Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Spawn Man (talk | contribs)
13,134 edits
m nominated
Nomination
Line 4: Line 4:
==Nominations==
==Nominations==
<!-- Add new nominations at the top of the list immediately below.-->
<!-- Add new nominations at the top of the list immediately below.-->
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dinosaur}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dinosaur}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Apple Macintosh}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Apple Macintosh}}

Revision as of 14:48, 11 December 2005

For the similar process page for good articles, see Wikipedia:Good article nominations.
Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ.

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.

The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved;
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached;
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
  • a nomination is unprepared.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and  Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed.

An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback.

Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere.

A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}.

Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache

Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating

How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived.
  2. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
  3. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page.
  5. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead.

Commenting, etc

Commenting, supporting and opposing

Supporting and opposing

Shortcut
  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process.
  • To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria.
  • To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.
  • For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems.
  • If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.


Featured article (FA) tools

Nominations

The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask

This article was removed as a featured article because of purported fraud on the part of Hollow Wilerding. I am resubmitting it as a featured article because I believe (as do many of those who voted for its removal) that it is FA quality; the reason for its demotion was entirely due to fraud. You can find the peer review here and the previous FAC here. The archive of the FARC is here — Cuivienen 20:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, well done, now I'm totally conflicted. This is undoubtedly a fine article about a piece of gaming emphemera that I recall quite vividly, but... the commercial nature of the subject matter remains. This is not the fault of the writers: their NPOV is spot on. However, the LoZ franchise is a contemporary, worldwide recognised brand name, and as such, by flagging up this article, we may be validating more than just a historical curio in that it can be misconstued as brand placement. By pushing these types of entry towards the front page (and yes I know that it is never inevitable, but certainly FA is a requirement for a front pager), we really do open the project up to potential abuse, the nature of which is very difficult to determine from legitimate entries. --HasBeen 10:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have to agree with HasBeen. I think there are legit quesitons about Wiki featuring a currently avaialable commerical product. Rlevse 14:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are the legit questions? Does it promote something people profit off? Sure, but so do a whole host of other FAs -- to some extent, any article could theoretically lead to more interest in the subject, and therefore increased sales of related books or other material. Why should this have anything to do with FA status? (I'm aware of the argument that putting this on the main page could look like advertising. I find this argument completely unconvincing, and it is, in any case, irrelevant here, since it's a long-standing principle that every article is FAable, even if it would be inappropriate for the main page) I haven't looked at the article in question, but what is the harm associated with a good, unbiased article on a branded topic? Wikipedia could do far worse than contain neutral, accurate and comprehensive information on corporations and their products -- as a matter of fact, that would make Wikipedia a uniquely useful resource. Tuf-Kat 17:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Copies of Majora's Mask are no longer being produced. The game is well-known but has been obsoleted with the obsoletion of the N64 by the GameCube, and, soon, the Revolution. The product is only available through resales or through stores that never sold their full stock. It is not current. - Cuivienen 04:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment'. If it's no longer available (but it says it was avail as a GameCube til at least 2004), then perhaps the article should mention that. Not everyone will know this. Rlevse 17:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentCurrent?This is for the N64 which in videogame industry terms is ancient.This game is long gone from the spot light.The current systems are even being replaced (GC/xbox/ps2).--Technosphere83 18:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above is a Comment, not an objection. The Legend of Zelda is a clearly recognisable brand name. That may lead to questions about product placement, not necessarily the content of the article. --HasBeen 09:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize that your statements are a comment and not an objection. However, this is not merely a vote — it is a discussion. I must once again ask you to cite policy; Tuf-Kat is correct, I don't feel that this is a valid concern. Please do not raise concerns about this article becoming a front page article here. Objections to that belong at WP:TFA, should MM be nominated for such. --Pagrashtak 18:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Tuf-Kat and Pagrashtak. --Naha|(talk) 15:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree: this is as valid a comment to make under the circumstances as the rebuttals. --HasBeen 10:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This article is very well referenced for a video game article, which are commonly plagued by reference problems. --Pagrashtak 05:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Well written, well sourced. Its a shame that the voting fraud incident occured with this article. --ZeWrestler Talk 06:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decided to help out and organize the footnotes under the new inline citation. this will automatically order information as more sources are added to the article. --ZeWrestler Talk 06:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as previous nomination - Hahnchen 18:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The inaccuracies and structural flaws I pointed out during the last nomination have still not been addressed. Fredrik | tc 02:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, this is surprisingly good. Although it could use a bit more clarity, I say that I have to Support this article. Dee man45 04:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - great article! --Naha|(talk) 15:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are some issues that come to mind.
    • "It received some criticism for this" is unsourced.
    • The "fixed 3D" issue should be mentioned among the technical developments, not gameplay, because it has nothing to do with gameplay (it is in fact directly related to the extra 4 MB of memory)
    • "possibly the Lost Woods" is pure speculation
    • The section on "Basic controls" isn't needed. All of it except the first sentence which really should be moved to the top of the "Gameplay" section and related to OoT (basic controls are the same in both games) should be merged with "Masks and transformations"
    • One image has visible emulation artifacts, several images are in the wrong resolution.
    • Most images are boring; only one shows action, none shows dialogue. Certainly images could be used to demonstrate more of the gameplay and interesting settings. At least, I think there should be one image of each transformation, and the "Dungeons" section should be illustrated with several images.
    • "while its predecessor had been cited as one of the greatest video games of all time, Majora's Mask has not." is incorrect; the article even cites an example further down. HW reverted my correction of this error without explanation.
    • The text is littered with poor prose and questionable conclusions. While most seems to be correct, much of it is illogically structured, linking things that are connected or emphasizing facts that are not important. Here is just one example:
The gameplay in Majora's Mask is arguably deeper than that of Ocarina of Time. Its predecessor features bombs, arrows, and music (in the form of an ocarina) as tools to solve many of its puzzles; Majora's Mask includes multiple instruments as well as time travel and character transformations through certain masks to add further layers of difficulty and variety to the quests in the game.
Both games extensively use predecessor feature bombs, arrows, and music, so this misses the point. The use of multiple instruments adds no depth to the gameplay so it shouldn't be mentioned. The line "to add further layers of difficulty and variety to the quests in the game" doesn't say anything.
    • More generally, "one thought, one paragraph" is violated in multiple places. For example, the first paragraph under "Gameplay" jumps between comparing the game to Ocarina and (redundantly) explaining the storyline.
    • I want a separate section, with more content, about the use of a three-day time cycle. It is by far the most interesting and unique aspect of MM's gameplay
    • What is "The proceeding rooms are filled with obstacles through which Link and Tatl must navigate." about? This is trivial and doesn't advance the story.
    • I think the "Dungeons" section should be renamed, merged with "Characters", expanded to cover the entire world of Termina, trimmed, and given "Main article:" links to the articles Termina and The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask characters.
    • Most of the story can be told without the spoiler tags.
    • The information on development is incomplete. The section should include the original working title, important announcement dates, and at which game shows it was previewed.
    • There is nothing on bugs or speedrunning (except a single external link for the latter).
Fredrik | tc 20:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, acqusations. Although most are reasonable, there are a few I must object to:

  • The gameplay is deeper: In ocarina of time, songs were used to warp, and many were one-timers; only the Song of Time and Zelda's Lullaby were used semi-frequently. The songs in Majora's Mask are used several times throughout the game to accomplish many different tasks; Every song is used at least twice in normal play. Also, Majora's mask has several sidequests; almost every mask has its own task needed to acquire it, and many involve using earlier masks or songs gained. Using these masks in gameplay allows for several different circumstances, and several different methods used to defeat enemies, and rarely bosses (see the Goht section for an example of different methods)
  • You are asking for a separate section about the three day time limit in order to appeal to what you believe to be the best aspect of the game; unfortunately, everyone else doesn't think the same way you do. It could be considered a gimmick, or it could be considered pure genius; this difference of perception could cause a flame war between fans of the game on Wikipedia. A situation such as this would be terrible.
  • "The proceeding rooms are filled with obstacles through which Link and Tatl must navigate," advances the story; it shows that Link and Tatl were with each other for a period of time before the true quest began.

Dee man45 03:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay is deeper
No objection at all. The problem with the cited paragraph is its complete failure to describe what you just did (!)
You are asking for a separate section about the three day time limit in order to appeal to what you believe to be the best aspect of the game; unfortunately, everyone else doesn't think the same way you do. It could be considered a gimmick, or it could be considered pure genius; this difference of perception could cause a flame war between fans of the game on Wikipedia. A situation such as this would be terrible.
Hold on a second; I didn't say it is the best of the game, or the most clever. I said it is the most peculiar aspect of the game, which is why it warrants extra attention; this would be true even if it were just a gimmick.
In any case, the gimmick view doesn't seem to be well supported. On the contrary, most critics refer to it as being central to the gameplay (along with masks). For example: "The object of Majora's Mask revolves around two things: masks and time.", "The way that time flows and is interleaved with the masks is what's most impressive." (IGN), "the game's time-sensitive nature" (Gamespot), "time [...] happens to play a very important role in this game" (Gaming Age).
If there were a real controversy regarding whether the time aspect is a gimmick, the case for writing about it in depth would only be more compelling.
"The proceeding rooms are filled with obstacles through which Link and Tatl must navigate," advances the story; it shows that Link and Tatl were with each other for a period of time before the true quest began.
The game segment advances the story, but this sentence doesn't explain that. This problem occurs elsewhere in the article. Fredrik | tc 03:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your points are taken; I retract my statements, although I still support this article. Dee man45 16:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I just put a lot of work into the article. I looked into the "It received some crit..." issue, and didn't find a lot to support so I rewrote to avoid saying that. I removed the Lost Woods speculation. The Basic Controls section has been absorbed by Gameplay and Masks + trans. The "while it's pred..." sentence has been rewritten. I rewrote the "poor prose" example, but I imagine this hasn't yet solved that entire point for you. I rewrote the "proceeding rooms" bit to convey that the section made Link get used to his new Deku Scrub body. The Dungeons section is now Termina and includes the characters section and the rewritten Temple/Boss sections, as well as the requested links. I moved the spoiler tags to not include the first part, which is not really a spoiler, but I don't know about moving it any further. As far as the bugs and speedrunning, I feel that there is nothing notable that would warrant inclusion in that section. It is Wikiproject policy at WP:CVG to keep information such as bugs to a minimum and only include them if they are notable. It would be appreciated if you could look over the article and strike out any objections that have been addressed. --Pagrashtak 06:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but the prose and use of images still needs to be improved. Certainly long bug lists are inappropriate, but major ones (or the lack thereof) and mention of bugs from Ocarina of Time that have been fixed would be interesting. Speedrunning is certainly relevant; in addition to the current world record, the "6 day challenge" should be covered. Fredrik | tc 03:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had addressed the "Dungeons" issue, do you feel it needs more work? I've just addressed the "development" section issue also. I'm not really sure how I'd write a section on the lack of bugs. While I also would find a section on speedrunning interesting, I'm just not sure it's encyclopedic. I think there would be a lot of people who don't find that interesting. I think we might have to disagree on those points. --Pagrashtak 03:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think it needs more work; images would really help. The development section looks fine now. Regarding speedrunning, there's plenty of precedent; see for example Quake or Metroid series. Fredrik | tc 05:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A "three-day cycle" section has been added. I also moved material around to keep the "three-day cycle" and "masks" thoughts more confined to the proper areas. I placed the new section below the masks section, as I feel the masks are more important than the three-day cycle. --Pagrashtak 16:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been reorganizing as I edit and have just done some copyedits and slight reorg. Please see if your "one thought one paragraph" and "poor prose, questionable conclusions" objections have been addressed. If not, perhaps you could provide examples. Regarding the dungeons section, I believe I've addressed the renaming and merging bullet (which can now be struck), just not the image bullet, correct? --Pagrashtak 22:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Beautiful! The images still need work, but this objection is minor. I will therefore change my vote to support. Fredrik | tc 05:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ObjectSupport I agree with Fredrik - nice! WhiteNight T | @ | C 22:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is the level of quality I have been trying to achieve with the Xenosaga page over the past week or so. Outstanding article, and I agree with a previous user: it "gives fancruft a good name". I am impressed. 14:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. There is no citation for the release dates of the game. I know this is picky, but if one was unsure of the date and required it to complete an article, they could have slipped any random date into the slot.
  2. The "Temples" section is far too detailed for an encyclopedia. The descriptions of how to battle and defeat the video game boss are much too in depth, and an everyday, common reader would probably have no desire to read every single word in each sentence.
  3. Twinmold, the guardian of Stone Tower Temple, is actually two creatures: giant sand worms (inspired by previous Zelda boss Lanmola). Citation? Source?
  4. Lack of wikilinks, as I've noted on the talk page.
  5. Players must plan what to accomplish in one cycle — attempting to complete too much could result in running out of time half-way through a task and being forced to abandon it and start over in another cycle. This is a poorly-written sentence. Could serve as a run-on sentence.
  • 64.231.163.117 02:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For the date, 64.231.16...can I just call you 64? I'll look it up, but I'm sure that the one there is the true one. The Temples are a critical part of gameplayand the oeverall experience; I'll try to trim it down, but it is still important. There is no source whatsoever that Twinmold was inspired by Lanmola, so I'll delete that, but anyone can tell you that Twinmold is a double sand worm boss. I agree with wikilinks and the run-on; I'll see if I can do something about that. Dee man45 20:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the double dates, gamespot is by far a more reliable source than rpgamer; an official liscened franchise of the industry is usually more correct than a fansite. Dee man45 20:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would register an account on Wikipedia, but because my IP address is within the Toronto District Library (the 64.231... range is owned by the Toronto library), and Hollow Wilerding abused Wikipedia by what it appears to have been sock puppetry on the FACs, I cannot register an account. I'll be accused of being Hollow Wilerding. So as of present day, I can edit anonymously only. Anyway, on the issue of the dates, a user has to locate release dates that are precise and the same as opposed to the wacky all-over-the-place figures. The rest of my opposition needs to be referred to. 64.231.163.10 20:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur

After it was denied for FA status last time, I made major repairs & hopefully fixed this great article. Please vote support & get this article to the main page... Spawn Man 08:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC) BTW, I'll scratch out requests I think I have completed, please unscratch if they are not....[reply]

Please don't unilaterally alter objections from other editors. Only the person who makes the objection should declare it resolved. You've missed the point on objections I made that you struck out, and I've restored them. Monicasdude 03:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Noone else has had a problem with it. You came in here, with a flimsy opposition. I fixed most of what you said, & as my right to be able to see what is checked off, I am able to strike out what I think is resolved. No one else has had a problem. I asked you to ellaborate, so do so or I'm afraid I have to strike the opposition so I can keep track! I'm not going to ruin my whole effort because I can't keep track of what I've done. Spawn Man 03:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Spawn Man, please do not alter other people's votes, no matter what the circumstances. Raul654 uses these votes to determine whether to promote an article. Chick Bowen 23:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did not alter them. I was merely making an innocent attempt to keep track of what I'd done. Never knew there were so many rules.... Spawn Man 22:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Get a better picture for the lead. The only reason to have a B&W photo would be if it was the first dino bone discovered (which was later lost) at the discovery site. Try to get a drawing of a living dino.
    I've made the same proposal here. CG 18:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Captions. Expand them, and add periods.
  3. Expand the content. Get help; yes it's the AID (change the template on the talk) and was the Collaboration of the Week, but see if you can interest a WikiProject.
  4. There are numerous objections on the talk page. Don't delete the stuff in the todo list; use strikethroughs (<s> and </s>). Fix just about all of them.

Meanwhile, it is a good article; with nice references and size. Try to keep it under 50k. But for now, I'm opposed. --HereToHelp (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Try to expand the captions, and keep copyediting.You'll get there. --HereToHelp (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By captions, you mean the picture captions, am I right? If so, I do not know how I could possibly add dates to them... Spawn Man 21:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, not dates. make them informative. Add links and periods. Make them useful. --HereToHelp (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Periods, as in "."s and making the captions complete sentances! Time frame would be nice (one of the three eras is fine), but the main thing is to make the captions whole, useful, gramatically correct sentances. --HereToHelp (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My bidding? Right....Well, this looks pretty good. Not an instant hit...but good enough. Gor for it. Congrats. --HereToHelp (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, your bidding master.... You rang???. Spawn Man 00:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll try my best, but you have to be blunt with me, for example I have no idea what B&W means, so therefore cannot fix the problemo. For this request, Captions. Expand them, and add periods, could you please give me an example of what you want, as this I do not also understand. I will also try & enlist the help of the Dinosaur wikiproject, but I fear they are pretty much dormant. So other than that, thanks for feedback & try to explain what needs doing in "simple english" if you will. Spawn Man 22:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • As an alternative, I could swap the opening T rex skull photo for the photo of the triceratop's skeleton, so as it is not just a skull picture that opens, or even swap it for the sauropod picture further below that. Comments would be appreciated. Spawn Man 22:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC) BTW, We did have a "drawing of a living dino", but it was on the verge of copyright infringement.[reply]
  • Support. The pictures are fine, can't get much better without copyright issues. The content is just enough to not clutter the article, and there are many auxillary articles listed that expand on it. Dinoguy2 23:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article does not cite about 80% of the assertions it makes. As one example, "while it was once believed that birds simply evolved from dinosaurs and went their separate way, some scientists now believe that some dinosaurs, such as the dromaeosaurs, may have actually evolved from birds, losing the power of flight while keeping the feathers in a manner similar to the Ostrich and other ratites" is a uncited generalization, and the paragraph to which it belongs is vague, weasle-ish, and its other claims are also uncited. By extension, most of the paragraphs in the article are similarly flawed. The lead section is weak, being both vague in its summary of dinosaurs but also containing overly-specific information that is not found anywhere else in the article. John Ostrom's discovery of Deinonychus and the renaissance it supposedly triggered is mentioned no where else in the article. The only place that explains where dinosaur knowledge comes from is the second sentence of the lead, leaving much to be desired—Where are fossils found? What does this suggest about dinosaurs (that they reigned the entire Earth? that certain species were restricted to certain areas?)? What is the geologic window in which dinosaur fossils are found and how do they fit into the broader natural history? The first two sentences expect you to do math to figure out when the dinosaurs reigned. Why is information about fossilization and reconstruction in the "Size" section? The mystery and controversy over the KT extinction event in relation to dinosaurs is not given proper weight, failing to mention how it has implication in things like religion and future possibility of species extinction. The information in the classification section contradicts what is said in say, the pterosaurs article, and that section is additionally badly structured and difficult to follow. Years that are irrelevent to this topic are being linked to despite Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) recommending against it. The article uses self references like "this article" and "see below" and phrases that will be invalid soon ("five years ago", "recently found"). The interesting topic of how people thought of dinosaurs in earlier times is limited to a sentence. After reading this article I have come away feeling unlearned about such an important topic.—jiy (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am saddened to hear that Jiy. Although we strive for complete perfection in FA's, we cannot always do so. I'll try to fix as many things as I can & will reply personally to you soon. Alas, I did not write most of the uncited sentences you suggested above, so I alone would not be able to cite them. Another point I'd like to discuss is that of the KT extinction. How, may I ask, does the extinction affect the future possibility of species extinction? Also, if you read on the dinosaur talk page you would notice the discussion on whether to actually involve creationism or religion in the dinosaur article. Please leave your comments on this subject there. I personally think the section on extinction is quite adequate; It not oly gives an indepth, overall summary of extinction theories, but also gives the link to the main article on the subject, allowing the reader to delve further into the subject. Why add to this section, which has its own page, when there are other sections in need of bigger work which do not have their own page? We have been told to keep the page size to under 50k, so in satisfying your requests, we may be failing another. Please take this under consideration. I would assume that the information which editors have gotten their information from is from the books & papers & sites under the references section & the external links section. I will reply further on your talk, but will try my hardest to adequately fix your shown problems.... Spawn Man 04:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC) BTW, I hope this oppose is not because I gave you an earfull about disrupting the images?[reply]

(following posted at jiy talk)

In reply to your lengthy paragraph about why you oppose, I would like you to do one thing first, to make it much easier for both of us, please divide your reasons into bullet points. I cannot quickly flip through & search for what is needed when all I see is one giant block. I'll try & address all your problems now, but I can't promise I did not miss one or two.

As per subpage, I did not write most of the uncited sentences you suggested above, so I alone would not be able to cite them, but I would assume they were taken from the references stated. If wish to dig through the 1,000 plus edits on dinosaur, find the editor who wrote them & ask him which sources he used for the sentence he wrote a few months ago, then be my guest. I would assume that zero would remember, & since you said that "over 80%" is uncited (I would assume this is a definite exaggeration), pleasing you would require deleting 80% of the article, meaning there would be nothing left. We could complain about it, but lets admit it, over 3 quarters of wikipedia article are uncited & will never be cited. So although your request is legitimit, it is practically impossible.

I will work on the lead section. It absolutley needs work, you are right.

Some of your questions are answered if you read in depth, such as "Where are fossils found? ". Under the history of discovery section it states what some of the general hotspots are & where they can be found. If you want something more specific, please explain.

From my post on the subpage; Another point I'd like to discuss is that of the KT extinction. How, may I ask, does the extinction affect the future possibility of species extinction? Also, if you read on the dinosaur talk page you would notice the discussion on whether to actually involve creationism or religion in the dinosaur article. Please leave your comments on this subject there. I personally think the section on extinction is quite adequate; It not oly gives an indepth, overall summary of extinction theories, but also gives the link to the main article on the subject, allowing the reader to delve further into the subject. Why add to this section, which has its own page, when there are other sections in need of bigger work which do not have their own page? We have been told to keep the page size to under 50k, so in satisfying your requests, we may be failing another. Please take this under consideration.

I do not understand what you are talking about involving the pterosaur article, please explain.

I will change the "5 years ago" reference etc. lso, what would you like me to change the "see below" statements to? "See this section" or something else? Please elaborate.

That's basically it. I'll get on it as soon as I can. Kind Regards, Spawn Man 04:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support - This may be a somewhat lengthy article, but is just enough to give enough details, without getting lost into the details. It gives a good overview of the new insights in taxonomy. In other words : it's a good starting point if you want to know more about dinosaurs. Just a pity that there are no better pictures available; they would give even more credit to this article. JoJan 09:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the text is less than brilliant, much of the article is single sentence paragraphs, there are uncomfortable self referential links, the TOC is overly long sections broken down unnecessarily, particularly the bird/dinosaur section and the fields of study section, and as jiy point out there is too much weasel langauge, where primary research backs up the point, cite it. There shouldn't be {{main}} links to unwritten articles. There is a mix of footnotes and harvard notes, references should be in a standard format throughout the article. And while on the references, WP:CITE states you should actively search for authoritative references to cite, so in an ideal world the primary research discussed in all the footnotes would actaully be listed, rather than (or in addition to) the regurgitated simplified media version.--nixie 11:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the single sentence paragraphs, funnily, a while before you posted your complaints on here. I fail to see which paragraphs are still single sentences. In regard to the "uncomfortable self referential links", could you please explain what you mean by this? The way I'm reading it, it sounds like I should give them a pillow & a personal massage? The weasel language will be fixed, but alas I did have to sleep last night, & now since there has been an outcry to remove the molecular paleontology link, it will be removed. Spawn Man 21:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, there are too many redlinks. I removed one "Main article:redlink" which shouldnt have been there, but there are still a few remaining. Also not sure about the pic layout changed in this edit which sounds like a threat. It was an interesting easy to read article though, I think its close. ---- Astrokey44|talk 12:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • (i) Presence or absence of redlinks is not mentioned in the criteria. It is better keep redlinks for articles that are needed than tactically delink to remove them. (ii) What bearing does the putative "threat" have on whether or nto the article meets the featured article criteria (the only potential relevance I can see is 2(e) - "stability" - but moving images does not amount to an edit war). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ALoan here. Astrokey44, you have given me no problems to fix what so ever! Red links are inevitable & I cannot change what happened in the past with the image re arranging. Either come up with something I can fix or remove your vote.... Spawn Man 21:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Astrokey44, I have checked all the article for as you say, "there are too many redlinks". I only found six. For an article this size, it is excellent. Plus all the red links were to key articles that may be created by someone with experience. Your objection is looking rediculous if I may say so. It has nothing to stand on what so ever. There are little red links, no main article redlink any more & the edit summary cannot be changed. Spawn Man 23:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ok since the main article redlink isnt there anymore Ill remove my objection. Are there any other pictures which would work here, it the sort of article you would expect to have alot of good pictures. I found a couple from commons which might work ---- Astrokey44|talk 03:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support now. I didnt mean to give the wrong impression before, I do think its well written and comprehensive, there were just minor things which I think have been fixed now. It would make a great featured article ---- Astrokey44|talk 05:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I have completed the following tasks from everyone:

  • Gotten a better picture for the lead.
  • Change the AID template on the talk page.
  • Wrote to get help from a WikiProject.
  • Fixed just about all of the to do's on the talk page.
  • Merged & rewrote the single-sentence sections.
  • Removed the phrases, "five years ago" & "recently found" from text.
  • Reduced ToC, particularly in the bird/dinosaur section.
  • Removed the main article redlink.
  • Have removed all self references.
  • Have removed all links to years, per manual of style.
  • Have expanded captions.
  • Have added periods/full stops to all captions.
  • Removed double punctuations.
  • Moved all citaion boxes to directly behind the punctuation.
  • Merged short paragraphs in the definition section.
  • Got a citation for the Oort Cloud section.
  • Got a citation for Bakker's work in the warm blooded section.
  • Replaced "The study, funded in part by the National Science Foundation, is detailed in the July 14 issue of the journal Nature." with a citation.
  • Rearranged hip structure paragraphs to suitable liking.
  • Most foot notes now point to actual printed references.
  • Corrected dino dates in the lead so readers do not have to do the math.
  • Removed all harvard style references into footnotes per MoS.
  • Expanded & cited parts of the evolution section.
  • Sourced that darstardly Cretacious changes section.
  • Sourced part of the history section, as well as many other sections.
  • Explained the theory of the Gondwanaland break up & dinosaurs.
  • Removed all POV problems in the popular clture section that I could see.
  • Deleted turok evolution picture.
  • Deleted Barney picture.
  • Object—Good work on this so far, but there is a lack of inline citations in portions of the text (the last three level 2 sections have none, and the "Areas of debate", which should arguably have the most citations of any section, has only three). Additionally, none of the notes point to actual print references. Also, the formatting of the citations is poor -- the number should immediately follow the punctuation, and there should be no repeat punctuation (see no. 15 especially -- to make it right, just remove that last period). I'll fix this tomorrow if I get a chance. Last thing I'll mention is that there are a number of very short paragraphs in the "Definition" section. Combining some of those would be helpful, but others seem very poorly placed ("Dinosaurs are extremely varied...", for example). Hope this helps. --Spangineeres (háblame) 23:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the history section needs a source, even if it's only one at the end of the section (if one source covers all the material there). And there are still weasel words and unreferenced claims in the debates and extinction sections:
  • "It has been claimed that..." in Evidence for Cenozoic dinosaurs
  • "some scientists, most notably Gregory S. Paul," in Skeleton
  • "The study, funded in part by the National Science Foundation, is detailed in the July 14 issue of the journal Nature." in Lungs (replace with citation) Done, can you see if I've done it properly?
  • "according to an investigation led by Patrick O'Connor" in Lungs (documentation?) Completed with above.
  • Gizzard and Care of Young don't have any source (maybe incorporate care of young into the reproduction section, and gizzard into a new section called "anatomy" or the like -- that would help reduce the size of the TOC as well)
  • "The theory first proposed by Walter Alvarez in the late 1970s" in asteroid collision (publication info?)
  • "The environment during the late Cretaceous was changing dramatically." in environment changes. To me, a non-scientist, that sounds rather speculative. Is there a source for that info?
Note that when I say inline citation, I mean either footnote or parenthetical citation -- I believe that's common usage but I thought I'd be explicit. I say that because I'd like to see page numbers on those sources, if at all possible, and including them might look better if done in footnotes. In that case, the note itself might simply list the first author's last name and the page number, allowing the reader to refer to the references for the full bibliography (see welding, for example). --Spangineeres (háblame) 01:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, one more thing -- re the hip image, I'd prefer to see most of the caption text in the article itself. Just keep "Blah hip structure" in the image caption. I don't have a problem with the actual placements of the images, since there really isn't any other option other than galleries (won't be able to read the text) and stacking them (looks bad, unless that section doubles in length). --Spangineeres (háblame) 01:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support—A few more inline citations need to be added, but I'm planning to do a little work on that this afternoon. Overall, a really well-done article; Spawn Man has done a great job. --Spangineeres (háblame) 14:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting, I'll see what I can do. I admit however, I may need help with the citations part, I'm new to it... Spawn Man 00:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Support, This article has been GREATLY improved. The time and effort clearly shows. And while there could still be some tweaks, here and there, it makes the grade as a good general overview article. Inline citations are more a question of style preference than a requirement.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Conditional Support, so long as no one else objects to unreferenced factual statements, I think this article is very good and shows what's great about wikipedia. - JustinWick 02:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support. There are certainly some sections that could benefit from some expansion, and perhaps a few things that ought to be wikilinked. I'll admit I haven't read through the article word-for-word, so I cannot really speak to the language, but it's certainly a more than long enough article, with plenty of pictures, and most if not all of the relevant headings/sections. LordAmeth 03:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object. The article still needs a thorough copyedit to remove sharp changes in tone (e.g., "The Jurassic Park movies also inspired a couple of console games"; "In fact, most dinosaurs were much smaller than we would expect".) Some texts that fail the verifiability test survive (e.g, the intro comment about Gondwanaland; the fossils may corroborate the theory, but certainly don't prove it). The bringing-back-to-life section is speculative at best, not encyclopedic; the pop culture discussions, in general, have NPOV problems, and suggest that the idea of humans and dinosaurs being contemporaneous is in some way plausible. Monicasdude 16:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said on your talk page, I feel I have completed your tasks. You have not ellaborated on how I can do more, but instead attack me. Plus, if you want a request done promptly, do not use "long" "waffle" words, (usually said to make the user sound more important), like contemporaneous. I have not idea what the heck that means & it isn't in the text. Use proper words please. Spawn Man 22:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object:
    1. The image Image:Triceratops 1.jpg is tagged as GFDL and Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike. Both of these require the creator's name and copyright statement to be included with the image, but there's no sign of it. I could delete the image or keep it, but I cannot find any sign of creator other than the person who uploaded it... Please ellaborate..
    2. The image Image:Barneythedinosaur.jpg is tagged as "fair use", but Barney is only mentioned briefly in the article. This does not seem to qualify for fair use. Removed picture
    3. The image Image:Turokevolutionbox.jpg is tagged as fair use, but seems to be used for decorative purposes only. This is not allowed under Wikipedia:Fair use.Removed Picture
    4. Much of the "in popular culture" section is unsourced. For example, what is the claim that "Jurassic Park, brought dinosaurs into the media spotlight"? Dinosaurs were popular well before that. I do not understand the problem here. I have rewritten the example above to sound less POV, but I did not know you needed to cite obvious things like "Jurrasic park lead to two sequels" or "dinosaurs have been used in these games..." Please explain
      • The statement "Jurassic Park had two sequels" is a fairly self-evident fact and does not need to be sourced. The statement "Due to the popularity of the movies...dinosaurs have become a permanent fixture in today's world" is an opinion, and needs to be sourced. --Carnildo 00:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    --Carnildo 07:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting, I feel I've fixed most of what you've asked... Spawn Man 22:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Macintosh

Peer review 1 and 2 | FAC 1

This is the second nomination for this article. Several people have done an excellent job on this, and I formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Macintosh to work on it collectively together. The result is excellent. The article has a lead, image copyright status/sources are good, there are references, footnotes, the grammar/spelling is good, the flow is good, and its not too long and has been improved a lot since the last FAC. Please do not object for the 41k article size, there are FAs that are more than 60k that have not been objected. — Wackymacs 08:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose Firstly, excellent article. It is reasonably clearly laid out, reasonably well referenced and certainly exhaustive. The photos are all in "good copyright nick". But it is too long. Yes, I know there are longer FAs, but this one could be shortened (and besides, maybe they need shortening too). One way may be to go down the route that the Jan Smuts editors have chosen: make a number of sub-articles that are in-depth expositions of the main article. I know that the "history" section already does this, but I think it ould be done more; ie on this page there needs to be less text, and on the sub-pages more. I would definitely support if that was done. As it is, I am weakly opposing, but if lots of people support I will change to neutral. Batmanand 11:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. We've done a lot of work here, and I think we've improved it substantially. I'll try to cater to your request; but besides maybe the hardware part most of the sections are too short to merit "outsourcing". But we've all come a long way (Wackymacs forgot to mention that it was the improvement drive article once) and I think that for all of this work the article should be recognized. --HereToHelp (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support—Good, well written information. Useful images that contribute well to the article. --TangentIdea 02:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support—Good article, just slightly above 40KB, but justified with the depth and clarity of the information presented. Good number of pictures. Altogether a great FA. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 08:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish; no trivia section! I couldn't find anything to put in it, so I had given up anyway. --HereToHelp (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, mostly because it's way too long. Also, the color coding in the Timleline of Macintosh models needs to be explained. Another problem is that that section consists entirely of a single-use template, which should be subst'ed and then deleted. --Angr (t·c) 13:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As others have said, the length of the article is because the article covers all the topics of the subject in the same place in a great length of detail which is good because its really comprehensive. There are other featured articles that are over 60k, this is only just over 40k. — Wackymacs 14:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because other FAs were too long doesn't make it okay. I would have opposed them too if I had known about them. I think a lot of the history can be moved to History of Apple Computer or Mac OS history, and duplication with those articles can be deleted. --Angr (t·c) 16:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a classic example of an article that many readers will want to be inclusive; areas such as the history, the software, and market share are integrally linked in their technical and historical details. Perhaps a few details could be trimmed, but not much, in my view, without detracting from what is a logical, flowing, comprehensive account. I'm happy for the length to be retained. Tony 01:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object on the following grounds: First, Macintosh and Mac are both registered trademarks of Apple, shouldn't this be indicated? Second, speaking of those trademarks, there's nothing in the article about the fight they had with the speaker company Macintosh (I hope I've got that spelling right, it's been a while) over the computer's name. Third, nothing is included about the infighting to keep the Apple ][ family going while trying to sell the Mac as well - I know it's in the History of Apple Computer article, but don't these things deserve slight mentions? On this point I disagree in part with Angr - I think you should touch on some things in brief, and THEN let readers get the in depth information. Yes it leads to some duplication, but I don't think this can/should be avoided. And what about Guy Kawasaki's official role as the "Mac Evangelist" (an idea copied way too late and far less successfully by Atari for their STs, TTs and Falcons in the early 90s). Or what about the "Apple Masters" program? One other thing, and I'm admittedly nitpicking here: the Power Macs also ship with a Mighty Mouse, and the Mini has no monitor, keyboard OR mouse. Plus you might add that the Power Mac towers don't come with monitors either... --JohnDBuell 00:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know there is lots missing that you have mentioned such as the Apple II and Guy Kawasaki. Why should we mention they are trademarks? this is an encyclopedia, I know it led to a conflict with another company, but I don't think its very relevant because I *think* it was settled out of court. People reading the article already have enough information, an encyclopedia is not here to cover every single subject and bit of trivia about the Mac and Apple. — Wackymacs 08:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The goal is to (quote) " improve and standardize the quality of all Apple Macintosh related articles to featured article standard." Since length is a factor in an article—although not an important one, at least in this article—that means that we don't have to knitpick at the details. It has to be comprehensive, yes, but not so much as to include every nuance of the subject. This article is already unfairly receiving compaints about the legnth; a trivia section would just exasorbate that.--HereToHelp (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny, I read "The main goal of this project is to ensure that Wikipedia has concise and detailed articles about every subject relating to the Apple Macintosh and Apple Computers." My objection stands. --JohnDBuell 22:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's true. And the article in question is relatively concise. Because it's long enough to provide useful information ("detailed", another word from above) but short enough to not ramble or go into too much extraneous info. There's nothing in that article that shouldn't be there. That's concise. There's everything in that article that should (pertains to the topic and belongs in an encyclopedia) be there. That's detailed. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. The legnth is fine. We took the time to write that stuff, please, don't delete it. --HereToHelp (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then why are some people angry about the legnth and you want it more in depth? The point is, if you want to add such a section do so yourself. But it is not needed. As Wackymacs and my above comment say, we are here to strike a balance between legnth and content. I think we've done a good job in that area. --HereToHelp (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The main goal of this project is to ensure that Wikipedia has concise and detailed articles about every subject relating to the Apple Macintosh and Apple Computers." This does not imply that the project means to cover every subject relating to the Apple Macinotsh and Apple Computers in one single article. The goals of the project are all encompassing. However, there are several hundred Apple Macintosh related articles that the project has to work with. Your objection based on a lack of trivial facts (facts that are included in other Apple-related articles) can not justified by restating the goals of Wikiproject Macintosh --t-bte288-c 02:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only thing I found in a sub-article was my statement about the Macintosh division and the Apple ][ division fighting each other for marketing and sales dollars. I have found none of the other points addressed in any of the other 'sub-articles.' I hardly find Apple's ongoing history of trademark disputes trivial, although the one for Macintosh itself WAS settled, and has not resurfaced, unlike the Apple Computer vs. Apple Corps suits. I also don't think that the roles of the Mac Evangelist or the Apple Masters were trivial either - they did foster some outreach - Apple has had some user groups going on for well over twenty years because of these relationships. I'm still NOT budging from my vote. --JohnDBuell 02:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reasons many of these facts (not trivia... I apologize for making that assertion) have not been addressed in sub-articles resides in the fact that WikiProject Macintosh is brand new. Apple Macintosh was the WikiProject's first focus, and therefore we have not polished any sub-articles yet. This is no reason to keep the article-at-hand from being a FA, instead it is the reason that WikiProject Macintosh exists. This gives us incentive to polish all the sub-articles, not to add to the length of the main article. --t-bte288-c 02:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so why NOT fork off History of the Apple Macintosh, leave a summary on this page, move and develop the new page, reduce the SIZE of this page, as others have objected to, and everyone wins? --JohnDBuell 02:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because people wan everything in one place. It's fine. Really.--HereToHelp (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Peer review comments were ignored and the same ones have been brought up here. Imagine that. It's still too long. Ignoring valid peer review is why that process doesn't get more involvment. - Taxman Talk 22:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taxman, will you please specify exactly which PR comments you're referring to, and how, in your view, these might be addressed. Otherwise, your objection is not actionable. Tony 02:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to put words in someone else's mouth, but I would guess that Taxman is objecting to his comments in the second peer review not receiving any direct answer. I won't quote them here, since the link is at the top of this section. --JohnDBuell 02:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I left detailed comments in the peer review on what the article needs thus it's very actionable. Tpny, please understand what actionable means before saying an objection is not actionable. The history section specifically is too long, and fixing that alone could solve the problem. It's 5 out of the 11 pages of text in the article. Is it worthy of 45% of the article? To support that the history would have to be the most important thing about the Macintosh. Is the history 2.5 times more important than the hardware itself? (That gets 2 pages). And I don't understand, HereToHelp, that paragraph still contains the exact same problem. It claims "Apple has seen a significant boost in sales of Macs, largely because of the success of the iPod." I believe that is far from established fact. The halo effect gets a lot of press and you can cite a lot of sources that discuss it, but many don't believe it is true. Much better would be to say something like X analyst, or Forbes magazine believes a large portion of the growth is..., or whatever the reliable sources would support (Apple's SEC filings might be good things to look at). Some prominent POV's would claim the improved sales of the Mac's are due to OSX being ahead of the comptetition. Point is, what is there is POV, and there's a lot more like that in the article. That one and the length of the history section are just the most egregious. - Taxman Talk 14:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's better, but attributing the Halo effect idea would be better. You could even attribute it to Apple, because they state it in their annual report that they believe it. Also, the Mac unit sales is a qtr to qtr increase comparison. Probably better would be to use the year over year increase (which was still 38%). Choosing the qtr to qtr gain because it has the higher number is a bit POV. I will have to continue to object with the history section overemphasized as it is. There is nothing supporting it being the most important topic and worth 45% of the article. Balance is key to NPOV too. - Taxman Talk 16:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the lack of clarity, I was moving fast. FU was short for Follow up, and we use it commonly for that at work. I can see now how it could be misinterpreted. Sorry. But I feel the length of the history section is an obvious problem. - Taxman Talk 12:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support despite the article's length. This is a topic that is impossible to narrow down any more. After editing by plenty of Wikipedians the article has been refined to the most important information. The peer reviews were heeded, but it would not be beneficial to shorten this article anymore. The additioin of a trivia section would undermine the encyclopedic nature of the article, and any more product specifics would simply add to the already contested length. After hard work by several people, this article receives my support. --t-bte288-c 22:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm a machead myself, but this article seems someone incomplete. It's very good of course, but there are no references to either the Macintosh TV or the Power Mac G4 Cube, two of the most important (design wise, not sales wise) macintoshes created. I think a paragraph about "failed" designs would do the article well - Apple tries a lot of experimental, avant garde stuff that sets them apart, and the article should reflect this and the price for such. Also there are dubious image copyrights, the worst of which is Image:Steve_Jobs_with_iMac.jpg which has *no* rationale at all, despite being copyrighted and ultra high resolution to boot! - JustinWick 02:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good point there - there was a 'coffeetable' book about Apple's designs a few years ago (with a cube prototype from the early 1980s!) that I'm still kicking myself for not buying at Borders.... --JohnDBuell 02:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I would suggest putting the table of current models further down below the timeline and before the hardware details, as this seems the more appropriate logical sequence of the page. David | Talk 15:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. It would be odd to shorten the article. I think other encyclopedias have much longer articles, and this article is very comprehensive and thus needs to have many sections. There aren't really any sections that are much too detailed in comparison to the other sections. Ronline ✉ 02:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. One of the best articles on wikipedia in a long time. What a great read, good use of images aswell. Don't shorten it. Great stuff!---(Smerk)
  • Support. I also put a lot of work into this article (shortening it from 52k to a bit below its present length), and I can say with confidence that it's long, but not too long. Right now it's a good compromise between shortness and details.  grm_wnr Esc 11:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment... well, okay, nitpick. The image at the top is captioned as the "first" Macintosh, but if one looks closely at the dialogue box on screen it says it's Finder version 4.1 -- and "512K", which would indicate the second Macintosh release... ～J.K. 06:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a difference between "128k" and "first". I noticed that the menus were not in English (Spanish?); could it be that this was the first Mac released outside the US, or in that language, or some other early "first" that wasn't the 128k? If the site actualy says 128k and we can't find a better PD image, keep it. If it says "first"...well, we got problems.--HereToHelp (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Italian, if I'm any judge (Spanish doesn't have double z's), but as Wikipedians, we should be better aware than anyone that web sites are capable of being wrong. ;o) Seriously -- were there any design differences between the "original" 128k and other pre-Plus Macs, besides the amount of RAM? If not, we can keep the image and weasel out of the problem by saying this is the first Mac "case design" or something along those lines. ～J.K. (who's never used a Mac older than a Plus) 23:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the 512k Mac even put into any other languages? That aside, I think that a new image is preferable. Yes, all websites are fallible, but an unvandalized FA should be accurate.--HereToHelp (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Something else I noticed that really IS lacking is any discussion of Apple's various attempts at making servers. There was an attempt in the 1980s to make a workgroup server after desktop publishing took off, but it never materialized (although it has been documented, and I think some prototypes were photographed). Then there were the servers that ran A/UX and AIX, which, like the later Power Macintosh G3 and G4 servers were really just "off the shelf" models with server software (A/UX, AIX, AppleShare, AppleShare IP, Mac OS X Server 1.x or 10.x) preloaded. I think some models had various build-to-order options as well. Then came XServe, which already has its own article. It MIGHT be worth a mention, but it's certainly fodder for a whole new article, if one isn't planned already. --JohnDBuell 18:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The information you mention is already included in sister articles about the Apple servers, including Xserve and the Workgroup servers. I don't see any reason to mention these as they are not really Macintoshes as such. Apple don't class them as being in the Macintosh family of products. A/UX itself is already mentioned in the Apple Macintosh article. Xserve also has its own mention (in the current line-up section and the lead). Adding more information to the article would extend its length even further, a very disputed fact that a lot of people don't like and have used as objections for this featured article candidate; we don't need to make the article longer. — Wackymacs 18:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I only said that it MIGHT be worth a mention - please don't put the proverbial words in my mouth. I found some of the information in the pertinent XServe article, but I'll be darned if I could find anything on the previous attempts, except in the A/UX article. I do think it really would behoove the project to eventually create a history sub-article, within which all of these projects could and probably should be included. --JohnDBuell 18:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well suggestions like this and this type of discussion may be better suited for Talk:Apple Macintosh because its making this FAC page really long as it is. I'm not sure about a History sister article, because I think readers prefer it when all the information they need is in one concise article without the need of having to read several different pages. A history article for the Apple Macintosh article would also clash with History of Apple Computer. — Wackymacs 18:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object The article is fairly well-written and easy enough to read, and covers the general hardware and software evolution of the Mac in reasonable detail. However, it lacks critical balance, largely by failing to properly explain how the Mac has been marketed. The article recognizes the (albeit very one-sided) "Mac vs PC" two-platform PC market with frequent references to Windows throughout. However, a clear explanation of what the Mac is and how it is "different" from Windows, is not presented. We have instead more of a product-brochure level of coverage, with the addition of phrases like "the Mac has been criticized for" to create a sense of balance. I therefore have a problem with both comprehensiveness and POV. (The "common knowledge" framework I'm assuming is that "most" people reading Wikipedia use either a Windows or Mac machine, and have heard of both, but are not necessarily familiar with anything beyond the fact that they are "competing brands".) Specific problem areas:
  • The Macintosh is not adequately described - It is not made clear that the Mac is essentially a hardware-plus-operating system package deal (with a minor exception during the "clone" period)--a closed system, as it were, with Apple controlling everything--while Windows as an operating system that is run on any number of hardware packages by any nunber of manufacturers. This is not esoteric, it is fundamental to understanding many things about the Mac, including how it always has high-concept design (compared to the old Windows beige box), high-profile advertising campaigns--an overall massive brand push compared to "PC"s--and has been two to three times the cost of a comparable Win PC. This has been added to the lead.
The basic information is now there. However, the lead needs a good rewrite to make it a little more easy to read, clear and...compelling. For one, there is some confusion and redundancy between the first sentence of the article, and the third paragraph of the lead section, which together make up what should be one piece of information. Furthermore, having introduced this "unique" aspect of the Mac (hardware+software), the body of the article doesn't elaborate. Why this marketing approach? The Apple II wasn't closed in this way. So what happened to set Apple on the h/w+s/w course?
  • Apple's history of "leaving behind" of its customers through fundamental changes in OS and hardwre is not clearly noted A defining feature of the Mac's evolution is the periodic changes it has made to move the product forward that have essentially forced customers to buy new software and/or new machines. This is not necessarily good or bad, but it is notable (and not the case with Windows). The article fails to mention that when Mac moved to PowerPC, old software was not compatible with the new architecture, and s/w developers did not offer free upgrades, so users were forced to upgrade both hardware and s/w (often expensive DTP and image editing packages). The next two instances of are wrapped up in the article in one sentence: "Older Mac OS programs can still run under Mac OS X in a special virtual machine called Classic, but this will no longer be possible when Apple switches from the PowerPC architecture to Intel processors in 2007." In fact, the "virtual machine" mode was far from a transparent and effective solution (lots of problems were caused, new software was often required), so the upcoming switch to Intel will actually be the third time existing customers are forced to reinvest simply because of major platform change. To maintain NPOV, these two points should be clearly explained in context, as they are simple, technical facts (which had and will have significant practical impact on existing Mac users). This, along with all of the flaws of the Mac, are addressed in a new section.
This is not adequately covered in the new section, and in any case, the proper place would be in the appropriate areas of the hardware and software histories. To say, "They changed the computer architecture" (PowerPC) and not say "which made all of the old software obsolete" is IMO a big omission. --Tsavage 20:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The software situation is not clearly explained The desktop publishing and Software sections neither explain the basic situation that the first great DTP and graphic design software -- Pagemaker, QuarkXPress, Photoshop, Illustrator, etc -- came out first on Mac. With or without an explanation that this provided a first inroads into the graphic design and publishing world, this is important Mac history. Design houses, small publishers and the like made a commitment to Mac hardware that was triple the cost of comparable Win machines, because of the availability of key software that was later fully ported to Windows.
Still unaddressed; see comments further down... --Tsavage 20:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Effects on the technology industry" section is not clear and not sufficiently supported The impression I'm left with is that the Mac blazed trails. Did they R&D this products? Did they find ways to bring them to the market affordably before all others? Or did they simply provide existing options earlier, because they were selling higher priced machines?
The new paragraph certainly adds a new perspective. However, I'm not sure where it lies in the POV department, and should at least have citations. I think it addresses/fixes the point, but since this is FAC, I have to consider that it doesn't seem to meet FA other criteria, like verifiability and NPOV. --Tsavage 20:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Mac vs PC controversy is not directly addressed This is an enduring feature of the Macs existence. A brief closing paragraph, beginning: "Some Macintosh owners may be said to belong to a so-called "cult of Mac", and indeed many self-identify as such. does not at all properly represent the major debate that has surround the choice of Mac over Windows, from DTP to the different desktop video options today. A brief summary of the traditional and ongoing arguments is necessary. It is now very clearly adressed in the new section.
What I'm referring to here is the ongoing Mac vs PC consumer-level debate. This is a distinct and noteworthy part of Macs history (more so, if comparisons need be made, than the single instance of that Superbowl add). I'm talking about everyone from regular home users to all types of professionals (typically, artists and video editors), engaged in the: "Which is easier/better/more reliable/etc" debate. This is a cultural phenomenon all its own (encouraged by Apple all along, as in their Switch campaign). It could be summarized in as little as one well-written paragraph. It should be. --Tsavage 20:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no Critics of the Mac section In many different types of Wikipedia article, there is a criticisms or issues section. Certainly, for the Mac, there is enough well-documented criticism of the overall marketing practices to merit the same. Generally, the idea that the Mac is a heavily-marketed, slickly packaged, over-priced computer that appeals to fear of technology in a certain segment of the market ("the Mac is easy to use, promotes freedom"), deserves at least the same paragraph or three devoted to "Advertising". See the new section.
Yes, some of this is now mentioned, but it is not well-integrated. The "Advertising" section is still out of place. It should be "Marketing and Advertsing" or something like that, and discuss Apple's overall approach, not just highlight an ad or two. There were a few main campaigns that should be mentioned. All of this could be accomplished in more or less the same space that Advertising takes up now. --Tsavage 20:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely POV, pro-Mac, speculative, and poorly supported summary paragraph What is this about? Why is it suppored by things like "surely" and link to the definition of "conventional wisdom"? Because I see Macs in every other Hollywood movie, does that mean that directors and their set designers also "use Macs"? Market research indicates that Apple draws its customer base from an unusually artistic, creative, and well-educated population, which may explain the platform's visibility within certain youthful, avant-garde subcultures. [14] [15] Furthermore, conventional wisdom holds that the platform appeals especially to the politically liberal-minded; even Steve Jobs speculates that that “maybe a little less” than half of Apple's customers are Republicans, “maybe more Dell than ours.” [16] [17] This particular stereotype is reinforced, surely, by the company's pattern of political donations, by Al Gore’s membership on its board, and not least by Jobs’ personal history (most recently in his role as advisor to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry). [18] Nevertheless, well-known Mac users include the likes of conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, an outspoken Apple evangelist, and even George W. Bush.
This is still there. It's kind of interesting, but just because there are citations doesn't make it NPOV. It's really a reiteration of what seems to me like Mac's marketing objective, to maintain its small market share with loyal, affluent, new-product motivated segment. A more "objective" summary may be that: "Mac markets specifically to affluent people who want to avoid dealing with tech" or something like that. To imply that somehow Macs are "more suited" to artistic and creative people requires more than sales surveys and demographics of Mac owners. --Tsavage 20:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it's easy to read my points as Mac-bashing. That isn't at all the case. If I come to this article wondering, "So, what makes the Mac so different?" (as I imagine many readers would), I'd leave with no new understanding or insight, just some extra trivia about models and a sort of timeline sense of product development. A comprehensive article on the Mac has to be more than hardware and software specs. --Tsavage 01:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC) UPDATE: I'm sorry, I still haven't had time to fully reread the article, and probably won't be able to for another day or so. I did skim it, and the more complete description in the lead is good, however, at least some points were apparently not addressed (for example, making clear all of the killer desktop programs that appeared first on the Mac, like Freehand, QuarkXpress, Photoshop, etc). If this nom hangs out here for a couple more days, I will definitely do my bit and follow-up, otherwise, it's in the hands of the Arbiter of Consensus... Thanks! --Tsavage 00:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jaw drops to the floor Well, I'm glad that you're so...concerned with our article. We'll try to implement these at once...but if you could help, we'd sure appreciate it. I'm not sure if I can galvanize WikiProject Macintosh before this article gets processed for FAC. I've been looking for something to do—really—and it looks like you just made my day. Breathes a deep breath and prepares for a very long night --HereToHelp (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing a section to adress the all the POV issues and kill about half a dozen stones in one throw. --HereToHelp (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm glad you're having fun! I unstruck the objections of mine that you crossed out, not because I don't think they've been addressed (I haven't even checked), but simply 'cause, I wrote 'em, I get to strike 'em... ;) Really, though, if anyone can cross out other people's objections, there's no way to keep track of what's going on... Later on... --Tsavage 04:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What? I spent all of thirty seconds formatting the strikeouts...
I'm glad to see that someone's working on this with me. Have you considered joining WikiProject Macintosh? Oh—thanks for copyediting my userpage. --HereToHelp (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We've got a problem with the footnote numbering. I can't quite pinpoint the problem, can someone take a look at it? --HereToHelp (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's done. Sheesh, this page is now 32k.--HereToHelp (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The changes seem to have broadly addressed at least some my concerns. I know time may be running out on this FAC (though they do tend to go on...), so I'll go over it all hopefully sometime today. Meanwhile, an enhanced suggestion (partially mentioned above): more complete coverage of the "killer apps" that first emerged around the Mac would greatly benefit this story. Pagemaker is mentioned in 1985 for DTP. However, Adobe Illustrator (1985?), for vector graphics, with typography applications, and bringing forward PostScript, is not mentioned. And, over the next 4-5 years, QuarkXPress (1987), Freehand (1988?), Sound Tools (1988) and Photoshop (1990) emerged. All were, initially, for Mac-only. These became defining "desktop" digital tools for DTP, digital photo editing and image manipulation, graphic design and audio editing, and in many cases remain so today. A succinct account of these events in one place would go a long way to establishing part of the reason for the buzz surrounding the Mac from its incepetion, and specifically in illustrating why many "creative" types had reason to embrace the Mac hardware--for the software--because it could do on the PC level what no other (Win) option could come near. At the time. --Tsavage 16:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on it.--HereToHelp (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done. So much for the WikiProject helping out...if there's anything else, just say so and I'll try to get to it.--HereToHelp (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, sorry about not helping out with you much HereToHelp - I've been at school all day. I might be able to help out a bit more now that I'm on a school holiday for Christmas. The article looks even better now, but on the Talk page someone requested for a section about legal issues involving the Mac, see Talk:Apple Macintosh at the bottom. — Wackymacs 18:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't blaming you specifically, I was just saying that there are 18 members and only one of them is helping, but it's alright, I overreacted. As for the legal issues, I hink that shouldn't be too hard considering we now have a ready-made source.--HereToHelp (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If anything else needs to be done, I'm available. Oh—don't indent the next section.--HereToHelp (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So much for not indenting...but you'll find the section on the killer desktop publishing apps in the first paragraph of that section. if it still isn't clear enough (and it is clearer), you can clarify it further with a few easy edits.--HereToHelp (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I started to review, but it's hard to tell what's going on with all of the recent revisions. For example, the killer apps mention, which was there a couple dozen revisions ago (I had to check back in the history) is now gone. That's weird, and the excision leaves a reference that no longer makes sense ("All of these items were unique to the Macintosh..."). Therefore, I have to conclude that the article is not stable. --Tsavage 23:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you had to come to that conclusion. I'll read over the whole thing again and remove such statements. Plase continue to check back and hopefully change your vote.--HereToHelp (talk) 13:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What I was explaining (as you'll see when you read it) is that someone has already removed the (your?) recent mention of Photoshop and the other killer aps (an in so doing, left a sentence that doesn't make sense). I don't see the point of reading through the whole thing again, if people are actively undoing changes made during this FAC process.
Yes, I saw that, but there were other changes that I fixed. As for DP, 216.165.224.71 keeps reverting me but I think we've reached a compromise. I don't blame you for citing stability, though.--HereToHelp (talk) 18:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to implement your suggestions on Desktop Publishing, but these anons keep reverting my changes! Take a look at the page history if you want to see their comments in the edit summaries (they seem to explain their logic reasonably well but I am more or less unfamiliar with desktop publishing). Instead of me being the middle man, I'd appreciate that you go settle this, or something along those lines.--HereToHelp (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the anon comment you referred to: Actually by 1987 the leading dtp software for the mac was pagemaker, macpublisher II/III and ready set go. xpress didn't make its mark til later. PS wasn't released til 1990 (note heading is 85-89 Regarding that, there are two problems with the "fix" based on my objection. First, your entry, while indeed mentioning the programs, was simply an insertion into the existing text, which didn't really put things into context or explain anything new. Next, reasons the anon deletion don't make much sense. Your edit didn't say those were the leading programs at the time; in fact, during that early period, both h/w and s/w were just muscling up, and the early adopters were looking at everything that became available. From its launch, Quark was a strong page layout competitor (whether or not it was the "leading" one, which meant little in those early days), and soon enough emerged as the leader which I believe it is to today. Photoshop (1990 release) doesn't fit by date into that section (not a reason for deletion, simply a move), and that only underscores my point that there are problems with the article that can't be fixed by a few minor alterations. In this case, it should make clear the basic fact that the early Mac was the first platform for a whole range of new desktop applications, including DTP, graphic design and audio (musicans and the electronic music/production revolution is as much a part of the Mac story as DTP/graphics). Photoshop is typical of the omissions here: it is a household word these days, and was developed entirely in the Apple/Mac follwer zone that certain software developers of the day gravitated to (i.e. Photoshop was developed as a "Mac" application)--a Mac article that covers third-party software has to mention this. --Tsavage 20:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and put all those software programs back in, taking measures to compromise: Pagemaker was first, but the rest of these were important, too. Hopefuly that version will stay put... --HereToHelp (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
At last: someone who doesn't want the history section trimmed.--HereToHelp (talk) 03:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prostate cancer

Partial self-nomination. This is an article we've worked on at the Medicine Collaboration of the Week, and the topic certainly merits a featured-standard article. We've been working hard on this article and feel it has improved significantly. It has had a peer review which can be read here. InvictaHOG 07:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support:Extremely good and informative page. Well referenced important subject. Should be on the front page. Giano | talk 08:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a good informative article that provide many references. Would do nicely on the doorstep. Scoo 16:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, on a few technicalities, the numbered references in text do not have corresponding numbered notes, look at using a system like that in Canberra where the same ref is used more than once. I don't think the headings within the radiation therapy section add anything to the article- they break up the text and the TOC unnecessarily. And it would be nice to know the prognosis for men with prostate cancer in places other than the United States.--nixie 05:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the an with ref throughout and reformatted the radiation therapy section. Prognosis in other countries is related to life expectancy, with most developing countries having fewer deaths because they don't live long enough! But as far as hard numbers, as usual, they have been hard to come by. When you have limited health care, you have limited public health. The prognosis section has been targeted for some expansion, but nothing has really been forthcoming yet...InvictaHOG 11:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at it now, I still see a problem with the references system: If an external link is added somewhere in the article, all the numbers of the references will be screwed up. Also, the refs have to be in the exact order they appear in the article to match the right number. Does another system/template exist that works better? Or would it be better to remove all the numbers from the reference list? --WS 11:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref/note is not ideal, but it is the best system, and ideally the numbers in the text and the numbered refs should match, so don't remove the numbers. The numbering should automatically happen if the notes in the text and the list are in the same order. If a note is referred to more than once (which will cause a numbering problem in the text numbering), use the system that is used in Canberra which enables multipe cites of the same number to the same note. Alternatively use a different label for each use of the same note, foe example notes 9 and 40 have the same label, which is causing one of the numbering issues. You may also want to include commented out instructions so people that may add ref subsequently know how to do it.--nixie 11:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see what happened and fixed it for this article. I like that you can use ref_label to identify numbered links, but it seems fairly cumbersome to make sure that link 4 stays link 4 (which seems to be the way it works from the tag). In any event, they now line up (though I duplicated a reference instead of using ref_label). We should come up with a better system. InvictaHOG 01:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I reworked the prognosis section into an actual prognosis/epidemiology section. I have included what statistics I could find from America, China, Japan, Africa, India. It's difficult to know how reliable the data is, but it's all we have! InvictaHOG 02:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your efforts, support. There is still one minor problem, note 27 on the list of references links the note 10 in the text and vice versa.--nixie 02:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Oppose - It's a wonderful article, and it contains a ton of great notes/references, which is very important for medical topics. There are a few paragraphs in the "screening" session that do not have notations explaining what their sources are - I apologize for not having the time to read the sources completely (surely that can be understood) but unless there's a consensus that it's obvious where one needs to go to find information to support statements like this:
Prostate cancer screening generally begins after age fifty, but may be offered earlier in black men or men with a strong family history of prostate cancer. Although there is no officially recommended cutoff, many health care providers stop monitoring PSA in men who are older than 75 years old because of concern that prostate cancer therapy may do more harm than good as age progresses and life expectancy decreases.
Fantastic article in all other respects though, and whatever is decided here, everyone involved deserves kudos :) - JustinWick 02:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I added a reference which not only goes over some guidelines (unfortunately, there are a multitude of guidelines from different well-respected groups) but also offers a view into actual practice. InvictaHOG 03:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The physicians working on this have done an excellent job of presenting an informative, easily read, and well referenced article. Edwardian 19:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think this is an excellent article; well-researched and documented. Great images too. Rlevse 19:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Not up-to-date with groundbreaking recent research. If anyone is interested, let me know, since I am an expert on scientific topics. Cognition 21:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support: I also like the article & quality of images. This article highlights an area popular ignorance, & could potentially save lives. well done Medi Collaborators. however, i think we should wait a couple of days until it's featured. today is the day wikipedia featured it's dullest, most frivilous article. though this article is by no means dull, the subject matter is a little dry. something like the Dinosaur article (or even corvette/TGV) is the perfect antidote to the tedium of shoe polish. then after a couple of days we could feature this article? Veej 00:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, looks great and with plenty of references. The Medicine CotW seems to be accomplishing a lot of great things! Tuf-Kat 01:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment:I skimmed through it quickly and well appears okay in general. Makes me feel like I should go get my prostate checked. It has some good images however, maybe some statistics (on the population demographics and on how many people get prostate cancer), I think, could be in the format of a graph to lighten up the subject? (it is good as is though!). It seems to talk mostly about the medical side of diagnostics and treatment. (Technical!) What are the psychological effects or the "lifestyle alterations?" (maybe not important either, because you could do some further reading) ... All these examples are to say that everyone learns differently... maybe an anecdote might please the more tactile learners... 1) how do people cope with it 2) Are there any famous people that have had this disease and coped with it? (probably in the links at the bottom, I know, I should read the article completely, but these are only my impressions) --CylePat 03:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Good use of inline citations, looks good with one exceptions: too many short sections - I could tag several as them as 'stub sections'. This also results in a rather too large ToC. Expand the sections, or merge with others.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/TGV

Music of Athens, Georgia

Old peer review and old FAC. This is the second try, and a self-nom. Most of the objections last time were on style, and the article has been significantly copyedited (see diff since last nom). No major expansion on content, but a few tidbits here and there were added. I've also put some sound samples in and removed the poorly-licensed image. Tuf-Kat 21:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm inclined to Support. It's well written, structured and illustrated. It's concise but still seems to cover the major points sufficiently. Rossrs 00:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC) My only concern is the excessive number of red links which create the appearance of an article "under construction" rather than a "finished product". I think a featured article ideally should have zero redlinks. I think these should either be "delinked" until there are articles, or stub articles should be created for them. I won't object on that basis but I hope you'll look at it. Rossrs 05:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've delinked/removed a few, filled in a bunch with stubs (mostly). There's still a couple (14, specifically), but I think this helps (I will try to fill in the remainder in the next few days). Tuf-Kat 07:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes I think it helps. It'll be good when there are no red links, but it's definitely improved it already. Rossrs
  • Support, well-written and thorough. Andrew Levine 18:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The opening section left me wondering..."Only two bands made this the Liverpool of the south? (REM and B52s)". I'd like to see this fleshed out more with more famous bands upfront. Rlevse 21:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • The lead does not claim or imply that two bands made Athens the Liverpool of the South. There are no other bands anywhere's near as famous as those two -- I guess Matthew Sweet comes closest, but he's from Nebraska anyway. The source for "Liverpool of the south" only mentions REM in connection to that quote, and I think that mentioning any specific bands in the first paragraph is placing a lot of focus and should not be done lightly. Every source (or at least most) used in the writing of this article mentions those two, so they should be in the first paragraph, but no one else is such a standard reference point. And there are five other bands mentioned in the second paragraph of the lead as well. Tuf-Kat 00:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hang on, y'all! Ok, bands "from Athens" (remember that the "Seattle bands" weren't actually from Seattle; a "scene" is a critical more than geographical term) include Indigo Girls, Guadalcanal Diary, as well as the B's and REM. Additionally, for underground music, Pylon is very important (nationally very, very well known among the college rock folk of the 80s). Another very famous band "from Athens" was Drivin' n' Cryin'. Ummm, there were many more. Ok, Mitch Easter's band...forgotten their name, but they were MTV stars in 81-82, were from Charlotte but "from Athens" in the scene terminology. Compare to the grunge "scene," where, other than Nirvana, there is really only Soundgarden that everyone can remember. The point being that local scenes generate big buzz, produce 4-5 nationally famous bands, and then, when the dust settles, have 2-3 long term national bands. Geogre 14:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note that Pylon is already in the lead, and I'll replace the very obscure Side Effects with the Indigo Girls, who are much more well-known. I stand by the claim about "Liverpool of the south", which is an opinion cited appropriately and without putting specific examples in the author's mouth. Tuf-Kat 18:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.Support. Quite good, but I'm concerned about comprehensiveness. Is there an opera house in the city? A hip-hop scene? A music school? The article seems to be focused on the twentieth century and on popular music. Jkelly 18:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there's an opera house, I can't find any evidence of it on google. The article has a paragraph on the University of Georgia's music school, and various other mentions of University-related music stuff. The article also mentions Bubba Sparxx, the only notable rapper from the area (AFAIK), and I haven't found any evidence of a particuarly notable hip hop scene in the area. I agree that the article is focused on modern popular music, but then that's the only reason this article exists, IMO -- the average 100,000 person American city probably doesn't need a "music of", but Athens' modern rock scene is exceptionally notable. That doesn't mean some more info on music history and folk music wouldn't be nice, but I think what's there is adequate (though any folk music from Athens is part of the regional tradition, and thus would be more appropriate elsewhere). Also, since the only book published on the subject AFAICT is on rock, and there's no evidence of any other resources, I don't think it's possible to expand significantly. Tuf-Kat 23:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Further note that this article mentions a historical opera house, but this presumably no longer exists, and if it was all that notable, surely I'd be able to find at least a name somewhere on the web. Tuf-Kat 23:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, there is the Morton Theater, but it was closed during the scene. When the scene was happening, there was very little urban music, and musicians used to say that the reason Athens happened was that there was nothing to do in the town. You went to class, and then you went to parties. At the parties, the artsy folks would get into camp and strange music, and the people in the town with money to pay bands didn't have the redneck bias against "weird" music, so the "New Wave" and "Punk" bands could play fraternities and get decent pay (which was not the case most places). What else? At the time, UGA wasn't an awfully, awfully difficult undergraduate institution compared to the brains of the people going there. Nowadays, the school has upped its standards a great deal, but the point is that people had more brains and time than they could occupy, so they started bands, and art movements, and creative writing communes, etc. This was helped along by certain professors in the Studio Art Department, as well (e.g. many early REM videos were directed by Prof. James Herbert, an art professor there who was a focal point for a lot of the musicians). Geogre 14:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah-ha! The Morton Theater is apparently the same as the "historical opera house in the Morton Building" I alluded to above. I hadn't been able to find the name, but since I now have, I've found this, which Ishould be able to use to expand the history section of this article a little later today (or maybe tomorrow). Tuf-Kat 18:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. I've changed my comment to support. Jkelly 17:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prostitution in the People's Republic of China

Self nomination. I spent about three weeks writing this article from scratch. Quite a few issues were resolved through peer review. All referencing is now finished and I think the article covers the topic quite comprehensively. Yeu Ninje 23:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just on first glance, I would recommend a lead picture. Perhaps the image wiht the blurred light labeled "Street prostitutes in the bar district of Sanlitun in Beijing." should be moved up to the top of the page. I will be able to take a better look at the article later. -Scm83x 00:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've moved the image to the intro as you suggest. How does it look now? To me the image seems a bit awkwardly placed, maybe because it's landscape rather than portrait. Yeu Ninje 09:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does look only a bit awkward. I just also noticed that the same thing I mentioned was in your peer review, so you should really consider finding a picture that is suitable, now that it's come up twice. -Scm83x 11:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it's just hard to find photos illustrating prostitution. Prostitutes don't take too kindly to being photographed, especially since the practice is illegal in China. But no matter, I'll have another search. Yeu Ninje 12:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have just gone through the article and fixed a lot of grammatical structures etc. that I didn't think sounded good. I think that you have done an excellent job and that this is now 80%-90% on the way to a FA. I have two reservations:
  • The article mainly seems to be written from the perspective of law enforcement, and there is almost nothing exhibiting the prostitutes' points of view. I am sure that with 10 million prostitutes in the PRC there is a very good chance that some of them have written of their experience. Also what are the prevailing feelings of Chinese academics (especially feminists) on prostitution? How is prostitution depicted in popular media in China (I don't know the exact degree of control which the CCP has over their entertainment industry, but are there some notable depictions of prostitutes in Chinese film, TV, recent literature, etc. that have shaped public perception)?
*I don't understand the last part of the sentence "Following a 2000 police campaign, Chinese economist Yang Fan estimated that the Chinese GDP slumped by 1%, due to the lack of consumption on the part of female prostitutes." Does this mean "...due to a drop in the patronisation of female prostitutes"? I wasn't sure enough to change it. Andrew Levine 19:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • After the campaign, a large number of female prostitutes lost their livelihoods. Because of this, they consumed less and there was less demand for production, hence the slump in GDP. Yeu Ninje 20:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to some of Andrew Levine's concerns:
  • The views of Chinese academics are mentioned throughout the article. For example, Pan Suiming is quoted a number of times. Other academics referred to include Zhang Ping, Shan Guangnai, Xin Ren etc., either within the article or in notes. The views of Chinese feminism are also covered with references to the All-China Women's Federation and women's groups in Hong Kong and Taiwan. The prevailing views among Chinese academics is mostly expounded in the "The question of legalisation" section.
  • It is true that law enforcement takes a large part of the article, but that is just because most of the secondary literature focuses on these areas. No authoritative survey has been conducted of prostitute's attitudes or public perceptions of prostitution in China, so most literature on prostitution in China relies on sources given by Chinese law enforcement.
  • To my knowledge, nothing notable has been published by a prostitute about her experiences. This is because of strict governmental controls, the general conservatism of Chinese society and the fact that many prostitutes are from lower socioeconomic backgrounds without much education. Still, there is some discussion of prostitution from the perspective of sellers of sex. For example, "The potential benefits of prostitution as an alternative form of employment include greater disposable income, access to upwardly mobile social circles and lifestyle options."
  • With regard to popular media, I've expanded the "Prostitution in the media" section, citing the depictions of prostitution which have started to emerge in the arts. Yeu Ninje 21:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While this article mentions failures and difficulties in policing, it would be interesting to note the collusion between the industry and the authorities. A discussion of actual punishments handed down for prostitution (for example this versus the minor detention and release of a foreigner) will be useful. Another resource is here. While this article is very comprehensive on the legal aspects, this also means the coverage is lopsided. I dont know if this link will help expand the types and venues section. More could be added on what kind of people solicit prostitutes, what kind of people become prostitutes, and on the actual act of prostitution itself. --Jiang 01:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that you referenced the LegCO candidate incident (note 39) as evidence that "the Chinese media has publicised numerous cases of government officials being convicted and disciplined for abusing their positions for prostitution". This is an inappropriate reference. He was a Democratic Party candidate (not a Communist Party official), and the criticism of the Central Government was that it was trying to discredit, through this arrest, a candidate hostile to the Central Government.--Jiang 01:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the incorrect source with another, and incorporated the LegCo candidate incident into the media section of the article. Yeu Ninje 04:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some more information on the acts that prostitutes commonly engage in. Some of the other elements you mentioned, like governmental corruption, actual punishments handed down, and profile of prostitutes are dealt with in the text. Governmental corruption in particular is dealt with at some length. The summary of Pan Suiming's Red Light District is very useful. If there's any additional information from that source which you think should be added, please go ahead and add it. Yeu Ninje 08:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You do realize this will never make it to the main page even if featured, right?--HereToHelp (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that? Yeu Ninje 20:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Prostitution was the main-page featured article on May 3, 2004 according to Talk:Prostitution. So what's the big deal? Andrew Levine 23:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: it's not listed as a featured article on Featured_article 140.32.75.31 13:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not listed there because it is a Former featured article. And yes, it was on the main page. Andrew Levine 17:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The removal discussion can be found here, if you're curious. It looks like it would still need considerable work to become Featured again, but it has also improved a bit since its FA removal. If someone is desperate to get Prostitution featured again, I'd suggest starting by making Prostitution in Germany, Prostitution in Japan, Prostitution in Thailand, etc. as good as possible, so that the overall article has a solid foundation. Anville 18:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good article. I would like to see a lead picture; however, none of the pictures in the article right now seem quite the one, and I recognize that finding illustrations for this topic is difficult. Anville 09:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I presume "lead question" is a malatypism for "lead picture". According to WP:WIAFA, "including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article." You've clearly surpassed that point already! ;) Supposing that it ever makes the Main Page, Raul654 would pick the best image of what's there, trim and scale it down, and use it with a (probably) compressed version of the lead section. Anville 15:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: One more voice in the chorus isn't needed, but this is a truly impressive body of work with exceptional research. Of course, one could wish for all sorts of things (the old Marxist allegation that prostitution is the primary metaphor of capitalism, with cannibalism coming in next (particularly Marxist fiction has employed these metaphors)) and that the re-emergence, therefore could be seen in that light, etc., but none of that would actually be important nor add a whit to this well done article. Geogre 19:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Tons of references given the article is of medium length. Great discussion of legal and cultural issues. Incredibly informational, and very interesting subject material (yes I know that's not in the guidelines but I contend it does make a difference as to if anyone will actually read it). Contraversial subject, but reasonably NPOV language. Congrats to all involved, we have a winner :) - JustinWick 02:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jesus Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/De Lorean DMC-12 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fred Phelps Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Linux

Michigan State Capitol

This article has failed its first attempt at FA. However, after rereading the article, I believe that most, if not all, of the problems have been fixed (I asked Carnildo about the images, and he says that so far he has no objections with some of the images that currently can't be obtained through free means). Hence, I am taking the chance and giving this article a second shot at FA (as a sidenote this is, to my knowledge, the fourth FAC that relates exclusively to the State of Michigan). PentawingTalk 04:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per your suggestion, I reworked the first sentence and shortened and moved the MGTV item to a better location. You're right about that one paragraph sticking out. Jtmichcock 02:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, but now the two notable trees is in a similar position. Is there anything additional important about related ceremonial items, rocks, plaques, etc that could flesh out that paragraph? - Taxman Talk 19:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added two other trees that are of historical significance that were in prior edits. These adds two more sentences to the paragraph and fleshes it out. Jtmichcock 21:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement

OpenBSD

In the previous attempt to feature this article, only three opinions were ever given - during that time the complaints were taken back and one even converted to a support, however this was not enough to get the article a passing grade. So here it is again for another attempt, here s the old peer review and previous FAC attempt. Janizary 08:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Article contains a great deal of information, well-referenced, seems quite well-written. The order of later sections may need a slight tweaking, but besides that, I can't think of any other wide-scale suggestions for improvement. RyanGerbil10 14:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Same as above, and it seems to have a good balance of history and technical information. Rst, Fri Jan 6 14:48:36 UTC 2006.
  • Neutral. Much better after the rewrite. I'm concerned about meeting the stability criteria after changing that fast, but what is there is good. Object for now. Sorry, as I know you guys are really trying to get this one featured, but the writing is simply not very good. There's lots of short paragraphs and choppy sentences throughout the article that makes the text flow poorly. I know that's a hard objection to handle because it's pretty fundamental, but good writing is clearly fundamental to a FA too. I can pick out examples if you want, but there are literally so many, that I'm not sure listing them would be fruitful. I'll see if I can set aside some time to work on fixing what I see, but honestly I'm not sure I'll be able to. 2) There's really no mention of the downsides of OpenBSD. For one, it's really not terribly usable by someone without significant technical skills. That of course is a downside to some and not to others, but it is an important facet. Saying a desktop can be run kind of glosses over that important bit. Performance. Pretty much all head to head tests put it way behind the other BSD's and Linux for most general tasks. The developers will generally admit this explaining performance is secondary to correctness and security. But the fact it is way behind is also ignored in the article. Another tidbit: is DJB's software still out of the ports tree? The article doesn't seem to know unless I missed it. So the article suffers from lack of balance. While spending great detail (about 4 full paragraphs) on the split from NetBSD, it hrdly mentions some of the most commonly cited advantages of OpenBSD, the integrated cryptography (which is not even linked to in the article, much less discussed well, and one sentence on the high quality of the documentation. So there's a lack of coverage of the important advantages and disadvantages. Overall it suffers from being edited by committee. - Taxman Talk 15:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* No apologies needed, being critical is the core of these reviews - it's how we separate the wheat from the chaff. I can't deal with your points just now, but I will be going over them in like 6 hours or so. As far as usability goes, I completely disagree - I went from using Windows 2000 to using OpenBSD with nothing but the man pages and a friend telling me to keep trying and to read the man pages, there is no special technical skill required to use OpenBSD, just the willingness to read the documentation. Performance, yes, we could even mention the lack of a UBC. Janizary 17:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe. I was going to suggest UBC as an example too :-). NicM 17:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments; I think your points are fair, in general. Restructuring the article layout and text so that it flows better has been on my list for a while, although I make no comment on whether it is too bad for a FA, just that there is scope for improvement. Unfortunately, it is quite a big job that needs to be done carefully and I can't seem to find the time. I'm not convinced that the text itself is as bad as you say, but perhaps we have different ideas of style; it may help if you would be good enough to list some of the most egregious examples.
I had also thought about the lack of detail about cryptography and documentation but a) as the article already covers the technical security topics in some length I was reluctant to add more, b) given the current structure, I wasn't sure just where to put them, particularly stuff on documentation, c) to my mind, they are less interesting and important than the unique security features OpenBSD has developed, but I'm not really interested in crypto so I would think that :-) d) as I'm not interested in the topic I don't really know what to say about crypto, so I was hoping someone else would do it :-).
DJB's software is still gone and will probably never reappear; the article doesn't say this, but nor does it say there was a reconciliation and it was put back in—it may indeed be better if it said this explicitly, I'll probably fix that now. The split from NetBSD was perhaps the most important event in OpenBSD's history (and a significant one in NetBSD's) so I don't think four paragraphs is too much. A section about criticism/problems is a good idea, notably, as you say, performance and usability; however, I don't think there is practically that much criticism of OpenBSD in these terms, most people (both users and non-users, and developers) seem to understand that speed and ease of use are not top priority, so I'm not sure how long such a section would be :-)... I did try to gather material for a section on criticism of OpenBSD's security record but I found it impossible to seperate real allegations and evidence from trolling :-/.
The biggest problem at the moment is probably the flow and structure. I think I'll start a discussion on the talk page to try to get a layout sorted out before trying to fix it. NicM 17:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Oh, never mind about pointing out examples in the text, I see what you mean now. NicM 18:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Neutral (was: Oppose.) I think the fact the article contains a sentence like "The only available records of these events are an incomplete set of emails, published by Theo de Raadt on his personal site" is a rather concerning problem. The article indicates that this is a rather critical matter, but seems to concede the source used is unreliable. This wasn't something added just now. While I hate to be picky, frankly given recent extra attention/concern lately for verifiability and reliable sources at Wikipedia, I think it would be a mistake to endorse this article, and thereby accept it's sourcing standards. I think we want to feature articles that cite reputable published sources. This is especially true when saying something that reflects on a person's character (which the relevant paragraph does). I see other notes/references that are apparently from mailing list discussions, which have never been published (as far as I know) outside the mailing list. Now admittedly, this article is better sourced than most Wiki articles, there are many worse articles, and maybe there's good justification for everything. But, we shouldn't use it as an example of what we think is best. --Rob 17:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, most of the OpenBSD discussion and development takes place online, so almost all of the available historical sources are mailing lists and online articles. I understand what you are saying, but I do not think this criticism can be realistically met. Without expressing an opinion on whether or not they are good enough for a FA, I think the article's standards are as good as they can be—the section in question does explain the source is not backed up and provided by one side of the events. NicM 18:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • So you oppose it based on the fact that we cite an archive of e-mails? That archive used to be complete, but someone edited it, back when Theo still ran NetBSD. Hmmm, perhaps we could add the bit about some NetBSD developer cracking Theo de Raadt's webserver and removing some of the mail from that archive, not the nicest bit of history - but it was one of the reasons there is such bad blood between NetBSD and OpenBSD and is part of what got OpenBSD going into security. I don't think it the best thing to go into because that brings a bit more POV than I am able to neutralize. And I'd not say the source is unreliable, that it has been tampered with is a bit closer to the truth. It's a dump of e-mails that someone with a grudge took parts out of and it's hosted by the guy who was on one side of the argument - that there is noone saying another side of the argument more lends to the validity of the mails than anything for me. Anyways, as NicM says, everything done for projects like this is done in e-mail, not press releases unfortunately, so we can only deal with what we have. As it stands there is one source of information regarding it all, and that is the one from Theo - not citing it would probably be worse than not covering the matter. Janizary 18:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • When it comes to negative characteriztions, that can harm a person's professional reputation, and be deemed defamatory, email archives, are even less adequate then normal. Now, if a investigative journalist for reliable publication were to examine them, analysis them, and publish a report, supporting what's said here, then that would be an adequate source. But that hasn't happened, and we can't do original research, which is what would be required. I've also put a note on the talk page, as I do now feel, that no only should this not be FAc, but much of it should be removed. --Rob 19:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral (was: Oppose.) I gave a rather complete peer review months ago, which didn't go over well with them, so I'm not going to go into many specifics this time. I can on request take a closer look if they desire.
  1. POV/comprehensiveness issues - and I'm particularily dissapointed with the history section as I really wanted to see more here. A lot of the conspiracy theories are gone, which is great, but for such a pivotal event it is really kind of bare... also, IIRC the DARPA grant was revoked because Theo was working in Canada and grants were techinically supposed to fund US-only endeavors.
  2. writing issues - i.e. "The reasons for this event have never been fully and publicly explained"
  3. flow problems (esp. in the "Highlights" subsection).

WhiteNight T | @ | C 20:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • History was a lot less bare about the fork but was reduced because of repeating damaging claims with lack of sources. I've made a lot of structural and flow changes, and efforts to reduce the length, at User:NicM/OpenBSD that I'm going to use if nobody objects within the next few days, detailed comments on it would be appreciated if you have time, on my talk page for preference. NicM 21:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • GREAT! The beginning history is a lot better in terms of comprehensiveness but the writing isn't too good though :\. I'll try to change it myself if I have some spare time. WhiteNight T | @ | C 21:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, any improvements are welcome. I do my best with the writing but I know it can end up a bit clunky :-). NicM 21:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
It looks a lot better now... WhiteNight T | @ | C 18:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral (was: Oppose.) The article is too focused on the social circles and personalities involved in the early history of OpenBSD, and not enough on its technical qualities or its architecture. OpenBSD is not a social club; it's an operating system. I've made a first shot at cleaning up and summarizing some of the history, but this article needs a lot of refocusing before it's featured. --FOo 05:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The personalities, particularly that of Theo de Raadt, is a very important and widely known aspect of the OpenBSD project, and most people do think (with some justification) that the fork was due to social issues (the core NetBSD world was small and tightly integrated at the time, and Theo was a skilled and very active contributor). In any case, I've already made a lot of alternative changes here, which I intended to merge this evening, please let me know what you think. I'll take a look at your modifications and see if I can include them, I do prefer parts of your simpler text. NicM 08:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • On another note, OpenBSD may not be a social club, but Wikipedia is equally not a technical manual, it is important to discuss social aspects where they are relevent. Particularly as so much of OpenBSD, and open source in general, is social. It is analogous to Wikipedia: the goal is to produce an encylopedia or operating system, but since it is being done by people, often in their spare time and often based on their beliefs, it can develop a large social component and personalities and relationships can become very important. NicM 08:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
      • I keep rereading my comments above and I'm not convinced I have really made my point: forgive me if I have and seem to be trying to hammer it home, I'm not. The thing is, OpenBSD is a unix-like and a BSD, all of which have basically the same architecture; I think this article should focus on the specific history of OpenBSD and what makes it different and noteworthy, namely license purity and security. This is not to say I'm not interested in seeing technical material added (although the emphasis in my restructuring was to remove material, not add it), I just don't think the current focus (my new version at least) is too far off the mark. NicM 13:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
        • I agree that Wikipedia is not a technical manual, and the history of OpenBSD as a project is interesting. However, the personality politics of Theo de Raadt are not nearly as interesting as the details of what OpenBSD is and how it differs from other BSDs and Unix systems. I think your recent changes are a definite improvement, and I withdraw my opposition. --FOo 02:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for the comments and withdrawing your objection. Its slightly difficult because, as far as opinions go, Theo de Raadt is the project, so to explain the project's, especially the early history, you need to explain his, but I take your point, somewhat. I was just going to write a list here of how there weren't many differences and most of what there are, are things that are missing in OpenBSD, but I think I've just convinced myself to write a short section on technical differences: things, aside from security enhancements, OpenBSD has (pf, bioctl, there must be more), things it hasn't (a UBC, rc.ng, dynamic /dev & no *devsw, UFS2, SMP on non-i386) and things that are different (native threads, encrypted disks, supported platforms (<NBSD >FBSD)). Although, the reason for most of these being missing seems to almost always be one or more of the same three: no convincing reason to change existing solution, lack of developer time, or dissatisfaction with the solution of the other BSDs. I'll have to think see if I can come up with any more and where to put it in the article. NicM 09:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment Alright, the article has been restructured. This is the second time we've done one of them, hopefully it leads to a better overall article. Please everyone who's voted take another look to make sure you still agree with your previous opinion. Those interested in that further discussion and are looking for a quick-link, see here. Rob's change is marked in the history page, so I changed the image to make it easier to follow at a glance. Janizary 08:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article is to the point and informative. Overall this is a good article and a great reference. I also enjoyed reading the "history" part. Cmihai 07:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is informative, good work. --Terence Ong 14:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Lots of references and information. Gflores Talk 23:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I would determine what other articles an OS novice would have to read to understand this article and use the {{subst:preq}} prerequisites template. In addition, I would suppose that even if someone knows enough about operating systems to understand "BSD," "kernel" and similar terms, he or she might not know the background of NetBSD. For that reason, I would remove the mention of that OS from the lead paragraph and instead briefly explain it at the beginning of the history section. ("Theo de Raadt had been working on NetBSD, another open source operating system, when...") You also might want to spell out Berkeley Software Distribution on first reference just to be safe. -- Mwalcoff 02:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comment. I've made a few changes to the first paragraph, is this any better? I'll have a think about a list of prerequisites, have you got any particular suggestions? NicM 08:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • I actually added to the history of NetBSD for that purpose, but really I thought the articles linked in OpenBSD gave most of the information needed to know what's going on in it. I'll see if I can convince a few random people on #wikipedia-en to read the article and see what they didn't understand to see if there is anything to add to the prerequisites. Janizary 15:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, of the three people I convinced to read the article, none seemed to think it was too over-the-top or complex, one didn't think the prereq box was needed, since those were linked in the article - with the exception of computer insecurity. Janizary 21:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Computer insecurity is linked in the article. It is about what you and I would call computer security (and is linked as such in the article), but that term has more specific meanings that are covered in the computer security article and mostly don't apply to OpenBSD (they do apply to the ACLs and MAC features in, eg, FreeBSD but not to most of OpenBSD's features). NicM 22:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
          • I think the prereq box is a good idea. Someone who doesn't know anything about operating systems would wind up on a wild link chase trying to understand the article without it. -- Mwalcoff 03:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy in Love

Support Huge improvement from the article which I think deserves to be an FA. If there is anything for me to edit, let me know. Person22 18:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The original nomination page is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crazy in Love/archive1. Extraordinary Machine 19:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Image:BeyonceGrammy.jpg has fair use rationale, but no source or copyright information. The prose is awkward in places (definitely needs a copyedit), and some of it seems fawning, e.g. "New Musical Express provided the single with the highest praise they could offer by voting it the best single release of the year" – well, for all we (the readers) know, the highest praise NME could offer would be to declare it as the best song in history. The "Chart performance" section needs cleaning up and trimming, and I don't think we need to have descriptions of Beyonce's costume changes during the music video in the "Music video" section. The "Live performances" section could do with a little condensing as well. Extraordinary Machine 19:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can also tell you that the NME actually has several levels of hyperbole above that anyway, as a former long-suffering reader. There's also a good chance that the following week they declared it the worst song ever. Leithp (talk) 08:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Although the article is certainly on its way to becoming featured, I don't believe it has apexed just yet. My objection stands until the above comments made by User:Extraordinary Machine are corrected. —Hollow Wilerding 20:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object:
  • Comment: The sample seems to have been deleted. Either the link from the article needs to be removed, or the sample needs to be re-uploaded and tagged as "yes, this really is used". I think there's a template for that. --Carnildo 00:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Yet another single/song nomination which doesn't include information about the instrumental musicians who performed on the track, and therefore fails the comprehensiveness test. The "Live Performances" section also includes lengthy discussion of occasions where Beyonce did not perform the song, but lip-synched it, which seems rather odd. Roughly half the article space is devoted to presentation and discussion of charting information. The most interesting thing in the article, to me, was the fact that New Zealand releases are certified gold for selling 5000-6000, a standard which demonstrates, to me, the lack of overall insignificance of being certified gold in New Zealand; I therefore wonder whether such reports about sales and chart performance in such minor markets are even worth mentioning in articles. Monicasdude 16:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Seventh-day Adventist Church Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bobby Caldwell Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Super Bowl XXXIX Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Teller-Ulam design Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Miracle on Ice

The West Wing (television)

See the talk page for an archive of solved issues (to make the FAC readable). Staxringold 22:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nomination. The West Wing has been on for seven years now, and this article contains a good bit of information about the show, including discussion of critical reactions. Much of the article does not carry a spoiler warning because those sections do not discuss plot elements, unlike other television featured articles. The article went through an extensive month-long peer review, archived here, which discussed and fixed most of the major issues regarding tone, scope, and length. Multiple forks and plentiful, but not overwhelming, use of well-licensed pictures make this article a great choice for featured article status. -Scm83x 08:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Johnleemk | Talk 18:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The lead section could use a slight touch-up, though, I agree. I'm going to try and make a table for the actor/actress award winners right now, to make it sleeker. Staxringold 13:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The only objection I have had upon reading this article was the length of the lead section, and that has now been fixed. Andrew Levine 17:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, all my objections have been addressed, great work guys.--nixie 06:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • support for this article as a FAC. Thanks for all the work so far! -Rebelguys2 07:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The additions address all of my comments. Well done, everyone. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great show, great accompanying article. Set out far better than any fansites, or even the show's own NBC page. Harro5 21:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks good! Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Kudos to Scm83x for the effort and levelheadedness. Article is great and just keeps on improving. Ramallite (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Much of this article is rooted in unverifiable fancruft. The sections on timeline skew, off-year presidential elections, etc. are based in the unverifiable inference that scattered anomalies in characters' dialogue and prop displays were intended to reflect a radically different history of American politics than occurred in the real world. The article shows no evidence that any contributor to it is aware that such variations are among the standard conventions of political fiction (from Alan Drury to Richard Clarke, probably much longer). Also, the show has been extensively reviewed and commented on, both in connection with the original broadcasts and the DVD releases, and virtually none of the commentary/criticism is discussed in the article. There are also other clear NPOV/verifiability problems ("most viewers continue to enjoy The West Wing, arguing that it is still far superior to other shows and unique among drama series in its theme"; "A large, fully connected set of the White House allows the producers to capture an almost reality TV feel"; "The result of this kidnapping was the invasion and bombing of Qumar, a terror-supporting Muslim country, similar to the real-world invasion and bombing of Afghanistan."). This is a pretty bad article, all things considered, and given the amount of useful, well-researched, easy-to-find source material. Much of it is really thinly veneered original research. Monicasdude 23:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please. The timeline skew (which I myself objected to) is based on very verifiable facts in the show like dialogue and props. If a law exists in both TWW world and reality it presents a point by which the timelines can be connected. In addition, the "Ronald Reagan" hospital wouldn't be named that were he not president, nor would the variety of presidential portraits be hanging in the White House were they not presidents. The off-year elections aren't even questioned, there are numerous signs and dialogue references to the 2002 and 2006 election years. Finally, as for the POV complaints:
  • Quote 1: I'll change most to many, but it does still pull in millions of viewers and a primetime spot on NBC.
What's unverifiable (and unsourced) in Quote 1 is the claim that "most" or "many" viewers "argue" that TWW is "far superior" to other shows. Monicasdude 00:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed the quote to read "However, many viewers continue to tune into The West Wing every week, with the show currently averaging eight million viewers a week." and provided a link to the latest Nielsen Ratings for the show. This definitely makes the statement a hard fact. -Scm83x 01:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quote 2: It does... This has been commented on both by cast members in commentaries (on how things like the hallway scenes lend a realistic feel to the show) and reviews.
It's an unsourced aesthetic judment presented as fact, and therefore violates NPOV/NOR policies. And "realistic" and "reality TV" aren't exactly synonymous. Monicasdude 00:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the reference to realistic and changed the wording to "A large, fully connected set of the White House allows the producers to create shots with very few cuts and long continuous master shots of staff members walking through the hallways, which have become a show trademark." -Scm83x 01:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quote 3: Again, that's exactly what it was. Did you just pull random quotes to try and present a justification for your objection? The war on terrorism couldn't be written into the already existing season, and they couldn't have 9-11 happen a year later, so they created a fictional nation on which they could declare war (to avoid PC complaints) and a fictional justification (again, to avoid the touchy subject of 9-11). Staxringold 23:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In which episode was war declared against Qumar? In which episode was Qumar invaded? In which episode was the government of Qumar toppled by invading American forces, parallel to Afghanistan? According to the Wikipedia article on Qumar, the country's fictive history is nothing like what you present, in the article or here. Saying that the Qumar plotline was "similar" to the real-world intervention in Afghanistan is, at best, an unsourced opinion -- and an opinion based on events that don't seen to have "actually" happened on the television program. Monicasdude 00:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Right to begin with, analagous situations do not necessarily mean things progressed identically. The point of that sentence is to point out that terrorism is being discussed in The West Wing as well. War was never declared in the War in Afghanistan either (the US hasn't been in a declared war since WWII), but I think what you are talking about happened in "The Dogs of War" when Walken made similar declarations to Bush's Axis of Evil State of the Union. Again, the invasion/toppling of the Taliban is not the same as that of Qumar. The very purpose of an analogy is to take objects A and B, which are not the same and compare similar aspects. Each bombing and conflict represents the beginning of a more active US position in fighting terrorism, which is the entire point of that quote. The first bombings took place in the aforementioned "Dogs of War".Staxringold 00:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You've edited the article to correct some of the errors in the discussion of Qumar, which is good, but problems remain there. The claim that Qumar is based on Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan isn't unreasonable, but it is unsourced and therefore has NPOV/NOR (no original research)/verifiability problems. The statement that the Zoe Bartlet kidnapping was the beginning of the show's "war on terrorism" is entirely unsourced and is similarly in violation of Wikipedia policies. I know it's hard, in dealing with material like this, to separate out one's own interpretations, but that's required by Wikipedia policy for all articles, and is particularly important for FAs. Monicasdude 02:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply rediculous and wrong. Not every single sentence on Wikipedia is sourced. Why? Because if it was every[1] sentence[2] would[3] read[4] like[5] this[6]. It is already discussed in the article (and sourced by the producers/writers) that Qumar was a general mixture of Middle Eastern nations so the show could deal with Middle Eastern issues. As for the war on terrorism, it's already been discussed. The show dealt with the president, the real president had declared war on terrorism (specifically Middle Eastern) and the show created a Middle Eastern terrorist storyline for that and following seasons? Gasp, I wonder if they are connected? [1 (not sourced as requires payment to read)] and [2]. Staxringold 03:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that "Qumar was a general mixture of Middle Eastern nations" contradicts the statement that "Qumar [is] a terrorist-sponsoring Middle Eastern state based on both Taliban Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia." Nothing you say supports the specific statements in the article I quoted, and several of your comments indicate violations of the NPOV/NOR policies.
Resolution. This line has been eliminated in favor of "Qumar, a terrorist-sponsoring Middle Eastern state, is repeatedly a source of trouble for the Bartlet administration." This removes all references to Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. I think this should resolve that issue.
If the "timeline skew" theories and everything associated with them aren't fancruft, and merit encyclopedic treatment, there ought to be some evidence, some verifiable indications, that the show's creators intended to set their storylines in a United States with such a radical difference in its political history. Otherwise, the discussions fail Wikipedia policy requirements, and shouldn't be included in the substance of an article, no less a featured article. Monicasdude 00:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So long as the Endor Holocaust has an article you have no arguement. Besides that, Wikipedia articles often make inferences that are obviously implied in the material. Since Bartlet was re-elected in '02 and Santos/Vinick is '06, obviously something set the timeline off kilter. So long as we know that, and know real world events/people, we can draw out the theories proposed there. Finally, you're ignoring the core point which is that is a fork article and should have no bearing on this articles FAC. Staxringold 00:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Endor Holocaust article is not terribly good, but at least it complies with Wikipedia verifiability policy. It presents the material involved as non-canonical, and describes the various fannish theories, rather representing the material as "factual" (to the extent that the term is relevant in describing a fictional construct.) The West Wing article, in contrast, simply grafts the disputable inferences of a groups of fans into the fictional construct. The entire enterprise rests on the unveriable assumption that the dates on which the television program aired in the real world are roughly congruent with the dates on which fictional events occurred in the fictional universe in which the fictional narrative takes place. Unless the article can cite the shows' creators in support of the "timeline skew" hypothesis, or present indisputable evidence that the scattered bits of dialogue and images which support cannot reasonably be viewed as nothing more than the sort of errors and anomalies that are almost unavoidable when producing a regular television series, the material related to it should not be presented as "factual" (within the fictional construct). To do so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. And such material is not limited to the fork article, but is present (often in headings, in large type) in the main article. Monicasdude 02:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not dependant on that. We have references to real presidents and years for events that happened in TWW that also happened in the real world. US Presidents in TWW serve 4 year terms. Fact. Bartlet was re-elected in 2002. Fact. Bartlet was not elected through a special election. Fact. Thus, Bartlet was initially elected in 1998. Bill Clinton's presidential portrait is seen in the situation room and his "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is already law. But wait! Bill Clinton served from 1993-2001. And thus we have our timeline skew theory (which has source material, so you can't kvetch about that) which draws on years mentioned in the show for events that also happened in reality. Using these years you can create a timeline of events, which is exactly what happened. And again, widely discussed fan theories on content are often mentioned, whereas this one has source material and is wholly based on reality and things mentioned in canon. Staxringold 03:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Bartlet was re-elected in 2002. Fact." Obviously not a "fact", since Jed Bartlet is a fictional character. You cite no verifiable source for the claim that the statement is "true" within the West Wing fictional construct. The difference between this article and the articles you link to is that the other articles present the various non-canonical hypotheses as hypotheses, not "facts," and are not parts of the main articles on the canonical fictions. The Star Wars article, quite sensibly, note that some of the inconsistencies noted "may be simple mistakes that have no explanation other than human error," and that "Almost any of these inconsistencies can be explained as an oversight by Lucas or an intended change in Lucas's idea of how the Star Wars universe works." Monicasdude 06:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The episode in which the fictional character Bartlet was re-elected was shown in 2002. The next election is being shown on TV in March 2006. So, 2002 and 2006 election dates. It is only logical to assume that 2002-4=1998 would be the year Bartlet was first elected, also backed up by references to the administration having been in office "1 year already" in episodes airing fall of 2000. This would put the election in 1998. I do think that it would make good sense to add a disclaimer that the writers and producers have never claimed that the show follows a one year:one year ratio, so it is possible that the show skipped a year. -Scm83x 06:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, there is no verifiable source for the (rather dubious) claim that the original air dates of episodes in the real world are intended to be congruent with the dates that events "actually" occur in the fictional construct. All of the "evidence" supporting the increasingly wacky "timeline skew" hypotheses is more consistent, for example, with the hypothesis that, within the fictional construct, the show's first episodes "actually" occurred in 2002, and the idea that the relatively small number of anomalies remaining are best explained as imperfections in the fictional construct. It's not real, and it's not encylopedic to lose the distinction between fictional constructs and the real world. Monicasdude 15:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article isn't saying that the election took place in the show's 2002 or 2006, but that they happened in our 2002 and 2006 (or will happen). I changed the header for the 1998 election to "Bartlet's first presidential election" and removed references to the 1998 election date from the article. -Scm83x 00:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In regards to the comment of no criticism being discussed, please see the section labeled "Critical reactions" in the article, which uses multiple periodical and book sources to establish the critical view of the show. The main book used, and referenced multiple times at the end of the article, is "The West Wing: The American Presidency as Televison Drama," which can be seen on Amazon here. It is a collection of essays by communications, political science, English, history, and education professors regarding critical views of all aspects of the show. This book and other magazine sources, all footnoted and cited in the references section, provide the basis for the critical review section of the article. Thanks. -Scm83x 00:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Which pretty much proves my point. There's an extensive body of reviews and commentaries out there, principally devoted to treating the program as a dramatic work. And the article draws virtually all its critical references from a single book, which isn't particularly concerned with treating the show in terms of its art or its craft. The other references are mostly political commentary/criticism, not artistic. It's a huge gap in the article: no reviews or criticism of a TV show as a TV show. Monicasdude 01:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book has several essays written by film writing and film studies professors. I will add material from these essays later tonight to correct this issue. -Scm83x 02:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really address the problem. What privileges this book to be the only source of appropriate commentary on the program? TWW has been reviewed by major newspapers and magazines, and been the subject of hundreds if not thousands of commentaries. Presenting only the commentaries found in a single book (and arguably representing the POV of its editor as to what sort of commentary is appropriate) is not consistent with Wikipedia guidelines, or FA requirements. Monicasdude 02:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Film criticism section has been added to article which does not include any references to the book. Articles are sourced from the Guardian and Salon. There is an entire paragraph concerning the downfalls of Sorkin's scripts, which I believe rounds out the article more wholly. -Scm83x 06:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not resolved. Added quotation from one critic, which again deals with politics more than the show's art/craft, and a generalization about the show's scripts. The article needs to present a well-researched description of the show's reception by critics, particularly with regard to the art/craft involved, to meet FA criteria. And by adding this unsourced, NPOV-violating comment as factual -- "This pandemic naiveté, and resulting perpetual optimism, are prevalent in Sorkin's scripts. Following the departure of Sorkin, consequent storylines, covering topics including death and treason, have revealed a more nuanced view of the world, a noticeable shift from Sorkin's scripts" -- the "resolution" edit does more damage to the article than improvement. Monicasdude 15:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Added quotations by other critics now concerning the use of steadicam tracking shots and a screenshot of one. The first quote doesn't talk so much about politics as it does about how unreal the script's presentation of politics and politicos is. This is a quality of the screenwriting, which should make it a criticism of Sorkin's writing. I am sourcing the last quote and changing it slightly to: "However, many fans believe that the show's scripts have changed since Sorkin left the show in 2003." This quote is referenced in the article. -Scm83x 00:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


A Truly Minor Point - three of the first four sentences start with "The show." That's not great writing. Also, don't FA's generally have more like a three paragraph intro? Kaisershatner 04:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Removed some of those in the intro. As for the introduction, Scm said he was working off the rule roughly 1 opening paragraph per 15000 words (I believe). Staxringold 04:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I was looking at the guidelines for leads. -Scm83x 09:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object While easy to read and packed with information, this article about a TV series is not comprehensive. It reads more like a subarticle, "Plot development and scriptwritng for ...", than a encyclopedic overview of the subject. Some specifics:
  • No coverage of the production side - What production-related information there is is located in other areas and difficult to find. I want to know basics, stuff like: Shooting locations? Crew size and shooting style (e.g. is this a deluxe operation, or barebones?)? Shooting schedules (are actors together for long periods? compared to other TV series? etc) Tech details: any innovative use of video, CGI, editing, etc? Basic numbers: size of the crew; shooting ratio (eg raw footage to edited material?). I realize there is potentially endless detail, my critical finding is that there is a "reasonable" amount of basic info that should be here.
Response. None of the other featured articles concerning television shows go into this kind of detail regarding the production quality of the show. Very few people will be concerned with these points of minutia and if they are concerned about it, they should go to IMDB or try to find a book about these details. As of yet, I have not seen any information concerning most of these points, and I do not think there is much reason to include them. -Scm83x 03:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For one, using existing FAs as isn't valid, as standards are (apparetly, rapidly) improving/getting tougher; many current FAs are a nomination away from FARC by current standards... Second, Very few people will be concerned with these points of minutia and if they are concerned about it, they should go to IMDB is a very presumptuous statement. "People" seem to like production info, if we go by the fact that practically every current feature film and established TV series has a "making of..." feature. DVDs regularly include a wealth of production info. Answering at least the basic production questions only makes common sense for a comprehensive article. Is IMDb a prerequisite for reading an article here? --Tsavage 03:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No coverage of the commercial/business aspect The show is an entertainment business. Is it produced by an independent production house and sold to the network? What is the per episode production budget (and how does that compare with other comparable shows)? What kind of money are the principal actors making? Who are the main advertisers (and have their been advertisers who haven't participated because of the controversiality?) Again, I realize there is endless detail to be found; I'm simply looking for a "reasonable" amount of info describing this business aspect of the topic.
I will try to include maybe some of this information, but again... a lot of it is minutia. These details are not included in other television featured articles. Also, the article, once below 30kb, has crept back up to 35kb. This is getting very large again. -Scm83x 03:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Again, referring to existing FAs is invalid, and citing article length as a reason for not including information is a non-starter. What sort of Xanax-based world view portrays a money-making TV series in the cutthroat US TV industry as no more than a bunch of character and plot development exercises and critical awards? --Tsavage 03:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Real-world accuracy It should be made clear exactly how accurate the overall portrayal of the White House is. Is this Tom Clancy-level detailed research, down to the right WH-branded sugar packets? Are the procedures and protocols accurate? Could a future historian study this series to gain an accurate picture of the functioning White House? Given both the nature of the series, and the current empahsis on real-world connections of the article, making this explicit and plain is necessary.

To be a great article, the topic must be covered in full. The points above represent what are to me are obvious and serious holes in the coverage. --Tsavage 23:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response to "Real-world accuracy". As far as this point goes, I think the show's accuracy is made clear in the "Critical Reactions" section, detailed in subsections from "Legitimacy" to "The Left Wing," and to some extent "Film criticism." The first subsection, "Legitimacy," immediately states that "former White House staffers agree that the show "captures the feel [of the West Wing], shorn of a thousand undramatic details." In addition, subsequent sections include, "acclaim for the veracity of the series." Regardless, Sorkin, the show's creator, believes that "[his] obligation isn't to the truth." I think this is enough for us to get a good feel of "how accurate the overall portrayal of the White House is."
    • "Is this Tom Clancy-level research?" Obviously, the show's creator never meant for that to be a priority - "[his] obligation isn't to the truth."
    • "WH-branded sugar packets? Procedures and protocols accurate?" We know the show has some validity, though "not completely accurate in its portrayal of the actual West Wing." As a side note, there are mentions of WH-branded boxes of M&Ms in the show; however, that was obviously an interesting thing the writers threw in - they never planned for everything to be completely accurate, as it already states in the article. If "many former West Wing denizens applauded the show's depiction of the real West Wing," then the procedures and protocols depicted in the show must have some validity.
    • "Could a future historian study this series? (nature of the series, and the current empahsis [sic])" The show accurately depicts a functioning White House. Obviously, however, it's a fictitious Democratic government dealing with current events under a real-life Republican White House. As far as historical accuracy, there is none, but it brings a "useful insight to the views of the left," as seen in the subsection, "The Left Wing." -Rebelguys2 00:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the reply (and for the [sic])! You make my point. Your comments could (should) be summarized in as little as a paragraph, appropriately placed within the aritcle outline (like, in a "Factual accuracy" section, or somesuch). With citations as required, it provides an interesting and necessary aspect of full show coverage that is currently not present. --Tsavage 00:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not believe that Rebelguys2 makes your point. He rather, proves that all of the information is there but the reader has to assimilate it for himself, much like a normal encyclopedia. We can't spoon feed assumptions to people, they have to decide on their own the answers to the questions you raised based on what facts we impart to them in the article. -Scm83x 03:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that really your well-considered response? Am I just pissing in the wind with my comments, about lack of production info, lack of business info, lack of info on the level of real-world accuracy of the show? Are these things that "most people" couldn't care less about? Are these not significant aspects of a TV show? Am I simply possessed of a subnormal intellect, that failed to assimilate and synthesize the answers to these questions from the article, where other, "normal" people would easily have? --Tsavage 03:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Production Side and Commercial and Business Aspect. I'm somewhat in agreement with Tsavage here, and recommend a new section called "Production and distribution," or something of the like, with perhaps two subsections concerning your two original bullet point. It's not a spoiler, so it'd probably best flow if we stuck it between "Plot" and "Show's evolution." I think both of these topics can be condensed into one section; I think it's important to mention some of it, but, admittedly, a lot of it is just overly detailed. I wouldn't plan on talking about the 1.33:1 aspect ratio in the 1999-2000 compared with the 1.78:1 aspect ratio they used later, and other specifics you mentioned above. I know you weren't really expecting that, but I'd just like to emphasize that this kind of detail for the "Production and distribution" section is, in my opinion, completely unnecessary. -Rebelguys2 04:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Followup to Production and distribution. After looking over the newly researched information, this is really not going to be a substantial section. Do we need to know how much each actor makes? No, that's too detailed. We'll make a small note of salary ranges in the "Cast" section. Do we need a list of the dozens of filming locations? No, that's completely unnecessary. We'll make a note of where the primary set is, in the lead, perhaps. Special effects? We already noted that the show is dialogue-centric, and some camera use such as the moving hallway shots, and don't need to mention various companies that provided maybe an explosion/gunshot or two each season. Much of the information is already there, and this article primarily needs minor additions to existing sections. The "Behind the Scenes" documentaries you find in the DVDs of old shows are there for the fans of the show - i.e., those who will actually buy the DVD - because they know the show well enough to want to know all the details. It's there to satiate the appetite of an often nearly obsessive fanbase. Wikipedia is not here for that purpose; rather, while your topics are valid, they only require a passing mention. I fail to see the need for too many numbers and figures. -129.116.44.25 06:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, that was me, Rebelguys2. I somehow got logged out. Regardless, my resolution to this is to add small details into the lead, the cast section, and a few other sections...there's simply no need for an entire section to regurgitate fact after fact about mundane production details. -Rebelguys2 06:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Real-World Accuracy. I think that "Legitimacy" covers what you wanted in "Factual accuracy," Tsavage. The "Critical reactions" section introduces us to three, distinct subsections, "Legitimacy," which describes the accuracy of the general depiction of life in the White House, "Social impact," which outlines how the show can be used as a teaching tool because of its accuracy but admitting it's melodramatic parts, and "The Left Wing," showing how the show is fictionally under a Democratic administration but can still give us an outlook on current events from a different point of view. This is clear enough. Regardless, both Wikipedia style and good writing wants us to give concrete examples like this - not have overarching, somewhat pointless summaries for every section. See here. These subsections are clear-cut and immediately following a brief introduction into the "Critical reactions" section which, in a large part, details the show's accuracy. It's not that we don't want to spoon-feed the content to people - it's that we already are, and resumming these three sections would be completely redundant. -Rebelguys2 04:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

White's Tree Frog

I have created this article, and run it through peer review, and there seems to be no more additions needed. It was improved gretly by the peer review. I think it is a good, comprehensive article and hopefully ready for featured article status. --liquidGhoul 23:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • No vote yet: What kind of "gland" is on its head? In the distribution section, it says they're in northern and eastern Australia, but in the section before it said, I think, that they're only in northwestern Australia. Was that the magnificent that's only there? A bit confusing right along there. Geogre 00:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I'm a sucker for tree frogs, and the writing looks good, comprehensive, and clear. I've done a slight copy edit on a couple of rough spots. Geogre 11:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Ribbit. Oh, sorry - crawk. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Fantastic article, though I'd recommend a copy-edit! —Hollow Wilerding 01:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support very well done AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 04:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Would be nice if you attempt to fix the red links by creating those articles or removing those links. Otherwise looks good! — Wackymacs 12:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem, I will create them in the next couple days. --liquidGhoul 12:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure why people are so opposed to red links. While blue links are usually better than red links, some stubby articles are more disappointing than a red link and give a misleading impression of our coverage. Sometimes it is better to know that an article does not exist, since it encourages editors to create a decent one :) It is certainly better to have a red link to an article that should exist but does not (such as magnificent tree frog) than delink the words. Over at WP:FLC, we interpret the criterion of usefulness as requiring a supermajority of blue links, and reject lists dominated by red links; on the other hand, we also reject lists that are tactically unlinked to eliminate red links. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: For whatever it's worth, I think in specialized articles, in particular, redlinks are good for us. Who is going to jump in to read an article about White's tree frog (other than when it's on the main page)? Froggers. Those folks will have an interest in frogs and possibly some expertise. They are, indeed, exactly the people we want going, "Oh, heavens! No article on my favorite amphibian? Let me write it!" They'll do the research and fill out something in detail, and they might stick around. If they see a blue, they might well pass it by, figuring that it will be of the same quality as what they're reading. The same principle would be true of any area where academic training is necessary, although it might not be very true of popular culture topics. Geogre 13:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was mainly concerned with the lead section, as that shouldn't have red links if it ever gets onto the front page. --liquidGhoul 13:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, please write them if you want to: mu point is just saying not to be scared of them or badgered into writing a stub just to turn them blue. I guess Raul654 would reword to avoid redlinks (or tactically delink) on the blurb for the Main Page. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Aloan is correct on both counts -- in the past (when red links were more common) I edited them from main page blurbs all the time. It's also not a very weighty objection on the FAC that something has a lot of red links. Raul654 15:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • I must agree it shouldn't be used as an objection, and I wasn't. I was using it as a suggestion for further improvement, note that I did Support. I can't believe we're having this in-depth debate over red links. — Wackymacs 15:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cute Support. What an attractive creature, it can come climb vertically up my glass anytime. Seriously, this article is beautifully written. I really like the way the style and choice of words highlight the charm of the frogs (yet in an unobtrusive, encyclopedic way), and also how considerate the text is of the ignorant reader. P.S. They inhabit toilets! They become overweight and it makes them look dumpy! They call, but we know not why! They're docile! I want one! Bishonen | talk 00:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Object—Poorly written (full of redundancies and lack of clarity). I've edited the first half; please address my inline comments. Tony 08:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Great page - well written, and illustrated. I don't have a problem with red links, I don't like to see too many, but I suppose when writing on a subject on which Wikipedia is lacking red links are going to be inevitable. lacking. That said, it's a good informative page. Giano | talk 11:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object; inline citations do not appear to cover the entire article's text (for example, the Taxonomy section). Please add more or demonstrate that I'm wrong. --Spangineeres (háblame) 23:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inline citation are not required for featured article, and in my opinion they are not really necessary for uncontrovertial information. In addtion to the inline cites that are provided for relvant points, this article has a refernces section that list other works cousulted writing the article. From the criteria:
(c) "factually accurate" includes the supporting of facts with specific evidence and external citations (see Wikipedia:Verifiability); these include a "References" section where the references are set out, enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations (see Wikipedia:Cite sources);--nixie 02:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • re inline citations do not appear to cover the entire article's text I'm still not at all clear on the practical application of citations in Wikipedia, and I believe that's very much in development. Verifiability through verification is great in principle, but the practical application is much trickier across the entire range of topics known to mankind (which is what Wikipedia is about). From what I can gather:
  • General encyclopedias as I recall use bibliographies rather than inline citations (further research is faciliated, but the text as a whole is assumed to be trusted), whereas specialized encyclopedias (like, a legal encyclopedia) obviously need to.
  • Reputable news publications don't cite sources, but the reporters are expected to be able to essentially go to court on the verifiability and accuracy of their research.
  • Student academic papers are subject to different levels of citation requirement, for example, higher standards for graduate than undergraduate. And the requirements vary across disciplines. Also, university level papers (often) encourage or require original thought, unlike Wikipedia, so citations are necessary to clearly distinguish between what is original and what is derived or incorporated from elsewhere.
WP:CITE is only a guideline. Wikipedia Forum for Encylopedic Standards in part notes: "The guidelines must be flexible because of the broad range of topics that they must apply to. Citations of academic topics may benefit from more rigorous standards than popular culture topics."
A basic decision as to whether a citation is required seems to be the question of whether a statement is "generally known". "The sky often appears blue," doesn't have to be cited. "The sky often appears blue due to selective filtration of visible light (or whatever)," probably has to be cited. "'Hollaback Girl' is a pop song," presumably doesn't. But "'Hollaback Girl' is hip hop-influenced pop song," presumably does, or if not, why not, as it's doubtful that "most" people can immediately identify a "hip hop influence". Yet, to cite at that level for that topic is absurd. So it doesn't seem that a categorical reference to WP:CITE or a call for copious inline citations is clear or usefully applicable to every article on the FAC page. IMO. --Tsavage 00:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on clarifying my views on a subpage in my userspace. For now, I'll say that because virtually all writers of wikipedia are virtually anonymous (unless they provide their name, or we can deduce their identity from checkuser and their ip address), we have absolutely no credibility in the eyes of many. We must go above and beyond the normal practice of encyclopedias. Because non-experts write the majority of our articles, we must show that those non-experts are making abundant use of the writings of experts. The ease of verification and research is another bonus, because no college student in his or her right mind will want to cite a wikipedia article in a research paper or thesis. They shouldn't have to scour through 8 different reference works in order to find verification of what the article is saying. As for "copious" inline citations, I find that in many cases, it's possible to write a well developed paragraph (or even a multi-paragraph section) from only a few pages of one or two sources. Sometimes it just takes finding the right source. So don't worry, citations after every comma and period annoy me too. --Spangineeres (háblame) 02:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is now clearly off-topic for FAC, nonetheless, INTERESTING, so... It seems in part to me that the Wikipedia NOR+NPOV+Verifiability premise is sound in principle, but ultimately a defensive (even self-conscious) position in practice, and at odds with the reality of the project. What is this trying to prove to whom? If "we" wanted an academically traditional body of work, then (given what I judge is now around a million US dollar a year current funding drive/budget) wouldn't it be more efficient to hire a bunch of cause-driven researchers (give 'em an annual honorarium of $20-30K or whatever), put 'em in a house near a big library, hand them the "rules" and have them write this free-for-all encyclopedia? Within a year, a team of 20-30 Wikipedia research scribes could produce thousands of articles, all "well-written and verifiable", at least to the best of the current Featured Article standard. But I don't think that's the point, nor the drive that has given Wikipedia all of the energy and momentum it currently seems to enjoy. Is the goal to shove people into bureaucratic boxes by forcing them to increasingly adhere to "citation standards", or instead perhaps to figure out a way to emphasize the "assume good faith" principle that is obviously a central operational principle now, and vet articles in a more creative way? (BTW, I couldn't find the user subpage you referred to...) --Tsavage 02:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied this discussion to the FAC talk page, and responded there. --Spangineeres (háblame) 17:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied there at some length: in summary, though, my opinion is: Objections based on citations should be quite specific about how the objector is interpreting WP:Verifiability for the particular article and subject area, or should reference an equivalent FA as an example. Inline citation clutter, for one, can be real obstacle to plain old readability, so deployment of same should be guided by the case at hand. (Also, clarification, my reference to Wikipedia funding wasn't intended in any way to question that end of things, and I do realize the hardware/IT requirements are tremendous, it was just a way to emphasize a point... ;) --Tsavage 19:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dumpy Tree Neutral. I'd like to see a little more smoothing-over of the language here and there (I made a pass at it), and I'm pretty concerned about all the one-and-two paragraph sections, which I would urge you to find a way of combining. (Moving "conservation status" into the "range" section? Breaking out a separate "ecology" section and moving it into there?) I'd be remiss in my duties as the food FA guy if I didn't ask what they taste like. :-) Just kidding. I think. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't totally agree with merging the "Conservation status" section. Conservation is a big issue when it comes to animals (frogs in particular) and if someone was looking for the info, they might miss it under another sub-heading. In the end it is about trying to give information in the best way possible. --liquidGhoul 05:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I decided not to use it. When I uploaded it, I was intending to replace original image, but I changed my mind, and decided to keep it. I am still trying to improve the photo, so I just kept caerulea2.jpg, and will update it once I get the good photo.--liquidGhoul 03:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's jauntily readable and seems to get include all of the important gear. As a non-expert on all possible angles relating to this subject, no obvious unanswered questions came to mind, and I felt competently informed about this topic... Yet another frog... ;)(I looked at citations a little more closely in this case, but nothing that seemed radical was offered in the text, so the general references presented seemed just fine) --Tsavage 00:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great article. I love to see animal FAs. One question - what are down pipes and tanks? --Bad carpet 16:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joseph Smith, Jr. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ford Taurus

History of the Australian Capital Territory

A workup project from WikiProject:Canberra, it provides a comprehensive summary of the history of Australias smallest territory.--nixie 07:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional support Object COMMENT ON CHANGE OF VOTE: in this case, my objections as detailed were the entirety of my complaint (well, they weren't "examples only"), and those have been satisfied. MUCH revision and addition has taken place; while LONGER, the article creates a more complete picture of the people and activities and overall timeline involved. To be blunt, a major point of my original objection had to do with my perception that the "aborigines" were simply being written off ("21,000 years and some moths", as it were), and the method of appropriation of their land simply not mentioned; "racist" is such a strong word, (N)POV is Wikipedia's framing; "centric" seems to be a euphemism that can do the job amongst...reasonable people. Whatever, I no longer find that POV to be clearly or actionably present (others may disagree ;). Conditional support only refers to readability—the writing still seems clear to me, but I can't honestly reset and give the new version a readthrough in the next day or two with all of these thoughts and details floating around. So, if there are other objections to the general writing style, based on new length or other post-FAC revision details, I would tend to support them. Of course, one FAC can't go on forever, and I think I've vigorously supported my initial vote to a useful conclusion. Hopefully you get what I mean... :) Thanks! --Tsavage 19:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Original objection: The article reads quite smoothly, and the information is presented for the most part clearly. My objection has to do with comprehensiveness and NPOV. For one, I'm not clear on the scope of the article. The existence of the Australian Capital Territory was new to me: the introduction did not fully answer the question, "what's ACT?", and did not clearly convey what exactly the article was intending to cover. Also, I found the coverage of the aboriginal "indigenous people" and the "Europeans" puzzling, and seemingly somewhat skewed to a POV I couldn't quite pin down ("white"? European? Australian?).
    • The intro does not provide a succinct and complete explanation of what ACT is - Where exactly is it located in Australia? How big is it? What's the population? Is there anything special about the geography, the climate? As the "capital territory", does it have any special standing as a region in Australia? I realize this is a HISTORY, but in setting up such a specifically focussed article, I'd like to know what I'm reading about right off the top.
    • The intro is confusing: this is a history of what exactly? - Part of this is due to how it is written, but mainly, the summary, "prehistory" and pre-Federation sections don't hang together. I gather that ACT is a "political entity" that was created in 1938, with a (political) history beginning in 1901. However, as (presumably) an unnamed piece of land, ACT has an additional history (and prehistory) of human settlement going back in all 21,000 years. ACT is less than 70 years old; why am I being presented with "moth-eating aboriginals"?
    • The role of the aboriginal population is not adequately explained - 21,000 years of settlement is summarized in a few sentences. There is no satisfactory description of the tribal situation at the time of settlement: How big was the tribal population, where were they located, what were they doing? Were there treaties made to gain control of the ACT territory, or was it simply claimed because no-one was there to argue otherwise? In the article, single paragraph (somewhat dismissively) suggests that an insiginificant number of non-hostile aborigines were hanging about, occasionally contacting the "Europeans" for work or handouts, and that they eventually simply faded away. A reference to "reserves" is not explained. The citation is to a seminar?
    • The choice of the term "Europeans" to describe the settlers is not explained - I believe only one mention of the "British" was made, otherwise, the term "Europeans" is used throughout to describe the settlers. Were there other settlers than the British? I can understand using "Europeans" in some cases for a discussion of, say, the Americas, where the British, French, Portugese and other Europeans all had their go. Is it the same situation here? If not, Europeans seems overly broad and vague. Is this a British colonization, or a European invasion? I'm not clear.

Overall, the article does not make its meaning plain. It does not clearly state what it is about, and then sets up a historical framework, beginning 21,000 years ago, that it fails to fully fill in. It also suggests a POV that is not "neutral", but favors the activities of "European settlers" over anyone else around. --Tsavage 18:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lead section does a good job of summarising the article. I have just looked through a selection of already featured "History of X" articles and none of them go into detail of describing the place like you have suggested it should. This is should be covered by the Australian Capital Territory article. You seem to be giving two different arguments here. First you seem to be arguing that the history of the ACT should start fromt eh creation of the ACT then you complain that the article is European heavy. The aboriginals left very little record of their presence, I am not sure how you expect their section to be expanded to match the later sections in length. The aboriginal reference is obviously a book. Are you suggesting scientific conference procedings are not "Authoritave" becaus ethey are from a seminar? --Martyman-(talk) 22:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Re two different arguments, I'm not suggesting the article should do anything, I'm evaluating an FAC submission, as presented. The article introduces (in fact, explicitly frames itself with) aboriginals, 21,000 years of habitation and European settlement. I'm simply taking it from there... --Tsavage 02:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, are you suggesting that we should be carefully explaining the nationality of every person mentioned. The european history of the are begins almost 40 years after the "british" settlement of Australia. By this time many people would have volantarily migrated to Australia, and it would be very wrong to assume all of the settlers where British. Is the word european no longer acceptable? --Martyman-(talk) 22:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: "European" is way too vague. If ACT requires a detailed history, its own article, then I'd expect a little more about the people who "founded" it than something as nonspecific as "European". Is that a group by enthnicity? Language? Religion? Political philosophy? Are the British and French equivalent for colonization purposes? You don't even seem that clear on who the Europeans were: many people would have voluntarily migrated. They would have? Well, did they? If so, who? Dutch merchants? Portugese convicts? WHO are these "European" people of ACT? --Tsavage 00:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Tsavage: European, is being used as a catchall because the area was not settled by a specific group of people. It was settled by various people moving in and taking up land grants over a period of time. They can not all be defined as "English Convicts", "Irish Imigrants" etc, because each person has a different background. European is as about as specific as you can be without accidently ommiting people. Specifically there are definately English, Scottish, Irish, Second Generation European-Australians and almost certainly many others. --Martyman-(talk) 06:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the first 'Australian Capital Territory' in the article should be a wikilink? That would immediately guide the reader to further information if they were unfamiliar with the topic. Natgoo 22:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's already linked in the text, although another link wouldn't hurt. I don't think we should be expected to add a whole bunch of general ACT information into a history article because someone is too lazy to click a link. As to the remainder of Tsavage's objections, they're conflicting, unnecessary, and, without screwing up the article, unactionable. Ambi 00:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: You're rather rude and dismissive (as well as wrong). This is a FAC review process, remember? I understand what the article is trying to do, and no doubt most of the raw material is there. Unfortunately, it is poorly structured and presents a non-neutral POV—it's OK, but certainly not superior. Subarticle or not, it still has to be reasonably self-contained. The problem is that the "Australian Capital Territory" is simply not widely known, at least, outside of Australia, so the "History of" must explain what it is in some detail (the rewrites to the lead improve on the original situation, but I'd still like to know more). Readers shouldn't have to preread other articles to make sense of this one. Geographic details are given in the body of the text, yet the lead, even in revised form, only provides a vague description of what ACT is. This is an example of the poor structuring. Next, if the article chooses to put itself on a 21,000 year timeline, it must follow through with the details. Basic unanswered question: how did the British take over the territory from the aborigines? That seems kind of fundamental to a detailed history subarticle. And there is indeed a -centricness (Euro? white?). Case in point: The Ngunnawal people and other linguistic groups are known to have inhabited the region for at least 21,000 years before the present. The 19th century was a time of exploration and settlement in the region. So, the only people capable of "exploration" and "settlement" are...Europeans? In 21,000 years, no-one else "explored" or "settled"? This is obviously a POV framing of the account. In the same way, not covering how the territory was acquired, but going into relatively minute detail about the activities of the Europeans, demonstrates this POV. The article could limit itself to the "political entity" that is ACT, and provide a historical account of the legislative process and subsequent actual development, but it tries to be much more ambitious than that and fails quite miserably. Moth-eating aboriginals, huh? These are simple, basic, obvious problems. If fixing them "screws up the article", then don't bother. As is, however, it is not FA quality. --Tsavage 23:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You over-estimate out ability to write an unwritten hisotry. The Australian Aborigines did not have a written history, so other than listing all the locations and approximate dates of artefacts, there is little we can actually do to fill in 21,000 years of history prior to settlement. Following settlement, where in this area there were few reported conflicts, it was actually widely held that the Ngunnawal were extinct - like the Tasmanian Aborigines. While it is probably not the case, there are very few resoruces that go beyond cataloguing archeological evidence.--nixie 00:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I think you miss a major portion of my point. I don't necessarily think History of ACT should go back 21,000 years. However, that's what it does, and then, not so well. I'm evaluating what's there. Writing quality and comprehensiveness are more than simply well-constructed sentences and adequate citations. There has to be a narrative with a logical flow. This isn't point form notes, it's an article, that should present a cohesive (and hopefully accurate) story. If we're going back into aboriginals and Europeans, then, get ALL of the basic facts straight, OR, explicitly account for why there are gaping holes in the account. I shouldn't have to read the History of Australia in order to understand History of ACT. I shouldn't be informed about aboriginals on the land for 2.1K years(!!!), and then not be at all clear on how the aboriginal->European transition occurred. What kind of comprehensive history is that? --Tsavage 01:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion of contracting the article to a polictal history of the territory is pointless. This article was specifically written to cover the area outside of History of Canberra which starts from 1911. I fail to see how ignoring the existence of the original inhabitants all together would improve the article. The major problem with your other suggestions is that there is no history for the aboriginal presence before european settlement, and the history we have of the aboriginals since european settlement is patchy at best. For example, many historys claim the Ngunnawal people died out around 1900, while we still have people claiming to be of Ngunnawal descent alive today. What you are requesting we attempt to do would have to violate No original research. I have a couple more anecdotes of european/aboriginal interactions I could add but I doubt these are going to satisfy you. --Martyman-(talk) 02:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
reply: Martyman Fair enough, maybe this is just a communication thing. As a non-Aussie, I really have (had) no clue as to what ACT is, or as to its very existence, and, after reading the article, I wound up with slightly MORE questions than I'd started with: so...what is ACT? That's my bottom line problem: article does not make itself clear. I'm assumeing you are quite familiar with many things Australian, like ACT. I'm not. Many readers are not. I may not be representative of "many readers", but in any case I know about kangaroos, Canberra, Sydney and its opera house, big gobs of desert, Kylie Minogue, right-wing Howard, aboriginal tribes, reefs, British convict colonization, recent major droughts, a few other things LIKE THAT. (Oh yeah, Dietrich vs the Queen). Whatever. Point is, ACT is WAY not among them. Nor is Australian history. So, when I come to an article, any article, I want to be able to read it and go, not read it and read half a dozen other articles. And in the case of ACT, I'm not into the fine points of unrecorded aboriginal history, it's just that, if you say who got it from who (as the article does), make that story clear! I don't come equipped with conventions about how Australian history is covered... --Tsavage 02:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several editors have made efforts to clarify detail in line with Tsavage objections, however without signifcant restructuring from a chronological account of history or removal of information, which I think the editors involved in the article would not support, there is little more that can be done to improve comprehensivness of the early part of the article when the data does not exist.--nixie 23:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: I am really quite impressed that my humble and solo objections have been so vigorously and well acted upon! I will reread the article and restate my position ASAP, in the next day or so... Thanks! --Tsavage 00:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • On your point about appropriation, the British claimed Australia as terra nullius, therefore they didn't have to do anything to take land from the Aborigines, there are some instances of the British making deals with the Aborigines for their land like Batman's Treaty but none were made in the ACT area. There were no settlements for them to take since, in the large part, the Aborigines were nomadic and had no permanent man-made settlements. There also wasn't a mass influx of Europeans to the region so the two groups could coexist without much interaction for some time. Since noone has written an account of what happened exactly (at least that I have been able to find) it would be pointless to speculate in the article.--nixie 23:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with the disclosure that I have done some minor tweaking to the article. Kudos to nixie, Martyman et al for an attentive and substantial piece of research, the article is at the very least easily comparable to other FAs of its type- well done!--cjllw | TALK 08:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Homestar Runner Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Salt Lake City, Utah Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dietrich v The Queen Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Blues

Douglas Adams

Self-nomination - This article was recently in Peer Review, and most, if not all, suggestions made there have been carried out. (Peer review archive is here). While there has been a Douglas Adams article on Wikipedia since November 2001 (six months after his death), I have been working on the article since May of this year. I think it is a major improvement over the way the article looked six months ago. The author's most famous work, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was made an FA earlier this year, and I feel it would be fitting to have the article about the author himself also become an FA. Quoting one line of my own from the Peer Review: One snag that his published biographies point out is how difficult it is to keep Adams's life in any sort of chronology, since he was working on several different projects at once, especially during the late 1970s and early 1980s. One other thing that might give some reviewers pause are the images. When I started, there was just ONE photo, the promotional photo at the start of the article. Since then, four TV screenshots have been added - I know this may put some people off, but it's hard to review someone who was interviewed quite a bit on TV and wrote for different programmes for TV without a few screenshots! He also did a lot of writing for radio too, but I thought that trying to pick out a few soundclips from his body of work wouldn't do them justice! As Adams was also known for his writing, three book cover images are also included in the article. I genuinely look forward to reading other's opinions on the state of this article, and hope I can make everyone proud - I really DO think it's another example of good community work. --JohnDBuell 00:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Looks good, and the image additions help a lot (make sure not to make them so small that they're invisible, though), but could use some copyediting for style issues. Avoid linking to any non-essential pages—all the year links should be removed unless genuinely important or part of a "Month Day, Year" link.
Done.
Avoid inconsistencies (a footnote appears directly before a period in one sentence, directly after one in another sentence; after is better) (a comma appears inside of the quotes in ""The Remarkable Fidgety River,"", but outside in ""radical atheist","; outside is better)
I think I got all of these.
I'll try to help. It's difficult, and will take more time than most changes, requiring a full read-through to be sure. Of course, it's nitpicky enough that I don't oppose based on that alone. -Silence 04:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just pasted the article into MS Word and discovered a couple of typos that I should have caught a lot sooner. I also cleaned up a few of the sentences, but tried not to let Word's grammar/spell check influence me into making the article inline with US English usage :) --JohnDBuell 23:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[A]nd make sure to include Fair Use justifications for images like Image:DNA_with_H2G2_towel.JPG. Also consider trimming the External Links section by at least a couple of links; it's starting to develop into a farm. -Silence 01:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll recheck the other images, but I got that one. I also found one redundant link that's actually first mentioned in the Notes section. Images are always hard for me, with sizing - I've got a NICE widescreen monitor, but I know that's not common, so I try to leave the images as not being too obtrusive.... --JohnDBuell 02:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Generally with horizontal images, 200-300px is a good size, though it depends greatly on context. With vertical images, a bit smaller, since the "px" marker is in terms of horizontal length, not height. Anyway, you clearly haven't been told what a "Fair Use rationale" is. Just saying "Fair use is claimed for Douglas Adams and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." will just get Wikipedia's ass sued if someone feels like taking it that far. :) See images like Image:Chavezninas.jpg for examples of proper Fair Use Rationales. Anyway, images that still need Fair Use rationales: Image:Douglasadams.jpg, Image:DNA in Monty Python.jpg, Image:Remarkable Fidgety River Title.jpg, Image:DNA with H2G2 towel.JPG, Image:The Pirate Planet Writers Credit.jpg. -Silence 04:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think that this has become a growing issue - I don't think it was as much a concern when the Hitchhiker's article was put through Peer Review and FAC as it is now. I'm not blowing it off - in fact it's probably a good idea to go back and re-review past FAs to make sure they're staying up to the current standards. I appreciate that you're offering help with this :) --JohnDBuell 04:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I'd certainly agree with you that it's a relatively recent focus of FAs, and I bring it up exclusively to stay consistent with every other FA of the last few weeks, not out of any personal concern whatsoever for copyright law; personally I think the whole issue's a great big buzz-kill, necessary though it may be. :f But if it's gotta be done, best for you to know what you've got to do early.
  • It's also certainly true that the FA standards are constantly changing, shifting, as the imaginary "perfect article" changes a bit with each new innovation and Wikipedia agenda. And with each new trivial requirement, the actual encyclopedia content itself shifts further and further into the backseat; the writing itself is the last thing most reviewers check when looking at a new FA nominee, whereas in a typical encyclopedia it would be the first thing checked, with editors poring over every line for errors. There are probably more typos in a typical Wikipedia article of over two pages in length than there are in the entirety of a typical print encyclopedia. (Not to suggest, of course, that typos are the most insidious threat to articles; they're a relatively minor inconvenience compared to many other subtle textual errors that can manifest.) :) Er, but I'm digressing big-time.
  • It's tremendously true that most FAs from a year or two ago could never get Featured in today's FA world, at least not with a lot of revising. Standards change, and they change faster and with more vigor than people will bother to go back and nominate old FAs for un-FAing. So, it's not safe to assume that all FAs are equal; there's sometimes as big of a quality gap between one FA and another as there is between a stub and a good article. But, er, anyway, yeah; someone'd best get on those fixes. -Silence 04:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I actually went back through all of the images included in the article, and tried to write up a better "fair use rationale" for each. As I said on your talk page, I hope this is on the right track :) --JohnDBuell 05:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. Comprehensive, although a lot of the information in the HHGG section is not really about him, but about HHGG's production history in general. Those should be dealt with in the sub-articles, and it be rewritten to concentarte specifically on his part in it. Also, could use with some general copyediting, but nothing substantial that would warrant any strong objections on my part. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since most of the history of Hitchhiker's (until 2001) really revolved around Adams, the two really do intermingle. I don't want to sound critical, but do you have any specific suggestions? What would or wouldn't belong? Or should it be summed up/tightened up a bit more? There are detailed histories of the radio series and the TV series on those two pages - no one has yet written a page on the 20+ year development history of the Hitchhiker's movie, and I think that it would/does warrant its own article. --JohnDBuell 03:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and attempted a re-write and "tightening" of this section. Let me know if you think it helps! --JohnDBuell 04:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, take the last three paragraphs of the section, starting from "The books formed the basis of..." and ending with "dedicated to its author", which barely mentions Adams at all, especially in the middle paragraph about the production of the movie. I'm not saying do away with them entirely, but the information should relate more to Adams personally, like the rest of the stuff above, and if it doesn't at all, then it should be tightened or excised. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut those three paragraphs down to two, trying to bring Adams back as the one who wanted the movie done for over twenty years, and who also had a part (literally) in the posthumous radio series in 2004-2005. --JohnDBuell 12:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - will have to read again later (the last version I read is two years old), but so far it is obvious that a longer lead section is needed. An article this size needs 3 good-sized paras that summarize the most vital info about the man and his work. --mav 17:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested during the Peer Review that I'm not very good at writing lead sections and asked if anyone wanted to either add another paragraph, or redo the existing ones. Sadly, nobody took me up on it. --JohnDBuell 19:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Three of us have done a bit of work on the lead section now, making revisions and expansions. Proto started it, and IainP and I have both done some of the revising and editing for accuracy. --JohnDBuell 21:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now. I'll have to read the article again to see if I can support. --mav 05:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USA PATRIOT Act, Title II Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Portugal from the Restoration to the 1755 Earthquake

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&oldid=30930939"