Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Add 1
Add 3
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOClimit|2}}
{{TOClimit|2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Karma in Jainism/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stephen Lynch (politician)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr./archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Georgia Tech Research Institute/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Georgia Tech Research Institute/archive2}}

Revision as of 13:56, 14 June 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 Ian Rose 10:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Karma in Jainism

Nominator(s): Rahul Jain (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a well-sourced and beautifully written article. It meets all the criteria of a Featured Article. If there is any minor issue left out, I will clear it as soon as possible. Rahul Jain (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have not read the article, but I can see at once a few problems:

  • Uncited text. Examples: final sentence of "Material theory"; whole second paragraph of "Reincarnation and transmigration"; whole fourth paragraph of "Four states of existence"; possibly more.
  • Several sections are presented in bullet-point format rather than in proper prose.

In addition, a couple of minor issues: citations should be at the end of blockquotes rather than at the beginning; check use of "p." instead of "pp." in page ranges, and inconsistent spacing after "p." or "pp."

Brianboulton (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed most of the concerns you raised. I went through the whole article again to provide citations and references wherever they were required. Also, I reworked with the formatting of citation. I used the templates for consistency. I agree that several sections are bullet-point format, but I think those actually do require a list for better organization of information. Rahul Jain (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- With no commentary for a month, this review has well and truly stalled so I'm going to archive it. Just glancing through it, I still see paragraphs that end without citations. Furthermore, although there's no requirement for an article to pass GA before being nominated at FAC, it's something I'd recommend achieving before re-nominating here. Checking the article talk page, it also appears the last peer review was in 2009, so another is probably in order as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:55, 14 June 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 10:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Stephen Lynch (politician)

Nominator(s): Designate (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh out of his campaign for U.S. Senate, this is U.S. Representative Stephen Lynch of South Boston. He represents a shrinking wing of Massachusetts state politics, the socially conservative fiscal-liberal labor voters. He may not have accomplished much as a Congressman, but his career story is a bit more interesting than the mainstream progressive Democrats he serves with. I don't know what's next for this guy but his biography should be of interest to anyone with a passing interest in American politics, so I hope we can make this a featured article. —Designate (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Don't italicize quotes
  • Don't use bare URLs as citations
  • Dead link
  • FN18: page?
  • Boston Herald or The Boston Herald? New York Times or The New York Times? Be consistent
  • When using Washington as location, specify DC
  • FN61: formatting
  • Be consistent in what is wikilinked when. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These things are fixed now, thanks for checking. Hopefully someone can do a review for this article. —Designate (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- Wow, this one never really got off the ground did it? With only the source review after six weeks there's not much to do except archive -- a peer review might aid in generating some more interest, after which you could re-nominate here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:24, 14 June 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 10:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr.

Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk) 01:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article. —Ed!(talk) 01:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I have the following comments:

  • As I noted in the A class review, this article really should include references to Thomas Ricks' recent book The Generals, which provides fairly detailed analysis of Schwarzkopf's generalship during the 1990-91 period. Ricks strongly disagrees with the notion of the 1991 war being "decisive", and argues that Schwarzkopf's flawed war plan contributed to a fairly poor outcome given the extent of the Allied military force's superiority. This may not be a consensus view, but Ricks is a high-profile author and his book has attracted a fair bit of attention.
  • The material on Schwarzkopf's relationship to the Media during the Gulf War wrongly argues that he encouraged free-ranging media coverage of the war. In fact, the media operated under significant restrictions which were loosened in subsequent wars.
    • Added a little more clarity on this. —Ed!(talk) 04:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is now contradictory - it starts by saying that Schwarzkopf gave the media considerable access, but then states that the media was tightly controlled. I think that there are academic-type studies of the role of the media in the Gulf War which would be worth looking for. I'm also not sure what's meant by "In spite of this, several high-profile reports publicized the CENTCOM strategy" - does this mean that his war plans were leaked to the media? Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the 6th Infantry Division in Allied-occupied Germany" - the Allied occupation of Germany ended well before 1959
  • " In July 1960, Schwarzkopf was assigned as aide-de-camp to Brigadier General Charles Johnson, who commanded the Berlin Brigade.[36] Schwarzkopf was stationed in West Berlin." - this could be compressed into a single sentence (the Berlin Brigade was stationed only in West Berlin)
  • Why did Schwarzkopf volunteer to leave a teaching position at West Point to serve in South Vietnam?
  • "the 500,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam were demoralized and in poor condition, racked with rampant drug use and disciplinary problems as well as a lack of support from home" - all elements of this sentence are disputed by modern historians, and it's clearly inappropriate to use this as a blanket statement concerning the state of the military in 1969 (the general view these days is that the Army was largely in good shape at this time, but things got much worse later on).
  • "He immediately established an extremely rigorous training regimen" - why? Was the division poorly trained when he assumed command?
  • "and became well known for his hard driving leadership of the division." - 'well known' among whom? Phrases like "hard driving leadership" are also somewhat problematic - they're essentially military cliches (no-one is opposed to 'hard driving leadership'!), but are unclear - can you say what his command style and approach involved?
  • "Among his duties, he sat in on arms reduction talks" - 'sitting in' on a meeting isn't an active role, so was this really part of his duties?
  • "The operation was a learning experience for Schwarzkopf, who saw the need to develop greater cooperation between the services for future joint operations" - what did he do to implement this during his time as a senior commander? (there's nothing on the topic at present)
  • "Schwarzkopf devised an operational plan, dubbed "Operation Desert Storm," to be based on speed and mobility, using the desert warfare strategies based on British commander Bernard Montgomery's defeat of German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel at the Second Battle of El Alamein in World War II" - this doesn't seem accurate. Monty's overall strategy at El Alamein was to use infantry and artillery to slowly work through the Axis defences, and then unleash his armoured forces. It didn't work as the defences were tougher than had been expected, and the armoured forces ended up being used to support the infantry. The slow pursuit of the defeated Axis forces after the battle is generally considered to have been a major failure.
  • The material on the Gulf War hardly mentions the fact that Schwarzkopf was leading an amazingly diverse international coalition. How did he manage cross-national relations? (which would have been one of his main tasks)
    • I've added a paragraph on this in the 'Desert Shield' section. —Ed!(talk) 15:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Most of the allied forces, however, were not combat veterans, and the allied commanders wanted to fight cautiously to minimize casualties." - almost none of the US troops were combat veterans either, and Schwarzkopf was also highly risk-adverse (hence the lengthy air campaign before the ground forces went into action and the cancellation of plans to conduct an opposed amphibious landing in Kuwait). Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He oversaw the strikes from his war room in Riyadh amid a flurry of press coverage" - the media was in the war room?
  • "Within 90 hours, his force had destroyed 42 of 50 Iraqi Army divisions at a cost of about 125 killed and 200 wounded among American troops" - what about the non-American casualties? Nick-D (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an extra point, "His accomplishments were praised in a manner much differently from commanders who returned from the Vietnam War and the Korean War" reads awkwardly (and what was this difference?). Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a few books to cover these points. I'll be adding them over the next few days. Going to have the same problem with Ricks that I mentioned in the ACR, my only access to the book is through Google Books which has no page numbers, so the pages will be a total guess for those refs. —Ed!(talk) 06:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've responded to all of your points and made a bunch of fixes. Let me know what you think. —Ed!(talk) 15:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just struck my oppose, and have no objections to this article's promotion and would be pleased to see it on the main page. However, I don't think that I'm going to support promotion either I'm afraid Ed. Unlike many of your other efforts, this article never really gets under the skin of its subject (who is a much-written about person) and I think that there's probably scope for further improvements, particularly on the material covering his senior leadership which never really digs deeply into what he did and why. But as I said, I have no objections to promotion. Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think Ed! has done a good job in addressing the myriad issues with this article. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Delegate comment -- I'm afraid that after remaining open six weeks without approaching consensus to promote, this seems to have stalled so I'll be archiving shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:14, 14 June 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 10:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Georgia Tech Research Institute

Nominator(s): Disavian (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I resolved the comments on the first FAC before it closed, so I've returned for more feedback; I'm pretty proud of this article and hope that one day, it gets the star. I currently have another FAC (G. Wayne Clough) open, but User:ResearcherQ has volunteered to co-nom per the rules of one FAC/person, but is busy until at least Monday. Disavian (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My concerns were addressed and its a worthy article, so I'd like to provide my support for promotion. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article seems fine for the most part. I only have a few issues:

There were quite a few redundant uses of 'also', which I took the liberty of trimming. Hopefully that doesn't cause a concern. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review this article. :) I'll try to get to these asap. Disavian (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing my issues. Good luck with your FAC. Praemonitus (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I will add comments here as I go through the article; I don't have much time this morning so it might be a day or two till I get through it.

  • "The federal effort ultimately failed": What federal effort? That paragraph seems to be just talking about state initiatives.
    • I see how that's not clear. Let me give you the relevant source material (emphasis mine):
      In that year, in a move related to the ongoing federal debate on establishing engineering experiment stations with legislation similar to the Hatch Act, the Georgia General Assembly passed an act, "Establishing State Engineering Experiment Station at the Georgia School of Technology," included as Appendix B. The act set up the station for, among other purposes, the "encouragement of industries and commerce." Because the federal legislative initiative failed to create engineering experiment stations and because the state did not appropriate funds for start-up or operations, the station at Georgia Tech remained only a paper organization until 1934.
    Disavian (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last two sentences of "Establishment" seem a bit repetitive. How about: "The Georgia Board of Regents provided the new Engineering Experiment Station with $5,000 ($449,000 in 2013), and Georgia Tech provided infrastructure and personnel. The station started operation in April 1934." This omits "directly", which I don't understand; what does it mean to say that the board of regents "directly" allocated the money?
    • If I had to guess, I'd say it is typical to funnel money through the various schools that comprise Georgia's university system. For the board of regents to directly allocate funds would probably be unusual but not unheard of. Your version is much clearer, though. implemented it, diff Disavian (talk) 05:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, Bunger died not long thereafter in August 1941. (section break) In 1940, Georgia Institute of Technology president Blake Van Leer appointed Gerald Rosselot the assistant director of the Engineering Experiment Station. Rosselot was the organization's director from 1941 to 1952." This is a little out of chronological sequence, and slightly confusing for the reader; I can see why you did it this way but it would be nice to clean it up a little. How about: "However, Bunger died not long thereafter in August 1941. (section break) Bunger's successor was Gerald Rosselot, who had been appointed assistant director by Georgia Tech president Blake Van Leer in 1940" and leave the date of the end of Rosselot's tenure to later in the narrative?
  • "In 1940, Georgia Institute of Technology president Blake Van Leer": according to the article on Van Leer, he wasn't president until 1944.
  • "...increased support from industry and government eventually counteracted low state support." This repeats "support", and I also don't think "counteracted" is quite the right verb. How about: "...increased support from industry and government eventually compensated for low state support", or maybe "more than compensated for", if that's the case, as it appears.
  • "$240,000 ($7,055,000 in 2013)": I suggest going with -5 on the roundup parameter, to give $7.1M; -3 gives a spurious impression of precision (assuming that the $240K is itself a rounded number). The inflation template is used multiple times; I'd suggest doing the same throughout -- I think the value of the last non-zero unit in each number should be the same, relatively; that is, a 1 in the $10K column represents about 4% of $240K, but a 1 in the $1K column represents only 0.014% of $7.1M.
  • "the 1946 establishment of the Industrial Development Council, renamed to the Georgia Tech Research Institute in 1948 and to its present name, the Georgia Tech Research Corporation, in 1984": this gave me flashbacks to the James E. Boyd FAC, where this came up. That's a super-confusing name change, and I don't think you can let it pass without explanation. I'd suggest re-using note 4 from that article, or some slight modification of it, but I also think you need to clarify things a little inline -- the reader is going to be stopped in their tracks as it stands.
    • Yeah, that was a fun FAC. I kind of miss it. Anyway, I took a stab at using the text from that note from the Boyd article in the GTRI article itself, it seemed relevant enough. diff. Disavian (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Rosselot resign his post because of the conflict with Emerson? At the moment it's implied but not stated. If the sources are specific I think the article should be too. Further down you say he "left to work for Bendix Corporation", so perhaps it wasn't because of the conflict.
  • "his participation ensured the eventual success of Scientific Atlanta and facilitated subsequent technology transfer by Georgia Tech's VentureLab and the Advanced Technology Development Center": Two things here. First, is this referring to Rosselot's participation in Scientific Atlanta? If so, how about "his participation in Scientific Atlanta ensured its eventual success"? Second, it's not clear what you mean by saying that his participation "facilitated subsequent technology transfer"; can you clarify?
  • "Cudd reversed this trend such that EES's 1952–53 Annual Report stated that 66 faculty in 15 schools performed research at the station that year": I don't like "such that". How about "Cudd reversed this trend—so much so that"? Or "to the extent that"?
  • "made a last-minute request to the contract organization in May 1954 to cover the $20,000 deficit": will the sources support "the resulting $20,000 deficit"? And if you're inflating other dollar numbers, shouldn't you also inflate this?
    • I suppose we can inflate that one too, diff. That number is explicitly mentioned in Dress Her In White and Gold (Wallace pp. 240-241):
      This is apparently a quote from Van Leer's 1953-54 annual report: "All of these activities resulted in creating a serious financial drain on the budget of the Station. The net result was that the surplus carried over from the previous year's operation was exhausted, and in May 1954 it became apparent that unless expenditures were reduced a serious budgetary deficit would result. Dr. Calaway took immediate and vigorous steps to meet this unexpected situation, and at the close of the fiscal year the Georgia Tech Research Institute agreed to pay slightly over $20,000, which would otherwise have been a deficit."
Disavian (talk) 05:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cold War" doesn't seem the right title for that section; it covers the period of the Cold War, but is not entirely about military research. How about "Cold War era"?
  • The sentence starting "In 1954, a faculty committee" doesn't really have anything to do with the rest of the paragraph it's currently attached to; how about moving it up to the end of the previous paragraph, which mentions budgets?
  • "and then appointed as Director of the station from July 1, 1957 until 1961": you don't usually capitalize "Director" in this context; should it be capitalized? And how about mentioning that Calaway was the director he took over from: "and succeeded Calaway as director on July 1, 1957" -- I think you could skip the end date, since it will be covered later.
    • Hmm, I just went ahead and gave him a sentence. I might want to look to see if he did anything noteworthy that I haven't mentioned. Let's see... ENS 246 says he became the GT Chemistry Director in 1948, and ENS257 mentions him winning that Sigma Xi research prize. DHWG 240-241 mentions him taking the position after Cudd left, and that he was Director of the School of Chemistry at the time, and that he was the one that took care of that $20,000 advance from the Georgia Tech Research Institute (the contract organization) to prevent the deficit. In 1955, the Rich Electronic Computer Center, a new wing on the Hinman / Research Building was dedicated, which was paid for by $85,000 from the Rich Foundation and a matching grant from the Georgia Tech Research Institute (the contract organization). Hmm. I moved a bit of stuff around for this one. diff. Disavian (talk) 05:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, what do you think of adding a table of all the directors towards the end of the article, perhaps in the Organization section, in "Structure"?
  • "While at Georgia Tech, Boyd wrote an influential article about the role of research centers at institutes of technology, which argued that research should be integrated with education, and correspondingly involved undergraduates in his research." This needs copyediting: the subject of "argued" is the article, but the subject of "involved" ought to be Boyd, not the article.
  • It would be nice to quote the year the Applied Systems Lab was founded, instead of just saying it resulted from 1970s research -- that could place it as late as the mid-1980s.
  • "facilitated technology transfer in over 40 developing nations": I don't think this is what the source says; as far as I can see it only talks about technology transfer in Latin America and Egypt.
  • "this era began EES' role" -- a bit awkward; can you rephrase?
  • 'The period of student unrest in the late 1960s that resulted in protests at many university research centers that worked on contracts for the Department of Defense was not particularly seen at EES or at Georgia Tech. Long credited the school's "conservative student body" for the absence of any protests against the station's defense-related research.': how about 'The late 1960s saw a period of student unrest, and university research centers that worked on contracts for the Department of Defense were often the site of student protests. Neither Georgia Tech nor EES became the focus of protests, and Long attributed this to the school's "conservative student body"'.
  • "Institute president Arthur G. Hansen's" -- Hansen wasn't a president of the GTRI, according to the navbox at the bottom, so which institute is this? Was he present of what was then called the GTRI and is now the GTRC? I assume that's what you are referring to, but I think it needs some inline clarification.
  • I don't fully understand what's meant by "completely integrate the station into Georgia Tech's academic units". Was the plan to eliminate the separate existence of the EES? Or something else?
  • The Technique needs to be identifed as the student paper when mentioned; the Atlanta Constitution is well enough known that I don't think it's necessary there.
  • In March 2010, Cross was named to the new position of Executive Vice President for Research for the Georgia Institute of Technology, where he oversees all research at Georgia Tech: seems odd to spell out Georgia Tech's full name again at this point, and link it again too. How about: "In March 2010, Cross was named Executive Vice President for Research, a newly created position within Georgia Tech with oversight over all research at the university"?
  • "Out of the approximately 1,050 research scientists and engineers working for GTRI in June 2011, 19% had attained a doctorate, 53% had up to a master's degree, and 28% had up to a bachelor's degree": the source has been updated to 2012 and I would suggest updating the numbers. I think "up to a" doesn't work; I think you mean "had at least a", but to me "up to a master's degree" means "had a master's degree or something less".
  • "At a given time, laboratories may work with 200 or more agencies simultaneously" is unsourced and I think might be rephrased, once you source it -- do you mean all laboraties together, or any given laboratory?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- Mike, if you're going to make further comments shortly, I could leave this open a bit longer but without consensus to promote after 6 weeks I'm afraid it's really due to be archived... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ian; I'm going to try to finish the review this weekend and expect to be able to. I believe I will be able to support once everything has been addressed; of course that would only bring this to two supports. If you would promote with two supports, then it would be good if you could leave this open for a few more days. My support would not include comprehensiveness as I don't have enough knowledge of the topic to be sure of that, though it seems comprehensive as far as I can tell. If you don't think you would promote with two supports, then I would suggest allowing Disavian to bring this back immediately under the "lack of reviews" clause; I'd be happy to continue reviewing the next iteration. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Mike. Of course we try not to make promotion a matter of number of supports but instead comprehensiveness of reviews, but the fact is we need more eyes on this no matter what. I think therefore we call a day on this one and give Disavian a chance to finalise everything before having another shot. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:57, 8 June 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/June_2013&oldid=559877380"