Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/April 2013: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
added one
added one
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOClimit|3}}
{{TOClimit|3}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Denial (Sugababes song)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Isabeau of Bavaria/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Isabeau of Bavaria/archive1}}

Revision as of 09:46, 15 April 2013

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Denial (Sugababes song)

Nominator(s): Till 11:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it is an accurate representation of one of the best song articles on Wikipedia. I have written this article in a similar vein to another Sugababes song, "Push the Button" which was recently promoted as a featured article. Till 11:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: This has been here far too long without attention, so here are some comments, mainly on prose and presentation. Others will have to judge issues of accuracy and comprehensiveness:

  • Lead too short, needs expanding into s full summary of the article
  • "The song received mixed reviews, who were ambivalent towards its composition..." - "reviews" are not "who" subjects
  • "...became a commercial success throughout Europe, where it at number one..." A word missing.
  • In the "Writing and production" section we have: "English singer and songwriter V V Brown wrote "Denial" while she was on London Underground's Victoria line...", and later: "The Sugababes co-wrote "Denial" in collaboration with Flex Turner and Elliot Malloy, the song's producers and programmers". So who wrote what?
    • That kind of information doesn't exist, the only thing I know is that she wrote it for the band, but they (and the producers) somehow receive co-writing credits Till 03:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, you don't need both "co-wrote" and "in collaboration with"
  • I suggest you don't use the quote template for short quotes. It looks untidy and confusing.
  • In "Composition", please check the link on "instrumentation". Why are the words "warm" and "lush" in quotes?
  • "opened with the line" → "that opens with the line"
  • "the fundamentals rather than the fundamentalism of love": I have no idea what this means; can you help?
  • "'Denial' received mixed reviews from critics." This sentence is pretty well a statement of the obvious. The phrase "mixed reviews" appears in almost every article about a song, musical or theatrical work, because the huge majority of such works get some good and some bad reviews. Why not just lead in with the reviews summary, and drop the cliché?
  • "The song rose from number 34 to number 15 on 22 March 2008" - did the rise take place all on the one day? Or had it isen to 34 by that date?
  • "The single has since sold approximately 90,000 copies in the UK" - unless you make this statement date-specific it will soon be out of date. Thus "By (date) the single had sold..." etc
  • Consistency required in formats of ordinal numbers - you have "sixteenth" and "43rd"
  • The quote box in the Music video section is too wide, particulary opposite the lower part of the preceding image.
  • That image, incidentally, seems scarcely to justify a fair use rationale.
  • There are disambiguation links requiring attention (use the toolbox)

That's something to be going on with. Brianboulton (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything fixed, except for the ones I have specifically responded to Till 03:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by John

  • Lead paragraph: What does "It features the group in various outfits and environments." add?
  • Writing and production: "songs she writes for enjoyment purposes"? "subsequently obtained by their management"?
  • Music video: Do we need: "Brown stated that the partnership ended "amicably" due to personal differences between the two, although he also expressed his desire to "start a new chapter" in his career."?
    • "I shot the video like fashion editorial, " is true to the source but it is awkward English. Could we add [a] into the sentence?
  • Overall, based on prose alone, this could be a pass with some modest work. I can't speak about sourcing or completeness. --John (talk) 09:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's closing comment - Unfortunately, after one month there is no clear consensus to promoted this article and I will be archiving it presently. Graham Colm (talk) 09:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After a GAN and very helpful peer review, putting this out there for people to have a whack at. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Ah, this takes me back to my days as an admin on Halopedia. I spent far too much time playing the original.
    • "these include terminals that provide new backstory and skulls that modify gameplay." -- Terminals and skulls are something of an in-joke in the Halo games, so these should be explained for the layman who is unfamiliar with the game. Try rewording like "these include hidden 'terminals' that, when accessed, provide glimpses into the Halo expanded universe and hidden 'skulls' that unlock modification to gameplay."
    • "Design" graph 2: You should add that Master Chief was originally a port from Reach's Mark V multiplayer armor skin, but it didn't look right so they did a custom build for the character (for any other detail this might be trivia, but for Master Chief's design I think it's an exception.
    • "Design" graph 5: It should also be noted here that from a marketing standpoint, 343 had wanted to use this title to introduce younger people to Halo, since the original had come out so many years ago.
    • Any references for the soundtrack song listings?
    • No disambig links or external links problems. Saw one duplicate link which I removed. The two images appear to be properly licensed.
Will await your responses. —Ed!(talk) 22:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great work! Supporting now. —Ed!(talk) 23:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think an audio sample of the games music might be great to have, Halo has some of video gamings most popular music. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Multiple issues (not all of them oppose worthy):
    • If you use a review in the prose, then put the score into the boxout. You quote Giant Bomb and PALGN yet don't think their scores relevant. For Edge, it's the opposite.
    • You want the best sources throughout. So why are you using The Inquirer in the reception? Inq is where people go for dull as dishwater IT news, not game reviews.
    • What does GameRankings give you that Metacritic doesn't? You want to show the critical consensus, either one can do it, they say the same thing.
    • The reception gives too much importance to the individual writers, whereas in games criticism - it's always more about the publication. Just going by publication is enough, if you want to credit the writer - do it when you introduce the publication, thereon just refer to the publication. I shouldn't have to Ctrl-F or backtrack paragraphs to find out who "Watters", "Reynolds" and "Aziz" are.
    • The source for File:HaloCEA comparison.png is not NeoGAF, it's from the game. You should include which level the screenshots were taken in so others can recreate/confirm. I think screenshot showing some action, instead of just the opening, would add to the gameplay section too.
    • The development section seemed really tough going. Even in the lead, I'm not sure what to make of "After considering remaking the game entirely or adapting and adding features to the PC version, Saber decided to overlay their game engine over the original graphics; a development tool to toggle between the old and new visuals became a game feature." I think first part of the sentence, before the comma, is unnecessary. I'm not sure what "overlay their game engine over the original graphics" means - you generally overlay graphics (textures/geometry) onto an engine. And the "a development tool..." bit would be simpler as "players can toggle...".
    • "Saber decided to use the original engine for the gameplay and their own for the visuals" seems to contradict the lead. I think what you mean is that the gameplay code comes from the original, but the rendering engine is new. Someone who doesn't know games is going to get lost.
    • "To solve the issues of transferring information from the original game's engine to the Saber engine, the developers looked at how they used the third-party Havok physics engine to handle object positioning, velocities and collisions." - How does studying Havok help to transfer engines? The following sentence states they recreated everything in the Saber engine, which explains how they did it. So what's the opening sentence for?
    • "Saber doubted that they would be able to convert Combat Evolved's split-screen cooperative play to facilitate online play." - Don't think their passing doubt is worthy of inclusion.
    • Look at your references. You reference Gamasutra's Making Halo Anniversary work multiple times differently - just reference the single page version of the article at http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134914/making_halo_anniversary_work.php?print=1 I've not checked other references.
    • I thought you meant the Florida St Petersburg until I googled Saber. No idea they have their dev in Russia.
    • Wouldn't have considered a Pizza Hut tie in to be of encyclopedic value. Whereas the price in this case, actually is. [3][4]
    • Thanks for your comments, I'll try and address some of them soon. As to others: I didn't include the price per WP:VG/GL; there are sources that mention it, but it's not the focus of any significant coverage beyond just the price. As to the reception section; I include GR alongside MC because they're both slightly different aggregates with different ways of weighting publications. The reader gets a slightly more useful average with both of them. As to naming critics… the critics are the ones writing the reviews, not the actual institution they're writing for. "IGN said" doesn't make sense when IGN can't say anything, it's its staff that does. I will see about addressing your issues with comprehending the development section tonight or tomorrow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Metacritic is there to give you the critical consensus, it is a reliable source, adding more sources may make it slightly better - but we're already agreed that we trust Metacritic to do the job on its own. Go to Metacritic, and Ctrl-F, and then search for mentions of price in the review snippets. Without referring to the price, readers will believe that the game was a full price retail release, it wasn't - that's important. The critics write reviews on behalf of the publication, their opinion is the IGN opinion, publications definitely have a voice. Games criticism does not have a Lester Bangs or Roger Ebert, people reading this article will get to something like "Watters singled out", and think, "who is Watters, and why do I care?", breaking the flow as they backtrack through to find out. - hahnchen 15:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment - Unfortunately, this FAC has ground to halt and I will be archiving it presently. Graham Colm (talk) 09:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Isabeau of Bavaria

Nominator(s): Truthkeeper (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it's an interesting story about a French queen, married to Charles VI of France, who went mad. Isabeau navigated factionalism that resulted in a civil war. Thanks to Ceoil for copyedits and a push to finish this. Thanks to all the reviewers as well. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: at present the prose has too many errors to meet the FA standard. At a quick read-through of this – very interesting – article I spotted: "grandaughter," "interwined," "tableau vivants," "fleurs-des-lys," "propanda," "daughin," "by a a woman," "Isabeau and Orlean's," and "where the became the prioress"; I have no doubt missed others. I think the text needs a careful review before the article can be considered for FA. – Tim riley (talk) 10:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment for delegates:
Okay, thanks Tim. In that case I'll ask the delegates to close/remove. I was hasty. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional note: given the edits to the article since the nomination, the tagging, swapping of images, reverts, changing of formatting, etc., I have to say it's definitely not stable and the nomination should be closed. This in addition to Tim's comments above. In other words, it's a piece of crap. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

Nominator(s): Casprings (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the article has undergone continued development and I feel it now reaches the point of a WP:FA article. It has undergone a peer review, a copy edit, and a GA review. I feel the article meets all WP:FA criteria now. As such, I would like to nominate the article for WP:FA Casprings (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brandt Luke Zorn

  • Comment Just a suggestion. "Several pro-life, Republican politicians have claimed in the years since Mecklenberg's 1972 publication that pregnancy from rape is rare." This is one of the biggest recurring theme in the article, that a politician [mis-]underestimated or marginalized the rate of pregnancy from rape. However, I didn't see any actual stats about incidences of pregnancy from rape in the article (perhaps I missed them? They'd be well-placed in the Background section). Because the article emphasizes that these politicians were ignorant of scientific data, anything to ground the subject in the scientific reality would provide excellent context. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much of that context is in the article Pregnancy from rape. Do you think it would help the article to import that? The way I handed it was to place a See Also link, and start the section by telling the reader it was a "medically inaccurate contention". What are your thoughts. I am certainly not against it, given that it is important context. Casprings (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from DavidinNJ

*Comment In terms of content, referencing, and neutrality, the authors did an excellent job. This is a controversial topic, and the article is written in an objective manner. In terms of structure and layout, the article is good, but not entirely consistent. For example, the Todd Akin section has a political impact subsection, but the Richard Mourdock section doesn't. There is a "see also" section at the bottom, but there are no entries. I would rename "other comments before 2012 elections" as "other controversial statements" or something like that. With its current title, it's unclear if the individuals are commenting about Akin and Mourdock, or making independent statements which are controversial. My other issue is the article's verbiage which needs improvement to be at FA-level. The background section should be broken into more paragraphs to make it easier to read. Some of the sentences are very verbose, and have a lack of commas. For example, "The medically inaccurate contention favored by some American anti-abortion activists that pregnancy consequent to rape is an exceptional occurrence first originated four decades ago in the work of Fred Mecklenburg." DavidinNJ (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • First, thanks for the comments. I made all the structural changes. I also agree with your assessment of the background section. I edited that so the writing would be clear and concise. I would love for you to take another look at the article and see what you think about those changes. Casprings (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Casprings, The changes substantially improve the article. I read the article in detail, and I have 3 other comments. (1) There is a reference error because there is a reference called "congress" in the ref section that isn't used in the article. (2) The post-election comment section should have subsections like the "other controversial statements" section. I like how the "other controversial statements" section has has subsection for each person. (3)This is just a suggestion, but the infobox at the top should either be expanded or removed. After that, I see this being an FA-quality article. DavidinNJ (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support After the recent changes that have been made, this a FA-class article. The authors have taken a controversial topic, and written an article about it that is both very comprehensive and completely objective. The article contains extensive information about the history of the belief that rape does not cause pregnancy, the complete list of politicians who made rape-related comments in the 2012 election cycle, and the ramifactions of those comments. Everything in the article is referenced, the prose is very good, and the article has a layout the is visually appealing and inducive to readers. DavidinNJ (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Todd_Akin,_official_109th_Congress_photo.jpg: source link returns error
  • File:Roscoe_Bartlett,_Official_Portrait,_111th_Congress.jpg: source link returns error
  • File:Rep_Joe_Walsh.jpg: source link wouldn't load when tried. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well they are all the official photos of the Congressmen. The problem is that they are out of office, so the photos are no longer hosted on a US government website (at least that I can find). I really don't know what to do in this situation. Should I just delete the pictures?Casprings (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I might have found sources indicating that they might be PD, but I'm not sure. I've posted the links at the article' s talk page. Can someone take a look? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I commented on the talk page. Casprings (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Arzel and Mkativerata

  • Oppose This article is little more than a continued attack on Republicans That it should even be considered a FA is disgusting. Advocacy on WP at its best. Arzel (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, sorry. The reason it reads like an attack on Republicans -- which I know it isn't -- is that the article is the product of the author's synthesis of a series of news events, as opposed to the author's summary of reliable secondary sources discussing those news events. The evidence in this lies in where bold claims are made about the effect of the controversies: the sourcing is quite weak. For example, the claim in the lede that 'The comments may have had an effect on the national election results, especially among women voters' is sourced to a Politico article. Now Politico is reliable for facts, etc, but not for conclusions that could only be safely drawn by experienced political scientists. Ultimately, it's too early for this article. Once credible academic sources have discussed the role of these controversies in the 2012 election, a sounder article could be written. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comment. As you might guess, I disagree with the comment. I think the section on wider impact is well sourced and there are a number of sources that tie these events together though out the article. Politico is a WP:RS is a good source to show a secondary source commenting on the national effect of the comments.
Your point on academic sources is good with one modification. A political scientist will properly not ever tackle the questions of rather this election caused a national effect. They are more likely to compare this election to others within the US system or outside to try to tell us something about elections in general and their effects on political action. For example, what is the effect on a more diverse electorate on political action? This election would be one case study in a small N study or one data point in a large N study. A historian would be more apt to use the facts of this election and interpret the causes of those events. This is similar to what politico did. In sum, it is unlikely for a political science "study" to show anything of any relevance that belongs in the article. The article is and will always have to be make up of how WP:RS interpret events, rather those sources happen to be journalistic or secondary historical sources. There is no reason for the article to wait for historians to write about the subject and that should not stop it from gaining a WP:FA. Just my two scents. Casprings (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering that the outcomes of the 2012 elections are finalized, it's hard for me to conclude that its too early for such an article. Scholarly discussion of this topic does exist, and should be included in the article. Here are 2 examples, and more can be obtained at Google scholar. DavidinNJ (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2107991
http://books.google.com/books?id=HEplYeto-9cC&pg=PA435&dq=2012+todd+akin+republican+losses&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ths_UY6-AoSV0QHP5YCwCQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA
  • Neither the Abstract submission to a conference or the book (anyone can get their own book published) are peer reviewed scholarly publications. Considering it often takes several months to over a year for papers to make it through the peer review process and then be published, it is indeed far to early for any actual scholarly published research. Arzel (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also the abstract was from a conference long before the election. Obviously it is not possible for that to be used as a review of what happened regarding the effect. Arzel (talk) 14:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. I think the authors did a very good job writing a balanced and thorough article on a very controversial subject. However, I agree with Mkativerata that while it's okay to use news sources for facts, they really can't be used to draw conclusions about the effect on a controversy. It's kind of like writing an article about a legal topic, and not citing any court decisions or law journal articles. Before I make any judgement, I want to see if the author of this article can find any scholarly publications evaluating these incidents and their effect on the 2012 election. DavidinNJ (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the standard to offer commentary in an FA article is a peer reviewed academic article, then someone needs to start taking articles to WP:FAR. I would challenge you to find any WP:FA article on an historical event in the past 5 to 10 years that doesn’t include journalist sources offering commentary. For an historian to do research on this event, for example, he would need access to things like personnel papers. He would want to know what Akin was writing and saying in private, for example. He would also want to know what members of the GOP, like Reince Prebus, were actually thinking privately. This type of research is not possible until personnel papers and other sources are public.
I am fine with that being a the standard. However, it should be the standard for WP:FA in general, and not this article. That is my two cents, at least.Casprings (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question to ask is how many FA's are basically a research paper WITHOUT any actual scholarly research papers being used as sources. This entire article is written like a research paper. Background and Lit Reivew -> Evidence -> Conclusions. Casprings has written a really nice research paper, and that is where it belongs. Arzel (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After some degree of research on other FA articles, I've struck my previous comments. I'm concerned that we may be creating an impossible standard for FA-review. A recent event is not going to have the same volume of scholarly interpretation as an event that took place decades ago. However, that does not mean that it cannot be a feature article. For example, United States Senate Democratic primary election in Pennsylvania, 2010 and New York's 20th congressional district special election, 2009 are feature articles, and they have no academic references. That being said, I was able to find 2 university textbooks and 2 journal articles that supported the article's claim that the rape controversies affected the election results. DavidinNJ (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping the Republic: Power and Citizenship in American Politics by Christine Barbour and Gerald C. Wright (15 Jan 2013).

The Elections of 2012: Outcomes and Analysis by Bob Benenson and Chuck McCutcheon (1 Dec 2012).

Human Life Review by Ryan T. Anderson, Chuck Donovan, and Richard Goldkamp. (Fall 2012).

Why Obama Won by Megan Trudell (8 January 2013).

Sources

I've done a source spot-check for about 10 sources, and didn't find any serious issues.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead review

  • "Republican U.S. Representative Todd Akin of Missouri, who was the Republican nominee for a U.S. Senate seat." This could be made more concise: "Republican U.S. Senate candidate Todd Akin of Missouri." Given the scope of the article, the fact that he was running for senate is more relevant than the fact that he was a house rep.
  • "...what he called "legitimate rape." Akin's comments had a far-reaching political impact..." It might be worth giving a pinch of explanation regarding why this exploded the way it did. Perhaps this would work: "what he called "legitimate rape", a phrase which many women's rights groups(?) found demeaning." Not perfect, but hopefully it gives you an idea of what I mean.
  • "changing the focus of campaigns" I suggest linking "campaign" to political campaign.
    Done Casprings (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "triggering another nationwide controversy." I don't think that this clause is necessary. The previous sentence already mentions additional controversies, so it should be pretty clear that this was one of them.
    Done Casprings (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some observers identified Mourdock's and Akin's comments" Not really sure what "observers" means here. If it's a person whose commentary is notable due to their profession, such as a journalist or analyst, say so: "Some political analysts identified Mourdock's and Akin's comments"
  • "Some observers identified Mourdock's and Akin's comments as a principal factor in their election losses and other comments may have contributed to the loss of various other candidates." Clunky phrasing. Try regrouping: "Some observers identified Mourdock's and Akin's comments, as well as those of various other candidates, as a principal factor in their election losses."
  • "The comments may have had an effect on the national election results, especially among women voters." It might be worth giving a statistic or broad statement regarding how much of the female vote went to Obama: "The comments may have had an effect on the national election results, especially among women voters, who overwhelmingly supported Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama".
    Done. I think that sentence works, especially with the sourcing throughout the articleCasprings (talk) 02:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, that little statistic is not backed up by the results. Obama recieved 55% of the women vote in 2012 while he recieved 56% of the vote in 2008. To say that in 2012 this was a factor belies that fact that in 2008 the vote % was higher. one source But then this article is already little more than an original research paper with a bunch of opinion being used to make factual statements. Arzel (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Another source showing that Romney recieved the highest percentage of women vote in some time. Arzel (talk) 04:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Akin and Mourdock comments were also compared to several comments made after the election." It's good to summarize key points from every top-level section, but this sentence really doesn't give the reader any useful information.
  • (not from lead) "According to exit polls, 55% of women and 45% of men voted for Obama and 44% of women and 52% of men voted for Romney." Err, what? Presumably, this means that of those who voted for Obama, 55% were women and 45% were men, but that's not a useful statistic at all. What we really need is the percentage of all women who voted for Obama. I misread this. I have a tiny brain.

-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • A few points. First, I would ask that Arzel doesn't derail this WP:FA review. In my opinion, he has shown a WP:Battle mentality, and that can be shown both in his edits on the article and his comments on the talk page. Most recently, it was shown in the placement of a NPOV tag on the article, when there was a clear consensus that the article was neutral. I would ask that the article either pass or fail based the article, not a content disputes that come from the FA review itself. Second, on his general point, several WP:RS have speculated that the various comments had some effect on the election. To me, providing one statement that the President won the election provides context to their statements. It isn't meant prove rather it did or didn't have an effect. I agree with Cryptic C62. Finally, a conversation on this is taking place on the talk page. Casprings (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When then don't violate WP:OR and WP:NPOV. WP is not the place to promote your personal research paper. Arzel (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose All the good writing in the world will never take away from the fact that this article as structured is a non-neutral coatrack. I expressed my concerns in the RfC that this article's "other controversial statements" article has numerous examples that are just seizing on trivial connections to a broader subject to shove in non-notable incidents. The purpose, of course, is to generally denigrate the Republican Party. I am disappointed that this article was given GA status without that issue being resolved. This article is not one for which I would have approved such status.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the problem is the article is as "structured is a non-neutral coatrack", and there are numerous examples in the "other controversial statements", then state which examples don't belong and why. I have tried to make the article neutral and my purpose is not to "generally denigrate the Republican Party". However, to me, these comments are relevant to the article and I have tried to handle them in a neutral manner. It doesn't help the article to make a vague statement that many portions of the article don't belong and give no rational for why any particular portion of the article doesn't belong. Casprings (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being sourced is not the only relevant criteria. How are these things connected to the other statements? Are they significant enough to warrant being mentioned in such detail? It seems to me that statements are being included largely because you have maybe a sentence or two in one or more sources that connect them and this is used to justify detailed mentions of each incident. Seems to me that this type of writing is just exploiting a loophole in WP:NOTNEWS.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well McMahnnon was removed. The two in your RfC comment other then here was Rivard and Koster. In both cases, multiple sources tie the comments to Akin comments and the events were national stories. To me, I think both fit well in an article on Rape and pregnancy controversies. Casprings (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hurricanehink

  • Support
    • Given the length of the article, the lede seems a bit short.
    • "additional controversies about comments made by other socially conservative Republican candidates arose" - this wording is a bit awkward
    • I think it's worth mentioning that Akin was a member of the House science committee.
    • "There were multiple calls from Republicans for him to step down as nominee" - I don't think a paragraph should start without an antecedent (although admittedly it is clear who you're talking about).
      • Agreed. Changed sentence to "Republicans made multiple calls for Akin to step down as nominee. "
    • "endangering Republicans’ hopes of retaking the majority in the Senate" - I think this quote is missing context. The Democrats had a 53-47 majority before the election, and Nate Silver had the Republicans as the frontrunners until early September. Akin's comments really are pretty vital toward the GOP blowing their chances, and I understand that the article is about the controversies in general during the 2012 elections, but maybe mention something, either that they were the favorites in August to take over Senate, or something.Casprings (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added sentence, "During August, when the comments were made, Nate Silver gave the Republicans an over 60 percent chance of gaining a majority in the Senate." with source.Casprings (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I was told that there is a decision has to be made by 5 o'clock tomorrow" - what date does this refer to, and why would it have to have been by that date?
      • It refered to the deadline for him to remove himself from the race. However, it isn't that relevant (dif not relevant enough to explain. I changed the sentence to eliminate it. Casprings (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "On October 22, a television commercial showing Governor Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee for United States President, supporting Mourdock began airing." - just have to ask, but airing in Indiana, right?
    • Did Mourdock apologize for his comments?
      • Sort of. His comment on his statement was, "God creates life, and that was my point. God does not want rape, and by no means was I suggesting that he does. Rape is a horrible thing, and for anyone to twist my words otherwise is absurd and sick" That is covered in the article.Casprings (talk) 04:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that you have a section for Steve King, maybe mention that he still won re-election?
    • "Walsh lost reelection to Tammy Duckworth." - should probably cite that.
    • Should it be mentioned Roger Rivard lost? Ditto Tom Smith?
  • All in all, a pretty good article on an interesting series of events in the 2012 election. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I will get to work in addressing them. Casprings (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your comments. Casprings (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks for getting back to my comments so quickly and addressing them. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Iselilja

  • I find that the first section Background violates WP:SYNTH, as it is not clear in the article how much knowledge or interest Akin had of these ideas. We don't learn about more than this one remark of his (as I noticed). At least, it is undue weight to the background factor. If the section is kept, something specific about Akin's inspiration for his remark should be added.
  • A discussion on that section and the issue with WP:SYNTH can be found at WP:ORN, here. Their was consensus that there was not a problem with WP:SYNTH. However, I am certain open to further discussion on the issue and removal of the section if consensus is changed. Casprings (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lede says: "He stated that pregnancy rarely occurs as a result of what he called "legitimate rape", a phrase which many women's rights groups found demeaning". Here it appears that the reaction was mainly a reaction to the "legitimate rape" phrase; shouldn't it also say that there was reactions to the idea that "legitimate rapes" rarely leads to pregnacies? In particular, since the whole first section is about the second aspect. Thoughts about "legitimate rapes" per se, doesn't authomatically lead to the pregancy theory. People may well be dismissive of some kind of rapes (like rapes in marriage), and still believe that the rapes that they consider legitimate (like attack rapes) very well can lead to pregnacies. (I also find the Akin section to be somewhat messy about this; but I understand this partly reflects the debate and sources).
  • In the Akin section, the article states that "the term "legitimate rape" was assumed to imply belief that some types of rape are "legitimate", or alternatively that rape victims who become pregnant are likely to be lying about their claim". I don't have issues about this claim per se, I think it's probably accurate, but I would like to see sources for this interpretation. (And the article could probably do with fewer sources that refute the pregancy theory).
    • I found three sources, which I will bundle together, that will work.
http://bangordailynews.com/2012/08/20/opinion/a-legitimate-rape/
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/20/opinion/carroll-akin-rape/index.html
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-33506022.html
Sources added. Casprings (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the Akin section is perfectly organized: It starts one paragraph, stating "Akin's comments almost immediately led to uproar" - which is OK - but then the same sentence is practically repeated again several sentences further down, in the next paragraph, after Akin's apology has been mentioned: "Akin's comment was widely characterized as recklessly inaccurate; many commentators remarked on his use of the words "legitimate rape". Here, however, there appears to be some of the sources that I missed that I missed earlier (allthough I have just skimmed the sources).
    • Agreed. THe article should state the criticism once, in one place. The language should be precise and concise. With that in mind, I worked a little at organization on that section.
  • Regards, Iselilja (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. This is an important topic, and a hard one to insulate from claims of bias, given that it does mainly concern the attitudes and comments from one side of politics. That in itself shouldn't stop it becoming an FA. But I haven't read much of the article to determine whether this is a problem in relation to WP's neutrality policy. Just one thing: the title says "... electionS, 2012". So shouldn't the lead specify which elections in that year we're talking about? Was it the federal election (presidential and/or congressional)? State elections? Ah, the link at the top is the answer ... but perhaps just a quick explanation at the opening? "..., comprising the many federal elections on November 6, 13 state and ..., and .... throughout the year." Tony (talk) 09:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Doesn't the title just imply that the controversies involved were during the 2012 election cycle. That is a general cycle that includes federal, state, and local elections. I am fine with changing and rewording, but I am just not certain what needs changing. In either case, thanks for the comments. Casprings (talk) 11:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Most American readers will be fuzzy about exactly which elections are being referred to; most non-Americans won't have a clue. Yet it's important to explain the scope right at the start. Tony (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So, maybe plugging in the words, "federal,state, and local" into the intro sentence would work? A little modification on that sentence should make it clear. I will do it when I get to a computer(on a cell phone right now).Casprings (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. I just added, "in federal and state elections". I don't think there is a need to say "local" because no comments came from local races. See what you think. Casprings (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's closing comment - This FAC has been listed for a long time but I cannot see a clear consensus for promotion emerging on this occasion. I think it would be best for remaining issues to be resolved on the Talk Page and the article renominated at a later date. Graham Colm (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Millennium Force

Nominator(s): Astros4477 (Talk) 21:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because after working on this article for 14 months, I feel it is finally ready for FAC. It has come a long way since my first edit. It has gone through a GAN in that time and has been copyedited by User:Baffle gab1978 and User:Torchiest. It has also received a peer review from User:Figureskatingfan. Millennium Force is a very popular roller coaster and has made a major impact on the industry. Astros4477 (Talk) 21:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose – Sorry, but I have questions about a number of the sources used in the article. Seven references are to YouTube links, which are not usually reliable sources; in cases where they are linking to televisions shows; they may be copyvios if not uploaded by the station, meaning we shouldn't be linking to them. I'm also not sure about PointBuzz (many refs), MyCPGuide (ref 39, which doesn't have a publisher listed), Coaster-Net (ref 53), or Park Thoughts (ref 55). That's almost a quarter of the total references—too many for me to think that this passes FA standards in its current state. Giants2008 (Talk) 13:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to respond to this, if I may. I can't support or oppose this article because I reviewed it for GAC and I ended up substantially copy-editing it. I wonder if this might be an instance of comprehensiveness trumping reliability. I agree with you about the YouTube refs, and I warned Astros4477 that this might be an issue here at FAC. However, this is a specialized and obscure topic, and there may not be the kind of sources you request available. IOW, they may be the most reliable sources out there. I've come to the conclusion that resorting to using industry webpages is necessary for some articles in order to maintain comprehensiveness, even in FAs--as long as the prose is high-quality. I recognize, though, that consensus may determine that this article may simply not have the potential to be an FA, like many articles, which would be, I believe, unfortunate. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Giants, I'll look for better sources for the TV episodes, that shouldn't be a problem. PointBuzz is indeed reliable as it as been mentioned and cited in several news articles. If you look at the sentence that MyCPGuide references, it references a photo which is acceptable. I'll look more into Coaster-Net and Park Thoughts.
Christine, I just wanted to point out that you didn't review the article for GAC. That was done by User:Dom497. You still might not be able to support/oppose it but I just wanted to point out that you didn't review it for GAC.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed most of the ref issues. But others I couldn't always find something. I think they are fine being used; google search those titles and you'll see people talking about them. I think that's enough to support that it's not copyvio.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 20:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Duh, sorry, you're right of course. I did a PR! Which still makes me ineligible, I think. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two points come to my mind. First, participating in a PR is not a disqualifier for offering an FAC opinion. If you're concerned about perception, then just say you offered a PR and I doubt anyone will discount your view that much. Second, for the YouTube links to TV episodes, you could just cite the episodes themselves. A few of the links appeared to be sourcing the fact that the ride was profiled on a particular TV show; for that purpose, a primary source is acceptable, with a cite to the point of the program that it appears in an episode reference. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the matter of PR, editors who engaged in a peer review will be familiar with the article, and therefore well placed to judge whether it is ready for FAC. I have done many peer reviews and have frequently supported the same articles here. I always mention that I have peer-reviewed, and provide a link to the actual review. Neither a peer reviewer nor a GA reviewer is prevented from supporting, if they feel that the article meets the criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused. What should I include in the Cite Episode?-- Astros4477 (Talk) 14:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See here: Template:Cite episode. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm confused about is if I should include the video URL in the cite. I don't see what's wrong with me citing the actually videos, whether that's on YouTube or the Travel Channel's website.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the video was uploaded by the network or another official source, it should be okay to leave it up. If not, the uploader is often violating the copyright of the network and we shouldn't link to the URL. I haven't looked at these videos and can't tell you what situation this falls under, but if in doubt it's best to leave the links out. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added cite episode for all the episodes and I have addressed or left comments about your other concerns.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 02:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not overly comfortable with the sourcing, but since some work has been done, and I don't know if I'll have more time to devote to this review, I'll strike the oppose. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Support – With the recent changes that have been made, most notably the change in how the TV shows are cited, I can support this article to FA. I think that the sources are as reliable as they can be, and required for comprehensiveness. Good work! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments -- After remaining open a month without approaching consensus to promote, and no commentary for two weeks, this review appears to have stalled and will be archived -- per FAC instructions, you can re-nominate this or another article once a minimum of two weeks has passed. Just to add my own observations: structurally the one-paragraph sections and subsections make it look choppy and under-developed, so I suggest either expanding these short sections or else combining some of them; reference-wise, it wasn't obvious to me that all the coaster and park records were cited. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC) [8].[reply]

God of War (video game)

Nominator(s): JDC808 ♫ 04:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is ready to become a Featured Article. A lot of hard work has been done to the article. The last FAC had an extensive prose and source review. The article has received numerous copy-edits. After a prose comment made by a reviewer in the last FAC (which is the comment that prevented the article's promotion despite 6 supports versus 2 opposes), I had another copy-editor unfamiliar with this article/subject copy-edit the article and they said it looked excellent. I've made some minor changes since the last nomination to try and better the prose even more. And with the recent release of the seventh game in this very successful and popular PlayStation franchise, it's about time the original God of War becomes an FA. --JDC808 ♫ 04:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Issues - The characters section feels more like a list, a list of names, titles and actors. See WP:VG/GL#Inappropriate content #10. Judging by the character sections of several featured VG articles, I think the section should be about the main characters, their background, and what role do they play in the game. Except for this part, compared with other VG FAs, I don't see many significant issues with the prose.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had a third opinion sought on this matter. This was the solution because it is in a prose form with how the WP:VG project advises. How the voice actors are done is the solution from the first FAC nom. --JDC808 ♫ 19:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per previous FAC and lack of serious prose issues. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "First released on March 22, 2005, for the PlayStation 2 (PS2) console, it is the first installment in the series of the same name and the third chronologically". If it is the first installment, how is it third chronologically?--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Installment does not mean chronological placement. Installment refers to the release order, not the chronological order. It's just like the Star Wars films. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope is the first film (aka installment) in the series, however, it's the fourth chronologically. --JDC808 ♫ 19:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but this was released on March 22, 2005; God of War II was released on March 13, 2007; God of War III was released on March 16, 2010 (all data from Wikipedia articles, I did not verify sources). So, how come GoW is third chronologically? It's seems to predate GoW2 and 3.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It does predate those, but there's 7 games in the series, not just the three. Chronologically, it's God of War: Ascension (March 2013), God of War: Chains of Olympus (March 2008), this game, God of War: Ghost of Sparta (November 2010), God of War: Betrayal (June 2007), God of War II, and God of War III. The Setting section mentions that this game is between Chains of Olympus and Ghost of Sparta. --JDC808 ♫ 19:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's been there for a few years and there hasn't been any issues with it (except for once, which is why it is worded how it is now). It also gives a quick list of the other games in the series. If it's really an issue, it can be removed. --JDC808 ♫ 20:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally remove it since it's pretty much useless -- "God of War (video game)" is a name that is not ambiguous. Besides, there's the Template:God of War series at the bottom of the article if the reader wants a quick list of the other games in the series. --Niwi3 (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. --JDC808 ♫ 03:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm sure it's not difficult to find screenshots online.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The image was uploaded in 2008. That's pretty much the quality of the original PS2 version. I'll try to get a better image. --JDC808 ♫ 03:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find a new image, however, I found the source. The domain was changed, which is why the source previously used was an error. --JDC808 ♫ 22:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source isn't even particularly relevant, in the screenshots I upload - the source is the game, and I describe where the screenshot is taken. My main concern was that you've chosen a portrait crop of a QTE where there's no HUD (showing the green, red and blue bars) and no discernible Blades of Chaos as your screenshot most indicative of gameplay. - hahnchen 13:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, got a new image. --JDC808 ♫ 21:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not doing a full review, just two image comments.

  • Make sure, the uploaded non-free image meets WP:image resolution (max. 100,000 pixels, unless there is a really compelling reason for an exception). Reverted the actual image to the correct version.
  • Per WP:NFCC the image should significantly help the reader to understand the article, not merely illustrate it (the current image is OK in that regard - just saying for possible replacements).

Can't speak to the actual image quality, i'll leave that to the experts knowing the game. GermanJoe (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Strong oppose on prose, again. After the amount of peer review this is supposed to have undergone, why am I still seeing wording in the lead like:
    • "the God of War," (why the capitals?)
    • "Successful, Kratos replaces Ares as the new God of War." (why the weird word order? caps again!)
    • "a power enhancing ability" (wouldn't this need a hyphen?)

I fear that if there are three obvious faults in the lead paragraph, which should be the most carefully edited section, there will be many more in the rest of the article. --John (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The caps issue was explained in the last FAC. Adding to that, the developers capitalize the god's titles.
What's weird about that word order? (speaking of which, another editor in the last FAC who also had issues with the prose copy-edited it that way).
Would that need a hyphen? I've seen it both ways.
If there are many prose issues, why not do a full review and tell me what they are so they can be fixed? The six people who have supprted this article's promotion aren't seeing these issues, and the last copy-editor didn't see them either. So opposing on the entire article's prose, but only giving a couple of small examples, is not helpful. --JDC808 ♫ 21:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The caps issue was not dealt with in January, and the FAC failed. It is April and the issue hasn't gone away. It is still as wrong now as it was nine weeks ago. Why should I read the whole thing when the lead is riddled with poor writing, and when, as you point out, this includes actionable items which have not been fixed from last time around? --John (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just gave a valid reason why they're capitalized and that wasn't the reason the last FAC failed anyways. Plus, just did some reading around and if they're used as titles (which they are), they're capitalized. Also, you didn't answer my other two questions. Since you will not give me a full review to justify your opposition of the entire article, I hope the delegates see that your review was not helpful as GrahamColm saw in the last FAC. --JDC808 ♫ 01:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What was the valid reason? I must have missed that. If you don't understand basic English capitalisation rules, or how to use hyphens, you should find somebody who does to copyedit articles before sending them to FAC. --John (talk) 06:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You must have missed it. I'm going to ignore the fact that you've questioned mine, and others who have copy-edited this article, understanding of English and simply state that you have not been a helpful reviewer. --JDC808 ♫ 07:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you? I'm sorry you didn't find it helpful. Where exactly did you think you answered my point about capitalisation? For reference, there are many web resources which will clarify this High-School level point if you don't understand it. "God" is only capitalised when it refers to a singular entity, or at the start of a sentence. Why would this article be an exception to that? --John (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Within this game (and series), these are the developer's (the guys who created this game) characters, and as such, they have capitalized the god's titles. I'm sorry you disagree with the styling the developers have chosen for their characters and I'm sorry you decided to change your oppose to a strong oppose. I'm also sorry that you're still questioning my understanding of capitalization. --JDC808 ♫ 15:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A few things. I opposed on the last FAC and with my initial opposition I provided some examples to illustrate some of the problems I had with the highlighting the article as one of "the best articles Wikipedia has to offer". That didn’t mean that I thought the article was bad, sloppy, or worthless. It was and is obvious that a great deal of thought and effort has gone into the creation of this article. It’s good. It’s just not a featured article. Yet. By illustrating several examples, I hoped to avoid posting an "it's just not good enough" type of review without providing a roadmap to improvement. However, what often ends up happening when such a list is provided is it is mistaken to be a checklist, not a roadmap. Many of the issues were addressed, and used to improve the sections I highlighted, but many issues remained. I returned on a couple of instances and responded to the responses and tried to assist the process of improving the article by illustrating that there were more problems than what I had specifically mentioned, but my comments were addressed individually and literally, rather than used as examples of improvements that needed to be applied to the article as a whole. Eventually, I ended up committing more time than I intended to copyediting an article on a subject that I have little interest in, and in the process, I became so familiar with the writing that my ability to perform an impartial review was diminished. By the end of January, I felt that my efforts to illustrate issues were no longer bearing fruit. By then, additional reviewers were weighing in and reaching similar conclusions as I was, so although I continued to watch the article and the FAC, the article did not reach a state where I felt comfortable removing my opposition.
Unfortunately, not much happened between the time the previous FAC closed and this new FAC opened. This link [9] summarizes the changes that have been made to the article in the 15 days between the end of the previous nomination and the current nomination. Not very much. I’m a bit concerned about the rapid re-nomination of this article as a featured article candidate as well efforts that appear to me to be designed to "stack the vote" by soliciting support votes from previous supporters of the FAC ([10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]). I'm not saying that their support is unworthy or without merit, but I would have been much less concerned if I or any of the other reviewers who had opposed promotion would have also received a note that the article had undergone significant improvement and that my input at a new FAC would be valuable.
To be precise, these are the changes that were made between the nominations (last nom closed on March 13, this nom opened on March 27). The reason it may appear that not much has changed is because I addressed all issues that were brought up in the last FAC. Although I will say, I don't know if your last comments in the previous FAC were satisfied as you did not return to strike them or comment further. After Penguin made the comment to find a copy-editor unfamiliar with this article and topic, I did so and that copy-editor made a few very minor changes and said it looked excellent. How can I make a lot of improvements between nominations when I addressed the issues (without further comment saying what more needs done), copy-editors are telling me it looks excellent, and other reviewers are saying it's ready? Soliciting seems to be bit of a strong word to use for that. Sorry I did not ping you. Last time I checked your contribution history, you hadn't edited in awhile. --JDC808 ♫ 20:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not to take us off-topic for this article review, but why didn't you ping me? --John (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because as GrahamColm said, you're review wasn't very helpful: "The review from Neil916 was helpful, but the one from John was much less so". --JDC808 ♫ 21:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh. It'd be nice if you had raised this with me. As it is, it does look like you only asked people who would say yes. --John (talk) 05:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned it in a previous post as well, but let's just move on. --JDC808 ♫ 20:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, in viewing the interaction between John and JDC808 above, I feel that it might be helpful to point out that we're all on the same team here. As I mentioned at the beginning, opposing a FAC does not mean that a reviewer thinks the article is bad, it means it's just not at the point where they think it should be highlighted on the front page of the site until it is improved further. Reviewers spend what is often a substantial amount of their free time reading nominated articles and engaging in these reviews. Article editors spend a huge amount of their own time researching, writing, and rewriting those articles, not to mention undergoing what is often a rigorous process of several stages of review. This goes to show that everybody here wants the same thing; high quality content on Wikipedia. JDC808's response to John's initial comment in opposition to promoting the article seems overly defensive to me, after that the conversation slowly deteriorated into comments about perceived deficiencies in the participants, rather than the article itself. I just don't see a need for the relationship between nominators and reviewers to be adversarial in nature. Feel free to disagree and defend your viewpoint, but this isn't the place to get bent out of shape if someone states an opinion that your work isn't as good as they think it could be. Neil916 (Talk) 07:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if it seemed overly defensive. It's just rather annoying when someone opposes an entire article's prose, only gives a couple of small examples, and then doesn't bother to help me to fix wherever else there may be prose issues. --JDC808 ♫ 20:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewers are volunteers. Why should we go further when there are serious issues in the lead paragraph, and the nominator isn't interested in fixing them? FAC is not article improvement, you know, but peer review. Like RfA it is inherently uncomfortable, but is not the place to start polishing things up. Maybe Peer Review is worth a look first next time? --John (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article has already been through a Peer Review process and has had substantial copy-editing before and after it. You claim there's "serious issues" but all you've given me is capitalization, which I explained, and two other points which I asked about and you didn't answer. --JDC808 ♫ 21:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't see anything unusual about "Successful, Kratos replaces Ares as the new God of War"? And "a power enhancing ability" would need a hyphen. --John (talk) 05:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the capitalization you've taken issue with, no. That's why I asked what's weird about it? Hyphen added. I went ahead and changed the capitalization even though I disagree with it. --JDC808 ♫ 20:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Kratos is successful and replaces Ares as the new god of war." would be far more idiomatic. --John (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --JDC808 ♫ 22:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comments - I am concerned about the canvassing that has taken place to bring declarations of support to this nomination. I was considering archiving this FAC because of this inappropriate and disruptive behavior. Please note that these canvassed declarations will not be taken into consideration when closing. I would like to see more reviews from uninvolved editors and John's points actioned. I fully agree with Neil's advice and suggest that it is taken onboard. Graham Colm (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems unfortunate for the three reviewers who provided great reviews in the past FACs, but okay. John's points have been actioned, although I disagree with one of them. --JDC808 ♫ 20:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see five solicited declarations of support. Graham Colm (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the three who did more than just said "I Support". ΛΧΣ21 and Torchiest provided great reviews in the first nomination and FutureTrillionaire did an extensive source review in the second nomination. --JDC808 ♫ 22:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's closing comment - I have decided that this nomination has been irrevocably compromised and I will archive it shortly. Please do not renominate this candidate until two weeks have passed. This will allow time for the dust to settle, and afford the opportunity to address remaining issues. Graham Colm (talk) 06:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC) [18].[reply]

She Has a Name

Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because, since the previous nomination, this article has undergone an independent copyedit by Guild of Copy Editors member Baffle gab1978. It has also been promoted to good article status by Khazar2, who recommended that all mid-sentence citations be bundled before the article's next featured article candidacy. I have bundled all such citations and I believe that the article now meets the featured article criteria. Neelix (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Unfortunately I am not able to give this article a full review. It looks very thorough and comprehensive and is clearly the result of some dedicated effort, but I'm a bit concerned that, after what was presumably a full copyedit, the word "play" appears four times in the first line of the article. The first sentence needs to be rephrased; likewise the second: "the trafficking of children into sexual slavery in order to exploit them commercially as prostitutes in the child sex tourism industry" is heavy-footed and repetitive. If the opening sentences are clumsily written the article loses credibility, and there's a chance that readers won't bother to go on. So I suggest a little more work on the lead section. Brianboulton (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded the lead to avoid repetition, including that of the word "play". I do not believe such repetition exists throughout the rest of the article. Neelix (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Neutral. I did not attempt a detailed examination of prose quality for criterion 1a. I do not think this article meets the FA criteria, and suspect that the limited quality of coverage means the topic may not be ripe for a FA at all, at least currently. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1b: This article feels incomplete ... and that's because it is. There are three articles dedicated to this play: the main one here at FAC, Critical response to She Has a Name, and 2012 tour of She Has a Name. As a result, this page dedicates a lot more space to what I believe was an entirely local first run than to the second run, which saw showings more widely across Canada. It also means that topics like the awards this play has received (assuming they're notable; I didn't take time to check) do not appear in the main article for the play at all. That's a problem.
I still don't think this needs to be three articles at all, but the content balance here is better now. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1c: The quality of the references is a concern. As far as I can tell, this play has gotten mostly local coverage. There's been a little notice elsewhere in Canada and in the US (but not, as far as I can tell, from the New York theater circuits). This is a play about child sex trafficking in Thailand, but I don't see a response from any Thai media. There's no mention of this play in scholarly literary or theater journals to date. As a result, much of this article (and the two spinouts) is referenced to local publications of dubious notability themselves. I don't know that it's possible to do better with this topic than the Red Deer Express, The Strathmore Standard, and local radio (including a reference to a broadcast on the Class A CFUV-FM, with only a 2290 watt ERP). I have doubts whether the amount of material cited to these small, local news outlets satisfies the FAC expectation of high quality sources.
2c: I haven't seen this sort of "bundled" reference format before. I personally don't care for it because it makes it hard to see how frequently sources are used when they appear in multiple places in the reference list. The same Donnelly work, for example, is 2+, 10 (cited five times), and 27++. But I'm not sure that would be grounds for a 2c objection, and it's not my primary referencing concern. That concern is page numbers. There aren't any, for any of the print sources, and there should be.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Squeamish Ossifrage (talk • contribs)
The two subarticles, 2012 tour of She Has a Name and Critical response to She Has a Name, were spun off during this article's first FAC; two reviewers recommended the spinoffs, so I performed them. I have readded some information from those two articles to this main article, expanding the "2012 tour" section to approximately the same length as the "Initial run" section and expanding the "Critical response" section with awards information. I do not see why the references are a concern; this is a Canadian play that went on a Canadian tour and shouldn't be expected to have recieved coverage in American media such as that in New York. There have been few major Canadian media outlets that haven't covered She Has a Name. The Chronicle Herald is Halifax's top newspaper and Halifax is the capital of Nova Scotia; The Gazette is Montreal's top English newspaper and Montreal is the capital of Quebec; the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is Canada's top media outlet period. The bundled citation format was recommended by the GAN reviewer and also solves the readability problems that reviewers brought up in the first FAC. I can unbundle them again if there is concensus to do so, but I think it would be a detriment to the article. As for page numbers, I received most of the citation information from the newspapers' websites, which do not include page numbers. I can try to retreive this information through my local library if that information is required. Neelix (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't the sources I'm concerned about. If those were the sort of sources that referenced the bulk of the article, I wouldn't have any concerns about source quality. But I think this article placed undue weight on small, local sources. Why should we consider the free community paper London Community News, the family-published Christian paper Country Sunrise News, or the Mennonite Brethren Herald (which doesn't even seem to have an About Us or editorial policy page available) high-quality sources regarding the themes of a play? In that last case, for example, the author of the cited source is a student and communications intern. Where is the thematic commentary from experts in the field? A considerable amount of the Themes section is also cited to various interviews and articles authored by Stephen Waldschmidt; this is not an independent voice, but the voice of the director. To some extent, this sort of self-sourcing is okay, but I have concerns that too much is based on it here. What makes the The Strathmore Times -- a weekly paper serving a town of only 12,000 people -- a high-quality source for critical response? Or a local Christian radio station in Winnipeg? Sourcing quality aside, you either need links to online sources or page numbers from the paper editions, but several of your references have neither, which is why I noted that as a problem. I have stricken my complaints about the bundled references; personally, I don't like them, but apparently I'm the one behind the times there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the critical responses to She Has a Name come from local newspapers spaced across Canada because those are the locations where the play has toured; the play went on a fringe theatre tour, not a Broadway tour. I would prefer not remove validly sourced information simply in order to balance the amount of information taken from large-scale and small-scale sources; I do not believe that the article violates our policy about undue weight. Still, I am willing to remove information if there is consensus to do so. I believe that all of the sources used on the article are reliable. I have included all of the reliable sources I believe to exist; I only submitted this article for an FAC when I was satisfied that there were no more sources to be added. None of the articles are authored by Stephen Waldschmidt; it only appears that way because of the spacing of the bundled citations. There are several comments from interviews with Waldschmidt and I can reduce the number of these if you believe that there are too many. I will try to get the page numbers you mention from my local library as soon as possible. Neelix (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have retreived all the missing page numbers and have added them to the citations. Have I addressed all of your concerns? Neelix (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many of my objections have been admirably corrected. However, I still personally consider the sourcing a concern. The section in WP:RS about news sources suggests that small media outlets be approached with some measure of caution. "News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact." Furthermore, it includes a reminder that the author of opinions should be considered when weighting an opinion's reliability and significance. "The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." With those guidelines in mind, I have misgivings about many of the local, small-circulation publications that provide thematic analysis and commentary here. I understand that you've cited the sources that exist, that this is fringe theater, that it has gone unnoticed by performing arts journals and major mainstream publications, but I still do not believe that Country Sunrise News and The Strathmore Times are what the FA criteria demand in terms of high-quality sources. I realize that, especially in this case, that puts my expectations of sourcing quality in contention with the equally important FA criterion of comprehensive coverage. I do not have enough experience at FAC, especially with this sort of sourcing situation, to know whether the consensus here would lead to supporting or opposing the article on those grounds; lacking that, the best I can to is to do neither. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your evaluation of the article. With regards to your remaining concern (whether or not small-scale sources should be used to source the "Themes" section), I will be glad to make alterations if other reviewers agree that I should do so. Neelix (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've wound up here entirely by a happenstance click on the bot GAN updates. Perusing the subarticles, this article, and the first FAC, I'm not entirely sold on the subpages being the right approach. More to the point, I'm not sure this play merits three articles on it, and that a better option might be to critically evaluate what's extraneous and what should be condensed. (I haven't looked at the source concerns listed above yet.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think that this play doesn't merit three articles? The amount of coverage it has garnered suggests that it does. All three articles have undergone independent copyedits by different members of the Guild of Copy Editors. The splits were recommended in the previous FAC and praised thereafter. I believe that this play merits three articles, but I am willing to act in accordance with consensus should consensus become established on this issue. Still, it has taken months to implement the changes recommended in the first FAC (ie. splitting the articles and sorting them out separately), all of which would be a waste if we squish the articles back together again. Neelix (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage in the aforementioned small town papers does not make me think the topic needs 10,000 words, no. There's also the matter of sheer readability. Even in the condensed version of this article, I'm not seeing how I have to be told who was on every panel in every city the play was shown at in 2012 (or that the Centre to End All Sexual Exploitation's representative was named "Norma".) I don't know if this rises to a notability threshold of the subarticles (trying to parse where the notability of the play ends and the separate notability of its 2012 tour irrespective of the play begins sounds like an exercise in frustration), but it does impact the prose's quality and thus 1a and 1c of WP:WIAFA. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Our guidelines on content removal are clear that "content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length". The listed acceptable reasons for content removal are when the information is unsourced, inaccurate, moved elsewhere, irrelevant, inappropriate, or the author's own addition. I don't believe either of these reasons applies to the information on this article. If you think a source used on the article is unreliable, I can remove that particular source, but I have never heard of removing content simply because it is sourced by local newspapers; is this common practice? I can understand removing information that is trivial, and I have therefore removed the details you mentioned and have made the talkback panels paragraph more concise. If you see other information in the article that is trivial, I am willing to remove it. Neelix (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that WP:WIAFA has criteria that are different than general content guidelines—there is no Wikipedia policy regarding "brilliant" prose, but that's what featured articles require. If it's a chore to actually read the article because of extraneous detail, there might not be a policy guideline saying "articles should not contain every fact discoverable and sourceable to a topic", it still is a reason to oppose a nom. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying your objection; if your concern is that the article contains extraneous details, I would be glad to edit the article accordingly. I believe that I have addressed the specific details you have already mentioned. What others do you find extraneous? Neelix (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having left messages for David Fuchs both here and on his talk page and waited several weeks without receiving a response, I will assume that his concerns have been met by my edits in response to Squeamish Ossifrage's comments unless I am informed otherwise. Neelix (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, for same rationale as previous: Incredible attention to detail. Very thorough. Meticulous sourcing throughout. Excellent structure with attention to flow and ease of readability for the visitor or editor. I like that some of the content was spun off into sub articles, with summary style kept at the main article, it looks like it was done appropriately. — Cirt (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC) [19].[reply]

Nea Salamis Famagusta FC

Nominator(s): Xaris333 (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think that it meets all the FA criteria.

  • Oppose – Welcome to FAC, Xaris. Unfortunately, I don't think the article meets the prose criterion (1a) at the moment. For example, the opening paragraph of Decade 1960–1969 reads as follows: "In the early years of the decade, Nea Salamina was strong in home games, but impossible to away games. Noteworthy is the conquest of the championship from substitutionary team the period 1960–61. The games alternate players gathered the same interest with the main team among fans, who enthusiastically celebrated winning the title." There are many similar issues throughout, and I fear that the entire article needs to be rewritten. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – this is a premature nomination, some of the text is poorly translated failing 1a as above, but some is actually in Greek, for example in the "Gallery" captions. The article also appears to fail the referencing criterion (1c) as a lot of the information (former managers, current squad, Nea Salamina in Cypriot Cup, Overall statistics on class A, Statistics by opponent) appears not to be supported by inline citations. I agree with Giants2008 that the entire article needs to be rewritten. C679 16:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - needs to be totally re-written by a native English speaker, much of the article borders on unintelligible. As mentioned above, also fails significantly on refs -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- Just on a quick glance, in addition to the comments noted above, there are style issues such as title -- rather than sentence -- case in the first subsection, and a series short, choppy paragraphs in for instance Ammochostos Stadium. I'll therefore be archiving the nomination. Xaris, pls take on board the recommendations and consider GA and Peer Review before bringing back to FAC. Pls also note that once this is archived, per FAC instructions, you cannot nominate any other article here for at least two weeks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC) [20].[reply]

Dr. Mario

Nominator(s): :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe, after working on it slowly over a substantial length of time, it is as thoroughly complete as it will ever be and that it is an article of outstanding quality. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - The article is not comprehensive/thoroughly-researched - there is little coverage of its initial release, and no coverage from its native Japan.
    • There's only one review contemporaneous with the original release, and that review disagrees with the consensus statement that precedes it. If the game "reeks of plagiarism", what is it plagiarising? I'm assuming it's Tetris.
    • What about coverage from EGM, GamePro, Game Players, Famitsu? I don't know if all those publications covered the game, but all those magazines were active at that time. EGM definitely reviewed the Game Boy version in issue 16.
    • Mean Machines reviews both Game Boy and NES versions in issue 5. Why not use that source?
    • In the reviews box, Metacritic and Gamerankings say the same thing. Although I know other editors in the VG space enjoy this redundancy.
    • In the reviews box, there is no way that Play (UK magazine) reviewed the game. The reference on the Play score suggests you don't have access to the source, hence you don't know the page number or byline. So why is it there?
    • The leading phrase of the Legacy section, "Following the commercial success of this game", has nothing to back it up. No sales figures, no chart data. I don't doubt that it was a commercial success, it couldn't have cost a lot to develop, but there is no source.
  • Oppose I concur with much of what Hahnchen says above. Spelling is not consistent: there seem to be examples of both main variants of English. Date formats also need to be consistent. --John (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC) [21].[reply]

Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian revolution under Hosni Mubarak's rule

Nominator(s): The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the featured article standards. The article covers the 18 days that forced Hosni Mubarak's resignation. I asked for a new peer review after the GA nominating but since no1 commented I assumed that the articles doesn't have any problems. If you do think the article needs improvement, please let me know where exactly it does. This is my first time nominating an featured article so I can use all the help I can get. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with the article's title. The vast majority of sources I read refer to the "Egyptian revolution" as the events that led to the fall of Mubarak. The events that happened afterwords are considered the aftermath of the revolution. Therefore, the "under Hosni Mubarak's rule" part of the title is unnecessary.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If check the following articles: Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian revolution under the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, [22], [23] and [24] you find some sources the refers to the event following Mubarak's resignation (The protest against SCAF) as part of the revolution. Nonetheless, you have a better name for the article, please let me know. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was a discussion about this at Talk:2011 Egyptian revolution#Requested move (November 2012) with a consensus for this viewpoint.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with the requested move of the 2011 Egyptian revolution and most of the reason that lead to the move. However, I dont see how this move request applies to the nominated article. Meaning, we dont refer to the 1917 Revolution in Russia as that 1917-1918 Revolution but that doesnt mean that the revolution stopped there in 1917. Same goes the the French revolution. I might be wrong so please correct me if I am. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opppose While it's good to see a comprehensive article on this topic, this doesn't meet the FA standards at the moment. At least one of the article's references is to social media websites (eg, the current ref 199 is to a Wikimedia Commons file), and many of the references are missing various standard details. Moreover, given that lots of books and journal articles have now been published on these events, there seems to be no good reason to reference the article almost exclusively to news stories which were published at the time the revolution was unfolding; researched works written after the events should provide a generally more accurate account of the events and their impact than these news stories (this is also required by FA criterion 1c). The quality of this article's prose is unfortunately also well short of FA standard. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The ref 199 is a translation to Arabic graffiti on one of them images on Wikipedia and Wikimedia commons is part of Wikipedia. There are refs to facebook pages, tweets and facebook events but social media played a huge rule in the uprising so it's not odd to have some was ref st8 from the source.
As for your second point, I have read most of the books and articles that came after the event and most of them are either an analysis or talking about a personal experience during the uprsing. The ones that do talk about the actual events however dont provide any additional reliable info. If you know any books that might have some extra info that the article is missing, please let me know.
Last but not least, where does the article quality exactly fall short so I can work on it? Thanks for your time. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Large chunks of the text is sub-standard to be frank. As some examples picked purely at random: "Protesters were described by reporters as more confident and even celebratory as they felt they were nearing their objective—the end of Mubarak's regime—although they had no tangible evidence of this" (did the journalists or protesters lack evidence?), "Chaos was rampant in Suez during the night, but as day broke the streets remained relatively quiet" (what's the 'remained' doing here, and what's meant by 'chaos was rampant'?), "In Cairo, a standoff took place in front of the Egyptian Museum in the early morning hours with rocks and petrol bombs reportedly flying" (who was involved, and were rocks actually thrown?) and "Protesters responded that "he (Mubarak) will go" and they would not." (who were these 'protesters', and did they all really say such a specific thing?). Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not going to make a big deal about the title. As for Nick-D's point about the sources, the article is a timeline, the purpose of which is to simply list the events. Therefore, using only news sources is okay. However, the twitter sources should be removed. If the content is notable, you should be able to find actual news articles for it. If not, then the content is probably not notable enough to be included in the article. Also, the ref with this url appears to lead to a removed video: http://www.charter.net/video/play/429085/channels/cnn --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, using old news stories for this kind of thing is not OK, especially at FA level - news stories are often called the 'first draft of history', and are typically riddled with errors (due to the journalist inevitably not having a full perspective of the events, not being an expert on the topic, having to write in a hurry to hit deadlines and/or simply not doing their job well). As such, they're not a substitute for proper research on historical topics - please see the essay WP:HISTRS. The result of relying on news stories is born out by the tone of this article - it's written in present tense, and there's no way to judge what actually did or did not happen from these sources (eg, " In a New York Times interview he rejected comparisons with Iraq and Afghanistan and said that antiquities were being safeguarded" - were they actually safe?, "an inbound Egypt Air flight from London to Cairo was diverted to Athens because of an alleged bomb threat" - did this bomb thread actually occur?, "The United Nations human rights chief Navi Pillay announced that there were reports that more than 300 people had died in the violence with up to 3,000 injured, although stressed that these reports remain unconfirmed." - what number of casualties do experts now believe had occurred by this time? and "On 2–3 February, 13 people were killed and 1,200 injured, according to the Egyptian health ministry" - is this estimate (which was released by a Mubarak-era institution) still considered credible? And so on. Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D brings up some good points. More professional sources are needed to avoid the uncertainties and possible errors from news reports. Based on this, I oppose this nomination as well.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC) [25].[reply]

Metalloid

Nominator(s): Sandbh (talk) 08:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this article for FA status as a culmination of its development (including peer review) through each of the classes from C (where I started on it, in June 2011) to B, B+ and GA, and thence to A, where it is now. Before posting this nomination I sought and responded to pre-FAC feedback, and reviewed and contributed to two FACs: KFC and Arthur W. Radford.

As to the topic itself, I like these quotes (which I didn't use in the article): 'Even the schizoid semimetals fall in a cluster, albeit neither rowwise nor columnar.' and 'It's not hard to imagine that the frontier between the metals and the nonmetals is occupied by weird atoms that are neither fish nor fowl.' (Parr 2000). Sandbh (talk) 08:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. My original review comments here bloated into quite the teal deer as I tried to document all the ways this article fails to meet the FAC standards. I have now moved that entire section to the Talk page for two reasons. First, the FAC review FAQ suggests that articles so problematic as to warrant such massive reviews should instead simply be opposed and kicked down to a lower level process. And, second, because FAC nominators "are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly." This article has multiple lists, sometimes formatted poorly or in nonstandard ways; the nominator has argued repeatedly that these do not need to be replaced with, and are in fact superior to, the brilliant prose expected from a FA. The fundamental structure of the article is based on self-referential original research; the nominator asks us to IAR the OR policy. Accordingly, I see no reason to provide further review of this article at this time, and cannot support this nomination regardless of potential changes; any alterations so substantial as to remedy these concerns (unlikely as they seem to be) would mandate opposition on stability grounds, and so I urge the delegates to close this nomination at their convenience. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me to a closure. I'll see if I can progress this at a lower level. Sandbh (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • No guarantees that he would be willing to license them, but Theodore Gray (theodore <at> wolfram <dot> com) has a number of fairly nice images of polonium foil atop gold (and has a contact who can, at least at times, produce more). That's at least one potential source of an alternative polonium image. Otherwise, it might be worth the longshot to contact NRD, the most significant extant manufacturer of polonium-based anti-static brushes to see if they have an image of the element they'd be willing to release. I do think it's likely there are government images, too ... somewhere, but I'll concede they may not be readily available. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: I asked Theodore Gray for permission to use one of his other images early on, and rec'd no reply; I conducted several .gov image searches for images of polonium, and these were all unsuccessful; and I asked the Oak Ridge National Laboratory about an image of polonium, since they apparently produce/sell the stuff, and rec'd no reply. I'll give NRD a try, thank you. Sandbh (talk) 09:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John

Oppose on prose, based on a preliminary sampling. Fuller review to follow. --John (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The more of the prose I looked at, the more problems I found. Let's say it needs a good copyedit to come within a mile of FA standard. I also noted (and greatly disliked) the embedded lists, and I am not happy with using an editor's original research (however diligent and fair) on another article as a source for this one. I think this would need some major work to be an FA. Sorry. --John (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. No need for sorry: business is business. I have a couple of observations.
Lists. Something I remain genuinely puzzled about is what seems to be a general aversion, expressed in this forum, to the use of lists in prose articles. What is the basis for that? There is nothing in Wikipedia guidance, to my knowledge, proscribing the (considered and careful) use of lists in prose articles, even in FA articles. Yes, I understand the prose in FA articles should be enagaging but that applies to the prose content of an article, not to the list content of a prose article (a list, of course, should still be properly constructed). Most of the books I have to hand on the topic of writing comment unremarkably on the use of lists. Franklin Quest style guide for business and technical communication, (1997) says that, 'Lists are increasingly important as a major aid for readers in interpreting and remembering information. Lists, headings, graphics and other emphasis tools are now essential in business and technical writing. These tools have now replaced the long, academic paragraphs of earlier times.' (p. 158). Another book, comprising the top ten papers published in Australian defence science over 50 years, includes papers incorporating the careful use of lists. A final book (Scientific writing = thinking in words, 2011) includes the careful use of lists. I also have The encyclopedia of chemistry (Supplement)(1958), which has some articles that include lists. As well, none of the seven Wikipedians who give advice about FA articles at WP:FACR proscribe the use of lists in FA articles. User Tony 1 goes so far as to say, 'Much encyclopedic and academic text comprises lists', whilst also advocating that lists need to be used with care.
Use of another article as a source. I think that in this specific case, use of list of metalloid lists, even if such use may appear questionable, improves Wikipedia. With respect, there is plenty of Wikipedia guidance along these lines, including WP:RAP; WP:IAR; and WP:5 ('Wikipedia does not have firm rules…Their principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception.') Sandbh (talk) 12:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 21:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC) [26].[reply]

Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Nominator(s): Tomcat (7) 10:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again I am nominating this article following several extensive cuts, clean ups and copyedits. Unfortunately the last peer review was an image review, but it definitely improved the images that were problematic last time. I moved the content about themes and style into a separate article, as I had did last time before the first FAC, and created a short summary describing major themes and style. I also readded summaries of his major works, as has been recommended in the last GAN and the second to last PR. To round up his legacy I created a sub-section concerning his reputation worlwide, ie translations, adaptions, etc. Regarding the long pange ranges, I started a discussion here and was told that they are not a problem at all. I could simply remove the Frank footnotes if needed. I hope this review won't be chaotic and heated as last time. Regards. Tomcat (7) 10:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: To clarify, the above statement regarding this article's themes and style sections isn't exactly accurate. [27] To Tomcat7's credit, however, he did finally follow many reviewers' suggestions, making a stronger article in the long run. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose on prose based on preliminary sample. Consider whether words like "however" and "nevertheless" are really earning their living in the article. The prose is meant to be "brilliant". It isn't, yet. --John (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what's the problem with words like "however" and "nethertheless". It seems that you English speakers prefer to leave out as many words as possible. Then please define "brilliant", because it is meaningless in this case.--Tomcat (7) 21:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest you answer my questions. It has been copyedited by a native speaker. If you find something troublesome, then post it here. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 08:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have the right to engage in argument about your oppose, and I have the right to change articles and explaining my rationale in the edit summary.--Tomcat (7) 18:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I have to concur with the view that the prose does not yet meet FA standard. The article may have been copyedited by a native English speaker, but there are still many examples of prose that is either questionable or plain wrong. A few specific instances:

  • "Dostoyevsky was raised in the family home on the grounds of Mariinsky Hospital." – in the grounds.
  • "in their estate" → "at their estate"
  • "After a short visit to Mikhail in Reval, Fyodor frequently attended concerts, operas, plays and ballets." Reads as a non sequitur
  • "These stories were unsuccessful, leaving Dostoyevsky back in financial trouble and decided to join the utopian socialist Betekov circle, a tight-knit community that helped him survive." Not grammatical.
  • "Dostoyevsky's served four years of exile with hard labour..." Why the possessive apostrophe? And the narrative flow that follows this sentence is most confusing.
  • "...the bathroom was a small room occupying more than 200 people." Rooms do not occupy people.
  • "Dostoyevsky was generally respected by the prisoners, but despised by some because of xenophobic statements." Statements made by him, or made about him? And is "statements" really the word required?
  • "Describing his character, 'He looked morose. His sickly, pale face was covered with freckles'...". Who is describing whom here?
  • "During a visit to Belikhov, Dostoyevsky met the family of Alexander Ivanovich Isaev and Maria Dmitrievna Isaeva, with whom he soon fell in love." He fell in love with a family?

Please note that I have only looked at a small part of the text. On the plus side, there is plenty of depth and detail in the article – perhaps too much incidental information in places. You have obviously researched deeply, and your dedication to the subject over a long period of time cannot be faulted. However, I note that the article has not been promoted to GA, despite four attempts, and has been archived at FAC once. If it is to succeed here, the prose is going to need an overhaul, not just tinkering. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on reference formatting, prose, and quite likely comprehensiveness issues. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't understand the criteria used to put some references in the base Bibliography and some in the "Biographies" section (and, for that matter, the "Religion" section).
  • The Meier-Gräfe reference has problems. For one thing, the link is the Google Snippet View page of the 1928 version, not a nonexistence 1988 edition. I suspect this book wasn't actually at hand while writing the article, because the 1972 Haskell House edition (ISBN 978-0838313909) is much more readily available. If you are going to go with the 1928 printing, there's no reason the publisher should be in lower case.
  • Quite a bit of work was clearly put into identifying book sources for this article. But I'm concerned at the complete absence of scholarly journal references for one of the major authors of the 19th century. Even the precise nature of his epilepsy has been a subject of scholarly debate.
  • Although this article is generally well-referenced throughout, there are some sections where it is difficult to determine what source is supporting certain claims. See the use of "modern human" under Notes from Underground (whose words are those? who considers that the chief aim?), or the line in Crime and Punishment declaring that most of the criticism was from nihilists.
  • I typically leave detailed prose reviews to others, but I share the above concerns. I understand that this was peer reviewed by a native speaker of English; however, not all native speakers are equally adept at brilliant prose, and, especially with an article of this size, no single reader will catch all problematic phrasings. Furthermore, I would like to second John's strong objection above. Attempting to change the wording of the FAC criteria to mitigate opposition based on the established wording is really not how this process is done.

Delegate's closing comment - The prose is not up to standard. It is clearly the work of a non-native speaker. I can hear a Russian accent in my head as I read it. The article lacks the indicators of accomplished writing such as absolute phrases and appositives and shows a poor understanding of the correct usage of finite and indefinite articles ("the", "a" and "an"). This contribution is well researched and shows potential, but I think too much work remains for promotion to be achievable on this occasion. Graham Colm (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 21:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC) [28].[reply]

Blue's Clues

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it deserves it. Perhaps you're thinking, "A FA about this?!" That's correct, Blue's Clues is a ground-breaking and revolutionary children's educational TV program, second only to Sesame Street. It has had profound influence on the TV industry, our culture, and the lives of scores of young children. This includes my own, especially my son; Blue's Clues is his favorite thing in the universe. I feel that this article is well-researched, well-sourced, and well-written. And remember, you can do anything that you wanna do. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And think, think, think! Everyone should know that Casliber is reviewing this article, despite the fact that we're in a head-to-head race as part of the same pool (F) in the Wikicup. Cas, your generosity has no bounds!
As of 2002, over 2 million people had attended over 1,000 performances. - hmm, reads oddly as if this were written soon afterwards (but is now a long time ago) - we either need to say perfomrances concluded in 2002 or get more updated figures somehow...just looks odd.... (holds both for lead and body of text near bottom)
I just re-searched, but again was unable to find any source that states that the live show ended or didn't end. Well, that's not true; I found some ads for the show that were more recent--the latest being last year, 2012, and some press releases and other non-reliable sources. And there certainly wasn't anything about how many performances there has been up to now. I've gone over how to not imply what you say, but I've always been a loss as to how to solve it. Do you have any suggestions? Would "by 2002" work better than "as of 2002", do you think?
I think "By 2002" and the use of "had seen" (i.e. pluperfect tense) we cover it as best we can...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
because Nickelodeon was already producing a show about a cat - which show was that?
No source names the show, just that they were producing it. Is that information necessary?
I think/thought it'd be an interesting add/juxtaposition. However if we don't know, we don't know....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the next para, beginning, "Blue's Clues premiered in the U.S..." - can you rephrase all quoted bits? None of them are memorable enough to require a verbatim phrasing....
Done.
Might be tricky but explain who Daniel Anderson is and what he does on first mention, not later?
Um, the first mention of Anderson is in the 2nd paragraph in the "Format" section, and he's identified as "Nickelodeon researcher Daniel Anderson".
also, isn't a terribly long article - maybe more on other characters (magenta etc.) and Joe's use of other coloured tops unlike Steve's green?
I've avoided character lists, since at one point, that was the bulk of this article. There really isn't any reliable sources out there discussing characters other than Blue, Steve, and Joe. There is an article [29] written at the time of the host switch that discusses this very thing; it states the reason they had Joe wear different shirts was so that kids would want to change their clothes everyday. I dunno, I thought that was kind of silly, so I didn't include it. There were other things that should've gone in, and I went ahead and added them. And I think that I've pretty much exhausted all the available sources. Although the show's important and was on for ten years (an eternity in comparison to most kids' shows, Sesame Street notwithstanding), there really hasn't been much written about it. The Tracy book, which has provided this article with comprehensiveness, is the reason this article was able to be expanded to its current length. This article surprised me in that way; you'd think that even in the mainstream media, there'd be more, especially at the time of the host switch, but other than announcements that it occurred and other promotional stuff, there's wasn't. I also assumed the fact that it premiered relatively recently would mean more sources, but that's not true, either. Remember that when it premiered (1996), the internet wasn't around. The media has pretty much ignored BC through the years, so it hasn't had nearly as much written about it in comparison to Sesame Street. (SS surprised me for the opposite reason; the sources available for it are overwhelming.)

Overall, writing is good - does come over as a little glowing in parts but understandable given the great topic matter...are there any criticisms/controversies out there written in reliable sources? Back later, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can answer that by saying unequivocally, "No"--another surprise. I included what I was able to find: the response to the host switch, the rumors about Steve. And believe me, I looked for them. [30] Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

First, a few quibbles with the reference formats:

  • I hate little horizontal lines. But I'm pretty sure those are all em dashes in the page ranges throughout the references, and they should be en dashes. Sorry.
I hate 'em, too, especially since I was under the mistaken impression that em dashes are used for page ranges. Ah well, they should all be fixed now.
  • You have web sources with 2006 and 2007 retrieval dates! Every one of those needs to be checked, and retargeted if necessary, so that its retrieval date can be refreshed. In at least several cases, the original article is either no longer online or no longer at the targeted link, so either new urls or archive links are going to be required. My personal rule of thumb is to request dates be refreshed if they're over a year old coming into FAC.
Ah, I thought that I knew everything about the FAC process by now. Of course, I usually don't submit older articles here, so live and learn, doncha know.
  • Some of your newspaper titles aren't italicized, and they should be. See Citations 21, 64, 68. I may have missed others.
  • In Citation 13, the magazine is properly styled Time.
  • In Citation 28, I believe the periodical in question is properly Spin, not Spin Magazine.
All the above fixed now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're using a format where the first author appears last, first and other authors appear first last. That's fine, and you're consistent, which is what matters. However, both multiple-author entries in the Bibliography have a comma separation the first author and the rest of the list, and in this format, that needs to be a semicolon. The multiple-author works in the Citations section have it right, though...
  • This is better, but there are still issues. Check citation 29 and the Anderson bibliography, which both have mixed commas and semicolons in the author list, versus the Ryan bibliography, which is all semicolons. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, thanks for the catch. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, the Citations use citation style 1 and the Bibliography isn't templated. Some of the problems below might be resolved (or at least easier to catch) by templating them. For example, all of these references have a period between the author list and the parenthetical publication year, but the standard set in the previous section doesn't include them.
  • The Anderson source in the bibliography is a scholarly article, but it's not formatted like one. The volume and issue number need to come out of the title and be displayed correctly for the type of reference (Citation 79 does it correctly, above). Also, this is missing its doi (10.1207/S1532785XMEP0202_4).
  • The Ryan source isn't really formatted correctly at all. If you do convert all these to citation style 1, there's a Template:cite conference to help with this sort of thing.
This is an older article in my editing history, and it reflects that. When I expanded this article the first time way back in 2007, the cite format was what I was using at the time. Since then, my favored format has changed, but when I re-vamped this article a year ago, I decided to stay with the old format for consistency. I've come to hate the cite templates because I found that I ran into issues like this over and over again. They make things clunky, hard to navigate, and difficult to read in edit mode. This is an example of the citation format I currently use: Wouldn't Take Nothing for My Journey Now. It looks like, to keep consistency, I need to convert the format here, since doing so would solve all the above problems. I'll take care of that shortly. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With that aside, I'm also a little concerned about comprehensiveness. This really is an important piece of children's educational television, and there's been a lot written about it! I don't have access to journals in this field right offhand, but I found a number of potential sources that aren't addressed (and, sorry, these aren't quite formatted the same way as you're doing formatting; my preferred style's a hard habit to deviate from, but this should help you find them to see if they're useful):

  • Troseth GL, Saylor MM, Archer, AH (2006). "Young Children's Use of Video as a Source of Socially Relevant Information". Child Development. 77 (3): 786–799. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00903.x.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Anderson DR (1998). "Educational Television is not an Oxymoron". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 557 (1): 24–38. doi:10.1177/0002716298557000003.
  • Crawley AM, Anderson DR, Santomero A, Wilder A, Williams M, Evans MK, Bryant J (2002). "Do Children Learn How to Watch Television' The Impact of Extensive Experience With Blue's Clues on Preschool Children's Television Viewing Behavior". Journal of Communication. 52 (2): 264–280. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02544.x.

There's at least one excellent book source not touched on, as well:

  • Comstock G, Scharrer E (2007). Media and the American Child. Academic Press. ISBN 978-0123725424.

I'm sure there's more information out there. I haven't really done a thorough read through the prose, because referencing issues and comprehensive sourcing are typically my first concerns. At the moment, I'm inclined to oppose. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SO. I'll take the next few days and look at the articles you list to see if they have anything valuable. I have access to a university library, so I did search in databases. For example, the Anderson source in the bibliography here summarizes several previous research articles, so the ones you found may be already included. I'll still check them out, though. Please give me a few days. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! When I can, I like to peek at the journal refs myself before just tossing them out for the FA sponsor to pick through, but my offline time is pretty rough right now, so spitting out possible references is about the best I can do. I hope they help! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
  • File:Blues_Clues_logo.svg: should explicitly identify copyright holder, and replace "organization" in FUR with "show"
  • File:BluePeriwinkle.jpg needs to explicitly identify copyright holder. I'm also not sure using products rather than screenshots is the best editorial choice - can you explain?
  • File:Steve_Burns.jpg: image description grants us use of the image "under the terms of fair use", which is compatible with neither the given licensing tag nor our policies regarding non-commercial copyrights and images of living people. This situation needs to be clarified. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've come to the conclusion that this article needs more research, as per Squeamish Ossifrage's comments above. I would like to withdraw this nomination for now, so I can have more time to do the necessary work and will re-submit it at a later time. Thanks, and my apologies for wasting anyone's time. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC) [31].[reply]

Blue's Clues

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it would be the coolest thing if this article was FA. It would also mean a great deal to me personally because Blue's Clues is my son's favorite thing in the entire universe. He loves Blue more than me, but I digress. This article is well-written and well-sourced, and fulfills all the criteria. Looking forward to getting the reviewers' feedback, and remember: You can do anything that you wanna do! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/April_2013&oldid=550449424"