Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/July 2008

July 2008

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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:43, 16 October 2008 [1].

---

Tokyo Mew Mew

Nominator(s): AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs)

previous FAC (03:13, 22 July 2008)

I'm renominating this article for featured article because I feel it meets all of the criteria for being an FA article and that all issues from the previous FA nomination have now been addressed. This article is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, stable, and properly follows the Wikipedia style guide and the Anime and Manga manual of style. It is thoroughly referenced from reliable sources and using a consistent referencing style. It has been peer reviewed, thoroughly copyedited, and is currently a GA article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• http://www.tv-aichi.co.jp/mewmew/kako/052/index.html deadlinks
• There were concerns brought out in the previous FAC about brandnoise and the two CD retailers, which I left out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Check the FAC for the reasoning given for inclusion.

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that I did not evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Already fix the first with the addition of an archiveurl :) For the concerns over the two retailers, I still pretty much stand by my earlier remarks: CD Japan is the English language version of one of the largest CD sellers in Japan (Neowing). Kalahari is a South African retailer. While commercial sites are not the preferred option for the source, however they are only being used to cite the existence and releases of those CDs/DVDs, and in the absence of any other official or RS site, they are the best available source. The alternative would be to just pretend we don't know that the series was released in English in South Africa or that the CDs exist, losing valid information from the article. It is unfortunate, but with the series licensing issues, there is unlikely to be another source for any of this unless it is ever relicensed and re-released.

For Brandnoise, as I noted in the previous FAC, it is a blog, but it is the official blog of a company, scenarioDNA, which is a market research firm and would seem to be RS for that sort of information. From my understanding of WP:RS, such a blog is considered a reliable source? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave these out for other folks to decide on their own. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

On references:

• Many of the links for published works go back to their Wikipedia articles instead of the source itself, including Anime News Network, Manga Pacific, Miachi Daily News, Taylor and Francis, and Tokyopop.
• The use of Amazon and CD Japan is being used to verify track listings? Can you use the actual CD inserts instead of these sites? Secondary sources should be used instead to report how the CDs were received. Are there reviews for the music on them?
• Is source #60: Forum Buzz actual news reported by reliable sources or press releases or the result of chat room gossip? It's difficult to tell with that source. --Moni3 (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

On the links, they are linking the name of the source, right? So Anime News Network? i.e. they are linking to the publisher's wikipedia article? That's not a problem, as long as they aren't linking to that for the sourcing, which I didn't think they were. They are just giving a link to let folks know more about the publisher, it isn't the source being cited. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Completely scratch that...God... I do the same for The New York Times. I'm so embarrassed. --Moni3 (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Caffeine. It is your friend. (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL, no problem. :) For the rest, I used the Amazon and CD Japan sites to primarily verify the CD release dates and general contents since the CDs were never released outside of Japan and would be difficult to acquire. I could not find information on them on any Japanese news sites or the like to use as alternative sources. I have not found any reviews on the series music at all, unfortunately, likely due to the lack of the international release for the CDs and the poor English release. :(

The Forum Buzz is based on verified info posted to AoD's forums by site moderators so for that particular site, I would consider it a reliable source. I can drop the ref, if needed, as it basically just backs up the first. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Support on prose alone, not to say that a little polishing isn't possible.

• "It was originally serialized in Nakayoshi from September 2000 to February 2003 and later published in seven tankōbon volumes by Kodansha from April 2003 to May 2004." The longer the sentence, the more likely the insertion of an optional comma. Here, I'd put one after "February 2003", especially as it divides a repeated construction.
• What earthquake isn't sudden? You mean "powerful"? Tony (talk) 07:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Added a comma as suggested and removed sudden. It wasn't particularly powerful, just very quick and no aftershocks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments, Giggy

• "Tokyopop licensed the manga series for English-language publication in North America and released the complete original series as well as the sequel; 4Kids Entertainment, meanwhile, licensed the anime series for North American broadcast" - I'd split this into two sentences.
• "Well received by English-language readers" - what about Japanese reception? Since it started in that language I'd give it priority.
• "Tokyo Mew Mew was generally well received by reviewers, who described it as cute and entertaining." - and then you give one review as an example... I dunno, I'd prefer if some more substance was put behind the claim

Giggy (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the first. Unfortunately, no Japanese reception information has been found. Its been a regular problem in the anime/manga articles, where except for the biggest series, even sales figures are difficult to find. For the third, I've fixed that. Somehow a la Mode ended up in the middle of the original's set of reviews :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Giggy (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - there's no academic or peer reviewed literature out there about Tokyo Mew Mew? -Malkinann (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Not that I've ever been able to find, no. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I've actually never heard of Tokyo Mew Mew before, but I skimmed through this article and know a lot more about it. Sources seem fine (where they're needed,) no expansion is needed, I originally thought that more "reception" was needed, but I guess what's there is about all there is. Good job, whoever wrote this. Tezkag72 (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) I wish there were more reception as well. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:08, 7 September 2008 [2].

---

The World Ends with You

Nominator(s): MASEM

previous FAC (20:31, 31 August 2008)

Sourced have been checked in the first FAC (and have not changed from there) and reevaluated in the second, previous one. Images were rechecked in the previous FAC as well. The previous FAC failed due to open comments left by reviewers that were addressed though complete closure (and associated "support" !votes) was incomplete. In particular wording issues described by User:Dweller,; he has since commented that the article is now a strong candidate, so I am bringing it back for re-nomination. Again, I do need to note strongly that this article is made difficult by the terminology used by the game ("Player" and "Players" for some characters) that overlaps with the general terminology of the game user ("player"), so if you do find any point of confusion, please drop a note so that it can be fixed (this was a point Dweller mentioned on the previous FAC and was significantly addressed) --MASEM 13:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources still look good. You should note non-English language sources when given (How I missed that the first two times around, I do not know). (I'm not watching this, I trust you to fix that!) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Saw three that needed (both soundtrack refs, and Famitsu review source). --MASEM 15:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• Image all have appropriate licenses/author/source information, and detailed fair use rationales. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments OK, we're getting there. I'll bung comments below this. --Dweller (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Combat section sparsely referenced. --Dweller (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I peppered in a few more (referencing it is not a problem, I'm worried about over-referencing) --MASEM 15:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal opinion: Soundtrack section has too much detail, seemingly acknowledged by use of "show" wikiscripts. Suggest hiving less essential material off to a daughter article. --Dweller (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be difficult to support the notability of a separate article even though it could be done. There's little commentary on the actual soundtrack (the music is noted in context of the game, but not the soundtrack separately), and no development or other influences, so it would fail WP:MUSIC notability. (mind you, I'm well aware that there's a general issue on notability throughout WP including an RFC I helped to get going on it, so this may change in the future). --MASEM 15:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Some of the {{cite web}} templates are formatted vertically, while the others are formatted horizontally. This should be consistent. The Prince (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

  Why? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

  That has no affect on the article output. It makes editing easier if they're the same but that's not an FA requirement. —Giggy 00:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

  I still think it should be consistent. Preferably the vertical style for easier editing. The Prince (talk) 11:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Regardless of my comment, which I have struck, the article is very solid, especially the development section. I didn't read the "Plot" section as I might play the game sometime, but the rest is very good. I also think "Gameplay" should go before "Plot", but again that's not a requirement, and is just my personal opinion. Great work on the article. The Prince (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Just as a note, this is a exception to the normal case in that by explaining the setting via the plot first, the gameplay section is much easier to write; reversing them makes the gameplay section even more confusing and repetitive with the plot. --MASEM 14:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Support; it is indeed a "strong candidate" and now meets FA criteria, IMO. —Giggy 00:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support vastly improved, now FA quality IMHO --Dweller (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: The article's prose looks to have tightened up since the last FAC. Quick question though, I couldn't find too much on GoNintendo. What makes it a reliable source? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC))
  • It is not as strong as IGN or the likes (it's just above blog quality). However, the point it is used for, the fact the soundtrack is on now on iTunes, I don't think is a very contentious point that needs a highly reliable source. --MASEM 17:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I did some more digging. Federated media calls them the "most up-to-date source for Nintendo news".[3] Never heard of Federated Media before but they seem legit/reliable enough.[4] GoNintendo has been cited on a CNET Asia blog posting.[5] Joystiq has cited them before too.[6] It is a little weak, but looks to be within limits. Though I'd be on the look out for another source should the article ever go up for FAR. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC))
• Support - It's definitely up to par at this point. TTN (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support: My main concerns were addressed in the previous FAC and my source issue above doesn't look to be of any serious concern. The article looks to be well written, comprehensive, and well sourced. Good job again Masem. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC))
• Neutral—I'm finding redundancies and misplaced formality/archaic words in the gameplay section. Everything below that will probably need more work. — Deckiller 06:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I ran through the suggested sections and made light copyedits. I think that the prose is in good shape. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Dabomb87 left some invisi comments that I dealt with; if there are still issues on the language, can you please point out a couple examples as to help ID the rest? --MASEM 14:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note, there is hidden text within the prose (doesn't mirror, print and is not accessible). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I disabled auto-collapse on the soundtrack lists, doesn't look like too much problem to be this way (See my previous comment about the difficulty of making those tracks into a separate article and notability). --MASEM 16:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Concer I believe that the soundtrack section does not meet WP:WEIGHT and that mentioning its availability could violate WP:SOAP. I do not know if this is 100% correct, but I think it warrants an in-depth discussion at a notice board.
  • Published game soundtracks (as opposed to just listing songs that are in the game's soundtrack but not released on any audio CD or download service) are very common in video game articles, or when they merit it, discussion by themselves, so I don't see how this is a SOAP issue (advertizing? Talking about the game itself would be the same). Including the track lists is also a part of the same (same for any album that's typically mentioned on WP in the first place, game or not). The WEIGHT issue is one I pointed out above - when its not hidden, it does look large, but the albums themselves, notable in the context of the game, would not have their own notability and a separate article would likely be challenged. --MASEM 18:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Mentioning that it is available for download is the "soap" concern, not the listing of the tracks. The weight was just to point ou that there aren't many resources on the songs but it is given a significant size. I also wonder about having the "hidden/show" option and how it deals with WP:Accessibility. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:24, 21 July 2008 [7].

---

Night Out

Nominator(s): Mr.crabby (talk) and Mastrchf91 (talk)

As part of WikiProject The Office, we've been working on the article Night Out, it is currently a good article and we feel that it is ready for FA status. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 00:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for now. I'm mainly discussing prose issues here, and its a pretty long list. I'd recommend getting someone who hasn't worked on the article to give it a thorough copy edit. The following is a partial list of prose issues in the article:

• Opening paragraph: "Written by Mindy Kaling, who also acts in the show as customer service representative Kelly Kapoor... the episode first aired in the United States... on the National Broadcasting Company (NBC)". This seems like the wrong sentence order - the sentence appears to be leading up to the final clause, but is the channel it was broadcast on really the most important information? Its also a long and complex sentence. I'd recommend splitting into at least two, one covering the writer and director, the second covering broadcasting information. These are really two separate concepts.

Split the sentences. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Opening paragraph: ""Night Out" was viewed by over 7.5 million people" - that's not technically true. It had a measured audience of over 7.5 million people bu we can't actually say they all viewed it. I know this sounds pedantic, but an FA should strive for this level of accuracy.

Stated that it was an estimated measurement of the audience. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Opening paragraph: ""Night Out" was viewed by over 7.5 million people,[2] bringing in the lowest number of viewers that The Office had seen in 12 episodes". The juxtaposition of "over 7.5 million" and "the lowest number of viewers" is jarring. Can it be reworded to flow better? Saying "The Office had seen" is again incorrect - viewers watch TV shows, not vice versa.

Clarified that it was a measured audience. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Opening paragraph: ""Night Out" received both positive and negative reviews among critics." - received reviews from critics, not among critics.

Changed. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Second paragraph: I'm not sure that a condensed plot summary work well as the second paragraph of the lede, but others may be able to give you clearer advice on this.

The condensed plot summary is used more as a lengthened teaser, which is the style of Greatest Hits (Lost) and other featured articles. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, like I said, this is something that others may wish to give their opinions about. Gwernol 15:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Second paragraph: "...and everyone quickly places blame on Jim" either "...places the blame on Jim" or "...blames Jim"

Changed. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Plot section: this is written as an "in world" plot description. Per the manual of style it should be written from a real world perspective.

Unclear on what should be done about this. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be rewritten to be from a real-world perspective. The reader should be aware that the events described are fictional, not real. There are examples of how to do this in the Manual of Style page I linked to. For example, you could start the plot section: "In this episode, ...". It doesn't need to be overdone, but is generally better style. Gwernol 15:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I'll get right on that. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 18:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Plot section, first paragraph: "A surprisingly friendly Ryan Howard" - why is he "surprisingly" friendly? This should be explained, for readers not familiar with previous episodes.

Clarified the difference between his present manner and that of previous episodes. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Plot section, first paragraph: "The previous version was shut down..." its not absolutely clear that you mean the previous version of the website. It would be helpful to include the wikilinked name of the previous episode referred to here so readers can find out more.

Clarified. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Plot section, first paragraph: "...due to an invasion by sexual predators of the social networking component..." - this implies that they were predators having sex with the social network. I think this would be clearer as: "...because sexual predators invaded the social networking component..."

Reworded. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Plot section, second paragraph: "Upon their arrival at a club..." is it possible to be more accurate than "a club". It seems like they pick a random nightclub and Ryan just happens to be there. I'm not sure if this is the way the episode works or if the writing could be clearer here.

Clarified it. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Plot section, second paragraph: "...a women's basketball team, also waiting in line" better as: "a women's basketball team, who are also waiting in line"

Reworded. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Plot section, second paragraph: "...advises them not to take Ryan to a hospital, the trio run off with." - there is something missing from the end of this sentence

I had fixed this before, somehow it was re-added. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Plot section, second paragraph: "...gives him hypothetical advice..." I think the advice is real, not hypothetical?

No, it was hypothetical. It's a part of the humor that Michael misconstrues Ryan's question. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. Gwernol 15:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Plot section, third paragraph: "...the rest of the office is forced to work on a Saturday to record their own sales as the website's sales..." its not clear to me how working on a Saturday is required in this? Can they only fake sales on the weekend? I can't follow the causality in this sentence.

I think the latter part of that sentence clarifies it well. If it doesn't, I'll be happy to change it. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Plot section, third paragraph: "...everyone to stay in the office overtime instead of coming in for the Saturday" This is confusing, we just read they are forced to work Saturday, then the next sentence says Jim finds a way for them to avoid working on Saturday. This needs clarification. Also the sentence should say: "...to stay in the office to work overtime instead..."

Changed. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Plot section, third paragraph: "They all agree with the plan..." should be: "They all agree to the plan..."

Changed. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Plot section, third paragraph: "...9:00 in the late evening..." 9:00 should be 9:00pm. I would argue that 9:00pm is not the late evening.

Changed. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Plot section, third paragraph: "...gates locked, directly resulted from Jim forgetting to tell the security guard that they were staying overtime." should be "directing resulting from..." or better, something like: ...gates locked. Jim had forgotten to tell the security guard that they were working late."

Changed. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said, these are some examples, not an exhaustive list. I also have concerns about some of the sources used in the Critical response section, which at first glance seem to be from borderline notable blogs. Gwernol 01:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll give a detailed rundown on what I've done with the requests tomorrow. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 02:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to get an independent copy-edit of the article later on this afternoon. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm happy to revisit my opinion after further copy editing. Feel free to ping me on my talk page when its ready for another look. Oh, and per the instructions at the top of this page, you should removed the {{done}} tags from your responses above. Good luck, Gwernol 15:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've removed the tags, also. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 15:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to update this, I've requested a copy-edit from another person, and hopefully they will be able to complete it soon. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 21:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes http://tvbythenumbers.com/ a reliable source?

Added another website for the statistics. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Likewise http://www.officetally.com/?

The first instance of using this source is from an interview, which I feel is a okay use in this case, and the second is a fan-voted rankings from a fansite that's frequently mentioned by cast and crew of the show, and is arguably the most popular Office fansite. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• And http://remote.lohudblogs.com/2008/04/24/office-kiss-and-tell-actress-who-plants-one-on-dwight-tonight-grateful-for-big-break/?

The information that we've used from this website are direct quotes from actors. To me that seems about as reliable as you can get. Should I find a new source? --Mr.crabby (Talk) 14:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• And http://twocentsbranchoffice.blogspot.com/2008/04/scrantonbranchoffice-exclusive.html?showComment=1209161820000#c7705343324240049314?

Same here as above. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 14:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, with interviews, we need to know that the site hosting the interview is reliably hosting the interview. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment A little too much overlinking of cast-and-characters in the article. Mindy Kaling alone is linked five times. "making out" is not formal language. indopug (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed multiple instances of overlinking, and reworded the caption. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 18:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Better. "although that probably has something to do with there being no Grey's Anatomy and a repeat of CSI." again, very informal and vague language. indopug (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

And i believe user polls and the like are discouraged on Wikipedia; I'm not sure though. indopug (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've reworded the statement. And for right now, I think we should leave the poll in, unless many object to it. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 18:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, 1c. Disappointing lack of any serious sources here. Almost the entire article is sourced to primary sources or blogs with extremely questionable reliability. Reliable secondary sources are needed throughout. --Laser brain (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Which sources do you suggest are "extremely questionable"? I don't see the problem with a large number of primary sources either. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 00:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Most blogs are extremely questionable, as there is no fact-checking or discernible editorial process. Fan blogs are doubly so and also lack neutrality. Wikipedia:Reliable sources is a basic requirement of FA criterion 1c, and calls for reliable, secondary sources. --Laser brain (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Reviewing only image licensing: I'm not sure that the images contribute much, but otherwise it looks good. --NE2 12:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I feel that big paragraph about the former-basketballer's kiss falls a little short of being "encyclopedic" information ("Mostly lip-a little tongue-but mostly lips"). Trim it a little please. indopug (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I just went ahead and removed the part about the kiss. I agree, a bit un-encyclopedic. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 19:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment after copy editing attempt: This article needs to be reworked by the authors, or by someone who is willing to study the sources carefully, if it is to become a featured article. Many portions are ambiguous or even do not make sense, making copy editing difficult (I only copy edited a paragraph or so before deciding to post comments here). Examples below:

"but fail to get in because they do not have dates"

Why? The club requires attendees to have dates?

"rest of the employees are going to be forced to work on a Saturday to record their own sales as the website's sales"

How does working on a weekend lead to recording of worker's sales as websites's sales?

"Production" section

The whole section reads like a collection of random facts. What is so significant about the stunts in the episode that warrants such a list of seemingly minor stunts?

"Reception" section

Too many quoations, in my opinion. Consider working the quotations into the text.

Consider reading the article from the viewpoint of someone who has no clue about the episode. All the best! -Samuel Tan 08:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

criteria 3 - The two images have the same rationale "To illustrate the episode for readers", if one illustrates the episode, then the other is not needed WP:NFCC#3, and neither of them seem to meet WP:NFCC#8 Fasach Nua (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 23:30, 19 July 2008 [8].

---

Battle of Trenton

Nominator(s): Red4tribe (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I've done a ton of work on it, and I feel it is good enough to be a FA. Red4tribe (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current refs 2 and 3 (Battle of Trenton, Chalfont Web Design) the publisher should be British Battles.com, not Chalfont Web Design. It's the person/site putting the infromation out, not a web design firm, that is the publisher. Usually, you can tell who the publisher is by who is holding the copyright.
• And what makes http://britishbattles.com/index.htm a reliable source?
• Likewise http://www.strike-the-root.com/?
• And http://www.patriotresource.com/history.html?
• And http://www.doublegv.com/ggv/NJrev.html?
• And http://www.davidhanauer.com/buckscounty/washingtoncrossing/?
• Many of your published references are lacking publishers. I really can't judge their reliability because I need to have some idea of who published the book before that's possible.

Links checked out okay with the link checker. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments: All images free use; licenses check out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: There are multiple reasons why I don't believe this article fulfills the FA criteria at this time.

• Most importantly, it is far too brief. While reading the first half, I kept finding myself asking "when?" "why?" "who said?" "how?" An FA should not leave the reader asking questions. Vague phrasing and tangent sentences should be addressed.
• I'm obviously not a history buff, although I think I have a relative knowledge of the Revolutionary War. However, I found myself struggling with the context (or lack thereof). The lead doesn't even say what two sides were involved in the battle; in fact, the first time the British are mentioned is in the second section, "Prelude". At what point in the war does the battle take place? What year, even? (It's mentioned in the lead, but the lead is meant to be a summary of the entire article.) When was war even declared? Why? Who was Washington? His full name and position are not even explained! All of this and more should be in the "Background" section.
• The prose is often poor and at times reads as unencyclopedic (Even Washington expressed some doubts??). The first sentence alone is clumsy: The Battle of Trenton took place on December 26, 1776, during the American Revolutionary War after Washington's crossing of the Delaware River above Trenton, New Jersey. Is this article about Washington's crossing of the Delaware or the Battle of Trenton?
• The lead section currently does not give a proper overview of the article as per WP:LEAD.
• Citation formatting is inconsistent. "Fischer, p.247." or "McCullough p.274"? Institution, Chautauqua The Chautauquan 1892. in the Refs is somewhat baffling; Chautaugua Institution cannot be someone's name, surely?

I think the article needs a major overhaul, sadly. At any rate it isn't ready for FA. María (habla conmigo) 15:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Agree with María here. This fails 1a for prose, 1b for comprehensiveness, and there are problems with the citations.

• The References section is quite lengthly, but I don't see all of those used for footnotes. Need to make a 'Further reading' section.
• Also, there are missing ISBNs in the references list.
• "McCullogh, David 1776.2005" - What is this?
• Agree with unreliable sources mentioned by Ealdgyth.
• "Prior to the battle, American morale was at an all time low. They had been ousted from New York, and the Army had been forced to retreat across New Jersey." - I'm sorry, who had been ousted from NY? And who ousted them?
• "Trenton was occupied by three regiments of Hessian soldiers commanded by Colonel Johann Rall for a total of about 1,400 men. Washington's force totaled about 2,400 men. He was aided by Major General Nathanael Greene, brigadier general Hugh Mercer and Major General John Sullivan.[6]" - This assumes we know what and where Trenton is. Why not "totaling 1,400 men", instead of "for a total of about..."?
• "General John Cadwalder would launched a diversionary attack against the British garrison at Bordentown, in order to block off any reinforcements." - "would launch" - why not "launched" instead? Also, "in order to" -> "to".
• "The Trenton Battle Monument erected at "Five Points" stands as a tribute to this crucial American victory." - Source? What makes it so crucial?
• Article seems to be incomplete, desperately needs expansion to satisfy the reader.
• I recommend withdrawing to work on this some more.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - No source information on Image:Trenton Surrender.jpg. Garion96 (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• The lead says it all, doesn't it: stingy. Red4, I wonder whether you'd consider withdrawing this and gathering fellow WPians in this field to improve it before resubmission. Prose, MOS breaches, lead, comprehensiveness. Tony (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll withdraw it for now. Red4tribe (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Please leave the {{fac}} template on the talk page until the bot goes through, per WP:FAC/ar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 15:51, 19 July 2008 [9].

---

Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories

Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article for a little light relief. DrKiernan (talk) 10:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "grisly murders" - Maybe its me, but grisly sounds too informal.
• I don't like the lists - can you convert them to prose?
• Some footnotes use the "p. 8" style (space after p.), but some have no space - please be consistent.
• If a publication has an article, you should link its name when used in a footnote.
• Web access dates should be linked.
• Align the last picture to the right, to avoid obstructing the 'see also' section header.
• ..." from August 29 to September 7." - don't link days/months, only full dates with day/month/year.
• ..."admitting to the Sunday Times" - Shouldn't that be a capital T for the? (or you could leave 'the' out of the linked words)
• Sources look fine.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 12:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• • The dates in the text are linked per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Autoformatting and linking, so that you see "from August 29 to September 7" rather than "from 29 August to 7 September", which is what I see. I'd prefer not to link dates in the references section per Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context (such links are not relevant). I've tried out the remaining list as prose, but I think it works better with bullet points. DrKiernan (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes http://www.casebook.org/index.html a reliable source?

Otherwise sources look good, all links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Casebook is operated by Stephen P. Ryder (author of Public Reactions to Jack the Ripper and co-author of Ripper Notes: Jack the Slasher), and Thomas Schachner (author of Jack the Ripper: Anatomie einer Legende (Gebundene Ausgabe) [in German]). The pages linked give their sources. Contributors include Stewart P. Evans (author of Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates, Executioner: The Chronicles of James Berry, Victorian Hangman, The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook: An Illustrated Encyclopedia, Jack the Ripper: Letters from Hell, The Lodger: Arrest and Escape of Jack the Ripper, Jack the Ripper: First American Serial Killer, etc.) and Christopher Scott (author of Will the Real Mary Kelly...?). DrKiernan (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Sounds good to me. I figured it was something like that, but honestly I'm not into Ripper studies, so no clue on what sites are reliable and which aren't. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Comments - Very interesting subject. I got a bit confused in a few points, and I think the prose needs a bit of massaging so that some of the paragraphs read more clearly (and less like a list of facts).
  • The second paragraph of the section Prince Albert Victor as a suspect has almost every sentence beginning with "Stowell claimed". It is usually better to mix this up a bit.
  • The information about Sickert is a bit confusing. I assumed at first that the story was that of Joseph Sickert, talking about his own experiences, but the dates don't match. I finally figured out that it was likely talking about Walter Sickert. This should be made much more clear in the article.
  • Furthermore, I'm confused about the BBC program. Was this a completely fictional account (there are fictional detectives), was it more of a documentary, or what? Did the show only depict Sickert's information, or did it also show other theories?
  • I see by clicking the link that Stephen King's book on Jack the Ripper was nonfiction. This should be specified in this article, as most people are familiar with King primarily for his fictional works, and I assumed at first this was also fiction.
    • Sorry, I must have gone temporarily blind. Karanacs (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If Walter Sickert is from Denmark, how would he be a good choice to teach Albert Victor about London social life?
  • I think the prose needs a bit of work to make sure that it flows well. For example, the section Sickert rebutted reads to me like a hodgepodge of useful facts, but there could be better transitions between then.
    • I did a bit of a copyedit and reorganization here; please revert anything that is off. Karanacs (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Working back from her birthday, Alice was conceived between 18 July and 11 August 1884. Albert Victor was in Heidelberg from June to August 1884, and hence was not in London at the time of her conception" - I think this should be clarified with "assuming she was born at full term" or something like that. If she was a 7-month baby (and many could survive with the medical care at the time), then the June-August information is irrelevant.
  • I find it interesting that both theories discuss Sir William Gull. I am unfamiliar with him, anything about Jack the Ripper, or Albert Victor; is there a reason that he would be named in both? If so, this might ought to be explained a bit.

Karanacs (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Taking each of your points in turn:
    • Changed.
    • Changed Joseph Sickert to Joseph Gorman throughout to avoid confusion between him and Walter Sickert.
    • Added: The programmes mixed documentary and drama in an investigation of the Jack the Ripper murders.
    • It's Stephen Knight not King. Changed to: Later works based on Gorman's claims, such as Stephen Knight's Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution, first published in 1976, have treated it as a reality.
    • Dunno. Gorman presumably had to invent that bit to make the story work.
    • Yes, it used to be a list, hence the choppiness. I've tried to spruce it up a bit.
    • The source given just states that that's when she was conceived and Albert Victor was away then. I don't know of a source disputing the analysis.
    • Added: Sir William Gull, 1st Baronet, a reputable clinician who had treated members of the royal family. to explain his connection. DrKiernan (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • I've stricken most of my comments.
      • I think there should still be a line making it clear that Gorman's story was one he was presumably told by his father. It is still not quite clear to me in reading it that Gorman is telling a story about his father.
      • As for the conception, it might be best to put, "According to so-and-so," in that sentence somewhere.
      • I'd also insert an according to into this sentence Ithas been suggested that the name of her father was omitted from her birth certificate... .Karanacs (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Changed to: Gorman claimed that Sickert had told him a story...
        • Changed to: According to Trevor Marriott, an expert on the Jack the Ripper case, Alice "must have been conceived between 18 July and 11 August 1884".
        • Yes, thanks, that would be better. Changed to: Ripper expert Don Rumbelow has suggested... DrKiernan (talk) 08:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per criterion three concerns:
  • Image:William gull.jpg: Attribution problems and discrepancies. Date asserted by summary is 1896; date written on photo is 1881. Author is attributed as de.wiki user Bluebird666; I somehow doubt this user was taking photographs in 19th century England. Image does not appear to be available at the asserted source. Life of author +70 years is the PD criterion being used; how can we confirm the author died in 1938 or before?
  • Image:3rd Marquess of Salisbury.jpg: No support for GFDL license (why would the photograph of a man who died in 1903 be under this license and not a PD claim; GFDL version 1.2 - the current license - did not exist until November 2002, i.e. not in the author's lifetime). Image has no source, no author and no date of first publication (cannot make PD claim without this information).
  • Image:FromHellLetter.jpg and Image:PrinceAlbertVictor.jpg do not have verifiable sources (WP:IUP).
  • Image:From Hell film.jpg is not low resolution (WP:NFCC#3B) and is decorative (NFCC#8). Why is this image necessary to understand royal conspiracy theories and what is its significant contribution to our understanding thereof? {{Non-free poster}}, further, requires critical commentary of the film or poster itself, neither of which receive such commentary in this article. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

All the images are now removed. DrKiernan (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

So stricken. No licensing concerns on replacement images. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added back Image:William gull.jpg after changing the description on commons, and adding a new web source. It is from a biography of Gull published outside of the United States in 1896, and is hence public domain (as a work published outside of the States before 1st July 1909). DrKiernan (talk) 06:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment A minor issue in the references; they need some consistency. For instance, "(Sept 2004). " → "(September 2004). ", and if dates are going to be linked in the body, then they should be linked in the references, too, so that all of the dates are the same format. Gary King (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Linked. DrKiernan (talk) 07:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Is this title really appropriate? I expected to read multiple theories with multiple royals involved, not a theory regarding one royal. Rmhermen (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you suggest? DrKiernan (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose
• I tried several times to read the article, and had difficulty concentrating. When that happens when I'm not hungry and the TV isn't on, I start to wonder what it is about the article that isn't getting my attention.
• The article starts with the beginning of the theories (I ended up on the page about Virginia Woolf, then realized I wasn't doing what I was supposed to be doing...) I think it should begin with the murders. These murders have captured public interest for 120 years, so they are powerful acts still. From there, it should explain what evidence there was, then go into details about the possibilities of the royal family as suspects.
• It's not clear in Gorman's story if you're addressing From Hell or Murder by Decree.
• There are sections in Gorman's story with no citations. Are you claiming the plot lines of From Hell or Murder by Decree are more than fanciful interpretations? Are these legitimate theories? The entire section reads as if someone is relaying the plot of a film. I don't understand what's going on.
• What is this? Murder by Decree "bore all the hallmarks of a film of some distinction ...[but]... erases them completely". In fact, this section has me completely confused.
• I think the article will benefit by reorganization and rewriting portions of it. I wish you luck with it. It appears to have the potential for a very interesting article. --Moni3 (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Taking the second, third, fourth and fifth of your points in turn.
  • This would repeat information in the parent article: Jack the Ripper. This article is about the conspiracy theory not the murders themselves.
  • First part of the section rephrased as Gorman's story as told by Knight has become well known, especially through fictional adaptations such as the graphic novel From Hell and the movie Murder by Decree. In Knight's book...
  • The citation is at the end of the section: Knight, pp.22–39 for the version with Anderson; Knight, pp.246–262 for the version replacing Anderson with Walter Sickert. The purpose of the section is to tell the story as originally told by Gorman.
  • It is a critique of the film which supports the statement "The films were savaged by critics." Same goes for the remainder of the paragraph. We could change the title of this section to "Fictional adaptations" if this is clearer. DrKiernan (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, DrKiernan. Sorry for not returning sooner, and thanks for dropping a message on my talk page. Can you explain what your vision is for the article? I understand that you're concerned about repeating information in the main Jack the Ripper article, but the list of victims is already in this one, just as they pertain to Prince Albert Victor. If you started the article with a brief overview of the murders, really no more than what there is now, then explain how members of the royal family came under suspicion, I think it would capture interest more effectively.

Can you tell me what your reasoning was behind leaving so much of the information in Gorman's story uncited? With so much information sourced with a 14-page reference, my concern focuses on accuracy. There's a great deal of room here for interpretation. --Moni3 (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

For me, the focus of the article is the conspiracy theory, how it came about, who invented it, how it's developed and why it's rubbish. The difficulty with starting with the murders is the discontinuity between the reality and the fiction. Albert Victor was never implicated in the murders at the time; the story of his involvement only starts with Jullian and Stowell in the 1960s. You say I should explain how the royal family came under suspicion, but all that we know is already in the article. Stowell said Albert Victor was the Ripper; Julian said there were rumours; Gorman claimed to be descended from royalty.

I don't agree that Gorman's story is uncited. The source is given three times before the story is laid out: "writer Stephen Knight published ... heavily based on Gorman's claims", "Gorman's story as told by Knight...", and " In Knight's book...". It is repeated with page numbers at the end of the story. I'm not keen at all on splitting the Knight reference, that just tinkers with the section while I get the impression that there is a more important underlying problem with distinguishing Gorman's story from what is actually known. I need to think of a way of phrasing those two paragraphs so that it is obvious that the whole thing is basically derived just from Gorman's imagination without much in the way of evidence. DrKiernan (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support: i like to support.--Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 08:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think this article needs quite a bit of work. Like Moni3, I found it difficult to follow in places, and less than engaging for what ought to be a pretty gripping story. A few more specific points:

• "Annie was often institutionalised, but this was because, as noted in workhouse and infirmary records, of recurrent epilepsy." Pretty awkward. What about "Annie was often institutionalised because of recurring epilepsy, as noted in workhouse and infirmary records."?

• ... but with Prince Albert Victor getting Ripper victim Mary Jane Kelly pregnant instead of Annie Crook." "Getting" seems a bit less than encyclopedic in this context.

• Gorman's story claimed that Annie and Alice's apartment ..." His story wasn't making any claim, it was Gorman himself making the claim.

• Furthermore, any marriage between Albert Victor and Annie would be invalid ..." Would have been invalid?

• The first symptoms of madness arising from syphilitic infection tend to occur about fifteen years from first exposure ..." After first exposure?

• Those were just some examples of the less than engaging prose. My other concern is around the structure of the article. In the second paragraph of the lead, for instance, it says: "Once the government discovered Albert Victor's secret, the British Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, his freemason friends, the London Metropolitan Police, and Queen Victoria herself, conspired to murder anyone aware of the child." It is not at all clear whether that is part of some theory or a statement of historical fact. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten the lead in the hope of removing the ambiguity, and rephrased four out of the five specific examples above. DrKiernan (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Reviewing only image licensing: looks good. --NE2 13:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Answer to both Moni and Malleus: I'm not sure what else I can do to meet 1a. As far as "engaging" goes, that has always been the most difficult criterion to satisfy. Ultimately, it may come down to what interests you. You may find it boring, while someone else finds it fascinating. Gorman's story may be gripping in itself but I think it's complete bunkum, so I want to keep in the prosaic and mundane refutation. However, if I can't see how I can make the article more interesting or less ambiguous without coming down very strongly on the side of the argument that I favour, making the distinction between the conspiracy theory and what I see as reality clearer, which puts me in the line of fire for claims of non-neutrality or bias.

If this nomination is archived without promotion, as looks quite likely, I'd like to thank everyone for reviewing the article with such care and dedication. I think it's improved as a result, but I'm having difficulty seeing how the remaining problems can be overcome. DrKiernan (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

DrKiernan, I know this is frustrating to get this opposition at FAC. But I was thinking if the article appeared similarly:

• Lead
• The murders, similar to the brief points you have right now, and a statement that points out that a great variety of suspects have been named, not only in police investigations immediately following the crimes, but by amateur theorists since the murders occurred.
• Emergence of theories involving the royal family, including a discussion of how valid the claims are
• Gorman's story: and I think it would seem more valid, and less like the section reads as a plot summary from a graphic novel to state throughout this section "Gorman claims...", "According to Gorman...", "Gorman also writes...", with corresponding page numbers for his claims.

If you have a particular reason, a vision, for why the article is structured the way it is right now, I don't understand it. That's why I was asking for clarification. As now, the article reads as a reference for Ripper enthusiasts (if there is such a thing), but is not easily accessible by those who are unfamiliar with the details of suspects and the canon of literature that has developed from these crimes. As I'm sure you know, all articles should stand on their own, regardless if they are spawned from a larger one. Should it appear on the main page without this connection, I'm afraid that it would be very confusing. I really hope to help here, and I apologize that this is tremendously inconvenient. Of course, we all must decide what we're willing to change in the article for the sake of the bronze star. --Moni3 (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't my intention to put a dampener on proceedings. Moni3 has described pretty well my own concerns about the structure. The prose stuff I'm frankly not too fussed about, as that can fairly easily and quickly be fixed. It's really the overall structure of the article that I'm having trouble with. I'd be happy to support its promotion if that could be sorted out. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The two of you have convinced me. I see now that the extra section explaining the murders is missing because the article first arose as a fork of Albert Victor's biography, rather than growing out of the Jack the Ripper articles. And I've begun to hate that Gorman section myself. I've tried to do a "quick fix" by putting a box around it, but I don't expect this to fully solve things. DrKiernan (talk) 09:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added an explanatory opening section Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories#Background. DrKiernan (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Still work to do on the prose. Here are random examples:
  • "The previous day he had gone shooting in Glen Muick with, amongst others, Prince Henry of Battenberg, and in the afternoon there was a recital given by Emma Albani." There's a tendency towards awkward, winding sentence structure. Try this: "The previous day, he had gone shooting in Glen Muick with Prince Henry of Battenberg among others, and in the afternoon there had been a recital by Emma Albani." Tense, redundancy problems there, too.
  • We have "9", but "forty-seven". See MOS, which prefers the reverse, with the boundary at nine/10.
  • Here's a long sentence: "On 5 November 1970 Stowell wrote to The Times newspaper denying that he had ever implied Prince Albert Victor was Jack the Ripper, and the letter was published on 9 November,[13] the day after Stowell's own death." Add a comma and split it for easier reading: "On 5 November 1970, Stowell wrote to The Times newspaper denying that he had ever implied Prince Albert Victor was Jack the Ripper; the letter was published on 9 November,[13] the day after Stowell's own death.
  • "The BBC television series Jack the Ripper, with fictional detectives Barlow and Watt, played by Stratford Johns and Frank Windsor respectively,[23] aired weekly in five episodes between 20 July and 17 August 1973." Look, it's not wrong, but why not make it easier for us: "The BBC television aired a weekly television series Jack the Ripper in five episodes between 20 July and 17 August 1973; it featured fictional detectives Barlow and Watt, played by Stratford Johns and Frank Windsor, respectively[23]." Yes? Sometimes your commas serve a difficult, winding road; sometimes you could add commas, as I've done there, as standard options, for example, after a time- or prepositional-phrase opening a sentence.

On the basis of these examples, can you sift through the whole thing and simplify the sentence structure? TONY (talk) 03:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've had a go.[10] DrKiernan (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Overall the article is very strong, but I have a few quibbles, all of which hopefully are easily fixed,

*The article title is confusing, 'theory' singular would be better IMO, as I think the idea is a continuation of a strand (a meme in todays lingo?)

• I prefered the opening para at nom, tbh. I realise I'm re-opening a can of worms, but compare this and this [11] [12]. The latter is not perfect, but is a clear basis for improvement.
• The Knight quote is too long, I found it difficult to get through, and is off topic in areas.
• I think there is great potential here to write a pacey article a la Bishonen. It is currently dry and factual in areas, adding colour would not be difficult.
• I would like to ditch completely "Portrayals in popular culture" as trivial, if only because of the section title, which is a red rag to a bull. There might be worth-while content here but the heading makes you want to go eugh, didn't read it (eg I didn't read it).

I would be close to support, and none of the above points above are fatal. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 22:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• • There are two main theories, Stowell's and Gorman's, with Harrison's and Spiering's (and maybe Cornwell's and Overton-Fuller's) as sideshows. It may be possible to reinsert a sentence such as There are two main conspiracy theories; one that supposes that Albert Victor was the Ripper, and another that falsely alleges others performed the murders to conceal his illegitimate child. onto the end of the first paragraph in the lead. However, someone is bound to complain about "alleges" and someone else will no doubt complain about "falsely".
    • Fine. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 20:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't wish to reinsert Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories as the first phrase seen by the reader for three reasons: (1) It introduces Jack the Ripper before we link to his name or explain who he is. (2) It is already shown in big black letters at the top of the page, so why repeat it? (3) Per WP:MoS#First sentences: "If the topic of an article has no name and the title is merely descriptive...the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text".
    • Fine ( Ceoil ^sláinte 20:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't really see how the conspiracy itself can be off-topic.
    • Can some of it be converted to prose, was my question. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 20:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I admit I am unable to match that editor's style.
    • Fine; but not my point.
  • Murder by Decree was the most expensive Canadian film ever made (at the time), and From Hell is well-known. I think it's important to keep in that content, as they are really the only reason anyone has ever heard the story. The films are the subject of "Media studies", which purports to be an academic subject. As I said before, this section could be renamed to something along the lines of "Fictional adaptations" or "Portrayals in film and media" if "popular culture" is a phrase which strikes one with horror. DrKiernan (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Fine.
    • Overall....Hmm. I'm not going to engage this again, given the tone of the replies and edit summaries. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 20:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support - The article is overall very well done, but Moni's points are rather persuasive. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 17:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose until some narrative and sourcing issues are cleared.
  • My initial impression after reading the lead is that the author(s) have a distinct POV about the conspiracy theories. Wording choices like "strong alibis", "convoluted", "widely dismissed" (which I would hyphenate, by the by), and "conspiracy theorists" lend to the atmosphere of a persuasive essay that says, "Look how ridiculous these theories are" rather than an encyclopedia article presenting NPOV research.
  • The article deals with two royal conspiracy theories—are there really no more?
  • You have some rather important statements sourced to Ripper Notes. Is that a journal, or what? What makes it reliable?
  • Not a fan of beginning a heading with "Eight years later in 1970 ..." What if I started reading there? Don't make me go scanning back to find out what happened in 1962. If the correlation is important, please restate the event in the next heading.
  • "In 1973, the BBC television series Jack the Ripper investigated the murders by using a mixture of documentary and drama ..." Was the series fiction or non-fiction? How did they use drama to investigate the murders? --Laser brain (talk) 04:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:12, 18 July 2008 [13].

---

The Greencards

Nominator(s): rootology

previous FAC 02:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to try renominating this as I've made changes since the previous FAC, and ran it through a peer review as well--I will have more time now to address any lingering concerns. Thanks! rootology (T) 22:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think this is ready for FAC. It has promise, sure, but I recommend you withdraw it and find collaborators who can copy-edit it carefully. Otherwise, it's going to have a difficult time here. Just a few trinkets from the opening:
  • "2003" pipes to a useful page, but our readers will probably just ignore it, thinking it's one of those irritating year-page links. Is the "2003 in music" page sufficiently focused? If so, I guess it's no big deal, but a better pipe-signifier would be great (I can't think of one, though).
  • Please don't link "Australia" and "England". See WP:MOSLINK and WP:CONTEXT]].
  • "who had all immigrated to the United States and specifically Austin"—This is a wasteful wording. Can you see why?
  • "Growing up, each of the band members had been exposed to"—"Growing up" is kinda vague and informal. And they weren't band members at that stage, were they? (try "musicians"?)
  • "the three quickly bonded"—hmmm ... "bonded" is just not right here. Sounds like an encounter group from the 1970s.
  • "shortly thereafter"—No; plain and simple, please. This is sub-Shakespeare.
  • "To raise the money needed to produce an album of their songs, the group began to perform locally in Austin, and adopted the band name of "The Greencards" for their billing"—Spot the redundant word in the first phrase. Startitis in the second phrase: why "began to"? What is "for their billing"? Is it necessary?
  • What's our policy about "#5"? I'd use "No."

I'm having trouble with this. The problems are just too dense, and need fresh eyes and skill to fix. TONY (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

PS Three NFC audio clips is verging on too many. Please see WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. There's no proper educational justification, the surrounding text doesn't refer to the musical features or the lyrics: how are they representative of the band, or the general style? Specifics, please. I'd cut to two at the most and zip up the context and info pages. NFC police will pay it a visit, otherwise. TONY (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• The article needs to be made completely chronological. "The Greencards were initially composed of two Australians,"--did they call themselves the Greencards then? If not, why should we?
• Most of the stuff in Early history can be transferred to bandmember's articles--"Raised in South London, McLoughlin began to perform country music shows with his family on weekends, influenced by George Jones, George Strait and Ricky Skaggs."--That entire paragraph in fact.
• "the idea of an American bluegrass band composed of two Australians and an Englishman is not as unlikely as it may seem:" -- since I know nothing about bluegrass, the idea is not "unlikely" for me. This "unlikel[iness]" needs to be attributed to somebody, not purported as fact.
• "what would become their debut album, the award-winning Movin' On."--POV ... even before we get to the section where that album is discussed, it is described as award-winning. Again, chronological order: was the album name already known at that time?
• Needs copy-editing--"instead focus on Americana-focused music" and "The Greencards play traditional American music due to their deep respect for the material than most American musicians do." (what?)
• "The lyrics on "When I Was in Love With You" were cited as among the most striking on Viridian, and were based in part by McLoughlin on an 1896 poem, "A Shropshire Lad", by Alfred Edward Housman, the English poet.[11] The song was described as a "Pogues-like romp""--is such a detailed description of one song needed in the band article?
• Band articles normally don't have Reception sections--any critical reception for the albums can be incorporated in the body of the article anyway. indopug (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tony that you renommed it too soon; only 20 edits (and no significant changes) since the last FAC. indopug (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, I got really impatient and stupidly jumped the gun. Please archive this. Sorry. rootology (T) 06:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Will do soon; please leave the FAC template in place on the talk page until the bot comes through, per WP:FAC/ar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:04, 17 July 2008 [14].

---

M-28 (Michigan highway)

Nominator(s): Admrb♉ltz, Imzadi1979

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is one of the best written road articles I have come upon, all its media is free use, and loaded onto commons, and it already had its peer review and has GA and A class status. Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 07:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Article stats:

Imzadi1979 193

Bkonrad 6

Bigturtle 6

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Generally, one of the top contributors to the article will nominate it. You should suggest it on the talk page to them. —Giggy 08:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, I just didnt want to be accused of WP:CANVASing. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 08:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I, as the primary contributor, was planning to nominate the article in about a week's time after I complete moving into a new apartment and have Internet access at home more than on my cell phone. My participation here may be a little sporadic, but I have no objections to proceeding as other roads editors can/will watch this forum when I can't. Imzadi1979 (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "M-28 MDOT" – comma needed?
• "The major reason given behind rerouting M-28 along CR 480 was cost." → "Cost was the major reason given behind rerouting M-28 along CR 480."

Gary King (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Updated. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 18:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments Sources look good. Great to see an article on a road I've driven a lot (we used to vacation in the UP). Links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "M-28 provides a major routing for Canadian traffic along the south shore of Lake Superior." – It provides a route for American traffic, too. (I didn't see many Canadian license plates on M-28 during my trips back and forth to MTU.) Maybe drop the "for Canadian traffic" phrase.
• Maybe wikilink the first instance of each route (not counting the infobox and lead)?

Zeagler (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• • The source used specifically mentions the Canadian traffic aspect of the route. I reworded the sentence to include Michigan traffic. I've seen a lot of Canadian trucks passing through my hometown of Negaunee, so I think it does a disservice to the article to remove this aspect of the highway completely. I'm checking on wikilinking to make sure I didn't miss any the last time I went through the article. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good now. It just was a little jarring to see only Canadian traffic mentioned in the opening sentence of the Route description section, as if MDOT built the road to appease Canada or something. ;) I brought up the wikilinking because I started reading the article without first looking at the infobox and US 41 wasn't linked. I think that's the only one. Couldn't hurt to do it. Zeagler (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Should be good now. I wikilinked first instance per section. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure Seney National Wildlife Refuge warrants its own section. Instead, I would append this to the Seney Stretch section: "The Seney Stretch forms the northern border of the Seney National Wildlife Refuge, a managed wetland in Schoolcraft County that contains the Strangmoor Bog National Natural Landmark within its boundaries." —Zeagler (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I still think there's too much information about the NWR there. All the reader needs in this article is the fact that it borders M-28 and a little blurb justifying that mention, which I tried to cover with my summary above. —Zeagler (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Reviewing only image licensing: looks good. --NE2 12:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• A good, well-researched article. The prose could use some work, thought. Some random examples:
• As well, M-28 carries two memorial highway designations along the routing. Remove "As well". A good thing to keep in mind is that you should write using as few words as possible without changing the meaning of the sentence. It improves prose flow.
• The western end has been expanded twice to different locations on the Wisconsin border. "Expanded" → "Extended"
• M-28 begins on the west end at a signalized intersection with US 2 in Wakefield. Would be better as "In the west, M-28 begins at a signalized intersection with US 2 in Wakefield."
• In the sentence, West of Munising is a ferry dock offering transport to the Grand Island National Recreation Area, and at Munising, one has easy access to Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore., "One has easy access" would be better as "there is easy access".
• In the "Seney Stretch" section, put the {{main}} on the top of the section.
• Constructed as a part of M-25 when that designation was used along today's M-28 east of US 41, the Seney Stretch is 25 miles (40 km)[16] of "straight-as-an-arrow highway"[17] across the Great Manistique Swamp, "though others claim it's 50 miles (80 km), only because it seems longer." This sentence could be worded better.
• South of Hulbert is Hulbert Lake. A six-word sentence? Merge it, or word it better.
• Format the dates in the history section differently, per WP:MOSDATE.
• Also, is there any history information other than just the alignment and realignments of the road? Were there any prior turnpikes? Were there ever any significant occurrences or landmarks?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliancolton (talk • contribs) 17:54, July 14, 2008

I will look into copy editing per your suggestions, but my Internet access is quite limited as I indicated above. Maybe the original nominator will tackle a copy edit. I think the {{main}} tag belongs where it is because the text the immediately follows it is related to that article, not the stuff above it. Also, turnpikes are an East Coast thing. Michigan has never really had any, especially in the Upper Peninsula. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the {{main}} thing, the template documentation says, This template is used below the heading of the summary, to link to the sub-article that has been (or will be) summarised. Unless I'm missing something, "below the heading" means at the top of the section. It's not a big deal, though. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The positioning of the {{main}} tag is the result of my recommendation that the SNWL section be cut down and merged with the previous section, as the only part relevant to this article is the fact that it borders M-28. The rest is extraneous, and in fact is just copied from the lead of SNWL. Imzadi1979 merely removed the heading in an attempt to address my concern. —Zeagler (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Closing notes: Ten days in to this FAC, the nominator has not edited the article during the FAC, and has a total of two edits to the article, made on July 7th, before the FAC was listed. Imzadi1979 has twice indicated that the timing of this nomination was bad for him/her because of a move, and that s/he has limited internet access. This is why the WP:FAC instructions say:

  Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly.

  I'm closing the nomination so that Imzadi1979 can present the nomination when the timing is better for him/her. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 15:02, 16 July 2008 [15].

---

Alberto Henschel

Nominator(s): Idontknow610^TM

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I translated it from the Portuguese Wikipedia, where it is featured, and I believed it is well-referenced, well-written, has sufficient images, and therefore meets the FA criteria. I would be more than happy to read any comments that would help improve the article. Idontknow610^TM 22:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Per WP:MOS the use of graphic quotation marks, the {{cquote2}}, is frowned upon.

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. I wasn't able to evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Which quotation marks do you advise me to use? Idontknow610^TM 17:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You can use HTML blockquotes or {{quotation|... }} See WP:MOS. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Idontknow610^TM 21:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Should not be in italics just because it is in a quotation. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Idontknow610^TM 22:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• The first paragraph seems to have some grammatical screw ups in it. Here is a suggestion:

Considered as the most dilligent businessman of the photography in the 19th century in Brazil,[3] with offices in Pernambuco, Bahia, Rio de Janeiro, and São Paulo,[4] Henschel was also the responsible of for the arrival of professional photographers to the country, like such as his compatriot Karl Ernest Papf—with whom he later worked—and his son, Jorge Henrique Papf,[3] that who would succeed his father in the branch of photography.[5]

—Mattisse (Talk) 22:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. FAC likes the use of em-dashes for dashes like you have above. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. This grammatical errors always occur in translations. Thanks. Idontknow610^TM

Since it translated from Portuguese, I could run through it and removed some of the obvious problems related to translating. Do you want me do do that? I would not make any changes of meaning. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that would be very helpful! Thanks! Idontknow610^TM 22:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope what I did is all right. It is a very interesting article. I wish there was more information! I delinked the dates because the FAC people don't like dates linked unless there is a specific reason for a date to be linked. Also, I could not get the notes to work. Hopefully, FAC editors will give more feedback, as I am not an expert as to all their rules. I am willing to help you out as much as I can. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank very much for your help, I think you did a more than excellent job. I also cannot get the notes to work, that's really weird. I also hoped the article would be a bit more extensive, but unfortunately there is not much information about Alberto Henschel. Again, I really thank you for your help! Cheers, Idontknow610^TM 23:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The date linking isn't quite correct here: please see the note I left at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United Airlines Flight 93. The guideline recently changed and not everyone understands it yet. Some of the dates are linked in this article now, while others aren't; this isn't correct (the date linking has to be consistent, whichever method is used). Also, see WP:MOSDATE regarding use of of in dates. Also, WP:DASH does not prefer emdashes over endashes; the two types of dashes used on Wiki to indicate interruption (punctuation) are spaced endashes and unspaced emdashes. For interruption (punctuations), it's ok to use endashes if they are spaced, or emdashes if they are unspaced, as long the article is consistent. However, the dashes in this article are now incorrect; the opening date now has an emdash, when endashes are used on date and number ranges (not emdashes, which are never spaced). Please see WP:DASH for a full explanation of the different uses of endashes (spaced and unspaced) and emdashes (always unspaced), or raise questions there. Both date linking and dashes are currently incorrect in this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I started a thread at MOSDATE about the new date linking, where you can followup with further questions, so it won't take over the FAC page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it OK now? Idontknow610^TM 12:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The article still has partial date linking and solo year linking. Solo years and centuries are rarely linked (only if really needed for context), and all dates should either be linked or not, consistently. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Al this linking thing is really confusing, I am still not sure what to link and what to not. Do we realy need this bureaucracy for FAC? Idontknow610^TM 23:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

All right, I just delinked all dates, years, centuries, etc. Only in the references of websites I didn't, for I am not sure if I am supposed to. Idontknow610^TM 14:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Here are the first few comments...more to come.
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_of_birth_and_death, don't include the locations of birth/death with the dates in the first sentence of lead.
  • The antecedents section seems extremely out of place to me. I expect a biography to begin with information about the person.
  • I think that the "Life" section heading should be removed and the other headings be brought up one.
  • "It is assumed that Alberto Henschel also met the photographer Francisco Benque " - can you specify who assumes this (perhaps a scholar's name).

This is what the source given at the end of the sentence states. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Did all of the changes that are listed in the first paragraph of 1860s happen in 1866 while he was still partnered with Gutzlaff?
  • " where he updated his technique and acquired new equipment for his atelier of photography" - any information about what new techniques or equipment he learned/found
  • "By opening three establishments in only two years, Henschel was thought of as the most audacious and sagacious photographic businessman in 19th century Brazil" - this type of claim needs to be attributed to someone -- who thought of him that way.
  • When he "separated from Gutzlaff", who kept the stores?
  • Any information about why he chose to make portraits of people of African origin? Any details on how his pictures "portrayed them freely and with dignity as people and not as objects"
  • Quotations of less than 4 lines should not be offset. They should instead be part of the paragraph.
  • Images should not be on the left directly under a heading that is greater than 3 levels (there is an issue at 1870s)
  • I'd recommend a good copyedit by someone who is not familiar with the article.
  • I'm not sure what carte de visite format is. Can this be explained a bit?

It is wikilinked, and, as the link explains, means business or visiting card format. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Any details on what was "the latest equipment appropriate for the instantaneous portraits of children"
  • Is there any information on his personal life? Did he marry or have children? How did he die?
  • I don't feel like I have more than a cursory understanding of who he was or how he worked. There aren't enough details to bring him to life or to really help me understand why his photography was important.

Karanacs (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Reviewing only image licensing: looks good. --NE2 12:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose—The writing is only reasonable in quality. I notice little glitches, so I'd be pleased if someone new could go through the whole text properly. Should be a long job. Here are examples—
  • MOS breach: Dom Pedro caption no dot, please. Check other captions.
  • Viena—spelling
  • "Because of the quality of his work and his success achieved in the Court"—spot the redundant word.
  • I've removed some of the trivial links: please weed the rest out. "Germany" should not be linked; certainly not repeatedly. Photography and businessman? Nobility? We do speak English: just let us read it without bright-blue obstruction.
  • "the recently discovered country aroused the interest of Germany"—last word is vague. Who? What class of people there?
  • "and the new species of plants[3] first related in the fantastic works of Hans Staden."—"fantastic" is ambiguous here; a lot of readers won't get it. "related" is not a good word here (try "conveyed"?).
  • Why the big box for the quote? Won't blockquote alone suffice? Interferes with the look of the page.
  • "arrived in Berlin"—add "had". TONY (talk) 08:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 15:02, 16 July 2008 [16].

---

Marcellus Formation

Nominator(s): Dhaluza (talk)

I'm self nominating this article for featured article. I have been working on several geologic formation articles lately, and decided to try to fully expand one to become a template. This article has been substantially expanded since the GA review, and the comments from the PR have been addressed. It is now comprehensive, and very diversely sourced.

The article length is relatively long, but this is at least partially due to the variation in characteristics from state to state, and I don't think it would make sense to break it into separate articles on this basis. None of the sections other than the Fossil Fuel section are particularly long, so I do not think summary style will help much. I think it works better as a sort of self-contained geology lesson within the context of the main subject. I have tried to include interesting tidbits throughout the text to hold reader interest, while still comprehensively covering the details the references show as important. Another reason for the length is the need to provide context for the technical terms, which are important to both include and explain for this type of subject. So overall I think it works at this length.

One request for reviewers: If you see a problem that takes less effort to correct than to comment on, then please do the former. Thanks. -- Dhaluza (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments - About your nomination statement - er, to become a template? I'm confused...

I am trying to develop a comprehensive, fully fleshed-out article that can be used as a template for developing stubs and expanding them. Dhaluza (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Wow, that first sentence leaves me feeling utterly confused, as I'm sure it would to any layman to geology. Could at least some of the jargon be explained?
  • I've unloaded it by moving the abbreviations down to the Stratigraphy section, and moving some terms down in the lede. Dhaluza (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• "Named for an outcrop found near the town of Marcellus, New York during a geological survey in 1839..." - it was named for the town, not the outcrop, obviously. Would you alter the prose to reflect this?
  • Technically, I think it is named for the outcrop, using the name of the town. This is explained in detail in the Stratigraphy section. Dhaluza (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• "The energy development community is developing its subsurface layers deep beneath the Allegheny Plateau as a significant source of largely untapped natural gas reserves located near the high-demand markets along the East Coast of the United States." - this sentence feels... awkward. How about "The energy development community is developing its subsurface layers deep beneath the Allegheny Plateau, where a significant source of largely untapped natural gas reserves exists, conveniently located near the high-demand markets along the East Coast of the United States." or something like that.
  • I used your formulation, minus two words. Dhaluza (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• "Most fossils are contained in the limestones" - should that be "limestone"?
  • I believe plural is correct, because there are several different named limestone layers. See Named Members. Dhaluza (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• "and the fossil record in these layers provide" - probably should be "provides".
  • Yes, done. Dhaluza (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• "The black shales [...] the fissile shales ..." - same as the one two above - should it be "shale"? Note that I'm uncertain on both of these; geological grammar isn't my major.
  • There are several different named shales, including black and gray shales. Dhaluza (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Redundancy: "with vertical fractures or joints providing some additional storage as well as pathways for the gas to flow; some gas is also adsorbed on mineral grains."
• More of the same: "stretching some 600 miles (970 km), compared..." if by "some" you mean to approximate the distance, then other, less ambiguous work better.
  • Yes, done. Dhaluza (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll go through more carefully later; I don't have much time right now. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the early feedback. I think I largely addressed these concerns, and appreciate your help. Dhaluza (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose 1a for now, regretfully, after taking another look at the prose. I'll point some of the mistakes from the first few paragraphs of the first section.

• "The Marcellus Formation is a radioactive, carbonaceous black shale that may contain limestone beds and pyrite and siderite concentrations." - The problem here is pretty obvious.
  • Please elaborate. Dhaluza (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Three "and"s - it's like saying "I like ice cream and cake and cookies" as opposed to "I like ice cream, cake, and cookies".
      • No, it's not that simple. Either the "and" or the word "concentrations" needs to be repeated. I would argue that repeating the shorter word is the lesser of two evils. Dhaluza (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• Redundancy: "Bedding in the Marcellus is moderately well developed..."
  • This is standard terminology. I hyphenated well-developed to avoid any confusion, and reworked the sentence. Dhaluza (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Fine with me. Nousernamesleft (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• "The iron pyrite (FeS2) is especially abundant near the base, and the upper contacts of limestones" - unneeded comma, methinks.
• This might sound silly, but "organic rich deposits" just sounds... wrong, somehow. How about rewording to "rich organic deposits"?
  • No, organic-rich is correct, but I hyphenated it again to avoid confusion. Dhaluza (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• "Measured total organic content of the Marcellus Formation" -> A "the" before the sentence is sorely needed.
  • I deliberately avoided it here, because the paragraph before and after both need to start with it, and this one does not. Dhaluza (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I have gone though and edited out over-use of "the" at the beginning of sentences, and especially paragraphs. Dhaluza (talk) 10:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• "ranges from less than 1%, to over 11% in New York state" - another unneeded comma.

Much of the article suffers from this sort of substandard writing, unfortunately. A copyedit would be appreciated. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the comma usage is more an issue of style than substance. Dhaluza (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Either way, it needs to be fixed. Surely you don't dispute that leaving it in is grammatically incorrect? Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing in favor of grammatical incorrectness, if that is what you mean. My point is that there are places where commas belong, and places where they do not belong. Outside of that, there are places where they are optional, and there, use, or non-use, is purely a matter of style. Obviously you prefer a particular, sparse, style, but this is not necessarily grammatically correct, nor is a more generous application incorrect. In technical writing, I believe a more liberal use is actually preferred — similar to climbing a steeper hill, you need to stop more often to rest. There are other practical considerations as well. For example, the unneeded commas you cite are used to create breaks for inserting reference superscripts. If they were removed, the citations would create a break in the sentence anyway, and it would be less visually appealing. There are a few places in the text where that was unavoidable because it would be grammatically incorrect to insert a comma there. But where one is optional, I believe it is preferable to use it in this case. Dhaluza (talk) 10:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I concede that some of them aren't necessarily grammatically incorrect if you leave them out, but some, like the last comment, are. I would at least like the latter kind to be cleaned up throughout the article. Also, there's some other minor wording issues that occur occassionally - I'll be happy to support when both are resolved. Nousernamesleft (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe the difference between 1% and 11% is enough of a contrast to deserve a comma. I have expanded this section, including this sentence, so it may be more clear now. Dhaluza (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Since when have commas been about contrast? Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Commas can indicate contrast, but this one doesn't. The sentence now is: Measured total organic content of the Marcellus Formation ranges from less than 1% in eastern New York, to over 11% in the central part of the state, and the shale may contain enough carbon to support combustion. This is ungrammatical and confusing; from and to are parallel and should be in the same construction. Weak Oppose. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/geo/lgdalleg.html deadlinks
• Current ref 108 is borked somehow
• Current ref 126 (Doden, A. G. , Gold, D. P. et. al) is lacking a publisher

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The dead link is probably just a temporary problem. The main site is down too. Ref 108 link was dead, but commenting it out broke "cite web" -- used "cite news" instead. Publisher added. Dhaluza (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

" Comment

• "Martin, R.L.. "Taxonomic Revision and Paleoecology of Middle Devonian (Eifelian) Fishes of the Onondaga, Columbus and Delaware Limestones of the eastern United States.". West Virginia University." needs an accessdate
• "External links" goes after "References" (WP:LAYOUT)

Gary King (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Access date added. Section moved. Dhaluza (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Reviewing only image licensing: looks good. --NE2 12:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:49, 15 July 2008 [17].

---

2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake

Nominator(s): --I'm an Editorofthewiki, Meldshal42

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is a very comprehensive account of this earthquake. It has passed as GA and has only since improved. I hope this will set the standard of FAs to follow out of the newly-created WP:QUAKE. And yes, there have been shorter FAs. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 02:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Co-nom I didn't really think this article was ready, but I helped pretty substantially to bring it to this level. This article is rather comprehensive considering its length. I want to see how this will work out. --Meldshal42 (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Link the date "19 July 2002" if dates are going to be linked in this article. Gary King (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 03:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• This needs sorting. Meldshal42, you are the second highest editor on the article, a co-nom, and you also passed it GA. Someone at GA please sort. Also, if the second-highest contributor "doubts it will pass", it's not clear if FAC instructions were followed: "Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria ..." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I personally think it meets all of the FA criteria, but for Meldshal, that may be a different story. Meldshal, why do you think this won't pass? --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 17:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Fine, I agree. it may be short but it's rather comprehensive. --Meldshal42 (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose mostly per FA criterion 1a. I feel, among other things, that the article is a mix of complex jargon-filled language ("Background and tectonics") or overly simple sentences (first paragraph of "Damage and casualties". Some issues:
  • "The epicenter was located near the town of Bou'in-Zahra and was located in an area known for strong earthquakes." – "was located" ... "was located"? Try "near the town of Bou'in-Zahra, an area known for strong earthquakes"
    • Changed to "The epicenter was located near the town of Bou'in-Zahra in an area known for strong earthquakes." --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 17:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Why is the magnitude not mentioned in the lead?
    • Now it is. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 17:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • MoS issue: be consistent with your number format. One to nine are written out as words, while 10 and above are written as numerical figures.
    • I think I've got every one that isn't a measurement (km etc.) --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 17:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
      • One remaining, fixed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "The earthquake had a shallow focus for the Earth's crust had to adjust to the strain caused by this collision." – What?
    • Changed to "The earthquake, which had a shallow focus on the Earth's crust, had to adjust to the stress caused by this collision." --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 17:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't understand. How can an earthquake adjusting to stress? An earthquake is a geological occurrence, not some physical entity. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
        • It had to adjust to the stress caused by the collision of plates. Perhaps I should re-instate "strain". --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 18:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "An inversion of long-period P and SH body-wave seismograms shows rupture on a thrust fault which dipped 49 degrees to the southwest and with a centroid depth of roughly 10 km." – Either simplify the language or add relevant links. Why is present tense used?
    • Links added, past tense. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 18:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Journals are merely repositories for published material. Therefore, you should list authors instead of the journal title in this sentence: "The Geophysical Journal International speculates..."
    • "R.T. Walker and colleagues speculates..." --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 18:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The entire "Background and tectonics" section is filled with subject-specific jargon, could you tone it down a bit or add links?
    • I think I did, is there anything I missed? --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 18:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • First line of "Damage and casualties" – mention Iran time zone.
    • Done. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 18:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, use proper number formats. See WP:MOSNUM#Numbers as figures or words. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Huh? --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 18:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I already handled it. See "twenty" above. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
    • These are things I ran into by reading approximately half the article. I request you find a fresh set of eyes to copyedit this article. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Could you please be more specific? --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 19:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Specific about what? I asked you to get someone new to the article to copyedit the article. If the prose is better, then I'll withdraw my oppose. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
          • I asked Meldshal42 to do some more copyediting. What about the prose, exactly, is making you oppose now? --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 19:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
            • The prose is not of FA quality. That's my rationale; I stated that in my opening line. I'm not going to provide you specifics of sentences gone awry because I feel a good copyeditor should be able to fix these issues to my satisfaction. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
              • • The LOC was shut down quite recently. I have read and re-read the article and have found no faults (ignore the pun) with it. Do you know of a good copyeditor that will help fix them rough spots? --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 19:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
                  • I recommend you contact a few people from WP:PRV. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
                    • I did some outside copyediting per request by EditoroftheWiki, found several things that needed fixing/rephrasing. Got rid of lots of hyphens as well as moving the title using an ndash. I don't believe at this point is is an FA, but I think it could be there shortly. I've raised a couple of points on the talkpage about two instances of contradictory (in my eyes) information that need to be answered/repaired/explained. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
                      • Some of these changes are incorrect; pls read WP:DASH and WP:HYPHEN. I'm not certain the name change was correct, either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
                        • Dashes changed back to hyphens, where appropriate. Editorofthewiki has reverted the pagemove. The hyphenated form was correct. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
                          • New article name has to be fixed in many places, some involving an admin. I can't fix it this time, but the FAC has to be listed correctly on the article talk page, at WP:FAC and in the FAC itself, as well as in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• (undent)I have fixed both and added another source. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 04:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• What makes http://www.olympus.net/personal/gofamily/quake/index.html a reliable source?

Otherwise sources look okay, and the links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Hmm, it seems affiliated with Amazon instead of being just a little family site. That was what convinced me to use the site. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 19:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
    • that's just a "we get a cut of anything you buy at Amazon if you go to Amazon from our site" link, which isn't that difficult to get. It doesn't mean that Amazon approves of the contents of the site, just that Amazon pays for referals to Amazon from their site. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I would remove this source, but I can't find it within the article, where is it? --Meldshal42 (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
        • (ec) Meldshal42, see [18]. An association to Amazon does not establish reliability. Amazon is not an authority on earthquake history and facts, so even if it was approved by Amazon, that wouldn't mean okay the use of this site as a reference. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
          • (triple ec, wow)I have replaced the source with more reliable ones. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 19:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but you don't get FA class articles in ten days from starting the article. Writing FAs takes weeks, evne months of hard work by several editors to get the desired result. It is a good article whence is a GA but the difference betwene a GA and FA is great. This article could be doubled in size easily and images added, and the paragraphs are not of the detail and quality you'd expect from an FA. Compare it to something like Ming Dynasty and you'll see what I mean that writing the best possible article takes time and effort and resources. It needed some major copy editing even before an FA proposal but that isn't the only issue. Proposing it this early is not a good idea, you should have at least peer reviewed it first to get some pointers on how to improve it. I'm not sure as Sandy suggested that you are aware of the FA procedure and what is expected of a top class article. I hope to see the article expanded and improved considerably over time and wish you the best of luck when it is indeed ready for it. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, this is not about one of the most influential dynasties in Chinese history which lasted centuries, it's about an event which lasted ten seconds. I don't see how this could be "doubled in size easily"--it might be able to be expanded a little, but most of the sources are in academic journals which, for the most part, I, frankly, can't understand. This one took time and effort, and unfortunately I am not blessed with any books being written about the subject. I would love more images, but I don't know of a public domain source of which I can acquire some. Yes, I have not had this baby peer reviewed, but I'm trying for this FAC to be its de facto peer review. And finally, I am familiar with the FA procedure and what is a featured article, I already rewrote Lazare Ponticelli basically from scratch to bring it to that level. I wrote that from less sources than this, and it is less than a thousand bytes longer. There are plenty of shorter FAs than this, just check out some tropical cyclone articles. Do you have any specific concern which I may address immediately? --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 04:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

But a featured article in ten days of starting it? Do you think that is really possible?? Most people spend months developing an article to FA whether it is an article on a 10 second event or a 500 year dynasty. I'm not doubting it will get there eventually but there seems to be a rush to get an FA without a proper peer review. My previous comment was addressed to the editor who remarked that it "probably won't pass" not yourself Editor. This is what a peer review is for, so discuss how to improve an article and address many of the major concerns before you propose it for an FA and have faith it stands a chance. I think it is a very good comprehensive article given the sources available but my main concern is the length of the article, which I think other sources should be researched at a library. I'm fully aware that there are shorter FAs, but what I mean is that I'm pretty sure this article could be expanded further to get the best article possible on it. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 09:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Blofeld, it's not that unheard of. Saint-Sylvestre coup d’état was promoted to FA 12 days after being created. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well thats exceptional, especially on an article on Central African Republic. Congratulations and keep up the good work on that country. If more articles could indeed reach FA standard in such a small time frame I can only admire the editor. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yomangani once nominated an article (and it passed!) within four days of starting it, I think. Or maybe it was a week.. something like that. Anyways, EotW, I recommend you withdraw this FAC; there are serious prose issues at just a glance. If asked, I'll elaborate futher. Nousernamesleft (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, your co-nominator said the article wasn't comprehensive on your talk page. Nousernamesleft (talk) 03:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate? --Meldshal42 (talk to me) 22:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'll give a few examples of each type of problem.

• Trivial grammar mistakes: The article is sprinkled with them. A comma, for example, is missing from the very first sentence. "The 2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake occurred on June 22, 2002 in northwestern Iran[insert comma here] which is crossed by several major fault lines." Also, a word is missing from a random sentence taken from the middle of the article. "An earlier death toll was reported as 500, though this number was dropped down when it was found some of the severely injured were mistaken for the dead." I'm pretty sure you can determine
• General redundancy: i.e. not the common kind with "some," "a number of," and all those useless phrases. Example: "The epicenter was located near the small village of Bou'in-Zahra in an area known for destructive earthquakes."
• Awkward paragraph flow: The first three sentences of the lead all start with "the"; it makes for a very odd read. Most of the article is like this.
• Awkward sentences: "Iran is subject to many major and minor earthquakes each year due to being crossed by several major fault lines,[4] and it experiences minor quakes almost daily." -> You first say "major and minor", and then "minor" again. While technically and grammatically correct (actually, now that I think of it, the first part of the sentence is missing a word, but ignore that for now), it just reads awkwardly.

Thankfully, the article is short, but I still strongly recommend withdrawal, especially given your own admission that the article isn't very comprehensive. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the article isn't quite ready and that's why I didn't want to nominate it yet (or for a long time, I'm quite busy at the moment). However, I saw Ed had nominated it so I went along with it. I've seen the rise of four major featured articles, so I think I could fix the prose at least. Thanks, --Meldshal42 (talk to me) 23:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed quite a lot of prose issues. God, this is much tougher than other articles I have worked on! :) --Meldshal42 (talk to me) 00:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but not quite good enough - while the obvious mistakes of the first category have been cleaned up, and some of the others, I can still spot many awkward and grammatically incorrect sentences - for example, the first sentence of the first section doesn't read well. Maybe you should ask User:Epbr123 for some help. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

And I don't think that it's tougher - this article is pretty short, and can't be too hard to write - it's just that the reviewers are a lot pickier. ;) Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment
  • Ref 16 lists two publishers. Which is correct?
  • "... with magnitudes up to 5.1" - Could we clarify which scale this is on? Epbr123 (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

done --Meldshal42 (talk to me) 13:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Reviewing only image licensing: Image:Northwestiranfaults.jpg needs a source. --NE2 13:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Sorry about that. I'll continue doing work on the article, though it seems more and more unlikely to pass. --Meldshal42 (talk to me) 17:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:49, 15 July 2008 [19].

---

Kill Bill

Nominator(s): StevenLSears (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because this is a great article, and meets all requirements. StevenLSears (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please review the instructions at WP:FAC. You've never edited this article, and didn't consult previous editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Oh man, this was definitely an article I've been watching for some time now and hope to get to FAC. It's definitely not even close. Missing lots of things, too many to name; one significant one is it's completely missing a Development section. Where's the history on how the film was created? Gary King (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Nominator never edited the article, first of all. Regarding the article itself, the lead is too short, there are not near enough in-line citations, and it is far from comprehensive. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose in part due to lack of comprehensiveness and insufficient lead, as described above. In addition, there are too many sections for what's written. The section "High Definition release" only has one sentence! Why do we need a header for that? Refs need to be fleshed out (Many are missing publisher, accessdate, etc.) I'd suggest you withdraw this nomination and work with the primary authors of the article to get it ready. Consider trying for GA first. Pagrashtak 21:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose — I love the movie, but not the poor formatting of this article. And the sources aren't really all that comprehensive. Grindhouse has a much better article, but even that one has sourcing problems. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

• No feedback from StevenLSears (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per Juliancolton and Gary King. Cast section is also improperly formatted and a questionable source is listed in the references. Cliff smith (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:49, 15 July 2008 [20].

---

Dwight Schrute

Nominator(s): RedThunder

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I have worked on the article by expanding it, sourcing it, and having it peer reviewed. I have looked at the criteria and believe it is ready. RedThunder 20:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, a decent start but there are some fairly serious fundamental problems. Primarily, almost the entire article is written from an in-universe perspective and sourced to primary sources. You have made editorial and interpretive statements throughout the article and they are sourced to primary sources—not acceptable. The article needs to be rewritten in an appropriate tone using reliable secondary sources. --Laser brain (talk) 06:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - I recently peer reviewed this and pointed out the same problems Laser brain mentions - while there have been some improvements since, this is still a long way from FA and I doubt it is even GA as now written. I also note this does not follow WP:MOS#Images in that image widths are not set to "thumb" to allow reader preferences to take over. The fair use images do not seem to meet WP:FAIR USE either. While it is sometimes possible for articles to be improved to FA level in FAC, this does not seem possible to me here. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• comment definite problems with WP:NFCC#3, I would also think a comparisson to Gareth Keenan would need to be included Fasach Nua (talk) 12:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Too much in-universe content. This article needs a "Concept and creation" section, or something similar. Large chunks of this article are merely bit jokes from various episodes strung together in the attempt to create a cohesive fictional biography. Don't worry about summarizing the plot, leave that to the series article. When I read an article like this, I want to learn about the influences that led to the character, how he was formed and changed during concept, and what influences (if any) the character has had on other media. Pagrashtak 03:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• No followup or article edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:59, 14 July 2008 [21].

---

Real Madrid C.F.

Nominator(s): Hadrianos1990

previous FAC

In my opinion, this is a perfect candidate for Featured Articles, and i'm sure you'll consider it the same.Hadrianos1990 (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Some of those articles with no errors. 100% support! Good job! Hadrianos1990 (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

  Significant contributor (please see WP:FAC instructions). Were Saudi9999 (talk · contribs), Hierro (talk · contribs) and Raymond Cruise (talk · contribs) consulted about this nomination in advance? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Why are there still maintenance templates on the article if this is FA quality? Also, you're supporting your own FAC and making it sound like it's not yours... Gary King (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
• I find that really odd too. Surely, you're not trying to fool anyone? It won't... --haha169 (talk) 03:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - First off, no viable FAC should have maintenance templates, which are a sign that an article needs substantial improvements. Here are some other issues I see.

• Why can't the Criticism section be moved into History or eliminated altogether? I'm not a big fan of controversy sections in general, and am not sure if this is more notable than any other transfer controversies in the club's history.
• Above that I saw this: "Under Bernd Schuster, the club won its 31 La Liga title in 2007-08 season." Not close to FA-quality prose. 31st title, in the 2007–08 season, with en dash and wikilink for the season.
• The lead is a little short for an article of this size. At least expand the third paragraph to the size of the first two.
• Do we need 21 fan sites in External links?
• A few prose tips from first paragraph of History: Comma after Institución Libre de Enseñanza. Colon after "This club split into two different clubs". Space between current reference 15 and next sentence.
• One-sentence stubby paragraph in Colours.
• Citations needed for last paragraph of Supporters and the entirety of Budget. Giants2008 (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Although its not a requirement, I suggest that it be sent through WP:GAN first, and then a peer review. It would be really helpful. --haha169 (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Unreferenced statements and sections - including the statement in "Supporters" saying "They are known for their right-wing politics" which definitely needs a very iron-clad source. That's just an example.
• Clean up banners.
• The following sources are iffy:
  • http://www.stadiumguide.com/index.htm
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_Clubs_of_the_20th_Century (It's a Wikipedia article)
  • http://www.madrid-tourist-guide.com/
  • http://www.free-football.tv/
  • http://www.realmadrid.pl/index.php
  • http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_del_uniforme_del_Real_Madrid_Club_de_Fútbol#Patrocinadores (Another Wikipedia article)
  • http://stadiums.football.co.uk/Spain/el_estadio_santiago_bernabeu.html
  • http://www.footballdatabase.com/index.php
  • http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070623024114AAoJcNM (User submitted data and uses Wikipedia as a source)
  • http://www.footballsquads.co.uk/index.html
• Some of your sources are in Spanish, but the references don't state that. Actually a lot of them are. Note I didn't even try to evaluate the Spanish language sources.
• Some of your sources are lacking bibliographical information, with three lacking publisher which is required. Some of the other sources actually give authors, which when known need to be listed.

As I said above, I didn't check the reliablity of the non-English sources. I strongly suggest at least a peer review, if not GAN. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• This is both a GAN and FAC at the same time. Should one of the two be dropped? Peanut4 (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

  This certainly is an ambitious article. Gary King (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Per FAC instructions, either the GAC or FAC needs to be dropped. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've just noticed, the nominator for GAN was Saudi9999, who is the main contributor. Peanut4 (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment- How does Image:Real crest2.png meet WP:NFCC#8? Fasach Nua (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:59, 14 July 2008 [22].

---

S.S. Lazio

previous FAC (20:17, 8 March 2008)

Self Nomination I have improved the article and now I think it is ready for the nomination.--Andrea 93 (msg) 12:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - I see this was nominated prematurely twice before. It has improved a bit since then, but it's still not close to FA in my view.

• First off, the Italian-language footnotes should have a disclaimer indicating this. Current FAC candidate Ayumi Hamasaki is a good model for how to do this, although it's by no means perfect.

Done. --Andrea 93 (msg) 18:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Why are none of the books listed used for footnotes? These would be great sources to expand the article, which is badly needed.

I have not those books. --Andrea 93 (msg) 18:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• As I just indicated, further expansion will be required for this to have a chance. The history sections have large gaps; for example, the first 70 years of the club's history is only briefly covered. Even if they weren't consistently winning, their history has to be more eventful than this.
• Prose problems throughout. A few examples: "winning the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup and UEFA Super Cup both in 1999." Either add a comma before both or remove both. A one-sentence paragraph in the lead, which can surely be expanded to include more about their rivalry with AS Roma. "Societa Podistic Lazio, or Lazio Track and Field Club was founded..." Comma after Track and Field Club. By the way, how did they transition from track and field to football?
• Point of view problems throughout. Here's a random example: "Lazio's tight defense ensured a credible 8th (should be eighth) place finish in 1964 with a paltry 21 goals scored and a stingy 24 conceded." POV throughout the sentence. I recommend finding a copyeditor at WP:PRV who can help with this and the prose.
• I also think the lead is lacking. In addition to the small paragraph mentioned above, there is virtually nothing on the club's history. You wouldn't know that they played football before the 1970s. Also, the 2007–08 season is over, so that needs updating.

Overall, it doesn't look ready for FA at this time. I would try to build it up to good article status and then bring it back here. Until then, I hope these comments help. Giants2008 (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

One more quick tip: In addition to the scandals mentioned below, the club's season and cup results should be cited as well. Cheers. Giants2008 (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes http://www.rsssf.com/ a reliable source?
• Likewise http://albionroad.com/?
• And http://www.football.co.uk/?
• What makes http://library.thinkquest.org/26602/armyunits.htm a reliable source?
• Likewise http://website.lineone.net/~view_from_the_terrace/italsce.html?
• And http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/00000002D123.htm? Also, this reference is lacking author/etc. which is listed on the page.
• And http://www.ultraslazio.it/home.htm?
• And http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Societagrave;-Sportiva-Lazio-SpA-Company-History.html?

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. I was not able to evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - article is still incomplete in many regards. It lacks information on management/budget/administration. It also lacks information on the stadium history. Secondly, there are many unsourced statements and the lead is too short. The history section is also very recentist. With respect to the recentism we can see that int eh recent history, a lot of detail is given to comments about certain notable transfers and how the players were good or bad, whereas in the earlier part it does not. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The source ultraslazio is not acceptable for general citations as it is a fan club and it is only acceptable for giving us the official policy of the the fan club. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead needs to summarise what is in the main body. At the moment, teh article says that Lazio is a general sports club with 37 sports, but nothing is mentioned of the other sports. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

BLP violations - comments about financial mismanagement and betting scandals need to be directly sourced. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

POV adjective like "stingy" and "paltry" are too hyperbolic. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Prose errors

• "Lazio were forcibly relegated to Serie B in 1980 due to a remarkable scandal concerning illegal bets on their own matches, along with Milan"

Does anybody volunteer to be relegated? Redundant word. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• "The arrival of Sergio Cragnotti, in 1992, changed the club's history forever" - hyperbole
• "a true deathblow back in the day of the two-point win" - slang/POV/hyperbole
• "£28million" - MOs violations - numbers and units need a space to separate them
• "After a while of wearing a plain white shirt very early on, Lazio reverted to the colours which they wear today" clumsy

and quite a few more. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - this is the third FAC for this article and the changes since December 2007 are not much. Sorry, Laziale, but I see your English is not excellent.--Mojska 15:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:05, 13 July 2008 [23].

---

Phan Dinh Phung

Nominator(s): Blnguyen (bananabucket)

Biography of a mandarin of Vietnam who fought against French colonial rule. Phan Dinh Phung was known mainly for his strong will, refusing to surrender even when his family were all arrested and threatened with execution. He also known for the same during his career as a palace official, and almost got executed by other mandarins for objecting to their regicides. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Gary King (talk) 06:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Is it possible to give a brief explanation of your support? Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Gary, please read the FAC instructions: "To support a nomination, write *Support, followed by your reason(s)" — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 13:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment "Praeger" should be disambiguated. Gary King (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments - as usual, sources look fine, links checked with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Some prose issues, these examples are from the lead:

• "Upon Tu Duc's death, Phung nearly lost his life" > "Upon Tu Duc's death, Phung almost lost his life"
• "...in the space of a year." - maybe "within a year" instead?
• Passive voice - "and was stripped of his honours and was briefly jailed before being exiled from the court to his home province."
• "Along with Thuyet, Phung organised rebel armies as part of the Can Vuong movement," - maybe "Phung organised rebel armies with Thuyet..." instead?

This one is fine, because they made their own independent armies. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• "took its toll," seems too informal in this case, try "ended" instead?

Fixed this one. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• I recommend a full copyedit by an editor new to the text. Please see both Peer review/volunteers and LOCE/Members for lists of people who can help. Do not hesitate to contact a few people on their Talk pages!

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 13:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've changed them anyway, but can you explain why they were wrong in the first place (apart from the passive voice one) because I'm not sure how they made any difference. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Image licensing concerns:
  • Image:Phan Dinh Phung.jpg: source links directly to the image. Where is information regarding this image's author and/or date of first publication so we can verify the PD claim?
  • Image:Vua Ham Nghi.jpg: image is from this page. Where is the author mentioned to confirm the PD claim of author life +70 years? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Per {{PD-Vietnam}}, these photos are more more than 50 years old anyway, because the subject died ages ago, but the first one appears to be a Vietnamese government work from the Vietnamese Government Encyclopedia which is PD. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added PD-Vietnam to Image:Phan Dinh Phung.jpg. —Giggy 08:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The new version of Image:Phan Dinh Phung.jpg is still problematic, as hosting on a government site (gov.vn suffix) does not necessarily mean it is the work of the government. I don't speak the language, however; does the page say otherwise (i.e. actually assert government authorship)? I also don't see publication or author death dates, which would be needed to determine whether {{PD-Vietnam}} is satisfied. The newly added Image:Hue linh luoc su Hoang Cao Khai.jpg also has this problem (no author or publication date asserted by the source). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure it's in a book in Vietnam somewhere and I'm sure it's govt pic (both of them), since in 1880s there is no way that a private citizen in Vietnam would have had a camera. But never mind, I'll remove it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments—The writing's OK. It was overlinked (see MOSNUM, which no longer encourages date autoformatting and which now prescribes rules for the raw formatting), and MOSLINK and CONTEXT, so I've reduced some of it to allow your high-value links to breathe.
• You might consider writing stubs for the red links, in case this goes on the main page some time. There are several in the lead.
• Keen to see my colleagues' concerns above addressed. TONY (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Done this. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:05, 13 July 2008 [24].

---

Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV serial)

Nominator(s): – sgeureka ^t•c

Several established editors have told me they can't find anything left in the article to improve, so here I am. The only concern I somewhat anticipate is whether the cast image is really needed, but I am too close to the article to determine that myself. Thank you for any comments. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed the cast image. If I as a moderate NFC supporter cannot not fully stand behind it, then image deletionists will certainly object to it over long. No point of standing in the way. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Should "Conception and adaptation" come first? seems more suited for "Production"
• "Jane Austen's novel Pride and Prejudice had already been the subject of numerous television and film adaptations, including five BBC television versions in 1938, 1952, 1958, 1967 and 1980. In the autumn of 1986, after watching a preview screening of Austen's Northanger Abbey, Sue Birtwistle and Andrew Davies agreed to adapt Pride and Prejudice, one of their favourite books, for television." needs ref
  • "Birtwistle and Conklin (1995), pp. v–viii" and [25] are the refs, both of which are noted one sentence later.
• No refs in the "Plot" section. But great job trimming it down.
  • Per convention, the work of fiction is its own (primary) source, and the plot section is inline with WP:PRIMARY (i.e. no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims). Any seemingly interpretative claims (like the last sentence of Episode 4) can be cross-checked at wikisource:Pride and Prejudice with Jane Austen's own word-by-word descriptions of the characters' feelings and intentions, if need be.
• "Filming was set to begin" why not "Filming began"?
• "June 1994 and would finish on 1 November 1994" why does June have no specific day while November does?
  • The Making-of book itself doesn't say when exactly in June, and no better sources exist for production facts.
• Shouldn't "Broadcast and merchandise" come before "Critical reception"? or at least the Broadcast part of it should.
• "The sequence also appeared in Channel 4's Top 100 TV Moments in 1999, between the controversial programme Death on the Rock and the Gulf War." but where was it placed on this list.
  • I never came across a source that specifically mentioned the place.
• "Other adaptations" talks about adaptations of the novel not the TV serial.
  • It talks of the adaptations after the 1995 serial and how the 1995 serial influenced them and their reception. Or that's what I intended. Do you have a suggestion for a better header that makes this clear?

That's all I can find wrong with it really. Clearly very close, well done. Buc (talk) 13:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I will address the remaining comments tomorrow. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Addressed the remaining points. I have moved the two sections around. I have thought about it before, but I (still) do not prefer one version over the other since all the production and reception subsections mesh chronologically either way. The Cast section, for example, still mainly focuses on casting, but the casting only comes after the Conception/Adaptation. The British audience reception and the British home releases came long before the American critical reception, etcetera... – sgeureka ^t•c 10:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• 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.
  • Still mixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I reformatted and got rid of {{citation}} in favor of the cite xxx's. There should be no mix any longer. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Current ref 30 "Sokol, Ronnie Jo The Importance of being Married..." Is this a journal article? If so, the title should be in quotation marks and the journal title should be in italics. I've never heard of such a journal though, are they considered a reliable source?
  • It is an essay in "Lupack (1999)", as noted in the ref. I didn't find a wiki MOS that says how to deal with such a situation, so what's currently there is my way of dealing with it. A solution may coincide with your next point(s), which I won't fix until tomorrow.
• Current ref 34 Troost, Linda and Greenfield is this a chapter in the book listed in the bibliography? If so, you need to put the title of the chapter/article in quotation marks and then list the title of the book in italics. Like this: Troost and Greenfield "Introduction - Watching Ourselves Watching" Jane Austen in Hollywood p. 2. If you want a template for this, either {{cite encyclopedia}} or {{cite conference}} will do the trick.
• Same for anything quoted from that book. The current ref 43 (Looser, Devoney) should be formatted like this: Looser, Devoney "Feminist Implications of the Silver Screen Austen" in Troost and Greenfield Jane Austen in Hollywood p. 160-161. Likewise for current ref 58 (Nixon, Cheryl L.) and current ref 59 (Troost et. al)
• What makes http://www.screenonline.org.uk/index.html a reliable source?
  • The website was developed by the British Film Institute.
• Likewise http://www.tvradiobits.co.uk/?
  • It shows all covers of Radio Times, as a support of the claim that Radio Times "had devoted three covers to Pride and Prejudice between 1995 and 1997". I can remove it though, either just the ref because this doesn't change that RT had three covers, or the subsentence because this info is rather trivial. Which do you prefer (if you prefer removal)?
    • Up to you. I think it's a bit of trivia, personally, but that's up to the editors of the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Removed as too trivial. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll address the other comments tomorrow. Thank you for your time. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Citations fixed. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "the American Arts & Entertainment Network. BBC One" → "the American Arts & Entertainment Network (A&E Network). BBC One" perhaps
• "Greenfield (1998), p. 160-161" – needs an en dash; that's the only one I could find

Gary King (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Writing issues. In keeping with my indolent ways, I only bother reading until I find something objectionable; in this case, the lede, which I think is too long and filled with unnecessary details that are better discussed in the main body. We don't need to know the intricacies of the production financing or producers in the lede - we need a concise overview.

Pride and Prejudice is a 1995 British television drama serial, adapted in six episodes by Andrew Davies from Jane Austen's novel of the same name, originally published in 1813. Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth starred as the story's protagonists, Elizabeth Bennet and Mr Darcy. Produced by Sue Birtwistle and directed by Simon Langton, the serial was a BBC production with additional funding from the American Arts & Entertainment Network. BBC One originally broadcasted the fifty-five-minute episodes from 24 September to 29 October 1995. The A&E Network aired the serial in double episodes on three consecutive nights beginning 14 January 1996.

Set in England in the early 1800s, Pride and Prejudice tells the story of Mr and Mrs Bennet's five unmarried daughters after a rich, amiable young man named Mr Bingley and his status-conscious friend, Mr Darcy, have moved into the neighbourhood. While Bingley takes an immediate liking to the eldest Bennet daughter, Darcy has difficulty adapting to the local society and repeatedly clashes with the second-eldest Bennet daughter, Elizabeth. The New York Times called the plot to bring the various parties together "a witty mix of love stories and social conniving, cleverly wrapped in the ambitions and illusions of a provincial gentry".[1]

Critically acclaimed and a popular success, Pride and Prejudice was honoured with several awards, including a BAFTA Television Award for Jennifer Ehle for "Best Actress", and an Emmy for "Outstanding Individual Achievement in Costume Design for a Miniseries or a Special". The role of Mr Darcy elevated Colin Firth to stardom. A scene showing Firth in a wet shirt was recognised as "one of the most unforgettable moments in British TV history".[2] The serial inspired author Helen Fielding to write the popular Bridget Jones novels, whose screen adaptations starred Firth as Bridget's love interest Mark Darcy.

I would rewrite this as:

Pride and Prejudice is a 1995 British television adaptation of Jane Austen's 1813 novel starring Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle. A co-financed production of the BBC and the Arts & Entertainment Network, it originally aired over six episodes from 24 September to 29 October 1995 in the UK and in North America on the A&E Network in January 1996.

(Frankly, I'd kill the next paragraph entirely: 1) the plot details are already accessible via the novel's page and are in the main body. They should not therefore be in the lede of an adaptation since it is one step removed from the original storyline - but that's just my view; I'm probably wrong.)

A critical and popular success, the series garnered several awards, including a BAFTA for best actress and an Emmy for costume design and helped propel Colin Firth to widespread fame. A scene showing him in a wet shirt has become an iconic image: "one of the most unforgettable moments in British TV history".[2] The serial also inspired Helen Fielding's popular Bridget Jones novels, who named the love interest after Austen's character.

If it's useful, I can take a deeper look at the main body later. Eusebeus (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD#Length wants "three or four paragraphs". I've had a look at other FAs in my writing of this article, and they summarize the plot in the lead with a few sentences up to one paragraph. I also don't know how well-known P&P is in the English-speaking world and how far summarizing the plot is unnecessary, but I have never heard of P&P until two months ago. The old lead and overview were doing a poor job of even hinting at the premise of the story, and the spoilerish plot section in both the novel article and the TV serial article weren't (and aren't) an alternative for this purpose either. (As a result, my sick mind assumed P&P to be a date rape story or a mass murder story for half of my first watching of the story.) Long story short: I see informing the reader of the premise in the lead while keeping spoilers out as an encyclopedic service and even a necessity. (Everyone is free to disagree.) – sgeureka ^t•c 10:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with sgeureka per plot details in the lead. Since WP:LEAD states that the introductory paragraphs must be a summary of all major points in the article, it makes sense that a major section of the article (plot) will need mentioning. Although the source material and the adaptation are both well known (in the English speaking world, at least), the lead should include at least a sentence or two of plot summary. Besides, for all we know it could have been an incredibly unfaithful and strange adaptation, so clicking on the novel's article might not have done the average reader any good. :) María (habla conmigo) 12:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, as I suspected, I am wrong about that then. Eusebeus (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(Did this go through Peer review? Eusebeus (talk))

My experience with formal Peer review is that it is a waste of time. I have asked several editors to give me private peer reviews though, and got only tweak-ish suggestions for improvement (for better or for worse). – sgeureka ^t•c 10:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I'm sorry you find formal peer review a waste of time. I have always found it useful. Anyway, here are some comments on the plot summary.

• Episode 1: "for the summer" would be better than "in the summer months"
• Episode 2:
  • The verb "reject" needs an object - you must reject something or someone. So, she thoroughly rejects him, or his offer, but not just "thoroughly rejects".
  • You should briefly mention in the summary of this episode that Collins is the heir, through an entail, to the Bennet property, which is why Mrs Bennet is keen for Elizabeth to marry him.
• Episode 3: The phrase "but she soon notices that she may have overestimated her friendship with the Bingleys" is cumbersome and unclear. Suggest a replacement, shorter and to the point: "but finds herself ignored by the Bingleys"
• Episode 4: Lydia goes to Brighton as a friend of the militia colonel's wife, not just "as a friend"
• Episode 5: Comma required after Pemberley in first line, and an awkward repetition of "Darcy" in the last line should be avoided.
• Episode 6
  • "After a slip-up of newly-wed Julia...." Sorry, don't understand the phrasing
  • Clarify that Darcy apologises for interfering in Bingley's relationship with Jane
  • Elizabeth doesn't reluctantly comply with Lady Catherine's wishes. She defies her, and sends her packing, no nonsense!

Otherwise, a pretty neat job on the plot. I'd like to look at some more of the prose if I have time. Brianboulton (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Good advice all around, thank you. I've incorporated all suggestions in some form, although I may go over ep 6 again for conciseness and tone. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments just started looking when I noticed Eusebeus' job on the two paras concurred with my feelings, though I am happy to leave the plot in. Now do you want us to come in and massage the text or post ideas here? I am happy either way (though I did the first couple of Eusebeus' as they were pretty succinct and well written). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Most of the comments so far have addressed <ref>ing and that my plot compression was awkward here and there. Any comments or copyedits are appreciated (who would claim the opposite?), but I am content with whatever reply/result I get. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I feel just terrible about having to oppose this well-presented article. However, I do not feel that it is comprehensive yet. Two topics are missing: cinematic style and themes. The essays in Jane Austen in Hollywood and the essay in Jane Austen on Screen on this series would allow you to write a decent section on each of these topics. I have just started reading about Austen adaptations, so I know those sources are good, but I'm afraid I don't know what else is available. Darcy's gaze is briefly alluded to in the article, for example, but so much more could be said about the style of the film—the cinematography of the series. Also, while the themes might seem like a replication of what would be said about the novel Pride and Prejudice, we still have to explain them in this article, and the producer acknowledged the TV series was emphasizing particular elements of the novel over others. This kind of material can be greatly expanded. I believe I read an essay in Janeites that discussed how the adaptations highlighted the role of servants in Austen's world because of they were in a visual medium (see notes here, under Janeites, chapter 8) - these kinds of differences have been discussed by Austen scholars and deserve to be included. Awadewit (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Give me a few days and I'll see what I can come up. I have a lot of unused info in my userspace and in the Making-of book, I just didn't elaborate on these topics because of article depth, space, and personal interest (and because other FAs didn't devote much space to them either). – sgeureka ^t•c 18:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have started a new section called Themes and style, which I admit overlaps somewhat with the section "Conception and adaption" in the Production section, but I can't really help it. I have tried several things in userspace and in Show preview, but I think it works best to leave the production section to a producers' POV and intentions, and make the Themes and style section about what reviewers and scholars had to say. Please ignore the poor prose and random thoughts in the new section for now (I think it will have turned into something acceptable by July 6). I am still collecting and weeding out usable stuff in my userspace (User:Sgeureka/Sandbox#Themes_and_style), but books could literally be written (and have been written) about the themes and cinematic style, so I think it's best to just touch upon the most common themes and leave the details for the ref-links and leave the themes for the novel article or new articles. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is starting to look good - precisely what the article needed. Awadewit (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I will be on vacation from now until 20 July, during which I will have intermittent internet access. I will revisit this nom as often as I can. Awadewit (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments on image

• Image:Lyme Park 2.jpg - Could you add a description to the image page? It helps other users! Awadewit (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments Good work, but it's not there quite yet.

• I agree entirely with Awadewit's comments.

A new section is in the works. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• In addition, I found it rather highly linked, especially in key places. To reduce the sea of bright-blue, which was degrading the appearance and readability of the text, I delinked the date autoformatting, which is no longer encouraged (see MOSNUM – not also that the raw (British) date format contained an errant comma, which almost all readers were seeing—I've fixed that, as well as the US format used in the infobox (see what autoformatting conceals from WPian editors, hmmmm?).
• Consistent figures for numbers over nine required, I think, by MOS. "six fifty-five-minute episodes. Production aimed for 10.5-hour shooting"—the first example is crying out for it. Needs auditing in this respect.
• "which needed to appear over-the-top to reflect the disagreeableness of its fictional owner"—ah, "over-the-top" is too informal and vague, in this register.
• "Davies loosened Jane Austen's story restrictions in which females are present in all scenes"—are they best framed as :restrictions" for the author?
• "the Bennet girls dressing up to advertise their bodies in the marriage market"—oh, could we put it a little more delicately? Even "advertise themselves" would be better.
• "Davies employed techniques such as voice-overs, flashbacks, and characters reading the letters to themselves"—noun plus -ing strikes again. See this.
• The theme music is among the greatest achievements of Carl Davis (an American, BTW), and the text says nothing directly about it. The theme certainly owed nothing directly to "small-town music of the early 1800s"—in fact, it resembles the chamber style of Robert Schumann at his best. I think it's a stroke of genius. I've added a shocking POV statement to the article, which you'll need to remove if you have no references to support it. But I'd be disappointed if the theme can't be highlighted properly.

I must have accidently changed the meaning in one of the copyedits, as the original source quotes Davis as "I wanted the sense of a small town in 1813." I have tweaked it and added that (per the making-of book) his model was a popular Beethoven septet. During my research, I have only found two or three newspaper interviews/articles with/about Davis, but none mentioned that P&P was his best work (or I would have added it long ago). I'll do a search again. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• "O'Connor however remarked that American audiences"—two commas required, or "However, O'Connor remarked that American audiences".

I do think the prose needs a run-through by fresh eyes, especially given the iconic literary status of the book. TONY (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

All points addressed (or at least tried to), except Davis. And I'll read up on the number MOS again. Thank you for your notes. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the unsourced Davis claim, as neither google books nor the first 300 GHits brought up anything. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• PS Non-free image justification. Um ... convince me that the four images are minimal use (WP:NFCC#3a) and "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" (WP:NFCC#8). TONY (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(See also reply at WT:NFC). As said in the nom, the cast image could go if others (like you) feel that way, but I believe the other two non-free images to serve a significant purpose - the infobox image was there before I started editing the article and never came across a possible better one for identification, plot, style and theme of the production. And the wet shirt scene seems to have had such a huge impact in the English-speaking world (as demonstrated in four reception/legacy paragraphs in the article) that I feel sorry for the actor for having been reduced to it for years, sometimes up until today. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the cast image as I was unsure about it the first place. If someone wants it back, I got it from amazon. I stand by the inclusion of the other two images. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments ok, now to get started... Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

a rich, amiable young man named Mr Bingley - "the rich and eligible Mr Bingley"

Gotta run. I'll keep reading from plot later.

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 03:05, 13 July 2008 [26].

---

Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is a very thorough description of an interesting structure. I think the article is intriguing enough to present an opportunity for an interesting building under construction to appear at WP:TFA, should it succeed here. Skyscraper construction is a topic that should get its opportunity at TFA. I am not sure if that would be a first, but it would be interesting. While I am awaiting the completion of WP:PR and WP:GAC for articles at WP:CHIFTD, this is a good candidate.

I note that for a building under construction this is an interesting of before, during, and after (current) photography. Those who are interested in skyscrapers and architecture are likely to be able to glean information from the extensive images included and that is why they are WP:PRESERVEd. The images are laid out to use only 360px of width and the majority of viewers use either 1024 or or 1280 width. Anyone complaining about squeezing should probably just press their full screen button. I see no WP:WIAFA criterion that suggest we should not WP:PRESERVE photographic information. In this regard I would view moving to commons as similar to forking and unnecessary for the reader looking to learn about skyscraper construction.

Issues of stability have been hashed out extensively at WP:GAR and it has been resolved that a slowly evolving article that would not likely miss editorial attention if it were ignored for a few weeks is not a stability criterion violation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I'm coming at this with a fresh pairs of eyes - I didn't follow the previous FAC discussion. Hopefully these are useful. I'm mainly looking at prose issues:

• Opening paragraph: "The building, named for famed real estate developer Donald Trump," this is picky, but I think "famed" is not really sufficiently neutrally worded. The sentence looses nothing if you drop the "famed" and allow readers to draw their own conclusions.
  • Fair enough.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Opening paragraph: "With 92 floors for various uses," the phrase "various uses" is ambiguous. Does it mean each floor has more than one use, or that there are multiple uses for the entire building? If you are going to mention the multi-use nature of the tower, you may want to list the main uses - its a hotel and condo - anything else?
  • Does the sentence "The design of the building includes retail, parking, a hotel and condominiums on top of each other in that order from the ground up" also in the WP:LEAD provide sufficient explanation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, I think these should be merged. Gwernol 11:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
      • How is that?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Opening paragraph: "It is located on a jog of the main branch of the Chicago River" - I think I can figure out what a "jog" in the river is, but its not a term I've heard before and it may not be obvious to everyone. Either wikilink it if it has a specific meaning, or use a more common term like "bend".
  • There is no wikilink. There is no wiktionary def for this usage and there is a significant difference between a bend and a jog. A bend is a point where a river switches direction. A jog is a point that can link disjointed parallel sections without a change in the general direction. According to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary a jog is "a brief change in direction" In this case a river that heads due west briefly goes southwest. Any advice on how to handle this quandry is appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Perhaps add a footnote to the first instance of the use of "jog"? See Talyllyn Railway for an example of using footnotes in this way. Gwernol 11:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Let me know if that meets your approval.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Can you point to any outside sources that use "jog" to describe a river feature? Why not just call it a "curve"? Zagalejo^^^ 21:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Because it is not a curve. It is not a change in direction. A curve where the river turns and heads in a new direction. A jog is a very brief change in direction where the general direction remains constant.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Do you consider the U.S. Census map in the infobox that shows the river heading west then west southwest then west again as a source?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
            • Yeah. That's not the issue. There are plenty of maps that show what the river does. This is more of a vocabulary problem. "Curve" doesn't imply a complete turn in direction. You can have something like a cotangent curve (which is, roughly, what the river looks like at that point). Zagalejo^^^ 03:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
              • A cotangent curve is asymptotic to a jog, I guess. In answer to your question, I do not recall a specific secondary source that used the term jog. A jog is a specific type of curve that is more relevant to this case. A curve is a deviation from a straight line. A jog is a brief deviation from a straight line. In this case jog is more informative.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
                • • I don't know. I'm still not sold on "jog". This defines "jog" as ":a sharp turn". The river feature really isn't what I'd call a sharp turn. Zagalejo^^^ 07:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
                    • Basically we are looking for a word that describes a river that heads west for the most part except for a section where it heads west southwest. In my lifetime of receiving directions when someone uses the term jog (often preceeded by the word little) it meant a brief change in direction with a return to the original direction. This has been my experience in life. The first definition I found on the internet meshed with this. Of course, if we scour the internet we may find other slightly different defs. Below it seems that you may be right in your objection. Do you have a word offering as a replacement.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
                      • http://www.dictionary.com uses "a bend or turn"
                      • http://www.thefreedictionary.com/jog uses "a sharp change in direction"
                      • http://www.bartleby.com/61/99/J0049900.html uses "An abrupt change in direction"
                        • Not sure. We could just say that it's "located on the main branch of the Chicago River", and avoid the headache altogether. Zagalejo^^^ 04:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
                          • How is that?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
                            • Probably about as good as it gets. Zagalejo^^^ 18:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
                              • For the linguistic record, the meaning of jog as "a deviation from a straight line" (to quote the OED) is limited to the States (also from the OED), but in the states I believe is used widely-I've heard it both in the midwest and on the east coast. Loggie (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Opening paragraph: "The building received added publicity due to its association with the first season of the The Apprentice when the winner, Bill Rancic, selected its construction as his job choice". This sentence is convoluted and hard to follow. Try to simplify it if possible. Also I think it should read: "The building received additional publicity...". Perhaps it should read: "The building received additional publicity when the winner of the first season of The Apprentice, Bill Rancic, chose to work on the construction of the tower"?
  • Good suggestion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Opening paragraph: "The building was designed by Adrian Smith, who worked for Skidmore, Owings and Merrill during the building's planning and design stages, and is being constructed by Bovis Lend Lease" I think this sentence should come earlier in the paragraph - it seems more important than the reference to The Apprentice, for example.
  • I think you are right on that point.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Second paragraph: "When designs for the building were first announced in 2001, the building was proposed to be the tallest building in the world.". Designs aren't really announced - perhaps you mean "revealed" or "published"? The second half of the sentence should read "...the building was intended to be the..."
  • Thank you for your attention to detail.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Second paragraph: "...the building plans were scaled down..." instead "scaled back"?
  • Again thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Second paragraph: "...it will also exceed the second and third tallest buildings in the United States" better as: "it will also be taller than the second and third tallest buildings in the United States"
  • You are good. Are you an WP:LOCE participant?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Second paragraph: "The building will surpass the Hancock Center for the world's highest residence from the ground" instead: ...the Hancock Center as the world's..." also what does "highest residence from the ground" mean? As opposed to highest from the air?
  • Does the text need to explain the difference from highest residence from the ground versus highest residence from sea level?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Ah, I see what you mean. Perhaps a less ambiguous wording would be "the world's tallest residential building"
      • The term residential building is one I have not seen used. Generally, a bragging point is tallest all-residential (see the notes column in List of tallest buildings in Chicago for Chicago Spire, One Museum Park, 340 on the Park, 55 East Erie Street). When a building has extensive commercial purposes such as a hotel it does not count. The terms used seem to be tallest all-residential building or highest residential floor. Right now the John Hancock Center (where Oprah Winfrey lives if I recall correctly) has several floors of commercial office space, but holds the record for the highest residence. It is not a residential building. It is instead a mixed-use or multi-purpose building. I think we should stick with the common architectural lingo that is already present in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Third paragraph: "The design of the building includes retail, parking, a hotel and condominiums on top of each other in that order from the ground up" remove "on top of each other" - unnecessary
  • This is the answer to your problem above as pointed out above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Location: Columbus Drive Bridge is a redlink
  • I have linked to Columbus Drive.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Location: "The restaurant on the 16th floor leverages the views of the Chicago River's entrance to Lake Michigan..." replace with "The restaurant on the 16th floor has views of the Chicago River's entrance to Lake Michigan..."
  • How about "The restaurant on the 16th floor is designed to accentuate the views of the Chicago River's entrance to Lake Michigan"--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Your suggestion is fine. Gwernol 11:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Location: "...and the four 1920s flanks of the Michigan Avenue Bridge..." I don't understand what this means? I think it means "the fours 1920s buildings that flank the Michigan Avenue Bridge..." - is that right?
  • It refers to four buildings completed in the 1920s that flank the Michigan Avenue Bridge. Would you like the text altered?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, it wasn't clear to me in the original. Gwernol 11:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
      • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Design "the first was designed to align with the Wrigley Building, the second was designed to align with the Marina City Towers, and the third was designed to align with the height of " reword to avoid repetition of "was designed to align with"
  • In this case repetition is used for the purpose of providing parallel structure to the sentence.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Your call. I still find it interupts my reading of the sentence. Gwernol 11:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Design: "However, pictures belie the alignment of the second setback." how does they belie the alignment? Is there a source for this statement?
  • See the main image on the page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Design: "There was an issue about topping the building. Some early plans involved a broadcast antennas." These sentences are very short, can you reword this paragraph to flow better? Also clarify if its a single broadcast antenna or multiple antennas. Finally, shouldn't it be "Some early plans included a broadcast antenna"?
  • Since the plural of antenna is antennae or antennas. My latin would lead me to use the former, which is what I originally used, but one editor suggested the latter. If you are uncomfortable with the colloquial choice, I will switch back to the formal. It should not be broadcast antenna because the singular is incorrect. I have addressed your other concerns in the text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The problem is that the sentence says "a broadcast antennas". It should either be "a broadcast antenna" or "broadcast antennas". It cannot be both singular and plural. I'm not advocating switching to "antennae", just making sure the sentence has the correct number agreement. Gwernol 11:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I see.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Height: "...it will not contest the record held by the 80-story..." technically a tower cannot contest anything. I think this should read "...will not beat the record..."
  • Are you suggesting that a tower can beat something? It is fairly common language to say a building will break/contest/beat a reacord all of which are inappropriate action verbs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You're right: my suggestion was no better :-) I guess I can live with "contest" Gwernol 11:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Hotel: "The hotel had originally planned to do a partial opening of three..." change to "The hotel had originally planned to partially open three..."
  • IMO, it is more correct as is. I believe it fully opened three floors which is a partial opening consisting of three fully opened floors. Advice welcome.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

These are just examples of prose issues, there are more. I'd suggest another pass at the text. You may want to seek assistance from WP:PRV or at Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Members. Best, Gwernol 00:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: again pointing out that the article is misnamed, per current FAs, and how to solve the stability concern:

• 7 World Trade Center (Art and architecture at WP:FA)
• Construction of the World Trade Center (Engineering and technology at WP:FA)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Sandy, I am not sure I see your point. As this building evolves over the next few years the emphasis will change. There will surely be retrospective architecture reviews two years from now that are not possible now. The article will surely incorporate those. Right now the emphasis is on design, redesign, and construction. I don't think this makes the article any less stable than FA Barack Obama. We have incorporated the reviews as they have come in for the parts of the building that have them. When the overall building has significant critical reviews those will be incorporated. I sort of disagree that the article should be named Construction of Trump International Hotel and Tower. There will surely be significant critical review of this building to incorporate in a building article as opposed to a construction article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Addendum The article already contains a great deal of information that a construction article would not. The article is intended to be a building article with information on features.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Also, the reason to have a construction article would be related to a WP:SUMMARY argument based on the existence of an even broader article. None exists. The article should be titled based on what people would be searching for. People who will be searching for Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) will find all the information they want about the building here. People searching for Construction of Trump International Hotel and Tower may want a redirect to the proper section of this article, but renaming the article would be against all conventions at WP:NAME.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Tony on this issue. It is fairly unusual to have separate "Building" and "Construction of the Building" articles; this was only followed in the case of the World Trade Center due to WP:SUMMARY. The vast majority of building articles have information about construction (see 7 World Trade Center#Construction) and design/architecture in one article named with the title of the building, so I don't see why this should be an exception. Cheers, Rai•me 01:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Getting better. Prose could still use some brushing up, though. Somee examples:
• When designs for the building were first revealed in 2001, the building was intended to be the tallest building in the world.
  • Why is that better?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Because it is a redundant word, and the sentence could do without it. To remove extra words improves flow. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
      • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Upon completion in 2009, according to the current design, it will be the second tallest building in Chicago behind the Sears Tower, rising above the current second and third-tallest, the Aon Center and the John Hancock Center respectively. The flow of this sentence would improve if it was, According to the current design, it will be the second tallest building in Chicago behind the Sears Tower upon completion in 2009, rising above the current second and third-tallest, the Aon Center and the John Hancock Center respectively.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• After the September 11, 2001 attacks the building plans were scaled back;[11] its design has undergone several revisions. Not "scaled down"?
  • I am following the advice of the editor above. Are you sure it should be reverted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • That's more of my preference, so nah, it doesn't have to be changed. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• ...on top of each other in that order from the ground up. Wow, that's a mouthfull.
  • I am open to suggestions if you have any.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • How about, "in that order from the ground up"? Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
      • O.K. That is probably better.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• There was an issue about topping the building; some early plans involved broadcast antennas (multiple communications dishes). Peacock words.
  • I disagree. In addition, this is again a response to prior feedback during this FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Well then please specify which plans in particular. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
      • How is that?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• The building will contain 2,600,000 square feet (241,548 m²), rise to 92 stories, and house 486 super-luxury residential condominiums. "Super-luxury" begins to sound like an advert more than an encyclopedic article.
  • I toned down super-luxury to luxury.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Floors 3–12 will be used for lobbies, retail, and parking. uses the en dash for the floor range, while Hotel condominiums and executive lounges will be located on floors 17 through 27M. doesn't. Any preference?
  • I've switched to through.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• On the 16th floor, a restaurant named Sixteen opened for breakfast and dinner in early February 2008 and began serving lunch on March 3, 2008. Shouldn't Sisteen be in italics?
  • No the names of corporate entities are not italicized to the best of my knowledge.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Alright. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• The dome incorporates mirrors so that all diners can experience the view,[20] and has Swarovski chandeliers.
  • I believe it is more grammatical with that.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Again, a redundant word that bogs down the sentence. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• ...although some consider it more of a place to impress clients and dates than a top notch dining experience. is unneeded, IMO.
  • It is necessary to describe the type of restaurant available at the hotel. People will want to know what type of place it is. As a tertiary resource, there is a responsibility to relay secondary information of this sort.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Well then is it possible to create a seperate article? I think it has little to do with the structure itself. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
      • It is certainly possible that at some point someone will create a separate article. I had already added a line for the restaurant at 16 (disambiguation). However, there seems to some confusion on whether an article titled Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) should include details and critical review of the features or whether it should be a dedicated construction article. I think that Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) is not just the name of a physical structure, but also the name of a business entity. A complete and broad article should detail that business entity as well as possible using the available secondary sources. Critical review of a celebrity and tourist attraction such as this restaurant is an essential part of the complete description of this business entity. The article should not just focus on the details of the construction of the structure in this case. Someone may at some point want to do a separate article Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) building that only discusses the structure and ignores the details of the business enterprise within. However, this article is neither a construction or building article it is a broad article on all aspects of the building, the structure and its business enterprise in one. It is nowhere near th length or overburdening level of detail to require WP:SUMMARY considerations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Fodor's notes that the views may cause you to overlook the food, but nevertheless endorses the food, especially the breakfasts. Again, unneeded, and sounds like an advertisement.
  • If you want to describe the restaurant, you need to say whether its food is good according to critics. You also need to describe the atmosphere (including the views).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• ...exfoliating salts and the "Deluge shower." Period goes after the quotation mark here.
  • Not according to standard rules of grammar.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• ...although the Spa merely describes it as a "mood enhancing shower." Again
  • Not according to standard rules of grammar.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• The Citysearch editorial review described this as the "Bentley of hotel spas." Ditto.
  • Not according to standard rules of grammar.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

More later. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

About the period inside the quotation marks, when part of a partial quote, the period goes outside the quotation, per MoS. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Wow! Great point.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'll have more comments in a bit. Good work taking care of or explaning the issues so far. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments, solid start but some polish needed.
  • Overlinked. Architect, office, hotel, condominium, and so on. Divers?
    • Many of these words are commonly linked in building articles. Architect, hotel and condominium are all commonly linked terms. I moved architect to a more normal position in the lead with the building's architect. I think both hotel and condominium were linked more than once, but not in the WP:LEAD. Now they are linked in the lead.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I still don't agree with their being linked. If it's a word any middle-school child could define, don't link it. --Laser brain (talk) 03:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I think you are objecting to common linkages. E.G., it is fairly common practice to link a profession in an article on WP and I beleive such linkage is desirable.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Please remove that footnote that explains your use of "jog" and just use the term. If that is not the proper technical term for that river feature, please use the correct term.
    • One reviewer above asked for it as a point of clarification.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "The building received additional publicity ..." Additional to what? You haven't mentioned publicity yet.
    • Removed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The lead is too wordy; many sentences could be cut back to be more concise. For example, why do you have to list out the whole district/neighborhood/city/county/state/country in the lead? Why do you have to say "Borough of Manhattan", which is an uncommon formal name, instead of just "Manhattan"?
    • This is the standard format for the lead of my dozens of WP:GA and WP:FA buildings including FAChicago Board of Trade Building, which was a WP:TFA last week. See its first two sentences.
      • I do think you could at least drop Cook County (from this and your other articles). Chicago is far better known than the name of its county, and there aren't any other cities in Illinois called "Chicago", so "Cook County" isn't necessary. Zagalejo^^^ 21:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I guess the question is there a problem of Preserving the information. In all of my Chicago articles (Go here and click CHI twice), no reviewer has felt the article would be better with the county removed. How many dozen articles is that? Sure we could take it out. Is the article better without the information of what county the building is in? I tend to doubt it. The article presents information on the location by exact street address, local neighborhood, census bureau community area, city, county, state and country. We could remove any and all such information. However, no other reviewer has requested such an action on a Chicago article before. I tend to think most are appreciative of having such information when it is available.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Borough of Manhattan, came from the skyscaper ace User:Raime as a suggestion prior to the restart.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
      • • • Note that I also suggested dropping "Manhattan" all together. "the Borough of Manhattan in New York City" reads better than "New York City's Manhattan", but I really don't think it is needed, at least not in the lead. Cheers, Rai•me 01:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I disagree, especially for the lead. Put it elsewhere if you like, but the lead is supposed to be a concise summary of the article. --Laser brain (talk) 03:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
        • How about if I put it in the same place as the last Chicago building article to make WP:TFA (Chicago Board of Trade Building last week) :-? Would you oppose that?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
        • My point is that with all the editorial involvement that accompanies being on the main page the first two sentences were changed from the first below to the second (note it was agreed that city/state and country should appear in the first sentence and address, neighborhood, communtiy area and county should appear in the second):

          The Chicago Board of Trade Building is a skyscraper located in Chicago, Illinois. It stands at 141 W. Jackson Boulevard at the foot of the LaSalle Street canyon, in the Loop community area in Cook County, Illinois, United States.

          The Chicago Board of Trade Building is a skyscraper located in Chicago, Illinois, United States. It stands at 141 W. Jackson Boulevard at the foot of the LaSalle Street canyon, in the Loop community area in Cook County.

          • I still don't see why all that has to be in the lead. The River North district of Chicago is enough. --Laser brain (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
          • I'll second that. I think most readers will find those details overwhelming, rather than helpful. Zagalejo^^^ 07:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
            • I think you are suggesting a change from the commonly accepted. If you were me what would you think about two editors who disagree with the consensus of the editorial participants from a recent WP:TFA plus several dozen WP:GA and WP:FA reviews? I have changed the article to reflect the consensus of all editorial participants from the most recent Chicago Building WP:TFA of last week. I think that consensus should be acceptable even despite a personal preference. I read a lot of Chicago articles and community area is something that I feel is important. It conveys more information than River North district. I always look for such information in Chicago articles because it is one of the only cities in American that has meaningful neighborhood designations because they have been constant for a century. Furthermore, it is supported by a better article. The county also conveys information not readily available. I also feel that the address is somewhat important, but since it is in the infobox, I am less attached to it. As a compromise, I would be willing to remove the street address, although I think this is the incorrect thing to do.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
              • Since the article has a whole section devoted to describing its location, I have moved the sentence with the detail to lead this seciton.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
                • I guess it's slightly better there, though I'd replace "Cook County" with "Chicago", since the Near North Side is a division of the city, not the county. We really don't need to mention Cook County at all, for the reasons I stated above, but if you want to mention it somewhere, just mention it in the infobox. Zagalejo^^^ 05:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
                  • You are correct that the community areas are divisions of the city and I have revised the text to that effect. However, I don't think above you explained why the article would be better off without mention of the county in the text of the article unless it is the overwhelmed argument. That argument would essentially make the case that the whole location section of the article is counterproductive because the whole paragraph gives various details about the location of the building.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
                    • • On the one hand, it's a prose issue -- no one wants to read long strings of prepositional phrases. But there's also the fact that Chicago is much better known internationally than Cook County, so we don't need to mention the county to help readers pinpoint where this structure is located. (And it's not like there's another Chicago in Illinois, so we don't need to disambiguate anything.) Zagalejo^^^ 06:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
                        • If it is a matter of too many prepositional phrases in a sentence we can break the sentence up as I now have. There is nothing in the entire paragraph that is not redundant on some level with other information. The whole paragraph gives a flavorful perspective of where the building is. It describes surrounding streets, bodies of water, shopping districts, census areas, etc. I remain unconvinced that the county information is any less useful a piece of color for this paragraph. I further remain unconvinced the article would be better without it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
                          • • Ehhh... I don't think that's the best solution. We still have a lot of prepositional phrases clustered very close to each other, and now there are two really short sentences in a row, which makes the prose choppy. How does the name of the county add color? If it were me, I'd just mention the county in the infobox, and use this as the first sentence of "Location": "The tower is located at 401 North Wabash Avenue in Chicago's Near North Side community area." (We mention the River North Gallery District later in the paragraph, so we can also drop that from the sentence.) Zagalejo^^^ 03:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
                              • Information in an infobox or an image caption does not count as part of the text. Thus, your solution causes County information to be removed. County is a very important item of information for architecture people. Many start-class National Register of Historic Places houses articles have county in their infobox. I am not sure why architecture people care about county, but they do. I do not think an FA-class article should remove it entirely from the text. I also do not like the way the location information is getting strewn all over the article. The suggestion that part be in the LEAD, part at the begining of location, part at end of location and part in infobox seems to be disruptive.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
                                • All right, forget it. I tried to combine the two sentences as smoothly as I could, but I left the geographic descriptors intact. This is too trivial to keep arguing about. Zagalejo^^^ 07:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
                                  • Looks good.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think you need to specify which day of the week April 28, 2008 was.
    • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "However, pictures belie the alignment of the second setback." I don't know what this means... sounds like original research.
    • See the main image and reconsider.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
      • What am I supposed to be seeing? --Laser brain (talk) 03:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Marina City does not line up with a setback. Look at the image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Well, what may be obvious to a Chicagoan is not necessarily so to someone else. Pictures can be taken from different angles to make it look like just about anything lines up or doesn't line up. If it doesn't line up despite their claims to the contrary, please find a source saying so. --Laser brain (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
            • People who know architecture have contested the referenced claim that they line up by pointing to pictures. They have requested that an explanation be included, which describes the visual evidence to the contrary and demanded a footnote. There are no referenced claims countering the claim that they line up to my knowledge. I really don't know what to do because the plans and references talk about them lining up and everyone who knows Chicago and architecture says they obviously don't and suggests that I explain it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "There was an issue about topping the building" Not well-written. Revise to include in the second phrase.
    • How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "The building will contain 2,600,000 square feet (241,548 m²)" square feet of what? Disco?
    • It is a mixed use building. It has parking, retail, hotel and residential space.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "The tower will also feature a five-star luxury hotel condominium with 339 guest rooms." Statements like these are at odds with other statements that the hotel is already open. This will require near-constant attention to combat stability concerns.
    • Pretty minor change in truth. It is no different than a WP:BLP really.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I have no idea what you're saying. My point is that you'll have to keep up with the article to make sure statements that something "will happen" are changed once they actually happen. --Laser brain (talk) 03:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I am saying that many FAs of living people have this same issue. The best example in WP:CHICAGO is Barack Obama. As with all of WP human error sometimes allows such updates to occur belatedly.
  • "The hotel had originally planned to do a partial opening of three of its floors ..." Not a big fan of "do an opening", at least in this context. --Laser brain (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Changed do to have.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• In July 2001, when Donald Trump originally announced plans for this building on the site of the former seven-story Sun-Times building, it was estimated to reach a height of 1,500 feet (460 m), which would have made it the future world's tallest building. Redundancy.
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• I'm not sure I like having two subheaders in the article with the same title.
  • Good point. The architecture section is short enough that subheaders are not necessary. I removed them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• However, the first design did not meet well with other architects and the residents of Chicago. Doesn't seem to contradict the previous sentence.
  • The however indicates that although there was a 2001 design, it was not successful. I.e. There was a 2001 design. However, it was not successful. Thus, a subsequent redesign occured.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• A subsequent revision in July 2002 resulted in an 86-floor version of the current established design for use as an office and residential structure. reads poorly.
  • How is that?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I think it would help to stick a comma in there somewhere. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Got it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Despite ongoing difficulties, construction is proceeding. seems out of place in the paragraph it's in.
  • Is the rewording any better?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• With cranes sitting atop approximately eighty floors of completed structure, the Trump International Hotel & and Tower was considered the most visible crane in the city.
  • This is one oddity. On the hotel's own website they use the ampersand in the logo and the word and in the text. I have switched our text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Alright, looks good. I think I remember seeing that again in the article, so if you want, it might be good to check that out. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
      • The only places the ampersand remains in the article is in the footnotes where article titles contain the symbol.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• A pair of business decisions by the Sun-Times saved a lot of construction time and money. Should "Sun-Times" be in italics?
  • Good catch. I think in the previous four or five times in the article the newpaper is italicized.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's all from me. It's almost there. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support All my issues have been addressed, and the article's much improved since the nomination began. Good work. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support carried over from previous nomination. This article is certainly an example of Wikipedia's best work. Cheers, Rai•me 01:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • However, two unaddressed concerns from the previous nom: In the "Architecture" section, it states: "Because the Trump Tower has both hotel condominiums (originally planned as office space) and residential condominiums". The addition of the "(originally planned as office space)" seems out of place there, particularly as it is discussed in much more detail in a later section. Also, I still think the statement about "pictures belie" at least needs a link to a note, as not all readers would think to examine the lead image in relation to this statement. Cheers, Rai•me 01:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I have added a note to the sentence about the setback issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I have removed the early reference "(originally planned as office space)"--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. The prose is sloppy and below FA standard. There is redundancy and odd, unintelligible phrases throughout the article. Here are a few examples.

• The building is cantilevered into a section of the 420 million-year-old limestone formation that is 110 feet (34 m) underground in the earth's crust. - The redundancy is even linked!
  • Is it redundant to say something is 110 feet underground and in the earths crust? The source seems to say both things so as a tertiary source I relayed such information. I do not know enough about geology to know whether saying those two things is redundant. Are you sure this is redundancy?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The crust part could probably go. The crust is a lot deeper than it might appear in a diagram. It would be pretty significant if they were digging past the crust. Zagalejo^^^ 21:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Are you saying that the source is wrong that they are digging into the earth's crust? I don't know how far down the crust is.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
        • No, they are digging into the crust. The crust is the top layer. As far as I know, we have never driven beyond the crust into the mantle, so we don't really need to specify that they're digging into the crust. That should be assumed. Zagalejo^^^ 04:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
          • I remain confused because I am not sure the meaning of crust now. Are you saying any digging like me planting a flower bed is digging in the earth's crust. I.E., are you saying digging in the earth's crust is redundant with digging 110 feet? The earth's crust is not a commonly understood term here and may need a link if it stays.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
            • • The crust is the outermost solid layer of the earth. It comprises the topsoil, subsoil, bedrock, etc. So yes, any digging you do is digging into the crust. Zagalejo^^^ 06:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
                • Based on the source and feedback, I have revised the sentence. This is not my area of expertise so I am not sure if I got it right.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
                  • Well, the limestone is the bedrock, I think. Not 100% sure, though. Zagalejo^^^ 17:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
                    • Are you saying my correction is good?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
                      • I think you can remove "in bedrock", because (I believe) the limestone formation is the bedrock itself. Again, though, I'm not 100% sure. I'm not a geologist. 00:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
                        • I could just remove the word, but I have tried to move it. How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
                          • I guess that works. Zagalejo^^^ 02:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
• The insiders were people
  • In context of "The insiders were people involved in the planning and designing of the building" the redundancy is stylistic rather than ungrammatical, but I have removed the offending word.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• What exactly is a private couples treatment suite, and were is the possessive?
  • The source gives no further information and does not use a possessive. WP:OR would be required for further information. Grammatically, I guess this is spelled this way in a manner to the common spelling of mens room, smokers lounge, etc. This is just the way they spell it. Who are we to correct them on their spelling.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• He also notes that although many are not as supportive of the structure as the restaurant architecturally, ???
  

GrahamColm^Talk 17:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• • This sentence may need some context. He is the Chicago Tribune architecture critic. He has expressed significant praise for the architecture of the restaurant on the 16th floor and says many may not have the same level of praise for the entire building. Is this a point of confusion for you. Do you have a suggestion on how to rephrase?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I think the problem is that you don't say that there was opposition to the building's design until later in the article (and even there, you don't really go into specifics). Zagalejo^^^ 05:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
      • As an architecture critic of a building that is largely completed, he was making a statement about the actual building and not its design. Since Graham has made the point that the article is redundant and unintelligible throughout and he has only taken the time to point out one possible point of unintelligibility, I think he is saying that pointing out that an architecture critic says many are not supportive of an entire structure architecturally and are more supportive of its restaurant architecturally is someting that would confuse and stymie the vast majority of WP readers without further explanation. I suppose he is also saying the article is chock full of equally as mystifying points. I certainly hope he will respond to my request for further guidance because I would like to improve the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
        • • Well, there are a couple of other problems I see with that phrase: 1) It's not clear that "structure" refers to the structure of the entire building; at first glance, one might think it refers to the structure of the restaurant. 2) I'm not sure it's correct to use the word "architecturally" to modify a description of a person's opinion. Zagalejo^^^ 07:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
            • It is my understanding that supportive is an adjective and architecturally is an adverb. Adverbs modify verbs, adverbs and adjectives to my recollection. I have tweaked the sentence a little otherwise.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
              • True, but you can't match any adverb with any adjective. Zagalejo^^^ 17:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
                • There are all types of ways to support things: financially by giving money, militarily by lending troops, physically by providing a foundation, emotionally by lending sympathy, etc. fans of art or architectury may be artistically or architecturally supportive by offering praise and positive feedback as I understand it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
                  • • Yeah, but that particular phrasing just seems odd to me. In any case, the sentence makes sense without it. ("Architecturally" has already been removed.) Zagalejo^^^ 00:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

More examples here: [27], and I left some comments on the talk page. GrahamColm^Talk 18:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The following two points were copied from the talk page:

• This - In the area surrounded by the hotel to the west, the Chicago River to the south, Rush Street and the Wrigley Building to the east and McDonald's and River Plaza to the north, plans call for a 1.2-acre (4,900 m²) Riverfront Park & Riverwalk along a space that is 500 feet (150 m). - is very untidy and difficult to follow. GrahamColm^Talk 17:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It has been rearranged.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• And this:
  
• In July 2001, when Donald Trump announced plans for this building on the site of the former seven-story Sun-Times Building, it was estimated to reach a height of 1,500 feet (460 m), which would have made it the future world's tallest building.
  • Where did Trump announce the plans? GrahamColm^Talk 18:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The first two sentences of the paragraph for which this sentence serves as the lead is cited by two Chicago Tribune and one New York Times articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Is your quibble about ambiguity of "on the site of the former seven-story Sun-Times Building". Grammatically, the propositional phrase by adjacency modifies the building and not when he announced plans, I believe. I welcome any suggestion to correct any confusion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I continue to attempt seek further guidance from User:GrahamColm for examples of unintelligibilty and his only further problem seemed to be a missing apostrophe. There does not seem to be anything actionable remaining in his objection, but he does not respond.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Attention I have posted links to images with dubious licensing on the talk page. One shows what the view will be like from the patio of the restaurant and the other shows the restaurant. Comments are welcome on the propriety of the use of such images in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I worked on this article (barely) a long while ago. Since that time Tony has really improved the article. The prose might need a check (I'm no expert on grammar, so it might be OK) but the referencing, organization, neutrality, and images are excellent and definitely FA worthy. The article is understandable and presents a lot of great information. And not only is it comprehensive on the topic, it actually seems to be exhaustive. Chupper (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • • "...with an unobstructed view of the entry to Lake Michigan..." God, I know this is pedantic, but the river flows away from Lake Michigan, so is "entry" the best word to use here? (it seems awkward otherwise, but then again, it's not really a 'mouth' either, is it) This is so minor, the only reason I'm bringing it up is that it's 2am and I am on caffeinated autopilot, but maybe some good will come of it.
      • For waterway traffic it is an entry. Unless traffic becomes one way it is still an entry.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. --Golbez (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • "...behind the Sears Tower and rising above the current second and third-tallest, the Aon Center and the John Hancock Center respectively..." I reordered this sentence a little bit, but something irked my [again, 2am] brain: The? I know everyone calls it The Sears Tower, but I've rarely heared The Aon Center, to me it's always just been Aon Center. Likewise with John Hancock Center. It just reads a little off, but then again, I'm not from Chicago, I'm just a skyscraper geek. (I don't know who's going to hate me more after this review, you or me)
      • "The" is grammatically correct. I think stylistically and colloquially it is appropriate as is.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • The Cook County mention seems gratuitous.
      • I give in.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Please look at my efforts of rearranging some things in the first paragraph to get rid of the colon and to avoid doubling up on situational verbs.
      • Looks good.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Is it located at 401 N Wabash, or is that its address? I'm not too keen on the best practices here, but I would say 401 is a designator, not a location...
      • Rephrased.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Do we need to know where the Mag Mile starts? Can't we just say, "It lies a block from the southern end of the Mag Mile"?
      • Changed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, wait, now I see, you mention the bridge a sentence later. It still seems extraneous though, maybe it can be condensed somehow.
      • It was extraneous to this article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • The Marina City thing irks me; it would be a tiny bit of OR, but do you know if it's possible to contact SOM or the Trump Tower itself and enquire about the setbacks lining up with buildings?
      • I suppose I could call and ask, but when the building is completed or at least topped off we should start seeing architectural reviews. Then we won't have to do WP:OR.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Why is the floor numbered "27M"? Doesn't appear to be a typo, since it's in the diagram; what does the M mean?
      • We are venturing into OR, but I will make some calls.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
      • It is 27M for Mezzanine. There is a 27th floor and a 27M floor. Both of them are part of the hotel. I don't see that anything should be added to the article though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Ah, okay, I was just curious. Thanks. --Golbez (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Intro:
    • "The building, named after real estate developer Donald Trump..." Isn't it owned by him as well? Ownership and naming rights are two very different things, as we can see, in Chicago alone, in things like how Big Stan changed names, but Sears has not.
    • "With 92 floors, the Trump International Hotel and Tower is expected to rise to a height of 1,362 feet (415 m) with the spire and 1,170 feet (360 m) without the spire." I'm not sure if it would be better this way, which is why I'm suggesting rather than implementing it, but I suggest making the spire secondary. Something more like, "... is expected to rise to a height of 1,170 feet (360 m), with a spire bringing the total height to 1,362 feet (415 m)." Also, saying "the" seems strange, as if it's a specific spire going on top of the building, so perhaps "a" is better.
      • The more important height is the one with the spire. The building is ranked among the tallest buildings in the world and it is ranked according to height with the spire.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
        • True, though then maybe it can go the other way around: "... is expected, with a spire, to rise to a height of 1,362 feet (415 m), with the roof being at 1,170 feet (360 m)." I'm just looking for ways to avoid saying "with a spire/without a spire". --Golbez (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
          • As a skyscraper/architecture guy this is your call. I don't know the lingo to make the fine tune adjustment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
            • Not sure if I'd call myself an architecture guy... --Golbez (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
              • I've tried it out, let me know if it seems awkward. --Golbez (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I have reworded slightly differently than suggested.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • A real issue, though - aren't you just namedropping a bunch of skyscrapers? OK, so it will be the 2nd tallest in Chicago - do we need to mention the current #2 (and especially the current #3), even if they are famous? And, again, so it will be the 2nd tallest in the country - does that mean we have to also mention the current #2 and #3? (In the case of Empire State - yes. But I don't really see a need for a mention of the BoA tower.) Perhaps trimming this to just, "It will be the 2nd tallest building in the city and country, behind the Sears Tower but surpassing such local landmarks as the John Hancock Center and Aon Center, and national landmarks such as the Empire State Building." Nor do we need to know which borough those buildings are in, nor, frankly, do we need to know who will pass it. It's not even done yet. Do the articles on Sears, Empire State, and Hancock mention their pending surpassing in their intros? No. And, in fact, neither Hancock nor Empire State mention Trump at all. Though the mention of surpassing Hancock's record is definitely intro-worthy.
      • My thoughts are that we the article is about one of the tallest buildings in the United States. As demonstrated later in the text, its height relative to other buildings has been quite an issue. In articles refenced throughout the text the height relative to other buildings on the Chicago skyline and in the U.S. is notable. The articles mention these other buildings (except the BoA Tower to my recollection). Since the secondary sources take time to place it correctly relative to other buildings, it is somewhat appropriate here. The third place buildings may be gratuitous. However, for an article of this length the WP:LEAD is not to long. I am not oppposed to removing the third place buildings and will remove the BoA building. I think the second place building should remain. Since the Hancock center is later referenced I will also leave it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
        • That's just it, it's not the article about one of the tallest buildings in the United States. If it were, like the other tallest articles, it wouldn't mention all the ones it was slightly taller than in its intro. (and, in fact, looking at them, none of them do in their entire articles.) It's about a building under construction, and due to that, there seems to be an urge to drop names on all the famous buildings it is going to be taller than; I'm trying to resist that urge and make it more like a completed building article, rather than one touting all of its extremes, as if from a press release. Mentioning the 2nd place buildings is fine, since it will be 2nd place, but 3rd place in both counts is extraneous. (Related note: Is there a way to get rid of the double "rising" in two sentences?) --Golbez (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
          • I think the point you are making might be more relevant two or three years from now. However, currently the secondary sources are comparing the building to other buildings so we should. Probably two or three years from now that will all stop. We must relay the secondary source points of fact to our readers. Right now the comparative heights are important to the readers and writers of our secondary sources so they are important to WP as a tertiary resource that relays the information of secondary sources.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
            • But once you say it's taller than the Empire State Building, I think that really drives it home. We don't need to mention #3, #4, and #5, just because they're also particularly well-known (though I disagree that BoA is well-known yet) The best things to compare it to are Empire State and Sears. --Golbez (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
              • Note: I have already removed BoA. IMO, the relative height of the Hancock Center should be mentioned in the lead because 1. Trump will break its record as mentioned in the article, 2. The architecture critic compares its views as mentioned in the article, 3. From the WP:CHICAGO perspective, Chicagoans (and their tourist friends) view this as a landmark height in the sense that some of the most famous sky view pictures of the city are taken from its skydeck. I am only including Aon because it would be odd to include #3 (in Chicago) and not #2.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
                • I've tried to consolidate the two sentences, and make it flow better. --Golbez (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Location:
    • Do you have a citation that the restaurant was explicitly designed for such views?
      • What sentence are you talking about?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
        • "The restaurant on the 16th floor is designed to accentuate the views..." --Golbez (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what the art galleries have to do with Trump Tower.
      • We are describing the neighborhood. That is the most important feature of the neighborhood other than its landmarks, AFAIK.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
        • But this is an article on the tower, not the neighborhood... would we include a note of the art museums in every article related to this neighborhood?
  • Architecture:
  • Features:
    • Is it possible to combine the first three sentences in Hotel? Something like... "The hotel had originally planned to have a partial opening of three of its floors on December 3, 2007 with a grand opening to follow, but this was delayed until January 30, 2008, when all 27 floors of the hotel opened" or what not. The first and third sentences appear easily combined, but the one in the middle about occupancy gets in the way, and I'm not sure it's necessary... maybe just add a short note about "but this way delayed due to permits/approval until ..."
      • How is that?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Incidentally, you say "the hotel, which occupies the first 27 floors, opened"... but then you say "the entire hotel and its full offering of amenities" opened two months later. What was lacking in the first opening? It makes it sound as if the whole hotel opened the first time, so all that was left in March was amenities? Or were portions of the hotel not open yet? Or, is this simply the difference between opening for business, and having an official, party-filled grand opening thing?
      • Is it clearer now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • "praised by Pulitzer Prize winning critic Blair Kamin" "Chicago Tribune architecture critic Kamin" A minor issue, but do you think it's possible to establish his credentials once? It's just that, the second one, where it starts out 'Chicago Tribune architecture critic...', I was expecting it to mention a new, second person, not the one already introduced. Though, reading on in the sentence, I now see why it was needed to mention his newspaper, since a fellow Tribune critic is mentioned a few words later.
      • As you mention, when he first appears I establish his credentials. Then before the other critic comes in I attempt to distinguish them. You sort of backstep in this request so I am not sure if you want it changed or realize the intent.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I have now rearranged.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • "Kamin says Trump's use of zebra wood is among the architectural foibles of the hotel lobby." I know that the hotel is supposed to start on floor 16, but this should be reiterated in this section, as it's kind of a throwaway mention in Architecture. So without re-establishing that the hotel starts on floor 16, it seems weird to talk about the hotel lobby in a section about the restaurant. (And even then, if this criticism is only about the lobby, it shouldn't be in the restaurant section
      • Rearranged, but I am not short on critical review of the hotel.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • "NBC5 WMAQ-TV Street Team" I would say you don't need the NBC5 - the call letters are sufficient.
      • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • "Rebar is also known for its 25-person VIP room overlooking the lobby." Is it known for this, really? Or does it just have it? I'd probably think it's a bit too new to be 'known' for anything. :)
      • O.K. How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Development:
    • "...the building would include ornamental spires..." The intro implies there will be one spire; was the design changed to one, or are there still multiple?
      • Good catch.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • There's a "Demolition and construction" section, and a "Construction" section. Can Demolition be split off into its own section, or can these be combined? After all of what I've written and critiqued, this is by far the most glaring issue.
      • How is that?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Looks good. --Golbez (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • AAaaaaand that's all. --Golbez (talk) 08:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(Copied from user talk page) Thanks for your recent editorial contributions. I agree with all of them except I am not so sure the word Twin should be removed since there are so many World Trade Center Towers in addition to the famous tall twins. I will probably readd the word. However, I also noticed you partially reverted another editors changes. You prefer upon to on as do I, but User:GrahamColm changed many upons to on. Since I hope for support from both of you we need to work this out. I am on your side on this issue. I will be working through your comments today and will comment if other issues arise.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I rearranged the sentence, I think that sentence begins better with 'upon' than 'on' but hopefully this won't be a sticking point. --Golbez (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• All my issues being dealt with, I now confidently say Support. --Golbez (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Very strong oppose—(1) requirement for a professional standard of formatting; (2) concerns at content that could easily function as advertising, thus bringing into question WP's NPOV and authority on the Internet; and (3) issues with prose and MOS, although not at all major.

1) You know I link 50% more words than the average editor and we always go back and forth on this. When I link four or five hundred word you will find the 2% that are most marginal and I conceed many of them are. However, I think most of the 50% extra are good links.--

I've pointed out, through examples, why many links are silly and useless. Don't try to game this process. TONY (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

See comment below in bold.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want to overlink, none of your articles will be promoted: simple as that. It's a disservice to our readers. Get over this fixation with linking. TONY (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

2) It is possible to write a detailed article about a commercial entity without being POV. Rather than point to NPOV because this is a commercial entity, it would make sense to say X, Y, & Z sentences are really disquised advertising. If we can not resolve any such issues you will have a point. However, my details are pretty neutral with equal positive and negative where appropriate, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No, they don't come out as "pretty neutral". It's a free advert. TONY (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment I've been watching the FA candidacy of this article develop over the course of the past couple of weeks. I think most of the suggestions made here have been beastly, but very helpful nevertheless. The article has really come along. I could also see how some say the prose needs to be tweaked, but again, I'm not a grammar expert. But I could not disagree more with the comment that this is a "free advert". Buildings and skyscrapers garner a certain amount of enthusiasm from folks in a city - whether they are completed or not. Buildings are significant to a city's architecture and pride and therefore get a lot of attention. By browsing online forums it becomes evident that there are thousands of individuals monitoring the progress of these new skyscrapers every day. Simply go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers and you can see the amount of time and dedication editors have spent working on articles of skyscrapers proposed, under construction and completed. IMO Tony1's argument stating that this is a free advert would be no different than me saying that having an article on Wikipedia about the Chicago Cubs is a free advert because it helps sell tickets. It is possible to have an article on Wikipedia on a subject which is very commercially active without calling it a "free advert". I can't speak for all skyscraper editors on Wikipedia, but I'm guessing a lot would have a hard time calling this free advertising. Tonythetiger was right; if you can name sentences, sections, and/or paragraphs that are NPOV that would be helpful. But labeling the whole article an advertisement is wrong and completely unhelpful, IMO. Chupper (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

3) I will respond to any particular issues. I just hope you will be timely so that I can respond before Sandy has to make a decision.--

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you expecting anything to happen soon? TONY (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

In general, when you jump into my discussions during advanced stages. Often this happens at a time when the article is headed toward promote. Then immediately a bunch of reviewere follow along with you and Sandy quickly closes. This is the pattern that has evolved. I am just noting it here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Overlinked, as usual. This alone, will make me oppose. Your texts, Tony, become mired in bright-blue messy less-than-useful links: dictionary terms are a key problem. We do not need words such as "floors", "antennas", "cocktails", "sushi", and "architect" linked (I don't mind "setbacks", because it's piped to "Setbacks (architecture)"). I've had a go at weeding some of the sillier ones out of the lead, and it's better, but still very densely linked. Please note that date autoformatting is no longer encouraged, and since you have a lot of high-value links, justifiably, that would be the first thing I'd clean up: no one minds US date formatting, believe me. Now, are we going to have a ding-dong fight about this, or will you agree to clean up the whole article after the lead? PS Does the "convert" template always render the units in bright blue? How annoying. I'd not use it for that reason: we do know what feet and metres are, and to have them linked every time they appear is ... irritating to say the least. We need a straight, clean copy to read.
  • My problem with your delinking is that you chose to delink so many words that are commonly used in skyscraper articles. In general you object way too late to respond before Sandy has to make a decision in this case, I think we should hash out this edit to get some understanding of our varying perspectives on linking. I invite you to hash out your edit word by word because I reverted it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Skyscraper: In FAChicago Board of Trade Building, which was WP:TFA two weeks ago skyscraper is linked. GA One Bayfront Plaza links skyscraper. Skyscraper is commonly linked because the average reader does not know the difference between a skyscraper and a high rise. Skyscraper is I belive linked in all of the WP:FL articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Featured Topic Drive. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    • United States: United States is linked in the same articles. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    • New York City: Like United States, New York City, as a geographic location should be linked, IMO. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
      • See Wikipedia:Overlink#What_generally_should_be_linked--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Full dates: You should know by now that by MOS all full dates are suppose to be linked. Are you just trying to pick a fight to justify objecting?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Architect: I will always argue in favor of linking a profession.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Hotel: this is somewhat marginal. Of all the words you delinked this is the closest to the border in my opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Floor: I personally disagree with MOS on units of measure and link the first occurance in all of my articles. Storey is an odd unit of measure, but one nonetheless.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Another good reason to dump auto-lemon is the Daley caption: the link to the building is undermined by the blue date that follows, so that only the first two words are black. It's as though blue becomes the norm.
  • I don't think haveing two links immediately following each other should be a deal breaker. Overlinking in my mind is regularly having like four links follow each other.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• MOS on final dots in captions ... and should a hyphen be used for "floor use diagram"? The print on the diagram is just noise; I have this old-fashioned idea that a diagram should be broadly comprehensible without clicking it up to huge res. Could be partly solved by expanding the caption a bit (", showing the levels of ....").
  • I do not understand the final dots thing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I assume you are saying add a hyphen to floor use.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The diagram is a problem. We are dealing with a diagram whose text is scaled for either Letter (paper size) or some similar size. When we scale it down to a default thumbsize for the article it becomes illegible. The options are 1. remove, 2. keep as is hoping the reader will be willing to click for larger image., 3. find someone who knows how to create such diagrams. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you suggesting adding a caption?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• The use of hyphens remains an issue in your writing, which overall has vastly improved over the past year. "standing-room only bar". It's only a bar?
  • Not sure what you want, but I added a link.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You added a link? Why? Are you trying to shit me? They "standing-room-only bar", unlinked. TONY (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"They "standing-room-only bar", unlinked."—Is that a sentence? I don't know what you want. You may note that the term standing room only has a dedicated article and the term is used without hyphens. I added a link because there seems to be some confusion about a word that does not need to be expounded upon in this article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• "It offers gemstone-infused (diamond, ruby, or sapphire) oil massages, a "robe menu", and, for customers who come sufficiently early, hydrating masques, exfoliating salts and the "Deluge shower"." Two things: first, this level of detail commits us to monitoring whether there are fine-grained changes in this service; second, more importantly, this goes over the boundary of allowing advertising on WP. Reword with reduced detail and even no commercial name. I'd conflate restaurant, bar and spa into "Facilities" and treat in a circumspect way.
  • The point of pursuing a FA is to present an indepth coverage. Saying adding details requires that we check on them is nothing new to wikipedia. This is no different than saying that describine Carlos Beltrán as a five tool player commits us to monitoring whether he continues to have above average speed as a baserunner as one of the five tools. Advertising is rarely done with as much negative point of view as this article. I don't think anyone could rightly claim that this is an example of advertising.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• "after a request remove all advertising from it"
  • Is there any POV material in it?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's totally ungrammatical. TONY (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Caption in "Construction" is totally inadequate. Bizarre.
  • Sorry. Thanks for pointing this out.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ping me when it's all fixed. TONY (talk) 03:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC) TONY (talk) 03:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't give a dump what is linked in some other article; nor should you: that is totally irrelevant. I'm concerned only with this article. Saying that it's fine to link an item just because it's linked somewhere else is the dumbest argument I've heard in a long time. It's up to you to justify on substantive terms why each link is "signficantly useful to the reader". You're wasting my time—time I could be spending on useful things. I've shown you how the article can be significantly improved; again you treat it like a game called spa-with-the-reviewer. TONY (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• In general, you are telling me to delink words against MOS policy (Full dates) and against standard convention on wikipedia (geographic locations). You are seemingly attempting to pick the same fight over and over so that you can say I am being stubborn. I will be reasonable on linking, but if you attempt to instruct me to go against policy and standard convention without explanation in order to pick a fight, I will revert you. It borders on being WP:UNCIVIL to repeatedly object based on a editor linking words according to MOS and standard convention. It is a form of picking a fight that is very subtle and clever, but also very obvious. Other cases of words that are linked are explained. E.G., skyscraper should be linked because the average reader does not know the difference between skyscraper and high rise.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC
• I am also getting tired of you repeatedly making in large part unreasonable objections right prior to consideration by Sandy so that it closes without you having to respond. You seem to repeatedly game my discussions in this manner rather than respond quickly so that I can address your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • TonyTheTiger, please bear in mind that I also brought up the issue of overlinking, so it's not just a dispute between you and Tony. I simply got tired of debating with you but it remains a problem. Reviewers are by no means required to rush back to the FAC page to check your progress, especially when there are so many other articles waiting for reviews. That is unfairly monopolizing the reviewer's time. --Laser brain (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Laser, did you look at the words at issue here. I enumerated them and am willing to debate each one because as I said above the words he is contesting are in large part against MOS policy and standard convention. I am willing to delink some, but I found his edit to be uncivil as noted above. It is not really very constructive for a reviewer to object to me following MOS and standard convention and then make the argument that it is wasting his time to explain in further detail because he could be doing other things.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
      • See Wikipedia:Overlink#What_generally_should_be_linked for geographic locations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
      • See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Autoformatting_and_linking for dates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
      • For units of measurement especially those involving conversion I side with the technical terms instruction at Wikipedia:Overlink#What_generally_should_be_linked over the units of measurement instruction at Wikipedia:Overlink#What_generally_should_not_be_linked.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Note, I view a link to storey as a link to a technical term as much as a link to a unit of measure.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose at this stage.

• "The building received publicity when the winner of the first season of The Apprentice, Bill Rancic, chose to work on the construction of the tower." - in what context did he work on it? (As part of the show, or just randomly... keep in mind that not everyone watches The Apprentice...)
  • His exact role is described in the text if you read it. Of course, it is not described in the WP:LEAD. See the first paragraph in the Construction section.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• "and its design has undergone several revisions." - of course it has; no plan is ever perfect from the start. Needs to be more specific.
  • Again you are pointing to an introductory sentence that is fully explained in the text. See the Design history section.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• "According to the current design, upon completion in 2009 it will be the second-tallest building in Chicago and in the United States, rising above the Empire State Building in New York City and Chicago's current second and third-tallest, the Aon Center and John Hancock Center, respectively, but behind Chicago's Sears Tower." - this sentence is all over the place - far too long and commas galore.
  • This sentence has received as much attention as any in the article from previous editors. I have attempted to follow advice as much as possible. If you have a better suggestion please see all the commentary above in this discussion and prior to the restart and then feel free to edit in a way that is helpful.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• I don't get why you need to link The New York Times and The New York Times Company in refs.
  • I link notable publishers and works. If there is a policy against such links, I am willing to stop this practice.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Dunno about a policy but I don't see the point in linking both. Click one of the links and there's a link to the other article in the first paragraph of either, if the reader is actually interested. Takes up space and makes an annoying sea of blue, this way. —Giggy 00:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I guess I just always link both. In many cases they are not so similar.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• "The design of the building includes, in order from the ground up, retail, parking, a hotel, and condominiums." - "in order from the ground up" is probably evident from what you list, so it's not really necessary.
  • This is another sentence that is the consensus of several editors and reflects the coordinated efforts of several editors.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• "The 339-room hotel opened for business with limited accommodation and service on 30 January 2008.[14][15][16] 28 April 2008 marked the grand opening of the hotel with full accommodation and service." - repetition (in bold) that can be smoothed out.
  • fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That's just from the lead. Prose still needs work, it seems. —Giggy 12:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Support - Consideringer the copyediting that's since been done, a quick look through brings up no new issues, and I think the overlinking issue has been resolved. —Giggy 16:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

[Repeated from above, so I can respond here (Tony1)]

Skyscraper: In FAChicago Board of Trade Building, which was WP:TFA two weeks ago skyscraper is linked. GA One Bayfront Plaza links skyscraper. Skyscraper is commonly linked because the average reader does not know the difference between a skyscraper and a high rise. Skyscraper is I belive linked in all of the WP:FL articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Featured Topic Drive. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

My problem with your delinking is that you chose to delink so many words that are commonly used in skyscraper articles. In general you object way too late to respond before Sandy has to make a decision in this case, I think we should hash out this edit to get some understanding of our varying perspectives on linking. I invite you to hash out your edit word by word because I reverted it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, no: that's your job. You have to justify that every link, according to this statement in MOS:

Make links only where they are relevant to the context: It is not useful and can be very distracting to mark all possible words as hyperlinks. Links should add to the user's experience; they should not detract from it by making the article harder to read. A high density of links can draw attention away from the high-value links that you would like your readers to follow up. Redundant links clutter the page and make future maintenance harder. A link is the equivalent of a footnote in a print medium. Imagine if every second word in an encyclopedia article were followed by "(see: ...)". Hence, links should not be so numerous as to make the article harder to read.

and these statements in the styleguide Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context:

Redundant links clutter up the page and make future maintenance harder. A link is analogous to a cross-reference in a print medium. Imagine if every second word in an encyclopedia article were followed by "(see:)". The links should not be so numerous as to make the article harder to read.

and

Numerous links in the summary of an article may cause users to jump elsewhere rather than read the whole summary.

and

In general, do not create links to plain English words, including common units of measurement.

Sometimes the density of links is very high in the article. It does no one any service, particularly those who are looking for high-value links to follow. It looks messy and unprofessional. It's harder to read.

I can assure you that for some time now, autoformatting has not been mandatory. The guidelines are in MOSNUM.

As for your belligerent attitude, and your accusations and implications that I've planned the timing of my comments and have premeditated a campaign against your FACs: I'm sorry to disappoint you—it's not the case.

Now that you've used a proper reason to justify your linking of "skyscraper", rather than saying just that some other article uses it, I can see a little possible benefit, although English-speakers are expected to know that the word means a very tall building. If distinguishing it from "highrise" is important to readers' understanding of the topic, I can't quite see it—the word "highrise" appears nowhere in the article. You tell us within two seconds that:

At 92 floors, the Trump International Hotel and Tower is expected to rise to a height of 1,362 feet (415 m) including its spire, with its roof topping out at 1,170 feet (360 m).

So we know its dimensions. Why are you bothering us with bright-blue about the word? The linked article, if our long-suffering readers divert themselves to it, tells us:

Thus, depending on the average height of the rest of the buildings and/ or structures in a city, even a building of 80 meters height (approximately 262 ft) may be considered a skyscraper provided that it clearly stands out above its surrounding built environment and significantly changes the overall skyline of that particular city.

(Pardon the little glitches in the text.)

Then we're told in that article that:

The somewhat arbitrary term skyscraper should not be confused with the slightly less arbitrary term highrise, defined by the Emporis Standards Committee as "...a multi-storey structure with at least 12 floors or 35 meters (115 feet) in height."[2] Some structural engineers define a highrise as any vertical construction for which wind is a more significant load factor than weight. Note that this criterion fits not only high rises but some other tall structures, such as towers.

Right, makes your use of the word "skyscraper" so much easier to understand, and increases my understanding of Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) ... an awful lot.

OK, let's go to your linking of "sushi". This will take quite a few months. TONY (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply It is not my intent to debate redundant links. I am willing to delink any such links you point out as most are included accidentally. My debate is about first instances of words such as geographic locations and full dates. You continue to ignore the policy guidelines that are relevant. Is there a reason why you are shifting the debate from the relevant policy guidelines I mention above to redundant links which I want help removing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• P.S. sushi falls under Wikipedia:Overlink#What_generally_should_be_linked item four for the internationals reader. I did not know what the term meant when I was in gade school and I have a well-above average IQ. Many readers do not come from social circles where the term is common.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Here are some possible writing improvements since I'm not getting involved in any debates over whether this is overlinked or an advert.

• Second paragraph of the lead: "The building will surpass the Hancock Center as the building..." Two buildings here. Try "The tower will surpass the Hancock Center as the building...".
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• "to favorable reviews for it" It→Its.
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• I see you have made use of the new Notes feature. This is the first time I have seen this in a review and it seems interesting. Should there be a comma before "one sees that"?
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Architecture: "the 17th through 27M floors" Is 27M correct?
  • Yes the building has a 27M floor above the 27th floor.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• "along a 500 feet (150 m) space" Would this be better as 500-foot?
  • Yes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Features, Hotel: In one sentence: "Architecturally..." "architecture critic" "architectural foibles". A little variation (probably on the last) wouldn't hurt.
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Restuarant: When did Sixteen open for breakfast and dinner, or did it open on seperate dates? If the latter, I wouldn't change it, but if it's the former the date would be good.
  • Based on the source, it is hard to give more detail than is presented.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Second paragraph of Restuarant starts with a lengthy sentence. Perhaps break it up after the block of three references?
  • I added a bunch of stuff to the sentence to address another concern and did not realize how long it had gotten.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Development, Design history: "building the world's talling building" Redundant again. "erecting the world's talling building".
  • I got it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• "In January, 2004," Comma after January can go.
  • fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Take these comments for what they are worth, as I am not a building expert. Giants2008 (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note, pls see WP:FAC instructions regarding the use of graphics, which cause a problem in the FAC archives per Wikipedia:Template limits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Forgot. Sorry.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm back for another look.

• Still in Design history: "which as broadcast antenna do not count toward building height," Make the last word plural? In any case, the punctuation should be fixed.

• I got the plural. Do you still think puncutation is an issue?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Initial phases: Comma after October 28, 2004 would match the previous sentence.

• Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• "James McHugh Construction Co is contracted for the concrete work on this job." Has this been completed yet. If so it should be "was contracted".

• The building is not topped out yet and the whole building is concrete formwork.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Legal issues: I know I promised to stay out of the link controversy, but linking Ivanka Trump twice in two paragraphs just seems like too much.

• This was an accidental redundant link. Please point out any others I may have missed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Donald Trump and his three adult children were overseeing the construction and standing in the spotlight with their father." Trump is standing in the spotlight with his father too? This could stand to be adjusted.

• Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• A couple Chicago Tribune links are expiring and two TrumpChicago.com pages apparently redirect to the front page. He's fired. :-)

• What does it mean to be an expiring link that is still good. Some are a few months old and some are a few years old.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• You probably know more about this than me. If they do go behind a pay wall in the future, just remember to switch the link to Newsbank. Giants2008 (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Take a look at our new disambiguation finder for a number of dab links on the page. Giants2008 (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Is it O.K. to have a few links to dab pages. I am not sure whether to link to scuba diving or surface supplied diving for example.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Don't worry about something like scuba diving. Terms like these are fine as they are. If, on the other hand, a person goes to a wrong link, that would have to be fixed. I should have looked harder at the links in question. Giants2008 (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• The suggestion was helpful and led to several improvements.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

[Repeated comment to juxtapose reply (Tony1]: Reply It is not my intent to debate redundant links. I am willing to delink any such links you point out as most are included accidentally. My debate is about first instances of words such as geographic locations and full dates. You continue to ignore the policy guidelines that are relevant. Is there a reason why you are shifting the debate from the relevant policy guidelines I mention above to redundant links which I want help removing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• P.S. sushi falls under Wikipedia:Overlink#What_generally_should_be_linked item four for the internationals reader. I did not know what the term meant when I was in gade school and I have a well-above average IQ. Many readers do not come from social circles where the term is common.

• Well, I did do you the service of delinking through many paragraphs at the top to "point out" examples; but you promptly reverted my work. Now the onus is on you to justify every one of those relinkings. Otherwise, please reinstate them. I suppose we can live with "skyscraper", but just run past me why the "internationals reader" (sic) needs a link to "sushi"? I'm going to persist here, because overlinking has been a persistent problem on WP, but we've been gradually winning the war against the previous undisciplined scattergun approach. I find your attitudes disturbing, against that of most other nominators, who are happy to comply when the argument against annoying links is put as part of the "professional standards of formatting" requirement. TONY (talk) 02:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• • You continue to argue as if I have nothing, but blue links when my link density is approximately the same as the prescribed desired amount in the example at WP:OVERLINK. You also ignore my responses to each of the words you removed. I assume you are attempting to ignore my responses by acting like the burden is on me to justify every one when I already have. Your "professional standards of formatting" argument continues to ignore the prescribed link density that I have achieved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger, it would be helpful if you were more open-minded to Tony1's comments. After looking at his contribs, it seems as if he is well versed in formatting and style. Tony1, I think we need to remember all of TonyTheTiger's time which he has donated to this and other articles. While he may seem frustrated about your comments, it isn't surprising to me considering the effort he has put into this. And quoting another editor on a talk page and throwing in "(sic)" just doesn't seem to be in good taste :). Chupper (talk) 03:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"He" donates time? So do I, and when I go as far as editing part of an article to show what I'm talking about, it doesn't create a favourable attitude to be reverted summarily by the nominator. Nor will a reviewer typically react well when accused, in a very personal way, of bad faith. Specific futher response to nominator: WP:OVERLINK doesn't "prescribe" a level of linking, and if you are purposely trying to ramp up the level of linking, we'll get nowhere. I could accuse you of ignoring the MOS and guideline texts I've pasted in here; that's what it looks like. So why don't you use your "well-above average IQ" to reduce the link-farm clutter, instead of arguing in circles against my requests to bring this text into line with the norm in WP. It cuts no ice telling us here that you overlink by 50% as a policy.

Waiting for action. TONY (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I commend you on your ability to be combative. You have spunk. However, above I have demonstrated the prescribed link density that comes from WP:OVERLINK. I have no more links than that which is endorsed as policy. I again remind you that I reverted you with full explaination of almost every term you needlessly delinked. I think this is the third or fourth time I have reminded you of this. Do you intend to contest the arguments that things like full dates and geographic locations are to be linked as per policy even though you delinked them?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• It's not prescribed, it's an example of appalling overlinking. It's not policy, it's in guidelines. "Sushi" is not necessary to link for people you describe as "internationals" readers. Why on earth? Now, fully three reviewers have asked you to attend to the overlinking: Chupper, Laser brain, and me. Are we at an impasse, or are you going to be reasonable about it? You seem to have taken a belligerent approach, using erroneous or extreme interpretations of what you find in styleguides. Still waiting for a cooperative approach on this: when you agree, I'm willing to assist in the process of weeding out the trivials. I won't bother touching it until that agreement comes, since the ownership thing is getting in the way. TONY (talk) 05:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you have any commentary yet on my clearly enumerated logic for reverting your delinkings? Do you have any commentary on the prescribed link density I have pointed to.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Criterion 1c.
  • Why are refs 1 and 2 (which appear way down in the article, after many others, strangely) to the same web cite, yet announce different info and access dates? These refs first occur in the text together, too. TONY (talk) 05:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Refs one and two are to different links. What are you talking about?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
      • The references are used in the infobox; since an infobox tops an article, they are ordered first. The links have nearly identical titles, but are to different sites. Giants2008 (talk) 14:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Criterion 1a—OK, time for a few spot-checks of the prose, and it doesn't scrub up well. The lead alone provides fertile grounds for critiquing.

• We have "rising above" contrasting with "behind". Very odd.
  • In all honesty, I appreciate the constructive criticism. I have changed it to rising above vs. trailing, which is a better parallel structure.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Remove ", which is also located" as redundant. Remove the first word in "respective completions". There's a lot of "respective" hanging around.
  • I don't think redundancy is the right reason for the removal, but for conciseness I removed it.
  • Respective or respectively occurs three times in the article. Two of these are in consecutive sentences. However, in the consecutive sentences they are used in different forms (respectively, the adverb, and respective, the adjective). I kind of think that the second use is as appropriate as the first and that to properly refer to the pair of dates and the pair of buildings the word needs to be in the sentence.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• "Building hosting"—avoid ing ing; it's easy to do so.
  • Grammatically, one ing is a noun and the other is something else (I believe a gerund). There is no grammatical problem with a gerund following a noun. If these were consecutive gerunds that would be problematic. Building can be either a noun or a gerund (Gerund example: Building skyscrapers is interesting. Noun: This building is interesting.) In this case, it is a noun. I don't really see the problem.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
    • There's more to good writing than grammar. In this case, two "ing"s in a row just sounds awkward. (I think that's what Tony is getting at.) Zagalejo^^^ 02:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
      • It is easy enough to change so it is no big deal.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• The design includes parking? Isn't parking an activity? The other items in that list are nominals.
  • Parking is also both a noun and a gerund. The design refers to the noun. I will make it a parking garage to cause less ambiguity.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• "Favorable reviews FOR? Nope.
  • I am not so sure that favorable reviews for is improper construction. However, I have reworded the whole sentence.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Now, when you say that the mezzanine-level hotel also opened to critical praise, this occurred 10 days before the referents for the "also". It wasn'ts "also" at the time, was it.
  • The hotel had a barebones opening in January and a full service opening on April 28th. The restaurant to which you refer was opened in stages between these dates (or as the lead says in early 2008). The restaurant opened before the April 18th date. I don't really feel that the paragraph to which you refer needs two more dates (partial and full opening dates for the restaurant). Thus, I just use early 2008. I hope this clarifies. If you feel the text needs adjustment please advise.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Floor-use caption: it would be nice to know whether WP has concocted this, or whether it's a product of the architects—oops, I need to link that, don't I: architects. We shouldn't have to go to the info page for such basic information. And it's a limited diagram, yes? Some reference to that, please. And there's still a MOS breach in the inclusion of a final dot.
  • I think it was you who earlier complained about the legibility of the text. I have attempted to fix that. The non-text portion comes from Trump. It is not common place for credits to be posted in WP:CAPTIONs rather than on image pages. What are you asking me to do?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with text legibility; you've fixed that. The caption needs to explain more, like ... point to the source or status of the diagram. All you need to say is "architects' floor plan", or something like that. TONY (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have addressed this now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Density of citation numbers, particularly in the lead: why are there ten of them in the final para of the lead, which comprises just five shortish sentences? I'd say it's overkill in quite a few instances through the article. Is this the same scattergun solution as for links? Just spread 'em all through like treacle, and you can't go wrong. Why does a simple, non-contested claim such as "The 339-room hotel opened for business with limited accommodation and service on 30 January 2008.[14][15][16]" come with a triple-bunger?
  • In general, the more citations the better. I think some of the best articles are the ones with two or three hundred citations because everything is WP:V and WP:ATT. If I recall, I added better citations without removing lesser citations. I have been upset with you for asking me to delink full dates and geographical locations. I sort of think complaining about too many citations is a similar complaint. I have never heard of something being too well-cited before. Actually, I take that back, I do recall an example of overcitation that I disagreed with once.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No, "the more citations the better" is not at all the case. A balance is required between too few (normally the problem) and the needless cluttering of the text with too many (three at once for a non-contentious statement?), too often. You're right, it is a similar complaint to that about the overlinking, which remains a rankling issue here. You clutter the text with not-very-useful artifacts. Same deal. Now, please don't take the usual belligerent, defensive attitude, and go through the article—especially the lead—weeding out the references that are not strictly required. It's a matter of carefully rationing them, not plastering them everywhere.

Now listen carefully: until we get this overlinking, over-referencing thing right, your FACs are going to be warzones. I'm sure you don't want that. If you took the more cooperative attitude that almost all other nominators take, the thing would be over and done with in no time. But you fight, don't you. You fight the reviewers to the hilt, regarding their advice as some kind of personal attack. I ask you not to bring further nominations here (in what I can only describe as being a premature state) with that attitude. TONY (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• • In this case the triple citations are both necessary. The opening date is necessary because the print citation explains more fully that this is a partial opening (if I recall correctly), but the two online refs that are more WP:V because they are online do not detail the partial opening. The other triple citation involves the changing designs. I have cut this down to one NYT and one Chicago Tribune citation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Why are the NYT and Chicago Tribune linked in every single citation? Breach of styleguides.
  • I have never heard of a style guide against linking publisher and work in a {{cite web}} template. I link every instance because although links are considered redundant in the text where a reader is presumed to have read the preceding text, we should not add citations with the presumption that the reader has read all previous citations. A reader should not have to search all citations to figure out if there is a link for the publisher in the citation at issue. Last time I had this debate, I pointed out that all of the preceding several months of FA promotions had permitted such links.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Ref 14: "week ended" or "week end"?
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• The publisher is named for most refs, so why is the URL instead named for "The Experience. trumpchicagohotel.com". Complete audit required. Why wasn't this done before nomination? These are basic issues that should not be concerning us here. Inappropriate.
  • In all honesty, I did not know how to expand any of the trump citations from their website. I was not sure what to use as the publisher. Advice would be appreciated. for refs # 29, 39, 46 and 49.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Criterion 1e (stability)—I see that someone has previously raised the issue of the title, which every visitor would assume refers to a completed building. Then you see that it's a work in progress. The article is thus itself a work in progress, since it will need significant maintenance as the building work evolves. This is inherent instability, and breaches a fundamental criterion.

I am sure you know well by now that stability refers to edit warring. Much like WP:BLPs this article will evolve and require attention, but like BLPs it is very eligible. I am headed to the beach soon, but will look over the above list later. However, it seems that as you have in the past you have managed to wait until very well into discussion to give me feedback to respond to, which of course makes it difficult to address in advance of Sandy's decisions, but you are consistent in this strategy at least.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

And lots more. This is looking like a definite non-promotion at the moment. TONY (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments on images by Kelly ^hi! 18:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC):
  • Image:Trump Chicago floor diagram.JPG is replaceable by a free image, such as a user-made drawing.
    • Does anyone know how to make such a drawing?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia:Graphics Lab may be able to help. Kelly ^hi! 19:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I put in a request.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:20080514 Trump Chicago Kiosk.JPG and Image:20080514 Trump Chicago Kiosk2.JPG are possibly unfree, as it's derivative of whoever owns the copyright to the displayed posters.

    I fixed the licensing on the above two images, but they still need non-free use rationales. Kelly ^hi! 23:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

    I got the FURs.

    The rationales only say the images are there to provide "visual information" regarding a controversy - I guess I'm not getting it, how do images of the posters significantly increase a reader's understanding per WP:NFCC#8? Kelly ^hi! 19:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

    • If you read the controversy, it should be apparent that the reader will not understand what all the fuss is about without the images in all likelihood.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions: Why are such trivial terms linked: studios (a redirect), Satellite dish, studios (a redirect; 2 instances), Bedrooms (a redirect; 2 instances), health club, spa, Gold Coast, Australia (a redirect), five-star (a redirect), Red wine (a redirect), Wine rack (a redirect),London, Australia, North Africa, India, Decor (a redirect), flying buttresses (a redirect), Course (dining) (a redirect)... I stopped here. Clíodhna (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• I only see one link to studio and that was to the wrong link studio instead of Studio apartment. I fixed this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• I view Satellite dish as a technical term that should be linked according to WP:OVERLINK#What_generally_should_be_linked.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Gold Coast, Australia is a geographical location that should be linked according to WP:OVERLINK#What_generally_should_be_linked.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • ditto for London, Australia, North Africa, India--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I will say that Gold Coast, Australia should be linked. I'll bet less than 1% of Americans have heard of it. Zagalejo^^^ 05:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• I delinked bedroom (but only found one instance).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• I view health club as a common term for Americans, but I think the international reader may need a link.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Spa is not a very common term.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• five-star is a technical term of sorts.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• In the absence of articles for red wine and white wine I delinked those terms.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Flying buttress is clearly a technical term.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Course and wine rack are word usage terms.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Sorry, Tony. I hadn't taken a clear position for several weeks, which is probably driving SandyGeorgia nuts, but I've been doing some thinking, and I can't in good conscience support this. The article still has some problems, and even if it reaches FA level sometime soon, it will be going through some major changes when the building is finally finished. Large new sections will have to be written, and if we want to honestly present this article as an example of Wikipedia's best work, those new sections will need to be subjected to the same level of scrutiny the article faces now. It just doesn't make sense to promote the article until the building has been completed. Zagalejo^^^ 05:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I don't view an objection based on need for ongoing scrutiny as too valid, but if you have other significant issues with the current state of the article given the time you have contributed in guidance, you can fairly object. I am just not sure what those issues are.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I think most of the really big problems (typos, factual errors) have been addressed. But there are still lots of subtle problems with the prose that are difficult for me to explain in detail. Some paragraphs just don't flow very well, or are haphazardly organized. Take the second-to-last paragraph in the Restaurant section, or the last paragraph of "Design history".
  • But to address your first point, why isn't "an objection based on need for ongoing scrutiny" valid? We're not talking about simple vandal-watching. The article is going to change substantially. The version that eventually reaches the main page will not be the same article that was examined here. (And don't bring up Barack Obama; let's concentrate on this article.) Zagalejo^^^ 05:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Concentrating on this article as with any ongoing concern or WP:BLP, there is no WP:WIAFA policy that an article has to meet future editorial hurdles. Articles are evaluated based on the current article. It is not just Obama. It is any ongoing business entity or BLP. They are all eligible for FA. I don't see your point with the first of the paragraphs that you mention and I don't recall you even bringing the other one up for discussion in all of the time we have put into the article. It is as if you have been holding back giving me guidance on one section so that you would have something to object based on. You have not been helping in good faith if this is as it seems.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Why should I respond to you after that? I've spent a lot of time trying to help you with this article. I want to see it become the best article it can be. I'm not trying to screw you over. That's just bullshit.
        • I merely noted that you have contributed 80 plus edits to this discussion, and I have resolved almost all of your issues to your satisfaction in a reasonable amount of time. I am just saying it is not entirely fair for you to object on one three sentence paragraph and another that you have for some reason not even attempted to help me correct. I view your other complaints as inactionable with respect to WP:WIAGA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Well, in truth, all of those issues were not totally resolved. For the sake of clarity, I've reorganized all my comments below. The ones that aren't in the "resolved" box haven't been addressed to my full satisfaction. Zagalejo^^^ 18:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I didn't mention the paragraphs earlier because I had been distracted by more pressing concerns as I was reading the article. Believe it or not, I have to read an article several times before I've noticed every problem. If you promise to relax, I'll try to explain the problems in more detail.
        • Your time and patience are appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
          • With regards to the second-to-last (not second) paragraph in "Restaurant": The paragraph seems to lose focus. First, we talk about the views, but at the end, we're talking about the menu. And then we have that sentence about Guy de Maupassant just plopped in the middle, with no transitions to the surrounding text.
          • As for the last paragraph of "Design history", I don't like how so many sentences follow the "In this year, this happened..." structure. It just makes for an unpleasant read. Zagalejo^^^ 18:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
      • As far as stability goes, it seems that SandyGeorgia interprets that differently from you, based on her past comments in this discussion. Zagalejo^^^ 06:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
        • WRT stability, Sandy has given an opinion that she is not sure the article is aptly named to indicate that this is a building under construciton, but I contested her logic because there are several hundreds of buildings under construction and standard practice is just to name the article by the name of the building. Also, the leader of WP:SKYSCRAPER responded in agreement with my naming.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
        • P.S. for some perspective on this issue take a look at the names of the articles at [28], which lists between 200-250 of the buildings under construcion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Well, I'll wait for Sandy to reply. Zagalejo^^^ 18:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Per many comments by User:Tony1 at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and also WP:CONTEXT, in general dates are not "high value" links and therefore should not be linked. Do you want the date linking reduced or eliminated per Tony? Also, there is a fair amount of overlinking in the article. For example, architect is linked right before Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, an architectural and engineering firm. Is architect in that context a "high value" link? —Mattisse (Talk) 16:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have never seen any policy saying that full dates should not in general be linked. In fact, at WP:CONTEXT there is nothing to suggest full year dates should not be linked. It discourages partial date links. WP:DATE makes no such statement on full dates either despite extensive talk page discussion on high value partial dates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Some new comments A few more things I thought I should bring up:

*Sitting on the north side of the Chicago River, it is visible from locations to the east along the river, such as the mouth of Lake Michigan, the Lake Shore Drive Overpass, the Columbus Drive Bridge as well as waterway traffic.

Is waterway traffic a "location"? And is it only visible from locations to the east along the river? Zagalejo^^^ 07:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• How is that?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• A little better, but the sentence still suggests it's not visible from locations to the west, which seems wrong. Zagalejo^^^ 18:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Feel free to jump in here. I tried to clarify, but may not have resolved the issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• OK, although it would be great if you had a source for all that, since again, it's largely a judgment call. Zagalejo^^^ 22:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• It is situated at a point along the main branch of the Chicago River where there is a brief change in direction that both gives the illusion that the River leads to the building and gives the building a clear line of view of the Lake Michigan mouth of the river.

Is there a source for this? Zagalejo^^^ 07:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on the main image is this something likely to be challenged? I will remove it if you really think it is WP:OR.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a judgment call. I'd still prefer a source of some sort. The illusion may only work from certain angles. Zagalejo^^^ 18:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It is visible from many places. It is probably visible from Indiana now. It is visible from the north and south along Wabash (see photo towards end of the article).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

*The passageway leads to views—praised by Pulitzer Prize winning critic Blair Kamin—that showcase the Wrigley Building clock tower and Tribune Tower's flying buttresses; however, Kamin does not compare the views favorably to those of the Hancock Center's Signature Room.

I was just looking at the source, and I don't think it's fair to say he "does not compare the views favorably to those of the Hancock Center's Signature Room". Read what he actually writes. He says that the views are different from the Signature Room's, not worse. (Indeed, he says that Sixteen's vistas "are more intimate" than the "airplane-window panoramas" at the Signature Room, which kind of suggests he prefers Sixteen's views.) Zagalejo^^^ 08:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

However, "Sixteen, which has been serving breakfast and dinner since early February, and opens for lunch Monday, is blessed with million-dollar views, though they're not the sort of airplane-window panoramas you get in the Signature Room near the top of the 100-story John Hancock Center." seems to suggest he relishes the panoramas of the Signature Room. I interpret his comment as saying it is less pleasant for lack of an unobstructed panorama, but partly makes up for it with the intimate setting. See the pictures above marked ATTENTION.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. At least, there's no clear evidence that he prefers the Signature Room. The only thing we can say for sure is that he says the two views are different. Zagalejo^^^ 18:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I reworded it a little bit, since I don't think "However" is the correct transition. Zagalejo^^^ 22:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• There was an issue about topping the building because Smith's 2002 plans involved broadcast antennas (multiple communications dishes).

"There was an issue..." is a bit vague. Did Smith change the design because he wanted to increase the official height? Or did he change the design for aesthetic reasons? Or both? The source isn't clear. Zagalejo^^^ 20:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you want me to do since the source is not clear.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there another source that could clarify things? Zagalejo^^^ 06:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Think about how rare this is on WP to have comprehensive detail on the construction and development of a skyscraper and then think about whether we should expect multiple perspectives. I am not so sure there is more. I will check and see if I can find something in the Chicago Sun-Times, but don't hold your breath.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

A Newsbank search for Trump Hotel in May 2004 reveals nothing that will help in the Sun-Times.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I reworded it, because I don't think you should lead with "There was an issue..." without being clear exactly what the issue was. Zagalejo^^^ 07:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

*Floors 3 through 12 will be used for lobbies, retail, and parking.[28] A health club and spa will be on the 14th floor and mezzanine.[28] Hotel condominiums and executive lounges will be on floors 17 through 27M.[28] The tower's residential condominiums will be located from the 29th through 85th floors.[28] Penthouses will make up floors 86 through 89.

I think we should try to combine some of these short sentences. At present, the paragraph is very choppy. Zagalejo^^^ 20:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I combined the shorties. You can change further if you like.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks better, although the tense is inconsistent. Is that deliberate, to reflect that certain parts are already open? Zagalejo^^^ 06:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I imagine the retail stores won't want to open until the condominium residents move in. The rest should be obvious.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. Zagalejo^^^ 07:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• The foyer is T-shaped, and the passageway to the hotel is lined with floor-to-ceiling architectural bronze wine racks in opposing red and white wine rooms.

What is the function of "architecural" in this sentence? Zagalejo^^^ 20:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It is an adjective that I uses in the same way as the secondary source (Chicago Tribune) which seems to believe that there is a such thing as "architectural bronze." If you know better feel free to change this or request a change.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Never mind; there is something called "architectural bronze": [29]. Someone should write an article about it. Zagalejo^^^ 06:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• One member of the WMAQ-TV Street Team commended it for its signature cocktails and sushi,[47] while another gave kudos for the design and the stainless steel swizzle sticks that they call "stirs".

Who is "they"?

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. Zagalejo^^^ 06:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Smith had previously designed the Jin Mao Tower and AT&T Corporate Center,[54] while Skidmore Owings & Merrill had previously designed the Sears Tower and the Hancock Center.

Didn't Skidmore, Owings and Merril have a hand in all of those buildings?

Yes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. Zagalejo^^^ 06:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• On September 19, 2007, the Trump International Hotel and Tower was featured on an episode of the Discovery Channel series Build It Bigger entitled "High Risk Tower".

Is this really worth mentioning?

In the future the building will likely be used in Hollywood and other forms of pop culture. This is the first mention. Right now it stands out by itself, but when this is in a section with three or four other pop culture references it will seem in place.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, OK. It might be better in its own section, although I realize that single-sentence paragraphs are frowned upon. Zagalejo^^^ 06:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It was formerly a single sentence. I think it was User:Raime who suggested the move. It is in the history above somewhere (maybe before the restart). If it O.K. should it have a strikethrough?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know... I don't really like it where it is. Seems to come out of nowhere. Zagalejo^^^ 07:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well this issue seems inactionable. I have followed the advice of one reviewer and you don't seem to have a better suggestion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are three things you can do: 1) Remove it for now, and wait until the "three or four other pop culture references" come into being. 2) Put it in its own section anyway, with an "expand" tag or something. (This would probably kill your chances of a FA, but considering that you'll have to rewrite much of this article anyway once the building is completed, it's something to consider.) 3) Try to come up with some sort of transitional phrase that will pull it into the flow of the paragraph where it currently sits. Zagalejo^^^ 08:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Currently the whole article has a template at the top so an expand tag for any section will not be necessary for another year, IMO. Possibly by then other pop culture references will arise. With that template I don't think much action is necessary. People should understand that some new building issues may exist, IMO. Option 3 is probably the best. Any advice would be appreciated in this regard.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

How is the new transition?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Getting there, but it needs to be reworded. The publicity caused it to be in the media? Doesn't the media itself provide publicity? Zagalejo^^^ 23:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Zagalejo^^^ 01:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Another general comment. When you write "Trump", you should clarify whether you're referring to the person or the organization. (e.g., In April, Trump began the foundation below the Chicago River.) Zagalejo^^^ 21:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, though there might be some other instances of ambiguity. Zagalejo^^^ 06:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Do a text search for "Trump", and make sure that in every instance it's clear whether you're talking about the person or the organization. Zagalejo^^^ 18:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think all ambiguity has been resolved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Just a general question: are we using serial commas, or not? The article is inconsistent. Zagalejo^^^ 21:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no preference.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, we should stick to one or the other. I personally like serial commas. Zagalejo^^^ 07:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you know what is standard policy?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Serial_commas. Zagalejo^^^ 08:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that that guide suggests that you may switch from one form to the other because ambiguity is likely to arise from both. I don't think that part of the guide really supports consistency across the article. I think each sentence has been written and we have resolved most ambiguity issues. I almost feel that if I ran through to achieve consistency, I would probably cause ambiguity. It may be better left alone, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say that you can just shift back and forth willy-nilly. I think you should try to be consistent. If there's room for ambiguity, recast the sentence to avoid the comma problems. Zagalejo^^^ 18:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I gave it a go. I hope I got em all.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• In May 2004, it was revealed that instead of topping the building with communication dishes, which as broadcast antenna do not count toward building height, the building would include an ornamental spire, which according to the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat count toward building height and raise the height to 1,300 feet (396 m).

This is kind of clunky. Who "revealed" this? Try to avoid the passive voice when possible. Also, I'd mention the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat earlier in the sentence. Zagalejo^^^ 21:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I revised the sentence, but could not think of a way to move the council forward.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, try again. Start a new sentence from scratch if you have to. Zagalejo^^^ 18:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you really like it better now with that at the front?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No, not really, but I'll try to rearrange things myself. Zagalejo^^^ 23:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried to split it into two sentences, although I'm not 100% happy with it. If someone has a better idea, let us know. Zagalejo^^^ 23:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That looks fine.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• I see you've added some new text to the restaurant section. Unfortunately, it's very sloppy. Right now, I'm too tired to list every problem, but hopefully you'll notice some of the obvious errors, and once they're fixed, I'll give you some more advice. Zagalejo^^^ 08:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I took a stab at it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I fixed a couple of things you missed. I'm concerned about the tone of some of the statements, though. Take this line: "However, as a restaurant located on the sixteenth floor of a hotel, it offers the chance for even local residents to play tourist for a day." "Play tourist for a day" sounds like something you'd find in an advertisement or a travel guide. It's not encyclopedic language. Zagalejo^^^ 23:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It is the language of the secondary source. Well almost the exact quote is "There's something alluring about playing tourist in your own back yard." I could quote the original source instead.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

After further review, I have reworded.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would be better if you presented this as someone's opinion, rather than a statement of fact. (Same with this sentence: "The price is respectable given the overall experience." -- It's not an objective fact that the price is respectable; that's someone's opinion.) Zagalejo^^^ 01:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

These should pass WP:ATT now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, although that section could still use some better organization. And I'm not if you're using the word "attribute" correctly in the second-to-last sentence. Zagalejo^^^ 22:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to make it cleaner.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was talking about the sentence after the one you changed. There wasn't anything wrong with the first sentence of that paragraph. Zagalejo^^^ 23:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I see what you were saying.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You can revert yout changes to the first sentence, since now it's too wordy. Zagalejo^^^ 18:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The ameliorated verbiage was necessary to resolve an ambiguous pronoun without an unambiguous referent.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's still wordy. I'll see what I can do with it. Zagalejo^^^ 23:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

How's that? Zagalejo^^^ 23:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the edit summary from my changes: "There is no one price. There are menus and it is the priceiness which is an issue although I can not find such a word in the dictionary. Thus, we will just go with prices."--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. Zagalejo^^^ 04:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• As for the last paragraph of "Design history", I don't like how so many sentences follow the "In this year, this happened..." structure. It just makes for an unpleasant read. Zagalejo^^^ 00:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• OK, looks a little better. But maybe change the last sentence a little bit. The design itself didn't "settle on" anything. Zagalejo^^^ 23:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• (from the lead) The tower will surpass the Hancock Center as the building with the world's highest residence from the ground.

Will it keep that record even after the Chicago Spire is completed? Zagalejo^^^ 00:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the article says later on that the Chicago Spire will break the record. Maybe you should tweak that sentence in the lead.

• I have tweaked it although I believe I may have a grammatical problem because User:Tony1 earlier said something about the use of the word for in a prior version of the sentence. I think it may be O.K. now though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've reworded it to remove the word "for". What do you think? Zagalejo^^^ 23:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Great.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• (from "Location") This location borders the Michigan-Wacker Historic District, which is a Registered Historic District.

• Um, is there any way to avoid saying "historic district" twice? Zagalejo^^^ 00:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed link.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• OK, that works. Zagalejo^^^ 23:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• (from "Legal issues") With cranes sitting atop approximately eighty floors of completed structure, the Trump International Hotel and Tower was considered the most visible crane in the city.

The tower itself is not a crane. Zagalejo^^^ 00:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• OK. Zagalejo^^^ 23:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Some more comments:

• The restaurant drew immediate favorable reviews for its cuisine, decor and location upon opening as an elite entertainment venue,[19][43][40] although some consider it more of a place to impress clients and dates than a top–notch dining experience.

I really think you should explain why "some consider it more of a place to impress clients and dates than a top-notch dining experience". I don't understand how it can be one thing, and not the other. How would you impress clients with a sub-par dining experience? Zagalejo^^^ 21:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

How is that?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

A little better, but we never explain what the reviewer felt was wrong with the food. Zagalejo^^^ 06:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

At the encyclopedic level what matters is that in the big picture he did not feel the food was top notch. Further detail is not really relevant for an encyclopedia unless there is a broad consensus among multiple reviewers that for example the desert menu is not a strong point, or they rarely seem to have the proper seasonal choices. I think we should leave it general at this early stage of consensus building on the restaurant. When Zagats comes out with 1000 contributor we can say something significant.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Eh, okay... although you don't really maintain the same "big picture" standards throughout the section. From what I can tell, only one writer complains about the zebrawood. There doesn't appear to be consensus among reviewers that the zebrawood is unsightly. Zagalejo^^^ 07:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Currently only the Pulitzer Prize winning Chicago Tribune architecture critic has expressed this view. When you think about WP:RS, what do you think qualifies as an RS for Chicago architecture?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not about reliable sources; it's about giving undue weight to a brief comment in one person's review. Zagalejo^^^ 21:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess my main point is that you go into extreme details about certain aspects of the hotel/restaurant, while saying relatively little about other aspects. You need some clearer criteria for which details to include and which ones to omit. Zagalejo^^^ 23:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• With regards to the second-to-last (not second) paragraph in "Restaurant": The paragraph seems to lose focus. First, we talk about the views, but at the end, we're talking about the menu. And then we have that sentence about Guy de Maupassant just plopped in the middle, with no transitions to the surrounding text.
• (from "Legal issues") In October 2006, controversy erupted over a 10 feet by 4.5 feet (3.0 m × 1.4 m) street kiosk on Michigan Avenue at the foot of the Magnificent Mile in front of the Wrigley Building that advertised for the building a full block away.

• Can we remove either "at the foot of the Magnificent Mile" or "in front of the Wrigley Buiding"? We just need one or the other to pinpoint the location. This is another sentence that's been bogged down by prepositional phrases. Zagalejo^^^ 00:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Redundancy is a matter of perspective. What percentage of the readers of this building remember that the Wrigley Building is at the foot of the Magnificent Mile?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Can you remove Michigan Avenue then, since the Mag Mile is a part of that? Zagalejo^^^ 23:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Think about all the people who will be reading this article who are not from Chicago and have only a basic understanding of its geography. I am trying to give them the best chance to undestand the controversy with pictures and as much geographic location prose as possible. I have reworded in hopes of improving.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think all those geographic descriptors will mean much to people outside of Chicago. The readers will just be overwhelmed. And even if they really want to know precisely where the kiosk was located, they only need one of those descriptors to pull up a Google map. Let me ask you this: what is it about the nature of that kiosk's location that you are trying to convey through the text? Zagalejo^^^ 04:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• (from "Legal issues") At the time of the partial opening, Trump and the hotel had still not come to terms with the hotel workers' union, Local 1 of UNITE HERE, which is the same union he uses for one New York City and three Atlantic City, New Jersey hotels.

• So, have there been any updates? Zagalejo^^^ 00:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think someone asked this before the nom was restarted. No. I can not find anything.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I don't think it's fair to leave readers hanging. Where did you look? Zagalejo^^^ 23:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think I used google and attempted to scour the internet.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• You know, it's not entirely clear what happened to Rancic. Is he still involved with the building in any way? Zagalejo^^^ 00:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• There has been no public firing or announcement of failed renegotiations. However, he is working for some media concern and I do not think he is associated with the hotel anymore.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, I know he has something to do with iVillage, but I'd hope to find something that explicitly says if he has stopped working for Trump. Zagalejo^^^ 23:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• The iVillage gig has ended and he is now described as a television personality. The closest thing I can get to a clarification on his relationship with Trump is ex-The Apprentice winner Bill Rancic. Which is fairly ambiguous since it could merely mean he is no longer the reigning Apprentice. It is probably fair to say he no longer works for Trump, but I read all 25 2007-8 Sun-Times articles with his name without getting the answer. I chose the Sun-Times because I percieve it as more gossipy than the Trib and more likely to have our answer. However, if you would like me to scour the Trib also let me know. I don't expect to find much more, but if it is important I will make an attempt.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• (from "Construction") A new chemical process that leverages more fluid liquid concrete facilitates pumping concrete up several hundred feet to the elevating construction site.

• This is hard to understand. The "more fluid liquid concrete" part is throwing me off. Do you mean more liquid concrete in terms of quantity, or are you saying that the concrete is more fluid than usual? Zagalejo^^^ 01:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is not my area of expertise, but I believe I mean to say that the concrete is more fluid than normal concrete. I do not know how this is measured (maybe viscosity).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support. This article is now of high quality and well written.--Avala (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per overwikilinking creating a "sea of blue". Per WP:CONTEXT, only "high value" links are to be used and common words should not be linked.

Examples of links I think are unnecessary per WP:CONTEXT: architect, floors, parking garage, hotel, business district, art galleries (misleading since it goes to art museum which is not the same thing), antennas, residential (misleading since it goes to residential area), health club, spa, wine racks, wine rooms, London, Australia, New Orleans, Louisiana, North Africa, India, cuisine, decor, entrees, appetizers, course, interior design, standing room only, cocktails, sushi, swizzle sticks, VIP room, gemstone, diamond, ruby, sapphire, emeralds, health club (second link), Dubai (second link), pool, saunas, architect (second link), hedge fund, divers (goes to disambig page), billboard, union.

Most of these terms are examples of terms explained in responses between 05:26-06:11 July 7 (UTC) above. Note compared to the example at WP:OVERLINK, what you are describing as a sea of blue is approximately the prescribed link density.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Auto formatting of dates serves no purpose since it does not benefit the majority of readers (see WP:MOSNUM) and contributes to your "sea of blue".

Is your issue with auto formatting v. linking without autoformatting or with linking dates. Autoformatting has nothing to do with the latter. If you are against linking full dates, you are I beleive arguing against policy.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Both autoformattting and linking to dates for no good reason are discouraged, especially in an FA article. Read what User:Tony1 says above on this page. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Either you or I is misunderstanding something. I have debated with Tony1 extensively about linking and I don't recall him presenting any argument that linking dates is bad. There was some argument about partial dates as I recall, but I am linking full dates. Can you point me to a time stamp about autoformatting because this discussion is getting long and I have overlooked any such point above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The article seems written like an advertisement and relatively minor things like food, appetizers, sauna, spa and swizzle sticks and newspaper columnist arguments over zebrawood which have nothing to do with the construction, are over emphasized. Relatively little is described about the events during actual construction.

The article has the most extensive description of construction of any of the several hundreds of buildings under construction currently on WP. You can not possibly expect mor detail about construction.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Another example of the over emphasis of minor issues, Trump's Apprentice is over emphasized, since it is never explained exactly what he did other than winning the TV contest and being assigned to supervising the building construction after winning. What was the impact of his role and of the Apprentice on the construction of the building?

How can you call something overemphasized that is mentioned in one sentence in the lead and part of one paragraph in the last subsection of text? I mentioned that he actually did not run the construction, but ended up doing sales and marketing. There is not much more to say and it should answer most questions you ask.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I realize no one will agree with me, but these are my objections. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Why would you write a series of objections that you realize no one will agree with. You must not even believe them yourself.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I am going by the many supports on the page. I agree with my objections (there are other, similar objections on the page I notice) but I believe often FAC goes by majority rules and not quality. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It does not really go by majority rules. It goes by weighted substantive arguments related to WP:WIAFA. If you oppose or support for reasons other than WP:WIAFA it is suppose to be ignored I think. If your arguments related to WIAFA are not substantive, I am not sure if they are suppose to count. For example, if your only argument was that there is insufficient detail on construction, but the article has more detail on construction than any other article on a building under construction it might be perceived as if you are grinding an axe. However, if it is a smaller issue upon which you may be wrong logically, but you have other substantive arguments you might have a highly weighted voice.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Some overlinking problems as mentioned by other editors, needs prose polish to satisfy criteria 1a and I don't like the floor diagram. It looks like something done in 5 minutes in Microsoft Paint. Not suitable for a featured article at all. Withdraw to work on this some more. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • See below on overlinking. I had originally just cropped from the source but the text was too small to be read in thumbnail format. Thus, I did use paint. I have a request in at WP:GL for a better diagram.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Do you want me to go back to the original floor diagram with the small text for now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment O.K. I am going to address the most recent list of OVERLINK issues one by one since that seems to be the main issue (keep in mind the prescribed link density):
  • see WP:OVERLINK#What_generally_should_be_linked - geography: London, Australia, New Orleans, Louisiana, North Africa, India
  • see WP:OVERLINK#What_generally_should_be_linked - relevant connections to other articles to help reader understand this article:
    • Many readers will be looking for information on the restaurant and they should understand the terms: cocktails, sushi (I have mentioned before that I did not know what the term meant when I was in high school), cuisine, decor, entrees, appetizers,
    • I want readers to understand the features of the building: VIP room, pool, saunas, health club, spa, antennas, parking garage, hotel, swizzle sticks
  • see WP:OVERLINK#What_generally_should_be_linked - references to a page with more information: gemstone, diamond, ruby, sapphire, emeralds, billboard, standing room only
  • see WP:OVERLINK#What_generally_should_be_linked - technical terms: wine racks, wine rooms, architect (I link professions when relevant as technical terms. This particular link has been hotly contested yet I don't believe most people actually know exactly what an architect does), hedge fund, floors (links to storey), business district, interior design, divers (although this goes to disambig page it is difficult for me to say whether to link to scuba diving or surface supplied diving)
  • see WP:OVERLINK#What_generally_should_be_linked - Word usage that may be confusing to a non-native speaker: course, union
• I have delinked second health club and architect. I could not find second Dubai. I delinked art galleries because the redirect goes to art museum which is confusing. Similarly, I delinked residential, which is redirected to residential area.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting

Note: please see WP:FAC instructions about avoiding sub-sectioning pages. In this case, I am going to temporarily leave the sub-section with a reminder to remove it later, please. This FAC has now reached 340KB of what looks more like a peer review than a FAC, and since it has already been re-started, I'm short on options for dealing with its length. If there is anything that has been resolved, caps could be used on this FAC, but it doesn't appear that issues are being resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'll give the prose a shot and see if we can make Wackymacs happy. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• I see "Chicago, Illinois in the U.S." a lot in mature WP articles, and I prefer that, but it's not a strong preference. It's just that you don't see the phrase "Chicago, Illinois, United States" except maybe in a postal address...well, not even then.- Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I would prefer "in the United States" although both are less formal and thus less encyclopedic than the original - I link geographical places according to WP:OVERLINK#What_generally_should_be_linked as stated above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Does anyone else have a preference? If not, let's do it TTT's way, but OVERLINK says to link "Geographic place names that are unlikely to be well-known to most English-speakers"...this counts out the U.S. unless there's some other consideration. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I see that now. In that case, I link all geographic places without regard to commonality as a "references to a page with more information" because it is likely a foreign reader might want more information. I do not attempt to determine commonality of geographic places and link them all including New York City and United States. I think it is cleaner to be consistent and link all countries rather than decide which ones are well-known.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
        • That's a valid argument, but if you have a minute, read my essay User:Dank55/Essays#Style guidelines. My claim is that it's better to make that argument on a style guidelines page and get the guideline changed than it is to make the argument in the middle of a FAC, because people are protective of their articles and their prose; it tends to make the arguments more rational and less heated if we have can do it in a place where it's not about any one writer or one article. Of course, the style guidelines pages feel like foreign territory and not a good place to argue these things to some people; we could do a better job of being open-minded, I think. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• I'm keeping the link to story because that article does have some useful information...but only a little, and that page could use some work, so I'm fine if someone wants to remove this link. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• Why is it necessary to link List of tallest buildings in Chicago twice in the second para of the lead? Plus it is also listed under See also. `—Mattisse (Talk) 23:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• There is one link for each of: tallest in the world, tallest in the US, and tallest in Chicago. That seems okay to me. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying that they both should be linked again under See also? —Mattisse (Talk) 13:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It is common for lists like that to be added to the see also section of every article in the list due to the importance/relevance of the list. This is commonly done without regard to the prose in the text. I am not sure, but I think this is the right thing to do for consistency because when people are reading building articles they jump to the see also section to see if it is on any tallest, National Register of Historic places, or landmark lists without traipsing through the text. I think the reader is use to this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• You know what's scary? One of the captions included "Riverfront Park & Riverwalk". There were a lot of Google hits on this supposed proper-noun placename, but all of those hits came from Wikipedia, and looking in the sources and on Google, there was no evidence this was meant as a proper noun, it's just a covered sidewalk along the river, so I lowercased and got rid of the ampersand. I wonder how long newspapers will continue to talk about the famous "Riverfront Park & Riverwalk" that you simply must see when you go to the Trump Tower! More evidence that we need to be careful, especially in captions... - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I see TTT just reverted me on this; I'll go check it out. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
    • It is actually quite important that Trump do something very good with that space. I imagine he might build a park and gift it to the city for the Chicago Park District. If he builds something nice enough that the city accepts, it will protect this view from the future patio of the restaurant. Think about what nearby Lakeshore East did to protect the overdevelopment with their park. Such parks are common. I expect the park will be pretty nice for its size and sufficient to be a proper name. If all refs use the exact verbiage "Riverfront Park & Riverwalk", it is probably because this is a proper name.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Can you check on this, TTT? Every Google hit obviously came from a Wikipedia article (they all convert units, twice), and the source listed everything in the brochure with caps and ampersands, whether they needed it or not. Is there another source that Google hasn't picked up that suggests it's a proper noun phrase? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
• This comes up often, and I don't have an answer. The second paragraph in Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)#Architecture begins "Smith's 2002 plans..." A lot of people will have either forgotten or never read who Smith is when they're reading that section. Would it be better to say "The architect's 2002 plans...", or does that beg the question "which architect"? I think I'd prefer "architect", and if there's an argument that the reader can't figure out that it's the only architect mentioned up to that point in the article, then I'd fix that by linking the word to Mr. Smith. Thoughts? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
• This is just a comment defending copyeditors and on- and off-wiki style guidelines. One of my edit summaries is "rearranging to drop a comma". How anal. But it's not, actually: "However, in 2004, blah..." makes the reader take two pauses before getting started; "However, blah in 2004..." only has one pause, so that's generally what the most highly-regarded publications do, so by doing that, we sound professional. It's not so much a matter of not being able to live with two pauses; it's about sounding like other high-quality sources. It's cheap legitimacy. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Good job.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
• I see you delinked The Apprentice. I would bet that if this article were to make the main page, Apprentice would be relinked. I had it linked under WP:OVERLINK#What_generally_should_be_linked - references to a page with more information.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I only delinked because it came right after a link to a specific episode of that show; I figured that the specific link would get them to the show fast enough, but if you find that people tend to add back in the link to the main show, that's fine with me. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
    • My sense is that WP:OVERLINK supports me on that, but tell me if you think it doesn't apply in general, or in this case: [quote:] For example, link to "the flag of Tokelau" instead of "the flag of Tokelau". Such a link is more likely to be interesting and helpful to the user, and almost certainly contains links to the more general terms, in this case, "flag" and "Tokelau". [end quote] - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I personally would link both for the exact reason listed above, but I see your argument and do not contest it too heavily.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
        • As a compromise, I just moved "of The Apprentice" inside the link so it will be clear to readers that they can get to The Apprentice quickly through that link. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
          • That is probably a good solution.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I notice that you have had a great many copy editors and you have been open minded and taken the time to satisfy almost all them, even the ones with many objections up there in the beginning. The article has definitely improved accordingly and I admire you for that. And I appreciate your effort to explain your rationale to me. However, on the issue of over linking I cannot agree with you. For example, swizzle sticks are a feature of all bars, even the sleazy ones. Many of the other links are of the same mundane nature and have nothing to do with the construction or the features of a high class hotel. Spas are something people have in their backyards as well as a common feature of motels, hotels and health clubs. Further, it is an MoS rule that links in the article are not duplicated under See also. Our philosophies on this obviously differ. I wish there were more in the article on the engineering and design challenges that such a construction entails. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Reply - well many people do not actually know what a swizzle stick is and since the bar has such a unique type, I want it linked here accordign to WP:OVERLINK#What_generally_should_be_linked - references to a page with more information.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment you apparently are not understanding the type of spa at issue here if you thing people have these in their backyards. You may want to read the text and read the link.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
• Query do you have an MOS section to point me to regarding See also?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Matisse regarding swizzle sticks and with TTT regarding spa. The point about See also links is valid, but I'm okay with the 5 links that are there at the moment. The guidance from WP:LAYOUT is "Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in 'See also'; however, whether a link belongs in the 'See also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." I trust TTT's argument that many readers interested in skyscrapers like to have a handy list of links to the tallest skyscrapers without having to search the article for those links. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Matisse, I added the spa#International Spa Association definitions section link to spa, because I think readers might want to know what a hotel spa is supposed to be as opposed to other kinds; does this help? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Not really. I'm not interested in spas one way or the other. When I read an article on a significant building I am interested in the architecture style and individuality as well as the engineering challenges, not the advertised amenities. I am guessing the height is the most significant aspect of this building going by the emphasis. The article, Chicago Spire, seems more along the lines I like. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I follow; you're saying just the word "spa" gives the article a promotional as opposed to informative feel, and linking makes it worse? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Matisse misses the point with spas. This is not an article about the design of the building, the construction of the building or the amenities of the building. This is an article about the building which requires that all of these be covered in a manner representative of non-promotional secondary sources. The article here clearly needs a section on spas and like you many readers may be confused on what one is. Thus, some sort of link is necessary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The links on spas, even the new one, don't say anything unusual about spas, nor what about the spa in this building that puts it in a different class from the spas found in any of the thousands of world-class hotels. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, there are not thousands of world class hotels. Second, we never said this was different. There isn't much about pouring concrete for this building that is different than pouring concrete for other skyscrapers, but we have a whole paragraph dedicated to one day of pouring concrete. The point is that the building has a spa and the term is not one that the average reader will be familiar with. The article should not be written with a five star hotel audience in mind. An FAC is suppose to be written with a potential main page readership in mind not a specialist. The average reader does not know what a spa is. The article here describes things that make this spa unique and in a class with other world class spas.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, then why don't you describe and link lobby which usually is architecturally distinct in world-class hotels, for example, and is not so promontional. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

TTT, I think Matisse nails it here: just having a sentence about the swizzle sticks in the bar is edging towards silliness; linking the swizzle sticks jumps over the edge. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"Silliness" is such an ambiguous term it is meaningless in this context. The point is do we feel that the majority of international readers know what a swizzle stick is. That, I think, is the only major consideration that matters in determining the propriety its link. I think a minor concern is whether swizzle stick is a major a feature as spa, which it is not. Spa is an important component of the building and takes up two floors of it. Importance is not relevant except in determining whether when one describes the bar one should mention the term. Its importance in this context is marginal, but it is a fairly unique feature of the building. Thus, it belongs in the article. Once in the article we assess whether as a word with its own article readers should be pointed to the article to understand the term or whether readers understand the term without such direction. This is an odd term that the reader probably could use a link to explain.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

←I admit I'm out of my depth here; I would need to read a lot of architecture articles to see what readers generally consider "encyclopedic" and what they don't. I'm just offering a very uninformed opinion that what kind of swizzle sticks they have in the bar doesn't sound encyclopedic. It's not that I think your ideas about linking are wrong; it's that I'd rather we not call special attention to the swizzle sticks, if this is not the kind of thing that shows up in architecture articles, generally. You've written a bunch of FAs and GAs; I'll take your word for it for now, and then go back and read up when I'm finished here. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• In the context of general architecture articles, swizzle sticks borders on the fringes of encyclopedic merit. This is a very special building that is a sort of tourist mecca as the cultural offering of one of the premier business icons of the day. Visiting the hotel (its bar, restaurant, and spa in particular) can be an experience beyond the general architecture of the building. For this reason, the article takes the time to describe the offerings and amenities of the buildings. It is hard to say whether this is a meritorious effort because it is unusual in the depth of coverage. However, the secondary sources cover the amenities. Thus, we cover them. With respect to a single amenity such as the hotel bar, its features become encyclopedic detail that may or may not be worth mentioning. I simply argue that if you want to describe the bar you should describe the swizzle sticks as one of the unique features of the bar. Once you use the term, I argue that you should link it as I have above. A substantive MOS argument could sway me the other way but words like silliness won't.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere above, I think you questioned whether Smith as the architect of the building would remain associated with the building for a long time. He will. Architects remain associated with buildings almost forever. An apprentice might not.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

We talk about Adrian Smith, the architect, in the lead, and then there's a single mention 2 sections down that isn't about him, and then we talk about him again 2 sections later. I was asking if we should refer to Smith as "Smith" in that isolated mention or as "the architect". I think that "Smith" will force a lot of readers to hunt around for who "Smith" is, if they forgot or if they jumped around, so I prefer "The architect" for the isolated mention. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

How about, "Architect Adrian Smith's 2002 plans..."? Or is that too wordy? Zagalejo^^^ 19:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer that to what we've got now, which is "Smith's 2002 plans..." - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the recent changes are fine. I don't think Adrian Smith should be piped with architect. That seems unorthodox.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Remain oppose - I stick with the "opposes" above, especially Tony and Zag. Plus, it still needs some copy editing, especially all those wikilinks. For example, architect Adrian Smith is wikilinked to a guitarist in the intro. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, it is already a top site on Google, and I am concerned, with Tony, that it is just more P.R. for the building. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a very valid concern. My take is that 80% or 90% of the stories we see in daily newspapers started life as a press release, so the question is, is this article more a reflection of those press releases, or are these the things that people in general want to know about the building? My answer is that people are largely silly (there's that word again :)...the main draw of modern skyscrapers is the "aura of opulence", so I'm not just being the tool of Donald Trump (nor just a tool) when I leave some of the fluffier stuff in the article. Bars and spas really are things that people want to know about; that's why TV shows, magazines and newspapers talk about them.

I will be finished with my (largely cosmetic) edits within 2 hours. The article has gotten a lot of work that we haven't talked about on this page (I didn't want this page to turn into a novel). I hope everyone will either read the article or look at a diff covering the last few days when I'm through, and give it a second chance. Tony1 is snowed under with work at the moment so we probably won't hear from him. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you do have a silly article for silly people, as you refer to above. I am actually interested in architecture and buildings, not spas, swizzle sticks, or the Trump family, so this article just too fluffy for me. (I think you are wrong about the silliness of people. If people really were interested in spas, for example, the spa article would be a whole lot more interesting than it is. There are a lot of very good articles on buildings, even tall ones. You underestimate people interested in buildings who want serious content rather than gossip column fare. There are interesting issues around constructing such buildings that are not addressed here. ) —Mattisse (Talk) 23:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I've actually only gotten halfway through with my copyedit; I've just been told that the tone gets worse, so I may agree with you by the time I finish. I've told TTT I will do a thorough copyedit first, and then I'm going to make some suggestions on the tone. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 00:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking at tall building articles, and none of them has a section called "Features" and none of them considers "Architecture" to be the presence of parking garages, spas and health clubs with no mention of architectural style. They are not particularly good articles, but they are sensible compared to this one. Even the articles on the tallest buildings in the world do not get into the fluffy trivia this one does. None of them even mentions restaurants, never mind swivel sticks. By the way, divers still goes to a disambig page which indicates to me that it should not be linked. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

←I've gotten a little farther, and my feeling is that some of the stuff in the restaurant section, for instance, has to go ("elite", "status", and especially, "Trump")...but my feeling is that when you delete the stuff that sounds a bit like a press release, what you're left with is a subsection about a very notable restaurant, praised by food critics. The article goes on a bit about the interior decor...but the sources support the idea that the decor is notable all by itself. Can't this be an article that's about decor, in part? As for parking garages...I think I might be with you there, I'm not there yet :) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The Ritz-Carlton Millenia Singapore mentions a number of facilities, including its spa. Wikipedia actually doesn't have a lot of articles about 4-star hotels (that I could find), which surprises me. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If you read the article on 5-star hotels, you see that it is a low level article, not very important, especially now that there are six and seven star claims. None of the other building articles that I found have anything to with decor. The closest is the Flatiron Building which mentions some of the offices are strangely shaped because of the building structure. Does the article have to have all that stuff about Trump's family? —Mattisse (Talk) 02:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The Ritz-Carlton Millenia Singapore is hardly a model article. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(Trump's family? Ick!) On the subject of decor: if the sources establish that the decor is notable by itself, why can't this be an article about a notable skyscraper housing a notable hotel with a notable restaurant and notable decor? Are you saying that this stuff would be more encyclopedic if we broke it up into 3 or 4 articles, or are you saying that the sources don't establish notability for these things? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You'll be happy to know the entire bar, swizzle sticks and all, just got dumped in the river. I don't think the sources established that it was even interesting. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It is helpful to look at articles of older buildings. Then you see that such things are transient in a building. I would venture to say the "interior decor" is PR stuff and not fundamental to a building that is going to last decades, if not longer. Plus, I do not understand the primary editor's defense of low value, if not crappy, links that explain nothing. Glad to see that the worthlessness of swizzle sticks is finally being recognized. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) And the spa is going in right behind it. There is a suggestion of a connection to possibly notable spas, but no support for that in the sources. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

←I've tossed a fair number of links; I think I can defend the ones I left, although I'm still arguing about United States etc. For the decor: although I need to double-check to make sure, but I believe it was designed by a world-class architect and there are multiple notable architects commenting on notability in the sources. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, done. I've left a few notes for TTT, and I need to re-read this tomorrow afternoon when I'm actually awake, but I believe everyone's concerns have been largely dealt with. There are a few links that TTT and I need to talk about, but I did pull a lot of the links. Everything that anyone feared might be promotional, fluffy, or undersourced is gone, except for material on the hotel, restaurant and decor; the material I decided to keep was, I think, not only relevant, but even notable in its own right, according to the sources. I actually really like the article now, but maybe that's just me talking through a soporific haze. Night-night. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 05:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Trump's adult children are WP:N in their own right although largely in association with their father and his business enterprises. However their activities are those of descendant's to the throne of the empire. Thus, they should be included in the article. In addition, they help clarify what happened to Rancic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The family business should absolutely have its own article, but there was nothing in the sources to support a connection between the children and this building sufficient to keep them in...although the Slania source is not online; maybe it's in there. The last source said that the children were busy in sales, but a lot of people sell condos. I'm not questioning your judgment, TTT, I'm saying that you've probably read and heard a lot about the children, you've got an idea of the connection in your head, but that connection didn't make it into the sources; can you find more? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Note that three of the five links in this section of readded text are from the New York Times. Almost anything that happens in Chicago that is explained by three different authors at the NYT is notable enough to have a couple sentences in WP. These facts may not pass WP:N as a stand alone article and may also belong in a stand alone article on the family business. However, if I find a Chicago story supported by three NYT articles it is important. His kids roles in this business venture is significant enough for inclusion by this standard.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I've gone through the sources twice (quickly) and I didn't see the connection between the kids and this property; some of them were present when Donald Trump visited the tower, and Ivanka got her picture on a poster, and they are involved in some way in sales, but you could say the same for any real estate agent. What's your favorite sentence from any of the sources that asserts a connection? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
        • From the NYT sources I point to the following (Note that the final one is about only the Chicago business so many sentences are relevant):
          • Reluctant Apprentices, December 31, 2006:"In recent months his son Donald J. Trump Jr., 29, and daughter Ivanka, 25, both from his marriage to his first wife, Ivana, have emerged as increasingly prominent executives within the Trump Organization: they oversee the development and management of more than 30 Trump-branded properties from Las Vegas to Seoul to Dubai. . ."--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Introducing the Ivanka, December 27, 2007:"Last summer Ms. Trump was named vice president for acquisitions and development of the Trump Organization; within days she visited Dubai to negotiate a deal for four Trump towers, then flew to Mexico, Panama, Hawaii and finally Chicago, where she was to oversee the construction of a hotel tower."--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Trump & Co. Hits Chicago to Drum Up Apartment Sales, May 25, 2007:"It was a jarring sight for those going about their business in the low-key bustle of downtown on Thursday: Donald J. Trump, the New York developer, and his glamorous grown children stepping off Michigan Avenue surrounded by a swirling sea of camera crews he had summoned."--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The sections on the bar and the spa do not need to meet WP:N to have their own sections. As for whether they are advertising, we take the time to give the good and the bad in a way that a person advertising an amenity would not. The problem is perception, which is why a project like WP:AParks can not get at WP:GA or WP:FA. People think if you detail all the features you are advertising. People need to learn to discern between describing and advertising.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • This is a deal-breaker; but again, I think this is a good article, and I'm not questioning your judgment, because you may know in your own head that there is significant buzz about the bar and the spa and that these are a significant part of the draw to the hotel. But the sources don't even attempt to establish that the bar and spa contribute in some significant way to the hotel's success; all hotels have bars, and many have spas. Will we include the men's rooms in this article if some local entertainment reporter comments on the marble in the men's rooms? The first source, NewsBank, mixes fluff randomly with news ("'Gossip Girl' star Leighton Meester knows what she wants for her Blair Waldorf character on the show. And she knows what she doesn't want -- a hook-up with Nate or Chuck"), and describes the bar without making any case that it is part of the draw for the hotel. If you read that source, and decide on your own that such a nice-looking bar must contribute significantly to the hotel's success, enough to merit a mention in the article, then that's WP:OR...the source needs to make that claim (at the FAC level, I believe). The second source is trumpchicagohotel.com. The third source is a short promotional piece that is dated before the bar opened. The fourth source is NewsBank again, and all it contributes is, "The Trump International Hotel is already a popular spot", in an article where it's promoting 3 or 4 other bars. The fifth is a Wordpress blog from the "NBC5 Street Team"; Wikipedia doesn't like wordpress blogs as reliable sources, and there's no assertion that the bar is significant.
  • The sources for the spa are less convincing than the sources for the bar. My guess is that this article can't pass with either of these sections...and I want the article to pass, because that makes me look good as a copyeditor. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Like I mentioned above, there is a huge problem in WP for reviewed content when it comes to describing commercial ventures that is probably why WP:AParks has no WP:GA or WP:FA articles. People do not use good judgment in distinguishing between descriptions of a commercial venture and inappropriate advertising. In this case, I think you rely on faulty use of the WP:RS, WP:N policy guidelines. Each subsection of an article does not have to pass at WP:N. What matters for a subsection is whether it is sufficiently important to a description of the business that it should be included to help the article meet WP:WIAFA 1b. In this case, my most recent source on the spa mentions that 53 rooms will be dedicated to spa guests. If I want a complete description of the business related to this building, anything that is taking up 53 rooms deserves some explanation. The spa is more close to notable than the bar in this regard although not on a stand alone basis. It becomes a matter of whether we have WP:RS. In this subsection, all the sources are local, but three of the five are sources with articles on WP (Chicago Tribune, Citysearch, & Time Out). I think these all pass WP:RS. For business facts, trumpchicagohotel.com is O.K. as long as it is only for facts (such as total square footage, and spa features) and well-supported by secondary sources. The spa is more close to notable in this regard. For the bar, it is a matter of overcoming the bias against description of commercial ventures. The sources are RedEye, Chicago Magazine & the NBC5 Street team. For this part of the business they are WP:RS. They are not the best sources, but it is not WP:OR. I do not need to prove that any source says they are the bar is notable. It is not. It is however a part of the complete description of the business of this hotel. It is not like a concierge desk or a men's room. It is a feature of an ongoing business venture and almost a business venture of its own. It is not advertising to describe it. We need to break away from the mindset that describing the features of a business venture is per se advertising.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Query: Has the nominator fixed the significant issue of nuisance linking? TONY (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I took out about 3/4 of the links that I would have taken out if it were my own article, and TTT has not reverted my delinking changes. TTT and I are agreed that there has to be a reason for links. We disagree on some of the reasons; for instance, he likes to link United States. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I ratify the current state of linkage.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Continue to oppose - Citysearch, Time Out, and RedEye are tabloids that seamlessly intermix advertising with entertainment tips; Chicago Magazine is at best along the lines of People Magazine. Donald Trump lives in New York and The New York Times covers him in a gossipy way as they do all celebrities so the fact he is mentioned there means nothing. The section on Rancic and the Trumps draws a conclusion without really saying it and without giving a source that draws the conclusion directly. There is no real info on Rancic to support it. It seems like an excuse to have a gratuitious paragraph about Trump family dynamics. Also, I question the organization of the article. Why are we hit with paragraphs and paragraphs of "Features" before "Development" (including "Construction" and other relevant sections). I think there are still many silly links. For example, I don't see why any show business person who may have had a facial from the company that had the franchise for facials sometime before this article was written should have their own link: "The spa has also partnered with Kate Somerville, a Los Angeles skin care specialist with clients such as Jessica Alba, Kate Beckinsale, Debra Messing, and Nicole Richie." —Mattisse (Talk) 15:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If people feel Development should be before features I have no problem with that. It is fairly common practice in WP to link the names of notable persons included in an article. I do not understand the complaint. Until Somerville gets her own article this listing is necessary, IMO. Like I said above the sources for the bar are not the best. However, they are WP:RS on critical review of the subject for which they are used. For certain topics, people magazine is a RS. You are generalizing saying that they are tabloids. Consider the claims that we are attempting to attribute. Are these sources RS for these claims?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - My oppose above still stands. This is still overlinked. Why is crane linked? I think we all know what a crane is. Why is concrete slab linked? I also notice other concerns from other editors which are not yet addressed. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd appreciate help here...if you could run through naming every link you don't like, that would be great. I added a section link on the crane article to #Tower crane; there are a lot of people who rarely visit cities with skyscrapers, and especially because of the accidents mentioned in this article, people might benefit from seeing the pictures of tower cranes in the crane article. I think a lot of people don't know what a skyscraper's concrete slab looks like, how thick it is, how it's built, what its tolerances are, etc, and people who enjoy reading about construction might reasonably be interested in this information. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• Reply (to TTT and Matisse): I think Matisse's points concern the bar and spa subsections and a few sentences about the kids that I also want to toss out (however, now I think that some material about one or more kids can be included, I'll work on this tonight). I see 3 separate issues:
  1. The principle of least astonishment. I don't think that the swizzle sticks are promotional per se. It's just that the reader who was intending to read about a skyscraper isn't expecting to read about swizzle sticks, or body massages with sapphire-infused oil.

     Isn't that a point for including it. Readers who are looking to WP to find out things about the building and its business that they don't already know. Should we only present things they know about a building in an article. People looking for a construction article might be surprised by the info. A tourist wanting to find out about the building might be pleased to find the info. Is there a reason it should not be WP:PRESERVEd--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

     Comment -I think it would be worth mentioning, perhaps, if the hotel/bar did NOT use swizzle sticks as vertually every bar and fast food place uses them. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

  2. It isn't your fault, but our culture is absolutely awash in commercialism. Journalists are a little desensitized to this, but many people are offended by it. I showed this article to my spouse/partner John, who knows very little about Wikipedia but is very well-read and intelligent, and his reaction was, if this was the first Wikipedia article he had ever read, he wouldn't read a second, because of the bar and spa sections. It fails the sniff test; it sounds like something Trump's PR people wrote, not something you'd expect to find in a high-quality article (not in EB, but not even in the New Yorker, Atlantic Monthly, Scientific American, etc). I take your point that this is unfair, that that's not where your head is, that you're trying to describe the things that seem most important to you. All I can say is, it seems to me to bear an unfortunate resemblance to material that a lot of people object to, rightly or wrongly.

     People can oppose rightly or wrongly for any reason. They could honestly not understand that describing a business is not advertising. They could have the opinion that commercial businesses should not have a description on WP for any reason. They could vote against because Tony says vote against until I say so. They could vote against because they don't like the color blue. I fully understand people are free to vote against for whatever reason. My point is talk to me about WP:WIAFA 1b when discussing the spa and bar and make your points thusly. If you feel that the we can describe a building that has two floors dedicated to a business and 53 guest rooms dedicated to it by ignoring the business please tell me so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

  3. Even if those two points weren't a problem, WP:OR still would be...at least in my mind, but that could be because I haven't read as much as you have. Some source, somewhere, has to support either the idea that the menu and the items in a bar are things that people want to see in an article about a skyscraper, or the idea that these are things that are important to the success of a hotel in general, or this hotel in particular, or the idea that these are things that are important to the average person who enters the hotel. Even if I liked your sources (I didn't), it still wouldn't be good enough to say that because it showed up in a source, it should therefore show up in the article; certainly not at the FAC level. If someone has written a book showing a connection between the menu, decor and utensils in a hotel bar and the success of the hotel, that would work. If we can find a long list of articles on hotels in magazines that we all respect that all tend to mention details from the bars, I'd be convinced by that. But I need to see it in a source; saying "of course it's important" doesn't do it for me. I think it's established that if a location is notable for some reason, then people would like a general description of what you can see when you're standing there, as long as it's represented as "what you can see when you're standing there". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

     An WP:OR complaint does not make sense to me. I am not married to the idea of having the menu in the article except that it seems to provide verifyability and attribution for a claim. However, an OR complaint says I am making stuff up that is in the article. What things do you think I am making up? I welcome constructive editing. If you have problems with parts of the bar and spa sections feel free to edit as you have with other things. I don't read spa magazines. I think there is every reason to believe that this is one of the top spas in the country and that has probably been mentioned in spa magazines. I don't know this for a fact. With respect to the bar, it is important not because I say so or you so it isn't, but because several WP:RS have devoted space to it. Not every bar that gets in these RS belongs on WP, but one in an imminently notable building may be worth a mention. Basing inclusion on what is expected is like saying don't include things they don't know about. If I asked you to send me press clippings on this building, I would be extremely surprised if you excluded the Tribune articles on the Spa and somewhat surprised if you excluded the publicity surrounding the opening of the bar. It is not like we are describing the opening of the parking garage. We are talking about a business that has notably made the mainstream press. WP as a tertiary source is one big press clipping.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

More examples: "It offers gemstone-infused (diamond, ruby, or sapphire) oil massages, a "robe menu", and, for customers who come sufficiently early, hydrating masques, exfoliating salts and the "Deluge shower"." What are these things? What are gemstone-infused (diamond, ruby, or sapphire) oil massages - massage oils with lumps of gemstones it them? I am guessing a "robe menu" is really just a choice of robes. Why must one come early for a hydrating masque (a product easily available in stores) and exfoliating salts (bought in any drug store and used commonly in the shower)? They are not exactly unusual items (minus the fancy names) in beauty salons and spas. The "Deluge shower" sounds like a shower with plenty of water. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

More examples of what. Please point to WP:WIAFA so I can understand what you are saying.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Examples of trivial, public relations material that is a meaningless use of PR words (conveying nothing realistic), and not only that, they are wikilinked for no reason, IMO. Good examples of what I object to in the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

As requested, I've returned for another look.

• In the lead, can we make a change in the restaurant section to "mostly favorable reviews" or similar? According to the body, the reviews for the food weren't as strong as those for the other aspects.
• Architecture: Some duplicate links from the previous section. Is this intentional?
• "The setbacks and rounded edges of the building will combat vortex formation." I'm unsure about the grammar at the end. Is this okay?
• Restaurant: "and the outdoor terrace patio is scheduled to open in Summer 2009 when construction is complete." I'm not finding the patio before this; is it mentioned previously? If not, this should probably be "an outdoor terrace patio".
• Second paragraph of Restaurant: I can't believe I'm about to do this, but I want another link: AAA should be wikilinked. If I'm not mistaken, this is the American Automobile Association. Consider adding one for The Ritz-Carlton as well.
• "so as not to have to look at its iron monstrosity." POV alert! This should definitely say that this was his opinion.
• Two Fodor's links in section.
• Development, Design history: Links to September 11, 2001 and September 11, 2001 attacks in section.
• In the second paragraph of Design history, current reference 57 is used twice back-to-back at the end of a sentence.
• Initial phases, second paragraph: Reference 3 is used four times in this paragraph. Why don't you just have one at paragraph's end?

A couple of general thoughts before I go: I have to agree with the majority of reviewers about the linking. I could go either way on the dates, but linking some of the words already mentioned is a little too much for my taste. Also, the Spa section raises a couple questions for me. First, are there any negative reviews for it? If one is avaliable, including it would go a long way toward resolving the POV concerns above. More importantly, how is a massage gemstone-infused? Are they in the oil? With this all-important question, I declare myself Neutral and wish you the best. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Closing note: I've summarized the declarations on the talk page here, and archived the nomination. Normally, I could restart a nomination that is deadlocked, but this has been restarted once already, and yet there are still concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:05, 13 July 2008 [30].

---

Battle of the Kalka River

Nominator(s): Kyriakos (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think that it is FA standard. I've worked on this article for last few months and I think I have brought it to FA standard. The article has passed a GAC and a WP:MILHIST A-class review. Kyriakos (talk) 10:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Please be consistent with your bibliographical entries in the printed sources section, most are first name last name, but one is last name first. If you're going to use the last name title system in the references, you should probably go with last name first in the printed sources, to make things easier. You just need to pick one way and stick with it.
  • Done Kyriakos (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Nope, not done. Some in the References section are "Richard Gabriel" others are "Gabriel". Same for all the references/footnotes. Some just use the last name, some use the full name. It doesn't matter which way you go, but it should be consistent. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I didn't notice those. I'll fix them. Kyriakos (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I fixed them myself. Something odd is up with your using <b> in the middle of the <ref> tags, which wasn't letting them show up when I used my script to attempt to edit just the refs. Anyway, it's fixed. All done! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• Current ref 5 Rossabi All the Khan's Horses is lacking a publisher.
  • Done. Publisher is Columbia University. Kyriakos (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    • • Cool, thanks for doing it. Kyriakos (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• There are two sources in the printed sources section that aren't listed in the references, those should go in a further reading section if they really have not been used as references.
  • Done. Kyriakos (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "30,000[2]-80,000[3][4][5]" needs an en dash per WP:DASH.
  • Done —paranomia^{happy harry's high club} 20:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• A few of the references are placed incorrectly, such as "his ambassadors[7], the", which should be "his ambassadors,[7] the", per WP:FOOTNOTE.
  • Done —paranomia^{happy harry's high club} 20:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• "Printed sources" should have authors as "Last name, first name" and then sort by last name.
  • Done. Kyriakos (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I supported this article for A-class [31] and believe it meets the FA criteria. Excellent work. Cla68 (talk) 05:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support, looks FA-class to me. --Bogdan ^що? 13:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: it needs wikification. There are numerous terms, locations, names, etc. than need linking, while others are linked several times. The articles relies too heavily on two sources (Richard Gabrieland Leo de Hartog) - I fully understand how obscure the topic is and how hard it is to obtain proper citations. Inline citations are sparse (for example, the entire section ==The battle== has only four citations). The article needs some copy-editing (just an example: How large each princes contingent was, is usually not known.) The map with routes of expedition should really be moved up from the aftermath section (probably to prelude). historian Robert Marshall is probably correct in describing - who judged him to be "probably correct"? despite rather fanciful efforts by Gabriel - again, whose opinion? Introduction is too detailed as a summary of the article. It should talk less about what turns the Mongols took and what princes they killed and describe bigger picture items like impact on Kievan Rus', Mongol Empire, future invasions, etc. Leave the details to the body of the article. must have had a devastating impact on Kievan Rus' government and society - any details? In the aftermath there is information only about Mongols, pretty much nothing on Kievan Rus' or other affected states. Just a suggestion, but since pretty much nothing is known about the battle itself and the entire article describes the three-year raid, wouldn't it be better to re-focus the article on that raid instead of one battle? Renata (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Sorry my version of the article was undone. The article as it stands now has many more sources. I'll work on the lead and pay more attention to watch you said. Kyriakos (talk) 09:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Notes, wikification, and some MoS attention needed.[32] Also, I want to call attention to WP:ACCESSIBILITY#Lead section in terms of the order of items in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've wikified the article as much as possible. Kyriakos (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Notes on the exactness of the figures and course of events, which are not known*

I question a number of the sources and most of the troop figures found in this article, and thus, it's overall quality. I question whether all the information on the lead up to the battle should be in this article - it should be somewhere, probably in an article on the campaign itself. But more importantly, the figures as to the size of armies and their movements prior to, during, and after the battle are simply not at all based on any reality. The medieval sources (and there are very few) say almost nothing of the size of armies and where they were on the battlefield, so how can Gabriel and others know this? In looking at Gabriel and others, they often cite previous authors who themselves do not cite where they got the information, or they repeat information without being at all critical of its accuracy. As to Munro, he is the (fiction) writer known as Saki; he was not a historian, and I am not sure his work on the Russian empire should be considered a worthwhile historic source or if Munro meant it to be. John Fennell, the late historian of Rus and Russian history at Oxford Univeristy, took the figures to task in his book "the Crisis of Medieval Russia" back in 1983, which I put in the article, but which has since been removed. The "Russian Primary Chronicle" and the "Chronicle of Novgorod", both contemporary to the time of the battle, are very limited in what they say of the battle. The "Chronicle of Novgorod" names fifteen princes, of which six were killed, and the "Russian Primary Chronicle" gives the figure of 10,000 Russians at the battle. Since we don't even know exactly where the battle took place, we can't say where particular units or particular princes were on the battlefield or the precise course of battle, so I'm not sure how Gabriel and others, or the editors of this entry, come up with that information. When I have tried to make corrections to this effect in the article, they have, again, been deleted or otherwise taken out. That seems to me to be shoddy history - ignoring the information that doesn't suit your need. If this is supposed to be an article about what really happened at the Battle of Kalka River, it seems to me that it does a poor job of this. --Mcpaul1998 (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments on images

• Image:PremongolEurasia.png - Maps are supposed to indicate the sources for their information on the image description pages. Ideally, they are supposed to be in SVG format as well.

• Image:Dnieper Nasa 2004-05-06.jpg - The source link is imprecise - it just takes one to an informational page about NASA images.

• Image:Gengis Khan empire-fr.svg - Maps are supposed to indicate the sources for their information on the image description pages. Awadewit (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• I will be on vacation from now until 20 July, during which I will have intermittent internet access. I will revisit this nom as often as I can. Awadewit (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—Requirement for a professional standard of formatting: overlinked.

• Why are common words such as "coalition", "camp" and "surrendered" linked? Needs an audit thoughout. Let your high-value links breathe. This is a MOS breach—please see MOSLINK and CONTEXT.
  • Done. I unlinked them. Kyriakos (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
• What does "The Rus' army combined and routed the Mongol rearguard left to observe the Rus'." mean?
  • Done. I rephrased it. Kyriakos (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
• ToC jammed onto the left on my monitor.
• "Meanwhile" has that informal ring about it. I'd just remove it, or replace with "At the same time,". There are more than one of them.
  • Done. I changed all the meanwhiles. Kyriakos (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
• "Today the Mongols ..."—why the italics in the second part of this quotation? See MOS.
  • Done. I found the mistake that I had made. Kyriakos (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
• Paragraph control: "Initial moves" starts with a grey whooper, then two little stubs. The lengths shouldn't be too different. TONY (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. I fixed the sizes. Kyriakos (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Like Mcpaul1998, I am concerned about the accuracy of the article, and the use of sources. For example, we are told "This battle was a significant defeat, given that many of the Rus principalities lost much of their armies, with the notable exception of Vladimir-Suzdal". However, Fennell (p. 68) concludes: "To judge from all the available sources, the impact of the first Tatar invasion on the Russians appears to have been remarkably small". We are told here that Yuri Vsevolodovich "promised support", but Fennell expresses doubts as to Yuri's having done any such thing and one of the primary sources says that Yuri was not present at the council of war in Kiev (p. 67). If we accept Fennell's arguments on the scale of events (pp. 66–68), any secondary source reproducing the sorts of figures appearing in this article must be somewhat suspect. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

According to several of the books that I have read on the battle, Yuri of Vladimir-Suzdal promised support but was deliberately slow in sending it so as to strengthen his position after all the other Prince's armies were defeated. Kyriakos (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:51, 12 July 2008 [33].

---

Hilary Duff

previous FAC (17:13, 1 March 2008)

This article has undergone a lot of changes during its GA nomination and was promoted as a GA last November. In february this year, i nominated it for FA status and it was rejected as can be seen from prev FAC link above. Since its last FAC, the article has undergone significant changes and now i feel that the article is ready for a FA status. I feel that this article deserves to be a Featured article and i hope that other reviewers will feel the same after goin thru it....Constructive criticisms are always welcome !!!....thanx..Gprince007 (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Lots of work needed.
• Lead wastes content listing her albums. no FA does this. a line on childhood is needed here
• link singer-songwriter in lead, not both words separately.

done Gprince007 (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Article isn't comprehensive at all. Look here. All web links? These books have a lot more.
• sign pic has wrong tag. Uploader nver owned the sign : it's ineligible for copyright. See FA Barack Obama's sign (I remember that well) and correct the license on commons accordingly.

done Gprince007 (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• 4th pic caption in past tense. why?

done Gprince007 (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Bad prose: "because she chipped off one of her front teeth"
• early life has useless wikilinks like tv commercial, ballet, theater
• Toc is ridiculously overwhelming. Why are films, music, TV all separate? Merge them all into header 2 sections
• Then merge business and controversies into these sections. They shouldn't get any Undue weight
• "Duff contributed the song "(I'll Give) Anything but Up!" for the 2004 album Marlo Thomas & Friends: Thanks & Giving All Year Long (2004), before continuing nine more months of the Most Wanted Tour." ref?

done Gprince007 (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Last piece of personal life isn't personal.
• Remove dance hits link from see also. right place is in the songs articles

done Gprince007 (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• External links all seem fansites and must be removed
• Official site linked twice. Only infobox or links section 116.72.211.122 (talk) 06:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well i believe the lead summarises the article while highlightin important landmarks in her career. Since she is an actress and a singer, the lead contains brief info abt her music albums and films. Infact featured articles like AC/DC and Gwen Stefani list their respective albums in their leads more than this article.
• Regarding the word chipped, it has been used becos the cite says "She chipped her teeth often". It is not bad prose...it is just stating the facts as per the cite.
• Films, music and TV have been separated to distinguish her career in the 3 mediums. She has been fairly succesful in all three..so i guess each deserves a separate section....Featured articles like Mariah Carey too have separate sections for films and music. Merging them would create 2 huge sections which would burden the reader's eye while reading. Thats what i feel. Same goes for business and controversies section becos the content in both the sections are well written in the media and hence notable. Also some of the content in controversies section have been cited by multiple sources.
• Last piece of personal life informs the reader of her personal earnings in a year. Whats wrong with it???
• External links are all Official sites which can be verified by anyone. There are no fansites.

I guess i have addressed most of the concerns raised above. I have stated the reasons for the ones which i didnt change. Gprince007 (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

oppose A lot of major issues.

• Lead needs exspanding
• Early career section and then Early Television work section?
• Merge stuff about T.V and stuff about film and rename it "Acting career"
• Why to 3 year section then a 2 year section in "Music career"? Why not just have sections for each of her Studio albums?
• A lot of WW "spurred her on" "spawn a sequel" "biggest selling albums" are just exsamples.
• I don't know much about her but I think the "Lizzie McGuire" "Early life and career" and "Music career" sections could be exspanded
• Many refs not entered correctly with no publisher and/or date given.

This article really isn't close enough yet to be nominated. Buc (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• As stated above the Lead seems fine to me. It summarises her film as well as music career as per WP:LEAD. If you have any specific suggestions which can be added to lead then pls suggest...
• Early career section and then Early Television work are mentioned in the "Early life and career" section and "Television->Early work" sections....
• A Section for each studio album is not feasible becos of her work in other albums too....where will her work in Lizzie mcguire soundtrack, A Cinderella story soundtrack go???....thats why the music section is arranged chronologically.
• Fixed weasel word

I guess most of the issues have been addressed and reasons have been provided for ones which i couldnt address.Gprince007 (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• A number of your website references are lacking publishers. When they are in order, I'll come back and look at the reliability of the sources.
• A couple of your weblinks are showing up as deadlinks with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose A tabloid and an encyclopedia are different things.

"They quoted Hilary Duff saying, 'Avril needs to appreciate her fans more and blah, blah, blah.' I'm like, excuse me? First off, it's not even true. I never said that. And second, who the hell cares what she has to say about my fans? Whatever. Hilary Duff's such a goody-goody, such a mommy's girl".

Sections such as "Controversies" should be avoided, because they become negative POV dumps. A lot of stuff in that section is too detailed too; do we need an entire paragraph on how she didn't lip-sync? Trivial information.

I think her entire career should be presented chronologically; so combine the TV, Movie and Music sections, it'll give a better understanding of her career. indopug (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Career info needs to be made into one chronological section. The controversies need to be dispersed into their chronological placing to avoid coat racking. Really the whole article needs to be made as chronological as possible, its like being in a time warp. Feel free to call me back if this is addressed. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 17:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:51, 12 July 2008 [34].

---

Star Wars

previous FAC

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has reached at least Good Article status, and I believe it meets the criteria for FA, including relevant images, and has a clear well-written layout, and reliable references. I belive it has broadly covered the aspects of the entire Star Wars franchise, explains the films in a fair and neutral way, and is a good candidate for FA-status. --EclipseSSD (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "Star Wars portal" goes in "See also" section
• Broken refs: 62, 66
• IMDB references are not reliable

Gary King (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Not ready yet in my view.

• The lead is inadequate. According to WP:LEAD, an article of this size should have a three or four paragraph lead (probably four in this case). This has two paragraphs, and the second is quite small. Many sections aren't represented at all in the lead, and others are glossed over.
• The Critical reception section is just a table, without any substantive commentary on the films. Opinions from movie critics are not a negative as long as they are attributed. For example, Roger Ebert has a website where I assume reviews for these films can be found. Also, many people such as myself feel that the prequels are inferior to the original films. Nothing about this. Any film FA should have a detailed section on critical reaction, and this falls well short.
• In addition to the IMDB refs, numerous others are of questionable reliability. Ealdgyth will take an in-depth look at some point and should have plenty to say.
• More could be added on the impact of the series. For example, the special effects in the films were groundbreaking at the time; I don't get that sense after reading this.
• I may be missing it, but I don't see anything on the changes that George Lucas made to the original trilogy in video and DVD releases. These changes were controversial in some quarters (Han shot first), and if possible future changes are worthy of mention than so are these.

I hate to tell editors what to do with candidates, but I feel that this should be withdrawn. This should be taken to peer review to help sort out these and other issues. As a Star Wars fan I wish this article the best, but think it needs more time to develop. May the Force be with you in your efforts. :-) Giants2008 (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• http://www.starwars.com/episode-iii/bts/production/news20040405.html dead links along with http://www.starwars.com/bio/lawrencekasdan.html and three others from this site.
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.ruinedendings.com/film1226plot
  • http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/aspectratios/widescreenorama.html
  • http://www.digihometheatre.com/surround-sound/thx.html
  • http://starwarz.com/starkiller/scripts.htm
  • http://www.hollywoodgothique.com/starwarstrilogy1997.html
  • http://www.movieweb.com/dvd/news/50/17650.php
  • http://www.filmbuffonline.com/Editorial/EditorialStarWars.htm
  • http://www.dvdactive.com/easter-eggs/dvd/star-wars-episode-iii-revenge-of-the-sith.html
  • http://theforce.net/timeline/film4.asp
  • http://theswca.com/textf/promo.html (and the yellow text on a white background is NOT easy to read...)
  • http://starwarscards.net/
  • http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2003/12/story_of_reagan.html
• Current ref 24 is lacking publisher and page number.
• Current refs 62 and 66 are borked in their formatting.
• http://www.alandeanfoster.com/version2.0/frameset.htm this page (current ref 79) doesn't seem to appear to source the first paragraph of the LIterature subsection.
• Likewise, http://www.darkhorse.com/Company/Timeline, doesn't totally source the majority of the third paragraph of Literature.
• One more thing.. 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.

Otherwise sources seem okay. Double check your links with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

comment - Great effort has been made to produce free content for a notoriously difficult genre, however there are some questions regarding the validity of these images at commons Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Star_Wars_images, I think these issues need to be cleared up Fasach Nua (talk) 08:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• My first impression: brief. Particularly considering that many people interested in Star Wars are fanatics equipped with mountains of secondary sources and extensive knowledge.
• "The six films feature the Jedi, who use the Force for good, and the Sith, who use the dark side for evil in an attempt to take over the galaxy."--why does this objective statement--which anyone who has watched more than two of the films would understand easily--have six sources? While other, more obscure statements have no citations?
• Why is this article protected? Are there persistent vandalism issues?
• The "setting" section is poorly written.
• Why is there no mention of the effects of Star Wars on the film industry? My understanding is that it drastically changed the sci-fi genre, and heavily influenced the industry at-large in other areas. I've heard it compared to Birth of a Nation and Citizen Kane with respect to its technical achievements.
• The lead is to brief for the topic.
• Overall, the article has an unsatisfying airless quality to it.

Unless there is rapid and major improvement in this article, I cannot support it. Lwnf360 (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, 1b. The article requires substantial expansion using major books and peer-reviewed articles from MLA and other databases. There are many good sources covering the entire series that have not been touched here. --Laser brain (talk) 07:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per crit. 1: unreferenced statements with {{fact}} tags, poor lead. Much of the sections need expansion (for example, the critical reception), some sections have almost no references, proper formatting of references (why the italics), and generally more use of varied references from books, et al. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 20:53, 11 July 2008 [35].

---

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings

previous FAC (01:26, 11 March 2008)

I am nominating this article for FA because the book is notable. Caged Bird is a landmark piece of literature written by one of the most important writers of our time, Maya Angelou, and deserving of FA-status. More literature written by African American authors should receive this kind of recognition on WP. Its previous nomination, which was premature, was made in anticipation of Angelou's 80th birthday in April, but it was not ready at that time. However, the book's 40th anniversary is in 2009, so I would like to see this article passed to commemorate it and to honor Angelou. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• On first glance, it's an interesting read. The criticism section, though, is strange because it lumps together two unrelated types of criticism. I would break it out into a section called "Censorship" and a section called "Critical reception" where you could aggregate/add both critical and laudatory comments about the book and note honors won etc. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Couldn't resist being bold. Check out my edits and see what you think. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Cal, I appreciate your boldness. I made one major change: I combined your version of the Background and title section with mine, written earlier, because I think that it flows better. Thanks for linking the page numbers; I wasn't aware that this was best practice. It's so cool that going through the FAC process makes you learn new stuff! ;) --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• I must confess that the last time I read Angelou's book was way back in high school, and my memory is not that great. It would help if someone comments here who is more familiar with her work.

Well, go back and read it then! Good holiday reading, ya know. ;)

• I think the article has made a lot of headway since its previous FAC. However, I also think it has a way to go. Be prepared to continue to work on it.

Thank you. To be honest, as this article's main editor, I don't even consider that a "real" FAC, since it was very premature. I regret the nom. And yes, I'm prepared to do more work, even if things are tight this week due to the Independance Day holiday and other work/RL crunches. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• The Plot needs a copy edit for clarity and comprehensiveness.

I've worked on this some tonight, but I'm sure that it could use more input. I'll look at it again in the coming days. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• If you're going to include character descriptions, include only major ones.

Done, cut minor characters. This section was originally divided into "Major characters" and "Minor characters", like how Uncle Tom's Cabin is structured, but an editor combined the two. If recommended, I'll revert it back.

• The Critical reception is not comprehensive enough. More should be added. Please state who is making the comments.

This is addressed below. I'm not sure how the Critical reception section can be more comprehensive, but if this article doesn't pass this time (which I suspect will occur), I'll do more research about this before the next nom, I promise.

• Please include a Style section.

It occurs to me that this can be done by re-naming the sub-section "Caged Book as autobiography". I'll also add some content from Angelou's bio page. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• When discussing thematic issues, use direct quotes from scholars, use their names and what kind of scholar each is. African American literature scholar Jane Doe states..., for example. I see this is done occasionally, but any time quotes are used to describe the book or Angelou's writing, it should be clear in the article (not just from the citation) who is doing the describing.

I'm pretty sure that the changes I've made today go farther in addressing this concern. However, I'm not sure if I've done exactly what you've asked. If not, please clarify and I'll do what I can.

• Make sure any claim of literary quality has a citation and an attribute. For example, who makes this claim: Angelou and other female writers in the late 1960s and early 1970s have used the autobiography to restructure the ways to write about women's lives in a male-dominated society.?

I think I fixed this, and other instances of this problem.

• I feel as if the article doesn't discuss the impact the book has on literature. This should be included in your expansion of the Critical reception section. The book was part of a genre of black women's writing in the 1970s that included Toni Morrison and Alice Walker. What has the impact of this genre been on culture and literature?

Hmm, this will require more research. Oh, I see what you meant above.

• Good luck with it. --Moni3 (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

T'anks! ;)

• Oops, add: book covers are usually first edition covers. Can you find an image of the first edition? --Moni3 (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Done!

• Comment "Plot summary" can be renamed to "Plot" since I don't think people would assume that it's the entire plot, verbatim :) Gary King (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Other FAs use "plot summary"; this is probably just personal preference. Karanacs (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave it as is. It was advised, in this article's last nom, to use Uncle Tom's Cabin, and that's what it does. I can understand the concern, though, since Caged Bird is a series of episodes, and by no means is each episode described; only the "most important ones" are included. Perhaps more discussion is warranted. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• 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.

There was just the one instance, and it's now fixed. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look okay, and the links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. You've made a great start with this article, but it is not ready for FA status yet. It's been over a decade since I read the book, so I don't remember a lot of the details, but I do remember the emotional impact it had on me. I suspect there must be reams of information written about it, but I felt like the article didn't go into enough depth to really make someone who hasn't read the book understand why it is important or why it is so powerful. I realize that is a bit vague, and here are some concrete examples of issues I see.
  • The Background and title section does not say that King's assassination inspired Angelou to write this book. The lead does say this, however, and the two need to be reconciled. There is also additional information in the lead that is not in the body (King assassinated on her birthday). Is there any more information about what part of the conversation made Judy Feiffer believe that Angelou needed to write the book?
  • The text says that Judy Feiffer suggested that Angelou write an autobiography; the image caption says Jules Feiffer was the one. This needs to be reconciled.

This has been solved by changing the caption of JF's photo.

• • Plot summary issues:
    • In some places it assumes more knowledge than most readers will have. For example, it is not well explained that Maya's real name is Marguerite.
    • Something like this "and are labeled like baggage." - may need to be cited or explained better. As it stands, that seems like POV

Fixed by adding the citation.

• • • The section may need better organization. I don't remember the story well enough to help with this.
  • In my opinion, the characters section should really not describe events that are not at least alluded to in the plot summary. Much of this section is written in a very in-universe style. There ought to be some information about the character beyond just a plot summary, or else that character should not be listed separately.
  • I would move Themes above Critical reception.

Done, but by Awadewit.

• • The Critical reception section seems a little short. I would suspect that with such a groundbreaking book there might be more information.
  • Is there any information on which events in the book are made up?
  • Much of the article needs a copyedit. There are run-on sentences and other long and clunky sentences.
  • The Themes section needs some attention paid to the organization. For example, in the as autobiography section, paragraph one says Scholar Joanne M. Braxton sees Caged Bird as "representative of autobiographies written by black women in the post-civil rights era"., but this is actually explained in more detail in paragraph 2.
  • "The challenge for much of African-American literature is that its authors have had to confirm its status as literature before it could accomplish its political goals," -- what political goals was this book trying to accomplish? This sentence appears at the beginning of a paragraph about literary goals, which doesn't make sense.
  • What is somatophobia?

The definition is a hatred of one's body, and is a concept in feminist literature. There's no WP article on the term, unfortunately. The best way to clarify it is to create one, but being lazy, I copped out and deleted the phrase, since the concept's already in the sentence, anyway.

• • The Themes section has a lot of quotations. I think most if not all of these should be marked in the text with the name of which scholar is being quoted. This is done to some extent, but probably doesn't go far enough.
  • Most of the time the article uses "Angelou", but occasionally is refers to her as "Maya"
  • Cliffs Notes as a source? Please, no. There must be so many other sources to get good literary criticism for this book.
  • Is poetryfoundation.org a reliable source?
  • There ought to be at least a brief mention of the movie that was based on the book.

Karanacs (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

These are all excellent suggestions. Instead of addressing them at the current time, it's my intention to allow this nom to close, spend the time it takes to address them, and re-nominate. I'll cut-and-paste the suggestions I haven't been able to address in the article's talk page and state that they've been addressed at that time. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment
  • On my screen/system setup, the last image, Image:Tizian 094.jpg hangs down a little into the References section, squeezing a very tight 3-column reference setup into about two-thirds of the page width. First, the typical approach is for no more than 2 columns of references. Second, add the "upright" tag to that image (and all other portrait-orientation images) and it won't be so large. Third, so that it won't hang down into the references, either move the image up a paragraph or two, or add {{-}} before the "Notes" section to prevent it. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this issue was taken care of when Awadewit restructured the sections.

Oppose While this article has improved dramatically since the last FAC, there are still a few sections that need to be researched and expanded. Here are my suggestions:

• I would remove the character list, especially since it repeats much of what is in the plot summary and the "Themes" section.

• In her 1999 essay, "I Know Why the Caged Bird Cannot Read", author Francine Prose criticized Caged Bird as "manipulative melodrama"[19] and "overrated" - This single piece of criticism is awkward - surely there has been other criticism?

• The "Critical reception" section needs to be expanded. There is much more to say on this front. Considering it was a bestseller and nominated for a book award, there must have been lots of contemporary reviews. It has since become a classic and is often assigned to undergraduates, so there is a lot of scholarly reception as well.

• There needs to be some sort of "Influence" section that explains the book's effect on other literature, other writers, etc. As Moni3 mentions, it was part of a specific movement in the 1970s among black American writers, but the reader doesn't really come away from the article understanding this larger literary context.

• The picture of James Baldwin is from 1955 - I don't know how helpful that is for the reader. He wasn't this young when he was commenting on Caged Bird.

I changed the caption; by including the date of the photo.

• It was already mentioned in the last FAC that CliffsNotes is not a reliable source. That needs to be replaced.

• The last paragraph of the "Style" section seems to belong in the "Background and title" section.

• Once major revisions have been made, I would suggest you find good copyeditor as I saw some grammar mistakes (e.g. verbs that didn't match nouns) and other small problems.

I hope these suggestions are helpful. Awadewit (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, they are. Thanks for the copyediting/restructuring that you've done, A. As far as your comments I haven't addressed at this time, I'll focus on them more extensively at a later time, as I state above. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:53, 10 July 2008 [36].

---

September 11, 2001 attacks

Nominator(s): VegitaU

previous FAC

Former featured article, has not been on main page.

Self-nomination: This article has significantly improved over the past few months, owing in large part to the stability proferred by an arbitration decision. It has successfully been promoted to good article and has had a peer review as well as a copyedit. I feel it is ready to be reviewed here. -- VegitaU (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

VegitaU, did you consult the other significant contributors, per WP:FAC instructions? "Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination." Unless significant contributors agree the article is ready, the nom should be withdrawn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Article stats:

Aude 449

Tom harrison 339

MONGO 338

Golbez 281

JimWae 144

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This was brought up on the talk page. Aude sounded like he didn't believe it was ready, for what it's worth. Giants2008 (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That's my concern (since I know Aude is busy). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Aude and I disagree on this point. He was put-off by the review for American Airlines Flight 77, which he doesn't think is FA-quality despite my best efforts to address his points and use all my available resources. I told him if he could improve the article, to do so. As for this, he says there is some "summary style" issues that don't "jive" with the subarticles. I'm not sure what that means, but I left the thread open for two weeks and no other editor has mentioned any problems. Keep in mind, it's good-quality and I had an external editor come and do a copyedit. -- VegitaU (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support This article looks pretty good to me. Gary King (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• I'm going to publish an account of Tama scratching bin Laden's balls off. Then you can do an FAC on him.
• This needs to be integrated: According to the Commission Report, hundreds were killed instantly by the impact, while the rest were trapped and died after the tower collapsed.[32] As many as 600 people were killed instantly or were trapped at or above the floors of impact in the South Tower.
• I know the wording in this statement is exact in the field of first response, Rescue and recovery efforts took months to complete but it makes no sense to say that rescue efforts to months to complete. Can you take out "Rescue and"?
• Have you consciously decided to use Mohammed to represent Mohammed Atef in Planning of the attacks? Would it not be simpler use Atef since Mohamed Atta is in the same paragraph?
• Why would the government of the United Kingdom also reach the conclusion that bin Laden was responsible for the attacks? Were they conducting investigations of their own? For what reason? Can you include a phrase that would connect that?
• Can you combine these statements more effectively: Osama bin Laden says he had personally directed the 19 hijackers.[96] In the video, he says, "We had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Atta, Allah have mercy on him, that all the operations should be carried out within 20 minutes, before Bush and his administration notice."
• I think, since there's so much doubt cast upon the legitimacy of hearings at Guantanamo, that you're going to have to put these statements in context: Mohammed ultimately ended up at Guantanamo Bay. During US hearings in March 2007, which have been "widely criticized by lawyers and human rights groups as sham tribunals", Mohammed again confessed his responsibility for the attacks, saying "I was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z." How did he confess? Was he on the stand at Guatanamo in a military court?
• In Motive, you mention bin Laden used the term "spectacular" but it's not clear in what context. Can you give the full quote, please?
• Under Muslim American reaction, were Muslim Americans the only aliens who were fingerprinted and registered?
• Do you think it's worthwhile to include information that obituaries for everyone who died in the World Trade Center printed in the New York Times took, I think, three years to print? Or that television and radio broadcast nothing else but news and information about the attacks in the US for 3 days after, and longer in some places? Such a thing has never occurred in my experience.
• I read half of it. I'll finish the rest soon. I wish I could say it was a joy to read. --Moni3 (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Continued comments: First, let me apologize to SandyGeorgia and to Aude. I didn't check (obviously) who the primary contributors were. Since VegitaU had successfully nominated two related articles, well...you know...

• I think you should include brief examples of what the 9/11 Commission was criticized for.
• A sentence here starts with a number: 31.9 million square feet of Lower Manhattan office space was either damaged or destroyed.
• What about the World Trade Center collapse has made it carcinogenic? Was it only the jet fuel? One could reason that someone who works in a building for 20 years with no ill health effects would be just as unaffected by the same disassembled materials. Was there something in the chemical change of the fires and rubble that became carcinogenic?
• This may be difficult to include, but I feel as if the article does not address the shift in national mentality. Indeed, the article may not be able to do so, but American opinions about being invulnerable and isolated from international conflict were rudely jarred by 9/11. The immediate effects: the War on Terrorism, and the badly associated War in Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, are mentioned, but the longer aftereffects are not. Surely there must be a source that states the long term public and foreign policy effects have yet to be seen. This event will change how the US runs things for decades to come. --Moni3 (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments - It's certainly sobering to see this here. The most important event of my lifetime definitely deserves a review from me.

• In the references, print publishers should be in italics.
• Current refs 62, 67, 155, 170 and 178 need a publisher.
• Current refs 41, 77 and 83 should have full caps removed. Only capitalize the first letters of the words.
• "attempted to retake control of their plane." Technically the airline company would have owned the plane.
• Last sentence of second paragraph: "World Trade Center's collapse" used twice. Mix it up a little.
• "and a small memorial built on the site." Was built.
• "The 9/11 Commission Report believed the bombs were probably fake." Believed is an odd choice of words here. How about indicated?
• Attackers and their motivation, Al-Qaeda: The terrorist group doesn't need a link here after it was just linked. Jihad is linked twice in the section as well.
• Planning of the attacks: Afghanistan is linked in the prior section.
• Hijackers: Another al-Qaeda link. Giants2008 (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes http://www.lowermanhattan.info/construction/project_updates/fiterman_hall_39764.aspx a reliable source?
• Please check the link checker tool (external links link in the "toolbox" on this page) for links that need checking.
• Current ref 62 "McKinsey Report NYPD) is lacking a publisher
• Same for current ref 67 (Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders...)
• What makes http://muckrakerreport.com/id372.html a reliable source?
• Is http://muckrakerreport.com/id372.html an official site?
• Current ref 155 Sigmund Pete (Building a ...) is lacking a publisher. Also, what makes http://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/ a reliable source?
• Current ref 170 (Gates, Anita "Buildings Rise from Rubble...) is lacking a publisher
• Same for current ref 178 (DePalma, Anthony "Many Ground Zero...)

Otherwise sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

lowermanhattan.info is a reliable source - the site belongs to the Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center, which was set up by Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Pataki, to oversee construction projects in Lower Manhattan. muckrakerreport is not a reliable source. There's definitely a better source to replace the constructionequipmentguide.com source. --Aude (talk) 10:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Featured articles are supposed to represent the "best quality" work on Wikipedia. I have worked quite a lot on this article and can't say it's among the best yet. Same with the Flight 77 article, which I think is quite good but not the best it can be (it can be more comprehensive, better sources used). I have worked quite a lot on the Flight 77 article over the years and want to resolve the issues there (with the little time I have) before working this one through FAC.

The main problems with the September 11, 2001 attacks article is that it is not as comprehensive as possible and does not follow summary style as well as could be done. There are also serious issues with prose, and attention to detail is needed here (MOS, sources, etc.).

I also expect FA to use the best sources available (even if that means going to the library or bookstore to get sources not available online). I'm bothered by articles that go through FA with only web-based sources while neglecting high quality print sources available for the topic. That's little less an issue here than on the Flight 77 article since I have included some such cites here, but I'm not done going through my print sources for this article.

Comprehensive and summary style issues

In working on 9/11 articles, my approach has been to get the subarticles in good shape, with the best sources used, comprehensive, and well-written. Then, with good subarticles, I think the summarized sections here would be much better quality, with the best sources, better written, and comprehensive (with summary details here and full details in the subarticle). I also like to resolve MOS and other details before coming to FAC.

Right now, I feel that many of the sections of the September 11, 2001 attacks article are superficial in detail, quality, and comprehensiveness. This reflects the fact that many of the subarticles need major work, in need of high quality sourcing, etc. The quality of the sections would be improved by following summary style well, and having good quality subarticles to summarize.

So far, I have been working on various subarticles:

• Planning of the September 11, 2001 attacks - using a number of book sources (Peter Bergen, Terry McDermott, ...). I have not completed going through all the key books on the topic. In the main article, I do have some page citations but there are more to add (Lawrence Wright, Yosri Fouda, ...), while some of the details in the main article will need to be moved into the subarticle or reworked.
• User:Aude/Casualties of the September 11, 2001 attacks - this is an effort to combine material that was spread across various different articles. The main article section here does a better job of reflecting how the subarticle will be, but still think the main section would be better quality after getting the subarticle in good shape.
• Economic effects arising from the September 11, 2001 attacks - same situation here. I had worked some on this and it should be improved. From what I gather from sources is that the effects were mainly short-term, except for certain industries. The main article has the "economic effects" section in the "long-term effects" section. Also, this section mainly provides statistics and numbers. It doesn't explain how the effects were felt short-term, and longer-term effect for various industries. Also, what about the compensation for the victims?
• The rebuilding section is definitely not the best it can be. I have worked on the World Trade Center site article and not done with it yet. I feel the main article subsection is superficial in quality and its quality would be enhanced greatly when it draws from and summarizes a good quality subarticle.

Prose and other issues

Other issues relate to the quality of the prose. Again, we have lots of facts thrown together and that shows in the prose.

Here are some specific issues:

Lead section

• "crashed two of the airliners into the World Trade Center in New York City, resulting in the collapse of both buildings" - the WTC consisted of seven buildings. This wording needs to be adjusted.
• Were "members of the flight crew" involved in attempting to retake control of United Airlines Flight 93, just passengers involved, or what?
• The "In addition, the death of at least one person from lung disease ..." sentence can be said more concisely.
• The "The United States passed the USA PATRIOT Act, as many nations..." sentence is awkward.

Attacks

• "No traces of explosives were found at the crash sites" - what is the reference for this?
• "The 9/11 Commission Report believed the bombs were probably fake" - really? the report is capable of thinking and believing things? this needs rewording. Also, why did the 9/11 Commission think this? This whole bit about "bombs" on the planes and "traces of explosives"
• "which was given the code name "the Faculty of Law"." - excessive details here
• The "The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) launched investigations into the cause of collapse ... " paragraph is misplaced or out-of-place in the section that talks about the events on September 11.

Other sections - I don't have time to go through them all right now, but there are issues.

In summary, I think the article falls short of the "comprehensive" FA requirement and doesn't follow "summary style" as well as is possible, has serious prose issues, and can use improvement in other areas. I am more than willing to keep working on the article and subarticle, but now is not a good time for me to work on it. Now is especially not a good time to work the article through FAC, due to my wikibreak and that my boxes of books, documentaries and other sources for the 9/11 attacks are in storage now. I expect to have a break from work/school at the end of August and early September, and willing to put in time then for this article and the subarticles. Now is simply not a good time. --Aude (talk) 10:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Moni3 about bringing articles on other topics (not 9/11) to FA. Only working on 9/11 articles is not the most joyful thing. Ideally for each 9/11 FA, I like to get another non-9/11 FA. While I am overseas, I may work a little bit on other topics and come back to the 9/11 articles in 1-2 months. --Aude (talk) 10:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

oppose until Image:Story.crash.sequence.jpg and Image:Bin laden 12 27a.jpg have valid FU rationales Fasach Nua (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose a FAC should be sufficiently stable that it doesnt need to be protected Fasach Nua (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, Fasach Nua. It needs to be stable to the point that major content doesn't change daily. I worked on the article for To Kill a Mockingbird, that is protected because thousands of middle school students cannot control the urge to vandalize it. When it was not protected it was impossible to catch all the instances of vandalism that was mixed in with the content. This may be something you could get clarification on from SandyGeorgia about what constitutes FAC criteria. --Moni3 (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In general, I would agree with Fasach Nua; however, there should be an exception for an article which is controversial. If this article were not protected, it would be overrun by 9/11 conspiracy theorists and vandals--much in the same way the nuclear power article would be overrun with anti-nuclear activists and vandals. Lwnf360 (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair point, I withdraw the objection on the grounds of stability Fasach Nua (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Weak oppose

Overall, I think the article is excellent. I would say that it passes all WP:FACR except the sections on WP:RS. This article relies very heavily on news articles. I do see good primary sources, e.g. 9/11 Commission Report, actual legislation, etc. But for every primary source there are seemingly dozens of CNN articles and the like. This is unacceptable for the wiki's best work. Lwnf360 (talk) 02:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—Prose needs a spruce-up throughout. Here are random examples from the top, to start you off. Fresh eyes best.

• Don't we have guidelines against internal linking? "2,974 people"—irritating to be shunted downwards when you hit it.
• Why is "civilians" linked? Please see WP:CONTEXT and MOSLINK. Audit the whole article to weed out trivial links: let your high-value links breathe.
• Comma required? "died as an immediate result of the attacks with another 24 missing and"
• "The attacks had major ramifications around the world, with the United States declaring a"—The comma's there, but another "with" construction straight away? And please see these exercises on "noun plus -ing". Audit the whole text for overuse of ", with ...". It gets tiring.
• "Stock exchanges were closed for almost a week, and posted enormous losses immediately upon reopening, with airline and insurance industries suffering the greatest financial losses"—which comma could be removed for smoother reading? "Upon" is rather la-de-da; try "on".
• It's particularly important not to autoformat in this article (it's no longer encouraged at MOSNUM, in any case). My display keeps saying "11 September 2001", which is—all over the English-speaking world—known in US format, not my UK/Australian format. TONY (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I want to tell everyone how much I appreciate their comments, but I feel I must withdraw my nomination for this article as I see there's too much that still needs to be tweaked. I also don't want to widen a rift between Aude and myself. I would have wanted this article to be on the Main Page on 9/11, but I feel it would be better to just wait until he gets back from Wikibreak to continue here—he's made too many contributions for me to just blow him off. Thanks for the support and the constructive comments everyone. I'm not done on the FA boards yet, though. I'm still working on some other articles that I'll nominate when I feel the time is right. Thanks again. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:05, 9 July 2008 [37].

---

Cold War

Self-nominator: I'm nominating this article for featured article because i've been working on it quite a lot and hope it meets all FA criteria currently. The article successfully undergone an A-class review in January. However, after the A-class review i've made some major improvements especially in the referencing and supporting materials sectors. The promotion of this important article would be a benefit for Wikipedia and the Military history WikiProject, as it is rated nr. 10 on WP:MHSP. -- Eurocopter (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose 1a, not happy with the prose. It's mostly technically correct but clunky and full of narrative problems. Random examples below, just from one heading—I think this could benefit from a thorough copy-edit by someone who is completely unfamiliar with the subject matter.
  • "During the war, the Soviets strongly suspected that the Anglo-Americans ..." What is meant by "Anglo-Americans"? Our article has a pretty bizarre definition that doesn't seem to fit with what you're writing here.
    • Fixed Hires an editor (talk) 05:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Thus, Soviet perceptions of the West and vice versa left a strong undercurrent of tension and hostility between the Allied powers." You haven't discussed the West's perception of the Soviet Union except for a brief overview of "suspicion and distrust" in the last heading, so this statements seems a bit abrupt in the narrative flow.
  • Beginning sentences with constructions like "There is disagreement ..." and "There was severe disagreement ..." is ungrammatical and glosses over the intended subjects of the disagreement.
    • Not ungrammatical, but passive voice. In any case, I fixed this one example. It's now in the active voice. Hires an editor (talk) 05:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "There was severe disagreement between the Allies about how Europe should look following the war." Vague.. what is its "look"? Borders? Fashion statements?
    • Fixed Hires an editor (talk) 05:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Insufficient definition and contrast given to "situational" and "geo-political". History textbook gobbledygook is not accessible to a general audience.
    • Fixed Hires an editor (talk) 05:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Moscow was committed to ensuring that the new order in Europe would guarantee its long-term security ..." Vague, could refer to USSR's or Europe's long-term security.
    • Fixed Hires an editor (talk) 05:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "For the maintenance of world peace, the Allies set up the United Nations, but the enforcement capacity of its Security Council was effectively paralyzed by the superpowers' use of the veto; inaction was the rule, and it was essentially converted into a forum for exchanging polemical rhetoric, with the Soviets regarding the UN almost exclusively as a propaganda tribune." Too long, too many concepts. Also, the "with <noun> -ing" construction is ungrammatical.
    • Fixed Broke this up into two pieces. Hires an editor (talk) 05:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    • "with <noun> -ing" is correct, since the -ing is a gerund. Hires an editor (talk) 05:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm referring to the phrase "with the Soviets regarding". --Laser brain (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Fixed (but not by me) Hires an editor (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "At the Potsdam Conference, starting in late July ..." Why force the reader to backtrack to discover the last year mentioned? --Laser brain (talk) 03:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment You may want to use Cameltrader's Adviser.js script to find some MoS issues in the article. I've fixed some of the most obvious ones, but the others require more familiarity with the article and MoS than I have. Harryboyles 04:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• oppose A number of images with no FU rationales and one with uncertain copyright status, Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria#3, (I also object to the page blanking) Fasach Nua (talk) 06:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Please advise as to the images that don't meet the appropriate criteria. Hires an editor (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Ac.maostalin.jpg - This has no source information.

Looks like this one was deleted Hires an editor (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Image:NonAlignedMovement.jpg - This has no fair use rationale for the Cold War article.
• Image:Mao Krushchev.jpg - This has no fair use rationale for the Cold War article.
• Image:Journey to the Soviet Union.png - This has no fair use rationale for the Cold War article.

Changed this item to a different picture with no encumberances Hires an editor (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

For help writing fair use rationales, please see Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. Awadewit (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. This article continues to improve, but I think it has some major shortcomings in terms of balanced coverage. It is focused almost entirely on the international diplomatic and military dimensions of the Cold War, to the exclusion of the huge amount of historical research that has been done on the social and cultural dimensions (in the U.S., the USSR, Europe and elsewhere, much of it comparative transnational research) and scientific and technical dimensions. Cold War culture, the subject of enormous historical research, is relegated to a See also link (Culture during the Cold War). To give just one example among many possible, McCarthyism appears nowhere except in the Cold War navbox at the bottom.
  • The space race appears only in the intro and an image caption. It should at least get discussed briefly in the main text, if it merits mention in the intro. Considering the strategic importance and the connections it represents between academic science and engineering and Cold War strategic concerns, it probably deserves a full paragraph or two. (Walter McDougall's ...the Heavens and the Earth: A Political History of the Space Age is a good source on this, although there is plenty of more recent and more specialized literature on this as well.)
  • The historiography section is too short to convey anything useful... it doesn't even give the reader an idea of the differences between the orthodox, revisionist, and post-revisionist camps.

I added a single sentence summary for each of these items. Hires an editor (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• • The legacy section is very underdeveloped, especially considering that, unlike the chronological sections, there is no more detailed subarticle for Legacies of the Cold War or the like. This article is the main place for explaining the Cold War's broader place in history, and it barely scratches the surface in that regard.
  • --ragesoss (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - Here are some comments, mostly citation-related, for you.
  • Who is behind references 3 (legacymemorybank.org) and 4 (U-S-History.com), meaning are they reliable? This should be using very high-quality sources.

Swope is a member of the legacy memory bank, so I think its official site is the best source regarding him. U-S-History seems quite a professional history site and should be appropiate/reliable in my opinion. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• • I see a bunch of Gaddis 1990 notes, but no 1990 book by hin in the references. In fact one of the books by him was published in 1997, but I don't see it used anywhere. What is going on here?

Done --Eurocopter (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Current ref 150 doesn't say which Gaddis book is used.

Done --Eurocopter (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Ref 95 is from Encyclopædia Britannica. Can a better source be found for this than a fellow encyclopedia?

Done --Eurocopter (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Formatting error in ref 110.

Fixed --Eurocopter (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Ref 137 is missing publisher and access date.

Fixed --Eurocopter (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• This one (now 135) still has no publisher. Giants2008 (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Ref 152 is again from Britannica. Surely a news article can be found on the Geneva Summit.

Done - replaced by a BBC News article. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Dates are linked a few different ways in the notes.

Please be more clear which certain notes need fixes. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Most are linked as yyyy-mm-dd, but some spell it out as month-day-year and a few are day-month-year. Pick one style and stick with it. Giants2008 (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• • A couple prose notes before I go: The sports boycotts seem very out of place in the lead. The text jumps from all the serious battles between these two powers to these boycotts. The sentence after is about defense spending and the nuclear arms race. Do you see how strange this is?
  • The Soviet boycott of the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles isn't even mentioned in the body of the article. Giants2008 (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • Could we have more diverse sources (CWIHP is ok, if offline books are hard to get)? As of now many parts of the article relies exclusively on Gaddis. It is a good source, but it is not enough. And avoid using Britannica and other tertiary sources, please.
  • Throughout this period, the rivalry between the two superpowers unfolded in multiple arenas, such as military coalitions, ideology, propaganda, espionage, weaponry, industrial advances, and technological developments, which included the space race. That's correct, but the topics of ideology, propaganda, espionage and weaponry should be elaborated further in the article. As of now, there is nothing on espionage, weaponry, and so on.
  • In sports, rising tensions between the US and the USSR led to boycotts of major events. -- this certainly doesn't belong to the lead.
  • The third paragraph of the lead is not entirely accurate as to what has caused what and is at least controversial, IMHO (The Soviet Union's reaction was perestroika and glasnost; These reforms eventually led to the collapse of the Soviet Union – only a single POV among many others, personally I disagree on both counts). In fact, many different points of view exist on that matter, so the paragraph has to be NPOVed. Use diverse sholarly sources with different POVs, there are plenty of them for this period.
  • The Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation is particularly relevant to the origin of the Cold War in Asia and has to be mentioned.
  • although dissent began to appear after 1956. – we should clarify that we mean the Hungarian Revolution of 1956.
  • Further critiques of consensus politics came from anti-Vietnam War activists, the CND and the nuclear freeze movement. -- this doesn't belong to the section "Containment" through the Korean War and has to be moved further down. The protests of 1968 sould also be mentioned alongside the movements.
  • In March, as Joseph Stalin died, Nikita Khrushchev soon became the dominant leader of the USSR – I am not a native speaker of English, but it sounds ungrammatical and misleading to me. Khrushchev became leader much later.
  • The wikilink to the Sino-Soviet split should be moved from an image caption to the text.
  • The history of strategic bombers, ballistic missile submarines, ballistic missile technology, A- and H-bombs and military doctrines, non-proliferation and test ban treaties, as well as the structure of the American and Soviet military are important and should be summarized in the article. As of now, there is e.g. only one instance of the word bomber and no mention of B-52 or the invention of the H-bomb at all!
  • I think more details concerning the Cuban Missile Crisis are in order.
  • Is Khrushchev's retirement relevant to the story? I don't think so.
  • There are some problems with continuity, at least in the Confrontation through détente section. The Prague Spring should be mentioned immediately before the Brezhnev Doctrine rather than in the end of the following paragraph.
  • As I have already said, there is major disagreement over the causes of perestroika, of the dissolution of the Soviet Union etc, so let's not pretend there is a scholarly consensus.
  • The historiography section should be expanded.
    • Objection. It's too big for the article, so it was split off to its own article. Besides, it says absolutely nothing about non-American historical views. Hires an editor (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Some information on espionage during the Cold War should be added.
  • Major changes in the structure of the US military after the end of the Cold War (most notably, the reorganization of USAF commands) should be described.Colchicum (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose; I have absolutely no idea how I supported last time (I guess I've gotten pickier?) since the prose could do with a lot of work. I stress that the following are most certainly not all the problems in the article, and are only a representative sample taken solely from the lead.

• Both American and British spelling present in article. It's predominantly American spelling right now, so you may wish to change to that. This is only minor, but still something to think about.
• "...such as military coalitions, ideology, propaganda, espionage, weaponry, industrial advances, and technological developments, the latter of which included the space race." Without the inserted three words, the sentence really doesn't make sense and is confusing. Or, if you really don't want the extra words (I'm always harping on about conciseness, so I suppose presenting the other option first is a bit hypocritical of me), you could change all the commas except the last to semi-colons.

Fixed --Eurocopter (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• "In sports, rising tensions between the US and the USSR..." - yet you haven't told us what the US and the USSR are yet. Granted, "US" is common knowledge, but not all of our younger readers will realise what the USSR is. When first mentioning the two countries, you could write "United States (US) and Soviet Union (USSR)".

Fixed --Eurocopter (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• "The Cold War generated for both superpowers costly defence spending, a massive conventional and nuclear arms race, and many proxy wars." - why not "The Cold War generated costly defence spending, a massive conventional and nuclear arms race, and many proxy wars for both superpowers."? It flows better.

Would be historically incorrect, as the Cold War didn't generate costly defence spending for satellite countries with guaranteed security. --Eurocopter (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• "While there was never an open war between the US and the Soviet Union..." - a layman to the topic would be confused here. Why is it called the cold war if it wasn't an "open" war? What is an "open" war, anyways?

Fixed --Eurocopter (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Over the following decades, the Cold War spread outside Europe to every region of the world, as the US sought the "containment" and "rollback" of communism and forged numerous alliances to this end, particularly in Western Europe and the Middle East, while the Soviet Union supported Communist movements around the world, particularly in Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia." - would be better as two sentences. Even if you don't split it, it should be reworded; it's exceedingly awkward in the correct wording."

Fixed --Eurocopter (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• "and especially the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, when the world came closest to the brink of a new world war." - seems awkward there at the end. I'd suggestion ", which was the closest the world came to a new world war." "Brink" is redundant to "closest".

Fixed --Eurocopter (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• "There were also periods when tension was reduced as both sides sought détente." - "as" -> "and"

Historically incorrect again. The tension was reduced, because both sides sought detente - that's exactly what that sentence says. --Eurocopter (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• "the US increased pressure on the Soviet Union through diplomatic, military, and economic means." -> "the US increased diplomatic, military, and economic pressure on the Soviet Union." - conciseness, as usual.

Fixed --Eurocopter (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• "The Soviet Union's reaction, with the appointment of Mikhail Gorbachev, was perestroika and glasnost, internal reforms meant to allow for the Soviets to keep up with the United States." - second comma should be a semi-colon, should it not?

Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, but that seems just fine. --Eurocopter (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not. It's grammatically incorrect, and I've changed it. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Objection - If we put a semicolon in place of the second comma, we get "The Soviet Union's reaction, with the appointment of Mikhail Gorbachev; was perestroika and glasnost, internal reforms meant to allow for the Soviets to keep up with the United States." Now, if we delete everything before the semicolon, we get "was perestroika and glasnost, internal reforms meant to allow for the Soviets to keep up with the United States." This is not a complete sentence anymore. Or, if we cut off everything after the semicolon, we get "The Soviet Union's reaction, with the appointment of Mikhail Gorbachev" Also not a complete sentence. The semicolon is also not breaking off a series of complex items in a list that also contains commas within each item. So, exactly why is this grammatically incorrect not to have the semicolon? Hires an editor (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, meant third comma, which should have been obvious from my edit to the article. Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so this logic applies to the third semicolon, too. If we put a semicolon in place of the third comma, we get "The Soviet Union's reaction, with the appointment of Mikhail Gorbachev, was perestroika and glasnost; internal reforms meant to allow for the Soviets to keep up with the United States." If we take the part before the semicolon, we have a complete sentence: "The Soviet Union's reaction, with the appointment of Mikhail Gorbachev, was perestroika and glasnost." But the part after the semicolon is a fragment: "Internal reforms meant to allow for the Soviets to keep up with the United States." There's no verb. That's why the semicolon is incorrect. Either the sentence can stay this way, or be broken into two, or the semicolon can stay and we put a verb in there after the semicolon...In any case, I'm getting way off topic in spending too much time defending one sentence. "We now return you to your nomination already in progress." :-)

Rejoinder - still opposing, I explicitly stated that just cleaning up these problems wouldn't make the whole article right. I can still spot many of the same problems in the main body of the text; get a "word nerd" (as Tony calls them) to polish the prose. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Objection - without telling us exactly what is wrong and how should it be changed, we cannot improve anything. So, only the statement that there are "many of the same problems" within this article would not help us at all and is even useless. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

When there are problems with the prose, a reviewer is not obligated to give a sentence-by-sentence critique of the article. For example, this reviewer has stated that there are problems with verbosity in the article. You need to check the article for that problem and have others who have not spent hours staring at the article check the article for that problem. Look at the examples reviewers have provided and ask yourself: what is the larger issue that I need to address based on this particular problem? The writing in this article is sufficiently sophisticated that it is clear to me that you are more than capable of doing this. Awadewit (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I am capable of shaping this article according to a proper historical point of view, not according to each reviewer personal likes and dislikes. If I worked hard on the historical quality and verifiability of this article, it doesn't mean I have/want to waste my time to apply each personal opinions and interpretations of guidelines (which are, very often in this review, contradicting each other). So in my opinion the rest of the prose is just fine, and unless you adress any mistakes, we shall not change anything. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Like Awadewit said, I am not going to go through the entire article and point out every mistake or awkward phrasing to you. You can ignore my comment on the prose, but don't expect an entirely actionable oppose to be discounted. Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Within a FAC, Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. Your oppose sounds something like "the prose is not good, so i'm opposing this FAC". In such a comment, there is nothing actionable and no improvements can be made to the article. --Eurocopter (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The oppose does not sound like this. Specific examples of problems have been given, from which it is easy to extrapolate the problems with the article's prose. I have listed examples that indicate some of the same problems, by the way, so more than one person feels that these problems exist. This objection is indeed actionable. Awadewit (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

But you provided certain examples for issues which can be easily adressed. What can be considered specific rationale that can be adressed in his comment now? --Eurocopter (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That "specific" part is up to interpretation. For example, "Oppose - this article sucks" obviously isn't specific. But since I'm examining one specific aspect - flow of the prose - and have provided examples of what I expect, it can be considered specific. I'm not going to list out hundreds of errors in the prose - you have the capability to do that yourself, as you very well know. I have no more to say on this. You can either address my concerns, or leave it. Nousernamesleft (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I would take care of your concerns with pleasure if I'd know which are they, but I refuse to go over this article again and again just to search for sentences which certain users might dislike. Changing such minor things 1000 times during a review according to different opinions and interpretations of guidelines besides reviewers, is an unconstructive waste of time for this article. As from now on, I will stop wasting my time with such comments, and start to deal with the real issues this article is facing with. --Eurocopter (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I know I said that that was my last word on this, but I think I understand your problem with this now - you think these prose fixes are just my opinion. They're not. The ones that aren't clear-cut grammatical errors have been pounded out by FAC prose reviewers far more talented than I am, and generally are the standard that have been used in reviewing FAC in the past. This really, really is my last word on this. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The issues I raised were not addressed, see archived old nom for details.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose This article tackles an enormous topic and does it reasonably well, but I'm not sure that it should be featured yet. I have some concerns about balance, comprehensiveness, prose, and images:

• The article tends to present events from a Western perspective. Before I read the article, I made a list of what I expected to find. I knew that I was largely ignorant of the Soviet political maneuvering and social conditions during the Cold War and that material was a blank on my list. Unfortunately, I am still largely ignorant on that matter. What was going on in the USSR during the Cold War? What did the Cold War look like to the Soviets? This perspective is not presented nearly as often as the Western/US perspective. I found this to be particularly problematic early in the article and less so in the later sections. For example, the Truman years focus a lot on the Western perspective.

• The space race receives far too little coverage for the kinds of ripple effects it had on the Cold War.

• Much scholarship has been done on the social and cultural aspects of the Cold War - films, literature, etc. I would expect one paragraph at least on this material.

• The efforts by Eastern Bloc countries to free themselves from the Soviet Union (such as those in Poland) receive little coverage.

• The summary of the "historiography" does not explain what "orthodox", "revisionism", or "post-revisionism" theories of the Cold War are. Simply saying that historians disagree is not enough - you need to explain, briefly, what the different theories are.

• The article needs to be copyedited by someone unfamiliar with it. Let me give some examples from the end of the article:

• By the time the comparatively youthful Mikhail Gorbachev had ascended to power in 1985, the Soviets suffered from an economic growth rate close to zero percent, combined with a sharp fall in hard currency earnings as a result of the downward slide in world oil prices in the 1980s. - The "comparatively youthful" part only makes sense if one has read the previous section - comparisons at the beginning of a section are usually unhelpful and confusing. The sentence is a bit of run-on, too.

Well, I suppose it's assumed the reader has gone through the rest of the article, no? Biruitorul ^Talk 18:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• To restructure the Soviet economy, Gorbachev announced an agenda of reform, called perestroika. - The article never explains what perestroika is - a brief, one-sentence explanation is necessary for such an important concept.

• Many US Soviet experts and administration officials doubted that Gorbachev was serious about winding down the arms race, but the new Soviet leader eventually proved more concerned about reversing the Soviet Union's deteriorating economic condition than fighting the arms race with the West. - Which administration? This is a new section - we should be clear that we are still in the Regan administration. Unnecessary repetition of "arms race".

• Talks went well, except for when the focus shifted to Reagan's proposed SDI, which Gorbachev wanted eliminated and Reagan refused. - wordy

• The East–West tensions that had reached intense new heights earlier in the decade rapidly subsided through the mid-to-late 1980s, culminating with the final summit in Moscow in 1988. - "intense new heights" is awkward diction

• the security advantage of a buffer zone was so reduced that by 1990 Gorbachev consented to German reunification - "was so reduced" is awkward

• In December 1989, Gorbachev and Reagan's successor, George H. W. Bush, declared the Cold War over at a summit meeting in Malta - important part of sentence is buried

• In December 1989, Gorbachev and Reagan's successor, George H. W. Bush, declared the Cold War over at a summit meeting in Malta; a year later, the two former rivals were partners in the Gulf War against longtime Soviet ally Iraq. - one-sentence paragraph

• By 1989, the Soviet alliance system was on the brink of collapse, and, deprived of Soviet military support, the Communist leaders of the Warsaw Pact states were losing power - "the Soviet alliances were" (less wordy)

• In the USSR itself, Gorbachev had tried to reform the party to quash internal resistance to his reforms, but, in doing so, ultimately weakened the bonds that held the Soviet Union together - not really explained

• There is a list of images in one of the previous comments that do not have fair use rationales. This needs to be rectified.

I look forward to seeing this article improved and brought back to FAC. I have every confidence that it can pass with some more work. Awadewit (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• I will be on vacation from now until 20 July, during which I will have intermittent internet access. I will revisit this nom as often as I can. Awadewit (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I see this has been brought up already, but I just want to reinforce it; Gaddis is relied on too heavily, and in particular on his 2005 book. Of course Gaddis is an essential source for this subject, but a wider range of references is needed. Mark83 (talk) 10:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:Sceptre 22:01, 8 July 2008 [38].

---

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)

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)

• • (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)

Ah okay Gary King (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Done all. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• "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)

  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)

• oppose - Image:The Stolen Earth - Shadow Planets.png does not meet WP:NFCC#8, or #1, does not significantly increase the reader's understanding, and can easily be described with text Fasach Nua (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

Again, your oppose is inactionable. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Holographic, I mean. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Comments

• What makes http://www.shannonsullivan.com/drwho/index.html a reliable source?

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

Actually, TVMOS was made part of the MOS five days ago. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [39].

---

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• Withdrawn; per this, I'll withdraw this nomination. Please leave the {{fac}} template in place until the bot runs, per WP:FAC/ar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:31, 8 July 2008 [40].

---

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)

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)

See WP:CITE/ES. Gary King (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

• "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)

"Some proprietary software that do not" Gary King (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

Agree. miranda 05:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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 [41].

---

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)

Transcluded at 16:13, June 24, 2008 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• 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)
  • Response Merged. Mrshaba (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources? (note that some are quite likely reliable, I'm not an expert in the field of solar energy, so can't judge easily)
  • http://eetd.lbl.gov/HeatIsland/
    • Maintained by Lawrence Berkeley Lab Scientists. I have a book source (Cool It by Lomborg) but it references the site too
  • http://www.patentstorm.us/
  • http://www.solare-bruecke.org/
    • This is Scheffler's site. He created the technology
  • http://www.azsolarcenter.com/index.html
    • Removed
  • http://gadhia-solar.com/index.htm
    • Scheffler info is hard to come by. Dr. Gadhia's site is commercial but it does a good job of covering several projects.
  • http://www.rebootnow.org/can.shtml
    • Removed
  • http://www.sodis.ch/
  • http://www.solarbuzz.com/index.asp
    • I wouldn't use them for stories but the PV price info they provide is the best I know of.
  • http://www.nyecospaces.com/2007/09/photovoltaics-getting-cheaper.html
  • http://www.plentymag.com/features/2006/11/sand_trap.php
  • http://www.isracast.com/index.aspx
    • Replaced with a Weiztmann Institute of Science ref
  • http://www.greencarcongress.com/
  • http://www.emarineinc.com/products/mounts/tracker.html
  • http://www.speedace.info/index.htm
    • World Solar Challenge site is unreliable. This site had the same info.
      • I contacted the World Solar Challenge webmaster who told me the site gets reworked biannually for each race. The webmaster suggested I use the Wayback archive site to retrieve the info but I'm not sure this is kosher for Wikipedia. Mrshaba (talk) 05:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • http://www.schueco.dk/pdffiles/049/1410P2637.pdf
    • section removed
  • http://www.umwelteinsatz.ch/IBS/solship2.html
  • http://www.vectorsite.net/twuav_15.html#m7
  • http://www.space.com/
  • http://www.agust.com/energy/Pumped_Storage.pdf
  • http://inventors.about.com/od/timelines/a/Photovoltaics_2.htm
  • http://www.greentechmedia.com/reports/research-report-solar-power-services.html
  • http://www.ens-newswire.com/
• Current note 1 (Energy and Inspriation link) is lacking a publisher and last access date for the source link.
  • This picture has been a long term issue but it looks like it will finally be removed.
• Who is ASHRAE? And SANDEC? DOE?
  • I expanded these
• The following refs are lacking publisher and last access date at the very least.
  • http://www.intute.ac.uk/sciences/timeline6.html (current ref 54)
  • http://www.nyecospaces.com/2007/09/photovoltaics-getting-cheaper.html (current ref 71)
  • http://www.plentymag.com/features/2006/11/sand_trap.php (current ref 72)
  • http://www.solarbuzz.com/Photos/moduleprices08-6.gif (current ref 73)
    • removed
  • http://www.solarbuzz.com/News/NewsASMA155.htm (current ref 74)
    • removed
  • http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/bown/2007/green/item_59.html (current ref 75)
  • http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1813954,00.html (current ref 76)
    • removed
  • http://www.greentechmedia.com/reports/research-report-solar-power-services.html (current ref 106)
  • http://www.nellis.af.mil/news/nellissolarpowersystem.asp (current ref 107)

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• • 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)

Sigh, I'm afraid an edit war is interrupting this process. This will have to wait. Mrshaba (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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.
      • Done.—RJH (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)

• 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)
  • Concentrating solar power used consistently. Mrshaba (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 [42].

---

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks for clarifying Ceoil. I'm going to and add some discussion as per your suggestion (asap). —giggy 05:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Reception section: [43] - better? —Giggy 07:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, much better. Good work. Ceoil ^{Non visto ... Provvedi} 09:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Ha, in other words it got mangeled during copy editing! Grand. Ceoil ^{Non visto ... Provvedi} 09:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)
      • OK, done. [44] —Giggy 01:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• 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)

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

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)

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

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)

This is being worked on; see above. Ceoil ^{Non visto ... Provvedi} 09:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

hi

• "Fanning worked outside from" outside of sounds better, I think.
  • Done. —Giggy 08:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• "musically pedestrian"? this is a really weird phrase.
  • Removed it. —Giggy 08:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• "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)
  • He did - not sure why it said Blake. Fixed. —Giggy 08:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Not a problem, thanks. —Giggy 03:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:44, 4 July 2008 [45].

---

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)

• Comments
  • Sources
    • http://www.iranologie.com/history/Achaemenid/chapter%20V.html/ – 404 error
    • http://persianempire.info/ArtaxerxesIII.htm/ – 404 error
    • Could you find a replacement for http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/ARN_AUD/ARTAXERXES.html – I'd prefer something more scholarly, rather than 1911 EB.
      • Same for http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Artaxerxes.
    • What makes http://www.iranologie.com/history/Achaemenid/chapter%20V.html a reliable source?
    • What makes http://lexicorient.com/e.o/artaxerxes3.htm a reliable source?
    • What makes http://persianempire.info/ArtaxerxesIII.htm a reliable source?
    • What makes http://www.iras.ucalgary.ca/~volk/sylvia/GogAndMagog.htm a reliable source?
    • What makes http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/egypt/history/periods/persianii.html a reliable source?
    • What makes http://historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/PhilipofMacedon.html a reliable source?
    • What makes http://www.vohuman.org/Article/The%20Achaemenians,%20Zoroastrians%20in%20Transition.htm a reliable source?
    • What makes http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/ot_grp10/ot_mithra_i_20060114.html a reliable source?
    • Please use cite book for http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gerald_larue/otll/chap29.html.
      • Same for http://www.katapi.org.uk/OTApoc/Judith.htm, I think.
      • Same for http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/mom/mom04.htm.
    • Please be consistent in your reference formatting. Might I also suggest you use more scholarly sources to reference the article? I'm sure all the information you found online comes from a more authoritative source.
  • Prose: There are some 1a issues that need to be sorted out.
  • "...was the Great King (Shah) of Persia and the eleventh Emperor of the Achaemenid Empire from 358 BC and the first Pharaoh of the 31st dynasty of Egypt from 343 BC until his death in 338 BC." – could you rephrase this? There's some ambiguity regarding his reign as Emperor of the Achaemenid Empire. I presume he ruled until his death, but I believe you need to explicitly state that. Or, you can just remove the dates entirely: "...was the Great King (Shah) of Persia and the eleventh Emperor of the Achaemenid Empire and the first Pharaoh of the 31st dynasty of Egypt."
  • "Artaxerxes came to power after one of his brothers was executed, another committed suicide, the last brother was murdered and his father, Artaxerxes II died at the age of 90." – I can't put my finger on it, but the wording seems "off". I suggest you just simplify this by writing that Artaxerxes came to power after his three brothers and father died.
• More to come... Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

Comments

• What makes the following (in addition to the sources noted above) reliable sources?
  • http://www.livius.org/?
• 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

Note: The nominator has not revisited this FAC since I posted, although he has been actively editing. I've left him a reminder [46] to come back and address comments. Karanacs (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Karanacs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

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 [47].

---

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)

• Support - très bien :) --Mojska 07:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 13:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

Thanks Giggy. --Efe (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Please note that my querry at the WP:RS/N is getting not response. --Efe (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• • 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)
  • "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)

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

Comments

• You could probably remove the doubled up footnotes to About.com, just leaving the one footnote that refers to the review.
  • Removed. --Efe (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• 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)

Otherwise sources look good. Links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• 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)
  • 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)

• 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)

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)

• "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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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?
  • Wait. The article was deleted not because it was deemed non-reliable but because no third-party sources that could support its notability and in keeping its corresponding article exist in WP. Anyway, I'll try to consult WP:RS noticeboard. --Efe (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Removed per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#United_World_Chart_and_aCharts.us. --Efe (talk) 11:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• "Knowles begins the song calling three instruments: bass, hi-hat and 808." - awkward.

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

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

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)
• "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)
• What does took lyrical contributions mean? GrahamColm^Talk 16:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • That was fixed by an IP. Thanks to him/her. --Efe (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

The first one. --Efe (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

• Comments
  • The audio sample is slightly distorted
    • Oh my, I dont know how to do this. --Efe (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "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)
  • "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)
    • Re-arranged per suggestion. --Efe (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• 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)
  • Image:DejaVuSample.ogg is not low fidelity (WP:NFCC#3B); why is 130 kbps necessary?
    • I'll try to contant the uploader. --Efe (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
      • How much kbps is needed. --Efe (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Kbps should be as low as possible while reasonably maintaining the medium's abilitiy to fulfill its purpose. Examples of kbps in recent FAs include Strapping Young Lad (uses 74, 67 and 65 kbps) and Year Zero (album) (uses 73). Generally, kbps in the 60s is fine. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Ok. Ill try to contact the uploader. --Efe (talk) 06:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
            • Already contacted; see here. Regards, --Efe (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
              • Note, also, that giggy (talk · contribs) may be able to assist with a reduction. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 12:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
          • Please read my comments critically; I'm not asking for all elements to be captured. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 12:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
            • Do you want a clearer caption? --Efe (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
              • 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)

• 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.
    • fixed. --Efe (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
      • 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)
  • 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)
      • 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)
  • interesting phrase "couture-motivated outfits" - should this perhaps be "couture-inspired"?
    • fixed, as suggested. --Efe (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
      • 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)
  • 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)
    • Refer to the above reply. --Efe (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

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 [48].

---

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)

Oppose for now, the article still requires some attention:

• ''Jackson himself rarely commented on the work's recording - redundancy.
  • DONE — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 18:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• wrote and played the drums- he wrote the drum part?
  • Clarified — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 18:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• 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
  • DONE — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 18:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• and was Jackson's first successful rockcross over piece. - a mistake here.
  • DONE — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 18:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• 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.
  • Clarified. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 18:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• 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?
  • Clarified. --— Realist² (Who's Bad?) 18:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• 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.
  • Clarified, removed unsourcable "leaked" issue. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 18:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• 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)
    • Yes, Change U.S. to simply US, don't worry about the articles' usage; we have our own rules. GrahamColm^Talk 19:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
      • DONE, think I got the lot of them. :-) — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 19:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• "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.GrahamColm^Talk 14:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • DONE — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 19:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
    • 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, [49], I hope they help. GrahamColm^Talk 20:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanx. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 20:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

• DONE - Resolved your two points, cheers. :-) — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 21:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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)

• • 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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)

• Comments regarding images:
  • Image:Michaeljacksonthrilleralbum.jpg is not low resolution (WP:NFCC#3B).
    • I don't know enough about picture policy to fix that.
  • Image:Michael Jackson 1984.jpg needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP.
    • Removed
  • Image:Mjthriller.jpg description is "Michael Jackson in the frightening and exciting music video 'Thriller'" (emphasis mine). See WP:PEACOCK and WP:NOR/WP:NPOV. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Fixed
      • I have corrected your concerns as much as I can. I don't know how to fix the album cover issue. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 16:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I've reduced the resolution. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 17:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Cheers, I don't do pictures, the policies are far too complicated. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 17:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

OK, I finished adding the dates. :-) — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 11:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• 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)
  • OK, I can address that issue for you. :-) — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 04:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I believe I've resolved the issue. All opinions are attributed to their respective authors. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

Q and Melody Maker don't have reviews either.

[50] Found original NYK review which I will add. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 20:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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 [51].

---

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)

• Not familiar with MILHIST, but why did it fail this A class review? giggy _(:O) 05:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• "had repeated stabbed and shot the Ngo brothers" - repeated --> repeatedly?

Fixed. blind monkey. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• "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)

• "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)

• The em dash in ref 15 stands out compared to the other refs.

Fixed. blind monkey. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

giggy _(:O) 07:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support, giggy _(:O) 07:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

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

• 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• Support Looks pretty good to me. Gary King (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Can't there be more image? Idontknow610^TM 17:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Added images of Diem and Nhu. Good? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Support That's much better. Extremely well-written and well sourced. Congratulations! Idontknow610^TM 19:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • I agree with Nishkid and Karanacs. giggy _(:O) 03:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree a rename would make it a better FA candidate. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

        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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

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)

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