Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/September 2006: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Raul654 (talk | contribs)
70,896 edits
No edit summary
Raul654 (talk | contribs)
70,896 edits
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Down syndrome}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Extrasolar planet}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gilwell Park}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lost (TV series)}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Acute myeloid leukemia}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/San Francisco, California}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jaguar}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Daniel Webster}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Daniel Webster}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jaws (film)}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jaws (film)}}

Revision as of 02:05, 13 September 2006

Down syndrome

Partial self-nomination. This is an article we've worked on at the WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Medical Genetics, and the topic certainly merits a featured-standard article. It has had a peer review which can be read here which was extremely helpful and improved the article as a whole. TedTalk/Contributions 13:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak object:
  • "The incidence of Down syndrome is estimated at 1 per 800 to 1 per 1000 births." (no source)
<response>I don't like references in the introduction, although there is one at the end. If you look at Down syndrome#Epidemiology, you will find the proper sourcing for that range. TedTalk/Contributions 20:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<response>I'll leave this comment for someone who reads German.TedTalk/Contributions 20:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is only one karyogram in the article while commons has 3: here!
<response>Two of the three in commons are essentially the same (one is the original, the other two are my revisions). Those two, and more, are found in Genetic origins of Down syndrome. There were simply too many for the general Down syndrome article.TedTalk/Contributions 20:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NCurse work 20:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your Comments. TedTalk/Contributions 20:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answers. :) I wait a week but I'm pretty sure, I'll support it! Good work! NCurse work 21:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I didn't notice the link to Health aspects of Down syndrome. support. --WS 17:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have added more citations. Copyedit is, as always, an ongoing project. TedTalk/Contributions
  • Comment, I have added two cite needed tags where I think things should be referenced. The table of genes on chromosome 21 could be shortened to those that are clearly related to neurogenesis or other downs symptoms, as is, it is a duplication of the info in the daughter article - and I don't think adds much. This section also seems like it could be merged into the genetics section - since it is about genetics. Why does the history of the disease stop at 1975?--Peta 03:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed one unreferenced line and added a reference to the other. I agree that the genetic research could be moved into the genetics section and the chart excised. I'll wait to hear from others. InvictaHOG 04:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The table can certainly be cut back, although I expect it to grow in the future as more is known about the genes in that area. The organization of this article is somewhat problematic. A discussion of genes and their effects could be done in the genetics section. In the same way, a discussion of the health aspects and cognitive development could be covered in the section on characteristics. As we understand more about the genes underlying the various problems associated with Down syndrome, I can see the genetic research section becoming what is normally seen as treatment in medical articles. The way it was organized was to see the first genetics section as a "cause" and the genetic research more on specific effects. I see the article as moving from superficial (introduction) to general (characteristics, genetics, epidemiology, prenatal screening) to specific (cognitive development, health, genetic research). I see too many articles trying to explain everything at the same time. If I am alone in this, then that's OK as well. TedTalk/Contributions 20:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really doubt that there is a single DS gene, so the table could grow indefinately listing all the genes on the long arm of chromosome 21, it really is information overload given that there is a daughter article with all the same information.--Peta 23:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is true. As Research of Down syndrome-related genes expands it is always proper to ask how to best summarize the information. It may be we have too much material in the Down syndrome article. I'll look at ways to delete the table entirely, while summarizing the information. TedTalk/Contributions 13:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed most of the table, and changed the emphasis to research targets using transgenic mice. TedTalk/Contributions 20:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Update)A small amount of the information from the original table is now incorporated into the text. TedTalk/Contributions 14:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the characeristics and health sections would work better is they were merged into one section like Cystic fibrosis, which does a really good job of describing symptoms of the disorder initially so that it is cealr what the article is covering. Also while we are describing the characteristics of the disorder if would be useful for this to be followed by the effects on cognitive development before we get into discussion on genetics and prenatal screening.--Peta 23:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. How can you talk aobut differences between trisomy Down syndrome, mosaic Down syndrome, or translocation Down sydrome if you haven't talked about those already? The order has evolved over several months. While it can certainly evolve more, in my opinion, it works as is. Over the summer, I tried to fit the article into the mold of the Clinical Medicine Project's suggested article format. In the end, it just doesn't seem to work for Down syndrome. TedTalk/Contributions 02:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I got a bit lost with the incidence in the Epidemiology section , '1 per 800 to 1 per 1000 births.[11] In 2006, the Center for Disease Control estimated the rate as 1 per 733 live births in the United States (5429 new cases per year).[12]' would convert to per 100 i.e. '1-1.36 per 1000' rather than differnet amounts, possibly doing the same to risk paragraph following it. Other that - excellent
  • Support Leevanjackson 23:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extrasolar planet

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Extrasolar planet/archive1

Self-nomination. This article recently failed as a FAC and I am now renominating it. All the problems that were pointed out after the last nomination have now been fixed. Further substantial improvements have been made in the article as well. I have been one of the people to edit the article since the last nomination failed, and in my opinion, it now amply satisfies all featured-article criteria. Kevin Nelson 07:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Object. "Notable extrasolar planets" section needs changing from a bullet list into proper prose as flowing paragraphs. Footnote size is non-standard, see Belton_House#Notes for how it should be done. Everything else seems OK. — Wackymacs 11:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addressed the concern around "Notable extrasolar planets" by breaking it into two lead paragraphs about the first two major milestones and then a list that's a bit easier to scan through and grasp, of the rest of the important discoveries by year and planet name. -Harmil 18:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've noticed some of the footnotes do not follow the proper citation style using templates, so these need to be fixed. I've just noticed the See also section is a bit too long, can you remove some links from there? — Wackymacs 07:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The only footnotes I've seen with improper citation style are those that are just URLs with no access date. Are there any others you find to be improper? Also, I have now further trimmed the "See also" section. Kevin Nelson 08:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • From quickly looking... Footnotes 14, 16, 35 are not formatted with their page titles, authors, site name, access date, etc. (I am sure one or two of those apply to at least every link used in those footnotes). — Wackymacs 18:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the article needs a few more tweaks before getting the FA status:

  • The "See also" section seems to me huge. Are all these links necessary? Can we have some of them incorporated in the main article?
  • The "Notable extrasolar planets" section is now prose, but with some stubby paragraphs consisting of just one sentence. One-sentence paragraphs are also present in other sections.

I think these things need fixing before FA status is awarded.--Yannismarou 19:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Certainly some things in the "See also" section could be deleted, but nothing really stands out as especially deserving of deletion. I have to say that its length doesn't strike me as all that unreasonable. I fixed several stubby one-paragraph sentences. Two remain, which I think are justifiable in that they come at the end of introductory text within a section, and serve to introduce the subsections that follow. Kevin Nelson 07:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can't most of the items in the "See also" section be worked into the prose as wikilinks?--Paul 10:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have now done some of that. The "See also" section has been trimmed by a decent amount. Kevin Nelson 04:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have a few concerns about the article:

  • The definition excludes orphaned planets that have been ejected from the star, as well as planets that formed by other means.[1]
  • I couldn't find any discussion of the suspected connection between a star's metallicity and the presence of planets. [2] [3]
  • There's no mention of such proposed detection methods as starshade technique in the New Worlds Observer.[4][5]]Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a paragraph in the lead about these "orphaned planets" (aka interstellar planets, aka rogue planets, aka free-floating planets). In short, I would prefer that this article not discuss such objects, for the following reasons: 1) They are outside the IAU's definition of "planet" 2) There is already a separate Wikipedia article about them 3) They remain a controversial subject in the astronomical community 4) Their relation to more ordinary planets is highly uncertain.
  • I added a paragraph about the metallicity connection.
  • Since length of the article is a concern, I would prefer not to add proposed detection methods like the starshade technique that are still very far from being put into practice. Several such methods have been proposed, and it's not clear where to draw the line. Kevin Nelson 08:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support —
  • If the article length is becoming a concern then perhaps consideration should be given to creating a daughter article on the topic of detecting extrasolar planets.
  • The Category:Dark matter should probably be removed since there is no mention of the topic on the page.
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support - Strong article when submitted & author has been very responsive to comments & suggestions. Well-writte, comprehensive & well-referenced. --Paul 18:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although the nature of the article gives me some concerns: as more telescopes are deployed and/or more techniques to discover planets are put into practice this article - if not constantly followed by a editor - might become outdated. // Duccio (write me) 15:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I was originally going to re-nominate this article because it has been improved since when I first nominated it. There might be a few changes that need to be made overall (with the citations etc.) but it's pretty much FA at this point Latitude0116 01:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gilwell Park

Article on an important Scouting headquarters, activity and training center with lots of history behind it.Rlevse 02:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Following Rolfe's death in 1422, the property was divided into two parts... even though they remained under the same ownership." Rolfe maintained ownership after his death? Mention the new owners if possible.
rewordedRlevse 18:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Up to this time, ownership had changed several times." After seeing this I expect to see the text return to a previous time period (i.e. before 1736), but it doesn't. Why not just remove this sentence?
removedRlevse 18:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "King George III and other royals visited the estate." Are more details available? When, why, who?
will add more later today.Rlevse 18:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)...added para on royal visits. Rlevse 23:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look out for redundant words—I removed "very" three times.
thanksRlevse 18:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done by Wim on 8 Sep. Rlevse 10:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gilwell Farm is believed to date from the early 1700s be the oldest original building at Gilwell Park." Doesn't make sense.
rewordedRlevse 18:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last paragraph of "Attractions" needs work (four consecutive simple sentences).
worked on this.Rlevse 18:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Spangineeres (háblame) 18:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've now addressed each item, please review. Rlevse 23:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. It has mightily improved, but should have gone through a PR first. Things still to improve include:

PR's are a waste of time now, see paltry response to Boy Scout.Rlevse 23:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the defining/summarizing lead it mentions Activity Centre, but these aren't explained in the article proper
Done.Rlevse 11:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ref in the summary/abstract lead should then be in that section
Done. Moved ref to new info text area. Rlevse 11:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history section is nice, but could do with some copy-editing. The Redundancy section of the famous Tony1 document should be a guideline here.
Worked this. Please be specific if there are more concerns in this area.Rlevse 13:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Worked by Wim on 8 Sep. Rlevse 10:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the sentence ' the Boy Scout Assocation (last of section 1.0) is oddly tagged on there. Should be move to 1.1 somewhere. And my preference is to have subsections at equal level, e.g. 1.1 'Pre-scouting history' and 1.2 Scouting connection
Done.Rlevse 23:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the linking to the Rogers booklet (excellent book, by the way: just bought it myself) can be done a little bit less: there are paragraphs with ref to it twice, and no other refs in the same paragraph.
No other source has been found for much of this. Changed to ref only once in those para cases and put it at the end.Rlevse 02:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • An infobox should be looked for, e.g., London Place, or Campsite or Scout Organization (1st Gilwell Park Scout Group), etc
I looked and haven't found one. They can be nice, but are not required.Rlevse 11:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the accommodation section is very brief: the notable buildings on the site, such as the Lodge, the White House, and Gilwellbury need at least a separate paragraph if not a subsection. And some info is hidden in the Activity section. Perhaps combining and copy-editing the Accommodation and the Attraction sections may be considered. (But don't copy the Real Tour of Rogers')
Done.Rlevse 00:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • notable contributors (people who gave time and effort) to Gilwell Park need to be added: at least a mention or better yet a descriptive listing of all Camp Chiefs Gidney, Wilson, Thurman, and nowadays the Scout Assocation Director of Camping Activity (or whatever the current title would be) should be provided. And also the extensive wood sculptures by Don Potter (I plan to improve his own article in the near future) ought not be missing
Whole para on this, found most but not all of it.Rlevse 17:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • illustrations, such as map pointing out the very proximity to the centre of London, and thus the top class location. And a map of the site?
Haven't found any not copyrighted. Should I use one and claim fair use? It'd take up a lot of screen space too.Rlevse 10:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • pictures? There is no picture of a camping field!
Added campfire photo and move White House image to accommodations section.Rlevse 03:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption: the name of the white building is 'White House', not 'Gilwell Park White House'. And for the lead picture I'd prefer to have a really copyright free picture (e.g., the camping field picture mentioned above). The current illustrations by mr Carrington are good pictures, but give a US-only view.
Carrington's pictures are the only ones I've found where I have permission to use. Let me know if you find some; and he's BRITISH! so it's not US-only view. Changed White House caption. Rlevse 23:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • section 3.2 has very repetitive texts: copy-edit needed
Fixed.Rlevse 02:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the site is major asset of The Scout Association, and as such a commercial activity for them. Information of what they do there (departments, employees, etc) and what kind of money is involved (fees, contributions, revenues) are hard to come by, but available (e.g., see Baden-Powell House for leads here). Should be added.
Added pertinent parts from annual reports, but could not find a fact sheet on it.14:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What did B-P do here on Gilwell Park? Did he live here (no), did he camp here (often), lecture (yes), give courses (yes), Boy Scout Association meetings (lots!), although most where in London.
Done.Rlevse 00:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • References: the Rogers booklet (should all fold into one ref) needs no accessdate; several are very brief (who published that data); the ref 16 of E S Carlos is merely a wikilink: just copyedit it as such, not a ref; jeal isn't referred to, although he has much info about it (I started reading Jeal again in the vacation, but it is thicker than my vacation is long, so I'm still at it).
The Carlos 16 link is wikisource and I don't know how to do an inline link to that. I don't have Jeal's book. I broke the Rogers links into two so people would see and get by the page numbers a better idea of where in the book it came from, but I've made it one ref per your input.Rlevse 11:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)...Wim fixed the wikisource for me, thanks!Rlevse 10:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the External Link section title is dropped a few lines to low
Don't see what you're talking about.Rlevse 23:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
un-italicized as I understood the guideline.Rlevse 02:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, these should keep you busy for a while, Randy. I'm quite confident that you'll make something out of this. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Additional comment

Although you indeed gave a jab at most of these issues, overall I'd say further copy-editing remains necessary:
  • the lead should give definition (ok) and a summary of the article. The latter is missing. Remove the comparables (Downe, BPHouse, etc) from it.
Agreed. So much has been added it lost its summarization. Worked it, will look at again tomorrow.Rlevse 01:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)...tweaked some more summary. Rlevse 12:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Illustrations (pictures, map) are sorely missing
Disagree, there are five pictures in it. Many FAs don't even have that. You yourself have had trouble with finding good pics. I don't think a map is necessary (haven't found a non-copyrighted one anyway)...you don't have a floor plan of FA Baden-Powell House. Rlevse 01:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MADE CUSTOM INFOBOX, could be modified for all sorts of purposes. Rlevse 13:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added two more photos..Rlevse 21:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I recommend separate sections: on major historic buildings (the warden's Lodge (the old one), White House, Gilwell Farm, and Gilwellbury), on current accommodations (camp fields, various blocks and PHC, fire circles, etc), and on attractions (museum, some statues, Eccles!, religious places, gates, etc). This will require regrouping, augmenting and copy-editing.
Disagree. Not enough info has been found to warrant this. Rlevse 01:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two activities (camping+, and training), hence two subsections.
Done. Rlevse 01:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • General copy-edit for redundant wording is still necessary.
Done and have asked those better than me to look at it.Rlevse 12:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done by Wim on 8 Sep. Rlevse 10:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • More prominence to the current state of affairs (Scout Association HQ and ownership), e.g., by giving it a section of its own; and include data on which departments, #employees, etc
If I can't find it, I can't put it in the article, and I've looked. Found at best sketchy info. Rlevse 01:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • and similarly for notable people there. Are these three the only wardens known? I for sure know that Bill Butler was warden there in 1981, when I was Assistant warden on Kingsdown Scout camp: he was married to kingdown's warden's daughter Sue. There must be more.
Have not seen one single complete list of Camp Chiefs, have not heard nor seen one ref to butler that I recall and googling "bill butler" and "gilwell" reveals not one solid hit on him.Rlevse 01:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section heading for external links should go three bullets up
Moved one, the other two are refs, same format as in Eagle Scout article. Rlevse 01:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better explanation for the See Also: what would you find there? As this isn't obvious from the links alone.
See also is a set of links, not summaries. But did clarify the campsite in Hong Kong Rlevse 01:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)...rm'd Exlporer link. Rlevse 23:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment 2 (objection retained) several replies are of the kind 'I can't find such information'. In my perception, that doesn't do away with the requirement that the article should be comprehensive. Having visited Gilwell Park several times, I don't think it covers the subject well and complete yet. But I promise to give you a hand later this month (busy with work). I already did the infobox for you. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Everyone else disagrees. I think you're being overly picky. Encyclopedias are not full fledged books. Your FA on Baden-Powell House doesn't even have the equivalent of some of the info you're asking for here. For example B-P House doesn't have a floor plan (map) nor a full list of directors (camp chiefs). I think you're applying a double standard. We'll just have to disagree on this one. Rlevse 22:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't mind everyone else: apparently they are all American (not sure of one) who perhaps never visited Gilwell Park and seem to think that two US-oriented statues are more important than Eccles, the campfire circles, or a simple map of the various fields. So I agree with you that we disagree. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
      • Stevecull is Irish and TerriG I am not sure. I checked other 4-5 FAs on parks. Not one has a map of the park itself, just where it is in its country. You seem a little-anti US here. You fail to mention the 3 images that aren't gifts from the US--one of which IS a campfire circle by the way. The problem with more photos is finding non-copyrighted ones, which even you admit you had a problem with. I'll check Carrington for more photos. I can Fair Use the map from Rogers' book and wikisource it as it'll be too big to stick directly in the article if you like. And if by chance there is US bias in the voting, FACs are open to all Wikipedians and it's not anyones fault others haven't participated, just as it's not our fault we haven't been able to visit it. I'll keep working on it, even after it passes or fails. Rlevse 23:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment New Gilwell photos were put on the web on 04 Sep. I got permission and uploaded two of them, one of a campsite with tents. Rlevse 02:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Additional comment 3 (change to support) I have contributed to the article myself with copy-editing and other additions (infobox, section reordering), collaborating with RLevse. With these improvement, I think it is worth the FA status now. I have further information to the article that I will add over the next weeks, so I don't think it is stable yet, but given everybody's attention to the FA quality, I'm pretty sure it will only be improved upon. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support very nice work now. Sumoeagle179 19:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support very comprehensive Stevecull 21:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comprehensive article at this point. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The logo is too large now- its pixelated.
Yep, I've been fiddling with it and it hasn't been cooperative. A graphics buddy its helping me now.Rlevse 14:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)...check the one there now. Rlevse 16:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good. --Gadget850 ( Ed)
It's in the Rogers book, so I just reused-the ref. Rlevse 02:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost (TV series)

Self-nomination. This article has undergone drastic re-formatting to what I think meets the Manual of Style and featured article criteria. It has a much better lead section and has been entirely converted to prose. The images have all got fair use rationales there are references where needed. I think it is time now. SergeantBolt 22:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support nicely done. Well referenced, MoS among other things. —Jared Hunt September 9, 2006, 03:56 (UTC)
  • Support Some of the references need to be put after the sentence and use the proper subsection format, ===, instead of the <big> tag. Thanks for addressing these former problems. The article is commendable to me right now; the only complaints I can find right now against this article is its hard compression, leading to one paragraph sections, and the unattractive "DVD releases" section at the end--consider using a table like other featured television show articles (Arrested Development, Cheers, The Office, etc.). Slof 09:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean that some of the article's references are before a comma or period, when they belong after them. Furthermore, is there a reason for the <nowiki>
    tag when there is no succeeder floating to the left? Slof 09:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support While i am one of the many wikipedians that access this article per day, i think the article is very good. Explains things very well. It has it`s own subpages and are like 100. List of episodes and every episode in its own subpage. Every character in it`s own subpage. Even secundar characters and extras have their own subpages. As for Losties : Namaste :) KYMYK 11:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent article, here's lots (ha!) of pedantic issues and suggestions I have. I've crossed out anything I've fixed. I've added underlining to some parts for emphasis.
    • The picture is of the third season. However, that hasn't started in the US and over here in the UK we are still enjoying the second series. One of the great things about not being on paper, is that we can be in the present. So maybe it would be a good idea to stay with a picture of the second series until the third series starts?
    • "when the then-head of ABC" - I'm not too sure about "then-head", looks a bit weird to me. Can it say "at the time" or something like that instead?
    • "based on an idea he claimed to have had for quite a while" - Is this suggesting that he may not have the idea? If so, this should probably have a reference.
    • "gestation" - Maybe I'm a bit stupid, but I've never heard of Gestation before. So I looked it up and the primary meaning of that word appears to be "the carrying of young in the uterus from conception to delivery". However, it looks like you mean it to mean "conception and development", perhaps it could be changed to that to make it more accessible.
    • "Lost's pilot episode was the most expensive in the network's history, reportedly costing between US$10 and US$14 million." - The amounts mean nothing to me. Could it be shown in comparison to something else, so that people who don't know how much a US dollar is worth could understand it. The sentence is saying it's the most expensive, so maybe comparing it to the second most expensive or the average would be a good idea.
    • "other episodes cost GB£0.99 each." - Ditto.
    • "Episode structure" - This section has no references.
    • "Shortly after an episode, a small trailer showing out-of-sequence clips from the next week's episode is shown." - Could it just say "next episode" instead? This is because the next episode isn't always shown the week after. For example, here in the UK the "next episode" can be viewed straight after on a different channel. At other times there's been a continous run of six shows when it's been repeated. Etc, etc.
    • "Varèse Sarabande" is linked twice in the same paragraph.
    • The second paragraph in the "Cast and characters" section has no references. I imagine it would be easy to find some for the information contained there.
    • "During its first two seasons, characters whose stories had dead-ended were replaced with other actors" - Does that mean the stories have ended or the characters had died and thus, their stories ended? I'm just wondering if you're using the "dead" in "dead-end" literally.
    • The "Season synopsis" is very US based. I suppose that's okay, because it's airs there before everywhere else. It would be nice to mention somewhere else though. Actually, the article doesn't say where Lost is shown. There's seems to be a lot of interwiki links, so is it shown in other countries as well?
    • The "Mythology" and "Thematic motifs" sections have no references, but I suppose they are summaries, so that's probably okay.
    • The "Discredited theories" section could do with some references. Also, if there's a discredited theories section, would it not make sense to have a theories section? One of the main things about the shows appears to be the mystery of the events and trying to work out what is going on.
    • "and/or" - This shouldn't be used, see the MoS for info on that.
    • "Dead" - Goes to a dab page.
    • There's some American spellings and some British, like "colours", "licensed", "licenced", etc. They should be consistent.
    • The ToDo box on the discussion page has two items that aren't done yet.
    • There doesn't seem to be (m)any negative things said about Lost. Surely they must have done something controversial or made a notable mistake along the way?
  • There ya go, that should keep you busy for the rest of the day! Icey 14:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your feedback. I hope you don't mind me striking out items as they are fixed. As for your comments about this article favoring the US, that's because it's a United Stated show. I'll make some changes to make the article less nationalist like you suggested above. Jtrost (T | C | #) 17:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cool, thanks for working on those things. Icey 19:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Okay, I've worked on a lot of your suggestions. However, there are some things that I don't agree with. I think that the third season picture should stay there as season 3 is coming up soon and that is the latest promotional poster. I don't think it should change in account of other countries who are behind (I live in the England too!). Also, I don't think the "other episodes cost GB£0.99 each." needs something to compare it too because it's just a standalone cost of something - not competitive like the cost of the pilot. I also haven't changed the phrase "dead-ended" as I think it's quite clear that it means the characters' stories had stopped, not referring to their lives! Another thing: I have actually added a paragraph about the countries that Lost airs in as well as the dates it began airing, which I am about to reference, however I think the season synopses should stay US-based because that is where it airs first. I did add a reference to the Mythology section but there wasn't really more that needed referencing - like you said, it's only a summary. The ToDo box now only has one item that needs doing. The other suggestions you made, however, I will try to handle. Thanks anyway! SergeantBolt 20:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Frequent contributor giving his opinion here, I think it's ready for FA.--Peephole 14:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Generally a good article. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support good article. Rama's arrow 21:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for two reasons. One, too many short, stubby paragraphs, especially in the Production section, and I believe this is due in part to too many subheadings. A lot of the information in the separate subheadings can be combined into one nice, clean, flowing section. Two, the prose is a little bit "start-stop-start-stop" you know? Here's an example from the lead: "To date, two seasons have aired and a third is set to begin airing on October 4, 2006.[3] The show's creators and the media have acknowledged a range of thematic motifs and developing mythology.[5] Lost has been a critical and ratings success, garnering an average of 15.5 million viewers per episode and winning several awards including Emmys,[6] Golden Globes,[7] the Writers Guild of America 2005 and a Screen Actors Guild Award." Jumps around a bit too much there as well, and do you really need to reference the show winning Emmys and Golden Globes? I'll have a fuller look after my concerns are addressed.--Dark Kubrick 23:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better. What about Mythology and Thematic Motifs? It just seems like those sections could be summarized a little bit better and fuller, instead of a short 1-paragraph mention and a link to the main article.--Dark Kubrick 01:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Support - per nom --+andrewTalk 05:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: As per nomination. Please note I am a sometime contributor to the article.--Opark 77 09:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Per nom LOGOHERE 13:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It was my understanding that articles were not eligible for featured status unless they were more or less stable. In the case of the Lost articles, there is still an ongoing mediation about how to organize the various episode articles (with the two camps being unable to agree on whether to have individual episode articles, or season compilation articles). If that issue is not relevant to whether or not the main article can be featured, then I support the nomination. Otherwise, I think we should hold off until the mediation is resolved, as the various supporting articles are still in a state of major flux. --Elonka 02:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The mediation is not about this article, so there is no reason why people should oppose this FAC for that reason. Jtrost (T | C | #) 02:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, the mediation of Lost episodes has nothing to do with the main Lost page. As for stability, Elonka, you've seen it yourself. Changes in the article in question have been more or less copyediting rather than vandalism. -- Wikipedical 04:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I was a regular editor of the article for a while, but took a backseat while Season 2 aired in the UK. I'm in favour of the recent changes, which now give a good general overview of the series with just the right amount of detail. Chris 42 21:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acute myeloid leukemia

Self-nomination: This article has had a peer review and I've tried to address the suggestions. I think it's well-referenced and fairly complete, without exceeding length guidelines. Hopefully it strikes a balance between lay-person-friendly and technically detailed. MastCell 18:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically do you want to see references for? I don't think we should add more references just to get the number of references up, but if there is anything that needs a reference, we can probably find one. --WS 22:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree that the article could be better referenced. I've gone back and added references to some of the weaker sections; please take another look, Spangineer, and see if I've addressed your objections. Of course, as WS pointed out, the tradeoff is that the article is now over the suggested size limit. MastCell 23:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've noted a few more places, but this is much better. The size limit is largely irrelevant—pretty much everyone agrees that only prose should be counted in that. At this point, with more and more people having fast internet connections, the bigger issue is the reader's attention span, and adding more references doesn't hurt that. I'm not shooting for a set number of citations either—I just feel that if there are significant points of an article that are not explicitly referenced, then something is missing. That's true of all articles, but especially medical/scientific articles. --Spangineeres (háblame) 05:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've gone through the "fact" tags and added references... what do you think? MastCell 05:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support; nice work. The prose could be improved in spots, but overall this is solid. --Spangineeres (háblame) 21:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've rearranged the "Prognosis" section per your comments, which make a lot of sense. As far as the "History" section, I've always thought it makes sense up front (this is how most textbook entries on diseases are written), but if there's a style guideline suggesting it belongs at the end, that would be fine. MastCell 01:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco, California

Co-self-nomination. Since its first failed FA nomination (Discussion here), this article has undergone a massive rewrite and reorganization (Article as it appeared on June 30, 2006). With close to 1,000 edits since the peer review process was started, we have incorporated new ideas and responded to suggestions made by other Wikipedians (Discussion here).

We are aware that there may be concerns about the article's size of 81K. Certainly, we wish to abide by the spirit of Wikipedia:Article length, which expresses concern about articles with greater than 32K-50K or 6000-10000 words of "readable prose". By our estimation, our article has 39K of "readable prose" and 6250 words. The Encyclopaedia Brittanica entry on San Francisco contains 6800 words. Also, compare our article to the three Featured Articles on major American cities:

Wikipedia Article Total size "readable prose" # Words
Seattle, Washington 83K 49K 7800
Detroit, Michigan 69K 40K 6300
San Francisco, California 81K 39K 6250
Boston, Massachusetts 59K 37K 5900

The relatively high Total size stems from our effort for thorough in-line referencing, which has added very substantially to the overall stored length. We feel than an article on San Francisco, California that fairly and comprehensively takes into account the many aspects of the history, culture, and life of the internationally known city of San Francisco would be difficult to execute in less space. We hope we have prepared an article on San Francisco, California that will gain your support for featured article status.--DaveOinSF & --Paul 05:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Support Complete overhaul of the article went beyond my expectations and answered more than satisfactorily my concerns during the first FAC and during peer review. Good job, guys; your efforts have paid off in the form of my support vote (and perhaps those of many others). One minor detail: please expand on the media section whenever possible (I know, after watching this article since the first FAC, that expanding this section is hard). It looks disproportionally small. Otherwise, outstanding, meeting (if not exceeding) criteria, deserving of FA. --physicq210 05:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A lot of those references seem quite uncalled for, especially when more than one note in the same sentence is commenting mere aspects of the same fact statement. Almost all the references seem to be from individual websites rather than, for example, general literature on the history or economy of San Francisco, making it a lot more difficult to get an overview of the nature of the reference material and there is no list summarizing the printed references used. I also don't quite see the point of using more than footnote to support the same fact statement, especially when such a statement is neither particularly obscure nor controversial. Nor is it clear why some sections and paragraphs have about one note per sentence (or more) while others are entirely unreferenced. It appears to be completely arbitrary at times. Some examples of fairly obvious over-referencing:
  • Note 17: used twice in the same section even though it doesn't specify any particular page.
  • Note 27: used three times in the same section with only a few sentences apart.
  • Note 43: used twice in the same sentence.
  • Notes 84, 85, 86: the airport ranking might just as well be considered an observation based on the amount of passanges.
Peter Isotalo 11:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response: The San Francisco article was not recently written as a term paper project, it has been on Wikipedia for more than four years, collecting a multitude of unreferenced facts along the way. The referencing task was to find an appropriate source for non-obvious statements. During the first FAC and peer review processes, editors complained often about not having sufficient referencing, so where there is a statement of verifiable fact, we have provided a reference. It is true that not all of the references are to printed materials, but many are to material that is available both printed, and in electronic form. Plus, we were careful about picking authoritive electronic referenences: the overwhelming majority are to news or government sources. Finally, on Wikipedia, electronic references (given that they are authoritive) are better than printed ones, because users can click through and read electronic ones.
  • Note 17 has now been split into two notes with page #s called out... thanks for pointing this out.
  • Note 27 Agree it was overused. Where the source was used both to talk about the existence of microclimates, and to provide evidence in rainfall, I have removed the first use.
  • Note 43 is actually used in two sentences. First to verify the # of crime incidents, and in the following sentence, to rank SF in comparison to other cities. --Paul 13:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response2-There is certainly a method to our madness. Sections where we are relying more heavily on statistical information will necessarily have a higher density of references rather than sections where we do not. Anytime we quote a number, or say where SF ranks in something, we have to include a source. Thus, Demographics is full of notes, other areas less so. One place where you do indeed have a point is in Airports, where #86 also contains the information covered in ref #85 and ref #87. Consider this fixed, with 2 of the 3 references eliminated.--DaveOinSF 14:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response3-I've added a References section, listing non-URL-accessable texts used in preparing the article. I stand by my comments about the relative usefullness of text and electronic refs.--Paul 18:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A nice and quick response there. Very satisfying. I am, however, not in agreement about your statement that every single figure or ranking has to be accompanied by a footnote. That statistics are somehow more important to reference in such extreme detail is something that seems rather arbitrary. A fact statement that involves a figure is as important as a description of historical events. But I believe that referencing should be a bit more intuitive and that a minimum of effort should be demanded of those who ask for references. I.e. Wikipedia isn't supposed to both provide facts and in such extreme detail explain how others should go about finding it. I know I certainly don't like reading encyclopedic articles that assume that every single fact can and should be questioned by any person at any time.
Since I know my statement don't quite follow the majority opinion on the usage of footnotes, I must point out that this is not a objection, bu merely a comment.
Peter Isotalo 15:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wow that was quick. I just left what I would have assumed would be quite a bit of work to fix on the peer review and it's already done basically. Last thing I forgot to add yesterday was asking if the French featured article has anything this needs but doesn't have in order to be comprehensive. I don't speak or read French, but a google translation of the article didn't show up anything immediate to me except for one thing. Make sure to go through carefully to see if they cover anything else important that's not here. The one thing I saw was a discussion of the number of depictions of the city in media, books, etc. It doesn't need to be a long paragraph, but given the high position of San Francisco in many people's minds, I think it would be justified to cover that. To make room replace a paragraph or so from the history section which is probably too long. Otherwise very good overall. - Taxman Talk 12:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. Thanks for the comments on speed. Next, sorry, but I disagree about including a paragraph about "depictions of the city in media, books, etc." One of the most tedious tasks in fixing the article was removing the trivia. Take a look at the mis-named Culture of San Francisco, California article (which was spun off) and you will see that nine books, sixty-six films, and twenty-eight television series are mentioned. Mention of The Maltese Falcon, Vertigo and Dirty Harry might be appropriate, but (to mangle a few metaphors) it opens Pandoras box to a slippery slope. Once you start, there is no end. The mention in popular culture material was specifically removed from the article, but it is there in the daughter article for those who are interested. The other editor who has been working on the article is fluent in French; I'm sure he will review the French article and comment here on any issues of comprehensiveness. --Paul 13:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed you should minimize trivia, but I'm not saying you need to list lots of pop culture examples. But I do believe that the city is prominent enough and is referred to enough to support saying that it is mentioned often and just how much it is. And don't just report pop culture, cover all types of media and literature. It's part of the reputation of the city and from that perspective I believe it has a high enough priority to warrant inclusion. I'm also open to the possibility it's not, in any article like this there is a lot you have to leave out and you are certainly approaching it the right way to make that decision. Just offering a different idea. - Taxman Talk 22:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made an effort to accommodate your suggestion without turning it into a major point of emphasis in the article, or inviting other contributors to pile on with more pop culture references. In the Economy section, in the paragraph discussing tourism, I've added some prose:
Tourism is the backbone of the San Francisco economy. Its frequent portayal in music, film, and popular culture has made the city and its landmarks recognizable worldwide. It is the city where Tony Bennett left his heart, the Birdman of Alcatraz spent many of his final years, and where Rice-a-Roni is said to be the favorite treat. The city attracts the...
While I'm certain Paul will make suggestions as to what specific examples might be most appropriate, I think this is a reasonable way to respond to your suggestion, without it becoming too unwieldy. Let us know what you think.--DaveOinSF 23:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do share your worry it will be an invite for a trivia explosion, but I think that's a good way to cover it. - Taxman Talk 20:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response2 We aim to please... I'm not sure I agree that a "San Francisco in Popular Culture" or whatnot section is really desirable. To me that fits in the same category as "Famous San Franciscans"...essentially trivia. If we include "Maltese Falcon", do we include "Mrs. Doubtfire" too? If there's some real-world impact of the film, book, or TV show, maybe there would be an exception. Off the top of my head, "Birdman of Alcatraz" might be notable because it and other films set on ALcatraz have really helped drive the mystique of the island and promoted tourism there. If I can find some references to that end, I will considering adding it into the tourism para in economy.
  • As for the French article, I read it and it contains a lot of information and detail that we actually chose to delete. For example, in history, it mentions that Sir Francis Drake did not make it to San Francisco Bay. That was once in the english-language article, but our rationale was that explorers who were nearby but didn't actually make it to SF weren't necessary in this article. They also have some prose that are essentially lists: "There are also other neighborhoods where the gay and lesbian community is particulary present, notably Noe Valley, Diamond Heights, Bernal Heights, Potrero Hill, Haight-Ashbury, Hayes Valley, Twin Peaks and SOMA.", something we've generally sought to avoid. It also repeats as fact the popular misconception that Levi Strauss supplied denim bluejeans to the prospectors of the gold rush (they were overalls...he didn't invent jeans until 20+ years later).--DaveOinSF 14:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's more or less what I was looking for, that you had analyzed it and prioritized the material that was covered there to see if any of it was important enough to cover here. - Taxman Talk 22:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response: I've added a phrase in the Culture and contemporary life section that links to a short article containing a table of the San Francisco County U.S. Presidential election results since 1960. If you have time to provide a reference for that article & table, it would be appreciated.--Paul 19:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response2: I don't think a table is necessary. The article already contained the statement "Following the social upheavals of the 1960s, San Francisco became one of the hypocenters of liberal activism, with Democrats, Greens, and progressives dominating city politics." in Culture and contemporary life. To this has now been appended "Indeed, San Francisco has not given the Republican candidate for president greater than 20% of the vote since 1988."--DaveOinSF 19:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Meets all criteria. Huge amount of work has been done on this article over the past month or so. I've been through the article several times now and all of my concerns and comments from the previous FA nomination and from the peer review were speedily addressed. This article is of better quality than a few of the other featured city articles that I have compared it with and in my opinion is more than worthy of FA status. --Nebular110 23:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support An exceptionaly good article. Tobyk777 05:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. May be Jack London's quote on 1906 earthquake would look better in the text rather than in the image description. --Brand спойт 09:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. I think this is creative license that we should be allowed to take. As a caption, it illustrates the photo in a way that is different than simply a description. I'd like to hear what other people feel about this. Do you have any other comments to make about the article?--DaveOinSF 14:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought it was a great idea using the quote as the caption for the picture. It is such a striking quote that I think it deserves to be isolated from the main text where it could be overlooked quite easily. --Nebular110 16:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Brand спойт 20:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Brandmeister, just to keep things tidy, can you edit your Comment to Comment/Support?--Paul 20:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguar

I found this article in so-so shape nearly a month ago and have since greatly expanded it. It weighs in at 35k, which I think a good size for this topic, and has forty refs with dozens of individual citations. The refs mix general interest pages with academic/veterinary work and I think just about everything is covered at the right level of detail. I have yet to find the ideal section structure for a large mammal page; of FAs Tasmanian Devil strikes me as underweight, while I think Gray Wolf is over-specific. I hope the TOC strikes a balance between browsability and specificity. Cheers all, Marskell 14:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested in knowing how fast a jaguar can run and how long/high it can jump. Fredrik Johansson 17:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fredrik, those specific stats haven't caught my eye yet, but would indeed be interesting. I'll see if I can find them (tomorrow, at this point)—but, to give myself an excuse in advance ;), this is an under-studied beast. I'm not sure if "in the wild" measurements are available for those points. Marskell 21:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The information is exactly what I'd expect for this type of article, while maintaining clear concise prose. The article is well organized and the images a perfect. It is also very well referenced with appropriate citations. You've done an excellent job over the past month. Jay32183 18:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ditto. Rlevse 19:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support excellent article. Joelito (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • support --Pedro 19:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The prose in this article is compelling and concise. The lead section of this article is also precise to the point. On top of that, the images used here are acceptable copyright status in nature with clear captions. The article also has a proper system of hierarchical headings. Lastly the article presents views which are fair and without bias. The references used here are superb as well. To conlude, it meets all the criterias for a Featured article. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, on the quality of sources; lots of cites doesn't mean quality information. Much of the stuff is referenced to web sources which are obviously not primary sources and many of which do not cite their own sources, including animal diversity web (written by students), the singapore zoo, the carnivore preservation trust (written by a student, no sources), the jaguar species survival plan (it would be better to track down and cite the papers referred to in this work), tigerhomes.org, Encarta, BBC etc. One good book source of a few papers could probably replace all of these dubious sources.--Peta 02:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So basically there isn't a single source you find reliable? If you find the jaguar species survival plan inappropriate, I really don't what to say. The "Guidlelines," is written by professionals, for professionals, as near as I can tell, and each of its sections has an extensive bibliography. I think it's an ideal secondary source.
Further, I've been labouring under the impression Wiki is a tertiary source. WP:RS: "A tertiary source usually summarizes secondary sources. Encyclopedias, for instance, are tertiary sources." Honestly, you feel we shouldn't use zoos to describe animals? I think it a bad idea to turn to primary sources only, as you risk writing a research paper of your own, which Wikipedians should not be in the business of doing.
That said, I used the generic stuff a little more early in the writing; I can certainly try to eliminate those written by students. Marskell 05:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As an encyclopedia without the limitation of paper, I think we should make all attempts to use and provide reliable sources and the most reliable sources for a science article are often original research. I think consulting orignal research is necesary for two reasons, first using a doubtful source leads to the case where the blind may be leading the blind and consulting (any) non-web sources certainly adds to the credability of a wikipedia article and second, the people that did the research deserve acknowledgement. I often use web sources when writing for Wikipedia, but I try and confirm as much as possible with a print source.--Peta 05:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object—1a: the prose needs cleaning up. For example, in the lead:
    1. "It is the third largest feline after the lion and tiger and the largest and most powerful in the Western Hemisphere"—referent in the second clause is unclear ("largest and most powerful" could refer to three singular nouns, and our readers shouldn't have to pause for half a second to disambiguate).
    2. "Physically, the spotted cat most closely resembles the leopard although behavioural and habitat characteristics are more akin to the tiger." False comparison: "to those of the tiger". Please consider inserting a comma before "although". "Its" is required before "behavioural".
    3. "The jaguar is a largely solitary, stalk and ambush predator, hunting a wide range of game over a variety of terrain. Dense jungle is its preferred habitat and it is notable, along with tiger, as a feline which enjoys water. "—Unless you're really trying to minimise hyphens, consider "stalk-and-ambush predator"—easier to read. But the more serious problem is that the ideas are not smoothly integrated into these sentences; in particular, the fact that its preferred habitat is dense jungle, and that even so, it does hunt in a variety of terrains, needs to be logically presented. Try: "The jaguar is a largely solitary, stalk-and-ambush predator; although dense jungle is its preferred habitat, it hunts in a variety of terrains and preys on a wide range of game. Along with tiger, it is notable among felines for its predisposition to swimming." I'm not sure I got the last bit right, but as it was, you wonder whether it means "enjoys drinking water".
    4. "piercing directly through the skull of prey between the ears and delivering a fatal blow to the brain; its bite is thus exceptionally powerful". Better as "piercing from the ears inwards, directly through the skull of its prey"? "Thus" is a logical problem: its bite is not exceptionally powerful because it bites into the skull; just the opposite—its exceptionally powerful bite allows it to bite into the skull. I don't like a piercing described as a "blow".
    5. The paragraphing of the lead is not well organised: paras two and three both discuss predation.

Can you find copy-editors in your area to go through the whole text? Tony 05:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of numbering your points.
    1. I thought the initial pronoun would be clear in referring to both, as "New World" and "Western Hemishphere" are synonymous. However, I changed it.
    2. Agreed, changed to suggested.
    3. Agreed, reworked.
    4. "Betweeen the ears" directly mimics the source, as I recall. I'll double check. This is a bit chicken-and-egg: as it evolved, the killing method would have demanded the powerful bite, while the powerful bite would have allowed for the killing method. I flipped the two points around, noting it "has developed" the bite, which "allows for..."
    5. Actually there was no third paragraph. Per point 3, I've created one and tried to deal with habitat first and then predation. Obviously, with a predator, its hard to discuss anything without referring to predation!
Any further comments on the body welcome. Marskell 07:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I gave the whole thing a copyedit, fixing a number of sentence structure issues. --RobthTalk 03:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some inconsistencies and niggles worry me.
  1. The range map and description of range to not match up. The map clearly shows no jaguars in Argentina or Paraguay, the text states they are there.
  2. "Reproduction and life cycle" The text jumps from birth to leaving the mother with no information on what happens in between. Do they have multiple dens (like leapards) do the young follow the mother to learn hunting skills (like cheetahs) do the mothers bring prey for them to learn to kill, do other animals eat the young (lions eat leopard young), how many cubs usually make it to the point of leaving the mother? Breeding success and the rasing of young is an imporntant section at it's kind of weak here.
  3. Multiple instances of panthera which I turned into Panthera. I sometimes get binomials wrong due to typos but the error seemed to happen a lot.
  4. I'm sure that the prehistoric range of the jaguar included Florida, and possibly included other areas too.
  5. The jaguar is considered a stalk and ambush, rather than a chase, predator. Surely it is a stalk and ambush predator, rather than is considered one.
  6. "Ecological Role" A related concept is "umbrella species": a species whose home range and habitat requirements are sufficiently broad that if protected numerous other species of smaller range will also be protected. Belongs in conservation, don't you think?
  7. "Ecological role" only the massive anaconda snake is considered able to prey upon the cat. Either they can, and it's been reported that they can (so include it) or they maybe can but no one is sure (so leave it out). In either case no need for the are considered.

This is from a brief scan. Peta's comments on the cites, incidentally, also bothers me slightly. You may not need to go to primary sources (though I frequently do as they are often way better than secondary ones) but choosing good secondary sources is important. Even secondary sources from reasonably reputable places are often riddled with silly or basic errors. A selection of good texts on cat biology and jaguar ecology are prefereable to lots of websites like those that Peta derided. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I numbered these as well.
  1. .
  2. Agreed there is a gap, which I'll try to repair.
  3. Thanks, I was inconsistent.
  4. I haven't seen that mentioned in the refs, but will look again.
  5. Indeed.
  6. Actually, I think it makes sense here. Its status as an "umbrella" species speaks directly to its ecological role. There is some over-lap between these two. At one point, I had conservation status as a level three under ecology, which can be done again.
  7. Very hard to track this down. Searching, you often get message boards dealing with topics like "could the jaguar kill a croc if both were on SmackDown!!" :). I'm hiding it pending a good source.
Regarding the sources generally, I'll post again replying to both you and Peta. Marskell 07:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your numbering and the numbering you gave me don't match up (I renumbered as you missed a question also). But in reply to the umbrella species reply - NO NO NO! "Umbrella species" is not part of its natural ecological role or even an ecological role - its a conservation role that protects the ecology. And threats and conservation (or whatever you call it) is best as a level three under relationship with humans (or whatever you call that bit) not ecology. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a conservation concept applied over-top of its ecological role—it's not divorced from ecology in the way, say, flagship species is. However, I see your argument and I'll try to move it. Do you mind striking those as we go? Marskell 17:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I analyzed the refs more fully here. Marskell 10:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I moved three long posts regarding the nature of referencing to the talk, so this page doesn't seem like a long-rather-not-bother read for people stopping to look at it. I don't want to be seen to be rm'ing critical commentary, and if someone wants to post it back up, no problem. It was basically just me letting things get sidetracked. Updates:

  • I have moved the "umbrella species" to conservation status per above.
  • I have hidden the map, which is indeed off mark. I've pulled it into photoshop and will try to tweak it myself. Marskell 12:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done a full copy-edit of the article, and I noted the good work already done by Robth and others. A few queries:
    • Please check my change of wording WRT the spots/rosettes.
    • Seems fine.
    • The bit about "The cat will mate throughout the year" is a little jumbled: statement is immediately repeated in greater detail, with different references.
    • I made one in the wild and the other in captivity, to create a distinction bw the sentences.
    • Reference for hybridisation? (Even though it's linked.)
    • I can pull out one of the sources from the other page, but then the web-links are dubious (don't think it's made up because of the pics and all, but it's messybeasts.com...)
    • Males use the urinary scent of other males to locate females? That's what it says, so just checking.
    • I altered to describe the behaviour in terms of females advertising themselves (as opposed to jumbling both sexes into the sentence).
    • Infanticide: I'm sure (from general knowledge) that male lions do this too. Worth mentioning and referencing?
    • Male lions may, AFAIK, kill infants if they assume the leadership of the pride but the comparison isn't totally apt because the females must "tolerate" the males given their social structure; the source specifically refers to the tiger as being an important for comparison.
    • "It may hunt during ..." (both sexes? It doesn't say. Wondering whether females hunt.)
    • Yes, both sexes--they live alone after all :). Changed.
    • The difference between the sexes in the age of sexual maturity: just why male competition for reproductive advantage should be the cause is not explained.

Obj. withdrawn. Tony 14:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly Tony. I have noted your objections and will notify when I think they are corrected. Marskell 20:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Damn Sabine, I've been looking and looking and I can't find anything that hints at describing care for the young. The closest I can find is birth in captivity and hand-rearing. The FAC is still young though, so I'll let you know if and when I find it. Marskell 08:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess if no information exists it is an unreasonable reason to withhold support. But keep looking anyway. I'm sure it's there somewhere. Oh, and it's Sunbird. Sabine is my owner/namer. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though I suggest another proof-read. The opening paragraph refered to the animal as 'tiger'; I fixed it and gave a brief read-through, but I have to wonder if any other niggling errors crept in. Matt Deres 02:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's an odd one. It was copy-edited twice yesterday and the error was actually introduced at the point. Thx. Marskell 08:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note on references. They remain around 40 in total, but have increased in quality. Of the six dubious sources Peta mentioned, five have been removed (Encarta remains to describe a jaguar hauling a cow across a river). I have left the Guidelines as is, but more specific points are taking more specific references, with primary sources from 8 to 12 (many thanks to Peta for passing some along). I'm going to continue to tweak this, but I think the reference concern has essentially been met. Marskell 09:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is what I don't like about using other teritary sources, how do we know that the mention in Encarta is supported by fact since they don't cite their own sources- isn't there some thing more verifiable to show that they can swim a long way?--Peta 00:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • support Fantastic work. I see no reason why we can't dub this a FA at this point, even while more work is being done. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Webster

Second Nomination for FA following its recent second PR. I'm very happy with its prose and I think it does an excellent job of covering Webster's career. It also recently achieved A-Class status. I've contributed significantly to the article since June and support its nomination. TonyJoe 10:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Certainly much better than most of the political articles on Wikipedia. I would recommend reading through Schlesinger's Age of Jackson, however, as a point of view which seems somewhat underrepresented on the source list. Septentrionalis 17:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the most access that I have to Schesinger is a paragraph from The Age of Jackson quoted in A People's History of the United States. But if you can manage any useful Webster related viewpoints from Schlesinger, it would of course be a welcome addition. TonyJoe 07:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For a political article it seems to be free of POV rewrites, but that's a good thing. I'd be willing to locate additional sources if needed. However, this is a good article. --TheM62Manchester 22:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This article is well written and clearly laid out. Assertions are support (though Septentrionalis's suggestion would be helpful) and this article is without a POV. —David618 t e 17:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rlevse 11:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral On examining it much more closely, I find it is based almost entirely on Henry Cabot Lodge's 1883 life of Webster, lightly salted with Profiles in Courage, and omitting Lodge's occasional severe criticism. The result is a list of the offices Webster held and the great speeches he made; omitting all else. It is as neutral as a biographical dictionary because it has the same omissions. This may genuinely be the best Wikipedia is capable of; I stand by my view that most of the political articles are far worse. Revamping it by including a modern biography, with Webster's politics and his problems, would almost certainly make it unstable. Comments? Septentrionalis 15:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments, yes- I think it's a bit unfair to claim that the article "ommits all else" with regards to Webster's "politics and his problems." I think that the article does clearly show flaws. For instance, that Webster was in the pocket of the New England Elite and as a legislator, when their identity changed from shippers to manufacturers, his position on the tariff changed effortlessly. This unattractive bit of Webster is made more unsavory when but next to the fact that he often employed their "subscriptions" against his constant personal debt, boardering on bribery; while the article by no means makes that judgement, it does present present the shadowy facts.
As I said on the talk page, you're right about me omitting Lodge's criticism of Seventh of March and as I explained it there, I sort of skipped over that chapter because I assumed it would be similar to Kennedy's take on the speech so I just went with Kennedy's (which I had already read) and saved myself the trouble of reading Lodge's. I was of course wrong and I've since gone through it and added Lodge's criticism of the speech which was a pretty good take on Webster's inconsistencies with regard to compromise. The quotes I picked out were slightly different from the ones you favored on the Talk Page, so you might want to add to them or change them as you see fit.
On the talk page you gave a list of things from a variety of sources that I think you'd like to see added. There were some there that I agreed with and some that I didn't agree with, but in my opinion, most of those points were minor (Webster's take on indians and calling the Dartmouth peoration nonsense stand out in my mind) and their absence doesn't in my opinion pose any hinderance in a reader's ability to understand Webster, though others like Remini's take on Webster's lack of legislative ability, could certainly be useful in drawing into focus Webster's conspicuous lack of legislative accomplishments of his own. Even so, I still maintain that it's a minor point when compared with Webster's bribery and flip flopping on compromise and that though the article it could benefit from it, it is still comprehensive, well written, and neutral in its exposure of Webster's flaws, virtues, and inconsistencies, thus still deserving of FA status.
So those are my comments. I hope that no matter what happens with the candidacy we'll be able to continue to work together on the article to implement the stuff that you think needs to be added and hopefully, while still respecting the article's current integrity (if you could do it Schlesinger you could probably do it with the other stuff too). Cheers, TonyJoe 03:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was not an objection, but a proposal to accept the article as it stands; however, I am certainly willing to update. Some of the omitted points are minor; but others (like Webster's speech on conscription) are not. Septentrionalis 18:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Those who have been maintaining this article have done a great job. It's well-sourced, well written and noticably free of biases and POV. The layout is also quite attractive, with appropriately placed photographs and excerpts. In addition, the article isn't absurdly long and each section has a proper amount of material. I also want to point out that prior to my reading this I knew fairly little about Webster aside from that he argued at his first trial in my hometown. Well done... already we know that this is a decent article since it has been approved for A-class status. -Prezboy1 11:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's well-written and comprehensive, and the criticism (both praise and exposure of flaws) is balanced well for an encyclopedia article. The section on Webster's tenure as Secretary of State under Tyler seems a bit short and cursory compared to the coverage of the rest of his career, but that's a minor issue. Absecon 59 13:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I found the prose heavy on dramatization. I removed the obvious ones, but at many places, since the sentences were referenced, I was not able to. I am quite sure that at many places, the reference isn't as dramatized as the article puts it. I have noted some suggestions in the prose by adding comments. Since I am not sure that the references back up the statements in the prose, as well as my being unfamiliar with the subject and not in a position to comment on comprehensiveness concerns as others have pointed out, I cannot support the prose. I can also not oppose the prose because I have not provided any actionable concerns. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jaws (film)

Self-nomination-I've been working on this article for about two months now, after I stumbled onto it in this version, and I think it fulfills all the FA criteria. I've added over 20 references and three entire sections completely written by me, as well as heavily editing the rest of the article. It has two peer reviews, one started during its GA Nomination here, and another one before I put it up for FAC here. Thanks to Mike Christie, Geoduck, and several other editors who helped make the article what it is today.Dark Kubrick 21:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The only thing left to do, IMO, would be to merge the differences with the novel and music sections with the production section, and divide the production section with subheaders- writing (where the Differences section would go), special effects, casting and music. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, but I think John Williams's music is so well-known that it deserves its own section. I have some critical review in there as well, and that would seem out of place in the Production section. I'm not sure differences from the novel would fit in there either. As for subheadings, both Casting and Special Effects are too short to warrant special subheadings.--Dark Kubrick 10:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I would greatly expand the critical response section, with emphasis on how then-contemporary reviewers reacted to it. This section seems really skimpy for such an important and popular title. The film did receive some positive reviews at the time of its release, but as far as I know the only prominent critic who recognized it as being a great film was Pauline Kael. I would recommend that some quotes from her enthusiastic critique be included. Also, I don't think Vincent Canby was the only notable critic who disliked the film; some other negative responses probably should be included.Hal Raglan 14:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Kael quote and reference. Unfortunately, that book isn't available on Google Books or any local libraries, so I can't get at it. I've tried searching for negative reviews, but this film is just so good that Canby was the only one who panned it. Any ideas?--Dark Kubrick 18:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Later today, I can look up the Kael review and try to provide some quotes in the article. I just did a quick look at the usual mega-review places -- MRQE, DVD Beaver, Rotten Tomatoes, imdb --and found only two 1975-era reviews (Canby and Ebert). The rest were either blogs or recent online fan/review sites (hundreds of those). It's times like this that you realize how poor of a resource the internet can sometimes be. I remember that either Newsweek or Time gave the film a two paragraph review that, while positive, simply described/dismissed the movie as an "efficient scare machine". Only Kael seemed to really recognize how terrific of a movie it was (in fact, it was her review that convinced me to see the film). And it did receive some pans (I think John Simon hated it), but 31 years later access to such print reviews is limited to those people within distance of large city libraries. I'll do some quick research at home tonight and see what I can find.Hal Raglan 19:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your efforts. I too find it frustrating that information that far back is unavailable on the web. Google Books and all my local libraries don't have much either. If you're concerned about positive reviews, I wouldn't bother, as I bet I could easily find several critics of that period who recognize it as a great movie. It's the negative POV I'm having trouble representing, so any help in that area would be greatly appreciated.--Dark Kubrick 20:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I found a negative review, from one of the more prominent critics at that time, Charles Champlin (Los Angeles Times):"The first and crucial thing to say about the movie Universal has made from Peter Benchley's bestseller "Jaws" ... is that the PG rating is grievously wrong and misleading. The studio has rightly added its own cautionary notices in the ads, and the fact is that "Jaws" is too gruesome for children, and likely to turn the stomach of the impressionable at any age. While I have no doubt that "Jaws" will make a bloody fortune for Universal and producers Richard Zanuck and David Brown, it is a coarse-grained and exploitive work which depends on excess for its impact. Ashore it is a bore, awkwardly staged and lumpily written." Here's the source: [6] With Ebert's and Kael's positive responses alongside Canby's and Champlin's negative comments, I think that's probably enough to show a sampling of the critical reactions the movie initially received.Hal Raglan 20:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My 1997 copy of Halliwell's has a quote from someone called William S. Pecter: "A mind-numbing repast for sense-sated gluttons. Shark stew for the stupefied." I've no idea who Pecter is, or where he was writing -- but he's probably established enough to be cited by Halliwell's, and they're safe enough to be referenced? The JPStalk to me 20:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's excellent. Later tonight I'll incorporate that info into the article. Thanks a lot guys!--Dark Kubrick 20:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.--Dark Kubrick 01:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about that too, but I realized how scant it would be. There are only five real characters in the whole film (you can't count Hendricks or Mrs. Kintner) and two of those five are supporting roles. I don't think it would add much to the article, with such a small and simple cast.--Dark Kubrick 01:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Comment: The following needs a citation: 'Though a horror classic (voted to have the scariest scenes ever by a Bravo Halloween TV special)'. I think you may mean Bravo's "100 Scariest Movie Moments" [7], but I'm not sure, so I didn't make the edit. Hal Raglan 01:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's cited. Thanks for the reference.--Dark Kubrick 01:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much.--Dark Kubrick 16:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.--Dark Kubrick 19:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support and your extremely helpful contributions.--Dark Kubrick 19:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support.--Dark Kubrick 19:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and also I appreciate the help you gave during the peer reviews (as well as blocking that stubborn anonymous user :)).--Dark Kubrick 19:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.--Dark Kubrick 19:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banff National Park

Renominating this article which was previously nominated almost two months ago but the major contributor disagreed with the nomination, wishing instead to make further improvements. Banff National Park has been at Peer review for a couple of weeks and no serious objections were made. No doubt, all the bases are covered here as far as information goes and I believe this article is well referenced, informative and encyclopedic.--MONGO 16:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could we wait until next week, say Wednesday? I will pretty much be on wikibreak until then, and unavailable to address any objections. --Aude (talk contribs) 16:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(co-nominate) I have now gone through peer review suggestions, and will be around this weekend to address any concerns. --Aude (talk contribs) 03:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through and fixed references, and added the coor template. Now, there are a few instances where footnotes are mid-sentence, referencing a particular phrase, fact, or number (such as the first one, "...encompasses 6,641 square kilometres (2,564 mi²)[1]". According to Wikipedia:Footnotes#Where_to_place_ref_tags, that's fine. But, there were a few others, such as in the "Ecoregions" section that were clearly formatted incorrectly. These have been corrected. --Aude (talk contribs) 14:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to chime in that having the coordinates in the upper right at the top of the article page is redundant, and I usually remove this on sight in these types of articles...reasoning...the same coordinates are located in the infobox which is already at the top of the article.--MONGO 17:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AH, I hadn't noticed that. Agree they don't need to be in both spots.Rlevse 02:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure we can do anything better. What do you suggest? The locator map, implemented with the {{Infobox_protected_area}}, uses Image:Locator_Dot.gif and the background map, Image:Canadian National Parks Location.png. This map is used for all Canadian National Parks, and for consistency any change would need to apply to all Canadian National Parks.
  1. We could switch to a plain map with only province boundaries and no parks. See Glacier National Park (US) for comparison, which uses a plain map with state boundaries.
  2. We could keep the parks on the map. Though, maybe the green colour could be adjusted to make them less prominent?
  3. Much more complicated to implement, but we could change the dot symbol to something else, adjust its colour, or size. Though, this would break from consistency with dot locator maps across Wikipedia. This would also require a separate Infobox for just Canadian parks, and this new symbol/size/colour would apply across all Canadian parks.
  4. Get rid of the dot locator map, and come up with something entirely different. But, would loose consistency across park articles.
Which of these options would you suggest, or do you have some other suggestions. My preference would be to keep the map with the parks, as it helps to show Banff in relation to the location and size of other parks. Yes, some other parks happen to be much larger and thus more "prominent". But, I'm open to suggestions and other ideas. --Aude (talk contribs) 02:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the map with more washed out park areas (change will affect all pages on all wikis using that image).--Qyd 14:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Looks very good. I think the map is best with the dot, as-is. It's the same dot used on all dot locator maps, and good to use it here for consistency. --Aude (talk contribs) 14:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crushing by elephant

Self-nom. I would like to nominate Crushing by elephant for renewed FA status. It used to be a featured article and was shown on the main page on March 14, 2004, but then had its featured status withdrawn after much of the content was removed due to a lack of sourcing - see Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/crushing by elephant. (Amusingly, the article is Jimbo Wales' nomination for "Wikipedia's most random entry"! - [8])

Having long had a soft spot for the article, I've revisited it and considerably expanded it with extensive referencing using contemporary and modern sources. The revised article now explains the history of crushing by elephant from Roman times through to 19th century India and Indochina. It describes various methods used and provides eyewitness descriptions of crushings along with an explanation of the social context of this rather unpleasant method of execution. It even has two pictures, one of which I managed to obtain from an original copy of a 1681 book.

I believe that it meets both the Good Article and Featured Article criteria, but in view of its length I'm submitting it to FAC for consideration. You might say that "The number of words on crushing by elephants has tripled in the past six months". ;-) -- ChrisO 13:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - well-written and interesting article, with excellent references. Congratulations to ChrisO for finding and scanning the 17th-century artwork "An Execution by an Eliphant". I do have a few comments to improve the article, and I'll comment on those separately. Carcharoth 14:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - as promised, a few comments:
    • The chronology is slightly confused, with the article being organised into 'Ancient times and Middle Ages' and 'Modern period'. But the first paragraph of the India section in the Modern Period covers the Ancient period! Overall the organisation between chronological presentation and geographical presentation could be improved. Maybe by summarising chronologically before going into detail for each region?
      I've addressed this by taking a different tack: arranging it geographically from west to east (starting with the western empires, as that's where we have the oldest records, followed by west Asia, south Asia and south-east Asia). -- ChrisO 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In general, more precise dating and location details for each example would be nice. Links to other articles require people to go there to find out the dates of the historical period linked. If you are organising by date, put the date details in this article (eg. say what period Perdiccas is from). Ditto for the geographical stuff (eg. say where Perdiccas was carrying out his executions - hint, it was not in Macedon!).
      No, it was Babylon! I've added these details now. -- ChrisO 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Different elephant species and wild vs domesticated. You should make clear that Hannibal's elephants were a dwarf variety from Africa and the Perdiccas ones were probably from India. Were Ptolemy IV's elephants African or Indian? Ditto for all the examples you give - which species of elephant? Also, you could try and say something about whether sub-Saharan African elephants were ever used this way (I'd speculate probably not, because it was the Asian elephants that were domesticated, and the sub-Saharan African elephants remain wild to this day, being (I think) larger and less easy to domesticate. ie. say something about wild vs domesticated elephants (or rather, say more than you say at the moment).
      I've added a paragraph on this subject. -- ChrisO 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A point of chronology. You seem to have organised the "Ancient times and Middle Ages" in chronological order, but you have mentioned Perdiccas (died 320 BC) after Ptolemy IV Philopator (reigned from around 220 BC).
      I've changed the approach a bit. Perdiccas and Paulus both used elephants to discipline troops; Ptolemy IV allegedly used them to carry out civil executions (much closer to the uses described in the rest of the article). I've therefore grouped these accounts by category (military followed by civil). -- ChrisO 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A point of fact. You say that Perdiccas "became regent of Macedon on the death of Alexander the Great" - in fact, you should really say more than this. Read Perdiccas and Partition of Babylon for details. I think you need to say that Perdiccas was regent of the Macedonian empire, and not just the kingdom, and similarly make clear that this probably all took place in Babylon, and that the use of elephants was probably inspired by the campaigns in India. Though you will need to find sources for all this - I am speculating on some points here.
      I found an account by Quintus Curtius Rufus which does indeed say that it took place in Babylon - it's now quoted in the article. I've clarified the point about Perdiccas' status. -- ChrisO 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • General point of facts - you might want to click on all the links in the article and check that your article is consistent with other Wikipedia articles. When I was checking the regnal dates for Ptolemy IV Philopator, I discovered that his article says 221-224 BC (different to your dates). I seem to recall that this is a fairly common problem with the Egyptian Ptolemies, with two different regnal numbering systems being used and some confusion over the regnal dates. Anyway, it is worth clicking on every link and checking that there are no inconsistencies like this.
      Yeah, I've seen many different dates for the Ptolemies... anyway, it's corrected now. -- ChrisO 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Categories. The article is not in enough categories. It should be in at least one "historical" category. I would suggest Category:History by topic or one or more of the subcategories of that category.
      I've added several regional categories plus Category:Legal history - if we have hanging, drawing and quartering in there, there's definitely room for crushing by elephants! -- ChrisO 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I'd like to reiterate my support expressed above. I really enjoyed reading this article. Carcharoth 14:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "such fatalities tend to be the result of wild elephants attacking humans rather than tame elephants being used by humans to kill other humans." (emphasis mine) So does the use of "tend to be" mean that there have indeed been a few exceptions where, in recent years, humans have intentionally set elephants on other humans? If so, they should be mentioned. Andrew Levine 15:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not my wording. I agree, it's ambiguous; I've clarified this point now and noted that it's still a significant cause of death among zoo keepers. -- ChrisO 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support At what point did the number of inline citations become the major measure of an article's quality?! We are trying to write an open encyclopedia for everyone, and not turn into a grad school thesis mill.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support well done. Sumoeagle179 23:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild Object for now. I'd like to see a slight expansion of the lead (a second paragraph would help) and several more in-line citations for the first paragraph in the 'Cultural aspects' section. For example, a claim like "The use of elephants as executioners was inextricably bound up with the use of the animals as symbols of royal power" needs to be referenced. Once these concerns are addressed I'll support.UberCryxic 00:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The entire 1st paragraph including that line you quoted was sourced from a reference already given ([9]); I've clearified this. -- ChrisO 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There may be some issues with style there, but I can ignore that. And the lead?UberCryxic 04:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support, would be nice if the lead could be expanded a bit though, but otherwise very good. — Wackymacs 12:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have any suggestions I'd appreciate them. Given that much of the article is a description of specific rulers' use of the method, and the various permutations thereof, it's not really obvious how that could be summarised much more than it already is. -- ChrisO 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - This is a pretty interesting article and in pretty good shape. I just have a few concerns that keep me from supporting:
    • Contains a disambiguation link.
      I don't understand this objection at all. Since when has "contains a disambiguation link" been a criterion for voting against a FA? It's certainly not in the criteria. In any case, it's a necessary disabiguation, since elephant crushing is a potentially confusingly similar term. -- ChrisO 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not referring to the link to elephant crushing, I'm referring to a link to a disambiguation page within the article's body. Pagrashtak 19:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Presumably classical period. Carcharoth 14:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead should probably be a little bigger.
    • 3 Maccabees describes a probably apocryphal attempt by Ptolemy IV Philopator... - "Apocryphal" is modifying "attempt" here — is it being used as a synonym for fake? If so, this is confusing, since 3 Maccabees is regarded as apocryphal in the theological sense.
      I've modified this line to note that it's the story that's apocryphal. -- ChrisO 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm still unsure if you're using apocryphal as a synonym for "fake" or in the theological sense. If the former, you should remove the link. Pagrashtak 19:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentence Death by elephant is still not uncommon in parts of Africa and South Asia... needs a reference and also leads into my biggest concern:
      Reference added. -- ChrisO 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article seems to go beyond the scope of its title. I would assume that if one were to be killed by an elephant it would probably be by crushing, but I have to ask — is the sentence from my previous point referring to crushing specifically or death by elephant in general? (And how often is "not uncommon"?) Another example: It then seizes him with its lip, casts him aloft and slays him. from the account of Petachiah does not mention crushing at all. The account from Tennet: ...placing his foot on the prostrate victim, plucked off his limbs in succession by a sudden movement of his trunk. is specifically not crushing. I wonder if Execution by elephant (currently a redirect to this article) would be a more appropriate title.
      From the various accounts I found, it does seem that crushing was the most widely used method (which is what you would expect, given that it wouldn't require much training) and the other methods were less common. -- ChrisO 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I would suggest renaming this page "Death by elephant", since it seems to cover all forms of death by elephant, whether crushing, goring, or otherwise. Pagrashtak 19:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Since this page is linked from about a zillion places, I'd prefer to get some community input about a possible renaming, rather than doing it unilaterally. When this FA vote is done, I'll raise it on WP:RM. -- ChrisO 23:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, its only linked to from about 120 pages. Carcharoth 23:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pagrashtak 19:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed my objection, although I would like to see a two-paragraph lead. Pagrashtak 19:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seabird

Self nom. Massive subject, but all the important points about seabird biology have been dealt with. No doubt some breakout articles will appear in the future (seabird colonies already has). This article is the result of months of work (interspersed with months of looking at it hating it), but I finally think it is ready now. It's been to two peer reviews (the first and the second), the points there having been addressed. To preempt one possible comment, to be a seabird is a niche, not a clade; many disparate families are seabirds. For this reason the article deals with trends associated with seabirds, rather than numerous absolute statements about seabirds (though there are plenty of cited examples of those trends). Anyway, I hope you can support. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned tourism. Ta! Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely Support. The article makes the point that seabirds are a collection of related ecological types clear. Added a few things about historical diversity (highest Mio/Pliocene) and as to why it has since declined. Dysmorodrepanis 07:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice work. Rlevse 12:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great article! Some P. Erson 14:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Excellent work, but I find the article to be undercited. I won't object on that basis, as I believe this deficiency can be easily corrected. As a random example of a section that should be cited: "Seabirds, by virtue of living in a geologically depositional environment (that is, in the sea where sediments are readily laid down), are well represented in the fossil record. They are first known to occur in the Cretaceous era, the earliest being the Hesperornithiformes, like Hesperornis regalis, a flightless loon-like seabird that dove in a similar fashion to loons and cormorants (using its feet to move underwater) but had a beak filled with sharp teeth." Sandy 15:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many highly generalised statements are hard to cite from primary sources (journals)- they all either come from Schreiber & Burger,(2001) or Gaston 2004, which are review works that pull everything together and synthesise it. The section you gave an example is from Schreiber & Burger. I'll try and cite some more of these kinds of statement. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've cited more statements, particularly in breeding colonies and evolution. It's now up to 60 refs and 80 ish cites. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no preference myself, I wasn't even aware I had done it. Thanks for your support and your previous help on the peer review. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the role in culture section needs some work. Regarding the opening sentence, "study" has nothing to do with what's being discussed here. Use of the phrase "popular consciousness" is quite strange for this subject. It says gulls and albatrosses are most 'popular', then goes on to discuss pelicans in the next sentence, then discusses albatrosses, then skips a line and discusses gulls in a new paragraph - poor organization. "It is widely considered unlucky to harm them" - by whom? I don't believe this, and my intuition tells me that I'm not in the minority. Saying that "'sailors believed this or that' is an urban legend" is awkward. Using quotes from a Disney movie to explain something is highly informal. Lord of the Rings example is too detailed. Personally, I'd just delete the section. It discusses isolated things relating to specific types of seabirds, not things common to seabirds in general. The article wouldn't lose much without it. Punctured Bicycle 13:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteing the section would be counterprodutive, it would invite laundry lists namechecking every seabird (see below). I've argued for keeping the LOTR section long in the peer review - I said Having an explanation of how birds fit into popular culture, rather than simply stating they do with an example, is more rewarding, and it leaves less room for every fanboy to come and list how their fad has a seabird in it. I'd rather have one example, explained well, than a list namechecking every reference. As for quoting Disney I don't consider it informal - you'd be hard pressed to find a more 'popular' culture or 'mass' media. The storm petrel bit did use the past tense, I've tried to make it clearer it was refering to sailors considering it unlucky. I've re-organised per your comments and cited some more stuff. Sabine's Sunbird talk 16:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given that seabirds aren't a clade wouldn't that be better on the individual family and order pages? Procellariidae and Albatross are already featured and I have plans for the rest. Thanks for your support! Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bhumibol Adulyadej

Current GA on the present King of Thailand, the longest reigning monarch in Thai history.Rlevse 10:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Minor Object Support - Expand the lead to at least three paragraphs please. Fieari 17:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent biography. --JohnDBuell 03:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, good article, well done. :) --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 07:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why is there no photograph of what he looks like now? The most recent one looks like it's a couple of decades old (though the photograph itself was taken in 2006). There should be plenty of available images of an important world leader like him, no? -Silence 13:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Actually no. The Thai government is very protective of the King's public image. For example, the Thai currency, stamps, etc still uses images that are probably 40-50 years old. Finding a modern image that is not copyrighted and suitable for wikipedia use is very difficult, but I shall keep looking for one. All the recent ones I've found in the past are from news agencies and copyrighted. Rlevse 13:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that a fair-use image would be acceptable here. Although we should avoid fair use whenever possible, in some cases it is necessary, even in Featured Articles, to make use of them when something is important to depict and an appropriate free-use image is unavailable. For example, if we didn't have any free-use images of George W. Bush from the last few years, it would be appropriate to use a fair-use one because of his importance as a public figure; the greater time-difference for Bhumibol (the most recent depiction of him we have, at the top of the page, looks at least 30 years old, considering that he's about 80 years old now) renders it even more important. Besides, information (both textual and pictorial) that is harder to come by is that much more important to include; people come here to learn things they can't find out from more conventional print sources. -Silence 14:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, it should be AP. I changed the image info.Rlevse 20:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright tag on the AP photo claims that it's a publicity photo from a press kit. This is not true. HenryFlower 14:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It also says "or a similar source", which I interpreted as including a news agency such as the AP. If this is not the correct tag, please advise which is as I have no idea which other to used. It seemed to be the best one to use of the ones I could find.Rlevse 14:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A news agency photo is not a 'publicity photograph'. A publicity photograph is one issued by a body to publicise themselves, an event, etc. This is completely different. If we don't have a boilerplate template for this kind of use, that might be a hint that this use is unjustified. HenryFlower 15:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've changed it to a FU tag like I've seen in other FAs.Rlevse 15:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Good news, guys and gals. Devraj Rangsit has generously scanned and GFDL'ed Mahidols-1938.jpg, a photograph taken in 1938 showing King Ananda Mahidol, Prince Bhumibol, and there grandmother Savang Vadhana. The photograph was taken by Prince Rangsit Prayoonsak, uncle of the Kings and an ancestor of Devraj Rangsit. The photograph was published in the book First Trip Abroad (Priyananda Rangsit, ed.) along with many others of great historical value. The photo is a welcome contribution to Wikipedia and definitely should be used in the article. Much thanks to Devraj Rangsit! Patiwat 21:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - from Khompat. I disagree in any cases to put so many details about Thai politics on this article. I think, the authors (who contributed this article) should not even talk much in this article about him as a politician, but rather as a person. Politics can be discussed in more details in the other articles. On the other hand something should be mentioned anywayin order to enable links to other articles, so that people can easily find them.
  • Comment I strongly disagree. The King has made critical interventions in Thai politics over the decades, and such interventions have had a major impact on both Thailand's political development as well as how the King is perceived by the Thai people. Even his non-political activities (ceremonies, charity, rural tours) have been the result of political relationships. For instance, he was only allowed a handful of rural tours during his difficult relationship with dictator Plaek Pibulsonggram, but when the much more accomodating Sarit Dhanarajata seized power, his rural tours increased many-fold; the rural tours where critical in increasing his visibility to the Thai people and are a fundamental part of his mythos. To have an article on King Bhumibol without discussing his role in politics would turn it into a fantasy-land hagiography. As to the level of political detail that is appropriate for the main biographical article, this has been debated in the Discussion page. The current consensus seems to be that the current amount of detail is good, although further additions about specific issues might be useful - however, caution should be taken not to significantly increase the size of the article. Patiwat 21:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - from Khompat. I think, this article is not so good to some respects because some contents are not true, therefore I could not consider this is the nice biography. Moreover, the references used here are unconvincing, for example "The King Never Smiles". The authors who contributed this article are unknown. They all hided themself. So, this fact already looks suspicious to me. I think, someone here tried to write something in a wrong and disrespect way. I suggest that the author must be only a reliable and reachable person, not just like a gangster. This is very important point because in the case if I have doubt, I can contact him or her easily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khompat (talk • contribs)
    • That is uncalled for, see WP:AGF. The article is very well documented, even though you may not agree with it. Please sign your posts and login.Rlevse 15:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. If any of my edits have seemed gangsterly, I do apologize, although I would appreciate some specificity in any accusations. As for reliability and reachability, by definition, all registered Wikipedia users are reachable on their Talk pages. Regarding editor reliability, the article has lately been under a barrage of vandalism, and it might be wise to examine the edit record of individual editors to see whether they have a good record of constructive edits. The problems of vandalism and sockpuppetry wont go away, but vigilance can help reduce it. As for "The King Never Smiles", I have tried to use this reference as little as possible, because editors based in Thailand will find it difficult to verify the source (the book has been banned - however, Amazon.com will still ship it). Because of that, care should be taken to corraborate it with facts from other sources, preferably, those available in Thailand. Specific concerns about accuracy of sources would better be discussed in the article discussion page, not here. Patiwat 19:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be enormous edit version since the falling of the current caretake government popularity "Thaksin Shinawatra". By my rough estimate, over 500+ versions since the December 2005 version. When compare with the December 2005 version, the current version seems to be very much polically motivated. The most frequent contributor is user name'Patiwat' which makes me wondering whether Patiwat is under the falling regime payroll or try to insert some of his political idea to defame the King? Giving the fact that the last Thai election is only one party election which was totally undemocratic way and it seems to bethe same opinion with the King that the last Thai election was unjustified and need to be invalid. I guess it's true that the King has a lot of influence in Thai politics. However, in the past long record, this special influence has saved Thai fragile democracy and slowly nurture the Thai democracy system. When I checked the info on the user 'Patiwat' the most frequent contributor to this article (from Dec 2005 - current), Patiwat's statements stated that "No, I don't love Thaksin. In fact, I have more valid reasons for hating him than most Thai people. But I love democracy more than I hate Thaksin. And I have nothing but scorn for an elite that belittles the plight of the poor. I'd rather have a corrupt democracy over an efficient aristocracy any day." I think for the sake of the validity of Wikepedia, I'd appreciate it very much if the user'Patiwat' could state his motive to edit this particular article daily. Plus, are ther any financial support for the current caretaker government of doing so. I could imagine that one would do daily edit, multiple times a day without paid. This really make you wonder how bias is this current version of this article from political motive? And is Wikepedia the right venue for anyone to take over and express their own polical view point? Why not write your own blog instead. Thanks, Jim Thompson (ex-expat)

  • This page is for discussion of the merit of the Bhumibol Adulyadej article. It is not for political discussion, nor is it a trial of my political views or my economic means.
  • You claim that my edits have defamed the subject of the article. This a serious allegation in Wikipedia. I will assume good faith on your part in making this accusation, and would like to request that you specify where exactly I have defamed the subject. I stand by my edit record. If I have defamed him, I request that the Wikipedia administrators to immediately and permanently remove such defamations from the edit record. Patiwat 03:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - from Khompat. I am sorry to say that I would like to leave my comment here. To make any discussion with all of you is useless and wasting of my time. Either to post or to contribute this kind of article is also beyound my ability. You all will try to change it back as you wish anyway. This is disadvantage of free website. I do not want to waste my time for that. I should rather make a comment or remark. I think, the readers have their own judgment, so I am sure that most of Thai people would not believe this article much anyway. We all know the truth.
  • Comment - from Khompat. One more comment from me. I think, the editors here did not understand my point completely. My concern is that here in this article contained too much politic thing. I prefere that the editors make a link for the other topics, for instance "Crisis 2005-2006 in Thailand" and so on. Because this is supposed to be a biography, so it should contain only the general aspects about King's life. Why don't editors just translate from the article in this Wikipedia in the topic of "พระบาทสมเด็จพระปรมินทรมหาภูมิพลอดุลยเดช" (Thai version of King Bhumibol Adulyadej).
    • Khompat, please don't be discouraged. Wikipedia welcomes people of diverse perspectives, as long as they provide citations for their contributions, strive for the representation of all points of view, and are respectful of others.
    • Khompat, you have noted yourself that "the King has a lot of influence in Thai politics" and that "this special influence has saved Thai fragile democracy and slowly nurture the Thai democracy system." Given your views, how can you reasonably expect that the article not discuss his role in politics?
    • I do not think this article should strive to be an enlish translation of the Thai Wikipedia article. For one, the Thai article does not contain a single citation. The accuracy of the article can not be validated. In addition, the images on that article are not sourced and are presumably copyrighted images that are being used in the article without permission. Third, the article does not contain any mention of his private life and hobbies, his future succession, his royal prerogatives and how he has used them, nor his role in politics. In summary, the Thai language article could really use improvement as a biographical article, and should not be compared against the article in the English language wikipedia. Any further discussion on this topic really belongs in the Discussion page of that article. Patiwat 22:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - from Khompat. I could only say that I have many objections to this article as mentioned above. You do your duty to edit this. I also do my duty to comment. That's all - I would like to say. One more thing, I agree that the language written here is very good. For this I have no doubt because you used some books as your references which the authors are supposed to be English host. Maybe I should stay abroad in one country for 10 years, then I will write the book to criticize that country by myself or my own opinion. Later, someone in that country will appreciate my work untill he could copy it and use it as reference. Well, anyway I have a doubt that it is a good idea to do so.

This article just doesn't seem right. Why is it being edited on such a regular basis; is King Bhumibol of Thailand that much of a motivation for the wikipedian editors involved? I would love to see these people working on HM Queen Elizabeth of the UK or perhaps the Sultan of Brunei as well. Also, I notice that this particular encyclopedic entry contains to many irrelavant information as well as non-subjective information--why go into so much details about those "incidents" or particular issues of interest. The entry also features tidbits of informations gathered from here and there for no apparent reasons. I have read the exact article on Encarta 2006 DVD Encyclopedia and it reads much better, and does not contains the non-subjective information like here. I think that this particular entry is quite unreliable, unlike that of Encarta which was written by college professors.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.24.240.219 (talk • contribs)

The above logic implies Bhumipol is not worthy of a FA and that Wikipedia is substandard to Encarta. All articles have the potential to be FA and most editors are not professors.Rlevse 01:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Rlevse. I'd also like to point out that non-subjective content in the article improves its quality; objective facts, backed by citations, representing multiple points of view are what a wikipedia article should strive for. If there are any specific topics that 125.24.240.219 finds unreliable, please feel free to mention them. And please, don't vandalize the Discussion page - doing so serves no constructive purpose. Patiwat 02:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An editor should comb through the article and ensure that it refers to the King as either "Bhumibol", "King Bhumibol", or "The King". Right now, a mix of all three is used. The editors have discussed this a few times, but no one has ever gotten down to doing it. Patiwat 03:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The other articles on Royals I've looked at use first name only, so I'll go change it.Rlevse 11:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cut by 17%. Is that enough? I agree it looks better now. Good idea.Rlevse 20:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

35 mm film

This article is the first collaboration of the new WikiProject Filmmaking, and has also recently gone through a peer review. I've mainly spent the last few days adding further references in the areas it seemed to be lacking. I also welcome all critiques, as I don't feel it got a rigorous enough shake in peer review, to be quite honest. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 12:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comment: I haven't read through the entire article yet, but after a quick skim I noticed a few things, mostly minor:
  • Several short paragraphs. These should be merged or expanded if possible.
  • It would be good if you used the Cite web, Cite book etc templates for your inline citations where possible, but especially for the inlines with no or poor descriptions (ie. endnotes 28, 29, 34, 35, 39 and 42).
  • Can the specifications be moved into some sort of table instead of a straight list? I found it confusing to try and read the list as it is.
  • This is not really a problem, but a few people have been mentioning the use of the svg format instead of png, jpg and especially gif for diagrams. I think this would be especially useful for this diagram, since it should probably be represented accurately no matter how the image is resized.
  • The image at the start of the article is huge, and I'm running at a 1280x1024 screen res. Maybe this could be reduced a little?
  • Any chance of an extra image or two? Especially of the film in use or in storage.
I hope this helps. Cheers, darkliight[πalk] 13:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Darkliight, thanks very much for your comments! I'll address them one by one, to make it easier.
  • I believe the short paragraphs have been remedied. I've also done some major overhauling of the article's structure in any case, especially regarding ordering of sections and hierarchy.
  • I've corrected those specific citations (though the numbers probably have changed with editing), although I've simply written them out instead of using the template. I just feel they're too cumbersome; however, if this is something that must be implemented as template rather than text, I'll slog through rewriting all the citations.
  • I'm not certain that the specifications can be turned into a table, merely because the different formats mainly have different concepts they are defining. The 35 mm spherical, for example, contains a slew of TV specs that don't exist for the other format, and vice versa. But if someone has a way of implementing a table effectively, I'm certainly open to try it. If the specifications are confusing, maybe you could clarify which ones and why? That probably will help towards elucidating the matter.
  • I'll ask the image editors of that particular diagram about making an SVG format; however, as I'm not a graphics guy, I can't guarantee any progress there.
  • Image resized.
  • More images added. Let me know if you think more are needed, or if the ones added are inadequate.
I think that's it for now. Thanks very very much! Look forward to hearing more comments. Girolamo Savonarola 22:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Girolamo Savonarola, thanks for addressing the concerns.
  • I still think you should use the templates for your cites, but I won't object if you don't. There are still some issues with some of the cites though, in particular #10 (it's description is really lacking :)) and #32 is just a URL.
  • I believe that was mainly oversight from the restructuring. I've corrected the matter. Thank you also for your lenience on the template matter - if the content is displayed more or less identically with either method, and the template is designed to make things "easier", then I'd prefer to simply do it by hand, as I don't believe that the template is easier (at least for me). That's my simple rationale, but if there is a flaw in it, let me know.
  • I think one of the big advantages of templates is that if, for whatever reason, the display style is changed, then a single change to the template will bring every article that uses the template into line. Another plus is that is encourages other users, especially newer ones that aren't sure how how to go about adding a reference, to use them instead of just posting an external link or the like. Whenever I add references to an article, I can almost always just copy and paste a previous cite template, change the required parameters and hit submit without worrying about style. A third advantage, is that it makes it easy for bots to check reference URL's, ISBN's etc. These reasons are just off the top of my head so there are surely other reasons. darkliight[πalk] 04:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throughout the article, inches and mm are used in most cases, but they should follow a similar format. For example, in the intro we have "The photographic film is cut into strips 1 3/8 inches or 35 mm wide", the Super 35 section where we have "an overall negative area of 240 mm2 (9.45"2), only a mere 9 mm2 (.35"2) less than the 1.85:1 crop", and then later on we just have "Known as "Kodak Standard" (KS), they are 0.078" high by 0.11" wide". I'd prefer measurements to be set out like "The photographic film is cut into strips 35 mm (1 3/8 inches) wide" - I've given precedence to the metric measurement for a few reasons, but mostly because the articles title is a metric measurement. " can be supplemented for inches later on ofcourse.
  • Ah, welcome to the wonderfully odd world of film standards! :) The format is labelled in metric, however most of its standards were created by Americans in "standard" units, and thus the metric numbers are conversions in those cases and are identified as such. Furthermore, in my research today I've discovered that despite the name, the format is actually precisely 1 3/8 inches wide, due to historical reasons - now clarified in a footnote. However, apparently the most strictly accurate name for the format in millimeters would be 34.8 mm! I have, however, added metric equivalents for the omitted measurements in the perforations section. But bear in mind that they are standardized to inches by Eastman Kodak, not millimeters, hence the inch measurements are given primacy. In the case of accepted names for formats, such as 8 mm and 16 mm, I have left no conversion, as these are the common names for the gauges rather then measurements, per se.
  • Thanks for putting in a few extra pictures, though I was really hoping for a pic of the film being used in a projector so people unfamiliar with its use could get an idea of how the picture gets from the film to the screen.
  • I've added a clearer image of the digital formats as well now. However, I'm not certain that a projection picture could easily show this - there are several you might want to take a look at on the movie projector page. My question would be that wouldn't such an image be more germane to that article instead? Let me know your thoughts and I'll see what I can produce... :)
  • My concern was that complete novices to the topic of film (students doing an assignment for example) would be able to see why we put the images onto film. I know it must seem very obvious to everyone here, and I agree with you that an explanation is for another article, but if a school kid comes home from watching a movie and gets curious and they stumble accross this article, I think it would be interesting to actually see the film in use in a projector and the result on a screen - I think even a diagram would suffice for this if you come accross one. Ofcourse, that was just an idea and I'm not going to demand it, so consider it struck. darkliight[πalk] 04:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, darkliight[πalk] 09:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once again many thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 22:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS - Where is everyone else?!?!?! The more opinions the merrier, right? :)
  • Support. I whole-heartedly support this nomination. It's well referenced, and I don't see any major things, but there are two minor things one minor thing that I thought I'd mention. First of all, if I understand it correctly, in the 1950s movie studios experimented with 3D, Smell-o-Vision, and all sorts of other things, before coming up with widescreen. In addition, there was a lot of competition among the studios to create the dominant widescreen format (i.e. WarnerScope, CineMiracle, etc.) I believe this is important to mention, however briefly, in this article. Number two: Most studio films are shot with a DI these days, you might want to mention that. Great article! Green451 22:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more thing, and remember that I'm being really nitpicky here, is that it might be worth mentioning somewhere in the article the increased competition 35mm is facing from digital formats. Keep up the good work! Green451 04:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, well spotted! Done. Girolamo Savonarola 01:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No sense wasting time... ;) Girolamo Savonarola 01:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the article seems to lack detail on its use in still photography - which is where the average reader would be most familiar with it. Why?--Peta 02:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about 35 mm film as used in motion pictures (which predates 35 mm stills film; see the Early History section). What you're looking for is 135 film, which you'll see is already linked at the top of the article. Girolamo Savonarola 02:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--Peta 02:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Changing the title to something like "35 mm cinema film" would clarify that, and make the introductory remark unnecessary. Hundreds of millions of people have used 35 mm film cameras and call the film "35 mm film" whereas they have not used 35 mm cinema cameras and aren't commonly aware of the film that is used for the movies they watch. So, the title seems to attract the wrong reader. I would find it easier to support the article under a more precise title. Fg2 01:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain I necessarily agree with that assertion, especially with 35 mm stills film already having had severe losses to the digital crowd. Furthermore, it is a very common film terminology term just as likely to be widely known by hundreds of millions of moviegoers, and unfortunately doesn't seem to have another commonly used term, as 35 mm stills/135 film does. Is there a problem with having a "see this article for this term" sign at the top? Plenty of other articles do, including film, which no doubt has different meanings to the stills crowd as well as the scientific community. Girolamo Savonarola 21:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the histories of both 35 mm film and 135 film show that they were split like so from their inception(s). The decision to split them like so is even noted in Talk:35 mm film, where it is noted that most readers will be equally split between which two they'd want to see, so the one with the more precise and equivalent term (135 film) is given a toplink, while the other (for movies) will remain the primary topic of the article. The talk pages of these articles also give no indication of any users wishing to change this at any time in the past 3.5 years since these articles began to co-exist. My predominant feeling is to leave it be, unless there is a sizable objection to the current situation. Girolamo Savonarola 21:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Kateb v Godwin

This is an important recent Australian court case which has both popular significance (a controversial decision on a migration matter, a hot-button topic in Australian politics in recent years) and legal significance (as the leading case on executive detention, that is detention imposed by the executive rather than judicial government).

In my humble opinion as the article's main contributor, it is comprehensive (including a treatment of the background and consequences) and covers all aspects of the case in a way that I hope is understandable to those with and without specialist legal knowledge. It is referenced throughout, and incorporates a variety of sources. The article has already been through a peer review, where it received positive feedback leading to several improvements.

It is perhaps lacking an image, although I am not aware of any existing photographs of the person at the centre of the case. --bainer (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object - Comprehensive and well written. However, the text is overtly sympathetic against the court ruling. I consider certain sections and sub-sections towards the end of the article to border on commentary; this can be easily seen in the "tragic" and Bill of Rights discussion, and the partisan quotes used: "saving Australia from boat people counts for more than Al-Kateb's raw liberty." and "It's like a death punishment." are but two examples. I will be changing my vote to an object if my qualms are not attended to. michael talk 17:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm certainly open to including more points of view about the case in the article. However, I think the inclusion of these points of view is justified: the "death punishment" description was made by the subject of the case himself, and I think that inlcuding the parties' response to the case is appropriate (the Government didn't, as far as I am aware, express any strong views on the case after it was decided, rather there had been a change in the ministry and the new minister took a different approach, as set out in the article). The discussion about the case and a bill of rights were made by one of the judges who decided the case, and I would suggest that any comments made by judges about their cases are worthy of inclusion. Finally, in terms of media commentary, there were few (if any) commentators who came out in support of the decision, although I'll try to find some. That said, there's no discussion of the academic response to the case, which generally takes the line that the decision was strictly legally correct, despite other shortcomings. I shall include some discussion of that point of view. --bainer (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed to an object. When your suggestions above are implemented I will change my vote accordingly. michael talk 14:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a couple more academic responses to the case. I'm a little busy at the moment, but I should be able to incorporate these into the article by this weekend. --bainer (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :) Once they're inserted, the vote will change. michael talk 12:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Interesting and comprehensive article on an important case. A couple of comments. The Judiciary Act reference is confusing to those who don't know the act, and the relevant sections aren't explained in the linked article - personally I'd delete the reference. Second, I've only read some of the judgements in the case, so how did Callinan J avoid deciding on the constitutionality of the section, given that he was in the majority? Oh, and on the above comments about bias, I don't think it's biased and the 'tragic' comment was made by one of the majority judges (obviously a supporter of the decision) about the circumstances leading to Kateb being a stateless person, not the decision itself. Psychobabble 03:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Rebecca 05:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support comprehensive and well-relayed discussion of an important case. It would be beneficial if there was an article on the Migration Act 1958 for readers to seek further information from.--cj | talk 09:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well done. darkliight[πalk] 14:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - excellent - thank you for taking my recommendations into account. You might like to add to the article McHugh J's "heresy" jibe at Kirby J in the judgement. (JROBBO 06:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Ace Books

Self-nomination. I've managed to get this to GA status, and have gone through the FA criteria to identify what can be improved. I look forward to improving the article through this review; whether or not it gets to FA -- though I will certainly be doing my best to make it to FA. Thanks in advance to the reviewers. Mike Christie 04:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I've done some correcting of typos and other small things, and slightly modified the first sentence, which seemed unclear. This is an impressively detailed, well-researched article. Sam Clark 13:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Outriggr 04:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Comments. Looks promising! Without regarding to voting, I wanted to suggest a couple of areas that might need clarification:[reply]
  • "the oldest publisher of science fiction and fantasy novels still active" - still active where - in the world? Regardless of answer, could this be referenced?
  • "Further mergers and acquisitions ultimately resulted in Ace becoming a part of Berkley Books, and Ace is now a paperback imprint of Penguin Group (USA)." - I don't know the current status from this sentence. It says "ultimately", which implies there have been no further developments since Berkley; but then it says it is a now with Penguin.
  • "The editorial team at Ace is the same team that edits the Roc imprint, although the two [imprints] maintain a separate identity." suggest the addition of "imprints" because the sentence reads that one team maintains two identities.
  • for general readership, suggest expanding "SF" to "science fiction" throughout
  • disambiguate dos-a-dos link(s)

I am willing to go through the whole article if you'd like a dose of my armchair copyediting. Outriggr 04:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please; that would be very helpful. With regard to the first point you raise, I think the intent (the sentence predates my involvement) is to indicate that it is *now* a specialist sf publisher, and no current specialist sf publisher has been around as long as Ace. One could certainly find sf works that predate 1952 which were published by publishers that still exist, so in that sense the sentence is incorrect. Referencing the intended meaning would be a bit difficult, though I might find the claim asserted in a reference work (and will look). Short of that the claim may have to be removed; in the meantime please copyedit as you see fit. Thanks. Mike Christie 04:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One additional comment -- with regard to the sf vs. science fiction question, I agree that a general readership must have the abbreviation explained. I'm concerned that it will seem clunky to repeat "science fiction" at every turn, though; perhaps we could establish the use of the abbreviation early in the article? If we do use it, I have been preferring "sf" to "SF", except in captions/titles; that's the style used in e.g. the Nicholls/Clute "Encyclopaedia of Science Fiction", the most prominent reference work in the field. Mike Christie 04:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike, I have finished my edits to the article. Please review and ensure I haven't changed any meanings or such. I moved a couple of sections around and moved two main headings out of main-heading status. Comments: I take it that collecting is an important aspect of Ace Books; if so I think the article should discuss that aspect more. I didn't know what this sentence meant: "Carr became a freelance editor; both Carr and Wollheim went on to edit separate Year's Best volumes." - best volumes of what, and with what company? Also, "Genres in the 1950s and 1960s" doesn't have any inline references. That might bother someone... Outriggr 13:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few wording changes; take a look and see what you think. Specific points you raise:
  • Collecting: yes, collectors like the covers, and the doubles format. The titles section is really there only because of the collectors; I doubt it could be justified without that. I've added a little about specialist references -- is more needed?
  • Year's Best -- this is a reference to the earlier mention of Carr and Wollheim editing a "Year's Best SF" anthology. There have been quite a few of these series in the sf field, and Carr's and Wollheim's versions were quite notable and influential. Wollheim's were (unsurprisingly) published by his own company, DAW; Carr's were published by Ballantine. Do we actually need to mention this at all, now I come to think of it? That sentence predates my involvement in editing the article, and I guess I've never thought about whether it was needed.
  • Genres in the 50s etc. The data that makes this verifiable is all in the titles listings, which are linked later in the article. Those are in turn verifiable since each book provides the verification of the dates and genre. What's an appropriate way to cite that? I could use a <ref> tag to point to those articles, but on the face of it that would contravene the reliable sources dictum that Wikipedia is not a citable source. What do you think the best way is to do this?
-- Mike Christie 17:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. 1) If there is a collecting community it might be interesting to know what makes a book valuable, etc. Fairly minor. 2) Neutral on that. 3) I agree with your point. Perhaps you can leave it be - "dominant sf publisher" maybe could use a ref. Outriggr 21:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) Done; take a look. Should the prices be up in the text instead of down in the footnotes? 2) I'll leave it as is. 3) Added a ref. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some other thoughts for you... I feel the lead could use one more summary paragraph. It goes from an intro about the company, to the death of Wyn and Ace's declining status. A middle paragraph could be a summary of the company's glory days, with the first paragraph being introductory, maybe even reiterating the historical interest in Ace today. Also, a "criticism" section seems to be a requirement for today's FA's (unless they're about Pokemon, perhaps). Is there any interesting stuff you could add about criticism of the company at any point in its history, due to its being a "pulp" fiction publisher or such? I would definitely support after those additions (not that I won't support it now). I expect you will encounter some opposition due to the "listiness" of the last sections of the article. Anything you could do to reduce the point-form style would probably help with other supporters. Outriggr 03:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten and slightly expanded the lead; take a look and fix as you think fit. I am having a hard time coming up with a criticism section, though. Any such criticism of it as a publishing house would have to be of the form "authors X and Y claim they were cheated by Ace", and I don't know of material like that, though no doubt there is some. I do have that anecdote of Wollheim's about the Ace author who had to pick fruit for a living because Ace didn't pay him, but I don't see how to make a section of it. As for the listiness, I think the best candidate to eliminate as a list would be the serial number section, which could be made into a table, perhaps. Would that be an improvement, though? I don't see what to do about the other lists -- they seem inherently listy to me. Any suggestions on that? Thanks again. Mike Christie (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding to my feedback - I have added my support above! Outriggr 04:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's OK, but the prose could do with a massage.
    • First sentence: "and began as a genre publisher, starting with mysteries and westerns." Why not: "and began as a genre publisher of mysteries and westerns."
    • The word "Ace" occurs 13 times in a shortish lead. Can you find synonyms to break down this repetition?
    • Consider stating the country of origin in the lead.
    • "various Ace Science Fiction Specials series"—"various" is redundant. So is "in business" here: "was one of the leading sf paperback publishers for its first ten years in business."

Further treatment required in the body of the article. Tony 06:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments; I've edited the lead -- take another look. I cut six "Ace"s from the lead. I couldn't find a tidy way to say "US company", so I said the company was founded "in New York"; is this good enough? I agree re "in business", but I'm not convinced about "various Ace Science Fiction Specials series" -- if I take out "various" it will sound as if there was only one series, and that's not the case. Given that, do you still think this is redundant?
I'll take another pass through the rest of the text and try to tighten it up some more along these lines. Any other specific comments would be very helpful. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Great job on the article. I especially found the Tolkien controversy very interesting, since I own the Ballantine edition, and wondered what he meant by that. One thing though, about a sentence in the lead: "These (books) have proved attractive to collectors, and some rare titles now command prices of up to $1,000." Should you cite that? --Dark Kubrick 19:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's cited down below in the main body; I could add the cite, but I think the preferred style is to avoid refs in the lead if they are reffed later. As for the Ballantine edition, do you mean you have the authorized version from the 1960s? I'd like to put in a ref for the "message from Tolkien urging consumers to buy the authorized edition" -- this was recently added by another editor and it would be great to cite the actual Ballantine edition as the footnote. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, I do own it. What information do you need? --Dark Kubrick 21:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you add a reference tag to the statement about the message from Tolkien, using the Ballantine edition as the referenced source? That statement is currently unsourced. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not completely sure about how to cite the book, so just edit the reference as you see fit. The First Ballantine Book Edition was published in October 1965, and the comment the article is talking about is in the foreword, on page 12. Hope that helps. --Dark Kubrick 19:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- that's great. I've put it into cite book format; I appreciate the help. Mike Christie (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enzyme

Self-nomination. A core article in biochemistry written as a complete introduction for both general and more specialised readers. Multiple revisions, clarifications and refinements have been added since the last draft of this page was submitted for Featured Article in 2005 Archive of previous discussion. TimVickers 18:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: My first impression is this looks great. I've fixed a few minor things and I'll need a chance to properly read it before supporting, but in the mean time I have two suggestions:
    • See if you can merge those one sentence paragraphs (or expand them if it makes more sense to do that) - especially the ones in the lead, and
    • See if you can find someone to convert the diagrams (obviously not the ribbon ones) into SVG format.
I'll be back later tonight to read through this. darkliight[πalk] 19:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good suggestion about the intro, I've merged some of the fragments. I don't know how to do vector graphics though, what is the advantage of this format over jpeg? TimVickers 01:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SVG vector graphics now substituted for diagrams. TimVickers 20:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Object for now. I would love to see this become an FA but it needs a copyedit and some tweaking first. I went through the first couple of paragraphs but don't have the time to do much more right now. Withdrawing objection; good work. See below. Opabinia regalis 02:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • There's a lot of two- or three-sentence paragraphs or subsections that need either fleshing out or merging. (Especially the "coenzymes" section and the out-of-place-sounding little paragraph in the lead about industrial applications.)
Sections expanded, figure added to Coenzymes section.
    • The statement that 10 amino acids on average come in contact with the substrate needs a citation (the standard deviation on that must be huge).
Changed to refer to catalytic residues with added citation. TimVickers 03:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentence "The activities of enzymes are determined by their three-dimensional structure" is overstated - plenty of proteins have nonessential bits of tertiary structure. This would be clearer if the introduction of the active-site concept were moved up one paragraph. I'm not convinced you really even need a discussion of protein synthesis here; it's covered in protein, protein biosynthesis, gene expression, and elsewhere.
Moved section upwards as suggested, activities are solely determined by structure so that broad statement has to stay but there is probably too much on protein synthesis, I shrank this a little. TimVickers 04:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would dispute that "activities are solely determined by structure" unless you're using a very broad definition of "activity" or "structure". What about protonation states, solution conditions (low Mg concentration, high product concentration), etc? Maybe it would be clearer as "specificities are determined by structure"? Opabinia regalis 04:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A difficult distinction to draw, since properties like pH optima or requirements for cations are also determined by the structure of an enzyme. Indeed, all physical properties of proteins are determined by their primary sequence and any subsequent post-translational modifications. This statement is true as a ultimate cause, but you are indeed correct that other, proximal causes exist. I'll make a note about this on the talk page and bring other minds to bear. TimVickers 13:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The inhibition section is large but regulation in general isn't covered as thoroughly as you might expect. Titling this section "regulation" or something similar and including a section on post-translational modifications would be useful. Currently the function section contains some regulatory information but it would be clearer in one place.
Moved and merged.TimVickers 04:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The applications table is a clever idea, but it's huge and clunkily formatted, and I'm not sure readers will really get much out of it. It's only useful to those looking for very general information, who would probably not get past the more technical kinetics section. I'd suggest moving it to subarticle.
Asked for suggestions/formatting on talk page. TimVickers 13:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shrank it a little by re-formatting, but also added another section (see below, responses to reviewer Steven Fruitsmaak) TimVickers 22:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the subject of technical levels, I think the early sections might be a bit too dumbed down. People who don't know what catalysis is won't understand enzymes no matter how many simplified or appositive explanations are included. Opabinia regalis 02:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page is intended as a general introduction to a larger set of more specialsed pages. We have therefore tended to try for the simplest langauge possible to convey the concepts with a minimum of jargon. TimVickers 04:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I didn't notice this before, but the sentence containing the Paracelsus quote in the inhibition section needs a citation (and possibly a rewrite). I still cringe at saying activity is "determined" by structure but for an article at this level it's a minor point. Pending other input I'd still also suggest moving or at least reformatting the table; it's by far the largest section in terms of screen real estate and it's also the least important. But the latter two are stylistic issues and, in terms of content, if the Paracelsus quote is cited I support this nomination. Opabinia regalis 02:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Citation added. After I chased down an accurate quote I found the famous formulation is a shortened version of his actual words! TimVickers 03:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody else have comments or responses to the alterations made above? TimVickers 15:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Your layout needs to correspond to WP:GTL. It would also be a good idea to include all PMIDs and ISBNs on your footnotes and references: PMIDs are easy to add, and provide a direct link to the studies. There are patches of text that don't have inline citations. This looks like a copyedit issue, not sure: "However, some cofactors known as prosthetic groups are covalently bound (e.g.'Italic text, thiamine pyrophosphate in the enzyme pyruvate dehydrogenase)." You should remove all external jumps, for example, on "The International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology has developed ... " I won't be able to Support or Object, as I will have limited internet access for a few weeks, but just wanted to leave those notes of things to work on. Sandy 02:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sections re-ordered according to WP:GTL. ISBN, PMID and more wikilinks added. External ink removed. Thank you for your suggestions. TimVickers 04:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. I've just looked at the first paragraphs. Judging from some changes I've made this article isn't comprehensive enough yet, but definitely a Good Article. In my opinion the introduction is still a little to technical for a general audience.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also cut down the See also-section, things like molecule have been linked in the article so don't need a See also in my opinion: if two concepts are truely linked, they should be wikilinked in the text itself, with See also used sparingly, I think. Same with external links: things that do not relate specifically to enzymes but to proteins in general I would move to the protein article.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, but I'm puzzled. "Molecule" isn't linked in "See Also" and there are only 4 links in this section. I have moved the PDB "Molecule of the Month" external link to the proteins article, as I think this is what you were referring to. I have also tried to simplify the introduction a little, but as you can see above, some reviewers have suggested this is already oversimplified! If you had any specific suggestions on areas we have missed and need to be added in order for the article to be more comprehensive, then I would be happy to try to include them. However, the article can't get much bigger as it is already 37 kilobytes in size. TimVickers 15:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure the biggest part of the readers still doesn't consider it to be oversimplified, and even then the body of the article is complicated enough to satisfied those hungry for knowledge.
Intro simplified a little.
  • I prefer a see also section to be as short as possible, omitting any articles that have already been linked in the text itself (e.g. protein), but I can imagine that's not everyone's preference.
See also secion only contained 4 links, but I removed Protein and now it is down to 3 links.
  • Those two last external links seem only remotely related to me: more to genes and CytP45O, they don't belong here in my opinion.
Removed.
  • The "paper industry" section should show a product (i.e. paper), not a factory. Also, enzymes are very important in bio-research.
I discovered that factory picture was actually of a paper mill, so I just added a caption. Section on Genetic engineering added.
  • The errors in metabolism-section should have a wikilink to genetic disease.
Done.
Section on enzyme induction added.
  • The Greek word is ενζυμον, énzymon.
Greek root added.
I think I covered everything. Any more suggestions? TimVickers 19:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still oppose and made some more major changes. This is mainly because the current article is biased to much towards enzymes involved in metabolism.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand, since metabolism is the sum of chemical reactions that occur in a living organism, I have always thought that enzymes sole function in biology is metabolism. The only non-metabolic roles of enzymes I can think of are their uses in industry. I agree that apart from the table of industrial uses, the commercial uses for enzymes are not covered in detail within this article, do you think this area should be expanded? TimVickers 01:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak object:
Added, good point.
  • there is a maybe usable Michaelis-Menten image on german wiki: here
Taken one from Enzyme kinetics
  • in Etymology and history section: nothing happened after 1950 in enzymes' history?
Structure of Lysozyme is probably the most important recent example. I've added this.
Section expanded and figure added.
  • WP:MOS#Headings: headings generally should not repeat the title of the article
Fixed.

Anyway, great article, after the suggested changes, I'm surely support it. NCurse work 14:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section on inhibition shortened by replacement of second, semi-redundant figure. TimVickers 22:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Overall, this is an excellent article, but my impression is that it's not quite FA level. Here are some suggestions for improvements:

  • The article seems a little too slanted towards protein enzymes; consider re-wording the first two sentences and the discussion of folding to treat RNA and proteins on a more equal footing. This article should be written so that it may be linked from, e.g., the ribozyme, ribosome and RNA world hypothesis pages.
Although the principles are the same, I'm sticking to the dictionary definition of Enzyme in this article.
  • Instead of the vague "millions of times faster" in the second paragraph, how about using the example of orotate decarboxylase, which if I recall correctly accelerates its reactions by kcat/KM/kuncatalyzed = 1023 M-1 under optimal conditions?
Superb example. Thank you. Added to introduction.
  • An example of extreme enzyme specificity would be good. A sentence or two about the trade-off between specificity and binding energy would be good.
Excellent point. Since a binding energy discussion risks becoming over-technical for general reader (and has a lot to do with turnover rate also), I added a section on proofreading enzymes as a more accessible example of extremely specific enzymes, with references to DNA polymerase, ribosomes and aaRS.
  • You might want to link to Lineweaver-Burk and Eadie-Hofstee in the kinetics section. Some description of how enzyme assays are carried out (or a few links) and how the kinetic parameters/MM parameters are determined experimentally might be good. The relation Vmax = kcat [Enzyme]tot might be helpful, since kcat seems to appear without explanation.
Link to Enzyme assays added. Definition of kcat added. I put links to those plots on the Enzyme kinetics page, since they are not for the casual reader!
  • I would mention uncompetitive and suicide inhibitors, and write the non-competitive inhibition section to be more plausible. A lay-person will undoubtedly ask, "If the inhibitor binds so far away, how does it affect the active site?"
This section was muddled. I've clarified non-competitve inhibitors and divided the section into reversible and non-reversible inhibitors.
  • The cofactor/coenzyme discussion seems split up into two places? A fuller description of what they're doing in catalysis would be good, e.g., electron sink. Some prosthetic groups cannot be removed to form the apoenzyme, e.g., the pyruvate cofactor in the pyruvoyl enzymes (e.g., amino-acid decarboxylases).
I really think these are some of the most annoying terms in enzymology! I split co-enzymes (substrates) from co-factors (bound components of enzyme structure) to try to emphasise that the two types of compounds are very different (in a strict usage of these decidedly loose terms!). Stryer divides cofactors (structural) from coenzymes (substrates) but adds that bound coenzymes are called prosthetic groups (what a muddle!). I'll merge these sections and disambiguate as much as possible. I've also added a bit on the role of co-factors, using heme and flavin as examples. Prosthetic groups are mentioned in the last paragraph of the co-factors section.
  • At the risk of being too technical, the article should allow the possibility of seeing an actual enzyme mechanism, to make the thermodynamics come to life and illustrate how the transition state is stabilized preferentially to the substrate and product. Perhaps chymotrypsin?
These animations are linked and explained on the Enzyme kinetics page.
  • A discussion of general acid-base catalysis versus other types of mechanisms seems appropriate. More generally, a sentence or two about how alternative mechanisms are discerned (e.g., pH dependence, mutagenesis, chemical modification, stable isotope labeling, transition-state analogs, spectroscopy, deuterium kinetic effects, etc.) would be excellent.
I think this is out of the scope of this introductory article written for the general reader. These concepts are touched on briefly in the Enzyme kinetics article, but even here no experimental details are given. Perhaps you could have a look at that page and add some comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Enzyme kinetics/archive2?
  • Semantics question: does prolyl peptidyl cis-trans isomerase catalyze a chemical reaction? Some isomerases seem to catalyze quasi-chemical rearrangements that are not strictly speaking chemical reactions.
Any change in the electronic structure of a chemical is a chemical reaction. Cis-trans isomerases have the EC number EC 5.2.x.x
  • An external link to KEGG seems appropriate. The Enzyme Structures Database link is outdated.
Thanks, added link and updated link.
  • Perhaps include some discussion of enzyme design (a la Homme Hellinga and those ribozyme researchers), catalytic antibodies and artificial evolution?
Excellent point. I haved added a brief mention of this as part of a new intro to the Commercial uses section. TimVickers 20:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that this helps. If you'd like, I would be happy to help out, although I'm kind of busy with other articles and (gasp!) real life. ;) Good luck, and I look forward to reading your contributions! :) Willow 07:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More comments ;) The improvements are excellent, particularly your handling of orotate DC. I think the header section needs more work on its writing and organization, though:

  • I would define substrate and product right after the ribozyme section, and follow them with the 4000 reactions/nomenclature sentences from the last paragraph of the header. We all know what they mean, but many readers will not. Then perhaps follow with your comment, "Unlike most catalysts, however, enzymes are extraordinarily specific for their substrate..." or some such.
Definition added and intro re-arranged and rephrased to improve flow.
  • At this point, you might want to highlight that the ability to adjust specific reaction rates independently of one another makes life possible and that some organisms (such as plants) often have several different enzymes for the same reaction, to give more possibilities for regulation of reaction rates.
This first idea is contained in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the intro. I have added the concept of parallel enzyme activities into the Metabolism section.
  • I would re-word "alternative pathway" since, to my understanding, the pathway itself is not changed significantly, merely the activation energy. This may be a semantics issue.
I've replaced "pathway" with "path" and added a disambiguation wikilink to Reaction coordinate here to show this term is being used in its sense in physics. I hadn't noticed how confusing it might have been use "pathway" with two meanings in the intro, good catch. TimVickers 17:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta run off to work — have fun and good luck! Thanks for your really nice comments on my talk page, too! :) Willow 13:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Great article! --WS 16:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Great work, this has come a long way! – ClockworkSoul 16:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Megatokyo

This article was close to featured standard at the end of its third nomination (first, second), and I think it's been improved to the point where it can be featured. If not, this should kick-start edits on the article again. --L33tminion (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support! --Masamage 04:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is a real nitpick, but the last sentence of piro and largo is kind of repetitive and trivia-ish where it is. Best merged in the beginning of the section(s) if possible. RN 04:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well...hmm. I guess I disagree! It seems to me like it would disrupt the flow a lot worse at the top than at the bottom, and I think more generally that it's interesting enough to stay. Maybe someone else is more creative than I. --Masamage 06:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Edit: Okay, so Jimmy did it and it looks excellent. Fine, be like that! ^_^;; --Masamage 19:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — I supported this article during its last nomination and — near the end of it — agreed to User:JimmyBlackwing's request that I give it a copyedit, so as to improve quality further and dispel concerns over the prose. This has been a very informative article on the subject since at least the third nomination (I wasn't here for the first two), and I've felt like it was either at FA or really close to it during that last process. Though I haven't participated in any further improvement since the last FAC, I know its regular editors have and I do believe this article is now ready. Ryu Kaze 14:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Structure. I'd really like to see the "History" section go at the top of the article. I've also given thought that some of the other sections could possibly be reordered a little, such as moving the themes section up, having plot before characters, but I'm less dead set on those. Additionally, for comprehensiveness' sake, I believe that it would be notable to talk (at least briefly) about the comic's fanbase, which has on a number of occasions overwhelmed conventions Fred has appeared at. Some mention of the author's reputation as being too self-disparaging might also be in line (particularly the penny-arcade thing). Fieari 17:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I've moved the sections around. Is that better? Also, Characters is above Plot on purpose - see articles like Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy X or Shadow of the Colossus. While these are all articles about video games, the principle is the same. As for the comic's fanbase... while it may be notable, I'm having a hard time believing it's verifiable. The only semi-usable comments about the fanbase I've heard are from Gallagher himself, but even they are questionable. And discussing the author's reputation seems to veer off into non-notable trivia, to me - he has an article of his own for mentioning stuff like that. JimmyBlackwing 19:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Characters should be before Story in my opinion. It's easier to talk about a story when the characters have already been introduced. That's why those three articles JimmyBlackwing mentioned (which I wrote in large part) are organized as they are. If you don't put the Characters section first, it's not going to serve very much purpose since the Story section would then have to go about introducing the characters anyway. That just ends up making the Story section unnecessarily bloated, unfocused and incoherent. Ryu Kaze 20:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've read through it and have some more notes (I'm sure after 2/3 FACs the editors of this article are getting sick of me - sorry about that :)) :
  1. (feel free to ignore this one, as I'm not sure how much MoS-style factors in here) "now" is used in the first sentence - perhaps "as of" or similar should be used
  2. " it has received negative criticism as a result of Gallagher's changes" - this seems like a POV statement to me, and perhaps is best left to the reception section
    That's not POV. It's a fact that the comic has received criticism for this reason, and sources for that fact are cited in the article. (On the other hand, isn't "negative criticism" redundant?) --L33tminion (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Negative criticism" isn't redundant, no. "Criticism" isn't inherently negative. It's just rigid analysis. Criticism can be positive. Ryu Kaze 01:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thanks. --L33tminion (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The intro paragraphs are missing the comic's IMPACT. For example, there should be some kind of BANG that says "this is unquestionably popular." Maybe website hits i.e. "is a webcomic which at the height of its popularity brought in X visitors a day." Right now it just says it is a webcomic that has a positive reception...
    I don't follow your reasoning behind this, actually. Why is that required for the article to meet featured standard? If someone can think of a way to add that sort of information that's NPOV, I don't oppose that, but still. --L33tminion (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. What is "Dead Piro" filler art? This really interrupts the flow of that part of the article for me, as it doesn't seem obvious to me what it is
    Fixed that bit. Piro (Gallagher) refers to the days where he publishes filler art instead of a full comic as "Dead Piro Days". I found the easy solution was to remove the reference to that piece of trivia. If someone wants to readd it, then that will need to be explained. --L33tminion (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "pitting Ping against Largo in video game battle" this whole sentence doesn't make much sense to me - is it one video game battle, multiple ones?
    Multiple (if you ignore the fact that Ping is a video game in some sense). Personally, I think "in video game battle" sounds better and is more accurate than either "in a video game battle" or "in video game battles". Largo's conflict with Ping (and Miho) is ongoing. Nonetheless, if it's really confusing, it should be changed. --L33tminion (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The reception section is really good, but is a bit disjointed and goes back and forth between comments on the art, Caston's influence, and the story. For example, in the last paragraph in the first two sentences we see it talk about the art of it, but then it goes back to the story and Caston's influence in the same paragraph when parts of that were already discussed at the beginning...

I would be very happy to finally support this after these are addressed. It is obvious the editors have worked hard on it. RN 23:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salvador Dalí

Restarting old nomination - many objections, most of which were addressed. Raul654 15:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support nice job.Rlevse 16:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object I feel that the article is a bit under-referenced. One potential POV example is "In 1931, Dalí painted his most famous work, The Persistence of Memory." How do we know this is his most famous work? Who says? I mean... it clearly is, but since it is, someone is sure to have said so, right? But in general, most of "Later years in Catalonia" is simply unreferenced. Fieari 18:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why should a non-contentious fact such as "In 1931, Dalí painted his most famous work, The Persistence of Memory." be referenced? If there is no debate about it (and I agree that there isn't) then it does not need to be cited. No need to cite common knowledge. Joelito (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's just the way we do things around here. It's important to reassure our readers of the quality of articles, and it helps everyone to resist the temptation to include original research. Some editors work very hard to ensure that every point in their article is fully referenced before they submit it to FAC, and it would be unkind not to hold others to the same standard. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's the way we do things wrongly here. If I state that the Earth is the third planet from the Sun do I need to cite this? Come on, common knowledge does not need to be cited. Even worse is objecting because of one missing citation. Can you specify any other areas where citations are needed? Joelito (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the time it took you to write that response you could have easily found and added a reference for the statement. Don't be so defensive. Fieari was only offering constructive criticism. Kaldari 22:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a reference for the statement and edited it to say it is "one of Dali's most famous works" rather than "the most famous", as this is how it is decribed by the Salvador Dali Mesuem (which is the source I used for the reference). Kaldari 22:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well compare Feari's objection to SG's statement. SG clearly states where he feels the article is unreferenced and thus his objections are actionable. I don't mind the objection but prefer actionable objections unless the article is really far from being a FA. Joelito (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support – The article is great as it is, but I would like to see a few more refs where Fieari said. ♠ SG →Talk 12:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here are a few sentences needing refs:
      • In 1931, Dalí painted his most famous work, The Persistence of Memory.
      • The general interpretation of the work is that the soft watches debunk the assumption that time is rigid or deterministic, and this sense is supported by other images in the work, including the ants and fly devouring the other watches.
        • This can be read as a paraphrase of the referenced material that appears later on on the same topic in the Symbolism section. As this is the case, I have added a citation to it as well. --DanielNuyu
      • The fact that he chose to live in Spain while it was ruled by Franco drew criticism from progressives and many other artists.' As such, probably at least some of the common dismissal of Dalí's later works had more to do with politics than the actual merits of the works themselves.
        • RyanGerbil10 listed this line verbatim as one of his points of concern in his objection (turned support) in my nomination. It was agreed that the diatribe entitled "The Jackboot of Dada" by Vicente Navarro (see refs) is a case in point for this notion. For clarity, I have added a citation at the end of this line to that ref since it seems to keep coming up. --DanielNuyu
      • Breton vehemently fought against the inclusion of Dalí's Sistine Madonna in the International Surrealism Exhibition in New York the following year.
        • An article I found via MLN on Project MUSE called "The Old Age of William Tell (A study of Buñuel's Tristana)", now referenced, contains much material in support of this claim. In case you cannot access MUSE, an excerpt from the article reads, "In 1960, Dalí had abjured those principles and, to mark his re-birth into Catholicism, he filled his new sky with bishops approaching heaven. This religious conversion shocked the Surrealists. Dalí sent his Sistine Madonna (also known as Ear with Madonna) to the International Exhibition of Surrealism organized at the D'Arcy Galleries in New York in December 1960. Infuriated by his inclusion in the Surrealist retrospective, André Breton published one of the many anti-Dalinian leaflets he would publish in his lifetime. On this occasion it was titled "We Don't Ear it that Way." In his leaflet, Breton made a mockery of Dalí's religious conversion and the text contained a brutal attack on Gala, whom the painter had used as a model for the Madonna in spite of the fact that her sexual behavior was a constant source of scandal throughout the European tabloid press..." --DanielNuyu
      • he made bulletist works and was among the first artists to employ holography in an artistic manner.
        • More refs added. The second point has been properly qualified (given information at its ref and here; he was not the first, but among the first). --DanielNuyu
      • In his later years, young artists like Andy Warhol proclaimed Dalí an important influence on pop art.
        • I would say the information in the ref I just added for this point corroborates the view in this line. --DanielNuyu
There are also a couple of quotes attributed to Dali which are unreferenced, but I'm not sure if they'll be troublesome. ♠ SG →Talk 17:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes are taken from Wikiquote. That project should (and has to some extent) cited these famous quotes. I too don't think they are an issue. Please take another look at the article now that I've added this new set of refs. --DanielNuyu 10:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm supporting the article now. However, as Andrew Levine pointed out below, certain quotes will probably need citations, even if they came from Wikiquote. Just a minor detail. ♠ SG →Talk 17:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes have now been cited. --DanielNuyu 01:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from that citation do you see any other areas needing citations? Joelito (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the citation for Dalí saying "Surrealism is me"? Andrew Levine 17:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes, including that one, have now been cited. --DanielNuyu 01:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palpatine

Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Palpatine/archive1

Self-nomination This is an article about a main character from Star Wars. I revised it using the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). This article was at peer review recently and was copy-edited to tighten the prose and decrease cruft. It is comprehensive and well-sourced. I'm sure there are still some wrinkles that need ironing, thanks in advance for your input. Dmoon1 21:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support I am very impressed with this article's progress since its last nomination. Great job! Judgesurreal777 03:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Another great article about a star wars character. The people at Wikiproject:Star Wars do seem to have a keen understanding of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Excellent. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your support. Dmoon1 14:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why is there a Darth Sidious article? CG 08:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because some editors here feel that protecting people from knowledge is more important than Wikipedia's objective of spreading knowledge (hint: look at the spoiler tag). It's the same reason we're stuck with the senseless presence of both a Darth Vader page and an Anakin Skywalker page (despite their shared identity being pop culture since 1983). Ryu Kaze 11:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would just like to point out that I had nothing to do with that, but Ryu is correct. This is the result of a debate that took place several months ago. Darth Sidious and Palpatine were two separate articles created before Revenge of the Sith was released when their relationship was not confirmed in the fiction. Some people did not want to spoil this connection, feeling that the movie was too new and Palpatine's identity was not common knowledge to most people. Dmoon1 14:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very good article. means alot morte than just Star Wars. Team6and7 14:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've seen several fictional character articles, and this is the best example yet. The interweaving of Ian's commentary with explanation of Palpatine's nature is unique and articulates his characteristics well. It also stays on track, not straying too far into pop culture trivia. Good job; this is a great template for future articles of this kind. --Zeality 16:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SupportObject the entire first two sections (10 paragraphs worth) of Appearances (Star Wars films and Clone Wars miniseries) have NO references. Otherwise, very nice work. Rlevse 20:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)...Rlevse 20:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well referenced, well researched, talks about the character from an out-of-universe perspective and covers all major topics regarding Palpatine. LuciferMorgan 13:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support better than last time. Hope Darth Vader is next... igordebraga ≠ 16:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Just as good as the other two Star Wars character articles (gee, who were those written by...)--Dark Kubrick 01:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Savo Island

I respectfully self-nominate this article on a naval battle from World War II for Featured Article consideration. The article was peer reviewed, reviewed under the guidelines at WP:WTA, and was built on a solid foundation laid by Gdr and Grant65 among others. Cla68 04:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of images in the U.S. National Archives and other US government historical agencies that were made by the Imperial Japanese government or the Imperial Japanese Navy or Army. The U.S. government websites or other sources of the images state very clearly that they are public domain (for example: [10]) It appears that they are public domain for several reasons: (1) Japanese copyright law is "Death (termination) + 50"; the Imperial Japanese government terminated in 1945, making any of the images they produced public domain 50 years later, (2) the U.S. government believes that those images are property of the US government because the US government absorbed the Imperial Japanese government into itself during the Allied (primarily US) occupation of Japan including all of its properties, and (3) when I've looked at the files for Imperial Japanese government images on the Japanese Wikipedia, the editors there usually use the "all rights released by the author" tag for the images, if not the "US Government public domain tag", from what I can understand because upon the dissolution of the Imperial Japanese government in 1945, its images and documents were released from copyright into the public domain. Is there anything anywhere that expressly states what I've said above instead of by implication? Not that I'm aware of. However, if the U.S. Government says that those are public domain images, and they clearly state that, I think that's good enough. Cla68 10:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All right, that seems good enough. This information needs to be on the image description pages - maybe a specialized tag would be helpful? Haukur 10:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be very helpful. Cla68 12:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like quotes that emphasize a certain point in the story or topic but I can understand how they might be distracting also. Cla68 12:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dürer's Rhinoceros

I hope I have remembered how to do this... Anyway, for your general edification, this is an article on the stunning and very well known, if inaccurate, image created by Albrecht Dürer in 1515, of the first rhinoceros seen in Europe for over a millennium.

This was a WP:DYK a month ago, originally my rough machine-assisted translation of part of a page from the French Wikipedia but now supplemented and expanded substantially, with the help of some comments on its peer review and talk page. All comments and ideas welcome. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What date did the rhinoceros drown? We have the date it was viewed by the French king, but not the date the ship sank. Or is this not known with certainty?Everyking 07:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware, the date when the ship carrying the rhinoceros sank is not known with any certainty, but presumably late January or early February 1516. I have not see a precise date in any of the references, whereas the sources do give the date of the meeting with the French king off Marseilles, presumably because contemporary documenary sources record the meeting but not the shipwreck. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A lovely page. Very interesting and well written, an asset the encyclopedia. Giano | talk 17:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with a small twisted horn on top! Fantastic work by ALoan. For a static subject — an image — this article has a surprisingly strong narrative movement and flow — a forward-moving story which is absolutely unputdownable. Beautifully illustrated and executed in every way. Bishonen | talk 22:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support for this article, by far the most encouraging ingredient of Wikipedia that I've seen in a week, if not a month. -- Hoary 06:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Engraved support. The article was a delight. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good stuff. Sandy 15:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't normally venture into FAC, but I'm supporting two articles today. I picked this up at random in peer review and found very little that could be improved. It is one of the best articles I've seen on Wikipedia - engaging, beautifully written and well illustrated. Yomanganitalk 23:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. I can only see one problem with this article -- the footnotes are not numbered properly in the section Dürer's woodcut. Once this problem has been addressed, I'll change to support. Change to support. Please note that I was not trying to hold up a FA in order to make a point -- I said I don't want to attempt to hold up the fac in order to make a point. This wonderful article should be featured; the reference policy should be changed. (Interesting about this style being used in some medical sources -- as my background is more in the humanities, I was entirely unaware of that)--Zantastik talk 23:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you mean the way the footnote numbers in text go [14] then [15] then [6]? As much as I personally dislike it, it's a commonly-used, largely-approved style on Wikipedia now: the [6] is a re-use of a footnote citation already used before. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's exactly what I mean. Whether we allow it here or not, it's bad style and I doubt that it's used by any academic works. I don't want to attempt to hold up the fac in order to make a point, but it's simply pitiful style, and nearly any careful reader would see it as being an error. --Zantastik talk 01:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • How is it an error when it's going back to a source used previously? This isn't grounds to object. This style of referencing is currently the most widely accepted version on Wikipedia. Personal disfavor for that style is not a valid reason to hold up an FAC. FAC is the last place to use WP:POINT. It's a grave disrespect to the editors who have put their work into an article. Such an offense for the sake of an individual's personal tastes or agenda isn't worth it. Ryu Kaze 01:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree, this objection is invalid. The concensus that this style is one of several acceptable options is clear. But Ryu, don't be so combative, please. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't like the style at all myself, but I believe that I have previously seen it, or something very much like it, in at least one academic journal in medicine or the natural sciences. It's well suited to those areas, because typically references there are to the findings of (rather than to interesting bits within) short research papers: there's seldom much point in, say, referring specifically to p.351 within an article running pp.350–353. This in turn means that repeated references to the same paper won't bring up the awkward matter of page numbers; whereas in WP articles on history, aesthetics, linguistics, etc., one is often forced to make a choice between (a) suppressing page numbers (awkward for the person wanting to follow up a note) and (b) having full notes (with duplication of bibliographic trivia) for each page number that's referenced (ugly and ridiculous). End of minisermon. -- Hoary 04:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but this is an artefact of the <ref> footnote system. There is not much I can do about it, short of moving to another footnote system, and that I something I would rather not do (I am familiar with this style of footnotes from scientific journal articles). -- ALoan (Talk) 08:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's a beautiful article. I love the way it takes an object and its referent, and uses them as a lens through which to see a broader slice of history. ALoan and friends have done it again. (As required, I should disclose that I contributed to the article—in a relatively minor way.) Tony 12:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very nice article. -- ChrisO 13:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I wonder if I could bother ALoan to look at this discussion on the page that began as Michelangelo's David but was changed to David (Michelangelo) by another user, acting on the suggestion that I put forward there. If the title of this article were to be like every other one on a work of art then it would be The Rhinoceros (Dürer); it seems more encyclopaedic to me, my rationale here being that the image would never be referred to as Dürer's Rhinoceros in italics, unlike, say, Whistler's Mother (and the same is true of the formulation Michelangelo's David). Admittedly, the title as it is is more elegant; a case of WP:IAR, perhaps, even though there are no formal standards on how to title articles on artworks yet? My point probably comes across as nit-picking, but I'd just like to hear what the nominator makes of it. [talk to the] HAM 20:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stampeding, Horny Support Outstanding work once more Aloan! A rather poignant article too, considering the unfortunate recent deveopements regarding the black rhino[11].

--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Pepper Ballpark

Dr Pepper Ballpark was a four sentence article two months ago. Since that time, it has been expanded using extensive referencing and undergone a decently responsive peer review. Excellent references, inclusion of useful information not available anywhere else on the internet, such as ground rules of the ballpark, and well-licensed high-quality photographs of the park make this article a prime candidate for featured article status. — Scm83x hook 'em 21:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under History:
"Overall attendance has ranked in the top 10 in all classes of minor league baseball during the RoughRiders's first three seasons. The stadium ranked first in all of Class AA in attendance in 2005"
— Scm83x hook 'em 18:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what's the record? Andrew Levine 13:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The sentences following the one you're questioning read: "In its inaugural season, Dr Pepper Ballpark had an attendance of 675,620, ranking it fourth overall in all minor league baseball attendance for the year. The ballpark also set an attendance record of 11,836 on July 4, 2003." I took it as that's what was meant, although I had nothing to do with the writing. Jay32183 15:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworded it so that it no longer makes allusion to setting records. Instead I have it say that it has "drawn strong attendance." Andrew Levine 19:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
OK, I understand what you're saying here and agree with the changes. I found the ref for the max attendance stat that was removed and readded the information to the article. Thanks. — Scm83x hook 'em 20:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Park's financing information has been added here. Length is not something that is a concern in featured articles; instead comprehensiveness is the ideal. I and the others who have voted support believe that this article is a comprehensive look at the subject. Other featured articles such as Hurricane John (1994) or sports subject, Suzanne Lenglen, are shorter than this article. Quality over quantity always. — Scm83x hook 'em 20:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear that the submitter should be presenting counterarguments to every oppose vote, but regardless, length is absolutely a concern in featured articles. This article lacks quantity AND quality. It's primarily a glowing review of the park, and would make a poor example of a good Wikipedia article. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement is for appropriate length, staying focused without going into unecessary detail. If you don't state what type of information is missing then complaints that the article is short is not actionable. Only actionable objects are considered by the feature article director. Jay32183 18:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My only question then is "What is missing?". I can't make up negative things about the ballpark. The article simply states all of the facts about the ballpark, which does include the fact that it has won awards and been praised by architects, etc. I dug very deep to find something negative in a reliable verifiable source about the ballpark. What I found was the ticket price commentary; some believe that ticket prices are too high for this class of ballpark. If I found something else, I would have included it also, but I did not find anything. Again, I cannot make up negative things to include about the ballpark if those who are qualified to professionally comment on such things can't either. — Scm83x hook 'em 20:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Minor oppose what is the authority of baseballparks.com (I am familiar with the site, it is just Joe Mocks personal page). How is the fact that one person has rated this park #1 encyclopedic?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by PDXblazers (talk • contribs) .

The ballpark itself claims the site's #1 ranking constantly, almost leaving the TX Construction award only as an afterthought. The prestige that the park treats the ranking with leads me to believe that it is a relatively pretigious mark among stadium operators. — Scm83x hook 'em 22:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not a huge fan of it being in there, but i'll give it a reluctant support. I still think that it would be more encylopedic without the ballparks.com stuff. PDXblazers 01:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck the Millennium

This is an article about the 1997 comeback of The KLF, when they released a song of the same name as 2K and undertook various other pre-millennial activities as K2 Plant Hire. I believe the article complies with the FA requirements and is very well written. It uses a small number of fair use images to which the proper rationales have been applied. I would like to acknowledge my friend Vinoir as the main author of this piece, with which I have assisted him. --kingboyk 13:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot to mention: this article has been passed as a Good Article and has undergone a peer review. --kingboyk 13:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, of course, as nominator and co-author. --kingboyk 13:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, looks good for prose style, format, references. Stilgar135 16:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object The lead is too short and there is no mention of the cultural significance of the song (since the song came out nine years ago, there should be some books or articles which now place it in a proper cultural and historic framework). In addition, the article needs a criticism section b/c as it is now, the article reads as merely a promotional piece for the song and group.--Alabamaboy 16:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments.
      • I'm aware of WP:LEAD but I think in this case the lead is an adequate summation of the article. Can you tell me what themes you'd like to see added to it? With that information I can attempt to expand it.
      • The song and the Barbican performance are hard to separate. The song itself didn't get much press attention separate from the Barbican show and only reached #28 in the UK singles chart. That, indeed, Drummond later claimed was the whole point - it was a vacuous, crappy comeback that was in concept an art piece. Cultural significance of the song? None?? :)
      • You're right that we don't have more recent critical commentary. I'm not sure there is any, but I will search the Library of Mu and my own archive of recent press clippings and see if I can come up with anything. Will post back on this point.
      • "The article reads as merely a promotional piece for the song and group." This is an objection we had regarding The KLF also, and one which is a little cutting. We try to reference every statement we make, and we don't shop for quotes that present the group in a favourable light. As I've said when this issue has been raised previously, the British press love The KLF and barely write a word against them ever. In this case, we have quotes saying that in the show they did "too many things at the same time" (The Observer), "the strongest point in its favour was its brevity" - a statement of crapness if ever I saw one (The Times), "the anticlimactic aftertaste left by 40-year-old men miming to a seven-year-old song.... 2K was unquestionably a failure" (Select Magazine). Indeed the only reference which praises them is from Select Magazine again: "It is quite brilliant". I think one positive review out of 4 is hardly fawning :)
    • --kingboyk 16:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've expanded the lead to mention "The People's Pyramid". I believe it now mentions all salient points and is a good summary of the article. --kingboyk 14:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've located a couple of more recent references (1999 and 2001) and have worked them into the article diff. I don't think they add a huge amount, but it's nice to finish with Drummond's summation of how 2K's failure was a success in itself. I trust this answers your objections and hope you will feel moved enough to support. --kingboyk 16:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As comprehensive an article as it is possible to achieve. Given that it is a fairly insignificant single/event there are plenty of refs and probably forms the most complete central source for such info on the web.Me677 21:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, doesn't seem to be a very significant work. I've heard of KLF, but I've never heard of this song. --M@rēino 22:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are opinions here actually divided?
    • As exhaustively researched as can be fathomed — aided by the size of the subject and the readily available material, of course, but FA is equal opportunity when it comes to subject size. The despairing reliance on online material that's seen sometimes here is overcome by virtual librarians, culling material out of ephemeral print matter so that they can arrive at the last place on earth where they will ever see the light of day. (People — get out your old Melody Makers, your Rolling Stones — what have you. Make them live again, as they will never do otherwise!)
    • Can't think of any other major sides of this subject one could cover, either. This thing is really like a time capsule — I can almost smell England in the mid-1990s, something I will never experience in person. And the idea of a shallow event, a self-admitted blunder, making FA and the possibility of that gracing the Front Page — can you say one last, ultimate practical joke?
    • Okay, one thing. Under what circumstances did they land on Mute Records? I just happen to be intrigued by various things Mute, so I happened to notice that little bit. You know, the sheer amount of archival work Mute has done with their website is also really worthy of...
    • Ahem. Support. –Unint 04:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you. I'm not sure off the top of my head how they landed on Mute - I think it may have been Acid Brass' label? However, you've certainly raised the curiousity in me too so I will endeavour to find out! If I can find the answer in a reliable source it will be added to the article :) Thanks again. --kingboyk 11:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I've been unable to find an answer to that question. mutelib.com doesn't say, nor does a search for Mute at the Library of Mu or in my KLF archive from ProQuest Newspapers. --kingboyk 17:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think it is inapporpriate for the home page! Flymeoutofhere 12:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, not an actionable objection. I am not asking for this article to be placed on the front page. It won't be. I know that. I'm asking for it to be recognised as one of Wikipedia's best articles in this genre, which I fully believe it is. If you disagree, please tell me specifically why and I will endeavour to fix it! --kingboyk 12:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Why shouldn't it be placed on the main page? Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored for the sake of minors. --Oldak Quill 17:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the comment. I thought that "bad language" was generally kept off the main page, but I might be wrong. It's not an issue though because deciding what goes on the front page is - as I'm sure you know - a separate process. (And, note to self, we have The KLF to try and get on the front page before worrying about this one getting there :)). Thanks again for the comment. --kingboyk 18:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This article is well-written, the research done seems first-class (I love the Times quote!). Clearly FA standard. Walkerma 03:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks good. The Wookieepedian 00:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Good prose, well-sourced, seems to meet all requirements. Its "famous"-ness or whether or not you've heard of it is criteria for FAs. FAs are simply excellent articles and make no claims regarding relative cultural relevance. Wickethewok 16:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just make sure it never reaches the front page. Felixboy 13:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — It seems to meet all criteria (I fixed a small typo I noticed, by the way): good prose, good use of references, presents the subject comprehensively, I believe, etc. I also don't see any issues with this reaching the front page. Ryu Kaze 13:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards Oppose. I'm not a music expert, but comparing the article to Cool (song), I noticed that the Gwen Stefani single has a great description about its musical structure, what the nominated article lacks of. And also, even if it didn't have much attention but this single was released in UK, japan , france and elswhere. A small paragraph about its mediocre (sorry for the word :-) chart performance would be great. CG 18:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments. This is very very different from Cool (song). The latter is an article on a new pop song; this is an article about a remixing and reworking of an old song and the attendant events. "Cool" is a piece of music, "Fuck the Millennium" was a campaign which just happened to have a theme tune :). This article has plenty of information that Cool doesn't have, and should be judged on its own merits. Is it comprehensive/brilliantly written/well referenced? Is it a standout piece on Wikipedia? I think yes, and I hope you will reconsider because we were dangerously close to a support consensus I feel :)
  • We have a "composition" section, and we provide a sample of the song. I believe any more detailed analaysis of the composition would be better placed in What Time Is Love? upon which the song FTM is based. As for reaction in France and Japan, I don't speak either of those languages and don't have any reference material from them. This was a British event - including a show at the Barbican and the plans for the Peoples Pyramid somewhere in the UK. Cool (song) is not terribly international either (just look at the notes & references, all web-based and none from non-English speaking countries). The only difference is that is has some overseas chart data. I'm not aware that FTM charted anywhere outside the UK, but if anyone is able to provide a reliable source with some overseas chart data I'd be delighted to include it. --kingboyk 18:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok you convinced me. I tryed to search from some French websites (since I speak French) with no results. CG 19:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ketuanan Melayu

I've been working on this article for several months now, and I think it's at featured level. I'm just putting some finishing touches on it here and there, but otherwise I don't foresee any major changes being made to the article's structure. I think the article might need a couple of extra pictures to break the monotony of plain text (one was removed some time ago for being incorrectly uploaded as PD), but otherwise I believe it meets the requisite standards for writing and referencing (with about 200 footnotes, I think I might have gone overboard). The only major issue I foresee (which was discussed at the peer review three months ago; little has changed since then) is that of size. The article clocks in at about 15,000 words (and this is a conservative estimate, excluding footnotes, section headers, the ToC, etc.). However, I don't think it detrimentally affects the article's readability, which is the main point of our guidelines on article size (although there are also technical issues, confining ourselves to 32kb would mean defeaturing a large number of FAs). The article is so readable that sometimes I find myself caught up in reading it whenever I want to make some formatting change (although I'm rather biased as I wrote most of it). Just in case nobody's noticed, as we always used to say...this is a self-nom. Johnleemk | Talk 19:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - The article is simply too long. I've helped with some long featured articles, but you're going to need to use summary style here in at least a couple sections. Maybe one on Malaysian independence and another on the new economic policy? The prose is just too much and too unbroken IMHO. InvictaHOG 19:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC) (Have reexamined the article - four days later is still too long and has not begun to utilize summary style. Voting object neutral while awaiting changes. You could make an argument about most articles that use summary style that a nice long well-flowing article could be made without it!) InvictaHOG 16:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
200 footnotes?! wow. . .id take out all the red links but i might do that right now. --Banana04131 19:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that everything ties in so well with the topic (Malay political supremacy/dominance, and the rationales for it). It's hard deciding what to cut. Believe me, if I knew how to implement summary style here, I would. I dislike unwieldy articles as much as the next fellow. Still, sometimes articles on detailed and nuanced topics (especially when it comes to politics) have to be long in order to incorporate multiple viewpoints. Johnleemk | Talk 09:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a side-note, that's a red herring; I've never suggested that we alter articles which effectively utilise summary style. My point is that there are some articles where the summary style approach can't work as effectively as we'd like. The article is in the process of being pruned, but I believe it is readable in its current state. Johnleemk | Talk 21:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that you are addressing me as far as the red herring is concerned? I believe that parts of your article would work well with the summary style and have suggested a few to convert, as have others. It's often the case that a long section flows particularly well but is simply too long and involved for the parent article. My comment was simply to acknowledge how hard it can be to take well-written prose, summarize it, and present the rest in a linked page. I think it is the right thing to do, however! InvictaHOG 01:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Robth suggests below that doing so would be difficult (if not impossible) here because of the tight focus on Malay supremacy. Almost everything irrelevant to it has been trimmed; the problem is that like another long FA, AIDS, some sections are closely related to other articles (I've marked these articles as main ones for the sections in question), but it's impossible to trim them further because everything in the article either deals directly with Malay supremacy, or explains the necessary context for understanding the events. I suppose one could wring a few extra kilobytes from junking some quotes here and there (at the cost of reducing the number of viewpoints on Malay supremacy that are represented; I've tried hard to ensure each quote brings something unique to the table that's directly related to the topic; those that didn't have been cut), but aside from that, I think the 27kb I've cut since this FAC commenced really ought to suffice. AIDS, a similarly complicated topic, also has a number of sections without main articles. I don't think that's a mark against it, and especially not against ketuanan Melayu, since the article on it is so tightly focused. Johnleemk | Talk 20:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although this is not a FAC about AIDS, I think it's okay to comment that most sections on AIDS have subarticles and that the two largest without, treatment and "symptoms," would do much better with their own article because right now they are woefully incomplete despite being long. That said, I will reread this article in the next day or so and see how it has changed from 36 hours ago when I last read it. I appreciate the efforts that have been made to reduce length, but I don't think that summary style would fail this article. InvictaHOG 16:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I've just spent at least 30 minutes reading the article and really appreciate the hard work that has gone into it. It's well-written and I applaud the main article inclusions of full articles. However, I think that the main article still retains too much information to be considered our best work. You may have to change the sentences or rewrite sections to trim some of the bulk. Large parts of the Malayan Union and Towards Independence sections, for instance, really do not add much to my understanding of the topic. Sure, things are there to be all-inclusive. However, I think that there is an element of the forest for the trees here - far too many trees, too many people, too many organizations which end up clouding the overall move from British rule through today. I wish I felt differently! InvictaHOG 18:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(deindent) Thanks, that's really helpful. I tried to cut down the sections you mentioned and clarify the relevance of some events to the topic of Malay supremacy. I think there might be a chance we could squeeze a bit more out of the article and get it below 100kb, but as I said, I have trouble finding things to cut because of my inherent bias. Comments like these are very helpful. Johnleemk | Talk 16:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's been a lot of great work here and some much-needed paring. I still have concerns about the level of detail, but not enough to object. Great work, thanks for the dedication! InvictaHOG 16:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  1. This quid pro quo arrangement is usually referred to as the social contract.
    Make it known that the social contract is one unique to Malaysia, not what we think of as a social contract.
  2. The first germ of Malay nationalism appeared in the early 1900s
    Change "germ" to something else, doesn't sound right in this sentence.
  3. The locally-born Indian community — comprising 20% of the Indian population — was likewise largely ignored.
    Is it possible to flesh out this section? Give background on Indian presence in Malaya?
  4. Kesatuan Rakyat Indonesia Semenanjung (KRIS)
    Is the abbreviation KRIS a coincidence with kris?
  5. etc... etc... 30 more pages of stuff...
    And I stopped reading when Tunku was introduced. Too darn long.
-- Миборовский 23:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to address your concerns, but I don't know whether the coincidental resemblance between KRIS and kris was intentional. In all likelihood it was, but I'm not sure if it's worthy of comment in this article; perhaps in their own, when we get around to writing it. Johnleemk | Talk 09:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent read. Just two minor comments on some text:
  • In the article, it says "British at the same time ... involving only the Malay ruling class in government and administrative issues." . I believe this extends to military as well. The British failed to arm the non-Malays, in order to "preserve the position of the British" by putting one race over the others. The consequence was that the Chinese (who were staunchly anti-Japanese) were not mobilised to defend against the Japanese in WWII, until the call-up of a multi-racial Singapore Volunteer Corp in December 1941; but it was too late. The Malay Regiment fought bravely, but had the non-Malays also been mobilised, armed and trained, the Allied would have a much better chance to defend Malaya and Singapore. The article Royal Malay Regiment mentions some related issues.
  • In the article, it says "Eventually, the Tunku — fed up with all the politicking — decided to ask Singapore, ... to secede from Malaysia." I don't know what exactly was Tunku's reason for making that fateful decision, but I hope it was more than just being "fed up" because it changed the destiny of 2 million people and I had to give up 2.5 years of my life to the SAF as a result, ;-). Could you elaborate further on that sentence? --Vsion 06:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with your first concern is that it seems to be a bit of a novel interpretation of historical events. All the sources I looked at for this article cite only the British policies of segregation by geographic locality and profession; there's not much mention of the military (although I might try to go through Roff's book again and hunt for some reference to it, generally most scholars don't make much of the military - at least not until post-May 13). And as for the defense of Malaya and Singapore, I'm not sure that's entirely appropriate for this article's scope. I've tried to make the Tunku's stand clearer, but for a more nuanced view of the situation, I recommend the books by Patrick Keith and Noordin Sopiee (the latter may be hard to find, though) cited in the references. The article focuses on separation with a lens geared towards how ketuanan Melayu influenced events; as a result, a more complete perspective the topic warrants can only be found in a treatment with a specific scope limited to separation. Johnleemk | Talk 09:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job in clarifying the "secession" sentence. For my first point, on WWII preparation, it is not really an "actionable" comment, rather just for infor. I read it from Frank Owen "Fall of Singapore" (1972). I don't have the precise quote, but basically it said that the British were hestitant to allow non-Malays to carry arms and fight as it would legitimise their stake in Malaya and erode the Malay "supremacy", and would make it more difficult for British to rule. Many factors led to the Fall of Malaya and Singapore, so we can't draw conclusion on that. Nonetheless, prior to Japanese invasion, the infantry regiments raised from the local population were either of European descents or Malays. Note that these regiments could be used for internal security operations as well, and that they were exclusively Malays was symbolically significant. --Vsion 04:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  1. This is a remarkably comprehensive article, but the length is a problem. I found it quite difficult to read, even though I am interested in the topic. Perhaps a few of the many quotations could be removed or reduced in length?
  2. In the opening sentence "the racialist belief that the Malay people are the "tuan" (masters) of Malaysia or Malaya" the use of the word "racialist" so early in the article carries a hint of POV. Would supporters of the policy agree that it is racialist? It might be better to drop the word and let readers decide for themselves.
  3. With nearly 200 footnotes, it is difficult to find the note which gives the full details of the work being cited. A separate alphabetical list of "References" would make this easier.Rhion 12:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the length is an issue, and I'll go over the article again looking for quotes. However, the problem is that unlike more fact-based articles, ketuanan Melayu is a very heated and opinionated topic which cannot be treated comprehensively without referring to the variety of opinions related to it. We discussed cutting quotes at the peer review, but it was just too hard to find more than a couple to remove. Still, I suppose one or two can go, although I find most of the lengthy quotes help provide an insight into the viewpoints of ketuanan Melayu's more extreme attackers and defenders (the quotes from Lee, Mahathir, and the anonymous UMNO Youth leader are what I have in mind here). As for racialism, the anonymous UMNO Youth leader quoted in the Bangsa Malaysia subsection specifically refers to UMNO Youth's ideals and actions as racialist ("we [UMNO Youth] have to be often seen as a very racialist political group fighting for the Malay interests"). Racialism is different from racism, as the latter advocates discrimination on the basis of race, while the former merely implies that there are differences between racial groups. And the idea for a general references section is a good one; I'll go ahead and implement it. Johnleemk | Talk 12:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I liked this when it was on peer review, and I like it now. 131 kb is a lot, but I think it's justified by the subject matter, which demands that the article make forays into a broad range of topics. I was involved in the effort to cut the size of this on peer review, and was surprised to find that there was very little fat to trim. The article is quite readable, despite its length, in large part thanks to a considered and cohesive narrative structure--a rarity in articles of this scope. Beyond that, it's impeccably referenced, well written, and an engaging read. Support. --RobthTalk 18:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been asked to go into a little more depth on why I don't feel that summary style is appropriate here, so here goes. Summary style is perfect for certain types of articles; Music of the United States is a great example of a relatively recent FA in which it was exactly the right thing. Summary style works well there because the article contains a number of topics for which the section in the article should be a shorter version of the main article. Ketuanan Melayu is a different type of article. This article covers a number of topics, but focuses on the aspects of those topics that relate to Malayan racial politics, and limiting that specialized discussion in exchange for links to more generalized articles doesn't strike me as a good trade-off. I suppose you could chunk off awkward articles with titles like "Racial politics in Malaya, 19XX-YY", or something, but I'm not a big fan of unnatural breaking points of that sort. It's good to keep articles short where possible, but the available methods of shortening this have serious downsides, and on the balance I think that the best way to present this information is in the form of one big article. --RobthTalk 17:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Object Overall size of 131KB is not a problem. The real problem is the extremely large prose size, at 109KB. The article needs to make use of Sumary Style: I haven't even looked at the references, because there is too much content. I didn't look at the prose either, because first it needs to be cut down. The images don't appear to be in the clear; JKelly should have a look. Sandy 18:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC) Changing to strong object, much too long, detail overburdens the reader, and not enough has been done to fix this. Sandy 23:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tell me what to cut into a subarticle, and I'll cut it. I've worked with FAs that needed subarticles before, and have been responsible for chunking off a number of them (Theodore Roosevelt, Coca-Cola, and Mozilla Firefox come to mind). I can't find anything here that can be dumped into a subarticle without upsetting either the balance or flow of the article. As Robth notes, we discussed this in the peer review because I knew this would be a major issue. The problem is that there's just no way at present that this article can be summarised without hurting its comprehensiveness or flow. Try reading the prose before issuing summary judgements about it. And as for the images, I'm not one to abuse fair use or play tricks with copyrights. Three images in the article are public domain, cropped from larger photos produced by the U.S. Federal Government. One image is public domain because it was published before copyright law was extant in Malaysia and/or the U.S. Four images are copylefted because they were produced by Wikipedians. Four images are fair use, and I'll address them one by one because each case of fair use must be examined individually. The lead image depicts Hishamuddin Hussein's infamous brandishing of the kris; this is discussed in the section on Meritocracy, with even specific reference to the symbolism of the kris according to Hishamuddin. The second is fair use because it depicts a Malayan Union protest (these protests are discussed by the article in the context of how they were meant to defend ketuanan Melayu) and a famous slogan of the Malay nationalist movement which is also discussed by the article. The third fair use image depicts opposition politicians celebrating their victory in the 1969 election; these celebrations are also discussed by the article in the context of the May 13 Incident. The last fair use image (which may be questionable; I would not object if we removed it to be on the safe side) depicts an advertisement for a million-ringgit condomonium bearing a note in fine print remarking that Bumiputra will receive a certain discount. This is part of the pro-Malay affirmative action policies implemented by the government, which are also heavily discussed by the article. I don't see how the images are suspect, to be honest. Johnleemk | Talk 18:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I normally don't do this, but I'd like to suggest that this objection be ignored, since the objector: 1) Never read the article in full; 2) Hasn't returned since I pointed out that the article is being pruned. To resolve the question of the images, I've contacted Jkelly personally. Johnleemk | Talk 21:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now I've returned. The article is too long, the amount of detail is too much and could be easily dealt with in Summary Style, several editors have said same. The authors of the article may be too close to the topic to understand that the prose is over the top and too much detail is given. Sandy 23:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, Sandy's right, the length is a problem. (1) Go through the whole text and remove anything that looks extraneous. (2) Isolate which whole sections are candidates for daughter articles; create those daughter articles and dump the text in them; summarise it in this article. "Pre-independence is a candidate for this. So is "Abdullah Ahmad Badawi"—oh, one of my heros, he's AWESOME! Does he have an article of his own?

It's not badly written, I must say. A few things, though:

    • The first auto-formatted date isn't working. I don't mind if you unblue all of them, but if they're blue, they should work.
    • "and an increased emphasis on the Malays being the "definitive people" of Malaysia — i.e. a Malay being one and the same as a Malaysian." Can you reword this to make it crystal clear. Does "definitive" mean "original"? For people who aren't aware of the distinction between Malay and Malaysian in the first place, it's hard to comprehend.
  • "The National Culture Policy, also introduced in 1970"—where is the other thing that was done in 1970? Mention beforehand, or remove "also". Please go through and see how many "alsos" can be removed.
    • "prior to"—There's a lot of this term on WP—it's creeping in. Please consider using "before".
    • Much prefer roman rather that italic face for your quotes: italic is harder to read, which is why it's normally reserved for short highlightings. Looks messy on the page, too.
    • "However, the local-born non-Malay communities soon began"—Perhaps avoid starting a para with this. Can "however" be simply removed? It's a fresh start in a new para, after all.

After slimming it down, the prose will need a run-through by a copy-editor. Not bad, though. Tony 03:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-independence has its own subarticle now, although I wasn't able to prune much from the article. And if you actually read the section on Badawi, you'd know that there's nothing that can be cut - in the first place, it's already the shortest in the article. I don't know what's wrong with the date - it works fine for me. I've tried to clarify the meaning of definitive, but I don't see how the distinction between Malays and Malaysians can be made clear when the very first sentence of the article mentions Chinese and Indian Malaysians and their relationship with the Malays. The National Culture Policy and NEP were both introduced in 1970 - I thought that sentence was fine. (At the very least, I've seen such construction used without much issue before.) I'm not sure what's wrong with "prior to", unless somebody changed the rules of English and I didn't get the memo. I've removed the italic face, and tried to prune extraneous "however"s. Johnleemk | Talk 10:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - quotes should not be in italics, per the MoS - its makes the text hard to read. Malaysian Malaysia already has an article, so some of that content could be moved out of this article, Bangsa Malaysia appears to be waiting to be written and could be provided with text from this article. The independence seaction is also really long - not sure what to do in that case. Unless quotes are really vital many could be shortened or cut all together.--Peta 04:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've really thought long and hard about how to shorten the sections on post-independent Malaya and Malaysia, but it's really difficult, especially because most of the content that would go in any article about a Malaysian Malaysia is also relevant here. The Malaysian Malaysia campaign is the only direct political challenge ever towards Malay supremacy in Malaysia, so it's pretty difficult to exclude content there, although I suppose we could shorten one or two quotes. It's also difficult to trim the Bangsa Malaysia part because the policy represented a near total repudiation of Malay supremacy, so it's again a very important topic. Johnleemk | Talk 10:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course they are important, but you seem to be overlooking the usefulness of summary style to make an article more digestable.--Peta 10:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • My main concern is that the article may not be sufficiently comprehensive; one could summarise the Malaysian Malaysia campaign and the Bangsa Malaysia policy in two sentences, but this would be by no means proportionate to their importance in the history of Malay supremacy as a political ideology. Johnleemk | Talk 13:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've taken the approach of pruning quotes which serve minimal purpose, as opposed to a full-scale summary style approach, simply because (as Robth noted) it would be difficult to do so without harming the narrative flow of the article. Additionally, as mentioned above, there are issues with comprehensiveness that make it difficult to decide what's worth summarising and what's worth keeping. The present situation may not be desirable, but it's difficult to summarise without omitting one side's view, or cutting the views of both sides down into a couple of sentences (that would be exceedingly easy to do, but I doubt it would bode well WRT comprehensiveness). I've already cut 11kb from the article. Johnleemk | Talk 20:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um ... I did read the section on Badawi. Like the other sections, you need to retain just a summary here. A text can be reduced as much as you like using summary style: to 500w, 200w or 20w; you simply lower the threshold for detail. The level of detail is unsatisfactory in most of the article in this linguistic register. "The riots caused a major change in the government's approach to racial issues, and led to the introduction of an aggressive affirmative action policy strongly favouring the Malays, the New Economic Policy (NEP). The National Culture Policy, also introduced in 1970." Now, contrary to your rejoinder, "also" is a problem here: it indicates that something else was "introduced in 1970". Riots are not introduced; they occur or happen. So the reader still won't know that the riots were in 1970. Seeing a construction elsewhere doesn't at all mean that it's a good one. Please fix it. "PRIOR TO"—What is wrong with it is that it's unnecessarily elaborate, since there's a good, short, plain Germanic alternative: "before". What's wrong with "before", the way we've always done it? Date formatting: it works now, you're right. "Prior to" is an attempt to sound technically or legally precise (we all get sucked into that without realising it—"in order to" is another, where two words should be removed); the occasions when it's desirable rarely occur. Please use plain language: two syllables, not three; one word, not two; usually avoid Latinisms. You're right about the "definitive people" issue, now that I've read it again. There's another "However," starting a para. Please just remove it: it will be stronger and smoother. In fact, start with a more effective back-link by putting "At the same time, " first.
I like this artice: it's reasonably well written and covers an important story that needs to be known more widely. But it still needs work on the prose and severe pruning. Here's a random example that I copy-edited from the middle of the article to show that there's considerable wordiness to rationalise. Why not gut the paragraph by removing from "Even so" to "Nevertheless,": the tussle over the name is secondary, here, and belongs in a daughter article. You'll engage more easily with readers by giving them just a summary—go through the whole text and identify the secondary, less important stuff that, when removed, won't damage the overall story. Tony 02:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? The riots weren't introduced (I never said that in the first place); the NEP was. And as for what's wrong with before, the point of using synonyms is variety. I was working on tightening the writing for the past couple of days before your edit, and I've cut 23kb from the article since this FAC began.
The problem with summary style here is that because of the nuanced nature of something this political and controversial, it's important to avoid oversimplifying or misrepresenting or simply omitting particular views. By removing a few quotes and improving the writing, I got rid of 17.6% of the article. Summary style has been mainly utilised in the Pre-independence section, but as I said, it's hard applying it anywhere in the article. I'm thinking about pruning the Malaysian Malaysia debate, but I can't figure out how. The NEP sections are also a prime choice for trimming, although I'm not sure what details ought to go. Johnleemk | Talk 21:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)][reply]
  • More than a fifth of the article has been pruned since the nomination, most of it consisting of unnecessary verbiage or duplicated quotes. Those objecting to length ought to take another look. Johnleemk | Talk 20:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Shouldn't this actually have some statistics in it? For something that is a belief, shouldn't there be information on how many or what percentage of people actually agree with it? I find it hard to believe that everyone or no one agrees with it. Other than that the article is very good. Robert Foley 21:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • After further thought, I feel that while statistics should be included, the excellent quality of this article makes me think that the rest of this article outweighs the fact that statistics aren't present. Im trhus weakly support in its current form. If statistics are added or a compelling reason why they should not be present is provided here, consider this an ordinary support. I don't think that it is too long. Robert Foley 23:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object At 86KB of prose, this still needs to make more effective use of Wikipedia:Summary style. That guideline caps article prose size to 50KB for almost all cases (things like world wars are the main exception). Also, the longer the article, the better the writing needs to be to maintain the interest of the reader. It is generally bad summary style form to have main article links in subsections - the entire level two section should first have a daughter article. --mav 15:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that the article focuses tightly on aspects of Malaysian history related to Malay supremacy, and that's all - as a result, some subsections have no corresponding main article, while some do. It's hard to fix this without creating subarticles that wouldn't exist otherwise except for the sake of being subarticles (as Robth said). That's the only conceivable way (e.g. Ketuanan Melayu in the 1960s, etc.) we could have subarticles for main sections. And even then, it would still be a fact that subsections such as those on constitutional provisions, etc. would have main articles like Constitution of Malaysia. Johnleemk | Talk 16:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support This article is biased. I do not have the time to wholly review it and pick out every single nuance, but it quite obviously leans against the policy (which is no doubt a form of supremacy and racism). It spends much time displaying good, reasoned arguments against it by ethnic Chinese opposition, and, in comparison, presents poor justification for the Malay point-of-view. I doubt that without significant input from those who are 'on the other side of the fence' (half the support voters appear to be Singaporean) it can be neutral.
I do not want to object, as the article is of high quality. However, I would like further changes to be made and the article re-nominated at a later date. I commend John for putting such an effort into this. michael talk 05:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also wonder about the ethnic Indian perspective. There's not as much about it as from the ethnic Chinese side. InvictaHOG 05:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the Indian community is marginalised in Malaysian politics, and as such tends to shy away from such issues. Since independence, the Chinese have dominated the ranks of the opposition; the DAP/PAP and Gerakan were/are both Chinese-based parties (although an argument can be made that Gerakan was multiracial). As such, all but a handful of works turn this into a polarised issue between Malay and Chinese. Those who do include the Indian perspective (such as Ongkili) don't have much to go on because the Indians have never been a force of their own in Malaysian politics. Even today, politics is often discussed in terms of Malay and Chinese (there's a joke which goes that "A Malay problem is a national problem; a Chinese problem is a racial problem; an Indian problem is not a problem!" which sums up the situation). Johnleemk | Talk 11:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there are very few justifications provided for these policies beyond affirmative action and the historical Malay claim to the land, both of which are covered by the article. Practically all defences of Malay supremacy/the NEP use these two arguments; the article merely quotes and cites the most famous and/or eloquent ones. Otherwise, there isn't really much that can be said. There has never been a real attempt locally to discuss these issues since the 1970s, and most foreign sources are critical of the government stance; I suppose you could say the article suffers from a systemic bias in favour of published views. Where there are justifications for the government stand, I have tried to include them; the article covers a number of the NEP's strong points often overlooked by its attackers. The analogies of the mason and guest lodger, which are fairly commonly used to defend Malay supremacy, have also been included where appropriate. Aside from those, and Mahathir's seminal work, there isn't much to go on. Johnleemk | Talk 11:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply. Is there a chance that a degree of the commentary you're offering me here could be integrated into the article? You've given near-perfect reasoning for the qualms I brought up, and if such information was included I would change to a support vote. michael talk 11:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would normally be fairly reluctant to do so, because that commentary is more of my own inferences based on my reading of the sources, rather than any statements made by the sources themselves. I prefer relying directly on sources for controversial topics like these. I'll see what I can do about it tomorrow, though. There should be a remark somewhere on the lack of public discourse about Malay supremacy, and I suppose it is an accepted fact by all that foreign sources have generally been critical of Malaysian racial policies. Finding a source remarking on the lack of Malay arguments favouring these policies, though, would be a bit harder, I think. Johnleemk | Talk 16:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not advocating original research or the disuse of sources, but I would still like to see a degree of explanation. If it is absolutely impossible to find such a source, I may consider a support vote in lieu of the information you have provided me with. michael talk 05:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I hope this will do. Johnleemk | Talk 17:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you — I've changed my vote accordingly. Knowing your position as a Chinese (well, sort-of) Malaysian I admire you for writing these articles; they're certainly the most easily accessible and comprehensive on the subject. michael talk 08:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Extremely comprehensive and informative, as well as thoroughly referenced. The length is no issue with me, though I am surprised that it was 27kb longer than this when it started. It seems quite detailed right now, and it's absolutely wonderful the work that's gone into this. Although, to be honest, I'm not an expert on this subject at all, so I might not be able to determine where things could have — or should have — been summarized further. As it stands, I think it's a fantastic article and I honestly don't have any suggestions for improvement for you. It's a political article, which typically will require that it be nuanced and long-winded anyway, so for all I know, the article might be lacking something with the trimming that's been performed. As, once again, I just don't have enough familiarity with the subject to say either way, I'll just say that I appreciate the article's current level of detail, as well as the effort put into addressing concerns others brought up about it being long-winded (27kb is a whole hell of a lot to cut from an article). So, in conclusion: great job with this thing. That's some dedication right there, and a quality article to show for it. Ryu Kaze 20:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I like the article, but the length does worry me. I feel someone should try and produce a ruthlessly shortened version in a sandbox somewhere, just to see what might be possible. Another thing is that the lead section doesn't really summarise the article. They is no mention of the early history, for example. And one minor point is that one of the daughter articles (Malaysian_Malaysia) doesn't have a link to Ketuanan Melayu, though it does link to social contract (Malaysia). Carcharoth 00:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fixed the latter two concerns (hopefully). The problem with the lead is that much of it was written before the pre-independence sections were fleshed out. Malaysian Malaysia itself had some minor inconsistencies, so I corrected those and added a link to the article. I'm not sure about the sandbox - it's a good idea, but I don't think I'd be the best guy to start it off. I'm quite confident that it would be possible to write a concise 32kb article about the subject, but the problem is that all or most of the detail making the article interesting to read would be gone. The hardest thing to do would be to get it somewhere in the middle - around 60kb or 70kb - because one would have to be very very selective about what detail to include; as I stated earlier, I'm doubtful this could be achieved because of neutrality concerns in a very political and controversial topic. One would either have to include substantial detail, or none at all, making it difficult to further slim down the article to a reasonable size while preserving neutrality and comprehensiveness. Anyone who thinks it's workable is free to take a shot, though; I'd be glad if we could achieve this, as it seems to be the main sticking point. Johnleemk | Talk 05:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Personally, I don't think it's worth trying. The article has already been trimmed drastically, and I'm concerned as to how one who isn't an expert on the subject (as an example of a non-expert for this subject: me) could cut it further without losing something of the comprehensiveness and without compromising neutrality by way of exclusion. If the only expert on the subject in attendance is already concerned about those things, then it's probably not a good sign. Ryu Kaze 13:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Oppose I really like JohnLeeMK's work, and if there is a good article on Malaysia somewhere on WP, odds are it's from him. The problem with featuring controversial articles like this is that in order for it to be acceptable to all parties, bloat is pretty much unavoidable, and use of proper summary style pretty much impossible (echoes of the Terri Schiavo nominations). As comprehensive as this is, I believe articles like these, resulting from Wikipedians' failure to compromise- do not demonstrate the best of wikipedia. An unreadably long article does not represent the project well at all. Borisblue 02:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know this isn't my article to defend, but I find it odd — especially since you seem previously familiar with the subject, unlike me — that you'd say that the article's length is required in order for it to meet neutrality requirements (an actual Wikipedia policy), but that this makes it unworthy of being FA on the grounds of a few guidelines (which are flexible, unlike the neutrality policy). Obviously policies have to be met before any of the guidelines. Even so, though, if bloat is required in order to meet the neutrality policy, then the concept of summary style can still be met by simply adding just enough to satisfy all sides. "Proper summary style" doesn't have a description set in stone, after all. It can be different on every article. Ryu Kaze 03:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The main thing is, I disagree that the article has to be this long to maintain NPOV. Plenty of more controversial topics with a lot more scholarship dedicated to them have been made into readable NPOV wikifeaturedarticles- Katyn Massacre for example. So it is wrong to say that we are forced to choose between NPOV and readability. We can have both, and an article that represents the best WP has to offer must have both. As it is, this article fails WP:WIAFA, point 4 and is not FA-quality just yet. Borisblue 23:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see. I'd taken your comment that "in order for it to be acceptable to all parties, bloat is pretty much unavoidable" to mean that the article needed to be as long as it is to maintain NPOV. As I said, I'm no expert on this subject and can't say how much is required to do that sufficiently. I can only say that I think the article is a great piece of work, meeting NPOV and comprehensiveness as it is right now. Ryu Kaze 00:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article currently covers at least 80 years' worth of history. Katyn massacre deals mainly with the prelude to the massacre, the massacre itself, and what happened afterwards - despite this spanning a substantial (~60 years) length of time, the article has a limited scope. The article we are discussing currently has a rather wide scope, as Malay supremacy has been a feature of Malayan/Malaysian politics since the early 20th century. It will inevitably be much longer, even if we scrimp on detail. Also note that the Katyn massacre, due to its very limited scope, does not need to apply summary style, nor does it have many associated articles, unlike Ketuanan Melayu. Johnleemk | Talk 14:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Philippines

Self-nomination. Peer review wasn't as helpful as I hoped (see entry). I've done a lot of work on this article and it's a lot better than it used to be. Anyway, I request the community's support to make this article a Featured Article. If opposing, please try to be specific and constructive so I can do what I can to address your objections. Thanks! :) Coffee 15:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comment — I feel your pain, I have had bad experiences with PR in the past as well. I got tons of help last time, though; you win some, you lose some. Anyhow, here's my opinion:
    • You need to avoid weasel words, for example: the Battle of Manila between Spain and the U.S. was perceived by some to be an attempt to exclude the Filipinos from the eventual occupation of Manila — Some = who?
    • Not nearly enough references for such a long article. Some sections go completely unreferenced, while others have plenty in each paragraph (ie. Fifth Republic (1986-present) is well-sourced, but nothing in Independent Philippines and the Third Republic (1946-1972)).
On a positive note, I really like the choice of photos, and the prose is quite well-done. ♠ SG →Talk 22:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments! I'm glad to know you approve of the images. As for references... yeah, the article needs more, considering its length. I've added a bunch of footnotes, particularly in the section you mentioned. The number of references is now up to 20 (or 34 if you count the footnotes used more than once), and I'll continue working on getting more. As for the weasely words... I do try to watch out for them, but I guess some snuck by me. I'll try to fix them up. Coffee 18:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The number of citations is up to 44. I've rewritten the paragraph of the weasel statement you pointed out. I've also scanned the article for other weasel words, and either reworded the statement or gave it citation. Coffee 13:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, you've got my support. ♠ SG →Talk 17:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Coffee 19:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Comment:I think the article is great but some sections (like the spanish section) could still be expanded. Maybe someone should include spanish cultural contributions in the colonization part and a background paragraph on minor Philippine revolts, which may have contributed to the decline of spanish rule.23prootie 04:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yeah, all the sections could be expanded, but I've made them the length they are to conform with the article size guidelines. The general guideline is to keep articles at around 32KB, and the main prose of this article is about 37KB, which I think is a reasonable size for a country history article. Preferrably, more detailed info would go into sub-articles like History of the Philippines (1521-1898). Hmm... still, I guess we could fit in a few sentences about the minor revolts against the Spanish. I'll see what I can do..

Coffee 17:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support This article is a very informative one. It really talks a lot about the Philippines than any other site in the internet. But still, as mentioned hereabove, the sources of the article should also be mentioned and some parts should be expanded. Kevin Ray 07:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Klepacki

Self-nomination. I'm not sure why this was failed; there were only three comments (all addressed) and one support, so it just needed more time to be reviewed. Old nom. Relisting ought to get some more reviewers on board. I apologize if overwriting the old stuff isn't the way to handle resubmissions, but I can't find instructions for resubs on the FAC page. Here's the old description. "This article has gone from zero to hero. I've used all material available at Klepacki's website to create the biography and have contacted him. There are only a handful of fair-use images, and I've written and copyedited encyclopedic prose. Any objections will be dealt with swiftly and zealously. Thanks for reviewing." --Zeality 18:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support — Same reasons as before: the prose is now good, references are thorough, the article covers the subject well and images are properly licensed. It also seems to stay on subject without veering off. I have no objections. By the way, I've taken the liberty of archiving the previous discussion for Zeality since he was unsure of what to do. Ryu Kaze 21:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a million. --Zeality 21:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- Reading this article I can't help but be reminded of Cynna Kydd a couple of weeks ago. Nevertheless, in terms of prose, coverage, and citations, it definitely meets FA standards. Its subject also offers an entirely new dimension to the video game industry that I'd never really thought about before....TonyJoe 06:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. --Zeality 22:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I made a userbox about Klepacki's absence from C&C3 over on that article's talk page. --Zeality 22:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And amen! --Zeality 04:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support. The reference use often appears visually excessive, making editing a pain (unless I use my temp. reference abbreviation script). Nevertheless, it may just be necessary, though any streamlining that could be done, should be.Voice-of-All 04:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is likely due to my not being totally clear on the use of references. So far, I've been adding them to certain statements that really sound like they need to be sourced—such as commentary, important facts, etc. I'm not clear on what I can forego referencing in a paragraph that all uses one source anyhow. --Zeality 04:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reference usage looks fine to me. Also, since some of the statements within a single paragraph are sourced by differenent references, you'd be required to be that generous in their use anyway. Ryu Kaze 11:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I can't find one criteria that this article doesn't meet. Yes, Klepacki isn't a well known subject, but that is not a requirement of FA status. As mentioned above the refs look a little disconcerting. But, given the subject is part of a small subculture(video game music), if this article didn't have those refs I'm sure many editors would make the argument that the article makes many claims that aren't verified. Mitaphane talk 21:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Zeality 20:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery

This article is currently listed as meeting all of the Good Article criteria, and after going over the all of the Featured Article criteria, I believe that it too, meets the all of the points mentioned there. It lists the major aspects, such as geography, history, and architecture. And I hope that you will also find it fit. —dimæ [diskussion—archiv] 18:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys ap Gruffydd

Self nomination. I believe this article meets the criteria for a Featured Article. It has been peer-reviewed at the Military history Wikiproject and has been graded A-Class here and at WikiProject Biography. I have also had it copyedited. Rhion 09:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the source details. Rhion 21:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Jkelly 21:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Three paragraphs is recommended for an article of this size as per WP:LEAD, which also states that the introduction should be able to "stand on its own as a concise version of the article". Rhion 05:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per above. The lead conforms with WP:LEAD and the repetition is sometimes necessary, since the article must "stand on its own as a concise version of the article:.--Yannismarou 16:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is supposed to contain an overview of the article, and should avoid containing too specific information. That belong, as I mentioned before, in the article itself. Lemegeton 18:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the lede contains a bit of fat that should be trimmed, although "exceedingly long" is an exaggeration. Consider this sentence: "In 1194 Rhys was defeated in battle by Maelgwn and another son, Hywel, who imprisoned him in Nevern castle, though Hywel later released his father." We don't really need to know that Hywel later released Rhys' father. In fact, I'd say we don't even need to know about Hywel or Nevern castle. "In 1194, Maelgwn's forces defeated Rhys and imprisoned him" would suffice. If you like, Rhion, I'll take a stab at editing the lede, but you're probably in a better position than I to judge which information is vital. 207.7.97.132 18:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't realize I'd been logged out. Peirigill 18:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've cut a few sentences from the lede. Feel free to reduce a bit more if you feel it's required. Rhion 19:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caffeine

This is the second nomination after the first premature nomination. Since that time, I've put a large amount of work into the article, had it peer reviewed, and put in even more work. This article is referenced a lot by various websites, so I think it's vital to get this article to FA status. – ClockworkSoul 05:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. (points addressed) Hi ClockworkSoul. I would like to offer a couple of observations:
    • I think "Mechanism of action" and "metabolism" should share one main heading, as related to pharmacology. They are currently under "Effects", but, as precursors to effects, should probably come before "Effects" in the article.
      • Added a "pharmacolgy" section to enclose "Mechanism of action", "metabolism", and "tolerance/withdrawl". "Effects" is a less technical section, and I think that it serves as a good lead in to the more technical aspects of pharmacology. – ClockworkSoul 15:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • With all of the popular press about the possible benefits of caffeine, I see very little reference to that research in the article. It focuses mostly on the adversities (although I see some of the "benefits" in the Mechanism section).
    • Could the "caffeine equivalents" listing be made a note/appendix to the article? It breaks up the flow somewhat.
      • I thought about this a bit... I worked it into a relatively small table and moved it to one side. I'm not entirely happy with it yet, but I think it's an improvement. What do you think? – ClockworkSoul 15:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Much better! I would move it to somewhere on the right margin though. I'm going to remove line breaks from the chem-box for "other names", to decrease its length. If this violates chem-box rules, please revert.
  • What you have accomplished with this article is very good, and it's a tough topic to feature, ranging from chemistry to popular culture, and everything in between. Thanks, Outriggr 10:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment: Mostly minor things, but:
    • There should be no spaces between periods and references, or between references for that matter.
    • There was one [citation needed] tag in the article.
    • The introduction is supposed to give a general overview of the article, so references are rarely required there. With so many references in the introduction, are you sure the introduction is just giving an overview of the article?
    • The infobox is great, but very wide. I understand that each entry there needs alot of space, but is there any this can be fixed up?
  • Cheers, darkliight[πalk] 11:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for addressing these, but I have one more request before I support. Is there any chance the SVG's could be fixed rather than replaced with the PNG's? Icey seemed more than happy to do them last night, so I don't think he will mind fixing whatever needs to be fixed. Cheers, darkliight[πalk] 10:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sure that won't be a mojor problem. When I redid the images to include some suggestions, my attempts to convert them from PNG to SVG were spectacularly unsuccessful. I hope that Icey won't mind doing it again. – ClockworkSoul 13:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I thought the old SVGs could just be modified, not have to be completly redone, so sorry about that. I just noticed too, that the Caffeine equivalents table should use metric measurements primarily per WP:MOS regarding scientific articles. darkliight[πalk] 16:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've updated the SVG's to fix the errors. Lte me know if anything else needs changing with them and I'll get it sorted. Icey 23:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Okay: the (beautiful) new SVG's are now happily set in the article. Also, I replaced the "caffeine equivalents" entirely to present information that's a little more useful (and yes, metric measurements are primary). – ClockworkSoul 00:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support Here's some suggestions. I've crossed out anything I've done, but you may like to review those because you'll know the article much better than I do. I know nothing about Caffeine, so I haven't really looked at it from a content view.
  • I hope that's useful to you. I got an edit conflict while submitting this, so most of these things have probably been suggested already... Icey 11:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good article. Only one thing to add to the comments above:

  • The first sentence of the lead is a difficult read, would it be possible to reword it to reduce the number of clauses? Maybe split it into multiple sentences, moving the portion about "also known as" to a second sentence and concentrating on the most commonly known name of "caffeine" in the first sentence.

Thanks, RainbowCrane | Talk 03:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done - See if you like it. -Ravedave 05:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added some concerns, especially about the structural drawings, to the Talk page before I saw that we were talking about it here on the FAC page. DMacks 20:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The structural mistakes are now fixed. Bit of color cleanup still needed (some nitrogens are black instead of blue...comment left on ). But overall...
    • Support. This is a well-written article that has "something for everyone"...many facets of the topic discussed at many different levels/target audiences. Mechanical aspects of the writing is looks good, and info seems well-referenced. DMacks 05:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point Park Civic Center

An unbuilt design by Frank Lloyd Wright. There was a peer review awhile ago at Wikipedia:Peer review/Point Park Civic Center/archive1 at which most concerns were addressed; one concern about external links appears unresolvable. Thanks for your consideration. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support.Rlevse 16:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I like the article and think it is well done. Some minor suggestions: Make the location of the Point clearer, both by adding that it is in the United States, and by something similar to the wording in Point State Park, i.e. "...located where the confluence of the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers forms the Ohio River, also known as the Forks of the Ohio" (not sure the Forks part is needed). This should make it clearer to people outside of Pennsylvania and especially outside of the US. I would not refer to Kaufman as an industrialist (he owned department stores - maybe a merchant? department store magnate?). I think the year (1947) could be repeated at the start of the Plans for the megastructure section. Would it help to add a few sentences about how the Point developed afterwards (how / when did it become the park it is today)? Questions I had (it is not necessary to do these for FA, but they could be helpful if they are possible). Are there any newspaper stories from the time that could be cited (more / different refs)? Any old maps showing the Point as it was? Perhaps something here [12] or a detail of this 1940 PennDot map with a Pittsburgh inset showing the rivers, Point and bridges could be used (it would have to be fair use) [13] (PDF). Nice job overall, Ruhrfisch 03:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments. I executed most of your suggestions, although I just linked a useful map rather than incorporating it into the article. I'm not really familiar with how reusable those maps would be and the legitimacy of fair use seems limited (much more so than the images of Wright's plans).
    • As far as going to primary sources, the two main scholars referenced rely primarily on private letters between the participants and other such documents; since the plans were not really publicized until after they were killed, newspaper coverage was not enormous. Obviously I haven't completely perused the newspaper archives, but I do not expect that there is anything useful to be found in the primary sources that is not better cited to the secondary sources -- the two scholars works, Cleary particularly, are the definitive ones on the topic. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and thanks for answering my questions so quickly. I like the map linked to very much, but agree it is hard to justify its fair use. An interesting, well written article. Ruhrfisch 10:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support--ZayZayEM 13:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC) Great article.[reply]
  • Object Support - Great article but.....However, the design has garnered scholarly attention, and elements of it have been compared to other Wright designs, such as Monona Terrace and the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum.
  1. Do we have to have the sentence beginning with However? my foible really.
  2. The Monona Terrace article states that the project is often erroneously attributed to Wright. Clarification is needed either in this article or the Monona Terrace article.--Mcginnly | Natter 13:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wright did draw up the original designs Monona Terrace during his lifetime, but the building ultimately built under that name (many years later) is very different and much less ambitious, though it retains a few of his ideas. Hopefully this is clarified now. As for your first point feel free to change the prose around however you want, I'm not very attached to my "however"s. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/September_2006&oldid=75420015"