Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/January 2014: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Add 2
added one
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOClimit|2}}
{{TOClimit|2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Orel Hershiser's scoreless inning streak/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tintin (character)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tintin (character)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Taylor v. Beckham/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Taylor v. Beckham/archive1}}

Revision as of 06:50, 10 January 2014

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, 10 January 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Orel Hershiser's scoreless inning streak

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Major League Baseball's current consecutive scoreless innings record streak by Orel Hershiser. This is a new type of article at FAC so I hope a lot of sports fans will take the time to shape it correctly as a model for future articles on records.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this nom would be more appropriate for featured list. Beerest 2 talk 02:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I believe this article is a solid start, but the FAC criteria require a subject to be placed in context. Nowhere does this article discuss why the streak is important or how the streak was covered by the press at the time. Without that info, this is not quite ready to be featured. Indrian (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't its importance established in the first sentence that says: "Orel Hershiser's scoreless inning streak is the current Major League Baseball record for consecutive scoreless innings pitched by a pitcher." Does it need to be more important than that to be a FA (according to WP:WIAFA)?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you misunderstand. I am aware that this is a noteworthy streak because I am a baseball fan and baseball history enthusiast. I am not saying the topic is not worthy. However, the article needs to articulate this importance by pulling from reliable sources that explain its significance. Without that, this is a list of dates and game summaries with no larger context, and criteria 1b specifically requires context. One sentence saying that this feat is a "record" does not explain to the layman why he should care. Indrian (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • In terms of information at the time, we have Sports Illustrated, The New York Times, and Los Angeles Times from 1988. What are you looking for in terms of press at the time. Why is that insufficient press at the time according to WP:WIAFA?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, you have no press coverage of the streak, you have information on individual games pulled from contemporaneous sources. Placing this streak in context requires coverage of the feat itself.
        1. When did people start to believe Hershiser might set a new record?
        2. How much attention did the media focus on him?
        3. Did the extra pressure have any effect on his performance?
        4. Did the fact that a very popular former Dodger held the record at the time play a role in people's perception of the streak?
        5. Did Lasorda manage differently when Hershiser pitched as the streak progressed?
        6. How did the division race affect things?
        7. What kind of celebrations and/or festivities were held when the record was broken?
      • Not all of the questions I have posed may be relevant or answerable, but some of this narrative needs to be developed to have a comprehensive article. All you have is dates and games. Indrian (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose You can't assume everyone is a baseball expert. The lead didn't help me at all, so I didn't read further. I'm baffled by unexplained jargon like 7-time All-Star... baseball Hall of Famer... relievers... born an asterisk...— I can't even visualise how you can give birth to an asterisk, irrespective of any jargon meaning Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They were just examples. Scoreless innings isn't defined, I assumed initially it was a bad thing like a duck in cricket or a team not scoring in football. Is it inning or innings? Both occur in the opening sentence. Also prose issues; "Greatest" twice in second sentence, low numbers should be spelt out etc. I think that this may well be a potential FA, but we are being asked to do a lot of work here, that should have been addressed before it's nominated. I suggest withdrawing, making it intelligible to a non-baseball fan and getting the copyediting issues sorted Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- As the reviewer of the GA nominee. It just became a GA: take some time to expand, reference, and clarify. Jimfbleak is right. Although I do happen to know about baseball, nor everyone does. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 17:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, let me go by WP:WIAFA: it fails #1a. It likely fails other criterion (including partially 1b). Tony, you completely missed the point of my statement above. It just passed a GA: go make some improvements first. Unless an article is quick passed (I'd bet that's a rarity), it will likely not pass as a FA immediately. I said exactly what I meant: add references, make it easier to understand for a group other than sports fanatics. Trust me, if the GA reviewer hadn't been a sports fanatic like myself, it would not have been as easy of a pass. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 15:19, 6 January 2014 (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 10:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Tintin (character)

Nominator(s): Prhartcom (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the character Tintin, the eponymous hero of the series The Adventures of Tintin. I have been editing the Tintin articles since 2007 and recently rewrote this article. My respectful plan is to work with other editors to raise the quality of all Tintin articles. Thank-you for your time. Prhartcom (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Here are some suggestions to help improve this article:

I agree with all of the following suggestions. Prhartcom (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead seems to have a lot of puffery and editorializing. For example: "tremendous spirit", "Millions have done so, both adults and children, readers from more countries than Tintin himself ever travelled", "outpouring of public grief not seen in the comics world", "ageless hero lives on", and "an inspiration in the 21st century, a beacon of excellence for the future". These phrases need a more neutral tone.
Agreed. Done (rewritten). Prhartcom (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During these younger days, Hergé had plenty of time to observe his five-years-younger brother Paul" --> "During his youth, Hergé had observed his younger brother Paul"
Agreed. Done. Prhartcom (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "they simply illustrated a story printed in the text below" is a little confusing.
Agreed. Done (more clearly stated). Prhartcom (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Amid the experience of working in a busy newspaper, reading the exploits of the famous, often roguish reporter Albert Londres further influenced Hergé. As well, the news of Palle Huld, the 15-year-old Danish Boy Scout world traveller would not have escaped Hergé's notice" --> "Hergé's writing was inspired by the stories of adventurous individuals that were printed Le Vingtième Siècle. Albert Londres, a famous, often roguish reporter, and Palle Huld, a 15-year-old Danish Boy Scout travelling the world, were particularly influential in the creation of the character of Tintin"
Agreed (although this is passive voice). Done. Prhartcom (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The short subsections under "Characterisation" and "Reception" look a little odd. Several should probably merged and/or expanded.
Agreed. Done (merged two and expanded another). Prhartcom (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these suggestions were helpful. Best of luck, --1ST7 (talk) 06:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to provide your helpful expertise; I have applied all of your suggestions. I hope you can return to give your support for FA. Prhartcom (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and thanks for making the suggested modifications. I'd like to do a more thorough review before voting to support or oppose this nomination, which will probably be posted in the next 1-2 days. Until then, --1ST7 (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. (Thank you for asking)

  • As a rule reduce the use of quotes, I suggest they are only used in footnotes. Don't mention de Gaulle in lead, it is too small a detail.
  • Origin section contains OR and POV, roughly I would suggest:

Years before Tintin first appeared on the pages of the children's newspaper Le Petit Vingtième on 10 January 1929,[1] Hergé was drawing pictures in the margins of his school workbooks of an unnamed young man battling les Boches (slang for the Germans) whilst German armies marched through the streets of Belgium during World War I.[2] Later Herge drew a Boy Scout character for the national magazine Le Boy Scout Belge. This young man, whom he named Totor, travelled the globe and righted wrongs.[3] Tintin appeared after Hergé got his first job working at the Catholic newspaper Le Vingtième Siècle, where his director challenged him to create a new serialised comic for its Thursday supplement for young readers.[4] Totor had been very much in Hergé’s mind; its new comics character would be, Hergé himself later said, "the little brother of Totor ... keeping the spirit of a Boy Scout."[5] As inspiration for Tintin Herge also mentions his younger brother whose physical appearance included a round face and a quiff hairstyle.[6][note] As well, Hergé may have been inspired by the stories of two adventurous individuals printed in the pages of Le Vingtième Siècle. Albert Londres, a famous, often roguish reporter,[7] and Palle Huld, a 15-year-old Danish Boy Scout travelling the world as a reporter.[8]

[Note] Paul's army life included the endurance of jeers from his fellow officers when the source of Hergé's visual inspiration became obvious.[9] Hergé later said, "People say that ... Tintin looks like my younger brother. That's possible ... All I can say is that during my childhood ... I observed him a lot. He amused and fascinated me. And that, no doubt, is the explanation why Tintin borrowed his character, his gestures and attitudes."[10]

Soerfm (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you Soerfm for your comments. If it is all right, I will wait to see if others agree with your suggestions. I can tell you there is no OR in this article. Thanks again. Prhartcom (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way...nice attempt! Soerfm (talk) 11:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/suggestions for the lead:

  • "the comics series by Belgian cartoonist Hergé" — maybe "a comic series" instead.
  • "Tintin lives on" could be replaced with something less metaphorical, like "Tintin remains a popular literary figure".
  • "Tintin has been reviled by some for his more controversial depictions of race and other factors" --> "Tintin has been criticized for his more controversial depictions of race and other factors".
  • Please mention Charles de Gaulle's nationality.

More later. --1ST7 (talk) 08:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that all of these are an improvement and I am grateful, 1ST7, for your help ... with only one exception: It's "comics" (this has been pointed out to me by the comics community of Wikipedia; I understand "comics" is the singular, as well as plural, term; see for yourself at Comics.) Thanks again for taking the time to help improve this article for FA; see you back here again soon. Prhartcom (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the origin section:

  • Overall I think Soerfm's suggested revision flows better and is more NPOV. I disagree with the part about the quotes, though, and believe they are fine in the article so long as they are not overused.

As a side note, I think this review would be simpler (and more likely to result in a pass) if the article were submitted to the WP:GOCE for a copyedit and then resubmitted as an FA candidate, as Kailash suggested. The sourcing appears to be well organized with every fact having a reference, but the text has too many phrases that don't sound encyclopedic (ex: "a vibrant testimony to the deep and everlasting importance of Tintin", "If he had perhaps too much of the goody-goody about him, at least he was not priggish", and "both Hergé and his readers feel they know Tintin well"). --1ST7 (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you; see my reply below. Prhartcom (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose: The article is not even a good article, and one needs great courage to take it to FA status without making it a GA. But I say first get it well edited with help from the GOCE, then continue work here. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for your comments, if not your strong support, Kailash29792. I agree with you, it does take great courage to take this article, that I believe is good, to FA status with everyone's help. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what 1ST7, Kailash29792, and Soerfm are saying and I understand exactly what you mean. Thank-you for clearly stating this, also for acknowledging the sourcing, which I worked hard to achieve. I see that GOCE has a fairly stiff backlog. Please allow me to immediately attempt to make the kind of improvements to the prose to achieve the NPOV encyclopedic tone that is required and return here to let you know when that is done. Prhartcom (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: FAC coordinators, please assist me by withdrawing this nomination at this time, for the following reasons:

  • At least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn, at least temporarily
  • An editor whom I respect has begun editing it, which brings down the level of confidence for comprehensiveness

I will address both of these until their resolution is completely satisfactory, then re-submit in approximately one month. Thank-you. Prhartcom (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2014 (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 10:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Taylor v. Beckham

Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article in response to a request at my featured topic nomination of Kentucky gubernatorial election, 1899. This article covers the Supreme Court case that settled said election, which was very contentious and resulted in the only assassination of a U.S. governor in history. The article was promoted to GA shortly after its creation, has been peer reviewed, and is part of the aforementioned featured topic. I'm not a legal expert, so a review from someone who is would be great. I'll try to respond to comments promptly, but no promises with a fairly new baby at home. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images are all fine, captions are good. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Coemgenus
  • In "History", I'd replace "pursuant to" with "under". My fellow attorneys and I often overuse that phrase where a simpler word would do just as well.
  • The militia in Louisville: something is unclear here. Were they seen as helping the Republicans? Why was this so, given that the rest of the state government seemed dominated by Democrats? Was Louisville a Republican city? Was the militia commander connected with that party?
    • In trying to do a quick review of the source material (it's been a while since I looked at it in-depth), Tapp notes that both sides thought Louisville would be critical to their candidate's election, so it is doubtful that it leaned heavily one way or the other. Tapp also notes that Taylor won by over 3,000 votes in Louisville, which is why the Democrats wanted the vote there thrown out. While I can't source this right now, I suspect the issue was this – the sitting governor was Republican William O'Connell Bradley, the first Republican ever to hold the office. As governor, he was commander-in-chief of the state militia and had broad appointment powers under the state constitution that included naming the state's adjutant general, the next in line over the militia. He was pretty free in his use of the militia during his term, trying to quell racial violence, and even to restore the peace in another contentious election, the 1896 senatorial election that finally chose William Deboe to succeed incumbent J. C. S. Blackburn. For several years after this, Democrats charged that Republican governors were too quick to utilize the state militia. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Lower court decisions," you use "opined" twice in the second paragraph. Some other synonym would stand out less.
  • In "Arguments", maybe it's a pet peeve of mine, but the one-sentence paragraph looks bad. I'd combine it with the previous paragraph, but if you think this is out of line, feel free to disregard -- it won't make a difference in whether I support.
    • I am also generally averse to one-sentence paragraphs, so I feel certain another editor made this change at some point, and I either missed it or didn't care enough to change it back. Merged with the previous paragraph. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 19:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Opinion, concurrences and dissent," I think there should be a comma after "1910 book".
  • Same section: is there any evidence in the sources that Harlan's connection to Kentucky influenced his decision? Not to imply anything improper (Harlan is one of my favorite justices,) I just wondered if there was anything said about it. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I didn't see any implication that his heritage swayed his opinion, although he was unquestionably one of the best-known Republican leaders in Kentucky prior to his appointment to the bench. He made a couple of unsuccessful runs for governor, and if I remember correctly, was an associate of both Governor Bradley and Augustus Willson, counsel for Taylor and future Republican Kentucky governor. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 19:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me. I am happy to support this excellent article. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Quadell

This is a fascinating bit of history, and as a native Kentuckian, I'm surprised I hadn't heard of it before. The article's prose is excellent, as is the sourcing. I have just a few comments and suggestions.

  • The "Subsequent developments" section is quite short. Are there any cases that cite this as precedent? Has it been notably cited by commentators regarding the nature of property or political offices, or in relation to other times when the Supreme Court has had to weigh in on the outcome of an election? How did Republicans and Democrats react in the immediate aftermath? Would a (very) brief summary of Taylor's or Beckham's subsequent career be warranted as a "subsequent development"?
    • I'm not a lawyer, and this article is a bit out of my usual area of interest, so I can't say with any degree of certainty that it hasn't been cited as precedent. Another editor, who seemed to have legal experience, added this section in response to a similar query on the article's talk page. I did try to search for citations as best I could given the sources I have access to and my meager understanding of jurisprudence, but I didn't find anything. As for how everyone immediately reacted, folks were surprisingly civil given the tense situation prior to the decision. Taylor fled to Indiana and never held political office again. Beckham served out Goebel's term, then was elected to one of his own, did one term in the U.S. Senate, and went on to be a factional leader within the state Democratic Party. Neither is especially relevant to the case at hand, in my opinion, but I could expand along these lines if you think it appropriate. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it would be good to have a sentence or two about how the various parties fared in the immediate aftermath. And given the high level of tension before the ruling (armed men filling the capitol, blocking legislatures from convening), I think it's notable that nothing much happened. I have asked GregJackP if he has any more advice about what belongs in this section. – Quadell (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be a minor inconsistency of capitalization for "governor". C.f. "legally the governor of Kentucky" and "former governor John Y. Brown" vs. "ex-Governor Bradley". I've found it difficult to nail down exactly when "governor" should be capitalized, but there should be a consistently-applied rationale.
    • I've also had difficulty finding a consistent rule. I try to capitalize it only when it is a title applied to a name (e.g. Governor Beckham or Governor Taylor) and not when it is in reference to the office (e.g. office of governor, elected governor, or became governor). Two instances from this article are potentially problematic under that rationale – former governor John Y. Brown and future governor Augustus E. Willson. In this case, I'm note sure whether it is more properly a title or and office. I would appreciate your thoughts. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This same issue came up at a different FAC. In my view, "Governor" should be capitalized when it's attached as a title to a name (e.g. "Governor Beckham") or when giving the full, official name of the title (e.g. "Governor of Kentucky"), but should be lowercase when used as a simple noun (e.g. "Kentucky's governor, Augustus E. Willson"). I'm pretty sure "ex-Governor So-and-so", "former Governor Such-and-such", and "future Governor Whatsisname" should all be treated the same, but whether they should be capitalized or not, I don't know. In the absence of something definitive, I'd say anything consistent would be fine. – Quadell (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to your responses. – Quadell (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, but you know how the holidays can be. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. – Quadell (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose.

  • Opinion of the Court section needs to be retitled as Supreme Court or the Arguments subsection needs to be moved into the Background section, see WP:SCOTUS/SG.
  • If the section is retitled per above, the Opinions, concurrences and dissent subsection needs to be broken down into separate subsections. One subsection for the Opinion of the Court, no Concurrence subsection is needed, and one for each of the two dissents, identified by justice, i.e., Dissent of Justice Harlan.
  • The article has only one thin paragraph on the majority opinion. This needs to be expanded. Fuller explains his decision and distinguished why the Court did not have jurisdiction in this case when it had exercised jurisdiction in earlier cases that appeared similar. Remember, in a legal article, the primary source (the opinion) can be used as a reference, see MOS:LAW#Citations and referencing. There can also be more information on why the offices are not "property" and therefore not subject to judicial review under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also mentioned that it considered the issue of guaranteeing a republican form of government to be a political question, not suitable for judicial review. It held that the discussion belonged in other forums, not at the Court. None of this is in the article.
    • This is not something I'll be able to do soon, but I will take that into account. I do usually avoid primary sources, and as this kind of article is out of my bailiwick, I wasn't aware that I should be using them here.
  • The article misidentifies Justice Brewer's dissent as a concurrence. "Mr. Justice Brewer dissenting: I am unable to concur in all that is said by the Chief Justice in the opinion just announced, and will state briefly wherein I dissent." Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U.S. 548, 581 (1900).
  • I went ahead and changed it, since the primary source (the opinion) specifically said that it was a dissent. It's not the first time that a secondary source has done this on a SCOTUS or legal matter, which is why primary sources have primacy when dealing with factual accuracy. GregJackP Boomer! 00:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Subsequent development section is way too thin for an article on a SCOTUS case. Some of what is listed in the opinion section does not deal with the opinion, but with later analysis and commentary on the opinion, such as the paragraph on Willoughby's book. This more properly belongs in the Subsequent development section. Additionally, there are plenty of book that refer to the decision and give analysis, and plenty of scholarly articles, such as Equity Jurisdiction over Issues Involving Title to Office, 17 Va. L. Rev. 814 (1931), etc. This also needs to address the justicability issue that guided the Court until the decision in Baker v. Carr in 1962, where the Court departed from the Taylor line in cases of redistricting.
  • At the present, I have to oppose as the article is not comprehensive (1.b.) nor well-researched (1.c.). GregJackP Boomer! 18:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honestly, this is the review I've been expecting for some time. To expect that someone with no formal legal training and only a passing knowledge of jurisprudence in general could write a featured article on a Supreme Court case was a bit far-fetched. I listed it as much to find the holes as because I thought it could be promoted as-is. Thanks for the feedback, GregJackP. Any chance you'd be interested in working with me to get this up to snuff after the holiday nuttiness has settled down? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- The nominator hasn't been editing for some days. Given it's the silly season I'll leave this open a few more days to give him a chance to respond to Greg's concerns, otherwise we may have to archive it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we can leave this open a little longer than normal, I would appreciate it. The nominator did a very good job on the history part, it's just the legal part that needs some work. And, like you noted, this is the holiday season, when a number of people do not get on as much. I think we should give him every opportunity to fix it. GregJackP Boomer! 15:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the leeway, folks. It was my youngest daughter's first Christmas, and a big one for my three-year-old as well. It's fine to archive this, as it will take some serious study and work to address GregJackP's comments properly. Hopefully, this won't be the end of the line for this article. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Based on AC's response I think we'd best archive the nom at this point so that he, perhaps with assistance from Greg, can improve it at leisure and then renominate. Thanks all for your input. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Alfred North Whitehead

Nominator(s): Joseph Petek (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completed a near-total rewrite of this article on November 20th. It then passed GA review on November 24th, and I have spent considerable time after the successful GA pass to address additional comments from the GA reviewer. Some of these changes were to the substance of the article, but the majority addressed formatting concerns – I have tried to consistently apply the Chicago Manual of Style.

The number of featured articles related to philosophy is depressingly small, so it is difficult for me to assess the worthiness of the current entry for the FA distinction, but it seems to me to meet all the criteria.

I must make one note on my availability. In case this nomination lasts longer than twelve days, reviewers should know that I will be away for the holiday break from the night of December 21st to the 27th. I may still be able to address some concerns during this period, but I will be away from my books, and so will likely be unable to check most citation-related problems. However, I will certainly respond quickly and thoroughly to all concerns upon my return. Joseph Petek (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the Influenced entries are not sourced or explained in the article. (See also discussions at Template talk:Infobox person about the use of these parameters in the more general template)
I will consider what to do about this tomorrow. The box was there when I began editing the article and I have not changed it. Either I'll delete it or find references for all the people mentioned, then leave another note here. Joseph Petek (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have now sourced every name in the "Influenced" and "Influenced by" infobox. I also alphabetized both lists, because they were getting a little out of hand. I subtracted a few names for which I could not immediately find a reference (I'm sure they're out there, but I could spend forever on this), but I actually added many more. Joseph Petek (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the time George Boole's algebra of logic made a strong counterpoint to ordinary number algebra, so the term "universal" served to calm strained sensibilities" - source?
I deleted this statement because I could not find a source for it (not written by me). I did source a few other statements in this section while I was looking at it. Joseph Petek (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "education should be the exact opposite of the multidisciplinary, value-free school model" - source?
Sourced. Joseph Petek (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless some source has noted things like "ironically", they should be excluded
Here I disagree. "Ironically" only appears once, and it seems to me to be an entirely appropriate use. I had just quoted Whitehead saying that he was hugely ignorant of metaphysics. The fact that he ended up being one of the 20th century's foremost metaphysicians is the very definition of irony, and I don't think it stylistically inappropriate to say so (or maybe some other more innocuous word, like "surprisingly"? idk). But if it's really important to you, I can still remove it. Joseph Petek (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Whitehead regarded metaphysical investigations as essential to both good science and good philosophy" - source?
Sourced. Joseph Petek (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping that part of the check there: please look for other places where sources may be needed. Also, I find myself rather uncomfortable with the way in which "we" is used in some places - do go through to make sure the tone remains encyclopedic throughout, before another reviewer takes a look

I have removed all instances of "we" and "our." As for other statements that may need references, I can take another pass at it, but I believe it's well-sourced as it stands. I did delete that once sentence from the Universal Algebra section that you mentioned, and that was my bad for not double-checking a statement that someone else had written. But for all other sections below this one I was the primary writer, and in my estimation, if any sentence is not referenced it is because it is repeating information that has already been cited (for instance, I do quite a bit of repetition in the philosophy section to help further explain concepts), or will be sourced with a quote in the sentence following, or is very unlikely to be challenged. Other editors will have differing opinions on which statements need references. I am happy to provide references for any statement which any other editor calls to my attention. Joseph Petek (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:LAYOUT, Further reading and External links should appear after References, and there should be no duplication between these sections
Sections have been re-arranged and I have removed all but two instances of repetition between the lists, both of which are negotiable. I left the Schilpp volume in "Further reading," simply because it is a citation for the full volume rather than a specific article. I also left the external link to the Center for Process Studies. Even though it had been cited already and mentioned in the article, this is the single largest resource on the web for Whitehead-related research, so my feeling is that it should stay in. Again, both of these are negotiable. Joseph Petek (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check that books consistently include publisher location; FN3, for example, does not
Done. I caught a few others in addition to the one mentioned here.
  • In some cases it will be necessary to include state or country to disambiguate locations, for example for the two Cambridges (UK and US)
Hmm. There were only three instances where "Cambridge" was the US one. In those three instances I inserted "Massachusetts" after "Cambridge." I have left the others alone. Is this satisfactory? I don't normally see countries or states listed in Chicago Style citation, possibly because the name of the publisher tends to disambiguate (e.g., a Google search for "Cambridge University Press" will tell you that it is in England). Say the word, though, and I'll do it. Joseph Petek (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some works are missing their ISBNs - why?
By "some" you mean "most"! I have not been routinely listing ISBNs as part of my referencing. I have been following Chicago Style, in which they are not required. Are they really necessary in every instance? I'm not sure why they would be. And are you talking about all cited books, or just the primary bibliography and further reading sections? Joseph Petek (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN28: article/review title?
Fixed. Joseph Petek (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN66: why not just include both sets of page numbers in the first citation, rather than making a new full citation to the same work in the same footnote?
Actually, you misread here. The references were from two different books ;-) (they are now FN55 and FN68 FN96 and FN108). However, I did take the opportunity to split all but one citation that listed multiple sources (the one I left alone had a short note that applied to both, and neither source was used again). Joseph Petek (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publication names like the Vancouver Sun should be italicized
Done... I think. Question: Should I be italicizing organizations that are not really publishers? For instance: Center for Process Studies, Institute for the Postmodern Development of China, Center for Environmental Philosophy, etc.? And how about websites, like Sunypress.edu (currently FN123 FN158)? Joseph Petek (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping this part of the check here. Oppose for now pending nominator response and edits to the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I'm afraid that with no new comments for three weeks, even allowing for the distractions of the festive season, this review appears to have stalled. I'll therefore be archiving it shortly, and it can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period per FAC instructions. Looking briefly over the prose, however, I'd suggest that it be copyedited and go through Peer Review before returning here, as some of the phrasing seems more appropriate to an essay than an encyclopedic article, e.g. "This is not to say that", "Indeed, it may not be inappropriate", "To put it another way", "It must be emphasized, however", etc. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC) [5].[reply]

USS Iowa (BB-4)

Nominator(s): Magus732 (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the pre-dreadnought battleship Iowa. I believe it should be featured because of the concise nature of the article, its comformity to established writing style, and the extensive but not overwhelming detail about the ship's history. Magus732 (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Was the editor who wrote this article consulted before you nominated it for FAC?
  • The "Superior design" section header needs to be changed.
  • The first paragraph of that section needs to go.
  • Spell out uncommon units at the first use - indicated horsepower and nautical miles for instance. We don't make readers click links to find out what something is.
  • Much of the article is overly wordy and should be cut down. For example:
    • "The Congress of the United States authorized a 9,000 long tons (9,100 t) warship on 19 July 1892. Specifically, it was for a 'seagoing coastline battleship', to fill the Navy's desire for a ship that could sail and fight effectively in open waters; the preceding Indiana class— authorized by Congress as 'coast-defense battleships'— had many problems with endurance and speed" - it would be much better to simply state something along the lines of "On 19 July 1892, Congress authorized a 9,000-long ton (9,100 t) battleship, the design of which should improve upon the speed and endurance of the preceding Indiana class." The rest is needless padding.
    • "One unexpected circumstance was that an Austrian battleship also named Infanta Maria Theresa was in the vicinity wanting to enter Santiago harbor, but upon outbreak of hostilities, waited for orders from the Americans after seeing the conflict; her presence caused mild confusion at some points but there is no evidence of the Austrian vessel being fired on." - Two things: how is this relevant? Also, the Austrian vessel was named Kaiserin und Königin Maria Theresia, not Infanta Maria Theresa, and she was an armored cruiser, not a battleship.
  • For a unique design, the technical description is severely lacking. Please review the current FAs of unique warships to see how much detail should be included.
  • In addition, the technical description is all mixed up. The armament is discussed in parts of two different paragraphs, for example. Please arrange the information in coherent paragraphs.
  • Iowa was never called BB-4. That was the hull number assigned to the ship.
  • Why are the "Competing claims" and "Analysis" sections in this article? They would be better suited in the article about the battle, and neither seems particularly focused on Iowa.
  • The long list of ship names in the first paragraph of the service history section - what types of ships are these?
  • The prose has significant issues, such as:
    • "a surface-going torpedo boat - as opposed to...?
    • "A dangerous fire in Iowa's lower decks happened" - fires don't "happen", they break out, or something ignited something else.
  • Why does the ship's launching deserve its own subheader but not the Battle of Santiago?
  • Need a citation for the one note on the later Iowa.
  • There are far, far too many pictures.
  • "by the well known radio engineer," - we don't need to be told that he was "well known"
  • "(Incidentally, Mississippi later endured a deadly on-board explosion accident which took the lives of 48 crew members.)" - This article is about Iowa, not random incidents on other warships.
  • MOS issues, including but not limited to:
    • "30 14 in" - one of those numbers needs to be spelled out
    • "a salvo of 14 in (360 mm)" - don't convert measurements after the first instance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parsecboy (talk • contribs)

Oppose and recommend early closure I agree with Parsecboy's comments about the article being under-developed at present. It is currently probably not of GA standard, and falls well short of FA quality. In addition to Parsecboy's comments, I'd add the following:

  • Sourcing is not satisfactory: the article is heavily dependent on DANFS (a non-independent and at best semi-reliable source given that its authors routinely excluded unattractive elements of ships' histories and made errors of fact in relation to campaigns and the like), and little use has been made of the various standard reference books on USN battleships. There seems to be no reason for such heavy use to have been placed on old stories from the NY Times (which are best though of as primary sources given their age).
  • The article's structure is a bid odd, with one paragraph sections on minor aspects of the ship's history
  • The lead is clearly inadequate
  • All in all, I'd suggest developing this article through building it to GA and then A-class standards before returning for another FAC. The friendly editors at WP:OMT can provide advice and assistance with this. Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments -- I'll be archiving this nomination shortly so that improvements can be made outside the pressure of the FAC process. Pls take onboard the valuable comments above, particularly to discuss with the article's main editor(s) and to progress through GAN and MilHist ACR before returning to FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Brazil

Nominator(s): VitorAzBine (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Brazil article exemplifies one of the best country articles on Wikipedia and deserves to be featured. If you are unsure, you are welcome to check other featured country articles, such as China, India, Australia, South Africa, and United States, and maybe Singapore to get an idea of how the Brazil article compares. If you object, please state explicitly why you object (no bias or personal opinions, like mentioning the article should be expanded or reduced, which not everyone agrees. Personal opinions also include reorganizing the sections or anything related. These should be put into the discussion page instead). Thank you. VitorAzBine (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The nominator's statement is not very encouraging. There are a lot of tags indicating the article has issues, such as missing citations, dead links, etc. --Rschen7754 15:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even at first glance, there are basic issues, such as the unresolved tags and dead links mentioned above, and an incorrectly capitalised heading. These may well be fixable, but the defensive tone of the nomination is likely to deter editors from engaging with this article. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose One should fix tags, and double check the sources (i.e. dead links) before coming to FAC. The article has some merits, but have to agree with other comments that the nominations tone is combative. FAC aims at improving articles with that last-stage polishing of already great material, it is not an arena for mortal combat. Check the tags, check the attitude, then come back. Not now.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hamiltonstone

Agree with comments above. A few specifics:

  • Many, many facts lacking citations. I know this article has a lot of references, but it needs more.
  • Some of the references are incomplete, such as footnotes 322, 326, and there is a host of footnote formatting issues (eg. is "page" going to be capitalised or not, abbreviated or not, when are cited sources going to be cited using Harvard and then listed in the bibliography, inconsistent formats of retrieval dates etc etc)
  • Environment: source quality and neutrality issues. Greenpeace are not high quality or reliable source for claims in an FA on a major nation state that "mines have scarred and polluted the landscape".
  • System of government: the article does not say how many representatives are elected to Congress, nor how often elections are held.
  • The section on the economy needs serious work. The subsection on tourism is ridiculously long, and it is odd that there is a subsection of "economy" regarding tourism, yet no subsection on other parts of the economy that are more important. Where is the subsection on mining? On manufacturing?
  • The education section is particularly weak. Reading it, I cannot tell any basic details such as: what is the structure of schooling as regards age of children; how many years of schooling are undertaken; to what age is it compulsory, if at all; what proportion of students are educated in publicly-run schools; is there a technical or vocational post-school education system at all; etc. The final paragraph is ungrammatical, unreferenced, and lacking in useful information.
  • The section on music mentions no individuals. I know these things are hard to weigh up, but i would have thought a few would warrant mention because of their international reputations and significance - the two that come to my mind are Heitor Villa-Lobos and João Gilberto.
  • Why are "sports" a subheading of the National holidays section?
  • Many sections of the article are in need of an intensive copyedit, with many sentences using broken English or unusual expressions (eg. "For most of its democratic history, Brazil has had a multi-party system, proportional representation".

Not ready for FAC I would have thought. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments -- Per above, I'll be archiving this nomination shortly. Pls take the comments on board and note that, per FAC instructions, there's a two-week minimum waiting period between an article being archived and the nominator bringing another (or the same one) here. Remember also that a little humility at FAC never goes astray. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2014 (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. ^ Farr 2001, p. 8.
  2. ^ Farr 2007, p. 11.
  3. ^ Thompson 1991, pp. 25–26.
  4. ^ Thompson 1991, pp. 17, 27–29.
  5. ^ Farr 2007, p. 13; Sadoul 1975.
  6. ^ Thompson 1991, p. 16.
  7. ^ Farr 2007, p. 13; Thompson 1991, p. 39.
  8. ^ Jensen 2012; Liljestrand 2012.
  9. ^ Thompson 1991, p. 19.
  10. ^ Farr 2007, p. 16; Le Soir December 1940.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/January_2014&oldid=590039570"