Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/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 10:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC) [1].

---

Gangnam Style

Nominator(s): Order of the sword (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the song made by Psy. This song has hit very high population numbers in Youtube. This is the first time this article has been nominated for a featured article. It already is a good article. Order of the sword (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comments/Oppose

This is way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way too detailed. 60,000 characters for a song? No. Period.

You have very few edits to the article, if any. Have you contacted the main contributors (A1candidate, Sp33dyphil, et al.) to see if they think the article is ready? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I can only agree with Crisco 1492 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Seriously, an experienced editor like yourself should not oppose an article due to 60k characters size. It's hardly too long; it is the most famous cultural product of a major nation. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Piotrus, my comment above was lazy. It's the fact that the nominator has not edited the article and is unlikely to be able to respond to comments adequately that concerns me, rather than its length Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Piotrus, read WP:SPLIT again. At 60k, splitting is strongly suggested. That sub-articles were backmerged here is just a blunder that's come back to bite us. This needs serious pruning. "Amazing Grace", with a much longer pedigree and greater societal influence, is only 37k characters in length. William Shakespeare, probably the most-written about author in history, is at 38k characters. Both are FA. This is clearly not. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Order of the sword. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I recognise that we should expect this article to be relatively long for an article on an individual song, in recognition of its extensive cultural impact through things like large numbers of parodies, and its adoption in many campaigns (far more than for many other songs). I also recognise that it is appropriate that the article talk about the song's impact on interest in Korean wave and Korean music. I still agree with Crisco, though, that it is too long. This reflects the lack of filtering applied to the article, separating the important from the unimportant, and the fact that the article tends to try and list everything in a category (every instance of a parody or cover) rather than only listing major examples, or seeking secondary sources that have themselves summarised the significance of the work. There is needless duplication, for example having a section on 'reception' but a separate section on 'year-end media picks'. Why is there a section on review of the music video, and then later a para on year-end picks for the video? The 'see also' list is miles too long and appears to duplicate a large number of links in the various tables in the article. It can probably all be deleted. On the subject of filtering material - why do we have this massive list of weekly charts? Do I care that it charted at 42 in Romania? All of the subsections of text on charting information are absurdly detailed and can be reduced to a single short paragraph for each region. On the plus side, most of what is needed will already be here, and there's no shortage of references! (But on that subject: four citations for the fact that Obama might do it for Michelle? In fact, please remove that trivia altogether). hamiltonstone (talk) 11:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. 1) Just one comment: please incorporate the term remix culture into the article. 2) The first three paragraphs for "Cultural impact" section need their own subsection heading 3) there's at least one clarification needed tag 4) copyright issues are discussed in several places: at the end of "Production", and at the end of "Background and release". Please merge. I'd also like to see more, if possible, on the industry reaction to the spread of technically illegal parodies. Consider the following sources for expansion: [2], [3]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose In a way, this article does very well to reflect its subject—I got the same sense of "WTF!" reading it that I did when I first saw the music video. More seriously, the version that was awarded GA in Nov 2012 is much tighter and more concise. Since then, going by the top of the article talk page, several daughter articles have been merged wholesale into this parent article as the result of several AfDs. Subsequently, the current clusterfuck has risen.

To fix this article, I reckon the the GA-approved version would be a good starting point. Unless that is done, this doesn't even deserve to be a GA.—indopug (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Note Yes, i'm aware this is a very long article. However, note that the korean pop songs have been going on for a long time. This allows this for a GA nomination, along with many citations. Plus, Open Gangnam Style IS a popular song, after all, and many people that like it likely had a lot to say about this. Order of the sword (talk) 06:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Order of the sword

Yes, but a good encyclopedia article doesn't report all of it in the way this article does. The article could make use of good secondary sources that summarise and filter the information to present what is most important. Or editors need to filter it. But this article does not sufficiently 'summary style'. That's my view anyway. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• I suggest that the nominator read WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and see how it can be better applied here. That this song is a year and a half old, which in no way makes it "have been going on for a long time". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• It is connected with other Korean songs for some time, and as I saw, there were a couple of mergers to it. All are valid resources to it.Order of the sword (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Order of the sword

• "It is connected with other Korean songs for some time," - If you are saying that this inspired other music... that's kinda what famous songs do. It's not unique to Gangnam Style. Again, read WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2014 (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) 17:15, 18 January 2014 (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, 12 January 2014 (UTC) [4].

---

Of Human Feelings

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

This article has gone through two FACs, both of which were archived because of not enough feedback. Trying again, as an FAC coordinator said this may be exempt from the two-week wait ([5]). Dan56 (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources and images: I checked these out at the previous FAC, at which a few issues were resolved. All is well. Brianboulton (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Hzh

Here I'm concentrating mostly on the prose (criterion 1a) of the article. I think some sentences in the article need some minor adjustments because they don't flow well, or I had to pause and think about what the sentence meant, or perhaps the wrong choice of word is used. Below are some of the sentences I think need improving:

• "He wanted to teach his young sidemen a new improvisational and ensemble direction based on their individual tendencies and prevent them from being diminished by conventional styles." I think "approach" is a better word than "direction", and what or who "prevent them from being diminished by conventional styles"? ("Prevent" seems like the wrong word here, or it needs to be worded differently.)

Replaced w/"approach". Coleman wanted to "prevent them..."; added commas and "also" to avoid confusion, if it helps? Dan56 (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• "He had been fired by jazz organist Charles Earland for how much attention his playing received from audiences," Does "how much" mean too much or too little? That is, was he fired for hogging the limelight, or not attracting enough attention? It also could mean he wasn't fitting well with other musicians, so is this sentence a POV?

Clarified; changed to "the excessive amount of attention..." Dan56 (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• "It was ultimately rejected because of mechanical problems with the recording apparatus." What does "it" mean? The recording session or the recording? If the mechanical problem that was apparent during recording, then I would say the recording session was abandoned, if the problem only became apparent later, then it's the recording (and I would phrase it differently).

The "recording", revised. Dan56 (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• "Although the players made no attempt to harmonize their radically different parts, the album's mix was generally in the middle frequency range and had compressed dynamics, which resulted in neither extremely loud nor extremely soft passages." A rather awkward sentence - recording with compressed dynamics would produced "neither extremely loud nor extremely soft passages" but that would have nothing to do with players not harmonizing. The two parts of sentence are not linked properly.

Separated the two. Dan56 (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• "...did not conform to the simpler, romantic image of jazz that many of the genre's fans admire." I would use "prefer" instead of "admire", and I don't see "simpler" in the reference, that would presumeably your interpretation?

"cornpone romantic..." Dan56 (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• "Of Human Feelings was acclaimed by contemporary music critics." I would assume "most" critics given there are some dissenting opinions?

The source says it that way, and that sentence doesn't necessarily mean by all critics. Dan56 (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• "from New York's sceneless yet vital jazz" could be replaced with "of New York's jazz".

Johnson described it as such. I think it adds context and is relevant enough since its his "canonical" list, but if you still feel otherwise... Dan56 (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

These sentences just need to be a bit clearer as to what they mean. It is by no means an exhaustive list, a few other sentences could also be improved with additions of words or punctuation, or the elimination of unnecessary words. Hzh (talk)

Revisions in response. Dan56 (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Instead of replying to each point separately, this is more of a general comment but refers to the some of the edits above. I do think you should be more careful about what is an opinion and what is a fact. The wording of "sceneless yet vital jazz" is more of an opinion, unless you put it in quote, it would read like you are presenting it as a fact. Similarly what you wrote on how Tacuma was fired; this is presented as a fact, but is that also the view of Charles Earland the one who did the firing? He might have thought that Tacuma wasn't playing as part of a group. We should avoid being unfair to Charles Earland unless he had also confirmed it to be true. When it is possibly an opinion, then it should be presented as as such (using words like "according to XYZ" etc. or use quotation marks) This also applies to "prevent them from being diminished by conventional styles" which would presumably be Coleman's opinion. Being "diminished" is possibly a POV, I would phrased it as something like "free from some of the normal constraints of..." (or whatever you think works better). Also when the source states an opinion like "cornpone romantic" style, either put it quotes or if you are rephrasing, make sure it actually means the same thing. I don't read "cornpone" as necessarily meaning simpler, more folksy (you may think folksy means simpler, but you are introducing you own interpretation).

A second point is that the prose should read well. The change to "The players made no attempt to harmonize their radically different parts" as a single sentence made it seem isolated from the previous and following sentences, which can be remedied by simply inserting "however" in the sentence or slight rephrasing. Short sentences can work well, but you should be careful how to word them. Hzh (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Changes. I understand the critics' characterizations and wording those better ("corny" is synonymous with cornpone, so replaced that), but what reason is there to doubt that's the reason Earland fired Tacuma? Wouldn't prefacing it with an "according to" just open a Pandora's box for having to do it in most every other sentence? Do we need every party mentioned to confirm each sentence they're mentioned in? And what is the difference between "diminished" and "normal constraints" as far as POV is concerned? The source citing it uses "...their potential ... warped in order to fill conventional molds", so wouldn't "diminished" be more faithful to "warped"? Dan56 (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

In general, an opinion should be presented only as opinion, not as fact, particularly when it might be perceived as negative and involves another person. I tried to look for sources for Tacuma's firing, apart from the source you quoted (which appears to be based on interview with Tacuma, therefore likely to be Tacuma's own spin on the event), another source I can find says "Tacuma suspects that it was his spotlight-stealing stage presence that got him fired" (I highlighted "suspects"). You see the problem here? It is apparently one person's opinion and suspicion putting a positive spin on his own dismissal, but somehow it is presented as fact here, a clear violation of wiki guidelines. Unless there are more sources from other people's account that can support this assertion, it should not be be presented as a fact.

There is also the general problem with the use of words. "Normal constraints" is close enough to suggest the "conventional molds" in the source quote, but becoming "diminished" is a subjective judgment you interpreted from "warped". Please don't think that I'm saying that my wordings are the most suitable ones, if anything you should find your own way of saying it, I'm simply saying that it can be improved on. As to some of your revisions, I would say that if in doubt (for example, with words like cornpone that may be interpreted as pejorative), put the possibly objectionable wordings into quotation marks which is a simple way of sidestepping the issue. Hzh (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Revision, replaced "diminished" with "influenced by" (more neutral), and qualified Tacuma sentence. Dan56 (talk) 04:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

• I don't think the Background section gives us enough background, or perhaps not the right background. We don't ever really get an idea who Ornette Coleman even is. Obviously, much of that's going to be contained in his article, but jumping in with both feet here is tough for an outside reader to the topic.

The background was taken from sources that dealt with the article's topic, i.e. Of Human Feelings, following the principle expressed in WP:STICKTOSOURCE: "Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic...". Coleman is not the topic to such a degree (who Ornette Coleman even is would be relevant at his article), at least as far as the sources were concerned. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

A survey of other FA album titles reveals that background sections arrayed more or less like this are the rule. I'm not thrilled with it personally, but that's how consensus works. I still think the first sentence is weak, though. You may want to try wording it with "in" instead of "by", and by using more active verb constructions. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Reworded with "in". Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• The gloss of harmolodics comes two sentences after its use, and makes the passage somewhat more confusing than ideal.

What do you mean by "the gloss of harmolodics"? The complexity? It is a background on the album, and every source that deals with this topic glaringly brings it up. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Because "harmolodics" is likely to be an unfamiliar term to the reader, and it is one central to the article, you need to include a gloss, a brief explanation of the term. You do that, but the way the paragraph is ordered, the reader encounters the term, then reads through content that doesn't provide a definition before getting a concise explanation, which isn't ideal. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Rearranged to have the line starting "according to his theory" ahead. Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Prime Time have sufficient independent notability to warrant at least a redlink?

I didn't think FA articles would have those. Still, I'd think an appropriate link for "Prime Time" would be a redirect to Ornette Coleman since its his ensemble, but then again "Ornette Coleman" is already linked multiple times in the article. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I misinterpreted the text. Does Prime Time exist independent of Coleman ("...Prime Time, an electric quartet whom he introduced..." made me think that it did)? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Only credited for his work ([6]). Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• "They comprised guitarists..." In American English usage, which should be controlling here, bands are singular entities even if they're composite nouns. R.E.M. is... U2 is... Prime Time should be referred to as "it" here, I think.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• The level of detail on Tacuma in particular feels like it belongs in a different article than this one (one on Prime Time, perhaps, or even his). I have a hard time seeing how it serves as background to this album or the later text.

Same response, the sources dictated it for the most part. After all, he was the one quoted in the Mandel book rather than the other players. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• The caption for the Jamaaladeen Tacuma pic needs to be reworded; this isn't NPOV, and "challenged and enthused" sounds peacocky to my ear besides.

Those words are attributed to a source, and do plainly summarize what's verified, basically reiterating what's cited (Mandel book, p. 162) and stated (using the same two words) in the last paragraph of the "background" section. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

But as the caption, those words are out of the context of the cited passage. That entirely aside, I'm not sure that this caption adequately contextualizes the picture nor meets the succinctness requirement of WP:CAP. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

But wouldn't it fulfill WP:CAP#Some criteria for a good caption points 3, 4, and 5, particularly since the relevance of Tacuma in the section where the image is placed is his take on harmolodics? Like in the example image at the aforementioned link, neither "popularized" nor "first billboard campaign" are evident in the image, but the context given with those details establishes the relevance and IMHO draws readers to it. Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• "...brisk and unflashy music..." And right here, if nothing else, is why I have to oppose. I know there's an art to rephrasing source material to avoid close paraphrasing and to avoid just piling on direct quote after quote. But Mandel didn't use either of those words. He calls the album "snappy" and "unpretentious" but I'm not comfortable with that sort of thesaurus-wrangling with an attributed opinion, especially in an arts context. I have not spotchecked otherwise.

You're opposing because I replaced two words that basically mean the same thing? I don't see why you just don't recommend I quote his actual words instead, or offer a better revision like the above reviewer had. I'd like to hear something from Hzh about this line. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am. In part because I'm not convinced they do mean the same thing, especially in the context of musical critique and analysis, particularly the "snappy"/"brisk" pairing. I understand that this article previously caught a lot of heat at FAC for close paraphrasing. I understand that you worked to avoid the use of similar phrase choices, rightly, in response to that, and that's its probably frustrating to then have a reviewer turn around and object to the revision. But I still do think it's a problem. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'll use the actual words in quotes then? Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Trio Records deserve at least a redlink?

I never encountered requests for redlinks LOL. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It happens. The linking goal for FA is generally to have links to all the articles which would be valuable to serve as links, whether those articles exist yet or not. Ideally, of course, there's at least a stub at all those targets, but especially as you get into articles further and further outside the most popular topics, sometimes they're red. I was asked to redlink boletocrocin at my first FA (instead, I made a stub to turn the link blue). Back on topic, there are a lot of false positives for Trio Records, so I'm having some trouble determining if they're notable enough for an article, but, if so, they should probably be redlinked. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

according to Discogs, its a label under the Trio Corporation, which in turn was renamed Kenwood Corporation, so I guess a piped link there would be appropriate. Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• To someone not immediately familiar with US chart complexities, it's odd to say that it had no commercial success, then turn around and say it was 15 on a relevant-sounding chart on which it stayed for 26 weeks.

A jazz chart? During the '80s? Even if, it's still not a hit parade. Just a genre/component chart. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Our hit parade article is a mess, and is perhaps destined for a slow merge to record chart, which isn't much better. I understand what you mean here, but a reader not familiar with the charting system might not be (and sure isn't getting any help from those other articles). Perhaps make explicit that, despite its genre performance, it failed to place on the mainstream chart? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Made a piped link, [[hit parade|pop charts]], since "hit parade" is what the source uses, but "pop charts" offers more clarity. Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Does White need to be capitalized here? I don't think so, but someone else may want to double-check me on this one.

I just saw it as an adjective capitalized at White American; it'd make sense this way tho rather than lower case when it's not referring to race/ethnicity, I think? Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Even that article doesn't seem internally consistent. I honestly don't know what the "right" answer is here, and can't seem to ferret any guidance out of the manual of style. I wouldn't consider this actionable, but it would be nice to confirm one way or the other. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• The line about the album going out of print seems out of place in the paragraph about his live performances. Any idea when it went out of print? Was it ever re-issued? The structure of the article implies it was out of print by sometime in the 1980s, which would make its presence on a 1998 list of albums for novice jazz listeners (not that that might not be the case, to be sure...).

Just one line, not exclusively about live performances. Not exactly a reliable source, but no reissue listed at Discogs. A music critic wouldn't necessarily be aware of whether its in print or not. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I still think the line interrupts the logical order of the paragraph. I'm not sure where to move it to, because I don't have a good sense of when the album went out of print (nor does the article, other than the relative "later"). And, actually, I think this album's release history may be more complicated that the article covers. Allmusic lists a 1990 Mango Records LP that seems distinct from the 1982 Antilles Records LP/CD/cassette release (not certain whether the original release formats are worth noting, but if that "1982" CD in WorldCat really was a 1982 CD, it's one of the "Big Bang" of early CD releases). Also, while it's hardly a reliable source, Amazon lists a 1998 PolyGram "import" CD, about which I really have no other information. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust ALlmusic on that; this search showed that catalogue #/edition only at their site, when you would normally find catalogs like Schwann Catalog or rare vinyl sites verify them. I search the ASIN from Amazon.com's listing, and got back this import from 1995, so nothing seems consistent. I moved the "out of print" line forward. Does it flow better that way? Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Did the songs from this album get played on the international tour with Prime Time? It's not clear whether they played this material or unrelated music.

What international tour with Prime Time? Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

"Coleman did not record another album for six years and instead performed internationally with Prime Time." Is that not what this means? Or were they literally just playing privately elsewhere in the world? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Not specified by the source, which says "...Prime Time was working regularly on both sides of the Atlantic" before going into a lengthy commentary on how Coleman abandoned his previous dress and appearance for flashier suits or something. Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• "...slick style..." Not NPOV.

Removed "slick". Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• "...intricate, vacillating compositions..." Too much an opinion without direct attribution.

I could see how "intricate" would be an opinion, but alternating or fluctuating seems concrete enough. Removed the former. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not really what vacillating means though. I mean, yes, it has "fluctuate, oscillate" as a meaning, but the dictionary I have at hand gives its most common meaning as "alternate or waver between different opinions or actions; be indecisive". Like with my earlier complaint about the adjectives attributed to Mandel, you just cannot safely hit musical descriptions with a thesaurus. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The source's exact words that I tried to paraphrase were "complex vertical structures". Would it be a copyvio issue if I just use those, since it's an actual phrase in music theory? (Merriam). Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• You cite publisher locations for some periodicals, but not for the book sources. That should probably be one way or the other.

I only included the location for periodicals without the city/location in the title per Template:Citation (as opposed to something like New York Times). Never had the issue brought up for books before. added locations for publishers w/out location in name. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The goal's really consistency. Publication locations are optional, but once you're a Jet, you're a Jet all the way. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• ISBNs should probably be updated to properly-formatted ISBN13s; luckily, the converter makes that 30 seconds worth of work.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose: Structure, NPOV (including treatment of sources), and a handful of minor issues. Hzh's prose concerns are also applicable; I tried to avoid duplication. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Revisions in response. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Second series of revisions. Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: The recently archived FAC is still open on the article's talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe this has been dealt with (tks Maralia). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It's been a few weeks since my last response (as I mentioned at your talk page here). Does your oppose stand? If so, why? Any response? Dan56 (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: Squeamish Orange hasn't responded back here after I commented at his talk page on the 16th. Hasn't edited since the 13th ([7]), so they may be busy outside of Wikipedia. Dan56 (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Strong support: shame that "Sleep Talk" audio clip is only 21 seconds. (If it was me, of course, I'd probably have linked to the full album on YT tut tut.) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Support. Yes! Rothorpe (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Support a great balance of information on all aspects of the album. The sourcing is immaculate. Great work! —JennKR | ☎ 13:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Statements of support without explicitly saying why the article satisfies the FA criteria are of little value in judging whether a consensus for promotion has been achieved. Graham Colm (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

At least they're getting back to me. The only editor opposing hasnt returned since my changes in response to their issues raised, which I think I addressed. Should I ask message of those who supported to elaborate on their support? Dan56 (talk) 02:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Just seen this, I'll elaborate on my two points. The article is comprehensive and achieves a balance through all its sections, tricky to do with album articles as they can have a tendency to place too much weight on a particular area. From what I can see the sourcing is brilliant and the lead is summarised as to reflect the content of the whole article (again often a problematic area with such album entries). I take criterias 3 (media) and 4 (length) as already established as satisfactory. —JennKR | ☎ 02:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Support Having read through the article a few times, I say it clearly fulfills the FAC criteria. It's well written, concentrated with information yet concise, focused, neutral and really well sourced. Always enjoy reading through your articles Dan. Et3rnal 18:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Support Article is well written and sourced. A good read as well. TheOnlyOne12 (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I am concerned that canvassing might become a problem here. This has posted on at least three user pages by the nominator: "Hi. Would you be interested in voicing your support (or oppose/comment) at the FAC page for the article Of Human Feelings? I've gotten supports, but an FAC delegate noted that comments should include mentions as to how the article fits FAC criteria. If you're not interested, feel free to ignore this message and happy holidays!" Graham Colm (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You're making this type difficult. First there isn't enough consensus because of one editor's claim that the article may be compromised by inappropriate paraphrasing, which is said by another reviewer in the second FAC to not be an issue. Then not enough time is given for potential reviewers to respond upon a holiday break, so that FAC is closed. Here, I tried soliciting reviewers even more to avoid that issue; you said the supports weren't elaborate enough so I revised my invitation to this nomination, and now you're questioning the neutrality of the messages? Could you elaborate on your comment? How is that canvassing? Dan56 (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Its a borderline canvass because you explicitly ask for them to mention how the article meets the FAC criteria, which is leading at best. You also intimate that despite some support !votes, the delegate is making it difficult for you because the only person who has actually reviewed the article opposed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You are making it difficult. ANd you're suggesting those who supported didn't review anything because they didn't point any issues out. Gee wonder why they'd support an article and not cite any issues here? I've since asked for more comments, since I'm scared to death of a little inactivity once again spoiling this process ([8], [9], [10], [11]) Dan56 (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Dan, are you suggesting that the article is beyond reproach? Would you like me to provide a detailed review? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Where in my last comment did I say anything remotely close to "the article is beyond reproach"? Dan56 (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Although I would appreciate you pointing out something I could fix or improve upon. Otherwise, what's the point of this process. There's been nothing to do here for atleast a week. Dan56 (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from GabeMc

Lead

• "According to him, Of Human Feelings was the first digitally recorded album in the United States."

Why are we using his personal opinion for this bold claim in the first paragraph of the lead, and why didn't any "reviewers" catch this clunker? Further, if this is true then it should be easy to verifiy with secondary sources, and if its not true then why include the bit anyway?

Well, it received coverage from multiple sources who thought it was notable enough to mention. I'm assuming the qualifier is there because it'd be hard to prove, which doesn't make it a "clunker". If you don't think it's notable enough, I'll remove it. Dan56 (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Kinda like, "According to Coleman, the day before Thanksgiving is the busiest shopping day of the year in the US." If its at all true and notable, then you should be able to source it without using Coleman as a source. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not using Coleman as the source (citing an interview or his own words), those third party sources (the authors) are. It's one of the first things they say when they start discussing the album. MOS:LEAD says importance is based on sources. Would revising it to "Coleman claimed it was..." be more acceptable? Dan56 (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

If you do not understand that you should not be making bold claims about the album's legacy that are directly attributed to Coleman, then you don't seem to know the difference between primary and secondary sources. This is far too bold a claim to come directly from him, especially in the lead. If its true then just state the fact, if its dubious then get it out of the lead. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• "The album explores jazz-funk music and continues Coleman's harmolodic approach to improvisation with Prime Time, whom he first introduced on his 1975 album Dancing in Your Head."(emphasis added)

This is a new paragraph, so it needs a new noun.

You mean replace "the album"? Why? Dan56 (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

When you begin a new paragraph, you should use the proper noun again, and not use pronouns across paragraphs. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Jazz critics suggested that Coleman applied free jazz principles from his music during the 1960s to elements of funk."

This is awkward, IMO. I think you are trying to say that he combined elements of 1960s funk with free jazz. I also don't see any reason to qualify this as the opinion of Jazz critics. You could just state it as fact, since I assume its not contentious.

Cool, but don't be surprised if I change it back if and when the next reviewer nitpicks it. Dan56 (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Not if the prose is excellent they won't. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• "After he changed his management, Coleman signed with Island Records, and Of Human Feelings was released in 1982 by its subsidiary label Antilles Records."

"After he changed his management" sounds like a transitional sentence, but it comes out of nowhere, which is jarring. Consider: "Following a change in management", or similar.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• "It was well received by critics, who found the music expressive and praised Coleman's harmolodic approach."

That's a terribly awkward misuse of a coordinating conjunction. Consider: "It was well received by critics, who praised the album's expressive music and Coleman's harmolodic approach", or similar. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Dan56 (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Coleman's dispute with his managers over its royalties led him to enlist his son Denardo as manager, which inspired Coleman to perform live again in public during the 1980s."

1) The first its is awkward, IMO. Why not the album's, or similar? 2) You use his, its, him, and his within 13 words; there must be a smoother way to phrase that.

Didn't want it to be redundant with the "album" in the previous sentence. Done. 2) Revised as "After a dispute with his managers over the album's [[royalties]], Coleman enlist his son Denardo as manager, which inspired him to perform live again in public during the 1980s." Dan56 (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Why did firing his manager "inspire him to play live again"? Its confusing; I suggest re-writing that one from scratch. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

He enlisted his son to manage him and was inspired. How is it confusing? Dan56 (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, what was inspirational about hiring his son? The two parts do not connect well, and I see this issue throughout the article. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• http://www.robertchristgau.com is not a WP:RS.

• Comment - At a glance, it seems this writer does not understand how to avoid close paraphrasing. Many of the passages in this article are dangerously close to copyvios. I suggest that an extensive sourcing review be conducted on this article.

• From the source: "He wanted to encourage them to create a group direction based on their own individual proclivities before their potential was warped in order to fill conventional molds."

From the article: "He wanted to teach his young sidemen a new improvisational and ensemble approach, based on their individual tendencies, and also prevent them from being influenced by conventional styles."

• The "Sleep Talk" file fails NFCC#8. The file is not at all discussed in the accompanying text. I wonder how this was missed by the "reviewers", because its been made very clear to me that if we aren't engaging in serious critical commentary about a sound file then it should not be included. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC) GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Further sources comment: When I did the sources review at the previous FAC, because close paraphrasing had been a major issue at the article's first FAC I paid specific attention to this aspect and carried out various spotchecks. I didn't find anything I considered untoward – but of course spotchecking is by its nature not exhaustive, and opinions differ as to what is acceptable. Nevertheless, I would be surprised if this remains a major issue with the article, and I do believe that the nominator has done his best to deal with this problem. On another point raised by GabeMc, I got the impression when source-reviewing other music articles that Christgau websites were accepted as reliable sources – is this not the case? Brianboulton (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

That may well be Brian, but that site looks to me like a self-published blog. I wouldn't use it in an FA. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Brianboulton, I'm curious. Many of the possible copyvio/close paraphrases are from 30-year-old magazines. Did you really dig these up to make sure Dan isn't plagiarizing large chunks of text? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Gary Giddins hailed it as another landmark album from Coleman and his fullest realization of harmolodics, with compositions that are clearly expressed and occasionally timeless. Giddins said that its discordant keys radically transmute conventional polyphony and may be the most challenging for listeners," This bit is cited to a 32-year-old edition of Esquire. Was this sourced checked for plagiarism, because this passage does not sound like Dan's voice to me. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Kofi Natambu of the Detroit Metro Times said that Coleman's synergetic approach displays expressive immediacy rather than superficial technical flair". That sounds like another close paraphrase, but the source is a 32-year-old newspaper. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Close paraphrase. - From the article: "offers listeners enough release from tension to confound the duality of the mind and body."

From the source: "the way this music confounds mind-body dualism should provide all the release from tension" ~ Christgau

Brianboulton, the difference between the original and Dan's version is minimal, and this would not get passed a High School teacher, IMO. There are 15 words in the original text-string, and Dan used 7 of them. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've said my piece, there is no need to draw further cases to my attention. I am not Dan's advocate. I did not read the whole article, I did not check every reference, nor did I ever imply that I had. You are digging deeper, and finding other examples that you find questionable – fair enough, bring them forward, let Dan answer them. Brianboulton (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

"dualism" is a different word than "duality", but I placed quotation marks around "release from tension" and changed "confounds" to "surprise". I hope you don't expect me to find another phrase/word for "mind-body dualism". Dan56 (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

a) He's one of the pioneers of rock criticism and one of the most important music critics around. Everything from Christgau's website is simply an archive of past published articles/reviews that can be traced back to either one of two types of sources--a newspaper or magazine (The Village Voice, Rolling Stone, Creem, etc.) he wrote for and was published in, or one of his Consumer Guide series of books (all of which were published by a legitimate company like Macmillan or Da Capo Press). I've never heard of his site being questioned as a reliable source by anyone before. b) I can dig up whatever source you need me to ASAP. They weren't that hard to find to begin with, since this is a pretty obscure jazz album, and typing "Of Human Feelings" w/"Ornette" in GoogleBooks doesn't lead to an overwhelming amount of relevant results. Dan56 (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The file was approved of in the second FAC. And why is the age of the newspaper article relevant? "It sounds like"? Dan56 (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, whoever approved the audio file did not do so correctly. You cannot use non-free files to dress-up an article, it must be the subject of serious critical commentary. My point about the 32 year old sources is that there are hard to locate for spot checks, so that you could in theory copy-paste large chunks of text (I'm not saying that you did that) without anyone ever knowing. No offense, but "his approach displays expressive immediacy rather than superficial technical flair'", does not sound like your voice, like at all. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Brian approved it here. I drew up the text at my talk pagehere for the entire Detroit Metro Times review. Let me know if anything should be fixed for this particular case. Dan56 (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless things have changes significantly, Brian made a mistake. Is there any critical commentary in the article specifically regarding "Sleep Talk"? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't make a mistake: I relied on WP:SAMPLE, which allows for short clips of longer musical works to be used for illustrative purposes. There is, of course, the question of relevance; the clip is from a different Coleman song. The argument in the fair use rationale is: "Illustrates Ornette Coleman's alto saxophone phrasing and one of the songs' melodies, two main points of appraisal for music critics in their reception of the album. The particular passage sampled from the song also highlights Jamaaladeen Tacuma's bass playing, which is mentioned in the section." This is pretty marginal, but I thought just about allowable. I don't think the article would suffer if the file was withdrawn. Brianboulton (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I stand corrected, Brian, and I apologize for my poor choice of words. I guess in four yeas at FAC I can honestly say that not once have anyone taken that approach with any of my non-free files, but that's Wikipedia sometimes. As I've always been taught, the non-free sample needed to be adjacent to critical commentary specifically describing in prose what was in the sample. Take a look at the thrashing I took at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pink Floyd/archive2 FAC over non-free samples. Granted, I wanted to use images not sound files, but the principle is the same. Well, it will be nice to have this to reference, and maybe I'll call on you next time people are really picky about my non-free samples. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The principle is not quite the same, as you can't present small fractions of visual images as "samples", so be careful how you use this provision. Brianboulton (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, the image's were of a reduced non-commercial size, so I assume its nearly the same principle. After all, the point is to use a version that does not compete with the copyright holder, and there is no potential to enlarge a reduced image to a size that could possibly compete with a professional quality image, but I hear you. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - There are enough close-paraphrases for me to oppose this promotion. Dan not only has an issue with close-paraphrasing, he also has a problem with putting strong opinions in the voice of Wikipedia. There are far too many problems with this nom to justify any more effort on my part. Many passages cited to old magazines strike me as plagiarism, but since these sources are difficult to spot-check I'm not sure they will all get fixed. The non-free file fails NFCC#8; no attempt is made to critically analyze the sound sample. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Dude, I just offered you one of those sources in its entirety, which you didn't address. I seriously doubt you checked enough sources to come to that conclusion. Perhaps you should excuse yourself if you're going to sabotage this nomination because you're not getting your way in on-going conflicts between you and I at Are You Experienced. Dan56 (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll strike my oppose since we are in another unrelated dispute (unwatching). GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I really appreciate that. I'm truly trying to get this article up to snuff, and I'm willing to go through whatever source is desired. Dan56 (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Further comments

Comment

• Jazz journalist Todd S. Jenkins felt that it was more successful than Body Meta, even though Coleman's simple, repetitive compositions were less accessible - Surely 'simple, repetitive' music is more accesable? Ceoil (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree, but it's Jenkins' opinion: "...basic, repetitive compositions took getting used to.". Dan56 (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment on source & moving on

On the "discordant keys radically transmute conventional polyphony" possibly being plagiarized, the original has "The clashing keys require the biggest leap in faith, as they give strange dimensions to old-fashioned polyphony." I don't see how "keys" or "polyphony" could be changed, or any need to do so.

What seems to be needed (this is the third time this article has been listed here in a short period of time, and the only real objectors appear to have dropped out of the process), is for someone to go through all of the comments – vague and specific – and list those that have not yet been addressed. EddieHugh (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

EddieHugh, the real issue here is that none of the editors who supported the article's promotion actually provided a review. The only two reviews this time around did not yield supports. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• From the article: "focus on Coleman's playing"
• From the source: "focus on Coleman's alto". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Replaced "focus" w/ "concentrate". Dan56 (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Laser brain

I must oppose the promotion of this article due to concerns about plagiarism. Reading through the previous comments and Dan56's responses, I get the impression that he simply lacks a suitable understanding of how to avoid plagiarism. It's a common problem, the solution to which is not simple word substitution and reordering items. The very first two sources I checked have problems:

• Ref 13 source text: "... Of Human Feelings which explored "funk‐jazz", a development dating from about 1970 features of which incl. a repetitive bass line, a hint of Latin rhythms, and complex rhythmic relationships.
• Article text: "Of Human Feelings explores jazz-funk, a musical development that originated in 1970 and is characterized by intricate rhythmic patterns, a recurrent bass line, and Latin rhythmic elements.
• Ref 14 source text: "who isn't thought of as a fusion artist, but whose 'Of Human Feelings' (1979) also fits that bill with its blend of funk and free jazz."
• Article text: "was not thought of as a jazz fusion artist, the album can be described as such because of its combination of funk and free jazz.

I must presume the whole article is rife with such problems since even ones as simple as these escaped the previous sweeps. I do accept that opinions on what constitutes close paraphrasing differ, but I don't believe these would pass muster even in a high school composition class. --Laser brain (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Laser_brain. The examples you pointed out have such limited ways of rewriting them, how do you expect me to rewrite them? How the hell do I reinterpret "complex rhythmic relationships"? Reviewers in the past FACs agreed these kind of remarks about music are too unique for me to rewrite them differently without straying from what they mean. You and others are bringing up examples that I've had to rewrite multiple times b/c they were brought up in the past and that my copy-edit sufficed for those reviewers. This is really getting subjective. Dan56 (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree. The best thing to do for you might be to read a source, take notes about its meaning, and then write something about it a few hours or days later. That way, you know what the source was conveying but you don't remember the sentence structure and verbiage. Some people can adequately paraphrase while looking at a source, but I don't think you have that skill set. In both of the examples I posted above (and many others I've seen mentioned by Quadell, GabeMc, etc.), you seem to get wrapped up in using the same sentence structure as the author but doing word substitution ("jazz-funk" into "funk-jazz", "repetitive jazz line" into "recurrent jazz line") to paraphrase. That's not how you paraphrase. But, this isn't a writing seminar, it's FAC. Of course it's subjective as you say—unless someone is pointing out plain spelling or grammar errors, everything said at FAC is subjective. --Laser brain (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Well then I risk misrepresenting what the source actually said, like I've seen GabeMc do at Are You Experienced. Quadell believed my attempt to revised the examples he pointed out sufficed, but that he couldn't be sure elsewhere because of accessibility to other sources. Of course, my changes there were less drastic than what you'd like me to do, which I get, but what no reviewers before this article have brought to my attention, so I'm still not sure this isn't a matter of subjectivity. Even in the aforementioned article GabeMc tried to air as dirty laundry below, a change in word choice sufficed for the editor offering a third opinion. Dan56 (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I freely admit this is subjective. Other editors may look at the examples I pointed out and think they're no big deal. The one for which you obtained a third opinion looks fine to me, but that doesn't mean GabeMc's opinion is invalid. It just means people have differing thresholds for what they consider plagiarism. I personally could not strike my opposition until someone helps you check a large cross-section or even all of the sources for plagiarism, because you have not demonstrated to me that you understand the problem sufficiently to fix it on your own. --Laser brain (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

More comments from GabeMc

• While the numerous instances of close-paraphrasing in this article are bothersome, a larger concern I have is that Dan does not seem to think any of these are problems that need fixing. He has downplayed the importance of proper paraphrasing, and has even suggested that its fine for him to introduce them, and that others should fix them if they are concerned. Indeed, he has left them all until someone else pointed them out, which leads me to believe that all of his writing is rife with similar issues. In fact, he added several close-paraphrases to another article just this weekend. Dan currently has six FAs to his credit, so that this type of rookie mistake is being made by him in the last few days does not bode well for the content of his other FAs, IMO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
• Yet another editor at yet another article has reverted Dan for yet another recent close-paraphrase.

From the source: "is more aligned with progressive metal than thrash"

Dan's version: "is more progressive metal than thrash" GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You're being a jerk. Those were two sentences in a three-paragraph section you removed entirely because I got in the way of you're crusade to remove "acid rock" from that article's infobox as well as every other infobox on Wikipedia (how's that going BTW?). As for your last comment, I see genre warriors stick together. You've clearly downplayed the importance of sticking to sources and due weight for points of view, other than your own. Dan56 (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

1) Please stop dragging my name through the mud here. If you continue to attack me in this, a decidedly inappropriate forum, then I will reconsider my redacted oppose. 2) I am not on a "crusade" for anything. I personally feel that acid rock is a) a type of psychedelic rock, and b) a derogatory precursor term for heavy metal. Regardless, starting a merge proposal is not a crusade. If I'm wrong then I'm sure the community will do the right thing and oppose the merge; its not the big deal that you seem to think it is, or that you want to make it out to be. 3) I didn't misrepresent anything at Are You Experienced. "Remember" is an R&B song, and even if the source I used didn't explicitly say that multiple others do; I've since added them. Sometimes when an editor is sifting through dozens of sources one gets mixed-up; to cry foul on me for an uncontentious and verifiable claim is beyond absurd when you have revealed yourself to be a prolific serial plagiarist. 4) I strongly recommend that you take some of the time you've been using to genre war to revisit your six FAs. In about one hour, I found 20 instances of close-paraphrasing in your FA Aaliyah (album). See my sandbox. A few particularly bad examples:

• From the source: "explores the stages of love, from giddy infatuation to late-stage dysfunction to heartbreak"[12]
• From the article: "explores ... stages of love such as frivolous infatuation, late-stage dysfunction, and heartbreak"

• From the source: "Mostly coquettish snake-charmer, sometimes scorned lover"[13]
• From the article: "Aaliyah sings from perspectives of a coquettish charmer or a scorned lover"

• From the source: "'I Care 4 U,' 'Never No More' and the piano-driven 'I Refuse.' All have a deep, bluesy, jazzy undertow that pulls Aaliyah into soulful performances showcasing a bruised knowingness."[14]
• From the article: "Ballads such as "I Care 4 U", "Never No More", and "I Refuse" are sung soulfully, and express bluesy, jazzy undertows and a knowingness derived from emotional hurt"

• From the source: "The track is doused with subtle Neptunian electronica and aquatic sounds that gurgle beneath Aaliyah's distinct velvet harmonies."[15]
• From the article: "It features subtle Neptunes-styled electronica, aquatic sounds, and velvety harmonies by Aaliyah"

• From the source: "While Aaliyah had always used her soothing voice to soften edgy musical accompaniment, she hadn’t done it before with such clear confidence of vision, stellar execution, and diversity of material."[16]
• From the article: "[Aaliyah] had never used her voice to complement her music's edgy production before with as much confidence, execution, and diversity"

You do not seem to understand what any of us mean when we express concern about your close-paraphrasing, which makes me wonder if all of your FAs need a WP:FAR. Can you give us any indication of whether or not you are getting the point, or do you plan to continue as you were? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Laser_brain's last comment. As for you, I think you should try to be a little less pedantic and a little more polite. I've had other editors who used an FA nomination of mine as a way of getting back at me for a previous conflict at another article (like this one). Dan56 (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Dan, you are taking that minor acid rock disagreement way too far. I've completely let it go; you should too. This is not about that anymore, but when I crossed paths with you at AYE it became clear to me that you are having some major issues identifying close-paraphrasing, which is what this is about. To be honest, I considered helping you by looking over the article so that you could have a support from someone who actually reviewed the piece, but I can see now that literally every sentence needs to be checked for plagiarism, and that is just far too much work. Since you referenced the Confusion (album) FA, I decided to take a quick look for close-paraphrasing. Here is what I found in less than 20 minutes:

• From the source: "'Confusion' is a comment on the general condition of urban Nigeria (Lagos, in particular) ... post-colonial confusion of a Nigeria lacking in infrastructure and proper leadership."[17]
• From the article: "The album is a commentary on the confused state of post-colonial, urban Nigeria, particularly Lagos, and its lack of infrastructure and proper leadership at the time."

• From the source: "Fela would decry ... what he saw as the "colonial" mind-set of some Africans"[18]
• From the article: "His lyrics decry what he viewed as the colonial mindset of some Africans"

• From the source: "keyboard fantasia gradually opening into languid, expansive band interplay"[19]
• From the article: "The introduction's keyboard fantasia gradually opens the band's languid, expansive interplay." GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment

This has been open six weeks and I don't see the possibility of consensus to promote being reached anytime soon in light of the concerns about close paraphrasing raised by both Laserbrain and GabeMc. Each FAC should be treated on its own merits, and the issues raised by Gabe re. other articles do not have a direct bearing here, though I realise he's trying to illustrate a pattern in the face of what he sees as Dan's resistance, and these examples may well indicate FAR needs to be considered for the pages in question (I note that several of Dan's earlier FACs were spotchecked with reasonably clean bills of health, but by its nature such checks may not find evidence of an underlying problem). I can understand the frustration Dan expresses when it comes to finding new ways to convey the essence of a source without losing meaning, but that's the challenge we all face as editors, and I can only echo Laserbrain's advice on one way to attempt it; the alternative is to simply quote and attribute what you can't satisfactorily paraphrase, which as Hzh pointed out may well be a better way of presenting opinions anyway, but it needs to be done judiciously. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2014 (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. Ian Rose (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2014 (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, 12 January 2014 (UTC) [20].

---

Marie of Romania

Nominator(s): Alex (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This one is close to heart for me, Marie is truly the queen of the people here in Romania. I've spent nearly a month on this article and I believe it is now ready for FAC. I'm looking forward to suggestions for improvement. Cheers, Alex (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Queen_Mary_of_Romania_2.jpg is tagged as lacking author info

• @Nikkimaria:Added.

• File:SemnaturaMaria.jpg needs a US PD tag, as do File:Millais,_Princess_Marie_of_Edinburgh.jpg, File:Marie_of_Romania_1893.jpg, File:Duckyandsisters.jpg, File:Philip_Alexius_de_Laszlo-Queen_Marie_of_Romania,_nee_Princess_Marie_of_Edinburgh.jpg, File:Elena_Popea_-_Regina_Maria.jpg

• Added to all except to Lazslo's painting, which already had one.

• File:Marie,_Crown_Princess_of_Romania.jpg: when/where was this first published/displayed? What steps have been taken to seek the author's identity? What is the licensing status in the US?

• The author is unknown, as it is probably the work of a photographic workshop. As far as I am aware, it was not published until Marie's autobiography, so I've added the PD-US-unpublished tag, let me know if this is alright.

• File:1893_-_Ferdinand_şi_Maria_ca_Principe_şiPprincipesă_de_Coroană.PNG: there is no way an 1893 image is the uploader's own work; same with File:1917_-_Regina_Maria_pe_timpul_vizitei_într-un_spital_în_anul_1917.jpg

• Fixed.

• File:Constantin_Pascali_-_Regina_Maria.jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag

• Added tag, can't seem to find painting anywhere else though.

• File:Coronation_of_Ferdinand_and_Marie.jpg is sourced to completely different images and has a licensing tag that cannot be correct

• I was unable to find a source for the image, so I've removed it and left only the other image.

• File:BisericaEpiscopalaCurteaDeArges_(12).JPG: as Romania does not have freedom of panorama, what is the copyright status of this work? Same with File:Bustul_reginei_Maria_din_Arcul_de_triumf.jpg

• Romania does have freedom of panorama, as long as the pictures are not used for commercial purposes, which is certainly not the case here.

• File:Medal_-_Marie_of_Romania.jpg: what is the copyright status of the medal itself?

• Since Marie is dressed as a nurse on the medal, it is likely from during the war, so it is in the public domain.

• What is the copyright status of coats of arms in Romania? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Do coats of arms require copyrights? Alex (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Minor Note: I see a few citation errors coming up (as of this version) -- refs 16, 50, & 51 currently are not pointing anywhere. Ruby 2010/2013 00:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

@Ruby2010: Sorry about that, just some errors which have been fixed now. Alex (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment – The main text of the article is a mixture of British and American spellings. For instance we have both "honour" and "honor" and inconsistent –ise/ize endings. I imagine the intention is to use British English, and I will be happy to go through and make it consistent if that would be of help. – Tim riley (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- Aside from this attracting little in the way of commentary, it doesn't look like Alex has been around since mid-December, which even allowing for the silly season is too long a break for FAC, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: I'm really sorry, I've been crazy busy lately. This really has attracted little commentary, so I'll probably nominate it for GA instead. --Alex (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2014 (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. Ian Rose (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2014 (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, 12 January 2014 (UTC) [21].

---

Goodman Beaver

Nominator(s): Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Another boring article about long-out-of-print comics by the ever-boring Curly Turkey, destined to spend two months worming its way to the bottom of the list before somebody finally feels guilted into giving it a peek. Luckily, you won't find its contents in the least enticing, otherwise it would tantalize you to learn that it has been 29 years since this material was last in print—and in incomplete form, at that.

Maybe you'd find it a little more interesting to learn this character had a cartoon sex change in 1962—and became the buxom, always-naked Little Annie Fanny for Playboy magazine, which Harvey Kurtzman wasted the last quarter-century of his life writing. But at least we have this out-of-print Goodman Beaver material to remind us how good he actually was! Or at least I do ... Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage

• Image use jumps out at me here. I think I know why you've placed images in this large, central format (to highlight detail), but I am having a hard time reconciling that with MOS:IMAGES. I'm also not sure what the Marlon Brando pic adds; the comparison is one of attitude, not appearance, yes?
  • Image Size: The one in "Reception and legacy" was entirely gratuitous, and gets its point across at standard size, so I've unbiggened it.
    I recall reading or being told that if you're going to override the default size, it's best to centre the image. I do think it's important to have those images large. It would be nice if the software could handle this—by floating the image on large screens, and centring it on smaller ones. With a large image, text can be squeezed into small columns if it's floated, which normally can be dealt with in user settings, but setting an image size overrides the user settings, as well (is that a bug in itself?).
    I'm open to other ideas how to handle this. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Brando: I suppose it's gratuitous, and wouldn't oppose its removal. For the record (though the sources don't mention it), Goodman does make Brando faces throughout the story. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• Overview: The transition back to Kurtzman from Bruegel seems abrupt (it's not immediately evident that "the stories" aren't more information associated with Bruegel). Is there a better way to word this passage?
  • I've moved the final sentence earlier inthe paragraph. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• Anything available from the sources about the production or art style for "The Organization Man in the Gray Flannel Executive Suit", considering that it wasn't inked by Elder?
  • I figured it was best handled in the Harvey Kurtzman's Jungle Book article. Disagree? Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Yep. I think there's going to be a certain amount of overlap here, between the article on the book and the article on the character. I think if there's something we can say about the art style differences and so forth, we have to have it here ... even if we have some of it there, too. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Okay, I've added a paragraph. Tell me what you think. Tell me, I tell you! Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• "'Goodman Meets T*rz*n'": I think one of these slipped past me earlier (which means it's either tolerable in the previous section, or I'm a bad copyeditor), but there are a couple of WP:PLUSING issues here that really jump out.
  • I don't think I lke the new wording, but, anyways, Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• "'Goodman Goes Playboy'": "He has Goodman changed into a toga...." Did Goodman change his own clothes, or did someone redress him? This wording implies the latter, which might be correct. Regardless, this sentence might need rethought, as it stands out on cursory reading.
  • Reworded. Archer asks Goodman to change into a toga, and Goodman does. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• The last three story sections don't mention when they first appeared. These sections are also a little light on ... well, I'm not sure "plot summary" is the right phrase here, but we'll run with that. I'm not actually sure what "Goodman, Underwater" depicts from its description here, or what manner of corruption S*perm*n retreats from, or what the consequences are when Goodman returns to being unarmed.
  • Squeamish Ossifrage: sorry, somehow I overlooked this comment. My OCD didn't want me to fill these in without refs, but I don't think there's anyway around it, so ...they're now expanded, and I've included info about thier first appearances. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Publication history:

• "The book sold poorly, but was a favorite among Kurtzman fans." Not sure the tense is right here. Was the book a favorite among fans on release? Was it a favorite previously, but is no longer? Perhaps something like "has since become" would be better, although I'm not just thrilled about that construction, either.
  • "has been" I think is the solution. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what I think about the structure in general. What determines whether you discuss a topic in the Stories section versus here? Some of the story sections discuss art elements, but we don't hear about the redrawn version of Goodman until here.
  • I figured the redrawn versions were part of the publiction history. I've moved them—tell me what you think. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• "Playboy ran a lot of cartoons, but a comic strip was something new." Perhaps it's just my ear, but that sounds rather informal.
  • Reworded to "Playboy printed many cartoons, but not a comic strip until then." Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Reception and legacy:

• That first sentence is long, and covers a lot of ground.
  • I've split it into two sentences. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• "Some consider this ironic...." Can this be made more specific?
  • Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• "The story has yet to be appear...."
  • Is there something missing here? Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually, I think something should be missing here. Like, that "be". Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I've likely missed some wording and structure concerns, because prose editing is not my strong suit. Reference formatting seems okay. A quick review suggests the cited literature is a comprehensive survey of modern material; is there anything worth going back to 1960s sources for, or do the recent works summarize period reactions sufficiently? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• I can't say with certainty, but anything written about it in the 1960s was likely in fanzines, which I doubt would pass the RS test—though I can imagine maybe reviews of the book collection (haven't found anything in Google News archives). If an RS from the time popped up I'd be thrilled to see it—I seriously doubt it would be in-depth analysis, though. Comics "scholarship" is a recent phenomenon. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Honestly, I'd view period fanzines (especially those that have been historically well-regarded) as RS regarding period fan reactions, if not necessarily for a wider context. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, Google's not being very friendly with me in this regard. I'm not greatly familiar with the fanzines of the period; I thought Squa Tront (an EC fanzine) might have something, but a blog listing the contents of each issue didn't turn up anything (I don't have access to any issues of Squa Tront itself to make sure). If anyone were able to point out something like this to me, it'd be great, but I'm not going to hold my breath. 06:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Jim

I know nothing about comics, and my comments about prose are from a BE perspective, so may not be applicable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Kurtzman did solo—I associate "solo" with performing arts, rather than drawing
  • Changed to "alone". Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• Kurtzman—Elder— Why mdash?
  • Becaue I hadn't read MOS:ENDASH closely enough. Fixed. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• Goodman Goes Playboy—You have italicised Playboy once only. I don't know whether it's correct to italicise or not in a title,but inconsistent as it stands
  • I've removed the one case of italics. I have no idea which is best. I guess italcs would be logical, but it doesn't seem like the sources do that. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• ire of the Archie's publisher, which threatened a lawsuit. —should "the" be there? Also, I think who threatened...
  • Fixed. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• Kurtzman used his own personal experiences in this story to satirize—slightly ambiguous, perhaps, "In this story, Kurtzman..."
  • Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• "Goodman Goes Playboy in the—missing closing quote mark
  • Fixed. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• leads him into an Roman orgy underway. —the stray "underway" looks very odd to me, perhaps a clause needed?
  • Is "in progress" better? Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• pact with the devil, —give the poor old boy a capital letter
  • Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• on-duty and off–.—please assure me that in AE hyphen-full stop is acceptable.
  • I'm not confident I know what's best here. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• Covered the exposed nipples with white ink prior to publication—not clear if this is for legal reasons or a publisher decision.
  • I'm pretty sure it was a publisher decision—the sources don't make it clear. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• After tossing ideas back and forth, —too informal?
  • Formally reworded. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• Help! publisher Jim Warren received a letter on 6 December 1961 accusing Help! of copyright infringement and demanding removal of the offending issue from newsstands. — I thought parodies were exempt from copyright ? (I'm no lawyer, so just ignore if you wish)
  • I think I've clarified this—Warren's lawyer believed the case could be won, but the legal costs would be prohibitive. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• Dates in refs—your dates in journals are a bit of a stylistic mix, eg 2004-05-05/September 1987. You don't need retrieval dates fro RL publications like magazines.
  • The "September" one is a cover date, which is not necessarily the publication date. Access date removed. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support I'm happy with the changes, and now supporting. For the orgy, "in progress" is better, but I think anything here is redundant. An orgy by definition is ongoing, I can't begin to visualise something that can be called an orgy, but isn't in progress. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Merci bien, my friend—I've dropped the "in progress", and have also reworded the sentence; I just realized I had the orgy/toga sequence backwards. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from ColonelHenry

SUPPORT Regarding the FA criteria--Curly Turkey has presented an informative and interesting article that is sufficiently neutral, well-written, comprehensive, focused, and well researched. The article's history appears stable. The lede is comprehensive, the structure is logical and covers the relevant scope of the subject, and the article employs an acceptable and consistent method of citations.

Image Review

• Images seem to be sufficiently labeled for relevant free use or permissible use, with comprehensive explanations regarding public domain status.
• Minor clerical issue: - File:Pieter Bruegel (1565) Fall of the Musician.jpg is undoubtedly public domain and free use, but is tagged needing clarification for its {{PD-Art}}
  • Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Just a few comments to be addressed:--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• "degeneration"...clarify whether you mean social or moral (or another type). There are several types of degeneration and while I know we're not dealing with electronic, someone might think it might be the evolutionary decline of a function in an organism (and I'm sure this isn't Vonnegut's Galapagos).
  • I think it's both social and moral—people are corrupt and greedy, and society is falling apart. Should I go with "social and moral degeneration"? Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Kurtzman says the character was inspired by Voltaire's Candide...how? That's a rather broad unspecific statement. While I can vaguely see some connexion, particularly in the naivete, a few more details about what in particular the character draws from Voltaire would be interesting.
  • The sources don't go into depth here, and I suspect it's because there really isn't any depth—it's been an awful long time since I've read Candide, but I don't find any parallels between the Goodman Beaver stories and characters and the ones in Candide. I think Kurtzman just found inspiration in the archetype of the Candide character as naïvely optimisitic in the face of situations that would normally leave one jaded—an basic archetype Kurtzman plays for laffs and social commentary. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Closing comment -- Sorry Curly but with no activity for three weeks, despite some notices at WT:FAC that might've generated further interest, this review isn't progressing so I'll be archiving it shortly. As you've done your best to resolve comments, I don't need you to wait the usual 14 days before renominating but I'd still prefer you leave it at least a week to give more people a chance to return from hols and hopefully review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:10, 10 January 2014 (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. Ian Rose (talk) 08:11, 10 January 2014 (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, 10 January 2014 (UTC) [22].

---

Orel Hershiser's scoreless inning streak

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

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)

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

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • I am not sure what you are asking for. Reference 1 is ESPN's celebration of the 25-year anniversary of the streak. Does this have the elements in it that you are inquiring about. I presume that if ESPN celebrates the 25-year anniversary of an event, that event is important.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
        • I have added a historical context subsection.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)

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)

• I have removed all of this jargon from the WP:LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Your oppose is almost inactionable. Time since GA is not a consideration at WP:FAC, which is based on WP:WIAFA. Saying take some time and make some more edits is not a valid oppose. Please review WIAFA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• 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)

• Speedy close per WP:SNOW. This just became a GA, rushing through the FA process is misguided. There is no deadline. This article was not engaging to me. I am only casually interested in baseball, and the article was dull. its basically Baseball Reference in proseform. Heck, the term scoreless inning is not even explained in the lead. I dont know about baseball terms, does this mean when he pitched the other team never scored? With articles like these, its most important to make sure you are writing for people who DONT know the sport. Beerest 2 talk 20:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I have never been asked to define a term in the WP:LEAD before. Is this the correct place to define a scoreless inning?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose and suggest withdrawal per above. " It is considered to be among the greatest individual streaks in sports history and among the greatest records in baseball history." is very weaselly, and the technical language is still thick throughout the lede. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. How is the average reader, assuming a limited understanding of the intricacies of baseball, supposed to understand the tables scattered across the article? I mean, I understand them because I am a baseball nut, but there is nothing here to explain what the abbreviations in the column headers are, nor is there an explanation of why those particular innings are visualized by tables. I'm sure if I read the article further, I would find several more examples of the article being impenetrable to the average reader. I believe this nomination was premature. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 12:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • • I have created a legend for one table. Will review the others as I can.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
    • P.S. These particular innings are the ones that the secondary sources discuss. WP is suppose to summarize the secondary sources. So I have included those innings covered in the press.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
      • My point, though, is why does the reader care about these innings? How are they supposed to know that they are significant? There needs to be some kind of explanation, e.g. these were close calls where the streak could have ended. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 02:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I have noticed the suggested withdrawals. However, WP:PR now seems to be less reliable than before. I am having article go through entire cycles without comment and my next FAC is already 16 days into a cycle without comment (Wikipedia:Peer review/Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell)/archive1). Thus, I'll accept all comments as they continue to come.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• WITHDRAWAL REQUESTED at WT:FAC.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:46, 10 January 2014 (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. Graham Colm (talk) 06:42, 10 January 2014 (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 10:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC) [23].

---

Tintin (character)

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

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)

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)

• 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)

• "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)

• 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)

• "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)

• 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)

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

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)

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)

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, 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. 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. 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. 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." As inspiration for Tintin Herge also mentions his younger brother whose physical appearance included a round face and a quiff hairstyle.^[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, and Palle Huld, a 15-year-old Danish Boy Scout travelling the world as a reporter.

[Note] Paul's army life included the endurance of jeers from his fellow officers when the source of Hergé's visual inspiration became obvious. 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."

---

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

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)

By the way...nice attempt! Soerfm (talk) 11:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments/suggestions for the lead:

• "the comics series by Belgian cartoonist Hergé" — maybe "a comic series" instead.
  • No, that could be construed as "the comedic series". For instance, one does not normally expect a "comic novel" to have many illustrations. Comics terminology is exasperating. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
• "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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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) 06:13, 6 January 2014 (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 10:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC) [24].

---

Taylor v. Beckham

Nominator(s): Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

• Support. I fully reviewed this article during the peer review phase and any concerns I had were addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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.
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
    • OK, that makes sense. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• In "Lower court decisions," you use "opined" twice in the second paragraph. Some other synonym would stand out less.
  • Hehe. Not the first time my fondness for "opined" has shown up. Thanks for pointing this out. Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
• In "Opinion, concurrences and dissent," I think there should be a comma after "1910 book".
  • Not sure about the rule, but changed anyway. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
• Looks good to me. I am happy to support this excellent article. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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

Sorry for the delay, but you know how the holidays can be. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

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.
  • OK, I think I changed this after someone gave me some feedback that said the "Opinion of the Court" heading was standard, but I have no problem changing it. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
• 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.
  • Done, except as noted about dissents below. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
• 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).
  • Tapp specifically says Harlan was the only dissent. Hughes also implies that it was a concurrence, but for a different reason. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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.
  • Yep, this is totally out of my depth. I'll have to do some real study to even see if I can get my head around it. Thanks for giving me a place to start, though. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)

• If I have time, I will help. GregJackP Boomer! 00:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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. Ian Rose (talk) 06:40, 6 January 2014 (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 10:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC) [25].

---

Alfred North Whitehead

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

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)

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)

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)

• "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)

• "education should be the exact opposite of the multidisciplinary, value-free school model" - source?

Sourced. Joseph Petek (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

• "Whitehead regarded metaphysical investigations as essential to both good science and good philosophy" - source?

Sourced. Joseph Petek (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• FN28: article/review title?

Fixed. Joseph Petek (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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. Ian Rose (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2014 (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, 2 January 2014 (UTC) [26].

---

USS Iowa (BB-4)

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

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)

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.
  • For example, what value does File:USS Iowa BB-4 Sponsors of Battleship.jpg add to the article?
• "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)

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)

• 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. Ian Rose (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2014 (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, 2 January 2014 (UTC) [27].

---

Brazil

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Oppose, more or less per ColonelHenry. I should also add that the number of one-sentence paragraphs do not make for good reading. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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. Ian Rose (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

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