Already a GA. Has just had a peer review which has added references and resloved issues with some images. Buc 09:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object - I think it's a very well-written article, and it kept my interest though it's not a topic that appeals to me. However, even with 44 cites it is under referenced, and the refs that you do have need serious attention, as there is a lot of required information that is missing. The lead also needs expansion, in order to better reflect what is in the body of the article. It also, in my eyes, becomes sort of "table-ish" at the end. Lastly, I would like to know why it is a protected page--that certainly implies lack of stability. You realize it cant be protected when it's on the mainpage? Jeffpw 10:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is semi-protected due to disagreement over mentioning the nickname CHELSKI.Buc 13:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is protected because it's a regular target for vandalism. SteveO 13:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - With 44 cites it has more than two other football Featured articles Everton F.C. and Arsenal F.C.. Note that it has book references as well. I think this looks OK, although I don't like the list of celebrity fans. Celebrity fan sections are notoriously unverifiable and fairly trivial.HornetMike 11:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seven paragraphs have no cites at all, and the section Crests has only one ref. Also note I mentioned there is information missing from the footnotes themselves. How is a reader supposed to verify something like ^ R. Glanvill (2006), pp. 84-87? Is that a book? An article? I see there is a book with that author in the "References" section. The info needs to be plugged into the footnotes, and left out of the references area. Jeffpw 12:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As always with FAC lack of references is the only real problem. I'd be happy to fix this if you could tell me where references are needed, or better yet add "citation needed" tags to the article.Buc 13:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stamford Bridge: paragraph 4
History:Paragraph 3
Crest sectionas mentioned above, the entire section has only one ref.
In Popular culture:Paragraphs 3 and 4
I also noticed some prose problems. Perhaps you want to copyedit for prose. Here is one example: which particularly came into its own during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. That just sounds rather unencyclopedic, to my ears. I don't mean to be a grouch, and I did enjoy the article. I just feel it could use a few improvements. Jeffpw 13:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to add Jeffpw's requested refs. SteveO 14:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Struck areas have now been cited. SteveO 21:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If a book is cited multiple times then only the first citation need be in full, all subsequent citations can be abbreviated to avoid clutter and reduce article size. It's just a case of looking up through the preceding footnotes until you find the matching full citation. Plenty of FAs employ this system, and I have reabbreviated many of the references accordingly. Qwghlm 10:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support - I think it is harder to ref articles like this than some of the more scientific one. I think it fulfils the criteria and is well balanced, comprehensive, neutral and readable. I give you permission to strike out the 'conditional' once the ref is sorted ;) cheers Cas Liber 12:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might have helped if you'd specified exactly where in these paragraphs but thank anyway. I've added cn tag where I think you ment them to be. I'll see what I can find.Buc 16:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the areas I mentioned had no references whatsoever, any additions would only be to the good. To paraphrase WP:CITE, references increase the authority and veracity of Wikipedia. I also noticed an external jump in the Crests section. You should either use that as a reference, or add it to the external links. Jumps are frowned upon in articles on Wikipedia. Jeffpw 16:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cited what in the areas mentioned I thought needed it. Except one about Ken Bates being advised he hadn't acquired copyright, which I couldn't find anything for.Buc 17:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the time being as undercited (particularly the In Popular Culture section). Trebor 15:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm on the verge of supporting, could you just tidy up a few things:
The club began with... - this is a jarring sentence, which essentially says that Chelsea got promoted (good) but achieved little early success (bad) except for an FA cup final (good) which they lost (bad). It could be rephrased (perhaps into two sentences) to say their success was limited: certain things were good, certain things were bad.
Chelsea were, at the nadir of their fortune - is the wiktionary link necessary? Could we just assume people know what it means? Or use a simpler word?
Bates finally reunited - can we have a more specific date than "finally"?
The north, west and southern parts of the ground were converted into all-seater stands and moved closer to the pitch, and the current legal capacity of Stamford Bridge is 42,055 - abrupt switch from history to current detail, which could be improved.
Chelsea are generally a well-supported club - are they sometimes not then? I don't think "generally" adds anything new.
Thanks. Trebor 23:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very good article. Trebor 17:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - StevO, please don't strike my comments. I am perfectly capable of striking my own remarks, if I feel the matters have been addressed to my satisfaction. Jeffpw 21:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case please strike Stamford Bridge paragraph 4. The sentence about the main road and railway line making constraints for further expansion need a reference. I can't see anything eles though.Buc 08:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ref added for constraints on expansion. The lead has also been expanded per Jeffpw's comments. SteveO 11:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article now has 62 references and all of the above objections seem to have been rectified. Are there any further comments? SteveO 22:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the colours section an image of the kit described in the second paragraph 82.6.170.90 22:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
***** I'm a bit concerned about this new English football champions template that's just appeared. Is it really nessercery? Buc 22:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is. The bottom of the page looks cluttered as it is. SteveO 22:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment I'm leaning support, but I don't think the rivalries are sufficiently important to be part of the lead (I think Leeds fans would be surprised to see themselves mentioned in the lead) - a better choice from the Supporters section would be something like "Chelsea are one of the best supported clubs in the United Kingdom, with an estimated UK fanbase of four million". Oldelpaso 10:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of Trebor Rowntree and Oldelpaso's suggested improvements have been added. How is it now? SteveO 11:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looking good. Oldelpaso 11:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about my suggestion?82.6.170.90 15:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which kit are you referring to? Several are described in the second paragraph. SteveO 15:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either "The mint green strip in the 1980s" or "the red and white checked one" 82.6.170.90 21:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what merit there would be in adding an away kit which only lasted 1-2 years. What do others think? SteveO 23:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentNotable managers trophies has just been added. Not sure if the Full Members Cup should be in there. Buc 10:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added it in, and thought it best for completeness, but have no strong feelings on the matter, and will go with what others think. Qwghlm 10:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SteveO are you sure the second division title is really notable enough? Buc 16:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well the Second Division is listed in the club honours section. Imo it does no harm in being there. SteveO 23:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well written, some good images and very well-referenced. Qwghlm 10:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support though i dislike this club it is a well written article. some pictures of players would be nice though - or for that matter, abramovich the owner, mourinho the manager... aren't they synonymous with chelsea as they are today? Chensiyuan 17:28, 30 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article has seen a peer review and closely follows the same format as other recent India History related articles. While minor works like fixing the Box, map, choosing right images for each section is still in progress (and will conclude in a few days), the article has seen significant copy edting for content, grammar, balance and has been well cited from well known sources. Please provide positive feed back to enable successful FA review.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 22:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article has an impressive list of citations (which is good), but that impressiveness results in a "Notes" section that spans over a quarter of the entire article's length (which may or may not be good). You might want to take a look at recently featured Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., as an example of an alternative way to format the Notes and Reference sections. Basically, the "Notes" contain only a Harvard-style citation, whereas the "References" show a complete list of the individual reference works. This method also keeps the article text relatively clear of reference clutter, which may improve the accessibility of the article to other editors. Just a suggestion. --Plek 22:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply::Thanks. I will do what I can to cut down on the details in the notes, to reduce clutter. In a previous FA review I was asked to give full details of the citation, its publisher, year, author, etc. So I just followed the same strategy. I understand there may be too many details in many of the notes and I shall cut that down.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 23:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply::I have reduced inline note details to a significant degree, maintaining details only where necessary.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 01:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I have taken care of web reference format.thanks.Dineshkannambadi
Reply Yes. I guess this would be the same Infobox we used for Hoysala. We surely need that box. I am waiting for a new user who showed interest in creating a Hoysala style map to complete the map assignment.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 14:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I have a small problem of alignment of preceeding and succeeding states. I have asked for help on this.Dineshkannambadi 02:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I will attend to these issues tonight. Thanks for the guidance.Dineshkannambadi 17:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the first two decades after the founding of the empire, Harihara I gained control over most of the area south of the Tungabhadra River -- not very useful. How did the empire originate? Start with the origins. Who founded it? begin with such text.Spelling errors still found: adminsitrative, Hereditery Please run it through a spell check. =Nichalp«Talk»= 17:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I have addressed this.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 21:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support: I really like this article (probably can use some minor copy editing though). The best part about this article is how well it flows from the previous FA's like Hoysala - making it interesting to read. I wish my history books were quite as articulate. I would really like to see opinions of some other users like parthi who would possibly know lot more about the topic than myself. --Blacksun 09:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have been trying to trace the origins of Kammas living in Coimbatore City - south India. After reading thru your artilce on VijayaNagar empire and the Nayak system introducted by them, I firmly believe that this could have been the beginning of the migration of Kammas into Tamilnady and also Coimbatore. But a close read of the Nayak system of the empire shows more information of the system prevalent in Madurai with litte or no mention of such a system in Coimbatore. But even today we could see plenty of places with name tags ending with Paalayams. So there is a definite relation. But no clear records as to when it all began and how it progressed over the centuries. Can you throw any light on this subject?
A large migration of Telugu and Kannada people into Tamil Nadu happened during the rule of Vijayanagara Empire (the migration of Kannadaigas started with the Hoysala Empire itself), according to Prof. K.A. Nilakanta Sastri. Thats about all the info I can give from my sources. For more details, you may have to read a book more pertinent to the Nayakas of Tamil Nadu. hope this helps.Dineshkannambadi 02:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wouldn't it be better to change the last sentance in the intro from the current "The Vijayanagara Empire created an epoch in South Indian history that rose above the politics of narrow regionalism by promoting the ancient and indigenous Hindu dharma." to simply Hinduism. Anyway shouldn't Dharma be capitalized? Arjun 03:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ancient and indigenous sounds awkward too. Maybe drop ancient - it does not really fit.--Blacksun 09:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great work, thanks. I will have a more thorough look at it tomorrow and will make my decision then. Right now I am leaning towards support. Arjun 14:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In "architecture", "There are many arches, domes and vaults that betray these influences".Are you sure you wanted to use "betray", or is it an error? May be portray or something else?--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article suffers from over-wikilinking at instances. Sometimes the same term is wikilinked multiple times, even when the terms are not placed too far.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply-->will be taken care of.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 20:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Very good work. But needs quite a bit of copyediting. Will change to support once the language style becomes easy to read. Shushruth\talk page \ contribs 07:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to do more copyediting to change language/prose if you could point out generally where the problems are.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 16:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to edit them out at the page itself because trying to list them would be an unnecessary duplication of effort. Primarily I wish that the style of prose be made better. The content and relavent citations are all there. Shushruth\talk page \ contribs 17:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Go ahead. One request. A recently blocked disruptive user has been making unexplained reverts. Make sure you look at the history of edits before you start your copy edits each time to make sure your well intended edits dont get tangled up with those of the disruptive user.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 18:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The prose has improved to my satisfaction. Good job. :-) Shushruth\talk page \ contribs 06:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The language has become relatively lucid now, thanks to the copyedits while in FAC. Hope to see more of such comprehensive article on Indian history in the FAC. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice, concerns have been met. ~ Arjun 04:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice work, but I have comments, & may do some language touches myself.
Comments - Lose gap in text between the 2 templates
- sections would be better broken up with sub-headings
Reply I am only following the same format as other recent India history related FA that has been accepted by most reviewers. If you can specify how to better break up the format here on the discussion page, it would be easier.thanksDineshkannambadi 13:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - I admit I don't know too much about FA style in particular, but I would add sub-heads as follows:
To "Governance", at "on the battlefield" "Military", then "Public works" at "the Capital city"
To "Economy" add "Trade" at "When mrchant ships ...." - and maybe others lower down. Johnbod 19:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "republican guard" sounds odd here. Is that what historians call them?
Reply The book says kings "personal army" excluding feudal armies (contributed by feudatories, hereditery clans supporting the empire). So republican guard seemed a close match.Dineshkannambadi 13:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
changed to King's personal army.Dineshkannambadi 16:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I seem to remember that Hampi was evacuated/abandoned after the 1565 defeat, so the Moslems just walked in rather than "attacked". "Tirumala Raya, the sole survivor" - of what? the royal family? the commanders? - should say.
Reply My sources--> dont say "walked in" and Vijayanagara was not evacuated. Some resistance did exist. Tirumala Raya was the sole surviver of the three commanders.will explain on article after another study.Dineshkannambadi 13:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Changed to "plundered" instead of "attacked and plundered" to keep it simple.Dineshkannambadi 16:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- there was a word half "critical" half "crucial" near end para 1 - I went with crucial, but up to you.
" On the battlefield the king usually entrusted his most capable commanders to lead the troops" - no surprise there then! Must be a better way of putting it.
Trade: I changed Judea to Palestine (Judea not really used after 400AD or earlier), but Syria or "the Levant" might be better. what is a "camlet", a baby camel?
Reply Palestine is fine.Dineshkannambadi 13:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Reply camlet is a fabric. wikilink in place.Dineshkannambadi 15:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"...a focus on decoration rather than sculpture that surpasses that previously in India.." - hmmm - should be painting not decoration I think, but a rather dubious statement anyway imho, given how little evidence of earlier painting has survived.
Reply I dont believe the author meant paintings. Because Vijayanagara sculptors used granite, the sculptural work did not finish well. So they used special materials such as pilasters to cover up flaking on granite for decoration and smooth finish. Also the use of animals, both mythical and real in the pillars and columns was for decorative purposes. But will recheck.Dineshkannambadi 13:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the copyedit - I think no major change of meaning; mostly for style. Johnbod 04:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - Nice informative article, with a good presentation style. Thanks to the recent copyedits. Would certainly make a great FA. - KNMTalk 14:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Sarvagnya 16:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Almost all the notes needs to be rewritten just to be right. Just a few examples:
"according to" should never be found in notes, unless your are explicitly commenting on an opinion.
Reply-->Thats exactly what is being done. According to xxxx is what I read in the book, so that is what I have maintained.Dineshkannambadi 02:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Anna Dallapiccola in Fritz & Mitchell" is patently incorrect. It means that it is her opinion reported by Fritz & Mitchell, which it is not.
Reply -->That is exactly what it is. The book is edited by Fritz & Mitchell and the research part is done by Anna Dallapiccola.Dineshkannambadi 02:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are misunderstanding the use of "in" in academia. her opinion is not quoted by Fritz in Mitchell in their writing. She wrote it, in a book they edited. She is the only one that should be credited. Fritz and Mitchell are not writing something like "Dallapicola (1985) comments that [...]"! Note #30, however, could use a "in," since the research by B.A. Saletore is (apparently) reported by Kamath.
Reply--> I own the book and it says "edited by Fritz and Michell". There are a few chapters in that book that are credited to different historians such Anna Dallapiccola. There are some chapters which are not credited to other historians, so i suppose the credits there go to Fritz and Michell themselves. The book itself was not written by Anna Dallapiccola. In fact it may be said the book is a compilation by Fritz and Michell mostly containing research info by various researchers.Dineshkannambadi 06:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of the notes to subauthors of Fritz & Mitchell were correct.
You've made them worse by using what I complained above about Dallapicola.
Several notes should be combined.
Reply--> I have been adviced not to combine citations in my previous FA's. I am just following the same format.Dineshkannambadi 02:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Shrugs* Some user have a patent dislike of combined citations, something I cannot understand as they are not known to go around reverting note combination. I won't harp on it.
References are mostly wrongly formatted. they should be in "last, first," and they lack italics for book titles.
Reply--> I am following the same format as citations in other recent India History related FA's.Dineshkannambadi 02:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which are? I can't believe such, excuse me, unlegible reference soup could pass FA.
The Arthikaje are unacceptable. You must point to the exact page that is being cited.
Reply-->Arthikaje is a web reference. Hence cant give page numbers, but can be accessed easily with the push of a button.Dineshkannambadi 02:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But you can cite which of the different web pages in that index you pick from. Thepagelinked certainly does not provide a source for anything in the article.
Done. Reference URL points directly to page in web reference.Dineshkannambadi 07:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, my shortening of the notes at best made it clearer that they were wrongly written to begin with, it hardly made them worse.
Reply-->I have been asked to provide full info on author, publication, page number, year, publisher etc in each and every citation in previous FA's. Just following the same format.Dineshkannambadi 02:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear... Either someone doesn't get citation style, or you misunderstood them. Could you point me to the specific FACs you are atlking about?
Reply-->I can replace this with acceptable images.
DoneDineshkannambadi 03:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply All citations are written in the format expected and accepted by reviewers in recent previous India History related articles. I was asked to give full details of publication, year etc in each citation. If you dont like the format, please discuss before making major changes. I have answered your points above.Dineshkannambadi 02:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have not gone through the details and style of every citation now, but, as of this version, the citation style looks ok. Mentioning the whole book name and other details in every citation is less soothing to eyes, especially when all such details have been mentioned under "References". Mentioning the details in the first instance, and then just the authorship and page number (and any added detail, if needed) is ok. The "Notes" section is aesthetically more pleasing now. What to you gyus think? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I would like to thank Circeus for showing us a neater way to write citations.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 01:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ended up fixing the citations myself. I have to give credit to the writing. I haven't spotted any areas of obvious ambiguity.Circeus 01:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well written article. -- Naveen(talk) 08:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support very informative Indienne 08:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support The article carries a lot of information and is very well written. Deserves to be FA. Gnanapiti 22:00, 30 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Another hurricane GA, part of the series on retired Pacific hurricanes, a featured topic candidate. It's quite comprehensive, and appears to meet the various featured article criteria. This is not a self-nomination - Hurricanehink and others have done a great deal of work with this article. --Coredesat 01:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The only thing I can think of would be to add more Spanish sources, though as an English speaker who knows limited Spanish (with a lot of the rest of the WPTC not speaking Spanish) that might be inactionable. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work here. Jay32183 03:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In the first sentence, the term "minimal hurricane" isn't explained (it may be obvious to you, but I have no background knowledge of hurricanes). And has the sentence beginning Officials distributed 4,800 sheets... got a reference? Trebor 18:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minimal hurricane means the lower end of a hurricane. I can't think of any other way to explain it in the article. I added the reference to that sentence, as well. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then I'll support (although I still think "minimal" is a bit confusing). Trebor 07:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to "weak", which might be a bit clearer (though "minimal" expresses more precisely that Ismael was hardly above the minimum hurricane strength). —Cuiviénen 01:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I always like articles from Tropical cyclones project. Really good. All well-referenced, only a quibble note in the first paragraph of the Storm History sction. I was a bit confused with "The system quickly organized, with Dvorak classifications beginning later that day." Perhaps rewording or edit the comma or something like that. — Indon (reply) — 19:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak OpposeBookswormTalk to me! 08:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC) This article is way too short! There are articles longer that have been rejected![reply]
That's not exactly an actionable objection. FA criteria asks for comprehensiveness, not length. If you feel the article fails to cover something that it should, feel free to bring it up. Gzkn 08:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose doesn't stand out to me the way an FA should. Just seems like a good competent article, just because there is nothing wrong with an article doesn't mean it should be an FA there has to be a lot of things right with it, it has to stand out. Quadzilla99 00:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is that actionable? To be fair, have you checked out any of the other featured tropical cyclone articles? Are you saying all of them have something that stands out, or that not all of them deserve featured status despite a consensus by the community? Hurricanehink (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should contain more compelling prose, perhaps personal accounts, quotes from government officals, or some other material to make it the opposite of what it is now; namely a dry, lifeless recounting of a historical incident. Quadzilla99 01:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia. It's not supposed to be emotional or retell the story. It is supposed to be an unbiased, and yes, to some extent, lifeless recounting of a historical event. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technically I don't actually have to even explain my opposition so don't get defensive. Also explaining Wikipedia to me is clearly a statement meant to bait me into an argument. Compelling prose would apply to more than a completely dry retelling of events. Quadzilla99 02:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I spent several hours working on it, so I am a bit defensive. With fifteen other successful tropical cyclone FAC's of mine along with some featured lists, I get defensive on articles I've spent my time on, which numbers in the hundreds. Can you tell me specifically where I can improve the prose, or provide an actionable objection? Hurricanehink (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you do have to explain your opposition - see the top of the page, where it says, "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the FA Director may ignore it." —AySz88\^-^ 02:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, are you going to answer my objections? What makes this article stand out? Why do you think it should be featured? What prose is compelling? (site one line please). Quadzilla99 04:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's an excellent article on a Pacific hurricane that caused significant deaths and damage (something that does not happen often). On the other hand, it is also not Hurricane Katrina (nor should you expect any hurricane FA to be anything like that article). We're not a newspaper or a novel-writing service. As Hurricanehink stated, this is an encyclopedia. There does not appear to be anything actionable in your concerns. --Coredesat 04:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Give an example of an "uncompelling" line and how it could be improved. Vague references to the prose not being compelling (which is subjective and normally dependent on the user's interest in the subject matter) aren't actionable complaints. Trebor 07:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unremarkable article. Perhaps expanding the impact section with photos of the damage and more accounts of the effects would make it better then half of the articles I could find by clicking random article. Harvey100 10:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This storm occurred 12 years ago. Finding impact pictures that can be used at all is nearly impossible. As for accounts, most of the damage was in Mexico. There are none, and again, we are not here to write something designed to invoke emotion - that's not what an encyclopedia is for. --Coredesat 14:46, 24 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Self-nomination: I've done a fair bit of work on this article in recent weeks; it has gone through a peer review (see here and I've received some helpful feedback. Since this is one of the first times an individual railway line has been up for FAC it's a bit hard to know what to expect, but comparing it to other FA articles I feel that it should be up to standard. This is my first FAC, so please feel free to comment if there's something I can improve on. Thanks. JROBBO 11:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support: Thought I should vote since I've caught the trains so often in my life. Comprehensive, easy to read. Neutral. referenced. Satisfies all criteria, but lacks something somehow which I can't put my finger on. (Looks much different/better/more interesting since the nomination began!) Maybe just the subject matter (never was a trainspotter). Anyway I can see you've put a heap of work into it and I think it ultimately deserves to get over the line :) Cas Liber 12:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Being a person who catches train regularly, but putting railfan knowledge aside, I'd have to say that this article meets all criteria for an article as obscure as a rail line, is neutral and is properly referenced. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 13:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. It seems thorough and well-referenced with a good selection of images. The prose is functional but perhaps could be more compelling (I don't have an actionable complaint; it's just a general impression). In particular, the description of the line's route seems a little clumsy. There's also a switch from using "km" to "kilometres" at one point, is there a reason? Still, on the whole it seems very good. Trebor 18:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason for the change in "km" to "kilometres" - I did attempt to change it earlier but the database got locked while I was in the middle of an edit. I'll change them all to the full wording, which is the preferred style. JROBBO 20:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that the full wording is the preferred style (I'm not doubting you, I'm just surprised)? Trebor 20:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was a suggestion on the automated thing in the peer review... even if it's not the preferred style, consistency is good, so I'll go and change them all. JROBBO 08:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak object (changed to support, see below) - The main problem with this article is that it contains just too much boring stuff. I think the potential is there, the article just needs a serious trimming down, and perhaps a rewording in the lead section. Overall though, good job with the article. Here are a few suggestions:
The lead should be rewritten in a way that makes it more interesting, capturing the user's interest. The first sentence, although possibly redundant, should actually state that this is a railway line, and not that is located in Sydney, Australia. The rest of the lead should also be copyedited to avoid run-on sentences and make it flow better.
Much much better now ([1]). —Mets501 (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Alignment section should be greatly shortened. It is really unnecessary to say that one line starts underground, makes a left here, makes a right there, makes another left there, goes underground there, reemerges there, makes a right there, and then ends there. Perhaps just a basic overview of where a few stations are for each line and perhaps the fact that they are mainly underground would make the section better.
I disagree; this could be very useful for someone who knows Sydney but not the line. It also gives a good idea of what the line is like and what highways it "competes with". --NE2 05:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've got rid of the two main line construction headers. JROBBO 12:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sentences are too short ("However, Stephens encountered difficulties with terrain" is too short), and some too long.
Try to avoid such extensive use of the passive voice (see English passive voice#Criticisms). Sometimes it's unavoidable, but sometimes the active voice would be more appropriate. An example is "Woolooware Station is planned to be upgraded to increase capacity on the Cronulla Line.", where it would be more appropriate to state who is planning to upgrade it (that sentence sounds awkward as it is, anyway).
Is the Stopping patterns sections really necessary? Isn't that information already in the table directly above it?
Semi-colons (;) would really be useful in many places. ("Many of the projects on the Plan are for other lines; however, the Illawarra Line has received several projects to upgrade its capacity.") —Mets501 (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak object The dates in refs are not wikilinked and not in a format that displays per use prefs. It's easy to do if you use the accessdate=2007-01-22 and it's less typing as you don't then have to use date and year separately.Rlevse 15:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me where it says dates in refs need to be wikilinked? I understand your concern, but they don't really add anything to the article. JROBBO 07:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with you, it's a superfluous pain in the ass...BUT...Criteria 2, responding to the Manual of Style under its policy regarding the use of dates and numbers, and a few other places mandate it. It is not an explicit exemption to the rule (there are a couple), so it's required solely to make sure that 22 January shows up as January 22 for those who like it that way and set their user preferences. I quote: If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should almost always be linked to allow readers' date preferences to work, displaying the reader's chosen format. —ExplorerCDT 08:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through the article and wikilinked most of the dates in the references. Harryboyles 05:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. Wikilink dates also link to the calendar articles, but you're not supposed to link solo years. ExplorerCDT is just being a pain himself on this whole FAC.Rlevse 03:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OBJECTSTRENUOUSLY OBJECT (See below. Jist of it: Nominators and contributors to FAC refuse to do actionable repairs and seek to avoid doing the work by making b.s. excuses.). Writing is neither brilliant nor compelling per 1(a). —ExplorerCDT 22:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Care to explain further? --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 22:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same question as Arnzy - objections need to be actionable. Trebor 22:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The FA criteria demands that it be well-written with the prose being brilliant and compelling. The writing is bland, and uninteresting. Nothing in the writing captivates a reader. I think my above comment was sufficient, but if you can't get the drift, the article's prose is horribly boring. —ExplorerCDT 03:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Decorum suggests something more respectful, and more specific, than "horribly boring". ExplorerCDT, your comments are horribly boring. See? –Outriggr§ 04:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could have said the prose plain "sucks" but I think saying that this is far from brilliant and compelling was enough. You asked for more, and I did everything but say that it sucks. Why ask for more if you can't take it? —ExplorerCDT 07:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you at least make some suggestions on what I could do? This is my first FAC, so I would find it helpful for the future if you could say something a bit more than "it is far from brilliant and compelling" - where is it bad? What sections/sentences in particular? JROBBO 07:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Innumerable grammar problems. This article needs a heavy dose of copyediting. The use of too many pronouns (especially "it") without specific connections. The prose is just wholly uninteresting, and bland. I can't see giving examples, because the entire thing is so dry. Good writing has a spark that makes a reader want to finish this article. This article I had to struggle to finish. You have sentences like this: The line is four tracks between Wolli Creek Junction and Hurstville, then tracks between Hurstville and Waterfall. Sutherland has a third platform for the Cronulla Line. that make me cringe and then ask: SO WHAT? That is what makes this article "horribly boring". Other considerations. You wikilink many things in the references section. Bad. It confuses me (and likely others) into thinking you're referencing external links. Wikilink the article body as much as you want, but not the references. Many of the references are incomplete, lacking publishing information, ISBNs, and author information. Also, remove the size/pixel parameters from thumbnail images to accomodate user preferences, and to comply with WP:IUP. —ExplorerCDT 08:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point about the writing - however, like other criticisms, it mainly concentrates on the first section (the "Alignment" section), which needs fixing - I think this makes it the problem - once you've read that, you don't want to read any more. Secondly, the references are as complete as the information is provided - most of my sources are published by a government or other related corporation and don't have authors explicitly mentioned,; when the publisher or author is not mentioned, or they are the same, there's no point in listing the superfluous information; the websites listed don't have any more information than I can get either. Furthermore, as they are privately published documents, there's no ISBN listed either. Thirdly, on many other pages that I have looked at the authors or publishers, where there is an appropriate wikilink, are linked to that page (take a look at MTR or Singapore MRT, both Featured Articles). I really can't do anything about this. I spent a long time looking for sources, and there isn't anything else on this sort of thing. But I will fix up the writing. JROBBO 08:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing this article to other FAs can be problematic, because many older FAs (especially those from 2004-2005) haven't been reviewed since then, often have had many edits since being named an FA that could have diminished the quality of the article, and certainly would not pass when tested in the crucible of the present criteria. For instance, MTR would probably fail an FAC today or receive several objections requiring repairs because it is not adequately referenced and far too many facts go uncited. FA is determined about how well this article meets the criteria, not how it matches up to another article. The references need to be fixed. No question or excuses about it. If you can't find an ISBNs (which I doubt you even searched hard for ISBNs...try searching through amazon.com), state "NO ISBN" and a reason why (like saying "NO ISBN (Pre-1964)" for things published before ISBNs were started, or "NO ISBN (privately published)" if that were the case) If you can't find an author, complete the reference by stating No further authorship information available.. Don't just leave it unquantified. Many of these references don't even state basic publishing information and that is just unacceptable. Providing full references allows others to check your work. As to your protest about my criticism to get rid of the wikilinking references. References should be linking to those things outside wikipedia that you are using to support the article's statements. You do not support an article's statements by referencing other articles within Wikipedia. Please remove the superfluous wikilinking in the referencing. Making excuses, and refusing to make these actionable (and by the MOS, guidelines and policies) necessary fixes will likely result in this article getting failed as an FA in spite of your protestations, and I will likely move from just objecting to strenuously objecting to this article's candidacy. Lastly, the problem with the writing isn't just the first section. My criticism about its dryness is regarding the entire article, not just the first section. Another note, the failure to put in a grid or something to delineate the cells in the table for much of the dotted sections in the middle of the table makes it difficult to read and use. —ExplorerCDT 09:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"You do not support an article's statements by referencing other articles within Wikipedia" - can you please tell me where I'm doing that? All I'm saying is that the articles in question are written or published by that organisation or source.JROBBO 10:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care. What part of don't wikilink other articles in the references and thereby confuse people into thinking it's an external link to an external source don't you understand? There's no reason the note that reads: Sydney Tramway Museum, "Our Vintage Tram Routes", Railpage Australia. Accessed 11 January 2007. should link to Wikipedia's article on Sydney Tramway Museum. It should only direct a reader to the external source, not to an article on wikipedia. When the article does that it confuses readers into thinking they're clicking on a link to an external resource. Stop trying explaining yourself and just fix it. I'm not here to hold your hand through it. —ExplorerCDT 11:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then why does Template:Harvard reference have a parameter for "authorlink" to allow linking to the author's name? If this sort of thing is prohibited as you say, that sort of thing shouldn't be allowed. The fact is that this kind of thing is allowed. I'll change it, but I think you're being overly picky. JROBBO 11:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ExplorerCDT, I think the links to other Wikipedia articles are fine. You may notice that external links have an arrow clearly denoting themselves as such, if that helps prevent confusion. There is to include a wikilink (and as JROBBO says, there's even a field for it on some templates) because it allows you to find out about the author and publisher of the information. The style guidelines on WP:FOOTNOTE say "Internal links should still be used as normal". Is there any guideline that supports your view? If not, then your bluntness is unmerited. Trebor 16:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I checked out "Stations and tracks / compiled by J.H. Forsyth" at State Library of New South Wales catalogue. It is spiral bound and doesn't have an ISBN. That doesn't mean it can't be used as a reference in Wilkipedia, as appears to be asserted by ExplorerCDT. Nevertheless, I'm not sure if the Note citations need to repeat everything in the References, it would probably just be better to say "Forsyth (1988–93), p216"--Grahamec 01:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say at any time that a source without an ISBN was unuseable. I said a cited source ought to have an ISBN (or ISSN) to be a complete citation or reference. If it's privately published I would like to see NO ISBN (privately published) (as the specific source you mention above now does) next to the source for the sake of completeness. If you're going to critique my points, at least get them right. —ExplorerCDT 01:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other works by Forsyth also published by the State Rail Authority of New South Wales have ISBN numbers, I find it highly unlikely and would be surprised if the work cited here by Forsyth, with the same publisher, would be lacking them. —ExplorerCDT 01:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Australia, by law under the Copyright Act 1968 all books which have ISBNs in them are obliged to have them on one of the first few pages, or on the back cover (much like the Library of Congress rules which require a succinct summary in them at the front). If they don't have one written on it you can be pretty sure it's privately published. I have the book here with me and I've had a thorough look through it - there is no ISBN there. JROBBO 07:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting mixed up with book deposit. Forget the above. JROBBO 08:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Library of Congress does not "require" anything. A book catalogued by the LOC can (at the publisher's sole discretion) include a full bibliographic summary, write the line "Cataloguing data available from the the Library of Congress" or just put the Library of Congress Control Number or its classification number. Nothing is "required". The British Library, likewise, does not have any such "requirement." I just find it highly unlikely that if this organization has published (even privately) previous books of Forsyths with ISBNs, that his subsequent works would be ISBNless. Also, I would advise you to stop bullshitting. The Copyright Act 1968 does not have the words "International Source Book Number" or "ISBN" in the entire corpus of its text (See here [2], [3], and [4]). If you're going to find an excuse to avoid doing work (especially searching for information), at least find an excuse that isn't so easily debunkable. Half-assed shortcuts is what makes this article not worthy of inclusion amongst Featured Articles. If you're going to try to bullshit me, at least do it in a subject I don't know anything about. Unfortunate for you, it just happens to be that I've done a lot of work in publishing and have a lot of connections in publishing...and if you would have just not made any excuses or asked nicely, I might have taken a look for ISBNs on your behalf. Not a chance now. —ExplorerCDT 07:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep in mind of the WP:CIVIL guidelines when presenting your thoughts. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 08:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still looking for an answer as to where in the style guidelines it says "don't use wikilinks in references". I, for one, would much prefer them to be included so I can get a basic précis of the author and publisher of the source. Trebor 12:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In general it looks good, though I'm not a good judge of writing.
It could use a map, or at least a prominent link to an official map showing the line. This would make it much easier to follow along.
"The line is four tracks between Wolli Creek Junction and Hurstville, then tracks between Hurstville and Waterfall." There's a missing word.
I'm not sure that "Pattern stops at this station" is encyclopedic. What is the history of these service patterns? Are they changed every few years or are they long-term?
For now, no vote. --NE2 05:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The pattern stops are just showing how the line operates and how trains run on it. Some of the London Underground line pages have them, and quite a few in Australia too - and no one has ever objected to these. I'm happy to get rid of the duplication by removing the dots and adding historical information on the stations, but I think it's ok if we leave them in there. JROBBO 07:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm objecting now - as much as I love "railcruft", I think showing exactly which trains stop where goes a bit far, especially if you don't know how often those patterns change. On a rapid transit system, where these patterns may be long-established, it may be different (for instance the 1/9 skip-stop patterns on the New York City Subway), and this may be the case here, but Wikipedia is supposed to be "timeless" and cover both the past and the present, and if you don't know how often these patterns change it's probably best to leave them out. --NE2 08:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although a couple of trains might change every timetable (given that CityRail isn't a metro line), these are usually the exceptions - on here at least, the stopping patterns don't change all that much except when there's major changes to the timetable. This line is very unlikely to have any major changes to it, since there's no lines planned to connect to it or any major capacity changes apart from the Cronulla Branch, but it's probable that all trains on the branch will continue to use all stations there. Having said that, it's probably possible to condense the information into a sentence or two about how it currently operates rather than a whole section. JROBBO 08:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How's this for a general idea: "All trains run from the Bondi Junction end and serve all stops to Sydenham. Trains that continue as locals, stopping at most or all stations, terminate at Hurstville, Mortdale, Sutherland, or Waterfall, while all Cronulla trains skip a number of intermediate stations on their way to the split at Sutherland." Do all the stations on the four-track section have only two side plaforms, or are there islands to serve the express tracks? --NE2 09:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find the stopping pattern diagrams colourful and somewhat interesting. I wouldn't expect them to appeal to all tastes, but I don't expect every part of every article to appeal to all tastes.--Grahamec 01:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC) (and I admit I have been collecting Sydney railway timetables for 45 years--Grahamec 02:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I find it to be trivial, and I'm a fan of transit operations. But it might be useful to keep it in a toned-down style, like by showing which stations are served by almost all trains (a local-express style setup?), especially if these general patterns have been historically stable. --NE2 16:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has gone now, so there's no need to keep addressing this point. JROBBO 02:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think the concerns that I raised above have been dealt with, and I am very comfortable with this being a featured article. This is also under the assumption that something will be done with the Alignment section, but I have confidence in that considering the other great work that JROBBO has done with this article. Also, aside from this vote, if I may say so, I find it imperative that all featured article candidates are given much respect for spending hours and hours trying to help Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, no matter how bad one may think that the article is, and that constructive criticism be given by all oppose voters. —Mets501 (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I was impressed the first time I read this article and it has improved further. The oppose above seems petty and inactionable. michaeltalk 00:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm kinda busy so I'll give a full judgement sometime in the next few days. I've wikilinked most, if not all, dates in references per a criticism above, plus a few minor fixes. I also noticed that with references 63, 67, and 68, that the italics seem not to be closed properly, making the references ill-formatted. Harryboyles 05:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: JROBBO has spent a great deal of time fixing up this article, and it looks a lot better than it did prior to JROBBO's recent edits. - Vicer 22:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another reason to continue my above objection...aesthetically unbalanced lead now that the article has a left-aligned image (ESI_map.png) after the first paragraph of the lead, forcing the lead text and table of contents to funnel narrowly into the center of the page because of how it competes for space with the the right- and top-aligned infobox. Ick. —ExplorerCDT 12:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment moved to appropriate section per consistency with other image (Eastern Suburbs map). Looked too out of place in its original position. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 13:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In its new position it screws up the "Alignment section" with a similar funnelling effect, and causes stacking problems into the next section "History". —ExplorerCDT 13:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've moved the Bondi Junction image down into the history section. How about that? Harryboyles 13:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In keeping with the Law of Unintended Consequences, that just causes a "white space problem" in the Alignment section when using several common broswer and monitor settings.—ExplorerCDT 14:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What can we do to fix it then? A solution or some solutions would be helpful - I've tried the page on 3 different browsers (Mozilla, IE and Safari), and there doesn't appear to be a problem with the alignment of that section, so I don't know how I can fix this. JROBBO 01:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, it's a textbook stacking problem. Within several settings at a 1024x768 resolution it places a little bit more than 2-inch (6cm) swatch of white space after the subsection header for Illawarra and Cronulla Lines. Because at certain settings, the two left-aligned images stack on top of each other, and being both of them vertically are taller than their adjacent section text, it not only creates the white space, but the lower image pushes an inch and a half (4cm) into the "History" section. Suggestions: (1) You can move one of the maps to another section of the article (nothing in the MOS says an image must be right next to its relevant text) (2) You can combine the two images to make one map covering both rail lines, especially one that better shows its location in relation to Sydney and each other. While not objectionable with regard to the FAC, the map is low quality and doesn't do much to convey a better understanding of the railline.
Comment: You can try to fix it yourself and show us what you are talking about, ExplorerCDT. - Vicer 03:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, I've explained the problem adequately. Second, I have no intentions of becoming a contributor to this article, and implying that I should is smug. Third, I don't have the time to fix the issues that I feel are necessary to make this article worthy of inclusion at FA (i.e. the writing just isn't the quality of 1(a), still some glaring style, grammar issues...if someone just copyedited for subject-verb agreement it would improve the writing), I have barely enough time for the articles and things I worry about to pick up the slack on someone else's not-yet-FA-ready pet project. —ExplorerCDT 06:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't have time to fix up/write articles, but you have time to worry about this? I'm not trying to be rude, but I find it a bit odd. - Vicer 06:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not odd. It takes a lot to fix up this article, time I choose to apply to things I like applying them to, FAC, PR, writing my own articles. I have my priorities, you have yours. Don't ask me to do someone else's work. I don't need anyone else's cross to bear. —ExplorerCDT 08:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the second map; I'll add a single map at some stage. JROBBO 10:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just about all of them are removed now, except the ones in the lead and other ones which I thought were important. What "is relevant to the context" will be, after all, a subjective judgement in the end, but you're welcome to pick me up on any others you feel should be removed. JROBBO 10:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC) I've cleaned up the history section, rewritten it (including deleting a lot of passive voice), taken out all wikilinks in the references except for access dates. If you don't like this section still, can I ask that you find sentences that you don't like and tell me which ones; I honestly don't know how I can make this better and I'm already sick of general comments saying it's boring - they're not helpful at all. The subject matter may not be as interesting as some other articles, but that can't be helped - tell me where (specifically) I can improve my writing. I'm still figuring out how to fix the alignment and stopping patterns section. JROBBO 13:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC) For the information of NE2 & Mets501, I have now revamped the stations section - the pattern stops are gone, and are replaced with the distance from Central Station (the "zero point" of the rail network) and the date of opening of each station - although I didn't want to, I figured it's much more likely to survive any queries about notability if it's left this way. The stopping patterns section has been rewritten to include some historical information on the stopping patterns of trains and where trains have historically terminated. The replaceable fair use image has been deleted and replaced by a free mockup one which doesn't violate copyright. I'll now try to draw a rough map and fix the alignment section, which is the last bit of the article that needs redoing. JROBBO 11:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added maps, though their placement may need work. It would be nice if the infobox had a parameter for the map. --NE2 17:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I've come to understand how the pattern stops can be useful - how about a single column showing whether most trains serve the station? --NE2 00:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to add this, comparing the old table with the timetable, but I'm not sure if I got it right; there seem to be some patterns that don't fit the ones described in the article. --NE2 02:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You probably looked at the early morning, which is always weird because there are usually revenue (ie. passenger-carrying) services coming from the Maintenance Centres or stabling yards which have bizarre stopping patterns. A good idea is to look at the middle of the day, which will give you a better idea of what the actual patterns are. JROBBO 09:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
01:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC) I've done some rewriting of the alignment section; if anyone can do a better job please have a go at doing so. Fixed image sizes have also been removed, apart from the red dots which would look horrible if we made them any bigger. I think this clears up all the (reasonable) requests that have been made in opposition to this article. JROBBO 01:45, 28 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was nominated for featured article three times in under a month back in 2005 (most recent). I believe I've addressed all of the concerns from those candidacies, and the article recently had a peer review. The only thing that I've heard could use improvement is an expansion of the "Music and structure" section; I asked at WikiProject Hip Hop and at the peer review, but so far nobody's been able to suggest anything that could be added (I personally think the length is appropriate since the song has few instrumentals to discuss). If appropriate, the section can be merged with another. ShadowHalo 04:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I absolutely loathe this song. :) Here are some areas that need improvement:
It reached a peak position of number one in Australia and the United States... Perhaps "peak chart position" might be clearer.
What the heck is the Celebrity Deathmatch graf doing in the "Writing and inspiration" section?
During the early stages of the writing for Love. Angel. Music. Baby., Stefani had worked with The Neptunes. Really odd way to structure that sentence. Why not just "Stefani had worked with The Neptunes during the early stages..."? Also, "During the early stages of the writing for..." is really awkward, especially with those three prepositions.
In an attempt to search for inspiration... Did they attempt to search for inspiration, or just search for inspiration?
...several different reviewers began assuming its identity I don't think "assuming its identity" is the right phrase here.
In order to visualize the song's bridge... Yuck.
The video is complete following a close-up... Why not, "The video ends with a close-up..."?
a slender cameo appearance What's a "slender" cameo? "Appearance" is redundant. Gzkn 06:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually despise the song too. I wanted to work on this one to see how well I could approach this topic with NPOV. I've made most of the changes, but there are a few I'm not sure about. I agree that the section about parodies fits awkwardly where it is, but I'm not sure where to put it. Would it be best in the "Reception" section? If so, I could also then add a mention on Family Guy that would be completely trivial where the section is now. The only other thing is that I left the word "appearance" since IMHO the sentence sounds best that way; I don't think the phrase is redundant since "having a cameo" is really just a shortened, less formal way of saying "making a cameo appearance". If you really disagree, I'll make the change though. I'll try to go through and tidy some of the prose again to see if there's anything else that I missed before. ShadowHalo 07:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it'd probably be better in the "Reception" section, although it's not exactly the perfect section for it either. RE:cameo: Meh, it's not that big of a deal. I feel that "cameo appearance" is redundant because cameo is a noun, and the "appearance" is already implied. But again, not that big of a deal. Gzkn 08:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it to the reception section and added the reference to it on Family Guy; that it was mocked on Family Guy makes a much better lead-in next to some of the negative reviews that it received. Should "Reception" be split into "Critical response" and "Appearances in pop culture" (or something of the sort)? ShadowHalo 08:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure on that one...kind of torn. It might make sense, but "Appearances in pop culture" is quite trivia-ish, of which I'm no fan...I guess it's fine as is. Gzkn 01:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great article. Not too big of a fan unfortunately, although I do enjoy most of Pharrell's productions. — Tutmosis 15:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; good article in general, but I have concerns about omitted information. The nominator, on his or her user page, talks about having a preference for excluding information. Could you (the nominator) explain what sort of things you deliberately excluded from this article, if any, and preferably give examples? As an example of something that concerns me, on your user page you make a cute little comment about nobody caring how a song fared on TRL in Antarctica. And, looking at how TRL detail is treated in this article, it corresponds to that attitude: the article doesn't even mention what position the song reached (probably #1? If so, it should also mention how many days it spent at #1.), nor does it mention what day it debuted and what day it left the countdown; it just says the song stayed on the countdown for the maximum 50 days. What's more, what is there isn't even cited! (There appear to be a fair number of uncited things in the article.) I would like to see an explanation from the nominator about this stuff. Everyking 07:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, hadn't realized FAC's were so...intense. To clarify, I only mention excluding "excessive tables of charts...and chart trajectories" on my user page (per WP:CHARTS). The comment about TRL in Antarctica was meant as a joke after seeing articles that were mostly comprised of week-by-week song positions and TRL and iTunes positions from all different countries, the epitome of fancruft. When I began revamping this article, there wasn't any of that. However, I did remove one decent-sized section from the article (see diff) since it appeared to be a hoax and was completely unverifiable either way. I don't know what day it debuted (sometime in March I believe) and I don't have much time to work on it at the moment, but I'll add the information and references tomorrow afternoon/evening. Thanks for your comments. ShadowHalo 07:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you add that information, and make sure that everything in the article is cited, then I'll strike out my vote (and maybe switch to support). Everyking 08:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the information about its performance on TRL (with references), including premiere date, peak position, and retirement date. I also went through the chart performance section and referenced each sentence except for a few lead-in sentences that just serve as segues; most of them had references in the article, but the citations just weren't present. I'll see about finding references for the other video programs, but I doubt they exist since it's rare that anyone report on any of those charts; I'll probably end up removing them. I did, however, add some more information about its performance at the 2005 Video Music Awards and the aftermath. ShadowHalo 07:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I support now. Everyking 08:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object. It's a very good article, and much improved from the previous FAC, which is when I last read it closely. There are just a few things such as extraneous words that I feel need fixing:
"reached a peak chart position of number one" - how about "reached number one" or "peaked at number one"?
"went on to become" - how about "became"?
"Upon returning to the studio, Williams began to play Stefani his first solo album" - this implies Williams returned to the studio, but the previous sentence says it was Stefani who was leaving.
"Stefani understood that some of the fans of No Doubt would be upset with her solo effort" - I'm not comfortable with "understood" here as it implies it is a certainty that some of the fans would be disappointed. How about "believed"?
"The track ranked higher [on the Maxim list] than several other chart-topping singles such as Céline Dion's "My Heart Will Go On" (number three) and the Spice Girls' "Wannabe" (number five)." - why list these two out of the whole twenty? I think this implies a POV that these other songs were equally worthy candidates for the number-one spot.
"topped its component chart, the Billboard Pop 100 Airplay, for four weeks" - aaahh, component charts :). It's already established before this sentence that the single received huge amounts of airplay, so I don't feel this info is relevant.
Given that Canada isn't a major world music market, I think having an entire paragraph describing the single's chart performance there is a bit much.
"Although its UK success was limited, widespread airplay kept it in the top forty for an additional eleven weeks." - the MusicSquare reference doesn't support the airplay part.
"[Pharrell Williams] is present in the video, making a cameo appearance" - how about simply "makes a cameo in the video"?
There doesn't appear to be sources for the VH1 and MuchMusic statistics, although this isn't an important point.
The titles of all the non-U.S. charts end in "Singles Chart". Are you sure this is the official title for all of them? I'm concerned about misleading readers and possibly introducing inaccuracies; we wouldn't list the Billboard Hot 100 as "U.S. Singles Chart", for example, because there's more than one.
Is it necessary to include the Top 40 Adult Recurrents chart? If its position on that chart was significantly higher than the position on the Adult Top 40, I'd say it should be included, but that isn't the case here (the positions are the same).
Again, I think this is a very good article that is close to FA standard. Extraordinary Machine 22:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the changes with a few exceptions. I removed some of the unimportant info about its performance in Canada, but given that its relative popularity in the U.S. caused issues about Canadian copyright law, it seems appropriate to have a separate paragraph that has that information. I'm leaving the VH1/MuchMusic info in there just until I can find references; if I can't (very possible since they're less publicized), I'll remove them. I just want to check the formatting for the non-U.S. charts; would "<country> Top X Singles" be appropriate (with the occasional exception of, for example, Dutch Top 40)? I just don't want to have to go through all of those charts more than once. ShadowHalo 22:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found a reference for MuchMusic, but I removed the Yahoo! Music (I didn't even bother looking for a reference; I don't think anyone cares about it) along with the VH1 countdown, replacing it with VH1's year-end countdown. ShadowHalo 05:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edits and response. I meant whether the titles of the charts listed were the actual names of those charts; for example, as you said, the official title for the singles chart in the Netherlands is the Dutch Top 40, not the Dutch Singles Chart. Please make sure that they are all accurate. If there is no official title, I think leaving it as [Country] Singles Chart is fine. Thanks again! Extraordinary Machine 19:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I compared all the charts to the references as well as the Wikipedia pages about them, when applicable, and it looks like Dutch Top 40 was the only one that needed to be changed so far as I can tell. ShadowHalo 22:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for checking. I think I need to give the article another close look before I consider supporting, but for now I'm withdrawing my object. Thanks again. Extraordinary Machine 18:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: You've bitten off a lot here, and I'd object to the lifeless Music and structure section if I thought it could be feasibly improved upon. Thing is, I have no idea how that could be done. With that in mind, I support. Seegoon 23:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object An OK article, but not very extensive, and only 1 in 1310 of Wikipedia's entries are featured articles. If you give me 1310 articles, do you really think I'm gonna say that this is the best of all of them? On a side note, who spent so much time working on the article for such an unlistenably awful song as this one? Cheers. 2Pac 13:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be a little more specific as to which part of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria the article doesn't meet or, even better, how the article could be improved to meet the criteria? ShadowHalo 22:30, 27 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article has experimented great changes in the last couple of months. It's already a GA, it has received much attention from the LGBT wiki project (meriting an A-class rating), it has undergone peer review and two thorough copyeditings by different editors, including a final proofread. With almost 40 inline citations, I believe it is ready for FA now. Self-nomination. Raystorm 20:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(SEE BELOW)OBJECT. While there is a nice amount of citations so far, there are many assertions and statements that are unreferenced, and don't meet up to 1(c) Many of the current citations are not complete, lacking publishing/author information. Spanish language sources should be identified as being in Spanish (their titles while they may indicate Spanish content, don't explicitly warn the reader). Also, a couple of sections (e.g. Flaw and Opposition court challenges) are practically stub-length and are better incorporated into the article text rather than existing on their own. Per 2(b) I don't like the heirarchical structure of the sections, I think they're rather sloppy in their arrangement and narrative arc. The section divisions appear almost arbitrary. Also, all of the sections need to be better named. For example: Flaw doesn't mean anything to me, or succinctly convey what the section about. Marriage numbers should renamed to something like Statistics. The writing, per 1(a) is not brilliant or compelling, as it is rather choppy and in several areas reads like it was written by someone for whom English is not their primary language and/or that their grasp of English is minimally proficient. It needs a thorough copyedit and correction of many grammatical and orthographical errors (a "well-written" article, I believe, means we should use (e.g.) were not instead of contraction weren't as the contraction is rather informal and unprofessional, and from a linguistic point of view, colloquial). There are far too many one- and two-sentence paragraphs that need to be expanded or be incorporated into bigger paragraphs. I don't think we need an infobox in the section named Ratification of Law 13/2005 to summarize the flaw's promulgation and introduction dates, etc. I do not think it offers anything to the article. Further, I think the lead needs to be improved, per WP:LEAD and 2(a). Image captions need to be more captivating and better summaries of their pictures (per Wikipedia:Captions and 3). I think the lack of a succinct, captivating image caption for both of the map images detract from their usefulness. Lastly, remove the size/pixel parameters of the thumbnail images to accomodate user preferences per WP:MOS and WP:IUP. The placement of images also throws off the aesthetic balance of the article, and with a variety of several resolutions and user preferences causes stacking issues. On the plus side, this article covers a controversial topic and seems to be relatively stable and neutral meeting criteria 1(d) and 1(e).—ExplorerCDT 20:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I also think the Same-Sex Marriage template ({{SSM}}) at the top right corner of the article would be better served redesigned in a horizontal format and placed at the bottom of the article, and that the lead have an image showing protests, or a marriage ceremony, but that's only a personal aesthetic, and I posit it only as a suggestion, not a demand. That would draw readers like me into reading more. —ExplorerCDT 20:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you have issues with 1a (even though the article has been copyedited twice and proofread by members of the League of Copyeditors. I'll send it again and tell them their efforts were not appreciated here), 1c (which I find really hard to believe -could you please give specific examples of the 'many statements' that are unreferenced?), 2a (which can be easily fixed) and 2b ('sloppy' is really vague, but I'll see how this can be addressed. Be aware also that those 2 stub-like sections you mentioned will increase their lenght when the Costitutional challenge results are known. They will not remain stub-like for long). The rest can be easily addressed.
About the images...I'll try to find someone with more experience dealing with the issues you've raised, but frankly, I think there's a strong subjective element in the objections you raised. What is not captivating for you may be captivating for someone else. However, as I said I'll find someone to deal with this issue.
This article might become a FA or not. However, I'd like to ask for some minimal courtesy/respect when reviewing it. It definitely wouldn't have made it this far if written by editors whose grasp of English is minimally proficient. You just took the easy way -this article is about a Spanish law, it must have been solely written by Spaniards who barely speak English. That's neither true nor fair.
I'll address the changes asap. Cheers Raystorm 22:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REPLY: 1(a): I don't think it was adequately copyedited, as there are still glaring grammatical and orthographic problems throughout the entire text. 1(c). Look through the article and you'll find several paragraphs without a single citation, and several asserted facts which may be controversial or challenged. Would you prefer I tag each with a {{citation needed}}? 2(b). I don't think i'm being vague at all. images: neither do I think I'm being subjective, much less strongly so. the criteria says the prose must be brilliant and compelling. I established why I don't feel it is, and that captions should adequately summarize the image per the criteria I pointed you to, Wikipedia:Captions, which I also, sufficently established. I've provided you and this article all the due respect, and stated my critique of the article objectively. First, accusations of my being "subjective" and baseless attempts to ascribe that I acted with racist "motives" are uncalled for, and second, if you can't/won't/don't accept the criticism, then you ought not to have exposed yourself to it in the first place by nominating an article for FAC. We aren't a rubber stamp or a means of boosting an editor's self-esteem, nor should you expect a free pass. —ExplorerCDT 22:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REPLY #2: I added about a dozen {{citation needed}} tags to the article, per above. —ExplorerCDT 22:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment: The abundance of Spanish-language sources make it difficult for readers like me (who speak several other languages but not Spanish) or readers who only speak English to verify some of the cited material, violating the spirit of WP:V. After all, while this may be a Spain-related subject, this is the English Wikipedia. Please try to find comparable sources to verify this information that are accessible to those who do not speak Spanish, preferably in English. —ExplorerCDT 22:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In looking through the verifiability page, I see no requirement that the sources must be in English. In fact, it says clearly: Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation. This, to me, indicates that foreign citations are acceptable if English language citations are not available, or not of the same quality as the original language reference. Jeffpw 23:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
that's why i asked for them to "try to find some comparable sources" and only commented in this regard....not as a reason for my objection. —ExplorerCDT 23:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa whoa! Who said anything about racist comments or accusations? I merely commented your review, I thought I was allowed to address it. I've already undergone a peer review, accepting criticism and acting upon it is not an issue. The manner in which the criticsm is stated may be. I'm not editing an article to boost my self-esteem nor expect a free pass here. Can we concentrate on the article now instead of the editors? I said I'd address the issues pointed above. Cheers Raystorm 23:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: You wrote: You just took the easy way -this article is about a Spanish law, it must have been solely written by Spaniards who barely speak English. That's neither true nor fair. This is a light accusation of racism and a false attribution of motive, and such an ad hominem is wholly "uncalled for." I was focusing on the article, but you compelled me to respond when you loosely threw around seemingly racist accusations and proceeded to dismiss my constructive, criteria-based criticisms as "subjective"—implying that it justified your ignoring them (or passing them off to someone else). —ExplorerCDT 23:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I'm not discussing that anymore. If you believe I've offended you, I apologize. It certainly was not my intention. I made an assumption (not a racist accussation, I did not expect you to take it as such because I did not intend it as such), and so did you. Sorry. Let's move on. I've added all the references you asked for. Tried to find as many as possible in English, but some were just better in Spanish, or there simply were no English citations available. I'll tackle the sections next. Will merge the Flaw section, but I believe the Court one should remain as it is for now, until the additional info I mentioned before can be added. Does this make sense? Cheers Raystorm 00:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hard to believe that there are not any comparable English-language source materials available when this issue was well covered by the Associated Press, Reuters and UPI and major UK and US news outfits. —ExplorerCDT 07:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, it was covered by English sources. That's why, out of 49 refs, 25 are in English. However, the level of detail of some potential English sources was in quite a few cases very poor compared to Spanish ones. It was very hard to find English sources that commented the ratification process, for example, but there were more than enough about the approval of the law and even Vatican opposition. English sources are always the priority, but they're not always the best. Cheers and thanks for the feedback Raystorm 15:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I do think this is an excellent article, I must say I agree with Expplorer about the references. There are many paragraphs without refs. Given how much research you have done on this, I don';t think it should be very hard for you to add the refs requested. I see it has been copy edited since the last time I read it, so I think the prose is fine. I note from your talk page that a member of the LoC looked it over and couldn't find much to improve. And can we focus on the article itself, and not personalities, please? If you want to hash out differences, please take it to a talk page. Jeffpw 23:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
References have been added. Better now? Raystorm 23:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Citation issues seem to have been addressed. And I think the prose is not objectionable. Jeffpw 00:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So that's one editor saying there are prose issues and another that the prose is not objectionable and has been adequately addressed. What now? Wait for a third opinion? Raystorm 00:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for consensus to develop. FAC can sometimes take a few weeks, It's a lot different than GA. Jeffpw 00:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate answer: per WP:FAC instructions, you make a good faith effort to address all objections. Just because one reviewer didn't see an issue, doesn't mean it's not there. You can "wait for consensus to develop", but if you aren't addressing objections in the meantime, consensus is more likely to go against your article's candidacy. Arguing with good-faith reviewers doesn't often yield good results - it takes a lot of effort to help some articles get to FA status, and responding with good faith to reviewer's efforts to help you is the fastest way to get there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~You can see I'm trying to address all comments asap, so I'm not sure what you mean. If you have more comments about the article I'll be happy to hear them. I'm already fixing the refs per your request (see below). Cheers Raystorm 15:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only meant not to sit around and wait for consensus, since that could result in a negative outcome - I didn't agree with the advice Jeffpw was giving you, and wanted to make sure you knew to actively work on addressing valid objections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment sentences that could do with citations:
"The experts' opinions were diverse: some stated that gay adoption had no effect on a childs' development (except for perhaps a higher tolerance towards homosexuality)."
"This judge disagreed with his colleague’s decision and gave preference to the right of marriage over the fact that Argentine law did not allow same-sex marriage."
"According to the instructions provided by the Ministry of Justice (Dirección General de Registros y Notariado), Spanish Consulates abroad are entitled to carry the preliminary tramitation for a same-sex marriage."
"On 21 July, 2005, a judge from the city of Denia refused to issue a marriage licence to a lesbian couple."
"Children born within a lesbian marriage could not be legally recognized by the non-biological mother, who still had to undergo a time and resource consuming process of adoption."
The lead is also inadequate: it should sum up the entire article, but does not mention the legal flaw or marriage statistics. A little more history could be included as well.
I am not much of a prose writer, but I do feel there may be slight prose issues on reading the text. You may want to get one more copyeditor in just in case. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The references you asked for have been provided. I've already asked at the League of Copyeditors for more help with the article, and one member is already going over the article. Included a sentence about marriage statistics in the lead. Flaw section has been merged into history section. I've also reorganised the order of the sections. Cheers Raystorm 02:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied that this article is fully referenced, so good job there. Fix the lead to reflect the article's contents, and change this sentence "With the final approval of the law on 2 July — including royal assent and publication in the Boletín Oficial del Estado — Spain became the third country in the world to formally legalise same-sex marriages nationwide, after the Netherlands and Belgium." into something that you could read aloud without problems, and I'll support. For future articles, what you may find helpful is to print off a hard copy of the article and read it aloud to yourself, correcting it wherever you find it difficult to read smoothly. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on the lead. I'll change that sentence right now. And I appreciate your advice, but I haven't got access to a printer. :-) Cheers Raystorm 19:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does it look better now? Raystorm 20:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is OK. As you add more to the article, don't forget to update the lead though! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comoment refs 6 and 52 need proper formatting. All refs not in English should use the "language=Spanish" parameter.Rlevse 03:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same sex marriages were illegal in Autonomous Communities, as only the State has the power to legislate marriage in Spain. Awkward tension between "were" and "has".
...that allowed unmarried couples of any sex to enjoy some local benefits Such as? What were these local benefits?
he would endorse the law that was being debated in the Cortes Generales Isn't text that is being debated not yet a law? Isn't "bill" the more appropriate word here?
...who refused to sign the Belgian law on abortion Please explain. Belgian law banning abortion? Legalizing abortion?
The king of Spain would later give his Royal Assent to the law. Date?
owing to both judges' lack of standing to file them How come? Quite vague.
The conservativePeople's Party decided to initiate a separate constitutional challenge, causing divisions within the party. When? What's the status?
This marriage would be valid according to Spanish law, but did not imply automatic validity according to the foreigner's national law. A bit confusing...is this trying to say that the marriage would not be automatically valid in the foreigner's country? If so, it needs rewording for clarity.
In the future, please avoid stuff like: [[October 1|1 October]]. This breaks the date formatting preferences of users. Just leave it as October 1 or 1 October.
What's a "tramitation"?
At least one member of the couple must be a Spanish citizen, resident in the Consular demarcation. Huh?
Two non-resident foreigners cannot marry in Spain Does this mean that resident foreigners can?
I don't see any particular need for the discussion of Canada, Belgium, and the Netherlands at the end of the "Residency issues" section.
Please clean up your references. I spotted the odd extra brackets here and there. Also, although not required, since you're using citation templates, it might be best to use the "language" parameter to indicate sources in Spanish. Gzkn 03:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of your concerns have been addressed now. The refs I fixed while you finished copyediting the article, I even had a conflic edit with you. :)
Refs could use {{es_icon}} (in Spanish) I'll read the Spanish sources for verifiability if/when the referencing issues are cleaned up and the article is copyedited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object 1c and 1a. (a few 1b concerns remain) Refs use inconsistent date formats, and news sources aren't correctly formatted (see examples at WP:CITET). Authors aren't identified on all news sources (examples [5][6][7]) - please see WP:CITET for correct formatting on news sources, including italicized name on newspaper. Some links are dead (example La sentencia que concede la adopción a una pareja de lesbianas desata un intenso debate social - and others). Please use a consistent format throughout refs, including dates. Once refs are cleaned up, I will read sources for WP:V. Also, prose issues: for example, is Autonomous communities of Spain capitalized or not? (Pls be consistent.) What does "There are several marriage statistics available up to the first year of the law" add to the lead? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll address your concerns asap. The dead link only had a bug, it's fixed now. The marriage statistics sentence makes mention to its corresponing section. Another editor requested that some mention of it be made at the lead. Raystorm 04:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More - per WP:MOS, non-English terms should be italicized (e.g.; Instituto Opina). Is Minister of Justice capitalized or not (use is not consistent). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed. Raystorm 04:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by addressed - the marriage statistics sentence still has no context in the lead, autonomous communities is sometimes capitalized, sometimes not, haven't checked everything else. By the way, quotes are not italicized (see WP:MOS) - pls fix. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the specific comment under which I had signed. I need time to address everything. Raystorm 04:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, started through your refs as you said they were addressed: authors are still not added on news sources, which are not correctly formatted. (Please see WP:CITE or WP:CITET for samples.) Your second reference listed is incorrect - it's the St. Petersburg Times. I'll check back in a few days to see if refs are cleaned up, and then read the article and verify sources. Please pick a consistent date format on your references and stick with it, add authors on all news sources, and use a correct and consistent style for biblio sources - if your links go dead, we need to be able to find your sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I failed to mention that the reason your news sources are incorrectly formatted is that, while cite web formats websources correctly, cite news should be used for news sources like El Mundo, El Pais, BBC, etc. Converting them (and adding author when available) will solve the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've already began addressing that problem. Might take me a few days to go through all the refs checking them though. Please be patient. Cheers Raystorm 14:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Back for a second look
The "infobox" at the top of the article isn't an infobox per se, and goes against WP:GTL - it's only a collection of See also links. It should be converted to a horizontal See also template to go at the bottom (as other See also templates do), since it is nothing more than a See also collection. It doesn't seem to be functioning as most infoboxes do, which give information other than See also links; it has not a single entry that isn't a See also link. The infobox in the section, Ratification of Law 13/2005, should be at the top of the article, since it is an infobox pertaining to this article, while the See also "infobox" should be converted to a horizontal See also template, so it can be used according to GTL, at the bottom of relevant articles. The width on the Legislation infobox could be also less - these large boxes are taking over Wiki. (Law and Supreme Court Projects have standard infoboxes - see Roe v. Wade - has this article been run through WikiProject Law to make sure it meets all guidelines (see 2 at WP:WIAFA).
I ran through a small sampling of the refs and am still finding inconsistencies and missing info - can you have a look at the changes I made, and run through the rest to double check? (I suspect that {{es_icon}} doesn't work in cite news, and has to be added manually at the end of the cite.) Date formats should be consistent, author names given when available, etc. (Just a note - not an objection - Yahoo news sources tend to go dead quickly, so if you can find an alternate source now it will help in the long run.)
I'm pretty sure Cortes Generales (and all foreign phrases) are supposed to be italicized, but check WP:MOS
This statement seems to need more context (which unfortunately doesn't seem to be available in the sources given):
In March 2006, Pedro Zerolo, a senior government official, announced that more than 1,000 same-sex couples had married. Eight hundred marriages were recorded in the fully computerized areas (about half the country) and at least 200 were estimated in the rest of the country. Zerolo also said that 10% of all marriages in Spain were between same-sex couples.
The time frame on the marriages he's discussing isn't at all clear in the source. Did he announce that in March, or did he mean that there were 1,000 marriages during the month of March? If so, that seems incredibly low - which portion of the country is he discussing? Without some context, the statement may be biased. Ten % of all marriages during what time frame and in what part of the country? Right after the law passed, or on an ongoing basis?
The article structure and references are much improved: I'll print the article and read it tonight, noting that ce concerns are still raised above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I've asked for help changing the infoboxes' templates (I don't know how to do that). Curiously, I did what you said (put the legislation infobox at the top and the LGBT one more at the bottom), but I was asked at peer review to change it back, because it was visually more pleasing.
Yikes, since someone actually asked for it, I'm un-striking my comment above, so the reasoning for not including a large See also list in the infobox-lead is legible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the date formats so they were consistent. Were they not? I'll add manually the es icon. I still have refs to go through, I gave priority to newspaper ones. And yeah, yahoo is kind of a bother, but I don't mind checking periodically those links. I'll try to find alternate sources though.
I've italicized foreign phrases. They escaped my notice because they were wiki linked. :)
Now, the Zerolo source. I'm not too sure about what you mean. The source is dated 2 March2006. So it cannot mean only the month of March. In fact, the first line of the article is: Since same-sex marriage became legal in Spain last year more than 1,000 gay and lesbian couples have wed a high-ranking government official said Thursday. Which means exactly that, since the law was passed until the last day they had figures for (probably, some day in the end of February). Now, the law became effective in July 32005. 1,000 marriages may not seem like a high number (from July to March, not included), but you gotta take into account that getting the paperwork ready a marriage (any marriage) takes about 3 months (I'll never find a source for this statement, but it's generally true). There were several marriages that were performed really soon after the law was passed, true. We had a really interesting debate about this topic in the articles' talk page. Why should there be high figures shortly after the law was passed? People like to plan their weddings, get everything ready, etc. There's no reason to believe this won't be true for homosexuals. In fact, I expected there'd be a significant increase beginning June 2006 -simply because people like to get married in Summer. These are social conditions that aren't easily (or accurately) predicted.
Err, I digress. :) Sorry. Let's see, you ask if he means all of Spain or only some parts. Well, he means 800 in the areas that are computerized, and 200 estimated marriages in the areas that are not. In the previous sentence there's a source which includes a list of places that are computerized. We're talking about half of the country, and this is mentioned in the article. 10% in those areas since the law was passed until the last day in February they had data for, and what they estimate (based in their data) from the areas that are not computerized. To be honest, I think it's pretty clear (in the article, not here!), but I'll add an extra line just in case.
Cheers and thanks for your feedback. Raystorm 22:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Rereading the paragraph, I think I can understand why the 10% sentence might be a bit confusing. I'll change it for something more clear. The infoboxes have been changed, btw. Cheers Raystorm 22:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS2: I can't believe this. I changed the date formats in the refs, and now they've changed back? Sigh. I'll change them again. Raystorm 22:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I get it. I know what happened. It's the difference between adding [[ ]] to the dates or not. Okay. I can fix it quick enough. Raystorm 22:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much better on the infobox and template - kudos for getting it done so fast - I worry about the precedents set with some of the gynormous new confangled infoboxes, and the new version looks quite good and conforms better with guidelines. Ack - on the 1,000 issue, I completely misread the sentence as saying 1,000 total marriages, which I thought was very strange (low). Glad you understand the dates now - the cite templates are inconsistent and can be very frustrating. I printed the article to read, but I think I'll wait until you've finished your changes and reprint. I'm giving up on the Spanish language icon - sometimes they work, sometimes they don't, it's Greek to me, not worth worrying about <grrrr ...> Dates now look consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some copyediting, and will now be prepared to support the article if the third paragraph of the lead is expanded a bit more (one or two sentences - not crazy about a two-sentence para in the lead, and there is more that can be said), and if Opabinia's concerns have been met. It's looking good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded a bit the third paragraph of the lead. Better now? I believe Opabinia's concers have been met, but I'm still waiting for his/her comments regarding the changes (and I don't feel too confortable knocking on his/her talkpage to prod him/her to check it out). Aside from that, a tiny curious question: I saw you struck out the infoboxes concern the other day, but now it's been unstruck again. Is this an oversight, or you want me to fiddle with the infoboxes further? :) Thanks for the copyediting, btw! Cheers Raystorm 12:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Ahh, I've read why you unstruck that comment. Okay then (sorry, I failed to see it among the discussion). :) Raystorm 12:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure Opabinia would be fine with you leaving her a note - it's common to ask Objectors to re-visit after you've addressed concerns, and it's hard for active reviewers to remember everything they need to re-visit. After reading the Spanish wiki article, I left a 1b (comprehensive) list of questions on your talk page - after you review those issues, and Opabinia's, I'll be a Support: IMO, the article now meets 1a and 1c. You might even ask Explorer to have another look now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I investigated further and found there is no specific policy against using navigational templates at the top of the article. I still believe the way the article is currently structured is better (infobox at top, navigation of See also article links horizontally at bottom), but it would not be the basis for an object. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few changes as per your suggestions, you can check them at the article's history. Raystorm 17:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments while I'm not as negative on the prose as ExplorerCDT, this really does need another copyedit, ideally by someone familiar with the material. I corrected an obvious typo, but there's awkward writing in the lead ("Unlike Canada, foreigners...", "...has not been devoid of conflict"), and similar issues in the text itself ("Although it admitted that the existing discrimination...", where "it" is ambiguous between the bill and the Consejo de Estado). A subject I'm not getting a good sense of, as a reader unfamiliar with the history, is how a heavily Catholic country became the third to legalize same-sex marriage; were there no religious objections? The "Reactions" section details polls and such but doesn't get into much detail on the arguments made by the opposition. It'd be particularly worthwhile to cover opposition rationales or organizations that are unique to Spain. All of that said, allow me to strongly disagree that sources ought to be predominantly in English in an article about Spanish law; English sources or links to translations are nice, but by no means necessary. (Noting which sources are Spanish would be useful, however.) Opabinia regalis 05:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has just been copyedited, the user that did so even made some comments above. I'm not sure what you mean about there not being religious objections: it is mentioned in the reactions section the Church opposed the measure, but I'll see if I can expand that a bit. There were not that many arguments made by the opposition as you may think: mainly two -the weakening of the term marriage and concern for children adopted by gays, which are mentioned. Nonetheless, I'll see if I can expand that a bit more too. The sources that are in Spanish have a language tag attached. Thanks for your feedback, I'll address everything asap. Cheers Raystorm 14:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the edit history, my typo fix came after the copyeditor's changes, so the examples I pointed out were still problematic. (On looking again, I also note: "The veto override supposed its definite approval as law" - supposed? I don't think that's what you mean here.) I should've been more specific in the religious objections comment - if this were in the US, I would expect more than a short paragraph on what the Pope said. (Maybe dioceses have more independence in the US, but it seems like local bishops are always sounding off about something.) I would also expect local/grassroots type organizations to have formed in support or opposition, and I don't see that - were there any? Were they notable? What I'm not getting a sense of is how, in a country that is (perceived as) heavily Catholic, a measure strongly opposed by Catholic authorities would be supported by 60ish% of the population. Did any of these polls include reasons offered by respondents? Opabinia regalis 02:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a new paragraph that offers an explanation given by sociologists. I'll research a bit more to see if I can expand it further, because it seems a bit simple, but maybe there really isn't much more to the issue than unstoppable modernisation :-) I'll keep looking. I'm going to add per your request some info about a notable local org that opposed the law and seemed to congregate (along the Church) the opposition. Cheers Raystorm 14:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How does it look now? Raystorm 15:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support with a couple of minor leftover quibbles, mostly covered by skipping past all of this stuff below and scrolling down to the useful part posted by Yomangani. Please try another phrase for 'not devoid of conflict', which doesn't really say anything (what political process is devoid of conflict?). Also, I know this was partly in response to my comment above, but the comment about how many Spaniards go to mass sounds a bit tangential. Finally, I'm ever-so-glad the infobox got rearranged, but consider prevailing upon the related wikiproject(s) to simplify it a bit; it's very large and garishly colored. (Oh, and I never mind knocking on my talk page, as long as you don't bring a battering ram ;) Opabinia regalis 02:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll see what I can do about the 'devoid of conflict' phrase, and I'll struck out the mass sentence. Thanks for your feedback and support :-)
Support - article has been improved to FA standard in my opinion. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still working on 1b, here are some possibilities that might be mentioned (and some sources that may help replace some of the Spanish-language sources):
Washington Post - Popular Party spokesperson denied the opportunity to address Parliament following surprise speech by Prime Minister Zapatero and more on the Pope's stance could be covered: [8]
BBC - Zapatero campaigned to "remove what he called the Church's undeniable advantages and create a secular state with streamlined divorce and relaxations in abortion law." Other explanations for lack of Catholic following in Spain from BBC: "The Church's influence on Spaniards has declined precipitously since the death in 1975 of the dictator General Francisco Franco. His regime was closely linked to the Church. Opinion polls suggest that nearly half of Spaniards now almost never go to mass."
More explanation from BBC on Catholic church influence and social trends: "The Roman Catholic Church wields great influence in Spain, but the BBC's Katya Adler in Madrid says that since the Madrid bomb attacks in March 2004, Spaniards want unity among their people more than anything. " and more context: "The new legislation is one of a series of social reforms, including faster divorce proceedings, being introduced by Spain's socialist government, led by Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero."
This CNN source says Spanish laws is liberal among other countries - also English-language source for first wedding. NYT says Canada is as liberal - this source is already used, but some context could be given of how Spain's law compares to others.
Since there are numerous English-language sources available (which largely say the same thing the Spanish sources say), it may be possible to replace some, per WP:V policy which states preference for English-language sources when available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there:
I've added the BBC explanation about Franco and the church. It's very good. I don't think the one from Adler should be added though: it seems like an opinion from the reporter. A bill isn't approved for the sake of unity, and in fact this law generated quite the stir as can be seen from the demonstrations it provoked. Frankly, I think the March 11 explanation is extremely weak. Spaniards have always had the problem of unity (Catalonia, Basque Country) and have always wanted unity. It's not something new as the article seems to suggest.
I don't get the 'most liberal' thing. The idea is that the law makes gay and straight civil marriage the same. If other countries have approved gay civil marriage it should be the same as the straight one, right? Unless Spaniards have more rights in civil marriages than other countries, this law isn't most liberal than the others. If 'most liberal' refers to a comparison with countries that have not approved gay marriage, well, then yes it's pretty liberal, but that's obvious right? And the main difference is the possibility of adoption by same-sex couples, which is mentioned in the article.
I changed the Spanish source for the first gay wedding for the English one. Added more on Vatican's position using an English source that was already in the article. Added the PP denied reply sentence to ratification so it goes with the flow of the article, like the result?
Thank you very much for providing these references. I really appreciate it. :-) Tell me how you think the article looks now ok? Cheers Raystorm 10:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, article is much improved from the original iteration I saw when this was introduced on FAC. All significant objections I've read above appear to have been addressed; there shouldn't be a problem with Spanish-language sources. (Though English-language sources are obviously preferred, it's not something I think is worth objecting over.) {{Same-sex marriage}} is hideous, but that's not really relevant. —Cuiviénen 05:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, struck my object above. All referencing and prose issues addressed, and additional material added as needed to address comprehensiveness. (Now you can go show them how to properly reference an article on the Spanish wiki :-) Nice work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm still pissed off that when I said something, User:Raystorm tried to make every excuse to avoid my suggestions, comments and criticisms, going to the extent of stubbornly brushing them off as if they weren't valid. At least the article's been fixed adequately, and for that I'll support it....but I do so completely unhappy with my experience in having to fight hand-tooth-and-nail to convince the nominator, User:Raystorm to take care of valid, actionable issues, while watching him/her bend over backwards for others who asked for the very same things. —ExplorerCDT 13:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly think that is the case. Some of your requests were not as easy to address as later comments, and drumming up copy-editors is difficult and time-consuming. Yomanganitalk 15:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Raystorm asked me to respond to this. I understood your concern early on, Explorer, and I even commented to Raystorm about the tone of initial responses to reviewers. I told Raystorm that, based on the early tone, I had considered not reviewing the article - but I decided I really should, considering I speak Spanish and could verify the sources. Raystorm was also advised by another editor to "wait for consensus to develop" rather than to act on concerns; that advice troubled me, and I posted a note above saying I disagreed - that it's important to address concerns as they arise. Further, we often have situations of editors being told that FAC "is a bitch", so they may naturally be defensive. After these clarifying comments, the tone completely improved, and work got underway. I believe Raystorm then began to address all concerns, aggressively, and thoroughly - perhaps you're still (logically) smarting from the tone of the initial exchanges, as you were the first to comment? After other reviewers got involved, I don't think Raystorm fought "tooth and nail"; rather was cooperative. (And I've seen tooth and nail wikilawyering via verbosity to avoid addressing concerns - look down a few reviews. I usually don't trouble going back to those: if a candidate is proud of a star gleaned via bullying and fan support, so be it :-) FAC can be hard on first-timers, and it can be hard on reviewers as well; it helps if we all remember that articles improve with a give and take. Reviewers are more likely to have "been there, done that", so I believe more burden is upon us to realize what a first-time nominator may be going through. Specifically - in this case - the article had not had outside peer review, and that is always likely to be problematic. The only peer review input came from two Project members, who supported the article. So, after addressing peer review concerns, Raystorm may have felt unjustly under fire, and may have felt the article was ready. I still wish we had stronger instructions here regarding Project member support, as I see too many articles promoted based entirely on fan support, and that's a problem. I would not be proud to be the "owner" of an FA whose only support came from fans or Project members - outside input and evaluation is important. Anyway, the lack of other input at peer review is not Raystorm's fault, and it's not surprising if the early reaction may have led to defensiveness. I hope you two will both be understanding of each other and the process, and be proud of the end result. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's no excuse for User:Raystorm to be the most stubborn resister by far I've experienced in my time reviewing on PR and FAC, and while I don't "smart" from the exchange, I am frustrated simply in that the arrogant presumption User:Raystorm exhibited is among the worst bad faith I've encountered on Wikipedia...especially since anyone who reviews here at length (offering more than the "I like it crowd") usually knows what they're talking about, and it's only to improve the article. Writing off his/her resistence as just the signs of a first time FAC nominator is not an excuse. —ExplorerCDT 20:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, Explorer, her initial resistance didn't remotely compare to some of what I've seen at FAC from some extremely arrogant nominators who argue and wikilawyer every point. Well, anyway, I just wanted to give another point of view. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"the article had not had outside peer review" Excuse me, but whose fault was that? The SSM in Spain peer review was listed on the normal peer review, but no-one else bothered to answer it. If we hadn't reviewed it ourselves, likely Raystorm would not have got replies at all - how many "normal" peer reviews have editors reviewing them right now? My last peer review took six days to get a review and only because I went and kicked up a fuss on the talkpage. If the projects don't do it, no-one else will, so I don't think you can act like we're being possessive and crap. I resent the implication that because I'm an LGBT project member, somehow my input is less valuable the yours. The truth is, I don't give a damn about reference formatting (as you well know from my Latter Days FAC), so unsurprisingly I didn't hold out on my support as long as you did. FAC is dominated by people who hold standards that are far in excess of the actual guidelines and many have no concept of politeness. I hate having to go through FACs because of them, but everyone just seems to accept it as being "tough". It's not tough, it's abusive and frankly I am shocked that you can try and blame hard-working WikiProject members for people trying to avoid it by votestacking. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall saying anything was anyone's fault; no need to inflame this FAC, Dev920, I was trying to calm it down. So much for that idea. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing me latently of holding LGBT Project membership against you (which I've never done) is almost as bad as Raystorm's latent smack that I was acting with a racist motive when I posited (per policy) that he try to find English sources that were comparable if not better than Spanish sources since this was the English Wikipedia (and he did). Your tone seems to avoid the issues at hand and instead want to paint FAC reviewers as evil just because they might treat you a bit harshly. FA has standards. If you don't want to bring an article up to standards, then you shouldn't consider bringing an article for consideration to include in FA. Just because you worked hard on something does not in any way shape or form mean you get a rubber stamp or a gold star. And saying that people are too harsh or abusive when they're just making reasonable recommendations based on policies, guidelines, and other style instructions or saying that some reviewers demands that exceed the standards is usually the rallying cry of people who want to get by through minimal effort. That was the case here. If we gave you accolades just for trying when you bring things to FAC, FA would be as much a joke as GA is now...where they pass anything, even the most shoddy work. Standards exist for a reason, and it's only natural that they'd be high around here. Only FAC nominators often don't have thick skins and are over-sensitive with their pet projects. —ExplorerCDT 21:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to Sandy's comments, not yours. If you think that FAC reviewers are not excessively harsh in their comments at times, than you clearly aren't reading them. It's not about standards, it's about courtesy - I'm going to address a reviewer's comments however they're phrased, why say "The film looks like right trash. ... Can someone tell me why such a story is worth telling in dissociation from the film itself? Is this "among our best"?" Frankly, what the fuck did that have to do with my FAC? Did that help its chances, or tell me where I was going wrong? No. I don't expect molly-coddling at FAC, but people taking pride in being mean or harsh is wrong. And your precious standards are, as I have said before, are higher than anything you will find in WP:WIAFA. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I stick to the letter of WP:WIAFA and its collateral policies. No lower. Strict construction. I take pride in keeping the standards where they should be...strict construction of the criteria, policies and guidelines as written. Characterising someone's application of the criteria as "your precious standards" is just sour grapes and being jaded...and in the meanwhile forgetting that we're seeking to improve articles that users think deserve to be part of the image Wikipedia shows to the world. —ExplorerCDT 21:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well done for proving my point exactly. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for proving mine. —ExplorerCDT 21:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are some minor points that can be quickly cleared up but which don't merit an objection in my opinion. It would still benefit from another copy-edit and there are some odd or unreferenced statements:
The ratification of this law has not been devoid of conflict, despite strong support from Spaniards - suggests to me that all Spaniards strongly support it. Perhaps a qualifier would help here.
The whole paragraph about adoption seems to have the wrong subject: ...non-biological mother to recognize children born within a lesbian marriage. Shouldn't it be ...non-biological mother to be recognized as the parent of children born within a lesbian marriage or something similar? I would assume the law recognizes the parent rather than the parent recognizing the child.
Gay rights supporters argued that while the Catholic Church also formally opposed opposite-sex, non-religious marriage, its opposition was not as vocal; for example, the Church did not object to the marriage of Felipe, Prince of Asturias to Letizia Ortiz, who had divorced from a previous civil marriage. - no reference, the example given is not an example of the preceding statement (it is an example of remarriage of a divorcee not of opposing non-religious marriage), and "had divorced from a previous civil marriage" sounds clunky.
Two non-resident foreigners cannot marry in Spain, as at least one of the partners must be a Spanish citizen; two resident foreigners can do so. One sentence paragraph, and yuck. Yomanganitalk 15:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a qualifier to the support sentence, the adoption sentence is actually right (in Spanish law the non-biological parent has to recognize the child as his/her own, and no further adoption paperwork is required), and I eliminated the one sentence paragraph. I'll see what I can do with the church sentence. Thanks for your feedback and support :-) Raystorm 10:41, 31 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
All right, you've got me, I'm totally desperate to get this one featured, and this time I really, really think it has to pass :)) I say every time that I believe it covers all requirements, and then I develop it even further, so it seems nothing can ever be absolutely complete and perfect, but I hope it's pretty close to perfect this time.
addressed concerns about the number and variety of references by more than tripling the number of footnotes (from 23 to 67 71) and almost doubling the number of main references (6 to 10). Web-available refs have been added. This is in response to the concerns of Savidan (oppose vote) and Rlevse (comment).
added comprehensive new section ("Culture and religion") covering that sphere of Ivan Alexander's rule, addressing the comprehensiveness concerns voiced by Hurricanehink (oppose vote). Abundance of refs, of course.
"Family" section made an infobox, content not duplicated in the main infobox now. No family red links. Fixed the problems Smurrayinchester spotted (comment).
split a "Rise of Serbia and the Ottoman threat" section from "Relations with the Byzantine Empire", which was too long and not quite accurate
some minor stuff like "See also" additions, further copyediting (British English instead of some American English word forms), etc.
Support, an excellent and very informative article. I can no longer see any areas for improvement, and the map is brilliant. A few references appear to be missing (in Bulgarian) tags, but other than that, I can't see any formating issues either. Laïka 17:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks good, --Vanka5 17:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support the article looks very good, with important and interesting information, nice pictures and map of the Empire. Great work : ) : ) : ) --Gligan 18:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good job, well done!:) and very informative article, by the way Hectorian 19:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Is there any estimate when he was born, or how old he was when he took reign? There are a few redlinks in the infobox. Are they absolutely necessary, and if they are, shouldn't they have articles? For an article of that length, the lede should be longer. Generally, phrases in parenthesis should be avoided, IMO, as it doesn't seem like compelling prose. The two examples I am referring to are "(therefore, Ivan Alexander was his nephew)" and "(the original one being the rule of Simeon the Great)". Try rewriting so it doesn't need them. It seems a bit sudden for his rise to become an emperor. Is it supposed to seem that sudden? "...probably as a supporter of the claims" Probably isn't a good word to use. Is it of someone's opinion that he was? Try rewording. A few other places in the article don't seem particularly well-written; "called his bluff" and "Here his troops were defeated" (the reader is not at that location, should be there) for example. Co-rulers is pretty short. Should that be merged with Early Rule and placed in the appropriate place? Internal stability problems is short, as well. Another lookthrough by a copyeditor would be nice. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the detailed comment! I've addressed the one-paragraph sections issue and removed the parentheses in these two occasions, tried to reword the "called his bluff" thing and substituted "here" with "there". In addition, I've expanded the lead section somewhat (but enough to divide it into three paragraphs).
We don't have particularly much information about medieval Bulgarian rulers as to know if his accession really was so sudden. It may well not have been unexpected, because we know he was of royal descent, but we can only presume that. No contemporary source mentions a date or place of birth, although we can guess it was around the turn of the century — he ruled until 1371. This means he must have been crowned when he was still relatively young, but again, this is not backed by any sources from the period.
As for "probably", this is according to the source. Would it really be necessary to reword as: "probably as a supporter of the claims of his deposed nephew Ivan Stefan, according to John Fine"?, or perhaps add a footnote after "probably" with "According to Fine, Late Medieval Balkans, 274"? :* A copyedit... I've checked the article several times myself and I've used both Microsoft Word's and an online spellchecker, and it all seems fine. Where can I request a manual copyedit by another user? Todor→Bozhinov 19:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I merged the first two paragraphs in the lede again. Looking at it again in relation to the article, its length is good. Given the time period, the article looks good, enough for me to Support. Not sure who could copyedit, but I suppose those things are fairly minor. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looks good. One minor point, though: can the "See also" section be eliminated? It shouldn't be too difficult to work those links into the body of the text. Kirill Lokshin 20:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about that too, whether the section was actually of use. I incorporated some of the links using {{see also}} in the other sections, and removed the others (which have already been linked from the text). Todor→Bozhinov 21:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: in your book citations, please insert "p." and "pp." prefixes before page numbers and page ranges, respectively. This will make your citations unambiguous; the reader will see that you're referring to page numbers, and not to chapters, years, etc. --Plek 23:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeall concerns addressed, see below, Ambiguous, unclear or confusing in too many places.
Too much sourcing of the summarized lead. Since there is thorough disagreement on this general topic (see Wikipedia talk:Lead section), I'll retract this if there are opposing opinions with relevant arguments.
Are the diverging transliteration Petritsa/Petrica etc. linked to specific transliteration schemes? Specifying which ones seems pertinent.
"This precipitated a succession crisis exacerbated by an invasion of the Byzantines."—This had me much confused, since there is no clear reason for it. Although Ivan Stephen of Bulgaria sheds some light on this... sudden and unexplained development, it also contradict the article we are discussing.
I think the problem is that "succession crisis" implies that the king actually died, which is said not to be the case in the very next sentence. Wouldn't that Succession crisis rather stem from the coup d'état, whose sources are then the byzantine relations and invasion?.
"The threat from Serbia was neutralized by the deposition of Stefan Uroš III Dečanski by his son Stefan Uroš IV Dušan in 1331."—It is not clear how Alexander had a hand into this, if at all.
"The contested cities surrendered to Ivan Alexander"—I thought they were disagreeing over "Bulgarian northeastern Thrace"?
"managed to see through his bluff"—What bluff? Up to then, there is no indication that Alexander is bluffing.
"Stability problems and external conflicts" as a header name does not make it clear enough that it continues the previous' sections historical progression.
The first paragraph under "Rise of Serbia and the Ottoman threat" invert the chronological sequence and is thus very confusing.
"Emperor John VI Kantakouzenos had realized the danger posed by the introduction of his Turkish (by now mostly Ottoman) allies across the straits into the Balkan Peninsula"—Like others already mentioned, this sentence lacks context not to come as a confusing statement.
Theodora of Wallachia should have been mentioned at least as early as her father. And her article should be linked on its first instance (i.e., in "Stability problems and external conflicts")
discussed further below
Similarly, Sarah (Theodora) should be linked in the text, not only the side box (which is probably a bad idea of itself.
The last factlet under "Culture and religion" seems out of place, because the section does not appear to be written in a "legacy" outlook.
Awkward or ambiguous writing:
"rebelled in Vidin, probably as a supporter of the claims of his deposed nephew Ivan Stefan." this phrasing is awkward.
Michael Asen IV is mentioned as co-emperor before his crowning is mentioned. This is confusing.
" There his troops were defeated twice by Turkish allies of the Byzantines."—"there" being Adrianople, right? Which allies? Was Umur Beg involved?
"the Byzantine Empire was plunged into a second protracted civil war"—Since it's the first civil war mentioned in the article, the sentence should be reworded for clarity ("its second civil war since [...]"), or the word removed.
"The successes of Ivan Alexander began to unravel"—This use of "unravel" is ambiguous. It could justas much means "disentangle" as "disintegrate".
"Ivan Alexander's control was hardly stronger over other powerful vassals, like the rulers of Wallachia and Dobruja, who carried out their own relations with foreign powers."—Other than his son, or other than himself?
"Bulgaria fell prey to the aspirations of the Angevin king Louis I of Hungary. The king of Hungary annexed Moravia"—Unneeded repetition. "Louis annexed Moravia"
"In the meantime Bulgarians and Byzantines had clashed again in 1364, and when Emperor John V Palaiologos was returning from his trip through the west, the irate Bulgarians refused to let him pass through Bulgaria in 1366."—Wrong verb tense of "pass", and poor placement of "in 1366."
Discussed below
"religous prosperity" means nothing.
"Donor's deeds of Ivan Alexander evidence that the monasteries of the Holy Mother of God Eleoussa and St Nicholas in Nesebǎr were reconstructed during the time"—Which time? "that period" is probably the expression you want.
"as was the St Nicholas monastery near Pernik according to a Hilandar monastery deed, among others."—this "amongst others" refers back to the monastery deed, not the monasteries. Reformulation is needed.
"Tthe Dragalevci and Kilifarevo monasteries was also [...][[Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria# note-delev|]] Literary activity also flourished [...]"—"Also" is used twice in as many sentences
"such as the Middle Bulgarian translation of the Manasses Chronicle (1344–1345), nowadays preserved in the Vatican Secret Archives in Rome" is it the Chronicle or its translation that are kept at the Vatican? Was the Chronicle or its translation written in 1344–1345? (as is, it's the chronicle) And these semicolons are totally superfluous; the list elements are not complex enough that commas wouldn't be clear
"condemning various sects"—"Who condemned"; Organizing the councils did not condemn anybody.
Thanks for the detailed post! Please note I'm not a native speaker of English, and it's understandable I would sometimes mess things up without intending to :) I tried to correct most of the awkward-sounding sentences you mentioned, but I can't be sure I haven't further messed them up, so I'd ask you to check what I've done and help fix bad phrasing.
Some other things:
Indeed, there are different transliteration systems of Bulgarian. Would a <ref> note explaining things be OK? Such as "This article uses the United Nations system to transliterate BulgarianCyrillic. For details, see Romanization of Bulgarian."?
"The threat from Serbia was neutralized by the deposition of Stefan Uroš III Dečanski by his son Stefan Uroš IV Dušan in 1331." Ivan Alexander had no hand in this, but it explains how the "external threats" mentioned in the lead were dealt with — the accession of Dušan is very important for the change in relations between Bulgaria and Serbia.
the Battle of Velbužd is linked.
"Stability problems and external conflicts"... any suggestions as to how to reword this to make it clear it continues from the previous' sections
The first paragraph under "Rise of Serbia and the Ottoman threat"... to me it looks OK chronologically, would you clarify?
Theodora of Wallachia and Sarah-Theodora have been linked now, but I'm not sure how to mention the former one is Basarab's daughter in the first paragraph of Early rule, and I'm not convinced it's necessary. "Together with his father and his father-in-law Basarab of Wallachia (whose daughter Theodora of Wallachia he would later marry)..."?
Not sure how to deal with the last paragraph of "Culture and religion"... I was aware it doesn't fit perfectly there, but there's nowhere else to put it, and it's too important to just drop out.
"In the meantime Bulgarians and Byzantines had clashed again in 1364, and when Emperor John V Palaiologos was returning from his trip through the west, the irate Bulgarians refused to let him pass through Bulgaria in 1366." What's wrong with "pass"?
"such as the Middle Bulgarian translation of the Manasses Chronicle (1344–1345), nowadays preserved in the Vatican Secret Archives in Rome"... I moved the years just after "translation", but I have no idea how to specify the translation is in Rome, not the original, without totally destroying the whole sentence. Todor→Bozhinov 18:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, and about the "contested cities" in Thrace: at the time control over most of the cities in Thrace changed rapidly between Bulgaria and Byzantium, and instead of suffering from prolonged sieges and destruction, the population would surrender to whoever of the two emperors came and claimed control. Todor→Bozhinov 18:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm impressed by your responsiveness!
Transliteration: A footnote sounds okay. You might want to include a link to Romanization of Bulgarian, while at it.
Serbian threat: On closer exmination, I realize it's the combination of that sentence with the previous sentence ("The new ruler set about solidifying his position by regaining territories recently lost to the Byzantine Empire.") that implies that this is a consequence. Maybe something along the lines of "The deposition of Serbian king Stefan Uroš III Dečanski by his son Stefan Uroš IV Dušan in 1331 helped normalize the relations between Serbia and Bulgaria, previously antagonists over [...]."?
Battle of Velbužd My bad. The link is discreet and I couldn't find it via text search. Battle of Velbužd, without intervening words, is more usual. Maybe "Ivan fought against the Serbs at the Battle of Velbužd"?
"Stability problems and external conflicts" How about simply "End of reign" or something like that? It's what the section covers within the article, after all.
Chronological sequence you first say that a "newly created Patriarch of Serbia" crowned theSerbian king, then that "Patriarch of Bulgaria Simeon participated in both the creation of a Serbian patriarchate and the imperial coronation of Stefan Uroš IV Dušan." (of course, writing "an independant Serbian Orthodox Church" would already help)
the Theodoras Now that I think of it how about simply writing in his marriage with Theodora of Wallachia whenever it happens in the chronological sequence? I was only assuming it happened earlier, possibly before he became king. I also observe there is no year for his first marriage.
"Culture and religion" paragraph Maybe a small historiography/legacy section? Other similar appearances can be included.
"In the meantime Bulgarians and Byzantines had clashed again in 1364, and when Emperor John V Palaiologos was returning from his trip through the west, the irate Bulgarians refused to let him pass through Bulgaria in 1366." What's wrong with "pass"?
Oups! I meant "return." It would be better with "returned", in my opinion.
Translation in the vatican Maybe these notes could be inserted inside the parentheses instead of within the enumeration?
"contested cities" It's still strange, because in one case, you talk about a general area, and in the other, about specific cities. Your explanation, however, is hilarious—in a good way.
I'll work through my list and see what I can strike.Circeus 19:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added the transliteration footnote, reworded the battle of Velbǎžd part to be more prominent, I changed to past perfect so that it's a little bit better chronologically in the beginning of "Rise of Serbia and the Ottoman threat", I tried to include info about current location of the manuscripts in the parentheses (but I'm not quite satisfied by the way it looks and sounds when read), and I've reworded the Ottoman danger bit so that it doesn't require further clarification. It is not known when Ivan Alexander married the first Theodora, and we can only approximately state when he divorced her to marry Sarah-Theodora, so we can't possibly include this info in any chronological order. I'm a bit reluctant to create a new "Legacy" or "Portrayal in fiction" section because I have no other data about it but that one sentence. That means a tiny one-sentence paragraph, which is ugly and not advisable, particularly for an FA. Todor→Bozhinov 20:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Translit: The article actually uses official Bulgarian transliteration and gives the UN variants between parentheses...
Manuscripts: My suspicion is that someone, somewhere will always be unhappy with how it looks anyway...
Theodoras: Oh... Okay, I guess that makes sense. Maybe stating that the date of hois first is unknown in the article will make it clear why the information wasn't given earlier?
Legacy: Oh well... I not so hung on it as to oppose over it, though. Just, maybe, drop the "in modern time" mention for dates of publications?
Conditional support after the minor transliteration and legacy fixes.Circeus 18:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm sorry to sound mean, but it seems to me that this article comes nowhere near to fulfilling the criterion "Well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant. I appreciate that the main editor is not a native English speaker, but this means in practice that the excellent work on researching an unusual and interesting subject is in my opinion not nearly matched by the writing, which is pedestrian, I fear, and certainly below the professional level to which we aspire. I've completed a light copy-edit; but the piece really needs a deep copy-edit, with each sentence taken out and given a good polish before reinsertion. Some ways to invigorate the prose might be to move subjects and main verbs closer to the beginnings of sentences, restrict sentences to one idea each, and to turn some of the many nominalisations into verbs, and passive constructions into active ones.
I also feel the article lacks a defining shape. Even now, after three readings, I have no overall picture of Ivan Alexander's reign imprinted on my mental retina. I would like to see this article tell a story. One premise might be to present Ivan's reign as a watershed in the evolution of a three-way struggle between forces that were to shape the future of the region: Christian Europe, the Byzantine Empire, and the Ottoman Turks.
However, you seem to be doing well with the comments above, so my curmudgeonly view may prove superfluous. qp10qp 00:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, in practice the person who actually wrote most of the article is a University of Michigan Byzantinist, Ian Mladjov, but he has now left Wikipedia. I did a lot of work by adding references, notes, pictures, improving the formatting, checking the spelling, etc., but I find it very hard to improve the article the way suggested, although I'm absolutely willing to. As I said, I would appreciate a thorough copy-edit by a native speaker, be it you or someone else, it's just that if I try to do that it would have little actual result. I would deeply appreciate some help here :) Todor→Bozhinov 10:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lets see if it passes first. My type of "deep" copyediting (basically a rewrite that keeps to the same facts) would take me a good week, and I'm heavily occupied somewhere else at the moment.
The copyediting advice above is relatively easy to accomplish, though time-consuming: here's an example, intended to sharpen up the following passage, which in my opinion is sapped by subordinate clauses.
The war ended with a meeting between Ivan Alexander and Andronikos III which established peace on the basis of the status quo. A marriage between Ivan Alexander's eldest son Michael Asen IV, who had been crowned co-emperor in about 1332, perhaps to safeguard possession of the throne by his own family, and Maria (Eirene), daughter of Andronikos III, was planned to formalize the alliance, and finally took place in 1339.
I'd change that to something like:
Ivan Alexander met Andronikos after the war and agreed a peace based on the status quo. To seal the alliance, he betrothed his eldest son, Michael Asen IV, to Andronikos's daughter Maria (Eirenne), the marriage eventually taking place in 1339.
(Some imprecision remains: a peace is not literally an alliance. To clarify that, I would need to know the terms of the treaty. And I would like "Ivan and Andronikos ended the war by signing a treaty...", but I don't know if it happened like that.)
I've reduced passives ("a marriage...was planned); I've moved a main verb from a delayed arrival in a sentence to the beginning ("was planned" moved forward as "he betrothed") and also removed a word bundle ("Ivan Alexander met Andronikos after the war ended and agreed a peace based on...") which suspends the point; I've denominalised "a marriage was planned" into the verb "betrothed"; and I've removed the material about Michael being crowned co-emperor because that introduces a different idea and interrupts the flow of the matter at hand. I'd probably relocate that information to the passage about the crowning of the younger sons, or get it out of the way before mentioning the peace and the betrothal. Changes like these can be made without being a native speaker, I think. The idea is to move the reader more quickly from one piece of information to the next, which is what I take "compelling" to mean in the context of an encyclopedia article. qp10qp 16:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say very much so. I would have understood it if you'd dismissed my comments as fusspotting, but I'm impressed. You've lifted those sentences considerably, in my opinion.qp10qp 20:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looks like a great article. Kyriakos 22:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, nice, informative, concise. NikoSilver 23:20, 25 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Self-nomination. This book is no longer as well known as it once was, but it sparked a major controversy in its time and played an important role in lesbian history. I've rewritten the article from a near-stub, and it is currently a GA. It's been through a peer review (though with only one person responding), and SandyGeorgia was kind enough to look over the referencing. —Celithemis 13:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it looks good, congratulations. I'm still reading it, but here are two suggestions concerning the lead:
"Sexual inversion" goes to a disambiguation page. This seems an important point to understanding the book so I think the link should go to the proper place and perhpas a short explanation of the term should be in the body of the article.
The article has a great number of references, but only one in the lead. I suggest that the lead be citated as well as it makes it much easier on the reader to substantiate main themes in the article. Johntex\talk 17:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I've seen people oppose FACs because there are cites in the lead, which implies the lead introduces a new idea. I don't mind an unreferenced lead; often it's difficult to find precise references as well. Trebor 15:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that people have posed such objections. I consider it unfortunate, however. From the perspective of the reader, the lead is introducing new material because they are presumably reading the lead first. Therefore, it is helpful to the reader to cite the sources at that point, instead of forcing them to find the appropriate place in the article. My advice to cite the sources in the lead does not take away from other criteria, including the fact that the lead should not discuss any topics which are not covered in the main article body. Johntex\talk 20:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that others might oppose if references were put in the lead. I don't think there's a hard-and-fast guideline though. Trebor 20:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've created a stub for sexual inversion (sexology) and revised and cited the lead. I was a little reluctant at first to sprinkle the lead with hundreds and thousands, but I tried to use it as an opportunity to make a sort of study guide, pointing out the most comprehensive and up-to-date sources on each subtopic, which might not be easy to pick out from the dense referencing in the main body of the article. —Celithemis 08:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better. I now Support its promotion to FA. Well done. Johntex\talk
Support. An extremely well-referenced article, meets all the criteria in my eyes. Trebor 15:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Because of the size of the article, it might be good to merge the note and reference sections together. Just an idea. RENTASTRAWBERRYFOR LET?röck 01:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merging them would mean putting those nasty cite book and cite journal templates in the body of the article, which I think is an obstacle to editing, especially for less experienced users. It would also make it harder to use the References section as a bibliography for research, and the reduction in file size would be less than 1K by my estimate. So I don't think the tradeoff is worth it. —Celithemis 08:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I hope you draw your attention to other novels that interest you. LuciferMorgan 02:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support well written, referenced, structured, and of appropriate size. A few minor nitpicks and questions:
Spoilers on plot summary? I don't really know the guidelines regarding spoilers.
The guideline doesn't quite seem to directly address this, but that's the way I usually see it done. It is kind of redundant, but since the spoilers extend beyond the plot summary, the alternative would be to put the spoiler warning right *after* a description of the ending, which seems even more odd.
Just realized something very strange - don't know if it's by design or if it's a bug, but the spoiler warnings do not show on my printed version. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like that's happening with all spoiler warnings. Seems obviously wrong. I'll ask on the template talk page. —Celithemis 08:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The photo caption of Natalie Barney took me on a distracting detour - when I saw the caption (before hitting the supporting text), I went on a hunt for a reference. It might be helpful to repeat the citation (which I later found), using a named ref, in the caption. It's the sort of assertion one expects to be cited.
Oops, I moved that image without thinking to check what it did to the referencing. I've added a footnote and mentioned Valerie earlier in the text as well.
Have a look at WP:WTA, specifically the word claim.Lowther, like Stephen, came from an aristocratic family, adopted a masculine style of dress, and was an accomplished fencer; in later years she claimed the character of Stephen was based on her. Can this be clarified as to its dubiousness, or reworded?
Done.
The non-standard double spacing on the references made for a very long printout - my preference is towards the standard format of single spacing there.
It looks the same on my browser, but I assume the extra lines between bullet points were causing that. Is it fixed now?
I prefer the standard WP:GTL, putting non-Wikified content (External links) last, but recognize the leeway provided there by GTL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I moved it to the end. —Celithemis 08:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting, good article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Yes it's good work. — RJH (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are all the items listed under "References" actually used to citate the article? If not, then those unused to citate the article should be moved to a "Further reading" section. LuciferMorgan 03:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are all used. —Celithemis 04:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, except for the citation to Orlando that got cut a while ago, but *now* everything remaining in the references list is used. —Celithemis 04:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support meets all criteria. I personally think the spoilers templates shouldnt be there, but I wont hold that against you. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 14:43, 30 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Self nomination The carpenter on Ernest Shackleton's Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition. One of the more interesting characters, he fell out with Shackleton and was controversially denied the Polar Medal. It's taken a lot of digging to put together a coherent article, but I think it is up to FA standard now. Yomanganitalk 10:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you find boring about it? Trebor 16:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is about a carpenter on Shackeletons ship. Shackeleton is worth making a featured article but this isn'tCylonhunter 17:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a valid or actionable reason to oppose; being featured is about meeting certain criteria, not about having an interesting subject. Trebor 17:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one wants to read an article that is not interestingCylonhunter 14:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still no actionable complaints. Trebor 17:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(a) "Well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant. I do not find it compellingCylonhunter 03:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give an example of where it is not well written. Compelling in this case means the writing is inherently good, regardless of the subject matter. It does not mean everyone who reads this article will be interested in the subject. Jay32183 05:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to change to SupportCylonhunter 14:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Written well and referenced well. Excellent work. Jay32183 02:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support (for transparency, I peer reviewed it and did minor work). I think this is a great article, combining sources to form an accurate account of a fairly unknown person. Trebor 16:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support (and I hope the first guy was kidding); just a couple of comments.
The 'early life' section seems misnamed; if he died in 1930, his 1918 divorce isn't that early. Also, the sentence about socialist views pops up a bit abruptly after several sentences about his family.
In the 'Endurance' section, you mention that he was one of the oldest members of the expedition but not how old he was when they set out. Yes, reading the lead and doing some subtraction will tell you, but for the ADD crowd, add his age.
Is "propellor" an alternate spelling or a typo?
"When the pressure from the ice caused Endurance to start to take on water" - awkward.
"During his watch one night a small part of the ice floe broke away..." - Maybe it's due to the section break, but I read this and thought, "what ice floe?". Repeat here that the crew was on the ice at the time?
Rather sharp jump from the poor cat to the boat-building proposal. Opabinia regalis 02:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've hopefully fixed all those now with a little rewording and rearranging. Propellor is indeed an alternative spelling, but I've changed to propeller. Yomanganitalk 09:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done! One comment:
Despite his efforts during the journey, he had briefly refused to follow orders on the crew's long trek pulling the boats across the pack ice and was one of only four of the crew not to receive the Polar Medal. This seemed a bit odd to me, and I had to reread it. Shouldn't the "was one of only four of the crew not to receive the Polar Medal" immediately follow the "Despite his efforts..." bit? Gzkn 09:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm not sure how you'd rephrase it without making a definite connection between the mutiny and the denial of the medal, and, although that is the popular intepretation for it, Shackleton never stated the reason. Yomanganitalk 09:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have rephrased it anyway. Yomanganitalk 14:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support (after making a few very minor tweaks that should be checked). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, those changes were fine - I just got sloppy while rearranging. Yomanganitalk 22:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellant article.--Zleitzen 18:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Semperf 22:15, 28 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Self-nomination: I put this article through a significant rewrite a couple of months ago. Since then, the article has been further refined through valuable feedback from two peer reviews (see the recent general peer review and the older WikiProject Biography review). Based on encouraging feedback from some accomplished reviewers, I have decided to nominate this article as an FA candidate. Regardless of the outcome, I will be pleased to work with any additional feedback. Cimm[talk] 23:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support (I worked on peer review). I think this meets the criteria; it's well-referenced and the prose received a lot of input in the peer review. It might be nice to have another image somewhere down the page, but it's not necessary. Nice article. Trebor 14:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It looks comprehensive.--Yannismarou 09:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A well-written, comprehensive, well-cited article that seems to meet or exceed all the FA criteria. Seems to have been vetted well by the PR and WikiProject Biography review processes. An FA success story. —ExplorerCDT 23:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support very interesting subject and an all-around great article. One issue though, I understand that no fair use images may be used on the main page, right? This article's only image is copyright. Will there be no image on the main page? ← ANASTalk? 12:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work. I think any problems were well and truly bashed out of it in peer review before it got here. Yomanganitalk 15:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Well written and well written. I hope Cimm goes on and expands the biographies of the rest of this family. I agree the article could use another image, but quite understand the difficulty finding images for the subject we can use on Wiki. Jeffpw 23:27, 30 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Triceratops has undergone two wikiproject dinosaur collaborations in the past year and I feel it is now ready for FA status. I have read it and adjusted the sentence flow so I feel it is easy to read (i.e. well written), comprehensive, and has a reference section comparable to other dinosaur FAs. It has never been part of an edit war and has been fairly stable and conforms in format (headings and subheadings) to other dino FA pages. It is of comparable length (30.8 kB (4439 words)) to other dino FAs - Stegosaurus (36.5 kB (5328 words)) and Diplodocus (30.5 kB (4474 words)). nominated by Cas Liber 05:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as co-author and nominator Cas Liber 05:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support this tentativly, assuming the some minor edits are made to the "Depictions in Popular Media" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.50.35 (talk • contribs)
Support. Comprehensive article on a well-known dinosaur genus. 50+ inline cites from reliable sources (nearly all primary references from professionals in the field). Excellent research from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs team. Prose not overly technical; any high school student should be able to understand the content. Length exceeds several other Featured Articles on dinosaurs. Current lead seems to summarize the article's contents. Illustrations give a sense of what the animal looked like both in life and as a fossil. Only one list (the list of species), so no "listcruft" feel. No objection here (for the record, I am a member of the WP:Dinosaurs team). Firsfron of Ronchester 14:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as co-author. It covers all of the topics that have attached themselves to this distinctive and popular dinosaur in a readable way, with numerous good illustrations, and is heavily referenced. I also support the species list, because it otherwise transforms into a paragraph that is very difficult to follow. J. Spencer 15:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: It looks good overall. I just have a few minor issues that I'd like to see addressed:
Units are not separated from their respective values by a non-breaking space ( ) as recommended in the MoS units of measurement. So the unite can get wrapped around to the following line. (thanks. done. picked up the last 2 (I think))
centrosaurines and chasmosaurines might have been linked, although I see they are linked a sentence or two later. (they don't refer to the dinosaurs but subfamilies. will address this as it is a bit confusing)
"RFTRA analysis" is used but not defined. The reader is left wondering what is meant.
What is the "Hatcher-Marsh-Lull monograph"? Could this be clarified? (I've just added a couple of adjectives to clarify it a bit - best to link to a stub as it covers all horned dinosaurs and is a tale in itself)
In the sentence "amplify and\or receive low-frequency sounds," could the "and\or" be replaced by something a little more polished? (done)
In the last paragraph of "Functions of the horns and frill", please replace the hyphen with an — (done. commas probably better anyway)
Thank you. — RJH (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, but a number of things need to be fixed before it can reasonably contend for FA status:
please do away with years and decade links that are not parts of full dates, per WP:MOSNUM. (check)
Second paragraph of intro needs refs, since that content is not present in the article (it should probably be moved into "Depiction in popular media." (rewritten)
Intro does not properly summarize the "Paleobiology" section (rewritten)
The "Depiction in popular media" section is too short, and has no reference (that there is a "main article") is irrelevant to the section's status.
The name etymology is best integrated under "discoveries and species" (see comment below)
The "Origins" section suffers from a similar shortness. Additionally, placing evolutionary origins as a subsection of classification history leaves to be desired.
The lead states that "no full skeletons have been found," but there are several illustrations of apparently complete skeletons, or nearly so, in the article. Maybe the footnote should comment on that. (check?)
in "classification," it's not stated clearly and early enough in which subfamilies each of the two discussed classification put Triceratops. (check)
wordings:
"one of the last members of the Ceratopsidae" is ambiguous. Latest to go extinct? (check)
"In the first overview of horned dinosaurs in 1907"—this phrase is very poorly worded (check)
"two lineages, one of Monoclonius and Centrosaurus preceding Triceratops, the other with Ceratops and Torosaurus."—It's not clear that Triceratops is included in that first lineage. Sounds like three lineage, with the genus sandwiched in the middle. (check)
"not the only ceratopsian of its time at the end of the Cretaceous"—wordy and clumsy. (check)
"it was indeed an uncommon dinosaur"—It being which species? (check)
"The jaws were tipped with deep, narrow beaks"—I'd think a given animal could only have one beak... (check, although the idea was that there was a horny section to both upper and lower jaw)
"this beak may also have been used in self-defense."—Reference? (check [deleted])
"batteries of 36 to 40 columns"—This stumps me and invoke WP:JARGON. (check)
"vertical to near-vertical shearing configuration."—Same as previous (check)
"Like all ceratopsid teeth, the roots are split, making them very distinctive fossils."—Compared to what? They can't be that distinctive if all other species in the family have such split roots! (check)
"Their great size and massive teeth"—This needs to be re-written so that "their" clearly refers to Triceratops individuals/fossils instead of the teeth. (check)
"with some suggesting palms and cycads,[30][31] while others ferns in fern prairies."—Poor choice of conjunction. (check)
"Lull postulated that the frill may have served as anchor points for the jaw muscles to aid in chewing"—Why would that location be advantageous? (e.g. what arguments did he offer in avor of this theory) (check)
"the idea being discussed by C.H. Sternberg in 1917 and 70 years later by Robert Bakker."—Sounds like a "first" is missing here. (check)
"Related to combat with predators using horns, Triceratops are classically shown engaging each other in combat with horns locked."—The connection is at best unclear between the two parts of this sentence. (check)
"Additionally, although pitting, holes, lesions, and other damage on Triceratops skulls (and the skulls of other ceratopsids) is often attributed"—The subject of "is attributed" is "pitting, holes, lesions, and other damage," so the verb should be plural. (check)
"The large frill also may helped to amplify"—??? grammar? (check)
"Instead, non-pathological bone resorption, or unknown bone disease, are suggested as causes." (check)
"This has also been proposed for the plates of Stegosaurus, although this use alone would not account for the bizarre and extravagant variation seen in different members of the Ceratopsidae. This observation is highly suggestive of what is now believed to be the primary function, display." (check)
"The large eyes and shortened features, a hallmark of "cute" baby mammals, also suggest that the parent Triceratops may have cared for its young."
"Evidence that display either in courtship or in other social behaviour can be seen in the fact that horned dinosaurs differ markedly in their adornments" Is "display" here a verb or a noun?? (check)
External links in the text should be put as notes, possibly content notes.
The second paragraph under "Paleobiology" is unreferenced. (check)
Two different Sternbergs are specifically mentioned in the article, but in numerous instances, only referred to via their family names. These should all be disambiguated. (check)
"The theory of their use in sexual display was first highlighted by Davitashvili"—If it was only "highlighted," then it had been "proposed" before. (check)
Traditionally, in dinosaur articles, the etymology comes in the introduction. J. Spencer 01:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. It just struck me that a much better location existed. Also, I took in mind the big debate over references or not in the lead, and name etymologies are a frequent cause of that. I am myself hardly better: my brainchild Verbascum thapsus has the same fault.Circeus 01:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, no biggie. Anyway, I think I've gotten to a lot of your smaller comments. What do you think? J. Spencer 01:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised by your responsiveness, actually. The prose certainly flows better where you worked.Circeus 01:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, fellow editors, since I'm knocking off for a while: Here are the concerns I've done nothing with yet.
The "Depiction in popular media" section is too short, and has no reference (that there is a "main article" is irrelevant to the section's status). (found ref for Wyoming on gov't site, still looking for SD - added a couple of pop cult appearances. Trick s to avoid it looking listy)(got SD for you, Cas)
The "Origins" section suffers from a similar shortness. Additionally, placing evolutionary origins as a subsection of classification history leaves to be desired. (tricky this. especially with cladistics origins and classification are closely linked. I've added a bit how relations relates to ancestry - question is - is it worth putting bit about ceratopsia and pachycephalosauria but I feel that is beyond the scope of the article really)
"The large eyes and shortened features, a hallmark of "cute" baby mammals, also suggest that the parent Triceratops may have cared for its young." (needs a reference)(I've looked in the original article and press releases, but I haven't found this yet)
External links in the text should be put as notes, possibly content notes.
I went through the entire article to fix the issue that the genus is frequently used in the singular, even though it contains more than one species. Even though 90% of dinosaurs are identified for the public only by their genus name, both singular and plural were used in the article. I fixed a couple of phrasings in the process, but this closer reading brought forth a few extra sentences that could use improvement:
"These new finds have been vital in illustrating the origins of horned dinosaurs in general in Asia in the late Jurassic and early Cretaceous, and the lineage of Triceratops for at least 10 million years in North America."—too much "in"s! And the sentence just hardly makes sense. What does "the lineage of Triceratops for at least 10 million years in North America" means??(rewritten)
"However, progress in classification using such techniques has clarified some questions and raised new ones."—there are no "techniques" mentioned earlier that can be readily related to this comment. (deleted as nonsequitor)
"He had realized that there were horned dinosaurs by the next year and his publication of Ceratops, based on fragmentary skull material from the somewhat older (late Campanian) Judith River Formation of Montana, but he still believed B. alticornis to be a Pliocene mammal."—This is a garden path sentence: the phrasing makes it sound as if "and his publication of Ceratops" introduces a new idea. (rewritten)
I had a look at the highlighted areas. It was a little odd to see the pluralization, but we'll see what the others think. J. Spencer 20:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with pluralization is partly that the article was already inconsistent in how it made agreement with "triceratops," even taking in account singular uses for the taxonomic meaning.Circeus 21:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think taking it as singular in the lead is the best bet as we're talking about a singular/group entity, the genus (there's more than one stegosaurus, diplodocus and psittacosaurus too - I think it is the -ops ending that somehow throws people.Cas Liber 20:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay.I just hope we won't feature an article that says " Although Triceratops is commonly portrayed as a herding animal [...]" or " Triceratops has long been thought to have possibly used its horns and frill in combat with predators such as Tyrannosaurus"... These are the cases that really irked me.Circeus 21:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (for now)
Remove external links from the main article (don't mix citation style).
Please add links in the citations for easy source verification. For articles in journals, they have DOI number that you can use.
I found several links to mailing list and one is used as reference. Per WP:RS, mailing list is not a reliable source.
To Circeus, I edited your posts (moved down) to avoid confusion. Please do not mix other comments with yours as people might confuse who said which.
Re. mailing list. The reason is not to link the mailing list or to a specific post, but source to an e-mail is not reliable. — Indon (reply) — 22:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that this was probably the only reasonable way to source that statement. Of course, considering it seems to be in common use only within the dinosaur enthusiasts community, maybe it isn't worth of mention. The "three-horn" nick probably calls for a mention of The Land Before Time.Circeus 22:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's an informal name, how else are we supposed to reference it other than by using a informal source? Also, the overwhelming majority of the articles lack DOIs, as they either predate PDFs or come from journals that don't use them (Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology) J. Spencer 22:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shoot, I'm getting snippy. It's not a big part of the article, and I always hated that nickname, too. J. Spencer 22:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is, if there are links/DOIs/things that can be provided, they should be. If there are none, there's no reason to gripe, but maybe JSTOR has some of these, for example?Circeus 22:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking (have found a free PDF to one of the citation, though). Honestly, I'd never even heard of a DOI until this afternoon. J. Spencer 23:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a snap comment while seeing links added here. Perhaps it's better to make a link only to its title, not the whole citation. You may want to look examples at WP:CITET. — Indon (reply) — 23:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Had a bash at the links and the pop culture suggestions, and although I come bearing no DOIs, I have added several missing ISBNs. J. Spencer 05:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:RS is a guideline for determining whether a particular source can be relied upon to be accurate. In the case of the use of the word "Trike" to refer informally to Triceratops (similar to "T-rex"=Tyrannosaurus), the link to the Dinosaur Mailing List archives, which is hosted by the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, was used only to show that it is used informally by some; I'm not sure why any link (or cite) was truly necessary, and I see it has been removed. At the same time, I don't think a formal "Reliable source" is required for a statement which clearly states the usage is quite informal; it would be akin to requiring a citation from Webster's in discussing a specific slang term definitely not found in Webster's. If including the mention of the usage of this word is a true barrier to this article's FAC candidacy, by all means, remove it, but then the article will be (slightly) less comprehensive than it was before it was removed. As for the DOIs, J.Spencer isn't the only one who has never heard of them; I hadn't, either. None of the eight earlier Dinosaur Featured Articles required them, so this appears to be something new. C'est la vie, I suppose. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 05:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My questions, as a layman reader looking to the source that goes to an email, are: is the informal name really used in the dinosaurus research community or just a slang by some teenagers in a forum? Is it only a trivia? If the name is used informally by the community, why is an email used as a source? Why not newspapers? popular magazines? or a website? And regarding DOI, now you know. :-) — Indon (reply) — 09:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The dinosaur mailing list is no ordinary email list , but in answer to the last sentence, newspapers, magazines and websites are all cited as sources all over wikipedia. Anyway, it leaves us with an interesting dilemma - leave in a theory posted on a mailing list populated with actual paleontologists or remove an interesting point from the Triceratops page? Cas Liber 09:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that it is a special mailing list, so is morph-net, or ica-net, etc., but I wouldn't put a citation to a post there, even if the email came from a professor. I'm sure there are other sources and if there is a theory being developed and discussed over the expert-mailing list, I would wait for a publication for that. So, about your dilemma. If there is a website, even not a famous one, mentioning the fact in question, then it is preferrable. Here is the fact that we are discussing at: The large frill also may have helped to amplify and possibly receive low-frequency sounds,[40]..., and the [40]th citation states: ^ Anton, in prep. Acoustic amplification by the crest of Triceratops; as referenced in this Dinosaur Mailing List post with ext. link to [9]. Now, wouldn't you wait for the real publicatioin form Mr. Anton first? I'm sure he is an expert, but before a publication came, in preparation or unpublished source is still not reliable, simply because it is still subjected to change. — Indon (reply) — 10:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah when you put it like that...given it is a pretty minor point in the scheme of things I have removed it. My head is starting to swim in all this text - as at least three of us are trying to address these points. Can you update by striking out which ones you've felt we've dealt with? cheers (gettin' there)Cas Liber 11:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I strike my oppose vote, but not yet supporting it, and also my comments. I still want to see more DOI/http links in the references section to help verifiability, but don't worry about this. I'm going to help you later directly. Let's close this specific discussion first. No need to read this large chunk text again. ;-) — Indon (reply) — 11:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that (gasp, more text!) :) Cas Liber 11:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I don't follow - much of the above is ongoing dialogue and much of it has been addressed. Can you let us know which parts you feel are a barrier currently? cheersCas Liber 05:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the records, 90% of my lengthy comments have been addressed.Circeus 02:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: As far as I can see, all but one of my concerns have been taken care of, and I have a conditional support if this one can be fixed:
"Like all ceratopsid teeth, the roots are split, making them easily-identified fossils."—Does that means that these split roots easily identify them as ceratopsids, or as Triceratops? Because the only distinctive characteristic mentioned is the root, and is shared by all ceratopsids...
I ended up just striking that line, since it applied to the wider group. By the way, thank you both for your work here, Circeus and Indon! J. Spencer 16:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mild oppose for now. I must quibble with the prose in the LEAD.
"Bearing a large bony frill and three horns on its large four-legged body, and somewhat reminiscent of an ancient rhinoceros, Triceratops were some of the most recognizable of all dinosaurs." First, it's clunky with the extra phrase in the middle (and I think you need a "being" before "somewhat"). Are you intending to refer to a specific ancient species of rhinoceros or do you mean it hypothetically? Assuming the latter, I think "suggestive of" is better than "reminiscent of" (I reminisce over what actually existed). "Were some of the most recognizable..."—why the past tense? No human being was around to recognize them in the Cretaceous. "Triceratops fossils are some of the most recognizable..."?
(Dang, was gettin' a bit flowery when I wrote it - you're right about the adjective reminiscent - modern rhino/ancient dinosaur - thus tried " conjuring similarities with the modern rhinoceros", to change it up a little from 'suggestive of' which I must have stuck in a few articles and somewhat understates the resonance these two critters have with each other in alot of folks' minds)Cas Liber 20:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Conjuring similarities" now makes it a little ornate, but it's logically OK .
"Their frills and three distinctive facial horns have long inspired debate concerning their functions." Poor syntax; the second use of "their" reads awkwardly. Try: "The function of their frills and three distinctive facial horns has long inspired debate."
(nice one. done.)Cas Liber 20:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much better.
"Although [the frills and horns] were traditionally viewed as defensive weapons against predators, the latest theories suggest these features were primarily used in display for courtship and dominance, much like modern reindeer or rhinoceros beetles." A comparison has been constructed between the frills and horns of Triceratops and reindeer and rhinoceros beetles themselves.
(added - adornments of - , simplest word I could think of rather than horns/antlers/sicky-outy things....., so subjects conform)Cas Liber 20:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about the logic more than the prose, I'm not not quite ready to strike. It will mean more words, but you might consider unpacking it completely: "...much like the antlers of reindeer or the horns of rhinoceros beetles." But then I get thinkin' that maybe you shouldn't use the comparison at all: are you sure that, in comparison, you can call the T'tops horns an "adornment," given that the males of both compared-to species use their respective antlers and horns in mating battles? I don't mean to be pedantic, but the LEAD speaks to the body; you need to be pretty clear about what the consensus is on the horns or, with citations, point to a lack of scientific consensus. Intuitively, I'm thinking they must've used those things on each other as more than an "adornment"...
(I see what you mean - I would be happy to use the term adornment for me in bioogical terms but it may mean something a bit different)Cas Liber 23:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to see if I can find more prose concerns in the body. Marskell 18:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adornment to me suggests a lack of real utility. Anyhow, fine now.
One last thing on the LEAD: "it is unclear whether the two battled the way they are commonly depicted in movies and children's dinosaur books." I won't ask for a cite that specifcally says the T'tops and T Rex have battled in film or kids' books, but this sort of begs a "See for instance" note. Note two or three places you can think of such an exaggerated battle; if you can't, alter or remove the line. Marskell 21:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(I mulled over refs in the lead but slotted some exmaples in a para in pop culture. I had the 2 kids' books but lost them many years ago...)Cas Liber 23:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One Million Years B.C. showed a Triceratops and a theropod in battle, but it was a Ceratosaurus, not a Tyrannosaurus. Like Cas, I had several books when I was a kid which depicted the two fighting to the death (both with nearly identical storylines: T. rex goes after Ankylosaurus first, but gets a face full of club and can't pierce the ankylosaurian armor, then goes after Triceratops). I don't think I have either of these books anymore, but I'll check when I get home. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The one with the Ankylosaurus and Triceratops is the How and Why Book of Dinosaurs (with ref; I had it too), and the Giant Golden book had a battle tooCas Liber 01:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember a giant golden book, but The How and Why Book of Dinosaurs sounds familiar. Ah, yes. This is it. I can't believe we had the same book! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 01:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It has almost 50 inline citiations, and its a good article to me. Daniel10 19:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. M&NCenarius 04:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(cont'd)
"Individual Triceratops have been estimated to reach about..." --> "to have reached about..."
"However, he was largely ignored with Ostrom,[12] and later David Norman, placing Triceratops within Centrosaurinae.[13]" Who is doing the placing in the last phrase, Ostrom or Norman? Also you need to give Ostrom's full name, or stick with last names only for everyone.
(I was debating about whether to put Ostrom's first name when I originally wrote it in anyway, so easily done. Both were the culprits so I stuck a 'both' in )Cas Liber 10:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the next sentence the species is "diagnosed". This is usual in a taxonomic context?(yes - moreso in cladistics, it is how one systematically diagnoses that something is X and not Y on he basis of a certain number of criteria. It stumped me the first time I saw it too)Cas Liber 10:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"...and that the bones belonged to a particularly large and unusual bison, which he named Bison alticornis.[19][18] He had realized that there were horned dinosaurs by the next year..." The pluperfect isn't wrong, but it jars because the narrative is jumping ahead not back; "there were" might also confuse (I thought it was a typo for "these were"). Use simple past: "By the next year he realized that horned dinosaur fossils existed..."
Still a bit more left to read. Marskell 06:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One last kick at the can:
"Although it was one of the last ceratopsians to appear before the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event, Triceratops was not the only one present at the end of the Cretaceous." Drop "Although" and lop off the redundancy at the end; "one of the last" already tells the reader a few others were about.
"To appear in the last ten years". Avoid this sort of wording—when the ten years are up it will be incorrect. --> "to appear since 1995" or something.
Not much left to pick at! This is a great article and I will now support. Marskell 12:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at those two. The year reference ended up awkward, and I don't think it was too pertinant, so I cut it. J. Spencer 16:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support also. — Indon (reply) — 13:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: An excellent read. Wiki-newbie 19:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - the article is really excellent and is comprehensive; however, I think you can do better on the "Triceratops in popular culture" bit. I know it's a leadoff onto another article, but I think it would be better if you maybe discussed how the triceratops is portrayed in pop culture as opposed to the scientific hypotheses about how it lived. The section as it is at present is little more than a list of media in which triceratops are portrayed; I'd like to see something more along the lines of what you present in your lead paragraph, about its interaction with Tyrannosaurus, etc. as portrayed in pop culture - not just mentions of it being in books, but how and why it is done that way. Even just a couple of sentences would be good. I don't think that paragraph is up to scratch compared with the rest of the article. Sorry to be harsh, but it's a great article otherwise and that bit just spoils it. JROBBO 10:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a problem in that it might be extremely difficult to rewritethesection with that outlook without violating WP:NOR.Circeus 17:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The other option is to cut it. It's the on-going sore point with In pop. cult. sections—they're either random lists or OR. Marskell 19:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point Circeus - it probably will be all OR. Perhaps add a sentence or two more about the interaction with Tyrannosaurus in popular culture to match what has been said in the intro, and then I will be happy. I think that's reasonable. JROBBO 04:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:The pop culture section currently states: Factual children's books about dinosaurs generally contain material on Triceratops, with at least two featuring it in combat with Tyrannosaurus, generally as a climactic episode toward the end of the book.[47][48] A memorable but anachronistic battle with Ceratosaurus substituting for T. rex is featured in the 1966 movie One Million Years B.C.. Due to all the editing, I'm not sure if this was all here before your objection or was added in response to your objection. Is this enough, or do you think more weight should be given to these (admittedly anachronistic) battles? :) Firsfron of Ronchester 16:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong ObjectPlease define "Wit time". Grammar: "...there was only one species-......."(emphasis added), "...more erect horns..." "...a single species..."(emphasis added) "this gives a total of 432 to 800 teeth..." (the use of the word total is misleading.) Syntax: ...the distinctive skull of T. (now tentatively Diceratops) hatcheri ..." "...sites preserving dozens or hundreds..." (or is not appropriate for such a big leap) "...ferns in fern prairies..." (unnecessary words,where do we expect to get a large amount of ferns?) --RebSkii 19:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(I note you've struck out all your objections bar one. thanks for that. Regarding "horns more erect" I'm not sure what you mean. I thought, as erect is a fairly common English word not restricted to science, that it was self-explanatory, especially as the next clause describes "horns more forward-facing". A link to erect is, erm, probably not the most appropriate one and I feel that writing "straight up" sounds too colloquial and "more vertical", though accurate in a way is cumbersome in others. Do you have a suggestion here? cheers Cas Liber 03:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
"Wit" is a common representation of "with" (used in Philly amongst other places); this and "only one" are fixed. Marskell 19:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, are you objecting to the singular use of the word "species"? According to Dictionary.com, "Specie" is a "nonstandard form"; "one species" is correct. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to the Dinosaur article: Under phylogenetic taxonomy, dinosaurs are defined as all descendants of the most recent common ancestor of Triceratops and modern birds.. This article should mention this fact about Triceratops and expand it a little more. CG 20:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(CG, I've added a short note on Triceratops position in phylogenetics in the classification section - tricky as it more pertains to classification as a whole rather than much to do with Triceratops per se. Cas Liber 10:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose - Stegosaurus was great, Diplodocus somewhat less, but Triceratops is even less refined. For such a big part of dinosaur study, this creature has a smallish article which could easily be expanded. For example, the way Triceratops walked. 1) this should have its own section in Paleobiology. 2) more info should be placed on it as this was a bigger issue for paleontologists than the small mention in "description" alludes to. There were numerous studies into the way Triceratops walked, yet so little information. This leads me to ponder what else has less information than could be gathered? As I said, big subject, small article to what it could potentially be. I've agreed with all your other nominations Cas, but this one falls short in my eyes. It seems to me you are in too big a hurry to nominate as many dino articles as you can. I've worked on many dinosaur articles, & I think the article could be better. Great work, but please try & expand the article rather than ignore my oppose since you easily have numbers to pass this article... Thanks, Spawn Man 04:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had thought on expanding the information on posture, as really the only point to point out is that the bony structure of the joints shows it must have had a sprawling gait but the tracks disagree - however hiving this off into a separate section under Paleobiology causes problems with style and we got some criticism in Stegosaurus for too many small subheadings, which we then consolidated into Description. Thus I am in two minds what to do here. As far as your other points, the article stands at 34.4 kB (5005 words), which is larger than Diplodocus and close to Stegosaurus in size. I myself have made more edits on this one than on Diplodocus and only 12 less than Stegosaurus. I will go and have a look at some posture material to see if/how it can be incorporated into the article, and wait to see waht others think. This aside, general comments like ..."falls short"...I can't see this as particularly helpful. If you have some other specific elements you feel have been left out then please list them. cheers. Cas Liber 09:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: None of the books I have give particular attention to the stance/gait of Triceratops (two don't even mention it), and I feel like adding an entire section on gait just for the sake of making the article longer somehow rings hollow. It is not recommended to "pad out" an article just to make it longer; this article is of comparable length to the other dinosaur articles, and there's nothing at the FAC criteria page which indicates each Featured Article must be longer than the one before it. I think you have some points, Spawn Man, but I don't feel any of your comments are actually objectionable per the FAC criteria. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the above two comments, It looks as if you want to expand on it because it is an area where there are interrogations/investigations, not because there is material that can be included. That is unfortunately outside the scope of Wikipedia.
And I think Firsfron actually means that your comment are not "actionable."Circeus 19:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never said make a new section about the gait, but instead move the information to the opening section of Paleobiology as it isn't broad enough to be included in Description. Therefore, it would better suit being moved to paleobiology.
I know this whole gang up thing. I think my objections are extremely actionable. By no means am I suggestion adding drivel to the article, but saying that "There's no problem here & I've done lots of edits here" is only being defensive. Being defensive & shielding out the easiest request of all (expand), is only going to get the article no where. I'm not a paleontologist, but I know that there's more that can be palced on this subject... Will make a more "objectional" respinse soon... Spawn Man 03:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through briefly & picked out this phrase also. "Factual children's books about dinosaurs generally contain material on Triceratops, with at least two featuring it in combat with Tyrannosaurus, generally as a climactic episode toward the end of the book." Although it is referenced, you have to admit, it is a bit generalistic. So all T. rex books have at least 2 triceratops battling at the end of it? Replace it with something like, Triceratops is a common enemy of T. rex in children's books - & even then it seems unencyclopedic... Plus the refs are 2 children's books, not the many hundreds with these 2 dinosaurs in them & hardly the number needed to make such a generalistic comment such as this... Spawn Man 03:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, just checked in and gotta rush out. I know of a few other books too and will put them in if it makes the case more compelling. It is generalistic because it is true. Will also have a go at tweaking sentence later.Cas Liber 04:06, 31 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Self-nomination (not to play down some excellent contributions by other editors, including images). I've been working on this article on and off for more than half a year now and I think it's ready for a FAC discussion. Along the way it got translated into Norwegian bokmål and expanded a bit, becoming a FA over there. In turn, I've used the Norwegian article to improve this one a bit. Peer review was fairly quiet and I think the article could probably still use a thorough read by someone whose English is better than mine. Haukur 23:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I found the article quite good. The prose seems fine to me. Citation is a bit light in the first two sections. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great article but it has a lack of citations escpecially in the Context section. If you add some more citations I would be more than happy to support the article. Kyriakos 00:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do, might take a couple of days. Haukur 12:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the problems I had have been fix. I am giving the article my full support. Kyriakos 05:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support, per Kyriakos. A number of points in the article (mainly in the "Context" and "Events leading up to the battle" sections) could use direct citations; see the WikiProject guideline on this. Aside from that, a minor formatting suggestion: {{cquote}} doesn't work that well when combined with images, so I'd use normal blockquote formatting instead. Kirill Lokshin 00:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the formatting hint, I'll try that. Haukur 12:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support, umm.. certainly very detailed. The lead looks a little involved and is in 4 paras. Has a lot to cover though. Cas Liber 05:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Never heard of this battle so can't comment on the authenticity. But looks well cited. Mercenary2k 12:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant objection for now, which can easily become full support. The first three sections are not properly cited; especially the first one. Additionally, in Notes the links to online sources are not proper; you don't offer full citations of these online sources per WP:CITE. You can use Template:cite web or Template:cite news.--Yannismarou 18:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I'll add more citations. I'm not really sure about the weblinks though - where I've used a web page as a source, like Mona Levin's article, it appears in the references section but where I intended them more as "external links" or "further reading" they don't. Haukur 00:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent coverage of this battle. The info that is claimed to be unreferenced in the intro is referenced in the subsections, AFAIK.--Berig 10:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say I haven't given up on this. I've gone to the library, got some more books and started reading but the week has shaped up to be busy and I haven't managed to make any updates yet. Fortunately there is no deadline :) Haukur 00:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If somebody works on improving the minor deficiencies of an already high quality article, Raul always demonstrates the necessary understanding.--Yannismarou 08:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I tend to be a little uncomfortable with this sort of article, which combines history and accounts from sagas written hundreds of years later; but on its own terms, it is very impressive, in my opinion. I would like to congratulate the main editor, particularly as he started this article from scratch.
I've completed a copy-edit, mostly of punctuation and syntax. I've also made the tenses more consistent. Since Wikipedia uses the present tense to represent fictional narrative, I've converted more passages to the present tense as a means of reminding readers when they are reading reconstructions from the sagas.
I was surprised not to see Canute's empire mentioned as a legacy of the battle. qp10qp 17:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, you've done excellent work and I agree with you that present tense is most appropriate for pseudo-historical narratives. It's very nice to have the touch of an academic historian :) We could certainly mention Canute, though Danish claims on Norway go back even before the battle of Svolder. Haukur 02:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I shared at first qp10qp's uncomfortableness, but the article's great. Two questions yet:
Do you have references about modern historians' opinions about the location of the battle?
Does the article still incorporate text from the Encyclopædia Britannica? Sigo 20:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you look at the article's references you'll see that some of them say one thing and others the other :) I could cite Baetke for this, he gives a nice overview of previous works. Unfortunately I've returned his book to the library but I can get it again, just give me a few days and I'll have a cite.
The section on the battle itself still traces some wording from Britannica which I liked (and is cited as such). There's a Wikisource link to the original Britannica article so you can compare. Haukur 02:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've finally added a few more footnotes to the Context section. I've been under the impression that omitting explicit references in the summary section is kosher since everything there is supposed to be expanded upon in the body of the article (where it should be referenced). I also switched from cquote to blockquote per KL's suggestion. Haukur 00:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I still don't like the way URLs of online sources in "Notes" look. IMO this is not the right formatting, but I know this is not enough to prevent this article from getting FA.--Yannismarou 18:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tidied those up. --qp10qp 00:20, 31 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Self-nomination This is an article about a blood test for early determination of an unborn baby's gender. I originally started this article in September 2005 as a stub under the title Acu-Gen Biolab (the maker of the test). As a result of the first peer review the article improved greatly, including a move to its current name. As the article evolved, it successfull became a good article in July 2006 and has been selected by the Medicine portal as one of Wikipedia's best articles related to Medicine. After additional improvements and a second peer review I am now confident the article meets FA standards. It is comprehensive and well-sourced, and I believe it is well written as well. It is stable and not prone to vandalism or edit warring. My one regret is I have not been able to produce a free image; but the article does make appropriate limited use of fair use images. Thanks in advance for your input. Johntex\talk 01:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This sentence is a bit absurd: "If the twin is reabsorbed with no evidence it existed, then there is no evidence to support whether the twin existed or not." You may want to fix that. Kaldari 05:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right, thanks. That sentence was clumsy. I have now replaced it with a more complete explanation. Please let me know if the new version is clear. Johntex\talk 06:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The first image uses the wrong tag. A picture of a box isn't a logo, it's a promotional picture, and the tag should be {{Promotional}}. —ExplorerCDT 20:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Adequately addressed. —ExplorerCDT 22:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I changed the tag to {Promotional}}. Best, Johntex\talk 05:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and with that being addressed, I give my support to this article's inclusion as an FA. —ExplorerCDT 22:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I like this article - it's an interesting if distinct odd subject - but there's a few prose and clarity issues. The thing that stands out most is the repeated introduction of different commentators on the subject; it reads in places like a news article with all the 'person x says this', '"blah blah", says person y', etc.
First paragraph of the lead - "biotech" should be "biotechnology", last three sentences are rather choppy.
Last paragraph of the lead: "unethical practices such as gender selection" contains an implicit value judgment about the practice.
I'm not clear on what the last sentence of the lead is trying to say. What other uses of the test would there be? Are these anecdotal reports really reliable?
The text says accuracy increases up to eight weeks; can the test still be used later in the pregnancy?
I'm confused; the 'test methodology' section says the accuracy claim comes from 20,000 live births, but the 'acclaim' section has Bonelli citing 2,000. Is one of them a typo, or do they get their own figures mixed up, or are these two different 'studies'?
Is Bonelli associated with Acu-Gen itself, or only with the reseller?
"With Acu-Gen so-far choosing not to publish proof of its claims, anecdotal evidence of several women receiving conflicting predictions worries doctors such as Diana Bianchi." - you should introduce Bianchi's qualifications before this sentence; otherwise we're left wondering why anyone cares what she thinks. (Similar examples of this 'news article' style come up later with the introduction of Carson and Bortz.) Also, it's not clear what "conflicting" predictions are; did the company predict both genders? Or do you mean incorrect predictions?
All the talk about vanishing twins makes me wonder what the test reports in a normal case of fraternal twins.
Slightly concerned about the number of BBB reports; are they coming in fast enough that this is likely to get old quickly?
"In China, gender selection has led to there being about 20% more men than women." - eek, 'led to there being' is awkward prose.
Why do we care about the title of the class Mutcherson teaches? If she's a legitimate expert, mention her academic qualifications, not what she put in the course catalog.
The test has been 'reported' available overseas - how did these people get it? Did the online retailer send it to overseas addresses?
"Acu-Gen is creating new requirements..." - 'is creating' suggests this is an ongoing event. But it sounds, from the end of that section, like the test is no longer available.
What happened with the trisomy 18 woman? (I got a chuckle at Wang's quote that the baby will 'cease to exist'.)
The company's location and offices are really baffling. NPR found a different biotech company and a Hindu temple, but WFTS found offices and labs at the same location? Did the reporters visit at different times? What is 'AmpliSensor' technology?
Why was there none of this controversy or coverage of the Paragon test? Opabinia regalis 01:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Hello Opabina regalis, thank you very much for reading the article and making a detailed reveiw. I will happily work to address each of your points.
Quotations - 'person x says this', '"blah blah", says person y', etc. - the reason for this is that many of these quotes are about controversial aspects of the test. I wanted to make it clear to the reader who claims what, and what their credentials are. I don't know how to do this other than the way I have done it. As you suggest later, I am swapping the order to introduce the speaker first and then provide their quote. Please let me know if this does not address your concern.
"biotech" should be "biotechnology", last three sentences are rather choppy - I fixed the redirect and re-wrote the last three sentences.
"unethical practices such as gender selection" - I struck "unethical"
not clear on the last sentence - what other uses? - I think this should be more clear now. They have allegedly used the test to offer medical advice in ways that would fall under regulation by the FDA. This is described futher in the section "Beyond gender testing". I have rewritten the lead and I have retitled "Beyond gender testing" to "Alleged use for medical diagnoses" in order to make the linkage more clear.
The text says accuracy increases up to eight weeks; can the test still be used later in the pregnancy? - Yes, the test can be used later in pregnancy. However, at 10 weeks, the test is apparently as accurate as it is going to get. In other words, it is just as accurate at 10 weeks as it is at 12 weeks, but it is more accurate at 10 weeks than at 8 weeks. Also, further into pregnancy, other techniques such as ultrasound become possible, so the Baby Gender Mentor loses some of its competitive advantage.
20,000 vs 2,000 - In my opinion, the sources available are not conclusive enough to definitively answer your question. The 20,000 number comes form Acu-Gen, the 2,000 number comes from the president of PregnancyStore.com. It is possible one of them made a mistake, or it is possible they are talking about 2 different studies. I don't think there is any way at this point to know the answer, so I think we have to cite both numbers with the references and allow the reader to consider the possibilities.
Can you point out the difference in the text somewhere? Otherwise I'm afraid other readers will assume what I did, that there was a typo, and 'fix' one or the other. Opabinia regalis 03:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is Bonelli associated with Acu-Gen itself, or only with the reseller? - I am not aware of any direct link between Bonelli and Acu-Gen beyond that of reseller-to-manufacturer. Bonelli is the president of PreganancyStore.com which is a reseller of the test. As far as I can tell, they are the only company that has ever been a reseller of the test. They have billed themselves as the "exclusive reseller" of the test. However, they do not currently have the test avaialable for sale on their website. Bonelli is also the president of MommysThinkin.com, which sells similar products very similar to those offered by PreganancyStore.com. In one source, Mommy's Thinkin' was said to do the "marketing" for the Baby Gender Mentor while PregnancyStore.com did the sales. This has not been claimed by any other source. I have never seen a mention of the Baby Gender Mentor at MommysThinkin.com.
Bianchi - introduce first before quoting - I confess I am a little surprised by this advice. Her credentials came in the very next sentence so it seems clear enough to me. However, I am OK with doing it the way you suggest so I have reversed the order. I have also switched the order for Carson and Bortz. Also, I changed "conflicting" to "inaccurate".
Maybe my own stylistic bias, but the previous order made it read like a news article. Unfortunately I don't think just swapping the sentence order is optimale either, as we're now left wondering why, eg, Bianchi's credentials are coming up so abruptly. Maybe the more general issue is the newslike reporting of quotations rather than paraphrases. (Just saying 'Diana Bianchi, one of the scientists whose work was cited by Acu-Gen, has expressed skepticism about the test.' wouldn't lose much, really.) This is something that Tony might give better advice on; he's usually the prose guy. Opabinia regalis 03:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the talk about vanishing twins makes me wonder what the test reports in a normal case of fraternal twins. - The way the test works is it is not really detecting the gender of the baby per say. It is either detecting fragments of a Y chromosome or it is not. If it detects a Y chromosome, the result is said to be male. If it detects no Y chromosome, then the result is said to be female. There are several things the test cannot tell. One of them is whether the woman is even pregnant or not. If the woman is not pregnant at all, then the test will fail to detect a Y chromosome, and it will report that she is pregnant with a girl. Likewise, the test cannot tell the difference between 1 baby girl and 2 or 3 baby girls. It cannot tell the difference between 1 baby boy and 2 or 3 baby boys. Finally, if there is a mixed-gender set of fraternal twins (or triplets or more) only the male(s) DNA will be detected. The twin will just predict a male birth. I don't think any source comes right out and specifically says this in plain English, but that is the way the molecular biology technique being used here would work.
So the company doesn't actually say in their marketing anywhere that it can't detect twins? (I don't know if identical twins result in more fetal genetic material in the blood - I imagine it would - but if the trisomy 18 thing really happened, surely they can tell there's too much for one boy in a boy/girl fraternal pair.) Opabinia regalis 03:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly concerned about the number of BBB reports; are they coming in fast enough that this is likely to get old quickly? - I will check this frequently and keep it up to date. Per the MoS, I have dated this checkpoint on their records. If I get hit by a bus and I'm no longer updating the article, anyone who reads it will be able to see if the data is out of date and update it accordingly. Since PregnancyStore.com is apparently not offering the test for sale at the moment, my prediction is that sales will decline and complainst to the BBB will show a corresponding decline.
"In China, gender selection has led to there being about 20% more men than women." - akward - I reworded to "In China, gender selection has led to men outnumbering women 55 to 45."
Why do we care about the title of the class Mutcherson teaches? - without this information, we only know that she is an assistant professor at the law school. We wouldn't know if she does maritime law or bioech law or real estate law or... The source states that she is an assistant professor in the law school and that this is the name of one of her classes. The source does not explain other qualifications/certifications that she may have. I think that the title of the class is relevant to her credentials to speak on this class. If you still disagree, I will take it out.
Well, if she doesn't have any expertise in the topic other than deciding to teach an elective, is her opinion that important? Opabinia regalis 03:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The test has been 'reported' available overseas - how did these people get it? Did the online retailer send it to overseas addresses? - presumably so, but no source specifically addresses this.
"Acu-Gen is creating new requirements..." - 'is creating' suggests this is an ongoing event. But it sounds, from the end of that section, like the test is no longer available. - I have changed this to "has created new requirements".
What happened with the trisomy 18 woman? - she delivered a healthy baby. I will add this to the article.
The company's location and offices are really baffling. NPR found a different biotech company and a Hindu temple, but WFTS found offices and labs at the same location? Did the reporters visit at different times? What is 'AmpliSensor' technology? - NPR found a biotech company called BioTronics. Wang is the president of both BioTronics and Acu-Gen. The AmpliSensor technology is explained on the BioTronics article. It is very similar (perhaps identical) to the technology behing Baby Mentor Gender. Wang is on the patents for the AmpliSensor technology. My explanation is; Wang founded BioTronics and invented AmpliSensor. (or perhaps he invented AmpliSensor and then founded BioTronics around his invention). AmpliSensor is a legitamately validated scientific method for detecting trace DNA (such as from a pathogen like Hepatitis) circulating in the human blood. Most of the references listed for Baby Gender Mentor are really references for AmpliSensor technology being applied to searching for Hepatitis or Megaloviris. They have nothing to do with pregnancy or gender detection. At some point, Wang decided he could use his AmpliSensor invention for this new market. For whatever reason, he decided to form a new company, Acu-Gen for the new business model. He didn't need more space, so he just operated Acu-Gen out of the same office space he already used for BioTronics. WFTS found labs and office space because they belong to BioTronics. WFTS either didn't bother to report that detail, or maybe Wang put up a second sign. I don't know. Unfortunately, I don't know if I can explain this any better in the article without veering off into original research. If you have suggestions about this I am all ears.
At least wikilink AmpliSensor? Maybe just noting the dates at which the two visits occurred would be useful. Currently one would assume that they shared space, but is it possible there was enough of a gap between the two visits for Acu-Gen to have acquired its own little space, or were the both visits around the same time? Opabinia regalis 03:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why was there none of this controversy or coverage of the Paragon test? - The sources do not specifically answer this question. At this point, I can provide two alternative explanations. One is that Paragon never made it onto the Today show. Since they never got as famous, they never received the backlash either. The other explanation is that their test could be more accurate since they don't offer it until 10 weeks and since they require fresh blood drawn at a laboratory instead of dried blood placed onto a card by the customer in her home. I have encountered some complaints about Paragon. In general though, less good has been said about them, and less bad has been said about them. They are just not really on the radar screen in the same way Acu-Gen is. I am still doing some research to see if I can come up with enough informaiton to write an article on Paragon.
Thank you again. Please see if I have answered some of your points with the above explanations. I am making the changes I describe abovve and I will post back here to let you know when I think I am done. Johntex\talk 08:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have made several changes to the article and I think I have now addressed all of the concerns, either by changes to the article and/or through explanations in my above reply to you. Please let me know if any problems remain. Thanks once again for your review. Johntex\talk 09:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pending the resolution of the prose issue, provisional support for this article. Opabinia regalis 03:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Thanks for staying with me as I work to address all your concerns and suggestions. Here is what I have done:
2,000 vs 20,000 - as you suggested, I have now specifically mentioned in the text that the 2 people gave different figures.
Bianchi quotation - I think I found a solution to the Bianchi problem. The text now does a better job of introducing her by saying, "Among the scientific evidence cited by Acu-Gen's web site is a paper co-authored by Diana Bianchi, who is an expert on fetal DNA at Tufts University." Then I say what she said about the test.
Quotations generally - you have suggested to paraphrase quotations instead of directly quoting these experts. I have now done that for most of the people mentioned in the article. There are now only six experts that are still quoted. All the rest are paraphrased. I even removed one name comletely and paraphrased his quote as coming on behalf of his organization. There few remaining quotes are the ones that I feel are particularly instructive and therefore I am reluctant to remove them. Please look at the remaining quotes and see if you agree that they add a certain preciseness to the article. I did make substantial changes to the lead ins to them also. Finally, except for the woman on the Today show, I have not quoted any consumers nor used their names at all. Taking those names out simplified the prose a bit. The quotes remaining are from the people associated with the various companies and the various scientists that have been interviewed by the media as experts on the subject.
Detection of twins - I double-checked and I see that I was partially in error. The company does claim to be able to tell the difference between 1 girl and 1boy/1girl twins. They do not claim to be able to tell the differnce between 1 boy and 2 or 3 boys; or between 1 girl and 2 or 3 girls. I have added a new paragraph and a new reference into the article to explain this.
Mutcherson - I found a new source (he bio at the Camden Law school) that explains her creditials and area of focus, so I took out the name of her class, re-worded the part about her, and provided the additional reference.
Wikilink "AmpliSensor" - done.
I look forward to your thoughts. Johntex\talk 18:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, one remaining question: if they do claim to be able to identify boy/girl fraternal twins as twins, then how do they claim inaccurate results as a consequence of 'vanishing twins'? Shouldn't they have reported the original pregnancy as a fraternal twin pair? (Related question: don't know if you know the statistics, but if their vanishing-twin explanation worked, shouldn't most of the errors have been females tested as males?) Opabinia regalis 02:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know - I had the same question. Here is what I can tell you:
The Acu-Gen website does not say much at all about how the test works. They really only have one sentence on the molecular workings of this test: "Acu-Gen Biolab employs AmpliSensor qPCR technique for the quantitative detection of the presence of the DYZ-1 DNA, a highly repetitive Y chromosome sequence, which can be detected in the peripheral blood of pregnant woman."
This source claims they are just looking for Y chromosome and if they don't find any Y chromosome, then they rule the pregnancy a girl.
Acu-Gen includes two pregnancy tests with the Baby Gender Mentor. To me, this implies that their own test cannot tell the difference between pregnant and non-pregnant and that they are only looking for presence or absence of Y chromosome.
Acu-Gen instructs the customer not to allow an adult male to handle the kit. This again implies to me that they are not detecting anything special about fetal DNA vs adult DNA. If they could tell the difference, then what would it matter if a man handles the kit? If they can't tell the difference, they how can they tell the difference between a boy and a boy/girl twin? The girl should be detected only as a lack of a boy if they can't tell the difference between the fetal DNA and the mother's DNA.
I have not come accross a single instance where Acu-Gen predicted twins.
Because of all the above, I initially thought they could not predict boy/girl twins. Then I found the portion of their web page where they claim the can detect boy/girl twins.
Concerning the probabilities, yes, I think you are right about what one would expect. Unfortunately, I don't have enough data to analyze given that I don't know what happened in very many of the alleged incorrect predictions.
If I had ~$600 to spend, and assuming they are still processing samples - I would love to send in two samples to Acu-Gen: One from an adult male and the other from a non-pregnant adult female. I suspect the results they would issue woulbe be "pregnant with boy" and "pregnant with girl", respectively.
In short, I recognize the inconsistency, but the inconsistencies seem to lie in the Acu-Gen claims. Until they publish more information then there is no way for anyone outside Acu-Gen to resolve the discrepency. I'd love to just say that in the article, but I was worried that could be construed as original research. None of the sources I have found have specifically mentioned this apparent discrepency in the Acu-Gen claims. The sources have all focused on the empirical evidence of the women who claimed to have received incorrect results - they have not delved into the apparent logical contradictions. Johntex\talk 03:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, investigative reporting at its best. What do you think of just noting in the 'vanishing twin' paragraph that this is at odds with their claim of detecting fraternal twins? I don't think that qualifies as original research, falling into the 'obvious deduction' category. Opabinia regalis 06:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you are probably right. I added it into the vanishing twin section. Thanks, Johntex\talk 07:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support and sorry for generating such a long thread ;) Opabinia regalis 02:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK - thank you - the article is better because of it and that is great. Johntex\talk 03:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A thorough, well written, well-cited article. I support following once the changes mentioned above are made (which I am assuming will be done).--NMajdan•talk 22:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support as above commentary has been taken care of and my review of it was clean. Great stuff getting obscure topics like this featured! — Scm83xhook 'em 07:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
:*In the "Test methodology" section, the statements of the company are treated as factual, ie "After eight weeks, accuracy is consistent through-out the pregnancy..." and "The test works by detecting fetal cells..." These are claims with no independent substantiation and should be qualified as such.:*The section entitled "Acclaim for the test" does not only contain acclaim, this section should be reworded to be more neutral, such as "Public discussion":*Reference 31 for "with other studies reporting as little as 3%" needs to cite the PubMed abstracts of the papers themselves, not a list of paper titles on a third-party website.:*"In India, a recent report found that for every 1,000 boys born in 2004..." This reference need to cite the original report.
Overall well-written and comprehensive. TimVickers 18:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tim, thank you very much for reviwing the article.
I re-phrased those sentences to make clear these are claims coming from the company.
I retitled that section to "Initial media attention" to be more neutral.
I updated Ref 31 with the PMID feature as well as the {{cite journal}} template.
Unfortunately, the Boston Globe does not cite their primary source for the study on births in India, so I have to stick with just citing the secondary source. Fortunately, it is a reputable source, so I don't think it is ia problem.
You could try George SM. "Millions of missing girls: from fetal sexing to high technology sex selection in India." Prenat Diagn. 2006 Jul;26(7):604-9. PMID16856224 If you want the Pdf, e-mail me through my user page. TimVickers 19:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for e-mailing me the PDF. That is a very interesting paper. It does not contain the exact same fact reported by the Boston Globe. Therefore, I re-worked that little section to use the over-all figures for India based upon the Prenat Diagn paper and provided the citation. Then, I still cite the fact reported by the Boston Globe as a secondary fact. The advantage to the Boston Globe article is that the full text is available on-line to check, while the Prenat Diagn paper is not. The abstract is available at PubMed, but the abstract does not mention the specific fact. Look OK? Johntex\talk 21:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All my comments have been addressed. TimVickers 21:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think it just about meets the criteria. The use of "claim" (I removed some myself) is in words to avoid and shouldn't really be used outside of legal matters. Occasionally, too, the article might go into a little too much detail (like the information about India's boy/girl ratio). But these are minor quibbles; the article is comprehensive, well-referenced and well-written. Trebor 15:00, 27 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
In my opinion, this article meets the criteria outlined at the featured article criteria.It has been given good article status and has gone through a peer review, where the concerns have been addressed, and has been reviewed by several editors from WikiProject Mathematics.I don't believe in claiming an article as your own, so I won't call this a self-nomination, but I am the creator and largest contributor to the article. —Mets501 (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Something is wrong with the last two citations and I don't know how to fix it. Otherwise the article looks very good. Christopher Parham(talk) 06:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't see the problem.Are you talking about formatting or the links? —Mets501 (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. I see it now. —Mets501 (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment web site refs are not in consistent format, make all same with site link, published, retrieval date, etc. Rlevse 12:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, they should all be the same now, except the FAA cite, where it's a guidebook with no main author. —Mets501 (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I learned something! Good clear, easy-to-understand images. We desperately need more mathematics FA's. Leon math 16:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object (regretfully, we do need more math FA) I did a thorough review of the first half of the article and found the article to be below FA standards. The writing is ok, although some copyediting would really improve the flow, the images are nice but I found a few imprecise or outright misleading mathematical statements (notably the bit about "every line not going through the pole is perpendicular to some radial line" which I now changed.) So I expect that the second half suffers from the same problems and I would suggest to ask for a thorough double-check of the article by people involved in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics before going further. Pascal.Tesson 20:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it true that every line not passing through the pole is perpendicular to some line that does pass through the pole? What did you find unsatisfactory about the cited source? Christopher Parham(talk) 21:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that you're mistaken.Lines are infinite, so you can just take the negative reciprocal of the slope m of any line and the perpendicular radial line will have the equation y=−x/m. —Mets501 (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course, I don't disagree with that. The problem is that the sentence was suggesting that this was only true of lines that don't go through the pole. The problem with these lines is that the formula that was given a line below was incorrect for r_0 = 0. I expect that most people without any mathematical training would read ""every line not going through the pole is perpendicular to some radial line" and think "they must mean that there are lines that go through the pole and are not perpendicular to any radial line". Which of course is completely incorrect as I've tried to point out with my edit. Pascal.Tesson 22:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been greatly improved from your vote to this time; I suggest you may want to reconsider. —Mets501 (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further objections I think the applications section is entirely missing the point and should be rewritten. It is giving a couple of apparently arbitrarily chosen examples without stressing the obvious: polar coordinates are useful in any situation where the phenomenon being considered is inherently tied to direction and length. Aviation uses polar coordinates? Well sure but so does navigation, so does someone who uses a compass, so do robots. Polar coordinates are useful when studying microphones? Sure but they're useful to study anything that has to do with wave propagation, circular motion. The bit about the Archimedean spiral and scroll compressors have nothing to do with polar coordinates (or at least does not constitute an "application of polar coordinates") and should remain in the article Archimedean spiral. Pascal.Tesson 23:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to sound like the guy who just complains but no, it does not help. At least not enough and I don't think there's an easy fix for this section as its problems are much deeper. Take the aviation bit. What is being described there is not even a system of polar coordinates per se. If the weather says that the wind will blow at 50 km/h from the south-east, we don't view this as a system of polar coordinates and we probably shouldn't. The point about robots is a bit more convincing but it is not written properly: the advantage of the polar system is not that it avoids the necessity for the robot to keep track of its location in the coordinate system. If the robot was for some reason restricted to moving along perpendicular axes, the robot would be using a cartesian system in the same advantageous way. I don't know about the history of that section but it seems like it came from an old trivia-like section of examples. I think the best option is to scrap it entirely and rewrite it from scratch with an emphasis on basic principles. What are the basic advantages of a polar system? What situations are typically easier to handle with a polar system? Why? Then the list of examples will flow naturally. Also, there is no need to start discussing Wnt proteins in this article. Pascal.Tesson 02:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point here. In practice, the representation of a point is frequently switched back and forward between polar and cartesian cordinated, as suits the particular need at that time, so . Perhaphs the most important feature is which set of coordinates is used to store or record the positions, and how the positions are communicated. By this criteria the aviation, (actually much of navigation) example is important, as a variation of polar coordinates giving angle and distance is used to comunicate positions of objects. Then we have modelling situations where a simpler model of a system can be expressed in polar coordinates, if something exhibits a radial symmetry then polar coordinates will be useful, for examples the Groundwater flow equation when applied to radial symetric wells. The other situation where polar cordinates will be useful for modelling is when there is a radial force or a point source, so Orbit (celestial mechanics), electro-statics, various forms of difusions (say ripples produced fropping a stone in water). Finally theres calculations where poloar coordinates make calculation easier. There a host of electronic applications where its more convienient to use the polar form of complex numbers to represent phase and such like. --Salix alba (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. What I'm saying is that the section should be rewritten to look like an expanded version of your comment. Then examples don't look like completely arbitrarily chosen but rather like illustrations of the simple principles that make polar coordinates useful. If you look at the current set of examples, you almost begin to wonder why Newton would even have felt the need for polar coordinates. Pascal.Tesson 23:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Salix alba has created and I have edited a replacement for the current applications section at Polar coordinate system/draft.I think it addresses the concerns you have above and I will add it to the article if you agree. —Mets501 (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much better I think. I've made a change and left a comment. More later. Pascal.Tesson 23:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've put the new section into the article.It's definitely much much better than before. —Mets501 (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object Pascal.Tesson and Salix alba have pursuaded me that the Applications section needs help, and more importantly, that it will be possible to fix it. I also have a few points that I hope are easier to address:
The "History" section is overall a pleasant surprise, but after reading it, I don't understand what "Sir Isaac Newton was the first to consider polar coordinates as a method of locating any point in the plane" means. Then what did the mathematicians in the second paragraph do?
You're right, that is contradictory.Salix alba wrote the history section, so I'll ask him what he meant to say. —Mets501 (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I wrote the first stub-section of history (in response to a peer comment on good article review), so I will take responsibility for any contradiction, although I could pass the buck to Harvard Professor Julian Coolidge's article which was my reference. I don't believe it's an actual contradiction, though: I believe the meaning is that the earlier mathematicians used concepts of polar coordinates to solve specific problems relating to curves, areas, etc., while Newton was the first to think in terms of a coordinate system as such, that is, the ability to locate any point using the radius and angle, convert from one system to the other, and so forth. It's a fine distinction and a further look at the references (by someone more learned than I) might help clarify the matter. Newyorkbrad 01:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry!I didn't mean to take the credit away from you :-).I'll take a look at the refs to try and clear things up, although I wouldn't consider myself more learned then you. —Mets501 (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if that's the case then the presence of the phrases "formal coordinate system … introduced the concepts" in the second paragraph is probably the problem. If possible it would be great to know exactly which concepts they used, if not the full coordinate system concept. I see that [10] isn't very helpful; someone (learned or not) ought to look up the full article, and then with any luck all will be clear. Melchoir 02:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's true, and a good look at that article would help (although I don't have access to it) to verify that, but for now I've removed/rephrased the sentence and added a ref, as we don't want any possibly untrue information in the article. —Mets501 (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's strange that there's a "Calculus" section that has so much information on the calculus of curves and computing areas, but none on partial differential equations. Shouldn't there be some formulas involving, for example, the Laplacian in polar coordinates?
Perhaps you can help out a bit with this? (Not meaning to sound rude in the least)I'm really only in my first year of calculus; I don't know enough about partial differential equations to write about it and I know nothing about the Laplacian. —Mets501 (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I should have seen that coming! It's only fair to ask me to help out, but to be frank, I'd rather not. Can someone else…? Perhaps I'll chip in if the other issues with the article are taken care of but this one isn't, and it looks like it's about to be Featured. Melchoir 02:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no problem. —Mets501 (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The table of contents is a little overwhelming. Can single-paragraph sections like "Use of radian measure" and "Other curves" be handled differently? Melchoir 01:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from removing the heading ===Use of radian measure=== I'm at a bit of a loss on how to fix this.Do you have any ideas? —Mets501 (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was hoping that a better solution could be found for "Other curves", since it wouldn't really fit at the end of the preceding subsection. You could try moving that subsection to the top of its parent section "Polar equations" (and rephrasing it to make sense there). Or it might be better to expand it to a size where it deserves the heading. In my opinion the perfect solution would be to dedicate a summary-style daughter article to the material in the "Polar equations". The benefit there is that in the daughter article you can spend as much space as you like on sections for trivia, while the summary in the parent article is more streamlined and only deals with the most important examples. One of my goals with the Grandi's series article is to demonstrate how this strategy can work, but I have yet to do that. So… does any of that help? Melchoir 02:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that's the best solution here. The section on polar equations is really good and FA status would not even be a consideration without it. It has the cool pictures too! But I agree that the other curves subsection should be merged with the introductory paragraphs of the section. This also gives an opportunity to explain the advantages of polar coordinates. Pascal.Tesson 02:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Pascal Tession on this.I'll work on this article more tomorrow; now it's late and I'm going to sleep. —Mets501 (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the TOC has been shortened now so that there are no one-sentence or two-sentence sections. —Mets501 (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My above issues have either been dealt with or, in the case of vector calculus, I have convinced myself in the timeless spirit of avoiding work that nothing needs to be done. The information I wanted can be found where it belongs, in 3D articles like Del in cylindrical and spherical coordinates. But the new Applications section raises too many questions for me. I understand using the polar coordinate system as a human to simplify symbolic calculations, but how does a robot "use" the coordinate system? Is it really an AI application or just vanilla coding? What's this slight modification alluded to? Isn't it more common for a robot arm's configuration space to be a godawful, high-dimensional monstrosity? Does a cardioid microphone really have an approximate 1=r = a + a sin θ curve or is that just a misunderstanding based on the presence of the word "cardioid"? Melchoir 23:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as robots, I'm fine removing that info from the article if you'd like.Microphones really do have an approximate r = a + a sin θ curve, though (see the bottom of [11] for an example reference). —Mets501 (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if no one comes up with a source that explains the robots, then it doesn't belong. And… allchurchsound.com? Doesn't look reliable to me. Melchoir 00:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the robot info.As far as the source, I don't really plan on using that one in the source, it was just to demonstrate that it really does have a cardioid curve representation (see also [12], [13] (at the bottom), [14], and [15] (in the middle)] for another random sampling).All of these have the cardioid plotted on a set of polar axes as a true cardioid (although the entire coordinate system is rotated in some).None of the references may be reliable in themselves, but the sheer number of them available should prove the point. —Mets501 (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of those websites even claims an equation. This is a mathematics article, and we can't go calling everything that looks like a heart a cardioid. Look, I just found a reference on Google Books that makes a mathematical claim, so I'll adjust to that and cite it. Melchoir 01:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
…Uh, I guess my edit was okay then? Well, I'm out of ideas, so I shall switch to
Support. Melchoir 07:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great!(Yes, your edit was good). —Mets501 (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just went back to my trusted Merzbach History of Mathematics to figure out the history of it all. Merzbach credits Newton and Bernoulli as in the article. Also notes the ensuing work of Jacob Hermann and says that Euler's description of polar coordinates in Introductio was so good that people often attributed their introduction to him. I will try to fit that in. Pascal.Tesson 02:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome.I'll be checking out the library tomorrow for other references as well. —Mets501 (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check the talk page, I did a bit of digging through various online sources to try to work out the history, which is rather involved, and theres some direct quote there. --Salix alba (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had to read this article after I saw a seemingly incongruous comment about Wnt proteins scroll by.Most definitely, the applications section needs rewriting as suggested above; currently the assembly of examples has no particular coherence and doesn't seem to have been deliberately chosen so much as accumulated. I would really remove the limb morphogenesis stuff altogether and concentrate on more relevant examples; 'used in one admittedly poor model of a biological process' is hardly the most notable choice of examples. Opabinia regalis 01:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just couldn't resist the Wnt proteins in an article about a coordinate system :) For future reference, creating subpages in mainspace doesn't work; your "draft" is currently an article (notice how it doesn't have the usual backlink just under the title?). Usually drafts and workspaces for an article should hang off its talk:. Opabinia regalis 02:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know subpages don't work in mainspace, but this is only temporary.We'll archive it into talk space when we're done with it. —Mets501 (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to double-post from above: the applications section has been completed and merged into the article. —Mets501 (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I'm still not too thrilled with the applications section but I made some minor modifications which I feel make the section acceptable. I still think it fails, to a certain extent, to convey the correct intuition but I'm too lazy to give a serious go at rewriting it. Although I'm not convinced that this is the perfect article, I really think it's close. Pascal.Tesson 19:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Weak points, as I see them: too much reliance on online sources / too few textbooks; generalization section for integrals (the last sentence is not very clear and perhaps we should explain why it's a generalization, though I'm not sure of the latter); converting differentials / PDEs from Cartesian to polar missing (echoing Melchoir above). But overall it looks very good. I need to have another look before deciding whether to support. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added two textbooks; I was positive I had added them before...perhaps they'd been removed in some other edit. —Mets501 (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That messes up the formatting of the references section, but I'm not too worried about that; it may not be possible to fix it in the current implementation. However, the calculus section is imprecise in a couple of places: the first sentence of "integral calculus", the last sentence of "generalization", and the last sentence of "vector calculus". I tried to find a better formulation, but unsuccessfully: it's not easy to get it right without descending in convoluted pedantry. I'll stay on the fence regarding supporting or opposing for now. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can try to fix it? :-) I don't know enough about vector calculus or the generalization section to know if it's wrong or not.And would it be better if the first sentence of integral calculus read "To find the area enclosed by a curve r(θ) on a closed interval [a, b], where 0 < b − a < 2π, the curve is first expressed as a Riemann sum." —Mets501 (talk) 11:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It took a while before I found both inspiration and time, but I now found a better formulations for the sentences in "integral calculus" and its "generalization" that I complained about. I resolved my issue with the final bit in "vector calculus" by deleting it as I don't think it's that important; see Talk:Polar coordinate system. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.
For r = 0, θ can be set to any real value, but is conventionally set to 0.
I'm not aware of any such convention existing, and am curious exactly where this assertion comes from. -- Bentsm 04:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right; now that you've mentioned it I've looked into it further, and it appears that most places assign the pole to the coordinates (0,θ), with θ being an arbitrary angle. I'm going to change that in the article now. —Mets501 (talk) 04:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. As a (mostly) layman, there are a number of quibbles I'd like to see adressed:
Writing
Second paragragh in the Intro starts with a dangling modifier. It's not the points that are two-dimensional, it's the coordinate system.
"The Greek work, however, did not extend to a full coordinate system." I'll retract that one. Still feel a bit odd, though.
"extend" needs a direct object.
Extend is used as an intransitive verb in this context; it doesn't need a direct object.
"a negative radial distance is measured as a positive distance on the opposite ray"
This introduce the concept of "opposite" rays without it being formally defined. Even if it relatively obvious in context(especially for mathematicians), a clear definition of "opposite rays" should be given.
It should be stated earlier than it is that radians are the usual angle measures in polar coordinates.
They're both used often, just depending on context.Do you think it should be mentioned earlier the contexts in which they are used? —Mets501 (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think my beef is that the article seemingly starts by using degrees and switch to radiants (when defining the interval for conversion) before going into a mixed system. Itmight just an impression due to unfamiliarity. We never learned much about radians in class.Circeus 18:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it pertinent to give the equation of a circle or line that is not centered on the pole (an equation that hardly makes sense to one that is not used to the system, too), but not for the rose, the spiral or the conics?
It is pertinent because in polar coordinates, circles and lines not centered around the pole happen to have simple equations (even if they may look complicated, they're relatively simple), while the other curves either don't have such an equation or don't have a relatively simple one. —Mets501 (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe separate a section to discuss formulas of curves that are not centered? Polar coordinates are clearly not very useful for curves that are not centered, and maybe that should be stated.
I think it's pretty much implied, and once we start going to deep people start to say that it should really go in a daughter article.I tried to look for a reference that says it's not useful, but I can't seem to find one, and I don't want to add information that I'm not 100% sure about without a ref. —Mets501 (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think i should be clearly linked to Imaginary unit at some point. I don't know, nor can I tell what R represents in that same section either.
It would be useful to show an attempt at an equation for the Archimedean spiral in the Cartesian system to demonstrate how "intricate" is becomes
As far as I know, the only way to define the Archimedean spiral in Cartesian coordinates is , which is basically the same thing as the polar equation. —Mets501 (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Under "Position and navigation", the first sentence is a repeat of something that was just stated.
"rather than counterclockwise as in most navigational coordinate systems."
Can one or two other be mentioned? The only one that spontaneous pops in my head is maritime navigation, but I don't know whether it usually uses a polar system.
It's all really one navigational system used by aircraft, ships, cars, etc. so I've updated the article to say that. —Mets501 (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Systems with a radial force are also good candidates for the polar coordinate system."
"candidates for using the polar coordinate system"
Under "Modelling", is the equation given a true polar equation or actually a Spherical one? ρ has so far only been mentioned in relation with the spherical coordinate system.
Replaced ρ (which was what the ref used as r) with r. —Mets501 (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing
The Klaasen reference is unacceptably incomplete.
Removed.Already two other refs for the same statement. —Mets501 (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned about the age of the David Eugene Smith ref. Isn't there a more recent edition we could refer to? Is that particular reference strictlynecessary?
I don't see the problem with citing an old ref for history.The fact that "The term appeared in English in George Peacock's 1816 translation of Lacroix's Differential and Integral Calculus" isn't going to change. —Mets501 (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's just that it seems foolish to request of someone who would want to look that fact up that they locate a book that has probably been out of print for over half a century.Circeus 19:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but that's where Google Books comes in :-) —Mets501 (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does choosing a different interval influence the final coordinates when doing conversions, or does it only alter the calculations? Maybe polar coordinates for a specific examples should be given (3,4,5 would be advantageous, since it has an integer r) with both intervals?
Not sure what you mean.Any point can be represented by an infinite number of coordinates, and they are all correct (as is states in "Plotting points with polar coordinates"). —Mets501 (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt about that. My concern is that there is no clear reason why one would choose one interval over the other. Is that clearer? Circeus 20:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I still don't understand your concern :-(There is no clear reason why one would chose one interval over the other in most cases; it's usually simply a question of personal preference. —Mets501 (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Under "polar equation", the variable φ is introduced, without it being clearly stated what it represent. Since it was at the beginning said that it is equivalent to θ in expressing the azimuth (and it's clearly not the case here), this can be VERY confusing. Added a comment to the intro to help with that.
What does the subscripted 0 introduced in the coordinates given under "circle" stands for?
It just refers to a constant, just like in Cartesian coordinates an arbitrary point can be denoted , an arbitrary point in polar coordinates can be denoted . —Mets501 (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The explanations under "line" are simply nonsensical jargon from my point of view. again, φ makes an apparition, but the "angle of elevation of the line" makes no sense to me. Can this number be graphically represented in a polar graph? it would certainly help. reworded that so it makes more sense now.
This poses a problem: φ is formally defined twice in the article, with completely different definitions.
Done φ is really just a letter which is used in many different ways, but I've now standardized it throughout the article to refer to an arbitrary angle. —Mets501 (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
e also appears twice, once as the eccentricity in the ellipse equation, ad then as Euler's number. The latter should be clearly stated, even if it is obvious to mathematicians because Euler's formula is being mentioned, Wikipedia is not written for mathematicians.
I'm finding myself very confused by the formulas under "Complex numbers". Do these quations represent functions or coordinates of a point z? I think the problem is that it's not clear whether "z" represents a curve or a point in the polar coordinates system. Images might (or might not, I can't tell!) greatly clarify this.
"z" represents neither a function or coordinates; it represents a complex number.Complex numbers can be represented as a point on the complex plane.I'll try to get a picture to clarify this. —Mets501 (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then is the equation shown meant to plot as a point?Circeus 20:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The equation is just to show how to calculate z.Think of the complex plane like a number line, just as a plane; each complex number has a specific spot on the plane. —Mets501 (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See the section now, I've added a picture which should be clearer. —Mets501 (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm skipping the entire calculus section because, frankly, it's impossible to explain calculus to the layman. I mean, you can explain what it does, but not how it does it
. No obvious ungrammaticalities there, though.
Pretty much it explains what it does by saying "To find the Cartesian slope of the tangent line to a polar curve r(θ) at any given point" use the derivative and "To find the area under a curve r(θ) on a closed interval [a, b], where 0 < b − a < 2π" use the integral. —Mets501 (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The spherical coordinates to lat/lon conversion has 2 unidentified variables (δ and l). I'm assuming these are the variable used for latitude and longitude, but I can't be sure.
Fixed. Your assumptions were right. —Mets501 (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, though, the article is very well written, and I'll be more than happy to support it.Circeus 16:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome!Thanks for the comments.I'm getting at fixing them now :-) —Mets501 (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed this one: the lead does not "concisely reflect[s] the content of the article as a whole" at all. Only 2, maybe 3 sections are actually summarized in there.Circeus 13:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's very hard to do that with a mathematics article like this that builds on itself.If I started to explain the calculus section, for example, in the lead, most people would just stop reading at that point thinking the entire article is too technical. —Mets501 (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I disagree with Circeus on this one: while we could add a quick mention of calculus and complex numbers, the current lead section is pretty good: it's not intimidating, it gives the basic idea and it introduces the reader to the rest of the article without over-detailing the content. Pascal.Tesson 14:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a "quick mention" is certainly enough. And while I agree that it is "pretty good", it does not quite stand enough on its own as is. Circeus 15:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about adding this third paragraph to the lead:
Polar coordinates serve many purposes both inside and outside of mathematics.Complex numbers are often represented in polar form to aid calculations, and calculus can be applied to polar equations as well.The polar coordinate system is used in navigation, and polar coordinates extended into three dimensions are the basis for the earth's latitude and longitude system.The polar coordinate system can be applied anytime there is a central point or force affecting its surroundings.
That's just a rough draft, feel free to copyedit. —Mets501 (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support now that the main weaknesses that I pointed out are resolved. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:57, 30 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
An informative, very readable, and excellently illustrated survey of a nineteenth-century photographer that I believe meets all the FAC criteria with panache.
The huge majority (ninety-eight percent?) of the work on this article was done, and I think all the content was inserted, by a single editor, and I'm not that editor. However, I did goad him along to some extent; I'm not unrelated to the editing process.
(The article was nominated for FA on 9 February 06. Here is the debate; in my opinion, some objections were valid at the time but are valid no longer, at least one was not valid even then. The latest draft of the article before it was first nominated is here; the latest before its failure was announced is here.)
Reference for the dates of birth and death? Proto::► 09:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraphs dealing with his origins and his death cite "Dobson, 27". Pinkville 13:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORTOBJECT. Well referenced, however, the references need to use one format or another. Can't use Harvard referencing in a "footnotes" format. Either put the references in the body to comply with the requirements of Harvard Referencing, or make the footnotes full citations, per WP:CITE and something like MLA or Chicago. Given wikipedia's inline citations rules, that would eliminate harvard referencing. I don't even know why we still let people use Harvard Referencing, academia largely walked away from it 20 years ago because of its deficiencies and aesthetics. Right now, you're using <ref> tags for harvard referencing, and that's just wrong given how HR is meant to work. Example on how it has to be done, from "Early Years" section:
He married an American, but the marriage failed and in 1873 he left his wife and two children and moved to Japan.(Bennett, 44–45; Dobson, 27.)or
He married an American, but the marriage failed and in 1873 he left his wife and two children and moved to Japan.<ref>Bennett, Terry. Early Japanese Images. Rutland, Vermont: Charles E. Tuttle, 1996, 44-45. ISBN 0-8048-2033-3 (paper), ISBN 0-8048-2029-5 (hard).</ref><ref>Dobson, Sebastian. "Yokohama Shashin". In Art and Artifice. 27</ref>
As you can guess, I'd prefer the second style, but I can't hold that against you for using HR. Now, to pre-empt one response, MLA and Chicago formats require a full citation before you can start using ibid. and op. cit. For the section entitled Selected photographs and other works, I'd much rather see a gallery (implying uploading them to wikipedia, as they all seem to be public domain because of age) within this section of the article than a list of external jumps. 6 months from now, it would look bad if they were all dead links. Also, the lead needs to be expanded to summaries each section just a little bit more, per WP:LEAD. The article is well-written on the other hand, and I'll gladly support this article once the above are remedied. —ExplorerCDT 02:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've seen this format used quite often for Featured Articles that rely heavily on books. It's cumbersome to cite the full book each time it's used. Since the full citations are given in the References, I think it's perfectly fine to just list last name, page # in the notes. Gzkn 03:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NO, it's not. Right now they're using a hybrid of different citation methods and must choose one or the other, because they're using one method quite heavily, but incorrectly (see WP:CITE n.b. the section on Harvard Referencing) Also considering that several older FAs don't meet today's criteria (and as such deserve to be subjected to FA review), comparisons to other FAs are not often valid. Your comment doesn't take into account WP:CITE's policy, and will mislead the article nominator. They'll hit themselves later if it's my objection that fails this candidacy, only because they listened to you instead of doing the revisions demanded.—ExplorerCDT 04:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes, it is. See Wikipedia:Footnotes#Style recommendations: "Avoid using Ibid in footnotes. Other editors who add new references to the article may not take the time to correct Ibid references broken by their addition. Furthermore, not all readers are familiar with the meaning of the term. If a reference is reused in more than one footnote, it is preferable to use the format "Smith, 182" rather than "Ibid, 182", so as to avoid these problems." (Emphasis added.) A fuller citation is required the first time a particular work is cited, though, and that hasn't been done in this article at present. Shimeru 05:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean ibid in that context. I should have marked my words more carefully. I was equating their last name, page number style with ibid. and that was just wrong of me. But that doesn't negate my above comments regarding citations, and thank you for agreeing with me on that point. —ExplorerCDT 05:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't fully understand the objection here. After markup stripping: the references need to use one format or another. Can't use Harvard referencing in a "footnotes" format. Either put the references in the body to comply with the requirements of Harvard Referencing, or make the footnotes full citations, per WP:CITE and something like MLA or Chicago. I have in front of me the 13th edition (1982) of The Chicago Manual of Style. Chapter 17 is devoted to "note forms", i.e. the forms that foot/endnotes should take. Section 17.2 (p.486) is within this context (it's most certainly about the use of notes), and it starts: A source should be given a full reference the first time it is cited in a book or article, unless it appears in an alphabetical bibliography at the end of the work (see 15.82). Section 15.82, in turn, is very simple; though taking up slightly more than two pages (pp.423–5), the great majority of it is taken up by a lengthy example of each of two layouts of alphabetically ordered bibliographies; it says The bibliography arranged in a single alphabetical list is the most common and usually the best form for a work with, or without, notes to the text (p.423). Thus although "Chicago" certainly does allow for a system of full bibliographical (etc.) details in a note the first time the given source is referenced, it (or anyway its rather old 13th edition) asks for an alphabetically ordered list for this, and it does not require full details in the footnotes if they are in an alphabetically ordered list. ¶ What we have in this article is the alphabetical list but not the first full citation in the footnote, a system that appealed to the creator of the article, appealed to me as editor, avoids a lot of clutter, seems to do little or nothing to make the sources harder to identify, and was fully approved of by "Chicago" in 1982, even if it's not approved of by the latest (2003) "Chicago". (I really don't know about the 2003 edition. I'm not buying a copy because I see nothing wrong with the old copy that I already possess, because the new one includes a stupid new section, because it's rather expensive, and, well, because every day is Buy Nothing Day.) ¶ I now turn from Chicago to what WP says. WP:FOOT tells us: Consider maintaining a separate bibliography/references section, then just the page number and book name can be given in each note, following Wikipedia:Citing sources (tsk tsk, comma splice). That seems to allow for the sourcing system used in this article, though admittedly it's not entirely clear. As for WP:SOURCE, [cough], no offense intended to the good people who have no doubt labored over it, but it strikes me as an awful mess. A footnote dump (via <references />) gives us:
footnote examples
1. Miller, E: "The Sun.", page 23. Academic Press, 2005
2. Smith, R: "Size of the Moon", Scientific American, 46(78):46
3. example footnote abc
4. example footnote xyz
The very first of these strikes me as grotesque. (Something like
1. E. Miller, The Sun (New York: Academic Press, 2005), 23.
would be okay; let's put aside quibbles about whether the page number should be preceded by "p." and suchlike stylemanualcruft.) I'm willing to follow the main thrust of what this "guideline" says, but the details are so shoddy that I have difficulty summoning the enthusiasm needed to follow its every minor pronouncement. Still, I'm open to persuasion. -- Hoary 07:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When in doubt, go the extra mile. I think the policy is clear. But if you want to doubt, so be it. —ExplorerCDT 07:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be happy to go the extra mile, or two, or three, if I thought that doing so would either add to the article or result in the article adhering to a coherent guideline. But I don't see how fleshing out notes in this way would add to the article (other than in simple bulk), and WP:FOOT appears to approve of and Chicago (13th ed.) definitely does approve of the system now used. Again, I'm open to reasoning -- and the reason can be pretty weak. Yes, given even a weak reason, I'll certainly make the changes, and with good grace. -- Hoary 07:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning: What if someone comes by and divorces the reference section from the article and no one notices it for several weeks, months, years? Heck, the false accusation that John Seigenthaler, Sr. was involved in the JFK and RFK assassinations was around for several months before someone noticed it and complained. —ExplorerCDT 08:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You wanted biblio stuff in the notes, you got it! -- Hoary 09:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As per above, this article has my support. Though, I'd still like to see the "Selected photographs" section in the form of a Gallery, I won't hold it against ya. —ExplorerCDT 09:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, but unfortunately all six images are hosted elsewhere. -- Hoary 09:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are public domain by now> Open page with picture. Right click. Save as. Open wikipedia. Log in. Click upload file, etc. Hint, hint... —ExplorerCDT 10:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The images whose rephotographs (or perhaps scans) we're looking at are indeed in the public domain. Offhand I'm not at all sure about those rephotographs (scans). I suspect that a scan or recent rephotograph of a public-domain image is itself copyright; I had a quick look for this issue in vaguely relevant-looking WP pages but didn't turn up anything. (I suggest that we continue this discussion on Talk:Adolfo Farsari in order not to clutter up this FAC page.) -- Hoary 10:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those photograph scans are covered under {{PD-art}} and the relevant case law attached to that tag. —ExplorerCDT 22:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do with the lead a bit later today. I'll also look constructing an image gallery, if indeed the consensus is to go ahead with that idea. Pinkville 18:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aside from the potential reference-format issue (which is a minor detail), this looks to me like a well-written and comprehensive article. Shimeru 08:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite a remarkable article on a very little known subject. PHG 11:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a gallery using the photographs and other items formerly listed in the "selected photographs" section. I'll deal with expanding the lead tomorrow. Pinkville 04:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I don't know enough on the subject to have a clear opinion about the nomination. I did however thoroughly enjoy reading the article and found it to be of high quality. I did a bit of copyediting and some more is probably needed to reach brilliant prose. For instance, you might want to rephrase As a further example of the studio's high reputation, by the 1890s it had exclusive rights to photograph the Imperial Gardens in Tokyo which sounds clumsy to me. I also think that it would be suitable to have at least a few notes (in the last section) on whether or not Farsari's work is still being exhibited. Have there been fairly recent Farsari exhibits? If so, where? If not, why? If not, have there ever been? Pascal.Tesson 03:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I'll have a look again at that studio's high reputation sentence. And I'll see about mentioning something about recent exhibitions - the source I mainly used is actually an exhibition catalogue from 2004. Pinkville 04:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I've resolved these two issues now. Pinkville 04:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Thanks. As I said, I know too little about photography or Japan for that matter so I don't think I can be a good judge of the article's overall value. Best of luck Pinkville. Pascal.Tesson 04:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help, improvements, and good wishes. Pinkville 05:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the intro somewhat to more comprehensively summarise the sections of the article. Pinkville 04:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well written, interesting, meets criteria. Giano 13:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe all of the questions/issues raised here (and in the previous bid for FA status) have been answered. Any further comments, requests, etc.? Pinkville 02:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just one comment. While using a gallery is ok per WP:MoS, I've seen a few instances in the past where use of gallery wes rather discouraged. However, since some experienced wikipedians have already reviewed the article and supported it, I believe this is not a major issue. Nice article. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - great article. I think the gallery is entirely appropriate for an article on a photographer. Johntex\talk 15:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image gallery wraps off my screen - please resize. The first footnote is incomplete - please add biblio info including publisher and last access date. Also, the end of the third paragraph in the section "Farsari and Yokohama shashin" has uncited commentary which appears as opinion or original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how to help you with the gallery size issue - it's fine in the three browsers I use on two computers and though I've looked through the relevant pages in Wikipedia on Gallery mark-up I haven't found out how to resize. Maybe someone who understands this technical issue better than I can help...? The first footnote has been expanded to include access date - it is a webpage, so there isn't any further publication data to add. The missing citation (accidentally left off at some point in the editing) has been added. Pinkville 17:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone help with the gallery resizing request from SandyGeorgia? Thanks. Pinkville 16:03, 30 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
An article about the frontman of the Pixies - I feel the article is comprehensive on the subject, with a detailed lead section, biography and musical style section. I've been working on this for a few weeks, and I feel it meets the criteria. CloudNine 14:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 'Vocals' sub-section in 'Musical style' section is too short. Consider merging with the introduction of 'Musical style' section. I don't think the subsection '"Los Angeles" video'.Otherwise looks very good. — Wackymacs 14:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment addressed - made suggested changes. CloudNine 14:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - fits the criteria. Good work! — Wackymacs 14:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't read, but will say that the "samples" section is clearly unwarranted on it's own. It should be integrated in the rest of the article.Circeus 18:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Samples are already included throughout the article. I see the samples section as a way for the reader to see Black's career easily, rather than have to go through the whole text to find samples of his music. CloudNine 19:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't specifically justify every single of these samples via related text, they represent as many violations of the Fair use policy, and an even greater reason to strongly oppose the accession of this article to featured status.Circeus 19:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The use of them is already justified in the text - "Velvety" and "Headache" are given criticism in the text, along with "Debaser" and "U-Mass". CloudNine 19:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am concerned, you have denied my argument, instead of even trying to adress it.Circeus 20:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is that I haven't justified the use of these samples via related text. I have, in the article's main prose - see the Biography section. Along with other band FAs, including Pixies, it's fine to gather already-criticised samples into a samples section at the bottom of the text. If that doesn't address your argument, I'm struggling to understand what I'm failing to do here. CloudNine 21:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch all that. I've just made a complete asshole and idiot of myself. It's likely a careful reading could reveal plenty stuff that needs tweaking (I have an habit of it), but this is definitely not one, and I don't think it's a good idea for me to comment further on this nom.Circeus 23:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You probably don't need the citations for basic facts in the first paragraph, such as his birthdate and that he's performed under the name Black Francis. The lead section covers stuff that should already be addressed and cited in the body of the article, and plus the referece material provided would be sufficiently consistent (like crediting him as "Black Francis" on every single set of Pixies liner notes) that you wouldn't need an inline cite anyways.WesleyDodds 03:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Early years and college could be one section since both sections cover the period of his life before he became a notable subject without any real need to distinguish them into two separate parts. I feel the influences section could detail a bit more, and emphasize the bigger influences on his music as opposed to the breadth of them. For one, I've skimmed that Oral History of the Pixies book and it seems like Husker Du is one of his biggest influences, but they don't receive a mention here aside from the flyer he posted that got Kim Deal in the band. The last sentence in the biography seems a bit weak; as opposed to saying he's married now and lives in a particular place, note when he was married and when he moved to his current home where appropriate in the article. And one last little bit of possible relevance: was the main character in the TV show Millenium named after Frank Black?WesleyDodds
Thanks for the comments. I've merged early years and college together. I'll get to work on the influences section - I'm not sure Husker Du is that large an influence on him - I wasn't able to find much in Fool the World. In terms of Black's location, I found that he moved to Portland after Show Me Your Tears, but that isn't Eugene. Same trouble with his wife - I'll keep looking however. I did note that the TV series character is named after Black in the disambig though. CloudNine 19:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments addressed - I believe I've addressed the comments as far as I can. I can't find much on Husker Du in terms of Black's influences, and I've got no chronological info to the move to Eugene or his wife. CloudNine 18:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have any objects now, so I'm voting Support. WesleyDodds 10:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comprehensive, well written, cited, & illustrated. + Ceoil 18:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak supportmy only real concern is the sound samples. They are better off worked into the actual text of the article rather than clustered at the end. This is because we are using excerpts under fair use, which requires encyclopedic use - i.e. listening to the sample informs the reader of something. Whatever that something is should be implicit from reading the text (because the song and album in question is placed in historical context). Placing the samples at the end of the article undermines their encyclopedic usefulness. I still think they're better off only being in the text and not in the section at the end, but whatever... Tuf-Kat 02:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments addressed - The sound samples are integrated into the text. Please read the striked-out conversation above between myself and Circeus. CloudNine 07:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I confirm that. The list at the bottom is of samples already implemented earlier. Make a text search for "sample"Circeus 18:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it can help, compare Pixies, which has the same structure, and the following, all of which have "samples" section that have not been worked in the text: Marilyn Manson (band), Nirvana (band), Pink Floyd, The Supremes and The Temptations. All of these are featured articles, so this case here is a pretty good compromise between "easy to locate list of the samples used" (which you did in Salsa music and Music of the lesser Antilles via sample boxes instead, and I'll be the devil's advocate in observing that these samples are not integrated within the article) and "samples integrated within the article."Circeus 05:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By "integrated into the article", I only mean "in a section not specifically devoted to sound samples". Thus, music of the Lesser Antilles and salsa music are both "integrated into the article". I don't mean using the little icons within the actual text, which I think is disruptive and unwieldy, I just mean putting them in a box within the relevant section, rather than a section just for sound samples. Tuf-Kat 17:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, seems to meet the criteria. I would prefer the notes and references to be separated and the Musical style section is weaker than the rest of the article, but it's still very good. Trebor 13:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I feel that it meets the FA criteria and is well written and comprehensive. Darthgriz98 00:41, 29 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article, supported by several wikiprojects (Scouting, Hong Kong, China) has had several peer reviews, and many contributors, including myself. The linking to Chinese naming has been a challenge, as well as hard to find historic data. Now, it is my humble opinion that the article has achieved a certain quality, therefore I propose it here. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 19:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lead should cover the organizational and events sections better. Other than that, nice work. Sumoeagle179 20:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion: lead text now enlarged for this. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Object—Far below the required standard of writing.
Ripper of an opening sentence: "The Scout Association of Hong Kong (香港童軍總會) is the Scouting organisation in Hong Kong." Is that a joke?
"After the first Scouting initiatives as early as 1909, the Hong Kong branch of the Boys Scout Association of the United Kingdom started in 1914 ..." Why mark the earliness of 1909? "In" is fine here. "Boy", not "Boys" in your piped link.
"The Scout Association of Hong Kong runs, among others, the major campsites Gilwell Campsite (基維爾營地), Tai Tam Scout Centre (大潭童軍中心) and Tung Tsz Scout Centre (洞梓童軍中心)." Among other what? "Campsite" x 2. And you can pluralise "Centre" to save one occurrence in this list.
"The Association is administratively headed by the Hong Kong Chief Commissioner (香港總監), and covers five regions with 35 districts." Administratively? What other way would there be? "With" is a problem.
"uniformed members"—Are there ununiformed members?
"The assocation organises the traditional Scout Rally annually with Scout competitions and activities." They organise it annually; does it happen annually too? Better: "the annual Scout Rally", dispensing with "traditional". Do they use the comps and acitvities to organise the Rally? (Again, "with" is a problem".)
Inconsistent "iz" and "is"—BrEng prefers the "s".
These are some of the problems in the lead. Every sentence requires major surgery. Tony 09:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tony: "Is that a joke?" there is no need to be sarcastic when providing constructive feedback.Rlevse 12:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing such elaborate feedback, Tony. Highly appreciated.
The opening sentence was not intended to be jocular, but I'm glad you saw the humour in it. I have added an indicative adjective.
1909 is recognized in Scouting as being very early: the Scouting for Boys book was only published in 1908. But indeed for the general public all this explanation is too much: 'in' inserted. The 'boys' typo obviously corrected (sorry, has been overlooked by all scout and non-scout proofreaders)
All three provided examples are campsites, and then only the major ones in HK. They are the formal names of the sites, so I'd rather not combine Centre and Centre here. I have copy-edited the text to do away with the among others and provide a more logical run of the sentence.
There are several other ways to head an organisation, notably operational (by the Chief Scout), financial (by the president of the association) and functional (by the WOSM). Therefore I not made any changes to this. Although I don't see with as a problem, I reworded it.
Yes, there are thousands of ununiformed members (lay members, see text), left out of this summary.
This sentence has had multiple variations already. Again further improved now.
The article is meticulously written in EN-GB, taking care to retain the official spelling of all names of organisations and buildings mentioned. Since some of these have chosen the EN-US spelling in their name (notably the WOSM and the Cheung Center), this has resulted in a mentioning both the Such and So Organisation as well as the This and That Organization, complying with/to WP:ENGVAR.
Comment - The "Founding of Hong Kong Scouting movement" section mentions that in the beginning, membership to the association was restricted to those of European descent. Do we have a reference for this? I also did not see where the article mentions when membership became open to local Chinese as well. That may be good information to add. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence is a bit misleading. At the beginning, participants were mostly the family members of British merchants and military personnels. Scout Movement was quite new to Chinese and Hong Kong Scouting was a new born baby. The Branch was officially set up in 1914 at the beginning of WWI. Hong Kong Scouting nearly vanished when the WWI spread. Most enthusiastic male adults had gone to war in Europe and the younger took up auxiliary services in Hong Kong. It was a really hard time for Hong Kong Scouting. You might expected only few Chinese families in Hong Kong were in contact with this new movement. The striking effect of WWI was not limited to Hong Kong. However, the Movement revived after the first World Jamboree in 1920. From 1921 the new Colony Commissioner George Turner Waldegrave had put much effort on the Hong Kong Scouting. Two Chinese Commissioners are responsible for the Scouting among Chinese. Nelson Victor Halward, one of the Chinese Commissioners, who became Colony Commissioner in 1934 trains Scouters for Scouts of China in Canton besides Hong Kong Scouting. — HenryLi (Talk) 08:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, there's really no evidence it was ever technically restricted to local Chinese? No evidence that some local Chinese tried to join and were denied membership based on their race? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's no evidents in denial of membership based on race, but nationality. Every member had to promise to do his duty to British King/Queen in early days. In 1922, 2 year after the revival of Hong Kong Scouting, Chinese members were still minority in nearly every Troops except the 10th Hong Kong Troop organsied by St. Paul's College, which was set up by an ethnic Chinese graduate from Cambridge University. It is still hard to know the number of ethnic Chinese Scout members between 1909 to 1919 in Hong Kong. — HenryLi (Talk) 14:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article has achieved a certain quality. More comments in FAC period helps improving it towards fully qualified Featured Articles.— HenryLi (Talk) 00:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support support now with improvments made during FAC.Rlevse 01:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support now that the article has been vastly improved, I support it after a good read through. Darthgriz98 20:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support good work since nomination. Sumoeagle179 11:05, 19 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Self-nomination. I helped make this article what it is today. Back in August, there wasn't a whole lot in the article, and the article contained some very inaccurate facts about the movie. I would love to see the article for this classic animated movie get the featured article treatment. I feel that it definitely deserves it. (Ibaranoff24 08:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Nominate and Support. (Ibaranoff24 08:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Comment - This is a welcome surprise. Glancing at the article I do feel some things that may lead to my objection. The Plot looks long with three images, would it not be better to bump up the cast section and divert minor information into it. The comparison with the book could also be spun off into a new section. The production section also looks like there are too many quotes. Wiki-newbie 10:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison part was originally in its own section. Making it a part of the plot section was Cbrown1023's idea (who also added the cast section). I moved the cast section -- is the current placement fine, or should I move it somewhere else? (Ibaranoff24 12:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Comment I agree that the plot is quite long and should be trimmed. Also my peer review concern remains, can "Differences from the book" get some footnotes so the section doesn't look like original research? It too could also be trimmed. - Tutmosis 16:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel comparison with the book should always be seperate, and the cast section should supplement the plot. Wiki-newbie 16:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Object (my objection still remains) on the lead alone. First off, it's only five sentences, separated into four stubby paragraphs. It needs to be expanded. I also found some writing problems in there as well:
First paragraph: "J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings is the title of an animated fantasy film produced and directed by Ralph Bakshi, and released to theaters in 1978. It is an adaptation of the first half of J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings."
Saying that "LOTR is the title of a film" is redundant. Just say "LOTR is a film..."
Unless there was a significant delay between production of the film and its release, it's easier to just say "LOTR is a 1978 film" rather than that little add-on at the end.
The next paragraph supposedly describes the plot, but there's not enough detail. Who does the Fellowship consist of? What's the One Ring? Why is it so important to this "Sauron" guy?
The third paragraph can probably just go. The "ambitious" adjective sounds POV, even if it was cited. There's no need to mention the producers and distributors in the lead: they're in the infobox and hopefully talked about in the Production section.
Fourth could be expanded. Give a quick summary of why critics were mixed, what is meant by "sparked new interest in Tolkien's writing", and why a sequel was unproduced ("to this day" is unreliable, should be changed into a specific month and year). Also, you could mention that the film diverges from the book in several ways, and how those changes were reacted to.
Also, as others mentioned, the plot synopsis could be reduced.--Dark Kubrick 18:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the lead. Take a look. (Ibaranoff24 00:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Better, but paragraphs are supposed to contain something like 3-6 sentences each, not 1, and there should probably be at the most three paragraphs for this article's lead. Please organize the information into tight, coherent paragraphs.--Dark Kubrick 00:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still feels somewhat skeletal, but I guess it's okay.--Dark Kubrick 01:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking further down, the synopsis section sounds like a trailer for the film, not an encyclopedia entry. Sentences like "Long ago, in the early years of the Second Age of Middle-earth, the great Elven-smiths forged Rings of Power — Nine for mortal Men, Seven for the Dwarf-lords, and three for the tall Elf-kings" don't have the formal tone required.--Dark Kubrick 01:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Taken care of. (Ibaranoff24 01:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, that sentence is taken care of, but what about the rest of the synopsis? I still see fanboyish sentences there.--Dark Kubrick 01:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All taken care of. Take a look at it now. (Ibaranoff24 18:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Better. But I suggest you find a person or two to copyedit the text of the entire article, as I'm picking sentences at random that don't sound too good. Some examples:
They leave Lórien by river, but Frodo realizes the Ring is having a malevolent effect on Boromir, who eventually tries to take the Ring from Frodo, who puts it on to escape him. Sentence runs on for too long.
Following the live-action shoot, each frame of the live footage was then broken down into individual frames, and then printed out, and placed behind animation cels. Only one "and" is necessary, plus there are some other unnecessary words.
She showed him the room where her father, who died in 1973, did his writing and drawing (over the years, Tolkien made sketches and paintings based on his writings - including Bilbo Baggins facing the dragon Smaug in The Hobbit). Tolkien's death date and the mention of the drawing of Bilbo and Smaug (this is about LOTR, not The Hobbit) feels out of place and just thrown in there.
The original sentence, that I wrote, did not mention the date of death or the Hobbit drawings - those were added by another user. I removed them. Ibaranoff24 19:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your efforts to address my concerns so far, but more work has to be done. Good luck!--Dark Kubrick 18:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article's fine now. (Ibaranoff24 19:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. I pointed out examples in the text to show that, if problems like these can be found at random, then the whole article requires careful scrutiny to correct any more possible mistakes.--Dark Kubrick 20:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the recent glut of edits per Dark Kubrick's suggestions show the article is less than stable. Oppose. Wiki-newbie 21:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is fine. The few minor problems that were there have been taken care of. (Ibaranoff24 21:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Those weren't the only problems. I still spot more, but I'm not going to list all of the problems here on this page. It's your job to find them and weed them out, and get the help of other users if necessary. Note that I haven't struck all my objections out; some still remain and need to be addressed, such as the long plot synopsis and writing.--Dark Kubrick 21:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that there's anything wrong with the length of the synopsis. (Ibaranoff24 21:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Then at the very least get rid of all those stubby paragraphs in there.--Dark Kubrick 23:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In the third paragraph of the article, it is noted that the film "...was a box office success... The film was deemed to be a flop by the original distributors..." In the "Reception" section, this same claim is made: "the film was a success, grossing $30,471,420 at the box office (the budget was $8 million), but United Artists, who believed the film to be a flop..." If the film was a success, why would the distributor "deem" or "believe" it to be a flop? Wouldn't United Artists have been in the best position to determine whether the film turned a profit or not? If the writer of this wikipedia article simply looked at the box office gross in comparison to the film's budget, and determined that it was a success based on that, that would be considered original research. And its also a possibly erroneous assumption. How much of that $30,000,000 was returned to the studio? Approximately half? Any of the issues detailing "all time rental champs" Variety used to publish prior to 1993 will have that information; any/all movies that ever made $4 million and more were included in these lists. With the costs of making prints and advertising factored in, with $30,000,000 in ticket sales the film may very well have been a financial failure. Either way, hit or flop, the sections noted are confusingly written and poorly sourced.-Hal Raglan 02:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just now noted that IMDB indicates the film made $13.5 million in "rentals" (i.e., the percentage from ticket sales returned to the distributor by movie theaters). With the cost of making prints and advertising added on top of the $8 million budget, the film might have been an unprofitable venture for United Artists.-Hal Raglan 03:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is POV and irrelevant. The film grossed more than twice its budget. Thus, it was a success. Minus advertising and distribution costs, the film made at least $29 million in the U.S. alone, not to mention the fact that it grossed more overseas (though I couldn't find out exactly how much). (Ibaranoff24 05:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
So are you saying there are no sources determining the film was a success other than your own opinion? Talk about POV! And if discussing a film's success or failure is irrelevant, why is it even in the article in the first place? You say "minus advertising and distribution costs, the film made at least $29 million in the U.S. alone". Er, you forgot to ALSO subtract the $15.5 million that was retained by the theatres. The article claims (in two different sections) that the film was a "success", but United Artists mysteriously deemed/believed it a flop. As written, this makes absolutely no sense, and needs to be either better sourced, rewritten, or excised. I have to voice my Objection to an article becoming Featured if such a major point is presented so incoherently.-Hal Raglan 17:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you know what you're talking about. (Ibaranoff24 01:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I don't understand your antagonistic tone. All of us here are simply making attempts/suggestions to improve a flawed article. I highly recommend that, in the future, if you have problems understanding another editor's comments, you ask for clarification instead of hurling insults. -Hal Raglan 01:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"So are you saying there are no sources determining the film was a success other than your own opinion?"
Your quote, not mine. (Ibaranoff24 01:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Indeed. But I haven't made my opinion part of an encyclopedia article. You have. Now answer my question: Do you have any sources -- other than your own opinion -- that indicates the film was a success? If so, provide them in the article. If no sources exist, accept the fact that the film was not a financial success, as the studio maintains, and rewrite the sections of the article as needed.-Hal Raglan 04:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Taken care of. Take a look at the current revision. (Ibaranoff24 04:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Thank you! Both sections read much better now. Merry Christmas!-Hal Raglan 17:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reject - article has too many red links, especially in the cast section. Reduction in red link would convince me to support. Anthonycfc[T • C]01:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- my concerns, as raised above, about the articles amount of red links have been largely taken care of. Anthonycfc[T • C]12:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Re-reject as per comment lower down page. Anthonycfc[T • C] 20:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Taken care of. Take a look at the current revision and reevaluate the article. (Ibaranoff24 09:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Comment: While the red links are gone, the blue links now there are just as useless. Most of them just link directly back to this article! These actors need to have articles created for them, not just a circular link made to make them look pretty.--Dark Kubrick 13:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't have much information on the actors. If anyone wants to create articles on these actors, be my guest. I think what's currently there is fine for now. (Ibaranoff24 01:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
What exactly is currently there? I'm not saying that there have to be huge, 30KB worth of text about these actors, but if you're going to properly fix the red links, then they have to have stubs that list the most basic information. The blue links now are almost worse than the red links, since they're completely useless and deceptive.--Dark Kubrick 05:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Created stubs for the actors. (Ibaranoff24 10:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Reject - paragraphing of the Differences from the Book section is poor, and reads as if bullet points rather than flowing paragraphs. Also, my concerns in the article's peer review about red links have not actually been taken care of - Ibaranoff24 simply created a redirect back to the article (diff) which rather than fixing the article's red links simply prettifies it in terms of changing red links to blue. The article has clearly come a long way, but it still has a few more miles to go to FA status in my opinion. Regards, Anthonycfc[T • C]21:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - are there any other sources for the business data and trivia, other than imdb? IMDb should be used very cautiously as a reference - other than Writers Guild of America credits, its content is essentially fan-submitted with an undisclosed degree of verification or sources. Gimmetrow 18:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is well put together, well written, and well researched. Reads like a featured article.Ganfon 23:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - although the article reads a little untidily - for example, the third image from top in the article is left-aligned, resulting in the squashing of the next heading - and this needs to be addressed. Also, the references section is incorrectly titled "Notes" rather than "References" or "Sources"; see WP:CITE's section, WP:CITE#References Section. Otherwise, a job well done; regards, Anthonycfc[T • C] 20:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still see major problems. My biggest concerns are the "Pre-production" and "Production" sections. They rely way too heavily on quotes to tell the story, rather than summarizing important information and using the quotes sparingly. Plus, while the style of references is the editor's preference, it has to be consistent throughout. For examples:
Most list the author's first name first, but refs #12 and #17 list last name first.
Half the references say "Last accessed..." and list the date then year in letters; the other half say "Retrieved on..." and list year then date, in number format.
What type of source is ref #17? A book?
Read it again Fixed. (Ibaranoff24 04:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I know it's a letter, but what's the thing that it comes from: "J.R.R. Tolkien Collection"? If it's a book it should be italicized, unless I'm totally clueless and it's some university thing.
Ref #34 seems to have some problems with it-2 links to the same information, plus the message board reference is unncessary.
Please scan for more problems like this as well.--Dark Kubrick 22:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took care of a few of your concerns, except for reference #12, which was written by another user. I don't consider any of the things you've brought up to be "major problems." They're really, really minor problems that you've blown out of proportion. (Ibaranoff24 23:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Having a consistent reference style is important for the article. And only my second bulleted concern has been fully addressed. Can you provide a counter-argument for the Pre-/Production sections?--Dark Kubrick 23:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no other way to have that information in the article without the quotes. You can't summarize the "important information" because all of the quoted information is important. (Ibaranoff24 23:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The quoted information is important, but it looks like chunks from the sources were simply copied and pasted into the article. Wikipedia should tell most of the story, not rely on quotes as substitutes for original text.--Dark Kubrick 03:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's your opinion, and I don't agree with it. I think the current style of the article works really well. (Ibaranoff24 04:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
But why don't you agree with it? It's easy to just say that you have an opinion and you think "it works really well". This is why I wish more editors would participate in this article's FAC.--Dark Kubrick 13:43, 20 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Self-nomination. The article is well-written (and has been copyedited once), neutral, stable, and very accurate (much more references that a lot of gaming Featured Articles). Although the length is not as much as other gaming Featured Articles, the article is still comprehensive and covers all key details well. As far as I can tell, it passes the Manual of Style (although a few changes have been made since checking this) and the images are used correctly. --TheEmulatorGuy 00:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems to be comprehensive (sadly I've never played the game) and well-written. As good as, if not better than, all existing CVG FA's. --- RockMFR 02:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:
Why are the sequals/prequals in brackets in the lead?
Development for Metal Gear Solid began in 1995[34] with the intent of creating the "best PlayStation game ever". The quote should have a citation. If cite 34 is used for the quote as well then why not just put it at the end of the sentence?
quote "if the player isn't tricked into believing that the world is real, then there's no point in making the game" citation?
Additionally, he wanted "a full orchestra right next to the player" which made modifications to the track (instead of switching it) at certain situations. What track? Where is a citation for the quote?
As of 2006, it has reached 12 issues. Maybe a better word would be "published"?
The Official UK PlayStation magazine labeled it as "the greatest game ever made; unputdownable while it lasts and unforgettable when finished." Citation for the quote?
Please expand the citation information for cite 49. Please provide last access dates for cites 61, 62 and 63.
After this nippicks are dealt with, I'll be glad to give my support. The article has gone far since I commented on it's peer review. Great job on a notable game. — Tutmosis 02:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also I'm hoping the to-do list on the talk page is redundant otherwise maybe hold-off the FAC to finish off any expansion work you had in mind. — Tutmosis 03:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had no expansion work in mind. Available references have been exhausted, so I can't live up to the to-do list I wrote a while ago. --TheEmulatorGuy 03:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a problem with this? Specifically, manual of style violations?
It is cited in 35, which you'll see further along the paragraph.
See above
See above. Fixed.
Fixed.
Sadly, I do not have the magazine and cannot find an internet source for this. It will have to be removed.
Support, all the problems I saw have been fixed. The point about the brackets, it's not a MOS violation but it's a strange way to organize a sentence. You put things in brackets that provide additional information, not are part of the sentence itself. — Tutmosis 15:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've not read any articles about video games before, so I don't know if it's common and/or permitted to use quotes from the game itself as references. To me, this verges on original research. Could somebody clarify this point for me? Jeffpw 10:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment:This needs citation "A fourth console game, titled Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots, is currently in development for the PlayStation 3."Buc 11:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has been cited by RockMFR, see Christopher Parham's support. --TheEmulatorGuy 22:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: My comment has been addressed. Everything eles seems to be cited. Nothing wrong with any of the images. Good layout. It now has my support.Buc 11:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A lot of short paragraphs (one or two sentences), even in the lead. They should be merged. Trebor 13:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at these and most of them appeared to be natural ways to break up the information. They would be targets for expansion but the source material might not support that. Christopher Parham(talk) 18:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of them could easily be merged. For instance, the first two paragraphs in Reception seem to have an entirely arbitrary break. Trebor 19:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just added a citation for it. Not sure that it is needed, though. It is a fact that has been established and referenced in the MGS4 article. But I guess it can't hurt. --- RockMFR 19:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Always thought this was a top notch article, even back when I passed it as a GAC candidate. Since then I've kept a tab on it, and I only found one more problem. Could you reupload this picture so it's web resolution (less than 500X500)? I know this is picky, but featured articles are supposed to be the best.--Clyde (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks for your support. --TheEmulatorGuy 21:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SupportOppose — First, I was bit annoyed by mixing quotes in the References section, so I separated those quotes into Footnotes section. Their links are different with "[note X]" symbol. Please check its consistencies again. Nice work, well-referenced and comprehensive enough. — Indon (reply) — 02:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was entirely unneeded. Final Fantasy X (featured on the front page) and Metal Gear Solid 3 (featured article) both use quotes in the references sections, and these are the main two articles to compare it to.--TheEmulatorGuy 03:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I understand it, that is a common type of reference in a video game article.--Rmky87 08:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like mixing sources with quotes. I draw my support and oppose this article for that matter. The reason of other FA game articles using that style as your argument is not a valid basis. All FA articles are subjected to WP:FAR. My basis is this guideline and I don't like mixing references with quotes. It is difficult for readers to verifiy sources. — Indon (reply) — 12:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article now has the sources separated again. Are there any other problems, or was this the only thing that changed your vote? --TheEmulatorGuy 21:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted back to the original system. The quotes are acting to support the material in the articles; what is the value of dividing them from the other references and introducing a second citation system? Christopher Parham(talk) 03:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that if you feel that the number of footnotes makes browsing the sources difficult, the best bet would be to do as the policy you link suggests and create a separate references section containing an alphabetical list of the sources. Personally, I don't think this would add much value, but it makes more sense than dividing the footnotes up into two blocks. Christopher Parham(talk) 03:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the matter of browser capability. Quotes are not sources. Each direct quotes requires inline citations. Why do you want to mix quotes with sources? Do you want to blow up the number of references??? — Indon (reply) — 09:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously quotes are not sources; the game is the source. Since there is no convenient way to identify a particular point in most video games, providing the relevant quote is a good way to give a more specific citation. It refines the citation in the same way a page number refines an ordinary citation. Christopher Parham(talk) 19:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if quotes are not sources, why would mix them together? Reading References sections intertwined with quotes is awful. Quotes are usually embedded in the main article. Otherwise link them to wikiquotes. I have proposed to separate quotes in the new Footnotes section, which is cleaner, prettier and easier to read. Alas, it was reverted based on argument that other games articles use that style. Honestly, this is the first time I read mixing sources and quotes style in one section. As far as I know, there is no guideline about it. — Indon (reply) — 19:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to back up Indon on the issue. Also what I'd like to know is why Indon changes were reverted. The main author, TheEmulatorGuy, seemed to have okay'd the issue [16], therefore the revert seems quite provocative. — Tutmosis 00:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted for the reason I stated above; the distinction between the two types of citation was not meaningful. Christopher Parham(talk) 07:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is meaningful to me, as FA is the best Wikipedia can give. Your argument is baseless. WP:WIAFA #2: It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style. Please tell me, where is a WP guideline that mixing quotes and sources is allowed? I know it is a very technical issue, that is why I corrected them. The reason you are so obstinate is unreasonable. We have to follow the same guidelines, not to some group of editors' taste only. — Indon (reply) — 08:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can point me to the relevant guideline, that would be helpful. The guideline you mentioned above relates to the creation of "References" section that lists the sources used in alphabetical order. It doesn't so far as I can tell have anything to do with the issue of whether to place all the citations together, or to split them up into quotes and page citations. I'm not sure why you feel I am being particularly obstinate; it's not as if I am the only one who has reverted you or suggested, on this page, that this is a bad idea. Christopher Parham(talk) 09:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my..., you put quotes in the References section, so WP:CITE (which tells how to write the References section) says: With articles that have lots of footnotes, it can become hard to see after a while exactly which sources have been used, particularly when the footnotes also contain explanatory text. A References section, which contains only citations, helps readers to see at a glance the quality of the references used. The quotes in this article are explanatory text given as footnotes, not citations, and there a lot of quotes in the References section. This guideline is softer than WP:QUOTE (WP:QUOTE is not a guideline), where quotes must be included within the body of the text, not to be separated to other section. — Indon (reply) — 09:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems fairly clear to me that, on the contrary, the quotes are citations -- why else would they be included? Christopher Parham(talk) 10:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, quotes are not citations. Each quote needs citation. Please read again WP:CITE, especially at the "When to cite sources" section. — Indon (reply) — 12:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support important game, and the article has been through major improvements (there was a time where the intro was pure "{{fact}}". igordebraga≠ 17:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This article is not comprehensive. Practically every video game known to man is associated with problems and complaints, but this Wikipedia article reads like an ad. I'm not familiar with the game, but a very quick Web search turns up a site claiming a petition of over 1,200 people asking for some kind of patch to Metal Gear Solid PC version.BLACKLISTED LINK REMOVED No such problem is mentioned in the Wikipedia entry.Mike Serfas 19:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The link you have provided is regarding a completely different game. --- RockMFR 19:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As said above, the link you have provided is for a different game on a different system. As it stands, nearly all major reviewers have positively reviewed the game. Because of this, what you are asking would require original research. Of all of the reliable sources on MetaCritic, I actually chose GameSpot, the website that gave the game the WORST score, and I mentioned their qualms. If you truly believe there are major complains, I suggest you provide them, because I have not discovered any. --TheEmulatorGuy 21:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SupportThis is what a Featured Article on a videogame should be. Incredibly well-cited and well-written, incredibly comprehensive, very illustrative images... great job. My only complaint is listing all of the sequels/prequels in the lead; they should have their own small section in the article, but the info is not important enough to be in the lead. In addition, the lead is supposed to summarize an article, but here is an entire paragraph that is never discussed again. Aside from that, this article is about as good as it could be. -- Kicking222 13:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's great to see a game such as MGS have such a good article about it. Excellent work. Thunderbrand 17:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support: Excellent article, but I have a few minor issues with the lead. Kicking222 is right about the sequels being named in the lead, but also there is no mention of the game's rereleases. Plus, the one sentence that is supposed to summarize the plot is buggin the hell out of me; please expand it with a little more detail or merge it into one of the paragraphs. And I don't understand Indon's objection.--Dark Kubrick 19:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These problems have been corrected by Hyperspacey, and I believe he is carrying out more work towards them. --TheEmulatorGuy 01:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing my problems, but now there is another one-sentence paragraph in the lead. Plus, in the fourth paragraph, "to date" is vague.--Dark Kubrick 22:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I merged that one sentence with the fourth (now third) paragraph, and completely remove the "to date" statement. --TheEmulatorGuy 22:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, thanks, but I'm gonna have to declare Neutral for now, as Gzkn's superior eye for prose has made me withhold my support.--Dark Kubrick 02:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I've just corrected a long standing sourcing mistake in the Reception section.[17] The mistake was screaming out at me, being that Game Rankings don't actually review games. I suggest that editors just go through to make sure the sourcing is correct. I'd also like a few sentences about the PC port, almost nothing is made of it, just something like if it too was well received and whether or not there were any extra features. I also don't think that the Cheat Code Central review is a very good source, and isn't enough to back up the claim that the "voice acting impressed critics", whereas the amateur review states that "The voice acting in MGS is above average". [18] - hahnchen 20:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing mistake was the only edit made by that specific user, so any other referencing problems are unlikely. About the PC port, it has been stated it is the exact same game as Metal Gear Solid: Integral (of which its extra features were talked about), therefore the only thing needed is how it was received. In addition to that, I will find more reliable reviews for the original game. --TheEmulatorGuy 01:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears Hyperspacey has provided information on the PC version's reception. --TheEmulatorGuy 01:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have done some extensive alterations to the article, mainly based on the issues raised here. Being eight years old, many websites have since ceased hosting their old reviews and my magazine collection from then was binned long ago, so Reception may need more work. Still, I think this could make FA. A copy-edit or two would be nice first. Hyperspacey 01:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you are going to cite the changes you made to the plot information in the lead? --TheEmulatorGuy 01:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add a few more citations, but the basic mission brief is in there- rather iconic lines from Campbell, after all. Need a few more mind, to cover Snake's "betrayal" and Grey Fox, which aren't cited in the plot section. Hyperspacey 02:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, once a few more citations are added and it has had a few copy-edits and checks. Hyperspacey 03:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Quality of prose is troubling, among other issues.
Why are there so many references in the lead? The lead should be a stand-alone summary of the article; ideally, everything should be cited in the rest of the article.
Metal Gear Solid's story centers on retired soldier Solid Snake infiltrating a nuclear weapons disposal facility, in order to neutralize the terrorist threat from FOXHOUND, a renegade special forces unit. "centers on retired soldier Solid Snake infiltrating" is quite awkward. The dreaded "in order to".
In order to complete his objective, he must liberate their two hostages, the head of DARPA and the president of a major arms manufacturer, and stop the terrorists from launching a nuclear strike[6]— but on the way, he has to confront betrayal, death, and his own past More dreaded "in order to". In fact, "In order to complete his objective" is completely redundant. The last clause after the emdash is what I'd call "movie preview prose". Not the most encyclopedic sentence.
The commercial success of the title[3] Why is there a citation for that?
Enemy weaknesses and patterns (as well as other in-game procedures) are explained by the characters in the game as if Snake is the player himself. That confused me.
FOXHOUND, an elite special forces unit, is comprised of
threatening the U.S. government of a nuclear reprisal With?
in order to rescue Dr. Hal Emmerich
...the genetically engineered virus "FoxDie," designed to kill people with particular genetic codes;[32][33] earlier claiming the lives of Baker and Octopus. What's going here?
...with the intent of creating the "best PlayStation game ever". Citation? If the one that appears earlier in the sentence covers this, just move it to the end of the sentence.
I noticed that "Hideo Kojima" is linked four times in the article. Please make sure to rid redundant wikilinks.
...on the title refers not only to the fact that
Hideo Kojima wanted greater interaction with objects and the environment, such as hiding bodies in a locker. Interesting use of the gerund...leads to some ambiguity.
Additionally, he wanted "a full orchestra right next to the player" which made modifications to the currently playing track (instead of switching it) at certain situations. Didn't understand this sentence.
Reasonably well recieved by critics, scoring 83 on the Metacritic aggregate... hyphen+sp. This structure makes for an awkward sentence.
This is a minor quibble, but the spacing around the em dashes is not consistent.
...IDW Publications began release of a comic book version of Metal Gear Solid "Began release"?
Metal Gear Solid was publicly successful... I don't think this is the right way to phrase this...invites the question: could it be privately successful?
Finally, a lot of sentences would be better if they followed parallel construction. For example, instead of Upon release, it was one of the most rented games,[69] also topping sales charts in the United Kingdom, try "Upon release, it was one of the most rented games,[69] and topped sales charts in the United Kingdom". Instead of GameSpot granted a lower rating of 8.5/10, calling it "revolutionary" but criticizing the length and difficulty. try "GameSpot granted a lower rating of 8.5/10, calling it "revolutionary" but criticized the length and difficulty." It's much kinder on readers. Gzkn 03:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1: The references used in the lead are the same ones used throughout the article, so I don't see a problem with this.
2 to 9: Fixed.
10: Why have I had so many problems with this? It is cited later on, the same reference that cites the SWAT-team information.
11: Fixed, now there are only 2 links (both very far apart)
12: Fixed.
13: Fixed, I think. Not exactly sure what the problem is, but I tried.
14 to 18: Fixed. Thanks for your great suggestions. --TheEmulatorGuy 04:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not being clearer. By hyphen in 13, I meant "well-received" should be hyphenated. The structure of the sentence is still a bit weird with the two modifiers ("Reasonably well received by critics — scoring 83 on the Metacritic aggregate — it..."). I also see now that my last example (criticizing->criticized) wasn't the best advice ("calling"). :) Anyway, I'd suggest finding a copy-editor to run through it. I'd do it, but the article doesn't hold much interest for me. User:Deckiller's into video games, and his copy-editing skills are much better than mine. Consider asking him to look over the article if he's not too busy. Gzkn 03:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Took a really quick pass through first two sections; I'll continue later. Great article. — Deckiller 06:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would it be possible to expand the Reception section? Currently, it fails to detail Japanese critical reception. Also, the critical reception overall could use some expansion, particularly with magazine reviews. The review from Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine should be included, as should Game Informer's. Oh, and if possible, a section detailing the game's influence on gaming would be nice, but I'm not sure if there are any notable articles on this subject. JimmyBlackwing 05:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expansion of overall critical reception I am working on, it's quite difficult to source reliable reviews for an old game. The Japanese reception and gaming influences I'm not so sure about, both are near-impossible to reference; and I've never seen a featured article with Japanese reception. I'll make an attempt on its influence, but no guarantees. Overall reception, however, will be expanded soon. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Japanese reception is usually quite good to have in FAs, especially for Japanese games, usually it's just a Famitsu score and quote. I don't think it's necessary for a Official Playstation Magazine quote though, it's not that important, and "official" magazines aren't exactly the most impartial source of reviews. If you are however looking to expand the critical reception and maybe an influence section, I suggest you ask some of the editors at WP:CVG/M. User:Mitaphane has an article available from issue 35 of Next Generation Magazine on 25 Breakthrough Games,[19] one of them being MGS and a review in issue 48. User:X201 can give you quotes from Edge magazine's review from Issue 64 if you ask him. The page may look difficult to navigate, but all you do is use your browser search to find the game and source you want. - hahnchen 03:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This was one of the last games I played really heavily before I stopped playing video games so it's nice to see it here it brings back some memories. As it stands now it's very objectively written and well sourced. One qualm the Metacritic quote doesn't explain what Metacritic is and a lot of people may not know what it is. Referring to it like they do will require them to stop reading and go to the wikilink to find out about it consequently ruining the flow of the article. Perhaps you could say "the review tallying website Metacritic.com reported that 94% of the reviews they tallied were positive". Or maybe just come up with some other similarly concise way of saying it was very favorably reviewed. Quadzilla99 18:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm still a little disappointed in the Metacritic comment in the opening paragraph. Quadzilla99 17:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind I tweaked it. Quadzilla99 19:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nothing much for me to say that hasn't been said †he Bread3000 03:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question - was going to put this on the talk page, but it seems applicable here. Judging from some of the above posts, the lead section should summarize the entire article, and others want a longer (ie, more than two sentences) of the game's plot. IMHO the plot summary in the lead-in shouldn't be more than two sentences, given that it has an entire section devoted to it (and quite a lengthy one at that, with all the plot twists and turns), and it lengthens the introduction without really adding anything meaningful (try reading just the first sentence of that paragraph and it pretty much sums up the whole game, minus interpersonal interaction). So my question is: as of the 16 Jan version, should the introduction have a longer (paragraph-length) or shorter (one or two sentences) summary of the plot? I'm fine either way, but wanted more than a single FAR's opinion on the matter. VirogIt's notmy fault! 06:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Again, not much to be said that hasn't already been covered. While I am new to Wikipedia, I still can see that this article has had much work put into it and once it has gone through a few editorial changes, I totally put my support behind this article being featured. As a fan of the series, and a fan who knows a lot about the series, I feel this article is perfectly articulated and accurate. AC 14:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have made some alterations to the Plot section, which until now has merely skirted over the game's narrative themes of genetic legacy, inheritence and nuclear warfare. The entire plot section isn't very well cited, though, with numerous quotes with no context to them. Given the trully epic amount of web-space taken up by discussions on MGS1's plot, I would suggest we get a few secondary sources instead of all these bitty primary ones. A plot summary from a major website could back-up the entire Plot section in a single refence, to be honest, and would substantially clean up the References section of the article. Hyperspacey 05:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many primary references are a lot better than one secondary reference, but regardless, the only plot summary I had found a while ago was on a fansite, making it unreliable. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the plot section may be a little too long now for a non-RPG synopsis, but that's up for you guys to determine. Also, the plot section shouldn't use fan forum debates as sources; the only reliable source is the script itself, it seems. — Deckiller 06:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the prominence of the plot within the title, it may not be as overlong as it seems- substantial hours of a play-through are spent with plot exposition. Hyperspacey 02:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reception section— it needs to be expanded by at least 50 percent. Right now it's good, but short. I can help, but the first paragraph needs to be twice the size; it should have direct quotes and specifications. Also, have you considered adding a rating chart? — Deckiller 06:12, 18 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
I've been working on this article for roughly two months. It's had three peer-reviews, GA review and is currently rated A-class. Along the way i asked for a number of users opinions and have dealt with all the issues raised. It previously looked like this and I believe it's ready for FAC. If you have any concerns i will fix them ASAP. Thanks M3tal H3ad 02:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments as I go. These are not all things that must be fixed for me to support, just my disorganized thoughts as I looked at the article.
Might consider referencing the "the heaviest album of all time" claim in the intro sentence... or attributing it, or leaving it out if adding this extra information seems superfluous. I realize it's referenced properly further down, but just putting it there in the intro without any attribution seems a tad problematic.
"with sales peaking over four million" is a bit awkward in the intro. "which have sold over four million copies in total" might be better? I dunno. I just think the verb "peaking" is being used incorrectly there.
The controversy section is excellent.
My only real problem aside from referencing is with appeal to non-metal fans. I wouldn't call myself a true Slayer fan but I do own two albums (take a wild guess which two...), yet I find the history section a bit tedious. A dedicated section on something along the lines of musical style, innovations, fan following, reputation, relationship to other bands... I can see that being interesting. I don't really expect that to happen unless it existed in a past revision and can be cobbled back together or something, but I think it would add to the article if it could be written at some point.
Reference checks: (just checked 5-10 references at random)
Source (AMG bio) cited for the claim "[combining] the imagery of Venom and Mercyful Fate, and the speed and aggression of hardcore punk" does not mention Venom, Mercyful Fate or hardcore punk.
"employed as a respiratory therapist" isn't backed up by the source cited
The other references I looked at all checked out. But in general the referencing does seem a bit web-heavy... and a lot of stuff is cited second hand (e.g. the "heaviest album" is referenced to a BBC story that mentions the magazine story in question).
In summary, I don't support or oppose this at this time. It certainly has a lot of promise and a lot of work has been put into it. --W.marsh 16:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all, except the reference needed for the imagery, I'll see what i can do regarding a new section. Thanks for the comments M3tal H3ad 00:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, took about 2 hours added a "fued" and influence" section adding 7,500 bytes to it. Thanks for the comments again. M3tal H3ad 02:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I'm really impressed. Count me as a support if the last referencing issue is fixed. The recent additions, I think, really help this article rise up towards what featured status is for a band article. --W.marsh 15:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The new sections need work. The "Influence" section reads like a bunch of labels and achievement while the latter needs should explain the period of the feud, rather than treating it like a "current" one. Michaelas10(Talk) 20:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added the years for the fueds, re-worded some influence and added a new section "style". I also removed the imagery sentence as i could'nt find a reference, i merged that paragraph and re-worded it. M3tal H3ad 01:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The current history section sounds like it needs to be spun off into a daughter article.--Rmky87 19:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything wrong with the size. It's 51KB, 1 KB over and that's including references, so it's something like 44KB. I've never seen a band article with a separate article for history. M3tal H3ad 03:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I believe the issues raised in the Biography Review have been addressed.--Yannismarou 17:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It was a pretty good article already, and I think the additions now made bring it up to featured quality. Trebor 23:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support well written/referenced. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 13:43, 19 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a self nomination. The All Blacks are one of the most successful team in international Rugby union, with a winning record against all major rugby nations. This article has been rated GA and has been submitted for a peer review. It's comprehensive, well sourced and notable. - Shuddatalk 10:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's certainly comprehensive and close to FA standard. One thing I would suggest is ironically not directly related to the article itself - it would be good if more of the coaches had articles. Some of them definitely deserve it - Laurie Mains and Fred Allen should both have articles, to start with. So should several of the names connected with the international hall of fame (no Don Clarke article? Are you sure?). I'd also suggest dropping a note to the WP:NZWNB - there are quite a few of us over there who would love to get another kiwi article up on the front page, and are probably more than willing to add more inffo to the article... Grutness...wha? 11:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that more of them should have articles. I was going to do a Fred Allen one once this review was finished. Don Clarke does have an article, I'll link it now. I'll add a note to WP:NZWNB. Thanks - Shuddatalk 11:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is heavily sourced from the team's website. How was it decided that these particular players should be included as being important to the history of the franchise except by being featured on the team's website or by original research? Is this a neutral, non-original-research statement: "By this measure the All Blacks are the most successful international rugby union team in history."? One would gather from reading the article that the teams it the best ever, but is this really so? —Centrx→talk • 11:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
* Yes it is sourced from the website, this is due to the detailed statistics they have avaliable. Many historians contribute to the allblacks.com website and to rugbymuseum.co.nz.
* Can you clarify your statement "How was it decided that these particular players should be included as being important to the history of the franchise except by being featured on the team's website or by original research?" The only players that are mentioned in detail are International Rugby Hall of Fame members and All Blacks record holders. Also (I hate to be picky) the team is not a franchise! It's a representative team.
* "By this measure the All Blacks are the most successful international rugby union team in history." That statement in the lead as it's summarises the record, overall section. The statement is correct and it's not original research. It implies nothing about being the best ever, who is the best ever is highly debatable. - Shuddatalk 11:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, the statement is not in the lead. The statement is correct however. - Shuddatalk 11:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To answer Centrx's concerns as to whether they are the best international side ever, the statistics shown say a lot. In full internationals, they have played 417 for 308 wins and only 92 losses. Of their most recent 64 test matches, they have won 55. There is not one national side that had won more that they had lost against the ABs, the closes being South Africa's 29 wins to 38 losses. They have never lost a test by more than 20 points in the 103 years they have beeen playing. They are also the only national team never to have finished worse than semifinalists in a Rugby World Cup. All Blacks make up 12 members of the International Rugby Hall of Fame - no other country has more than nine. As for their recent history, try this and this (I hate having to quote the "enemy" :) Yes, they are the best team ever. Grutness...wha? 12:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a WikiProject tag out of the article into the talk page, where it belongs. I find the increasingly larger infoboxes throughout Wiki distracting - not sure why it has to be so large. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is random - the first reference I randomly clicked on had the wrong date (Cleary, Mick (6 September 2005). Cut-throat haka does All Blacks no favours. telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved on 31 October, 2006.). Maybe just an unlucky typo - please run thru all of them before I do. Also, since you used cite web instead of cite news for that news source, the format isn't correct (article title in quotes) - pls switch news sources to cite news (see WP:CITET). Why is the 2006 All Blacks section commented out - is there something we're not supposed to see ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have started converting them to the WP:CITET format. - Shuddatalk 22:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through and converted all the news articles to the correct format. I have also checked their dates, names and authors. I think it was unlucky that one was wrong as I only found one other that was incorrect. - Shuddatalk 03:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : economic aspects are not covered and should be when rugby became professionnal in 1995, see for example the corresponding article in french (references are in english) fr:Équipe de Nouvelle-Zélande de rugby à XV. I made a suggestion in the talk page too Dingy 16:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure exactly what you've written (I don't speak French), but judging by the references you're talking about the impact of professionalism on rugby in general. Apart from the fact they get paid, and the introduction of the Tri-Nations aren't most of the other effects at more of a domestic rather then international level? If so wouldn't it more more appropriate to mention the impacts in depth at the NZRFU page or that of Rugby in New Zealand? What exactly should be mentioned regarding professionalism in the All Blacks article? Thanks for your help. - Shuddatalk 03:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not in New-zealand and I may be wrong, but seen from Europe, a number of players had to make a choice between a career with the All Blacks or pursue a more lucrative career in Europe or Japan or in rugby league, especially just after 1995 when rugby became professional. With more money been put in Super 12/14 and the Tri-Nations (Sanzar) players now have a better possibility to make money while playing in NZ. The drawback is that they must play more high level games and this could have an effect on their performance with the All Blacks after a long season, the world cup is late this year fater Super 14 and the Tri-Nations that has now more games than two years ago. That's the message, it is true that some references are made to Super 14 and to Tri-Nations (extended with more games) but the main players are the same and what is going on there affect them also as All Blacks players. Dingy 05:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the impact in NZ has been quite difference to Europe. All Super 14, All Blacks and Air New Zealand Cup players are contracted to the NZRU. As a result the All Blacks have always been given the highest priority, hence there is not the choice for an All Black between club and country that you have in Europe. The impact of professionalism on the Air New Zealand Cup has been big, with the All Blacks playing fewer games, however this is something that should be included in the Air New Zealand Cup article rather then the All Blacks one. The only other impact is that many Ex-All Blacks play overseas rather then in the Super 14 or Air New Zealand Cup, but this is something for those competitions' articles rather then the All Blacks one. Others may disagree of course. - Shuddatalk 19:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object: The WP:LEAD seems to be a bit too detailed, especially the first paragraph. There are several run-ons throughout the article, as well as other prose problems (1a):
All Blacks is the name of New Zealand's national rugby union team. Usually, in the first sentence we don't use 'is the name of'. For example, in George Washington, we wouldn't write 'George Washington is the name of the first president of the US …' Also, in the next sentence, is Test capitalized? I glanced through the article and it is spell without capitalization often.
There are a couple of sentences which sound like they can be reworded: The first northern hemisphere tour occurred 1905, the All Blacks losing one match on tour, against Wales in Cardiff. South Africa (the Springboks) toured New Zealand in 1921, the series drawn. The All Blacks first series loss occurred against South Africa in 1937, their first series win over South Africa occurring in New Zealand in 1956.
In 1893 the New Zealand Rugby Football Union (NZRU) stipulated that New Zealand's uniform would be a black jersey with a silver fern and white knickerbockers. By 1905 tour the All Blacks were wearing all black, except for the silver fern. It was during this tour the All Blacks picked up their name. The All Blacks perform a haka (Māori war dance) before every match. The haka traditionally performed is Ka Matè, however since 2005 the haka Kapa o Pango (specially commissioned by the NZRU) has been occasionally performed instead.
in the late 1860s, Monro discovered the second part is an independent clause. The comma should be a semicolon or a period.
toured the Australia and New Zealand—although no I don't see any need for the dash.
that finished all square Perhaps link all square to Tie (draw) for people who are unfamiliar with the term (like me).
The tour was a success for the Originals, their only loss was 3-0 to Wales at Cardiff run-on
The first truly representative British Isles (now known as British and Irish Lions) side toured New Zealand in 1930, the Lions won the first test, but the home side regrouped and won the series 3-1. another run-on
Skipping down randomly: The 1995 team reached the final, despite the team suffering a food poisoning outbreak prior to the final the All Blacks forced the game into extra time before losing to hosts South Africa. Ouch.
Should have been more clear. Awkward writing (what User:Tony1 would call a winding snake).
SANZAR formed to the sell TV rights for two new competitions Huh?
Is there a hyphen in Tri-Nations? The section heading below doesn't contain a hyphen.
Just a reminder, "Tri Nations" is used w/o a hyphen a couple of times more.
in 1996 , the All spacing typo
they'd Never use contractions (outside of quotes). AZt 20:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed these issues. - Shuddatalk 22:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks considerably better, thank you for your work. Support, with reservations about the prose (some more examples to help:)
The All Blacks' main annual competition is the Tri Nations Series played against Australia and South Africa where their record of seven series wins (the most recent in 2006) and 30 match wins is well ahead of the other two teams. Two mistakes: the "main annual competition" is not the Tri Nations Series (btw, hyphen?), and "their record of …" is not ahead of the "other two teams" (but the records of the teams).
The food poisoning sentence, comment above.
All Blacks first ever Test match apostrophe?
He moved onto coaching after his playing career, eventually coaching the All Blacks between 1966 and 1968. Half of the sentence is redundant.
1960's No apostrophe (MOS:DATE)! AZt 01:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will address these issues. I requested a copy-edit from WikiProject League of Copyeditors a couple of days ago. If you have any other comments regarding prose please mention them, as I'd hate this to be a failed FAC due to prose alone. Thanks. - Shuddatalk 01:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed these issues. - Shuddatalk 03:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better than any other national sports team article on WP, and certainly on a par with existing sports team FAs. One minor point, I'm not sure its necessary to state "They also compete in the Rugby World Cup every four years" in the lead when the Rugby World Cup is already mentioned a sentence or two earlier. Oldelpaso 19:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, I have removed the World Cup statement. - Shuddatalk 22:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Oldelpaso and Shudda.nz addressing the issues. This article is of high standard, has good images and is a fine example of very good wikipedia article on a sporting teams. This may be a little bias though, as I am sitting here in my All Blacks shirt!!--HamedogTalk|@ 23:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Prose:
The All Blacks are New Zealand's national rugby union team. New Zealand first competed internationally in 1893, against New South Wales.
Odd transition—a definition juxtaposed with history in media res. The sentences which follow have little action; they just read like statistics—"The All Blacks first series win over South Africa occurred in New Zealand in 1956". They also need rearrangement into a better sequence.
The All Blacks first Grand Slam (wins over England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales on the same tour) was achieved in 1978.
Weak use of passive voice.
The introduction summarises the history more than the article.
The match has become folklore in both countries due to debate whether All Black Bob Deans scored a try which would have earned the All Blacks a 3-3 draw.
"over" would serve the sentence better than "due to", which makes it come off as rather stale.
The 1924 All Black tourists to the United Kingdom (UK) were dubbed the Invincibles due to the fact that they won every game.
Similar problem. "due to the fact that" withers the power of "because".
The opportunity to attempt a grand slam was prevented when Scotland refused to play them in an argument over expenses.
"was prevented when Scotland refused to play them in an argument over expenses" expresses the historical event weakly. Try to write it more like story than a lifeless newspaper article.
That's all I have time for now! I have an appoinment to attend. Good luck! Rintrah 04:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to address these issues although I also think the introduction still needs some work done on it. GringoInChile 19:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GringoInChile, the lead looks much better. I have also checked over the section headings as per WP:MSH. The headings look fine at the moment, my only question is whether World Cups, and World Cup should have their first letters capitalised, I think they would? Is this correct? - Shuddatalk 02:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that it should be capitalized because it's a proper noun; we're refering to the name of a specific item . When it wouldn't be capitalized is when we refer to world cups in general, e.g. Many different sports hold world cup tournaments. GringoInChile 16:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has met FA standard in my opinion. Great work. Cvene64 12:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although the content is good, I have reservations regarding the grammar/writing style as it seems disjointed. I feel that further copyediting is required by someone with fresh eyes. This is becaue Shudda is too close to the article to carry this out, although he has done excellent work here. --Bob 06:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Been doing some copy-editing (sorry for letting it slip off my radar the first time around...it's too easy to get sidetracked in this place). Some confusing sentences to me:
...losing only four games (however, two of these were Tests) I didn't understand why "however" was used here. It may be because I'm not familiar with rugby.
...team has been described as the best team to ever leave New Zealand. Is "leave" being used colloquially here? Is it equivalent to "play" or something?
...before winning one of the matches of the tournament against Wales This is ambiguous. Is "matches of the tournament" supposed to be taken literally or being used as a substitute for "important tournament match"?
The 1995 team reached the final, despite the team suffering a food poisoning outbreak prior to the final the All Blacks forced the game into extra time before losing to hosts South Africa. Sentence needs cleanup. Isn't this also kind of repetitive to what was covered earlier?
The two sentences on the Kapa O Pango controversy doesn't really explain the controversy...
On the whole, the prose is OK, but a bit dry, especially in the beginning. I was a bit bored reading the same sentence structures over and over again (In YEAR, the All Blacks did this). Not sure what can be done about that though.
There's a heavy reliance on passive voice throughout the article. Remember that the passive voice is avoided by good writers. :)
Some paragraphs skip randomly from thought to thought. It's a bit jarring. For example, "A young Jonah Lomu made a huge impact in the World Cup, especially in the 45-29 win over England where he scored four tries. The New Zealand team suffered an outbreak of food poisoning before the final." Gzkn 08:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and please make sure I didn't introduce more errors in my copy-edit! :) Gzkn 08:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for your work:
"losing only four games (however, two of these were Tests)" Yeah this does make sense. The All Blacks used to (they don't really anymore) play matches against clubs, provincial teams, or invitational sides, as well as National teams. However a Test match is only between National Teams (with a couple of exceptions such as British and Irish Lions). - I'll wiki-link the first mention of Test in the article.
"...described as the best team to ever leave New Zealand" - Leave is used literally in that sentence, so when they left New Zealand to return to South Africa. The description implies they are better then any All Black side to Tour overseas.
"matches of the tournament against Wales " It's meant to mean top matches. I'll rewrite it.
"The 1995 team reached the final, despite the team suffering a food poisoning outbreak..." - Yes, this is repetitive, I'll fix it.
I'll fix the "Kapa O Pango" controversy section. The lead's prose does need work, I'll ask someone to have a look at it for me. Thanks for your help and I've checked your copy-edit. There are a couple of minor mistakes, but I really appreciate the help. - Shuddatalk 09:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there have been a few comments on the prose and rightly so; in a lot of places it is quite stodgy. I have just copyedited the "Introduction of rugby to New Zealand" and "International competition begins" subsections of the History section which I hope people will find to be an improvement. I intend to due a thorough copy edit in this manner and will probably get through the entire article by the end of this weekend. GringoInChile 11:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the samee with the lead-in section. Not perfect, but better than it was. Grutness...wha? 12:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - leaning to support. I like it very much (even if I am less keen on their win percentage over Italy - just member who won the football!). However, this ought to be on the front page soon, but first I think the lead needs to be re-written putting things into more of a chronological order - perhaps even being shortened a little. Then I'll support fast. Giano 13:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the lead not chronological? - Shuddatalk 21:43, 18 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
I expanded this article from a stub and am quite happy with it. I hope it is enough for FA, but if not I will work with your comments to improve it in the future. Has passed WP:GA, is currently rated as 'A', and went through one peer review. JRP 17:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please clarify this ref - Thomas, Hugh Cuba, The Pursuit of Freedom. p283-287 - The article for Hugh Thomas says the title is Cuba or the Pursuit of Freedom, pub date 1971, and we need a publisher and ISBN if available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I fixed it to use the title as given by the Library of Congress, but which is not the same the the title in the author's article. (Looking at the cover it's "CUBA" in big letters and "The Pursuit of Freedom" in smaller letters underneath. So, I understand why there is ambiguity.) JRP 22:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fast work - the ISBN and publisher will help readers locate the book, in spite of title confusion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, every book citation should include the publisher, year, and ISBN Mkdwtalk 07:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there any further reading for Magoon? Any books worth suggesting on him or his area of expertise during the early 20th century? --Jayzel 03:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found some books (not used as source material), but I admit that there aren't many in print. Should I add a Further Reading section? I haven't seen that on many FAs, so I didn't add one before.
Magoon in Cuba: A history of the second intervention, David A Lockmiller, ISBN: 0837122104
Charles Edward Magoon: The Panama Years, Gustavo A. Mellander and Nelly Maldonado Mellander, ISBN: 1563281554
Plus, he appears in just about every book (as you would expect) on 20th century Cuban history and I found a great book on Insular Law of the period. I'll try and put something together this evening... JRP 15:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meets all criteria. Good job. BTW, I asked for a further reading list because I noticed 99% of the references used are from newspapers. Most FA biographies that don't have a "further reading" section don't because all important books are used as references. Now FAs aren't required to have a "further reading" section, but I think it would be useful to the reader. Regards, --Jayzel 02:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, was going to object due to my pedantic, nitpicky nature, but fixed the few little issues I spotted (grammar, mainly) instead. Good article. Proto::► 09:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Interesting, well put together article. Mkdwtalk 07:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Having written on related topics (see e.g. Bureau of Insular Affairs) I was fascinated by and learned quite a lot from this article. I was particularly pleased to see an inventory of the subject's manuscript papers listed as a source, as these types of documents are chronically underutilized on Wikipedia. I've copyedited a couple of sentences and added a couple of links, which I hope are helpful. Newyorkbrad 17:19, 18 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Self-nomination This is an article about a 1927 silent film. I started this article as a stub in June 2006 and finally completed the first draft after a wikibreak. This article was at peer review recently and was copy-edited to tighten the prose and clarify various points. It is comprehensive and well-sourced. I'm sure there are still some wrinkles that need ironing; thanks in advance for your input. Dmoon1 23:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can any of the IMDb references be replaced with other reliable citations? IMDb should be used very cautiously as a reference - other than Writers Guild of America credits, its content is essentially fan-submitted with an undisclosed degree of verification or sources, and subject to change much like a wiki. Some WP editors object to any IMDb citations. Just to pick one example, could note #23 (on Paul Leni) be replaced by this? Gimmetrow 00:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced note 23 with a print source that details Leni's career after Cat and the Canary. Dmoon1 02:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the person who passed this article's Good Article candidacy (I've yet to form an opinion regarding Featured Article status), I have no problem with the IMDb links, as they are only used to note other films people associated with this film were in. For me, it would be an issue if the film's goofs page or trivia page on IMDb was cited, but simply mentioning a filmography is OK. The one citation I have a problem with is #33, as it references the IMDb "movie references" page. -- Kicking222 01:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can find a better source for this (and perhaps an explanation of what exactly is parodied). Dmoon1 02:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: my concern is with imdb as a source in general, not with particular citations. Imdb seems too much like a film wiki. While that is perfectly fine as an external link, WP generally tries to avoid citing itself and other wikis like Wookieepedia or Memory Alpha. I just think it is appropriate for WP's "best work" that such citations be minimized where possible. Gimmetrow 02:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception noted above, all of the citations to IMDb in this article are to references involving credits, which as you pointed out above are provided to IMDb by WGA. This article relies almost entirely on academic sources. Dmoon1 03:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WGA handles writing credits, not acting credits. I'll help find alternative citations, if you wish. Gimmetrow 03:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well duh (I overlook the obvious sometimes: Writers Guild!)! Thanks. This came up during peer review and as I said then I don't know of any alternative. So, your help in this matter would be appreciated. Dmoon1 03:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just skimmed this article, Dmoon, so I can't comment in full yet, but I have 2 comments- "As Universal anticipated, director Paul Leni turned Willard's play into an expressionist masterpiece suited to an American audience." Perhaps "perceived masterpiece" for the sake of neutrality? "Modern criticism of the film is mostly laudatory." Is this sourced? Only 2 modern reviews are given, both pointing in opposite directions. Great as far as I can see though.... CanadianCaesarEt tu, Brute? 01:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced masterpiece with film (I thought that sourded funny) and reworded modern critics section. Dmoon1 02:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I peer-reviewed this article, and aside from the IMDB cites (which is a minor issue), I think it passes the FA criteria.--Supernumerary 04:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support and the help during peer review. I have weeded some of the IMDb cites from the article and replaced them with print sources where available. Dmoon1 04:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't notice any major issues. Article seems thorough. The citations in the lead should be moved to the body, but that's minor. Shimeru 06:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. Dmoon1 16:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yep. It's good to go. Great work. -- Kicking222 14:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Dmoon1 16:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I have no idea how you pull off writing an article from a stub into FA in 1 day (minor issues at PR not accounted for). Great job! — Tutmosis 18:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an overachiever I guess. Thanks for your support! Dmoon1 18:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice work! The phrases "death of blood poisoning" and "death of Alzheimer’s" gave me a double take; wouldn't "death from X" be more common? Could you check the ellipses, they may be inconsistent: I saw this, ... this .... and this. ... (I would still prefer fewer citations to imdb.) Gimmetrow 19:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support and input above. Ellipses look different, depending on what was omitted from the original text and where. Four dot ellipses indicate that material was omitted from the end of the sentence (the fourth dot is a period). I did correct the ellipsis that looked like this . ... Dmoon1 19:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Fantastic article everything's cited (and appropriatly cited at that), well written. I'm jealous of your writing and researching skills Dmoon1. Andrzejbanas 22:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. Dmoon1 22:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is good proof that an article doesn't have to be a mile long to be brilliant. It's got everything it needs, all gramatically correct, all cited in the correct places, all citations are fine. What more is there to say? Cream147 23:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. Dmoon1 23:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support after a light ce; nice work, as usual. — Deckiller 15:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can it be explained why the 1939 The Cat and the Canary was "far more successful" than its previous incarnations? The lead paragraph also says that this version is "the most notable". Both claims seem to be backed by one review, which does not seem like enough. I realize that this isn't an article for that film, but the wording just struck me as strong without much background to it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added more citations that explain that the 1939 remake was more successful/notable than the 1930 remakes and how it sort of remade the 1927 film as more of a comedy. If you require more citations, please let me know. Dmoon1 04:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can there be more wording in the article about that? I guess it's just the blanket statement of, "Elliott Nugent's The Cat and the Canary (1939) proved far more successful than the 1930 versions." I'd like to know how, even if it's just briefly. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, take a look at it now. This is probably as good as I'm going to be able to get it. Dmoon1 05:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good article. Nice to read. Well-cited. Interesting. Size does not intimidate. Nice work.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. Dmoon1 19:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Made a couple of very minor edits but the writing is excellent and the overall quality is impressive. Pascal.Tesson 13:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Dmoon1 13:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Some work on the citations, but easily a featured article. Mkdwtalk 10:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate it if you did not revert my work in regards to the citations. Using the template {{citebook}} is a clean and consistent method to formatting citations. Also when you reverted my work, you reverted back to a version that did not include some of the publisher information, ISBN numbers, publish year, and full author name. All those things are helpful for a reader. Thanks, Mkdwtalk 16:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CITET says: "The use of Citation templates is not required by WP:CITE and is neither encouraged nor discouraged by any other Wikipedia citation guidelines. They may be used at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with the other editors on the article. Some editors find them helpful, while other editors find them annoying, particularly when used inline in the text. Because they are optional, editors should not change articles from one style to the other without consensus." —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) My citations were fine; nothing was missing. You didn't pay careful attention to the Notes section. According to Wikipedia:Citation templates, these templates are not required in articles and "editors should not change articles from one style to the other without consensus". I am the sole author main contributor of this article (and only one of the copy-editors brought up the cite templates) and do not care for the template's citation style, so I use the Chicago Manual of Style citation system which is easy to use without the messiness of the templates. Your efforts to improve the article, however, are appreciated. Dmoon1 16:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having just read this deleted statement, I don't want people to think I have claimed ownership of this (or any) article. I'm not sure how you determine consensus when a single editor contributes to an article (although I assume the opinions formed by others at peer review and here constitute some kind of consensus), but I would like to note that my revert of the cite templates was based on statements at Wikipedia:Citation templates and Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to cite sources ("Follow the system used for an article's existing citations. Do not change formats without checking for objections on the talk page. If there is no agreement, prefer the style used by the first major contributor.") None of the edits made by other editors during peer review or FAC have been reverted unless they conflict with a WP policy or the MoS. Again, I thank everyone who has offered advice on ways this article can be improved. It is all appreciated. Dmoon1 21:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with the fact that User:Mkdw used the template or not. Some of the references were missing their ISBN numbers, published locations, publisher, and accessdate. User:Dmoon1 reverted those edits for stylistic purposes and then claimed he was 'the sole editor' of the article implying ownership, a direct violation of WP:NOT. So I suggest you relook over your own citations before reverting useful information that was added to them. Langara College 21:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that there were NO objections on the talk page when the changes were made to the citations. More over this has nothing to do with style of citations over the fact that you removed the ISBN numbers and publisher information from some of the citations, to which the style you used still asks for that information. 142.35.144.2 22:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have not vandalized this article (as claimed on my talk page. There is nothing missing from the references in the Notes section: in the original version before cite templates were added, notes 17, 31, 32, 34, and 36 appear to be missing information, but they are not. These sources have already been referenced in the article (notes 1, 16, 24, and 33), and therefore, according to the Chicago Manual of Style, do not repeat the full publication information as in the original note. All that is required is author's last name, brief title, and page number. In the version with cite templates, information is now needlessly repeated (see notes 1 & 17, 24 & 35), but using two different citation styles. Plus, some of the repeated references are STILL using the original Chicago Manual of Style abbreviated style. Dmoon1 00:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentDmoon1 is correct in what he says regarding the Chicago Manual of Style and has significantly contributed to 4 previous film FAs which account for his experience in them - I'd like to also note that only online media need the date they were last accessed. The date last accessed is used so if a link becomes dead it can be retrieved by the Wayback Machine. Additionally he wrote most of the article so to say he vandalized it is frankly demented. Also, that template is a pain in the ass which the user used - mainly though, there was no need to use the thing in the first place. LuciferMorgan 01:55, 20 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article has been rewritten from scratch (mostly by Awadewit). The article is comprehensive, stable, and well-written. The referencing is thorough. I believe it represents the best of what Wikipedia has to offer. It has already received Good Article status and gone through a Peer Review. It is listed as a Core Biography and has received an "A" rating from the Biography project (I performed the rating). Kaldari 19:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Enthusiastic support. Oh, how I've been longing for the day to see a biography of one of the early pioneers of feminism be taken to FA quality! This is fine work on a subject that is long overdue for serious attention. However, I have one condition for my support, and that's a separation of notes and references to ensure a quick and easy overview of the sources that have actually been used. / PeterIsotalo 17:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, a wholeheartedly exhilarated support. :-D / PeterIsotalo 20:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I promoted this to GA and have since had some minor involvement with this article, so I may not be completely neutral, but I believe it's ready. It's well-written, comprehensive, and thoroughly referenced. Shimeru 19:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORT. Whoa...it's refreshing to see an FAC (the first I've seen) that is so thoroughly prepared and ready that I cannot even muster one negative thing to say. Bravo! —ExplorerCDT 20:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with ExplorerCDT. I'm impressed. Jay32183 22:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing work! Please check over the copy-edits I made. Gzkn 01:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As I wrote much of the page, I feel that it would be unethical for me to vote. But because I feel that some discussion on the vote should take place, I would like to throw some ideas out there. I agreed with the other editors to send this because they seemed to think it was ready and I am new to the whole FA process, but to me the biography section lacks narrative flow and the works section lacks thematic coherence. Would a high school student or freshman in college, for example, really understand the basic themes in MW's works or the relationship between her life and her works after reading this page? I wonder. Awadewit 04:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seeing all the supports, I though I should probably read the article, and I wasn't disappointed; I think Awadewit is being a bit too modest here. (Any failings of the typical high school reader, I think, are unlikely to be the fault of the article.) I do have a few comments on the biographical material:
The paragraph on Blood reads like a compressed compression; it's been summarized so aggressively that the timeline is a bit lost. It's not obvious how relevant the school is to Wollstonecraft's later life, or if it had any outside impact. Blood is being spirited away to improve her health but it's never been mentioned that she was ill. At minimum, 'the continent' ought to be 'Europe' or a more specific destination, for the sake of those high school readers. Similarly, in the next section, the Kingsborough name comes up abruptly, as if they'd been mentioned before.
I will try to fix this. (The school did not have much relevance for W's later life. I just thought it was important to mention that she actually did it.) Awadewit 06:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove (see "Major Works" below). Internal wikilinks are okay, if necessary, but it doesn't seem to be here.
Sorry, I don't quite follow. Awadewit 06:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Last sentence in 'first of a new genus': 'perhaps her most famous and influential work (see "Major Works" below).' The parenthetical note isn't really necessary, and should be a link if it is. Opabinia regalis 07:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Quotation marks do so much. I will remove the parenthetical. Awadewit 07:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Section title "France and Imlay" is opaque to someone browsing the TOC; even "France and Gilbert Imlay" would make it clear that "Imlay" is a person and not a place.
Will change. Awadewit 06:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"explained by most critics as the expressions of a deeply depressed woman..." - I'm not sure I get the point of this sentence. Are they claiming clinical/postpartum depression? If I were alone with a baby in a foreign country in the middle of a revolution, I'd be a little depressed too. Presumably the critics have a more nuanced view than 'she was depressed'?
Strangely enough, most critics argue that W's mood at this time is due to her impending break-up with Imlay and not to the fact that she is in the middle of a revolution. Hence, the "most critics" and "some critics" distinctions I tried to draw. Awadewit 06:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"parts of the placenta remained inside Wollstonecraft's uterus" - TMI much? This is just so strangely clinical wording compared to the rest of the article. Are we even certain that's what happened? (I don't know, but just how accurate are 1797 medical records?) Opabinia regalis 06:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to explain what happened (and we are very sure about that); would something more vague such as "Wollstonecraft died of an infection following complications in childbirth" be more tasteful? Awadewit 06:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That does read better. I'm not necessarily in favor of removing known information, but the tone stands out at the moment. Opabinia regalis 07:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I saw Simon Schama's A History of Britain, he told about the placenta incident. Even more detailed even: "The doctor stuck his hand inside Mary and pulled; the placenta came away in pieces." I dunno, but I think it seemed like relevant information. / PeterIsotalo 12:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can others weigh in? Thanks. Awadewit 17:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that we only have one sentence about the cause of death, the introduction of clinical details does seem a little unexpected. If we expanded the section about her death, I think it might be less jarring. As it is now (with the details removed), I think the wording works well and I don't think the missing information is at all critical. Encarta's article doesn't even mention a cause of death: "She died later that year, shortly after the birth of their daughter." I think the information is certainly relevant to a biography, but maybe not an encyclopedia article. Kaldari 17:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, sorry to have started such a long thread on a small point. Why not just call it what it is, 'retained placenta'? We can leave the pieces and the puppetry alone, or if it's really relevant, expand the section to be less sudden. Opabinia regalis 00:55, 20 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
I've spent the last month fixing up and adding to this article. I've referenced practically every fact and It has gone through a peer review, a Militay history WikiProject A-class assessment review, and I think its up to the challenge here. - TrevorMacInnis (Contribs) 20:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Enthusiastic support - my comments/concerns were voiced in the MilHist review and all have been addressed. - Emt147Burninate! 21:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looks good now that all the review comments have been addressed. One minor quibble: MoH recipients should all (eventually) have articles, so please wikify the names in that list as well. Kirill Lokshin 21:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The references are not correctly listed/expanded, some are just blue links without last access dates, it's not clear all are reliable sources. Some examples - what are:
Dornier Do 200 (and, it's not using named refs correctly, to point once to the same source).
Biography of Brigadier General Frederick Walker Castle
SallyB
Northstar Gallery (and there's more)
Please expand all references to include full bibliographic info (consider using cite templates), and include last access dates on websources.
Something called "Related contents" appears to want to be See also - please review WP:GTL.
This appears appended to the end of references, with access date in a different format than others, while the rest of the list is alphabetical. USAF FAQ. USAF National Museum. Access date: 18 December 2006.
Specifications has punctuation at the end of list items, while the pilot and crew section doesn't and Surviving B-17s doesn't - I'm not sure what WP:MOS says, but you should follow that and be consistent.
I don't usually review milhist articles, as they usually get all the loose ends at peer review - I hope the referencing can be cleaned up and completed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ah, I see that now. Trevor, I'm concerned that your introduction to this article mentions "Militay history WikiProject review". I thought that meant a peer review (I now see that's not what is stated). To me, a MilHist peer review confers a level of thoroughness and preparedness for FAC such that I usually barely glance at their FA candidates - they're almost always ready. You might want to reword. I'm confident you can bring the article to FA status, but reviewers should be aware it hasn't yet been thoroughly vetted in a MilHist peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. The A-Class review is a somewhat different process, and doesn't necessarily go into nitpicky details as well as the full peer review. Kirill Lokshin 02:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'k I've clarified it was an A-class assessment review in the intro. I was unaware of a peer review I could use before coming here, that certainly would have helped things.*} - TrevorMacInnis (Contribs) 03:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear why, then, See also is being renamed - is that standard on MilHist articles, is there a guideline, and why go against WP:GTL? Perhaps Kirill can comment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be a WP:AIRCRAFT guideline, actually. (It's certainly not one of ours! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it's a WP:Air guideline. It predates the current GTL and the changeover was not made because the Related content is an extensive section with multiple subheadings and not a simple "see also" (which is one of the subheadings). - Emt147Burninate! 02:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, I'm just wondering, is the Related content/See also issue a problem? If so I'll make sure the WP:AIR page is re-written. Also, I'm unsure what you mean about the punctuation. - TrevorMacInnis (Contribs) 19:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It looks very good, just a couple of questions about the lead:
epic daylight precision strategic bombing - is "epic" not POV?
the sentence beginning Combined with RAF Bomber Command's - maybe I'm being dense, but I'm not following that sentence. What combined with the night-time bombing? Trebor 23:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the word epic. About the second part: The whole paragraph summarizes how the B-17 was part of a USAAF daylight bombing campaign, The RAF has a nighttime bombing campaign, and together they had the Pointblank directive, which had each complementing the others desired results. Confusing? Yes. I can't quite get the wording right. - TrevorMacInnis (Contribs) 00:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The new version seems to make more sense :) Will read through the whole article and make a decision. Trebor 00:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - excellent article. Trebor 01:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Am I wrong to say that "Operational service" and "Operators" overlap slightly? Even if they don't, a more logical order would be Operational service > Operators > Variants/design stages. Mark83 23:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ops service and operators do overlap, but only when they mention how the USAAF and RAF used them in WW2, most of the section is devoted to other operators. Should the USAAF and RAF part be reduced even more? I'll swap the sections now. --TrevorMacInnis (Contribs) 00:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object Has potential, but the refs are not even in a standard format and consider displaying them on a single line, vice two per line. See Gerald Ford, Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America), or Scouting for samples of good ref formats. Also, I'm not saying refs can't be in the lead, but if the lead is written as a summary as it should be, there will be few or no refs in the lead. Fifteen refs by the end of the lead is clearly excessive IMHO. Rlevse 01:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on standardizing the ref, and so far I've been leaning toward the Harvard format. Your comments seem to indicate that Harvard referencing is to be avoided. Is that always true? Also, I'll make sure that if the info is restated in the body (as of course it should be) the ref is removed from the intro. - TrevorMacInnis (Contribs) Ok, I've reduced it down to 9 in the intro (1,2,3 are actually in the infobox), and 3 more (7,8,9) are actually just different examples of its durability. Is it still too much? - TrevorMacInnis (Contribs) 02:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I work through the article, putting cite webs up etc, I'm seeing that perhaps avoiding Harvard and using citation templates exclusively may be the way to go. How do you deal with items such as the notes that have text along with them. Example: [19] ^ Schamel 2006. On board the plane were... - TrevorMacInnis (Contribs) 03:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like Harvard refs myself, I use cite templates myself. Anyway, for notes, you can just type stuff in btwn the ref tags or separate them from citation footnotes, see Scouting for a sample of how to do this.Rlevse 11:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished converting all reference to the {{cite format. There are a few minor access date format issues to clean up, but basically the bulk of the work is done. Comments? - TrevorMacInnis (Contribs) 23:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much better.Rlevse 12:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object1b and 2a: The second and third paragraphs of the lead section don't summarize information from the body of the article. For just one example, take "the B-17 helped secure air superiority over the cities, factories and battlefields of Western Europe". That statement made me curious: how does a bomber secure air superiority? Then in the article I find the statement "it was not until the advent of an effective long-range fighter escort—the P-51 Mustang—that the B-17 became strategically potent". This makes the P-51 sound like the deciding factor in air superiority. I could imagine that maybe the B-17 was especially directed in bombing German airfields, but the Pointblank directive article suggesting so is an unreferenced stub, and it isn't discussed in the body of this article.
There's the same issue with the third paragraph: if I want to learn more about the promotional campaign, it's missing in the article. I recommend taking every statement in the lead section that requires a citation and expanding on it in the body. Melchoir 02:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've started a revamp of the operational service section, including Pointblank and its air superiority aims. The third paragraph isn't supposed to indicate a promotional campaign per se, but just indicate that the B-17 was an imagination stimulator (more so than other, "better", aircraft). I realize that not much of this is made of in the article, should a section be created about the B-17 in popular culture? This has been suggested on the talk page but I'm not sure how to go about it, usually those sections are to be avoided as "trivia". Maybe I'll try writting a section called "Legacy", just after the operators section. - TrevorMacInnis (Contribs) 04:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, great additions! Yes, I'd love to see a section in the article about the… okay, imagination stimulation. I wouldn't call it "popular culture", though, or someone will try to add a list of video games in which a B-17 appears. "Legacy" doesn't really seem to fit; maybe "Public relations?" Melchoir 04:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've created the section "The Fortress as a Symbol", and moved some of the fluff in the intro there. Sill needs a bit of fleshing out though. - TrevorMacInnis (Contribs) 19:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, the symbol section could use some fleshing out — there's still a one-sentence paragraph in there — but it looks to be well on its way. I do recommend a final sweep through the article to make sure the references issue is taken care of; I found a sentence in "The USAAF" that ends (A.P.). Melchoir 19:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've been tagging along in the wake of the main contributors and watched this turn into a polished article which appears to cover all aspects of a broad topic. A lot of information presented in an interesting and readable manner. Good work. Red Sunset 23:04, 19 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a self-nomination. I have worked on this article with several members of WP:Armenia and Zscout370. Recently, this article had a peer review (here). --Crzycheetah 20:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object for now. Should be rated as A-class in WP:HV. Another suggestion is that there is an image gap in the history due to version, existed in 1936-1952 (isn't displayed in the Flag of the Armenian SSR and List of Armenian flags either). And: 1) the official meaning of the colors stated in the Constitution would be nice within the chapter and paragraph; 2) the references to associated people of any version would also look nice if possible. --Brandспойт 12:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how often articles are rated for WP:HV, but given the information that anyone could find about the Armenia flag, I believe it should be FA. I am going to make the 1936-1952 flag right now. According to the Russian website cited in the article Stepan Malhasjana designed the flag in 1919, and readopted his flag once Armenia left the USSR. User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 19:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The official meaning is a direct quotation from the constitution, that's why I didn't put it in a paragraph. --Crzycheetah 20:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ObjectAbstain, primarily for want of brilliant prose and for a less than compelling structure. It is obvious that a lot of work has gone into the article, and it has improved markedly over the past few months. Still, it falls short of FA status, in my opinion. Here are some comments:
The article could use some thorough copy editing to weed out some dubious grammar and punctuation. A few examples (this is not a comprehensive list; check the entire article meticulously for similar grammatical malfunctions):
Before this flag, Armenia used symbolic variants, displaying different animals, representing Armenian Dynasties, on a solid field. -- Count the commas. Also, "before this flag" reads a bit clunky; maybe you were trying to say "in earlier versions of the flag", or "previous designs of the flag", or something similar.
The current flag was adopted on 24 August 1990 by the Armenian Supreme Council decision. The flag was adopted by the decision? At least change "Council" to "Council's". Better yet, rephrase the sentence.
However, many agree that the red stands for the blood shed by Armenian soldiers from all wars, the blue stands for the sky of Armenia, hope and the unchanging character of the land, and the orange represents the courage of the people and the fertile lands of Armenia and the workers who work on them. Count the and's and the commas.
The most common version of the flag is with brighter shades of the tricolor Check grammar.
Don't use a comma after "whereas".
... hoist the national flag daily, from the following locations Kill the comma.
From the "History" section: The ancient flags displayed a dragon, an eagle, or some mysterious object of the gods (sometimes a lion). This was fastened to the end of a pole ... "Flags": plural, "this": singular.
it looks more comparable today to ... Try "looks more like" or "resembles", maybe?
Although, there is a tricolor flag that historians consider a flag of Transcaucasia, similar to that of the German flag (black, red and gold), except arranged in a different order (gold, black and red). Ungrammatical and comma-infested.
... but on 24 August 1990 when the Armenian Supreme Council adopted the flag of the Republic of Armenia, ... Spot the missing comma.
The flag had a yellow hammer and sickle inscribed into the yellow star surrounded with the letters "Z-S-F-S-R" written in Russian sans-serif script. This sentence reads like a Matryoshka doll.
Overuse of the word "however". I counted nine invocations, some of which were ungrammatical.
Comments on layout and structure:
The "Usage" section consists almost entirely of list items. This doesn't make for very compelling storytelling. See Flag of India or Flag of Mexico for some examples of interesting flag protocol sections.
Moving the "History" section upwards (before the "Usage" section) might improve the natural flow of the article.
Thanks, and good luck! --Plek 22:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Thank you for your comments. I have made many fixes in this article including all of the errors you listed. I think that the "Usage" section is too short to write in a paragraph. Mexican and Indian flag articles are written in a prose because there are a lot of information on the web that can be included. Indian government has a 20 page flag code, while Armenian government has one sentence posted on the web.--Crzycheetah 07:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edits. I've struck out the comments that were acted upon. I do think some more copyediting is in order, as the prose still tends to be a bit clunky in places. Enlisting the help of the League of Copyeditors might be helpful. Changing my "vote" to abstain (beacuse I'm not able to judge the comprehensiveness of the article, for lack of knowledge in this field). Cheers. --Plek 01:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OBJECT for practically the same exact reasons as Plek. —ExplorerCDT 02:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I believe this article is comprehensive based on the information that is currently known to us. User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 22:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SupportObject for now, mostly due to the following points and factual errors to be fixed:
The article on Armenian SSR states, that it was established on November 291920, but this article doesn't even mention the flag, that the republic had since then until it became a part of the Transcaucasian SFSR (1922). That flag is here, although I can't say how accurate it is there as there are no references.
Response Can you help me out here? Soviet Socialist Republic of Armenia was established on November 291920, but the flag was chosen on February 2, 1922link. On the other hand, Transcaucasian SFSR was established on March 12, 1922. It means that the flag of the SSRA had a life of one month. Plus, it is questionable whether that flag was used at all. What should I do? Leave it as is or add all this info to the article? Oh and I am going to make the "SSRA" flag and put it in the List of Armenian flags anyway. Thanks. Crzycheetah 04:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the "CCPA" flag to the "list of Armenian flags" article. Crzycheetah
Thanks, I've also made some fixes in the section of the article, related to the Soviet Armenia. Cmapm 01:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article describes only one flag of the Transcaucasian SFSR, saying, that it was used in 1922-1936. But here is noted, that the flag mentioned in the article was used only between 1930 and 1936, and between 1922 and 1930 there was another flag, which is also present there. Cmapm 02:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Concerning your second point, can you explain to me what ZSSRFS stand for? I think that site meant FSSSRZ which had a life of 9 months in 1922, according to the hrono.ru link I provided above. Regards. Crzycheetah 04:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why should the Transcaucasian SFSR(established in 1922) have used a "ФСССРЗ"(or "ЗССРФС") flag from 1922-1930 if its initials were "ЗСФСР"? It doesn't make sense to me. Anyway, my point is that there is a very likely error on the vexilla-mundi.com site.--Crzycheetah 05:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can do the 1922-1936 flag, but I just need to find a way to be able to use Cyrillic font in Inkscape. I am in the process of making the CCPA flag now. User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 04:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also do wish to attest that Vexilla-Mundai has some errors on various pages. Also, if the flag did exist, then it would have existed on the Narod.ru website we use as a reference. User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 05:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Crzycheetah, there seems to be an error. However, I guess, that the Transcaucasian SFSR had something similar to the first flag of the Russian SFSR somewhere in the 1920s. But as this information seems to be really hard to obtain let us leave it as is for now. Cmapm 01:28, 20 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article has changed significantly since it was first nominated, so many of the comments in the old nom are no longer applicable. Nomination restarted. Raul654 15:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SupportWeak ObjectThe Asian characters in Elements needs rationale, but because those characters can be depicted using free images (or just use the Chinese text right next to the image) I'm not sure you can create a rationale. Issues with the Characters section seen in Talk needs to be resolved. I mentioned on the Talk page that there are more common ways to seperate the paragraphs in the character section. Issues from earlier are resolved in my opinion.Medvedenko 16:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added rationale to Asian characters. Characters section issues are coming to an end very soon. Horizontal lines removed from Characters section. 71.247.49.111 01:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That rationale does not work. The copyright tag indicates those symbols are taken from the show. If thats the case which it certainly looks like, then you have to change the rationale. (If it was not copyrighted, you wouldn't need to add rationale) Medvedenko 19:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed rational to a more appropriate explanation. The Placebo Effect 20:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCharacters images have fair use rational, and Charchter section no longer has a debate and is refrenced. The Placebo Effect 22:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ObjectUnformatted, blue link URLs in the refs - pls fix and check all refs. Section headings don't conform to WP:MSH - how do these articles get this far into FAC without having the basics checked? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Must be my eyesight, then :-) A link like http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/12/arts/television/12nick.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&8dpc&oref=slogin gives us no way to track down the information. Since the link goes nowhere, we have no author, no article title, and no publication date - we only know that something sometime was printed in the New York Times. This is an example of why complete bibliographic info is needed. If we register at the NYT, we find out the ref should be:
Comment Sorry, I did not know what you meant for a second. I went I found the sources and fixed the citations. I do not know who put those unformatted citations there, they were put in recently. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions.) 22:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Refs look better now. There are three sections which are nothing but a heading and a Main article in Characters. Besides being unsightly, this isn't the way Summary style is used - the main template is used when information from a daughter article is summarized back to the main article, yet there is no information summarized back here. Maybe the sections can be eliminated, and the lists incorporated into the prose under a general character heading, or as a See also template under the general character heading, but there's no reason to have a section with no content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Working on fixing that, by making one main article (List of...) to cover the whole section. FrozenPurpleCube 03:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Back for another look - almost there.
"Overview" is not an encyclopedic section heading - can you come up with something else?
Feature Film Adaptation section heading violated WP:MSH - I removed caps. It only has one sentence: should not be a separate section.
Something is goofed up in the formatting of this reference ^ . (2006-09-19). Book 1: Water, Box Set [DVD].
Is the bolding necessary in the footnotes? I think it's coming from the parameter, serieslink = Avatar: The Last Airbender , which shouldn't be necessary in its own article.
I found some minor ce errors - refs run right into the start of the next sentence, with no space, so please run through the text again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That problem has already been solved (mostly). It was just that nobody changed it. According to the conversation, nobody objected to the idea that the cycle was classified as a legend and, when the situation call for it, it can be broken. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions.) 21:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems to be heavily weighted towards in-universe sort of description--there's extensive sections on premise, plot, and characters, none of which have any secondary sources. This is bothersome, especially since there's a lot of analytic description of character traits and such. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Episode that provide character traits are referenced now. The Placebo Effect 22:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All of the objections havee been met. Also, do the votes from the old nomination count in this one or not? The Placebo Effect 14:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No. So you might want to ask people who voted last time to come back for this one on their talk pages. --PresN 16:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is there now, with all the recent improvements. Jay32183 18:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am an editor of this article but it has improved drastically and now definitely deserves to be featured. -Dylan0513 21:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object:Good article, but a couple of quibbles. Why is American wikilinked in the lead? Make sure there are no common, irrelevant wikilinks in the article. Also, please merge that annoying two sentence paragraph in the lead. The episodes section is unnecessary: those few sentences could go in the lead or somewhere else, and the template already has a link to the episode list. Plus, why is there no critical reaction listed, even though the lead says "Avatar: The Last Airbender is popular with both audiences and critics,[2]"?--Dark Kubrick 22:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We've been told to wikilink a lot of that crap by other voters. Sentences have been merged. The episodes thing is on other FA TV shows so I'm not getting rid of it. And to tell you the truth, we've searched far and wide to find critical reactions and honestly, there aren't any out there that we can find. No one writes critical reactions to a Nickelodeon cartoon. H2P(Yell at me for what I've done) 22:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand most of your points, but I still see no reason for the "Episodes" section. It's a two-sentence section that can easily be moved somewhere else. Whether it's on the other FAs is irrelevant; what exactly does it add here?--Dark Kubrick 02:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TV shows need a link to thier episodes. however, we didn't want a section that just says "see X" as per an FA request previously, so we added a small line of text that describes what will be found on that link, which is 40 episodes through 2 seasons. H2P(Yell at me for what I've done) 04:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sort of information is noted by the infobox and at least one other line. Since it's media, I merged it into the media paragraph and the book/chapter thing into the header. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the article is now worthy of being a featured article.Tremewanbill 00:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This article has come a long way and is now just about up to FA quality. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 00:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, I watch the show - damn it. Good article and I have used it often for information. --Blacksun 12:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thanks for the support, but your opinion on the subject matter itself doesn't help here, we need information on the articles flaws or reasons why it's ready for FA status. H2P(Yell at me for what I've done) 14:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object Article is subject to edit-warring and POV-pushing. --SunStar Nettalk 12:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to explain? The article is stable right now when the show isn't aired and we do a good job of keeping it neutral. The Placebo Effect 13:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Name me an article that isn't subject to warring and POV and I'll show you an article that isn't edited. Why don't you come back at the start of season 3 and see how the Wikiproject takes care of these articles stability. It's stressful. H2P(Yell at me for what I've done) 14:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My mistake. The comment wasn't intended for this article but another Featured candidate.--SunStar Nettalk 16:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, surprisingly enough. I expected fancruft but found an engaging article - now I'd like to see the show! :) Haukur 12:07, 13 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am self-nominating my article on Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) again. It is now better written than before, after being copy-edited by multiple wikipedia copyeditors. It is not as list heavy as it was. It is well-referenced and more importantly, it offers all significant information on the topic while remaining encyclopedic.Noahdabomb3 00:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previous nomination is here. Gzkn 01:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per last FAC, all issues I had with the article were adressed. - Tutmosis 02:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks very good, fits the criteria - good work! — Wackymacs 14:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This article ain't nuthing ta f' wit! -- Kicking222 22:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support best hip hop album article yet, very nice, one comment, can you add fair use rationales to the images and song samples as they are needed. Thanks Jarandawat's sup 01:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (response) - I added the fair use rationales for all the song samples and images except the album cover (thats self explanatory).Noahdabomb3 02:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The album cover also needs a fair use rationale. If it's an unfree image it needs a fair use rationale. The album cover licence tag specifically says to add one for each use. Jay32183 22:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC) issue dealt with. Jay32183 03:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much blog/webpage/listy content of external jumps. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog. References are not formatted, making it hard to verify reliable sources without clicking on each one. For example, no author, publication date given for (Days of the Wu. Retrieved on November 6, 2006.) and what makes that a reliable source? That is only one example - all sources should be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (response) - I put an author for every source that had an author. Also, I put the website name within each reference. Thanks for pointing this out to me, and tell me if I need to do anything else. Otherwise, I want that oppose to be changed to a support. :) Noahdabomb3 22:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (response) "Too much blog/webpage/listy content...Wikipedia is not a blog". Could you kindly explain that objection in a bit more detail? Nobody is trying to start a blog here. We're trying to write a quality encyclopedia article. Help us improve it. Thanks! Venicemenace 14:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Flicking through the featured article candidates, this is most impressive. It has nice spread layout and a good visuality with the images. The sections seem comprehensive and the references too. -Kez 19:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object. While quite well written, it could do with a copy-edit by fresh eyes; won't take long. Here are little random examples of what I mean.
" from 1992-1993"—No, I think if you use "from", you need to insert "to" between the years instead of (what should be) the en dash.
"In order to decide"—Spot the two redundant words.
"this track was left off the Wu-Tang Clan's debut but eventually surfaced on Method Man's debut, Tical."—"Eventually", I've decided, is not encyclopedic. Why bother using it if you don't tell us when: you're the experts ... And a comma before "but", please.
I concur with Sandy on the blogginess of the referencing. Some reviewers, myself included, are becoming increasingly concerned at the use of sources that lack verifiability, authority and stability, and that themselves are not referenced. I think there's an over-reliance on such references here.
The fair-use justification of the audio examples is inadequate. Please see the recent warring on the Fair use talk page, in which commercial recordings were deleted without notice by WP's office, breaking the seven-day rule and not, in my view, properly justified by the wording of the fair-use rules. Even written permission of the owner wasn't enough to save the excerpts from destruction. They won't go with the "lower quality" reason, and the "not replaceable" reason appears to count for little. The educational reason, and the claim that the main text is a commentary on these tracks, are flimsy. I see no explicit, direct information on the musical and/or sound production aspects of the tracks. WP seems to be more concerned about keeping its content free than adhering to the common law on fair use; i.e., WP is becoming stricter than the common law, and there appears to be an acknowledgement that its fair-use rules have not kept apace with the tightening of "policy" (a most unsatisfactory gap, IMV). I think you'll have to delete them. Tony 11:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (response)
I requested a copy-edit of this article at the Wikipedia League of Copyeditors page, and corrected the examples you gave me.
All sources I used are legitimate; most are either from well known publications or interviews. Also, many references are websites that list accolades (rocklist.net), explaining why you might think the article is "bloggy." I assure you that it is not though.
In terms of the sound samples, I am going to wait for a second opinion before I take them down. Its not that I don't trust you, but according to you, there is "warring" over fair use samples and I want to wait for the official outcome of the war.Noahdabomb3 01:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've already asked Gmaxwell for an opinion. Tony 02:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a very important difference between the Bach page and this page, which is that it is possible to create free recordings of Bach, since he's been dead since 1750 so his music is not copyrighted; it is not possible to create free recordings of Wu-Tang, because they are not dead (mostly) and their music is still under copyright. Mak(talk) 20:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but five 30-second excerpts? WP might balk at so many in a single article, especially without much or any comment on the music/lyrics of those tracks in the text. Tony 00:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as if Noahdabomb3 has gone ahead and removed the samples. Venicemenace 14:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Well written, well-referenced article. (Ibaranoff24 09:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Comment (response) Tony, thank you for your explanation of the "blogginess" concern. However, I'd like to ask you to take another look at the article's sources. The vast majority of the claims in this article, including the "exceptional claims", are backed by solid sources like Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, Robert Christgau, New York Press, All Music Guide, Boston Phoenix, Pitchfork Media, Exclaim Magazine (Canada), and The Source. Other sources are interviews with members of Wu-Tang Clan, which should be considered solid as well. Rocklist.com is prominent, but only as a reference to "best of" album lists published in print media -- these are noncontroversial claims of verifiable facts, not subjective analysis. A few other sources (ProudFlesh Journal, Stylus Magazine) are not on the blue-chip level of the first group, but are hardly blogs; these sources are counted on for minor aspects of the article's analysis, and I believe them to be stable and reliable. If you have concerns about specific sources, please inform us (the editors) and we'll address them. However, I don't think the blanket statements - that this article over-relies on dubious sources, or is symptomatic of a larger sourcing problem on WP - are really accurate here. Your assistance and advice is much appreciated. Venicemenace 13:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was the reviewer who first raised the issue of listiness/blogginess; the article has improved, but an example is the List of accolades section. It contains an entire chart of external website links, which could be converted to referenced statements. Most articles I've seen list the title/accolade, and include a column with the reference number - we shouldn't be sending readers outside of Wiki when external jumps can be Wikified or converted to referenced statements. Also, since they are external jumps rather than references with full biblio info, we can't observe the strength of your sources without clicking on each one. You can solve this by adding a ref column, removing the external jumps, and converting them to refs. That table looks like a webpage/blog, sending our readers all over the internet.
Also, your references still need better formatting - see the cite templates for examples (although you need not use the cite templates). For example: Rolling Stone 500 Greatest Albums of All Time at RollingStone.com. Since this is a magazine, it should use the correct format, identifying (when provided) author, publication date, and the publisher (Rolling Stone) shouldn't be included in the blue link, which should be the exact article title. Have a look at AC/DC; its references are coming along. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to reinstate one, perhaps two, of those fair-use audio excerpts? If so, refer to the music directly in the text. Maybe someone like Gmaxwell, who's an expert in that field, might think it's acceptable. Tony 15:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely think one or two short, lowered-quality fair-use sound excerpts which described in the text would be both appropriate and useful. Mak(talk) 16:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (response)
In terms of the list of accolades, the table gets ruined if I put in references, so I think that I will just remove the hyperlinks and forget about references altogether. If anyone is willing to put in a reference column, than that is accepted, but I am not sure if that is necessary.
In terms of the song samples, even putting two samples into the article (according to Gmaxwell and Tony) is a violation of this website's rules regarding to copywrite. I do not know too much of wikipedia's policy on song samples, but you will have to beat maxwell or tony in an argument and add more info about the singles in order to get the samples back in the article. I think it is better the way it is right now.
In terms of the references, the way they are is perfectly mine. I do not need to add the magazine information for something I found at Rollingstone.com that does not list that information. For all I know, Rollingstone.com has its own information about the 500 Best Albums that its magazine doesn't have. Noahdabomb3 22:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, that entire table was taken from another source - how about copyvio? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for the fair-use of short copyrighted recordings, no one has actually said none may be used. Gmaxwell definitely hasn't said this, and Tony was the one who suggested that one or two be included, I was agreeing with him that that would be entirely fair, reasonable, and good. People don't seem to be understanding that there's a huge difference between copyrighted recordings of Bach being used (which Gmaxwell doesn't think we should do) and copyrighted recordings of still-living-still-recording-still-holding-all-possible copyright artists, which I haven't seen Gmaxwell comment on on-wiki, but am fairly sure he would accept as a necessary part of an article on an album or musical group. Mak(talk) 23:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; and reference to music/lyrics in the text would lift the educational value of the one or two examples, raising the quality of the article and further justifying limited fair use. Is each, for example, representative of a certain style/period of the group? Do they contain musical textures/instrumental or vocal forces/lyrics that are characteristic of the group? Just a few sentences for each would do. This is what, I think, we expect of musical articles. In the end, the article needs to be freely copiable by anyone on the planet, without feeling that copyright is an issue. Tony 00:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (repsonse) - Unless someone wants me to add a little more info about the singles, I think everybody should support this featured article request. The article is currently being copy-edited and it is generally agreed that it is well-written. The references are legitimate and presented correctly. Also, the blogginess of the accolade section was addressed. If the article needs any more tweeking, speak up or forever hold your peace. Noahdabomb3 01:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object This would normally only be a comment but I feel an objection is required for the action to be taken. The image in the lead still has no fair use rationale. I mentioned this earlier on the page. There is no self-explanatroy fair use rationale on Wikipedia. Tony also raises legitimate concerns. By the way, demanding support is a bad idea, and there is no "forever hold your peace" on Wikipedia. Jay32183 01:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC) isuue dealt with. Jay32183 03:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left a message at the original uploader's talk page to provide a source [20]. Other than that the image fair use rationale is pretty much self-explanatory. Also to note I did revert the image to a previous low resolution version (no offense Ibaranoff24) to better suit fair-use. I hope we are on the same page when you refer to "image in the lead" since I assume it's Image:Wu-TangClanEntertheWu-Tangalbumcover.jpg. Thanks. — Tutmosis 03:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand the question. The source for an album cover is, of course, the album itself. Are you asking if I personally scanned it or downloaded it from elsewhere? Does that make a difference for copyright purposes? (I have no idea where I downloaded it from - I definitely did not scan it myself). Tuf-Kat 12:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was asking if you scanned or downloaded it. I was under the impression that is proper protocol if you get an image from the web you should link to where you got it from. But it's all good since a fair-use rationale was provided, I guess since this is a album cover the source isn't much of a difference. — Tutmosis 16:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's no expressive content to scanning it, so I've given more info on the cover on the image page. It now gives the record label and artist. I don't think anyone else could be considered to have a valid interest in it. Tuf-Kat 03:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (response) - I gave a rationale for fair use for the lead image and I apologize for my cocky comment.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahdabomb3 (talk • contribs)
Comment: Venicemenace explained that the most of the fact-check references are stable. The samples have rationale. "List of accolades" is taken from one website but I don't see how it is a copyvio since it just a list of article titles from various magazines and such, sort of like a copying and pasting a track list. The citations are detailed, they aren't citeweb format but it's really up to the author, no 1 style is currently enforced. So I am a little confused at the outstanding problems that need to be fixed. — Tutmosis 18:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very impressive article. Dalf | Talk 07:19, 11 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Self nomination, I now feel that the topic is covered fully and meets the requirements for FA.--Alfmelmac 13:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object—1a. Here are random examples of why the whole text requires copy-editing.
"The original medieval foundation set up by Adam de Brome, under the patronage of Edward II, was named The House of Blessed Mary the Virgin in Oxford, with the first design allowing for a Provost and ten Fellows, called 'scholars', and before admitting undergraduates in the 16th century, the College remained a small body of graduate Fellows.[3]" A long, curling snake. The last statement is awkwardly jammed into the sentence.
"high ranking members"—Spot where the hyphen should go.
The link to "18th century" is extremely relevant to this text.
"law suit"—two words?
"Oriel's notable alumni include two Nobel laureates and prominent Fellows have included John Keble and John Henry Newman, founders of the Oxford Movement.[6]" Again, the integration of ideas into sentences needs attention. Perhaps "laureates; prominent"?
"students, the student"—in an awkard sentence.
Last sentence: "is"?
This embarrasses the many great minds that have emerged from the institution. Tony 14:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the two previous copy-edits didn't pick those up, I have fixed all those except "curling snake", which was a result of fixing the black-out effect of having four names too close to each other. I'll look at that again. I assume that the 18th century link comment is sarcasm and have removed it accordingly. --Alfmelmac 14:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done something about the first example. All the above examples except the last, appear in the intro, which was expanded during this article's peer review, the last appeared in the latest section, which I didn't wish to create until I had a book to reference the Inspector Morse episodes, as a bonus, the book has four other films listed as using Oriel as a location and I've added that data. I had already promised myself to nominate the article after I'd added that section, I should have checked it all over once more I guess.--Alfmelmac 18:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quick metacomment: I appreciate the effort put in to reviewing articles, and we should certainly be exacting, but it's not necessary or helpful to make comments like "this embarrasses the many great minds that have emerged from the institution". FAC should be rigorous yet not belittling. — Matt Crypto 14:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right; I was a little harsh in that comment, but stand by my view that the prose isn't good enough. Tony 16:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - 1a, 1c and 2. The first section I checked (People associated with the College) is uncited, has poor prose (examples - "Their most famous undergraduate is probably Sir Walter Raleigh, a 16th century explorer, though he was registered at college, he does not seem to have taken up residence." and "Like other Oxford colleges, Oriel has a more or less permanent set of teaching staff, known as dons."), and uses the Summary style templates incorrectly. Fixing Tony's *examples* isn't enough to correct the prose. Sandy (Talk) 15:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "poor prose" "Like other..." was the same as for ChristChurch college article, and that sentence has now been removed. There was a cite in the section for the Professorial Fellowships, I felt it uneccessary to cite obviously verfiable figures like the two nobel laureates, I've added one for Walter Raleigh's being a member, the info about him not taking up residence is in his article, I am unable to reference it myself so I have removed it. I'm not sure what you mean by the 'uses Summary style templates incorrectly" — the full list of people got too long for the article and was moved to it's own page, should I move it back instead? --Alfmelmac 16:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Templates belong at the top of the section. Sandy (Talk) 16:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the only template used in that section is already at the top of the section, the two links at the bottom link to categories and were added in the Oxford college articles across the board, is there a better way of handling those?--Alfmelmac 17:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - a lot of work has gone into this article, and it shows. It's comprehensive, interesting, well-referenced and well-written. I don't buy into the above oppositions; they're ridiculously picky. Particlarly, I don't see how sarcasm is necessary, or the scathing nature of the summing-up comment. Regards, —Celestianpowerháblame 20:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On smaller monitors, placing one image to the right and one to the left scrunches up the text in an ugly mess. The third pair is okay, though, since they're vertical pictures and smaller in width. Gzkn 00:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I recently made the pictures larger, trying the page out in the default settings for IE6/7 and Firefox and how it appeared on the print out. I have the luxury of larger screens and I didn't think of looking at it in 800x600 they do look bad. I've reset those to default thumb size.--Alfmelmac 08:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, good job. Everything's there, inline citations, the prose is good and well summarised, don't see why I should object this potential FA. Terence Ong 08:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting read, well referenced and written, no major quarrels here. KOS | talk 17:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a comment as opposed to a support statement because I have been involved in the article in a limited capacity – minor copy editing and sentence restructuring and such like. I have followed the article's progress with great interest and have been most impressed with the way that Alf has thrown himself into the article and, indeed, with the way he has addressed every single comment for improvement with immediacy and good grace. As for the article itself, the main page is obviously the first thing any of us would see before logging in, and so it would be appropriate for us to check that day's featured article as a matter of course; I can quite honestly say that, in my humble opinion, this article is now on a par with any article which has achieved the hallowed FA status and would therefore expedite its approval – naturally! Bubbahotep 22:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- consider it a oppose for now--- change to Support / Fred-Chess 08:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is The House of Blessed Mary the Virgin in Oxford bolded? Is the college still known under that name? If so, please say so, and give a reference.
External link to marcus-beale.com probably doesn't have to be there?
Sentence The first is a French beaker and cover in silver gilt, past estimates on its dating of around 1460-70[37] are thought mistaken and it being from around 1350,[3] seems slightly awkard to me, and I think the footnotes are awkward too, because Victoria County History of the Counties of England isn't actually a reference (not a crucial issue though).
I removed an image of rowing teams that lacked a source. You might want to check into that.
Replies: Thank you very much for your time and input Fred;
Like some still call Christ Church 'the House', the name The House of Blessed Virgin the Mary in Oxford is used, (particularly by those who dislike the recent addition of an extra 'the' before 'Blessed') I probably can't reference that, but I can reference that it was called that on its foundation.
Images - Alkivar kindly did some work on improving the old prints - his skills are far beyond mine and that's about as good as it gets I'm afraid, the Senior Library one has also been improved already :s - it's very difficult to get a balanced picture in there, however, there is a decent watercolour of it, if I can get a pic of that which doesn't then pick up flash on the glass I can replace it with that.
External link - I'm not fussed, it has some extra photos of recent renovations but otherwise doesn't add much, happy to lose it.
French beaker sentence, ok, I'll think hard about that again (fourth time :)). Thanks very much for sorting out my oversights on the references already, if I understand you right it's that I've linked to the article about VCH that is iffy there? I was unable to find an online version like I could with others.
Rowing team image, I note you've already contacted the uploader on that one, likely to be resolved or replaced with some from this year I can take myself, shame if it can't though as they are the two teams that got the first double headship in Torpids. I have had some contact with the uploader, I'll give a nudge.
Many thanks again Fred.--Alfmelmac 11:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before I add more comment, I would like to clarify what I ment when I complained about the reference to VCH. I realize it must be hard to understand... I know that you are trying to say that the VCH states the beaker is from 1460-70, but since it isn't a reference, you might as well join that footnote with the footnote following it. Then you could formulate that footnote as such: "The older date is for example given in the Victoria County History of the Counties of England ([year]). In a modern work, such as the "Oriel College Oxford, A short guide (2006)", the year is given as 1350.". I think this would be more coherent, but I could be wrong -- you decide (I won't object if you just leave it as it is)...
Ah, the penny drops :) That's an admirable solution to the bumpiness of the refs, thanks, I'll rework the sentence when I can find a better way of expressing it. I've done the amendment to the ref, I'll have to wait to get back home to add the reference about the name, I don't have books here at work. --Alfmelmac 12:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have now improved on the first and the third image that I complained about earlier. I think they look much better; you might want to revise. The second image was too difficult for me... but the images are okay for me now... / Fred-Chess 15:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am very impressed with the improvement to the Senior Library and not at all surprised by the difficulty of the second, though it has helped. I already have taken creases, thumbs marks, and an ink splot out with a cloning tool but wasn't able to make it look like it 'belonged with the others', as you can see I had three 'goes at it' already, trying to get it there. You have my great appreciation for your time and dedication.--Alfmelmac 16:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bubba has kindly found the line "The first is a French beaker and cover in silver gilt, past estimates on its dating from 1460-70 are thought mistaken and circa 1350, with later decoration, was later expounded.[37]". So bolding fixed and referenced with actual words used (from page one of Rannie, the most complete source used, no less :) ), images somewhat improved and in motion to re-introduce the rowers photo, so-so external link removed, beaker line and reference sorted.<added at 22:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC) as an afterthought> as a compensation for the uneveness in the 1919 photogravure, the high resolution with zoom in is pretty fine.--Alfmelmac 22:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per the MoS, quotes should not be italicized. --Peta 05:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, now done, that's the first new thing I learnt today :)--Alfmelmac 12:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the rowing pic - the uploader has now applied a self-made GFDL licence to it, so I've now put it back in. --Alfmelmac 11:43, 14 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Self nomination, well cited article, combining all the different elements of design, project history and controversy.Globaltraveller 14:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well-written, well-sourced, excellent pictures (all with proper rationales for fair/free use), meets MoS guidelines... this is a flat-out great article. -- Kicking222 19:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wow. Rebecca 00:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great article.--Zleitzen 00:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please clean up your references, and I will have another look - here are some random samples from refs I clicked on:
(This reference has an incorrect article title, and an incorrect publication date.) "Timeline:Holyrood". BBC Scotland News. BBC. 2004-09-13. Retrieved 2006-10-27.
(These three references don't include the publication date given in the ref) ^ Speech by HM The Queen on the opening of the New Scottish Parliament building: - "Certainly this new parliament building has had a difficult and controversial birth.". Royal.gov.uk. Retrieved on 2006-10-30. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n House of Commons Research Paper - Building the Scottish Parliament, The Holyrood Project. House of Commons Library. Retrieved on 2006-10-29. ^ Corporate Body issues February Report to Finance Committee. Scottish Parliament. Retrieved on 2006-10-30.
(Another news source without a publication date). Scottish Parliament to be built at Holyrood. Scottish Office. Retrieved on 2006-12-15.
Pls doublecheck all refs, and I'll continue - I don't usually read an article until I know it meets WP:V. Sandy (Talk) 03:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Skipping down in the article, I find more problems:
Switching to object- sloppy referencing in an FAC bothers me - there is no excuse for this many errors on a random check, and I don't want to check every source. WP:V is policy. Sandy (Talk) 03:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With some trepidation, I'd say that the references are now fully checked, "cleaned up" and any problems ironed out. I have provided dates, where possible, but please bear in mind this is not possible for every single reference I've provided. Thanks Globaltraveller 10:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Much better - striking my object. However, pls add the author on all of the hollyroodinquiry.com refs - I don't know how to properly deal with his titles. I do wish other reviewers would check refs more often - it seems that everything I looked at yesterday had faulty refs. Sandy (Talk) 18:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK I have done that. The author of the report was the individual who chaired the inquiry, so this is who I have included as the author in the references. I hope that is satisfactory. The Holyrood Inquiry/Fraser Inquiry are the same thing (and I had swapped between the terms, in the references) but I've now standardised this. The report was published on Sept 15, 2004, and that is the date I've used throughout. Thanks Globaltraveller 19:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice referencing now - I'll try to read the article when I get a larger block of free time. Sandy (Talk) 19:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful and well sourced article. —dima/s-ko/ 20:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the order of the information in the lead section could be more logical: Why not mention when the building was constructed before the date the first debate was held in it? Wouldn't "The building was designed by the Catalan (why not simply Spanish?) architect Enric Miralles, who died during the course of its construction" be a better way to formulate the third sentence, since who designed the building is certainly more important than when that person died? All in all I think some things should be moved around in the lead section.--Carabinieri 01:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You make a fair point about including when the building was constructed, so I've mentioned when construction commenced in the text juxtaposed with when members held their first debate there - so clearly it was constructed between 1999 and 2004. On your other point about mentioning the death of the designer (architect), unless I am missing something, the third sentence makes it abundantly clear that Miralles designed the building BEFORE it is stated (at the end of the sentence) that he died "during the course of its construction". The only difference is, the sentence already in the article makes the prose a bit more varied (i.e. instead of starting each sentence with "The" all the time). Nevertheless, if it really does detract from the article I certainly would be happy to change it to something more standard. Thanks Globaltraveller 05:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The way the sentence is right now, it sounds like the fact that the architect died is much more important than the fact that he was the one who designed the building to me, but then again that might just be me...--Carabinieri 13:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object—1a. Not a professional job yet.
Can you audit the use of commas throughout? "Enric Miralles, the Catalan architect who designed the building died during the course of its construction." You need a second comma at the end of the nested phrase.
"A public inquiry into the handling of the construction, chaired by the former Lord Advocate, Peter Fraser, reported in September 2004, and criticised the management of the whole project from the realisation of cost increases down to the way major design changes were implemented.[9]" "Reported in September 2004" is just a little awkward in that position, and the agency of "reported" is ambiguous. Insert "in which" after "way".
"Having been scheduled for opening in 2001,[7] when it finally opened,"—Then we find in the next clause that it didn't open in 2001. Causes a "jerk".
Then we have "acres" without metric equivalent.
Please find someone fresh to go through the whole text. Tony 13:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I've amended the specific areas you've raised.
You'll also see that a "fresh pair of eyes" went through the article circa 2 days ago as a copyedit, and I have done several myself. I will nevertheless try and audit any commas that are out of place. Globaltraveller 18:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I suggest a few tweaks.
Project History: Following the "Yes" vote on establishing a Scottish Parliament after a referendum in 1997, the Scottish Office,.. Do you mean ‘in a referendum’ or was the ‘Aye’ vote one in Westminster?
I am afraid I have to agree with Margo and I think a sentence or two about the reasons why it is not universally popular would be useful.
There is a space missing after citation 34 and before ‘The Roof’
You refer to the ‘pre-1707 parliament building’ but don't say anywhere why there wasn’t one in the interim c. 300 years. This could do with a sentence and might even be worth adding to the lead.
Other buildings: ‘and 18m of the building suspended’. I loathe the endless mix of imperial and metric but feel obliged to point out the absence.
‘first, First Minister of Scotland’ is a bit awkward - might ‘founding First’ be better?
‘The project was also complicated by the death, in July 2000, of Miralles and of Dewar the following October, and existence of a multi-headed client’. I don’t have a degree in comma usage, but perhaps ‘The project was also complicated by the death in July 2000 of Miralles, of Dewar the following October, and the existence of a multi-headed client’. Happy Hogmanay! Ben MacDui(Talk) 20:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou very much for going through the whole article and giving these suggestions. I've addressed the minor points (1, 3, 5, 6 and 7). I don't have time to address the bigger points (2 and 4) just at the moment, but when I get time soon, I'll definitely act upon them and see what can be done. Globaltraveller 20:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a part on the Project history section detailing the Parliament of Scotland and I have added a sentence on the criticism of the building. Again, please tweak away at the article to improve it as you see fit. Thanks Globaltraveller 19:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support but (now dealt with -see below) you should at least mention the widely-held, though unprovable (currently anyway), view that Dewar knew perfectly well the early estimates were nonsense, but was determined to press ahead anyway. Johnbod 23:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I'm really not sure. Would including that not stray deep into the territory of WP:V and WP:POV - especially if there are no sources proving that? Globaltraveller 09:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you would include that the view is widely-held, which is fairly easily verifiable from sources you have to hand (I would imagine), & not that it is true, which of course won't be verifiable. Obviously needs to be carefully worded, but it is an essential part of the jigsaw. Johnbod 13:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have included a section on this - [21], with sources. Please feel free to edit it, if you don't think it says what it should. Thanks again Globaltraveller 19:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, thanks. I've amended my first comment (can't remember how to strike-through) Johnbod 12:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant objection 1b. It's a great article, but to deal with one of the most architecturally significant and controversial buildings of recent years without citing the leading arch. critic Charles Jencks and his writings on the building, leaves us open to serious accusations of low academic standards. As a minimum we need to get citations in from "Architecture Today no.154 January 2005/ p.32-44" [22] and maybe some of [23]. I'm also a little concerned about the referencing - yes there's a lot of it, 100+ inline citations etc. but almost all the inline citations reference websites - there's plenty of published material on this building now and I thought we were supposed to favour that over websites for referencing. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to do so, but as I said at Peer Review I am rather reluctant to include opinions from architectural critics. Bear in mind the article is becoming extremely long. With regards to your objection please feel free to dig out the relevant quotes, and add them if you think it would help. I am not sure it will, sorry. I am afraid, I don't think I can do anything to address your objection. Globaltraveller 15:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article will then remain deficient in it's treatment of the buildings architecture and neglects a major facet of it's subject, Jencks isn't any old architecture critic, along with Banham, Venturi, Frampton etc he's one of the big global writers and has written quite a bit on this building - That's a shame - I'll see if I can find the article.........--Mcginnly | Natter 16:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He may well be, but he is just a critic - and that in no way detracts from the facts of the building - at least, I don't think so (and that is what I take from you assertion that it "neglects a major facet of it's subject"). Unfortunately I am not anywhere I can find such print references, at the current time, thus, personally I am powerless to address your objection, even though I am not sure about its merit. But if you can find it, that would be good. But again, bear in mind this article is already extremely long, any additions would have to be limited or measured, otherwise the article will go awry in another area. Globaltraveller 16:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid the case for inclusion is pretty strong, Miralles's last building, the first parliament to be built in the UK since the palace of westminster, the building, like perhaps the Fagus Factory or Notre Dame du Haut has a place in the narrative thread of architectural discourse, It is a major attempt to reconcile a modern building with it's landscape, people and culture in a way that picks it's way between modernism, postmodernism, deconstructivism, critical regionalism and other schools of thought of our time. I'll see if I've got a copy of the article at home, but I'm pretty sure there's a book on the subject by Jencks too. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And here's some evidence - Jencks quoted from the Sunday Herald describing the building as "a tour de force of arts and crafts and quality without parallel in the last 100 years of British architecture" and "It is an arts and crafts building, designed with high-tech flair. You really have to go back to the Houses of Parliament in London to get interior design of such a high creative level - in fact, it is more creative" Holyrood is 'without parallel' in 100 years of architecture Leading --Mcginnly | Natter 16:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've found the AR review anyway [24]. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, I've found the AT review [25] --Mcginnly | Natter 16:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now what? I see from glancing at the AR review, most of its subject matter is already in this article. Globaltraveller 17:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll review all this later but off the top of my head 1. Jencks puts forwards the architectural case for the buildings greatness in an attempt to dampen criticism of the overspend by comparison to other parliaments 2. The AR discusses the 'heady architectural' cocktail approach to dealing with the complexities of the site and programme. 3. Jencks deals with the unusually 'pistol' forms on the facade. --Mcginnly | Natter 17:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll sort a floor plan out too. --Mcginnly | Natter 17:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, that would be excellent, thanks. I will try an incorporate the AR review into the text references. A lot of it is already there. Globaltraveller 17:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - now covers all aspects of this complicated building. I should declare my hand in the editing though and it needs fresh eyes for a read through again. --Mcginnly | Natter 01:35, 10 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article's candidacy for FA status is a self-nomination as I've done about 90% of the work on bring it from a stub to where it is now. It has been noted as a Good Article and has undergone an extensive Peer Review from which all of the issues I believe were taken care of. I think this article meets all the FA criteria, (if I may say modestly), as it is well written, comprehensive given the subject, factually accurate and supported by citations and other resources, it's neutral and stable, meets MOS issues, nice images (especially an awesome map), and it's reasonably sized at a slender 42Kb. I've run this article by User:Ruhrfisch who has two river-related FA's to his credit, Larrys Creek and White Deer Hole Creek and he has helped me improve it with his very exacting and scrutinizing eye (which I thank him for immensely). I thank you in advance for your suggestions and your support. ExplorerCDT 03:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks pretty good overall, but I suggest some work on the lead to provide more of a summary and a complete rewrite of "Flora and fauna" (it's far too listy and the use of binomial nomenclature is most certainly not necessary - the Latin probably just confuses the average reader.) Additionally, the sub-section "Valley and watershed" is completely unreffed. Mikker(...) 05:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
REPLY: Latin removed. Please suggest what else could be summarized in the introduction, and how you would propose to rewrite Flora and fauna. (the suggestion that they ought to be revised doesn't aid or send me in any direction) Will add refs shortly to the Valley and watershed section. Thanks. —ExplorerCDT 17:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
REPLY2:Valley and watershed subsection is now completely reffed. —ExplorerCDT 03:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing my concerns - "Valley and watershed" is now properly reffed; and although the "Today" section (ex "Flora and fauna"?) is still a bit too listy for my taste, I think you've dealt with the substance of my concern. Mikker(...) 22:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- nonstandard formatting used: eg excessive bold text, ToC resized, references resized (see Indian Standard Time for the CSS class to be used for references. And flora and fauna is too listy. =Nichalp«Talk»= 05:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
REPLY: First, I do not think the bold text is excessive. It was suggested to me that I could put the tributaries in quotations rather than emboldening their names, but I have been taught and firmly believe that quotation marks should only be for quotations. Would you suggest italicization as opposed to emboldened text? (q.v. Emphasis (typography) stating that bold text should therefore be used to highlight certain keywords that are important to the subject) Second, I have resized the references and TOC per your suggestion. Third, I am using a citation format with which I am comfortable and which I use IRL. I will not use a CSS class for references as it is not explicitly or expressly required by WP policies and guidelines. To bolster this decision, I quote WP:CITE (1) Full citations may be formatted by hand or using one of the citation templates. (2) Inline citations may use one of the following three systems. (...) Footnotes (most often using <ref> and <references/> elements) (please also see WP:Footnotes). As different disciplines utilize differing standards of citation, Wikipedia accomodates this by saying various methods "may be" or "can be" used. Lastly, please suggestion how you would rewrite the Flora and fauna section to avoid it being "too listy". Thanks. —ExplorerCDT 17:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The ToC text is still small. Do not wrap a div tag around it. The image sizes are also too large. The width of the text space is 600px for standard web resolution (800x600). Keeping the width of an image at 300px takes too much of the readable space. Suggest you do not add a pixel value parameter, and instead allow the width to be automatically resized according to what the user has specified in his/her preferences. As for flora and fauna, you can reduce the sectioning, the number of animals/plants mentioned and add more prose eg. among the large animals found.. / smaller mammals include etc. =Nichalp«Talk»= 05:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
REPLY: TOC div tag removed. I"m surprised people still use 800x600. Is there an option to make it 25% in terms of width? Some of the photos are just to large to leave it up to preferences (even defaults), so some limiting parameter is necessary. As for Flora and Fauna, please take a look at User:Ruhrfisch's proposal and contribute your commentary on that. Whatever the consensus is on how to best tackle it, I'll take the time to work on. —ExplorerCDT 20:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
300px is the largest size in user preferences. I believe the default will make them 180px. Jay32183 20:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two of the citations are just external jumps, they need access dates like the rest of them. Even if you don't use the {{cite web}} template, I recommend looking it over so importnat information is not left out. Jay32183 17:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
REPLY: Corrected, checked them today, can't remember when I first accessed them, ergo, put access dates for today. Thanks. —ExplorerCDT 17:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Today's date is fine. For your above question about bolding you may wish to read this and this. Jay32183 18:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for directing me to those two MOS issues. I was just looking for guidance from the MOS on how to proceed with that issue and all I found was the above article I stated above. Will now remedy that. Thanks again. —ExplorerCDT 18:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Enough issues have been addressed that I believe the other changes will be made well. Ruhrfisch 14:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Comment: I think the overall article is well done. While it needs some fine tuning as pointed out above, I plan to support it once the issues raised have been fully addressed. In the interest of full disclosure (and as ExplorerCDT mentioned graciously above), I was quite involved with the Peer Review process and have made many suggestions about the article, although I have so far made only nine or so actual edits to it. After I finish this comment, I plan to add {{geolinks-US-river}} (which I was unaware of in the peer review process) and make a few minor copyedits.[reply]
As for the list-y problem, what do you think of adding context and perhaps splitting up the Flora and fauna section and distributing some of the information elsewhere in the article? For example, what if the section header were instead Recreation and it had subsections on Bird watching (with all but the game birds), Hunting (with the game animals and birds), and Fishing (with fish and insects)? Some more information could be added on the hunting and fishing seasons and on the national rec. area, state parks, and state forests in the drainage basin (see the map) (some of this is already in the article). Hiking could be moved to a Recreation subsection with the non-game mammals and reptiles, as well as the wild plants and trees, or perhaps these could be in a subsection on the Protected areas. The non-fish aquatic animals could be moved up to the dwarf wedgemussel section, and perhaps the amphibians could be there too. The farm plants could go in the Today section where farms are discussed. I hope this idea helps at least start a useful discussion on improvement. Ruhrfisch 03:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, this is an idea to address the listy nature of the Flora and fauna section. Nichalp's idea is fine with me too. Ruhrfisch 14:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the users who have so far commented (and will soon pipe in) like that approach, I'll try to find some time in the next day or two to redo the article in that regard. I'll leave it up to their consensus. —ExplorerCDT 19:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support:This is a nice article. I think that with the suggestions above, the nominator could improve it well into the realm of featured status. Right now, it is (in my opinion) just barely ready. We (not me, actually) have overloaded him w/ suggestions. But the article itself will be easy to fix up if it doesn't make it. Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 12:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So far, I think all the issues have been addressed with the sole exception of the listy Flora and fauna section. Now there are two ideas on how to tackle that, and there are possibly others. If you could weigh in on what the preferrable method to tackle this in the next day or two, I'll be able to fix it before Christmas. Also, in addition, if you could take a second look at the article and its candidacy and examine whether the edits made in response to the FAC page comments address your concerns adequeately, I'd be much obliged. —ExplorerCDT 01:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I killed the flora and fauna section. Even with the suggestions on how to repair it, it's intractable. —ExplorerCDT 15:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to revert, but I tried putting the flora and fauna into the article as per my suggestion above. If it is reverted, you can see it here too. Ruhrfisch 02:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the initiative on that one. I'm so frazzled right now (FAC fatigue, methinks), that I couldn't wrap my head around it. I have no complaints. —ExplorerCDT 03:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a well written, well-researched, thoroughly-documented article that covers the subject well, uses images, and ties it together with historical events and individuals. This would make an excellent feature article. The changes made since the FAC started have only further improved the article. Alansohn 04:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object In the present version, many web "Notes and citations" lack info on authors, publishers, work etc. Only the URL and retrieval date have been provided. Changed to conditional object later.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Much to the contrary, the Notes and Citations do provide that information regarding books, as to websites cited many of them provide as much information regarding this as the website cited itself offers, the only way that Dwaipayanc's objection can be satiated, I assume (given a review of his contributions and his citation preferences) is by using the CSS tag in references, which I've stated above I am not compelled to use as WP:CITE says I am not compelled to use one particular method of citation over another. I've chosen the citation method used in the article, it's consistent, and meets the policy guidelines of WP:CITE and WP:RS and WP:V. Therefore, this objection is specious and as it is wholly without merit, I requestfully request of you to rescind your objection. —ExplorerCDT 18:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course one is not compelled to use one particular method over another. But what I am trying to emphasize is Full citations. It says, Full citations typically include: the name of the author, the title of the book or article, and the date of publication. For example, this web citation that you have used [26] has got a publisher and author information. So this information should be provided. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
REPLY: A whopping FOUR out of 68 citations needed correction, not "many" as you stated. As I said before many didn't need to be changed because there was no information, thus the rest now are marked that "no further authorship information given." Now, rescind your objection. —ExplorerCDT 02:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Dwaipayan is correct, and is merely trying to improve the article. Please try to remain civil, Explorer. Further, the references do need work, in my eyes. Books are cited with no page number, and in at least oine case, it is stated that the ISBN number cannot be found. How was this used as a reference, then? The ISBN number is in the book. If it was actually a newspaper that cited the book, then the paper should be used as a reference, and not the book itself, and should include the article date and author. References, as well as actual content, must adhere to WP:V. readers need to be able to find what you used as a reference. Jeffpw 12:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ISBN numbers are only found in books published after 1964. Most local history books are published in the 19th century ro early half of the 20th, and noticeably, a lot were published in the proto-patriotic fever leading up to and after the 1876 Centennial celebration. Also, a lot of local histories before and after 1964 are privately published, circulating in numbers lower than 500, usually in the collection of local and university libraries. Thus, most local history books are often not reprinted, or commercially published with ISBN numbers, and sit in libraries collecting dust with their high-acid paper, split spines and mildewed covers, etc. If a book is before 1964, there's no way to provide an ISBN. I'll gladly remain civil, as long as people don't say "many" when they mean "four" and the like (stuff they could, with little additional effort point out or do themselves...like Dwaipayanc who did find that there was additional data for one of the four that needed changing). —ExplorerCDT 16:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know from personal experience that if a book is old enough and has not been reprinted, it may not have an ISBN. However, as another example, I am concerned about the Kilmer letter reference (added since this FAC started). I have no idea where I would find this letter - a library, an archive? I would also remind ExplorerCDT to be civil - we are all working to make the best encyclopedia and article possible. Ruhrfisch 13:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kilmer link, fixed.—ExplorerCDT 16:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentMinor style issue. Use of dashes is not proper in the section "In art, literature and popular culture". I have not gone through the article yet, but at least two citation still lacks author information despite being available (this and this). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Two citations and 4 or 5 ndashes fixed. —ExplorerCDT 18:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply that's a guideline, not a rule. Also, there's nothing in the guideline to say access dates have to be cited per your page, or WP:CITE. According to the MOS page you cite, "one way is often as good as another." If you want to do it, go ahead. I'm not taking on extra work based on something not mandated by an inflexible rule. The rescinding of your objection should not be hinged on something "optional." —ExplorerCDT 21:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply #2: I should clarify the reasons for my flat refusal for the above. The wikiguideline Dwaipayanc quotes pretty much says, in a gist, that things (dates, numbers, etc.) should only be linked if it is useful to one's understanding of the article, if it's relevant to the context of the article. Linking the dates I, or other users, accessed articles in each internet citation is not relevant to context and is no more useful to a user linked or unlinked. Also, applying that that WP:MOS provision to this "should be done" demand by Dwaipayanc is contrary to the spirit and letter of Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. Therefore, I will not do it. Sure, the 2nd FA criterion says we should follow the MOS, I think I am...but in the unlikely event that Dwaipayanc's demand is justified, the MOS contradicts itself on this regard and until the contrary guidelines are resolved, this provision should not be enforced. —ExplorerCDT 08:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply #3: For clarification on this issue from people who contribute and debate the MOS provision which Dwaipayanc seeks to demand of this article in its candidacy, I have asked the question of whether wikilinking source access dates is necessary or if it is ridiculous given the MOS provisions cited above. The discussion has been started here: [27] and [28] . —ExplorerCDT 18:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to replies Dates containing a month and a day are probably an exception to the general guideline of Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. Because, "If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should almost always be linked to allow readers' date preferences to work, displaying the reader's chosen format."
However, I am not very efficient in discussing MoS policies. May be some more experienced Wikipedian can throw some light on it. What I remember is that there had been FACs in the past where wikilinking dates containing a month and a day was an issue, and such dates were wikilinked. The rationale is nicely described in the openning sentences of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers): "Manual of Style, like all style guides, attempts to encourage consistency and ease of reading. The guidelines here are just that: guidelines are not inflexible rules; one way is often as good as another, but if everyone does it the same way, Wikipedia will be easier to read, write and edit.".
Let's see what comes out of the discussions started by ExplorerCDT. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Until then and that being said, will you withdraw your objection (not asking to jump over to "support"...just to withdraw the objection)...or are there other hoops I need to jump through with this article? —ExplorerCDT 18:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. I shall wait, just in case "the unlikely event that Dwaipayanc's demand is justified" !! Regards. --Dwaipayan (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you should state that it is a conditional objection, and not a full objection. —ExplorerCDT 18:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional object The reason is: Dates containing both a month and a day should be wikilinked. But the article does not. Please see the discussion above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
This argument has been identified by one or more editors as constituting an arbitrary demand for a shrubbery. Please resolve this by clarifying the basis for the objection in canonical policy. Expanding the requirement to include chopping down the tallest tree in the forest WITH A HERRING may be met with additional mockery and scorn.[reply]
If the discussion on those two MOS talk pages determines that your interpretation is correct, I'll comply. —ExplorerCDT 20:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC) Retracting, by it's nature as guideline, it's optional, and with the MoS is ambiguous and contradictory, I'll stick to my refusal rather than try to serve two masters (i.e. two seemingly contradictory provisions in MoS). —ExplorerCDT 01:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being bold, I believe I have now wikilinked all the dates in the refs. Revert if you want, but I hope that resolves this issue for now (regardless of the outcome of the discussions above). Happy New Year! Ruhrfisch 04:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So far, General consenus on the WikiEN-L mailing list is that this is a trivial objection without merit, and of note, one contributor has stated that "People who object to FA candidates on trivial grounds like this should be given peremptory 1 month bans from all FA discussions." I agree. —70.126.123.153 18:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC) (sorry, forgot to log-in ExplorerCDT 18:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
This probably should have been a comment rather than an objection, but it is perfectly reasonable. In fact, it is suggested in automated peer reviews. Refusing to take action on an actionable non-arbitrary suggestion is just silly. Dates containing a month and a day shold be wikilinked so that user date preferences work. Since feature articles are supposed to represent the best work on Wikipedia, formatting needs to be perfect. Jay32183 18:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My thought (and one reason why I wikilinked the dates) is that, although the method used to provide references is not specified, the results should be the same in all cases. Thus a casual reader should not know from reading whether an editor used {{cite web}} or just used < ref > tags. Since the cite web template does wikilink the dates, I think one can argue they should be wikilinked whatever method is used for citations (again, for the date preference function and not because the date accessed is relevant). My overall goal here is to see a deserving article reach Featured status. Ruhrfisch 18:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The objection rationale was actionable and non-arbitrary, and thus, valid, though trivial. As Jay32183 has said, "Refusing to take action on an actionable non-arbitrary suggestion is just silly...Since feature articles are supposed to represent the best work on Wikipedia, formatting needs to be perfect." Yes, as Jay32183 has pointed out, it should have been a comment. In fact, it was a comment initially following my initial objection (please see the above discussion). The reasons for initial objection were addressed and so the objection was striked out. People are trying to address this date-linking problem ( see A new parallel syntax for autoformatting dates and this mailing list). Hopefully soon we'll have clear guidelines. I appreciate ExplorerCDT for taking the effort to start the mailings, despite his FAC-fatigue. It would be interesting to see this pre-emptory ban. Bye the way, this new template "shrubbery" is interesting and funny, but probably against WP:AGF. Anyway, this is not a place for discussing these things. Maybe somebody will take an effort to start another discussion elsewhere!!--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support All of the major problems seem to have been addressed, although I haven't gotten the chance for a thourough spelling and grammar check. I am also confident that any small issues found will be addressed quite quickly. Jay32183 22:04, 8 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Self-nomination. I used the peer review advice to get extensive details on this storm. I think it meets FA criteria now. Feel free to leave comments. CrazyC83 01:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Are there any more specifics? For example, how many, if any, buildings/houses were destroyed? Was there any flooding? How many trees were downed - is there an estimate? A grammar note: phrases in parenthesis should be avoided. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No numbers could be found. Minor flooding. CrazyC83 02:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No flooding was mentioned in the article, JTLYK. Conditional support regarding any info on houses or buildings' status in Halifax. The parentheses still need fixing. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Estimates found and added. Also added more on power issues. CrazyC83 02:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object, for now. The issue is minimal, but the inline citations are not formatted properly. Take a look at citation 4 and 5. One of them does not have a publisher field; the other one does not. Also, "NHC" should be spelled out on all the references, or barring that, at the very least in the first one, with an appropriate wikilink. Also, the same goes for most of the publisher fields on the rest of the citations: they need an appropriate wikilink if one is available. Titoxd(?!?) 02:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of those issues have been rectified. —Cuiviénen 22:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All right, looks ok. Support. Titoxd(?!?) 04:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORT. From my read, passes the FA criteria. Well-referenced, well-written article. —ExplorerCDT 09:44, 10 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Self-nomination. This article reached GA status at the beginning of December. Since then it has been improved further and has received some positive comments in both a Biography peer review and a general peer review. Thus I believe that it is ready to be nominated as a FAC. Any suggestions for improvement are welcome. MLilburne 17:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pls make sure all refs are complete and that websources have last access date - I did the last ref as an example. Most of the refs look good, so there shouldn't be much to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will add the last access dates, but I was hoping to keep the references in the slightly shorter form because there are so many of them, and because further information is available in the bibliography right below. However, I'll fill them out if people feel that's the right approach. MLilburne 21:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, corrected, I just noticed that you also listed the websources in the References section, including last access dates - that works for me. (Some editors only list books below, and I failed to check.) You may revert my addition, or I can do it if you wish? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, glad that's cleared up. I'll revert the changes--I started doing a couple of my own. MLilburne 22:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks structurally very sound: I'll print it out to read thoroughly as soon as I have a large block of free time, but it's looking like a Support candidate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support with a list of minor quibbles/questions/comments - I read a hard print copy, so have not checked wikilinking:
I would use more commas - could be just my style, defer to others.
This does seem to be a stylistic thing. My own style has always been comma-heavy, but I think quite a few were taken out of the article at the peer review stage. I'm neutral on the issue at this point.
one year he had a batting average of .340.[5] It might be "prettier" to avoid the dot number dot number combination in the batting average; a suggestion is, he had a batting average of .340 one year.[5] (Wonder how the baseball Project deals with this - probably no one cares.)
I take your point, but the second phrasing strikes me as a bit awkward. Will see if I can come up with a better way to phrase it.
Two areas of the text left me with questions to the point of distracting me from continuing to read: the burned right hand, and the ulcer. When I hit the comment about the hand, I wondered how severe it was, how disabling it was, how it happened, etc. I looked back at his picture, and found him covering his right hand, making me even more curious. This was never resolved/explained. Since it appears to have been significant enough to affect his career path, would more detail be appropriate? Maybe it could be mentioned in Early life, with a statement that it was to later affect his career path. Similar with the ulcer: since he was about to change careers just before launching into what would seem to be the most stressful part of his career, what became of the ulcer? It seems that might be resolved, or mention of the ulcer could be left out.
Fair points. Will think about them a little bit and try to address them.
In 1957, the flight of Sputnik 1 prompted the United States ... Would it help our younger readers to say the Russian flight of Sputnik 1, so they don't have to click on the link to understand the context? (Yes, I have little faith in US public schools.)
Done.
One of Kraft's most important contributions to the practice of manned spaceflight ... deleted the practice of?
My intention was to highlight the practice as opposed to, say, the engineering work, but I agree that it is awkward and will take it out.
Something wrong here: A loose heat shield could cause the capsule would burn up during re-entry.
Fixed.
Only ten years ago, Kraft had joined Bob Gilruth's newly founded Space Task Group. Only ten years before or earlier? Not sure on that ...
I'll change it to 'earlier'.
One cite needed, on Kraft Elementary School, located in Hampton, Virginia near Kraft's hometown, was named for him.
That's the one fact that I didn't put into the article. I'll see if I can find a citation.
Comment"The standard writing style is to spell out the acronym or abbreviation on the first reference (wikilinked if appropriate) and then show the acronym or abbreviation after it, in parentheses"- per WP:MOS. So please spell out NASA and NACA (and other acronyms, if any) first, then use abbreviations.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't quite fit the full version of "NASA" into the first sentence, but I have spelled out both in the second sentence. Hope that's all right. MLilburne 13:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As I said in the biography peer-review, it looks a great article.--Yannismarou 10:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is an amazing article. It's comprehensive, well-researched, extensively documented, and just plain fun to read. Of course it helps that the subject is such an interesting character, but still. My only reservation is about the "Apollo 1" section. I've read the article multiple times, but it wasn't until I read the source documentation that I realized that Kraft was actually flight director during the fatal Apollo 1 test. Reasons: the preceeding paragraph (in the "Gemini" section), states that Kraft stepped back from Mission Control. Then, in the "Apollo 1" section, we read that Kraft expected to return to his role at MCC. Finally, the section states that Kraft was in Mission Control at the time of the fire, and that there was little he could do. The impression I got from all this was that he was some kind of bystander or spectator, not the one at the heart of things. Maybe an addition somewhere stating that he had returned to the role of flight director prior to the test would clarify things. Otherwise, excellent work! --Plek 11:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I'll clarify that. Thank you for all your kind comments and for your work on the article. MLilburne 16:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FULL SUPPORT. This is an excellent article that does Wikipedia proud. —ExplorerCDT 22:16, 10 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm resetting this nomination (old nom). Much of the old nom pertained to the now totally rewritten formating at the end of the article (it was bad before, it's very good now). Raul654 17:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
ghjhygjghjghjghj56?--Yannismarou 09:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Missing page number noted; I just don't have that book with me at the moment. I have put it on the talk page todo and will fix it as soon as possible. -- Rmrfstar
Support, nice work. Sumoeagle179 11:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment disagree that "much of the old nom pertained to the now totally rewritten formatting at the end of the article". Most of the opposes on the old nom were for the sloppy choppy prose and referencing problems. Sandy (Talk) 11:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC) In fact, upon review of the old nom, it seems that none of the previous Opposes were because of the formatting at the end, hence, they should not be discounted. Sandy (Talk) 15:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ObjectSeveral footnotes are *still* dead blue links, and prose problems are still apparent (example, "Hippocrates and his followers identified many diseases and medical conditions for the first time."). Can you "identify" a disease for the second or third time? Sandy (Talk) 12:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I went through every link in the sections with footnotes and couldn't find the dead link. Which ones are dead? And yes, one can identify a disease multiple times, because doing so only involves linking together the relevant symptoms: that's what identifying a disease is. -- Rmrfstar 21:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, some links are dead. If you click on the note "National Library of Medicine 2006" it takes you nowhere. However, if you click on the note "Garrison 1966" it takes you to the appropriate source under "References". So "Garrison 1966" is not dead. But "National Library of Medicine 2006" is a dead link. So are links like "Internet Classics Archive 2006", "eMedicine 2006", "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2006". This is probably because the Harv style has not been properly followed while creating this notes. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been fixed completely, I believe. -- Rmrfstar 23:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Identification of disease — I've changed the sentence. Also have done some merging in the section "Direct contributions to medicine" in order to decrease choppiness, and establish proper sequence of sentences. Please check out. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice improvements, Dwaipayanc. I'm striking my oppose. Sandy (Talk) 23:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object—Not written uniformly to the required "professional" standard. There are some nice sentences, especially in the lead (which will satisfy the director's concern when it comes to the main page), but a serious copy-edit is still required. In most places, glitches are easy to find. Here are a few random examples. Please don't just fix these ones alone.
"He is often referred to as "The Father of Medicine" for his lasting contributions to the field as the founder of the Hippocratic school of medicine which revolutionized medicine in ancient Greece, separating the field from the other disciplines (notably theurgy and philosophy) and making a profession of it.[2][3]". A comma is mandatory before "which", unless there are a set of Hippocratic schools of medicine, and it's just one of them in question—that's not the case. Why not chop this slightly long sentence into two, anyway? I'm not convinced by the assertion that he "revolutionized medicine in ancient Greece. What, in every village? Suddenly? Needs qualification or softening.
If anything, this statement is too weak: the Hippocratic school practically revolutionized all of Western medicine, in addition to that of ancient Greece...
"Historians accept ...". Who? Name them, or supply references.
There is a reference there.
"As no real biography was available until centuries after his death, those that are available today might be based on hundreds of years of oral tradition and are thus unreliable." What's a "real" biography? How many centuries? (If you know this much, name the first and date it.) "Those that are available—what centuries that are available? "Available" is repeated, too.
"He died probably in Larissa at the age of 83, 90, 100 or even later; different accounts of his death exist." The position of "probably" is awkward. "Later" is grammatically different from the three ages that precede it. Avoid the ungainly "exist" construction, which is all too often used on WP. Just "There are different ...". I'd be happier with "at least three different ...", or something like that. If extact info can't be rustled up for a FA, where would you find it?
I have reworded this sentence along with Dwaipayan. And there is no reliable account of his death, as is stated in the article: no biographies were available until centuries after he died. -- Rmrfstar 19:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not good. Tony 13:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote on your talkpage, I am too close to this article to significantly improve the prose myself (I've copyedited it many times over). All I can really do is fix anything someone highlights. -- Rmrfstar 19:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object I think it still needs quite a bit of work, although not necessarily major work (imo), as I know there are real limits to writing about Hippocrates. I will post comments on the talk page. KP Botany 17:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded to your talk page post. -- Rmrfstar 21:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A request for reconsideration has been made. -- Rmrfstar 16:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeToo much one-paragraph sections that need either expansion or merging.Circeus 23:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this is allowed, considering it follows Wikipedia:Summary style. The one exception is "Vis medicatrix naturae" which I don't think should be expanded or merged. -- Rmrfstar 02:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOS says "Be generous in adding sub-headings. They help readers to get an overview of the article and to find subtopics of interest." -- Rmrfstar 17:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which doesn't mean the section should be kept unreasonably short. WP:GTL is pretty clear on it: "Just as for paragraphs, sections and subsections that are very short will make the article look cluttered and inhibit the flow. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading". Single paragraph sections have been a prime objections to FA status for a long time. Circeus 13:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this and this changes. Two short subsections in "Hippocratic therapy" have been merged. While a new section "Notable concepts: humorism and crisis" has been created from two prior subsections of "Humorism" and "Crisis". The new sections looks substantially flesy than the previous two subsections individually. Please comment. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note The aforementioned changes were followed by this change, whereby unintentional modification of Robth's copyediting were reverted. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still think these two sections ("oath" and "corpus") could be lengthened, or reworked enough to contain more than a paragraph. Maybe add in a "buffer" paragraph between "works" and corpus". Having two headers that follow each others is poor layout. And the "namesakes" needs to be prose, not lists, someting I should have noticed earlier.Circeus 16:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a look at this version. Namesakes has been transformed into prose format. A section named "Hippocratic Corpus" has been created, including a subsection on "Hippocratic Oath". The information on the Corpus has been enhanced. Please comment. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do like Dwaipayanc's working of "Hippocratic therapy" and "Hippocratic Corpus", but I do not think that "theory" has been thus improved. Should not "notable concepts" still fall under the "Hippocratic theory" header: concepts are part of theories, no? By my estimation, "Notable concepts" does not warrant its own top level subheading; the current organization there seems contrived. And what's the point of sticking together "crisis" and "humourism" into this new section without differentiating between the two? How does it fundamentally help the article? Indeed, it only makes it harder to read. Sure there are now no "one paragraph sections", but that in and of itself is not sufficient cause to merge these sections. Such action should only be taken when it actually improves the readability of the article, and right now does not do so. -- Rmrfstar 00:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's have a look at this version. Please comment.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A request for reconsideration has been made. -- Rmrfstar 16:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC
I'm opposing on minor stuff now: the references are very confusing right now. You have a few unique references used in the footnotes, while others ("Internet Classics Archive 2006") are duplicated to the references section. Personally, I believe that non-book references (i.e. when you don't need to reference distinct places in a physical item) do not warrant the duplicated Harvard ref at all (it just add an extra step that is meaningless), but the referencing is still inconsistent, and that is bad. See recently featured articles Only Fools and Horses, El Greco and Tiridates I of Armenia. They all use Harvard refs, but single and web references are not moved into the separate section.
Also, none of the access-date variable has been entered correctly, as demonstrated by the extraneous brackets. These dates should be in ISO 8601 date format: YYYY-MM-DD.Circeus 18:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've standardized the references and made them all Harvard style. They are all Harvard style... and Harvard style, according to Wikipedia:Harvard referencing, puts the date in the format I've used. -- Rmrfstar 21:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: dates. Okay, so It's Harvard style that requires brackets around consultation dates? Amazing that is the *most confusing thing* that could happen, since a wrongly inputted date in {{cite web}} results in the same appearance... I still find that puttingal those references away is unnecessary and confusing, though. (moving the refs away didnot actually help)Circeus 21:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Making all of the refs with access-dates to be in the {{cite web}} format would not work very well, if that's what you mean... -- Rmrfstar 00:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article has a length that is not intimidating. It uses several book and some web sources as reference, which are properly cited. After it went through copyedits and merging of short subsections, it is now in a position to be promoted to FA status. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the business about him having pseudoscientific beliefs is anachronistic. They are beliefs that are not tenable now, after the scientific advances of the past 400 years, but they may have been the most rational accounts available then. It's not like a modern physician believing in astrology or whatever. This part needs some finessing. Metamagician3000 10:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, did a quick but perhaps acceptable fix of this myself. Metamagician3000 06:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Came by for a new look, and see massive improvements thanks to Dwaipayanc, Robth, Stevefruitsmaak and many others (the article has been rewritten during its FAC), but still find problems:
Considering that this statement is based on legend, I think a reference here is unnecessary; the 18 sources at Tree of Hippocrates do suffice. -- Rmrfstar 16:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No Rmrfstar, a reference is necessary. Tree of Hippocrates is a different article. We are here for improving Hippocrates. So I have provided a reference.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These parenthetical inserts – sending readers to and for in the text – are a distraction, and should See be capitalized? All other information - all - anything else I find anywhere else about Hippocrates is unreliable?
Historians accept that Hippocrates existed, was born around the year 460 BC on the Greek island of Kos (Cos), and became a famous physician and teacher of medicine; all other biographical information, however, is apocryphal and unreliable (See Legends).[1]
Please see the arguments above: all biographical information on him except those basic facts was first (detectably) written down hundreds of years after he died... so yes; all other material is unreliable! -- Rmrfstar
Object Every time I peek back in to this article, it's something else. Now it has mixed reference styles (using both Harvard and cite.php). Hippocrates and the beliefs that he embodied are considered medical ideals. "He is, above all, the exemplar of that flexible, critical, well-poised attitude of mind, ever on the lookout for sources of error, which is the very essence of the scientific spirit" (Garrison).[51] "His figure... stands for all time as that of the ideal physician”(Singer and Underwood), inspiring the medical profession since his death.[53] Pick one style and stick with it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you're talking about; we went over this before: the article uses both cite.php and the Harvnb template in every reference (that I know of). This is quite standard practice. And in the cases above, the names are simply inserted there to make the author of the quote a little more visible, because the claims are a bit steep. I see no problem with the references... they all work, and they all are the same. -- Rmrfstar 01:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not surprised: example above: you cite the quote to (Garrison), followed immediately by [51] which is ^ a b Garrison 1966, p. 94 - Garrison again - that is, you cite it twice, with two different styles. Later you cite (Singer and Underwood) with no footnote in cite.php. Pick one style, stick to it. Since the rest of the article uses cite.php, why does it have these references in parentheses? After a month, this FA should be steadily improving by now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I have "prosified" the two citations for these quotes. -- Rmrfstar 03:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's better; I wish this article would stabilize, so I could quit striking objects. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not actually "mix[ing] reference styles". Just look at the two articles i link to above. They use a very similar style, except without the links. It would only be doing so if the Harvard referencing was used inside the article text itself. The way these two particular quotes are cited, though do happen to be the only 2 cases of such references, and these parentheses must go.Circeus 03:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like Circeus, I believe that non-book references (i.e. when you don't need to reference distinct places in a physical item) do not warrant the duplicated Harvard ref at all (it just add an extra step that is meaningless). However, in this article all notes have been done in Harvnb format. I just fixed two errors. Request Rmrfstar to please address the concerns of Circeus. (I could not do it as I am not comfortable using harvnb stuffs!). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's one more click which makes the whole system consistent, uniform and almost painfully simple. This is a good thing. Also, in the future, even the web references might be used twice in the article, something that would be very easy to implement in the current system. -- Rmrfstar 15:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- is there no better image than Image:HSAsclepiusKos.jpg to illustrate the "image" section? And I think there are more suitable illustrations for the legacy section, and that the image of the Tree of Hippocrates should be located at a different section. At the legacy section, maybe you could put the Roman bust. / Fred-Chess 11:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and have shifted around some of the images. Please review. -- Rmrfstar 15:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- although I would still like to see better images. On Image:HSAsclepiusKos.jpg, it is hard to distinguish the persons. Shouldn't there be lots of images of Hippokrates? / Fred-Chess 18:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC) I have added one image I think is suitable, but I haven't referenced it with the Harvard system. I might do that later, or you can remove it from the article. / Fred-Chess 18:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why's the reference there? What statement does it verify? Is that website the source of the image? Concerning other images, I'll soon include Image:GreekReduction.jpg and Image:HippocraticOath.jpg. I just need some information from the book where I found them. They should help, though. -- Rmrfstar 20:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reference is intended to verify the location and year. That information wasn't included on the image description page. / Fred-Chess 21:13, 7 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
I believe that the article is of sufficient quality to deserve FA status. It is well-sourced and very informative in addition to being well-organized. TSO1D 04:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose As the initial nominator, I believe an explanation of the removal of my support might be warranted. The problem is that when I first nominated the article, I did not fully understand the requirements for a featured article. Although I believe that the article is much better in current state than it has been in the past, it appears that it still does not meet the expected level of excellence. I thank all the fellow editors who have helped to drastically transform this article for the better over the course of the last weeks. I also thank the critics whose opinions were extremely valuable in identifying certain weaknesses of the article, enabling the implementation of improvements. I sincerely hope that the other editors will be able to raise the article to FA status eventually (even if it fails this time around). but unfortunately I do not believe that the article is ready yet.TSO1D 03:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suppose that if the nominator objects to the nomination, this should just be withdrawn. It's great to see TSO1D thanking his fellow editors but I think TSO1D also deserves to be thanked for calmly addressing the various issues that have come up in this process and for helping improve the article tremendously. Whatever happens next, the quality of the article has increased dramatically in the past month. It may still be sub-FA quality but it sure is something Wikipedia can be proud of. Pascal.Tesson 04:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, there is really no point in doing that. I still believe that this FAC will probably fail this time, however there's no reason I should try to close it faster. There is no better channel for suggestions than the continuing advice that flows into this page and helps propel the article's improvement. I was just a bit frustrated and tired yesterday, and acted impulsively. I'll do my best to address all new concerns, regardless of the future of the FAC process. So again, sorry, and it won't happen again. TSO1D 22:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minor objections: Overall prose is very good, but I have several comments:
The lead section does not summarize the article. In particular,
This sentence from the lead: Historically consisting of several sovereign states with their own history, distinct German tribe dialects, culture and religious beliefs, Germany was unified as a nation state amidst the Franco-Prussian War in 1871 is confusing, too many things to describes in one sentence.
Also this sentence: It is the European Union's most populous and most economically powerful member state uses WP:PEACOCK words, uncited and I cannot find it anywhere in the main article.
I mistakenly placed the source for population a little to the right. As for economic prowess, Germany has the third highest nominal GDP per capita and the highest in Europe. Perpahs it could say "one of the most powerful countries", would that be better? TSO1D 20:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
GDP per capita doesn't translate into a powerful country neccesarily, in that case we should all bow to luxemborg. Those words should probably be removed anyway, they smell of PoV. 212.10.217.122 17:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I meant GDP, not per cap. TSO1D 22:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please replace the source of this sentence: There are 2.3 million guest workers of Turkish origin in Germany, making them the largest group of foreign workers. The accurate source should be from the official statistic reports, rather than a letter article in New York Times. The sentence itself is an orphan paragraph.
May I help? In this source [29], exactly here: [30] the Federal Statistical Office of Germany is quoted: "Nach den am 20. Juli 2005 durch das Statistische Bundesamt bekannt gegebenen Einbürgerungszahlen für das Jahr 2004 hat sich die Zahl der Türkinnen und Türken in der Bundesrepublik mit deutschem Pass auf insgesamt 840.000 erhöht. Damit ist fast jeder dritte der 2,6 Mio. türkischstämmigen Menschen zwischen Alpen und Nordsee eingebürgert." In 2004 there were 2.6 Million people of Turkish origin in Germany, 840.000 of them had the German Citizenship. -- Cornelia-etc. 01:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the Demographics section only describe about foreign workers and asylum seekers? Where is the demographics information of the Germans themselves?
I believe that the problem is that the information about the native population is scattered across other parts of the article, for instance Relgion and Social Issues. TSO1D 04:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence: The third largest religious identity in Germany, after the two Christian groups, is that of non-religious people... is quite strange. Does the non-religious people is officially one religious identity?
Well in the poll they had religion: Protestant, Catholic, and then non-relgious/atheist. That's why it was presented in this way, but I see your point. TSO1D 20:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence: Germany has been and continues to be the home of some of the most important researchers of various scientific fields is uncited; thus looks opinion to me. The Science and Technology section still has orphaned paragraphs. The last paragraph of the section is awkward to specifically write in detail about psychology. The flow is abrupt and the last paragraph does not belong to the whole section.
The first sentence is common knowledge in my view and too vague to need to be sourced. I mean there have been numerous German scientists as demonstrated by the subsequent information. Well I put in a source just in case. TSO1D 03:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This sentences: Unsubsidised long-range service operators can compete freely all over the country, at least in theory. Actually, Deutsche Bahn holds a de facto monopoly on long-range services. It is not a fact, but rather speculation. Not an encyclopaedic statement.
I agree, I will try to modify it. TSO1D 03:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please standardize numbers. Use comma for thousands and use non-breaking space between the number and its metric.
Please standardize reference items. Some of them are not informative enough.
I changed two refs; do you believe there are other ones that need to be fixed? TSO1D 15:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trim the See Also list. Articles that have been wikilinked in the body do not need to be listed again in the See Also section.
I removed two entries that appeared in other parts of the text. TSO1D 15:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above was reviewed based on [31] — Indon (reply) — 15:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is it still rated as B-Class? May be backlogged. --Brandспойт 18:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The B classification is from a much older version of the article. TSO1D 20:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the sources are from print sources that are found in online databases. For example, most newspaper links are the digital format of formerly printed articles and all the material from encyclopedias comes from sources that are available in print format. The same goes for the CIA and Library of Congress Reports. I mean I can cite the paper version but I thought it would be useful to have a link to the text that has been made available online. TSO1D 20:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By print sources I meant books, besides encyclopedias (WP:RS: "Secondary sources should be given priority over tertiary ones.") Punctured Bicycle 21:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But compare this article to the FA Belgium that only has about five print sources that are not linked to a specific part of the text. I think overall the German article is much better sourced. It wouldn't really be a problem to find some books about Germany on Amazon and list them here, but since they weren't used for conducting research that wouldn't truly be useful in my view. Furthermore, I believe that all important information that is not common knowledge has been supported by a credible source even if that source is available in digital format online. TSO1D 13:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What sources did you use when conducting research, anyways? Huge sections of text give no indication of where the information came from (in the form of inline citations). 10 citations—comprising magazine, news, and encyclopedia articles—is not adequate for 2000 years of history, for example. Other FAs, which may end up on FARC at any time, aren't an excuse—why not strive to be better than them? Punctured Bicycle 03:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't I that wrote the article, I just tried to reformat much of the text and provide as many sources as I could find for the content. As a model for my edits, I used the Belgium and Canada articles as they had already received FA status and I believed that they had already come under close scrutiny so they must have reflected adequate Wikipedia standards. Online sources where the only ones I had to my disposal and I selected the most credible ones to support the information of the article. I cannot deny that it would be better to have more sources, that is always the case, however I believe that in its current form possesses a quality of a sufficient degree to warrant the promotion of the article to FA status. Others of course disagree and constructive criticism has been put forward by many. I have tried to do my best to fulfill these requests, however under the circumstances I do not see how I can do more than change the language and add some more sources of the same type I previously included. TSO1D 03:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose still This article is not properly researched/referenced. The nominator added tons of print references shortly after saying "online sources where the only ones I had to my disposal" and "it wouldn't really be a problem to find some books about Germany on Amazon and list them here, but since they weren't used for conducting research ..." This suggests to me that the sources listed are being used more for show than actual referencing. As far as I can see, the article did not change significantly to reflect the new sources. For example, where are the inline citations that indicate the page numbers that were used to support specific statements? (See Crawford expedition for an example of this.) Even if we assume the sources listed were used to conduct research, the corresponding inline citations required for verification purposes are missing. Punctured Bicycle 14:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you are accusing me of adding the references for show you are greatly mistaken. I admit that I didn't use the sources listed to conduct research, but I didn't write the history section either. Rather it was summarized by other users from other fuller articles on various historical periods. I took the sources from those articles and added them to the main article with the summary. TSO1D 21:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please read again WP:MOS carefully, especially about WP:CITE. All books/articles/publications that are not used in the article can be listed in Further readings section. Items in the References section are used directly in the article and they have to be supported by inline citations. By listing all available books about Germany from website of a bookstore in the References section is not appropriate. — Indon (reply) — 09:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my above comment, I did not get the sources from Amazon, but from the main History of Germany article and its subarticles such as German Empire. That's were the text came from and I assumed that the references listed there were used for conducting research so I added them to this article as well. But I agree with you, as long as those sources are not directly cited the list should be dropped. TSO1D 12:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could lose the References section totally. Nobody remembers which book was used to prove which assertion, and I think nobody can be bothered to find out (Germany is one of the most-edited articles, with thousands of edits). Better drop this section and inline reference everything from history books or similar (which is very easy, since all the statements are undisputed). Kusma(討論) 09:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I agree the reference list can be removed. TSO1D 23:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some paragraphs are totally uncited. They need citations. LuciferMorgan 21:54, 8 December 2006
(UTC)
I believe that the parts of the text that do not include citations include content that can be considered common knowledge thus not requiring the support of sources. Most of these parts are in the history, law, and government sections that are not cited in other featured articles such as Belgium or Canada for the same reason that I have mentioned. TSO1D 13:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently changing the references to other encyclopedias (which I think should not be used in a FA) to book references. Kusma(討論) 09:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Not written to the required "professional" standard.Excellent job done by the League of Copyeditors; I'd still like just a brief description of how the DDR was different from that of the Federal Republic. It does mention Soviet Bloc, but nothing about life and the economy of the DDR. Take the lead:
"It is bordered to the north by"—Unidiomatic. "A portion of the alps"—same.
I am sorry, but how "it is bordered to the north by" undiomatic? That is one of the most common ways of presenting this information in the English language. For instance see Britannica that uses the same structure: http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9370838/Macedonia. TSO1D
"Germany is a democratic parliamentary federal republic, made up of 16 states (Bundesländer), which in certain spheres act independently of the federation." I'd remove the last clause, because it says nothing useful unless accompanied by more detail than is appropriate in a lead. Remove ",made up", which is redundant. Saves the repetition in the subsequent sentence ("consisting of").
"Historically consisting of several sovereign states with their own history"—Ungainly repetition.
I agree and will remove it. Actually I see that someone already beat me to it. Is it ok now? TSO1D 04:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"distinct German tribe dialects"—clumsy.
Agree again. TSO1D 04:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Germany has the third largest economy in the world and is the largest exporter of goods on the globe"—"In the world ... on the globe"? The second is unidiomatic, and both together in a sentence are repetitive.
Again, I don't agree that it's undiomatic, though perhaps a bit awkward, I will try to change it. TSO1D 04:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This needs serious copy-editing throughout. Tony 01:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The writing is awkward in many places, and the text introduces new terms with only a passing mention (i.e. in the restoration and revolution section). I cannot support at this time. --Danaman5 03:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article went through many changes and was copyedited many times. Most of the concerns seem to be addressed. How does the article look now?Baristarim 05:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm a little late getting back to this. Changed to Weak Support per improvements made.--Danaman5 23:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support there are a lot of small issues that could easily and should be fixed, mostly concerning references (some sections are a little light on references + see comments above) and prose (not bad by any means but perhaps not brilliant). Still, the overall quality is impressive. Pascal.Tesson 21:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TSO1D—No point in adding your "support" if you're the nominator .... ahem. Not a numbers game here. I agree about "bordered", having looked it up. I still think it's a little ugly, and would rephrase it myself, but you're right, it is correct as is. ON the globe is not idiomatic, unless it's an insect sitting ON the globe in the kids' bedroom. Tony 05:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree (about the vote). Although I see that "on the globe" has already been changed and I agree that it sounds a bit awkward I still say that it's not unidiomatic. For instance look at the phrase "country on the globe" on Google. As you can see some more reputable sources also use it in the same context it appeared in the article. I know this doesn't really matter now that the text has been altered anyway, but I just wanted to defend the idiom :). TSO1D 05:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments a couple of specific things/sentences that should be fixed:
"irregular" government employment such as "one euro" jobs, What's a one euro job? or an irregular employee?
Irregular refers to the fact that the employment is not stable but meant for short periods of time as explained by the examples given. I gave a brief definition of "one-euro" jobs in parentheses. TSO1D 15:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the tense situation in eastern Germany, total government employment in Germany remains lower than in other states such as the United Kingdom or Canada. Not sure what that means. What is the comparison to Canada and the UK supposed to prove?
Get your hands on a better university picture than that of Würzburg. It's not a well-known university across the world.
The picture of Angela Merkel next to the social issues section should probably have a social issues caption.
Ok, I changed the caption. TSO1D 15:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For centuries, women's role in German society was summed up by the three words: Kinder (children), Küche (kitchen), and Kirche (church). Throughout the twentieth century, women have gradually won victories in their quest for equal rights, although women are noticeably absent in the top tiers of German business, holding only hold 9.2% of jobs in Germany's upper and middle management positions. While I'm not denying that women's social position in Germany is an important issue, this group of sentences makes it sound like a German-specific issue which, for all I know, it is not. Do French women hold 25% of top tier business positions? I don't think so.
I don't believe the article is suggesting that this is a German peculiarity, it just lists the "ongoing quest for gender equality" in Germany. This isn't one of my favorite sections, but it's still factually correct and I didn't want to remove it altogether nor did I know how else to change it. TSO1D 15:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
many historical figures, though not citizens of Germany in the modern sense, were influential in the German cultural sphere, including Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Franz Kafka and Stefan Zweig. Don't get me wrong, I like Stefan Zweig but he's not really in the same league as Mozart and Kafka. If you want to have three examples (which is always nice) how about Sigmund Freud instead?
Good idea, I actually though about doing that and will do it now. TSO1D 15:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert but one sentence for German philosophers seems like an understatement. German idealism is of major importance in the history of philosophy. Why not link to German philosophy? (even if that's a low-quality article)
For some reason, the culture section suddenly switches to a surname-only format for name-dropping.
Cleanup the selection of names. Kraftwerk is influential, Blind Guardian not so much. Only names that have a significant (and third-party established) impact should be in there.
Comment I've just added half a dozen citation requests. These should all be easy to find by looking up the references of the various sub-articles. Note that I'm not peppering the article with citation requests to prove a point but just to highlight the work that remains to be done. Pascal.Tesson 16:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just took a look at the Germany article in German and found a few interesting things. First, it's incredibly long (which isn't a good thing I know) but it sort of shows what content is missing from the english article. It has a really long series of sections on architecture (we have a one line sentence I just added), a section on cinema (for some reason we don't), sections on sport, fauna, flora, etc (we don't but not sure we want one). Also I realized that for some reason Willy Brandt and Helmut Kohl are not mentioned anywhere in the English article which does not seem right... Pascal.Tesson 04:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As Adenauer isn't mentioned, either, it seems not so bad not to mention these two. I don't think the history section should be longer than it is, so if you suggest something important is missing, do you have an idea what to remove or shorten instead? Kusma(討論) 14:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well let's put it this way: should we have room for Adenauer if we have room for Dieter Bohlen? Although I have developed it quite a bit, the section on culture could be refactored and dramatically shortened so that it relies on other existing articles (some of which are quite good). The impact of Adenauer, Brandt, Kohl and even Schröder not only on Germany but on Europe as we know it today is too important for us to ignore them here. Pascal.Tesson 16:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added Adenauer and Brandt to the post-45 history section. I couldn't find a good way to describe Kohl's role there yet. Kusma(討論) 16:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note: I think the section on German culture is slowly reaching higher quality than the article Culture of Germany and so it does not make much sense to link to it unless we move some of that content. I would favor rewriting the Culture of Germany article by merging the Germany content in there. Then we could rewrite a much more succinct section and add a note in the source that this section should not be expanded too much. We could limit ourselves to a general discussion on the Culture of Germany versus German culture and mention fields in which Germany has been particularly influential. Pascal.Tesson 17:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the article ahs improved amazingly from a month ago. The "administrative divisions" section could still be improved, though, by adding a one-or two-sentence statment that notes how much freedom the divisions have to make their own decisions. That would make it look less like a table without comment. Kusma(討論) 09:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mild support (upgrading from weak) the page has gone through considerable improvement. I think the next thing to do is to shorten dramatically the culture section: I've copied the (excellent) content of that section to Culture of Germany and I think we should have a simple summary style paragraphs or two. The rest of the expansion should go in the Culture main article. On another note, I'm going on a wikibreak so good luck to all, TSO1D in particular who has done a lot of very good work on this article. Pascal.Tesson 05:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Indon (reply) — 18:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further to my objection:
Why are en dashes and hyphens inconsistently used in titles?
Can you please explain what you mean. TSO1D 22:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The history section is way too long: it's out of proportion with the rest of the article, and I'm afraid to say, is pretty boring in places. Why is Martin Luther brushed off in two sentences, whil paragraph after paragraph are given over to grey details from the first millenium? Luther was of critical importance. Same for the Thirty Years War.
I'm sorry if you find certain areas of the history section boring, however I believe that the text needs to be this long to even give an overview of German history and personally I am generally satisfied with the distribution of information (except for the last section).
Ok, again reduced the length of the history section to a section that I believe is now appropriate. TSO1D 15:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The placement of images often forces the text into very narrow columns. For example, Hitler and the subdivisions crowd the whole space.
I tried to remove some of the images (I tried to make it so that any line of text was only bounded by one image), however I believe that further reductions would only have a negative effect by removing valuable visual aids. TSO1D 00:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty superficial account of modern history, even if it's in summary style. Getting very blue, too. Why the repeated links? I'd ration them. Why not reduce the early stuff and deal properly with the important stuff. DDR knocked off in a few shallow sentences.
Ok, I will try to see if this section can be expanded. However I do not intend to remove text from other sections to make room for it. TSO1D 00:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added a little more to the modern history section, however if we continue to expand that section, it will be out of proportion with the rest of the text. TSO1D 15:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The climate is influenced to some extent by the Gulf Stream, which promotes an unusually mild climate in areas adjacent to it." Remove "to some extent". "Adjacent" is odd here.
I changed the sentence according to your suggestions. TSO1D 22:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"areas bordering on the North Sea"—Spot the redundant word.
Removed "on". TSO1D 22:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"along the Rhein which flows into the North Sea"—Comma before "which" almost mandatory. Too few commas throughout, IMV.
Added that comma, if you see other omissions please indicate where they are or rectify them yourself. TSO1D 22:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"rain falls all year round"—So it does over the planet, but we're interested in the patterns. Is it totally uniform?
Levels are relatively uniform though the greatest variation occurs during the summer maximum. I changed the text to reflect this. TSO1D 22:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Winters there are relatively mild and summers tend to be comparatively cool"—"mild" and "cool" are already relative/comparitive.
I agree, I took the adverbs out. TSO1D 22:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"for prolonged periods of time"—spot the two redundant words.
Removed "of time". TSO1D 22:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure the one trillion dollar estimate of exports is correct? Thought it was 1200 million. And does this exclude services and returns on investments, as implied?
Thanks for pointing that out. Total exports did in fact add up to 1 tril, however merchandise exports were 912 billion. By the way, the source is here. TSO1D 23:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not good enough.
Overcompartmentalisation, esp. in "Culture". Can the subtitles be removed?
The problem is that the entire section needs to be summarized, removing the subtitles wouldn't be sufficient. However, you are right, the section is too lengthy as it is. TSO1D 22:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I just love the last sentence tacked onto what deals with amazing grandeur:
In the field of music, Germany claims some of the most renowned classic composers of the world including Bach and the Bonn-born Beethoven, who marked the transition between the Classical and Romantic eras in Western classical music. Other composers of international fame include Handel, Telemann, Mendelssohn Bartholdy, Brahms, Schumann, Wagner, Strauss, Orff, and Pachelbel. The film score composer Hans Zimmer is from Germany as well.
Ok, I reduced the size of the culture section and removed all subtitles. Perhaps more could be taken out, however I believe that the amount of space dedicated to the section is proportional to its importance to the topic. TSO1D 00:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bonn-born Beethoven ...
Sorry, that's my awkward translation from German. I completely removed it now. TSO1D 22:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
of the world
Ok I said "some of the world's most renowned...", it was at least repetitive. TSO1D 22:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC) TSO1D 22:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did Bach also mark the transition? That's what it says.
Ok, I put Beethoven first so that the statement would be restricted to him. TSO1D 22:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really folks, this does not compare to the other nation FAs. Tony 14:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Tony, I think I have addressed all of your concerns, at least partially. TSO1D 15:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tony that this does not compare to other nation FAs. It is better. Support. ---Pedro 00:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object This article's structure is definitely not correct. Please see Canada, Australia and India, some of the best country articles out there. Demographics and society sections need to be combined. The article is not very easy to read. However, the references and the depth of the subject matter is good, so will support if the structural issues are dealt with. As for other country FAs: there are some that will be getting a delisting soon like People's Republic of China - apparently it passed FA in 2004 with the standards of the day, but currently it is nothing but a mess. So please restructure the article. Plus some of the information in the article needs to bet seriously cut, and some other stuff expanded: History section is way too long. Most of that stuff should go to sub-articles. There is no need to mention the wind-power capacity of Germany in this article, that also needs to go to relevant sub-articles. There are seealsos in the middle of sections etc. Better take this article to peer review first I think. However, if the regular editors can work on it, then it should be fine. Cheers! Baristarim 09:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions. I tried to use the framework of the Canadian article, however there are several significant obstacles. What the Canadian or Indian articles call demographics is supplemented here by a society section with three other subsections that sometimes overlap with that subject, but at other times would be impossible to integrate there. I am talking about religion (which should easily be merged with dem), social issues (which might be merged in part), and education (which I really don't see a way of merging). I guess I will deal with the society section by merging what's possible with demographics and making education a new section. The history section presents another important obstacle. I see that many users have expressed complaints about its length, however I never fully realized the magnitude of the reductions that should take place. I have tried to trim the section over time, however it is still much too long. I guess I will have to remove all subtitles and slowly reduce it. Do you believe that other sections such as transport, which do not appear on other FA national articles. They seem too informative to remove. By the way, there was a peer review for the article, but it attracted only limited attention. TSO1D 14:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and minor objections The structure looks better. I know that writing country articles can be hard :) Well, I think that there are some improvements that can be made, not neccessarily because the article is bad, but simply because it will make the article better.. However some of them are pretty important: The culture and science and technology sections might be better combined. The thing is, there are too many names listed that it is somewhat confusing. More analytical sentences about the German culture and its place in the global context might be better than simply listing names. I know that some of those people have been very important in global culture, but a greater focus on Germany would be better, since the article is about the country. Also culture sections should include something about the sports in the country as well. What kind of sports are popular (I know that it is football, but for the uninformed reader :)), olympics etc? It shouldn't be simply a list of the country's achievements either (i ran into this problem in France :)), it should be about how the sports relate to the country and the people as a whole. I don't know, is there a traditional German sport for example? No need to mention it if there isn't one, but might be interesting if there actually is/has been one. I also think that the social issues should be combined with other sections, with the paragraphs combined into their relevant sections. As I said, the only problem I can see is the overlisting done in some places. As for the transport section.. There was a similar thing in France.. Someone is insisting that the transport section should be included at all costs :) However, I think that it would be more appropriate in a sub-article. I just cannot see the transport being as important then a country's culture or politics or etc. The things is, transport sections generally seem to make the articles something like a travel guide. In fact, what you might need is a "Topics in X" template to put in the see also section, that way you can list all topics about Germany easily and give the reader the opportunity to select what want to know about Germany directly in that list. I will try to drop by later. Baristarim 19:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About the culture and science sections, I agree with you that too much of the text is composed of a list of names. I tried to reduce this (it was even worse in the past), however it's very hard to decide what names to remove (Mozart, Einstein, Mann?). You are right, however, more comprehensive sentences should replace much of the current format. As for including sports and other elements in the culture section, I hadn't even thought of that. When I thought of culture, I immediately assumed it was high culture. However, the other elements you mentioned are also very important and should be included in that section. As for transport, I am not that big a fan of the section personally, I even tried removing it in the past. I tend to agree with you that it might be better just to link to the subsection. TSO1D 20:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the topics in... template is much better, thanks for pointing that out. TSO1D 21:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
lool. I know, when I first came to Wikipedia it kinda surprised me to see sports in the culture section, however it made sense after a while. The "topics in .." template will really help out the article, you will see. Not only will it look nicer, but all the see alsos will take less space while grouping everything related to Germany in a very concise section easily accessible to the reader. Just use one of the layouts of the other topics templates and replace the wikilinks with relevant Germany articles. For the moment I don't have a lot of time but I will check in soon. Cheers! Baristarim 02:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I've already used that template since you first made the suggestion and it looks great. TSO1D 03:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have added a sports section. Do you think that's sufficient in that area? TSO1D 16:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sports section looks just fine :) Baristarim 05:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support My above concerns were addressed and the article looks really good now. I am sorry about not being able to get back to this earlier, I have been busy both in Wiki and real life because of the holidays et al. A great congratulations to editors who have spent a lot of time trying to address the concerns in the FAC, and the article seriously looks really good at the moment and it fits FA criteria. The "topics in X" template also simplified a lot of things and really made the article informative for readers who want to know more about the country. Good job for the whole effort! Baristarim 05:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. I was going to weaken on my objection, but there are problems wherever I look. You must find this frustrating, I'm sure, but a FA should read smoothly and be crystal clear. There are problems in both the rendering of facts and in readability. I've cast my eyes about and found these issues at random in a few small windows of text.
"the Chancellor is the head of ... a pluriform multi-party system"—Are you sure? The distinction between being head of the government and of this might be lost on most readers. It is on me.
Awkward word order: "in the face of a growing migration of East Germans to West Germany via Hungary and mass demonstrations"—just move "mass demonstrations to after "face of", and follow it by "and".
"The country eventually came to enjoy prolonged economic growth beginning in the early 1950s (Wirtschaftswunder)"—what on earth is "eventually" doing here? Replace "beginning in" with just "from". Insert "known as the" before the German term.
"The recovery occurred largely because of the previously forbidden currency reform of June 1948 and from 1949 on partly by U.S. assistance through Marshall Plan loans." This is cumbersome: more commas throughout the text would make for easier reading and more accurate expression—here, one is needed after "1948", isn't it? "On" should be "onwards". "By" should be "through".
"The sectors controlled by France, the United Kingdom, and the United States were merged to form the Federal Republic of Germany on 23 May 1949; the Soviet Zone established the German Democratic Republic on 7 October 1949." No, the Soviet Zone didn't establish the DDR, the Soviet Union did.
"were somewhat reduced"—spot the redundant word.
"During the summer of 1989, in the face of a growing migration of East Germans to West Germany via Hungary and mass demonstrations, East German authorities unexpectedly eased the border restrictions in November 1989,"—There are time-phrases at the start and finish that seem to overlap.
"sent a peacekeeping force to secure stability in the Balkans and sent a force"—repetition.
"In recent years,"—this should be banned from WP as so vague that it's useless. "Since 2001"? "Over the past five years"?
Now, why not try out our new League of copy-editors? Specify precision of expression, commas, and redundancies. Perhaps the Director is willing to wait another few days ....? Tony 09:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I introduced the changes you proposed above. I guess I never took the time to carefully copy-edit the entire article. I will do that, and also I have taken your advice and asked the League for help. TSO1D 14:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the entire article and did a general copyedit. I'm sure I missed some things, however. I've become so used to the text in its current form that I'm liable to overlook certain errors. Nevertheless, I have to say that I'm satisfied with the general quality of the text. Hopefully others will catch any residual mistakes, but at this point I don't see what else I can do to improve the article's quality. TSO1D 23:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, is a great article and there are only tiny problems left with it. MathmoTalk 08:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any specific concerns, could you please list them so that the editors of the page can try to improve those aspects of the article. TSO1D 20:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Fails 1c. How did this article get this far into FAC without cleanup of basics like WP:MSH?
What is this at the bottom of the article? ( [nds:Düütschland]] ) ?
That was added a few hours ago by another user who added the interwiki, fixed it now. TSO1D 18:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that example, is it just the extra bracket, or was there something else as well? And other than that what sources are not formatted correctly? I thought I had used MLA style for all. TSO1D 18:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A spot check of the references turns up lacking - this, for example, is a dead link (Germany: Culture Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2006. Retrieved 2006, 12-27 )
That one is strange. I did it again and it seems to work now. TSO1D 19:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pls indicate a German-language icon on sources which are not in English - it does me no good to click on those sources to attempt to verify them. For example, (in Spanish) is the Spanish-language icon - I don't know the German one.
It's (in German) and I will do that.
What is this? (Hoppenstedt business databank 2002 )
Oh, I had replaced that one, I guess that got lost in some reverts though. Anyway, I will do it again. TSO1D 19:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Include all bibliographic info in citations; for example, the authors on this and this.
I stopped checking references, since the referencing is overall sloppy and incomplete.
I did it for most of them, I guess I just missed some. I'll go through them again and check and I will correct these two. TSO1D 19:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you leave out the rising mortality rate, mentioned in one of the BBC sources, and what is that due to?
I mean a lot of information was left out, only a summary of the most important aspects of German demographics was kept. Besides, I included the BBC source because I needed a citation for the birth rate, and having found that I did not pay close attention to the rest of the article. TSO1D 19:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Critics have alleged?" Please specify what critics.
I completely removed those two sentences. The view of non-compliance was held by a small minority. In any case, that part was too detailed, the rest already exists in subarticles. Anyway the problem disappears there. TSO1D 20:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is undercited - I'm going to add ref tags to only a few sections as examples. Many statements also need to indicate as of when (a date). I cited some of the facts myself, by using named refs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will provide sources for the ones you listed. The problem is that for many of them, I just added a citation at the end of a group of sentences supported by one source. I guess I will add it for every instance though. TSO1D 19:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think I have addressed all the major concerns that you presented. I checked all sources and tried to make them conform to Wikipedia standards. I added language tags for the sources that were written in German. I also filled your citation requests and added new sources elsewhere and removed the problematic bits of text you identified. TSO1D 23:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The references are looking better now, although every time I've come back to the article, I've found more referencing problems that needed to be fixed. External links could use pruning per WP:EL and WP:NOT - they should be kept to a minimum. The CIA factbook is already used as a reference, hence shouldn't be be in External links. This doesn't look "encyclopedically" useful - [32]; this says it's "official" or "government", but the website doens't seem to indicate that, and it seems commercial [33]. Can the Wikitravel link be included in the sister projects box? Science and technology is unreferenced. Main templates are used incorrectly: they should indicate when a main article is summarized back to this article via summary style, yet many of the articles listed as Main are barely stubs, aren't cited, and don't support the text given in this article, meaning for example, that the Culture section should be better cited, as it can't rely on the daughter articles. (The main templates should be switched to See also on the articles which are barely stubs.) For example, Education in Germany is an uncited diseaster needing cleanup - it can't be the main article upon which an FA depends, nor can Germanic culture. Demographics of Germany, Geography of Germany, Judiciary of Germany and Economy of Germany are also uncited rambling unorganized articles - I suggest that none of these are appropriate uses of the Main template, and might be listed as See also. Those are the ones I checked working from the bottom up - I stopped there, since I'm finding that the daughter articles don't support the text in the main article. I'm not convinced this article yet rises to the level expected of an FA on the English wikipedia: I don't speak German, so I don't know about the German Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I reduced the external links per your suggestion and removed some quasi-trivia. As goes for the main templates, I removed it for education and German culture, but Geography of Germany has useful information on other geographic landmarks of the country, Economy of Germany includes much relevant data, and demographics of Germany and Geography of Germany also supply further info. Thus I see no reason to remove them. Whereas I agree that they could be improved, I don't agree that it's necessary to remove them altogether. And I know you don't like this argument, but all other national FA's are the same way. Look at Canada, for instance, where many of the subarticles linked with the main template are in a much poorer condition than Germany's articles. As for science and technology, what exactly could sources be provided for. I found one for physics, but most of the text is purely Common Knowledge. TSO1D 21:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added some references to that section after all. But I don't think it needs to go any further. I mean is it really necessary to provide a source for the fact that Gutenberg invented the printing press in Europe or that Geiger was the inventor of the Geiger counter? TSO1D 21:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support now, the article is much cleaner, has been copyedited, and is better referenced. I'm still concerned about the use of the "Main" template, and would prefer they be switched (in some cases) to See or Further (since the daughter articles are *clearly* not the basis for summary to the main article), but that's not enough to object over. Nice, persistent work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (1) section heading in the history section blow out this size of the TOC; (2) Social issues section is biased to whatever this author things these issues are - merge demographic issues into the demographics (demographic effects of reunification, opposition to immigration etc) section and drop the rest; (3) Education also should be a part of demographics; (4) Merge Sports into cluture since its so short and sport is a part of culture in many other country FAs; (5) The science and tech section just adds a long list of names to the article - a brief mention of technical innovation in the history section would suffice. The culture section could use some work too, how does being a large market equate to influnce on trends, is Kraftwerk the only successful German music export, wasn't Rubens Flemish?--Peta 02:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) Even if the subsections inflate the TOC, they are useful in sectioning that part of the article. I tried it without them and it didn't work too well. Of course, there will always be the matter of bias, but the social issues section reflects what the media covers to the greatest extent, not the views of the authors. If you believe that any element is given undue weight, please explain which one. 3)How can education possibly be merged with demographics??? 4)Ok, I merged sport and culture. 5)I really don't think a brief mention of German innovation in the history section would be enough considering the long history of science and technology in Germany. Besides, to what period should it be added? 6)No one said that Germany's large market makes it influential, that sentence just describes the actual situation; Kraftwerk is only given as an example, there are many more, but I don't believe that section should be expanded further. Oh, and Rubens was born in Germany, but his family fled to the Netherlands because they were Protestants. TSO1D 21:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I decided to merge social issues and demographics after all, and seems to work fine. As for education, I scratched my head for a long time over this, but I just don't see a way of merging it anywhere else. However, given the peculiarities of German education and its importance to the state, I don't think it should be too big a deal to just keep a small section for it.TSO1D 01:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about merging tech into the economy section? It really is predominately a list of names just taking up space.--Peta 02:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I merged science with culture. I just didn't know where else to put it, but the information there is too important to Germany to be removed entirely in my view. In any case, scientific pursuits have been a deeply intertwined with German culture and some of the philosophers mentioned elsewhere in that section also were important scientists and mathematicians. Do you think this works?TSO1D 03:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe, however, that most of Peta's stated concerns have already been addressed. Could you please specify what major problems you believe persist. TSO1D 20:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, the article went through a lot of changes since the start of the FAC, and unless further specific objections are raised per FA criteria, I don't know what can be made of this objection.Baristarim 05:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional sSupport This is a very good article. I hope you approve of my edits. The article has clearly benefited from the past few weeks of hard labour by its proposer and by the constructive commentators. Consequently the problems that I have with it are relatively small and if they can be addressed, I would give it my strong support.
The rise of liberal and nationalist movements was in part a consequence of disagreement with restoration politics. I don't understand. IMHO liberal movements arise from enlightenment; nationalism out of better mass communications. Link to restoration doesn't help.
The problem was that nationalism and liberalism emerged simultaneously and were believed to be linked at the time. This was mostly an intellectual phenomenon that attracted much more support from students than from the masses at that point. And this liberal-nationalist movement emerged in Germany in great part due to the fact that these young intellectuals disagreed with the repressive and conservative way in which the Prussian government (or others) operated during this period. More detail can be found in the main article for the period: German Confederation. Of course, it might help to go into further details, but don't wish to expand this section further. But I removed the useless link to restoration. 21:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
After scrimping to fit German history into a metaphorical postage stamp there are four lines occupied by its capabilities in wind-power. Seems excessive.
Ok, I reduced that to about a line and a half. There actually used to be an entire section about this kind of stuff, and this is one vestige of the old mammoth. TSO1D 21:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that its large cities are caused by the country's federal structure since this is recent. Each state has a capital which may have provided a nucleus back in history, but since I have supposed that people have clumped together mainly by economic factors, so it is by definition decentralised. Do state capitals automatically cause a population increase? Compare Springfield, Illinois with Chicago.
Regardless of the validity of the reasons (which I myself doubt), it's mere speculation, and original research. I removed the reason and just left that fact. TSO1D 21:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are 500-1000 children schooled at home in Germany.In a country of 80 million it it hard to justify its inclusion as a significant feature/issue in a summary of German education.
I agree, that fact is really of no importance given the small number of people affected. TSO1D 21:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Kraftwerk is your best example, I would not describe Germany's influence on the world's popular music as strong. If anything it is not pulling its weight. JMcC 20:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I just said that they influenced music, without any further adjectives. I agree, the influence hasn't been that great, and it's misleading to call it strong, but I assume there must be at least something there. TSO1D 21:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you're picking on Kraftwerk though. This was an immensely influential band in electronic music and has been recognized as such numerous times. Now of course, nowadays one might argue that noone singing in a different language than English has a world-impact on music but if any German band ever had a universal impact, it's got to be Kraftwerk. Pascal.Tesson 00:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why my vote of strong support has been altered by someone else back to 'provisional'. Perhaps I never saved it. If it happened, it must be against Wikipedia policy. I have re-instated my support. JMcC 08:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the edit history, I see no tampering. It seems like it was simply a lapse on your part. Pascal.Tesson 09:08, 9 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Self-nomination. The LRL vector is important in celestial mechanics as a convenient method for describing the shape of an orbit, and was historically important in the first derivation of the hydrogen-atom spectrum using modern quantum mechanics. It also reveals a subtle but beautiful symmetry of the Kepler problem, which is the problem of calculating the motion of two particles interacting by gravity or electrostatics. This article is stable, thoroughly referenced and has undergone scientific and non-scientific peer reviews. A translation of this article was voted recently to Good Article status without opposition on the Russian Wikipedia. Although technical, the article has been written as accessibly as possible for the lay-reader. Willow 10:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As presently constructed this fails the grandmother test, namely there is no sentence in the introduction that I believe my grandmother would be capable of understanding. Sure it is a technical topic but there should be at least some statement of what the concept is that will encompass its importance and still be accessible to someone with no training in physics or math. Further, as this is a general encyclopedia and not a physics/math text, I would encourage you to collect some of the various derivations, descriptions and proofs and place them in a mathematical appendix at the end of the article. Knowing how some of those results and descriptions are derived is not directly significant to understanding the key applications, significance, etc. Dragons flight 12:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, none of my sisters are mathematicians or physicists, but they all understand roughly what a vector is and followed the gist of the lead. However, I'm willing to believe that the lead could be further re-worded for clarity, especially the first sentence. I could also imagine putting the Conservation and Parabolic coordinates sections into two appendices, but that would interrupt the flow slightly; also, that seems not to be customary at WP. Willow 14:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My friend with a BS in biology, who took a year of undergrad physics, read the introduction and came away with:
"I can tell that it's (1) a constant that (2) has something to do with gravity and other things that vary by the inverse square of the distance between them. But its actual effect is completely opaque, at least in the introduction. The bit about 'subtle symmetry of the Kepler problem' might as well be written in Greek. The correspondence principle sounds like sympathetic magic, and I don't know why the introduction to this thing is talking about some other, similar thing. If it's actually talking about the same thing, that's not at all clear. And the picture is frankly scary."
Given that the lead of featured articles will be read by people with no physics/math training at all, at least some part of this needs to be more accessible than this. Dragons flight 22:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose moving things into a separate "mathematical appendix". It would turn what is now a very nice article into Emmenthaler. The topic of the article is more technical than any present FA on a subject in mathematics or physics, and I feel the treatment (including the lead section) is entirely commensurate. At least the first sentence tells you that if you don't know what classical mechanics is, or a constant of motion, you'd better read up on those first. The reader who does know these concepts should also see the potential importance. I'm not saying no further improvement is possible, but I feel the assumed reader for who the lead is optimized should have at least some understanding of the most essential concepts of physics. --LambiamTalk 17:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood what I meant about appendix. I didn't mean that every equation should be placed at the end, or anything like that, but rather that the sections that exist solely for the sake of proving things shouldn't be dumped in the middle when it is the conclusions (rather than the proof itself) that is important to understanding the rest of the article. I have now rearranged these to my liking to show what I intended. Dragons flight 22:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One shouldn't need to read up on classical mechanics or constant of motion in order to learn that the LRL vector is a constant that can be used to define the shape and orientation of an elliptical orbit. Dragons flight 22:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your re-arrangement seems good, Dragons flight! I only fear that such "ghettoization" of the math may tempt some people to delete those sections altogether, which I think would be a loss for the article. I also tinkered with the lead — does it read better now? Willow 19:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that lead is a considerably improvement, thank you. Dragons flight 01:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Derivation of the Kepler orbits, Circular momentum hodographs, and Poisson brackets sections appear to contain no references. This needs to be rectified to demonstrate that the derivations are not original research. (I presume that the nominator can reference books that show these derivations.) Dr. Submillimeter 12:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the references, which were cited in the lead for the same conclusions but did not get copied to the main body of the text — sorry! I've also alerted the astronomical and mathematical WikiProjects per your request. Is everything else OK? Willow 14:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The references are satisfactory. I do not see anything else that I want to comment on. The derivations do look sound (although they appear to skip a few algebraic steps in some places). However, I also do not feel like trying to validate all of the vector analysis at this time. Dr. Submillimeter 21:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few Comments:
Should the abbreviation "LRL vector" be used throughout the article after the first couple of occurrences of the full title? "Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector" is a bit of a mouthful. That is an abbreviation that has been used in the literature (see [34]).
I totally agree, and I like that abbreviation as well. Replaced throughout, except for a few instances where it seemed good to stress the full name.
We don't seem to have an article on "Kepler's problem" (the closest we have is a disambig link at Kepler's problem). It would probably be an idea to create that article, especially given the prominent mention of it at the top of this article. Or is this "Kepler's problem" that discussed at Keplerian problem?
Added fuller explanations of the various Kepler problems under the disambig page; do you think it merits its own page?
I'll give more detailed comments when I have more time. Mike Peel 14:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks muchly, Mike! :) Willow 19:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments, as promised above. Starting from the top:
Is there not a simple, illustrative image that can be placed at the top of the page? I agree with the moving of the complex one that was there before, but it still needs something there. As it stands, there is no image in the first three sections of the article, and the first one readers encounter (in the fourth section) looks very complex.
I'll work on this, but I don't have access to Xfig at the moment. :( Can you wait a few more days until I get back home? Thanks!
"This higher symmetry results from two lucky coincidences" -- are they actually coincidences? I'd reconsider this phrasing.
You're very right; "coincidences" was a cute and (from one perspective) valid wording, but could be misconstrued. Changed to "properties".
I dislike the wikilinking to other sections of the article where this wikilinking is not made obvious by the surrounding text. I've just changed one instance of this to illustrate what I mean; I'm sure there are others amongst the article text too.
I'm honestly not sure which ones would be bothersome; could you make a list or ("Mike is nice! He'll do it.") fix them yourself?
Try to make clear the main points of each section at the start of it, rather than the end. At the end of "Evolution under perturbed potentials", you state "This agreement with experiment is considered to be strong evidence for general relativity." That is a statement that is easier for the lay reader to pick up on, however odds are they will loose interest in the section when they get to the big equation in it. Consider starting off the section by saying something like "The LRL vector can be used to illustrate one of the key pieces of evidence for the validity of general relativity."
I'll try to do that, but everyone seems to have a different idea of what should be emphasized. For example, for me, the Mercury-GR story is a nice illustrative example that people may have heard about; but it's not the main point of the section, which for me was "What happens to the LR vector when the interaction is not quite an inverse square force?"
I'm generally worried about the complexity of the article. To understand what some of it is talking about, I would have to go away and do a fair bit of reading. I will support the nomination to FA status, but would recommend against featuring the article on the home page. It makes a fine reference article, but I don't think it's for everyone. Mike Peel 21:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you would be so good as to identify the passages that aren't as clear as they should be, or where you would have to do outside reading, that'd be very helpful, so that we could work on improving them. Thanks, Mike! :) Willow 02:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support an excellent and very thorough presentation of a specialized subject. I'm surprised I didn't think of putting all of the proofs as subsections when I read this article before. I don't think the article will be plagued with many math-deleters, or many other editors at all :)
My only comment, which is tangentially related to this article, is the disambig for Kepler's problem - there is also a separate article Keplerian problem which, grammatically at least, ought to refer to the same thing as Kepler's problem. I see that Keplerian problem has a proposed merge; maybe the merge ought to be performed and Keplerian problem redirected instead to the disambig at Kepler's problem. Considering the importance of the subject to the LRL vector explanation, it seems these should be sorted out somehow. (In particular, I'm very familiar with the general n-body problem but was unaware, when I first read the article, that any special case of it was called "Kepler's problem".) Opabinia regalis 01:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This article covers its subject in a fashion clear and comprehensible to a reader who would actually be concerned with the topic, i.e., someone with at least a good chunk of an undergraduate physics education. I would like to see the Kepler problem disambig thing sorted out, and a picture for the lead might be nice. The absence of punctuation in equations which terminate sentences irritated me a bit, and it should be fixed to conform with the style manual. The only technical matter I could think of which might merit inclusion is the connection between LRL-vector conservation, supersymmetric quantum mechanics and BPS states (M. Faux and D. Spector, J. Phys A 34 (2004): 10397–407). It relates to the Pauli solution of the hydrogen atom, I believe, and the SUSY method for finding the hydrogen atom's eigenstates. That is, however, perhaps too peripheral a matter to mention. Anville 20:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the support, both of you! I've written up a short summary of the Kepler problem that should suffice for readers to understand the context of the Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector. The term "Kepler problem" is indeed an accepted term for the special case of the two-body problem, although perhaps only among physicists? The related Keplerian problem could be merged neatly with the new article as well, or perhaps summarized as a subsection within it; it should probably be discussed first on the Talk pages of the two articles. The BPS article is indeed cool and thought-provoking, but I agree that it seems somewhat peripheral here. Thanks for the careful reviews and thoughtful comments! :) Willow 01:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This could be a bit more accessible to a reader of a general encyclopedia. I didn't notice a link to Kepler's laws of planetary motion, but they are perhaps vaguely familiar to more readers and could help provide some context for LRL. Also, some of the notation (esp in the "Perturbed Potentials" section, the < > operator) doesn't seem to be explained on first use. Gimmetrow 19:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kepler's laws aren't really necessary to introduce here, are they? They're a consequence of the equations of motion for this potential, just as the LRL vector is. But the latter does not follow from the former. I'll try to fix the notation; thanks for catching that! :) Willow 01:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Especially after the more recent improvements this well-written and thorough treatment of such a technical subject is a good example of the best on Wikipedia. --LambiamTalk 14:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I made quite some suggestions on Wikipedia:Scientific peer review/Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector and Talk:Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector, and I don't know how the article could be improved further. It is a topic with a lot of appeal (at least to people studying physics), but in my experience, it is hard to find information about it. Nevertheless, an excellent article has been written. The only drawback is that I'm not sure whether everybody will be able to get something from the article; I think the reader may need to know high school physics. But that's the nature of the subject, and in my opinion, it's okay for a featured article to require high school knowledge. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't oppose featuring this article, because the most important criteria are met and surpassed. On the other hand, some of them could use work. Rearrangments aside, the article is still long and detailed, to the point where it would benefit from summary style. The table of contents is also a bit overwhelming. The issue I'm most conflicted on is whether the article stays close enough to its main topic; I think it probably does, but I'm a little uncomfortable with it. I could ramble on that issue for pages... Melchoir 04:43, 8 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Good language, which has now been copyedited by myself and two other editors (thanks Outriggr and Coil!), which was the reason for the objects from the previous nom. Previous noms: here and here. Also peer reviewed twice, including one since the last FA nom (here and here. NPOV, sourced, and all that good stuff as well. I think after all this, its finally up to FA standards. Support as nominator and primary contributor. Wickethewok 19:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great article. Read it during the previous fac's and the prose has definetely been improved. - Tutmosis 21:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object, but not strongly, as I'm having a hard time getting past the first paragraph.
Support conditionally, lots of comments to post, but it is readable, enjoyably so, and addresses a general audience.
"Sasha (born Alexander Coe on 1969 September 4), is a Welsh DJ and record producer."
Is it a pseudonym, adopted name, performance name?
"Sasha began his career playing acid house in the late 1980s, and became a central figure in the development and popularisation of electronic dance music."
Playing acid house dance music, you mean? Talk to your neighbor's grandmother. What would she know if you said, "He plays acid house?" What about if you said, "He's plays acid house dance music." She knows what dance music is.
"He partnered with fellow DJ John Digweed in 1993, touring internationally and producing a series of mixess.[1]"
Is this some alternative spelling of mixes that I don't know about? It it means something special when spelled this way, it should have a remark explaining it. But I don't think so, and I really think fundamental spelling errors should be gone from an article before FAC.
"Through their track selection and mixing techniques, Sasha and Digweed were instrumental in the evolution of progressive trance and house.[2]
You really need the whole thing in the introduction, you're not talking electronic dance music genres in this sentence, and it's in the introduction, so you can't omit things and say, they were instrumental in the evolution of house. House what?
Sasha has produced multiple UK-charting singles[3] and has remixed tracks for Madonna and The Chemical Brothers. He earned a Grammy nomination for his 2004 remix of Felix Da Housecat's "Watching Cars Go By".
First sentence implies he remixed tracks for these two, but not others, or he's only known for these two, and second sentence contradicts tone and content of first.
"Sasha's remixing and production often combine electronic genres, making it difficult for critics to pinpoint his musical style.[4] His debut album Airdrawndagger surprised many critics with its unusual, cross-genre sound.[5]"
Combine electronic genres of what? Of music? Of computers? Don't like the second sentence.
"Sasha worked with younger DJs and producers such as Brian Transeau and James Zabiela, greatly influencing their musical styles and techniques."
When, from the beginning. You're not keeping your time frame straight in this article (hazzard of multiple editors, admitedly).
"His use of the Ableton Live music sequencer helped popularise technological innovations among DJs who formerly relied on records and turntables.[6] Despite the changing trends in electronic dance music, Sasha continues to attract crowds at dance clubs.[7] As of late 2006, he is on an intercontinental tour and is gathering material for future mix albums."
First sentence too technical, add details so your neighbor's grandmother knows what you mean. I'd like this clothing paragraph of the introduction to really nail his place, today, in his genre.
Issue 1. Sasha is a common nickname for Alexander (derived from Russian I think). How should this be denoted?
Issue 3. This was a recent edit done by an editor trying to change some wikilinks, I have fixed the typo.
All others you mentioned I have attempted to fix. Could you please read the rest of the article? I would like to hear your opinion on it. Wickethewok 23:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have every intention of reading the entire article, whether it is up to FAC or not--I do think, however, that it would be helpful to really have a strong lead sectionthat compels me to keep reading. I'm not certain how to best say this in English, he uses his nickname as his stagename, possibly someone else can help out. I will look again. And, yes, I like to see popular culture articles right up there with articles on countries and leaders and mountain ranges and biology, on the main page. KP Botany 23:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For other FA reviewers, this article does have extensive references, mostly from in-house resources, as I would expect from popular culture. However, these same types of references, fanzines, professional magazines, charts, guide listings, are available for things like WWF/E also. KP Botany 23:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Object for now. The article simply needs to much work to be readable, and is written entirely for its local audience. Moved to Bangor? Bangor, Maine? Bangor, New South Wales? You have to write the article for people who aren't familiar with the subject. The editors have done comparatively extensive research (for a popular personality), and now need to sit down, look at the entire article, and ask, would my neighbor's Midwestern American grandmother know what I was talking about? Would she be confused when and where and how we wound up in Manchester after we'd been born in Wales? IT's the type of topic that Wikipedia can potentially beat all the big guys at, so it's important to do it well. This doesn't, and needs too much work to be considered right now for FA. KP Botany 00:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: before you commented, Bangor, Wales was in the first sentence of the first section. I think the reader can safely assume "moved to Bangor", later in that paragraph, indicates the same Bangor. –Outriggr§ 01:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- please send the emails indicating licensing for the images to permissions AT wikimedia DOT org so that we can verify them and archive them. Thanks. Jkelly 18:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have forward the relevant emails to permissions. Wickethewok 03:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport what's happened to the lead :- He partnered with fellow DJ John Digweed in 1993, touring internationally and producing a series of mixeInsert non-formatted text heres.[1] . --Mcginnly | Natter 01:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lead fixed - seems to walk the walk. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support - (have copy edited the article). - Article is comprehensive, accurate, and well sourced. However, the text still needs a little tweaking to bring it to FA standard. Note: Mcginnly's concerns above were due to a short lived typo. + Ceoil 01:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Text has been sufficently tweaked. The article has greatly improved since its last candidacy, my openion is that it now meets all four of the FA requirements, with a little bit left over for christmas. + Ceoil 01:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you all for your comments, I will attempt to resolve the relevant issues shortly. Wickethewok 03:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Diff for perusal. I dunno if its enough changes (I doubt it is), but I'm not sure what other information to add without going into long sections not entirely related to the subject. Wickethewok 04:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In case anyone didn't see this in the above nomination, the previous FACs are here and here. Wickethewok 20:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious as to what others thought of the expanded explanations I added. Happy holidays, all. Wickethewok 04:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - 1c
I changed several of your article titles to agree with the sources, and added access dates.
(This source doesn't verify any of the text indicated - perhaps it's the wrong link?) Birchmeier, Jason. Sasha + John Digweed biography. All Music Guide. Retrieved on 2006-09-27.
(This source doesn't discuss Sasha and doesn't verify the text given - perhaps it's the wrong link?) DJMag Website. DJMag. Retrieved on 2006-11-06.
(This source should include the date - 7/7/97 - I added it, and corrected the source.) Dresden, Dave. Interview with Sasha. DJ Times. Retrieved on 2006-09-08.
(not there) Sasha biography. BBC (2006-07-06).
Book sources need page numbers - examples only:
Brewster, Bill (2000). Last Night a DJ Saved My Life. Grove Press. ISBN 0-8021-3688-5.
Bidder, Sean (1999). The Rough Guide to House Music. Rough Guides. ISBN 1-85828-432-5.
Snoman, Rick (2004). Dance Music Manual: Toys, Tools, and Techniques. Focus Press. ISBN 0-240-51915-9.
(This looks like Simon Jones, but ref says Ben Turner?) Turner, Ben (2006-02-07). Sasha & John Digweed - Delta Heavy: A DVD Documentary. Progressive-Sounds.
(Title on this looks like it should be DJ Culture) Juarez, Vanessa (2006-02-03). DJ Sasha on Dance Music's Glowstick Culture. Newsweek.
and so on ... I stopped there ... pls check the rest of your refs. The small things can be fixed easily, but I'm concerned about the sources that don't verify the text cited, and books need page nos. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will check on these issues immediately, thank you. Wickethewok 04:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Getting closer - books still need page numbers; this source should include author and publisher(05.12.2002 The Age, Come in, spinner By Andrew Drever, reprinted at djsasha.com); don't understand the Newsweek/MSNBC thingie, but I'll take your word for it and strike; and, as I look at the references continuing from where I left off yesterday, there is inconsistency - some of the sources are still incomplete, not including the exact webpage title or webpublisher. For example, this blue link (Progressive-Sounds Interview with Junkie XL. Retrieved on 2006-12-31. ) doesn't indicate that the article title is Junkie XL "Today", and doesn't show the publisher (progressive-sounds.com) in the same format as the earlier occurrences of refs to the same source. When you're trying to track down an article with an exact search function, knowing the exact title can be key. Also, when an article title has a second line, it can help to include that, so readers have a better shot at finding it in the future, if the link goes dead (example: Don't Speak: A man of few words, dance music hero Sasha talks with his hands). This needs to indicate that it's his website - djsasha.com (Sasha tour dates (navigate to "Tour Dates"). Retrieved on 2006-12-31.) FAs need to highlight Wiki's best work - polish it 'til it shines. Also, on some of those sources that keep changing their URLs, have you checked the internet archive? If you don't know how to use it, just google internet archive, plug in a URL, and see if an archived version comes up - you can link to it as a permanent link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the reason why you didn't see the page numbers was because I didn't realize I had to manually include the "pp.". I'm adding some archive links to for ones that have 'em. Let me know what you think. Thank you so much! Wickethewok 03:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Refs look better now - striking my object, but please include page no. on Snoman. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (edit conflict) - overall I'm impressed, but a few issues with the referencing
Spaces after punctuation can cause floating ref marks. There is one note with a space before it, but it happens to cause a floating ref mark for me. I would like to try to use the screencap as an example at WP:FN, if the article author(s) don't mind.
References should not be search links. The first reference (a search link) doesn't turn up any article for me.
References should go to page with the data directly, not to the main page of the site. Thus reference "UK Chart Rankings", "DJMag Website", the "Winter Music Conference Website" and, alas, "Billboard Chart Rankings" don't really help. To some extent the "Excession LTD Website" falls in the same category, though the reference is used very generally. The "Gighit" link now redirects elsewhere so perhaps that link needs updating.
Completely a personal preference, but I find footnoted section headers look slightly odd.
Nice images, all but one free and a fair use rationale listed on the other, and nice mix of some on left and some on the right of the page.
Comment I would say that that all statments came from sources, but some refs were depreciated through copy editing by multiple editors; this can be fixed with a little house keeping. The citation templates however, need to be standardised. + Ceoil 04:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will fix the links in question. Some of the links seem to have changed since I last checked. Wickethewok 04:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I corrected all of the referencing issues brought up and am currently double-checking all the other references to make sure they haven't changed in the past couple months either. One small note regarding the Newsweek reference: I believe "DJ Sasha on Dance Music's Glowstick Culture" is the correct title as this is the title listed when Newsweek links to it from other articles. Also, note that a couple links to Sasha's website and the Excession Agency website can't be linked directly, as they use Flash interfaces. Another also, DJMag redid their site and haven't bothered to re-add some of the old results, so I removed some info and refs to it. It is also displayed as the title at the top as the webpage title. Thanks! Wickethewok 06:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I went through and checked all the URLs, making sure they provided the correct information, and replacing a few broken ones. I also added a footnote regarding Sasha being a nickname for Alexander. Wickethewok 07:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support, Sandy! Wickethewok 20:12, 2 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
DCGeist has written another featured article. See sound film for some of his other work. Compelling prose, proper citation, varied and appopriate images, what more do you want. Andman8 01:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - great article, well-referenced, a lot of information. I'd like to see this get featured. I'm a big fan of many of the movies discussed in the article. (Ibaranoff24 08:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Just scanned the article for now, but I do have one comment:
"Psychotronic" section could use expansion/clarification. I was under the impression that they were kind of quirky movies made by somewhat savvy directors on a low budget who knew the movie wouldn't be very good, and watched by fans more out the spirit of "camp" or whatever than to see a great film. At any rate the "Psychotronic" section doesn't really clearly explain their relationship to other movies called "B-movies". Are all B-movies psychotronic? Are just some? Why is the term actually important (other than that someone important coined it)? Leaves the reader (this reader, at least) confused. Also the statement that "[Weldon's publications] are among the leading works in the field of B-movie literature." is not referenced, and really should be if it's going to be in a FA. --W.marsh 15:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quite right. Passage edited, expanded, and cited.—DCGeist 00:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note The leave comments section of the {{fac}} banner isn't working and is redlinked - I've tried fixing it but have failed so far. RHB 22:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it (by moving this FAC, it was off because of capitalization) --W.marsh 22:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that when you move an FAC, you need to replace it on the FAC page as well. Otherwise, those wanting to add comments using the edit function on that page will instead be editing the redirect page. I've fixed it for you. Gzkn 06:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks... I wasn't thinking about that. --W.marsh 17:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whole paragraphs lack citations, including the entire Z-movie section. Gzkn 06:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Whole paragraphs lack citations"? Are you referring to a new Wikipedia policy, guideline, or best practice not yet generally known? Here is the guideline I'm familiar with: "Attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." All direct quotes in the article as well as specific, substantive paraphrasings are cited. Is there material in the article that you challenge or that you believe is likely to be challenged that is not currently cited? Z-movie section now amplified, with citation.—DCGeist 00:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be so hostile. I was just stating a general fact that paragraphs were uncited...I didn't even object to the article. Like Jayzel, I'm more concerned about large chunks of text being uncited than paragraphs; it's just that paragraphs are large chunks of text. Here's one example of something that could be cited: "The movies now generally recognized as the first classic film noir, Stranger on the Third Floor (1940), was produced at RKO, which would release many more such films during the decade." Stating something is the "first" anything usually necessitates a citation (also, why is it "movies" instead of movie?). Gzkn 03:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't catch this comment until just now. There was no hostility--I just wanted to be clear whether there had been a revision in the citation requirements I was unaware of. As you suggest, large chunks of text without citation can be a concern, but--as I demonstrated to Jayzel--whether they call for citation or not ultimately has nothing to do with the length but rather with the nature of the content. In the example you give, for instance, (a) the description of Stranger on the Third Floor as the first classic film noir is an opinion widely held in the field, common knowledge to all professionals involved in film noir criticism and American film history in general (as common knowledge as, say, "The Jazz Singer was the first feature-length film with live-recorded dialogue"--does that necessitate a citation?), and (b) it has no strong intellectual status, as both (i) the definition of film noir and (ii) the line between "classic" noir and "pre-classic" or "proto-" noir are largely subjective. In both ways, therefore, the statement does not warrant a citation--not only is it material that is easily verifiable by any interested layman via simple reference to a wide range of published sources, it should not be given the imprimatur of a citation. It's an accurate and relevant observation about a generally held opinion in the field, no more or less. I've changed the wording of the sentence to make that a bit clearer. It was "movies" because...um...I can't type.—DCGeist 09:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up I've expanded the paragraph in question to cover more of the general relationship between the realms of film noir and the B movie. In the citation at the end of the graf, I've made sure to include an article that deals with Stranger on the Third Floor as well as the general issue of latter-day popularity.—DCGeist 12:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's fine. No worries. I'll try to look over the article again when I have some more time. Forgot to mention that when I first skimmed through, it seemed quite well written. Good job. Gzkn 02:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI don't wanna vote Object" yet, but isn't it redundant to have both "lead" and "overview"? Sfahey 20:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In many cases it would be, but B-movie is a term with two quite distinct, yet intimately related usages. The "Overview" section gives a level of description of the distinctions and relationships between the two different usages/time periods that is more detailed than seems appropriate for the lead, but still needs to be clarified in a conceptual way before the historical meat of the article. "Overview" is simply a more efficient substitute for a section title like "The meaning of B-movie, then and now: distinctions/connections." Do you think the information in "Overview" should all be brought into the lead, or, perhaps, can you think of a more helpful but not unwieldy title for the section?—DCGeist 00:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Information from former "Overview" section integrated into lead per comments of Sfahey and Jayzel.—DCGeist 03:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Overall, it looks good, but I am also hesitant supporting an article with whole paragraphs uncited. I know it hasn't officially become Wiki policy yet, but citing everything really is the way to go, IMHO -- though it's possible to talk me out of my strict reasoning. As for the "Overview" section: combine the info there into the lead. The lead is too short as it is. For an article of this size, at least two, and maybe even three paragraphs would be good. --Jayzel 02:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Point taken about the length of the lead. I'm still confused about this notion of judging that citations are needed on the basis of paragraph structure. You say this "hasn't officially beome Wiki policy yet." What leads you to think it will become Wiki policy? Where has the case been made that it would be a superior policy to requiring citations for all direct quotes and material likely to be challenged? (I'd also add data difficult to verify and/or peculiar to one author to those things that should be routinely cited.) Here's one of the few substantive paragraphs from the article that doesn't have a citation. What would you say needs to be cited?
On television, the parallels between the weekly series that became the mainstay of prime-time programming and the Hollywood series films of an earlier day had long been clear. In the 1970s, original feature-length programming increasingly began to echo the B-movie as well. While there had been dramatic feature presentations made especially for TV since the beginning of the medium's mass commercialization in the late 1940s, they had by and large not crossed over with the realm of the B-movie. In the 1950s, the live television drama—a unique amalgam of cinematic and theatrical elements exemplified by Playhouse 90 (1956–1961)—had predominated.no cite needed because you give an example Over the course of the 1960s, there was a transition to filmed features, most of which either aspired to the prestige of major motion pictures or were intended as pilots for projected series.[citation needed] As production of TV movies expanded with the introduction of the ABC Movie of the Week in 1969, soon followed by the dedication of other network slots to original feature presentations, time and financial factors shifted the medium progressively into B-picture territory.Needs an example or[citation needed] The production of TV films inspired by recent scandals or medical scares harkened all the way back to the 1920s and such films as Human Wreckage and When Love Grows Cold, FBO pictures made swiftly in the wake of celebrity misfortunes.no cite needed because you give an example
Comment Information from former "Overview" section integrated into lead per comments of Sfahey and Jayzel.—DCGeist 03:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I'm not so much concerned about "paragraphs" as I am "large chunks of text" of not-commonly-known information. If you say "the sun sets in the West",you don't need to cite that because it is commonly known to the average high school student. However, if you say anything more technical about the sun, you should use cites. I guess the main concern I have is some of the info you give smacks of original research without giving citations. I've added comments or cite tags to things I think should be changed in your paragraph as an example.--Jayzel 04:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Examples now given throughout paragraph under discussion. Nothing at present seems citable in this graf. Not sure what is meant by "smacks of original research without giving citations." Specific info is cited. General info is based on synthesis of wide reading of criticism and history in the field--neither "original research" nor citable, just ordinary encyclopedic formulation, easily verifiable by reference to any mainstream consideration of the topic that covers the appropriate time period. (And this is why, I'm afraid, your analogy fails: "The sun is an average distance of 149.6×106 km (92.95×106 mi) from Earth" is hardly "commonly known" to either the average high-school student or even you and me, but it surely doesn't need a cite. The point is that it is commonly known to virtually all concerned professionals and easily verifiable by any interested layman. In the admirable Wikipedia sun article, in fact, there is a sequence of five uncited paragraphs in the "Atmosphere" section. You might be interested in reading them. If you do, I have two questions: [a] How much of the information there did you know before you read it? [b] Shall we challenge sun's status as a Featured Article on the basis of insufficient citations?) So...would adding a "Further reading" section to B movie help?—DCGeist 09:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've convinced me. I'm just used to working with more controversial topics involving politics where every period and comma gets cited. I Support. And, yeah, a further reading section would be good. --Jayzel 15:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great. Further reading section added. Also finding a few additional spots where references seem helpful.—DCGeist 18:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just read the new intro and it's fine -- though maybe a bit too long now -- never mind :). By the way, I'm not sure you should have drive-in movie, C-movie, Z-movie, and psychotronic movie in bold. Perhaps italics would be better. Bold is only used for alternate titles of the article and I am not sure they qualify. Midnight movie has its own page and drive-in movie redirect to Drive-In theater. Also, if you leave the info about the actors in the lead, you should probably add a section to the article about Actors of B-Films. Yikes, maybe directors too. Forget that last thought. --Jayzel 04:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've weighed this for a while: ultimately, within the context of the B movie article, all of these terms are synonyms of the article title (obviously, of greater or lesser exactitude) and thus boldable per Wikistyle (the Manual of Style standard is actually broader than "alternate title"; it's "synonyms of the article title"). As C movie, Z movie, and psychotronic movie all have sections dedicated to their definition, and thus really call for bolding, I think it's easier for the reader to also have the similarly associated drive-in movie and midnight movie also bolded, even though they have (or sort of have) their own articles. BTW, someone out there might want to write full-dress articles on C, Z, and psychotronic movie--that certainly wouldn't interfere with their existing coverage in the present article, which is intentionally of a nonexpansive nature.—DCGeist 23:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article was nominated--a bit before I thought it was quite ready--by a valued fellow contributor who appreciated the article's slow transformation over the last couple months. A week's intensive work, spurred by this acknowledgment and by the comments of those above, has brought it, I believe, to the necessary level.—DCGeist 23:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Last week the article was good enough for FA but now its an amazingly fine tuned machine. I didn't explicitly state my support earlier so here it is. this is now the definitive b movie page on the internet. Andman8 01:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - One of the best written wikipedia film-related articles I've seen. As comprehensive as possible in the space allowed, this should pretty much satisfy anybody with an interest in this subject. Truly deserving of "Featured Article" status.-Hal Raglan 03:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The entire opening lead is uncited and appears to make several summaries and classifications of B Movies. Who is making these summaries? Who is classifying them as such? There are also several other sections or sentences where summaries are made without sources. It also has small patches of poetic novel-type language like "prurient" (lustful), "handsomely budgeted" (well funded), ""grand sobriquets" (nicknames), "transgressive connotations", which I could do without and feel are more suited to a romance novel than an encyclopedia. I'll ignore the language however, as it is may be a personal thing, if the lead gets sources along with the other sections I could give it a support.Quadzilla99 05:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lead should be a summary of the entire article, and should generally be free of citations. As long as everything stated in the lead that needs a citation is cited in the text of the article, there's no need citing stuff in the lead. Gzkn 05:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I stand corrected many of the leads are as you say, objection withdrawn. Quadzilla99 07:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - tremendous work; sources galore, and a well-written piece of prose as well. Anthonycfc[T • C]01:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object. I'd gladly support this as a History of B-movies - but the article currently contains only a giant section on history plus what looks like an overblown 'see also' section ('Associated terms'). I see no sections about making of B-movies, famous movies, studios and actors, influences on and by, studies... Yes, some of those items are covered in history, but unless they are split and appopriate sections added, I cannot support this under current title.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How curious. Almost all the topics you raise are covered in great detail: the making of B-movies, famous movies, studios, influences on and by. Many actors commonly associated with the B-movie are mentioned both in the lead and throughout the article: by the very nature of B "stardom," there's no way to quantify who the "greatest" B stars are. What more coverage on actors would you like to see? (Important directors and producers also happen to receive extensive coverage.) As for "studies," it's not clear what you mean. Every major historical, industrial, and cultural study in the field is specifically referenced and the historigraphical consensus on different matters integrated into the article. As I'm sure you realize, the topic area is so vast and various that coverage of aesthetic studies of B movies would constitute a large article of their own.
You appear, in sum, to actually be objecting to organization, rather than content. There are only so many ways to rationally organize an article. The article follows one of the most rational systems: chronology, which is the most appropriate to this topic given the transformations of the term, the changing nature of the multiple influences on B moviemaking in different periods, and the way B films and distribution and promotional practices in turn influenced higher levels of Hollywood production. One could have all the information in thematic sections, but then you lose the multi-layered process of transformation and back-and-forth influence. What's happening financially in the industry as a whole at a given time affects what sorts of movies certain studios choose to make at that time; which affects how they distribute and promote them at that time; which affects what other studios and exhibitors do at that time and so forth. To understand the B movie, you need to understand it through history. I see no intelligent way of separating by section the important studios of a given time from the "famous movies" they made at that time from the industrial practices they employed at that time, as you propose. Think about a specific example: the discussion of Kiss Me Deadly that currently resides in the 1950s section. According to what you suggest, the information in that discussion should be split up between say, six different sections, like this:
MAKING: At a cost of around $400,000, Victor Saville and his Parklane Pictures company independently produced Kiss Me Deadly
MOVIES: One of the 1955 movies most celebrated by later critics is the thriller Kiss Me Deadly
STUDIOS: United Artists, then concentrating on the distribution of "programmers," released Kiss Me Deadly
ACTORS: Ralph Meeker, who had appeared in only one major film previously, starred in Kiss Me Deadly
DIRECTORS: Robert Aldrich directed Kiss Me Deadly
INFLUENCES (GENERIC): Film noir and atomic bomb cinema cross generic lines in Kiss Me Deadly
That seems to be what you're calling for. Does that better serve the Wikipedia reader? So...the article is organized in a different way than you might have done it. But it's organized rationally and purposefully. Is your different taste in organization truly relevant to this process?
A few more questions: (1) Your choice of words--"I see no sections" and "what looks like"--suggests to me that you did not actually read the article. As you know, of course, there's a simple principle here: "Please read a nominated article fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination." Did you? (2) If you did, what, if any, crucial information do you believe is missing? (3) Whether you did or not, could you please make a case based on your understanding of B movies for the exact nature and the superiority of your proposed organizational scheme? (4) What do you mean by an "overblown 'see also' section"? The section of associated terms covers, just as it suggests, closely related terms that do not have their own articles, probably don't warrant them, and helpfully rounds out the definition of B movie. What's "overblown" or counterproductive there? Best, Dan—DCGeist 05:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My god, this is a long article! Guess it's pretty thorough, though.
Currently, there are no wikilinks on terms like "indie" (2/3rds down); many of us are probably aware of what an independent film is, and there's really no need for an explanation in this (already very long) article, but a wikilink might be a good idea, because of international readers who may not be familiar with the term. It could possibly be wikilinked on the words 'independent productions' in the section titled "B's in the Golden Age of Hollywood (1): 1930s". Same for "quickies". I didn't make the modifications myself, as I thought it should be discussed here first.
Done for "independent film" (Wikilinked in lead) and "indie" (Wikilinked at first appearance). Done for "quickie"--nothing to Wikilink it to, so introduction of term rephrased in order to provide explanation of term in present text.—DCGeist 05:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence: "Republic aspired to major-league respectability while making lots and lots of cheap Westerns" doesn't seem quite encyclopedic in tone.
Right. Edited.—DCGeist 05:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Helping to popularize the notion of the C movie was the successful series Mystery Science Theater 3000 (1988–99)..." maybe insert the word "TV" in front of series? Otherwise it looks like it could be a series of films.
Yes. Done.—DCGeist 05:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this sentence needs modification: "The movie stars Maila Nurmi in her Vampira persona and Bela Lugosi, who was dead when the film was made—footage he shot for another project is intercut with the performance of a double with the fortunate habit of covering his face with a cape. " It needs another comma, or some attempt at clarity...
No mention of The Blob? Well, I guess with so much information, there really wasn't much room left over. Mystery Science Theater isn't the only series which has riffed on B movies; The Blob was parodied in a low-budget riff called Blobbermouth, and there are several others. Overall, the quality of this article is very good! More comments as I think of them... Firsfron of Ronchester 00:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply All those sound good. Will get to them late tonight or tmw. Let me know if any more. Right, sadly no room for The Blob. The Creature from the Black Lagoon has to suffice for mindless major studio horror on one side; the AIP pictures for teen horror on the other side. Sorry, Blob.—DCGeist 01:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up All comments taken up and addressed. And once again, sorry Blob. Please don't gobbl--........................................—DCGeist 05:43, 9 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Okie dokie, how's it looking now? The concensus is that it's looking good, feedback on this page has been acted upon AFAIK, if there is anything that is preventing this article from reaching FA status, please let me know, otherwise, if there is nothing preventing it, let's add another Featured Article to wikipedia! Timeshift 14:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - much of the article looks good. Here are some initial thoughts:
In what sense is this the Liberal Party's worst election result? The source given suggests that this is for a statewide election - this needs to be stated.
Do the tables of results list all the parties which stood? If there is a cut-off point, this should be noted; if not, it'd be interesting to know why no no-hope parties seem to have stood.
The Legislative Council section needs more references. Some it expresses opinions (e.g. "he proved to be more than just a single issue MLC"), and this in particular needs to have the source clearly shown. Some other sections would also benefit from additional references, but are not so lacking.
The maps are difficult to read as the ALP's colour is so deep. Could it be changed to a lighter colour, making the border lines easier to see? This deep colour is also a problem where it is used as a background for text.
It'd be good to standardise on a colour for independents. White is used on the maps, but grey in the tables. Warofdreamstalk 17:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was the Liberal Party's worst election result, in terms of the percentage of lower house (the house that decides which party will be government) seats they won, as can be seen by the reference linked to (worst result before this was in 1906 but that was before the Liberal Party as well as the Liberal and Country League). However I do see where you're coming from, but i'm not sure how to describe how it was their worst result to a global audience. Any suggestions?
I was actually thinking about expanding this like I had been doing with individual districts such as Adelaide. I will do this when I find some time (next couple of days).
Mmm, I was unsure about this sentence, I never added it myself. I am thinking about rephrasing Xenophon's paragraph totally.
Will see what I can do but I do not really wish to deviate from the colours used for Australia's other elections (see election links on Template:Politics_of_Australia). What are your thoughts after this?
Good point. Will work on it. Cheers for your words of advice. Timeshift 06:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good work on this. I've tried rewording the sentence under point one, and changing the text colour where the Liberal Party colour is used as a background (just the first instance at present, to see whether this is popular). Good work on the maps; while the yellow borders may not be the prettiest solution, they certainly make the divisions clear and so solve the issue there; and also on standardising on a colour for independents. I'd now be prepared to support provided that more references are added to the "Legislative Council" section; although the most contentious sentence has been removed, this is still largely unsourced. While the "Results" section appears less contentious, it would still be very good to see more citations, as per Staxringold's request. Warofdreamstalk 21:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support I'd be willing to vote support but for one reasonably large issue, IMO. I see almost no citations in the "Results" section. First, while they are linked under External links, it'd be nice to see the results cited for the large results table (at least). Beyond that, what are the criteria for "Key" seats? Staxringoldtalkcontribs 22:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. As far as Key seats, I didn't start off the article so I can only say from my perspective, is that the ABC who do TV and radio coverage of election nights chose them, based on their likelyhood of falling to Labor. Stuart and Unley were included as they were also feasible possibilities for Labor, but there is no way that I could ever forsee Heysen falling in to Labor hands any time soon. Timeshift 06:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ref, that looks better now. As for Key Seats, I know it'd be a bit of work, but any chance of changing it to Close seats, and setting some kind of a margin (I dunno what margin would get you a good number of seats, <1%? <3%? Staxringoldtalkcontribs 19:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They can't really be called close. Rory McEwen, an independent, held a margin of 26.6% - by no means marginal/close, but a seat to watch due to being an independent (and now a margin of 6.2%) which is why it's called a "key" seat, because it's a seat that psephologists believe has a feasible chance of changing hands. Timeshift 20:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lead is now so long that the Table of Contents is not visible without scrolling on a reasonable-size browser window. This is clearly a result of attempting to respond to RandomP's comments to the first FAC attempt, but now it seems excessive. It can be shortened a little by making the infobox smaller by shrinking the pictures to about 130px, and the sentence "It is bordered..." could probably be dropped. Beyond that needs a decision about what to move to another background section or lose completely. WP:LEAD says 1-4 paragraphs, and this is currently 5 substantial paragraphs. While the background is useful to someone who found the page from Special:Random, much is available a click away from the first paragraph, and would be background brought with the reader from most links into this article. --Scott DavisTalk 04:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wanna take a go at chopping it? :P Timeshift 06:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You beat me to it - I'm happy now. --Scott DavisTalk 10:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(to clarify, that's support from me now. --Scott DavisTalk 11:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Comment Everything has been acted upon (except for party colours, should it be changed or should it be the same as the other state election pendulums?). Can everybody please re-look at the page and see if anything needs changing or adjusting. One issue I was unable to fix, attaching the reference for the title "post-election pendulum"... if I leave it out of the ' ' ', the words contained within them don't bold, if I include the reference in the ' ' ', the number of the ref appears in the Tabof of contents... suggestions? House of Assembly results for all parties are on page 15 of the reference, Legislative Council results on page 10. All HA included, however for LC, I have left out the parties that got 0.1% at last election and did not run at this election. Suggestions, comments, anything that can help it reach FA status will be most appreciated! You guys have already been great help as it is. Thankyou very much. Timeshift 16:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you can, lighten the colours a tad, it shouldn't be too difficult. And move the reference from the title to after the boxes. michaeltalk 01:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think this has developed into an excellent article. The only minor issue I could find with it was that it linked the South Australian electorate of Mitcham to the Victorian electorate of the same name. I have currently linked it to the Electoral district of Waite but, although the Waite article claims that Waite is merely Mitcham renamed, Mitcham covered a very different area, including a lot of what is now the Electoral district of Unley. I have been meaning to create a separate article for Mitcham but I am currently seperated from my reference sources. As mentioned, this is a minor issue and doesn't detract from my support of the article; I just thought I should mention this somewhere. --Roisterer 01:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The solution would be to show maps of districts throughout time, including in articles on abolished ones. Bragg and Davenport, for example, are in a completely different location from where they were when first created in '67. These qualms don't present a problem to the article's FA status, however. michaeltalk 01:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above suggestions completed. Anything else that people think needs improving? Timeshift 07:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found the results tables very confusing. I would recommend using simpler, more elegant tables based on something like this: Template:Canadian federal election, 2006. —Cuiviénen 21:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifications: "Informal votes" - I assume that means invalid votes or spoiled ballots, but it's not clear. Having vote totals at the top is confusing; sicne the number of people who votes really isn't relevant to the results, it should be at the bottom of the table. The number of candidates who stood for each party should either be in a separate column or not included. "Primary votes" linking to plurality doesn't tell me what is meant by "primary vote". If it's the first step in the single transferable vote, call it first preference. Parties that have stood candidates before but didn't in this election should be omitted; right now, it's unclear whether they stood candidates and won no votes or didn't stand at all. The term "swing" is misused; it should be "change". The Droop Quota is too technical for an article about a single election and should be omitted. That should help you get started. —Cuiviénen 19:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've created what I feel is a much better table for the HoA election in my sandbox. I could create one for the Senate as well. —Cuiviénen 04:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I cannot find a wiki page for invalid/informal/spoilt votes. Total enrolled is at the top, with informal votes, then down the bottom at the end of the votes it has a total tally for the amount of total valid votes. Add the informal votes to the formal votes and you get the votes cast figure. All verifiable through the provided citation and/or www.seo.sa.gov.au. It's relevant in terms of the fact that an election where an outcome was expected and/or people's apathy toward politics is rated in terms of if the informal vote has risen or lowered. I have fixed the number of candidates issue. Fixed primary vote to first preference. Parties that did not run should be included as suggested by previous comments throughout the FAC process, and is required anyway to show that CLIC (Peter Lewis) did not run in this election and subsequently lost a seat - the fact that areas are greyed out except for the minus percentage show that they did not run. Changed swing to change. Why id droop quota too technical for an election article? It's only a small link in the upper house results table and has no drawback to having it there as such... Timeshift 20:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. 1a. My overriding impression is that it's a boring article. Who cares about the 2006 election there? My point is proven by the fact that the lead contains nothing, niente, zilch, zero, about policy. Elections used to be about policy; if policy doesn't even rate in the summary at the top, why bother? That's not actionable, except that the prose has to be "compelling", and it's hard to be in an article that studiously avoids anything that's interesting. Beyond this inherent difficulty, there's a genius for stating the obvious:
"South Australia is a state of Australia in the southern central part of the country." Gee whizz.
"The majority of its people, 1.1 million, reside in the state capital,..."—Do we need to be told that 1.1 million is more than half of 1.5 million? "Live" better than "reside".
"31.9% of seats (15 of 47)"—Do we need both figures? I'd drop the percentage.
"four-year term" with the hyphen.
And this snake: "In the upper house, the Legislative Council, both major parties finished with a total of eight seats each, with Labor winning four, Liberals three, No Pokies independent Nick Xenophon polled an unprecedented 20.5 percent, returning himself as well as electing his running mate, Family First elected a second member, the Democrats vote collapsed leaving one remaining member, and the SA Greens won a seat for the first time." The grammar doesn't work. Did Xenophon himself elect his running mate? "With" occurs twice in successive clauses. Remove "a total of". What a bombsite. Tony 05:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further down, at random: "It has been Australia's main centre-left party since 1904 and its ideology has greatly varied over time." Two quite different ideas jammed into the same sentence with "and".
Tony, your comment is unclear - are you saying the subject is boring, or that the current article is a boring report on the subject?
Your criticisms of stating the obvious are either because you already know the obvious, or haven't thought of the less obvious:
I have encountered foreigners who assumed that Melbourne is in South Australia, as it is the southernmost mainland large city. A complaint at an earlier FAC was that the article did not define "South Australia" beyond a wikilink.
Some readers respond to quantitative and some to qualitative information - both the 1.1 and "majority" are valuable.
Both percentage and number matter - the total number of seats has varied over the time of the comparison.
I'll have a go at fixing the sentences you've identified. --Scott DavisTalk 10:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've chopped around your first suggested sentence, but in the light of Australian Labor Party, there appears to be nothing wrong with the second one. Do you disagree with either part, the juxtaposition of the two parts, or the conjunction between them? --Scott DavisTalk 10:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above suggestions completed. Despite myself feeling somewhat offended by the tone of certain comments, I and others have worked toward and I believe fixed any and all criticisms of the above mentioned issues. Is there anything else that can be worked toward to improve the article to get it to FA status, or is it too boring to some people? And thankyou very much to large majority who have left positive comments regarding how well the page has come along, I do appreciate them. Timeshift 18:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's somewhat better now. However, a few points:
Why does "Sovereign" link to "Queen of Australia". The states are sovereign entities themselves, and for many decades now, Elizabeth Windsor has been Queen of South Australia. It's a serious constitutional matter.
Why are all of the simple years linked? I can cope with 1901, which contains some relevant information at the top (that's unusual), but the others are utterly useless. Take 1865 It starts with:
January - The first free public school west of the Mississippi River was established in Tipton, Iowa.
8 January - Borax is discovered (John Veatch).
24 January - U.S. President Franklin Pierce declares the new Free-State Topeka government in Bleeding Kansas to be in rebellion.
29 January - Queen Victoria institutes the Victoria Cross
Can you remove these useless links? They dilute the important ones and make the page speckled blue. Tony 13:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Links removed. As for the sovereign/qoa stuff, refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Australian_legislative_election%2C_2006&diff=94666313&oldid=94664717 - ScottDavis may want to comment on this so i'll let him as he's probably more familiar with it than I am. As for Cuivienen's contributions, what do you think of the current tables? I don't think they need changing and nobody else has raised the issue, and you seem to be the guy to ask. Is there an issue with the tables? Timeshift 13:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
She is not styled "Queen of South Australia" in the same way as she is "Queen of Australia". The article Governor of South Australia says at the top "The Governor of South Australia is the representative in the Australian state of South Australia of Australia's head of state, Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia." The Governor's web site is not clear of the exact role relationship, except that it is not via either the UK government or the Governor-General of Australia. "The Governor's direct relationship to The Queen, which is independent of that of the Governor-General, reflects the sovereignty of South Australia within the Australian Federation." suggests (but does not explicitly state) it is to the Queen of Australia. South Australia is neither a Commonwealth Realm nor a member of the Commonwealth of Nations (independently of Australia). Commonwealth Realm says "She is also represented by a Governor in each state of Australia, by a Lieutenant-Governor in each province of Canada and by a Queen's Representative in the Cook Islands. In these cases, she is represented in her role as Queen in right of Australia, Canada, and New Zealand respectively." The AUSTRALIA ACTS (REQUEST) ACT 1985 is also unclear to me. --Scott DavisTalk 08:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, it appears that the Governor is the local representative of the Queen of Australia, at least since 1986, if not earlier. I think in this article, what's there is sufficient. I copied the text I used for that edit pretty much straight from Parliament of South Australia. I suggest that if you're not satisfied, add {{cite needed}} to the details in Queen of Australia or any of the articles it links to. The wikilink should be enough in this article, as the issue is incidental to the subject, which is the election. --Scott DavisTalk 11:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that she's Queen of SA. This was clarified in the late 70s, I think. Tony 03:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC) PS, but it's a minor point, so I won't hold to it. Tony 03:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So how do we change your object to support? :-) Timeshift 05:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not sure if you saw the comments I made last week; as I wrote than, "I'd now be prepared to support provided that more references are added to the "Legislative Council" section; although the most contentious sentence has been removed, this is still largely unsourced." Warofdreamstalk 02:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is everything ok now? I have added the reference/citation link for the 2006 results PDF to both the lower and upper house result tables as requested, which should cover whatever you might want a reference for. Anything specific, please let me know. Timeshift 12:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' there is no fair use justification for all those logos, they are not necessary for the reader to understand the article. --Peta 23:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object.Comment. I don't really see the point of the big parties section - it is list-like, takes up a lot of the article, and includes a lot of information that doesn't specifically pertain to this election. This could well be cut down to a couple of concise paragraphs, and the article would be better for it. Rebecca 23:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've been told to include it for the international audience. A lot of criticism seems to contradict earlier criticism made by others. I cannot please everyone. How do you suggest I change it that keeps everyone happy? Or can't I please everyone? Who makes the final decision about whether this should be a Featured Article, and why can't they contribute a bit more to criticisms? I hope I don't offend anyone but i've found the whole FAC process quite confusing with everyone contradicting everyone else and thus not exactly knowing what is required. Timeshift 12:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know it is a large section, but like TS said, it's essential for an international audience. Newcomers to Australian politics need an introduction to our parties and that section does it reasonably well. Cutting it down, I fear, could result in a poor understanding of them. michaeltalk 13:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that we need to explain things, but I think this section is over-the-top, and takes up too much of the article: I think we could have a much smaller and more concise one with a link to some broader article giving more detail for those who want it. Rebecca 01:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do you propose it's done? Have a go at the edit, we can always revert if need be - because I think that the section is already at it's bare minimum and wouldn't remove anything else. Timeshift 02:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not very happy with this section, but I don't want to stand in the way of the article getting featured, so I'm changing this to a comment. Rebecca 00:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. An excellent first FA by TS. It has been through enough improvements to merit FA status. michaeltalk 13:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's difficult for an article almost entirely about statitics to be "compelling" to many readers. Any drama would help - I was sidetracked on the Playmander article for a while.
Anyway, please provide some explanation of "informal votes" since I have no idea what that means. I'm also unclear why the party and district names are bolded; it seems contrary to WP:MOS. I personally think acronyms like IRV, STV, and TAFE should be spelled out, although mere wikilinking is tolerable.
Fixed.
Down in the legacy section:
"It included 1,600 public service job axings despite an election pledge of only 400, however none of the redundancies will be forced." What is a forced redundancy in this context? Does this sentence have a bit of a POV?
Redundancy packages are available for the employees, nobody is sacked in voluntary redundancies, they are not forced upon employees, unlike the Liberal government in the 1990's who slashed the public service.
"Being replaced is the current $90 million contract for 170 buses won by Scania with Custom Coaches from 2001 over five years." Just a suggestion but how about "This contract completes an upgrade that began with the $90 million contract for 170 buses by Scandia in 2001-2006."?
"With the new contract, Adelaide expects to be at 89 percent disability accessible by 2013 and fully accessible by 2022." Something doesn't seem parallel in the contruction. Maybe "expects to be 89% disability accessible"?
Kill the section. It's unimportant; most of the issues don't directly relate to the election. michaeltalk 02:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Killed the paragraph. The rest relates to directly to parliamentary people and issues and think the rest of it can stay imho. Timeshift 15:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to be a party-pooper, but aren't the NewsPoll results copyrighted? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. 'Any reproduction of this material must credit both NEWSPOLL and THE AUSTRALIAN."', which is what i've done :-) Timeshift 15:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So how are things looking now? I've acted upon all suggestions and fixed as appropriate and replied to each comment or criticism. Is it ready to be a featured article yet? :-) Timeshift 04:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One thing I'm a little concerned about in these reviews is that it's been largely bottom-up - while such analysis is totally necessary to get to the best standard Wikipedia can offer, it ignores some big-picture issues and the so-called "birds eye view". Oddly enough, even a quick reading of the text reveals spelling and grammatical errors which are in need of repair, and some textual redundancy, but I'll ignore those for now in the interests of trying to get more of a perspective or focus on where this article needs to go from here.
Well written, comprehensive, factually accurate and stable.
Well written - generally yes, although needs a proof-read.
Comprehensive (does not neglect major facts or details) - Yes.
Factually accurate - Yes.
Neutral - Some questions regarding this, but broadly yes.
Stable - yes.
Complies with MoS and Wikiproject guidelines
Lead section - Contains information irrelevant to election that does not read consistently with lead or intention, also needs proof-read.
Hierarchical headings - Yes.
Table of contents (substantial, not overwhelming) - Yes.
Images with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status - Maps of high quality (good work TS!) Pictures of leaders copyrighted and unlicensed but this should be OK in the circumstances.
Appropriate length - Yes.
Neutrality of some points, lead section and writing style (standard of prose needs to be "compelling, even brilliant") need work, all other points seem OK to go IMO. Orderinchaos78 10:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Where are the spelling/grammar issues.... I and others have looked and fixed as appropriate many times, you must have an excellent eye (a compliment). Timeshift 12:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Noticed a few "it's" that should be "its", and especially in the lead, a fair bit of awkward wording. It's not a criticism - it's what happens when you're very close to something, I'm guilty of it myself in articles I work on extensively :) I would propose rewriting most of the lead, and completely omitting the third paragraph, which has the look and feel of having been dropped in and adds little or nothing contextually. The concept that the lead should be a summary of the article capable of being an article in and of itself should be key. The following is my suggestion - I am putting it forward here with the full knowledge of "if you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... do not submit it" rather than a "my version is the best possible".
In addition to the major party results, all three sitting independents and a sitting Nationals SA member retained their seats. In the Legislative Council (upper house), both major parties each finished with a total of eight seats, with Labor winning four and the Liberals winning three. No Pokies independent (...as per current from here)
Hope this contribution is of some use or help. I'll have a quick look through the rest before bed but by and large the main body was in substantially better shape. Orderinchaos78 13:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for the assistance :-) Btw, voting is not compulsory for citizens over 18 years. Enrollment forms are sent to citizens 17 years of age, all they need do is not send the forms back, which means they are not required to vote in any elections. Also, the South Australia info was added as per previous criticisms over people not knowing what South Australia was, as the article must be for a worldwide audience, and apparently wikilinking to South Australia wasn't enough... Timeshift 13:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! :) As a fellow politico, I'm keen to see the standard rise on political articles for Australia and IMO you've done a tremendous effort on this article - it's not far from FA at all in my opinion. AFAIK it's compulsory to enrol - it may be different in WA to SA though (I'm Perth-based). However, my understanding is that the roll is national, but used by State ECs/EOs - in which case it's been compulsory since 1911 [35][36]Orderinchaos78 14:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45 Is State enrolment compulsory? Initial (first time) enrolment for State elections is not compulsory, however, after having enrolled you must maintain your enrolment details and vote. It is compulsory to enrol for Federal elections once you turn 18.[37]Timeshift 14:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have replaced the lead with yours, with a few slight changes. Timeshift 14:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would disregard the earlier objection and remove the third paragraph from the introduction. It is un-necessary – a description of South Australia would only be relevant if something in its make-up uniquely affected elections; this is not the case. See this article for a good election article lead.--cj | talk 15:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I happen to think the lead is pretty good, but if you can make any suggestions in particular they would be most welcome. Timeshift 15:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've added {{fact}} tags to the remaining statements which appear to need a citation. If citations can be found, or if sections can be altered so that they can be cited, then I will support. Warofdreamstalk 23:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - excellent (and speedy!) work. Warofdreamstalk 11:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support as my previous concerns have all been addressed. Good luck! :) Orderinchaos78 12:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - so, with everyone having withdrawn their objection and/or providing support, anything else to do in getting it to FA status? :-) Timeshift 12:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just sit back and wait. If no new objections arise, Raul is likely to feature it next time he looks through. Warofdreamstalk 15:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object - 1c The referencing is very bad, consisting of a bunch of weblinks without authors or publication dates, which will make it very hard to verify that information if/when those links go dead. You can either use the cite templates, or fill in the information manually, but we need at least to see author and pub date on new sources, and more information on websources. Readers need enough information to be able to find your sources in a library, in hard print, or on the net should your links go dead, which most of them inevitably will. Also, since you haven't identified your sources with correct formatting, for all we know (without checking each and every source individually), the entire article could be referenced to unreliable blogs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this is an issue, why hasn't it been raised by anyone else after all this time and why has everyone else supported the article becoming FA, even by some administrators? Timeshift 08:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a very good question. I ask it often, and I see that more reviewers are starting to check references now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness, it would be very difficult (and would look unwieldy) to adopt such a tight standard for what are mostly government publications and transcripts of programs (TV and radio) by the national broadcaster. There are a few spots where referencing could be improved but I can clearly see the origins of most of the articles. Ones I would argue could be done better are:
No, it wouldn't - why do you suppose most other FAs are able to do it? And, why do you suppose the cite templates exist? (Maybe to help format news, web, and book sources correctly?) I will start a few to show you how to correctly format your references. I don't use the cite templates - I do them manually. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With regard to the objection, I have now looked around and found three featured articles 123 which do not use the cite web/cite news template and in two cases don't even provide links to the information or a year of currency - the referencing in this article is actually of a considerably higher standard than those mentioned. I hope this is taken into account by whoever reviews this article for FA. Orderinchaos78 14:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say you had to use the cite templates, and what other articles did/do is irrelevant - we are looking at this article, and many older articles no longer comply with current standards - for that, we have WP:FAR. I've done the final section for you as an example - it would take you less time to complete your references than it is taking you to object to completing them: as you can see, five of the thirteen references given are not verifiable - that's a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify that the article has little to do with me - I entered as a reviewer only a few days ago (see script above), and once it passed my objections I changed my vote to support, and have since been looking to help wherever I can to get this through the process. In my own work I always use the cite templates, as can be seen from my contributions history. As for references - which five out of which 13? I see 83 in total. If you can point me to them, I'll look and see what I can find/do. Orderinchaos78 15:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh.. I see what you mean now (having looked at it more closely). This is a hazard of citing any News Ltd publication or The West Australian, and why I refuse to do so. I'll have a look for possible replacements for those, and failing that, can get the actual cites off a fulltext service I subscribe to. Thanks for pointing that out. I would note, however, that if you compare the last part to the first part, it looks jumbled and unreadable - the only way to sort it out would be to get rid of the two columns and have an overly long list (this was the problem I encountered when trying to do the first five) Orderinchaos78 15:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a problem with citing web news sources: it's a problem with citing any source without giving full and complete bibliographic information, which will allow a reader to find an alternate source for that information, or to relocate dead links. Also, last access date should always be given on any internet source. The aestetics look just fine on my screen, and WP:V policy overrides aesthetics. I also fixed the top section, to give more examples (authors and publication dates left out, and incorrect titles given on publications, which will make it harder to locate those sources should the links go dead.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding some of the missing sources, Orderinchaos78. I had to change the formatting, for consistency. I had already added many cites manually, and the article doesn't use the cite templates. You added sources with the cite templates, which resulted in inconsistent date formatting. I changed them back, to agree with the others. It doesn't matter which format is used, but results should show a consistent style: if you want to use the cite templates, all of the refs I did will need to be changed as well. I don't recommend that, since the original authors didn't use the cite templates, and it will be much more work to convert them all. All that needs to be done is to add on the missing information to what is already there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a weird one for sure. Not sure what's going on as I've been trying to submit the revised links for 15 minutes with no success. It's now 1am over here and I'm supposed to be somewhere at 10am, so I might leave it to others at this point Orderinchaos78 15:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's morning here, so if the other authors want my help in completing the refs, I can pitch in, but first a consistent style should be decided on, and someone has to locate missing sources. I started a talk page section on that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I managed finally to get the Legacy ones updated, so they're fine now (I manually altered them back to the format you had - still feels weird typing in the dates the wrong way round in an article about Australia, but oh well :)). The other sections, not sure. Anything from the Advertiser or Australian will need to be checked on a full text site as they delete their articles after about 3 months. Factiva has both on its file, and has page numbers for offline paper editions which is great. Anyway, bed for me. Orderinchaos78 16:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was afraid that might be an issue: that's why I only did one section. If the other authors want me to switch those I already did, I can do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hope nobody minds - I have gone ahead and changed these two. Orderinchaos78 14:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously. It's just references. I've referenced, and IMHO the page going for FA status has much better references than some other FA articles i've seen. Again, seriously, any controversial statements have been referenced and can clearly be read by the weblinks. Why must we split hairs? Timeshift 17:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to point out the fact how long i've spent on this project and the amount of hours i've put in to it, and to get various member's approval, yet at the last hurdle to find this glaring in my face. But I do see that many efforts have been made since i've last been online, and I do thank you for it. It would be nice if this stumbling block could just disappear (does that sound a bit selfish? :P) but if there's still stuff to be done, let me know so I can see how difficult it is and whether I have the time in the next few days to accomplish the tasks, whatever they may be. I know it might sound like a whinge, it's just that i've put so much time in to this and to find the references are bung, is a bit disappointing... (i'm also a lil bit drunk in another state of australia, sorry if this sounds like a big whinge :P) Timeshift 17:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's cool. I didn't even realise a few of the ext links were broken - that's a lesson for *me* for next time when reviewing. With all but two or three exceptions, they were News Ltd ones. There was a couple also which linked to a password-only site. About 2/3 of them seem to be fixed after our work tonight, the other 1/3 are easier as they really just involve converting the remaining ones to look like the ones we've done - which means clicking (and hence checking) the link, grabbing date, author if necessary, and noting today's date under "retrieved". Once they're all done, I think that clears that one up. (And yes, I know what it must be like - just when you think it's all done, something else comes up - but I can see in retrospect this was a more valid issue than I originally thought - apologies to Sandy!) Orderinchaos78 18:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - no apologies needed :-) As you can see, many important sources just weren't there. The notion that "it's just references" is something I'm trying to get more reveiwers to be aware of, so this doesn't happen at the last minute to others - but not to worry, it's still doable. As far I'm concerned, "brilliant, compelling prose" is not a pillar of Wikipedia, while WP:V is, and FAs must satisfy WP:V before we even bother to examine the prose. I fail to grasp why so few reviewers let articles get this far into FAC without verifying the sources. It's a pet peeve; I originally came to work in FAC/FAR by becoming aware of two glaringly inaccurate, poorly-referenced, biased and POV FAs, which passed because of brilliant prose combined with reviewer ignorance of the issues. With several more hours of work, we should be able to wrap this one up, but I can't substitute the internet archive sources, since I don't know if the archived versions are still accurate - I can help, but you all will have to do that. I can help you fix your refs, but I cant' really find/decide on the best references to use. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've completed all the refs, except the dead links for the government sites - if you all can decide how to handle those (internet archive?), I can remove my Object. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only one problem source left (source found, but doesn't verify the text cited to it), so I'm striking my Object, assuming that remaining issue will be dealt with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dealt with (see article talk page) - replaced an unsourced claim that the leader "just sat back" with a reasonably factual claim that Labor's advertisement reminded voters of three actions, each of which is sourced. Orderinchaos78 03:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Five outright supports and no objections remaining :-) Timeshift 12:59, 6 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Self-nomination. I am restarting an old nomination that was stopped because of a sudden copyvio revelation that I had not been aware of before. It has since been corrected and is now ready for FAC. The article has had a peer review and has been named a good article. It has also received a number of copyedits from users, such as User:Judgesurreal777 and User:Hunterd. I now believe that the article fulfills the FA criteria. The Filmaker 17:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my own nom. The Filmaker 17:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is better than the copyvio version, which I supported not knowing it was a copyvio. Jay32183 18:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your news sources aren't correctly cited (because you used cite web instead of cite news - we need author, title, publication date, etc.). Wikilinking is sporadic and needs to be thoroughly reviewed - for example, why is vicodin wikilinked, while cocaine is not? Sandy (Talk) 23:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've implemented all of your suggestions. :) The Filmaker 20:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about putting a short summary of the reception of the episode in the lead? Gzkn 11:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I like the article and think it's well written and sourced, but I don't know if it's what I'd call Featured Content.Ganfon 23:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object—Sorry, the writing is so bad in places that it doesn't show on the radar screen. And it's boring, in my view. Here's an example:
"House agrees to take the case still believing it to be a brain tumor, but open to other ideas. Soon thereafter, House is approached at the elevator by Dr. Lisa Cuddy —the administrator of the hospital—who attempts to persuade House to fulfill his duties at the hospital's walk-in clinic, a task he loathes because of the incomplexity of the cases brought to him;"
Um, the grammar doesn't work in the first sentence.
"Soon thereafter"? Which century is this? "at the elevator"—"At" is vague.
What is "incomplexity"?
That would be "uncomplicated nature", which is what the article now calls it.--Rmky87 18:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has to fail 1a throughout; the lead fails 2a. Tony 14:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Object per Tony, some other examples (please go through the article more thoroughly):
Later, when House's team attempt to perform an MRI on Adler, they discover that his authorization has been revoked. I though Adler was a woman… or perhaps we should be more clear that House is the subject? Plus, attempt -> attempts (American english should be used).
allowing him authorization Shouldn't it be "giving"?
can not
Laurie later stated that his original impression was that the show was about Dr. James Wilson, as the script referred to him as a doctor with "boyish" looks, assumed this to be the star and that Dr. House was the "sidekick".
once again praising Laurie as well as the other actors calling them, "calling them" unneeded.
for the same aforementioned week redundant word
Outside of the grammar, it is also a bit on the short side. AZt 00:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Better now; some other minor nitpicks I noticed while reading thru the article:
However, wishing to die with dignity, Adler refuses to accept more treatments unless there is evidence that the related diagnoses are correct, but House attempts to persuade her otherwise. Persuade her from what? From accepting more treatments, or that the diagnosis is correct?
in the pilot Shouldn't this be capitalized? The "the" is not necessary either.
which attracted 5.45 million viewers; the 78th most-watched show for the same week The second clause can't stand independently, so it should be a comma, not a semicolon
Ref#10 is missing some information.
New ref added covering missing information. The Filmaker 20:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, should've been more clear. What I meant was the title, date of access, date of last update, publisher, etc. (see {{Cite web}}). AZt 00:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About the comprehensiveness of the article, was there no negative criticism of the episode? The entire reception section places the episode in a positive light. AZt 20:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object. The plot summary has no references. Some of the other sources are about the show in general, not this particular episode. There do not appear to be enough sources on the topic, this particular episode, to make a complete encyclopedia article. —Centrx→talk • 02:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The plot summary has no references.
Plot summaries of entertainment articles do not require references.
Some of the other sources are about the show in general, not this particular episode.
As long as they cite the particular information it is referencing, then it does not matter what the source is "about".
There do not appear to be enough sources on the topic, this particular episode, to make a complete encyclopedia article.
Everything in the article is cited. To object over the number of references, is to object over the length of the article. The length I can do nothing about, therefore this part of your objection is inactionable. The Filmaker 04:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Notability regarding some of these issues. First, the triviality of the references is related to their reliability; an article about another topic that has trivial mentions of this topic was not authored by someone who researched or had a working knowledge of this topic, nor was it edited or fact-checked by someone who checked whether the trivial parts of it were correct. Second, a complete article on this subject would need some information about the initial formation of the show/casting, and about the themes of the show etc. and its relation to the history of the show and to the history of television shows of this kind. This article does not have this. It is not a complete article, and the reason you "can do nothing about" the length of the article is because there are not sufficient sources on the topic (that is, it is not notable independent of the main television series), which are necessary to make a comprehensive encyclopedia article, which a featured article must be. —Centrx→talk • 06:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The USA Today and ABC Media are not reliable sources? — Deckiller 17:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object. This aricle is not or will never be a featured article because it's about ONE episode. If you nominate the House series as a whole, I would be very surprised if you didn't get it. Mr. Crabby 04:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inactionable, and untrue objection that should be disregarded. The Filmaker 04:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ObjectComment: The entire "Synopsis" section has no references. This is half the article; it needs referencing. Above, it is claimed that "Plot summaries of entertainment articles do not require references", but how is the reader to know the plot summary is accurate? I note that housemd-guide.com is used for one footnote already. If this is indeed a WP:RS, this section could at least reference this synopsis. A few sentences in need of attention:
"the tapeworm inside of her reproduced, resulting in larvae to travel into Adler's blood stream, infesting her brain."
"anymore" -> "any more" ?
the sentence with "aforementioned" (previously mentioned by Az) has a lot of clauses. Could it possibly be made into two or three sentences?
The reference for the plot synopsis is the episode itself. Jay32183 22:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Raul654 (the Featured Article Director) made this statement in an FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/V for Vendetta (film)): "No, the purpose of adding a reference is to allow someone to know the source of a particular bit of information. It should be implicitely obvious that when you are describing the plot of a work, the source of the information is the work itself. Thus, no reference is necessary." The Filmaker 23:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, "no reference is necessary" but that also doesn't mean they are forbidden. What about the other points? Gimmetrow 00:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your other concerns have been addressed. :) The Filmaker 17:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I think this article currently falls short of the "comprehensive" requirement. It's great that casting has a story behind it - this sort of drama makes it easier to write interesting prose. I would like to know the writer's inspiration for this pilot - that could be another great story. Some details on production would be nice: where was it shot? how much did it cost? Did the network consider this a strong pilot and pick up the series prior to airing, after airing, or only for a few episodes at first? How does 7million viewers/62nd compare to other pilot episodes? Minor technical issue - the references still do not have author and publication dates listed (Sandy mentioned this before). Gimmetrow 04:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of your suggestions are on information that is not available and I would have no way of finding out, short of interviewing the writers and producers myself. The only suggestion you made that I could possibly incorporate would be the comparsion of the ratings to other pilots, however we're straying into other territory. The article already refers to the show's ratings as a success. To go into further detail would cause the article to be redundant and contain information that more belongs in article about Pilot episodes than an article about one specific Pilot. The Filmaker 06:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will fix the problem with the references that Sandy brought up. The Filmaker 06:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the references that Sandy brought up. The Filmaker 20:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what else to say then, other than it doesn't feel "complete". For instance: doesn't this episode have some name other than "pilot", or maybe an alternate version? Perhaps not, or perhaps it's not citable to a reliable source, but it leaves the impression that aspects of the pilot are missing from the article. Gimmetrow 06:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to say either, because your now comment is inactionable. I can only suspect that the article feels incomplete because it's lacks information that other entertainment articles have. However the reason it lacks that information is because it is not available. I would support the article, because while it seems incomplete, it is not. It is comprehensive. The Filmaker 15:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Surely this should be called Pilot (House episode) to remove ambiguity? I was expecting to find out about something to do with pilots in houses. Halo 23:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then that style is broken. -Halo 03:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the name is correct. The parenthetical disambiguator is used to differentiate an article title from other things of the same name on Wikipedia. There is nothing else associated with "House" that could be called "Pilot". Wikipedia does not use hypothetical disambiguation. Jay32183 03:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It's ambiguous - I was thinking in terms of something like Pilot lights, which /are/ located in houses. Usually, it wouldn't be a problem, but "House" is a bit of an unusual show name creating ambiguity. -05:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
"Pilot (House)" is not a plausible search term for "pilot lights". You could be thinking of a house named Pilot, but that would be "Pilot (house)" with the lowercase "h". Jay32183 05:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Object - Aside from the name (which is just something I thought was weird), I don't think the article is long or comprehensive enough to be featured. I found there were questions I was asking which the article doesn't even touch for me to call it comprehensive (How good is the episode medically? How does the ratings for this show compare to other show's pilot episodes? When was it show internationally? Any differences or inconsistancies from future episodes like other pilots? What was Robin Tunney previously in? How was it advertised and promoted before it was shown? What did it establish about House's vicodin addiction - barely mentioned in the article yet vital to the show?). -Halo 07:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have not made a rebuttal to the last explanation by Jay32183 until then, I can't see why I should change the title.
I've explained why comparison between Pilots is venturing into other waters above.
Any differences or inconsistancies from future episodes like other pilots? nothing that can be cited.
What was Robin Tunney previously in? not relevant to this article.
How was it advertised and promoted before it was shown? again, this a broad idea. Marketing campaigns are not traditionally discussed in the media. I have no way finding anything out, and no way of citing.
What did it establish about House's vicodin addiction - barely mentioned in the article yet vital to the show? more relevant to the article on the full series. The vicodin addiction is explained to the extent it is explained in the episode.
Most of your suggestions, I have no way of finding out and then no way of citing. Your objection, at this point, is inactionable. The Filmaker 15:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your comments. I think this definitely is not a featured quality article, as it's just not comprehensive or detailed enough - I'd expect a featured article of this sort to compare to something like a better The Simpsons Archive capsule in detail and overall quality. I also pointed out that the name wasn't something I was objecting to, it's just something I found unusual. I know for a fact that at least one of my comments is very "actionable" - for something like the accuracy you could cite [38]. It also doesn't even /mention/ the unaired pilot[39] which I feel is a massive oversight. I think, generally, this is a substandard article that certainly does not represent the best work on Wikipedia. It's just a generic, marginally above average, episode article, of which there are literally thousands on Wikipedia. -Halo 06:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More comments. For the music Emmy, it would be better to cite emmys.org rather than imdb. Regarding "comprehensive", I think there is more information out there. No review or critic questioned the ethics of breaking into a patient's house? And what is this about an "unaired pilot" with extra footage? Gimmetrow 22:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC) This page mentions some points that could be used for expansion, eg. a title for the episode, and the music variations. Gimmetrow 20:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The old copyvio version was full of things like that, as you can sort of see here. It had sections on plot arc development, a medical notes section that included an explanation of the medical terms used and that explained the references to the Tuskeegee Syphilis Study and Josef Mengele, functioning much like the "Allusions" section of the tv.com page.--Rmky87 20:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...which were removed for being unencyclopedic.--Rmky87 20:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't follow you here. I've mentioned alternate versions of the pilot (different scenes and variations in music), a name for the pilot, and using appropriate references. Are you dismissing these as "things like that"? I never mentioned anything about medical terms or "allusions". Gimmetrow 00:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but your request for a something-or-other on "music variations" sounded far too similar for my tastes. And the FOX Broadcasting Company is not aware of any official title besides "Pilot" for this episode. I am sure that I've seen reviewers who would question the ethics of breaking and entering a patient's home. Unfortunately, the people at Television Without Pity aren't professionals. Hopefully, some professional critic has bothered with this. Using the official website for the Emmys is an excellent idea, though.--Rmky87 19:10, 5 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
For the record for anyone who reads this later. There are no suitable citations for the supposed "un-aired pilot". The link given above is to a site similar to Wikipedia. A site where any user can edit the article. This is not a suitable citation. The Filmaker 23:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FAC discussion is closed, but if you wish to discuss it further: the article here still cites imdb. If imdb is a citable source, then this refers to the unaired pilot. Gimmetrow 03:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That element of IMDB is not overseen by administrators, it is also an equivalent to Wikipedia. The Filmaker 03:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only parts of imdb I am aware of that are not fan submitted are WGA credits. Gimmetrow 04:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what I said. I said it was not overseen by the administrators. They are submitted by the fans, but the information is not checked before it is posted by any admin. At the top of the FAQ page, you can see the following "The content of this page was created directly by users and has not been screened or verified by IMDb staff."The Filmaker 15:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments on article talk page. This discussion is closed.Gimmetrow 04:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article since it has gone through extensive work in the course of the last month. Nearly every section has been rewritten and a huge references and bibliography section added. The article has been restructured per other FA country articles. It has just made GA a week ago [40] with extremely high marks. Since then, more sources have been added, certain sections have been made more comprehensive all at the same time keeping it concise.
In my humble opinion, this article currently stands as one of the best country articles in Wikipedia on a par with Canada, for example, and will be a great addition to the Wikipedia's FA repertoire. A google search for "Turkey" lists the Wikipedia article at second first place for the moment, and I think that it will do Wikipedia proud :)
The article has been extremely stable since the rewrite has started, and the only thing that happens now and then is the good ol' vandalism and sandbox :) The main purpose of the article is to give a very general overview of the country without going into too many specifics, therefore that has also contributed to its stability. As a general trend, edit-wars always happen when articles are poorly written.
The references cited are generally direct sources, meaning that I have tried to find the exact reports and press releases about the subject matter (e.g. economy section figures are nearly all sourced by statistical press releases that pertain to only that subject and not just simple "factbooks"). Citations are used everywhere where need be, even for common knowledge data. They are all cited per WP:CITE as well.
I suppose that there might be a typo or two here and there, but the article has been proofread by many editors so there shouldn't be too many. So, how does it look? :)) Baristarim 06:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent job! And wow, no edit-wars! Oh, and for me, this article appears first in Google ;) Gzkn 06:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This article has really come a long way since it was previously nominated. I don't really see any errors or POV problems like it once had, and the article—besides being well-written—also has tons of foonotes. Gzkn is also correct that there are no more edit wars. Congrats on improving this article greatly. Khoikhoi 09:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good, filtered job.MustTC 09:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComment I haven't had a chance to read, but noticed some structural things that should be fixed. I changed a section heading (capitalization) to agree with WP:MSH. The news sources are not cited correctly, because cite web is used for news sources - the correct template is cite news. When there is an author listed, they should be given on news sources (a random check turned up several incomplete in this article). Pls re-do news sources to use cite news and to include all relevant bibliographic information, including author. Also, section templates aren't used correctly - they belong below the section heading, not at the end of the section (see WP:GTL and *{{See also}}). Sandy (Talk) 09:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I will replace them with cite news. Which section templates? Do you mean the see alsos? Baristarim 10:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see further comments below in the SkyTrain FAC - I was just looking up further info on the correct use of the templates, and the See also template is used when there is further info in another article that is not linked in the text, and it should be placed below the section heading (the kind of basic info not easy to find anywhere in Wikipedia :-) I will try to read your article later. Sandy (Talk) 10:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done. I corrected the see also situation, and changed the neccessary citations to cite news. See alsos generally crowd the place, and most of them were already linked in the sections. So I moved the neccessary ones to the Main and took out the others.Baristarim 10:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response: I'm still quite busy with holidays, but will try to read a lot of these FACs this weekend. Sandy (Talk) 14:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite there yet - for example, this is missing author - pls doublecheck all refs: "Headscarf row goes to Turkey's roots". British Broadcasting Corporation. 2003-10-29. Retrieved 2006-12-13.
Ok.. I will check them.. Thanks for the commentaries by the way, they are appreciated! Baristarim 23:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I double-checked all the references one more time, and made the neccessary fixes for correct citations. Feel free to let me know if I missed something. Cheers! Baristarim 01:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice work - I indicated support above. Sandy (Talk) 02:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support.This is good idea.--Absar 10:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well-cited and well-written. --Mardavich 11:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support. Wow! Great job! It definitely deserves FA status, but I think that the article still needs a few minor (mostly stylistic - like the categories at the end of the article which were not alphabetized) tweaks:
In notes printed sources should have specific pages. See, for instance, note 2,3 and 19, where there are no pages.
Are all the sources in "References and bibliography" used in "Notes". If not, you should make clear which are actually "References" and which "Further bibliography (or reading)".
Don't overwikify the text. I think I saw Greece linked more than once.
Negotiations with the EU have stalled not because Turkey does not officially recognize Republic of Cyprus, but because it has not yet implemented the provisions of the Customs Union with EU for Cyprus by not opening its harbors for (Greek-)Cypriot ships. The diplomatic recognition of Cyprus is not yet a problem.
You say that the Greeks, Armenians and Jews are the official minorities. What is then the legal status of the other minorities (Kurds etc.)? I think you should elaborate a bit more on that.--Yannismarou 13:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
References and further reading section splitted.
I modified the sentence about the EU-Cyprus-Turkey to correctly reflect the nature of the dispute.
I tried to cut down on unneccessary wikifications. Some words are still cited two or three times in the article, but they are in completely different sections. I kept them simply not to force the reader to try to find the wikified term on the top of the article or vice versa. However, I don't think that there are any redundant wikifications left.
For the references that you mentioned, I will shift through the history of the article to dig the page numbers that were lost when I was formatting the references per WP:CITE.
I added a phrase to clarify further the status of non-official minorities in Turkey. Cheers! Baristarim 01:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK! Full support - After all the notes still needing pages are very few.--Yannismarou 06:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support. Nothing on the human right abuses by the government on the minorities from what I can see, and also nothing on the controversies regarding joining the European Union bcause of that and the denial of the Armenian genocide, and relations with the Cypriots.--Rayis 14:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These issues were talked about extensively in the talk pages (we have 9 archives! :)). The article is simply trying to give an overview of the country, and with general, but informative, sections. A lot of stuff, controversial or not controversial, have been moved to subarticles, and are given as main articles under the section headings. I know that this article has the potential to confront some controversial issues, but the important thing was to simply strike the best NPOV possible and keep it general as the GA reviewer pointed out last week. Obviously there are always improvements that can be made, but for such changes it might be better to form a concensus in the talk pages. FA won't mean that the article will be static or locked down :) Cheers! Baristarim 19:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Çok güzel! One of my adopted homes, so I may be a bit biased. :) --Jayzel 16:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC
Support A very well written article and well supported too. Also it is easy to read and yet very informative. TSO1D 20:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent article, nuetrually written, exactly what a featured article is Abdullah Geelah 23:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suppport. Excellent article. Love the administrative division map. Great citations. Surprised that there haven't been violent debates, vandalism or edit wars. Overall well done. —ExplorerCDT 00:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well-written and evenly balanced. metaspheres 00:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Support Terrific article, well referenced, and basically stable in terms of edit wars. Hello32020 13:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I passed this article into GA status and made recomendations to bring it up to FA status. All changes have been made. This is a GREAT article, and deserves promotion as such. --Jayron32 17:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Featured article. Well-written and sourced. E104421 19:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well written alot of effort put into also. Nareklm 09:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Full Support per Baristarim Caglarkoca 22:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. (The addition is an improvement, but it is worded a little awkwardly, and it doesn't state what the position of most scholars is.) Much of it is very good, some of it extremely well done in fact, but the lack of attention given to conflicts is disconcerting. The article makes it sound as if there is no ethnic tension in Turkey and glosses over past problems. While the country being strongly secular is mentioned at least three times, only about a sentence is given to the Kurdish issue, and that's in the context of foreign relations. What about religious and ethnic conflict? Is there truly none in a country bridging east and west? I don't want to create problems, I know it's extremely difficult to discuss conflicts properly, but ignoring their existence isn't the answer either. The more I look at it the more convinced I am it is a very serious problem with the article. The answer of course isn't the other way, giving 1/2 the space of the article to covering conflicts, and I'm not asking for anything even approaching that. The facts do need to be mentioned though. Finally the foreign relations section almost entirely focuses on the relations with the west. What about relations with the Arab world or Africa? - TaxmanTalk 15:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong? :) Sorry that you feel that way. I think that you are glossing over one of the key elements of Wikipedia: concensus. I didn't create the article, most of the ideological guidelines were hammered out in the talk pages. We have ten archives, and most of the contributors to the talk pages have been non-Turks, and we have had many heated discussions. Please keep that in mind and ask yourself if you are not looking at this from your own point of view of the country. I know what you are trying to say, but Turkey is not a conflict ridden country either :) Trust me, the concensus was reached by people who know the country from back to front, with many Greek, Turkish, Kurdish and European editors arguing for weeks on end sometimes. The facts are mentioned; the conflict, the casualties, the situation in northern Iraq, the Kurdish minority, its status, the situation of the language etc. As for the foreign relations.. Turkey doesn't have much relations with Africa, and hasn't had too much relations with Asia, and in the Middle East its main relations are with Israel. The balance of that section is carefully chosen to reflect the actual balance of the country's foreign relations. All the references are there, and the article has been proofread many times. In any case, improvements are always possible, and the actual phrases in certain sections can easily be modified as long as a concensus is reached in the talk pages. I do not share the view that the conflicts are being glossed over: the article has been extremely stable every since the rewrite has started one month ago, and if any major controversials had not been addressed, there would be edit wars all over the article. In fact, since one month, there haven't been even minor revert wars, let alone full-blown edit-wars. I just think that any modifications or reformulations of sentences should be raised in the talk page, if you have any suggestions, feel free to raise them in the talk page. I already tried to address Yannismarou's concerns on two points (and he is not Turkish btw :)). The article as it is reflects a great concensus, along with many efforts at comprehensiveness and conciseness. Every single info in the article is cited, nearly all of them by sources accessible on the Internet, even for books. Baristarim 15:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it has been discussed does not mean the right decision was reached. Lack of edit wars also does not mean the article is balanced. In fact, I shudder to think of that being used as a criterion. I have nearly no connection to the subject, and I feel comfortable saying I can be about as unbiased about it as it is possible to be. That said, it is easy to see the article glosses over conflicts. I'm not saying it is conflict ridden either. I'm saying the article shouldn't act like it is conflict ridden if it isn't, but it also shouldn't act as if there are and have been almost no conflicts as it currently does. The article mentions there are Kurds, but not that there is any tension. It mentions 99% of the population is Muslim, but not if there is any religious tension, whether between fundamentalists or other religions or not. The failure to mention anything relating to the Armenian Genocide is further evidence of a problem. I reallize it's in the past (not even the current Republic of Turkey), a touchy subject, etc. But acting as if that type of tension doesn't exist is extremely POV. I reallize ignoring that type of thing may help to avoid edit wars, but that's not the right solution. As to foreign relations, if the reliable references support the balance of the foreign relations section being the way it is, then I fully defer to you on that. I guess I'm surprised given the location, but facts are facts. - TaxmanTalk 16:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, nothing was removed to soothe the article, if that's what you are trying to say. You are mistaken, the article clealry mentions that 37000 people died in the Kurdish insurgency, how is that a glossing over? As I said, I am afraid that you are looking at the country without knowing the specific dynamics of it. I didn't say you were biased at all, in fact, I was trying to say the exact same thing as you said; that looking from a standpoint where we have no connection to the subject matter, we can be easily influenced by only the superficial and sensational information we have heard. Your example with the foreign relations is a great example: the current layout was well thought of, ironed out, and is fully supported by solid references. Cyprus and Greece get a paragraph because they are key to the biggest thing in TR foreign relations: EU. If Turkey was trying to enter the Arab Union, the foreign relations section would be about the Arab world, not about the EU. This article wasn't written in a day :) You have said that the article doesn't mention any conflict with the Kurds, but it does mention that 37000 people died. Believe me, the article is very well referenced, though of, comprehensive and concise, and it doesn't gloss over any conlicts. There is a whole paragraph about the Greek-Turkish dispute, how is that a glossing over? The demographics section clearly mentions the underlying conflict and causes of the illiteracy figures, with very solid sources. But any suggestions are welcome, it would be more useful to raise them in the article's talk page. I am sure that your objection was duly noted, and if you have any general suggestions pls share them in the talk page: we shouldn't be using this page too much for content disputes, at least not about the extent of the tensions about the subject matter. This article has potential to cover contentious issues, so it would surprise me if somebody didn't object. Every country article has the potential for strong POV disputes, nevertheless this article does a great job of summarizing them and keeping them concise in a way that will not cloud the rest of the subject matter. In fact, this article is very informative and concise to anyone that wants to learn about the country. However, please also remember that there are many daughter articles listed as main that talk about every single topic in more detail.Baristarim 16:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one said it would be easy. Sometimes only an outsider can see the imbalance. Now that I've pointed it out I think it will be fairly obvious to others that review the article, and I'll just let my comments stand on their own. I never said it was awful or that the whole article was bad. There are many very good aspects, but also one very important problem. It wouldn't take re-writing the entire article to fix it, and it seems you're taking this a little too personally. - TaxmanTalk 17:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, no problems. However, same exact comments were made before by User:Reyus. What I don't get is, even though he made harsher comments than you have, he still said "conditional support" and not "strong" object. The article has very strong 100 inline citations + 10 books, some from presses like Cambridge University Press + solid pictures + types of maps that are not found in any other country article + small guides like the CIA factbook are not even cited once + there is not even one typo, the structure of the article is more than adequate. I don't think you are being fair with a "strong object", that's all. That article is frequented regularly by users of many nationalities, and I am sure that any further improvements that can be made will be raised in the talk pages. I am not the sole creator of the article, I assumed the rewrite on behalf of WikiProject Turkey and keeping in line with general talk pages concensus that was established over a long period of time, so I find it a bit awkward. The thing is, I responded to your comments: first you said why Africa wasn't mentioned in foreign relations, then I pointed out to you why it was so. There is no imbalance: that is the correct academic balance, sources are there. Then you mentioned the disputes. As I said earlier, disputes/tensions are adequately, comprehensively and concisely covered as it can be seen on a closer look of the article. The talk pages are and will still be there, FA doesn't mean a "lock-down" of the article, the article will continue to improve no matter what. That's all I am saying. If you have any suggestions about reformulations of sentences, let's please discuss it in the talk pages. Baristarim 17:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I moved my object to strong to denote the importance of the problem, it has nothing to do with the rest of the article, which for the most part is impressively high quality. This last issue needs to be brought to the same level. I let the foreign relations part of my objection go because I take you on your word that enough sources have been consulted to support that balance. However I believe it is clear that various conflicts have not been given their due in the article that the proper balance of the facts would dictate. For example, I would take it as fairly self evident that if something that some large countries have stated is among the largest genocides ever is not even mentioned, then too little attention is given to conflicts. Again they don't need to dominate the article, but they need to be mentioned more than the current amount, which is nearly ignoring them. - TaxmanTalk 18:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Taxman, you're saying "What about religious and ethnic conflict? Is there truly none in a country bridging east and west?". It would be perfectly reasonable if you've stated that "the article fails to mention this (specific conflict) and that (specific conflict), which are of major importance in this subject". Could you please be clear about what conflicts you are talking about, so that the article can be improved (like Fedayee did below)? Atilim Gunes Baydin 19:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per Atilim. I would like Taxman to say specifically "this", "this" and "this" is missing in a "bullet style", so that Baris and the other editors can address his concerns, and so that the reviewers can more easily check what is done, what is not and what cannot be done.--Yannismarou 19:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per Atilim and Yannismarou I would also like to see some bullets about the missing conflicts. I read the article over again and I see the TRNC controversy, political instability, coup d'etats, tensions with its neighbors, particularly Iran and Greece, financial difficulties, minorities being a sensitive topic, the Islamic headcover issue. Perhaps the only glaring missing conflict is that of the Armenian genocide. --Free smyrnan 23:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I would say that the article reflects, in terms of conflicts, pretty well what a visiting outsider would see. I have had people go to Turkey and express surprise that they did not find the entire country full of bombed-out cities with ethnic gangs shooting each other at every street corner. This is the view one can easily get reading about Turkey as a foreigner from most sources and this is incorrect. The conflicts and the problems are there and should not be ignored, but they are not the first and foremost thing that one notices about Turkey in "real life". --Free smyrnan 23:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware that's not the case. I've been very careful to say I don't think it should go overboard discussing conflicts and devoting a lot of space to it. But too little isn't right either. The Armenian issue is an improvement, probably enough, though if the facts support the next sentence from that article starting "However, most Armenian, Russian, Western, and an increasing number of Turkish scholars believe that it was indeed a genocide", then what has currently been added to Turkey is not enough. Perhaps changing the sentence to rejects the notion put forth by _____ or supported by. Or simply note they are in the minority in their position. A shorter overall mention of the issue would be fine if possible, but also needed is whether that tension is felt today or not. Perhaps eliminate the sentence starting "Poor conditions of the Armenians...". Perhaps with the fixes to the Armenian issue that will be enough. Once that's done I'll defer to other's view if it's been solved. Ask Sandy or other experienced reviewers. - TaxmanTalk 04:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that last sentence was cut, and the sentence is still based on Jayzel's first addition. I am still looking into the foreign relations section. I see your point however. I will try to see if it can be shorter as you said, and comprehensive at the same time. If it can't be, it can stay as is. Cheers! Baristarim 05:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the situation in the foreign relations section, now it covers both the emotions surrounding the armenian genocide in tr-Armenia relations and TR-Azerbaijani relations with regards to the conflict in Nagarno-Karabakh. I think that the foreign relations section cover pretty much every area possible that there are :). Baristarim 07:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yannismarou, I did mention a specific problem. But sometimes the problem with pointing out specifics is that sometimes only that specific thing you mention is changed without fixing the overall issue. It also means you have to know exactly what the correct fix is. In this case I was very confident about a general problem but didn't know the exact fix. While specifics can be helpful, it's not required in order to point out a problem. Sometimes the best you can do is bring attention to an issue. - TaxmanTalk 04:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, to cut short :) Some of the specific objections have been addressed. However, it is normal that people can have different views when they look at an article, especially an article about a country. All I am saying is, npov issues have been worked on, in every aspect of the article even in economy section, to the best possible standard. There is no way that we can have an article that will be considered as npov by everyone that reads it. However, this article has a very good academic balance as it covers issues, about the economy, culture, demographics, politics etc sections. Any subtleties should be developed in the daughter articles. Anyone reading the article from top to bottom will know what the issues are in a concise and comprehensive manner, and the structure of related daughter articles lets every issue to be explored in more detail.Baristarim 08:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ObjectSupport(info on Armenian Genocide and foreign relations has been added) I'm not trying to be "the Armenian again" who votes against it just because it is an article about Turkey. In my opinion, this article is very well written, as Baristarim said, as good as the Canada article but reading Taxman's comment made me realize that this article fails to mention anything about the Armenian Genocide. I am not trying to start WW50 on this issue, I am not pointing fingers but when something like that is a major issue between Turkish-Armenian relations and when the government of Turkey does everything possible to stop other government's recognition of the 1915 events as Genocide, then I think it is worth mentioning in the article. These events have a major role in Turkey because demonstrations are held against it by nationalists, you see a Nobel prize winning author being arrested, you see Turkish-EU relations being questioned over the issue , Turkish-French relations etc. In fact, even US-Turkish problems may appear according to Turkish news , [41], [42], [43], [44]. Anyway I think my point has been mentioned, maybe all this should be covered thoroughly in Foreign relations of Turkey article but not to see one mention of the words "Armenian Genocide" is kind of odd. Anyway on the positive, this article is very well written and I would gladly support it if it weren't for what I mentioned above. Good job Baris on almost re-writing all the article single handedly. Fedayee 18:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added a paragraph on the Armenian deaths to the Ottoman history section. I hope that is acceptable to all involved. Regards, --Jayzel 19:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I am still kind of annoyed at Taxman for not saying it sooner and instead looping the discussion to Africa and I don't know what. The current state is ok, however I will try to see if it might fit into the foreign relations section since it is more of a contemporary topic, more than it is a historical one in any case, sadly. If this was it, I could have made the addition myself and made a note on the talk page for more input from others instead of talking about TR-Africa relations :) It should be fine for now, I will try to raise the issue in the talk page to see if it might fit better into the FR section, or a bit higher up in the OE section. In any case, someone could have left a note on the article's talk page about this.. But anyways, c'est la vie. Baristarim 19:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the issue of Armenian Genocide clearly plays an important enough role in Turkey's foreign relations to be mentioned in this article. It would be better to have a mention of the issue and Turkey's stance regarding this. Atilim Gunes Baydin 19:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I will leave a note at the article's talk page to decide where it should be mentioned, in the history section or the FR since, as I said, it is much more of a contemporary issue, sadly. Or maybe move it in the history section? But no biggie, that's what the talk pages are for :) Baristarim 19:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make it a personal issue against people that oppose. Stick to the issues as I have done. It's not just about the Armenian Genocide, it's a general issue of the article making it look like there was little to no conflict ethnic or religious. The foreign relations issue was brought up because that issue looked like it could have needed a broader perspective too. Given that at least one big issue was not covered and you fought tooth and nail as if there wasn't a problem when there was, it's not unreasonable to be concerned about some of the research. - TaxmanTalk 20:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For Fedayee, I do not think that public surveys need to be mentioned in an encyclopedic article. The problems in U.S Turkey relations are due to the fact that most people dislike the U.S foreign policy specifically the iraqi war. Otherwise I do not know any recent major problems between US and Turkey. For Turkish French relationships, we can include a paragraph in Denial of Armenian Genocide article. I do not agree that the main article is the place of it. Before making accusations, we must not forget that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so we must mention only encyclopedic details. And further dtails should be discussed in talk pages. Thanks Caglarkoca 22:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For Caglarkoca, the links I gave were to show how much of an impact the Armenian Genocide has on Turkish foreign relations. It affected French relations, it has affected relations with every country that has accepted the events of 1915 as genocide. I am not asking for an article on US, France etc. I am asking something simple that is very clear. The impact of the Armenian Genocide on Turkey is big. There are demonstrations by nationalists in Turkey against it, the film Ararat was banned in Turkey, the upcoming ban on Sylvester Stallone's 40 days of Musa Dagh film, Orhan Pamuk's arrest, the cancelled military contracts w/ France, the closed border w/ Armenia, some EU countries questioning of Turkey's place in the EU because of the Armenian Genocide...these are all the because of the Armenian Genocide issue. I think it deserves a simple mention. I am confused on why this is not encyclopedic. Besides on a side note, do you think Turkey would be pleased if the Democrats pass a bill recognizing the genocide? Anyway this is off topic, I have said my points. Thanks Fedayee 23:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So going back to the topic :) The history section was edited accordingly, however I will peruse one more time. As for the foreign relations, I will post back when I will have done so. Cheers! Baristarim 03:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the situation in the foreign relations section, now it covers both the emotions surrounding the armenian genocide in tr-Armenia relations and TR-Azerbaijani relations with regards to the conflict in Nagarno-Karabakh. I think that the foreign relations section cover pretty much every area possible that there are :) Baristarim 07:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically, the article is very well written, neutral, stable, thoroughly referenced using solid sources, and clearly meets the Wikipedia featured article criteria. I think that it gives almost perfect relative balance to issues covered within each section (though I believe the Culture section could and hopefully will be improved). It is of appropriate length, provides a very good introduction to the subject without being boring and it leaves further details outside the scope of an introductory text to the specific main articles listed under each section heading. A very good addition to the featured articles list overall. Atilim Gunes Baydin 19:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well written, reflects the country realistically and provides a good background. --Free smyrnan 23:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support conditionally As above it meets the requirements of a FA, but it does have some glaring omissions that have been mentioned. Consensus doesn't mean altering the facts. Still, article is well-balanced, outside of the omissions, very few grammar errors, a few typos, covers much for a country with such an extensive history, explains things well and clearly without resorting to language-consensus (words with no meaning), is accessible to all levels. In general, more than other country articles I've read, it allows the reader with little to no knowledge of Turkey to learn enough, without any further reading, to be a knowledgable watcher of what is going on in Turkey today--except for the glaring omissions, mentioned above, which are being corrected. A current events article on Turkey would make an excellent addition for more information in certain areas that could be better covered. KP Botany 02:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The part about the Armenian Genocide was already edited in the history section, and the only thing that remains to be seen is in the foreign relations section. As for the other omissions that you mentioned, can you be more specific? Me and other users have asked Taxman to explain his reasoning, and his comments are general comments about the article. What specific omissions are there? I really cannot see any glaring omissions: nearly everything is covered. And what do you mean about a current events article? Do you mean a section? If it is a section, I have to disagree that we should have such a section: other FA art do not include such sections and, in any case, it is much more professional to include relevant bits into appropriate sections. I hope that I were able address your concerns. Cheers! Baristarim 03:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another article for current events in Turkey.. Yeah, why not? I will leave a post at WikiProject Turkey's talk page. Baristarim 06:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the situation in the foreign relations section, now it covers both the emotions surrounding the armenian genocide in tr-Armenia relations and TR-Azerbaijani relations with regards to the conflict in Nagarno-Karabakh. I think that the foreign relations section cover pretty much every area possible that there are :) Baristarim 11:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly there... The sentence (you know which one) says Turkey rejects the thesis, but doesn't actually say that it's the consensus (or at least that it's widely accepted/ the majority PoV). I'm switching to 1024x768 to check for image overlaps. Brilliant work, Baris (and others) yandman 17:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I made a (slight) mod to the sentence: "Although most scholars ... Rep of Turkey believes ... ". Hope everyone can agree on that. yandman 20:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stupid Question. Why did you change the infobox map? If all country articles have the same type of map, why this article should be any different? And could you remove the timeline box from the infobox, it best fits in the history section, or better in the history article. CG 18:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not all country articles have the same type of map: see Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine etc. The new map style was introduced by Wikiproject Countries a few months ago, with many countries recently switching back to the old green maps, and there are still an ongoing discussion about this on the projects talk page. And with all due respect, the correct place for your question is Talk:Turkey, if you have anything of relation to the FA candidacy please share that with the rest of us. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 19:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) In fact, some other articles also use that map. As far as I know, the actual map was drawn later after the older maps, so that's why it looks different. The timeline is also common practice, it is there to simply give a background of the country and the main events that led to its establishment as a modern country. See Canada and India for example. I am not too sure if taking them out would be a good thing. But I will try to make some more research and look into other country articles. Baristarim 19:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I think that everybody can learn enough from the article because it is detailed, it has proper links to the main articles of the mentioned things in it, it has external references and it has a nice picture gallery. I think that the inner and international issues of Turkey are objectively shown in the article. Deliogul 14:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ObjectNeutral Changed my vote. After a compromise was worked out regarding the Armenian Genocide, the original nominator has taken it upon himself to remove the information at this late a date in FAC. Article unstable and nominator not operating in good faith. --Jayzel 20:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Working to address the concerns on the FAC is excluded from the stability criteria. Otherwise how can the edits be done? Vandal sockpuppet attacks are also excluded from the stability criteria, a user vandalized the page using four sockpuppets, and all of them were banned. Any article can be subject to such attacks. It is not a question of good faith. I reverted the vandal's edits, then later did the merge under foreign relations section. In my latest revert, I said that I was going to take a look at it very soon, just like I had done here [45]. I do not have enough time on New Year's to deal with this! However, considering the urgency I took a look at it, the latest version cut down one sentence, and it looks better. That's my version. Let me know if it is removed. Baristarim 20:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I looked up the history I saw you were the most recent person to remove the paragraph and was surprised to say the least. I'll take back my comment you are acting in bad faith, but I think I will remain neutral on whether this should become an FA. I have a bad feeling it will remain a target for edit wars well into the future. Regards, --Jayzel 21:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, however I left an edit summary where I said that I was going to take a look at it soon. I know exactly what you mean about future vandalism. I also left a note at fedayee's talk page. As far as I am concerned, I have no more modifications to the article, I really would like to move on - I spent nearly one month on that article. I was going to do some work on the exec of Saddam, but not so fast apparently :) So if someone reverts, please let me know. I had removed the anon's delete and the addition of a lonely source [46] while work was in progress to address the FAC's concerns. Personally, I also thought the inclusion in the history section looked out of place. However I tried to revert edits that were not in line with talks at FAC or talk page [47]. I was not happy with the middle sentence in the foreign relations bit where it dwelled too much on details of what happened when, so I took it out as well. As far as I am concerned, people can follow the wikilinks and learn more about the subject there. If people want to work on those articles, that's where they should be working. I am aware that the article might be some attract-fly, but the latest version is the most concise and matter-of-fact way of putting it IMO. Any modifications that can be done are very minor wordings, however that also holds true for the rest of the article - any section or article can be reworded better as a general rule. As I said, keep the article on your watchlist, let me know if any wholesale deletes have taken place - now or in the future. Cheers Baristarim 22:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, it would surprise if the article wasn't subject to all sorts of edits in the future - and not just for a particular section. I had to wage a war against other sockpuppeteers who insisted on removing the literacy figures, those that tried to remove Orhan Pamuk's picture etc. You would be surprised actually :) However, the article is there to give an overview of the country, and it will be normal that many people will have different opinions about a country such as Turkey. As is, the article covers everything there is to know about the country + all conflicts there are, and they are all cited. I cannot see it getting any better. Baristarim 22:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns addressed. Will try to keep an eye on vandals and anons in the future.Baristarim 23:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ObjectWeak support (weak because edit wars have already started...hopefully it dies down but doesn't look like it) per Jayzel. I thought the issue was over with? Stop tampering with history, already it was bad that no such mention was there on the article. Fedayee 20:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at all. A vandal had been attacking the page for the last 36 hours, I cannot do anything about that. Four IDs were banned for being the sockpuppets of one user. Only other changes are those that were done to address the concerns in the talk page. I also reverted that user's edits [48] and [49]. I fixed them both under foreign relations section last night [50]. The problem is, I cannot be everywhere at the same time on this holiday season! Baristarim 20:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You guys can keep an eye on the article as well you know. I didn't create the article, I just worked on it. Look at the actual version and let me know if someone tries to revert it. And also pls take a look at the article's history closely, there is no bad faith. cheers! Baristarim 21:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns addressed. Will try to keep an eye on vandals and anons in the future.Baristarim 23:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment concerned about the issues raised by Taxman and others, hope they will be (continuously) dealt with, lest this go the way of Hugo Chávez, which passed FA with brilliant prose in spite of glaring POV and biased references (issues not understood by most reviewers at the time it passed, since the media wasn't yet paying attention to Chávez), and was subsequently FARC'd due to instability and POV. Please heed Taxman's and others' comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, no problems. I raised some issues with many editors and some admins so that they keep an eye on the article as well. Hopefully as a country article it will be more stable, even though certain users, particularly newcomers, tend to expect a newscast about the country :) Until three months ago, nearly every major event concerning the country got included. Prime Minister said this, said that, an airplane was hijacked etc... Hopefully the "overview" rule will not be disturbed, but generally a wide range of editors keep an eye and contribute to the article, so that's always a plus. That's why most sources are impartial as a rule; only Turkish sources are for some economic figures as released by the Turkish government + geographical information and a couple of general references. And nearly all of the news sources are from the BBC, simply because it is very reliable and does a good job of keeping neutrality for a wide range of subjects. For the moment the article is only getting the usual anon sandbox/vandal occasionally. Thanks though! cheers Baristarim 05:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree on the BBC; in fact, it was long one of the big problems with Venezuela/Chávez reporting, so take care to diversify sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done to all those involved. --A.Garnet 15:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Needs a serious copy-edit to attain a "compelling, even brilliant" standard of prose. Let's look at a couple of small sections as examples of why the whole article needs work.
"was elected on 16 May 2000, after having served as"—Spot the redundant word.
This one I couldn't get, he was elected while he was (or right after) serving as the President of the Constitutional Court.
"though he exercises a largely ceremonial post"—Exercises a post? "has a largely ceremonial role", surely; "although" is inappropriate, since many heads of state have this role.
done
"court of last resort"—ort, ort.
done
Why are the head of state and PM referred to with generic male pronouns? Can't a woman accede to these offices?
I will try to fix this by moving some words around
"The executive power is exercised by the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers that make up the government, whereas the legislative power is vested in the unicameral parliament, the Grand National Assembly of Turkey." And replace "whereas" with a semicolon—there's no contrast here. In fact, go through the whole article identifying the false contrasts: I see "although" and "whereas" wrongly used in several places. Here's another false contrast in "nevertheless": "As of 2004, there were 50 registered political parties in Turkey, whose ideologies range from the far-left to the far-right.[33] Nevertheless, the Constitutional Court can strip the public financing of political parties that it deems anti-secular or separatist, or ban their existence altogether."
done
"Neither the Prime Minister nor the Ministers have to be members of the parliament; though in most cases they are"—The semicolon is wrong.
done
"mitigated proportional representation"—"mitigated"? Very odd.
done
"There are 85 electoral districts that represent the 81 administrative provinces"—No, try: "85 electoral districts represent the 81 administrative provinces".
done
Minus signs or en dashes for below-zero temperatures: see MoS.
You mean they should have, or shouldn't have? Currently all sub-zero temperatures have minuses..
"publicly-owned"—No hyphen after -ly words. "investor-confidence and foreign investment"—Why the hyphen?
done
"Turkey's GDP currently ranks 17th"—Spot the redundant word.
done
The appearance and readability are severely compromised by the fact that the text is so blue: messy and bumpy speckling, especially at the top. While many of the links are focused and useful, why not sift through and remove perhaps 20% of them. Some are repeated, some are unfocused and not useful, such as English, democratic, secular, unitary, constitutional republic, Europe, Asia, China, the list goes on. Why on earth would our readers need a blue link to China? Let them key it in the box if they need to go there.
I will try to remove some of them. I did some removals, but I am not sure what else I can remove from the intro.. Some of the links are there for completely uninformed readers. I will continue to peruse though.. Baristarim 13:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I tried to cut down on the unneccessary wikifications.
There's a lot of good in this article, so let's complete the job ... Tony 12:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will do them in a couple of hours. These should be easy to fix, but I have to go out at the moment, so I will look at them in a couple of hours. Thanks for the comments! Baristarim 12:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just removed the turkishweekly.net links (on this FAC page), as they were triggering the spam blocker, rendering the entire FAC page uneditable! Apologies. Gzkn 07:43, 7 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Respectfully submit this article on a World War II battle for featured article consideration. Self-nomination with helpful assistance from other editors, particularly ERcheck and Looper5920. Cla68 06:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, yet another outstanding article from Cla68! Kirill Lokshin 06:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with all my heart!--Yannismarou 09:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object until 1a is satisfied. Mainly good, but still spotted by glitches all over the place. Here are examples from the lead that indicate that the whole text needs a good copy-edit by fresh eyes.
I appreciate the constructive feedback. The article was extensively copyedited, but the intro may have been overlooked. I responded to each point below: Cla68 00:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"(12 September–14, 1942)"
Moved to a different place in the lead sentence and removed the parentheses.
"successfully repulsed an attack"—spot the redundant word.
"successfully" deleted.
"which guarded Henderson Field on Guadalcanal, which was ..."—which x 2
One "which" changed to "that."
"Kawaguchi's unit was sent to Guadalcanal in response to the Allied landings with the mission of recapturing the airfield and driving the Allied forces off of the island." Comma needed after "landings", or ambiguous. NEVER say "off of", because "of" is redundant. But here, try the more elegant "from the island".
Changed as suggested.
"The main Japanese assault occurred on an unnamed ridge south of Henderson Field that was manned by troops from several U.S. Marine Corps units, but primarily troops from the 1st Raider and 1st Parachute Battalions under U.S. Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel Merritt A. Edson." On the long and curly side, this sentence. The "but" is unclear to me.
"But" changed to "although."
"subsequent historical accounts of the battle"—spot the redundant word.
"Historical" deleted.
"the Japanese continued to send more troops to Guadalcanal for subsequent attempts to retake Henderson Field, which affected Japanese offensive operations in other areas of the South Pacific."—"Continued to" doesn't need "subsequent" as well, does it? Check whether you need "more"; maybe, maybe not. Does the "which" refer back to the sending of more troops or the retaking. Don't like "for" here. Careful, detailed crafting is required; then we'll be proud of it. Tony 13:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to: "After Edson's Ridge, the Japanese continued to send troops to Guadalcanal for further attempts to retake Henderson Field, affecting Japanese offensive operations in other areas of the South Pacific."
Support. Another great article from you. Soon you will have all thje article's about the Pacific Campaign as FA's. :) Kyriakos 21:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good article, featured quality. Hello32020 00:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comprehensive, well-written article. Good job. Baristarim 11:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORT Comprehensive, well-written, well-referenced article that meets all FA criteria. —ExplorerCDT 00:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORT. Well written and documented. Offers comprehensive coverage not only of the battle but the surrounding "big picture" buildup. The opening of the article also offers a concise summary, detailed enough to grasp the essence at once, but not too detailed, something I haven't often seen. Also gives good coverage of the Japanese side- movements and plans, rather than just focusing on the US. Authors have scrupulously documented the article too. A cross check against other books not listed in the references, such as Jack Coggins 'Battle for Guadacanal', confirms that they are shooting straight. Authors also include a closing section noting battle's significance, something not always seen, a good way to wrap-up. All in all, a professional looking product. Endorse FA status. Odinista 01:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - --Bryson 20:09, 15 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
DNA is central to modern biology and is arguably the most famous chemical in biochemistry. This article deals with DNA as a molecule, particularly its structure and interactions. It also introduces some of the processes in which DNA is involved in the cell. Self-nomination. The article is 69 kb in total size with 39 kb total readable prose. It has recently been peer-reviewed and is currently a Good article. TimVickers 22:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that this is an FFA, so that it will be correctly archived at WP:FFA, and contain a complete record on the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SupportSemperf 00:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tone 14:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great article. First sentence of the "DNA damage" section: DNA can be damaged many different sorts of mutagens. - Do you mean by many different sorts of mutagens? Why is the image in the lead found next to the table of content? This will make the reader scroll up and down while he reads the lead. Please remove the external link at the first image of the "DNA damage" section, this should be found on the image description page per WP:CAP; same for many other images on the article. External links section needs a cleanup, remove everything designed for children or trivial. Unnecessary bold text at the article's first section, just make these links. The third image caption consist entirely of bold text. Add more information about DNA ligase in the "Nucleases and ligases" section. In "Forensics" section: This process is called using genetic fingerprinting or DNA profiling - Maybe it's called genetic fingerprinting? Some image captions lack periods. Replace all "here" in the article referring to images with "in this example". This is all I could find after a 10-minute glance into the article, good luck! Michaelas10(Talk) 21:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Typos fixed, bolding removed, links changed into references, external links tidied up, a period added to an image caption. The use of "Here" is to join two sentences together, not to refer to a caption. It is used when the first sentence names a topic and the second one provides details. Expanded DNA ligase section and added refs. TimVickers 23:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, my concerns/questions were resolved on the peer review. Hat's off to Tim for taking on a former featured article, to get it re-promoted! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A core topic, great prose, excellent use of images, summary style and daughter articles, accessible as it should be. Waiting for that little gold star now... Fvasconcellos 23:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Now, for the nit-picks :) In the "Topoisomerases and helicases" section, there are two sentences which seem redundant to me (not in meaning, but in style). The "Forensics" section is not quite up to the rest of the article; it could use some fleshing up. That's all I can think of now. Fvasconcellos 23:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did I change the sentence you thought redundant, or was it another? Forensics section re-arranged a little. TimVickers 00:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was it — thanks, that was quick! No objections now, sorry :) Fvasconcellos 00:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support good structure, language and sources. TSO1D 05:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great article, just wish that the History section was longer. I just watched a documentary about the discovery of DNA and it was pretty interesting. CG 12:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The history section used to take up half the article, all that content was moved to the History of molecular biology daughter article. TimVickers 16:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Very nice indeed. Tony 13:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent work once again. Hope you don't mind, I added a bit to the bioinformatics section and weaseled slightly on the description of the Adleman paper in the DNA computing section - it was a great proof-of-concept, but the actual problem solved was so small that I worry about overstating the magnitude of the practical applications. Opabinia regalis 18:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, good work. TimVickers 19:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent article on a subject of substantial importance. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Surprised that it wasn't a candidate before. Also, the German wikipedia's (second only to English by size) article on DNA is featured, and doesn't compare to this one in quality. Mbralchenko 15:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd like to see some more sources throughout. For example, two paragraphs in the Physical and chemical properties section don't have any sources. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added general textbook sources to the beginning of the section with these paragraphs as per Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines for uncontroversial knowledge. If there are any specific statements you feel need additional referencing, please add fact tags and I will find citations. TimVickers 19:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder that Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines is only a guideline established by some WikiProjects, whose members objected to the citation requirements asked of good articles. WP:V is policy; a cite should be provided when one is requested. The "guideline" might be useful for internal ranking of articles that don't intend to approach WP:GAC or WP:FAC, but featured articles should conform to WP:V policy. (Which, as I read Tim's response, he is saying he will do, so just clarifying this guideline for the record.)SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added additional references to everything I could think might need one. Now 114 unique references. TimVickers 04:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. A couple of more things. First, per manual of style, the article is supposed to start with a right-aligned image. The first image, which is located at the end of the lede, could fit that role. Next, references to images in prose should be avoided. Phrases in parenthesis should be avoided, as well. Everything else looks good, so I'll support, provided those issues are dealt with. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image moved. I can find no reference in the style guide on not referring to images, and parentheses are occasionally useful. If there are any sentences you find unclear due to parentheses, please list them here and I will see if they can be clarified. TimVickers 05:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have problems with parentheses because they don't seem to be terribly professional. Most of the time, they could easily be replaced with a comma. Phrases in parentheses act as if they aren't important, but if they aren't important then why are they in the article? For refering to images, IMO that fails criterion 1a (compelling or brilliant prose). Additionally, what about the percentage of users who have images turned off or blind people, and what about Wikipedia mirrors that don't include the images? Hurricanehink (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed five parenthetical statements, but others remain as I feel these are the best grammatical option in these sentences. As noted above, purely stylistic objections that are not defined in the manual of style are not actionable. As to images, if somebody is blind I don't think a reference to a image is going to confuse them at all, they know they can't see images. I feel that in this article, where the structure of a molecule is a primary topic, text references to figures that display this structure add considerably to the clarity of the text. If you feel this approach to discussing structures fails criterion 1A, then so be it. In my opinion it does not. TimVickers 17:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you use in a grammar duel? n-rules at twenty paces? :) Seriously, I understand your concern, but I happen not to agree. TimVickers 17:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok. It's just a fairly minor thing in a good article. I still support it. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a relief! Thanks. TimVickers 18:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing article. igordebraga≠ 21:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support satisfies all criteria, though I did correct 'orginism' in the lead. Not sure if teh word really needs to be there at all - delete? cheers Cas Liber 02:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was vandalism. Removed. TimVickers 04:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Everyone who has worked on this article, I take my hat off to you, it is superbly done. Satisfies all FA criteria, and then adds some more as well.
Support has come a long way since it was at WP:FAR. Tarret 00:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So... When will the article be up on the main page. Looks like the consensus is that it is probably unanimous that it is going to be featured... Mbralchenko 21:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everybody. The article is now featured. Thank you all for your comments and suggestions. TimVickers 22:00, 9 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this article which has been worked on for some time now by a team of people, most of whom have worked on some other successful FA candidates like Stegosaurus. I feel it satisfies the criteria for FA status - it is impartial, comprehensive without being overly inclusive and has a good lead similar in format to otgher successful dinosaur FAs. Cas Liber 04:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as co-author. Cas Liber 05:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThere are a few references in the middle of a sentence, they need to be put after a comma or full-stop. There are also some short/stubby paragraphs that need to be expanded, removed or merged with others. References 34 and 35 have spaces, spaces need to be removed. I also believe brackets are overused to explain things and should be replaced with commas(of course slightly re-wording it). M3tal H3ad 12:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(I have removed the spaces (well spotted!) and some sentences with parentheses. The ones with parentheses left I feel would be too confusing if changed to commas. If you can still see any others which could be changed please let me know) cheersCas Liber 20:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(I have combined a couple of stubby paras, however this is tricky as there is a load of succinct info which doesn't lend itself easily to para combining. Will ruminate on this one)Cas Liber 20:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen this idea that refs must go at the end of a sentence mentioned on several FACs now, and I don't know where it's coming from. Refs *usually* go after a full stop, but not always - there are instances where they are needed to cite a specific term or phrase mid-sentence. Per WP:FN, "Place a ref tag at the end of the term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers." Sandy (Talk) 14:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry misread the criteria. Ref [43] comes after the comma, not before. There is a space for ref [5][43], [18] in the imagebox and [23]. M3tal H3ad 02:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(OK, got 'em all) Cas Liber 03:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as someone who helped with the writing. Mark t young 13:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object untill all the mistakes are fixed. There are some short and stubby paragraphs which need to be fixed.Daniel10 14:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Umm Daniel, the paragraphs are no stubbier than the Red Panda article you've just nominated above. However, being constructive, I am having trouble combining others - can you let me know which ones you think can be combined?) cheers Cas Liber 21:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
This argument has been identified by one or more editors as constituting an arbitrary demand for a shrubbery. Please resolve this by clarifying the basis for the objection in canonical policy. Expanding the requirement to include chopping down the tallest tree in the forest WITH A HERRING may be met with additional mockery and scorn. —ExplorerCDT 21:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not an actionable object unless you specify what mistakes you are referring to. Sandy (Talk) 15:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as someone who has contributed to the article. ArthurWeasley 15:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as co-author. Article is comprehensive and uses no less than 38 scientific papers (primary sources of professional quality) as reference: papers which span from discovery to 2006. This leads to an article that is factually accurate and up to date. Minority views (such as the now-discredited trunk, and old-style posture) are presented, but not given undue weight. Content is stable, and appears to conform to the Manual of Style (footnotes follow punctuation, one form of English, etc). Article was assembled by WikiProject Dinosaurs team, which consists of (among others) vertebrate paleontologists, PhD students, etc, who have come together to assemble this article. Befitting an animal the length of Diplodocus, this article is considerably longer than almost any other dinosaur article on Wikipedia. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (redundancy) As a third-party reader with absolutely very little knowledge about dinosaurs, I find it akward that there is a description inside the pronunciation parenthese. Literal description usually follows an etymological note (e.g. see Phonetics) and not after or even even inside a pronunciation note. Etymology statement and descriptive or literal meaning is already in place that the first one makes the second redundant (the 2nd being the the corrent one). But since I've not read a single dinosaur article, this may be consistent with others, so i'm placing a Light Support until a satisfactory explanation is given. --RebSkii 18:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops - thanks for spotting that. I have taken out the first 'double beam' as it is explained fully a few lines further. As it stands it is now like Stegosaurus, another FA. It is tricky sometimes when there are a few more bits of info describing the etymology to put it straight away. In Velociraptor and Tyrannosaurus the meaning is immediately obvious once given, while Stegosaurus and Diplodocus require a little explanation. cheers Cas Liber 21:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per above. now this articles conforms with WP:MOS Guideline for Wording which in turn passes FA Criteria number 2. --RebSkii 07:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support as an illustrator of the article. Debivort 09:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Truly a credit to its authors and illustrators, and the encyclopaedia as a whole. Grace Note 11:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's an excellent article, just the kind of article Wikipedia can be proud of. SlimVirgin(talk) 00:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORT. Amazingly comprehensive and well-written article with exceptional referencing. The people who work on these dinosaur articles have really done a good job and also made me interested in dinosaurs again...a passion i haven't engaged in since I was 7. —ExplorerCDT 00:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a drive-by :-) Great article. Guy (Help!) 12:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a contributor to the article. Sphenacodon 17:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Although the article doesn't grab me & it is by not the best of the dinosaur articles that have made FA status, it seems good enough to convince me to support. Seems comprhensive enough, but as I said, I have a weird feeling about it... Thanks a bunch & once again, great work from the Dino team! :) Spawn Man 04:38, 8 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
This A-class article was the Molecular and Cellular Biology collaboration from November. The current text was largely written by me, with helpful edits and image contributions from Splette and Willow. It's had an MCB peer review here and a less active main peer review here. Thanks for your comments and suggestions. Opabinia regalis 06:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article is comprehensive, well-referenced, and well-written. The editors have greatly improved the article since my comments on the peer review (where I volunteered to help with examples of prose needing improvement, then got caught up in other things and forgot to come back...sorry), especially the removal of an overuse of the passive voice. Even though some of the body of the article is still over my head, it is a complicated subject matter that I don't think could be simplified much more without turning into a whole dissertation on cellular and molecular biology. Instead, the article's lead section introduces the subject matter and conveys the main points in terms that are easily understandable to readers who want the "CliffsNotes" version of things. Nice job. Neil916 (Talk) 07:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Congratulations to Opabinia et al. :) for taking a complex but very important topic and making it as accessible as it could probably ever be and an interesting read to boot. Fvasconcellos 14:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
The first paragraph in the "Unfolding and translocation" section is muddled. Could these steps be put in chronological order?
Tried to clarify. It's hard to be chronological, since it's not known whether deubiquitination (necessarily) precedes substrate unfolding, and there's still debate over which step(s) require ATP hydrolysis vs just binding. Opabinia regalis 03:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this sentence ''The general mechanism for globular protein unfolding itself is not well characterized; however, it is not entirely independent of the amino acid sequence."
Reworded. The unfolding mechanism of the proteasome has to work on any protein that might need degrading, but some substrates are 'better' than others. Opabinia regalis 03:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If any refs still lack PMIDs or formatting, I'll gladly help—I love gnome work. Fvasconcellos 21:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think I got them all - I really should start remembering to put them in in the first place. But if you really like this stuff, then you just might be my new favorite editor...no, we need you to keep making nice SVG chemical structures! Opabinia regalis 05:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you did. Thank you! :) Don't worry, I'll not get sidetracked from my goal of universal vector graphics domination... I've not even joined the Project so as not to get in over my head! Fvasconcellos 15:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, overall extremely good. TimVickers 00:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions! (Also, excellent prose fixes.) Opabinia regalis 03:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All my concerns have been addressed. A very good article. TimVickers 04:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: what is the general opinion on putting external links above the references? The references section is over a screenful on my very high-res screen; most people must see a wall of text and become rather disinclined to scroll any further. I made this move once on this article and it was un-done not long after; it is that egregious a violation of the WP:MOS? Opabinia regalis 07:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My inclination is that external links should *always* be last, since Wikified content is preferable to external content - we don't want to send readers outside of Wiki easily. If there is something really important in an External link, it's good to try to Wikify it. I try to stick to the exact WP:MOS for that reason - See also first, as that is Wikicontent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That "makes sense" from an editor's perspective, but in terms of usability, the external links are not very visible buried below screenfuls of references that no one in their right mind wants to read through. (Agree about see also above links, but there's no see alsos here.) Opabinia regalis 01:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I don't have a problem with External links being buried, as our priority should be to give Wikified content, with External links being a last resort. Just my two cents, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the link in the TOC is enough. In this case the Nobel interviews are particularly interesting, IMO. Opabinia regalis 02:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does anyone think that the lead-in is maybe too long? I'm not used to seeing four long paragraphs of text before the table of contents. --Cyde Weys 17:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Lead condensed to three paragraphs. TimVickers 17:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tim. I added back the definition of protease, since it's a good bet that some readers won't know the term. Opabinia regalis 01:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems to meet all the criteria. Comments: {{Template:Protein topics}}? Years alone shouldn't be linked per WP:DATE, I found quite a few instances where Nobel Prize in Chemistry years were linked. Remove unnecessary bolding from the "Proteasome inhibitors" section, these words should be linked rather than bolded. From the lead: In eukaryotes, they are located in both the nucleus and the cytoplasm. - Remove both, same for many other instances of the word in the article. ...consists of a total of 19 individual proteins - Remove of a total. Add a see also section and link to the Molecular and Cellular Biology portal from it. ...regions,[34] are degraded - No need in a comma here. The Polish interwiki link should probably come earlier in the interwiki list. "Enzyme" is linked twice in the lead. . ..such as infection, heat shock, or oxidative damage, heat shock proteins are expressed - Move the word or. The quotation marks in the second paragraph of the lead make it sound a bit unencyclopedic. Michaelas10(Talk) 09:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed some of these. I don't know what you mean about the protein topics template; could you explain? I added the portal link, but given that the protein topics template is there and most other related articles are linked in the text, I don't think there's much use in a see also section. I think the quotes in the lead are, if not exactly necessary, useful in introducing the terms that used somewhat metaphorically or as an analogy. Opabinia regalis 01:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Journal names should not be abbreviated. Abbreviation might be appropriate for a medical journal, but wikipedia is not one (WP:MOS: Do not assume that your reader is familiar with the acronym or abbreviation you are using.), and the non medical students should be able toe easily trace the journal.Circeus 18:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Several recent "scientific" FAs (acute myeloid leukemia, Tourette syndrome and cell nucleus to name a few) passed FAC with abbreviated journal names in References. I assume this would be easy enough to fix, but, as this could have significant ramifications (e.g. stipulate the use of full journal names in WP:MEDMOS?) I would, no offense, like to hear other editors' opinions. Fvasconcellos 19:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've found these abbreviated references to be consistently unhelpful, sometimes *actively* so, and systematically change them to longer names when I happen to copyedit medical articles. If it's the task that you find annoying, I can do it myself, and I would have opposed every single of these medical articles on the same ground. I certainly would favor a change in WP:MEDMOS if that is what is needed for this practice to change (I didn't even know such a style guide existed!). It's just another example of the jargonistic tendencies of the medical community to me. Of course, your request for comments is only relevant as far as those commenting are not familiar with the practice of abbreviating journal names.Circeus 19:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, I have no problem whatsoever in doing "grunt" work—it probably wouldn't take more than a few minutes. What I meant by requesting comments was to make sure no one would object to such a change. By the way, WP:MEDMOS is still a proposed guideline, so feel free to comment on its Talk page if you like. Fvasconcellos 20:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can change this if you want, but I don't think this is much of an issue, since authors and title is all you meed to find any article in PubMed and if it has a PMID it is even simpler. It certainly doesn't hurt though and it might help somebody under some circumstances I can't think of. TimVickers 22:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I don't sound reactionary in thinking this is an increase in text clutter with little practical benefit? I'm curous to know where/how you're searching if abbreviated journal names are an impediment. Because the abbreviations are standardized and unique, they're actually at least as good if not better than the full title if you just want to find the journal - a search for "chem phys" will get what you want, but "chemical physics" will pick up Chemical Physics, Journal of Chemical Physics, Chemical Physics Letters, etc. And the linked PMIDs largely obviate the need for searching for the citations anyway. Opabinia regalis 01:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Circeus here for the simple reason that Wiki provides a PMID template which links to the full information on journal-published research - there's no reason to take up space when full bibliographic info and an abstract is one click away, and when standard abbreviations are used. On the other hand, if the trend takes hold, I'll do the grunt work as well (sigh) - but it will certainly take more than a few minutes - it will take me weeks on everything I've written. If this is a strong objection, Circeus might approach Diberri about changing his script to give the full journal name, because doing them by hand will be a b. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did some more checking, and I don't believe it's possible for Diberri's script to return full journal names, since even PubMed doesn't cite them without clicking on a separate place - so, if we have to do this, it will all be done manually, and will be a lot of work. I also disagree with the argument about laypersons vs. medical jargon - I'm a layperson - all I need to know is how to find PubMed, or Medline if I want to order the full text of the article. I've never known the full names of the journals, or needed them. When I go to a medical library to request the full text of an article, the abbreviations are standard, and there's never been a problem locating the journal I'm asking for. I really don't consider this a valid objection. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It can only be construed as "an increase in text clutter" by people who a) know that some/many journals have "standard" abbreviations. b) are used to seeing them. 90% of our readership don't. Circeus 13:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Circeus' suggested formatting of journal titles does not currently have consensus among editors in the sciences. See also followup here and here. Opabinia regalis 05:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to see the reference, click on the link. It is that simple. TimVickers 16:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support with a nitpik - book sources need page numbers, pls separate and plug those in, along with an ISBN for the book. (^ a b c d Lodish, H, Berk A, Matsudaira P, Kaiser CA, Krieger M, Scott MP, Zipursky SL, Darnell J. (2004). Molecular Cell Biology', 5th, New York: WH Freeman.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ISBN added, thanks. Honestly, while I admire your consistent push for better referencing, requiring page numbers on generic textbook references raises my academic heckles. Citations to standard, uncontroversial textbook material are provided for the reader to have a general reference - I never (well, I try not to) cite a textbook for anything that isn't thoroughly well-established material that could be found in any decent text on the subject (I use the Lodish text because that's the one I have on hand, but another one would do just as well). In cases where there are dozens of citations to many disparate portions of the same text, I can see the utility, but here I don't see the point in repeating the same citation four times just to say "p66", "p68", etc. I added the (very short) page range covering the general introduction to proteolysis and the proteasome. What do you think? Opabinia regalis 02:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a fine solution (which I couldn't have known beforehand, since I didn't know the actual pages - sorry to suggest individual page nos when they turn out to be in such a close bracket - but since I wasn't objecting anyway ... ). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was more of a general rant, mostly written before I looked up the page numbers :) I'll get off the soapbox now. Opabinia regalis 03:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Not quite there, but nearly. Let's look at the lead.
"as well as" (opening sentence) is a marked form of "and". Why is it unexpected that some bacteria should be in the list?
See the evolution section - current thinking is that the proteasome proper evolved from hslVU after the divergence of archaea and bacteria, in the archaeal lineage that led to eukaryogenesis. Then lateral gene transfer occurred in those bacteria that possess a proteasome. So it is surprising that bacteria have a 20S proteasome, especially since they don't express ubiquitin itself.
"of about 7–8 amino acids long"—better "of seven to eight amino acids long"; but I'm still unsure of the meaning. Should "long" be "length"? Does an acid have length?
The lead reorganization lost the wikilink to amino acid, which should answer that question. Wrote the numbers out, but some hedge is needed, since the products' length varies depending on the organism and state of the cell.
"Each ring is in turn composed of seven individual proteins"—Is "in turn" necessary?
"are made from seven β subunits"—"of", to avoid the sense that only part of the subunits contributes?
"was acknowledged in the awarding of the 2004 Nobel Prize"—Remove "ing".
It's very good, but I think you might ask the League of Copy-editors to do a quick once-over when everything else is fixed. Fresh eyes required, and it won't take them long. Tony 11:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Last three minor things fixed, couple of later wording failures fixed; I'll give the copyeditors a ring. Opabinia regalis 03:59, 7 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Third in the six to nine-part Hurricane Isabel series, and the second going for FAC. I think it certainly meets FA standards, extremely detailed and well-referenced. CrazyC83 02:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Good work, but the article is not yet comprehensive, and lacks the level of inline citation necessary for an FA. Needs a copy edit; the fourth sentence snake "After fluctuating in intensity for four days, Isabel gradually weakened and made landfall on the Outer Banks of North Carolina with winds of 105 mph (165 km/h) on September 18." needs to be broken down. Other sentences are strays: "A hurricane watch was issued as well."Would suggest referral to peer review and resubmission at a later date. + Ceoil 03:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is not comprehensive? What is not inline sourced? I don't see what is wrong with either of those two sentences, either. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My statement re comprehensiveness was due to the article being relatively brief. But having re-read the article, and the guidelines, I'm striking that. I don't like thoes two sentences, but as they are only quibbles, and the prose is impressively paced throughout - Support + Ceoil 04:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did we need two of these on FAC at the same time? (Support, nonetheless) —Cuiviénen 04:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good article, with many references and details, featured quality. Hello32020 13:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I honestly dislike supporting these hurricane/TS/etc. articles because they're so short as compared to other FAs, but I have no actionable objection. Everything is well-sourced, the images are great (though there are only two, but I could only expect one or two more images taken from Delaware assessing the damage, and that's somewhat unreasonable unless the article's writers are from that state), everything that needs to be explained is explained, the writing flows well, and in general, it's a great article. I can't not support its candidacy. -- Kicking222 19:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I can't see anything wrong with it—meets all the criteria. Titoxd(?!?) 02:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is a very good article. As Kicking222 said, even though its short, everything that needs to be explained is explained. I was also wondering about the length/FA relationship, however at the end of the day the criteria is comprehensiveness, and not simple length. It is well-written and cited as well. So good job! Baristarim 10:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's 30 KB for three articles. When you have between six and nine planned, you're getting into dangerous territory... Titoxd(?!?) 07:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose A good article, but rather short. Just H 07:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Length is obviously the main problem here. The best solution, if more information is available, would be to simply go into more depth and write a couple more paragraphs. If more information isn't available, merging all the Isabel "effects" articles into one might be a good idea, as suggested above. I don't generally like to encourage that kind of thing because separate articles tend to facilitate expansion, but at the same time I just don't really feel like there is enough here for an FA. Everyking 10:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, having now looked at Effects of Hurricane Isabel in North Carolina, I think that article is long enough that merging wouldn't be a good idea. I'm pretty sure that this article could be expanded to an adequate length, though; no doubt there was plenty of press coverage locally. Right now the article doesn't have any such references, which strikes me as a problem in its own right. Everyking 10:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to live in Delaware and remember this well :). There were problems with the declaration of emergency - regular state employees were supposed ot stay home, but "emergency personnel" were supposed to go in to work. The problem is that who is and is not an emergency person is undefined - so toll-booth workers went in to work, for example. I think descriptions of these and other problems should be in the article. Raul654 17:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, sounds like good info. I couldn't find anything on google with a few different searches, though. Could you recommend specific search terms? I did "Hurricane Isabel" Delaware emergency personnel toll, but nothing showed up. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The best place to search would be here (the News Journal - which can be accessed through delawareonline, is the main newspaper in Delaware) but that search doesn't allow you to access full articles. Raul654 21:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also use the words "Tropical Storm" instead of "Hurricane" as it was a tropical storm when it was at 39°N (approximate latitude). CrazyC83 23:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I can't find that information anywhere online... :( Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The state emergency management website? Websites of counties or municipalities? CrazyC83 20:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why shouldn't this be merged into the main Hurricane Isabel article? Does it make sense to have a featured article that is simply split out from the main article in summary style for strictly organizational and size purposes? Were the effects really only reported by FEMA and the National Hurricane Center? What about effects on people and business, which would be covered by newspapers and magazines, of which there are none in the article? Right now, this is just government statistics: this many people lost power, this was the height of the waves, this was the time a state of emergency was declared, etc. Thus, this article is not comprensive as to the "effects" of the hurricane in delaware. You could rename it "Government-released statistics about Hurricane Isabel in Delaware", but that just brings us back to the problem of having a minutely specific article that is split out as a practical matter, not because it is a distinct encyclopedic subject. —Centrx→talk • 03:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And I say that a featured article should have daughter articles of featured quality if it is going to wrap {{main}} around them. The rest of your objections are actionable, however.--Rmky87 16:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By the way, I am aware that Hurricane Isabel is not a featured article.--Rmky87 21:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct that the main Isabel article is not featured; it is under construction currently. As for the reason for splitting, that is simply due to the length of articles as mentioned above. Do we really want a 100k article? CrazyC83 15:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it is not clear from the comment above, this article cannot be a featured article because it is not a comprehensive encyclopedia article about the effects of the hurricane in Delaware. The article is simply a regurgitation of statistics from government sources. —Centrx→talk • 10:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many hurricane articles - some of them already featured (see Hurricane Irene (2005) for an example) - are primarily from government articles, as those is often the only sources available. CrazyC83 15:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there are four non-governmental sources. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:49, 6 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a self-nomination. This article is a summary of the important topics in relation to the immune system. It has numerous daughter articles, but I feel that it can clearly stand on it's own as a useful introduction to the topic, and fulfills the FAC criteria. The article was peer reviewed in November (spawning the daughter spin-off and other useful changes). At just over 30kb (total), I feel that the information is accessible to nearly all knowledge levels, with the daughter articles able to provide substantially more detail.--DO11.10 01:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object: Why is there so much boldface used? (MOS:BOLD discourages it; if necessary, use italics, but there is definitely no need to emphasize words like 'barrier', 'no', 'any') The WP:LEAD is too short. Also, there aren't any external links? Finally, see WP:MSH; avoid repeating the article's title in headings.AZt 16:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that all of the above objections have been fixed: I unbolded almost everything, added a few external links, changed the headings a bit, and the intro has been lengthened (thanks Tim).--DO11.10 20:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the prose, this fails 1(a) of WP:WIAFA (and unfortunately, needs a lot more work). Place your cursor over underlined text to see my comments:
Several barriers protect the host from infection; including mechanical, chemical and biological barriers. The waxy cuticle of a leaf, the exoskeleton of an insect, and the skin are examples of the mechanical barriers that are often the first line of defense against infection. The skin is made up of the epidermis, or outer layer, and the dermis; and most infectious agents find the skin to be impenetrable.[3] Coughing and sneezing causes tiny hairs, called cilia, to move in an upward motion mechanically ejecting both living things and other irritants from the respiratory tract. The flushing action of saliva, tears, and urine also mechanically expel pathogens, while mucus secreted by the respiratory and gastrointestinal tract serves to protect the host by trapping microorganisms.[3]
Microorganisms that successfully breach the surface barriers will encounter the cells and mechanisms of the innate immune system which are present, and ready to be mobilized to defend the host. Innate immune defenses are non-specific, meaning that the innate system recognizes and responds to, pathogens in a generic way.[3] The innate immune system protects the host by establishing humoral, chemical and cellular barriers to infection, but does not confer long-lasting immunity to the host. The innate immune system is the dominant system of host defense in most organisms (see other forms of innate immunity).[4]
On an unrelated note, Specific or Adaptive immunity – per WP:MSH, "Adaptive" -> "adaptive".
The cells of the adaptive immune system are a type of leukocyte, called a lymphocyte. B cells and T cells are the major types of lymphocytes, and are derived from pluripotential hemopoietic stem cells in the bone marrow.[7] B cells are involved in the humoral immune response, whereas T cells are involved in cell-mediated immune responses.
Both B cells and T cells carry customized receptor molecules that allow them to recognize and respond to their specific targets. T cells recognize a “non-self” target, such as a pathogen, only after antigens (small fragments of the pathogen) have been processed and presented in combination with a special type of “self” receptor called a major histocompatibility complex (MHC) marker. There are two major subtypes of T-cells; the killer T cell, and the helper T cell. Killer T cells only recognize antigens coupled to Class I MHC markers, while helper T cells only recognize antigens coupled to Class II MHC markers. This arrangement ensures the target antigen is acted upon by the T-cells that can most efficiently eliminate it. A third and usually only minor subtype are γδ T cells that possess an alternative T cell receptor as opposed to conventional αβ (helper and killer) T cells. (Sorry, these comments are a bit rushed; if any of my comments are unclear just note so) AZt 23:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, thanks for your great suggestions, they made perfect sense to me! Commas and semi-colons are honestly things that just baffle me. I think that we are getting along well fixing some of these issues. If you happen to see anything else? Thanks againDO11.10 02:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments and questions.
I'm copy-editing this as I go along, but there are some things that should be checked.
:*Is keratin really acidic?
Dunno about the ketatin yet but here is what Janeway 5 says: "Related antimicrobial peptides, the (beta)-defensins, are made by other epithelia, primarily in the skin and respiratory tract" Ref#4
:*Are there multiple antibacterial enzymes in saliva/tears, or is it just lysozyme?
"Lysozyme and phospholipase found in tears, saliva and nasal secretions can breakdown the cell wall of bacteria and destabilize bacterial membranes." and "Fatty acids in sweat inhibit the growth of bacteria" Somehow those got lost??Ref#2
Reworded to change "Enzymes" to "Lysozyme and Phospholipase A"
:*Why would spermidine and zinc repel pathogens?
Most refs I could find juts say that they are "anti-bacterial" also spermine needs to be added, and it may be a "zinc-rich antibacterial polypeptide". For example: "Natural host defenses that prevent prostatitis are the flushing of the prostatic urethra by emptying the bladder, ejaculation, and the presence of a zinc-rich antibacterial polypeptide that has antibacterial effects against gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria. The prostate has the highest level of zinc concentration of any organ. Healthy men have very high zinc levels, whereas men with CBP have low prostatic zinc levels and normal serum zinc levels. Spermine and spermidine also are natural host defenses in prostatic fluid. These impart the characteristic odor on ejaculate, and their antibacterial activity is directed mainly at gram-positive bacteria.[51]
Changed to zinc and peptides, added refs. TimVickers 04:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
:*Do antibiotics cause yeast infections in the gut?
No, yeast infections in the vagina... my intention here was to illustrate that when commensal bacteria are killed (by antibiotics), other, potentially pathogenic organisms gain an opportunity to infect the host.
Reworded to remove confusion.
:*How do cytokines create a physical barrier against infection?
I think that should be "chemical" barrier, the swelling and other cells called in provide the physical barrier and are induced by the cytokines.
This needs to be clarified.
:*Immunoglobulins and IgG are introduced as terms without defining or linking.:*Immunoglobulins are not a common membrane component of cells.:*Complement has little role in the defence against intracellular pathogens.
True, so do most innate components, I don't know how to include this though.
Reworded, so it isn't implied that it is.
:*How does complement "rids the body of neutralized antigen-antibody complexes"?:*Phagocytosis is still very important for nutrient uptake (transferrin, cholesterol)
True, perhaps "but this role has largely been superseded by its function as a defence mechanism." thoughts?
If phagocytosis is essential for cell survival, it is arguably more important than immune function. I'd recommend just removing this.
:*You need to more clearly define what you men by "natural state" when talking about antigens.:*Infectious disease is still one of the top causes of death worldwide, with about six million people being killed by HIV/TB/malaria every year.
Good change there!!
:*HIV is most common in non-developed countries, but are congenital immunodeficiencies actually more common in developed countries?
Ah, I see... I meant more common than malnutrition as a cause.
Will check out some of the others, and post here. Thanks for all of your help!!--DO11.10 02:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Not entirely happy with the prose in the lead, which suggests that the whole text needs work.
"In immunodeficiency diseases the immune system in less active than normal, resulting in constant and life-threatening infections." Um ... is that "iS"? Should "constant" be toned down to "continual"?
Changed to recurring.
"the virus HIV"—Doesn't "V" stand for virus?
Changed to reterovirus
"that will provide even more effective protection in future encounters"—Why "will" and "future"? Remove "future".
Sentence re-written
"result from the immune system being hyperactive and attacking normal tissues"—Barely grammatical.
I can't do elegance, but I think I've made it simpler. TimVickers 17:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can it more recast to be elegant? Tony 13:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm holding off on oppose because I see TimVickers (talk·contribs) is on board now, but the article needs work - not sure if it's doable during FAC, but perhaps Tim can help. DO11.10, I hope you've seen DNA, Influenza, Enzyme inhibitor, and Bacteria as examples? Nice start, hope you can get the article to a higher level. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as co-author. TimVickers 16:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support new version as co-author. (Special thanks to TimVickers, Ciar and WillowW for their exceedingly valuable contributions to the article.)--DO11.10 17:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well done guys. I support it of course, but I have some comments. In both the young and the elderly, with immune responses begin to decline at around 50 years of age. - Maybe beginning to decline? In the "Surface barriers" section bold text should not be used to emphasize facts and terms, but rather only for cases described in the manual of style. ...the huge variety of normal cells - Cells not Wiki-linked properly, also remove "huge" for encyclopedic tone. Alphabetize the interwiki links. AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome - the synonym was already mentioned earlier in the article. Out-of-normal amount of multiply wiki-links, someone with AutoWikiBrowser should probably check it. ...in most organisms (see other forms of innate immunity) - that see also is already added in the "For more details on this topic.." at the top of the section. "Immunodeficiencies, autoimmunity and hypersensitivities" should be linked in the beginning of the "Disorders of human immunity" section rather than in its subsections. Any particular reason why the word "eukaryotes" is explained in the lead? We should not explain each word with mouse-overs, that's why we link them. Normally representing 50 to 60% - Change "50" to "50%". Remove all italic font on the "Immunological memory" section also used to emphasize facts and terms. Michaelas10(Talk) 21:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Corrections made. TimVickers 21:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: within immunobiology, the terms "self" and "non-self" are adaptations of commonly used words that are used in a special technical sense. As such, these terms are jargon and their technical meaning should be introduced explicitly and clearly for a general audience. I do not think that the current approach of equating "non-self molecules" with "antigens" is technically correct. --JWSchmidt 21:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added a better definition. Thank you. TimVickers 22:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support the rewrite is brilliant. Kudos guys! Well done. Samir धर्म 21:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Indeed, beautiful work. It's so nice to see a group come together with such fine results. – ClockworkSoul 22:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great job! I just did a little bit of copyediting, may do a bit more soon. Any mistakes I can find will probably be too minor to list here, so I'll just fix such errors myself. AZt 22:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support more excellent work from Tim. A few comments -
Can the table on adaptive and non-adaptive immunity be inlined with the text? It looks kind of lonely in all that white space.
"Inflammation is produced by chemical mediators..." - this sentence sounds awkward and I'm not sure why. Maybe because 'produced by a mediator' sounds wrong, or a little weaselly. (Very small nit, I know)
Changed to "produced by cytokines..."
"The immune system is a remarkably effective structure" - language a bit too positive? This reads as textbooky to me. Opabinia regalis 04:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is an remarkably effective structure! TimVickers 17:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article has vastly improved since I last read it. Definitely FA material now.
However, a comment: The article begins "The immune system protects an organism from infection by identifying and then killing pathogens." To me, this is a weak lead-in—it tells us what the immune system does, but not what it is. I certainly realize it's not so simple, but, in the interest of the general readership :), could something like this be worked in?
From the Portuguese WP (already FA there)
O sistema imunitário (também conhecido como sistema imunológico) compreende todos os mecanismos pelos quais um organismo multicelular se defende de invasores internos, como bactérias, vírus ou parasitas.
The immune system comprises all mechanisms through which an organism defends itself against invaders, such as bacteria, viruses or parasites. (Quick adaptation by yours truly)
Changed to The immune system is a mechanism that protects an organism from infection by identifying and then killing pathogens.TimVickers 17:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sorry for the nitpick. Fvasconcellos 17:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice now - congratulations to all on the fast work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wow, I'm being credited for a tiny amount of help I gave on the article, but the wonderful transformation is due to a ton of work by TimVickers, DO11.10 and several others (you know who you are). It looks beautiful...well done :-) It will be great to see this article on the main page!! Ciar 05:32, 6 Jan 2007 (UTC)
Support A beautifully written, thorough overview of an oceanic topic — and remarkably effective. ;) All of its authors, great and small, can be justly proud of their contributions. Willow 14:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I think it's odd that this article skips over the historical development of our understanding of the immune system - especially since this work led to multiple chemistry, physiology and medicine Nobels; it also fails to mention that immunology is a huge field in contemporary biomedical science. There is a rather weak article on the history of the field here here, this book is much better - Silverstein, A.M. 1989. A History of Immunology. Academic Press; I really think thee details warrant a summary section in the article. I think that the adaptive immunity section could use a brief mention of adaptive immunity during pregnancy wouldn't since it is something the average reader can easily understand.--Peta 01:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you think this article needs to summarise the history of immunology? I'm aware that this would be the first article on a body system to reach featured status, so we have nothing to compare it with. However, I note that while circulatory system has a history section, nervous system, gastrointestinal tract, endocrine system, muscular system, respiratory system, human skeleton and urinary system do not. The current immune system article is 68kb, so we do have a little space to expand. On balance I think this is an excellent suggestion, but should be implemented in summary style and direct the reader to the more in-depth coverage on the immunology page, especially for modern research. TimVickers 04:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with TimVickers on the history, it seems a little unnecessary for this article. As a compromise, a link to the history of immunology article could be added to the see also section. As for the adaptive immunity in pregnancy, this is already mentioned in the passive memory section of adaptive immunity in this article. Maybe changing in utero to during pregnancy might make this more obvious. Ciar 04:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few key things that the article really should cover - I think its a serious oversight that the article doesn't discuss immunology at all; the immune system is a bit different from the other systems since it has an entire field of study devoted to it. On the necessity of a historical overview- I think that the people that made important contributions to understanding of any topic should be mentioned in a FA - I had something like the history section in the protein article in mind. Maybe the "manipulation in medicine" section could be worked into the immunology overview. There are some sections in the current version that could be trimmed, like tumor immunology (oddly specific when other areas are given brief coverage) and disorders of human immunity; there are issues of TOC bloat here too. After going over the article again, the ordering of the sections seems kind of off too, why is physiological regulation the last topic discussed - surely its more important to a basic understanding of the immune system than "other mechanisms of host defence"; tacked on at the end there it seems like a late addition, and it is not one of the better written sections.--Peta 04:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really true that Immunology is different from Cardiology, neurobiology etc. However, I do think that a short section summarising the early history of this subject and directing the reader to a more detailed article could be useful. However, to discuss how something is regulated, it is necessary to first describe what is being regulated. Therefore the only logical place to describe regulatory mechanisms is at the end of the descriptive section. I see though that physiological regulation does belong before either medial or pathogenic regulation, so I moved the section upwards. TOC bloat fixed by merging the tumor immunology subsections. TimVickers 05:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To address the concerns above, a small section on the history of immunolgy has been added, with several of the "highlights" noted, and the term "in utero" has been changed to "during pregnancy" in the section on Passive memory so that the point becomes more obvious.--DO11.10 01:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also sentence on immunology as a science added to lead. TimVickers 01:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support with two reservations: I just read through to give a light copyedit and was pleased to find it didn't need much. However, usage of the oxford/serial comma is not consistent; I'd suggest changing uses where it is not employed as it seems to be used more often than not (None of these situations to my memory were ambiguous better-one-way-than-the-other). Secondly, the last three or four sections before the see also (this is a marked change from the earlier sections) need some stylistic copyediting. The prose is a bit vague and a bit less than brilliant; however, it requires deeper knowledge of the subject than I possess to clarify. Other than that, superb article. --Keitei(talk) 00:38, 9 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
A very well-structured and well-referenced article about a rather little-known topic. The article is also well-written and rich in content, including images, and thus provides a very comprehensive overview of the topic. I think this is ready for FA status. Ronline✉ 08:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment excellent work, could the red links be stubbed though? - Francis Tyers· 12:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Red links are actually a problem for FA only here:
We have here a link to two articles not yet existing, and which are presented as the "main articles". This gives a sense of incompleteness in the whole effort done here. Apart from that, the work is really exellent, and the user who did a great deal of this job is Dahn, who deserves our congratulations.--Yannismarou 17:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One or two red links won't stop me supporting, but I'd prefer to see the overwhelming majority blue for a Support. This is a personal preference though and shouldn't subtract from the excellent work Dahn has put in. - Francis Tyers· 17:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but I also want to know by Dahn if he regards the current article as being in its final form or if he intends to initiate further improvements, such as the creation of the two red links I mentioned above.--Yannismarou 17:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Presenting an article as if it employed summary style via Main templates is going to be a non-starter for me - since the article doesn't use Summary style, those templates should be removed, simply linking the future articles somewhere into the text. I don't have a problem with red-links - I do have a problem with the incorrect use of Summary style and the Main template. Sandy (Talk) 21:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In some cases these could be changed to {{seealso}} from {{main}}. - Francis Tyers· 08:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am resonsible for that format, and it was not at all my intention to indicate that. In the future, that is to be the solution for format, and I thought there was nothing wrong with burning some stages (better do things right the first time than to sit around hunting down little omissions later). I don't see this as incorrect use of the Summary Style, since all roads are going to lead to the same point - this will become obvious the moment articles are created (<me being a jerk>is the indication here that I should up and create those articles as well, say, tomorrow?</me being a jerk>) Dahn 23:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What Sandy says is that at this particular moment that the nomination appeared here this is a wrong use of summary style, and I agree. Of course, it is clear that your intention is to fix this deficiency in the future.--Yannismarou 08:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please fix this soon or I will be a Strong object. Have a look at WP:SS and WP:GTL for an explanation of the use of the main template - it is being used wrongly, implying that summary style is used and that this article is a summary of a non-existing (larger, more comprehensive) article. Please fix - if you intend to write those articles in the future, the way to fix it is to refer to them inline, in the body of the text, by linking them in to the article. Sandy (Talk) 16:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be strange, but I wouldn't strongly object. The templates all imply that the article has been written and provides further information for summarizing, whereas a red wikilink is "normal". Sandy (Talk) 18:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi and thank you everyone (Ronline for the nomination, Yannis for the kind words, Francis for the intricate work). I am open to any criticism and will accept any final decision on this matter; IMO, creating articles for many of the red links would require as intense an activity as I've invested in Regulamentul, and I have postponed it (as I have contributed more on other periods of Ro history as of late, and do not have access to all the sources I have previously used; also, scratching the surface of Romanian wikipedia has revealed that there are a lot of misconceptions about some of the projected articles, a rather annoying reality which I have avoided dealing with so far). I too think that the amount of red links is a huge handicap in the way of an FA: based on that, I would not vote in favor of the current article (see my first reaction to the news). I could, of course, merely create stubs on many of these, but I generally avoid starting what I cannot yet complete; in case anybody has (unlike the original contributors of said articles on ro wiki) access to a reliable bibliography and would take on the burden of adding the bulk of information on, say, the Wallachian revolution, I would be more than willing to copyedit and provide details (for which I have some sources ready). Dahn 18:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The red links are not an obstacle for FA status. Actually, many users (like Yomangani) regard them as a + for a FA! Only the two links I mentioned above could be regarded as an "obstacle", because they are presented as "main articles". But a FA nomination can last for more than a month if necessary, and in the meantime I think you could fix these problem or you could remove this particular phrase with the main articles links until you create them. Of course, during the FAC other suggestions may be voiced, which you should deal with. In any case, it is up to you to decide what is the best for the article, since you are its main editor. If you decide not to vote in favor of this nomination, I will not support either.--Yannismarou 18:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks for the suggestions, I'll consider both and come up with a solution within a month. Btw, don't let my actions serve as an example in this case - I don't plan to vote on an article I have contributed so much to (it would be immodest, like voting for your own adminship), but, in case you think it is worth an FA by the end of the month, please do so. And thank you all (TSO1D included); let's not forget Bogdan, who furnished most of the pictures. Dahn 23:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It looks like a great, well-supported article. TSO1D 19:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, no question. Sure, we still have a few red links in there, but it's extremely well-researched and composed, nicely festooned with images, copiously referenced - clearly a labour of love. Plus, I think the best featured articles are those that deal with a topic "no one's ever heard of before", and I wager this will be true for the bulk of readers, who will come away enlightened upon reading this. Biruitorul 06:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support (per nom). Ronline✉ 08:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support. I stress the conditionality here.
My main (and basically only!) problem with this great and thoroughly worked article is the wrong use of summary style with the two red links, which should be fixed per Sandy's suggestions, before this FAC is closed.
Minor stylistic: Per MoS it is inadvisable to link sigle years.--Yannismarou 08:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a reader unfamiliar with Eastern European history, this confused me: "The two countries, placed under Ottoman Empire suzerainty since the 1400s..." What two countries? Gzkn 12:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm! This is indeed obscure, but I believe he means Moldavia and Wallachia.--Yannismarou 14:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's all clarified in the introductory paragraph - I'm afraid I couldn't be more explicit without becoming repetitive. Dahn 16:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than say "The two countries", you could explicitly say "Moldavia and Wallachia". That wouldn't be redundant, and might be clearer. - Jmabel | Talk 21:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But references to both are present in the first paragraph, after which this immediately follows, and which I am to presume we have in there for people to read. Plus, the phrase itself ends with the word "Wallachians". Wouldn't it hurt the text to break down as simple and as essential a concept as this? After all, if, with all the repetitions already in there and with all the wikipedia system of links, people cannot figure out where the article takes place, there is really no article that could help them. Dahn 22:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there's a significant break between the lead and the sentence in question. I was confused because a) the lead does not make it clear that Moldavia and Wallachia were independent countries at the time b) there's a reference to the Russo-Turkish War of 1710-1711, leading me to believe that perhaps the "two countries" referred to Russia and Turkey. Replacing "two countries" with "Moldavia and Wallachia" wouldn't introduce any redundancy at all, in my view. There would be three sentences in between the two instances, and a clear section break. Obviously it's not a big deal; just saying that it might clear up some confusion. Gzkn 01:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object In spite of the long discussion above, this article is still using summary style and the main templates incorrectly - it includes
when these articles are barely stubs, and the section is not a summary of those articles. Sandy (Talk) 01:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed that to "See also" instead of "Main article". Is it OK now? Ronline✉ 02:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object as per Yannismarou above. Why on earth are the single years and centuries blued out? Very irritating. I mean, 1400s is just sooooo useful: it says "Wars of the Roses happened in the 1400's between York and Lancaster", then something about Joan of Arc. And nothing else. What a waste of our readers' time. Please delink all of the unpiped, trivial chronological links or I'll find lots to complain about in the prose. Tony 14:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the years. bogdan 14:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent article. Khoikhoi 02:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support. While the overall number of inline refs is impressive, there are still paras lacking references, particulary in the 'Background' section. Please add them, and I'll glady support.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Piotrus, all that info is a summary of a summary. Most of it is either referenced in the main article one click away, or is in fact common, almost trivial, knowledge (not in the sense that I would expect everyone to know about it, but in the sense that I expect every source available to provide the exact same information). Everything in that paragraph that is not trivial or expanded upon in Phanariotes is actually referenced. I must admit I am rather confused: above, I was being led to believe that the "main article" system should only be used for summaries; now you tell me that the summary itself needs to be copiously referenced (it is referenced, but you say it is not referenced enough). Dahn 23:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I see it, it doesn't matter if summarized main article is uber-referenced FA, the article which makes use of its content needs to be referenced. If the info is very obvious, then your job is easy - just tag each para with some off-the-self book or even website, and you are done. Remember that the purpose of refences is not only to ensure that our info is reliable, but to allow users to go to detailed publications dealing with them. As it is currently, the article gives no way for a user to verify or read more about the Russo-Turkish War of 1710-1711 or Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca (for example) other then go to their wiki articles - and remember that wiki cannot be a reference for itself.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 23:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then: added. Do you have any other objections? Dahn 00:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes, one more :) In 'Statutary rules and nationalist opposition' section, there are read 'see also's. The rule for see also is that 'red see alsos should not exist': i.e. either stub/redirect them or delete. Once this is done, I will support fully.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 00:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, just not right now. Again, if users want to jump ahead of me, let them do so. Dahn 11:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great article.apancu 12:13, 9 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
^Nuland 1988, p. 4 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFNuland1988 (help)
. No obvious ungrammaticalities there, though.
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
Ronline ✉ 08:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ronline ✉ 08:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]