Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/July 2008: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
GimmeBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
75,273 edits
m GimmeBot updating FAC archive links
archive 1
Line 1: Line 1:
== July 2008 ==
== July 2008 ==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cold War}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Stolen Earth/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Stolen Earth/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Babylon 5/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Babylon 5/archive1}}

Revision as of 02:05, 9 July 2008

July 2008

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cold War

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

The article was not promoted by User:Sceptre 22:01, 8 July 2008 [1].

The Stolen Earth

Nominator(s): Sceptre (talk)

"The Stolen Earth" was an episode of Doctor Who that aired last week. As part of a season finale, the amount of source material was so abundant it was easy to flesh out the episode's comprehensiveness and notability. I am nominating this article because I feel it passes the criteria set out at WP:FA?. While the page has had a large amount of editing over the past week, in the past few days most edits have been towards the same end, not in conflict with each other, and not significant changes. Thanks to Seraphim Whipp, who checked the article for prose. Sceptre (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I suggest shrinking the image in the infobox to 230px width so that it does not stretch the infobox for no reason.
  • "(5-July" – en dash for date ranges in the references
  • "planets — including" – this is spaced but unspaced em dashes are also used in the article. Choose one.
  • soothsayer links to a disambig page

Gary King (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • (1) The image default is 275px per WP:WHO#MOS, which stretches the box by very little (note the line "Executive producer(s)" which takes full column width).
    • (4) That's because "Soothsayer" is an umbrella term; we can't link to any specific page. I think the link to the current dab page is warranted in this instance. — Edokter • Talk • 18:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay Gary King (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The other two are done (I think). And yeah, I deliberately kept the link to the disambiguation because the ref says "soothsayer" and the page gives the definition while disambiguating. Might do with a link to wikt:soothsayer, though. Sceptre (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Haven't really had time for an in-depth look, these are just some superficial comments on the prose.

  • "The Stolen Earth" is the twelfth episode of the fourth series and 750th overall episode of British science fiction television series Doctor Who." - you're missing a "the" in there.
  • The second and third sentences can be combined for better flow.
  • "The episode is the first appearance..." -> "The episode contains the first appearance..."
  • "...he is portrayed in "The Stolen Earth" by Julian Bleach." - the context makes it clear that it's referring to "The Stolen Earth"
  • "The episode marks the return of several recurring characters, and crosses over with Doctor Who's spin-off series Torchwood and The Sarah Jane Adventures; it is the first Doctor Who appearance of Eve Myles as Gwen Cooper; Gareth David-Lloyd as Ianto Jones; Thomas Knight as Luke Smith; and Alexander Armstrong as the voice of Mr Smith." - why exactly is this one sentence?
  • "Reviewers commended executive producer and writer Russell T Davies for his writing—in particular, the episode's final scenes—and Julian Bleach for his portrayal of Davros." - em dashes make too strong of a disjunction, consider rephrasing the sentence.

Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "and the 750th overall episode[2]" - I don't think something that can be cited via an episode lists needs a ref (especially when the ref doesn't state this specifically). —Giggy 08:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The episode count is a small matter of contention within the show's fandom - there's disagreement on whether Shada, "Doctor Who: Children in Need", or "Time Crash" count towards it or not. Using an official source - in this case, the official magazine - reduces this contention. Sceptre (talk) 09:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Davros75-08.jpg fails WP:NFCC, is an image really needed to show that something is unchanged? can this be conveyed with GFDL text? how important is it? Fasach Nua (talk) 11:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is a BBC trademark Image:TARDIS-trans.png being used to advertise a competing commercial service on this article? It seems inappropriate to me Fasach Nua (talk) 11:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inactionable oppose; user has a history of anti-Doctor Who image disruption through way of his interpretation of NFCC. See also Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_35#non-copyrighted_materials and WP:ANI#Fasach Nua. Sceptre (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose. Fasach Nua is right, at least with respect to Image:The Stolen Earth - Shadow Planets.png, and very likely also the Tardis one. I wouldn't necessarily agree with him with respect to the Davros one. But the infobox image is merely decorative. Unless it can be integrated with analytical commentary in the text in a way that makes it clear what its significance is supposed to be, this is certainly not a model of best practice of how non-free images should be used, hence, not featurable. And Sceptre is again engaging in actionable harassment by throwing around vague and baseless accusations of "disruption", just because he doesn't like Fasach's opinions (which are well grounded in policy conensus.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, your oppose is inactionable. Sceptre (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How so? You can address the concern by either removing the image, write better content around it that justifies its presence, or at least write a more convincing rationale explaining explicitly why this particular image, in this particular place on the page, is required and what it is supposed to achieve. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fut.Perf, I know you're not a fan of infoboxes, but that doesn't make anything in them inherently evil. As far as that planets screenshot goes, I think that it does pass the "critical commentary" part of NFC (which allows it to pass NFCC). The screenshot shows the culmination of two story arcs in the series which are integral to the plot and the production of the past four series - the Shadow Proclamation and the missing planets. Sceptre (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Critical commentary"? You mean the image provides "critical commentary" on its own? How can it do that? Images don't talk. Images can't criticise or analyse anything. An image can never, ever, provide commentary; it can only support commentary. For it to support commentary, there must be commentary in the text. The image shows a few people standing around randomly in a room with weird shiny spherical objects around them. The image alone helps to understand nothing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Sceptre. The TARDIS image has been discussed extensively, and the outcome has always been that it's use constitutes no problem. Fasach Nua is unwilling to accept this consensus. As use of Image:The Stolen Earth - Shadow Planets.png goes, this should be discussed at the proper venue; opposing use of specific fair-use images in a FAC procedure is not appropriate. FAC is no venue for fair-use review. — Edokter • Talk • 15:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please familiarize yourself with FA criterion #3. "Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly." Sceptre, the concerns raised above are actionable, as highlighted by Fut. Perf. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To make this "actionable" in a more constructive way: let me, again, bring in the perspective of the absolutely clueless reader who's never watched a minute of a Dr Who show. Looking at that image in the infobox, with the present caption, I had no idea what those shiny spherical objects were supposed to be. I thought they were some bizarre objects of interior decoration. It took me quite a while to conceive of the idea that they might be supposed to be the actual planets in question, magically shrunk. Are they? If yes, why on earth (no pun intended) isn't the article talking about that? "The doctor finds the earth in a room, magically shrunk to the size of a ball" or something like that. Add some sourced analysis of how those special effects were done, or whatever. If that's what it's supposed to show, it actually might pass as an interesting addition to the article. But, for god's sake, say these things. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even at 275px on a 15in CRT, it's apparent they're hologramic (there's a computer in the lower-right). Note added, though. Sceptre (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Even at 1000px on a 25in screen, a clueless reader like me isn't obliged to know that people in Dr Who shows use "hologramic" simulations in order to trace lost planets, or how one would do such a thing. See? If that fact is an essential element of the plot, or if it constitutes a particularly notable element in its cinematic artwork, then say so, and the image makes sense. If it's not, the image is of course still of questionable worth. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Holographic, I mean. Sceptre (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, sorry for rubbing in the typo, that was of course just a minor joke. But the rest was serious and still stands. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That scene is a major plot element. Not only do two thematic motifs get revealed (as it says in the production), the Doctor's use of the simulator allows him to discover partially why they were stolen (i.e. they were stolen because they rearrange into a perfect alignment - that's said in the plot) Sceptre (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can follow that. You've explained that the image shows that scene, and you've explained why the scene is important for the plot. But that doesn't answer how the image is important for understanding the scene. Different thing. All the things you just said above make precisely as much sense (or as little sense) to someone who has seen the image as to someone who hasn't. In fact, the image doesn't help me in the least in understanding how "two thematic motifs get revealed", or even how the planets "rearrange into a perfect alignment". For an image to show something important is not the same as for it to actually be important. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't like to change the screenshot, but if I did, would this screenshot be allowed (obviously better quality). That image shows Dalek Caan and Davros, the former on an elevated platform and bathed with light (in a way that is hard to describe their relationship - in the episode, Caan predicts the future and Davros acts on his prophecies). Failing that, how about this? Might not be a better claim to fair use, but it's an important point that it was only a glancing shot, not an on-target shot. Sceptre (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, to me, this shows an old guy riding one of of a group of overgrown bumper cars on a fun fair, with a random assortment of kitchen mixers and whisks stuck into their tops. Sorry, but I'm probably not the right person to discuss this image... :-) Anyway, I don't see anything in the text right now that the image would be related to in some obvious sense, so, hard to tell. As I keep saying, first write the text, then, if and when then text requires an image, go get an image.
Of course, in a sense, your question really reveals (again) the basic mistake in the whole approach. You want some image, no matter which, if not the one then the other. I could be mean and say, if you could live without the Dalek image, or without the deathray image, up to now, why would it suddenly become important now just the moment another image is left out? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed good faith that the uploader had ensured it was NFCC-compliant. I don't upload fair use images myself anymore unless I'm positively sure that it would pass all ten aspects of the NFCC. At the same time, I didn't want to remove any images because I got a lot of flak for removing something that was definitely violating policy: there's a difference between being bold and being foolish. Sceptre (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haven't you asked this in nearly Doctor Who FAC? In any case, Sullivan has a history of listing his sources and doing his research. Sceptre (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I have, but I don't have notes on this site saying that it's been considered reliable. Just for Outpost Gallifrey. Yep, I'm human and I sometimes miss things. Maybe I have on this site, since I do a lot of FAC reviews of sources, things tend to blur together. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This article simply isn't ready yet. It seems to me that the article is being fast-tracked to legitimize a lot of fairly unique changes in how we standardize our television articles. With the new Television MOS coming online soon, there is even more reason to think this article needs to wait, as it would likely fail to conform to those MOS guidelines.
As well, I am not convinced that enough time has passed since its broadcast to allow for the article to have been seen by a substantial number of contributors. The ones who have been working on the article are fairly die-hard fans, and while its nifty to have something be a labor of love, it also makes for a 'can't-see-the-forest-for-the-trees' situation. A lot of the article is still written in a way that is mostly esoteric and unaccessible for the regular reader. This is a development that only occurs over time, and not rushed through to make a point.
Lastly, while there is indeed marked improvement to the article, it is still very much in flux, and most of us depend on FA articles to be pretty much static, so as to better serve as examples for other articles striving for GA and FA.
This article isn't ready yet. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When should the new TV MOS be in place? If it's not long in the future, I don't mind withdrawing this candidacy for the mean time. Sceptre (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, TVMOS was made part of the MOS five days ago. Sceptre (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"It seems to me that the article is being fast-tracked to legitimize a lot of fairly unique changes in how we standardize our television articles."
And what changes would that be? Articles using the same format have been promoted to FA before, and in the same timeframe, most notable Partners in Crime (Doctor Who). After reading WP:MOSTV, I can find no fault, and I believe your oppossition is only based on personal preferences. Nothing wrong with that, but please try to avoid making it appear as if some policy was broken, using words as "legitimize". As it stands, this article meets MOSTV. — Edokter • Talk • 06:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - I don't see how it violates the TV MOS. The structure is fine and within the MOS limits. Sceptre (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, if I was unclear:
  1. the casting list in the article doesn't meet the infobox MOS portion, in that we have previously and apparently reinforced the notion that we follow the BBC credit roll exclusively, and yet, we are still slapping each other with the dead trout of companions in there. As well, we are listing the characters as well as the actors they portray, whereas most FA articles about episodes detail the cast/character lists in a separate section of the article.
  2. We cannot seem to keep an image in the infobox of the article. Granted, a lot of that is due to a hyper-constrictive agenda reinterpreting what "decorative" images are. That is a blow against the stability that an FA article requires.
  3. The text box in the production section is unnecessary, wehreas simple s-quotes would suffice.
  4. Episodes aren't uniformly italicized throughout the article.
  5. the Daleks subsection doesn't belong in casting as a subsection of production alongside Davros, but rather in the subsection of writing.
  6. The critical reception section is twice as long as the synopsis, which translates roughly as 'too friggin' long.' Some care can be taken to summarize comments; it reads like a fan article. Even if there isn't a negative review of the episode (which I find rather difficult to believe), we can certainly pare down all the gushing praise. and return the article to a semblance of objective neutrality.
  7. Russell Davies' picture is completely unnecessary to the article.
  8. As alluded to before, there are far too many significant discussions and edits still occurring with the article. It is atypical for articles this new to be nominated for FAC. It isn't There just yet. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In order:
  1. I still don't exactly see how it fails the MOS still - it's horribly vague on how they should be listed. In any case, it passes the DW project's MOS which was discussed along with recent changes to the MOS a few months ago.
    And vague deliberately - MOSTV's talk page has a large discussion between you, Bignole, and Edokter about this issue. I don't think that you should really use this FAC to push your agenda.
  2. That's out of my hands, but it still doesn't fail the stability criterion.
  3. Precedent in FAs; see Partners in Crime. Though I don't know why it was moved under writing... it was supposed to be the equivalent to an image under the production section.
  4. Follows WP:MOS-T: Doctor Who used to be in a serial format, hence why pre-2005 stories are in italics.
  5. It's a subsection of production, not casting. And if you look, it talks about both the writing and Briggs' voice work.
  6. There was one negative review I could find - the Independent. The fact there are very few, if just the one, negative reviews of the episode is because of its AI score of 91%. And the note about the depth: on the Partners in Crime FAC, a review brought up how critical reception sections on TV articles are horribly summaritive when some reviewers write ten to fifteen paragraphs.
  7. There's a precendent in FAs for that too; see Through the Looking Glass (Lost); Confirmed Dead; etc.
  8. Doesn't fail the stability criterion, though - it's not changing day to day; apart from Tony/Anticipation/Jenny's removal, the article has stayed reasonably stable since Friday.
Thanks, Sceptre (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Sceptre's comments:
  1. Actually, it doesn't. A fairly sizable consensus (which I will point out that I opposed) emerged that we follow the BBC credits exclusively: not in alphabetical order or whatever, but as the BBC line editor chooses to list them in the credit rolls at the end of the episode. As the credits do not list the cast members as Companions (and the oft-noted source within the BBC marking all of the characters as companions isn't applied uniformly enough within the project to warrant application in this article), we don't make the intuitive, OR leap and do so ourselves.
And do us both the huge favor of not presuming (and misrepresenting) an agenda on my part; it's bad faith, and only serves to create tangential and potentially unpleasant conversations. The conversation alluded to specifically addressed alphabetizing cast lists and removing the redundancy of character names from the infobox. Once it was determined that WPDW was allowed to determine its own cast list format, it was then noted that within that the project MOS dictates we follow cast lists. I pointed out that I disagree with that consensus, but I am going to follow/enforce it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Actually, if any part of the article is unstable, then the whole article isn't.
  2. One article out of hundreds of FA do not precedent make, but that is precisely my argument as to why this article isn't ready yet. If it utilizes the argument that one from hundreds of articles represents precedent, then there are inherent issues remaining to be addressed. FA articles should resemble one another in quality and format, especially those within the same category (like Media).
  3. Post-2005 episodes are to be italicized. There are some that are not.
  4. I remember reading the FAC discussion; it was you who made the complaint about critical comments being subjected to over-summarization. There is a problem here with it going too far in the other direction. If the critics have something particularly witty or insightful to note, that is what should be quoted. We aren't gathering flowers, we are sampling the best from the garden.
  5. Respectfully, the examples you provided are not demonstrative of your argument of precendent. The other articles have free images of the actor's protrayed within the episode. Did Davies' appear in the episode at some point? I think not. We link his name to an article, which presumably has this image of him. Okay, allow me to approach the same issue from a different angle: how is Davies' picture critical to the article? By not policing ourselves, we are giving ammo to the NFC#8 crackpots out there determined to do away with episodic images. I submit that we should not hand them the tools they need to dismantle it.
  6. "Reasonably stable since Friday"? Er, considering that Friday was a major holiday for at least one third of the wiki-en (the U.S.), I would point out that the measurement seems a bit premature. As well, FAC expects a lot of stability in an article before FA status is granted. It prevents the significant backlash when (if) the article continues to encounter enough instability to delist it. I cannot speak for others. but yo-yo'ing back and forth isn't the best use of our time. Let's wait until the smoke and dust settles and go from there. Most articles wait at least a month or two. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 20:12, 8 July 2008 [2].

Babylon 5

Nominator(s): Kosh3 (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because... It explains the show much better than the average tv show article. It is easy to understand, interesting to read, and includes quotes from the producer to help further understanding. It is an all around fantastic article. It has been through the good article revision process and has now improved to the point of worthiness of being a featured article.Kosh3 (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Speaking as the user who has made the most edits to the article, it isn't even Good Article quality yet. Please see Talk:Babylon 5/to do for the list of improvements still to make. Everything above Babylon 5#Dreams and visions is well-cited, but there's a long way to go before this can even be considered for Featured status. Edit: I echo Mr Gustafson's call below for the nomination to be withdrawn. Steve T • C 23:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Lead is too short for an article of this size; please expand it per WP:LEAD.
  • MOS issues throughout, including placement of references ("kids or cute robots"[8]).") per WP:FN, and "Season one - 2258" per WP:DASH
  • Format references per WP:CITE/ES.

Gary King (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The article is woefully inadequate for a subject of such importance to not just the history of science fiction, but of television itself. This article fails most of the criteria and stands no chance of promotion in anything resembling its current state, and I recommend the nominator withdraw the nomination. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title.
  • Large sections are unreferenced.
I did not evaluate the sources for reliablity, because with so many sections lacking source citations, the citations are likely to change. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the article isn't ready yet, as per the notes of Steve, Gary and Jeffrey. My humble suggestion is that you submit the article for Peer Review, and get some uninvolved feedback on what the article is missing, what it needs (or needs more of), and make sure the images you are using are rock solid. There has been a lot of wacky noms recently over folk who interpret NFC criteria vastly different from the rest of the community - it's best to bulletproof the article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:31, 8 July 2008 [3].

Ubuntu

Nominator(s): ffm
Former featured article, FAR, has been on main page.

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been expanded greatly since its prior WP:FAR (in 2006, btw) and it exemplifies some of our best work. ffm 03:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Oh boy, this is one of the most interesting FACs that I have seen in months! Now all we need is Mac OS X at FA then I will be happy.
  • "It has consistently been rated among the most popular of the many Linux distributions." → "It has consistently been considered one of the most popular Linux distributions."
  • It appears that all, or almost all, of the references do not have a publisher. Please enter one. Same goes for those in the " References" section.
    Is that required by the MOS? ffm 14:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CITE/ES. Gary King (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS issues, such as the placement of footnotes; "redesign[86]," → "redesign,[86]" – this happens several dozen times in the article, especially in the "Ubuntu 8.04 (Hardy Heron)" section for some reason.
    Fixed. ffm 14:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "however — it contains" – spaced dash here, but an unspaced em dash is used in the first section. Pick one and stick with it.
  • "Some proprietary software that does not" – I think "some" makes this a plural, so the verbs should be changed accordingly
    What to? ffm 14:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Some proprietary software that do not" Gary King (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, I think I'm a bit disappointed in the MOS issues, and the prose is "okay". It could all definitely be better.

Gary King (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I kind of wish you had contacted someone over at LOCE, because this article has several prose issues. And, major work needs to be done.
Intro - comma after "April 24, 2008,"
Third paragraph in "History and development process" - "There are plans" should be "Plans are underway". FYI, many occurrences of "There are". You need to change the sentence syntax from this pattern if this is going to be an FA. Usage of "there are plans" kind of OR and speculation because of hardly any sources linking to this and kind of verges on crystal.
Merge last sentence with the fourth paragraph in this section. Kind of stand alone sentences, which are not fitting the MOS criteria with FA.
Second paragraph in "Features": "the internet browser Firefox", "the instant messenger Pidgin" - some other way to word these because it's repetitive and not creative.
Live CD section - first sentence has a redundant usage of it at the end of the sentence. No reflective noun is needed.
Why isn't Microsoft Windows hyperlinked? Watch out for overlinking in this article, because I see excessive overlinking in the version releases
Last sentence should belong in first paragraph of section
"Alt. Installation" - few refs in this section
1st sentence of paragraph should not stand alone
"Package classification and support"
Do we really need a table to explain the differences in licensing? Why not use prose?
In the "System Requirements" table, "with" should not be capitalized.
Your citations don't follow CITE. I was very lenient on this, because of this article being a GA nom. Since Ubuntu is currently a FA nom, the article should exemplify Wikipedia's best work. You need to put the name of the source, the author (if applicable) and publishing date. Many citations fail on these. I am not even sure if many are reliable sources (i.e. wikis, blogs, etc.). Improve on these points, please. miranda 05:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to mention that WP:LOCE is dead, and peer reviews at WP:PR should be recommended instead – something which this article needs. Gary King (talk) 05:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. miranda 05:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose.

In brief: poorly written, with major MOS issues; poor scope of content; poor content depth; provides unnecessary in-depth information which should be relegated to sub-article (regarding the versions/releases); and, from a mildly-familiar technical perspective, very unsatisfying.
By WP:FACR:
  • 1: Fails 1.a (prose), 1.b (comprehensive), and 1.c (accuracy).
  • 2: Fails 2.a (lead--verbose, confusing, poorly written.), 2.b (scope--related to comprehensive. Without the "releases" section the article is Start--B class at best. There is little substantive information here.), and 2.c (citations--per above)
  • 3: Fails 3 (images--the images are not illustrative of anything other than the desktop, which is trivial.)

This article needs major work in content and an extreme makeover for the prose. Lwnf360 (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment All the version images stacked next to each other look like crap and take up too much space relative to their descriptive prose. Plus, they all look 90% the same. 00:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Some great work has been done, but agree with the above; it's not quite ready. Take it to peer review and beg, plead, or bribe as many people as possible to help with it. And of course, the suggestions given here. —Giggy 08:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, do the gods of FAC want to close this? I withdraw the nomination (although PR hasn't been all that helpful in the past). ffm 03:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask around for reviews then I'm sure some will be willing to help out :) I think you should start by bugging Giggy for a review :p Gary King (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title.
  • At least one link is showing up as dead with the link checker tool.
  • You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.
I didn't evaluate the sources because quite honestly when they are missing so much information, I'd rather wait until that part is fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Note; withdrawn by nominator, please leave the {{fac}} template in place on the talk page until the bot runs, per WP:FAC/ar. You can find excellent tips on how to locate editors to help in a peer review at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:13, 4 July 2008 [4].

Solar energy

Self-nominator : Mrshaba (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because the page seems to be getting there. I'm not sure where there is but the page has gone through a few rounds of peer review/copy editing and I'd like to get a feel for where it stands. Mrshaba (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluded at 16:13, June 24, 2008 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The first two paragraphs in the lead could probably be merged together as they both define the scope of the article. Gary King (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Space.com, the Time magazine article and the Nellis Air Force Base article are all reliable sources. Can't speak for the rest of them, though. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that if you want, you can reply beneath my notes above. In fact, I encourage it, it makes it a lot easier for me too. Just indent the responses. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find any "reliable" sources for info on solar boats or solar balloons. I think this info should be included but the history of these technologies is maintained at the hobbyist level and the sites tend to be a little cheesy. Any advice? Mrshaba (talk) 05:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Seems like a good, well-researched article. Just come comments for the beginning of the article. If I have time, I'll take a look at the entire page.
  • Given the length of the article, I'd like to see the lead expanded a little.
    • I think we are going to rewrite the intro entirely.
  • I don't really like the first sentence. I'm sure most people can determine what the term "solar energy" is without knowing a thing about it, and currently, it bascially says "Solar energy is energy that is solar".
    • As I described below, I've had a hard time getting solar energy experts to describe what solar energy is. There's an issue with synonyms and the fine line between resource and technology.
  • In building design, thermal mass is used to conserve heat, and daylighting techniques optimize light. doesn't read well.
  • The absorption of solar energy by atmospheric convection (sensible heat transport) and evaporation and condensation of water vapor (latent heat transport) powers the water cycle and drives the winds. Do we really need a link to wind?
    • The link to wind seems to balance the link to the water cycle but I can take it or leave it.
  • Sunlight absorbed by the oceans and land masses keeps the surface at an average temperature of 14 °C. needs a conversion.
  • Per MoS, prose-ify that choppy in-text list.
    • This seems like a linear comparison that is better left to a bulleted list. I removed all other bulleted lists from the page but this one seems to make sense.
  • Prose could use an all-around copyedit.
    • Yep
  • The first two paragraphs of Applications of solar energy technology need references.
  • Throughout the article, I'm seeing short, start-and-stop sentences.
  • When these features are tailored to the local climate and environment they can produce well-lit spaces that stay in a comfortable temperature range. seems POVish. What is a "comfortable temperature range"?
    • "Comfortable temperature range" is inherently subjective and involves both physiological and psychological factors. I can provide a source that roughly defines what a comfortable temperature range if you think this would help.

Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Alright, let me know when you get done working on those. Per WP:UNITS, Conversions to and from metric units and US or imperial units should generally be provided. However, temperature conversions are not required. I added {{cn}} to a few statements that I believe need sources in that section, and a couple more in other places. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, I'm afraid an edit war is interrupting this process. This will have to wait. Mrshaba (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, criterion 1e. Sorry, but I cannot support at the time with an ongoing war. It appears there might be a potential 3RR violation, as well. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems fairly comprehensive and readable. I only have a few remarks:
    • "may be characterized as" seems passive and possibly weasely. More direct language would be better.
    • Article should explain "Scheffler reflectors" where it is first mentioned, rather than in the "Cooking" section. Also, please clarify "leach mining".
      • I moved the sections around so the Scheffler description comes before the mention of scheffler reflectors in the process heat setion. I'll look for the pdf that talked about the use of evaporation ponds in association with leach mining. Essentially it said a lot of water is used in leach mining and these ponds are used to remove impurities from this water.
    • To me it does no good to list the various still designs without explaining what they mean. Also, what is a "hybrid modes" still?
      • Hybrid is a mix of passive and active. I'll see about making the blurb more generic.
        • Could you make the article answer the question?
    • There are multiple paragraphs that could use citations, such as the first paragraph of "Solar electricity".
      • Please tag some of these. I generally can't see where refs are needed although I'll get the power plants mentioned in the solar electricity section.
    • As a suggestion you could mention proposals for orbital solar energy collection and the use of orbital mirrors for night time illumination (including military purposes and for high latitude sites).
      • Added an SPS blurb.
    Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Solar Thermal needs a bit more text to summarise the linked main article or at least to include all of the applications listed below the heading.
  • Some commonality of terms is needed, for instance under Solar Electricity the term 'Concentrating solar thermal devices' is used, but in the subheading below it, and its text meant to describe this 'Concentrating solar power' is used. Jagra (talk) 09:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concentrating solar power used consistently. Mrshaba (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've got a couple of articles in line before this one, but I hope to get here soon with a copyedit. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—1a. Let's get the microscope out and look at the lead.

  • Solar energy and solar power are not synonymous, as is explained in the very place this is claimed, and implicit in the different meanings of "power" and "energy". The Sun itself doesn't radiate solar power, does it?
    • The underlying problem here is the widespread misuse of the terms "power" and "energy". This leads to the terms solar power and solar energy being used interchangeably. A more specific description of "solar power" is the conversion of sunlight into electricity. I'd like to see this definition used but there's been resistance to this idea. SEE: here. Harold Hay also uses this more explicit definition but in general the terms are mishmashed. The Sun is akin to a generator so power or specific power is the better unit of measurement - 383 yottawatts (3.83×1026 W).
  • "Various", like "some", "a range of", and "any" should be questioned every times it appears.
  • Unidiomatic use of "or" rather than "and" in the opening para.
  • Concentrating devices? Huh?
    • I'm not sure what the issue is here. Lenses and mirrors are used with both photovoltaics (Concentrating PV - CPV) and solar thermal (CST) applications so referring to concentrating devices alone misses the point.
  • How does one use solar energy in an uncontrolled manner?
    • Nuclear reactions happen all around us but a controlled nuclear reaction is a nuclear reactor. Control is the most important factor when it comes to solar energy because there's a difference between conscious use and unconscious use. Windows alone are not a solar energy technology but when overhangs, louvers or switchable glass is used to control how much light comes in you've got a solar energy technology. If you build a home with a high proportion of window area to thermal mass the house will uncontrollably overheat. Glare and perhaps sunburns also fall into the uncontrolled category.
  • Comma after "sectors".
  • Larger solar kitchens: larger than what?
    • Larger than family scale solar cookers. This is explained in the cooking section.
  • Hyphen missing somewhere in Para 3. Can you see where?
  • materialS testing
    • All the journal articles refer to material testing rather than materials testing. "High temperature-high flux material testing for solar flux applications" Solar Energy Vol. 23, pg 175-181 I guess they missed the high-temperature hyphen too.

This shows just how much work is required by a proper copy-editor. TONY (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing this topic is challenging because it does not have a consistent technical vocabulary. I'm not happy with the lead either but I'm sensing some sarcasm. Fair enough though... learning has occurred. Mrshaba (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:09, 4 July 2008 [5].

Tea & Sympathy

Nominator(s): giggy (:O)


Tea & Sympathy is the debut solo album by Bernard Fanning, recorded, produced, and released, while Powderfinger took a hiatus from 2005 to 2007. Like most Powderfinger work it was popular in Australia and New Zealand, but didn't really make it outside of those areas, hence this isn't as long or detailed as some other album articles (and those used to reading about Powderfinger will probably be familiar with it).

GA nomination/review at Talk:Tea & Sympathy/GA1, peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tea & Sympathy/archive1. Happy to make changes based on suggestions here. Cheers, giggy (:O) 13:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I'm inclined to lean towards reliable on http://www.musicomh.com/ but anything you can add that will bolster that would be good.
Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Comment The article is lacking substance, and is only a list of facts and data. There is no insight or context. Too many of these types of weak cut and paste alt.rock articles are slipping through FAC; I think we to clip. Ceoil sláinte 14:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, it might be useful to the nominator if you can give examples of what sort of information is missing. I see quite a bit of insightful context such as the background info. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm being a bit harsh but I like to see a bit of back story in articles like this, and not just 'hard data'. This is a music article, but there is no discussion of the music. What are described are tour dates, release dates, and snippits from reviews. Ceoil sláinte 02:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying Ceoil. I'm going to and add some discussion as per your suggestion (asap). —giggy 05:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just think you need to flesh out some areas, trim some others (eg the reception section is too long imo, and the ABC review should really go...a work of art is too fawning to be meaningful, while played it consistently for a week on their breakfast radio shows indicates that the review was part of a promo campaign) and then you are there. I've had a look around for sources that describe the music, but nothing so far. Bah. Ceoil sláinte 16:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's all fixed - thanks for the suggestions, they are appreciated. I'm going to try and do the more significant changes (eg. description of the music) today hopefully. —Giggy 01:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reception section: [6] - better? —Giggy 07:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, much better. Good work. Ceoil Non visto ... Provvedi 09:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cant find meaning in this - It was a more low-key event than its predecessor, in which Fanning and The Gap Jazz School Choir play at the Brisbane Convention Centre, Hordern Pavilion in Sydney and the Melbourne Festival Hall. Can you clarify. Ceoil sláinte 17:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... that was originally part of the previous paragraph and ended up tacked on to there. Removed - not sure what it was getting at. —Giggy 01:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, in other words it got mangeled during copy editing! Grand. Ceoil Non visto ... Provvedi 09:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whats a "metal-fest"?
  • Record label Dew Process supported Fanning and his producer Tchad Blake - What are you tring to say here? "Fanning's album was financed by Dew Process and produced by Tchad Blake" or "Every so often Dew Process would call to Fanning and Blake and say "Ye are doing great guys; ye are really great guys." ? ;)
  • The album's title comes from.... - do you know whats the saying, or on which Stones album does the production credit appear.
  • Opening track "Thrill is Gone" was written by Fanning as a joke about him "splitting up with rock'n'roll"—an idea he found funny. Sounds like hes laughing at his own jokes; on his solo album. Eeek. ;)
  • In the lead up to the album's release, Fanning said that despite his desire to record a country album, he didn't "know how to write a country song".[35] - This at best trite, at worst self congratulations from a musician who views himself as "a natural". Cut. Ceoil sláinte 22:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On rereading the article, these are just examples of ill thought out sentences and merged by cut and pasted threads not linked by any logic I can find. The article is inchorent in areas...Fanning wanted to create a politically-oriented album and hoped to attack then Prime Minister of Australia John Howard, following Howard's 2004 election victory over Mark Latham. However the recent death of Fanning's brother coupled with the end of a twelve-year relationship brought Fanning into the tabloids' spotlight. His change in musical direction lead to Tea & Sympathy being described as a "breakup album" by the Oakland Tribune.[3]...Um,. why 'however'?, and what with "hoped to attack"; either he attacked or he didn't, after all the record is now in past tense. And then out of nowhere the Oakland Tribune qoute. And so on, and on. Oposse; not ready. Ceoil sláinte 00:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • 4 of the first 8 paragraphs in the body begin with "Fanning...". I'm not sure, but can something be done about that?
    • Ouch, that doesn't look great, you're right. Better now?
  • "support; Fanning joked, "I think" → "support; he joked, "I think"
    • Done.
  • If you're going to link dates, like "on June 24, 2006.[20] All ", then please link the other ones so they also format according to user preferences, including "11 September ".
    • Sorry, I'm sometimes really forgetful in doing these. Should be all done.
  • "awarded 'Best Cover Art' and 'Album Of The Year' at" → "awarded "Best Cover Art" and "Album Of The Year" at"
    • This distinguishes from song titles (which go "like this")... Ceoil added it, I think, but I agree with it. Is it a big deal?
      • The it's just really used for stylistic effect; I still think it should be double quotes. Gary King (talk) 05:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same: "for 'Best Blues & Roots Album' and 'Highest Selling Album'."
  • Continue changing the quotes in the " Reception" section.
  • That's all I've got for now.

Gary King (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Thanks for taking a look! —giggy 05:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I peer reviewed the article (well, tried to, at least!) when it was going through the review, and in my opinion it has the quality of a featured article - I'm sure that the minor prose-related issues stated above will be solved. JonCatalán (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your peer review help and your support. —Giggy 01:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

Until today, there is no section dedicated to analyzing the music/lyrics of the album (although the latter is partly discussed in the first section). I feel it fails comprehensiveness. --Efe (talk) 09:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is being worked on; see above. Ceoil Non visto ... Provvedi 09:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I added one - Tea & Sympathy#Music and lyrics. I've tried to not duplicate information but of course any comments are welcome. —Giggy 09:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hi
  • "Fanning worked outside from" outside of sounds better, I think.
  • "musically pedestrian"? this is a really weird phrase.
    • Removed it. —Giggy 08:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sessions for the album began in February 2005 when Blake and several other musicians recorded tracks at Blakes Brisbane studio. Four of these—"Not Finished Just Yet", "Believe", "Wash Me Clean", and "Hope & Validation"—appeared on the album after being mixed by Blake." so did fanning not have a part in these? Naerii 16:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • He did - not sure why it said Blake. Fixed. —Giggy 08:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to withdraw this FAC for now and come back to it a bit later when I've fixed the above issues, etc. —Giggy 01:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get it tomorrow so GimmeBot doesn't have to make a separate run. Please remember to leave the {{fac}} template in place until the bot runs, per WP:FAC/ar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, thanks. —Giggy 03:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:44, 4 July 2008 [8].

Artaxerxes III of Persia

Nominator(s): Ardeshire Babakan (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because...This article has been worked on (mainly by me) and now it has a high quality. In the GA review a couple of problems were pointed out which have now been adressed. Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Why do are some of the accessdates in the format "March 1, 2008." while some are "Mar 11, 2008."?
  • "English" language does not need to be specified in references.
  • There are several uncited paragraphs, including "It is commonly believed that in 338 BC Artaxerxes was poisoned by Bagoas, his confidential minister." which I imagine should really require one.
  • I believe "425 BC–338 BC" should be "425 BC – 338 BC".

Gary King (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • What makes the following (in addition to the sources noted above) reliable sources?
  • Two dead links .... http://www.iranologie.com/history/Achaemenid/chapter%20V.html/ and http://persianempire.info/ArtaxerxesIII.htm/
  • Current ref 4 Artaxerxes IV Arses is lacking a publisher (which should be Livius.org, see above about reliablity)
  • Might be nice to find a replacement for the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, which is almost a hundred and fifty years old.
  • Same for the "Phoenicia Under the Phersians" History of Phoenicia, which is over 100 years old.
  • Several other of your web sources are lacking publishers.
  • Have to agree about using less online sources and more scholarly works. Artaxerxes III isn't exactly a minor figure in history, there are monographs and books on him. Here's a link to a google scholar search Google and here is a google books search for items published since 1950 Google books search
Links checked out with the link checker tool, except the two noted above. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your constructive critisicm. I never knew there were so many errors in the article. Please do not stop your constructive critisicm. By the way, what do you mean by "is it a reliable source"? Do you mean I should use more books and/or more reliable sites? Thank you so much.Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 11:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • See WP:RS. Some of the sites that I mentioned above look like self-published sources. Self-published sources are not inherently unreliable, but there's no evidence to suggest that the author(s) of the work are scholars of the topic they're writing about. I do think you should replace your website refs with book and journal sources. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The article has a good backbone, but the details need to be filled out. Right now I think it is assuming that readers have a good understanding of Persian history, and many of us do not. The context is missing for some of the facts, which left me a bit lost. Once the details have been filled in, the article will need a good copyedit to make sure that the meaning is clear. I have provided comments about what is/should be in the Early life and accession section so that you have examples of the type of work that needs to be done.
    • I think you've done a good job incorporating some books into the article, but I would recommend that you replace as many of the web references as possible with books. The web references do not look like reliable sources.
    • The family tree image seems a bit long for this article. I could easily see that as a different article
    • I would expect the information on his birth, parentage, and siblings to be in the Early life section instead of at the bottom of the article in Family.
    • Before ascending the throne Artaxerxes had been a satrap and commander of his father's army -- how did he get to be commander? Did he lead troops in any battles as commander or distinguish himself in any way?
    • How did Ochus manage to succeed his father if he was one of 115 sons? What made him special?
    • Was Artaxerxes king during Ochus's entire childhood or did he ascend the throne after Ochus was born?
    • Why were those of Ochus's siblings notable? (they don't have wikilinks, so there should be at least a basic description of why they were known, if possible)
    • Did he order all of his brothers executed or just the ones who were mentioned? Had they been plotting against him or was he just worried in general?
    • "which required the city to leave Asia Minor " - I think I know what you are trying to say but this doesn't make sense as written
    • to acknowledge the independence of its rebellious allies - whose allies? If they were Athens' allies they wouldn't be rebellious - I'm confused?
    • Artaxerxes raised a campaign against the rebellious Cadusians, but he managed to appease both of the Cadusian kings - if he was the one who initiated the war, why would he need to appease both of them? How did he appease them?
    • successful character emerging from this campaign was Darius. The earlier paragraph said that Ochus ordered his brother Darius executed. Who is this one?
    • He then ordered the dismissal of all Greek mercenaries from the satrapal armies of Asia Minor -- He who - Darius or Ochus? Why would he order them dismissed?
    • The order proved effective - why would it not be effective?
  • order was however ignored by Artabazus of Lydia, who asked for the help of Athens in a rebellion against the king. - why was he rebelling agains tthe king? Because he had to dismiss the mercenaries?

Karanacs (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator has not revisited this FAC since I posted, although he has been actively editing. I've left him a reminder [9] to come back and address comments. Karanacs (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Karanacs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments regarding images:
    • Image:Faravahar.svg needs a verifiable source (currently a hitherto deleted en.wiki page) per WP:IUP. Description says author is Kevin McCormick and, alternatively, Ploxhoi (talk · contribs). Can we confirm this is the same person? This is perhaps moot, as the image appears to be a derivative of Image:Faravahar.png (which also fails to state a source); is that image's uploader (Roman Maurer - Commons user name: Romanm) the author? The image also alludes to Paradoxic (talk · contribs) as the author. What is going on here?
    • Image sandwiching in "Later years" section; see WP:MOS#Images). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:44, 4 July 2008 [10].

Déjà Vu (Beyoncé Knowles song)

previous FAC (00:38, 27 February 2008)


Self-nominator I'm nominating this article for featured article because there has been substantial edits to address the concerns on its first FAC and its now FA ready. It was also peer reviewed (although none of the "opposers" dropped comments on the PR room). --Efe (talk) 06:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - très bien :) --Mojska 07:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 13:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • What makes http://acharts.us a reliable source? It doesn't cite its own sources, and there is no About page on the site. As I said at the Peer review for this article, we need to have some way of knowing the source checks their facts. I'd like to know where they get the chart information in the first place.
      • I asked Ealdgyth about this; its unusual if he always eludes this source. Since my first FAC, he did not question about it, and also the following FAC. In this article's PR, he only asked three sources excluding this. If he is not sure, I will drop a query on the WP:RS noticeboard. --Efe (talk) 09:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My reply is on my talk page (I'm a female, btw) but basically it slipped through the cracks, it may or may not be reliable. My lean is not, but it slipped through before because honestly doing every single FAC for sources is a lot of work, and Im not perfect. Sorry folks. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's basically an aggregator of other charts, all of which are available elsewhere on the internet. For instance, this and this. giggy (:O) 10:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Giggy. --Efe (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still think you should ask about this source at the RS noticeboard. It doesn't cite its sources, and it's best to use the original source instead of an aggregator which might be inaccurate. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, I use chart aggregators when a particular chart provider don't have archives. This song charted way back 2006 and aggregators really help. Anyway, I tried to ask about this source in the noticeboard. --Efe (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that my querry at the WP:RS/N is getting not response. --Efe (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like they missed you out. Post it again, this time just for achart.us instead of two sites. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am using only one aChart.us ref for four inline citations and two for the table. Is that a big issue? Chart position is not so contentious. --Efe (talk) 07:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I already said, what makes it reliable? Who says they didn't make any mistakes? What sort of reassurance do we have from this aggregator that their information is accurate? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the section Chart performance is now clear of aChart.us citations. But, the table is still adopted from this source and from Allmusic. Please check. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 11:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weird prose like ""Déjà Vu" contains elements that has similarities to American pop singer Michael Jackson's 1980 single "Off the Wall" from his 1979 album of the same name." ruins the flow and shows ambiguity. What elements are you talking about? Try to be more specific.
      • Removed. The source just says "'Déjà vu' has a flavor reminiscent of Michael Jackson's 'Off the Wall'" and its vague; I cannot fabricate clearer explanation. --Efe (talk) 09:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "808" is not specific and means nothing to most people, please say Roland TR-808 drum machine instead.
      • Fixed. I left, I think, a couple of 808s but its already identified in the preceding paragraph(s). --Efe (talk) 09:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I will leave other editors here to decide wether or not http://www.aCharts.us/ is a reliable source (It has been removed, but the charts table is still based entirely on information from it!) — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 13:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, part only of the second para under chart performance. --Efe (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • You could probably remove the doubled up footnotes to About.com, just leaving the one footnote that refers to the review.
  • And likewise, you'll probably need to replace the aCharts references, unless someone comes up with third-party reliable sources that use/rely on the site.
    • Trying to find. Please note that contents being supported are not very contentious. --Efe (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look good. Links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not all of the publishers need to be italicized – only the ones that are on the list at MOS:TITLE. Gary King (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please not that I am using the {{Cite news}} and {{Cite web}} ref templates. Entry in the word parameter is formatted to italics while in the publisher parameter is not. --Efe (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Meets all the criteria, prose is succinct and compelling, article is informative and well written. Good job. Orane (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -- I remember copy-editing this article the last time it was at FAC

Me as well. Thanks for that. --Efe (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The collective shot parts of the video" Huh?
    • Collective refers to the artists and the production crew. --Efe (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Credits and personnel section is very awkwardly formatted. It should "Beyonce – vocals", I believe. In any case, your previous FA, "Baby "Boy" didn't even have such a section, so why is one needed here? If all the instrumentalists are already mentioned in the prose, it becomes slightly redundant.
    • It is required per WP:SONGS, but the formatting is user preference. Anyway, using the name-credit style would make this part a bit long. --Efe (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you've gone overboard in the qualifying the websites and publications. "The international webzine", "a multimedia news and reviews website", "an online music database"... its quite obvious ven to a lay reader that since it is the "Reception" section, most of the names are some sort of publications; which is all they need to know really. While "The New Yorker magazine is fine, there's no need to call The Washington Post "an American newspaper" (its also evident from the title).
    • I removed what is obvious: The Washington Post "an American newspaper". For others, I did not. Many do not know about those. --Efe (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought About.com is not reliable? Is Bass Player reliable?
    • The content being supported of about.com is a review. Bass Player specializes in bass guitars and its an interview with Webb who is credited on the song. --Efe (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The publications are mostly incorrectly formatted: Allmusic and NME?
    • Regarding allmusic formatted in italics, please refer to the above answer. NME is fixed. --Efe (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The UWC has been deleted and non-notable and all... Their rating system has been deemed arbitrary too (see the AfD); I believe it shouldn't be used anymore?
  • "Knowles begins the song calling three instruments: bass, hi-hat and 808." - awkward.

indopug (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Fixed. Any suggestion? --Efe (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. - I remember this article from its previous FAC last spring and I'm pleased to see that it is vastly improved. Just a few points:

  • The song is purely instrumental, using a variety of live instrumentation from the bass guitar, conga, hi-hat, old-school horn, and Roland TR-808. - I don't understand this, in my day, an instrumental was a track without any vocals. What does it mean here, no samples, no synths? It can't be the latter because a Roland TR-808, (albeit a drum machine) was used. Please clarify this.
    • Song is changed to music (referring to the song's sound). --Efe (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Déjà Vu" also took lyrical contributions from songwriters Delisha Thomas and Keli Nicole Price; Makeba Riddick made her way onto the B'Day production team after co-writing the song. - Can you be clearer about this? Does it mean she sang?
    • I think the supporting part "onto the B'Day production team" makes it clear. Hmmm. I tried to fix it: "and Makeba Riddick who was then enlisted on the B'Day production team after co-writing the song". --Efe (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does took lyrical contributions mean? GrahamColmTalk 16:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was fixed by an IP. Thanks to him/her. --Efe (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I just made a very similar point to Graham's on the article talk page. I think a source dealing clearly with the lack of sampling (if such it be) would be good, and it would be useful to avoid labelling the 808 as "live instrumentation". I made some changes to that effect. Edit: my edits were reverted.
I will remain on saying its live instrumentation because its music is largely based on it. I tried to fix; please see the page. --Efe (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As regards his second point, I agree that sentence needs clarifying. There is no source that I can see for Delisha Thomas's and Keli Nicole Price's involvement, and the source cited suggests that saying Riddick made her way onto the B'Day production team may be putting it too strongly—rather it says that by writing the song and recording a version of it, she became part of the "team" that made B'Day, a turn of phrase that we need not emulate.
The album notes is the source itself for Ms. Thomas's and Price's contributions. --Efe (talk) 01:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, good. Are they credited as lyrical contributors? Or co-songwriters with Riddick? Or something else...? 86.44.27.243 (talk) 01:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first one. --Efe (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Knowles enlisted ... Rodney Jerkins' Was she the one directly responsible for his working on the album, or is this a figure of speech? I'm not convinced popstars select their own producers, so a source for this would be good.
Fixed. --Efe (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

86.44.27.243 (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • The audio sample is slightly distorted
      • Oh my, I dont know how to do this. --Efe (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Music and lyrics" section: "The first instrument to enter, the bass guitar slides into the main two-bar ostinato." -- need a comma after guitar
      • I think its fine. If added, it will read like this: "The first instrument to enter, the bass guitar, slides into the main two-bar ostinato." If the part inside the comma will be removed, it will read like this: "The first instrument to enter slides into the main two-bar ostinato." Thoughts? --Efe (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Charts" section: U.S. Billboard Hot Dance Club Play1 -- why is a remixed version listed above the original version? --IE (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re-arranged per suggestion. --Efe (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments regarding criterion three: Oppose: music video fair use issue needs resolution.
    • YOur oppose is too unreasonable. --Efe (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:DejaVuSample.ogg is not low fidelity (WP:NFCC#3B); why is 130 kbps necessary?
    • Discussion of the music video includes descriptive comments including, among others, "couture-motivated outfits, vigorous footwork and sexually-themed routines" and "over-the-top wardrobe choices". A music video image may be warranted, but surely this capture (Image:Dejavu-video2.jpg) does not adequately depict the important/notable elements of the video, as articulated by the text. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I opted to use that image to partly depict the reasons why fan reacted negatively of the video. Also, its pretty hard to depict all the discussions in just one screenshot. --Efe (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The image needn't depict all such elements; the issue is that it doesn't seem to depict any. The article identifies "a lack of theme, dizzying editing, over-the-top wardrobe choices and 'unacceptable interactions'" as well as "erratic, confusing and alarming [dancing]" as fan concerns; how are any of these elements depicted in this image? "Unacceptable interactions" is the caption and, presumably, the issue you're attempting to depict. This phrasing is too vague; what is "unacceptable" about the interaction? Too passionate, too indifferent, too inconsistent? What, exactly, is going on in this image? The boilerplate purpose of "The screenshot is intended to represent the nature of the single" is entirely inadequate in articulation the intended purpose; WP:RAT and WP:NFCC#10C require rationales to be detailed, clear and relevant to each use. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • About the interaction I do not know. Thats how the source is written. As for the image, please note that a single screenshot cannot capture all important details of the video. So I think its fine. --Efe (talk) 06:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please read my comments critically; I'm not asking for all elements to be captured. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 12:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Do you want a clearer caption? --Efe (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Read my comments. Compliance with NFCC is mandatory and an explicit requirement of the featured article criteria. I've identified issues and asked questions which you have failed to answer. If you don't even know what "Unacceptable interactions" means, how can you possibly believe that this image is illustrating that point? It's unfortunate that you're unable or unwilling to obtain an alternative screenshot. The current image is not in compliance with WP:RAT, NFCC#8 and NFCC#10C; the oppose is thusly not "too unreasonable" or even "unreasonable". ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Oppose for now.
    • In the first paragraph of Release and reception section, the Freemasons club mix is mentioned before it is described. This might need a bit of reorganization.
    • About.com is not a reliable source. As that information can be posted by anyone, I don't think that it should be used, even for a review.
      • Not actually a big issue. While its not a fact being supported, the writer is disclosed. --Efe (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whether the writer is disclosed or not does not make the source reliable. Including this review is roughly the same as including a review posted on some random person's personal website. Unless the writer is well-known for music reviews (published in reliable sources), then his opinion should not count any more than, say, mine. As an unreliable source, it should be removed. Karanacs (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should there be quotation marks in here somewhere deemed the lyrics a confusing view of memory?
      • No, its "perplexing view of memory". I just changed "perplexing" to "confusing". --Efe (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is too close to the original source. I would suggest changing back to "confusing" and including the quotes around the source. I have no idea what that means, either. Karanacs (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • interesting phrase "couture-motivated outfits" - should this perhaps be "couture-inspired"?
      • fixed, as suggested. --Efe (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no publisher for current ref 35 "Beyoncé Interview Backstage On TRL video. Retrieved on 2008-04-05. "
      • Fixed. --Efe (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I clicked the link to this one to try to figure out if the source was reliable, and the link is dead. Karanacs (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with elcobbola that the fair use rationale for the video screenshot doesn't quite meet the standards. Karanacs (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Refer to the above reply. --Efe (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, basic issues with prose, original research, sources, MOS, image use, and narrative.
    • Unacceptable fair use for Image:Dejavu-video2.jpg. True the video is discussed in the article, but it's arguable that what you've illustrated is an example of "unacceptable interactions".
    • The citations are riddled with formatting errors.
    • ""Déjà Vu"'s instrumentation is varied, including bass guitar, hi-hat, horns and Roland TR-808 drum machine." Grammar.. terms like "drum machine" require a preceding article like "a", check the article for more of these.
    • The descriptions of the songwriters in "Background and production" diverges from what's in the infobox. You mention "composer John Webb" who is not listed in the infobox, and then you mention that Knowles "approved" the song but she is listed as a writer in the infobox.
    • Your description of the key and "tempo" of the song are incorrect, and you should not be gleaning such things directly from the sheet music anyway.
    • "The first instrument to enter, the bass guitar slides into the main two-bar ostinato." Does not flow well, please reword so "bass guitar" is closer to the beginning.
    • You travel among "Roland TR-808", "808", and "Roland 808". I'd advise tossing the last two and sticking with long-form Roland TR-808 and short-form TR-808.
    • In "Background and production" you mention that Jay-Z recorded "a rap verse" but later you talk about first and seconds raps.
    • "... four weeks after Knowles informed Columbia, her record label, that the album was already finished." Suggests some context that is not present in the article.
    • Your collection of sources for the negative song reviews is wholly unspectacular. You open with Fox News (almost comically unreliable), About.com, and Allmusic, none of which rate high on the reliability scale. I'm positive there are many printed reviews in respected music magazines. --Laser brain (talk) 05:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 20:43, 3 July 2008 [11].

Thriller (album)

Nominator(s): Realist2

previous FAC (22:37, 9 April 2008)

Hello, I would like to nominate Thriller for FA. It's last FA resulted in the article being "not promoted" as I withdrew the nomination on April 09 2008. I withdrew because of a certain episode of racial taunting I received and my erratic behaviour in response to it. Another issue was the content that is now Thriller 25. At the time this article was actually a part of the Thriller article. A number of reviewers opposed FA because of the lengthy detail dedicated to the reissue. The reissue was eventually merged out and passed GA in its own right within days.

Since the withdraw, Thriller has been peer reviewed 3 times. The Reviewers were; Efe, Indopug (twice), Matthewedwards, Ruhrfisch, Kakofonous, Ealdgyth and Giggy. The article has also been copy edited by a number of editor that includes; Efe, Kodster, Kakofonous and Andreasegde.

As the article stands, the lead presents a neat overview of the article I have presented. I went for an unsourced lead with the references in their relevant section of the article. This has always been my favoured style. The article then documents the recording of the album, the "Themes and genres" expressed by Jackson in the record, the albums release & the reception both critical and commercial. The article then presents an overview of a number of events that tipped the record into becoming the worlds best selling album, a critical component that helps answers the complex question "how did Thriller outsell any other record?"

The reader is then presented with a section dedicated to the influence and legacy of the record. The affect it had on the recording industry, how it broke down racial barriers, rebuilt MTV and finally where it stands today, 25 years later. The article has 70 individual references and is sourced approximately 100 times. Sources include biographies, interviews, online news articles & websites. Could I remind all reviewers that English is not my first language. Could reviewers make any concerns crystal clear in full sentances to avoid any confusion on my part. Cheers. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 01:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now, the article still requires some attention:

  • ''Jackson himself rarely commented on the work's recording - redundancy.
  • wrote and played the drums- he wrote the drum part?
  • Temperton wrote the spoken portion in a taxi, on the way to the recording studio. Jones and Temperton said that some recordings were left off the final cut because they did not have the edginess of other album tracks - some of the spoken recordings?
    • I'm confused by what your asking me to do here, sorry, could you clarify your concern. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 18:35, 29 June 2008
  • Despite the light pop flavour of these two records, Thriller, more so than Off the Wall, displayed foreshadowings of the contradictory thematic elements that would come to characterize his later work. - the pronoun should be changed to Jackson's
  • and was Jackson's first successful rockcross over piece. - a mistake here.
  • Thriller was followed by the release of a large number of singles - singles from the album or singles in general? If the former, the number was not large.
  • The pop duet led some to believe that the album would be a disappointment. Others suggested that Jackson was attempting to attract a white audience. - What pop duet?
  • The ballad "For All Time" supposedly dates from 1982, but leaks often credit it as being from Dangerous sessions. Both the leaked vocals and new performances were included on this track. Two singles were released from the reissue: "The Girl Is Mine 2008" and "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin' 2008". - What leaks? And this needs a citation.
  • There is U.S. throughout, (often U.S.. with a double period), but UK is used.
    • I followed what the actual articles do. U.S. & UK. Dots are not used for UK apparently whereas for America they are. Is this ok or should I change something? — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 19:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, Change U.S. to simply US, don't worry about the articles' usage; we have our own rules. GrahamColmTalk 19:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At some point, Thriller stopped selling like a leisure item – like a magazine, a toy, tickets to a hit movie – and started selling like a household staple." - The Emdashes need fixing.GrahamColmTalk 14:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • DONE — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 19:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ive resolved your concerns as much as I can, I just need a little clarification on some of your points. Thankyou for your points. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 19:10, 29 June

2008 (UTC) I've made some suggestions, [12], I hope they help. GrahamColmTalk 20:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "of U.S.$750,000. " – "of US$750,000. "
  • "Instead, he would dictate into a sound recorder, when recording he would sing from memory." – needs a break between the first and second phrases, like a conjunction or a semicolon

Gary King (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow, first time for everything, I usually stumble at that hurdle. :-) — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 14:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Issue with numbers: numbers less than 11 are written out; from 11 to 100 can be words or figures (consistent within the article), and above 100 are usually figures. Examples:

  • "3 million copies" - "three million copies"

Keep it consistent. I didn't find any other errors, but keep a sharp eye out. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 16:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just went through it, its all correct now, people should stop tinkering with my numbers lol. :-) — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 16:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing. In the "Themes and Genres" section, I don't really think it's necessary to summarize the songs. For example, "In "Billie Jean" Jackson sings about an obsessive fan who alleges he has fathered a child of hers." That sounds like there really IS "an obssessive fan who..." when really it's only part of the song. I think it's important to not have more of a "real life" POV when doing this, as opposed to the "universe" of the song. Maybe it's just me, but I don't really think that all of those summaries are really necessary for the article. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 17:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I kind of disagree, the title is called "Themes and genres", the obsessed fan thing actually happened in real life to Michael Jackson. The song is about his personal relationship with a crazy fan that stalked him for much of the 80's before she was sent to an mental home. So yes it was real life. The "Theme" of the song is about jackson's paranoia over a real life incident. :-) — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 17:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, okay. I thought that the crazy fan was NOT real. It makes perfect sense in that case. Nevermind. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 19:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • He he, a lot of people don't know its a real story. Actually the poor women is very very ill.— Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 22:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. First of all, very interesting read. Written well and seems very comprehensive. A few minor things:
Many references do not have a published date.
It quickly became the best-selling album of all time, with sales between 45 and 108 million copies worldwide. I am a little confused on the wide range of 45-108 million? Can this not be more closely estimated? ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that complement. Firstly regarding the sales; It caused edit wars, I have been blocked twice for edit warring over this issue (the second block was removed because the admin made a mistake). Archived talk page consensus said we should put the mix of sales in and let the reader decide for themselves. Happy to say there are no more edit wars on this issue and I would like to keep it that way. Regarding the publishing date; if the source doesn't give one then I cannot add it myself. I will take another look at this issue most definately and upate you on my findings. I imagine I will find it hard to find more publishing dates. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 10:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I finished adding the dates. :-) — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 11:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent, thank you. I have re-read this article and I believe the prose to be very good, interesting, and comprehensive. I did some minor copyediting for a few punctuation issues (which I find easier to do myself than to list the problems here). Great work. Good luck. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Meets every standard of FA; good prose, comprehensive, sources good, etc. A fine article. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 22:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per criterion 1c, which demands that the article is "factually accurate". The entire "Themes and genres" section presents the opinions of critics as though they are bona fide fact, when in truth they are merely opinions. For this reason, I feel the section is misleading, and not "accurate". For example, this statement; "Thriller refined the strengths of Off the Wall; the dance and rock tracks were more aggressive, while the pop tunes and ballads were softer and more soulful.[7]". Says who? Which critic? This is an opinion, and not a fact. It isn't a "fact" that the album "refined the strengths of Off the Wall", but merely the opinion of one critic. Each opinion should be presented as an opinion, and attributed to the critic in question within the actual paragraphs. LuciferMorgan (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (comprehensiveness concerns) Features just one contemporary (1983) review--the Rolling Stone one. Any reason why reviews by the NME, Melody Maker, CREEM, Q, Sounds etc aren't included here? Also not sure why reviews from websites such as Slant and Blender are included at all; surely far more respected and acclaimed publications (such as those I have listed before) should be preferred. Further, you need to differentiate between the contemporary and the retrospective reviews; not entirely sure you would want to use Allmusic's review (written at least a decade later) to back up the claim that the album's reviews upon initial release were almost entirely positive. indopug (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also puzzled why the New York Times preview for Bad is used as a review for Thriller. indopug (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NME doesn't have one I have already checked. Its been really hard to get hold of original reviews, most are contempory. I will look for more and try to find them but I really cant promise this. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 20:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Q and Melody Maker don't have reviews either.
[13] Found original NYK review which I will add. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 20:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above examples you gave contain reviews on the Thriller album, I checked them all. I managed to add one from the new york times. I also checked TIME's database and they don't have one either. Not sure what you expect me to do about this, the material just isn't available im afraid, I'm not sure if you specifically found some thus opposed but I certainly can't see them. You suggestions mostly document white rock music not black R&B. Could you clarify what I should do here, cheers. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 23:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:24, 3 July 2008 [14].

Nguyen Van Nhung as a military bodyguard

I'm nominating this article for featured article because... it's an exhaustive, 3rd party RS account of the subject. And there have been shorter FAs. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The system appears to be default implicit oppose unless otherwise. It was there for 9 days instead of the usual four. I guess people were perhaps too polite to can the article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take it his date of birth isn't known? (just checking)
No. Nothing is recorded before the coup. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had repeated stabbed and shot the Ngo brothers" - repeated --> repeatedly?
Fixed. blind monkey. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nhung was an army officer who served as the bodyguard of General Duong Van Minh, who was among the plotters" - doesn't read great... could you reword?
Fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a group of ARVN generals" - I don't think it's been made clear what ARVN is.
Fixed. blind monkey. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The em dash in ref 15 stands out compared to the other refs.
Fixed. blind monkey. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

giggy (:O) 07:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments sources look good, the links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments The article is pretty well-written, comprehensive enough (although, I do believe you should include some details of Nhung's early life, if any info exists). I have a few questions:
    • What's JGS?
    • I dislike the organization of the first two paragraphs of "Diem and Nhu assassination". You tell readers that the Ngo brothers had escaped from the Gia Long Presidential Palace, but didn't explain why Minh left for the palace until the next paragraph. I think it would be best to first note Diem and Nhu's communication with the plotters and then say, "In the meantime, Minh left JGS..." The second paragraph would start, "When Minh found the Ngo brothers were nowhere to be seen in the palace, he dispatched..."
    • How did Minh know where Diem and Nhu's safehouse was? To clarify, was the church (in Cholon?) the safehouse? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. The prose looks reasonably well-written. I only had one question: "The other generals had little sympathy for Tung, because the special forces commander had disguised his men in regular army uniforms and framed them for the Xa Loi Pagoda raids in August" - framed the special forces men or framed the men of the other generals? I'm a bit confused on which is the pronoun antecedent. I am also concerned that the article has very little personal information about Nhung. If this were Role of Nguyen Van Nhung in the 1963 South Vietnamese coup I would agree that it is comprehensive, but as it is the reader is not given a good idea of who he was. I won't oppose on this basis because you've said the sources aren't available, but I don't think I can support either. Karanacs (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. With the article rename, I think this article now satisfies the comprehensiveness concerns that I had. Karanacs (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I just read through the opposes again, and I can see where those reviewers are coming from. While I do think that the article is comprehensive under this title, given the dispute over whether the title is appropriate, I don't know that my support is appropriate. Karanacs (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I have to say Oppose. This simply doesn't look like an article on its own (cf. Karanacs above). There is no information on Nguyen's life of its own (e.g. When and where was he born? In which army units, if any, was he trained as a hitman?). I really don't see much in this article that wouldn't be (or isn't already) better covered in the various articles it already links to prominently (Le Quang Tung, Arrest and assassination of Ngô Đình Diệm, 1964 South Vietnamese coup). Most likely a summary of this can be put in (say) 1963 South Vietnamese coup and the other articles can link back to the section instead of to this. In short, this is not an article about a person. Circeus (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes but this person was involved in two different coups and it isn't possible for us to create a redirect from Nguyen Van Nhung to two pages. If there was only one event involved, then obviously a redirect would be used, or it would have just been left as a stub. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why links from the 1864 article can't send straight to a 1963 section. That's at best a poor excuse to have such an incomplete article. Circeus (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I too wonder about the issue how we deal with an article which is apparently by necessity a very restricted summary of a person's life. But I also wonder if this article wouldn't benefit from some expansion in terms of political/historical/social context. I would like a bit more information about the various governments, presidents, reasons for the coups etc. Slp1 (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While I understand little is know about this person, esp his early life, that should not be an excuse for let's go ahead and make it FA anyway. However, I think this is GA material. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's why I believe the article would be much more appropriate under the title proposed by Karanacs. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Nishkid and Karanacs. giggy (:O) 03:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree a rename would make it a better FA candidate. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          It's so rare to see an article title about a specific person during a specific period of time, excluding articles that were spun off from main biography articles, of course. Gary King (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't like the renaming. It leaves the reader wondering whether there is another article about him lurking somewhere, and offends the norms of titles in traditional encyclopedias and basically every sort of biographical compendium. It also imposes a straitjacket on the article so that if other information is later unearthed about his early life, it will be hard to incorporate. I don't see a need to rename the article merely for the sake of having a "complete" picture of whatever the title dictates the article should be about (and for the sake of appeasing FAC reviewers with such completeness). Mangostar (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If more general information is found, we can always move it back. As to the probability of this, I would say that it would be approximately zero. No proper inquiry was ever held by the Army of the Republic of Vietnam, or the government, to investigate the killings during the coup. Because all the people who were in the government after 1963 were usually opponents of Diem or were directly involved in the coup, they would obviously not want to. As for whether the ARVN is likely to have kept information on him, he is notable mainly for a few extrajudicial activities for the army, so the army obviously won't record it. He is an army major, which isn't a high rank, and because he was a bodyguard, he can't have been in the field fighting the Vietcong, so he can't really distinguish himself in any other way apart from the hitjobs. Communist historians are pretty unlikely to care about this stuff, they have a habit of simply referring to South Vietnamese military officers as bandits/traitors/imperialist lackeys etc and they wouldn't care about internal South Vietnamese army squabbling. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - After considerable thought, I am opposing this article on two grounds.
    • First, I do not believe the current title satisfies WP:NAME and so should not be used for a FA-class article. I know that there is considerable discussion on this above and that this name was chosen as a compromise, but I do not believe it is acceptable. It violates two rules: "Use common names of persons and things" (which would be Nguyen Van Nhung) and "Do not use an article name that suggests a hierarchy of articles". It also appears to violate the conventions in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), especially the sections "Qualifiers not between brackets" and "Descriptive name". As such, I would encourage that we move the article back to the non-descriptive name.
    • Second, the article fails 1b. I know that the name was changed in part to get around 1b requirements, and I admit that it is possible that such information as would be required to pass 1b does not exist in secondary sources. I am uncertain what the official policy about this is. Is there a history of granting an exception on 1b to articles that involve persons or things where additional information is unavailable? (Sandy, do you have an answer for this?) If so, I will withdraw this complaint.
  • I know that my reasoning is partially circular: I'm insisting on a less restricted name which increases the scope and causes the article to fail 1b on the increased scope. And also that increasing the scope would require the article name to be changed. But, after significant thought, this is the conclusion that I come to. I'm sorry. JRP (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand your concerns about the title and the scope of this article. I see it as similar to the way that Isaac Newton is organized. There are subarticles on Isaac Newton's early life and achievements and Isaac Newton's later life. If a great deal of biographical information could be found on Nguyen Van Nhung, then within that model it would make sense to have an article titled Nguyen Van Nhung as a military bodyguard. The problem is that we do not have the biographical information to write a biography of Nhung that this article could be summarized in. I don't see that as something to stop an FAC, but that's me. Karanacs (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That example doesn't hold water, unfortunately. Issac Newton is organized in that way because it is coming from excess. It's the best way to express a large amount of information. This article, on the other hand, is organized in this way because of a shortage of information. That's not the same thing. You have created a leaf when the branch doesn't exist. JRP (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, for article focus reasons, as others have stated above, plus, more specifically:
    • The article title, "Nguyen Van Nhung as a military bodyguard", strongly implies we have other articles about Nhung.
    • The article belies its title directly because it isn't really about Nhung as a bodyguard, it's about Nhung as an assassin. It says as much in the lead: "The bodyguard of General Duong Van Minh, Nhung was a professional military hitman". If it was about Nhung as a bodyguard, presumably it should talk about how he became a bodyguard, what he did as as a bodyguard, etc. It doesn't.
    • Nhung is a supporting character in his own article! He is mentioned only in passing in almost every paragraph; I don't think there is a single paragraph that is even half about him, they're all mostly about the various presidents and plotters he served.
    • It's really, really short. 3 sections, one two paragraphs long, one only one paragraph long. I've seen one-paragraph sections used as a reason to deny GA status, much less FA.
  • There are also less important points that could be more easily fixed, or I could even live with:
    • "He was taken away by Nhung, all the while shouting" - Nhung was shouting?
    • At nightfall, Nhung took Tung and Major Le Quang Trieu—his brother and deputy - Nhung's brother?
    • the brothers were shot into their graves - I imagine them being loaded into a cannon here...
    • "Ngo Dinh Nhu (pictured) shaking hands with United States President Lyndon B. Johnson." - What does (pictured) mean here? It's the caption to an image, surely (pictured) is implied ... and if it isn't, why doesn't Johnson get one as well?
    • "As they left, Minh gestured to Nhung with two fingers, taken to be an order" - is there any dispute that this was an order? If so, please say explicitly that there is such a dispute, and who took it as an order; in fact who is testifying to this event, presumably this is a rather important point?
    • Minh then ordered Nhung to execute the Diem loyalist. Tung had failed to convince the president to surrender and still commanded the loyalty of his men. The other generals had little sympathy for Tung, because the special forces commander had - "Tung" is the same person as "the Diem loyalist" and "the special forces commander"? If there isn't some kind of rule against referring to the same person three different ways in as many consecutive sentences, there should be. --GRuban (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have nothing but respect for Karanacs, but I feel that her concern about comprehensiveness was unactionable and the rename actually detrimental, and that in attempting to address her concern you've violated the guidance of WP:NAME. The guidance specifically is this: "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." Here we have renamed an article from its common sense name (someone looking for the most comprehensive available information on this subject would literally never search for this title and would always search for simply Nguyen Van Nhung. Appropriate Wikilinks would also be simply to the name.) to a name that pedantically fulfills the criteria. We need to be able to allow for common sense exceptions, especially for the sake of readers. The rules exist only to ensure quality for our readers. When we start to insist on rules for their own sakes, even when they confuse the readers, then it's the classic example that the rule is being interpreted incorrectly. --JayHenry (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a slightly random note, I view "Nguyen Van Nhung as a military hitman" to be a better title than this, since that is basically what the article is talking about. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 02:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Or how about The role of Nguyen Van Nhung in the assassinations of Colonel Le Quang Tung, President Ngo Dinh Diem and Ngo's brother Ngo Dinh Nhu? --JayHenry (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Along with the JayHenry and Jrp, I feel that this article violates WP:NAME. They have outlined the problems well. While I know that the "comprehensiveness" criteria is supposed to indicate that an article comprehensively covers the published material on a subject, which presumably this article does, I still think we need to take a hard look at whether this article is necessary. As GRuban states, "Nhung is a supporting character in his own article! He is mentioned only in passing in almost every paragraph" - I definitely had this feeling when reading it as well. I did not feel that I learned much about the article's subject while reading the article. If the article does not really describe its ostensible subject - even using all available sources - I do not think we should feature it. I would suggest merging this article with the relevant coup articles. Awadewit (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/July_2008&oldid=224489209"