Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/December 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 10:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

Nominator(s): Casprings (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the various comments that related to rape, pregnancy and related comments during the 2012 election in the United States. The major comments came from Todd Akin and Richard Murdock. Pervious attempts that there were many comments, from others, that did not belong on the page. A copy edit weeded out many of these and only comments that truly received a significant amount of media coverage are now included. I think the article now gets it right. Because of that, I am renominating this article. Casprings (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I remain dubious of this article for the same reasons I opposed it in the last nomination. You've got big sections on Akin and Mourdock, a scattering of random other quote (often with minimal context or parity), and then a handful of media commentaries stitching things together into a wider narrative. Simply put, I don't think that's enough. When I read that a series of initially unrelated events may have been a substantial factor in a Presidential election, I want more weighty commentary at the FAC level than the Baltimore Sun. Yes, I know this was only a year ago, but where's the scholarly analysis? Where's the historical perspective? Also, setting aside concerns about the article's fundamental premise, there are other objections from the last FAC that were never attended to: a lead not in compliance with WP:MOSLEAD and claims with multiple references that do not have them presented in numerical order, for example. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: I'm afraid I must agree with Squeamish Ossifrage on most points. I haven't specifically examined what feedback went unresolved from the previous nomination, but I think this article is fundamentally flawed and cannot become a Featured Article. Items seem to have been collected for the purpose of analysis, but there are no strong sources supporting this overall analysis as an encyclopedic topic. Therefore, this is an acute case of WP:SYNTH. You might have a case for a Featured List if the sourced statements are maintained and the pseudo-analysis and implied conclusions are removed. List of rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012? --Laser brain (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

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, 15 December 2013 (UTC) [2].

---

ProtoGalaxy

Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

This article is about a 2010 science fiction video game developed in Newfoundland, Canada. The article passed a good article nomination back in April after receiving a copyedit from a member of the Guild of Copyeditors. I have submitted this article for consideration because I believe that it meets the featured article criteria. Neelix (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I believe that the article is too short to be a featured article. It may need some time before its next FA nomination. Ug5151 (talk) 04:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • No offense but that is a terrible reason to oppose an article for FAC. I would like to point at MissingNo., which is WAY shorter than ProtoGalaxy and has been a Featured Article for over four years. GamerPro64 05:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
    • We've promoted video game articles of similar length (Gravity Bone) so this oppose should be considered unactionable. For a video game that I haven't heard of, the article looks pretty good after a quick glance, but my comments will have to wait until after I get some rest. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 06:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
• Note to delegate, this appears not to be a valid reason to oppose an article as it does not breach any of the criteria. Can this oppose be stricken from the final count? Cassianto^Talk 10:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • My mistake. I made a stupid decision typing that opposition. I have read the FA criteria page and I still oppose the article only because of notability. It is very well written though! Ug5151 (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments As always with your work Neelix this is a very interesting article. I have the following comments and suggestions:

• Does the game have a storyline? This seems a bit unclear.
• There's no coverage at all of the two years the game took to develop. This is a significant omission. I presume that the developers worked on the game in their spare time (more or less) so there probably isn't anything terribly exciting here, but this kind of material is pretty standard for games FAs.
• Similarly, the game is missing information on its commercial performance.
• "As an indie game, ProtoGalaxy struggled to compete with big-business video games" - this is a bit of a truism: virtually no indie developers have managed to compete on scale with the major firms, and it's not really their goal.
• "ProtoGalaxy was described by Game Interface" - what's Game Interface?
• The description of what players are in control of is a bit unclear - do they control a single spaceship?
• Are the multiple player characters different people logged on, or is this a software thing controlled by a single person?
• "The game is presented from a 2.5D perspective; while the 2D playing field simplifies the gameplay, the visuals are enhanced by 3D graphics." - a flat description would be better here rather than commentary
• "One unique characteristic of ProtoGalaxy is its use of dynamical simulation; this incorporation of physics adds elements that are not traditionally found in shoot 'em up games" - I think that you mean "unusual" rather than "unique" here
• "Allgame labelled ProtoGalaxy" - what's Allgame?
• " Unlike traditional space arcade shooters in which there is a preset number of hit points, ProtoGalaxy employs a health bar that tracks the damage incurred by a player's ship.[6] Both the player characters and enemy ships replenish their health over time" - the first sentence here is a bit confusing (as this is how a hit point concept works) - I'd suggest tweaking this as the point is that health regenerates
• "Players' ability to use weapons diminishes with use" - do weapons eventually stop working, and can players replace worn out weapons with new ones during levels?
• "Newfoundland-based" - has it operated from other locations?
• "The local interest in the demo" - what was this local interest? I presume that it was from their friends at university?
• "The choice to focus ProtoGalaxy on gameplay rather than graphics was inspired by old space shooters" - this is a bit unclear. I imagine that they wanted to reflect the good gameplay but clunky graphics of these games. However, given that developing graphics is very resource intensive, is this really the full story? Keeping the graphics simple would have greatly eased their task and saved time and money.
• "The developers omitted respawning in order to increase the difficulty of the game.[7] Brown called the game "an intense space themed dungeon crawler".[16]" - this material isn't well placed coming straight after the information on the game's release
• "A party celebrating the game’s launch was held on October 15, 2010 at Memorial University" - also should be moved forward
• "Brown, Source Studio's CEO, stated in October 2010 that the company intended to expand ProtoGalaxy with new features and levels, complete with leaderboards" - has this since happened?
• "On April 28, 2011, ProtoGalaxy was released on Impulse" - what's Impulse? (also, do we know why they released in on this format as well as Steam?)
• In regards to the reviews, is it the case that the game has only been reviewed by smaller outlets? (eg, none of the heavy hitters such as PC Gamer - I'm rather out of the loop on the modern game reviewing scene though!). If so, this should be stated explicitly.
• It might be worth separating out Mana Pool's comments as they seem to have been quite critical (I haven't read the review though)
• "Brown considered the level editor one of the most innovative features of the game" - what did he think was particularly innovative? Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, Nick! I have clarified the elements you mentioned were unclear, removed the truism about competition with big-business video games, flattened the description of the perspective, switched "unique" for "unusual", and moved the statements you recommended moving. Unfortunately, I do not believe that any existing sources include information about the game's two years of development or about its commercial performance. ProtoGalaxy was expanded with the new features Brown projected in 2010, but I don't know of any sources that say so. Similarly, it is true that ProtoGalaxy has only been reviewed by smaller outlets, but I don't have a source that says so; would you recommend that I add these statements without sources? I think the "Reception" section flows better by topic rather than by reviewer, so I have not separated out Mana Pool's comments, but I can do so if there is consensus to do so. Please let me know if you have any additional concerns regarding the article or if there are any comments you have made already that I have not addressed sufficiently. Neelix (talk) 04:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Niwi3

• I think that the gameplay section could use a more representative screenshot with a better caption (see some criteria for a good one). Explain what exactly in the gameplay section it is that you want to illustrate. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the recommendation, Niwi! I have switched the image to a more representative screenshot and have switched the caption as well. I would be grateful for any further comments you are willing to provide. Neelix (talk) 04:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• In the image description page, "This is a screenshot from the video game ProtoGalaxy." - Is it possible to be more specific about what part of the game this was taken from?
• In the lead, "While ProtoGalaxy is primarily an adventure game, it incorporates elements of other gaming genres, such as arcade, shooter, puzzle, and role-playing genres." - I would move that to the first paragraph (after the plot lines).
• In the gameplay, "The game is presented from a 2.5D perspective; the 2D playing field employs 3D graphics" - Again, this should be placed at the beginning of the section so that readers know how the game is generally presented before detailing the gameplay mechanics.
• This source does not state that creating levels is a key feature of the game. Also, I would place this sentence at the end of the section since it does not fit properly right in the middle of the gameplay mechanics.
• I would rename the development section to "Development and release".
• "ProtoGalaxy was released on October 6, 2010 on Steam, a digital distribution platform.[9] A demo was also released on the platform" - I would rephrase this to "ProtoGalaxy was released on October 6, 2010 on the Steam digital distribution platform along with a demo version" since it flows much better.
• "Brown, Source Studio's CEO, stated in October 2010 that the company intended..." - Try to avoid unnecessary dates. The simpler, the better: "The developers also intended..."
• I think the reception section is not very well-organized. You end the first paragraph analyzing the gameplay and then you talk about it again at the end of the second. I would suggest having one whole paragraph dedicated to the gameplay.

• Hope it helps :) --Niwi3 (talk) 12:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the additional comments. I have expanded the image description as much as my knowledge allows, moved the sentences you recommended moving, removed the word "key", renamed the "Development" section "Development and release", rephrased the Steam release information, simplified the statement about the developers' intentions, and separated the gameplay-related information in the "Reception" section off into its own paragraph. Neelix (talk) 09:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - This game is barely notable, and I do not believe there are enough reliable sources to present a comprehensive featured article.
  • It is not primarily an adventure game. This gameplay footage from John Bain does not make it look like an adventure game at all. It's a shooter.
  • The VOCM (AM) source lacks verifiability. Is there an archive where we can review the material?
  • A lot of sources are primary sources or press releases.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]
  • The Voodoo Extreme (IGN) source is down for me. It's available on the Internet Archive, in any case, it's just the press release that you've already cited from MCV.
  • I'd say it was misleading to claim that it received generally positive reviews from critics, rather it was ignored by critics. The reviews cited do not seem to be reliable. Game Interface asks for donations, and Mana Pool's address is this terraced house. MMGN and Game Boyz seem more professional, but I've never heard anyone to give credence to their critical analysis.
  • "As an indie game, ProtoGalaxy struggled to compete with big-business video games." - sourced to the interview at Mana Pool. I don't think the developers comments should be taken at face value. ProtoGalaxy's lack of coverage is not predicated on it being an indie game.
  • Co-operative multiplayer is not rare in PC games. Local co-op is, which is what the source says.
  • The GameSpot source is actually a GameFaqs source. I'm not sure if they share databases for the game description, but citing the story is one facet where it's actually better to just goto the primary source - the game itself.
    • Aside from the primary sources above, the game is only covered in low quality sources like local news and student papers. This is trivia. I do not think it is possible to write a comprehensive featured article on this subject with the sources available, I would not have passed the article at WP:GAN. - hahnchen 20:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to review this article, Chen. I have removed the statement about competition with big-bisuiness video games and added the word "local" to the mention of co-operative multiplayer. The VOCM source is verifiable; there is an archive in St. John's and there is a contractor that provides copies of their holdings for a fee. Is there any way that you believe the article proclaims the game to be primarily an adventure game? Your other comments seem to be aimed at demonstrating that the subject of the article is not worth having a featured article about; please let me know if I have misunderstood and these comments are actionable. My impression is that any subject that meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines is eligible to have a corresponding featured article, so long as the article is sufficiently developed; I have not seen an article that meets the notability criteria have its FAC fail for lack of existing sources. Are you arguing that the subject fails to meet the notability criteria? Neelix (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It might be worth putting in a note about the VOCM archives in the references. "While ProtoGalaxy is primarily an adventure game" - from the lead. My comment that the subject is only covered by low quality sources would lead the article to fail 1c. - hahnchen 23:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I have added the VOCM note you recommend and have altered the sentence about the game's genre. I am not convinced that this game is only covered in low-quality sources. Why is it a problem that Game Interface asks for donations? I also don't see the problem with Mana Pool having its primary address at a building with a terrace. Do you have any objective arguments against using the MMGN and Game Boyz reviews? All of these seem to me to be sources of sufficient quality. Neelix (talk) 09:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Not comprehensive enough. Not the nominator's fault. It's just that little sources exist. This game was basically ignored by critics. The gaps here are too big for me to ignore. Beerest 2 talk 20:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Have you seen articles that meet the notability criteria fail their FACs because of a lack of existing sources? I thought exhaustive use of existing sources was sufficient to meet the featured article criteria, so long as the notability criteria were met. Neelix (talk) 05:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I am not even sure this meets notability requirements, as I see little evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Not one of the major game industry websites reviewed this game. Without reviews and/or sales figures, it is impossible to properly assess the impact of this game in an encyclopedic manner, hence it must fail on comprehensiveness grounds in my opinion. Indrian (talk) 06:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the sources employed in the article demonstrate the subject's notability, but you are free to initiate a deletion discussion if you disagree. Neelix (talk) 09:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose on 1c. I certainly don't think that things like sales figures are necessarily a requirement for FAC; it's entirely possible to have an FA-quality article with comprehensive sourcing but not be able to include numbers that aren't publicly released, for example. But I don't think this it that article. I'm really unconvinced by the reliability of some of these sources. Game Interface doesn't have any editorial policy that I could find. I'm not impressed by Mana Pool either; also, you heavily cite a Mana Pool interview with the game's creators, which means an awful lot of this content is actually sourced to the game's creators -- that's especially true when you outright quote one of the game's creators in the Reviews section as though he were presenting an independent opinion on the product! That reference 5 is a GameFAQs page mis-cited as GameSpot doesn't do much to assuage my concerns. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, I agree that sales figures are not necessary, as they are often hard to come by. My statement was that without reviews in major publications and/or sales figures, it fails on comprehensiveness grounds since the subject cannot be "placed in context." Reviews alone or sales figures alone might have sufficed. Indrian (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I have switched the GameSpot reference to read "GameFAQs" and I have removed the creator quotation from the "Reception" section. Can we agree that both the MMGN review and the Game Boyz review are valid sources? Both of these websites are cited very commonly on Wikipedia. How many reviews are required? The information taken from Mana Pool for the "Reception" section is largely negative, and does not come from the game's creators; it is only objective statements that are taken from the interview with the game's creators. I have e-mailed Game Interface to ask about their editorial policy. Neelix (talk) 04:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• General comment - It has been determined here that Game Boyz, Mana Pool, and Game Interface are all unreliable sources, and I have therefore added them to the official list of unreliable sources for video game articles. Also included on that list is GameFAQs, so I have removed all of these sources from the ProtoGalaxy article, along with the corresponding information. It seems that most editors are arguing that this video game is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia, but not notable enough to be featured. I had thought that the notability threshold was the same for both, and that the difference for featured articles was the quality of the article rather than a greater notability of the subject. Provided that the article meets all of the other FAC criteria, shouldn't the article be either featured or deleted? Neelix (talk) 13:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• While several of us have expressed doubts as to the notability of the subject, it is not accurate to characterize our objections as being on that ground. I cannot speak for others, but for me, the problem, as I clearly stated in my initial objection is one of comprehensiveness. 1b is very clear that a subject must be "placed in context." This requires material that places the game within the larger happenings of the video game industry generally and the indie game movement specifically. The article contains no information on the developers' influences, no information on how the game was received either commercially (sales figures) or critically (only one review from the dozens of sites aggregated by Metacritic). There is no information as to how it has advanced its genre or how it fits within the indie games movement or any other contextual information. So notability only requires "significant coverage," while comprehensiveness requires "context." Surely you can see how the FAC standard is a higher standard than the notability one.

The same thing is true of sources. Notability requires "reliable sources," while FAC requires "high-quality sources." These are not the same thing. This article mostly draws secondary source coverage only from lesser news outlets and primary source coverage in the form of press releases from more important sites like GamesIndustry.biz and Gamasutra. For many, though not for me, this would be enough coverage to pass muster under the relatively low notability requirements, but completely fails the "high-quality reliable sources" requirement of the well-researched criteria (1c). So to answer your question, yes it is possible to meet the low threshold of notability and yet still fail the high standards of FAC. Indrian (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• That the subject has only been covered in low quality sources does not automatically mean it is not notable. This FARC addresses issues of source quality, yet the subject is clearly notable. - hahnchen 20:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• If it is possible to have an article on a notable subject both written and sourced as well as possible without meeting the featured article criteria, it would be well worth making this fact explicit on the featured article criteria page. Otherwise, we are sending the impression to editors that any valid Wikipedia article can eventually become featured (like any American can grow up to be president), when such is not the case. Neelix (talk) 03:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

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 10:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC) [10].

---

1924 Rose Bowl

Nominator(s): Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 03:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again. I am nominating this for featured article because, like last time, I believe that it meets all the criteria for becoming a featured article. It has received a peer review and a copyedit. At the previous FAC, there was one support, and two reviews that had been addressed. I want this to be TFA for January 1st, the 90th anniversary, so I really need this to pass on this try. Again, this is the first step in my attempt to get Navy's bowl games up to a featured topic.

From last time, The 1924 Rose Bowl was the first time either of the participants, Washington and Navy, ever participated in a postseason game. It was a first for many things, including radio broadcasting. Washington was predicted to come out on top, but Navy led in nearly everything (except the score). It would be 30 years until Navy came back to bowl games, while Washington returned to the Rose Bowl in just two years. There are currently just 10 bowl games at featured article status, none of which are at least 15 years old. This article is on the short side compared to them, but since its been nearly 90 years since this occurred, info is pretty scarce. All comments appreciated. Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 03:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Image review: Admiral caption should end in period, but licensing is all fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I added a period to the image's caption. Thanks for the review, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 18:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Toa Nidhiki05

Comments from Toa Nidhiki05 I'll be doing a full overview of the prose in the article as well as checking for duplicate links. Toa Nidhiki05 22:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC) Lede I would reword about the game organizers selecting a team from both coasts, because they didn't choose Navy - Washington did. As it reads right now, it could create the mistaken belief that the committee selected both teams. Toa Nidhiki05 22:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC) I tried to clarify that. 'Four plays afterward, Navy tied the game on a 12-yard touchdown pass.' You mean Washington, right? Toa Nidhiki05 22:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC) Yep. I have no clue why I wrote that. Team selection 'Navy's sole loss in the 1923 season came in their annual game against Penn State, which they lost by 21–3 remove the 'by' here. Toa Nidhiki05 22:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC) Removed 'by'. 'Navy tied 0–0 with Army in the 1923 Army–Navy Game;' change the semicolon to a comma. Toa Nidhiki05 22:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC) Changed to comma. Aftermath Washington is listed as having an 8-1-1 record elsewhere in the article, so why are the two non-counted wins counted here? Toa Nidhiki05 22:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC) Fixed. 8 wins. Not 10. Early in the article, the crowd of 40,000 is implied as being small, but here it is considered to be very high. Which is it? Toa Nidhiki05 22:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC) Neither. Ticket sales were high. I tried to clarify that.

Overall, this is a good article. A bit on the short side and with some minor prose issues, but I'd be fine with supporting once these issues are fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 22:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've tried to address all of your concerns. Much appreciated, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 03:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Good job on the fixes, I'l' go ahead and give my support. Toa Nidhiki05 13:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Although the article refers to Tesreau's broken leg, I didn't see any reference to the incident during the game that led to the break. Was it broken during the game (which is what I assume), or was it damaged at some earlier time? Could the boils (which I suppose must have been fairly severe to lead to medical advice not to play) have been symptomatic of an undetected fracture that had somehow become infected in this pre-antibiotic era? The main question I'm asking, which the article doesn't seem to answer, is "how did Tesreau break his leg?" RomanSpa (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

In all the sources I found, there was no mention of when or how Tesreau broke his leg, just that he did. I forgot to include in the article that the boils were on the non-broken leg, so I added that to clarify for everyone. Thanks for bringing that up, sorry I can't fix your main question. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 04:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• Game summary: The first paragraph of this section has four citations to reference 19 and none to other sources. Without them, four cites is a bit of overkill; you could probably get away with one or two.

• Removed two of them.

• First half: The last five sentences here have four "completed"s that I am counting. A little more variety would be nice; maybe another word could be found for the extra point attempts ("converted"?)

• Changed two to "converted".

• Aftermath: The semi-colon in the first sentence here should probably be a regular old comma instead. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Changed to comma. Thanks for the review, much appreciated. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 04:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments from WWB—I had reviewed this article during its last time at FAC. I'm a college football fan (go Ducks!) so the topic is a familiar one to me, however my primary focus is readability, clarity of language and copy-editing type issues. The article has improved from when I first read it, although it was already in good (literally, GA) shape. That said, I do have a number of questions and comments, and then a few general questions near the end, before I could declare support:

• Introduction—Two questions:

1. I'm a little puzzled by the sentence calling "this installment the second game played in the Rose Bowl"—does that mean second bowl game, or second football game, period? Was UCLA playing in it during the regular season at this time?
2. I may have asked this before, but what is the standard for writing "east coast and west coast" as this article does, or "East Coast and West Coast", as I would expect to see? Capitalization notwithstanding, I wonder if the terms may be vague to non-U.S. readers, so I'd suggest clarifying as "of the United States" (or maybe even wikilinking each).

• I tried to clarify on the second game part, and it appears that capitalizing "East Coast" and "West Coast" is correct, so I made the changes.

• Team selection—Same question about capitalization of "east coast" and "west coast" here. (Later in the article, I find "east" and "west" alone, however these bother me less.)

• Fixed. Explanation above.

• Team selection#Navy—Should there be a comma following "season" in "the last game of the season played on November 23"? It seems to me like a natural subordinate clause, and reads a bit funny without it.

• Agreed. Added a comma.

• Pre-game buildup—Reads somewhat awkward with the phrases "the evening before the game" and "the night before the game" in quick succession. Simply removing "the game" from the second occurrence may help this.

• Fixed "the night before the game".

• Pre-game buildup#Navy—Two questions:

1. Three repetitions of "season" in the first two sentences; could this be rewritten slightly to be more economical?
2. Saying that "Navy's defense had stopped running plays during the regular season, but had trouble defending pass plays" could be read (incorrectly, I'm sure) as saying that they stopped every running play. Better to say they had "successfully" done so?

• Changed one of the "season" occurrences, clarified on the defense issue.

• Pre-game buildup#Washington—"Washington's defense ... being much larger." Might be helpful to say the players, on average, were much larger.

• Added that it was an average.

• Game summary—The "most elaborate at that time"—compared to other college football bowl games, I presume? Whatever the case, I'd prefer this be a little more specifically worded.

• Tried to clarify.

• Game summary#First half—At end of first paragraph, change "100 yards of offense" to "100 yards gained" to avoid repetition of "offense"?

• Done. Changed to "gained".

• Statistical summary—I think we'd discussed this before, but "out threw" seems to me like it should be one word. Random House, via Dictionary.com, seems to agree. Not a big issue, though.

• I agree. Changed.

• Aftermath—Two things:

1. I would replace "the 'Streetcar Named Desire'" with "A Streetcar Named Desire"—better to use the play's full proper title, and italicize it per convention.
2. It seems contradictory to say that the "1924 Rose Bowl ... had very high ticket sales" when the article previously says that sales were "much lower" than the Tournament committee expected. I'm not sure what the solution is.

• Changed to A Streetcar Named Desire, and tried to clarify the ticket sales by attempting to fix it in the game summary section.

• Research—Two questions:

1. I decided to search Google Books for "1924 Rose Bowl" and found at least one source with information about Washington's kicker playing through a broken toe. Oddly, it names a different kicker—Les Sherman, as opposed to Leonard Zeil. Is this a conflict of sources, or is one mistaking the punter for the placekicker? Besides that, anything else worth mining from Google Books?
2. Related to the above, I wonder if you might say something about your research process to give an indication of how thorough you were. Are there any potential sources of information about which you are aware but haven't explored?

• On the Les Sherman issue: I also saw a few sources which said that he played with a broken toe and was the kicker. However, the vast majority of sources say it was Ziel (messed up the spelling in the article, need to fix that) who played the game. In fact, part of this is an interview with Ziel about the game and later life. I don't know if anyone played with a broken toe, and since most of what I found supports Ziel, I'm going to leave it like that.
• On my research: As far as I can tell, I have tried to exhaust all useful sources. I started out with a simple Google search, went on to check Google News, went through Google Books, searched at sites like Questia and Highbeam, went to the local library and used their database, and asked one of my family members, who collects Navy athletic memorabilia and related items, if he had anything related to the game. I haven't found any additional sources which offer really anything else that can be added to the article. Basically all of them just state that Navy and Washington played to a 14-14 tie in the 1924 Rose Bowl. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 04:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

And that's all I've got for the moment. Happy to follow up when you're ready for me to look again, Awardgive. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the long explanations, but I wanted to make sure I fully answered the questions. Thanks for the review (again). I'll get around to helping with C-SPAN in a little. Thanks again, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 04:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I've looked over the changes and they all look good to me. I'm also satisfied that your research was very thorough. I just wanted to make sure that you'd had the chance to look through a database like Highbeam or Nexis. I'm happy to support promoting this article to FA status. Good work on this. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – Having previously reviewed the list here, I was asked to return by Ian Rose, no doubt to expedite this FAC's removal from the bottom of the page. I went and copy-edited the article, and the prose is quite a bit better now than it was before. There are a few more wikilinks to football terms, less passive voice, and a few more scores and such to help the non-football fans keep up with the writing. There aren't that many details on the game, which is not all bad because that means less jargon to confuse people; since this is from almost 90 years ago, I believe that it is still comprehensive, and the research summary above reassures me in that regard. Before I support, I wanted to point out that the next-to-last sentence of the lead's first paragraph, on the Rose Bowl's history, doesn't appear to be covered anywhere in the body, which is not optimal. Can a similar sentence be placed in one of the early sections? Giants2008 (Talk) 03:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• I tried adding a short bit about the game being replaced to the beginning of the "Team selection" section. I hope it fits, and I'm ready to make any fixes if necessary. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 07:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Thanks for doing that. I adjusted a sentence in that area to fix a little prose glitch that was left over, and think that the article meets the criteria now. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the fix and the review. I forgot to change the wording when I updated, sorry about that. Thanks again, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 06:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Quadell

This is a strong candidate, and I'm glad to see the improvements Giants2008 made. I have identified a few issues.

• I made some copyedits as well. Feel free to revert and discuss if you disagree with any of them.

• Thanks. They look great.

• Semicolons have their uses, but when too many sentences use semicolons too closely together, it can be a distraction for the reader. In this article, semicolon usage seems to be bunched up. The lead uses five. Both the "Team selection - Washington" section and the "Aftermath" section use three in a single paragraph (though I changed one to a colon). Some variety here would improve the prose.

• Tried to cu down on semicolon use. There are now no more than two per paragraph.

• The "Team selection - Washington" section has two sentences in a row that start "Washington's next game was..."

• Changed one of the beginnings.

• There are a few repetitions which should probably be fixed.
  • For instance, a footnote says "However, [Washinton's] first two games were against sailors from the battleships Mississippi and New York, and were not considered to be part of the team's official schedule". The article body also says "Washington opened their season with victories over teams from the battleships Mississippi and New York; because these teams did not represent colleges, they were not considered an official part of Washington's schedule."

• • Removed the footnote, it did seem repetitive.

• • For another example, one section says "Washington chose the Navy Midshipmen [to be their eastern opponents], who accepted the invitation", and another sections says "Washington asked Navy to represent the east."

• • Cut down the repetition.

• • Again, we learn that "Navy's special teams were considered by critics to be... about even with those of Washington", so we are not surprised to read in the next section that "Washington's special teams were considered to be... about even to those of Navy."

• • Cut out the "about even to those of Navy."

• In the "Statistical comparison" chart, I would think you should spell out "First" instead of "1st", and should not capitalize the second word in entries. (But if there is a football standard I'm not aware of, then that's fine.)

• Spelled out "first", but the rest of the table is based on the one from 2000 Sugar Bowl.

• When you say Washington's 1923 season was "the second best in school history", do you mean up to that point or until the present day?

• Clarified.

• I don't understand the final sentence, regarding making teams responsible for ticket sales. "The strategy has been used since, with only a small number of tickets allocated to the Tournament for each yearly edition." Has it been used once or twice since, or every year since? And what does "allocated to the Tournament for each yearly edition" mean?

• Clarified. It means that tournament officials have only gotten a few tickets since 1924.

I look forward to your responses. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll get to these this afternoon. Nobody close the nom, please. Thanks, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 16:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've tried to address all of your concerns. Thanks for the review, awaiting your response. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 05:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Support. All my concerns have been addressed. I believe this article meets our FA requirements and should be featured. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and the support. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 15:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. I'm not all that impressed with the writing, frankly. I think it's a middling GA, but might need some rewriting to meet criterion 1a. From the lead:

• "between the independent Navy Midshipmen and the Washington Huskies, a member of the Pacific Coast Conference (PCC)" Unnecessary failure to use parallel structure.

• I honestly have no clue what this means.

• Just throwing this in here as I skim the FAC page—what the reviewer means is that the conference descriptions aren't handled the same way in the same sentence for both schools. It's commonplace in grammar that if you're describing two things in a sentence, the same description form should be used. One proper way to handle this, for instance, would be to say, "... between the Navy Midshipmen, an independent team; and the Washington Huskies, a member of the Pacific Coast Conference (PCC)", introducing both schools in the same way in the same sentence. Personally I don't think it's such a big deal, but as the reviewer thinks as such, I thought I'd help clarify this for you. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 13:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• "The game took place on January 1, 1924, at the Rose Bowl stadium in Pasadena, California, and closed the 1923 college football season." Awkward. Better: "The game took place on January 1, 1924, at the Rose Bowl stadium in Pasadena, California, closing 1923 college football season."

• Fixed

• "The game was played in front of a crowd of approximately 40,000 people"

• Fixed.

• Also "was played" and "ended" again misses parallel structure for no good reason.

• Again, don't understand this.

  Outside comment: I think Laser brain means that it's bad form to combine active and passive voice in one list. (So for example, "The dog growled, was petted, and wagged its tail" should be reworded, since "was petted" is the only clause in passive voice.) Personally, I think it's a very minor issue in this case, but it could be rewritten as "The game opened in front of approximately 40,000 people and ended in a 14–14 tie" or "The game was played in front of approximately 40,000 people, and it ended with a 14–14 tie" or something. (Edit conlict: Laser brain explained below.)

• "The 1924 game was the tenth edition of the Rose Bowl, which had first been played in 1902. Following the inaugural game's blowout score, football was replaced with chariot races until 1916. The Rose Bowl stadium had been constructed the year before, making this installment the second game played in the arena." The narrative here is very unclear. Are you using the terms "edition" and "installment" interchangeably? Is that the language used in sources? The Rose Bowl was played in 1902 but not in the Rose Bowl? Chariot races were held until 1916, and then more football? But not in the Rose Bowl until the year before... what?

• Clarified the stadium issue and installment/edition. And yes, chariot races were held because of how bad the football game was, but after a while, they decided to go back to football.

• "East Coast" and "West Coast" might be a bit US-centric as written.. would be interested in an opinion from non-US readers.

• I added links to East Coast of the United States and West Coast of the United States.

• "in preference to" is not a good phrase to use.

• Changed to "in favor of". Any better?

• "Predictions gave Washington a slight advantage in the game due to the weight difference between the teams; the Washington players were on average 10 pounds (4.5 kg) heavier than those of Navy." Colon, not semicolon. Easy fix but might be a problem elsewhere as well.

• Fixed. Quadell had addressed semicolons in his review, but I think I missed that one.

• "heavy rain showers had fallen the day before" Why is this relevant? Not explained in the lead.

• Clarified importance.

• "The game kicked off" and "The kick missed" You're using active voice with subjects that didn't perform the action.

• These are common phrases when describing football. Other bowl game FAs also use this kind of language.

I didn't read on, but it seems to need work. --Laser brain (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I know how awful it is to get opposition when your nomination has been open this long, and I'm sorry for that. I'll help in any way I can. --Laser brain (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the parallel phrases stuff, I tried to address all of your concerns. Also, the lead has also proven to be the weak point for this article, and was the main problem for the Peer Review and both FACs. The rest of the article has usually proven better. Thanks for taking a look, awaiting your response. -Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 20:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Parallel structure is using consistent grammatical structures in sentences. In the first example above, you use an adjective before Navy Midshipmen to modify it (the independent Navy Midshipmen) but use a modifying phrase after Washington Huskies (the Washington Huskies, a member of the Pacific Coast Conference). So, there is no parallel structure and that's poor grammar. The fix would be to modify both teams beforehand, like: "between the independent Navy Midshipmen and the Pacific Coast Conference (PCC) Washington Huskies." In the second example, you use two different verb tenses (past tense "ended" and past perfect "was played"). Again, it's easy to fix but I wanted you to be aware of the issue so you could fix it elsewhere. Make sense? --Laser brain (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Outside comment: I disagree with the claim that there is a grammatical error in the first sentence. Perhaps some style guides might say that such use is discouraged, but many others do not, and any rewording would cause more stylistic problems than it solves, in my opinion. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, "error" is not the word I would use since it's subjective, like many grammar issues. I could be talked out of it. Do you think my suggestion introduces problems? --Laser brain (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Well... using "Pacific Coast Conference (PCC)" as an adjective could be mildly confusing. Honestly, I can't think of the ideal way to put it, but I think either your suggestion or the current wording would be acceptable. What wording do you like best, Awardgive? – Quadell ^(talk) 22:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I prefer the way it has been. I wrote it that way because "independent" seemed to fit decently in front of Navy, but sticking "Pacific Coast Conference (PCC)" in front of Washington seemed kind of unusual to me, although I'm fine with changing it. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 23:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not insisting on it, especially when two editors prefer it the other way. I'll give the rest a read-through tomorrow and either post more comments or strike my opposition. --Laser brain (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Additional comments: I'm afraid I'm still uneasy about the quality of the writing. I'm finding too many issues to support promotion. More examples:

• "Because the Pacific Coast Conference (PCC) was the only conference with teams located in the Western United States, a school from the conference had been chosen for every Rose Bowl game."

• Changed.

• "The tournament invited" and "Washington was then allowed by the Rose Bowl" Again, I find this use of subjects performing actions to be quite strange. How does a tournament invite someone? Surely it was a person or a committee? In the second example, "the Rose Bowl" is performing an action (allowing). Thus far, we've learned that the Rose Bowl is either a physical stadium or it's a game, neither of which are capable of allowing anyone to do anything. That usage further confounds the already confusing double usage of the term "Rose Bowl".

• Clarified. It was the committee, and the second instance was also the committee.

• It's not explained why Washington chose Navy as its opponent, which is especially relevant since you take time to point out that other teams with better records were eligible.

• Found and added info to help clarify.

• "which was followed by four more shutouts in a row"

• Fixed.

• "Because of the wet conditions, several football critics predicted that Washington would have a slight advantage in the game." Why is that? You've just said that both coaches seemed confident in their wet weather playing ability, so it's unclear why Washington would have an advantage.

• Added why.

• "and was announced by a local Pasadena station" To the casual reader, it's unclear if this means the station just announced that the game would be played, or had an "announcer" working and broadcasting the entire game. This needs to be clarified and explained for someone who might not know what "announcing" a game means.

• Changed to "aired". Better?

• Some other football jargon is unlinked and unexplained in the article, for example "special teams".

• I went through and tried to link every football term I thought might be confusing or need clarification to an unfamiliar reader.

• "with numerous events displayed" Events held? Awkward.

• Changed.

As I said earlier, definitely a middling GA but I don't think the writing is polished enough to meet criterion 1a. --Laser brain (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have attempted to address all of your new concerns. The article has been copyedited by six or seven other people, and a few of your concerns I wasn't even aware existed until you pointed them out. When I have the chance, I'll go through the article and look for anything that seems to need correcting. In the mean time, thanks for following up with your review, and I await any more comments/concerns you have. Thanks, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 06:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

====Comments from AmericanLemming====

Looks like this article needs a good copyedit. Anyway, I'll give the article a close-read over the weekend, making changes as I go. Additionally, I'll list any concerns I have with the article's prose below. Since I am very detail-oriented and thorough, I hope I'll be able to address Laserbrain's concerns about the quality of the prose. I will fix or comment on every specific instance where I believe the prose could be improved. I know some FAC reviewers don't believe FAC is the place for that, but I do. AmericanLemming (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

There has been a change of plans: I need to study organic chemistry over the next month, not spend hours reviewing FACs on Wikipedia. (Trust me, I would rather be doing the latter.) I sincerely apologize for the disappointment this will cause the nominators of this article as well as the FAC coordinators, but it is what it is. I thought I would be upfront about it (one of my pet peeves on Wikipedia is when people say they're going to do something and then do it a month later or not at all). AmericanLemming (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment - This FAC has been here a long time, but there is no clear consensus for promotion and I will be archiving it in a few minutes. Problems remain - like this for example: "The game began on time, with a temperature of 52 °F (11 °C) and the field still wet." How can a game have a temperature? Graham Colm (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC) [11].

---

Wade's Causeway

Nominator(s): PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I nominate this article for FA consideration as its primary editor to date. I am happy to work with reviewers to make any improvements that are felt necessary. This is the first nomination for FA of this article. It has had a GA nomination (successful) and a peer review. PocklingtonDan

The article is about a stone structure of ambiguous origin, located in Yorkshire, United Kingdom. FA review of areas such as copy-editing are welcome, but specific value can be added by reviews additionally by those with domain knowledge in areas such as archaeology, history, and etymology. (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey

I haven't really read the article; maybe I will, maybe I won't. I just wanted to know what was going on with the mountains of "Explanatory notes", like "See Grimm[169] and Davidson.[135]", that just point to "Citations" without "explaining" anything? Is this a convoluted bundling method? Have you seen sfnm?

doing Thank you for taking the time to give the article a brief scan. I hope you will take the time to read and review it fully. I am looking at this particular item now, thanks for the helpful javascript tool - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, there are a ton of harv errors in the references. You can see them easily if you use User:Ucucha/HarvErrors. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

done I have sorted the reference errors. However, the same javascript tool shows several refs that are not cited. I have resolved each of these now too - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Chris857

I'm noticing there seems to still be a ref issue, note ϸ, I see "See Knight (2011),[260]Powell (2012)CITEREFPowell2012 and NYNPA Minerals Technical Paper (2013).[261]" -- note the CITEREFPowell2012.Chris857 (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

done Thanks for the heads up. This is now resolved - PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

There are also two refs with "|url= missing title (help)" errors. Chris857 (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

done Thanks for the heads up. This is now resolved - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose from [unregistered user] user:Indopug

Oppose reference system is weird. For example, do a ctrl+F for "[79]". There are two hits. One goes to the citation "Hayes 1964, p. 11.", but the other goes to the explanatory note "Ϗ.^ See Lang[146] and Geake.[210]". This seems to be the case for all the citations. 122.172.27.199 (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose rather than pointing out some problems that you can see and giving me an opporunity to fix? Why? The FAC guidelines suggest that reviewers and editors work together to improve articles, this unsightly brief comment stating oppose is hardly conducive to that end. I see that you are an unregistered user with 3 edits from 2009 and a dozen more in the last 24 hours. You may want to withdraw your oppose, which as an unregistered user is highly unusual, and familiarise yourself more closely with the FA review process. I would refer you specifically to the guideline that New reviewers are encouraged to leave only Comments until they are sure that they understand the criteria PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

This is (self-locked-out) User:Indopug, actually, and I have been reviewing FACs since January 2008. Thank you.122.172.27.199 (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, so you claim, at least. The whole point of logins is to verify such claims. You are not logged in and unable to verify your user identity. I could claim to be any user I choose. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose from Squeamish Ossifrage

Oppose, urge withdrawal. FAC doesn't prescribe a specific referencing standard, but this isn't really acceptable. Numbered citations point to "explanatory notes" which aren't numbered, but are instead indexed with a (very) extended Greek alphabet? Then those notes in turn point to sfn-formatted citations with corresponding references? That's very confusing, and it's nonstandard to the point of uniqueness. Additionally, you've got unformatted external links (like in the lead). There are books missing ISBN numbers (I believe the Barker book is 978-0-7134-3189-6, for example), and books without issued ISBN numbers should ideally have OCLC numbers instead. The division of books into printed and electronic sections based, presumably, on how you accessed them, is very confusing to the reader and not at all a standard practice. Google Books is not a publisher per se; you're also very inconsistent how you refer to Google Books and whether it's italicized. Most of the printed journal entries lack page numbers, and I'm highly dubious of the way you've formatted the title of the Austen reference (if it doesn't have a title, don't make one up). Malformed templating abounds (Chadwick, Andrews, Strahan, Witcher, likely others). Several of the website references are insufficiently formatted ("North York Moors" is little more than a bare link), and several are not reliable sources (including MyHeritage, Wiktionary pages, and a Wikipedia image file!). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose rather than pointing out some issues that you can see and giving me an opporunity to fix? Why? The FAC guidelines suggest that reviewers and editors work together to improve articles, this unsightly brief comment stating oppose is hardly conducive to that end. Additionally, offering a wall of text rather than cogent and well ordered points makes your comments difficult to respond to: nevertheless, I will attempt to do so. Most of your points were covered and explained at GA review, but I will revisit them here. I would urge you to change your oppose to a comment and allow us to work on addressing these minor issues that have raised. I have broken up your comments into bullet points in order to address them rationally and individually PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm usually pretty amenable to letting folks respond intra my comments (even though the header says not to), but please don't bulk-refactor my response like that. Also, from the header (and this one is taken rather seriously), "the use of graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages is discouraged". As it stands, however, simply bringing the citation and referencing system into something compliant with criterion 2c will require changing hundreds of citations; that's error-prone work in a task that cannot afford errors. Regardless of what else is right or wrong with this article, I remain convinced that it's in the best interests of the article's development to close this nomination early and use the two week relisting lockout to rebuild the citation structure into something more standard, fix the broken reference templates, add the missing information, clean out the clearly unreliable sources, and then bring it back to FAC for a clean second look. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no wish to withdraw the article nomination. You are of course entitled to your opinion on this matter, but it is a shame that you are not willing to work with me as a reviewer to fix any issues that you have with the citations within this review and work as a team as others above are willing to do. Your revert of your comments into an impenetrable wall of text is similarly unhelpful and makes responding to your points in a clear way very difficult. I had hoped not to encounter awkward reviewers such as yourself, but c'est la vie - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yikes ... Dan, insulting the reviewers ("awkward reviewers such as yourself") is not the best way to attract others to review your nomination. Squeamish Ossifrage is not new to reviewing FACs, and I doubt he'd recommend withdrawal lightly. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It is a little inventive to read my characterisation of this reviewer as "awkward" as an insult given that this is a transparently accurate representation of his behaviour. He is deliberately making it awkward for me to respond to and action the points he raised. I'm not sure quite how else you would describe his behaviour in reverting my edit that broke his wall of text into actionable points that I could respond to and action in editing the article. You can check the edit of his. He also refuses to change his oppose to a comment and give me a chance to fix the points he raised as I am entitled to do and have offered to do. How would you yourself characterise this behaviour? It is certainly not a hepful and collaborative behaviour. I am interested in attracting helpful editors who are interested in raising constructive comments that are actionable and that I can respond to. Reviewers such as the one referenced here I, and wikipedia, can do without. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I would characterize this response as exactly the kind that would encourage me to volunteer my feedback elsewhere. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

So be it, don't let me stop you. Have a nice day - PocklingtonDan (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I do understand your frustration. The FAC environment, including my contributions, is characterized by a different level of intensity than many of the project's other processes. I'm certain it's unpleasant to have pushed an article through GAN and a peer review only to have a reviewer here tell you that it is facially incompatible with the featured article criteria in its current state. Some of what I listed above really should have been brought up in those earlier stages; I would not have passed this article at GAN. You are welcome to disagree with me, of course (ultimately, the delegates will weigh conflicting opinions here). You're even welcome, I suppose, to call me awkward and unhelpful, although I can't see how that improves the article or the project as a whole. You are not, however, welcome to use status graphics on this page (per the FAC instructions), nor to refactor my comments without my permission (per the talk page guidelines). If this article's citations and references were structured in any of the generally acceptable styles, I'd be happy to do a more detailed analysis intended to be replied to (and there's quite a bit of prose that needs work; for example: "The structure has, in some sections only, been reported by Codrington and archaeologist Frank Elgee to have been flanked by lateral ditches that ran parallel to its course, but Hayes is both doubtful whether such ditches have been proven to be extant, and also questions whether, even if their existence is proven, these represent part of the structure's original construction."). But unless and until that happens, there's no shortage of other places for me to spend my time and effort, the vast majority of which involve editors who don't feel it's necessary to insult me even should they disagree with me. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

On the sentence you point out, Squeamish, that was about where I stopped in the peer review. Changed to: "The structure has been reported by Codrington and archaeologist Frank Elgee to have been flanked in a few sections by lateral ditches that ran parallel to its course. Hayes is doubtful whether such ditches would represent part of the structure's original construction, and if they even existed." - Dank (push to talk) 01:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Dank

P-Dan, we'll be happy to help with referencing over at MilHist's A-class review, if this FAC fails (which seems likely at the moment). - Dank (push to talk) 00:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• I see I got down to Extant course in the peer review, I'll start from there.
• "consists of [an x-mile] section of the structure on": FAC reviewers are generally looking for a tighter style. I'm not sure, but it looks like you could replace all that with "runs for x miles". Be on the lookout for nouns that don't really add information.
• "the absence of much vegetation": Absence of a lot of something is a roundabout way of saying "not much". "the sparse vegetation" works.
• "on the macro scale": raises the question for me of how big the macro scale is
• "consisting on closer detail of several short, straight sections": consisting of several short, straight sections
• "that pivot occasionally onto new alignments": that turn
• "not clearly demanded by the landscape or surveying concerns": I admit I'm not clear whether we're talking about a roadway that was built 6,000 or 2,000 years ago, but either way, that's a long time ... what would their "surveying concerns" have been?
• "near Morley Cross; east of Keys Beck; near Hazle houses; at July Park; and at Castle Hill.": Commas are better when none of the elements are complex (and often even when some of them are).
• That's all in the following subsection from where I stopped before. - Dank (push to talk) 01:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose by John

Oppose per strange referencing system and prose concerns. --John (talk) 06:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose by J3Mrs

Referencing and prose issues were raised at the GAN review. The editor unilaterally decided he was correct after I walked away. The article is very long and it is a compilation rather than a summary. It's much longer now and needs a serious copyedit. J3Mrs (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by PocklingtonDan

I continue to find the article review process on wikipedia an incredibly frustrating process that adds little or no value to an article and causes maximum frustration to editors. Wikipedia editors give up their free time to make wikipedia better by adding content and the GA/FA process is combative and does little or nothing to improve articles. I find there is virtually no interest in actually ensuring the production of comprehensive, well researched articles but that instead there to be an unhealthy obsession with curt prose and formatting concerns and virtually zero effort expended in ensuring that content is correct and reflects accurately and in an unbiased manner the subject being written about. Where stylistic problems are observed, no opportunity is given for editors to respond to them and make edits to mitigate them before "oppose" is called. In short, the GA and FA review process is run by a bunch of grammar nazis who know nothing about the article subject and do not value useful contributions to Wikipedia.

The problem appears to be that the FA process is negative only. Ie it is a process of picking fault, not recognising quality. So you end up with a ridiculous situation where the more full and complete an article is (which should make it a useful article) in fact is marked down at GA/FA compared to a poor article with little or no content of worth, because there is less to criticise. That seems to be how articles for FA review such as How Brown Saw the Baseball Game attract no opposes, despite being brief and of little worth, whereas articles like this one, which has introduced a wealth of well-researched information to the encyclopaedia on a far more notable topic, attracts loads of opposes.

I can't help but feel that a more sane gauge of an article's worth might be to include some indication of *positive* merit of the article so that you have a score for both and can judge articles in a more even manner than at present.

I withdraw this nomination since I find the process itself fundamentally flawed. I will be performing no further work on this article, all you have succeeded in doing is making me have no further interest in editing wikipedia. I wonder how many editors you have burned out over the years with this ridiculous process? I'm betting quite a few. Knock yourselves out with the article. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

As one of the FAC coordinators I'm sorry you feel that way, but prose and formatting are part of the criteria, and you are dealing here with several reviewers very experienced in those criteria. Content is of course also vital but ideally that should be largely sorted before getting to FAC, for instance through Peer Review, or A-Class Review if applicable. I hope that you may yet take up Dank's suggestion of a MilHist ACR, and take on board suggestions for improvement there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

No, this experience has put me off bothering to contribute to wikipedia in future, on this or any other article - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.