      • They should definitely not be combined, as they are two completely different parts of Mrs. Reagan's life. Also, I think the protector section is just fine where it is; "Just Say No" was meant to go in between the two, because the protector section is general, not specific, so it can be said toward the end of the section. It's difficult to understand, I know, but please go with me on this one. Happyme22 22:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • For a reader who doesn't have a lot of in-depth information on the subject, this layout just didn't make as much sense. Why not have the more general information about being a protector come when you first talk about her protecting her husband in the hospital? The two sections seem very interlinked to me...Ronald Reagan was shot, Nancy protected him in the hospital and continued to do so when they returned to the White House. Having an unrelated section in the middle threw off the flow for me. Karanacs 02:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know that the picture of Nancy Reagan kissing her husband's casket qualifies under fair use. The image is not essential to the article, as it has others that show the Reagan's together. I think the picture should be removed.
      •  Done - replaced w/ similar free use (although the othe was better, i guess this will do). Happyme22 22:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs 14:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This needs vigorous copyediting/sub-editing, preferably by someone unfamiliar with it. I don't think it's badly written, just that it has become over-worked (often a labor of love). Examples:

  • In the lead, there's an abrupt jump from First Lady to She became an actress in the 1940s. (Why not link with Born in 1921, or similar).
 Done - I've added about her early life in the lead. Thanks for that. Happyme22 23:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Early life, there's strange capitalization of Uncle and Aunt. Why not just say "by her aunt and uncle, Virginia and Audley"?
 Done Happyme22 23:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • it's a long-winded and repetitive in places: After the adoption, her name was legally changed to Nancy Davis; although her given name was Anne Frances, she had commonly been known as Nancy since her birth. Perhaps: After the adoption, her name was legally changed to Nancy Davis (she had been nicknamed Nancy since birth).
 Done - I've corrected this specific example. Happyme22 23:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another example: She did not like living in Sacramento, which lacked the excitement, mild climate, and social circle that she was used to from the Los Angeles area. Perhaps: She did not like living in Sacramento, which lacked the excitement, mild climate, and social life of Los Angeles.
 Done - I've changed this specific example. Happyme22 23:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too many constructional awkwardnesses: a judgement to [with] which her husband readily agreed; [she] oversaw personnel, monitored her husband's schedule, and gave occasional press conferences; of 4,370 pieces of a new scarlet, cream and gold state china service [a new 4370-piece scarlet, cream and gold state china service] (we don't really need to know the colors, do we?); President Reagan and three others were struck by gunfire [shot?].
I can see how her buying the china means it's new, so we were just stating the obvious. But I find nothing wrong with the others. Featured articles are supposed to have engaging and exciting prose: changing "struck by gunfire" to "shot" just takes the formality down a notch. The colors of the china are also good info; although they were not directly involved in the disagreement the china itself generated one of the biggest controveries of the early '80s. Happyme22 23:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--ROGER DAVIES TALK 13:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, thanks for your comments. Happyme22 23:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Struck by gunfire" sounds like an accident. If you want this to be engaging and exciting, you'll have to find a different form of words :)) And, frankly, the colors of the china are trivia :)) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 15:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the colors of the china should stay in — they, combined with the photos, help establish her color sense (which is a little lurid, if you ask me). Wasted Time R 15:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not bothered either way (my concern was the convoluted construction) though I take your point about luridity :) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 17:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have worded it differently: I've placed "delibertley" in front of "struck by gunfire" to get rid of any possible confusion. Better? Happyme22 18:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a lot of persuading that using four words instead of the obvious one - "shot" - is an improvement. This is, I'm afraid, a good example of the complicated writing I expressed concerned about. I'm not saying that this is a bad article (it's not) but if you prune it vigorously it will be infinitely better. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 19:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if it really makes that much of a difference, I'll change it back. Happyme22 21:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Happyme22 21:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Outdent) You've clearly made a sincere effort to address the concerns I raised and I really appreciate that :) I still think that this needs going through by a disinterested copy-editor. The writing remains a bit clunky in places and the flow could be better. You'll probably ask me for examples; I'll provide them as examples; you'll then fix the examples and think you've fixed the article. I really want to support this article but cannot until it's copyedited. Sorry, --ROGER DAVIES TALK —Preceding comment was added at 06:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least you are opposing for a legitimate reason. I asked User:LaraLove two days ago to give the article a copyedit, and she said she would the next day, but hasn't. Oh well. Happyme22 06:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article is organized very well, very well written and informative, However I do feel there are some minor things that should be addressed:
  • The following two passages are used more than once in the article and I feel they are redundant:

It was Nancy Reagan who suggested the notion that Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev and her husband, Ronald Reagan, form a personal relationship with each other before discussing nuclear affairs during the Cold War

While President Reagan was in the hospital recuperating, Nancy slept with one of his shirts to be comforted by the scent

  • I don't quite understand the part about the hospital visit by Strom Thurmond. Could it be elaborated?
  • Haha it's funny you would say that. Here is my discussion with User:Tvoz from the old nomination before Raul restarted it:
"I still have trouble with this sentence - why are we singling out Strom Thurmond as someone Reagan needed protection from? is it that she tried to bar all visitors from his room or was there something about Thurmond? Tvoz |talk 22:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Here's the full text from Presidential Courage: Brave Leaders and How they changed America 1789-1989 (2007) by Michael Beschloss, page 284: "In despair, Nancy Reagan wrote in her diary, 'Nothing can happen to my Ronnie. My life would be over.' That evening at the White House, she slept with one of his shirts to be comforted by the scent. When Reagan opened his eyes at the hospital, he beheld the bettle-browd face of Senator Strom Thurmond., who had bluffed his way past the Secret Service detail, claiming he was the President's 'close friend.' Nancy Reagan had Thurmond thrown out of the room."
A side note: we might consider adding that quote from her diary to express how she felt in her own words. Anyway, I did some research and found this from an interview with Max Friedersdorf, Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs from the Miller Center of Public Affairs:
'I went over to GW hospital, and went up to the President’s room, and Jim was outside the room with Mrs. Reagan and her secret service agent there and Jim said, 'Max, I want you to stay here until I tell you to leave.' I didn’t understand. Mrs. Reagan was all upset, of course. He said that Senator [Strom] Thurmond had come over to the hospital and had talked his way in, past the lobby, up to the President’s room—he’s in intensive care, tubes coming out of his nose and his throat, tubes in his arms and everything—and said that Strom Thurmond had talked his way past the secret service into his room and Mrs. Reagan was outraged, distraught. She couldn’t believe her eyes.
'He said, 'You know, those guys are crazy. They come over here trying to get a picture in front of the hospital and trying to talk to the President when he may be on his deathbed. You stay here until I tell you to leave. If any Congressman or Senator comes around here, make sure the secret service doesn’t let anybody up, even on this floor.' So I stayed there for about three days, four days, until he came out of intensive care.'
It seems Thurmond wanted media attention, and Nancy was outraged so she threw him out. Although not a very famous event, I think it's a pretty notable one. Happyme22 23:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
OK - I love this, and think it definitely belongs in the article, but with more explanation than was there originally - it was too telegraphic and the meaning didn't come across. I think we can afford the extra words here to explain this incident - not the whole story necessarily (although could be spelled out more in a footnote), but about her emotional state due to the shooting and outrage at Thurmond's presumptuous insinuation into the room - this story captures her protectiveness as well as her strength in having him thrown out. It's perfect, really, and does what these articles always need - personalizes it while still remaining encyclopedic. It just needs to be explained a little clearer. Tvoz |talk 07:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)"
  • Here's the background, and I've tried my best to give some background without describing in great detail one single event. I don't know much more I can do; feel free to take a whack at it if you wish. Best, Happyme22 22:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note; there is nothing wrong with redlinks, nor is there removal necessary for FA status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for stem cell research is not just the "Democrat position" since it has been supported by many Republicans like Rudy Giuliani and Bill Frist. I think this should be corrected.

Just some minor things but overall a very good article and certain to be featured.--Southern Texas 21:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, and I believe I have addressed your minor concerns (with the exception of the Strom Thurmond one, but please read what I have written). Best, Happyme22 23:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is conflicting info on Nancy's Birthplace. One says Illinios and the other says Flushing, NY
 Done - problem fixed. Thanks for that. Happyme22 18:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually - I was checking on the spelling of the hospital name: the hospital I assume she was born in is Sloane Hospital for Women, a maternity hospital, spelled with an "e" (it's not Sloan-Kettering), and it seems to have always been located in Manhattan (see here and here). Maybe her parents/mother lived in Flushing when she was born - I don't know - but if we specify hospital, we should say where it actually was, so I changed the text accordingly - perhaps your source says otherwise? Tvoz |talk 07:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article meets FA criteria. It has been improved vastly over the past weeks. Good work. LordHarris 18:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks LordHarris! Happyme22 18:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approve and Support and Comments - I am little concerned that the tone of the article seems to be a little less than neutral but, as was mentioned before, these articles tned to be labors of love. Sticking points with me:
  • I think that the Lead statements about Nancy's involvement in the Cold War are largely incorrect and misleading: "Amidst the Cold War, Nancy aided in softening relations between the Soviet Union and America by meeting with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev's wife, Raisa." The section that discusses this indicates that the relationship between Nancy and Raisa were little more than cordial and that nancy eseentially found her exasperating. I think it should be removed entirely;
  • the use of 'leaked' in reference to the astrology stuff. I seem to recall a version where it was 'revealed', which seems more neutral;
  • In the second paragraph of the Acting career section, I think that noting that her reference to MGM as 'Metro' could be alleviated for the reader not familiar with the film industry. I'd use something like "Joining Metro [Goldwyn Mayer] was like" to reference the previous reference to MGM;
  •  Done - changed "MGM" to "Metro Goldwyn Mayer" Happyme22 02:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the external links would be served by adding the links to the articles of her husband and both children, as it would seem natural to contain a navigation to their articles.
  • Er, I think the MOS said something about not adding wikilinks that are already linked in the article in "see also" or "external links" sections. Here's quoting from WP:GTL:" A 'See also' section should ideally not repeat links already present in the article..." Happyme22 02:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Arcayne. Happyme22 02:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! Happyme22 03:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange. Why were all the old comments from this FAC removed on 10/23/07? It says it was restarted but why not continue? It wasn't like the FAC was rejected and a new one started. The current one was just reverted away! Mrs.EasterBunny 01:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea! Raul restarted the nomination for some reason. Happyme22 05:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I've been away from the article for a little while, so I've given it a re-read with fresher eyes, and made a few tweaks and word adjustments to the text. But I have a few questions for you:

  • in lede - not clear what "After contributing to his presidential campaigns..." means. Obviously you don't mean financially, but it might be misconstrued that way. Why not leave out the phrase and start with "She became First Lady"? Alternatively: change "contributing to" to "working on" or just leave off "contributing to". (This is clearer after reading the section below, but people read from the top so lede needs to be clear.)
 Done Happyme22 17:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't decide on this one: "Lou Cannon believes this was an overstatement," should it be overstatement or understatement?
 Done - I've reworded this one, hopefully it's clearer now. Wasted Time R 13:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much. Tvoz |talk 07:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any chance of a picture to illustrate "the Gaze"? It would be worth a thousand words, as they say - anyone who doesn't know what you mean would get it instantly with a photo.
Well the article's kind of hit it's limit with photos.... I suppose your thinking about a pic such as the one to the right; again, the article has a lot of images and this would seem to not fit in well chronologically-wise. Happyme22 01:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YES, definitely include this one! "The Gaze" is what many people remember most about her. You can replace "Nancy Reagan hosts the First Ladies Conference on Drug Abuse at the White House in 1985" with this one, since they're from the same year and the following 1987 "Just Say No" photo covers her drug awareness activities already. Wasted Time R 02:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't replace the Drug Abuse conference one with it, but moved that one up and put this one underneath it. Now about the caption; should it mention anything about "the gaze?" As of now, I have nothing about it. Happyme22 02:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - I'd love to see the words "the Gaze" in the caption - which ties it to the text and as Wasted said, is what many people think of when they think of her. Tvoz |talk 07:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added "The Gaze" to the caption; we need to tell the readers that this is what the text is talking about. Wasted Time R 12:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last sentence of "campaign trail" is weak.
 Done - There had been an earlier discussion about this, so I've removed the last sentence altogether. Happyme22 17:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last sentence of first paragraph re china: I think it needs a transition from "Although" to "it was ordered" to explain why it was controversial - how about something like "the purchase raised eyebrows because it was ordered at a time when the nation was undergoing an economic recession." , or some such phrase without repeating "controversial"
 Done Happyme22 17:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last sentence of "protector" section: "In his 1988 memoirs, Regan publicly released the fact that Reagan consulted an astrologer, resulting in embarrassment for Nancy." - did you mean "Reagan" (presumably Ronald) who consulted an astrologer, or Nancy? If him, leave as is; if her, have to change sentence - could just change "Reagan" to "she", or change "Reagan" to "Nancy" and the later "Nancy" to her".
 Done Happyme22 17:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these help. Tvoz |talk 08:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tvoz. Happyme22 17:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much improved again. Hoping for the copyedit to smooth it a little more and I'll be ready to support. Tvoz |talk 07:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One other comment re 1st graf in lede: comsider removing second sentence altogether: do we really need it in lede at all? Not everything in article has to be summarized into the lede, and it would read better (also avoid the problem of confusing her with her actress mother in 2nd sentence with the "As Nancy Davis she was an actress" - which "she"? That's why you had "herself", but it was kind of awkward.) Tvoz |talk 08:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Karanacs. Separa 16:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC) This person's edit summary was more informative: oppose: referring to her as "Nancy" is really shoddy writing - unfortunately, far too abundant across WP![reply]
Please read the debate above; concensus decided to ignore that rule. Is it really logical to refer to Mrs. Reagan everytime as "Reagan?" That can be easily confused with her husband, Ronald Reagan. Anyway, consensus decided to ignore that rule, per WP:IAR. Thus, your opposition doesn't really do much. Happyme22 22:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • On the basis of not fulfilling 1a, 1d, 2a
  • "her parents divorced soon after her birth" why in the lead? It's common for people to get divorced.
But we are talking about Nancy Reagan, not other people. This comment doesn't help the article. Happyme22 22:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer the question. Please re-read. Leranedo 08:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she herself was an" why not simply "she was"?
 Done by User:SandyGeorgia --Happyme22 23:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should not be done if you have sound reasons to disagree. Leranedo 08:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any interest in creating a Legacy section? 'cause you should if you want this to be quality.
I suppose we could, but frankly it's not one of my main priorities. Happyme22 23:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should. Leranedo 08:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Born in New York, her parents divorced soon after her birth; she grew up in Maryland, living" This feels so cramp and crowded. How about something like "her birth, growing up in Maryland, she lived.."
This comment doesn't seem to help the article. Happyme22 22:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to you seems to help the article. Please fix the issue I pointed out. Leranedo 08:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "decision to replenish the White House china. She championed recreational drug prevention" break in flow or very sharp and sudden shift, may cause temporary confusion.
 Done by User:Tvoz --Happyme22 23:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same as above. Don't get it done if you disagree. Leranedo 08:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "considered her major initiative as First Lady" attribute this to a source, such as in "according to etc." or however else you like to phrase it.
This doesn't is not supposed to be sourced in the lead, plus that's poor writing. It's well sourced later in the body. Happyme22 23:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never said to cite it via citation. I stated to sourced it via attribution as it's quite a vague claim (considered) to make so early on. "or however else you like to phrase it" Please re-read. Leranedo 08:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This comment doesn't seem to help the article; Nancy's their mother... Happyme22 22:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again? Nothing seems like anything to you. "Nancy's their mother..." is not a good reason. Are you insane? One can said "Reagan is their father," and yet it's not in that FA article for very good reasons. What kind of reasoning is that!? JUST FIX IT! It's not too difficult, but it appears you like being difficult. Leranedo 08:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to arrange the Cold War section to start the section with her? The section isn't even on the cold war and shouldn't be titled Cold War.

Relationships would be more appropriate for its content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leranedo (talk • contribs) 05:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? Happyme22 22:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean what? Leranedo 08:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "initiative as First Lady. However, it was revealed in 1988 th" what kind of transition is this? again make flow smooth
see above Happyme22 23:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"what kind of transition is this?" and hopefully you know what flow is, or do I need to explain that as well? Do you know English? Leranedo 08:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As Nancy Davis, sh" "Under maiden name Nancy Davis" is more precise writing. Not everyone who reads this will know about her. Don't write like everyone knows who she is.
No no no: she wasn't married then, so saying Davis was her maiden name at that time period is factually incorrect. Happyme22 23:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you stupid!?! just wondering seriously, def. maiden: "An unmarried girl or woman." Leranedo 08:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not purposely take "Are you stupid!?!" out of context. Leranedo 22:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nancy Davis Reagan (born Anne Frances Robbins on July 6, 1921)" should follow "Ronald Wilson Reagan (February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004)" meaning add her death date.
  • N.B.: She is still alive, which would be why her death date isn't there. Tvoz |talk 05:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still alive?? Wow. Huh, I must have been thinking that other person. Thanks for clarifying. Leranedo 08:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She's not dead! How could she have a death date? Happyme22 22:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Holy god! You're unable to tell that this was clarified already.
  • Check captions. they should have a period if full sentences. if fragments you don't need which you know
 Done - Thank you. Happyme22 23:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, you've done something... finally!
I seriously meant this comment, as you appeared primed on avoiding the points. Leranedo 22:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their relationship was anything but the friendly, diplomatic one between their husbands, however; N" or just something along the lines of "Their relationship was not friendly and diplomatic."
Changing this wouldn't seem to help the article; it just removes detail. Happyme22 22:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And which detail would this remove? Leranedo 08:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would make it sound like she ran for president. Happyme22 22:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, find something to change it to. "On the campaign trail" makes it sound like she's on the campaign trail to run for president. Using your broken thought of reasoning. Leranedo 08:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Reagans retired to their Bel Air," Topic is on her, so it should be "She along with here family" or something along those lines. I do not believe it should start with "The Reagans" as the article should be focused on her.
Her family was all grown up. It was just she and Ronald Reagan. Happyme22 22:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SO MAKE THAT CLEAR TO THE READER. Does one even need to ask? Do not assume everyone is going to interpret "The Reagans" the way you do. That would be bad writing.
  • Inconsistency: In some section "Nancy Reagan" is used multiple times, while in others it starts with Nancy and that is used. Read the next point relating to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leranedo (talk • contribs) 05:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nancy devoted most of her" Addressing her as Nancy is not encyclopedic. How about "Nancy R." or simply "She". I'm consensus and have not decided to ignore that rule, but we can find alternatives. Though in the end Nancy will suffice if not overused. Going by Nancy Reagan at the start of the section and then using She sounds fine to me.
Ok I can see that, but you alone are not concensus. Please read the debate farther up. Happyme22 23:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, obliviously. See previous on Inconsistency.
  • "Nancy devoted" devoted?? biased and not NPOV term.
I disagree - "devoted" as a verb in this context is correct, appropriate and not POV. It means "To give or apply (one's time, attention, or self) entirely to a particular activity" which is exactly right. Tvoz |talk 06:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Feeling or displaying strong affection or attachment; ardent" Agreed that it is appropriate; nevertheless, it is POV and a NPOV term. Others may not think it the term is appropriate, and that would be their POV. Leranedo 08:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's as an adjective. Please read what I wrote above which is the definition of "devoted" as a verb, which is how it is used here. It is not POV or biased, it is descriptive. Tvoz |talk 08:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accuracy check #1: Yes, my mistake, a verb - "give entirely to a specific person."
Accuracy check #2: It's descriptive POV, but POV nonetheless. And of course an article can and at times should and need to have POV. POV does not necessary mean that it is biased, and I did not state it was in my reply. It's descriptive POV, but POV nonetheless, as devoted, the term (be a verb or adjective) gives positive connotations, especially given that the sentence finishes, "her time to caring for her ailing husband." Indifferent and impartial of it being sweet and warm, not a NPOV term. Leranedo 08:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just stumbled upon this and liked it: "the cold neutrality of an impartial judge." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leranedo (talk • contribs) 09:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "death ten years later on June 5." some readers like to see the year explicitly stated.
The lead should not constantly mention dates. Anyone with half a brain who can do kindergarten arithmetic can add 10 to 1994. Happyme22 22:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This lead doesn't even have as many as others FAs. Again, "some readers like to see the year explicitly stated." Only brainless people fail to see that. Having the date is also precise writing. Leranedo 08:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of 2007, Nancy Reagan has continued to stay active in politics particularly relating to stem-cell research." sentence can be made better.
What? This comment doesn't seem to help the article. Happyme22 23:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AGAIN!!? To hard to make it better??
  • On external link, White House profile should be first. Add more links. 3 is too few. very very lacking
  • From your comments here and on Al Gore, it doesn't appear that you have understood WP:EL, WP:RS and WP:NOT. External links should be minimized; the links here are fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had already gone over those from the Al Gore article. It's understood that it should be minimized but to such a limit as three is far too low. It can be better than fine and acceptable. I have passed many article that are fine and I never take pleasure in doing so. This article, among those I oppose, deserves better.
On the Al Gore point, there is nothing wrong with having his personal site as an external link. "Links normally to be avoided." That doesn't mean completely. Leranedo 08:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please at least try to stay on topic here... Happyme22 23:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to first replier. Please improve the external links. Leranedo 08:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, Leranedo removed a post of mine, here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Leranedo#Moving_comment
What in the Good Lord's name are you talking about? Happyme22 22:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How clearer can I be... Leranedo 08:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll add more to this small fraction another day. Keep improving it! Good job. Leranedo 04:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to say. These comments, with the exception of maybe two or three, are not productive, don't help the article, and worsen the prose. You are objecting, yet you have pointed out maybe three minor things can be fixed; all the rest will either hurt the article or remove good details! Raul would be a fool to consider this objection. Happyme22 22:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read everything above because you are apparently very lost. Leranedo 08:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You must be seriously drunk or something... Happyme.. you must be kidding me. Leranedo 08:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appear to be the one that's drunk; I even consider that a personal attack. Happyme22 14:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really thought you were drunk as you appeared oddly clueless. Leranedo 22:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick browsing of Special:Contributions/Leranedo and User talk:Leranedo reveals that this Leranedo character has taken on a mission of being difficult and quarrelsome on many FACs ... I wouldn't spend any time further responding to he/she/it. Wasted Time R 10:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Wasted Time R. Again, Raul would be a fool to consider this objection. Happyme22 14:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Directed toward Wasted Time R): Hmm, spiteful. Perhaps your wikiname describes you well. Leranedo 22:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come now, I'm maintaining my oppose as it is valid. Leranedo 22:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop Leranedo. You personally attacked me (ex:"You must be seriously drunk or something... Happyme.. you must be kidding me") as well as Wasted Time R (ex: "Hmm, spiteful. Perhaps your wikiname describes you well"), and try to justify it (ex: "Let's not purposely take "Are you stupid!?!" out of context"). There is no need for this. Happyme22 23:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • The infoblot at the top really digs down into trivia. The signature should be up there? Put it in as an image further down. Why is her [present] "occupation" given as "First Lady of ...", when it's not. And it's announced already a come up. Her spouse was, not is, Ronald Reagan; this is an example of how infoblots can distort information, partly for the unwitting reader. You'd think Reagan was president now. Was are "Relations"? Be specific or leave it out. An infobox is meant to provide the fundamentals, not adornments or info for the sake of filling the space. How much of it is repeated in the main text, anyway?
The signature is an option in that infobox (it's called an infobox), so we logically placed it there and I disagree that it would help the article by placing it further down. She was First Lady of the USA, and nothing on Template:Infobox_Officeholder says it has to be a "present" occupation; the same goes for spouse. Relations mean people she is related to, and we have displayed her children's names. Happyme22 02:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You need to adhere consistently to the MOS (Criterion 2). That includes logical punctuation, as part of WP's overarching principle of not tampering with quoted material. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotation_marks.
Can you please point out an example? Happyme22 02:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the English-language WP, do we really need to link "English"? There are other trivial links, too, which should be weeded out to avoid unnecessary blue spattering all over the text. Keep the links to the high-value ones. People are more likely to follow them, then. Tony (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't hurt this specific article at all. Happyme22 02:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:25, 4 November 2007.

Al Gore[edit]

previous FAC

The article developed a lot: Education, 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, Honors and awards, Family, ... .--Tamás Kádár 15:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - This article is quite good and worthy of FA with a few minor changes. The photo is too way too old. Can't we do better? 3rd paragraph, think of a better way to say "today". How do we know that his son's accident denied him the chance to lay a foundation for the 1992 campaign? Excuse or truth? VP section, reword "also in 1998". 2008 presidential election section is the place that really needs the most rewrite. It sounds like a daily blog. This is probably because the editors recent memory is good and lots of online articles about current events exists. Under private citizen, did he pay for the charter or just announced it? Is he that rich? All these can be done in a minute or two except the 2008 section which will take several minutes to do. Mrs.EasterBunny 16:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought that this article was already a FA? Aflumpire 20:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Oppose - The main photo is fine. There's no reason it needs to be "up-to-date" (otherwise a large percentage of our bio articles would include pictures of rotting corpses). I'm not a fan of the Nobel icon, but I doubt that is grounds for objecting. The only problems I see is that there are a couple sentences that need citations and the summary for the Controversies section needs improvement (right now it is totally cryptic). Kaldari 22:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I agree with comments by Mrs.EasterBunny (talk · contribs) above, and those changes should be made first. Also, the lead would look nicer if it were four paragraphs, so that last bit should be combined somewhere. Overall great work, excellent sourcing. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 00:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose, lots of cleanup needed, basics of an FA aren't yet in place. Citations are incomplete and unformatted, including blue linked URLs (please see WP:CITE/ES. Many publishers aren't listed, so it's not possible to verify the reliability of sources without clicking on each link. There are WP:MSH issues. It's always a surprise to have to make WP:FN fixes (those are rare); I hope regular editors will take note for the future. External links (which aren't listed correctly per WP:GTL) should be cleaned up per WP:EL and WP:NOT (not Gore's personal website, and not an indiscriminate collection of links). For a bio, family information is lacking. There's a popular culture section that starts out as prose but switches to a list mid-stream. Most importantly, there's a serious POV fork to Gore controversies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject & Oppose
  • On the basis of the all the notes listed previously, which I've reviewed.

Remark: I do not agree with the "not Gore's personal website" as it is "meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article," and if I was reading and researching the article, it would be useful to have that link there. Perhaps place it in the near the middle, though I think second or third is very appropriate. Anyone out there disagree? Please take it to my talk page so I can try to understand why you feel that way.

Remark#2: Yes there is a "serious POV fork to Gore controversies" but the evolution article which is a FA has the same thing. I would be happy to remove it from the evolution article however, but I can't let my biases influence me. Leranedo

  • Comments Oppose - No attempts to work on any of comments below or above. Mark83 16:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amazing to me that the popular culture section appears above things like electoral history.
    • Simpsons image way too prominent. I would question whether it's encyclopedic at all.
    • Too many one sentence paragraphs. Lead very piecemeal too - should be three or four large paragraphs, not five small ones.
    • 3 x "[citations needed]"
    • "According to the 6 February 2007 issue of The Santa Barbara Independent, when Gore received The Sir David Attenborough Award for Excellence in Nature Filmmaking at the Santa Barbara International Film Festival on February 2, director James Cameron (who presented him with the award) stated: "[I] beseech Mr. Gore to step up to the plate one more time!"[50]" is very hard to read - the first 10/12 words aren't needed for a start.
    • Similarly "The Washington Post notes in the article Supporters Push Gore to Run in 2008" - that is not needed and hurts readability. Just say "The Washington Post" and put the title etc. in the reference.
    • Controversies - Yes, good to have a subarticle because of size issues - however I feel one sentence as a summary on this article is not enough. I'm not saying have anything more than a paragraph, but an explanation of "a statement in an interview." would be good.
    • Ref 49 says it WAS a joke, so why does the article say "implying it was a rehearsed gag" -- "Implying" suggests Wikipedia believes it could have been a serious announcement.Mark83 16:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I believe the 'Controversies' section (and corresponding daughter article) is a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism. Discussion of controversies should be integrated into the appropriate mainline sections of the article (and any possible daughter articles), just as if you were reading a conventional biographical book. If a particular controversy is major enough, it can become its own daughter article. If you look at existing, comparable articles that are FA, such as Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Wesley Clark, Barack Obama, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, and Theodore Roosevelt, none of them have Controversies sections. Indeed I haven't seen any FA biographical articles that do have one, although I certainly haven't looked at them all. Wasted Time R 04:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Short sections, lacks criticism. Basically, no one wants to read a one-sided article about a politician. It shouldn't be overtly negative, but neither is it Wikipedia's job to sing Al Gore's praises. (Ibaranoff24 13:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:25, 4 November 2007.

Gamma ray burst[edit]

I'm nominating this because it is comprehensive, and has proper inline references, appropriate images, and summary structure. Gamma ray burst is already a good article, and is rated high importance by Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics. - Jehochman Talk 15:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I haven't had time to read the entire article yet, but I do have a question about the lead. What billion are you referring to - long or short scale? - Mgm|(talk) 23:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object for now. I have a few concerns:
    • In some respects I find the Gamma-Ray Bursts: Introduction to a Mystery article to be more comprehensive and (in places) a somewhat easier read for the lay person. This article covers does much of, but not all, of what is in the NASA article. I think the WP article should be at least as good.
    • There are too many single-paragraph sections.
    • The article does not explain why isotropy rules out an origin in the local group. Or at least I didn't find an explanation.
    • The "Galactic vs. extragalactic models" does not explain why a "natural" model is more preferable than an "ad-hoc" model.
    • The "Extragalactic nature of GRBs" section states that the furthest GRB burst observed came from 12.3 GYr away, close to the beginning of the observable Universe. It then states that "many GRBs could actually have come from even higher redshifts". So what is this asserting? Is there a distribution of luminosities? Or are you speculating that the observable Universe may actually be much larger, which is why most are too faint to gather a spectrum?
    • The "GRB Jets: collimated emission" section starts out in a confusing manner. "Narrow jet emissions are widely believed to be the case, as of 2007." The case of what? What is a "a jet break in their light curve"? To me this entire section needs significant clarification.
    • How about including one or more graphs of the light curve?[19]
    • This article discusses the evidence of the link between supernovae and gamma ray bursts. I only see that mentioned in the "Notable GRBs" section. Can't some of those be worked into the text?
    • Isn't there some thought that a short GRB may simply be a slightly off-axis view of a long GRB?[20]
    • There's no mention of the HETE, RXTE or INTEGRAL missions.
    Thank you. — RJH (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you! I may need help from an expert with some of these things. Hopefully somebody will volunteer, but I'll do my best in the meanwhile. - Jehochman Talk 16:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at the moment. I read the first few pages and I already bumped into multiple grammar problems - not necessarily errors, but still issues that could make it hard to read. I recommend you let the watchful eye of the Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors pass over the article. - Mgm|(talk) 22:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the featured article director may ignore it." Without examples of your concerns, it may be hard for the nominator to understand what needs to be fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you insist I can get my hardcopy of the article and try to formulate some examples, but my concern is already actionable, by involving the league of copyeditors. - Mgm|(talk) 12:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in the League, but I've already edited the article, so we should probably get somebody else to look over my work. They don't accept requests for copy editing until all other objections have been satisified. I suggest we wait a bit to see what else surfaces, then I'll get this taken care of. If you want to point out specific passages that need work, I'll fix them myself. - Jehochman Talk 13:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pass & support
  • " Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the featured article director may ignore it." You've given one example of a possible weasle word, but the remainder of your oppose comments aren't actionable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unnecessary weasel word removed. Good catch. - Jehochman Talk 01:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pass Leranedo 07:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/November_2007&oldid=178349956"