Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/October 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|2}}
{{TOClimit|2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joe Cole/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/C-SPAN/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/C-SPAN/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Never Let Me Down/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Never Let Me Down/archive1}}

Revision as of 20:26, 10 October 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, 11 October 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Joe Cole

Nominator(s): RRD13 (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it to be passing all the FA criteria.RRD13 (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. You're nominating an article that is currently rated at start class, and that you have only made three edits to, for FA status. This is a naive and premature nomination. I think you need to familiarise yourself with the FA criteria and pick up more experience at article writing before even considering nominating an article for FA status. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggest withdrawal – The nominator hasn't edited the article much, and on top of that I see a short lead, some punctuation-related issues in the Biography section, and a few items that appear uncited. I don't think this meets the FA criteria yet. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not sure why. Maybe just natural but naïve enthusiasm, but this editor has been nominating various articles where he has made few edits and then just picking up on some of the comments highlighting some basic problems with articles rather than preparing articles using the known standards and requirements and then nominating. As above, think a bit of education needed here. Still he did manage to get West Ham United F.C. to GA status with a lowish number of edits :).--Egghead06 (talk) 04:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest withdrawal, unless the nominator asks one of the top editors to be co-nom. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 05:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest withdrawal. As someone who watched Joe Cole play with the West Ham youth team I feel his Wiki article should be better for a player who was once one of England's young starlets and who has won several major trophies. It fails almost immediately with the lack of referencing and then degenerates into the match-day reporting style seen so often in footballers' articles. I don't feel inclined to provide any changes at the moment as I did with the West Ham United article as I feel it would be best for the nominator to pick this up and go with it if they wish to.--Egghead06 (talk) 18:49, 8 October 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, 11 October 2013 (UTC) [2].[reply]

C-SPAN

Nominator(s): WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets and exceeds the FA criteria: it is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched and neutral. While edits of a copy-editing nature are made occasionally, there has been no substantial disagreement about the article's content for a very long time, and vandalism is likewise very low. I believe readers will find that it follows Wikipedia's style guidelines very closely, including a well-considered structure and extremely careful sourcing throughout. It includes numerous freely-licensed images, and its length reflects the breadth and depth of information about C-SPAN available in third-party sources over its thirty-plus years in existence.

It is also important to mention here that, as the primary contributor to this article, I am also a consultant to C-SPAN. I have been involved with this article for a couple of years, however I have made no direct edits since late 2011; these days I refrain from all direct edits to the mainspace when I have a financial COI, following Jimbo's advisory to COI editors, as explained in his Paid Advocacy FAQ. I realize that this may introduce added complexity to this process; when editors ask that changes be made, I feel I should not be the one to implement them. For this reason, I would like to suggest that reviewing editors be willing to make changes that are agreed upon. However, I also can find additional assistance to implement changes if necessary. Thanks, and I'm looking forward to the process. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Laser brain
  • Comment as I don't think you've made it exactly clear: Although you haven't made "direct edits since late 2011", you are indeed responsible for the content in the article today, per User:WWB Too/C-SPAN (2013 revision). Am I correct? The reason I want to underscore this is because normally editors ought not nominate articles at FAC when they haven't been substantially involved, and I don't want anyone to think that's the case here. Additionally, I really don't think anyone will have a problem with your making superficial edits to the article in response to FAC comments. If substantive changes are needed, maybe you should find a co-nominator who's willing to take responsibility. --Laser brain (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Sorry, Laser brain, I should have been more clear. Although I have not made direct edits to the article since that time, I am still responsible for nearly all of the current article. My process included writing drafts in my userspace (this one in 2011 when I was going for GA, and this one in 2013 while planning for FA). I then submitted these for review at Talk:C-SPAN, whereupon the arrival of consensus, volunteer editors made the direct changes. I really have not made a single direct edit to a client article since the end of 2011, because of Jimbo's advisory, so I'd probably want to see if his thinking is the same or different here. I'm open to asking the question, though I expect he'd say "no, you're a paid advocate, you should stick to Talk pages". I realize that's not quite what WP:COI says, but I always want to be as careful as I can, because there are very widely diverging views on COI at Wikipedia. Does that help clarify? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from KConWiki

Between 1979 and May 2011, the network televised more than 24,246 hours of floor action.[1]

  • Reply: Good catch. I looked at the source, which is behind Nexis' paywall, and it looks like the date in the Wikipedia article is simply wrong. The text in The Washington Post article reads as follows:
24,246 —The number of hours of floor action the channel has broadcast from the House of Representatives since 1979.
It seems like "May 2011" should be replaced with "March 2004", which is the article's date of publication. —WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Regarding this statement:

C-SPAN has occasionally produced spinoff programs from Booknotes focusing on specific topics. In 1994, Booknotes collaborated with Lincoln scholar Harold Holzer to produce a re-creation of the seven Lincoln–Douglas debates.[72]

I don't think I have access to the full article used as a citation, so I can't be sure what it says. However, it had previously been established at The Lincoln–Douglas Debates (1994 reenactments)#Background that the seven individual cities in Illinois that hosted the debates produced the debates with their own resources, and that C-SPAN helped facilitate this and aired the results (with help and guidance from Holzer and others). So, I can rewrite that sentence if appropriate, but I want to throw it out there to see if anyone else has suggested verbiage. Also, it wasn't really Booknotes that would have collaborated, but C-SPAN as a whole. Thanks KConWiki (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: I have also been unable to locate the full article and, as it is not on Nexis, which I often use, I'm fairly confident that this isn't something I contributed in the first place. I see that The Lincoln–Douglas Debates (1994 reenactments) article is something you created so you're probably the most knowledgeable about this topic. I'm perfectly OK with you rewriting this information as you see fit. Do you have a good clear source in mind that explains the origins of the Lincoln-Douglas debates? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I will work on editing the above-noted excerpts, as well as a few other things I noted (i.e., potentially excessive use of the word "initiated") over the course of the next few days. KConWiki (talk) 03:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Nikkimaria

Image review - images themselves are fine, but captions which aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply: I assume you're referring to the image of the C-SPAN Digital Bus? The other image captions either appear to me to be full sentences or do not end with a period, however please correct me if I'm wrong. If you would be willing to make this change I'd really appreciate it. As my disclosure above explains, I'd like to avoid all direct edits to the article, even for simple edits like this. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nikkimaria. I've just answered the same question on your user Talk, but I'll copy it here for others' benefit: the way I've handled more substantial updates so far is to edit a version of the article in my userspace and keep it current to the existing article, with changes. Then, I've found volunteer editors to review, approve and move over the latest version from my userspace, once there is consensus. I admit, it's a clunky process, but I'm not sure how to stay on the right side of Jimbo's advice otherwise. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Awardgive

Comments - I'll be looking at sources, mainly where they are needed, how they are used, and if they are reliable. (Note: I am not doing spotchecks)

  • Lead: First off, the "Citation needed" needs to be resolved right away. Generally, footnotes aren't included in the lead unless info not presented anywhere else in the article is present. If this is the case, then they can stay, but can footnote 3 be moved to the end of the sentence, because, as far as I've seen, footnotes aren't usually located in the middle of a sentence.
  • The "Citation needed" tag can simply be removed. This was very recently added by an editor and is not needed. This same information is presented in the Audience section where it is supported by a source. I have followed up with the editor who made this change (see here) and am waiting on his reply. If someone else feels comfortable removing it that would be great.
As for footnote 3, this could also be removed since this same information is covered and cited in the Organization and operations section. This would resolve the problem of the mid-sentence citation.
The only citation in the introduction that is currently necessary is the one at the end of the first paragraph. This information is not repeated in the body of the article, but could be added to the Radio broadcasts section and the citation moved there. Making this change would then leave the introduction without any citations. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awardgive has removed the "Citation needed" tag and the unneeded reference. There is still one remaining footnote in the introduction, though Ruhrfisch has pointed this out in their feedback below. I'll also follow up with that editor about this. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Development: Paragraph 1: Again, footnotes generally are placed after a comma or period, so for the last sentence, can the footnotes be moved. Also, is the last part of that sentence sourced to footnotes 5 or 10, or does it need to be sourced? Paragraph 2: Can footnote 16 be moved to the end of the sentence? Otherwise, this paragraph is fine. Paragraphs 3&4: Both of these are fine, sourcing-wise.
  • Paragraph 1: I see no reason why the references cannot be moved to the end of the sentence. As for the end of that sentence that currently appears to be unsupported. The Columbia College Today source includes the following:
No one was interested. Except Rosencrans. He wrote the first check ($25,000), and then rallied the cable industry for support… The idea was met with resistance by broadcast and local channels, which held tremendous influence in Congress and the FCC, but meetings with the House leadership, including legendary Speaker Tip O’Neill (D-Mass.), at which Rosencrans and Lamb pledged that the new network would be non-political, paved the way for its inception.
and
A self-described political junkie, Rosencrans serves on the network’s board as chairman emeritus.
I feel that this supports the statement that "other cable-television executives followed suit", but doesn't seem to specifically support the statement about the board of directors so it would perhaps be best to trim the final clause of the sentence.
Paragraph 2: I agree footnote 16 could be moved to the end of the sentence. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anniversaries and Scope and limitations of coverage: Both look fine, sourcing-wise.
  • Expansion and technology: Last sentence of the first paragraph needs a source. Section is otherwise fine.
  • Hi again, I've looked around at the current sources and haven't found one that addresses the unsupported information you pointed out. However, I've looked at the C-SPAN website and I think I've located a good source to use. If you look at the Viewer FAQs page of the C-SPAN website you'll see that the answer to the first question verifies the unsupported information. The page says:
When the House and Senate are out of session, we carry LIVE or taped events on our networks ranging from Press Briefings to Congressional Hearings to Speeches and News Conferences related to public affairs.
I've prepped a reference that matches the style used throughout the article:
<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.c-span.org/About/The-Company/Viewer-FAQ/ |title=Viewer FAQs |date= |work=c-span.org |publisher=C-SPAN |accessdate=September 27, 2013}}</ref>
Would you be able to add this in for me? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can do tonight. More later, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 04:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about taking so long. I've been overwhelmed by schoolwork, but I now have some time. Review continuing:
  • Programming: Most of this section looks good. I made a small tweak in "Senate and House of Representatives", hope that's okay. My one concern in the entire section comes in third paragraph of the "Public affairs" section, where four sources are used to source one statement. I don't know about other people, but I would consider this citation overkill. Is there a way to fix this.
  • Hi Awardgive, as soon I read this comment I knew exactly the sentence you meant, and I agree that four citations in a row is usually not a great sign. This was the compromise result based on feedback I received during the Peer review process. Previously, the section (see this older version for the full section) read as follows:
After the deaths of Ronald Reagan in 2004, Rosa Parks in 2005 and Gerald Ford in 2006, C-SPAN featured live, uninterrupted coverage of the visitors who came to the Capitol Rotunda to pay their final respects and the funeral services.[41] The network also broadcast Lady Bird Johnson's funeral in Stonewall, Texas.[42]
To prevent this section from growing too list-y, as C-SPAN will undoubtedly cover similar events in the future, and to avoid arbitrary decisions about whom to list or not, I agreed to rewrite it as it appears now.
In revising this I kept the two original sources, this Iowa State Daily source and this San Diego Union-Tribune (Nexis link) source. However, when looking closely at these two sources a few months ago I noticed that neither one mentioned Rosa Parks or Gerald Ford. For that reason I added in this Spokesman-Review source that discusses Nixon's funeral proceedings and this Fishbowl DC source about Ford's funeral. My thinking was that to justify the use of "former presidents" (plural) we would need sources that mention C-SPAN covering more than one former president's funeral proceedings and I wasn't easily able to find this in one source. Unfortunately, I was never able to find the source where the information about Rosa Parks originally came from, however you'll see that the section does also mention "other notable individuals", again plural. Do you think this is OK, though we just have the source about Lady Bird?
Apologies for the lengthy explanation, though I hope that helps. What do you think should be done? Also, I see you mentioned making an edit to the Senate and House of Representatives section. By all means feel free to make edits here, however I don't see this edit in the revision history, perhaps it didn't get saved? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments I have reviewed parts of this article and made some edits to it on WWB's behalf. As requested, I will review it here.

  • Lead - my understanding of the article lead is that it can either 1) have almost no citations (except for direct quotes and per haps extraordinary claims) since it is a summary and everything in it will also appear in and be cited in the body of the article OR 2) it can be cited just like anything else. The current lead has one ref, and does not fall into either camp. I also note that the ref in the lead is not cited anywhere else in the article, which seems to imply the lead is not a summary. I will come back to the lead after reading the rest of the article carefully - it seems to me that the lead could use a little copyediting, but I want to make sure.
  • Good catch, and you're right—I don't think it is repeated in the body of the article (though I believe everything else is). Actually, Awardgive brought up this same issue above and I suggested that this information could be added to the Radio broadcasts section and the citation moved there. Do you agree? Would you be willing to make this change?
If you believe there is other information in the introduction that is not also included in the body of the article, please let me know. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the ref to the Radio section and added the apps for BlackBerry and Android devices there. I think everything else in the sentence that used the ref in the lead is in the Radio section now. I will check the lead last (once I've read all the article carefully). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Development - I would briefly identify who John D. Evans is in Lamb shared his idea with John D. Evans in 1977... (Telecom executive?)
You know, this is not material that I added, so I'd like to take a closer look at it. I feel like "who with a number of others helped to co-found the network" is somewhat vague. I'll follow up on this one soon. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anniversaries - is "facilitated" the best word here The 15th anniversary was commemorated in a more unusual manner; the network facilitated a series of re-enactments of the seven historic Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858..." Would sponsored or commissioned or produced be better / more accurate?
  • This sentence was recently changed from "initiated" to "facilitated" by User:KConWiki, who is very knowledgeable about C-SPAN. You can see the diff here. He has addressed this issue up above on this page (see the second top-level bullet point under KConWiki's feedback). I'm inclined to defer to his knowledge on this matter, but let me know what you think. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello all - I went through the article and got rid of some of the uses of the word "initiated", of which there were several instances. In this case though, the C-SPANners have gone to trouble to point out that the debate reenactments were organized and run by the local communities. This is one of the links used as a citation at The Lincoln–Douglas Debates (1994 reenactments). Here is an excerpt: "Spurred on by its own 15th anniversary, C-Span officials approached the mayors of all seven cities last year. Re-create your debates, they said, using local talent and local money, and we'll come in and broadcast them, as though we'd been there in 1858. All seven mayors agreed, the state of Illinois chipped in $20,000 for each site and C-Span spent $300,000 to $500,000 promoting the debates, providing staff people to coordinate the coverage and putting together educational materials. The Lincoln-Douglas debates were on their way back to center stage." So, that's why I wanted to move away from initiated. (Even though they planted the seed of the idea of the debates in the minds of the individual cities, and that could be considered "initiating", I think that "facilitated" works better.) Any thoughts on this? KConWiki (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scope and limitations of coverage - should there be a link to the Affordable Care Act in In December 2009, Lamb wrote to leaders in the House and Senate, requesting that negotiations for health care reform be televised by C-SPAN.[25]

In the same section, I looked at all the refs cited and none mention the Supreme Court, so a ref is needed for that part of C-SPAN continues to expand its coverage of government proceedings, with a history of requests to government officials for greater access, especially to the U.S. Supreme Court. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Ruhrfisch, thanks for your comment on my Talk page. You're right, I did overlook this comment, sorry about that.
I've done some looking around and I found this short Los Angeles Times article that supports the statement that C-SPAN has repeatedly sought permission to air the Supreme Court's proceedings.
Here is a formatted reference for the source as well. <ref name=Savage>{{cite news |title=C-SPAN seeks to air Supreme Court healthcare arguments |author=David G. Savage |url=http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/15/news/la-pn-cspan-healthcare-20111115 |newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=November 15, 2011 |accessdate=October 7, 2013}}</ref>
As for the portion about "requests to government officials", I've also looked around for sources, but haven't found one that I feel directly supports "requests to government officials". I assume that this was originally added to serve as an introduction to the paragraph, but without a source mentioning "government officials" maybe it would be best to simply shorten the sentence to "with a history of requests for greater access, espicially to the U.S. Supreme Court." What do you think? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added the Supreme Court ref. Since the paragraph is now all about requests to government officials (SCOTS, Speakers of the House), I am OK with keeping that phrase in (as part of a topic sentence for the paragraph). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expansion and technology - since this is the first mention of "Washington Journal", should there be a brief description of the program here?

More to come. I am glad to make edits based on these comments, as needed (just say so) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing some copyediting as I read on, usually to tighten the text somewhat. If this is a problem, please let me know. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your edits to the Senate and House of Representatives section and they all look good to me, however I just noticed—and this isn't the result of your changes—that the section links to the article on the United States House of Representatives, but not to the United States Senate article. What do you think about adding in this wikilink? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Public affairs - should the parliaments be linked in Occasionally, proceedings of the Parliament of Australia, Parliament of Canada, Parliament of the United Kingdom ...
I see no reason why these wikilinks shouldn't be added. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I renamed the "Other C-SPAN services" to just "Other services" per WP:HEADER
  • This needs a ref "C-SPAN has also equipped three Local Content Vehicles (LCVs) to travel the country and record unique political and historical stories, with each vehicle containing production and web-based technologies to produce on-the-spot content."
I have a couple of recent sources that discuss the Local Content Vehicles program. There is this one from Business Fleet and this one from FishbowlDC. I've prepped references for both of these sources if you want to add one or both of them in.
<ref name=Tucker>{{cite news |title=How C-SPAN Manages A Cross-Country Fleet |author=Joanne Tucker |url=http://www.businessfleet.com/article/story/2013/07/how-c-span-manages-a-cross-country-fleet.aspx?prestitial=1 |newspaper=[[Business Fleet]] |date=July 2013 |accessdate=October 7, 2013}}</ref>
<ref name=Rothstein13>{{cite web |url=http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowldc/c-span-second-fleet-local-content-vehicles_b98692 |title=C-SPAN Rolls Out Second Fleet of Tricked Out Vehicles |author=Betsy Rothstein |date=March 12, 2013 |work=mediabistro.com |publisher=Mediabistro.com |accessdate=October 7, 2013}}</ref>
That sentence should also be updated to note that there are now six vehicles in the program, which is covered in both of these sources. Lastly, the LCV program is covered within the C-SPAN Bus program article: C-SPAN_Bus_program#Local_Content_Vehicles. What do you think about linking to this? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added both refs and updated the number of LCVs. I also added a {{Main}} hatnote at the top of the section to C-SPAN Bus program, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I need to re-read the lead and the whole article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch, thanks for your continued help here. I really appreciate all the time you've put into this and your feedback and edits throughout have been very helpful. Let me know if you have any comments about my replies above. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:35, 7 October 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, 7 October 2013 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Never Let Me Down

Nominator(s): 87Fan (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article was raised to GA a while ago, I've made some improvements to attempt to meet the FA guidelines. I raised it for peer review but received no response. Thanks and I look forward to any feedback. 87Fan (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, 1a.

  • What are the Glass Spider Tour Press Conferences? I can find the records on Discogs but there isn't much information. Just Bowie talking? And there are multiple versions of it?
  • They're a series of press shows he gave - Q&A with journalists and fans, supplemented with short live musical performances. They are widely bootlegged, all with a variety of names. I referenced the copy I happen to have. Most are also available on YouTube (here's one).
  • The statement in the lead that the album "was considered a return to rock 'n roll for Bowie" is a bit odd considering it seems to be him who said that. Also, the term is generally standardized as "rock and roll" or "rock 'n' roll".
  • Fixed to be more clear that he's the one who was saying it - I agree that the passive voice was a strange construction. And I have adopted "rock 'n' roll" as the standard used in the article (thanks for the tip).
  • Need parallel structure between "creation" and "retiring": "leading to his creation of the band Tin Machine in 1989 and retiring his back catalog from live performances"
  • Fixed.
  • I've read this clunker a few times and still don't understand it: "Bowie had felt disconnected from his newfound audience that he had gained from Let's Dance"
  • Fixed.
  • Awkward: "For the first time since 1980's Scary Monsters album, Bowie played instruments on the record instead of just singing." Why not just "played instruments on the record in addition to singing"?
  • Much better, fixed.
  • Your use of quotations is not ideal. You are using a lot of Bowie quotations that don't seem particularly moving or profound. This creates the appearance that you're trying to avoid figuring out ways to paraphrase. They should be written in your own words.
  • Good feedback - I will take some time to re-write some sections appropriately and will update here when that's done.
  • I've taken a stab at this. In the top few sections I've removed straight quotes and instead written things in my own words. There are a few cases where I've intentionally left direct quotes: a few times when all we have is one or two quotes and so it's hard to synthesize anything beyond what he's stated, and in the 'legacy' section, where I would argue that his quotes are interesting because they show the way his feelings for the album descended over time and the power of those statements would be lost if we just summarized them in a sentence or two.87Fan (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bowie intentionally wrote the album Never Let Me Down to be performed on stage." What is the word "intentionally" doing? As opposed to unintentionally writing it for stage?
  • Removed, agree that it's redundant.

It's maybe GA quality, but the writing needs a lot of work to be FA quality. --Laser brain (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the feedback. I've taken a stab at addressing most of your concerns already in an attempt to improve the prose. I am still working on the feedback about over-use of quotes however. I'll post here when I've done that. Thank you! 87Fan (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've struck my opposition for now because I haven't had time to review your changes and I don't want to hold up the nomination. If I get time, I'll come back and have a second look. BTW, you don't want to strike other people's comments at FAC, as it is a sign that the reviewer (rather than the nominator) considers the matter addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I've reached out to a few other folks who can continue to help with the nomination process. I wasn't sure how the whole strike-through thing worked, thank you for letting me know. I've unstruck what I struck. Thanks again! 87Fan (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not doing a vote here, but where the fuck are the sources for the peak positions of the Canadian Single Charts?!!!!!!!! Citing every single bits of info in your article, with an exception of plot summaries for games and film articles, is a requirement for this to become featured. 和DITOREtails 23:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
EditorE, there is no need for swearing! Comments are supposed to constructive, not abusive. The nominator is trying to do what is suggested. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I noted in a recent edit to the article, I looked but couldn't find a source for the Canadian charts, so I marked them as citation-needed, as I figured that was better than having no citation marks at all. Thanks for the pointer to the charts article, I will use that to augment the charts - or remove the countries for which no source can be found. 87Fan (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More swearing? You tell the nominator to look at WP:BADCHARTS but stretch the limits of good faith yourself. Why not take a step back and calm down? There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found acceptable sources to replace all the tsort.info references. A few peak positions had to be removed (I couldn't find any reliable source, for, say the Polish charts, but a few new ones were added too). 87Fan (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for what I said earlier. I would like to mention that the colname "positon" in the weekly charts table should be renamed to "Peak position" to indicate that number in each chart is the peak position to make it clear. 和DITOREtails 21:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done a few passes to reduce the amount of straight quotes and replaced them with prose. I think I've struck a decent balance between quotations and paraphrasing. I'm interested if anyone has other feedback about what else may have to change about the article to achieve FA status. Thank you! 87Fan (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Link RIAA in lead.
I meant bluelinking the word, not adding the source. done now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Despite its commercial success, this album was considered a critical disappointment, and in later years fans and critics have regarded the mid- to late 1980s period as a low point of creativity and musical integrity for Bowie. - middle segment redundant. I'd reword to something like,Despite its commercial success, this album was poorly received by fans and critics, who have regarded the mid- to late 1980s period as a low point of creativity and musical integrity for Bowie." (tempted to take the fans out here as it conflicts with the album selling well (???))
he was looking to make this album differently. - umm, "this album" doesn't exist at this point - I'd say "his next album"
  • Yeah, I wasn't sure how to handle this when I was writing - I was afraid if I said "next album" it wouldn't be clear that I meant "this" album (as opposed to the album after NLMD). I have changed the text as you've suggested. 87Fan (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Despite growing criticism in the press, Bowie said .... - ok, how can there be growing criticism if it hasn't been released? Can this be explained or expanded upon? Sounds interesting....
  • The basis for this sentence were Bowie's comments were made during his Australian press tour for the supporting tour, which were held in October 1987 (a few months after the album's release). So he had already been touring for 5 months in support of the album, but at the press tour talking about the album as if it had just come out... make sense? There was in fact growing criticism that he was defending the album against. I think we could move the statement to the 'critical reception' section - in that context the statement as written could make more sense. Let me know what you think is best. 87Fan (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Been thinking about this - I moved it to the critical reception section as it's much more in context there. Let me know if that's satisfactory. Not sure if it needs to be expanded upon there. 87Fan (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cautious/tentative support on prose and comprehensiveness as nothing else is really jumping out at me, and the prose is easy and comfortable enough to read that I lapse into "reading" mode without trying to correct it. I suspect there wouldn't be a huge deal of material on this album not already in the article. If anything, it would be nice to de-quote a couple more quotes but the ones I can see remaining are quite amusing and capture the essence of what their writers were trying to say well and in an engaging manner, so I'm a bit torn about this. This support is really dependent on some other supports here too as I might have missed things. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC) holding off on supporting - not familiar with material on Bowie and if indopug is highlighting comprehensiveness deficiencies I will defer to him. Happy to revisit once the book is consulted...or another editor who has the book adds content to the article (sorry). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the feedback. What's the best way to get more people to take a look at this article? I already tracked down a few people (like yourself) to help out. I'd hate for this article to fail because of lack of interest from editors. 87Fan (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Good question... I don't know the origins of this file and always assumed it was something some wikipedian had uploaded that they'd taken themselves. I have no way of verifying however. 87Fan (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards oppose unfortunately, owing to failure to meet criterion 1a. From the lead:

  • I'd like to see a mention of the label that released the album, perhaps in the first sentence.
  • "Written and recorded in Switzerland, Bowie considered the album to be a return to rock 'n' roll music, and he conceived the album as a vehicle for a theatrical world tour."—dangling modifier in the start of the sentence, and the use of "vehicle" here is strange. Not the best start.
  • Redundancy—"...the first two of which were top 10 hits in various countries around the world."—either remove "various" or "around the world".
  • "One of Bowie's better-selling albums to date, Never Let Me Down was certified Gold by RIAA in early July 1987...and it charted in the top 10 in several European countries"—the RIAA, and remove "it" here.
  • "...who have regarded the mid- to late 1980s period as a low point of creativity and musical integrity for Bowie."—more redundancy (no use of "period" here).
  • "Bowie himself later distanced himself from the album, but despite this, he admitted a fondness for many of the songs on the album..."—pronoun reference works better here since it's less repetitve (last sentence ends with "Bowie"). There is further fluff in this sentence: "Bowie himself later distanced himself from the album, but despite this, he admitted a fondness for many of the songs on the album [it]..."
  • "In support of this album, Bowie embarked on the Glass Spider Tour, a world tour that was at that point the biggest, most theatrical and most elaborate tour he had undertaken at that point in his career."—repetitive "at that point...at that point".
  • Lists? I hadn't heard - Done. Again, thank you - I've been dying for feedback and I appreciate you taking the time to check this. I hope the rest of the article is less problematic! 87Fan (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Bowie said he would return to a small rock group like he had begun his career with..."—awkward phrasing.
  • I think I found a better way to say this.
  • Two sentences in a row beginning with "As a result".
  • Fixed (removed the second instance, by then the point had been made).
  • Avoid mentioning seasons ("summer of 1986" because summer means a different time of the year for people in the Southern Hemisphere. Perhaps "mid", "late", etc.
  • Good point, fixed.
  • "Bowie wrote the album Never Let Me Down to be performed on stage."—again, very awkwardly worded.
  • I fight and fight with this sentence. I've given it another go.
  • "For the first time since his Scary Monsters album..."
  • When beginning a paragraph, it's more coherent to not use pronoun reference right off the bat, like in the third paragraph in Album development. Use "Bowie".
  • Understood, fixed.

I don't have much time these days to do exhaustive reviews, but as you can see, there are problems throughout. I highly recommend another look from top to bottom for issues such as repetition, strange phrasing, lack of cohesion and redundancy. The prose does not flow as well as I would like (from a reader's perspective) and would benefit from a copy edit. PS: per MOS, do not list number of weeks in chart tables. Good luck! The Wikipedian Penguin 22:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll keep going through. Thank you again for your feedback. I had asked for peer feedback prior to the FAR process but nobody helped :( And, I've struck the # of weeks from the charts table. 87Fan (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose lacks a narrative and not all major sources have been used—specifically, the Buckley book (which forms the backbone of the David Bowie FA). I urge you to look at the Be Here Now, Loveless and In Utero to get an idea of how FA-quality album articles are structured and written.—indopug (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok I understand this feedback. I don't think I have the time to do this (nor do I own any of the books that could be used for reference) and I doubt anyone else will take the time to edit this article either. I appreciate everyone's feedback and the article is definitely better now than when this process started. Feel free to formally fail the FA review. 87Fan (talk) 23:26, 6 October 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, 6 October 2013 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Joseph Smith

Nominator(s): Trevdna (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article on Joseph Smith meets the nomination criteria. A recent peer review failed to generate even a single comment; I'm not sure if that meant that no one reviewed it, or that no one could find any problems with it. Regardless, this article is very well-written, stable (disputes have died down to a basically consensus level, despite his being a very controversial figure), and is about a very important figure in Western U.S. religious history. -Trevdna (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Overlinking throughout—both of common English words (breastplate, militia, bureaucrat...) and repeated linking (install this script to catch them).
*Extensive time has been spent on fixing this. Some repeated linking has been left on purpose when a topic comes up more than once in different contexts. Trevdna (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the most densely cited article I've ever seen. While I understand this is a controversial subject, and that citations are a Good Thing, having so many of them packed together like this hampers readability. It seems especially excessive when adjacent cites refer to the same things (refs 373 and 374, for eg). I also wonder for the need to extensively quote the cited material every time.
  • Good point. However, most (if not all) of this citation is necessary to prevent POV warriors (from both sides) from coming in and mucking things up for the article. Smith just inspired (and inspires) so much controversy that the article needs much of this to keep it from people who "know better." This article used to be a merry-go-round of edit wars, POV warriors, sloppy editing and vandalism. The only reason I believe it's settled out so much is because of all these citations, as cumbersome as they might be. It appears that all this citation is the work of some very dedicated heroes who put in very long hours to make sure they were dead on.
That said, is there anywhere in specific that you see that you think we could do without a citation, perhaps condense a few, etc., without giving room for a POV fight?Trevdna (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the overcite is a result of the POV wars.. Those have died down significantly, and I'd be happy to start combining references, and trimming the ones from inside sentences. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The overcite has now been significantly reduced. Trevdna (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the infobox be trimmed? It's really only meant for important stuff that can be conveyed at a glance. I'd thus remove the names of successors (the dispute article link suffices) and the wikiportals. The two "part of a series" templates, too, appear excessive. Aren't all those links repeated in the "main article" links and the boxes at the bottom?

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage

It's certainly well-referenced! But I have concerns about the prose, ranging from extreme nitpicking to big-view misgivings about neutrality and comprehensiveness.

  • I have NPOV concerns about the way supernatural aspects of Smith's life story are presented. Sometimes, the article credits these elements to the voice of the speakers of claim them ("Smith said he attempted to remove the plates the next morning but was unsuccessful because the angel prevented him."), but this doesn't appear to be universal; largely, the article reads as though many aspects of the religious story should be taken at face value as factual. Examples include:
    • The last sentence of the short paragraph about Smith's use of seer stones for treasure hunting (in "Early years (1805–27)").
    • Most discussion of the golden plates after "Early years (1805–27)". While the first few references to the plates are written in a manner that does not lend encyclopedic voice to their authenticity, as early as the "Founding a church (1827–30)" section, we have: "Smith transcribed some of the characters (what he called "reformed Egyptian") engraved on the plates and then dictated a translation to his wife." Similarly, "Translation was completed around July 1, 1829."
    • Similar issues affect parts of the "Revelations" and "Distinctive views and teachings" sections. To some extent, there's no NPOV problem when discussing his religious beliefs and teachings in their own terms. The fundamental problem is that it is difficult or impossible to see where the article distinguishes between describing these beliefs and describing historical fact.
This is certainly improved, but I'm not sure there's not more distance to cover. In the Book of Mormon section, for example, there's a paragraph that begins "Smith never said how he produced the Book of Mormon,...." Surely, there's got to be a reliable source somewhere to cite the possibility that he didn't translate the text from anything? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's in the previous paragraph where it says, "...non-Mormon academics have called it [the Book of Mormon] a response to pressing cultural and environmental issues of Smith's times, or sometimes autobiographical.[184] Critics hypothesize that Smith drew from scraps of information available to him, calling the work fiction." Perhaps the material can be re-arranged so this is more clear? ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think shuffling things around might make that more clear. Perhaps move the "Critics hypothesize that Smith drew from scraps of information available to him, calling the work fiction." line to the end of the paragraph following its current position. It feels out of place where it is right now, anyway. In doing so, it may benefit from some more explicit attribution; I'd ideally like to see it become "Critics, such as Foo and Bar,...". I think two examples there is about the right weighting and shouldn't be too hard to scrape up from reliable material. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How's this? ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calling the Council of Fifty a shadow government would be entirely appropriate. Calling it a shadow world government seems unnecessarily grandiose, seeing that it only functionally controlled tiny Nauvoo, Illinois.
Sentence reworded. -Trevdna (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's still a little awkward for a reader not familiar with the background here. The jump between a secret society organization in a fairly small town and "a first step toward creating a global" anything is unclear from the article text, and sounds hyperbolic. It's not, of course, and once again, the context is buried in the reference text. There's obviously no need to duplicate the Council of Fifty article here, but as Smith was president of the thing, I don't think there would be a problem with undue weight if there was another sentence or so of explanation here. The fact that the Council actually appointed foreign ambassadors seems relevant to the "global" description, for example. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence in "Theology of family" that begins "To fully enter the Covenant,..." is confusing. How many steps are there in this process? Specifically, is the sealing a separate step from the first annointing? The phrasing suggests that the Holy Spirit of Promise sealing is the same as the second annointing, so I assume so, but combining appositive phrases with a comma-separated list is a recipe for confusion.
Sentence reworded. The Holy Spirit of Promise sealing is the same, so I clarified that. -Trevdna (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Something here still makes no sense to me, and I think it's where the quotes are placed in the parenthetical. My reading of this is that there are three steps -- if that's not the case, more is wrong -- but the way the parenthetical is worded, an entity called the "Holy Spirit of Promise" (which has no gloss) also refers to it as sealing. I suspect that the idea behind the alternative description for this process is that the "Holy Spirit of Promise" is the actor, doing the sealing. Moving the opening quote mark before "sealing" probably solves this problem and allows you to cut the explanatory text from the reference (which is itself a laudable goal; there's almost a whole extra article of text down there!). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead told us that "detractors view him as a cunning fraud." But I don't see much coverage of that at all. We hear about people who faulted his banking practices, people who found his actions treasonous, people who objected to polygamy, but there's very little mention of the idea that he was simply a confidence artist, save perhaps parts of two paragraphs in "Impact". Especially combined with the way that religious elements are blended into the historical narrative, this cements my concerns about the article's overall neutrality.
This has been worked on considerably, to the point that I believe it is fixed. However, you may evaluate it differently than I do. Please discuss. Trevdna (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced, but I wouldn't mind seeing some other editors' opinions here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is something I've been thinking about quite a bit. The "cunning fraud" sentence in the Lead is actually a very recent addition (shortly before this review started) and I've had mixed feelings about it. Part of this is because I think it's an overstatement: it's stronger language than I've seen used in any of the sources, and it doesn't really do the man justice. Sure, it's easy, and it could be said of any religious figure who claims visions/revelations/authority/contact with the divine or supernatural (Jesus, Muhammad, Moses, Bahaullah, Buddah). Frauds and con artists are born every day, but they don't leave lasting religions behind them. You could call Smith deluded, or say he lied about his visions, or fabricated the Book of Mormon, or deceived others, and that's fine. But there's more than that. Richard Bushman, arguably the best source on Smith, says that Smith himself believed his revelations as much as anybody else. Dan Vogel, one of the leading non-Mormon (well, ex-Mormon) biographers, says that Smith lied about his visions and revelations in an effort to get people to repent (he called Smith a "pious deceiver"). For Fawn Brodie (another very prominent biographer) it was a young poor boy trying to scrape together a living (by selling Books of Mormon) who got so entangled in the resulting religion that he couldn't back out. All of these are, well, more than just "cunning fraud". ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I agree on that point. Religious-themed articles are always a bear to approach from the NPOV perspective. I'm not married to the "cunning fraud" phrase so much as broadening some of the viewpoints depicted. I'm not sure that I can point to anywhere in the article where those above opinions by Vogel and Brodie are meaningfully discussed, for example. I mean, yes, Vogel's clearly quoted in that busy little paragraph in Impact, but there's due weight to consider here. Frankly, in general, I think the article's still a little light on non-Mormon and especially anti-Mormon viewpoints, including period anti-Mormon sentiment. Looking elsewhere in the article for the moment, the Nauvoo Expositor is described as "calling for reform within the church," citing Bushman, Brodie, and Quinn. But, of course, the Expositor did raise "explosive allegations", including the claim that Smith was using the cover of religion to attract innocent women to Nauvoo to build a harem! (See: Oaks, Dallin H.; Hill, Marvin S. (1979), Carthage Conspiracy: The Trial of the Accused Assassins of Joseph Smith, Chicago: University of Illinois Press, ISBN 978-0252007620. p. 14, or plenty of other sources.) Is that functionally anti-Mormon propaganda? Probably. Does that mean it's unimportant in the historical context? No. Do we see it given due representation in the article? I don't think so. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilinking of publishers is done very inconsistently. Likewise, the Howe source links the publication location, and I believe is unique in doing so.
I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean by this. Trevdna (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are two objections here, both regarding the References section. First, there doesn't seem to be a pattern to when you wikilink the publisher. Compare Bergara (Signature Books is not linked) with Bloom (Simon & Schuster is). There's no right answer here as long as you're consistent, but you're not. The second problem is that, on the Howe reference, you link the publisher's location, which I don't think you do anywhere else. I suppose this is also editorial discretion, but these aren't generally linked, and unlinking the location in the Howe reference is probably the easiest option. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are other location problems, too. The University of Illinois Press in the Newell reference lacks a location. And you are inconsistent in whether Salt Lake City gets its state specified (compare Bergera and Smith 2008). With how much is here, I've likely missed some. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much of this will be quick to cleanup, but I'm nevertheless going to have to oppose primarily on prose and neutrality grounds, at least for the moment. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not strike my (or other editors' comments). It is my prerogative to determine whether my objections have been satisfied. Also, as I read through this another time, there are pervasive formatting issues in the Notes. This list should not be considered comprehensive:

  • The placement of parentheses for short-form references is inconsistent. Compare Notes 117 and 118, among others. Likewise, whether parentheses are used to set of explanatory notes or not is seemingly random. Compare Notes 193 and 195.
  • Unmatched parentheses are frequent. See Note 46, 157, and others; I'm not going to take the time to compile a list. They all need to be checked.
  • There are sources that are cited in the Notes but not the References. They're only used once, and so that's not normally a problem (many articles do this), but with the volumes of explanatory text in these notes, it's very easy to overlook them, so it may be worth considering having everything cited added to the reference section and short-form referencing only throughout the Notes. See Note 1 and 56; in either case, these need to be audited for formatting. Note 312 is especially broken.
  • There's a pipe character in Note 154 that surely doesn't belong.

Finally, while it would clearly be a Herculian task, spot-checking of references is probably required before this can be considered for promotion. In looking at whether the reference in Note 311 was properly cited and/or reliable, I discovered a different problem: it makes a claim not directly supported by the source. The Note claims that Smith's 1842 son was stillborn, but the source merely states he died before receiving a name; these are not necessarily the same thing. I do not have the time to determine if similar issues exist with any other sources. I continue to oppose promotion at this time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PumpkinSky
  • Ditto on the massive refs. I will let others worry about if it's ok or not. My concern there is that many of the harv/sfn refs are broken. Use this script "importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');" to catch them. I have it in my monobook.js. PumpkinSky talk 21:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @PumpkinSky:, for the cool script. I fixed about a third of the broken ones today, and I'll continue work on that as I have time tomorrow and the next day. I'm also working on the overcitation problem. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I downloaded the script and have finished off what Adjwilley hadn't made it to yet. Trevdna (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Joseph_Smith_Jr_Signature.svg: source link is dead
  • File:The_Hill_Cumorah_by_C.C.A._Christensen.jpeg: source link is dead
  • File:Assassination_of_Joseph_Smith.jpg needs US PD tag
  • File:Mormon-book.jpg: licensing should probably be PD-text
  • File:JosephSmithTranslating.jpg : who was the commissioner and the artist?

Comments, leaning oppose.

  • Not all images have alt text.

*Use of the contraction "didn't" outside of quotation

*Use of the contraction "wasn't" outside of quotation

*FN 168 is a dead link

*Ref "Quest for Refuge" is a dead link

  • Ref "Lion and the Lady" is a dead link (redirected to home page)
  • NPOV issues, per Squeamish Ossifrage
  • Unanswered issues in numerous locations, such as where did Smith obtain a pistol when he was jailed in Navoo? There is no mention of the individuals shot by Smith.
  • Ditto on issues in Missouri. The comments about the "Extermination" order are separated from Rigdon's prior speech on extermination, nor is there much coverage of the statements by Smith about taking the land from its non-Mormon owners.

There's more, but that will do to start. GregJackP Boomer! 06:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I'm still in the process of reviewing this article, but I wanted to start by asking about your research process. I've noticed that there are lots of references to one or two biographies. There are obviously many biographies of Smith. Why did you choose to use these? Wadewitz (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A huge number of the references are to Richard Bushman's 2005 book, primarily because it is the best biography out there, period. In second place would be Fawn Brodie's book, from back in 1971-ish. Hers, from what I've read, was the first "good" biography of Joseph Smith, in the sense that it wasn't a hagiography. There are a couple of others I know of: Dan Vogel wrote a pretty good one (I'd say it's in third place, perhaps competing with Brodie for second) but it only covers Smith's life up until about 1831 if I remember correctly. Remini also wrote a short one that has come in handy from time to time. There are other books about the beginning of Mormonism too, not specifically about Smith, that are useful, but I personally haven't used them as much. For me, I basically use Bushman by default because it's easy and I have it both in print and on Google Books. (I own the others too, but only in print.) In the past I've tried to weight things roughly by how much time the authors spend talking about stuff in the books. I'm sure there are lots of other biographies but I haven't researched or read any of them because I wanted to try and use the best available - ones that were respected in the academic community - and stay away from apologetic/polemic books. Hope this answers your question, though I can't speak for the other editors of the article who have written much more of it than I. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:49, 25 September 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, 6 October 2013 (UTC) [5].[reply]

IPhone 5S

Nominator(s): Zach Vega (talk to me)

I am nominating this for feature d article because the article has been through extensive work in a short amount of time. I'm not entirely sure what FA completely entails, so I want to see what standard the article has to be held up to in order to obtain this status. Zach Vega (talk to me) 23:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Given that the phone has only been commercially available for a couple of weeks this nomination seems rather premature - it's not likely that the article will be stable in its current state. For instance, the 'Commercial reception' section only covers the first few days of sales, which is a not-very-meaningful measure, and new reviews of the device are becoming available. Historically, problems with the iPhones (in terms of technology, software and/or Apple's ability to meet demand) have also generally emerged a few weeks after the phone's release. Nick-D (talk) 00:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. FA candidates should be stable; it's hard to see how this can be true for a new product (see preceding comment). It's also hard to see how we can have collected enough reliable assessments of this product - considered opinion takes time to develop - so I think there are reliability concerns too. RomanSpa (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Zach, I think there's a difference between "reviews" and "considered opinion". For example, both Madame Butterfly and the Rite of Spring both experienced dreadful early reviews, whereas more considered assessments of these works have tended to be very positive. Hugh Walpole was generally well-reviewed in his early career, but the balance of considered opinion would now probably not rate him particularly highly. For ephemera like mobile phones, the time taken to form "considered opinion" is probably not as long as for important artistic works, of course, but I don't think that a few weeks is enough. There needs to be time for the initial enthusiasm (or reactive spasm of distaste) to abate. RomanSpa (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and recommend withdrawal (02:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)). Given that the 5S has been released for barely a week, I consider this FAC to be quite premature. As Nick-D have said, issues have historically emerged after several weeks of release. I suggest the nom postpone this FAC for three to four weeks. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—giving this article some time to stabilize would bring more information such as commercial performance, long term reception and perhaps information on iOS 7 updates. Right now, the article only covers a "recentist" post-release analysis of the smartphone. Indeed as it is, it is a very strong article but only covers details on the phone's performance just shortly after release. With time, it will flourish into a more complete contribution with an overall conclusion/afterthought, which it lacks at the moment. The Wikipedian Penguin 13:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was somewhat expecting that overall response. However, pretending that the article is stable, would it be suitable for FA status? Zach Vega (talk to me) 16:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think the biggest problem is stability, but that the article falls short of the featured article criterion 1b: "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". It isn't like it is highly unlikely that there will be any more information on the iPhone 5S; in fact, it is too probable that there will soon enough be more to cover on this device to initiate a FAC nomination at this point. The article feels too incomplete right now. Give it at least a month (two would be even better), by which it should be more well-rounded.
In the meantime, the refs could be more consistent (Apple vs Apple Inc, italicization of magazines, websites, etc.) and some sources are questionable (eg. Bloomberg, invasivecode, Facebook, Appleinsider). The Wikipedian Penguin 17:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Since you've asked whether it is suitable for FA status apart from its stability:

  • You have a photographer of somebody who reviewed it for a newspaper, but not the guy who designed it.
  • Also the major chunk is taken up by iOS7, but that has its own article. Take care to stay on track here.
  • "The iPhone 5S, stylized iPhone 5s"--I don't get this. The phone's name is the former, but Apple consistently writes it as the latter? Then how do you know that the name isn't the latter?
  • What is the difference with the 5C? Just a plastic case? Then maybe both articles should be merged as "iPhone 5S and 5C"?
  • Woah that is a long infobox. That connectivity tab is especially detailed and unreadable, although the tabs before it rather long too. Remember this is just a general encyclopedia article about the phone, we don't want every last tech spec here.
  • The writing on the whole: try not to be too detailed. Avoid long list of items like "The iPhone 5S can play music, movies, television shows, ebooks, audiobooks, and podcasts and can sort its media library by songs, artists, albums, videos, playlists, genres, composers, podcasts, audiobooks, and compilations."--besides, every iPhone (and smartphone?) ever could do those things. I really don't thing it's worth mentioning any more.—indopug (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning oppose based on " the most major update" Never mind the puffery, the grammar's a real issue there. I probably have a COI as I just bought one and had to do a follow-up visit to the Apple Store :( and two hours online with a tech and still haven't gotten everything straightened out. Also struck, on a quick glance, the "weekend of release" stat with the 5c. Surely although the two phones were announced together, the 5c came out a week earlier?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly it should be in quotes then, because it does not accord with the English language as I understand it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This looks worth including: http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2013/10/the-iphone-5s-motion-sensors-are-totally-screwed-up/ There are also lots of stories floating around about some people being unhappy with various aspects of IOS7, and especially its messaging software though this may not be a worthwhile topic to cover in this particular article. Nick-D (talk) 00:38, 5 October 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, 6 October 2013 (UTC) [6].[reply]

KFC

Nominator(s): Farrtj (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since last time I have expanded the History section, which allowed me to spin it off as a separate article, which makes the main article shorter and more palatable. All the issues were addressed by myself in the last nomination, but sadly the article received neither any Opposes or Supports. Farrtj (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Markus.Edenhauser

Oppose Although I can see there is a motivation to get all the reference issues fixed, I am not satisfied with the details at all. Despite the fact you mentioned a few points of criticism, there are a lot more considerarble topics. Many things are not as they seem! There are a lot of contributions which are focusing on this issues. Especially I would like to focus the topics: * animal protection * healty attitdes *working condition. If you consider these in your articel I would support you.

Perhaps, but surely one can only give an overview of criticisms of the company on the main page. All the controversies and criticisms deserve their own spin off page, such as the History section of the main article received with History of KFC. Farrtj (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

Oppose at this time. I see this article has been a frequent guest of the FAC process, but there's still a surprisingly large amount of obvious issues here, including a nontrivial amount of problems with reference formatting. Reference numbers [in the original comments, anyway] are based on this version, in case they get moved about in editing:

  • Reference 14 and 16 are to the same source, one page different. I'm not sure there's any policy or practice that forbids you from doing this, but it bugs me, when you could just make the page number field in the template read |pages=98–99 and get both of them. I'm not going to list them all, but there are several other times this sort of thing occurs.
I can't find any rule against doing this, and as my system is more precise, I fail to see what your problem is here.Farrtj (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are several options, including short-form referencing for subsequent uses. That said, I'm not sure whether anything in the MOS dictates dealing with this in any particular method (or even, as you have, not at all), so this may or may not be actionable, and I'll let others weigh in on the topic. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that it may seem awkward, but it's practical for the moment as I'm constantly cutting and pasting, and creating new spin off articles such as History of KFC. Farrtj (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 40 has you site the publishing website by its url, not by the actual site's name (wstribune.com versus Wall Street Tribune). Some sites actually do present themselves with that sort of name, but most or all of these (I stopped checking at some point) do not.
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For that particular instance, yes, although there's quite a bit of this still present (Greenpeace, Sky News, some others). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Think I've caught all of them now.Farrtj (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I still see enquirer.com, WSJ.com, thepoultrysite.com. Probably more, I stopped hitting find. Search the references for ".com", and that should hit on most, if not all of them. Including that gemcapital.com.au source, which I'd overlooked before. It's a real problem: it's an almost-certainly copyright-infringing posting of a Dow Jones personal-use-only e-copy of a (legitimate) Wall Street Journal article. The ultimate source (the WSJ) is fine, but the reference needs cleaned up badly! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! Sorted out all those issues. Replaced gemcapital source with original, switched poultry site to its more reputable source, replaced enquirer tabloid source with book source.Farrtj (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 114 doesn't match the other formatting for this sort of thing at all.
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still have some concerns about this source (at least as it is presented here), but I want to do a little research myself before voicing them or striking this entry. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I found a link to the Associated Press archive and listed it in the reference, so you can check it out for yourself. And I believe Associated Press to be a reputable source. Farrtj (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't checked all the web sources for missing referencing information, but there's at least some of it. I chose reference 127 more or less at random; that article has an author byline (Kim Bhasin) and publication date (October 25, 2012) not represented in the reference. Also, I rather suspect that the retrieval date there isn't correct (as it is the publication date, and well before most of the retrieval dates in this article), but that's not actionable, and I struggle to care. In any case, everything needs checked for missing information. I spot checked reference 169, also at random, and it was also missing information from the byline (the author here is Anne DiNardo). This is a pervasive problem, and probably extends to the non-web-available sources also.
  • Reference 129 isn't formatted, either.
  • Reference 153 links the publisher, which you do not otherwise do. It's also not formatted the same way as other book sources in general, and lacks a page number citation.
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of sorted. Page range is formatted incorrectly. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 167 needs more information. Is this an online source? Is there publication information?
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general, you have a lot of primary sources (including, I believe, BUCKET), press releases (none of which appear to be labeled as such as they should be: consider Template:cite press release), and a lot of references to marketing magazines, some of which (but not all, admittedly) are pay-to-play for big business clients or even just silent republishers of press releases with a shiny coat of paint. I'm not familiar enough with the industry's editorial standards to single any of those out, but someone else here may. Quite a few of them lack Wikipedia articles, which isn't damning in and of itself, but is at least a little cause for concern. Regardless, much of this material seems to be the sort that could be sourced to higher-quality third-party publications. While a cultural/business topic, there's more than a few scholarly journal articles on aspects of this operation, too, and more reliable books that aren't considered.

Replaced BUCKET references to independent ones. Which sources are press releases? A lot of marketing magazines are very good and have a proudly independent history, ie the ones I use: Marketing Magazine, ADWEEK and Ad Age: which are the ones you object to?
Adweek is fine (although it, and Brandweek should be styled in normal capitals per the MOS). On the other hand:
  • I'm not sure what the editorial policy of the Wall Street Tribune is, as I couldn't find one easily on their site. Regardless, the article cited from there is actually republished from a stock analyst's site. Might be worth checking WP:RS/N, but I'm not really convinced of their neutrality.
  • The Warc [formerly World Advertising Research Center] site is not cooperating with me at the moment, and so I cannot access either Warc source. Although they claim to be independent, their editorial policy "combines its own content with that of respected industry partners". These need checked out by someone that can make their site cooperate. The World Advertising Research Center's article here was A7'ed years ago, so I'm not sure they're a particularly important voice on their merits, either.
  • I can't find access to that PR Newswire source, but PR Newswire is fundamentally a distribution system for corporate press releases.
  • PETA's "Kentucky Fried Cruelty" site is clearly not going to work as a reliable source. With that said, that has been covered in about a dozen books, one of which is in fact included. More and better sources is the answer here.
  • All three Greenpeace sources are problematic, but the first two especially so. The 2006 source is explicitly a press release (it even says so, refreshingly), and the 2012 source is a transparent attack page. Again, there are third-party sources that address this situation.
And, of course, you've got a lot of primary material in here. Stuff sourced to various KFC websites, KFC publications, Yum! products, and so forth, some of which aren't always obvious as being KFC from just looking at the reference list (like the QSR Brands' website). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as non-reference issues go, there are also concerns:

  • The lead is heavily cited. While there'll be people who will quibble whether that's acceptable or not (my take: yes, but not ideal), it's an indication that the lead isn't serving as a summary. And, indeed, it's not. There's considerable sections of article text not summarized in the lead, and the lead indicates that the KFC "bucket" is iconic, but that's never really addressed in the article.
Ok, I've neutralised the text in the intro referring to the bucket.Farrtj (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, while that technically fixes the problem I addressed, the real issue here is that the bucket is an iconic representation of the brand, and there's no shortage of reliable third-party sources that will say that for you. This was a lead/body mismatch that needed expansion more than culling. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I looked for somewhere that said something along these lines, and I couldn't find a reliable source that actually stated it.Farrtj (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dottie, Enrico (June 21, 1986). "Chicken chains fight, feathers fly". USA Today. p. 01.B. Calls the bucket a "longtime icon".
USA Today is not what I'd consider a good source.Farrtj (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Calonius, Eric (2011). Ten Steps Ahead: What Separates Successful Business Visionaries from the Rest of Us. Portfolio Hardover. p. 12. ISBN 978-1591843764. Calls the bucket "iconic" and discusses its origin (the first buckets were surplus popcorn buckets).
Right, well I did some research into this source. I've read the Dave Thomas autobiography that he's clearly referencing, and this book is loaded with factual errors in just a few paragraphs, as self-help books normally are. Pete Harman invented the KFC bucket, not Dave Thomas. And Thomas doesn't claim to have invented it either. So this source is junk. Farrtj (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, that's what I get for trying to make fast turnaround recommendations. I saw that was a Penguin imprint, and assumed it was at least marginally conversant with reality. My apologies. USA Today is a fairly "soft" source, of course, but I'm not sure that it's unsuitable for this purpose. Alternatively, perhaps this source (focused on KFC in Arabia, but still clearly relevant), which also calls the bucket "iconic", intended for academic use: Balakrishnan, Melodena Stephes (2013). "Americana Group: KFC in Mecca (or Makkah)". In Balakrishnan, Melodena Stephens; Michael, Ian; Moonesar, Immanuel Azzad (eds.). East Meets West. Actions and Insights - Middle East North Africa. Emerald Group Publishing. pp. 125–138. ISBN 978-1781904138. That source also mentions the social media aspect of KFC advertising. I mention that because I'm a little concerned about the use of Interbrand to "laud" KFC's use of social media (Interbrand's Best Global Brands report is probably notable enough to be okay, but their opinions about brand management are not independent; they are a public image/brand management company, and KFC is one of their clients. Also, the Balakrishnan source mentions KFC's sponshorship of FC Barcelona; it hadn't occurred to me previously, but the sponsorship coverage in the article is inadequate, confined to one unsourced line at the end of the Advertising section. In particular, the Cricket Australia sponshorship generated an unanticipated amount of drama in the press. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed this with a reputable book reference now. Farrtj (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably more if you dig harder, that was a pretty cursory search. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a lot of wording that's far from brilliant prose. Just in the lead, there's a particularly awkward gloss that caught my eye ("chicken fillet burgers (chicken sandwiches [US])"). There's a pretty tormented sentence in Products, too ("An own brand dessert is the soft serve ice cream product known as "Avalanche", which contains chocolate bits."), and quite frankly a lot of issues throughout; I haven't examined prose in detail because I think there are enough problems that I'm disinclined to spend the time to do so.
Sorted the two issues you refer to.Farrtj (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although those two are better, not striking this point, as I'll need to try to give a more comprehensive prose audit; frankly, a solid copy-editing by someone skilled at such things would have been of benefit along the way. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give pretty considerable space to the Chinese hormone scandal twice. It's a big deal, but is this undue weight?
It's important because it affected the company's profits so badly.Farrtj (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kentacohut" not only predates a 2011 movie, but demonstrably does so.
Removed the reference to the movie.Farrtj (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do odd things with money units. Check the Advertising section, where the prose can't decide between $ or US$.
I believe my formatting to be consistent here. I use the nationality distinction in the first instance of it in each section. Farrtj (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the Advertising section, check the paragraph beginning "Advertising played a key role at KFC..." Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this time: 1a/1c/1d (due to the primary source and undeclared press release reliance)/2a/2c.

Comments from Sp33dyphil

  • FN 9: Add |isbn=9780985543.
done.Farrtj (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title has been changed for FN 15, which also needs a retrieval date.
Done.Farrtj (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The author parameters in some of the references are not consistently formatted. Most of the article follows the "last, first" format, except for FN 30, 82, and 88. For the last two, I recommend using |last1=, |first1=, |last2=, |first2= parameters.
Fine for 30, but the latter two is a deliberate decision. And a consistent one.Farrtj (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could not verify this claim "in a small number of markets, mostly in densely populated areas such as Singapore and Hong Kong."
Removed non cited info.Farrtj (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could not verify the claim that is cited using FN 39.
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent about whether to refer to the article as The New York Times or simply New York Times.
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 10:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 33, 34, 55, 66, 68, 83, 129 and 185: Missing retrieval dates.
done.Farrtj (talk) 11:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 57: Needs formatting.
Sorted. Farrtj (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 84: Is there a title for this article?
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 145: That's not the full title, and it needs a retrieval date.
Done.Farrtj (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare FN 164 and 166, specifically the work and publisher parameters. Please be consistent.
  • Perhaps you could add {{Subscription required}} for FN 167, and any other sites that require subscription for that matter?
Done.Farrtj (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Chinese market was entered in November 1987, with an outlet in Beijing." → "In 1987, KFC opened its first Chinese outlet in Beijing."
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at $15 billion" vs "US$15 billion"
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Outlets are either company owned, operated using joint ventures with local partners" I feel like this sentence should be merged with the next -- "Eleven percent of outlets are company owned and operated through joint ventures with local partners, with the rest owned and operated by franchisees; company ownership allows for"
  • "Some locations were also opened as combinations of KFC, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut, but this experiment has been described as a "failure". Yum! Brands CEO David Novak blames franchisees not having their hearts in the venture as the reason for its failure." I cannot find the word "failure" in the BusinessWeek article. I suggest rephrasing it to , "Some locations were also opened as combinations of KFC, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut, but this experiment was a failure due to the lack of commitment from all three parties."
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since For more than four decades its founding, Sanders" Using since means that the practice is still on-going.
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In October 2006, KFC said that, in the United States, it would begin frying its chicken in trans fat-free oil. This would also apply to their potato wedges and other fried foods, however, the biscuits" → " In October 2006, KFC said that, in the United States, it would begin preparing, potato wedes and other fried foods using trans fat-free oil; however, the biscuits"
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and eating it alongside other foods." Don't Americans and Chinese, for example, eat fried chicken with other foods? What am I missing here?
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the début proved to be a success, the first store proper was opened at a in suburban location in Nagoya in November 1970."
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of 2012, there are were"
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Annual sales in the UK amount to 60,000 metric tonnes of chicken. 60 per cent of chicken " → "Annual sales in the UK amount to 60,000 metric tonnes of chicken, 60 per cent of which"
Done.Farrtj (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "franchise for Kentucky Fried Chicken" Why is this not abbreviated?
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The chain has grown to hold an estimated 32 per cent market share, and product items include spaghetti, wraps and chicken porridge." What is a product item? I suggest rewriting this whole section as, "as of December 2012. The chain controlls an estimated 32 per cent market share, and offers products such as spaghetti, wraps and chicken porridge.
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The first outlet opened in Jakarta in 1979. Salim Group, Indonesia's largest conglomerate, became a major shareholder in 1990, providing the company with funds for major expansion. Its master franchisee, PT Fastfood Indonesia, was publicly listed on the Indonesian Stock Exchange in 1993."
I'm not sure what the point here is.Farrtj (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was supposed to go with the previous paragraph, not a separate point. That's how I would tweak the Indonesia section. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Malaysia there are 551...as of December 2012." There are problems with tenses throughout the article.
Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to oppose on the grounds that the prose needs a bit of work, and some claims cannot be verified. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 04:51, 27 September 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, 6 October 2013 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Stanley Marcus

Nominator(s): Lawikitejana (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the content seems similar in quality and documentation to that of many current FAs. Peer review was conducted a while back, and the changes made as a result are documented, along with rationales for any changes that were declined. The page is immensely stable, having never attracted any edit wars. Given the difficulty of finding any free-use images of the subject — from his youth he was member of a prominent retailing family and thus every photo of him I have yet found, even those of SM as a child, are protected by copyright, and his participation in government doesn't seem to have yielded usable images — the images used have had to be confined to those of places associated with him and one book-jacket, placed in the section of the article that discusses the book. The article's content seems to be that of an FA, although there might ways of dividing it that might yield a more substantive TOC for navigating the text. Lawikitejana (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Addendum: After looking through other nominations, I see they generally also discuss the notability of the subject. Stanley Marcus was a major figure in fashion retailing and a major contributor to the world-recognized brand of Neiman-Marcus. He appears in Harvard Business School's list of "20th Century Great American Business Leaders" and in the Houston Chronicle list of 100 influential Texans, as well as the Advertising Hall of Fame and the Retailing Hall of Fame. Lawikitejana (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is perfectly valid per WP:NFCC to have a non-free (copyrighted) infobox image of a deceased person, given no free alternatives. On the other hand, the book cover will have to go, as the cover itself isn't being discussed.—indopug (talk) 01:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the moment. This article has not been formally reviewed since it was made a GA five years ago, and the edit history doesn't indicate that there has been a concentrated effort to prepare it for this FAC, which suggests that the nomination may be premature. I have not had time to read more than the lead at present, plus a quick scan through the rest and some reference spotchecking:

  • Lead does not seem to be a summary of the whole article. There are sections in the TOC which aren't mentioned in the lead – including "Presidential connections" which I should imagine is pretty notable.
  • As noted above, you may use an image of Marcus in the lead, on a fair use rationale basis, for the purpose of identification. There are several Google images from which to choose. As it is, the infobox looks pretty inadequate. The book cover later in the article has to go, however.
  • What is the purpose of citing Marcus's name to the Dallas Morning News?
  • I'm not sure why so much information is cited in the lead. If the lead is doing its job of summarising the article, this information ought to be in the main text and cited there. If the information is not in the main article, then the lead is not doing its job.
  • However, if you use a direct quotation in the lead ("There is never a good sale for Neiman Marcus unless it's a good buy for the customer.") that does need to be cited.
  • Inappropriate capitalisation in "American Business Leaders"
  • Outside the lead there are uncited statements: "Personal life" paragraph 2, and "Early years" paragraph 1
  • There are better, neater, more up-to-date ways of enclosing quotations than using giant ornamental quote marks; I've not seen these in a FAC for years.
  • In the references, no. 29 is unformatted
  • It would be much more convenient for readers if the publication details of multi-cited sources, e.g. Minding the Store, and Biderman, were listed separately, under "Sources" or "Bibliography". As it is, someone wanting to check, say, ref. 46 has to search through the references section to find details of the book.
  • References to newspapers or journals where no online link is given should have page references. This is done in some cases but not others.
  • I have not checked out the referencing in detail, but ref 63 source appears to have no relevant information. Nor does 73. I suspect that these, and possible other cases, are due to the age of the article and lack of updating—I note that many of the retrieval dates are for 2007 or 2008, and of course websites and their contents can change considerably over time. I think you need to check out all your online references.

I think your best course of action might be to withdraw this nomination to give yourself time for some serious updating of content and refs. Although the article obviously has merits – it looks comprehensive and well-researched – it looks in need of modernisation and is not, at this time, ready for FA promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 10:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Added note): the external link checker indicates that several links are dead and that in several other cases the source content has changed. Brianboulton (talk) 10:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note for delegates: I rather think this editor has lost interest in the nomination and the article. Maybe consider closing the nom? Brianboulton (talk) 00:20, 4 October 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.
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference TWP was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/October_2013&oldid=576632906"