Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Add 3
added one
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOClimit|2}}
{{TOClimit|2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of KFC/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Larry Doby/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Larry Doby/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Laundry Service/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Laundry Service/archive1}}

Revision as of 22:28, 24 May 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 22:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

History of KFC

Nominator(s): Farrtj (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the history of the KFC restaurant chain. This article was nominated once before and was listed for four months before being failed. It received four Supports and one Oppose. Farrtj (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'm surprised this wasn't promoted the last time. I'm leaning towards supporting this well-written history, and just have a couple of minor comments:

  • Is the infobox necessary? It's identical (and hence redundant) to the one in the parent KFC article. Besides, most of its info—current leadership, finances, products etc—isn't relevant to this history article.
I've followed the model of the Burger King sequence of pages. I like it because it links all of the KFC-related pages under a common banner, and provides a very brief but quick sketch of the company. But I'd be willing to debate the issue. Farrtj (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's so for all groups of articles (for eg: the albums/songs/members of a band), but usually the common banner is the template at the bottom. And I understand that it provides an overview, but it is simply not a relevant overview.
If you still prefer to have an infobox, you should make it summarise this article—history of ownership, various firsts, landmarks in turnover/profits/number of stores etc.—indopug (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fond of the infobox. Tom (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article's content is quite interesting, but it is under-served by the dull section headers. Try to come up with less-formulaic (they're just the owners KFC) and more descriptive titles, that are sort of like teasers for their contents. If necessary reorganise the sections according to themes in that period of history, such as rising sales, international growth etc. (By this I don't mean rewrite anything, just fiddle around with the section headers around to see if there's a more optimal way to organise the article)
I have reworked some of the titles: let me know what you think. Farrtj (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much better.—indopug (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More photographs wouldn't hurt. There's plenty to choose from—nuggets, tower burgers, the chicken pot pie, the double down and Crispy Strips. This image too.—indopug (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the boycott photo. Will look into adding more food related photos. Farrtj (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have added a Double Down photo. Farrtj (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed this article. I copyedited it and am just taking one last look before I can support. Good work. --John (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John. I appreciate your edits. Farrtj (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Issues were found with spotchecks on the previous review, and I suggested a thorough check was needed; I am disappointed to see that this appears not to have been done. Examples of further problems:
"brought order and efficiency to a chaotic management structure" is quite close to "bringing order and efficiency to a ramshackle management structure"
Done. Tom (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"prevent possible bickering among Sanders' family and franchisees by offering a continuity of leadership and a firm central control" is quite close to "avoid possible bickering among Sanders' family and franchisees by offering a continuity of leadership and a firm central control"
Done. Tom (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"specialized operations proved easier to sell to potential franchisees" is quite close to "specialized operations proved easier to sell to would-be franchisees"
Done. Tom (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Criticised as an unhealthy product" is not supported by the given source. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tom (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, if you have any further specific complaints I'd be glad to address them. It would just be a shame to see this article fail its FA nomination again just because nobody volunteers to spotcheck the references. Tom (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as I did in the previous FAC. Article reads well and is very comprehensive. I did not spot check the references, but I trust the review above will address them. - Floydian τ ¢ 04:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – (Comments moved to talk) I see no other issues and I'm happy to support the articles promotion to FA. The nominator's perseverance is something to admire. Cassiantotalk 08:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note I need to see more spotchecks before I can consider promotion. Graham Colm (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further spotchecks and continued issues

  • "sold well but caused "tremendous" operating problems" - I appreciate that you've quoted one word, but actually the whole phrase is identical to the source
Have altered the text to ensure differentiation. Tom (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "allowing Sanders' restaurant venture to go forward as "Claudia Sanders Dinner House" and continued his role as goodwill ambassador" is quite close to "continued his salary as goodwill ambassador and allowed the new venture to go forward as "Claudia Sanders Dinner House"
Sorted. Tom (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "PepsiCo switched 1,650 company owned stores to their own soft drinks" - source says 1850
Where did you access the source? I need to check it but I can't remember where I found it (given that I have been working on KFC for two years). Tom (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't find the original Giges source to doublecheck, but the NYT states 1,800 company owned outlets at the time, so I'll go along with that. Tom (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It proved to be a costly failure: a $100 million investment in marketing and equipment was undermined by faulty ovens" does not appear to be supported by the given source at all
Have fixed this now. Tom (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This still needs a thorough reworking, and my oppose still stands. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 15:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Larry Doby

Nominator(s): Zepppep, Wizardman 22:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even those who aren't baseball fans know the story of Jackie Robinson, the saga of the first African-American to play in the major leagues. This article is on the second African-American to play in the major leagues, one who had to endure the same hardships as Robinson, yet has largely been forgotten, unfairly so given that both players were Hall of Famers. Larry Doby's career was one of perseverance and determination, not to mention a good number of home runs.

As for why I'm nomming it, after it became a GA, I did multiple top-to bottom rewrites on it in an attempt to bring it here and get it on the main page one day. I believe now it's as good as it will like ever be, and it now meets all FA criteria. Wizardman 22:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed that one, looking through the rest of the article since there may be more instances like that. Wizardman 00:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - All images are used appropriately, and the first two (the baseball cards) are in the public domain per the Library of Congress, as the copyright was not renewed. The last image is a self-created image by User:Silent Wind of Doom, and is appropriately licensed. Check an image review off the list. Go Phightins! 19:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Looking good generally. I've read down to the end of "Early life", and it is very readable so far. Just a little prose polish needed here and there. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • "He helped the Indians win a franchise-record 111 wins and the AL pennant in 1954 and finished second in the AL Most Valuable Player (MVP) award voting as the season's RBI leader and home run champion for the second time in three seasons. “: “win … wins", “and…and…and"
  • "the first black player to integrate the American League" and later “the first African-American players to win a World Series championship": Not a big deal, but is there any particular reason why we use first black, then African-American? Or is it just for variety?
  • And on this subject, should something about being a pioneering black player be mentioned in the first paragraph? Otherwise, we wait until the second paragraph to make a fairly major point.

Early life:

  • "Doby was born in Camden, South Carolina to David and Etta.": I think it is better if we give their surnames here as well.
  • "He died at the age of 37 from a drowning accident in New York state": A drowning accident? We don’t need all of this here: what about “He drowned in an accident in New York state, aged 37"?
  • Obvious question: why did he not go with his mother?
  • "The first opportunity he had to play organized baseball was while a student at Browning Home-Mather Academy": Perhaps better as “organized baseball came as a student…"?
  • "Richard Dubose, known in local African-American circles for his baseball expertise": Locally, or nationally?
  • "including how he and play mates": Should play mates be one word?
  • "including how he and play mates would use worn down broom handles for bats": I don’t think we really need “would" here; it may be better as “play mates used worn down broom handles".
  • "although he would be living full-time with a friend of his mother's and visit his mother once per week": Again, I’m not a huge fan of the “would" construction here.
  • "Doby lettered in track and was an all-state athlete in baseball": This is pretty meaningless outside North America, so some links, notes or further explanation may be needed.
  • "the team voted in support of Doby to forgo the trip.": Is this better as “the team voted to forgo the trip as a gesture of support for Doby"?
  • "He also enjoyed a brief stint with the Harlem Renaissance": Do we know he enjoyed it? If this is just a synonym for “had", perhaps a more neutral word is needed. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Lead and early life done so far. Issues fixed sans the question of why he didn't stay with his mom. After double-checking a few of the book sources none of them gave a reason as to why he didn't live with her. My guess is the divorce had something to do with it, or there was pressure for her not to be a single mother, but that's entirely speculation on my part. Wizardman 21:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Negro leagues’’’:

  • "A Negro league umpire, Henry Moore, advised Newark Eagles' owners Abe and Effa Manley to give Doby a tryout at Hinchliffe Stadium in Paterson. The tryout was successful, and Doby joined the Eagles in 1942 at the age of 17 for $300.": Can we combine these sentences in some way to avoid repeating “tryout"?
  • "Of the games Doby played in, 26 box scores have been found and concluded his batting average was .391.": As written, this states that the box scores worked out his average.
  • "Before serving in the Pacific Theater of World War II, Doby would spend time at Navy sites in Ogden, Utah and San Diego, California" and “While in Hawaii, Doby would meet fellow Navy man and future teammate Mickey Vernon": Again, it is better to avoid the “would" construction.
  • "For one year he was stationed on Ulithi in the Pacific Ocean in 1945": Redundancy?
  • "Doby saw real hope in being a professional baseball player instead of his aspirations to be a teacher and coach.": Something does not quite work here. Instead of his aspirations?
  • "He made the All-Star roster and batted .360 (fourth in the NNL), hit five home runs (fifth) and led the NNL in triples (six).": And…and Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Integration of American League’’’:

  • For the benefit of anyone who may be unfamiliar with this sorry tale, could we briefly explain why the league was not integrated already?
  • "Veeck had already undertaken efforts in hopes of locating a young, talented player from the Negro leagues": Efforts to do what?
  • "The reporter suggested Doby, of whom Veeck had seen play at the Great Lakes Naval Training School."
  • "Unlike Rickey, who declined to pay for the purchasing rights of Robinson with the Kansas City Monarchs": Lost me here…
  • "It would be the only game Doby would start for the remainder of the season. Doby finished the game 1-for-4, recording his first major league hit and RBI in a 5–1 Indians win": Can we explain these numbers?
  • "Said noted former player Rogers Hornsby, after watching Doby play one time in 1947:": I think it is better as “Noted former player Rogers Hornsby said, after watching…"
  • "Doby roomed alone his rookie year, and in some cities, namely Chicago and St. Louis, was not allowed to stay in the same hotels as his white teammates.": This is almost repeating what the earlier long quote says. Do we need both, or can they be combined?
  • I think this section may need a bit more on Jackie Robinson, to give a little more context and for comparison. As your intro here says, Doby was the second black player, but we do not say so in this section, where it would make most sense. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comments so far. I'll try to get to them all in the next couple days, though depending on work I may just sweep through them all over the weekend instead. Wizardman 00:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Negro Leagues and integration done. I'll re-read and try to add a bit more that would fit on Robinson. Wizardman 02:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland Indians:

  • This is a very long section. Could it be split up?
  • Can we avoid the over-use of the phrase "spring training" in the first paragraph?
  • "During his early years when Doby was in the dugout often, Doby also credited Indians coach Bill McKechnie, who remained in the dugout while Boudreau would play shortstop, with helping him adjust to the majors and learning the outfield.": Another "would", but this sentence seems quite mangled. Repetition of "dugout" and the phrasing seems off. And where has the "also" come from?
  • Consecutive sentences beginning "During" here, as well.
  • "Doby's presence on the team grew in several categories": This doesn't really make sense.
  • "His game appearances jumped four-fold from one season ago to 121. He hit .301 on the season with 14 home runs and 66 RBIs, and he raised his batting average nearly 20 points in the last 25 games of the regular season from September 1 to October 4.": And this is quite choppy, and reads like sports journalese.
  • "Throughout the regular season Doby was the recipient of racial slurs from opposing teams": Why not "Doby was racially abused..."? That would be tighter.
  • "Doby became an important piece of Cleveland's World Series victory against the Boston Braves": More journalese: "piece"?
  • "In Game 4 on October 9, Doby became the first black player to hit a home run in World Series history when he hit one off the Braves' Johnny Sain.": Would be better as "In Game 4 on October 9, Doby hit the first home run by a black player in World Series history", and I'm not sure we need the name of the pitcher. If you think we really need it, maybe finish "scored against..." or similar.
  • "pitched a complete game in Game 4": Can we avoid "game...Game"?
  • "The photo has been called "a signature moment in the integration of Major League Baseball."": By who?
  • Could we include that photo? If it's not free, I think it would easily fall under FU as it is directly referenced in the article.
  • "Nationally syndicated columnist Grantland Rice argued that without Doby and Gene Bearden, the Indians would have finished in fourth or fifth place.": Perhaps a word about what Bearden did?
  • "but were kept out when members in the community revealed a petition.": This sounds odd. Revealed to who?
  • "Boudreau fined his center fielder": Took me a while to work out who this was!
  • "Upon the conclusion of the season": Wordy. Why not "At the end of the season"?
  • "...Cleveland signed him to a new contract resulting in increased pay.": Why not "he signed a new, more lucrative contract"?
  • "Following the season, Doby was named": A bit too similar to the previous sentence.
  • "Doby's power numbers went down in 1951, hitting 20 home runs and 69 RBIs": Power numbers? And this sentence reads that his numbers hit 20 home runs.
  • "Indians general manager Hank Greenberg reduced Doby's salary despite Doby stating he would not accept a pay cut.[48][49] Doby attributed his lower numbers to tightness in his legs.": And now I'm lost. He just had a pay rise, and now a pay cut. Why? And why would he not accept it? And then why did he accept it? And what have his numbers got to do with this? Not clear at all.
  • In fact, that whole paragraph is a little choppy and hard to follow.
  • "However, despite pre-season conditioning, leg injuries were with him to begin the season's campaign.": More journalese style.
  • "Doby stated he was "not even making any plans to go to Tucson for spring training" leading up to the 1953 season,as he had asked Greenberg and Indians management to pay him at his 1951 salary level, $25,000, which was reduced after the 1952 season.": Missing space after 1953 season, and this remark has no context. What did he mean? Did they pay him? We just go straight into stats without following this up.

Down to the end of that section now, but the prose isn't great around here, and the narrative is getting very choppy. It might be worth checking the rest of the article for similar issues as this part is some way short of FA prose-standards. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • In progress on this section; just dropping a line to note I haven't forgotten, just haven't really been on. Should be fully completed on the 4th. Wizardman 00:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Finally done here. I'll do another quick run-through of that section as well, since the 1951-53 era or so is rather spotty. I'll look into the image to see if it's PD, hoping it is. If not I might include it; I'm not a fan of adding fair-use images but it is a case where an exception could be made given its importance. Wizardman 17:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Latter years:

  • Not a fan of the use of "swept", as it seems jargony, but not a huge issue I suppose.
  • "Doby and the White Sox had swept New York": Do we need "had" here?
  • "The White Sox had won eight straight": A touch of sports journalese here.
  • "In a game on August 20, 1957, against the Washington Senators, Doby helped preserve pitcher Bob Keegan's no-hitter with a backhand catch off a long line drive from Herb Plews, one of "two close calls" for Keegan that game.": Borderline jargon, but I wonder if this actually can be simplified without losing the meaning or making it too cumbersome.
  • "Doby was part of a December 3, 1957, multi-player trade between the White Sox and Baltimore Orioles, but was traded before the 1958 season began": trade...traded
  • "He appeared in 89 games with the Indians that season and had a .289 batting average, and accumulated 13 home runs and 45 RBIs.": and...and
  • "and would be the first black player to play for the Tiger franchise.": why would?
  • "for an "over the waiver price" of $20,000": for a what??
  • "During the same season, Doby was traded to the White Sox, again acquired by Veeck.": I may be missing something, but I can make no sense of this sentence!
  • "Doby fractured an ankle while sliding into third base after hitting a triple during a road game the Padres played against Sacramento, in which Doby was sent to a local hospital in Sacramento before going to Johns Hopkins Hospital for further evaluation.": Can we avoid using "Doby" twice in one sentence?
  • "Doby, hobbled by ankle injuries": Not sure this is encyclopaedic.

Down to the end of MLB career now, but I haven't checked the changes made yet. I'm still finding lots of fiddly little issues, but nothing major. Although, to be honest, more than I would expect by the time it reached FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Issues fixed here. If I have time I'll pre-emptively take another look at the final couple sections, since if the later part of his career is any indication I didn't fine-tune it as much as I did earlier on. Wizardman 02:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Managerial:

  • "He managed five seasons of winter leagues in Venezuela, including Águilas del Zulia during the 1970–71 winter season.": Not quite sure what this means: what did he manage? Teams? The whole league?
  • "When Aspromonte was fired after the 1974 season, the Indians named Frank Robinson the club's player-manager, which stunned Doby.": Why?
  • "At age 53, Doby became the second black manager in the majors.": Begs the question as to who was first?
  • "Veeck hired player-manager Don Kessinger to succeed Doby": Seems pretty obvious, but can we state why? Also, was he explicitly sacked?
  • "Doby's involvement with professional sports was not yet finished, however.": Not sure we need this comment at all. Doesn't add much.
  • "In addition to being named all-state in basketball while in high school and receiving a basketball scholarship at Long Island University and later playing in the American Basketball League": As written, and given its place in the article, this looks like it took place after he retired from baseball.

Second man:

  • "Eleven weeks after the annual tradition of all MLB players wearing jerseys paying homage to Robinson, Scoop Jackson in 2007 wrote": This does not quite make sense. How can it take place after a tradition? Needs re-wording.
  • "Said former teammate Al Rosen": Again, this is better the other way around.

Hall of fame:

  • "Although he was the first to play in MLB, Doby was the last member elected to the Hall of the four players to ever play in both a Negro league and MLB World Series: Doby, Satchel Paige, Monte Irvin, and Willie Mays.": May be better written as "the others being Satchel Paige..." etc

Death and legacy:

  • "Doby underwent a kidney removal operation after a cancerous tumor was detected in 1997": Wordy. Maybe just "Doby had a kidney removed in 1997 after a cancerous tumour was detected"
  • Would the parts around the Indians Hall of Fame be better placed chronologically in the main part of the article?

That's everything for the moment; I'll have a look at the whole article again once these comments and those of Resolute have been addressed. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rest of issues fixed. Only thing I didn't change was the Indians Hall of Fame note, since it's lumped in with various other honors currently and makes sense to me. I can try placing it elsewhere to see if it fits, though. Wizardman 03:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source comment - I suppose this is a relatively minor concern, however since Doby is an American, and thus the article is on an American topic, should dates not be expressed in mdy format as opposed to dmy (per WP:STRONGNAT? Not a hill on which I am willing to die, but a consideration nonetheless. Go Phightins! 00:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The prose is all in mdy format. Since the refs were all consistent I decided not to change them to that format; if that is an issue I can always swap those. Wizardman 00:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from TonyTheTiger
Comments from Resolute

I will try to avoid duplicating unresolved comments from above

Lead
  • Factual accuracy on Doby being the second black player in MLB. Moses Fleetwood Walker is often credited as the first, before the color barrier was formalized, and Jackie Robinson, obviously. I would suggest rewording to specify that Doby was the second black MLBer after the color barrier was broken.
  • This is going to seem ridiculously pedantic, but you note in one sentence that Doby accepted a basketball scholarship, and in the next that he became a second baseman in Newark. A potential reader who is not familiar with either sport will not realize we have switched from basketball back to baseball.
  • "He helped the Indians win a franchise-record 111 games and the AL pennant in 1954, finishing second in the AL Most Valuable Player (MVP) award voting as the season's RBI leader and home run champion for the second time in three seasons." - mixed tense. I might reword to "He helped the Indians win a franchise-record 111 games and the AL pennant in 1954, finished second in the AL Most Valuable Player (MVP) award voting and was the AL's RBI leader and home run champion for the second time in three seasons."
    • Also, was Doby both the RBI leader and home run champion twice in three seasons?
  • Note what year he retired as a player.
  • "Doby later served as the second black manager..." - run-on sentence. Also, the basketball piece doesn't fit well in the middle of the two baseball entries. Since you aren't giving years, mention the two baseball jobs in one sentence, and the basketball directorship in another.
Early life
  • "Doby lettered in track and also played, football..." - That comma after played is very awkward and leaves the entire sentence a little off-kilter. As as suggestion for rewording: "Doby was a multi-sport athlete at Patterson's Eastside High school. In addition to baseball and basketball, he was a wide receiver in football and lettered in track."
  • "...where he played with shortstop teammate and future Hall of Famer Monte Irvin." - If he played with Irvin, it is already implied they were teammates. "...where he played with future Hall of Fame shortstop Monte Irvin."
  • When you first mention/link the Negro National League, you should add (NNL) after to put future uses of the acronym in context.
Negro Leagues
  • (Total aside: As a fan of Canadian baseball and Larry Walker, I find that this was also a pseudonym of Doby's to be pretty amazing!)
  • "Of the games Doby played in..." - That cannot be said definitively since you later state that not all box scores are available. I would suggest "In the 26 games where box scores have been found, Doby's batting average was .391", or something similar.
Major League Baseball.
  • I would pipe Commissioner of Baseball down to just Commissioner.
  • It is noted that Veeck asked the AL president for support in getting other players to "rein in their animosity". Do we know if that request was successful?
  • "...but hit 29 home runs and 102 RBIs on the year. He also had 96 walks on the year, third in the AL." - overuse of "on the year.
  • When you note that the White Sox finished sixth in the AL in team home runs, that is hard to put into context because of how many teams are in the AL today. Perhaps specify they were sixth of eight teams in the AL.
  • In the latter years section, you end one paragraph by stating Doby was sold to the White Sox. The next paragraph begins by noting he was traded to the White Sox. Given he was acquired by Veeck again, I take this to mean that he was traded to the Indians?
  • "In 1960, Doby, hobbled by ankle injuries, worked out with the White Sox before the 1960 season but did not earn a roster spot." - Don't need the second instance of "1960".
  • "In late-April..." - Is that hyphen properly placed?
Managerial
  • Why did Frank Robinson's promotion to manager in Cleveland "stun" Doby?
  • Spell out "National Basketball Association" on first use.

Many of the prose concerns Sarastro already mentioned (and I may have duplicated some). Will take a second pass once these are all resolved. Cheers! Resolute 01:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Issues fixed. On the animosity quote, i'm not sure if it was successful immediately. It of course lessened over time, but the gradual change wouldn't feel right thrown in there. Also I confirmed the reference said that Doby was stunned, but it went into no further detail so I just removed it. Wizardman 03:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Looks like you've resolved my initial comments. I do want to take a second pass, and will try to do so soon! Resolute 00:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not convinced the prose is quite there yet. I've copy-edited one section here (feel free to revert anything I've messed up) to give some idea of what might be required. I'm a little pressed for time at the moment, and may not be able to do a full copy-edit myself (although I'll see what I can do), but I think the prose still needs a little work. (Incidentally, did he ever play for LIU: the article seems a little vague around this point) Sarastro1 (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a run-through this weekend and try to fine-tune the prose a bit further. Wizardman 11:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, my time's going to be very limited for at least the next few weeks, and after a skim re-read I want to do some more prose polishing to try and bring it up to FA level. Since that's going to take a while due to a combination of the above, I request that this be withdrawn. Wizardman 00:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 15:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Laundry Service

Nominator(s): WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Colombian record artist Shakira's fifth studio album and first English-language studio effort. A monumental point in her career and a highly successful album, I have worked on the article for quite a long time. It received an instant pass for good article, and a few users have recommended me to nominate it for FA. I hope the article is worthy enough. I will try to address issues as soon as they are put forward. Thanks! WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WikiRedactor
  • One external link to correct.
  • Perhaps "Background" and "recording" could be merged into a "Background and recording" since the latter section is a little short.
  • I would recommend that "Music and lyrics" is renamed "Composition".
  • I suggest moving "Accolades" in between "Critical reception" and "Commercial performance".
  • Can you organize the "Personnel" section into two columns?
  • I would replace the couple instances of Nielsen Business Media in the references, since it appears that Prometheus Global Media is the most commonly-listed publisher for Billboard throughout the article.
The Nielsens were added by a bot. They weren't supposed to be there in the first place --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of the hard work you've put into the article has certainly paid off! Aside from these minor structural/formatting comments, I have no other issues to raise, and I am very happy to give my support to the nomination! WikiRedactor (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I have addressed the issues. Much appreciated --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose:I see you've put a lot of work into the article. I appreciate it. Unfortunately, it's not quite up to FA standards. The writing is not quite brilliant or interesting and far from neutral. All these biased fancruft remarks like "huge success", "huge international success", "performed well", "became hits", "performed moderately". We must only document facts and appropriate critical commentary. I find too many of these throughout the article. Also, beware of awkward wording like "a few critics praised Shakira's vocal talent". Overall, I suggest hooking up with a third-party editor who can fine-tooth comb all the unintentional praises. Good luck and I'll keep watch for improvements.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some changes. However, I must say that I believe the usage of words like "crossover success" and "international success" is sufficiently backed by the charting information. Moreover, the former just doesn't refer to chart success but rather emphasises on the fact that the album enabled Shakira to enter the market successfully, which too is taken from the sources. Thanks for your input --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- As this review has stalled without achieving consensus to promote, I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 15:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Far Side Virtual

Nominator(s): Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Far Side Virtual is a strange album. It's experimental and outside the mainstream, but has received (and continues to receive) a glut of critical attention; it's alternately described as inconsequentially goofy or bleakly nihilistic, hinging on people's inability to tell if it's being performed with a straight face or not; and at the end of the day, it's just an album of songs that sound like replicas of circa-2004 MIDI ringtones. I worked on this article a lot last year, digging up a surprising amount about an album that I only had a little interest in. Looking at it again, I feel that the article is as comprehensive as an article about a recent album can be, and that I summarized a broad swath of critical opinions, analyses and interpretations. I think enough time has passed that we have some distance from the release date and I can confidently say that this is ready to be featured. Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few comments:
I can't speak for everyone but I was unfamiliar with the word drone before reading the lead. I'd suggest the full "drone music" instead.
  • Reworded
Farraro's announcement of the album quote probably needs an explanation. Even something simple like saying that (if this is accurate) his press releases were part of his performance, or whatever would be the most accurate. But as it stands alone I don't think it works.
  • There really is no further explanation out there—sources pretty much published the quotes with a "take this as it is" attitude by letting the absurdity of the words stand for themselves. They were certainly "part of" his performance but not in a way that people chose to comment on. It's noteworthy enough that he made what the reader can clearly figure out is a rather nontraditional press release that resonates with the themes discussed later. My hands are tied in terms of talking about it anyway due to lack of sourcing, but its inclusion is important. It would be OR to extrapolate further, to say that the statement was "deliberately absurd," even though that is plainly the case.
Is there any more information about the albums writing or recording?
  • Not really.
I think that overall it needs much more background info other than just saying that it was made on Garage Band. There's a lot of great theory and interpretation but I think you should add much more information (if it is available) on the process and events surrounding its writing and recording. Obviously this isn't an album that was recorded in the traditional sense, and admittedly I don't personally know much about this type of thing. But I think that any other casual reader who is as unfamiliar as I am would also have some difficulty with aspects of the article that may seem overly obvious to people who know a lot about this genre of music.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I clarified a little with Garageband, but there's not much more to say about the album's writing or recording. Properly speaking it was not "recorded," that is, no sound was recorded with a mic, it was all synthesized within audio software. He probably spent a lot of time moving little MIDI notes around on an audio timeline. Not much more to say there. I don't feel like explaining how to use GarageBand is a task for this article, curious people can click through to that page and figure out what kind of software it is. Certainly, the article makes clear that the software makes generic electronic sounds. He was not working with sophisticated technology. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tezero

I feel bad that this FAC's gotten so little attention. Mine's been up for far less time and, well, hasn't gotten the kind I'd have liked, but attention nonetheless. Anyway, here I go.

  • "electronic album by James Ferraro" - Ambiguous at first glance; electronic music or released in an electronic format? Since I assume it's the former, link to that genre. (Really, though, it's not the best choice of genre, either. I'd side with "experimental music" or "vaporwave".)
  • Changed; when I first wrote the article vaporwave did not yet have its own article, which has thankfully happened in the interim.
  • "and toward a sharply" - "and" may be unnecessary
  • Reworded
  • "corporate muzak and obsolete computer sounds" - Minor, but consider switching the text to just "elevator music"; elevator music is a more well-known term that is roughly correct within Wikipedia's terminology for what articles exist and is close enough, but muzak is certainly more precise in terms of what people say about the album.
  • changed; I put "elevator music" in quotes to indicate that it is not precisely correct. This mainly
  • "Ferraro claimed to have first conceived" - claimed when and in what context - why not "has claimed"? Actually, I'd prefer you just say that that's how he conceived of it, as I don't see any reason to doubt him.
  • Reworded
  • "that covers much of the same sonic and conceptual territory" - A little redundant/obvious. I'd change this construction to "catalysts of an underground electronic music movement called vaporwave."
  • I want to retain this because subsequent vaporwave music tends to be, overall, more sample-based than Far Side Virtual. That would be to say: Far Side Virtual is original music that imitates the style of "muzak," while most vaporwave (especially afte FSV) samples and distorts old muzak tracks.
  • "The album was preceded on the label" - awkward
  • Reworded
  • "Princess Diana" - may want to link to her
  • Done
  • "few would want to purchase a ringtone album" - Seems contradictory given the preceding expanse of the sentence. A set of ringtones, when contrasted with a full album as this idea is, wouldn't be a "ringtone album", would it?
  • You're right, reworded
  • "cleanly produced" - possibly not NPOV
  • Removed
  • "were described as "perversely commonplace,"" - by whom? One reviewer? Ferraro?
  • Clarified
  • "the Skype log-in sound" - sounds slightly informal; what about something like "the log-in jingle for Skype"?
  • I think "log-in sound" would be more formal. Jingle implies a melody, whereas in this case the sound sampled is literally one rising tone.
  • "a Windows shut-down melody" - Are there more than one?
  • There are new Windows shut-down melodies for each version. 98 differs from XP differs from Vista differs from 7 etc. The specific OS identity of the sample in question is not out there but critics have certainly identified that it is one of the Windows melodies.
  • "while retaining—and reappropriating—the form and ethos of noise music" - ...What?
  • Reworded and added a source to back it up. Multiple critics have said that the album is "noise" in the sense that it is meant to capture the noise of the outside world, but that it's not the standard distorted industrial noise associated with "noise music" but a new noise that is cleaner and associated with post-industrial chirpy smartphone sounds. To explain any further would be original research but I think what I've written represents the critical sources fairly, and gives a broad overview without delving into technical explanation that would become OR.
  • "post-modern" - add a link
  • Done
  • "Simon Reynolds said that" - Mention that he's an (English) music critic or something. I've never heard of him.
  • Done
  • "a choice that proved to be polarizing among readers" - Can you elaborate?
  • I feel that the following paragraph elaborates in enough detail. The backlash was likely one picked up by the writers via word of mouth and forum posts. To the degree that the backlash would be represented by a reliable source, it is encapsulated by the fact that the controversy was significant enough that the magazine chose to respond at all.
  • Are Dummy and Hydra Magazine reliable sources?
  • Yes. They're not the very most popular (hence, no Wiki pages about them) but they are indeed reliable about their niche coverage area, which this article falls within.
  • Not sure about the infobox genre choices; "ambient" and "experimental" appear nowhere else in the article.
  • Removed

Tezero (talk) 05:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I appreciate the feedback. I myself have been busy with end-of-semester college responsibilities but I hope I've adequately responded to your comments. Please let me know if you have any further comments. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Yeah, to answer your question, it looks better. I can't think of anything else, so I'll be happy to congratulate you on a well-written article about a rather niche topic. Tezero (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I'm afraid that after remaining open 6 weeks or so this review has stalled without achieving clear consensus to promote, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 09:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC) [5].[reply]

The Doon School

Nominator(s): Drumpits (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a boarding school in India. Education articles from the South Asian region are largely neglected on Wiki, but this one has been a Good Article for quite some time now. It looks ready to become a Featured Article. Probably, the first one from that geographical region. Drumpits (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest withdrawal

This nom is among OP's first edits, so it's unlikely the article's main contributors know about it. Sadly, he also seems to have gone on a break due to a family emergency.—indopug (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 09:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Roman Empire

Nominator(s): Historian7 (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this article satisfies the requirements to become a featured article. Historian7 (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Welcome to FAC. Per the FAC instructions, have you talked with the major contributors to the article about whether they're available to help? - Dank (push to talk) 19:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This article is 126716 characters of readable prose. According to User:The ed17/Good articles by prose size, as of April 19, 2014, it was the 2nd longest of 19,873 good articles. Only 228 of the 19873 (1.147%) GAs were longer than 60KB. Only 8 of 19873 (0.040%) GAs were longer than 100KB. According to User:The ed17/Featured articles by prose size, as of March 15, 2014, only 171 of the 4197 (4.074%) FAs were longer than 60KB. Only 2 of the 4197 (0.048%) FAs were longer than 100KB. This article needs to be pruned back and WP:SPLIT according to WP:SIZE.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 14:06, 09 May 2014 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Economy of Visakhapatnam

Nominator(s): Vin09 (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the economy of a city in the state of Andhra Pradesh Vin09 (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Singora

One word: NO!

I counted ten unsourced paragraphs. Take your time and improve it bit by bit. I'm sure you'll get there in the end. Good luck! Singora (talk) 09:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments There are a few unsourced and uncited claims that need to be addressed, i added one citation though.Abhinav0908 (talk) 11:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Hamiltonstone. This is an article about a very important regional Indian economy, has a good start, and deserves work. But the article has far far too many problems to be considered at FAC. For example:

  • The lead contains facts not covered in the body text.
  • Major facts are unreferenced.
  • There is little detail about large economic developments, such as their history, what some of them do.
  • There are insufficient high-quality references to cover the facts, but in particular to support stronger analysis of the economy. There is not a single scholarly source of any sort.
  • The article does not cover the historical development of the economy, and often lacks information about when key facilities were constructed.
  • The references are not adequately laid out to comply with the Manual of Style (MOS).
  • Other MOS issues are everywhere, such as taking a consistent approach to the use of acronyms, measurements, and punctuation.
  • There is reference, without explanation, to a place called Vizag, and it is in lower case on one occasion, but all uppercase in another.
  • One section refers to the IT industry, but towards the end starts using the expression IT/ITeS, which isn't explained, or linked, and I don't know what it means.
  • The article states "The employment generated by the IT/ITeS industry of the city too increased to 16,988 jobs from 16,000". Not only is 16,000 actually less than the previous number, but the cited source doesn't have the title claimed in the article, and doesn't support the cited fact.

I have done a quick copyedit to remove some of the worst issues, but this will need many weeks of research and writing to reach FA. Best wishes to the editors in that endeavour. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose due to inadequate research. Vin09, online sources alone are not enough for such an article such as this to meet WP:FA? criteria. I urge you, especially if you are in Vizag/Andhra, to check out your city's public library. You will find any number of scholarly books on the Andhra coastal economy, if not Vizag's economy itself. Then you can write a comprehensive article on the topic, with a proper historical context and everything.—indopug (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Taking a quick glance at the article myself, I can only agree that a great deal of work would be needed to flesh out and polish this to FA standard, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Pls take on board the comments you've received and, having improved the article accordingly, seek a Peer Review before renominating at FAC. Cehers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:05, 7 May 2014 [8].


Slammiversary (2008)

Nominator(s): WillC 00:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an event held in June 2008. It is the sixth anniversary show of TNA's. A man died after the event while cleaning up the arena. I have two PPV articles from 2008 already achieve FA status and I'm trying to get all 12 there. This is my 4th attempt at getting a 2008 event to FA. I tried with Sacrifice 08 a couple of times but it never worked out. I'll be trying with it again after this one, but I figured I might as well try with a new one first. Any comments are appreciated.--WillC 00:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Small fixes

  • Does "After the event..." in the lead deserve its own paragraph? Not sure why it is lumped together with the 'reception' stuff in the lead.
    • Not really about reception, covers all events after the event. The buyrate, things it is remembered for, the reception, and the death of someone. Someone dieing as a result of the event is pretty important but that line pretty much covers are necessary information.--WillC 14:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in the lead (and in the article) "Six Woman Tag Team match" and in the article "Special Guest Ringside Enforcer", "Tag Team match" and "Ten Woman TNA Knockouts Makeover Battle Royal" -> remove capital letters?
    • They are match types and special titles. They are important and should be capital since that is how they are promoted. I would understand on tag team match, but it is like that to be uniform with all match titles. Plus it looks neater than 10 woman knockout makeover battle royal, special guest ringside enforcer, etc. These were things the events were promoted on. Nash being Special Guest Ringside Enforcer for this match was used later on in the storylines so it was more than just a random unimportant action.--WillC 14:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The predominate storyline -> predominant?
  • Reading the reception section, I thought you could afford to expand it a bit more. Mainly more of Keller's comments on the main event.
  • Accident section - "TNA released a statement the next day on behalf of TNA President Dixie Carter." Is mentioning "on behalf of TNA President Dixie Carter" relevant? Also, I think that you would be better off using the quote like in NXT Arrival#Aftermath. "TNA released a statement the next day" -> quote -> "The June 12 episode"... starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the source. Said that was the purpose of the release, was on Carter's behalf and not the promotion. That table distracts too much from the purpose of the section. Makes itself the main point.--WillC 14:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately for you and the article, due to the Sun's greedy "pay for reading or read only the first line" policy, that content is no longer verifiable. Click the source if you don't know what I'm talking about. What are you going to do about that? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 01:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ahh crap, I guess I'll remove it. I left that over from the previous revision when it passed GA. I figured it was still good. I liked the sun additions, made the articles look more professional. I'll wait and see if I can find the release through someone else. I probably can.--WillC 04:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You explain dark match... the second time it appears in the body, not the first. Should dark match even appear in the lead? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lead shouldn't have explanations, it distracts from the purpose of a summary. Dark match was on the card of the event. Promoted? Not really but still took place at the show.--WillC 14:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first time "dark match" appears in the body, not the lead, is in the Storylines section. You explained "dark match" later in the Event section. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed that. Removed dark match and switched it with pre-show in the disclaimer. Too much of an explanation for that area. Kept the explanation in the event with the first mention of the term, besides the lead of course.--WillC 07:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aftermath section - first paragraph first line - remove "still"? Also, first paragraph second line isn't sourced - the source is for the first line.
  • Event section - Miscellaneous subsection - "Besides employees who appeared in a wrestling role" sounds totally weird to me. How about "Besides those who wrestled a match"?
  • Event section and Results section - Roode was the next to qualify after bashing a ladder Cage held with a chair and then pinning Cage. and Roode pinned Cage after hitting a ladder Cage held with a chair. - I think that after the "with a chair"s, you should insert "into Cage". It appears that Roode just bashed a ladder. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay lastly, the pictures need improvement. I don't like LAX or Styles' pictures. You could use a better Styles picture, maybe this one. Since there aren't any better LAX pictures, I recommend adding a Petey picture. I think one of this or this will work. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 11:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd change the AJ picture if a good one is presented that appears better than the one currently, but using a Williams picture is a no since his match didn't get any build leading up to and was mostly ignored. LAX overrules there since they were the undercard match and thus should be presented over Williams.--WillC 17:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also must consider licenses and the Styles picture above does exactly have the greatest copyright info and appears to not even be on commons, thus causing more problems.--WillC 17:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Huh? The Styles pocture is on Commons. It was taken by Tabercil, an admin here (and on Commons) who has a history of taking pro wrestling photos.
      • What do you mean LAX "were the undercard match"? Petey was also in an undercard match, and his match was even longer than LAX's. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was looking at the wrong Styles picture. My bad. Williams match was added to the card right before the event. Really had no build while the LAX match had nearly 2 months of build and thus was more important. I feel it should be presented since it was a main contest, over the X Title match. I changed the Styles picture though.--WillC 17:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just link right to the observer article? It also contains some things missed in the article. --124.178.179.118 (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What?--WillC 04:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I'm sorry but with no activity for over a month this review has stalled, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:44, 6 May 2014 [9].

Walt Disney

Nominator(s): Forbidden User (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Walt Disney, a founder of Walt Disney Company, and more than that, the founder of a new era of entertainment. Throughout his life, he has made tremendous contributions to the world by providing refreshing forms of entertainment. That's why the page is made. I believe it meets the featured articles criteria, details as follows:

  1. For writing quality,
  • It is very fluently and extensively written, polished by lots of editors, having received great peer reviews.
  • It is well-researched and comprehensive,detailed covering his whole life with abundant evidence.
  • It does not one-sidedly praise Walt Disney for his great achievements, instead it also mentions the fact he is a chain smoker and he had dow:nfalls in career, as well as constructive criticisms towards him. However, it fairly elaborated on the fact, not trying to cover up thses bits of his life.
  1. For style guideline,
  • It has detailed and clear section-headings, as well as an adequately substantial table of contents which is concise, comparable to other encyclopedias. The main way it categorisis its rich contents is by the timeline of his life, and inside are further divisions by the nature of events, etc. I personaaly find it very convenient, especially when trying to find information about a particular period in his life or specific events.
  1. For media, it contains rich images on his life events, which all come from reliable sources without copyright infringement.
  2. For length, it is long as it is extensively written, yet it stays on Walt himself, not going off to his enterprise,Walt Disney Company. It has no nonsense in it, and summarising of vast information is well-done.

I hope this article will be featured, for enhancing the quality of Wikipedia as well as honouring this great creator of a world of imaginations.Forbidden User (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

so, you guys wanna say that I couldnt nominate a page as FA unless I am a major contributor? And btw, this is nothing spammy, Im serious in this, so do not leave spams calling meaningful words 'spams'Forbidden User (talk) 11:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's generally how FAC works, yes; you should've really read the criteria beforehand. If you intend to nominate an article at FAC which you have had no prior interest in, then you could have at least let the major contributors know. Then it would have been up to the delegates to allow it. For all you know, the major contributors may have been intending to bring Disney to FAC themselves. Cassiantotalk 14:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. I think I should inform them on the talk page and let them get their preparation or perhaps improvements needed. I think there will be a decision soon. However, please do leave comments for us to improve! Forbidden User (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you open a peer review in that case. Cassiantotalk 17:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JJ98 please leave some comments on how to improve the page. I fell that it will help not only this article, but wikipedia as a whole!Forbidden User (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just because I want look as William Hanna and Joseph Barbera as an FA example. I would suggest to add a WP:Good article, but it isn't since there are few ciation needed tags and several paragraphs like "1955–1966: Theme parks and beyond" and "Legacy: 1967–present" are unsorced. JJ98 (Talk) 07:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. We will take this into account. Good luck editing!Forbidden User (talk) 07:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way,Cassianto, advice taken. Thanks a lot!Forbidden User (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:44, 6 May 2014 [10].

Miley Cyrus

Nominator(s): Shane Cyrus (talk) 11:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
General comments I probably won't have time to do a full review, but a glance out of curiosity reveals (no pretentions at completeness, I did not read the whole article)
  • Especially in the lede, the paragraphs seem long and blocky, and therefore a barrier to reading. This might not make a difference to her fans, but still.
  • I see at least one instance of a non-US usage, "hospitalised". Note that there are other problems with that sentence.
Good luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I added the US usage term to the sentence and corrected it. As for the lede, I divided it to 3 paragraphs. Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, suggest withdrawal
  1. OP is not one of the major contributors to the article. Have they been informed of this FAC?
    Me, not having been a major contributor doesn't excuse the article's great work Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As it says at the FAC instructions page, "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination."—indopug (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    indopug is right. I made that mistake back in 2008 when I, not understanding the difference between GA and FA status, put Pokémon Diamond and Pearl up at FAC, even though I'd barely edited it. Needless to say, I was scolded and the candidacy failed. With that said, I think this article could very well pass. Tezero (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though, Me regularly editing the article but not being shown in that list, Top 6 editors of the article have already been informed. Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The peer review OP mentions, suggesting that it contributing to "very high standards", was closed in three days without a single response.
    PR isn't necessary to nominate an article for FA, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. References 181–191 are bare URLs. References are inconsistently formatted throughout.
     Done Bare urls fixed Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not done Refs continue to be inconsistently formatted.—indopug (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The personal-life section is full of short, stubby paragraphs.
     Done Now combined to form one para Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. WP:RECENTISM, as seen from the almost day-to-day journal of her life in the last paragraph of the Bangerz section.
    No recentism found Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Estimates of her wealth through the years do not deserve a section of their own.—indopug (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Not a section now Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Indopug. Serious concerns over the lack of preparation this article has gone through (and misrepresentation of such by the nominator) as well as the lack of discussion with those who have done the majority of the work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The bare urls you are blaming me to misrepresent were added after the nomination. Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continue as Indopug hasn't raised any points as how this article shouldn't be featured. It sounds like "I Don't Like It". Even if you do not like the person, you can't stop their article to get featured. As for the concerns raised by Indopug, the valid ones are resolved. Shane Cyrus (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for the PR, the nominator can close it any time and it is still valid, see [[11]], the discussion also was inactive, If there are no concerns raised, opposition holds no value. I think the concerns Indopug raised were fantastic and he could be a superb reviewer. Hey Indopug, please become the reviewer. Shane Cyrus (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning towards support: The prose looks fine, and I disagree with the charges of recentism; 2013–now has been the biggest period in Cyrus' career in years in both publicity and activity. I will note, however, that not all of the sources are completely formatted; many of them are missing authors and accessdates. Tezero (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I do think all of them have authors and accesdates, however, Which? do you think do not have authors and accessdates? Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, for example, the Pink News citation (237) should list Scott Roberts as the author, while Entertainment Wise (242) needs an accessdate. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     Done fixed. Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'll support; it looks like the sources without authors listed genuinely don't have them. I'm not well acquainted with pop music/fashion-related articles, so I can't speak to their reliability, but everything else looks to be in good shape. Tezero (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess this article is now ready to get reviewed and promoted. Shane Cyrus (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose – Completely agree with Indopug's points and I would also like that it has extremely poor sourcing for a BLP (see footnotes like Justjared), reads like a diary entry, looks like a teenager's slam book and fails WP:FA? in very possible way. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 18:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, this comment of yours isn't supported by any guideline at all.
  •  Done Indopug's points are resolved and justjared has been deleted.
  • Doesn't fail FA and doesn't read like a diary. Not sufficient criteria for strong oppose. Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Listen Shane Cyrus, your overall attitude and belittling all the reviewer's comments all through out this nomination is extremely non-cooperative. You might think this article is FA worthy, however it does not pass WP:FA?, neither than brilliant, professional writing, nor has a cohesive prose writing to merit a professional encyclopedia entry. Coupled with your ignorant views, my oppose still strongly stands, whether you like it or not. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 18:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Why was the peer review closed in less than two days when it received zero feedback from the other major contributors? I'm getting an impression that article was nominated only for the sake of awarding fan-favourite content, and poorly sourced, I must say.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said to Indopug, PR's aren't necessary for nominations. Please suggest ifany poor sources are found. Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would definitely not use People or Us Weekly (in fact, I also stated this in the GAN), E! has medium-level credibility. Hollywood Reporter isn't so bad. Not sure what to say about Access Hollywood. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question is there any particular reason this article has both a section on her dating life while the same info is also being stated in the "life and career" section? I recommend one or the other, but not both. Also, Mirror (aka Daily Mirror) is a tabloid that shouldn't be used. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • From now on, response will only be given to comments supported by guidelines. You can't remove everything in an article. Personal Life is an important section and it shall remain with Life and caareer. Both sections convey different topics. Shane Cyrus (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing nomination: This nom is taking over my life. I don't want any haters, I'm no one's enemy. Cyrus has too many haters for her article to ever get featured now. Sorry, if I caused problems to anyone! :( Shane Cyrus (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/May_2014&oldid=609998534"